Talks between BA and Unite aimed at averting further strikes ended without a deal being reached and with no date set for fresh discussions, according to ACAS
ACAS said: "BA and Unite met today under the auspices of conciliation service Acas, with the assistance of the Trades Union Congress. Talks were adjourned without the parties reaching an agreement and Acas will be in contact with both parties to arrange future talks."
Derek Simpson said: "Willie Walsh is blocking a deal to end the strike. He has refused to reinstate travel concessions in full despite Unite making it clear that the union would suspend the strike if he did so.
"It would cost BA nothing to reinstate these travel concessions yet Willie Walsh is prepared to see the strike continue, putting the travel plans of thousands of passengers at risk and costing BA over GBP100 million over the course of this dispute.
"Unite has made it absolutely clear that we remain available at anytime , day or night, to meet again with the company."
Discussions took place at a secret location to avoid a repeat of last weekend's events, when Socialist Workers Party members stormed the ACAS offices, forcing talks to end.
British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association, or BASSA, a branch of Unite said it would like ACAS to sit in on all disciplinary talks associated with the strike.
BA said 34 individuals have been investigated, mainly for bullying and intimidation, of which five have been asked to have conversations with their line managers when they return to work, 15 have had written warnings but have returned to work, while eight have been dismissed subject to appeal for serious cases of misconduct.
With no plans for further talks, the next round of strikes to hit BA will be from May 30 to June 3 and then from June 5 to June 9 inclusive.
Friday, May 28, 2010
ECHR Decisions Support Right To Strike and Collective Bargaining
Recent decisions by the European court of human rights may force the British government to protect strikers' rights
by Keith Ewing
Press reports suggest that a major sticking point to a settlement in the BA cabin crew dispute continues to be the company's refusal to restore staff travel perks. If true, this could (a) reveal an extraordinary lapse on the part of the company and (b) expose an extraordinary oversight on the part of the government in relation to its legal obligations.
Rewind to 12 November 2008. On that day the European court of human rights (ECHR) looked again at article 11 of the European convention on human rights. This is the provision that guarantees to workers throughout the Council of Europe the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests. In a breathtaking piece of judicial activism, in Demir v Turkey the court held unanimously that article 11 has to be read widely and to include the right to collective bargaining.
Such a ruling does not, of course, directly affect the BA dispute; the cabin crew already have the right to bargain collectively, which is not in issue (despite the company's unilateral revocation of the travel benefits). Since Demir however, the court has applied the reasoning of that decision to industrial action, and in a number of complaints from Russia and Turkey has held that various restrictions on the right to strike are also a breach of article 11.
So in a case last year a number of Kaliningrad dockers successfully complained that they had been victimised for taking part in a lawful strike. The discrimination took the form of assigning less work to them, leading in turn to their discriminatory selection for redundancy. In several other cases from Turkey (also last year), the court upheld complaints where striking workers were subjected to punitive measures of various kinds, a complaint being upheld by the court in one case where a public servant was the subject of a disciplinary warning.
Don't be fooled by the fact that these are cases involving Turkey and Russia. This is case law of one of the world's most important courts that has a direct bearing on all 47 countries of the Council of Europe, affecting some 800 million people. The European court of human rights in these cases is establishing principles of general application that apply beyond the countries that were the source of the complaints. These principles appear to include the right to strike and the right to be protected when going on strike.
It is true that the court of appeal in England has refused to engage with this jurisprudence and that the rights in question may not yet be readily enforceable in the English courts. But unless these fast-moving developments are arrested, it may be possible for British – as well as Russian and Turkish – workers to complain to the Strasbourg court that their human rights have been violated. Any such complaint would be brought against the government, not the employer, for it is the legal responsibility of the government to ensure that treaty obligations are respected.
If this is correct, BA's refusal to reinstate travel benefits could have two important consequences. First, and most obviously, the BA cabin crew may be able to seek compensation in Strasbourg for the losses they have suffered as a result of the company's conduct. This means that the taxpayer would end up having to pay for the company's actions. But second, it means that British law may have to be changed in line with the emerging body of case law to enable British workers to enforce their human rights in the British courts.
In the case of the Russian dockers, the European court of human rights said clearly that it was "crucially important" that "individuals affected by discriminatory treatment should be provided with an opportunity to challenge it and to have the right to take legal action to obtain damages and other relief". As a result, continued the court, governments "are required under the [European convention on human rights] to set up a judicial system [in their own countries] that would ensure real and effective protection against anti-union discrimination".
Under British law, workers have protection only from dismissal (for 12 weeks) when they take part in lawful industrial action. They have no statutory protection against punitive and vindictive action short of dismissal, such as the cutting of benefits that are claimed to be noncontractual. It would be a sweet irony indeed if one consequence of this bitter dispute was a decision of the European court of human rights that obliged Britain's new government to legislate to protect the human rights of strikers, in line with the stunning recent jurisprudence of the Strasbourg judges.
by Keith Ewing
Press reports suggest that a major sticking point to a settlement in the BA cabin crew dispute continues to be the company's refusal to restore staff travel perks. If true, this could (a) reveal an extraordinary lapse on the part of the company and (b) expose an extraordinary oversight on the part of the government in relation to its legal obligations.
Rewind to 12 November 2008. On that day the European court of human rights (ECHR) looked again at article 11 of the European convention on human rights. This is the provision that guarantees to workers throughout the Council of Europe the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests. In a breathtaking piece of judicial activism, in Demir v Turkey the court held unanimously that article 11 has to be read widely and to include the right to collective bargaining.
Such a ruling does not, of course, directly affect the BA dispute; the cabin crew already have the right to bargain collectively, which is not in issue (despite the company's unilateral revocation of the travel benefits). Since Demir however, the court has applied the reasoning of that decision to industrial action, and in a number of complaints from Russia and Turkey has held that various restrictions on the right to strike are also a breach of article 11.
So in a case last year a number of Kaliningrad dockers successfully complained that they had been victimised for taking part in a lawful strike. The discrimination took the form of assigning less work to them, leading in turn to their discriminatory selection for redundancy. In several other cases from Turkey (also last year), the court upheld complaints where striking workers were subjected to punitive measures of various kinds, a complaint being upheld by the court in one case where a public servant was the subject of a disciplinary warning.
Don't be fooled by the fact that these are cases involving Turkey and Russia. This is case law of one of the world's most important courts that has a direct bearing on all 47 countries of the Council of Europe, affecting some 800 million people. The European court of human rights in these cases is establishing principles of general application that apply beyond the countries that were the source of the complaints. These principles appear to include the right to strike and the right to be protected when going on strike.
It is true that the court of appeal in England has refused to engage with this jurisprudence and that the rights in question may not yet be readily enforceable in the English courts. But unless these fast-moving developments are arrested, it may be possible for British – as well as Russian and Turkish – workers to complain to the Strasbourg court that their human rights have been violated. Any such complaint would be brought against the government, not the employer, for it is the legal responsibility of the government to ensure that treaty obligations are respected.
If this is correct, BA's refusal to reinstate travel benefits could have two important consequences. First, and most obviously, the BA cabin crew may be able to seek compensation in Strasbourg for the losses they have suffered as a result of the company's conduct. This means that the taxpayer would end up having to pay for the company's actions. But second, it means that British law may have to be changed in line with the emerging body of case law to enable British workers to enforce their human rights in the British courts.
In the case of the Russian dockers, the European court of human rights said clearly that it was "crucially important" that "individuals affected by discriminatory treatment should be provided with an opportunity to challenge it and to have the right to take legal action to obtain damages and other relief". As a result, continued the court, governments "are required under the [European convention on human rights] to set up a judicial system [in their own countries] that would ensure real and effective protection against anti-union discrimination".
