SOCIALIST UNITY

27 March, 2010

BA CABIN CREW - THE STORY SO FAR

Filed under: Unite, Trade Unions — Andy Newman @ 11:00 am

Support BA cabin crew - the next 4 strike days are, Sat 27, Sun 28, Mon 29, Tues 30 March.

15 Comments »

  1. At last the unions are starting to produce a few half-decent video clips for youtube and viral circulation around the net. They can go far on social media now. Need more like this. And our side is still amateurish. The left / unions / social movements need to work on these techniques. We need to make the nightmare of the capitalist media tycoons and broadcasting bosses come true, with the left using viral networks to undermine their centralised propaganda power and get the working class movements voice heard.

    Watching this dispute - it also calls out for the abolition or defiance of the tory anti-union laws and the restoration of solidarity. Imagine the power of air-industry workers united - cabin crews, baggage handlers, pilots, maintenance crews …

    Comment by Barry Kade — 27 March, 2010 @ 12:52 pm

  2. it also occurs to me that the air-industry is a possible site of the globalisation of working class resistance. Such a globalisation is key to counter the globalisation of the capitalist enemy, the manouvre by which the bosses outmaneuvered us 30 years back.

    Comment by Barry Kade — 27 March, 2010 @ 12:59 pm

  3. “cabin crews, baggage handlers, pilots, maintenance crews”

    Haven’t the pilots, baggage handlers and maintenance crews already accepted BA’s terms?

    Comment by Ian Croft — 27 March, 2010 @ 1:20 pm

  4. There’s quite a few fairly good vids on the Unite youtube channel … nice one! These have just been added at:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/UniteTheUnion

    a subversion of the genre of aircraft safety film for the strikers cause
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0AFS3IkvZo

    film about making a global trades unionism - opens up an important discussion for us…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH7DFlzCSSU

    Comment by Barry Kade — 27 March, 2010 @ 1:23 pm

  5. I not sure trying to pretend this is about protecting customer service is very helpful.

    This is about protecting jobs and terms and conditions. Sure customer service will be worse if the workers don’t win but that is not why they are striking.

    Comment by Ian Croft — 27 March, 2010 @ 1:27 pm

  6. I’m not sure if all sections - pilots, baggage, ground crews were all offered same deal… I think baggage handlers still have their own dispute… any more info, anyone?

    5 - sure its about jobs and conditions - but as you say - this is linked to customer service. But they are entitled to mobilise all arguments in their favor! But your right that the strongest argument should be the one on jobs and conditions, which can also appeal to a broader section of society, as we are all soon facing attacks on our jobs and conditions too.

    Comment by Barry Kade — 27 March, 2010 @ 1:35 pm

  7. If BA employees are banned from talking to the media why is that freak show Walsh’s ugly mug all over the BBC day and night?

    This dispute needs urgently to be politicised. If the band of greedy, bottom-line shareholders and their motley board of directors can’t run this company properly then it must be taken back into public control. We don’t need another `budget’ airline where passengers are treated like cattle and the employees even worse. If you can’t afford to fly except on planes operated by slave labour then tough shit. Cabin crew should be treated like public servants not private slaves.

    Comment by David Ellis — 27 March, 2010 @ 1:44 pm

  8. #5 Ian Croft do you ever have anything positive to say?

    If everyone was like you and did what you said we would live in somekind of socialist paradise?

    Comment by doh! — 27 March, 2010 @ 1:46 pm

  9. We dO DOH,just have to get yer head round it.

    Comment by howard — 27 March, 2010 @ 1:49 pm

  10. “But your right that the strongest argument should be the one on jobs and conditions, which can also appeal to a broader section of society, as we are all soon facing attacks on our jobs and conditions too.”

    Actually I don’t think it does appeal to wider layers in the country. Unite certainly don’t think so. All their arguments are put across in a way to say they are protecting the interests of the customer when they are actually just trying to protect themselves. Even the RMT mentioned safety first when they are really striking about jobs. Again the RMT are right safety will be put at risk by job losses but they striking over job losses and not safety.

    The worry must be that most workers will take a hostile view to the strikes because they have suffered during the recession and don’t see why railway, airline and public sector workers should be immune. Especially when protecting those workers mean higher ticket prices or taxes for the rest of the workers.

    Comment by Ian Croft — 27 March, 2010 @ 2:55 pm

  11. In the US we’re at the point were we have pilots living in a van on the airport parking lot because they can’t afford housing anywhere close to their base of operations with their salary. Or they live across the country and commute thousands of miles every day. And that’s the “privileged” employees. I hope the BA cabin crew, Lufthansa pilots etc. stand strong despite the media lies (US media simply repeat BA spin) and political pressure.

    Comment by christian h. — 27 March, 2010 @ 2:56 pm

  12. “Ian Croft do you ever have anything positive to say?”

    I will when I see something positive. I want the BA workers to win but they up against overwhelming odds. They may have the strength to win this but don’t delude yourself that this is anything other than a desperate last stand.

    Comment by Ian Croft — 27 March, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

  13. On the more general point about the relationship between defending ones jobs and conditions and defending the quality of the service you provide the public (in any sector). I think the links should be made. And its not just an opportunistic argument, as attacks on workers usually also mean an attack on the service they provide. Its good therefore that workers organisations can put the argument in more general terms than the workers own immediate sectional interests. The interests of the working class are bound up with the general interests of society as a whole, thats why the struggles of the working class are ultimately a struggle for socialism and a better society. And this argument about the links between the workers interest and wider social interests is part of building the society wide alliance for radical social democracy, progress and equality, an alliance between the workers and their unions, the public, social movements and other communities.

    Comment by Barry Kade — 27 March, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

  14. `The worry must be that most workers will take a hostile view to the strikes because they have suffered during the recession and don’t see why railway, airline and public sector workers should be immune. Especially when protecting those workers mean higher ticket prices or taxes for the rest of the workers.’

    It is necessary to get the truth out there. Airline staff are exceptionally poorly paid and non-unionised staff even more so. But safety issues are also part of the DNA. It is what their jobs are about most of the time both in the air and on the rails. They are definitely interested in preventing management from creating a culture of sloppiness and lack of care in the name of profit. Victory for these workers will spread not envy amongst other workers and the poor but a realisation of the need for and efficacy of collective action. Of course the bourgeois press will push the selfish workers message in a way that they have never and will never do when it comes to bankers who genuinely have made sure that they don’t suffer while the rest of us do and which give the lie to George Osborne’s line that we are somehow `all in this together’. To counter the lies of the press the workers must put forward a socialist programme that can spare us all from what promised to be a crushing economic catastrophe.

    Comment by David Ellis — 27 March, 2010 @ 4:18 pm

  15. That’s `promises’ to be not `promised’ to be obviously.

    Comment by David Ellis — 27 March, 2010 @ 4:19 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress