Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
BA Withdraws Travel Perks For Strikers  
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25682 times:

A move labelled by Unite as 'vindictive'. Seems pretty sensible to me. It is up to the company whether it wants to offer such non-contractual benefits and how it does so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8584720.stm


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
232 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGabo787 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25645 times:

Well.... they were warned, unfair or not, now they shouldn't complain

User currently offlinerwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3135 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25543 times:

These employees cannot continue to do everything they can to hurt their employer and expect there to be no consequences. I think this move is only fair, especially since these perks are not part of their contract. The unions seem to be on a battle to kill any remaining goodwill with their employer, and it's about time that their employer fought back. If I was out constantly berating my employer and doing everything I can to lose them money, I'd have been fired long ago.

User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25476 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Thread starter):
It is up to the company whether it wants to offer such non-contractual benefits and how it does so.

The first part is correct, the second most likely not.

if you decide to give something to your employees, you need to do it based on non-discriminatory prinicples and you're not entitled to distinghuish between 'loyal' employees and 'unloyal' ones.

IMHO, BA is thus willingly violating non-discriminatory rules under EU legislation and technically Unite could take them to the European Court of Justice over this; there have been fairly similar cases in the past, in which employers were severely fined for sanctioning union members joining in on a legal strike... chances Unite would win its case are fairly high, believe me.

[Edited 2010-03-24 04:05:51]

User currently offlineAAEXP From Brazil, joined Jul 2005, 424 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25445 times:

The joint leader of Unite, Tony Woodley, had told strikers on Monday that he believed the long-established discounts were not just a perk but "custom and practice".

So here is the issue: We know that this is a non-contractual perk and we know that strikers were warned that they would lose this perk if they did not show up for work.

Is there something like a "custom and practice" standard under English/EU law that would overrule BA's position in this matter. Do crew actually sign a document stating that this is a non-contractual benefit that can be revoked at any time and for any reason in the sole discretion of the company?

I am ONLY asking this question in a purely LEGAL context, without expressing any personal opinion about whether I think this is a reasonable claim or not.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3189 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25377 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 3):
you need to do it based on non-discriminatory prinicples and you're not entitled to distinghuish between 'loyal' employees and 'unloyal' ones.

Which shows how dumb the courts are. Anyway, I'm sure BA will come up with a way of distinguishing between those who striked and those who didn't in a way that they can get around those European regulations. Structure it as an attendance bonus or something like that for those who have worked above 95% of their allotted shifts without being away from work other than sick/annual/long service leave. Something like that. I'm sure there are some smart lawyers BA will get to design it for them.


User currently offlineClubWorld1986 From United Kingdom, joined May 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25362 times:

Awww Diddums...

As Gabo787 has stated they all knew this would be the consequence.

Perhaps BA should use this as a bargaining tool to get as many C/C back in work this weekend.

Or, of course this could rile them up and make them dig their heels in further.

I wonder what the outcome would be for the wavering strikers that returned to work after the strike had started. I wonder if they'll lose their perks.


User currently offlineavion660 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25346 times:

Interstingly Unite members have reported that BA have applied this loss of travel perk those who were sick over that weekend as well.

edited for typo error

[Edited 2010-03-24 04:29:48]

User currently offlineAAEXP From Brazil, joined Jul 2005, 424 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25295 times:

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 5):
'm sure there are some smart lawyers BA will get to design it for them.

Well, the issue here is that this perk has been around for some time, so if it was implemented in the "wrong" way in the first instance, fixing it going forward may be difficult based on acquired rights. Again, I do not know how this stardard work under English/EU law.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25297 times:

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 4):
The joint leader of Unite, Tony Woodley, had told strikers on Monday that he believed the long-established discounts were not just a perk but "custom and practice".

That's the whole point indeed.

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 4):

Is there something like a "custom and practice" standard under English/EU law that would overrule BA's position in this matter.

EU derictives have the upper hand here and yes there is.

If your employer is giving you something for a longer period of time on a regular basis, then it is deemed to have become part of your contract, EVEN if it isn't explicitly mentioned in it.

Remember a labour contract needn't be exisiting in writing, it can also be deemed to exist, and so can all of the conditions under which you work, on a 'de facto' basis.

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 4):
Do crew actually sign a document stating that this is a non-contractual benefit that can be revoked at any time and for any reason in the sole discretion of the company?

I would higly doubt so.

I know crews at most airlines have signed a document in which they state to understand allowances are never to be considered a granted perpetual right, but I have never seen or read of an airline doing the same for other kinds of benefits, like crew discounts or travel benefits...

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 4):
I am ONLY asking this question in a purely LEGAL context, without expressing any personal opinion about whether I think this is a reasonable claim or not.

It's an interesting question, and the answer is fairly simple: If BA can't dig up a document for each crew member individually which had it travel benefits revoked, they are sailing well into legally very troubled watersl


User currently offlineLHPII From Croatia, joined May 2009, 179 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 25290 times:

What BAs manangment does by revoking travel perks to its striking personnel is absolutely outrageous and discriminatory. We live in 21st, not 19th century. BA get your act together!