Under British law, workers have protection only from dismissal (for 12 weeks) when they take part in lawful industrial action. They have no statutory protection against punitive and vindictive action short of dismissal, such as the cutting of benefits that are claimed to be noncontractual. It would be a sweet irony indeed if one consequence of this bitter dispute was a decision of the European court of human rights that obliged Britain's new government to legislate to protect the human rights of strikers, in line with the stunning recent jurisprudence of the Strasbourg judges.
Good Article On Unite's Campaigns In The Food Industry
From the Guardian.....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/27/chicken-factories-labour-rights-movement
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/27/chicken-factories-labour-rights-movement
Unite and UNI Global Union target bank and shareholders at HSBC AGM
Trade unions have called on HSBC to set a global standard for working conditions at its AGM, demanding "bloated executive bonuses" do not come at the expense of employee rights.
At the meeting in London, HSBC chairman Stephen Green is expected to quash speculation that he is stepping down this year. The Financial Times reported this week that Green, 61, has told friends he plans to stay in the post for another year or two to steer the bank through the continued financial turmoil, and will tell shareholders that there is no timetable for his departure.
Unite and the UNI Global Union, which represents 900 unions around the world, argue Britain's biggest bank needs a global agreement to protect workers' rights to unionise.
Unite activists leafleted shareholders and carrying placards calling on HSBC to "Give workers equal rights". It claimed that in Colombia, HSBC fired workers after they joined the union.
Cath Speight, Unite national officer, said: "Our unions have come together to urge the shareholders of HSBC to honour their corporate social responsibilities to meet the highest standards of governance and dignity and respect for all HSBC workers in whatever part of the world they work.
"Throughout the world, workers are raising their concerns but are not being heard. A global agreement will mean workers have the right to belong to a trade union, to organise, and to be treated with fairness and respect. UNI and HSBC unions around the world also want a global agreement to ensure bloated executive bonuses don't come at the expense of workers' rights."
The union criticised "huge" pay packets that top HSBC executives are getting while "ordinary workers pay the price for the economic downturn". To compensate for cuts in staff, employees across the globe are doing more work for less pay, staying late and coming in on weekends with little or no overtime compensation, it added.
HSBC executives face a severe grilling from shareholders over pay at today's meeting. The bank will also face questions about a relocation package for chief executive Michael Geoghegan, who has moved to Hong Kong from London.
The unions are also concerned about aggressive sales targets for HSBC staff around the world.
"We have been troubled by the reports that we have heard from workers in most of HSBC's biggest markets of employees being forced to aggressively sell products and services to customers, in many cases despite the customers' needs not because of them," said head of UNI finance Oliver Roethig. "With a global agreement, the company will join us in a partnership to work on a transnational basis to modify this risky practice – for the good of HSBC, its investors and the workers.
At the meeting in London, HSBC chairman Stephen Green is expected to quash speculation that he is stepping down this year. The Financial Times reported this week that Green, 61, has told friends he plans to stay in the post for another year or two to steer the bank through the continued financial turmoil, and will tell shareholders that there is no timetable for his departure.
Unite and the UNI Global Union, which represents 900 unions around the world, argue Britain's biggest bank needs a global agreement to protect workers' rights to unionise.
Unite activists leafleted shareholders and carrying placards calling on HSBC to "Give workers equal rights". It claimed that in Colombia, HSBC fired workers after they joined the union.
Cath Speight, Unite national officer, said: "Our unions have come together to urge the shareholders of HSBC to honour their corporate social responsibilities to meet the highest standards of governance and dignity and respect for all HSBC workers in whatever part of the world they work.
"Throughout the world, workers are raising their concerns but are not being heard. A global agreement will mean workers have the right to belong to a trade union, to organise, and to be treated with fairness and respect. UNI and HSBC unions around the world also want a global agreement to ensure bloated executive bonuses don't come at the expense of workers' rights."
The union criticised "huge" pay packets that top HSBC executives are getting while "ordinary workers pay the price for the economic downturn". To compensate for cuts in staff, employees across the globe are doing more work for less pay, staying late and coming in on weekends with little or no overtime compensation, it added.
HSBC executives face a severe grilling from shareholders over pay at today's meeting. The bank will also face questions about a relocation package for chief executive Michael Geoghegan, who has moved to Hong Kong from London.
The unions are also concerned about aggressive sales targets for HSBC staff around the world.
"We have been troubled by the reports that we have heard from workers in most of HSBC's biggest markets of employees being forced to aggressively sell products and services to customers, in many cases despite the customers' needs not because of them," said head of UNI finance Oliver Roethig. "With a global agreement, the company will join us in a partnership to work on a transnational basis to modify this risky practice – for the good of HSBC, its investors and the workers.
New Les4GS North West Supporters Site
Check out the new Les4GS Website for the North West Region
http://www.les4gsnw.co.uk/Les_Bayliss/welcome.html
http://www.les4gsnw.co.uk/Les_Bayliss/welcome.html
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Unite stopped a Tory majority government
From the Guardian......
In the many inquests into the Labour defeat, the one inside Unite will be specially worthwhile, more than £2m worthwile, roughly the amount the union spent to fund the Labour campaign.
Unite will be asking itself whether it got value for money and whether all its own unprecedented hard work, including for the the first time, the serious use of telephone canvassing of its members, had any impact.
This weekend the Unite political committee is looking at Unite's summary of the election, and whether the union's activism had any impact. The report admits "we would have liked to have said it was Unite wot won it, but we did not". But it does claim Unite did play a role in preventing a wipe-out, and may even have stopped the Tories winning an overall majority.
Unite identified 84 key seats on the basis of its membership concentrations, and the size of the majority being defended. This usually, though not exclusively, meant the Unite membership in the key seats exceeded the majority being defended, an opinion the Labour interim leader Harriet Harman incidentally endorsed at a private meeting with union leaders this week.
The results in these 84 seats were Conservative 56, Labour 25, Liberal Democrat 2, and Green 1.
The Unite campaign in the key seats, the report says "was based on the successful member-to-member approach pioneered by our sister union the United Steelworkers. In essence, it meant we contacted all our members in the seats we identified as key for Unite and the Labour Party to find out their voting history and intentions and key issues to build a dialogue with them ahead of the General Election.
"The means of communication were direct mails, emails and telephone calls through the virtual phone bank set up on the dedicated election website www.Unite4Labour.org
"The key seats were identified principally on the basis of comparing the parliamentary majorities being defended by Labour with the Unite membership in each seat."
The report claims " The final figure for strong Labour support amongst Unite members in those seats was 60 per cent. We know this figure to be accurate as it is based on the returns from our survey forms and the phone bank information. In the 25 Unite key seats held by Labour the average majority on May 6 was 2,870 compared to 2,974 in 2005. This represents a fall of just over 3 % which compares well with the national swing against Labour. Labour's victory in these seats effectively deprived the Tories of an overall majority.
"Of the 56 seats gained by the Tories the Liberal Democrat vote proved to be a significant barrier to Labour winning with that party's vote exceeding the Tory majority over Labour. It was only in three seats, where the Tory majority was less than the Liberal Democrat vote.
"Looking more closely at the top 10 key seats the average majority for Labour was 725 compared to an average of 2,903 in 2005. The average Unite membership in those seats was 2,441. Assuming 60 per cent of them voted Labour the 1,464 resulting average Labour vote per seat secured the majority for Labour by a factor of 2:1."
All this is self-evidently a pretty rough and not entirely ready analysis, but for those that say unions are now an organisational and political negative for Labour, these figures represent a challenge.
The scale of the unon's activity is also impressive. The union claims it sent over 1.9m letters from the union nationally and 2.5m emails. Over 51,800 phone calls were made through the Unite phone bank operation which is an average of over 1,100 calls per key seat.
