Airline passenger news and views
07 February 2012 | Sign In
BA's High Court injunction - rights and wrongs
A dinner party discussion
|
Catriona Wells Tuesday 18 May 2010 |
To say that last evening’s dinner part was dominated by discussion of the BA-Unite High Court ruling may be a bit of an exaggeration but it certainly added a zest to the gathering.
With my barrister fiancé Marcus adopting his slightly right of Genghis Khanhis persona and friend Jennifer with her left-of-centre heart on sleeve, it was always going to be difficult to find common ground. No surprises there, but it was an interesting illustration of the depth of divisions in this dispute.
Unite have called the High Court decision to declare the strike illegal an “affront to democracy”. Jennifer went further - interfering with the legitimate rights of the workers; allowing an unelected judge to overturn the votes of thousands; supporting an overbearing employer; and the damning the hard won rights of the workers.
Some of these arguments were actually quite compelling. I admit to being bored with the strike and I just want to get on with my life. But I have to admit to some concerns that industrial disputes are being decided in the courts.
Marcus’ core argument (his more extreme views presumably intended only to wind up Jennifer), was that the right to strike carried certain obligations. The BA strike would cause severe collateral damage and, if the parties are to be permitted to cause such damage, then that right has to clearly defined within the law. Parliament has set down clear criteria and it is for the Union to abide by them.
It is hard to fully agree with either side. It was so much clearer when coal miners were struggling against starvation in Durham or when jobs were evaporating in Wales leaving whole communities on the bread line. Strikes about travel perks seem so petty in comparison, particularly when so many of us share the resulting disruption.
I have to add here that my inconvenience at not being able to fly when I want to is trivial compared with the host of small companies that face being irreparably damaged by the strikes. So, I see both sides but I do recognise the need for rules and, if Unite were stupid or arrogant enough not to follow the rules, then they have to face the consequences and the wrath of their members. Sadly, I suspect that the members will continue to blame the judge rather than the union.
| Comments | Post a comment |
I would hate to think that every strike would need to be settled by the courts. That would make things much harder for the employees and unions in 'small' disputes. But, in this case where there is a big company and a big union, they are doing too much damage and I think it is right that courts should restrain them. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Grant Condon, Basingstoke 22 May 2010, 12:35PM | |
This is a big and damaging strike. The union wields a great deal of power and have the ability (which they are showing) to mess up lives for a lot of people. Yes, with power comes responsibility and I think it is right for the courts to make the unions stick by the letter of the law. My concern is that they might be seen as doing more damage than good. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Peter King, Salisbury 26 May 2010, 12:45PM | |
The court or someone ought to be allowed to stop a strike on the basis that it does more damage than the good that it is trying to do. I am sorry for the cabin crew if they are losing their jobs but that is happening to lots of people. If they are striking for better redundancy etc then i would support them as long as it is fair. But doing it and screwing up holidays for ordinary working people and even for hard-pressed business is just not right. | |
| Rating (0) | |
|
Mrs Kendal, Wolverhampton 1 June 2010, 12:22PM | |
This strike is only going to get worse. Unite cannot be seen to give in nor can the airline. There is no room for either of them to negotiate. They (and we) need a gown-up to tell them what is going to happen. | |
| Rating (0) | |
