Airline passenger news and views

I have been a supportive member of a trade union for forty years. There were times in the Seventies when I felt a bit embarrassed about this, thanks to some obdurate union leaders and I'm getting a sense of deja vu. One thing I learnt a long time ago is that there are two sides to any argument; the whole point of ACAS is to provide mediation, so why isn't it happening?
Mervyn Jackson

ACAS is hopeless - it has no teeth. For a mediator to be effective it either needs the two parties to want to find a solution or it needs teeth to force them to find a solution.
Here there is no compelling desire from either party to agree. They are so entrenched that they both want to win and be seen to win. So, the necessary option is to give ACAS teeth - a daily fine of £10,000 rising to £100,000 for each day that they continue to argue might help.

I went to a mediator over a legal case (as an alternative to going to court). The mediator was very, very good. She defused the anger and made it seem necessary to reach a settlement. I have to admit that I went in wanting to embarrass and cause the other side as much misery as they had caused me - I wanted revenge I suppose.
Somehow the mediator changed it so that it became what would make me happy within 30 minutes. I know that sounds crazy but it worked. She sort of said that she was (perhaps we were) going to make a decision in 30 minutes and please write down what we wanted. I think both sides walked away a bit stunned that it was so simple.
I can honestly say that without that process we could have gone on arguing forever. People ask me if I could I have got more and I honestly don't know. What the mediator did was to make it seem right and necessary to get a result.

Mervyn Jackson is right to a point in saying that there are two sides to each argument and that unions have their place in representing employees to defend / promote their case against that of the employer. The key word here is 'representing'.
In discussions, the representatives of the two sides should seek to get their case across and to gain levels of agreement, often horse-trading to achieve compromises, but always acting in the interests of those that they represent.
Sadly, sometimes the so-called representatives have an agenda of their own and pursue points or take obdurate stances that are not in the best interests of their 'client'.
I have seen this happen in the legal profession and I see it happening here. No amount of mediation can guarantee a proper outcome for the parties in the BA v Unite case. I feel very sorry for the BA employees (striking and non-striking) - their interests are certainly not being properly represented

BA are bastards and ACAS on simply biased in favour of the employer - as usual. We are getting screwed and have lost our benefits and are going to be made to work more for the same money to keep this shambles of an airline going. They blame us but it is the managers that are to blame for not getting enough customers to pay the wages.

It seems to me that the strikers have lost this battle and should recognise it. I am not saying who is right or wrong, simply that BA have been able to get a replacement crew structure together and will now be able to operate despite the strikers.
I am sorry for the cabin crew because I think they have been misled by their union. Whilst I probably accept that BA are not without blame, it is a fact that the airline industry is very competitive and BA had to curb its high levels of costs.
My father used to tell me that no-one wins in a strike and I think he was right.

Any human rights lawyer will tell you that the right to strike is protected internationally and the UK Government ought to get its procedures in place to protect these rights. We cannot permit a company like BA to walk all over its workers and penalise them by removing their travel benefits.