"In the top 10 key seats over 219,000 direct mails were sent out and over 307,000 emails. In the most marginal seat of Hampstead and Kilburn, held by Labour with a majority of 42, over 18,000 direct mails were sent out, 19,000 emails and a contact rate of nearly 50 per cent was achieved on the phone bank to the nearly 1300 Unite members in the seat". Glenda Jackson, let Unite take a bow.
In Islington South 1,853 calls were made to Unite members and 1,585 in Poplar. Both seats saw increased Labour majorities.
In Birmingham Edgbaston, the seat synonymous with the Labour victory in 1997, and thereafter regarded as crucial to Labour's fortunes, Unite sent out 8 direct mails and 13 emails from October last year representing some 40,000 pieces of communication in total.
All this, in turn, may influence the way the union approaches future elections, including the Labour leadership contest.
In the past, union executives have tended to pronounce from on high that they support one candidate or another, before unions stuff a recommendation to this effect along with Labour's ballot paper, a recommendation that is then largely ignored.
But the Labour general secretary Ray Collins is even challenging the right of union leaderships to do this in the current leadership ballot. This is going down like a lead balloon with the unions, but if Unite high-ups do decide to back someone in the leadership election - and it then puts its phone bank resources behind that candidate - Unite could have some serious influence in the election.
In the many inquests into the Labour defeat, the one inside Unite will be specially worthwhile, more than £2m worthwile, roughly the amount the union spent to fund the Labour campaign.
Unite will be asking itself whether it got value for money and whether all its own unprecedented hard work, including for the the first time, the serious use of telephone canvassing of its members, had any impact.
This weekend the Unite political committee is looking at Unite's summary of the election, and whether the union's activism had any impact. The report admits "we would have liked to have said it was Unite wot won it, but we did not". But it does claim Unite did play a role in preventing a wipe-out, and may even have stopped the Tories winning an overall majority.
Unite identified 84 key seats on the basis of its membership concentrations, and the size of the majority being defended. This usually, though not exclusively, meant the Unite membership in the key seats exceeded the majority being defended, an opinion the Labour interim leader Harriet Harman incidentally endorsed at a private meeting with union leaders this week.
The results in these 84 seats were Conservative 56, Labour 25, Liberal Democrat 2, and Green 1.
The Unite campaign in the key seats, the report says "was based on the successful member-to-member approach pioneered by our sister union the United Steelworkers. In essence, it meant we contacted all our members in the seats we identified as key for Unite and the Labour Party to find out their voting history and intentions and key issues to build a dialogue with them ahead of the General Election.
"The means of communication were direct mails, emails and telephone calls through the virtual phone bank set up on the dedicated election website www.Unite4Labour.org
"The key seats were identified principally on the basis of comparing the parliamentary majorities being defended by Labour with the Unite membership in each seat."
The report claims " The final figure for strong Labour support amongst Unite members in those seats was 60 per cent. We know this figure to be accurate as it is based on the returns from our survey forms and the phone bank information. In the 25 Unite key seats held by Labour the average majority on May 6 was 2,870 compared to 2,974 in 2005. This represents a fall of just over 3 % which compares well with the national swing against Labour. Labour's victory in these seats effectively deprived the Tories of an overall majority.
"Of the 56 seats gained by the Tories the Liberal Democrat vote proved to be a significant barrier to Labour winning with that party's vote exceeding the Tory majority over Labour. It was only in three seats, where the Tory majority was less than the Liberal Democrat vote.
"Looking more closely at the top 10 key seats the average majority for Labour was 725 compared to an average of 2,903 in 2005. The average Unite membership in those seats was 2,441. Assuming 60 per cent of them voted Labour the 1,464 resulting average Labour vote per seat secured the majority for Labour by a factor of 2:1."
All this is self-evidently a pretty rough and not entirely ready analysis, but for those that say unions are now an organisational and political negative for Labour, these figures represent a challenge.
The scale of the unon's activity is also impressive. The union claims it sent over 1.9m letters from the union nationally and 2.5m emails. Over 51,800 phone calls were made through the Unite phone bank operation which is an average of over 1,100 calls per key seat.
"In the top 10 key seats over 219,000 direct mails were sent out and over 307,000 emails. In the most marginal seat of Hampstead and Kilburn, held by Labour with a majority of 42, over 18,000 direct mails were sent out, 19,000 emails and a contact rate of nearly 50 per cent was achieved on the phone bank to the nearly 1300 Unite members in the seat". Glenda Jackson, let Unite take a bow.
In Islington South 1,853 calls were made to Unite members and 1,585 in Poplar. Both seats saw increased Labour majorities.
In Birmingham Edgbaston, the seat synonymous with the Labour victory in 1997, and thereafter regarded as crucial to Labour's fortunes, Unite sent out 8 direct mails and 13 emails from October last year representing some 40,000 pieces of communication in total.
All this, in turn, may influence the way the union approaches future elections, including the Labour leadership contest.
In the past, union executives have tended to pronounce from on high that they support one candidate or another, before unions stuff a recommendation to this effect along with Labour's ballot paper, a recommendation that is then largely ignored.
But the Labour general secretary Ray Collins is even challenging the right of union leaderships to do this in the current leadership ballot. This is going down like a lead balloon with the unions, but if Unite high-ups do decide to back someone in the leadership election - and it then puts its phone bank resources behind that candidate - Unite could have some serious influence in the election.
Friday, May 21, 2010
WORKERS UNITING GROUP - GS ELECTION RALLY
Delegates to the Unite Policy Confrence are invited to the Workers Uniting Group Unite General Secretary Election Rally.
Time & Date: 2nd June 2010, 7.00pm till late
Venue: Alexandra Suite, Midland Hotel, Manchester
Speakers: Unite AGS and Workers Uniting Group Candidate Les Bayliss and Derek Simpson
Plus Music and Dancing
Time & Date: 2nd June 2010, 7.00pm till late
Venue: Alexandra Suite, Midland Hotel, Manchester
Speakers: Unite AGS and Workers Uniting Group Candidate Les Bayliss and Derek Simpson
Plus Music and Dancing
Thursday, May 20, 2010
EAST MIDLAND REGION WORKERS UNITING GROUP MEETING
Workers Uniting Group candidate for Unite General Secretary Les Bayliss will be attending the next meeting of Workers Uniting Group Supporters in the East Midlands at:
BRUSH SPORTS AND SOCIAL CLUB
Concert Room
18 Fennel Street
Loughborough
Leics LE11 1UQ
Wednesday 16th June at 7.00pm
The meeting will be open to all Unite members who share the values of the Workers Uniting Group within the East Midlands Region.
Members are welcome to attend and take part in the meeting with Les Bayliss.
The Workers Uniting Group is the broad based left-progressive organisation within Unite the Union www.workersunitinggroup.com
BRUSH SPORTS AND SOCIAL CLUB
Concert Room
18 Fennel Street
Loughborough
Leics LE11 1UQ
Wednesday 16th June at 7.00pm
The meeting will be open to all Unite members who share the values of the Workers Uniting Group within the East Midlands Region.
Members are welcome to attend and take part in the meeting with Les Bayliss.
The Workers Uniting Group is the broad based left-progressive organisation within Unite the Union www.workersunitinggroup.com
Labour extends leadership race deadline
The Labour Party has extended its deadline for leadership nominations, amid concerns the timescale set previously was too tight.
Contenders now have until 9 June, rather than 27 May, to gain the required backing of 33 MPs.
The result of the contest is set to be announced on 25 September.
Those who have announced they are standing so far are Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, John McDonnell and David and Ed Miliband.
Gordon Brown resigned as Labour leader last week, with deputy Harriet Harman standing in until his permanent replacement is chosen.
Mr McDonnell, Ms Abbott and Ed Miliband have all called for the deadline for nominations to be extended, arguing that this will give all contenders a fair chance of securing enough support to go to a vote by the wider party membership.
The ballot will take between 16 August and 22 September, with the result being announced on the first day of the party's conference in Manchester.
