Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Banjax on 17 May 2010, 18:48:06
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10119196.stm
after balloting some 11000 odd members, they didn't tell absolutely everyone on every text message, email or letter that 11 papers had been spoiled..........hmm, so unless you get the procedure 100% correct (not 99.99999 as they did) then the strike can be called illegal....is that the spirit of the law?
funny thing is, i saw 100's of voters in the general election denied the right to vote, yet thats good enough - something stinks methinks :(
whether you agree or disagree with the strike action, BA and the courts are being completely ludicrous in this :o
-
If you ask me the Judges are as corrupt as the politicians running this country.
I am beggining to think it is time to up sticks and move to Mexico, very little corruption there.
;D ;D ;D
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10119196.stm
after balloting some 11000 odd members, they didn't tell absolutely everyone on every text message, email or letter that 11 papers had been spoiled..........hmm, so unless you get the procedure 100% correct (not 99.99999 as they did) then the strike can be called illegal....is that the spirit of the law?
funny thing is, i saw 100's of voters in the general election denied the right to vote, yet thats good enough - something stinks methinks :(
whether you agree or disagree with the strike action, BA and the courts are being completely ludicrous in this :o
Not at all. BA are quite within their rights to explore every legal technicality to avoid losing millions. Unless you were sitting in the court and unless you have access to the full details of the relevant law, then you can't say it is ludicrous.
Plenty of people have used legal technicalities to their advantage. Why not BA?
::)
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10119196.stm
after balloting some 11000 odd members, they didn't tell absolutely everyone on every text message, email or letter that 11 papers had been spoiled..........hmm, so unless you get the procedure 100% correct (not 99.99999 as they did) then the strike can be called illegal....is that the spirit of the law?
funny thing is, i saw 100's of voters in the general election denied the right to vote, yet thats good enough - something stinks methinks :(
whether you agree or disagree with the strike action, BA and the courts are being completely ludicrous in this :o
Not at all. BA are quite within their rights to explore every legal technicality to avoid losing millions. Unless you were sitting in the court and unless you have access to the full details of the relevant law, then you can't say it is ludicrous.
Plenty of people have used legal technicalities to their advantage. Why not BA?
::)
it's a very very very small technicality - even the judge was embarrassed giving the decision - effectively, everyone in a union just lost the right to withdraw labour, you are OK with that then? what other rights would you have given away? :y
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10119196.stm
after balloting some 11000 odd members, they didn't tell absolutely everyone on every text message, email or letter that 11 papers had been spoiled..........hmm, so unless you get the procedure 100% correct (not 99.99999 as they did) then the strike can be called illegal....is that the spirit of the law?
funny thing is, i saw 100's of voters in the general election denied the right to vote, yet thats good enough - something stinks methinks :(
whether you agree or disagree with the strike action, BA and the courts are being completely ludicrous in this :o
Not at all. BA are quite within their rights to explore every legal technicality to avoid losing millions. Unless you were sitting in the court and unless you have access to the full details of the relevant law, then you can't say it is ludicrous.
Plenty of people have used legal technicalities to their advantage. Why not BA?
::)
it's a very very very small technicality - even the judge was embarrassed giving the decision - effectively, everyone in a union just lost the right to withdraw labour, you are OK with that then? what other rights would you have given away? :y
No they have not BJ, what has happened is that the legal powers to stop the ludicrous strikes of earlier decades, when workers were told by their union to strike, have been upheld.
When the union carryout the correct procedure to start a strike, to the letter of the law, then no doubt they will. This is how it should be ;) ;)
However, as for the strike itself, that stands to cripple an already weakened company, what with severe competition, volcanic ash, and the previous strike, it is purely suicidal for the workers themselves if no one else.
All legal means must be used by BA lawyers to fight off / delay for as long as possible this crazy action by Unite. After all who is going to pay for the BA staff who will lose their jobs once BA go to the wall; us, the taxpayer!! >:( >:(
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10119196.stm
after balloting some 11000 odd members, they didn't tell absolutely everyone on every text message, email or letter that 11 papers had been spoiled..........hmm, so unless you get the procedure 100% correct (not 99.99999 as they did) then the strike can be called illegal....is that the spirit of the law?
funny thing is, i saw 100's of voters in the general election denied the right to vote, yet thats good enough - something stinks methinks :(
whether you agree or disagree with the strike action, BA and the courts are being completely ludicrous in this :o
Not at all. BA are quite within their rights to explore every legal technicality to avoid losing millions. Unless you were sitting in the court and unless you have access to the full details of the relevant law, then you can't say it is ludicrous.
