Teamsters and Unite up their game?
Today, the Teamsters and Unite are to meet to discuss the forthcoming Unite strike against British Airways. Bearing in mind the rhetoric BA management have been using about how terrible the union is, how unjustified the strike is and how much BA is one of Britain’s “iconic” brands, I find it hard to hide my own glee.
Before Christmas, when the strike was a limited action, Willie Walsh was already mouthing off about how “BA customers” didn’t want “70′s style trade union militancy”; I have to say there’s a little schadenfreude at work when as a result of this relentless PR campaign, Unite actually decide to act a little militant for a change.
Internationalising labour disputes is precisely what is needed, when it comes to our globalised economy. I admit, I’ll be surprised if the Teamsters actually get involved, but their willingness to talk is a kick in the groin to BA after yesterday’s smug assurances that 60% of flights would continue regardless of a strike.
According to some academic on Radio 4′s Today Programme this morning, the initiative comes from the Teamsters, who have been reaching out to build relationships with unions from other countries. As he said, the time to get allies is not when you need help, but when they do – and this is a positive change of attitude. If true, it’s also significant that the move comes from American workers; America is still the centre of the global economy.
It is the first step towards rebuilding the union armoury. The next step is to reinstitute secondary strikes; if baggage handlers can defend the terms and conditions of cabin crew, or of pilots, or of air traffic control crew, it will be much harder to ignore organised labour. There’s also the question of links between the same employment group within different companies, so employers can’t temporarily outsource their business to break a union.
This is what British Airways have already admitted that they intended to do, and in order to be taken seriously, unions must show the ability to stop them, even if the ability is held back for tactical reasons.
Unsurprisingly, shadow Transport secretary Theresa Villiers has continued the Tory offensive against Unite:
“The news that Unite are pulling out all the stops to frustrate the efforts BA is making to keep their passengers flying and save their holidays will be greeted with anger and frustration by all the unfortunate victims of this irresponsible strike.
“Unite should not be striking at all and trying to spread the dispute to other countries is even more irresponsible.”
“Labour’s union paymasters at Unite seem hell-bent on causing maximum disruption for passengers and maximum damage to BA.”
I’m not unconcerned about the fact that customers will lose out, through a strike. But this is always the case, whether or not a strike is considered justified. It is an unfortunate side effect of the continuing opposition between two elements of the service industry: worker and boss.
Villiers hammers Unite for this, but not BA bosses. Labour hammers Unite for it too, and not BA bosses – thus Lord Adonis and Gordon Brown.
So with all this talk of Unite funding the Labour Party, and “half the cabinet” and what has it purchased?
“It is an unfortunate side effect of the continuing opposition between two elements of the service industry: worker and boss.”
I do think the left need to be able to respond to objections like this (http://timworstall.com/2010/03/16/seumas-seumas/): “[...] the purpose of all production is consumption, not the well being of the producer. If the consumer ain’t willing to pay for a certain pattern of production then there is no justification at all for insisting that that pattern remain.”
In terms of the purpose is production is the benefits of the producer or consumption it is obviously both.
If people are willing to fly BA at a given price then the debate is the share of the cost going to various staff intrests Pilots, Cabin crew, Ground Crew etc v how much to shareholder dividends.
If people are not willing to fly at a premium price and they all want to go Easy Jet or Ryan Air then then there is no need for a premium airline, and either they adapt or they die and everyone loses their job but the difference here is the Cabin Crew claim is they are willing to discuss a fair share of scrafice but not make it all.
Well, yes, clearly there’s a lot more to the debate than this, and the only outcome I’m interested in is one that ensures BA’s health and prevents it becoming dysfunctional, but I think that if we lose sight of the fact that BA ultimately exists – and its employees’ skills exist – to provide a service that suits the public, we may end up in a situation where BA is on the brink of collapse. Attitudes on the left then tend to be that the company *ought* to exist – it deserves to, it would be a shame if it didn’t – thus sentimentalising production in itself, rather than trying to redeploy resources as painlessly as possible to create a new, viable business.
Oh dear. Unite have got themsleves into a proper pickle on this one. The rival Amicus and BASSA factions couldn’t agree between temselves on how to handle the BA management proposals, so BA management went ahead unilaterally. This inflamed the union leadership so they first sought an injunction to prevent BA from carrying out the trimming of cabin crew manning levels for LHR flight. The injunction failed. So Unite balloted for a strike. They got the majority they were seeking, but through their own incompetence in conducting the ballot BA was able to get the vote nullified in court. BASSA union leaders pressed ahead with court action on the manning levels claiming that it was counter to individual’s contracts. The court threw out the case. In the interim Unite started a second ballot, assuring members that the court action would be successful. The verdict came in three days before the ballot closed. Armed with a new mandate for strike action the union leadership took their time and entered into negotiations. At one point it looked like a strike could be avoided. BA had tabled a revised offer that was conditional on strike dates not being set. Unite appeared to wish to discuss this further but within 24 hours had announced strike dates and said that they would not be recommending the BA offer to members. So BA withdrew it. Apart from anything else, it was contingent in Unite not setting strike dates and as such was now null and void. The BA contingency plans then swung into action.
At this point Unite realised that BA were going to be able to run a viable operation and that there was a real risk that the rank and file would feel that a walk out was not worth the loss of pay and privileges. After all, £30 a day strike pay is less than half what they would normally earn. So the union leadership set about trying to discredit the BA plans by scaremongering tactics, suggesting that the volunteer army would not have the experience to handle any emergencies that might arise. They questioned whether these volunteers had been through all the requisite security checks. All the while the number of cabin crew who have stated that they are prepared to work normally has steadily grown. By Wednesday BA were able to announce that they intended to run a 65% operation. Bit of a slap in the face for Unite that. You call a strike. You get two thirds of members supportingit, yet the company is able to run a two thirds operation. So Unite insist that BA retables the offer that was rejected the previous week. Not only that, it wants BA to drop proceedings against 38 cabin crew, a number of whom are TU reps, for bullying and harassment – disclipinary proceedings that can result in summary dismissal.
Wrong move. BA has now incurred additional cost as it has brought in additional aircraft. The savings needed have just been increased by at least 30%, so instead of having to find £60m, Unite need to come up with a plan to pare some £80-90m off crew costs or accept whatever BA puts forward.
Ah so maybe getting in a bit of extra muscle from overseas will help. But it’s a risky business. Secondary picketing is outlawed in the US. The Teamsters may offer support, but if they boycott BA flights they commit a criminal offence under the Taft Hartley Act. They also leave themselves open to being sued for damages. So the support may be in word only with maybe a bit of cash attached.
The bottom line remains the same. Regardless of how many staff now report for work, Unite are saddled with needing to come up with additional savings or accepting the BA management proposals. There’s a further twist. There are around 15,000 Unite members in BA who are not cabin crew. If the savings don’t come from crew, they will have to come from the rest of the staff. So Unite are in effect supporting one set of members in order to shaft another lot. Orwell was spot on about some being more equal than others.
The worst case scenario is that Unite’s actions cause BA to meltdown, throwing 40,000 people out of work and jeapordising the pensions of over 100,000. In the wider scheme of things I wonder if they believe the principle is worth it ?