Hustings will take place in June and July, with some backbench MPs pressing for the candidates to square up in a TV debate.
Contenders now have until 9 June, rather than 27 May, to gain the required backing of 33 MPs.
The result of the contest is set to be announced on 25 September.
Those who have announced they are standing so far are Diane Abbott, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, John McDonnell and David and Ed Miliband.
Gordon Brown resigned as Labour leader last week, with deputy Harriet Harman standing in until his permanent replacement is chosen.
Mr McDonnell, Ms Abbott and Ed Miliband have all called for the deadline for nominations to be extended, arguing that this will give all contenders a fair chance of securing enough support to go to a vote by the wider party membership.
The ballot will take between 16 August and 22 September, with the result being announced on the first day of the party's conference in Manchester.
Hustings will take place in June and July, with some backbench MPs pressing for the candidates to square up in a TV debate.
BA Court Ruling - Strike Back On!
Unite has sucessfully appealed a ruling by the High Court which had granted the airline an injunction blocking the back to back strikes.
Announcing the decision, Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, criticised the airline for resorting to the courts rather than trying to settle the dispute amicably.
Such actions were likely to "inflame rather than mollify" the tensions between the sides, he said.
The appeal has paved the way for the first of three five-day stoppages to take place at Heathrow from Monday.
There will be a one day pause before the second five-day walk out, which starts on Sunday week and finishes the following Thursday. A third strike is planned for June 5-9.
Tony Woodley, Unite's joint general secretary, warned that further industrial action was unavoidable if the dispute was not settled. This would, however, require a fresh ballot.
BA had told the High Court that Unite's plans for four five day stoppages would cost it £138 million, the remaining strikes will still cost BA more than £110 million. The airline's share price fell sharply following the Appeal Court's decision.
Seven days of strikes in March cost BA more than £40 million and the six day volcanic ash lockdown another £100 million.
Derek Simpson, Unite's other joint general secretary, confirmed next week's stoppage by up to 12,000 staff would go ahead.
Derek said the union would do whatever it could to settle its differences with BA. He said the one day pause between walkouts was to allow BA time "to go the extra mile".
"Our colleagues are not mad-hat strikers or headbangers," he said, insisting that the two sides were "within a sliver" of an agreement.
A deal is understood to be close on a cost-cutting package to aid the cash-strapped airline's survival, but there is an impasse over disciplinary action taken against more than 50 staff by the airline and the term under which the staff travel perk will be restored to those who went on strike earlier this year.
The airline had won an injunction after persuading the High Court that Unite had not complied with 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which required the union to give a full breakdown of the result to its members including the number of spoiled ballot papers.
This information was not contained in texts, emails or Unite's "tweet" announcing the result to cabin crew around the world.
Unite's challenge to the High Court ruling was upheld by the Lord Judge, and Lady Justice Smith, but rejected by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger.
"We must all hope for a speedy and fair resolution of this dispute," Lord Judge said.
However, he questioned BA's decision to try to use the courts to block the strike.
"Legal processes do not constitute mediation. On the contrary they often serve to inflame rather than mollify the feelings of those involved."
Announcing the decision, Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, criticised the airline for resorting to the courts rather than trying to settle the dispute amicably.
Such actions were likely to "inflame rather than mollify" the tensions between the sides, he said.
The appeal has paved the way for the first of three five-day stoppages to take place at Heathrow from Monday.
There will be a one day pause before the second five-day walk out, which starts on Sunday week and finishes the following Thursday. A third strike is planned for June 5-9.
Tony Woodley, Unite's joint general secretary, warned that further industrial action was unavoidable if the dispute was not settled. This would, however, require a fresh ballot.
BA had told the High Court that Unite's plans for four five day stoppages would cost it £138 million, the remaining strikes will still cost BA more than £110 million. The airline's share price fell sharply following the Appeal Court's decision.
Seven days of strikes in March cost BA more than £40 million and the six day volcanic ash lockdown another £100 million.
Derek Simpson, Unite's other joint general secretary, confirmed next week's stoppage by up to 12,000 staff would go ahead.
Derek said the union would do whatever it could to settle its differences with BA. He said the one day pause between walkouts was to allow BA time "to go the extra mile".
"Our colleagues are not mad-hat strikers or headbangers," he said, insisting that the two sides were "within a sliver" of an agreement.
A deal is understood to be close on a cost-cutting package to aid the cash-strapped airline's survival, but there is an impasse over disciplinary action taken against more than 50 staff by the airline and the term under which the staff travel perk will be restored to those who went on strike earlier this year.
The airline had won an injunction after persuading the High Court that Unite had not complied with 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which required the union to give a full breakdown of the result to its members including the number of spoiled ballot papers.
This information was not contained in texts, emails or Unite's "tweet" announcing the result to cabin crew around the world.
Unite's challenge to the High Court ruling was upheld by the Lord Judge, and Lady Justice Smith, but rejected by the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger.
"We must all hope for a speedy and fair resolution of this dispute," Lord Judge said.
However, he questioned BA's decision to try to use the courts to block the strike.
"Legal processes do not constitute mediation. On the contrary they often serve to inflame rather than mollify the feelings of those involved."
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
BA Dispute - Email BA Chairman and Board
Register your support for the Unite BA cabin crew and send an email to the BA Chairman and Board to ask them to stop the bullying now.
http://www.brutish-airways.com/
http://www.brutish-airways.com/
Saturday, May 15, 2010
DON'T RUSH LABOUR'S LEADER CONTEST
Compass campaign gathering speed.
http://action.compassonline.org.uk/page/s/LabourContest
http://action.compassonline.org.uk/page/s/LabourContest
Friday, May 14, 2010
New Tory ‘Regressive Alliance’ - LCDTU Posting
A number of Workers Uniting Group supporters have emailed with details of an intresting article by Barry Camfield of the Liasion Commitee For The Defence of Trade Unions on the recent political situation in the country.
It is a helpful contribution to the debate unions will now have to undertake - especially in the forthcoming Labour Party leadership election and campaign.
www.lcdtu.blogspot.com/
It is a helpful contribution to the debate unions will now have to undertake - especially in the forthcoming Labour Party leadership election and campaign.
www.lcdtu.blogspot.com/
Employee Free Choice Act - Leo Gerard Comments On Recent US Decision On Union Recognition
Leo Gerard is the International President of the United Steelworkers
Hey, Union-Busters: We’ll Give You Supermajority
Corporate CEOs, union-busting lawyers, and conservative politicians who pander to the rich condemned a National Mediation Board (NMB) Ruling this week.
They complained that the NMB gave railway and airline workers the ability to obtain collective bargaining rights through majority-rule elections. That’s the type of balloting that occurs under universal democratic rules. Everyone qualified to vote is invited to participate, and the outcome is determined by the majority of those who cast ballots.
The anti-worker-rights groups wanted the NMB to retain a different kind of election – one that requires the winner to receive votes from the majority of all of those qualified to participate — essentially, a supermajority.
This is an exciting new development. Up until now CEOs, union-busters, and particularly conservative Republicans, have actively opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, mainly because of a provision they call “card check.” But card check provides exactly what they now say that they want – a determination made by the majority of all of those qualified to participate. So, clearly, since they’re so upset by the end of supermajority rule for airline and railroad workers, they’d be happy if Congress intervened and instituted it for all workers by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.
For a little over 70 years, the NMB, which governs collective bargaining by airline and railroad workers, mandated supermajorities. When a group of workers, let’s say Delta Airline Flight Attendants, sought the right to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions, the NMB conducted an election in which it counted those who voted yes as supporting the proposal; those who voted no as opposing, and all those who didn’t vote as opposing.
The NMB arbitrarily placed the non-voters in the “no” ballot box. To win an election, the NMB required collective bargaining supporters to receive votes from a majority of all those eligible – those who voted combined with those whose ballots the NMB inexplicably stuffed in the “no” box after they did not vote.