User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 25200 times:

Quoting avion660 (Reply 7):
Interstingly Unite members have reported that BA have applied this loss of travel peto those who were sick over that weekend as well

If that's the case, then BA is in even deeper troubles, because illness obviously is a very legal reason of absence, I'd say, and suspending people on sick leave is just disgusting really, even though I admit there is no way BA can distinghuish between crews really ill, and those just making use of the provisions to join the strike without having to loose salary over it...

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 5):
Anyway, I'm sure BA will come up with a way of distinguishing between those who striked and those who didn't in a way that they can get around those European regulations. Structure it as an attendance bonus or something like that for those who have worked above 95% of their allotted shifts without being away from work other than sick/annual/long service leave. Something like that. I'm sure there are some smart lawyers BA will get to design it for them.

Actually, it may be frustrating to you, but participating in a legally recognized strike (which this one clearly is), is considered a legal reason of absence too, and under EU law, joining in may not be considered for any individual sanctioning.

Technically speeking, the level of employee protection makes the whole difference between a 'wildcat' strike and a legal strike. Join a wildcat strike and you have very few protection in place: join a legal strike and you have full legal protection. Otherwise, what's the point of having legal provisions for strikes in the first place???

[Edited 2010-03-24 04:35:14]

User currently offlineavion660 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 25125 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 11):
If that's the case, then BA is in even deeper troubles, because illness obviously is a very legal reason of absence, I'd say, and suspending people on sick leave is just disgusting really, even though I admit there is no way BA can distinghuish between crews really ill, and those just making use of the provisions to join the strike without having to loose salary over it...

There was a discussion of this issue on BBC radio 5live just now with two BA CSDs and a legal person. One CSD brought up the issue that a person on sick leave and 'dying' has been sent this suspension of benefits notice.

Why is this a 'perk' and non-contractual? It was discussed that this suited both parties, BA and their employees, since there were tax advantages to doing it this way.


User currently offlinerunway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2222 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 25076 times:

Quoting slz396 (Reply 3):
if you decide to give something to your employees, you need to do it based on non-discriminatory prinicples and you're not entitled to distinghuish between 'loyal' employees and 'unloyal' ones.

There's no descrimination though.

It's the same in any company. Some people in the same team are paid more or less, have different conditions, etc...

BA are just offering this perk to their best employee's, ie. those who turned up for work.

For once I applaud the fact that people are getting what they deserve for distressing other people's lives. Good on BA.


User currently offlineb78710 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 25059 times:

i dont work for ba, but i'm pretty sure in my contract it says my staff travel benefit can be revoked at any time for improper behaviour etc.

i'd be surprised if ba didnt do something similar


User currently offlineavion660 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 25039 times:

Quoting b78710 (Reply 14):
dont work for ba, but i'm pretty sure in my contract it says my staff travel benefit can be revoked at any time for improper behaviour etc.

i'd be surprised if ba didnt do something similar

Quite possibly true, but going on a legal strike is not improper behaviour


User currently offlineEDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 25012 times:

Quoting runway23 (Reply 13):
There's no descrimination though.

Yes there is it is discrimination on the basis of employee representation. Which is illegal.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 24991 times:

Again something lawyers will make a lot of money from.

Any form of saction against striking workers other than not paying the salary for the time they are off is completely illegal, and a criminal action by the management itself, not only discrimination rules. If the quality of BA management is like this, and they have no better ideas, shareholders should immediately fire the complete management, which is the only reason of BAs problems, not the workers who have been on a few days legal stike.

Of course the Walsh gang has threatened to commit these crimes during the strikes, and their selfish arrogance does not allow them to excuse and take the consequences of such behaviour. I hope ALL of BAs stuff take action now against Mr. Walsh and his incompetent gang.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 24993 times:

Quoting avion660 (Reply 12):
Why is this a 'perk' and non-contractual? It was discussed that this suited both parties, BA and their employees, since there were tax advantages to doing it this way

Under EU fiscal rules, travel benefits, if explicitly mentioned in the labour contract, should be considered as a benefit in kind, and thus both the employee as well as the employer should pay taxes and social security contributions over it, based on an estimated value of this benefit.

Obviously, that would increase labour costs for the employer, as well as reduce the attractiveness for the employee, so generally airlines do not mention them in their labour contracts and since these benefits aren't quantitative nor used by everybody, this is perfectly fine.

As such, it would really surprise me BA had a legal annex in place in which they'd bother to explain to their employees how this officially non-existing benefit in kind isn't to be considered a non-contractual part of their remuneration package, since that would have put them at risk of a full fiscal review all those years!

BA might just have opened a can of worms now, since if Unite goes to court over this and wins it case, which is likely, the tax man may come round and claim contributions on all those undeclared benefits in kind over an extended period of time even!

Well done, BA, I thought this was all about REDUCING costs, not giving rise to new ones!

[Edited 2010-03-24 04:48:49]

User currently offlineb78710 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 24990 times:

i dont really know about this kind of stuff, but if i was directly responsible for my airline losing 21m in 3 days i wouldn't expect there to be no repercussions.