Plenty of people have used legal technicalities to their advantage. Why not BA?
::)
it's a very very very small technicality - even the judge was embarrassed giving the decision - effectively, everyone in a union just lost the right to withdraw labour, you are OK with that then? what other rights would you have given away? :y
You know him then, BJ?
Oh, and it's not a question of losing the right to strike, so much as BASSA/Unite not doing their job properly. I also think this was about the March strikes, so the withdrawal of labour has already taken place. I also understand (though I cannot guarantee) that this technicality was exactly the same one that tripped up the RMT recently.
:y
-
I prefer the expression "withdrawal of labour"....rather than "Strike"....which implies that all the people involved are a bunch of instigators and malcontents... :) ;)......which most of the time is 'dangle berries'... :y :y
-
The Unite union is run by political mischief makers. They have an agenda which doesnt include the interest of their members imo.Glad to see they are getting a bit of their own devious medicine.
As Lizzie said, the company is already running at a huge loss,they are the best paid employees in the industry, the ash dust issue could run for years - the company may end up going under, and they will all wish they could put things back to where they were before they went on strike.
-
Unite is the big problem. What that pillock Woodley *STILL* doesn't realise is that the government are not going to renationalise his industries. This companies need to be competitive, or EVERYONE is redundant.
-
Unite is the big problem. What that pillock Woodley *STILL* doesn't realise is that the government are not going to renationalise his industries. This companies need to be competitive, or EVERYONE is redundant.
Agreed. :y
-
i was FORCED to strike in the 70s for an extra 1%, 4 weeks loss of pay to get an extra £2 quid a week.
nobody ever wins yet they will all claim victory in the end.
-
i was FORCED to strike in the 70s for an extra 1%, 4 weeks loss of pay to get an extra £2 quid a week.
nobody ever wins yet they will all claim victory in the end.
You are an example Richie of what I meant, and dare I say one of thousands!
It was at the time the final ruination of whole swathes of British industry due to unions possessing just too much power in the motor industry, the docks, printing industry, steel, and of course mining! >:( >:( >:( >:(
An era to be forgotten, and yet there is Unite determined to go down the old path of self destruction! :'( :'( Quite amazing and unfathomable! >:(
-
Unless you have been forced by the mangement to take to the picket line,you cannot imagine what it is like to see scab workers crossing it and taking advantage of the working conditions that your union has fought for.
Alfie.
-
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the BA strike, I just think a dangerous and undemocratic precedent was set today.....yet another human right consigned to the dustbin :(
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10119196.stm
after balloting some 11000 odd members, they didn't tell absolutely everyone on every text message, email or letter that 11 papers had been spoiled..........hmm, so unless you get the procedure 100% correct (not 99.99999 as they did) then the strike can be called illegal....is that the spirit of the law?
funny thing is, i saw 100's of voters in the general election denied the right to vote, yet thats good enough - something stinks methinks :(
whether you agree or disagree with the strike action, BA and the courts are being completely ludicrous in this :o
Not at all. BA are quite within their rights to explore every legal technicality to avoid losing millions. Unless you were sitting in the court and unless you have access to the full details of the relevant law, then you can't say it is ludicrous.
Plenty of people have used legal technicalities to their advantage. Why not BA?
::)
it's a very very very small technicality - even the judge was embarrassed giving the decision - effectively, everyone in a union just lost the right to withdraw labour, you are OK with that then? what other rights would you have given away? :y
You know him then, BJ?
Oh, and it's not a question of losing the right to strike, so much as BASSA/Unite not doing their job properly. I also think this was about the March strikes, so the withdrawal of labour has already taken place. I also understand (though I cannot guarantee) that this technicality was exactly the same one that tripped up the RMT recently.
