Who pays the piper?
Last night I asked the joint general secretary of the Unite trade union, Derek Simpson, whether he had considered resigning over his conduct of the BA cabin stewards strike ballots.
In the knowledge that BA was likely to test any ballot in the courts, Unite has managed to fail not once, but now twice, to comply adequately with the law to render a strike ballot legal. Mr Simpson told me he would not be “considering his position”.
It costs workers a minimum of £120 a year to be a member of Unite and the better paid cabin staff pay more. Given the legal costs Unite has incurred in the BA instigated high court cases, some members have told me they think the money might have been better spent hiring lawyers to go through every element of the strike balloting process before it ever got to court.
Indeed given the fight the Unite union is likely to have on its hands with impending private and public sector cuts, one BA cabin services director asked me how wise was the union’s considerable expenditure on the BA battle proving to be?
The planned strikes were due to coincide with further ash cloud problems, half term, and Whit bank holiday weekend. Intelligent pursuit of public support, or damn fool tactics designed to alienate the travelling public from the cabin staff’s cause?
There are other union members who I have spoken to, who have begun to question the scale of Unite’s donations to the Labour party – over £11m in recent years.
Over 100 Labour MPs are members of the union; more than 35 are “sponsored” by Unite. At a recent Labour election event several members discussed with me whether they were getting “value for money” with the party. I was unable to answer.
Unite, as part of the Union block vote will have a considerable influence on the election of the next Labour leader. The last one was a member. The trades unions have a third of the entire vote on the matter.
Bill Clinton’s favourite pollster, Stan Greenberg, yesterday published some intriguing findings on Labour’s relationship with the unions. Labour voters when asked whether Labour should be closer to the unions voted 54 per cent to 45 per cent YES. But when ALL voters were asked 60 per cent to 33 per cent voted NO.
Will a hasty Labour leadership fix address these issues? And on the brink of some of the biggest cuts both public and private sectors have ever experienced how well led, organised, and prepared is the trades union movement to responsibly represent their members in the challenges ahead?
Related posts:
- Mixed reaction from British Airway's cabin crew
- The 'bigot' in the electoral mix
- What next after last night's election results?
- A brain-clearing respite in the aftermath of battle
- The crisis and the mandate
There are 52 comments on this post
Mcgruber
January 2007
I have blogged many times , that unions and strikes have done nothing to save jobs .Infact totally the opposite, most strikes lose jobs.Sometimes it is possible to sympathise with the reasons for a strike , but on this occasion i have none BA are losing money so they need to reorganise .Planes are clearly overmanned with cabin staff .The staff are the best paid within the industry .They need to realise that other businesses are having to cut their cloth according to their means, and many workers have had to change working practices and even accept reduced wages to keep their jobs.
Were i in charge of BA management , i would tell staff that any strike would be deemed a break in their contracts and loss of their jobs .They might be reinstated on new contract terms
Adrian, I agree that strikes often lead to job losses and are harmful to working people. But what other measure does a worker have? Until directors of companies have an obligation to take into account not just the shareholders’ intersts but also the staff, you are going to have industrial ction.
It wasn’t so long ago that BA were claiming to be the world’s favourite airline based in a large part on the service provided by cabin crew. But as soon as there is a problem, the first insinct is to lay off staff. David Cameron once said Labour hadn’t repaired teh roof in the good times, well the same could be said of much of British management. What happened to all those huge profits they used to make, why wasn’t some cash put aside for a downturn in the cycle?
I’d also be interested to know how many directors have gone? How many of the managment team have lost their jobs or even their perks? It might not solve the problem but at least it would share out the pain.
And here speaks the man who on one of his blogs suggested that socialism was enforcing a way of life of on people. Now you want to enforce unwanted contracts on people threatening them with the loss of their job if they don’t agree. I am not sure Adrian if it is capitalism or dictatorship you are into most – maybe you are a capitalist dictator!!
mel you totally misread my blog, either because you have a fixation of Socialsm and Capitalism or believe private companies should not be able to be run by management ,but should be run by the Unions.My blog was not in support of either Capitalism or Socialism .It was , i hope, pure commonsense .You can not have a private company continuously losing money and staying in business .It is not like the public sector where more taxes are just poured in irrespective of cost.Whoevers fault it is BA is losing money.That is without the ash problem and without the strikes.It pays its workers more than the other airlines and yes probably provides a better service than the no frills airlines .Passengers however vote and book with their wallets.Something has to give .Either severe wage reductions or jobs .That is even going to come in the public sector because no company,no government can continue to run in debt.