User currently offlineb78710 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 24969 times:

what if ba just took staff travel off of everyone then.

that would be amusing


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 24915 times:

Quoting b78710 (Reply 20):
what if ba just took staff travel off of everyone then.

That would be legal, but then is this motivating for those still on the job, or detering not to join the strike?

The point is BA can not legally sanction employees joining in a legal strike. it's the law, like it or not.

Mr Walsh should just go by the rules and try to act less frustrated, because as I've just explained above, he might unwantedly have woken up some sleeping dogs at the taxman's office in all his anger!


User currently offlineAAEXP From Brazil, joined Jul 2005, 424 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 24923 times:

The problem here is also that BA is clearly on record saying that those who would not show up for work during the legally announced strike would have their travel perks rescinded.

So even if individual contracts exist with the "proper language" as to the unilateral right to rescind these perks, BA might very well get itself into trouble for discriminatory action against strikers.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 24850 times:

Quoting AAEXP (Reply 22):
So even if individual contracts exist with the "proper language" as to the unilateral right to rescind these perks, BA might very well get itself into trouble for discriminatory action against strikers.

As somebody else has already said, improper behavior does NOT mean participating in a LEGAL strike, there is no doubt about that. I am not even going to bother linking to EU jurisdiction which gives legal immunity against sanctioning employees over a legal strike, since that would probably crash this site.

I really can't see how BA can be so stupid to still wanting to do this; they must be really really frustrated.
Hope it isn't indivative as to their real state of mind, which sounded really upbeaten their press releases.

Besides, as I've said: the taxmen will just love to hear more about BA's highly valuable yet undeclared benefits in kind it has been giving to all its employees all those years.... That's what they call an own-goal!


User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 24848 times:

I wouild hope that an airline with two recent victories in the high court over technicalities, will have let its very expensive legal advisors cast an eye over this plan before it was published. It would be almost inconceivable if they had not.
slz396 might have the correct interpretation of EU law, however BA management probably have a counter interpretation sitting on their desks at present.
Shall we look forward to another day in court ?