:y
he apologised for the ruling and sympathised with the union - i'd say he's not entirely happy, but had no choice :o
-
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the BA strike, I just think a dangerous and undemocratic precedent was set today.....yet another human right consigned to the dustbin :(
That is absolute rubbish, and surely you must see that. Where, pray, in the judge's decision is a human right consigned to the dustbin? There are laws, which are designed to protect both employer and employee. It is incumbent upon all parties to ensure that compliance with the law is 100% watertight. No doubt you'd be singing in the streets if an employer was caught out on a technicality. ::) ::)
-
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the BA strike, I just think a dangerous and undemocratic precedent was set today.....yet another human right consigned to the dustbin :(
That is absolute rubbish, and surely you must see that. Where, pray, in the judge's decision is a human right consigned to the dustbin? There are laws, which are designed to protect both employer and employee. It is incumbent upon all parties to ensure that compliance with the law is 100% watertight. No doubt you'd be singing in the streets if an employer was caught out on a technicality. ::) ::)
but it completely disregards the spirit of the law - its not a black and white decision, the question is did the balloted BA strikers vote to strike or not? and did they - to the best of their ability follow procedures? you cant just throw that intention out on a very minor technicality in my opinion.......we'll see if the appeal courts agrees soon :)
-
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the BA strike, I just think a dangerous and undemocratic precedent was set today.....yet another human right consigned to the dustbin :(
That is absolute rubbish, and surely you must see that. Where, pray, in the judge's decision is a human right consigned to the dustbin? There are laws, which are designed to protect both employer and employee. It is incumbent upon all parties to ensure that compliance with the law is 100% watertight. No doubt you'd be singing in the streets if an employer was caught out on a technicality. ::) ::)
but it completely disregards the spirit of the law - its not a black and white decision, the question is did the balloted BA strikers vote to strike or not? and did they - to the best of their ability follow procedures? you cant just throw that intention out on a very minor technicality in my opinion.......we'll see if the appeal courts agrees soon :)
A lawyer would eat you for breakfast, Banjax. Employment laws are very tightly written. If Unite, with all its money, can't get decent lawyers to monitor their actions, they must be plain slapdash.
Is Tony Woodley for real, or just a pretend tw*t? ;)
-
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the BA strike, I just think a dangerous and undemocratic precedent was set today.....yet another human right consigned to the dustbin :(
That is absolute rubbish, and surely you must see that. Where, pray, in the judge's decision is a human right consigned to the dustbin? There are laws, which are designed to protect both employer and employee. It is incumbent upon all parties to ensure that compliance with the law is 100% watertight. No doubt you'd be singing in the streets if an employer was caught out on a technicality. ::) ::)
but it completely disregards the spirit of the law - its not a black and white decision, the question is did the balloted BA strikers vote to strike or not? and did they - to the best of their ability follow procedures? you cant just throw that intention out on a very minor technicality in my opinion.......we'll see if the appeal courts agrees soon :)
A lawyer would eat you for breakfast, Banjax. Employment laws are very tightly written. If Unite, with all its money, can't get decent lawyers to monitor their actions, they must be plain slapdash.
Is Tony Woodley for real, or just a pretend tw*t? ;)
on the contrary, lawyers exploit gray areas, bend and twist meaning and intention to their clients advantage, if it was as clean and clear as you suggest - lawyers wouldn't exist - it'd be one guy reading the rule book and deciding ::)
-
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the BA strike, I just think a dangerous and undemocratic precedent was set today.....yet another human right consigned to the dustbin :(
I'm inclined to agree BJ, the use of the law by the Establishment, business groups and others with an agenda for self promotion and protection forms a dangerous precident and should be closely monitored.
Don't ask anyone over in Carter-Ruck however ::) ::) :y
-
I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the BA strike, I just think a dangerous and undemocratic precedent was set today.....yet another human right consigned to the dustbin :(
I'm inclined to agree BJ, the use of the law by the Establishment, business groups and others with an agenda for self promotion and protection forms a dangerous precident and should be closely monitored.
Don't ask anyone over in Carter-Ruck however ::) ::) :y
thats not how Private Eye spells their name ;D ;D