I have no wish to force unwanted contracts on people .They have a choice whether to work for BA or not . If the workers have a choice , can you tell me why the management shouldnt , and why it should put the whole company and many more jobs at risk, by doing nothing?
Adrian my apologies. I don’t agree that a private company should be run by unions or indeed that any company should be run by a Union alone. But I do believe that a Union is essential to protect the workers rights. I work for what I consider an unscrupulous company – for me it is too close to the line both in the way it deals with it’s employees and the way it profits from its customers. As a single woman with my own mortgage until I find a better job I have no choice but to carry on with this one. I am in Unite. I cannot speak in depth with what has gone on with BA but I can tell you that since I have been with the company I am with I have seen individual jobs threatened for the stupidest of reasons and in turn saved by Unite representatives. and Saltaire could not have put it better – until
Directors have an obligation to take into account its staff what other measures does a worker have? They do not have the finances to fight their corner in the courts. In the next few years companies will more than ever be looking to ‘legitimately’ get rid of staff on the slightest technicality without having to make redundancy payouts – every worker needs protection.
Roger Darlington comments that almost a quarter of British employees belong to unions. Although they may at some stage be seen as standing in the way of capitlist progress, they are the strongest way of ensuring independent groups of people outside their work or goverment are protected.
I have just been to Manchester and the unions seem to have caused a lot of the problems siding with the firms , where workers have been unjustly slung out.
This may be heresay but until we give more power to our backbenchers ,we are unlikely to be represented anywhere without unions.I have also had exprience in my profession of a trade union taking control of unfair working distribution of jobs.
I am not sure whether blocking the vote for a strike, is a contravention of Euoropean Rights, but having said this I believe that Derek Simpson has been allowed to appeal.
Nevertheless the public must keep the unions , but scrutinise their practices as workers are themselves scrutinised.
mel i agree with you workers want protection , and i also believe at this moment in time Unions are the way to give that protection .There are many laws to protect workers where they have a legitimate cause of complaint.What i do not believe is that strikes ever protect workers .A strike is the ultimate weapon and should never be used.Once it is used where else is there to go??? It is like the nuclear deterrent , once it is used there is no going back.There are union leaders who use strikes for ideological /political reasons.I do believe some such union leaders want the power without any concerns of the consequences.It is why it is a bad thing fpr the country that Labour is backed and controlled by the unions
Yes some unions are very good for the workers .I was a police federation representative , and yes i fought for colleagues where their rights had been abused , but i never for one moment believed i or the federation had any right to stop or alter the efficient running of the police
Re Derek Simpson: If what he says is Kosher ,the technicality appears to be a weak reason for ruling the ballot as illegal, but that is how cases are won which are going to cost any industry big money.
I was wondering whether you were trying to illicit any hint of coertion by Mr Simpson. A man who sits so comfortably with two failed ballotts also rings alarm bells.
I dont know who is personally responsible for ensuring the legality of the ballots: he seems to brush off responsibilty, but BA’s money has been saved somewhat.
Management have a habit of delegating dirt and in such an important ballot the process should have been scutinised
I wish you would ask my management if there had been any hanky panky and if events had been deliberately structured.
sp.coercion.
One tactic which my profession uses is when someody has perfected something, a loud aggressor comes with a loud exclamatory remark that the thing has not been done . The names and incidents are changed so the person who has perfected the task is then blamed for others who have been remiss , the good work is perpetuated and the person who executed the good work is persecuted.
This also has been a tactic done over the phone , with somebody obviously listening on the other side, to corroborate what the person has said ,but not within hearing of the reply. The consequences are gobbledeguck is spoken , with no point of reference to the speaker on the other side of the phone.
Do I trust management NO WAY.