25 aerokiwi : Indeed - it may come to that. Then reinstate as an in-kind benefit to employees who attend work (outside of annual/bereavement/sickness leave) a cert
26 LHPII : When an union negotiates a new collective agreement with its employer then this agreement also applies to non-union members, and nobody is discriminat
27 planefixer : The cabin crew that went on strike did so legally, but also in doing so they have breached their contract. This is classed as misconduct. The Staff Tr
28 EDICHC : Not necessarily, as stated above, if the benefit has been in place for some time then it is considered by custom and practice to be a de facto part o
29 AAEXP : As I said above, the plan may very well have been correctly drafted at the outset, but the fact that BA later linked the continuation of benefits to
30 slz396 : Somehow I have a feelling this measure was drawn up by Mr Walsh himself, while being in anger. Anyway, I wonder if BA have also considered the fiscal
31 Post contains images AAEXP : Not sure I follow you here.... Right, but too late I'm afraid.....
32 Post contains links david_itl : might be time to refresh your memory as this is probably done quite legally so the taxman won't be able to do anything about it.
33 b78710 : probably just trying to scare people into attending work for the next strike
34 david_itl : And what makes you think that the he has not consulted his legal advisors?[Edited 2010-03-24 05:28:50]
35 AAEXP : As a public company, I am sure that BA has had its employee benefits plans throughly reviewed from a tax point-of-view. So I do not think there is too
36 Post contains images slz396 : legal advisors, possibly, fiscal advisers, very doubtful, given the fact he persues with it. Look, I know for a fact travel arrangements are currentl
37 AAEXP : I hope he did........but still a troubling issue from a legal viewpoint.
38 slz396 : It's very troubling from both from a fiscal point of view (as I've extensively explained above) as well as from a legal point of view (the questionab
39 al2637 : It's funny that everyone refers to "him", as if he is making all the legal, economic and PR decisions himself. He is backed by a huge team of advisors
40 stealthz : Do you think so? Much of the general population see the travel benefits of airline staff as an extravagant perk available only to a privileged few, b
41 EDICHC : Or have BA picked the wrong man to be CEO?
42 kl911 : Very good move BA! This will make them think twice before trying to bring down the company again. And with it all hardworking caring staff that contin
43 al2637 : Just been thinking about this more, maybe someone could answer... IF there are tax implications around BIK, wouldn't most of the liability fall on the
44 slz396 : I have an interesting question to BA staff: I know crews also have travel benefits at other airlines, albeit often less generous, so I am wondering, i
45 EDICHC : I think not...surely the liability would be on the employer under PAYE regulations, in addition there would not only be Income Tax implications but a
46 Post contains images kl911 : Well, for them luckily there is Ryanair....
47 Post contains links Edina : Customers/shareholders are beginning to ask the same question........ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0DS5t54DVo
48 slz396 : Well I don't know, since it is already taken away, so it doesn't really matter anymore now, does it? You can't use the same thing as a deterrent AND
49 TristarAtLCA : Why? The 'perk' of staff travel is entirely funded by the staff member and they also pay all applicable taxes, such as APD. The airline doesn't pay a
50 Burkhard : In Germany all airline employees are considered by the public as people with many prividedges, so more taxes to them would be very popular...
51 oa260 : They were warned and BA must carry out what they said would happen. Discounted travel is a perk not a right. Thats life.
52 s4popo : Funny you should say this, because it's the very same reason why we don't need unions today.
53 Post contains images EDICHC : Seems you really miss the point as far as Income Tax/NI contributions are concerned. Let me put it this way say a BA (or any other UK carrier) employ
54 slz396 : That's not how it goes, my friend. IF travel benefits are seen as a benefit in kind, then they are considered to be substituting a part of the salary
55 EDICHC : Perhaps, but they cannot discriminate against staff undertaking legal strike action.
56 m11stephen : Its outrageous that the striking BA F/As could be this arrogant and greedy. BA F/As are some of the best, if not the best paid F/As in the industry.
57 SKAirbus : BA Cabin crew deserve all that is coming to them IMHO. For years they have been working in cushy conditions with much higher salaries than their compe
58 Post contains links jamesontheroad : According to this report, a BA spokesman has explicitly stated that the travel perks are "non-contractual" ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/858
59 NKOPS : wouldn't it be roughly the same as if you were on Medical leave.. that is also legal, but you can't use your travel perks while out on med leave (I'm
60 Post contains images LHR27C : Absolutely not, they've picked the first CEO who's actually had the guts to stand up to the unions and get BA into the shape it needs to be for the 2
61 Dirkou : This is why Europe will continue to be less and less competitive against, for example, the United States. Employees do whatever they want against big
62 Bongodog1964 : Every time the subject of the perk of travel benefits has been raised on here, the reply from those with them has been "they don't cost the airline a
63 EDICHC : No this is a fundamental of anti discrimination. BA cannot discriminate against staff involved in legal strike action. If they remove this benefit pe
64 slz396 : But not from some, while keeping it for others. It doesn't matter if it is contractual or not, it has been given for a long time to all, so taking it
65 Post contains images EDICHC : This concept has some validity as far as sub-load staff travel is concerned but fall apart where a carrier offers positive tickets, then it has possi
66 7673mech : Your not serious are you? They are on STRIKE. Strike means willfully damaging the company - their reputation and their financial's. Now they are to g
67 EDICHC : No one is kidding here. It is discrimination to withdraw a benefit from one group of staff and not from another. Such discrimination is illegal in th
