you might be right – I have no idea what to do when things come down to a scrap. still I don’t see why left-wingers writing about strikes can’t take the broader view, nor do I see that a left-wing response portraying workers as blind to the broader problem is a terribly effective defense against right wing attacks on workers. Isn’t “the kind of people who would rather bring down a company than accept cuts” just the kind of slur right wingers like?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236632/Your-commuter-carriage-awaits-The-Queen-catches-train-journey-Sandringham-Christmas.html

That’s fair enough in normal circumstances. It’s fair enough too to ask workers to look at things from management’s point of view if they are being given a stake in how the company is run.

In the heat of industrial action and especially when workers are being attacked viciously through the press, dissent is being suppressed through the courts, and when up until today BA were refusing to even speak to the union, it is not the left’s job to make management’s arguments for them, but to full-throatedly back workers who’ve made a considered decision to go on strike.

In this context, if it’s true that BA has no way of surviving unless it cuts cabin crew costs, by come combination of lowering staffing levels and wages, then ignoring that isn’t going to help the workers.

Now of course the task of the left wing is to stick up for workers, not only workers at the firm in question but also workers in other firms who have to purchase the output of the firm in question and/or pay taxes that mights be used to subsidize it. So of course I’m not saying the left wing has to swallow the management line, it has to push for the best solution from a left wing point of view. But your not going to find the best solution to any problem by ignoring half of the problem.

This post only mentions management incompetence, but does not mention, as John does, that management had few options, nor what the unions are going to have to give if a solution is to be found.

Yes, you’re right. I also don’t want to get LibCon into any trouble either. I retract the remark, and apply Hanlon’s Razor instead.

Yes, even if I had no knowledge at all on this, I would still side with the workers who voted so overwhelmingly to go on strike. I would assume that they, and their union, know at least as much as John does, and my opinion proxy would be with them rather than with John. After all, there is much more at stake for them than there is for John. Their jobs, pay, conditions, and the future of the company they work for is all at stake. I defer to their judgement. Why does that do the left no favours?

Saying the strike is illegal is one thing – unfortunately it seems the courts would back you up – saying UNITE “cheated” is entirely different, and casts a slur on their reputation. The two things are not necessarily the same as UNITE could have been using old information because they were not given up-to-date information by BA, putting them in an anomalous situation where they were doing the most possible to make sure the ballot was legal while it was still illegal.

Even allowing for that, on an 80% turnout and 90% yes vote, the ballot still would have been a yes vote.

It is.

the blame lies with management’s disastrously mishandled business strategy.

Sort of. But can you name an alternative business strategy that BA could have followed that preserved cabin crew pay, allowances and benefits at current levels whilst keeping the company profitable (or even breaking even)?

The business strategy was mishandled because a focus on the revenues from premium-passenger-long-haul was the *only* way BA had any chance of surviving without cutting staff wages. That was never going to be sustainable, unless you thought the boom was going to last forever.

Good management would’ve addressed the cost base sooner, in a gradual and much less painful way, with pay and benefits cuts focused on new hires and existing cabin crew paid more to agree to lower staffing levels, rather than getting into the current desperate situation for everyone – but I don’t think that you or Unite would’ve supported such efforts at the time.

(I agree that the right-wing-press coverage of this is singly unedifying – the DM piece on the woman on sick leave is particularly vile.)

The idiots at Unite tried to cheat and got caught, and now they’ll have to spend three weeks organising another ballot, and this time they’ll have to do it without getting caught.

Whilst everyone points and laughs at their ineptitude at cheating.

That’s true but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t decided until after the ballot had been taken. So at the point they were ballotted, workers would’ve had to assume worst-case-scenario they would lose the full amount.

agreed.

They are not going without pay, the union is going to pay them. Can’t remember where I read that to check but the implication was that it would be their actual wage.

Do you realise how silly you sound? If you can persuade 74% of union members to go without pay for nearly half a month to help get you elected, you’ve pretty much got the election sown up without needing to go on strike.

(Apologies if your comment was parody; I’m obviously feeling a little humourless today if so.)

Okay, so he might destroy BA and lead to thousands losing their jobs, but as long as he becomes Gen. Sec. of some God-forsaken Union, that’s a price worth paying.