Dead right Margaret . Management is there to coerce .They are thugs – have NO regard for Staff – who are worse not to get rid of them . In fact they have no clue as to real mangement . My last boss once he got the job said ” if his boss told him to jump in the river – thats waht he would do ” – a credit to the human race .
Personal experience allows me to say that Unite are about as useful as chocolate coal tongs. However – I defend the right of any worker to protest against what they may see as an injustice. We have gone from a situation in thirty years of the country being controlled by the unions through to the country being controlled by the Corporate world. The bosses and directors of our large companies are now the ones pulling the strings of our politicians – It’s why small businesses struggle, why jobs get moved overseas with no protest, why Tesco is taking over the country and why our transport system is carved up between just a few operators, and the public have even less control over our once public utilities. I wouldn’t go back to union control – but I find the power of the big companies equally nauseating, and even less democratic!
Amen to that, Patrick
The Labour party need an income stream and that’s just about all that Unite are. A source of revenue for the Labour party.
Unite are up against a global economy, and instant communication, where jobs can move anywhere – in the world – very quickly, and often do.
This is the modern world that we’ve made. And whoever finds out how to protect British jobs for British workers lays the golden egg. Until someone else invents a golden egg laying machine.
120 pounds for a years membership to the Unite union seems to be pretty poor value for money to me. The money would be better spent on a good book aimed at re-skilling yourself.
Globalistion is the modern world Richard – but you have not made it – the Big bosses have – and do you really want to go to Bangkok in the morniong to work ?.
“…but you have not made it…”
Alas, I have to admit to playing my part in making the modern world what it is (as a Telecomms Engineer), and sometimes it bothers me – a lot.
Poor communication is at stake here. Very few people know exactly what is going on (let alone people on blogs!). Pilots sat down with BA exec to talk about change of work practice, were the cabin crew asked? Strike action does cause many effects, one could be the end of BA as a company. The workes will continue to work with another company, but it is the shareholders of BA that will loose out! It is a pity that our general election is not covered by the strict laws covering strike action! One thing I know, I hope Walsh knows what he is doing to the customer/company relationship!
Unite have clearly made a mess of this – it beggars belief they didn’t have someone checking off each aspect of the law to make sure they complied.
But I am concerned that what appears to be a minor technicality has been allowed to overturn a demoncratically called strike. Over the next few years, working people face a massive fight for their livelihoods and that could be seriously undermined if legitimate disputes become impossible because of the cost of legal action.
Our courts already favour the wealthy – Maxwell’s ability to sue any critic kept his regime in power long after it should have been exposed – I hope that is not to be extended.
BA’s problem is a Heathrow problem. All BA cabin crew at other airports have agreed to the new terms. There has always been a strong militant element at Heathrow which has made BA’s ability to manage extremely difficult.
Unite need to get a grip of their people at Heathrow. Their reputation as a responsible and progressive Trade Union is being seriously damaged by this silly dispute.
Oh yes, and then there’s the issue of the funding of political parties! Where did that little hot potato disappear to? It seems to have been quietly forgotten by our ‘new coalition’. What’s happened to all that talk about political reform…is it that large bulge that has just apeared under the carpet?
Akam , i believe there has been talk of political reform ,but the government is only 2 days old .
Here’s a suggestion. BA should put itself into voluntary liquidation. A new corporation should then be formed. As the erstwhile strikers are re employed, there should be new contracts. The contracts should not necessarily be draconian but should limit the reasons for strike action – burnt toast excluded.
As the meerkat would say – Simple! or perhaps it’s just me who is.
Liquidation would only benefit the liquidators, who always walk away with most of the assets, and harm creditors.
Why should companies have all the rights? Willie Walsh seems to have countless millions to spend on lawyers and strike breaking but is not willing to consider any compromise.
BA’s problems might be sorted out quicker if he was kicked out and someone else put in charge
Saltaire , the company has the upper hand because it provides the jobs .Getting rid of the management would not get rid of the problem .If the workers want to run a loss making industry that will eventually go to the wall , why dont they set up themselves and waste their own money?