Compounding that supermajority obstacle was the NMB practice of permitting employers to determine who was eligible to vote, then excusing them from providing that list to workers seeking collective bargaining. This created an incentive for employers to “accidently” include the names of workers who’d quit or retired — ineligible voters whose inability to cast ballots created automatic “no” votes. Writing about losing an election in 2008, Delta flight attendant Linda Sorenson said airline officials released its list after the balloting. Among other problems, it included the name of a deceased worker. Sorenson wrote:
“The company acknowledged her death, but the NMB – whose . . . chair had been a Northwest (airline) lobbyist – refused to remove her. She became a vote against representation.”
Airline and railroad workers found the supermajority rule confounding in what is supposed to be a democratic system. Writing the NMB to request the rule change, Jamin B. Raskin, a law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that a supermajority is not required, partly because established democratic practice is:
“Those who do not participate ‘are presumed to assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting.’”
The NMB ignored the Supreme Court and continued requiring a supermajority – until Monday. Then it joined the National Labor Relations Board, which complied with the Supreme Court decision and allowed majority-rule elections for the vast majority of U.S. workers whose collective bargaining rights it governs.
The minute the NMB proposed the change to majority-rule elections last fall, anti-worker-rights groups started pitching a fit. Union-busting law firm Winston & Strawn wrote, for example, that the NMB should not change a rule that had been in effect for nearly 75 years. It contended that elections for workers should be different from elections for political candidates and referendums:
“The change would enable unions to obtain representation simply by winning a majority of votes cast, as opposed to a majority of all employees eligible to vote on the issue . . . Under the proposed new rule, a minority of workers could effectively select a union representative on behalf of a much larger potential bargaining unit.”
Conservative Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia agreed, protesting in a news release that Monday’s decision gave workers the same rights as all others in a democratic system:
“The final rule change, which was issued today, would affect companies under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act by allowing union elections to be decided by only a majority of workers who cast ballots, reducing the number of votes it takes for a union to win.”
The solution to Isakson’s complaint is passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. That legislation would require consent of a majority of eligible workers for the awarding of collective bargaining rights.
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, workers seeking collective bargaining rights would collect signatures among their co-workers. If more than half of all eligible workers signed cards in support, the NLRB or NMB would recognize the workers as having the right to collectively bargain with the employer for the benefit of all of the workers.
This process would guarantee that a majority of all eligible workers supported collective bargaining before it could occur. It is a process that was routinely used to secure collective bargaining rights in the early days of union organizing in this country. It gives anti-worker-rights groups such as Winston & Strawn exactly what they’re demanding – a supermajority.
The process is not an election. But with secret balloting, requiring a supermajority is undemocratic. No one can be compelled to vote in a democratic system. And counting those who don’t vote as supporters of collective bargaining is just as logical as tallying them as unanimously opposed.
The solution provided in the Employee Free Choice Act is elegant and historically valid. It’s great that Isakson and his fellow conservative Republicans in the U.S. Senate now back the supermajority concept that the Employee Free Choice Act achieves through “card check.”
Hey, Union-Busters: We’ll Give You Supermajority
Corporate CEOs, union-busting lawyers, and conservative politicians who pander to the rich condemned a National Mediation Board (NMB) Ruling this week.
They complained that the NMB gave railway and airline workers the ability to obtain collective bargaining rights through majority-rule elections. That’s the type of balloting that occurs under universal democratic rules. Everyone qualified to vote is invited to participate, and the outcome is determined by the majority of those who cast ballots.
The anti-worker-rights groups wanted the NMB to retain a different kind of election – one that requires the winner to receive votes from the majority of all of those qualified to participate — essentially, a supermajority.
This is an exciting new development. Up until now CEOs, union-busters, and particularly conservative Republicans, have actively opposed the Employee Free Choice Act, mainly because of a provision they call “card check.” But card check provides exactly what they now say that they want – a determination made by the majority of all of those qualified to participate. So, clearly, since they’re so upset by the end of supermajority rule for airline and railroad workers, they’d be happy if Congress intervened and instituted it for all workers by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.
For a little over 70 years, the NMB, which governs collective bargaining by airline and railroad workers, mandated supermajorities. When a group of workers, let’s say Delta Airline Flight Attendants, sought the right to collectively bargain for better wages and working conditions, the NMB conducted an election in which it counted those who voted yes as supporting the proposal; those who voted no as opposing, and all those who didn’t vote as opposing.
The NMB arbitrarily placed the non-voters in the “no” ballot box. To win an election, the NMB required collective bargaining supporters to receive votes from a majority of all those eligible – those who voted combined with those whose ballots the NMB inexplicably stuffed in the “no” box after they did not vote.
Compounding that supermajority obstacle was the NMB practice of permitting employers to determine who was eligible to vote, then excusing them from providing that list to workers seeking collective bargaining. This created an incentive for employers to “accidently” include the names of workers who’d quit or retired — ineligible voters whose inability to cast ballots created automatic “no” votes. Writing about losing an election in 2008, Delta flight attendant Linda Sorenson said airline officials released its list after the balloting. Among other problems, it included the name of a deceased worker. Sorenson wrote:
“The company acknowledged her death, but the NMB – whose . . . chair had been a Northwest (airline) lobbyist – refused to remove her. She became a vote against representation.”
Airline and railroad workers found the supermajority rule confounding in what is supposed to be a democratic system. Writing the NMB to request the rule change, Jamin B. Raskin, a law professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, noted that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1937 that a supermajority is not required, partly because established democratic practice is:
“Those who do not participate ‘are presumed to assent to the expressed will of the majority of those voting.’”
The NMB ignored the Supreme Court and continued requiring a supermajority – until Monday. Then it joined the National Labor Relations Board, which complied with the Supreme Court decision and allowed majority-rule elections for the vast majority of U.S. workers whose collective bargaining rights it governs.
The minute the NMB proposed the change to majority-rule elections last fall, anti-worker-rights groups started pitching a fit. Union-busting law firm Winston & Strawn wrote, for example, that the NMB should not change a rule that had been in effect for nearly 75 years. It contended that elections for workers should be different from elections for political candidates and referendums:
“The change would enable unions to obtain representation simply by winning a majority of votes cast, as opposed to a majority of all employees eligible to vote on the issue . . . Under the proposed new rule, a minority of workers could effectively select a union representative on behalf of a much larger potential bargaining unit.”
Conservative Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia agreed, protesting in a news release that Monday’s decision gave workers the same rights as all others in a democratic system:
“The final rule change, which was issued today, would affect companies under the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act by allowing union elections to be decided by only a majority of workers who cast ballots, reducing the number of votes it takes for a union to win.”
The solution to Isakson’s complaint is passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. That legislation would require consent of a majority of eligible workers for the awarding of collective bargaining rights.
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, workers seeking collective bargaining rights would collect signatures among their co-workers. If more than half of all eligible workers signed cards in support, the NLRB or NMB would recognize the workers as having the right to collectively bargain with the employer for the benefit of all of the workers.
This process would guarantee that a majority of all eligible workers supported collective bargaining before it could occur. It is a process that was routinely used to secure collective bargaining rights in the early days of union organizing in this country. It gives anti-worker-rights groups such as Winston & Strawn exactly what they’re demanding – a supermajority.
The process is not an election. But with secret balloting, requiring a supermajority is undemocratic. No one can be compelled to vote in a democratic system. And counting those who don’t vote as supporters of collective bargaining is just as logical as tallying them as unanimously opposed.
The solution provided in the Employee Free Choice Act is elegant and historically valid. It’s great that Isakson and his fellow conservative Republicans in the U.S. Senate now back the supermajority concept that the Employee Free Choice Act achieves through “card check.”
Unite Seeks Job Guarantee's At The Pru
Unite said it is seeking seeking assurances over UK jobs at the Prudential Insurance as the insurer looks to secure its takeover of the AIA Group in Asia.