68 ClubWorld1986 : Can somebody clarify... the action of the strike is legal, but can the after effects of any strike be deemed the responsibility of those members that
69 Post contains images avion660 : No it doesn't, it means that you have withdrawn your labour. If the process is conducted according to the legal process you are protected from employ
70 EDICHC : Hmm I'm sure they were just as confident in the 1990s until SRB sued them.
71 ClubWorld1986 : Under WW??
72 scouseflyer : I work in the public sector in the UK and we pay our staff something called CPD payments (Continual Progessional Development) this is for staff who pu
73 aerorobNZ : this is standard for most airlines I would have thought....
74 Post contains links ANstar : http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00rjy5g go to about 1:06 in for the interview. Some intersting points 1) Firstly the CSD's dwere quite rude talk
75 EDICHC : Whether or not WW was present then is not relevant. The point is BA as a corporate entity, with corporate lawyers have fallen foul of the courts more
76 Kaiarahi : Right - but from the employees, NOT BA. The tax liability would be the employees', since they received the benefit. So if a court determined this to
77 TristarAtLCA : If the tickets had the same status you might be correct. But as they aren't............... Yes it does. If BA paid for the ticket it would certainly
78 ANstar : The main reason they are striking is becuase they know they CANT get better terms elsewhere - otherwise they would have moved on. Re the staff travel
79 richcandy : Hi I don't know if its wrong or not to withdraw travel perks from strikers. However BA will not of done this unless they have checked with a number of
80 UAL747DEN : Of course BA is going to pull travel benefits!!!! This shouldn't be a surprise at all and is perfectly understandable. These crew members in the union
81 Kaiarahi : As has been pointed out many times in the threads regarding the strike, this would be illegal under UK law. Hence BA's apparent intention to hire "ne
82 BMI727 : Going on strike could also be labeled as vindictive. Well, if it were me, I would try to replace them though I think that is not allowed under UK law
83 Post contains images tonyban : The planes would be less than half full on EVERY flight....
84 ANstar : Actually the employment lawyer the BBC had on said it was possible to terminate them all. But it would have to be ALL of them and they could not be r
85 Kaiarahi : I think what he meant was that replacements (whether or not some of them came from existing crew) could not be hired for 3 months - so yes, BA could
86 incitatus : Really....? How about discriminating on performance? Showing up to work and not showing up to work are pretty basic ways to separate who should be en
87 oa260 : Anyway you can bet your bottom dollar that any agreement when this strike ends will include re instatement of perks! Seen it all before in other indus
88 Post contains images chootie : Hi Folks!!!! On a side note, how does the UK get away with the taxation thing?? I know that here in Germany, regaurdless of positive or standby ticket
89 ANstar : Ah thanks - that makes more sense.
90 Edina : The share price stability is predominantly down to the IB merger & more importantly the pensions settlement recently agreed.
91 BMI727 : The US once toyed with the idea of taxing non-rev travel as income. The loophole (a good one IMO) was that since the seats occupied by non-revs would
92 Post contains links and images mariner : And not just at the airline. Remarkable amounts of advice and support - legal and financial - are available to Mr. Walsh at the highest reaches. Ther
93 antonovman : Yes i remember it well. I worked in FRA for a few years for PanAm and we had free tickets with PA not even 10 percent but in Germany we had to pay ta
94 Post contains images Multimark : By that standard, I assume Walsh is then responsible for the hundred of millions lost under his tenure at BA? How, exactly, are BA/AF/LH "monopolisti
95 lukeyboy95 : Lots of people adding their opinions here; thought I'd jump on the bandwagon and say I fully support this move from BA... Its acts as incentive for st
96 LJ : Aparantly you haven't read the previous replies on how EU labour laws work.... The same here in The Netherlands. The Dutch tax man tried to tax non-r
97 Post contains images Anshuk : From my knowledge of the English legal system, if its purely a case of implied/acquired rights, the European Court of Justice will *not* have jurisdi
98 Jacobin777 : It costs a carrier money to move that person from Point-A to Point-B and it also decreases the potential of carrying more cargo....so in a way its be
99 ANstar : Yes he is. And as sch, he is trying to keep the company viable and profitable. Unfortuantely this means reducing crew numbers on aircraft to better m
100 1stfl94 : A good tactical move on BA's part. It will target the strike inciters the most and means that ordinary crews who want to work are recognised for it. T
101 star12 : Good for BA. It serves those tw**s right. What did they expect. Bunch of pansies complaining about working an extra few hours here and there. To be ho
102 AAEXP : I doubt those numbers anyway.......sounds like the old Soviet election results...
103 GDB : As stated, they were warned again and again. If those affected are too thick/too used to living in a bubble/too ready to believe the conspiracy theory
104 victor009 : Great news, They have should not be given their redundancy package/perks or if company goes bust no final settlement. They should be happy they have a
105 Post contains images FlyCaledonian : Seems a few armchair CEOs have been doing law degrees on the side! Lets see if Unite actually follows through with the hot air and does take BA to Cou
106 Post contains images AAEXP : Well, they already presented it as I posted in reply 4. That is indeed correct, and that was why I asked some (I think ) pertinent questions as to th
107 flanker : I would expect severe action.
108 EnviroTO : While it is true workers have come to expect the travel perk, it is also true that BA has come to expect workers to work. The Unite workers presumably
109 Post contains images m11stephen : I don't understand what you're saying... Exactly!!! Heres is basically whats happening. 1. BA is loosing money. 2. BA implements changes to stay aliv
110 777236ER : A point you've made repeatedly. And, BA aren't. The terms and conditions of employment are the same for employers who took part in the strike as thos