Adrian, you could quite easily turn your argument on its head and say the workers have the upper hand because they DO the jobs. To quote my favourite example, the £1m paid boss of the Post Office is just a useless man behind a big desk if the postie doesn’t tramp the streets and stick letters in letter boxes. He can have all the great ideas under the sun, he can create a myriad of innovative marketing plans, but without the postie he might as well do a crossword puzzle.
My basic argument with the balance of society is that the contribution of the ordinary workman or woman is taken for granted and under valued.
Of course entreprenuers should be rewarded, especially when they create jobs. Shareholders should get a return on their investment. But neither of them can succeed without people actually doing the work – and at the moment that third of the equation seems to me to be undervalued by those running our country.
Saltaire i couldn’t agree more.Both the Post Office and BA were state controlled before being privatised.Unfortunately the state can not run large enterprises.That is why they lose money .When privatised , some people put a large amount of money into such ventures and expect a return on that money.Jusy as an entrepaneur or any small business tries to do.Like it or not , those that put the money in pays the piper and calls the tune.It is not fair that those doing the ordering are paid such sums against those that do the labouring work .That is life unless you want to go to a Kibutz , cooperative or pure communistic society
From a position of almost total ignorance, I can only make two comments:
1. The staff who have voted pretty much unanimously in favour of strike action have said it is their only option, all other avenues having been closed.
2. The Willie Walsh style of management does not seem conducive to rapprochement even, let alone compromise.
The airline industry is on its knees and BA has been mounting collosal losses in the face of competition from cheaper carriers. With the premium prices that supported the premium wages finished, voting for the strike is like the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas.
The BA workforce have the absolute right to withdraw their labour. But they deserve better advice than they are getting from their union, which right now is in danger of putting them out of work alltogether.
UNITE is ready to criticise the management. The ‘bosses’ as their retrograde marxist language would have it. Perhaps they should examine the calibre of their own leadership which seems hell bent on treating decent members as shock troops in a stupid socialist adventure instead of looking after their jobs. Unions should be a force for good.
If UNITE are going to persue actions as stupid as this, what exactly are they for?
I agree. Staff don’t go out on strike lightly. It’s not fun losing pay. And when it means losing something as valuable as the travel concessions that BA staff have given up, they must feel very strongly about it.
They are also not stupid. They realise that the industry is changing but once again it seems they are the ones being asked to make all the sacrifices. What sacrifice has Walsh made?
Logically, smaller crews means more work for those who remain. Is the rest of the company, directors and senior management, being asked to cover extra work? I doubt it.
In some respects i agree Saltaire.It is the staffs right to vote for and to go on strike.I also agree if it was a technicality that stopped the strike , then it should not have been so .
Perhaps it would be a good thing to let the strike run .Let BA go to the wall and let other unions see the futility of trying to hold a company to ransom
Adrian – it is ok for a company to hold its employees to ransom with threats of job losses , pay cuts , high unemployment etc .
Interesting comparison from today’s Guardian:
We may have all just engaged in our five-yearly exercise in parliamentary democracy but there’s no evidence we have anything similar in terms of industrial or workplace democracy. The equivalent of what BA has done is like Labour saying the general election that it just lost must be declared null and void in the courts because an official at one of the 649 counts read out the candidates’ tally of votes in the wrong order or pronounced one of their names wrongly. It’s that spurious.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/18/ba-victory-affront-justice
It rather begs the question about judicial neutrality, doesn’t it? When Mr. Simpson was explaining to Jon last night that the matter boiled down to one aspect of the result of the ballot not being made available widely enough ( I think it was a dozen or so spoiled votes, out of 11,000), I couldn’t really take in the pettiness , not to mention vengeful malice, of Walsh & co.
Saltaire , i wondered who was the one who still reads the Guardian
Saltaire: off-topic but grateful if you could tell me how I can post a link, as in yours above, on to the blogs. Am not a technophile, but haven’t yet learnt how to do it despite best efforts. There’s generally a link I’d like to display. Thanks in advance.
And as for “Who pays the piper?” – Jon, I’m amazed at your stance here. With the unions, we know there is a block vote, we know their agenda, and we know they support Labour and sponsor MPs.