Prudential is seeking to save its deal with the Asian arm of AIG amid close scrutiny of its rights issue by the FSA and shareholder disputes, while reasserting its commitment to the UK market.
Unite held crunch talks with the Prudential officials last week to seek clarity over rumours that its UK arm would be sold.
Hugh Roberts, Unite officer for Prudential, said: “On 4 May, Unite and staff were assured that the UK business remains a valued part of the Prudential.” Hugh Roberts said that if market forces were to change that position, Unite would be concerned not only for jobs but also for policyholders, especially as the Prudential has built a reputation in customer service.
He said: “Any sale of the UK business would only provide a one-off windfall, whereas now it makes a solid contribution every year to Prudential profits.”
Prudential is seeking to save its deal with the Asian arm of AIG amid close scrutiny of its rights issue by the FSA and shareholder disputes, while reasserting its commitment to the UK market.
Unite held crunch talks with the Prudential officials last week to seek clarity over rumours that its UK arm would be sold.
Hugh Roberts, Unite officer for Prudential, said: “On 4 May, Unite and staff were assured that the UK business remains a valued part of the Prudential.” Hugh Roberts said that if market forces were to change that position, Unite would be concerned not only for jobs but also for policyholders, especially as the Prudential has built a reputation in customer service.
He said: “Any sale of the UK business would only provide a one-off windfall, whereas now it makes a solid contribution every year to Prudential profits.”
BA Cabin Crew Dispute - Latest
Unite tells British Airways to talk
Unite, has urged BA to hold fresh talks to avert a series of strikes.
Unite members will walk out for four separate five-day strikes.
The first strike will begin on 18 May, ending on 22 May, with further strikes planned on 24 May, 30 May and 5 June.
But Unite said BA could still prevent the walk-outs if it opened what it called "meaningful negotiations".
Unite members rejected a fresh deal for cabin crew earlier this month.
In a statement, Unite's joint general secretaries Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley blamed BA for forcing cabin crew to again resort to industrial action.
"The seven days' notice period is sufficient time for BA management to do the sensible thing and reopen meaningful negotiations," they said.
Unite, has urged BA to hold fresh talks to avert a series of strikes.
Unite members will walk out for four separate five-day strikes.
The first strike will begin on 18 May, ending on 22 May, with further strikes planned on 24 May, 30 May and 5 June.
But Unite said BA could still prevent the walk-outs if it opened what it called "meaningful negotiations".
Unite members rejected a fresh deal for cabin crew earlier this month.
In a statement, Unite's joint general secretaries Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley blamed BA for forcing cabin crew to again resort to industrial action.
"The seven days' notice period is sufficient time for BA management to do the sensible thing and reopen meaningful negotiations," they said.
Friday, May 7, 2010
BA cabin crew overwhelmingly reject company offer
7 May 2010
Unite the union cabin crew employed at British Airways have overwhelmingly rejected the company's offer relating to the current industrial dispute, the union announced today (Friday).
Around 81 per cent of the crew voted against the offer, in line with the union's recommendation. There was a turnout of 71 per cent.
Representatives of the crew will meet with Unite's Joint General Secretaries, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, on Monday to discuss next moves in the dispute.
Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley said today: "BA management should take note of their own employees' strong rejection of their offer and immediately address the outstanding concerns.
"They should make no mistake that Unite is fully committed to supporting our members in furthering this dispute if no resolution is found."
Unite the union cabin crew employed at British Airways have overwhelmingly rejected the company's offer relating to the current industrial dispute, the union announced today (Friday).
Around 81 per cent of the crew voted against the offer, in line with the union's recommendation. There was a turnout of 71 per cent.
Representatives of the crew will meet with Unite's Joint General Secretaries, Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley, on Monday to discuss next moves in the dispute.
Derek Simpson and Tony Woodley said today: "BA management should take note of their own employees' strong rejection of their offer and immediately address the outstanding concerns.
"They should make no mistake that Unite is fully committed to supporting our members in furthering this dispute if no resolution is found."
Thursday, May 6, 2010
BASSA Branch Secretary Sacked by BA
From the Press Association
A union official representing British Airways cabin crew has been sacked, inflaming the bitter dispute which has led to a series of strikes and could flare up again before the end of the month.
Duncan Holley, branch secretary of the British Airways Stewards and Stewardesses Association (Bassa), a section of the giant Unite union, worked for the airline on its Eurofleet business.
He is the fifth union member to be sacked by the airline following a series of walkouts in March which crippled flights and cost BA millions of pounds.
Unite is balloting its 12,000 members on a new offer aimed at resolving the long-running dispute, with officials "strongly" recommending rejection.
The union could set new strike dates early next week if the cabin crew vote to reject the new offer, with the result due Friday. Mr Holley said he had been sacked for his union activities, including taking time off to carry out his union duties.
A Unite spokesman said: "The company's vindictive operation of the disciplinary procedures seems designed to hinder any peaceful resolution of this dispute."
The union will lodge an appeal against My Holley's sacking.
Mr Holley said BA had always allowed him to take time off work to undertake union duties, but this changed when he asked to be away from work last December. He said he had important union work to conduct, dealing with the dispute which later led to the strikes, but BA refused to give him time off. He took time off and was subsequently charged with gross misconduct.
Mr Holley, 54, who worked for BA for more than 34 years, said: "My dismissal is a political decision because I have done nothing wrong. They have sacked me in the middle of a dispute - the timing says it all."
A BA spokesman said: "It is entirely appropriate and reasonable for us to investigate serious allegations of misconduct. The company's disciplinary process has been in place for many years and has been agreed with all of the airline's recognised trade unions, including Unite."
A union official representing British Airways cabin crew has been sacked, inflaming the bitter dispute which has led to a series of strikes and could flare up again before the end of the month.
Duncan Holley, branch secretary of the British Airways Stewards and Stewardesses Association (Bassa), a section of the giant Unite union, worked for the airline on its Eurofleet business.
He is the fifth union member to be sacked by the airline following a series of walkouts in March which crippled flights and cost BA millions of pounds.
Unite is balloting its 12,000 members on a new offer aimed at resolving the long-running dispute, with officials "strongly" recommending rejection.
The union could set new strike dates early next week if the cabin crew vote to reject the new offer, with the result due Friday. Mr Holley said he had been sacked for his union activities, including taking time off to carry out his union duties.
A Unite spokesman said: "The company's vindictive operation of the disciplinary procedures seems designed to hinder any peaceful resolution of this dispute."
The union will lodge an appeal against My Holley's sacking.
Mr Holley said BA had always allowed him to take time off work to undertake union duties, but this changed when he asked to be away from work last December. He said he had important union work to conduct, dealing with the dispute which later led to the strikes, but BA refused to give him time off. He took time off and was subsequently charged with gross misconduct.
Mr Holley, 54, who worked for BA for more than 34 years, said: "My dismissal is a political decision because I have done nothing wrong. They have sacked me in the middle of a dispute - the timing says it all."
A BA spokesman said: "It is entirely appropriate and reasonable for us to investigate serious allegations of misconduct. The company's disciplinary process has been in place for many years and has been agreed with all of the airline's recognised trade unions, including Unite."
Unite Printers Strike In Glasgow
Strike action at Glasgow Herald and Times
More than 140 clerical and production staff at The Herald and Evening Times newspapers are taking part in a 24-hour strike over pay.
Unite said members had been forced to take action after the newspapers' parent company, Newsquest, insisted on a pay freeze.
The firm's sites in Renfield Street and Cambuslang are affected by the walkout.
The 24-hour strike action got under way at 0800 BST and is due to be repeated on a weekly basis if a settlement is not reached.
Norman King Unite Regional officer accused Newsquest of hitting workers' pay despite being profitable.