111 AA777223 : I say they're getting what they deserve. Fire them all, I say! If they want to strike they're lucky to get to keep their jobs.
112 b78710 : oh yeah, because them losing money for the last few years was directly down to him. nothing to do with the state of the global economy. its a fact th
113 KimberlyRJ : This is true to a degree... in our contract it states the travel perks, how you get them and how you can lose them. It says, to be very basic, the co
114 Dano1977 : With all the best will in the world to fellow posters... BA has probably consulted some of the best employment lawyers within the UK, if there was any
115 Post contains images kl911 : Dream on...... It's exactly the oposite. If we want to save our company we need to fight the unions. And for staff that don't like aviation, quit and
116 kl911 : Is he?? A team is as strong as it's weakest link.. Or maybe the staff that is so old, unmotivated, unfriendly that most of my clients changed their B
117 oa260 : Yes I have seen that posted by members themselves on other forums boasting about it . One went out ten pin bowling!!
118 MD11Engineer : GDB, who is representing the engineers in BA? I´m a member of the ALAE / Progress, and I noticed that our union has been very quiet about the whole
119 Widebody : ....which is why UNITE has no legal basis to get the staff travel back. Something can become contractual over time IF NOT CLARIFIED in the contract.
120 RussianJet : How about 757 first officers?
121 TristarAtLCA : With respect, you might find it useful to understand what I was referring to in that post before telling me to dream on. You may be surprised if you
122 kl911 : I say: before new negotiations, get the 21 million back from the crew who decided to strike, or from the union. Then we talk again. I work for an airl
123 kl911 : With respect, this is my business also and I've followed every detail of this strike from the beginning.
124 G-CIVP : A few points. BA used Baker & McKenzie, a well known City law firm, for the recent legal case regarding contracts of employment. The AEU is now pa
125 TristarAtLCA : You still need to understand the context of my post before telling me to dream on and listing costs which have nothing to do with what I was writing
126 kl911 : I respect you as a ex-BA employee and a shareholder and wish you all the best, really. I just can't respect Union reps, sorry.
127 RussianJet : As a blanket statement that is very harsh. I don't agree with a lot of what Unite is doing here, or indeed with a lot of what other unions are doing
128 Post contains images TristarAtLCA : Fair enough. I represented engineers who in the twelve years I was there never came close to a walkout strike. Probably because they are pragmatic at
129 lukeyboy95 : Despicable, Disgusting and Down-right cowardly. This is a cowardly bullies tactic. I echo your sentiment in saying that if they feel so strong about
130 MD11Engineer : Being an engineer myself, I support this statement. Most engineers get a big part of satisfaction from having done a good job. Sure, they don´t like
131 vv701 : There are some wierd and wonderful assertions in this thread. The idea that a discretionary benefit might, without government legislation, become taxa
132 FlyDreamliner : I think this is a case of extraordinarily arrogant management at BA. Even if what BA is demanding is not that extraordinary - the way they are doing i
133 Dizzy777 : BA has every right to withdraw the Travel Perks. Every airline employee is told "Staff Travel Is A Perk, NOT A Right" , the company has every right to
134 lutfi : Yep, many people seem to be confusing UK with (say) Belgian or German Labour law: - Staff travel cannot become a "customary" part of the contract beca
135 Post contains images yendig : Excuse me for being excessively stupid, but aren't high crew salaries responsible for a good portion of the lost 'hundreds of millions'? Hardly Willi
136 RussianJet : Well obviously. Indeed they aren't, which is why I basically said as much. However, to damn all unions or reps based on this episode is not fair.
137 Flighty : That's why BA took away the non-working (striking) staff travel privileges, and kept the actual WORKers fully instated! I think instead of "worker" y
138 AIR MALTA : One my friends has striked last week end and he was proud of it... Problem is that he lives in Edinburgh and commutes to LHR for work. I gues he will
139 GDB : A mix, UNITE have a large number of support staff, maintenance workers, in Engineering. (Some of whom are training to be temp crew to cover the strik
140 Post contains links Burkhard : The right to strike is a human right. This has been as example documented by the European Court of Human Rights on 21 April 2009. http://www.etuc.org/
141 SKAirbus : In the UK city workers generally aren't unionised, in fact our union culture isn't as strong as say Scandinavia or Germany, which could be attributed
142 Bongodog1964 : You either have to admire him for his principles, or condemn him for shooting himslef in the foot.
143 GDB : So too is the right to work. Some on here clearly do not have their jobs at stake on this issue, easy to be supportive of the strikers with that comf
144 ANstar : And staff travel is NOT A RIGHT for employees. IT is a privilege. Why should ti be given to those who are intent on causing damage to the company?
145 Sydscott : All I'll say after reading this thread is to quote a former Prime Minister of Australia when he said, "if you have a difficult person in a camping tri
146 Ltbewr : The Travel perk is in effect a part of the workers financial compensation. If they are not working, they are not entitled to any compensation, includi
147 vv701 : I believe that this is correct. This is a prejudicial statement. Put simply German law is not applicable in any part of the UK. Can you give me one g
148 Raffik : Good for BA! The strike is costing them millions. Why should they reward these strikers with heavily discounted travel and upgrades? I think what they
149 al2637 : Even if they are UK registered, they still need to abide by local labour laws in the country where the staff are employed. So in that instance, Germa
150 Post contains links david_itl : Strange old letter in the Guardian newspaper today. I wonder who spun them the line that Unite had accepted BA's offer?