How little we know about the donors and supporters of other parties, in particular the Conservatives!
Perhaps, given the new era of glasnost trumpeted by the Coaltion, all will be clearly displayed on a dedicated website? Don’t hold your breath, folks …
I think that striking was an excellent nineteenth century negotiating tool, but it no longer works in the present day. I am awfully afraid that the two main protagonists ie Willie Walsh and Derek Simpson are more interested in showing how powerful they can be, than solving the problem. In the meantime, the workforce and the public suffer. God knows, I’m not against unions, which have been a powerful force for improving working conditions and pay for most of us. But I am against striking and I am fearful that the enormous losses incurred by BA will either cause it to go into liquidation, or to be propped up, once again, by the long-suffering tax-payer.
What a mess! But Unions only exist because management is bad.
In a good Company, there are no such things as bad employees because good managers would have trained, inspired and rewarded their teams fairly.
The terms and conditions, sickness and absence rates at BA are the way they are because successive management regimes have allowed it.
The goals of BA, Unite and the workforce are different.
BA is trying to survive by belatedly rectifying years of poor management.
Unite is trying to maximise its membership and therefore its revenue.
The cabin staff are trying to cling to over-generous salaries and perks compared with others in the market.
Every competent Company Director knows that well motivated employees are essential for superior performance. And every sensible employee knows that profitable Companies lead to high pay.
In this case, it does not take Nostradamus to forecast that jobs will go, the Ts & Cs will change, BA will be different and the cabin crews will never make up the money they have lost already and will continue to lose if they strike in future.
Perhaps Staff and Management should form a coalition without old Labour!
Sounds like a case for the BCorporation values. Shareholder value alone does not satisfy everyone’s needs.
Investors and staff have to develop trust.Outdated Union and Management power struggles will be on the rise again unless people are free to innovate and respond to changing work attitudes.
The answer to the title question is that no ones knows who is playing the tune, or won’t believe as they have been elevated to soloist , or act stum and take the money and run.
I had a good day yesterday – was out taking a few snaps – am still at them . Had a look aat Snowblog last nite and now – cant belive waht I am reading . ”We ” are being told by some – less jobs , support mnagement , the rich create the wealth . They have the money – but how did they get it . I could give examples but dont want to name names obviosly – but many got it by illegal dealing , .Why dont the rich go down the goldmines and work , why are they not in the army – obvious . Globalisation is a disaster – suits the 1% who have most if the money – and their imatators . It seems the last thing the slaves want is freedom . Adrian wants the death penalty back – and makes a laugh if things go wrong – waht about the Bermingham six , Guildford 4 . I think he would think different if he was hung in error himself -!!!!. Anyway Saltaire Sam thinks Cameron and Clegg are the two most powerful men in the country . Sam – they are puppets – they will do as they are told . When the so called prosperity fails to materialise – in fact the reverse will happen – what then . Jon Snow says they are interesting times .
JIM you got it right my posthumous pardon was an attempt at a joke.Not all miscarriages of justice are that .Many or based on legal technicalities like the Unite ruling
contd./
It may be interesting for a presumably well paid journalist / celebrity like Jon Snow but Interesting is not the word I would have used for the general Public . It is fear – Fear of less money , unemployment , this global garbage being all the rage . Mr Snow seems embriled in his upper middle classs games – sc## that – let him do it if he so wisehes – but again to read – lightheartedly that Infaltion is rising – thats serious – no matter for joculrity – or lightheartness – but the real downer – assuming this blog comprises sort of middle income people and working class [ I cant image any rich banker ever reading any '' blogs '' etc ]- then there are quite a few who despite the eveidnece think Thatchersim is the way forward – a totally failed idea . Maybe its like the religous – despite mountains of evidence – they still believe in the Invisible man .
Jim it is interesting to see some of the old bitter class rubbish put into print.The politics of envy and no answers .Clobber the rich and let us waste the money so everyone is poor.No aspirations except the lowest denominator .That is the attitude that keeps the poor poorer.Keep it up , you may convert the invisible man
Adrian,every single bit of progress gained by the working classes has been wrung out of the ruling classes for centuries.