"Newsquest is the only newspaper publishing company which wants a two-year wage freeze," he said.
"Talks broke down last week and members had no other option but to take action as a wage freeze would be a wage cut with inflation running about 4%.
"Last year we went through a redundancy phase which saw job restructuring and people doing more work, but the staff reward for this is zero as the company makes more profit."
More than 140 clerical and production staff at The Herald and Evening Times newspapers are taking part in a 24-hour strike over pay.
Unite said members had been forced to take action after the newspapers' parent company, Newsquest, insisted on a pay freeze.
The firm's sites in Renfield Street and Cambuslang are affected by the walkout.
The 24-hour strike action got under way at 0800 BST and is due to be repeated on a weekly basis if a settlement is not reached.
Norman King Unite Regional officer accused Newsquest of hitting workers' pay despite being profitable.
"Newsquest is the only newspaper publishing company which wants a two-year wage freeze," he said.
"Talks broke down last week and members had no other option but to take action as a wage freeze would be a wage cut with inflation running about 4%.
"Last year we went through a redundancy phase which saw job restructuring and people doing more work, but the staff reward for this is zero as the company makes more profit."
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Skill Shortage in North Sea Warns Unite
Oil and gas companies operating in the North Sea are facing a skills shortage as the industry recovers as experienced workers have gone elsewhere, Unite is warning.
Wullie Wallace, regional officer for Unite in Aberdeen, said companies are now having trouble recruiting, as many workers have found employment elsewhere during the recession.
"We're getting indications now that when business picks up we're going to get a skills shortage," he said.
"People aren't ready for the upturn and that's when the companies have problems."
OilCareers, a dedicated oil and gas sector recruitment Web site, reported a 60% increase in new orders in the first quarter of 2010 compared with a year earlier as more companies sign up to the service ahead of advertising jobs.
The Web site also saw a 10% increase in traffic in the first quarter of 2010 compared with a year earlier, with more than 850,000 visits per month from more than 450,000 unique visitors.
"We've had a very significant growth in our business in 2010," said Mark Guest, managing director of OilCareers.
"Candidate numbers increased last year because people were worried about finding jobs. This has continued this year but now we have more business traffic than ever, although vacancies aren't yet back to their peak."
The U.K.'s oil and gas sector employs more than 450,000 people, 45% of them in Scotland. Although exploration in the North Sea hit an all-time low in the first quarter of 2010, with only four wells spudded, the industry remains the country's largest industrial investor, spending around GBP12.3 billion in exploration, development and production operations.
Wullie Wallace, regional officer for Unite in Aberdeen, said companies are now having trouble recruiting, as many workers have found employment elsewhere during the recession.
"We're getting indications now that when business picks up we're going to get a skills shortage," he said.
"People aren't ready for the upturn and that's when the companies have problems."
OilCareers, a dedicated oil and gas sector recruitment Web site, reported a 60% increase in new orders in the first quarter of 2010 compared with a year earlier as more companies sign up to the service ahead of advertising jobs.
The Web site also saw a 10% increase in traffic in the first quarter of 2010 compared with a year earlier, with more than 850,000 visits per month from more than 450,000 unique visitors.
"We've had a very significant growth in our business in 2010," said Mark Guest, managing director of OilCareers.
"Candidate numbers increased last year because people were worried about finding jobs. This has continued this year but now we have more business traffic than ever, although vacancies aren't yet back to their peak."
The U.K.'s oil and gas sector employs more than 450,000 people, 45% of them in Scotland. Although exploration in the North Sea hit an all-time low in the first quarter of 2010, with only four wells spudded, the industry remains the country's largest industrial investor, spending around GBP12.3 billion in exploration, development and production operations.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Unite sees Labour support surge
Support for Labour is surging amongst Unite members in the key marginals - up from 40 per cent last week to 56 per cent.
As the election heads into the last few days, Unite members are making their minds up to vote Labour.
The Tories have slumped dramatically to just 7 per cent from a previous 20 point high and the Liberal Democrats are barely a bleep on the radar at 4 per cent.
The reason for all this?
When Unite members talk to Unite members it’s clear the message gets through. A vote for anyone else but Labour lets the Tories in. A vote for anyone else but Labour means increased job insecurity, higher unemployment and an attack on the rights of working people.
As David Cameron tries to fool everyone that he’s in Downing Street already, Nick Clegg hides his true cuts agenda and the media continue to vilify Gordon Brown, Unite members have seen through it all.
With Labour there is a clear programme to lock in the recovery and keep people in work and in their homes, support skills and business, invest in our young people in schools and in work and to protect front health services.
The Tories will cut taxes for the rich and spending for the rest of us. The Liberal Democrats too want “cuts that are savage and bold” and to curb the right for unions to organise.
This Thursday the choice is clear – a Labour government committed to our jobs and our people or a Tory government committed to cutting jobs and supporting the rich or the Liberal Democrats also committed to cutting jobs and supporting the rich.
Unite chooses Labour and Unite members are choosing Labour.
Top line: Labour is fighting for your future. It is a fight for fairness and against the same old Tories who threaten to cut tax credits and child trust funds for families on middle and modest incomes.
Fighting for fairness
Labour is fighting for fairness – and we will protect Child Tax Credits and Child Trust Funds. Contrary to David Cameron’s misleading claims on Sunday morning television, the Tories would cut Child Tax Credits for middle income families. They say they would take £400 million from Child Tax Credits and, when you look at the figures, that means hitting families with incomes above £31,000. They would cut Child Trust Funds for families with incomes above £16,040.
And while Labour would protect the budget for schools and police numbers, the Tories would cut them. Policies like these just serve to show that David Cameron’s party is simply the same old Tories.
To those flirting with the Lib Dems, we need to make sure they know that, particularly in the key Labour/Tory marginals, a Lib Dem vote is the surest route to a Tory government, with devastating consequences for anyone who really believes in jobs, fairness and good schools and our NHS. The only way to keep Britain on the road to recovery, and on the progressive path, is with a majority Labour government. Let’s win the fight for it.
As the election heads into the last few days, Unite members are making their minds up to vote Labour.
The Tories have slumped dramatically to just 7 per cent from a previous 20 point high and the Liberal Democrats are barely a bleep on the radar at 4 per cent.
The reason for all this?
When Unite members talk to Unite members it’s clear the message gets through. A vote for anyone else but Labour lets the Tories in. A vote for anyone else but Labour means increased job insecurity, higher unemployment and an attack on the rights of working people.
As David Cameron tries to fool everyone that he’s in Downing Street already, Nick Clegg hides his true cuts agenda and the media continue to vilify Gordon Brown, Unite members have seen through it all.
With Labour there is a clear programme to lock in the recovery and keep people in work and in their homes, support skills and business, invest in our young people in schools and in work and to protect front health services.
The Tories will cut taxes for the rich and spending for the rest of us. The Liberal Democrats too want “cuts that are savage and bold” and to curb the right for unions to organise.
This Thursday the choice is clear – a Labour government committed to our jobs and our people or a Tory government committed to cutting jobs and supporting the rich or the Liberal Democrats also committed to cutting jobs and supporting the rich.
Unite chooses Labour and Unite members are choosing Labour.
Top line: Labour is fighting for your future. It is a fight for fairness and against the same old Tories who threaten to cut tax credits and child trust funds for families on middle and modest incomes.
Fighting for fairness
Labour is fighting for fairness – and we will protect Child Tax Credits and Child Trust Funds. Contrary to David Cameron’s misleading claims on Sunday morning television, the Tories would cut Child Tax Credits for middle income families. They say they would take £400 million from Child Tax Credits and, when you look at the figures, that means hitting families with incomes above £31,000. They would cut Child Trust Funds for families with incomes above £16,040.
And while Labour would protect the budget for schools and police numbers, the Tories would cut them. Policies like these just serve to show that David Cameron’s party is simply the same old Tories.