151 ikramerica : I find it hard to agree with that. It's a EU Human Right, not a universal one, and it's grounded in a socialist ideal of humanity, which is only one
152 offloaded : I read that and thought "typical bloody acedemics, all theory and no experience on how things work in the real world."
153 ANstar : How many academics does it take to write a letter?
154 rolfen : This is kinda ridiculous, it is just short of a mandatory slap on the wrist for strikers... But hey they were striking in the first place, so I guess
155 Post contains images Raffik : Well said
156 DocLightning : To a degree. Under most legal systems, in order for striking to be considered a right, it has to actually be a strike. An "illegal strike" is somewha
157 LJ : Because they have to to prevent losing face? It's like BA not taking any action and just sit and wait. No good PR. My take is that all the employees
158 AirframeAS : Travel Perks are a privilege, not a right. In order to have your privilege to use your travel perks, you need to follow the rules and stay on the job
159 ANstar : Perhaps, or perhaps those that rely on it for commuting will end up missing so many shfts that they get sacked. I'm not sure how it is going to work
160 Post contains links lightsaber : First, I read every post so far. Very interesting opinion. If that is in the contract, than BA has very strong legal footing to stand on. Worst PR I'v
161 EDICHC : But the law states that such a withdrawal cannot be made on a discriminatory basis. Regardless of what a contract may state. Even if it is a written
162 GDB : You might hope that, given your view of BA, however the fact that it's long been custom and practice to stop an employee using staff travel as part o
163 rolfen : If BA is anything like EK, then there no way you can "rely" on "travel perks" since these are probably id90 tickets and such, and are subject to plac
164 rolfen : Well, it is obviously discrimination on the basis of industrial action.
165 TristarAtLCA : One wonders then why Unite haven't slapped BA with a legal writ if this is so clear cut, rather than relying on 'custom and practice', which is quest
166 EDICHC : Because any union can only act to represent an employee who feels they have been discriminated against and asks for their assistance in pursuing a co
167 EDICHC : But that is completely irrelevant. An employer cannot discriminate on the grounds of Union membership or (legal) industrial relations record. Just be
168 wn700driver : Well if you work through a strike, a SCAB you are. I'll just never understand why that could possibly be a bad thing. After all, in medical terms, a
169 lhr380 : BUT was given before any strike action taken!
170 EDICHC : But again that is irrelevant as it was after any individual union member had already exercised their democratic right to oppose strike action. Was an
171 TristarAtLCA : And yet apparently not one 'discriminated' employee out of the thousands the Union told us went on strike have complained about the loss of travel pr
172 Post contains links and images AirframeAS : You should really look up the defination of "scab", I mean.... seriously. But I'll save you the trouble.... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sc
173 vv701 : In the UK it is not even considered discriminatory to have two sets of employees doing exactly the same job on entirely different contracts that incl
174 Post contains images wn700driver : Did you read the rest of my post? If so, you may find we don't disagree. . . This individual should be very proud of what she is doing.
175 ANstar : I'm aware of how staff travel works thanks and yes there are LOTS of employees that rely on it to get to/from work. WRONG - they were aware of the th
176 sankaps : Disgraceful behaviour. But then, what else can you expect from a group that has the mob (ie the Teamsters) as one of its biggest union platforms. I t
177 BA174 : Will the people that took part in the first round of action but worked during the second part still loose their staff travel?
178 NicoEDDF : ...no wonder BA is not competitive with those salaries! Not to be arrogant, but there are jobs out in the world requiring a LOT more education and sk
179 sankaps : My guess is the "compromise" that will eventually be reached is that the group that works the second round will eventually get their perks back after
180 Post contains images EDICHC : for the reasons stated... If an unprecedented sanction is threatened after the decision to strike is made of course it is irrelevant if the strike ha
181 Kaiarahi : This case was about a government (Turkey) completely withdrawing the right to strike. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the BA situation. Industri
182 EDICHC : No but on the grounds of Employee Representation is prohibited. Previous strikes in recent years did not result in the withdrawal of travel perks...t
183 NicoEDDF : Again? How can that ever be irrelevant?? They took their decision to strike in full knowledge of the obligation to follow their contract. Their contr
184 AAEXP : I would limit the discrimination claim in this case to the current legal industrial action and not past actions. No need to bring in past actions, wh
185 NicoEDDF : True, and Thales pitot tubes did not lead to A332 of AF crashing over the Atlantic...until the time came, when circumstances differed. Now, circumsta
186 TristarAtLCA : Your point may have some validity if you can show where the removal of ST was ever publicly threatened in past disputes. With WW's track record on Un
187 EDICHC : I am aware of the wording...but if such a withdrawal is done in a discriminatory manner it breaks statute law, and could render the whole employment
188 AAEXP : Discrimination based on legal industrial action (legal being the operative word here) is in my point-of-view the real issue here and perhaps also the
189 Post contains images NicoEDDF : I am aware of the overruling function of Statute law. Nevertheless, they didn't remove perks from blacks or whites, fat or thin, guys or girls or any
190 Post contains links David L : After the latest vote or after the previous one? I'm sure I heard Willie Walsh saying this morning on BBC Breakfast that the warning was issued befor
191 EDICHC : Not with the law as it stands.
192 Post contains images NicoEDDF : We will see, my dear, we will see!
193 m11stephen : I don't totally agree with you since everyday F/As have many responsibilities however, being a BA F/A does not require any formal training. It requir