I have recently been reading about the fight to cut children’s hours in the mills during the 19th century, and the same arguments were put forward – that it would kill business and break firms – as you use today.
How interesting is our language when the emotions that drive the poor to improve their lot is called envy, while the rich’s desire to have even more is admirable ambition.
It’s not good enough for you to say that it’s just the way it is when the bosses and shareholders get the rewards and the workers get what’s left. Many things that have been ‘just the way it is’ down the years are now looked on as shocking and have disappeared – start with slavery, only the landed gentry having a vote, lunatic asylums, child labour, homosexuality being illegal. The list goes on.
Some things are worth fighting for and fairness is something I will fight for as long as I have breath.
Adrian – is it not time the Rich get clobbered – we / I have been as have most – and worse to come .The Banks make their own rules – . Cameron like the lackey he is comes out with a 20/ 1 ratio for Public service . Did or will he enforce that on banks that have got taxpayers billions ??. No – how can he – he works for them – they tell HIM what to do , not vice versa .
Saltaire , again i am in total agreement.Many of our freedoms , even voting rights have had to be wrung out of the rich , by dynamic men/women and organisations.Not least the unions and the origins of the Labour party. So why spoil your blog with “trying to improve ones lot is envy”I have never said that.In fact virtually the opposite that all individuals have the ability to improve their lot.What i consider envy is decrying someone who has succeeded by their efforts or because someone has something that we havent , as long as it was obtained legally
On this and other recent strike-related court cases, I do think we need to ask whether the law is now acting to ensure fair strike ballots are undertaken (the declared purpose) or providing employers with unlimited scope to frustrate strike action. As an example, the original Unite/BA ballot was challenged for inaccurate membership records (members currently employed by BA). Were the union’s records any more inaccurate than BA’s record of current employees? Or were both equally inaccurate for the same reason – the time it takes for the records to reflect recent changes?
Paul,i do not think Lawyers and judges are the right place to go about industrial disputes .Lawyers are some of the most corrupt people dealing with the Law .You go into any criminal court and listen to their puerile and dishonest statements on behalf of clients .Most commit culpable perjury every time they go to court.
Judges , the unelected,not of this world arbitrators of the law , believe it is their duty to make the law , not uphold that passed by parliament.They also believe it is their right to usurp British law with , laws of an undemocratc foreign parliament.
Do you wonder they accepted a minor infringement to stop the strike .I could admire the decision of the two judges who scrapped that ruling , were they not appeasers of illegal immigrants.
What you get when the employers’ power is unrestricted:
“ a California based company was sued [unsucessfully!] in 2006 by a saleswoman for subjecting her to what could be called motivational spankings”
“from Prosper Inc. in Utah …. a supervisor subjected an employee to waterboarding as part of a motivational exercise.”
“Waves of reciprocal chanting sweep back and forth over the hall ….
Not to throw oneself wholeheartedly into the frenzy world would of course, be “Negative””
[Inspired by the Nuremburg Rallies?]
Examples quoted from Barbera Ehrenreich’s “Smile or Die” – my comments in square brackets. Are these places where you would be happy to work?
Ooops! I spoke too soon. Political reform has not been swept under the carpet after all. “The biggest shake-up of our democracy…a wholesale ‘big bang’ approach to political reform.” Horray for the Deputy Prime Minister!
It will be interesting to see what transpires. The Tories have a long history of opposing political reform. Will they revert to kind or is the soft, comforting feeling of green leather on their backsides too precious for them to ‘complain too much’? We’ll see!
I am not a member of a union, indeed I am an employer but I could not belief the myopic judgement of the high court that seemed to have thre reasoning of an underdeveloped flea. The other possibility is that the judge had as much impartiality with regard to the issue at stake or indeed lack of understanding with respect to the democratic nature of the strike vote that he felt free to rule in the interests of employer power.
Sad in a big way.
If we and the judiciary loose sight of the significance of people VOTING to strike, which means that they have considered what they have to loose, then we are the road to a new oppression of all but those with a lot of money on in the bank.
Thank God that the Court of Appeal had some sense.
Now, over to Willie Walsh