194 Kaiarahi : According to which U.K. or E.U. statute? Which U.K. or E.U. statute are you referring to? Your point of view (and mine) are irrelevant. It's only act
195 TristarAtLCA : A law which BA have apparently ignored, Unite can't find and employment lawyers on TV and radio have said is not applicable in these circumstances. T
196 Post contains images s4popo : Huh??? Did you even read what I replied to? I said we DON'T need unions in today's world.
197 AAEXP : Of course, but I am not sure we have seen a definitive answer to this question here yet? Or have I missed something?
198 Kaiarahi : We've seen lots of speculation, mostly uninformed. This may sum it up: I'll try and find time over the weekend to do a bit of legal research.
199 Post contains images AAEXP : That's my point. Thanks, highly appreciated.
200 Post contains images readytotaxi : So have both sides painted themselves into a corner? Someone will have to eat humble pie. WW says he will NEVER reinstate travel perks to strikers. Un
201 ferengi80 : I really cannot understand what the problem is here, and why the staff are striking. The deal they were initially offered was also offered to staff at
202 kaitak : Certainly not while the threat of strike action exists; I suspect that it will be reinstated, but at a high price, e.g. a no-strike clause and at the
203 GDB : Your profile has you as working as a nurse in NZ, that's a long way to be so certain about something internal within BA. The fact is that the warning
204 Multimark : Finally a voice of reason. WW has painted BA as a premium airline, yet is setting it up for terrible customer service with his divisive tactics. WW a
205 sankaps : Simply put, some unions deserve to be busted. How come WW / BA managed to reach agreement with every other union at BA, and none of these other union
206 ANstar : Yup - I mean seriously you have pilots, ground crew and engineers all trained and happy to be strike breakers. That does NOT happe every day - just g
207 AAEXP : Bad service is ground for dismissal. What a bunch of BS.........
208 ikramerica : That's the problem with the "us v. the corporation" and "we are all brothers" mentality that unions like to instill. It doesn't leave room for ration
209 G-CIVP : An interesting point but it could be argued that BA isn't discriminating as those who crossed the picket line to work last weekend where also union m
210 Post contains images EDICHC : Correct but what does that have to do with it? I originate from Edinburgh hence the user name, I used to work for LC @ EDI and have several friends w
211 AirNZ : Excellent post!!! This is exactly what I've been saying here for a very long time (and getting flamed of course because some simply don't like the tr
212 AAEXP : Who is breaking what contracts?
213 lhr380 : That is totally different circumstances and is no way connected to this current strike action at all!!! Why mention disloyal, that must mean you thin
214 sankaps : UNITE members were not the only ones who supposedly "worked for nothing". Which brings us back to the other open questions that have already been ask
215 oa260 : As I predicted UNITE have said tonight that any agreement must involve re instating the travel perks. BA has already replied ''No way''.
216 mariner : I hate class divides - and I hate to see anyone perpetuate those divides - but I'm "working class" - true British working class. I have pulled myself
217 kl911 : Great words, Exactly my feelings as well. Staff travel is never part of any contract and you know it...
218 lhr380 : I know if I do something really wrong, Staff travel can be taken from me and I have no reason to complain. Its made pretty clear its not part of any
219 GDB : Quite a lot, since you seem very certain of things you don't really know much about, this threat to remove strikers staff travel was known within BA
220 lhr380 : The BEST post in this thread!!!!! I 100% agree with every statement!!!!!
221 ZKEYE : Great post - all of it.
222 travelexec : Were Unite to do this and then win, the obvious solution is for BA to have to stop the perk for everyone - and that would be Unite's fault. This is E
223 EDICHC : Because that is the description used earlier in the thread by others. I'm not say you were disloyal because you didn't work for nothing. I'm saying t
224 Kaiarahi : So when did the High Court, which ruled unequivocally that BA was not in breach of contract, get overruled? Or have you now added Court of Appeal jud
225 Post contains images Sketty222 : I couldnt agree with your post more. I've had many friends leave under the voluntary redundancy scheme, yes it was a good time for them to leave, but
226 musang : I have it on good authority that it is a contractual entitlement at Air Canada. Regards - musang
227 Post contains images AirframeAS : Yes, I did. But you implied that they were scabs in a negative light based on what I read. Great post, yet so true!
228 AAEXP : There is no CEO degree offered at any university in the world. Therefore no diplomas. Therefore not factually incorrect.
229 lukeyboy95 : exactly...I hope they all get put out a job ( if this sort of militancy and frankly unacceptable behaviour continues) and loyal and hardworking new r
230 wn700driver : No, I just wanted her to know that while, yeah she is a scab, no that's not a bad thing and she should be proud of what she was doing. Also, not to p
231 SkidMarque : GDB, you're already on my respected list, so what's left ? Will you marry me ?
232 Post contains links SA7700 : Please feel free to continue your discussion on this topic in part 2 of the thread: BA Withdraws Travel Perks For Strikers Part 2 Rgds SA7700
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA Announce £401m Loss For 2008 posted Thu May 21 2009 23:50:41 by SeansasLCY
BA Withdraws LCY-DUB (Last Ireland Service) posted Fri Feb 27 2009 02:25:28 by AIR MALTA
When Will BA Receive Its A318 For The LCY-JFK? posted Tue Nov 11 2008 15:15:05 by BAfan
Rumor: BA Leaving One World For *A? posted Thu Jun 12 2008 19:44:17 by Bakersdozen
Pass Travel Question For DL Emps posted Mon May 12 2008 07:13:09 by NWBOS
Mergers: When Will BA Make An Offer For AA? posted Mon Apr 7 2008 01:24:04 by FXramper
BA Recruiting B757 Crew For Tatl Ops? posted Tue Oct 9 2007 09:11:30 by TristarSteve
BA Withdraws From HRE And DTW! posted Wed Sep 19 2007 18:55:36 by Lovinitflyboy
TPG / BA To Reduce Bid For IB? posted Sun Aug 26 2007 16:30:07 by VV701
Late Start Has Perks For Airbus posted Sun Jul 1 2007 20:56:06 by EI321