To those flirting with the Lib Dems, we need to make sure they know that, particularly in the key Labour/Tory marginals, a Lib Dem vote is the surest route to a Tory government, with devastating consequences for anyone who really believes in jobs, fairness and good schools and our NHS. The only way to keep Britain on the road to recovery, and on the progressive path, is with a majority Labour government. Let’s win the fight for it.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Workers Uniting Group - Scotland Meeting
UNITE SCOTLAND REGION
A meeting of Workers Uniting Group Supporters will take place at:
STUC 333 Woodlands Rd , Glasgow.
Sat.22nd May 2010 - 10.30am to 12.00pm
The Workers Uniting Group is the broad based left-progressive organisation within Unite the Union
• Guest Speaker – ( TBC )
• Unite Policy Conference preview.
• Unite General Secretary Election Update.
With the First Unite Policy taking place in Manchester on 31st May, Workers Uniting Group will be discussing this significant point in the history of Unite. Supporters will also debate the latest updates within the General Sectretary Election Campaign.
We look forward to seeing you there.
www.workersunitinggroup.com
All Unite Members Welcome.
A meeting of Workers Uniting Group Supporters will take place at:
STUC 333 Woodlands Rd , Glasgow.
Sat.22nd May 2010 - 10.30am to 12.00pm
The Workers Uniting Group is the broad based left-progressive organisation within Unite the Union
• Guest Speaker – ( TBC )
• Unite Policy Conference preview.
• Unite General Secretary Election Update.
With the First Unite Policy taking place in Manchester on 31st May, Workers Uniting Group will be discussing this significant point in the history of Unite. Supporters will also debate the latest updates within the General Sectretary Election Campaign.
We look forward to seeing you there.
www.workersunitinggroup.com
All Unite Members Welcome.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Defence Jobs At Risk Says Unite's Bernie Hamilton
Conservative and Lib Dem defence industry policies will lead to massive job losses and undermine Britain's manufacturing base, Unite National officer Bernie Hamilton has warned.
Unite activists who represent 30,000 workers in the defence and manufacturing industry have expressed "grave concerns" over the proposals.
In an open letter, 173 union reps lambast the Tories and Lib Dems for failing to "guarantee the continuation of contracts being built across the UK, principally at BAE Systems Warton, Rolls-Royce Bristol and Airbus Filton."
This shows their lack of "understanding of the importance to this nation's security of the UK defence manufacturing sector as it does about their reluctance to support industry through direct intervention," the union said.
Unite also made a pointed attack on Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable, who is rumoured to be in the running for chancellor in a hung parliament.
"The Lib Dems are not exempt either - Vince Cable has clearly outlined his intentions to cut and gut the defence sector and his laissez-faire announcements of the cancellation of contracts would end defence manufacturing as we know it," union reps wrote.
Warning of a return to the 1980s, Unite spelled out the danger of letting either party into power, due to their "reluctance to support industry through direct intervention."
In the run-up to the general election, Unite promised to highlight "to workers in England and Wales defence workplaces our grave concerns about the future of the industry under a Tory government and any involvement of Liberal Democrats in defence manufacturing."
Bernie Hamilton accused the Tories and Lib Dems of "inexperience and a cavalier attitude."
He added: "George Osborne and Liam Fox have both said on the record that on day one of a Conservative government they would exercise the break clauses in major defence contracts.
"These MPs' amateurish approach will fundamentally damage the defence industry and Britain's manufacturing base," he added.
Unite activists who represent 30,000 workers in the defence and manufacturing industry have expressed "grave concerns" over the proposals.
In an open letter, 173 union reps lambast the Tories and Lib Dems for failing to "guarantee the continuation of contracts being built across the UK, principally at BAE Systems Warton, Rolls-Royce Bristol and Airbus Filton."
This shows their lack of "understanding of the importance to this nation's security of the UK defence manufacturing sector as it does about their reluctance to support industry through direct intervention," the union said.
Unite also made a pointed attack on Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable, who is rumoured to be in the running for chancellor in a hung parliament.
"The Lib Dems are not exempt either - Vince Cable has clearly outlined his intentions to cut and gut the defence sector and his laissez-faire announcements of the cancellation of contracts would end defence manufacturing as we know it," union reps wrote.
Warning of a return to the 1980s, Unite spelled out the danger of letting either party into power, due to their "reluctance to support industry through direct intervention."
In the run-up to the general election, Unite promised to highlight "to workers in England and Wales defence workplaces our grave concerns about the future of the industry under a Tory government and any involvement of Liberal Democrats in defence manufacturing."
Bernie Hamilton accused the Tories and Lib Dems of "inexperience and a cavalier attitude."
He added: "George Osborne and Liam Fox have both said on the record that on day one of a Conservative government they would exercise the break clauses in major defence contracts.
"These MPs' amateurish approach will fundamentally damage the defence industry and Britain's manufacturing base," he added.
Unite to meet G&H Web Offset lOver Lay Off's
Unite is to investigate the contracts of members atprinters G&H Web Offset in Liverpool after all staff were sent home and told to return to work in two weeks.
A letter was sent to 36 employees at the G&H Print Services, formerly Gask & Hawley, subsidiary in which staff were informed that the plant would be closing for two weeks due to the loss of two major contracts.
They were told to return to work on 13 May 2010 but will be kept informed about the situation in the meantime.
Unite regional officer Alison Jones: "The company says it can lay off staff; we are investigating whether there is a lay-off clause in the members contracts. Although a two-week lay-off is a major financial hardship, they are looking longer term - there is a major concern there." Jones said that the company had agreed to meet her next week before a chapel meeting.
A letter was sent to 36 employees at the G&H Print Services, formerly Gask & Hawley, subsidiary in which staff were informed that the plant would be closing for two weeks due to the loss of two major contracts.
They were told to return to work on 13 May 2010 but will be kept informed about the situation in the meantime.
Unite regional officer Alison Jones: "The company says it can lay off staff; we are investigating whether there is a lay-off clause in the members contracts. Although a two-week lay-off is a major financial hardship, they are looking longer term - there is a major concern there." Jones said that the company had agreed to meet her next week before a chapel meeting.
Dounreay dispute
Dounreay labour dispute escalates
A dispute at Dounreay has escalated after it emerged that 16 employees who worked their last shift have had redundancy payments withheld.
Supported by Unite, the members say they are entitled to be taken on the payroll of in-house contractors DSRL.
Unite'sl Lin Turner said the workers had become the unwitting victims of a dispute between the two companies.
The 16 worked on a clean-up contract within the site’s defunct prototype fast reactor plant (PFR).
The end of Nuvia’s contract at the plant yesterday coincided with the termination of 24/7 working at the plant.
The workers were put on notice at the start of November when four colleagues opted to take leaving terms.
The 16 have been backed by Nuvia in their fight to be taken on by DSRL as they claim the work they have been doing at the PFR is to continue.
They have, meanwhile, been informed that Nuvia is setting aside the payments to which they would have been entitled for being made redundant.
It is believed this totals more than £1million for the employees, most of whom have worked at Dounreay for more than 20 years.
Lin Turner said: “Unfortunately, the workers have been caught up in a unique position.
“They are caught in the middle of a dispute between two companies.
A dispute at Dounreay has escalated after it emerged that 16 employees who worked their last shift have had redundancy payments withheld.
Supported by Unite, the members say they are entitled to be taken on the payroll of in-house contractors DSRL.
Unite'sl Lin Turner said the workers had become the unwitting victims of a dispute between the two companies.
The 16 worked on a clean-up contract within the site’s defunct prototype fast reactor plant (PFR).
The end of Nuvia’s contract at the plant yesterday coincided with the termination of 24/7 working at the plant.
The workers were put on notice at the start of November when four colleagues opted to take leaving terms.
The 16 have been backed by Nuvia in their fight to be taken on by DSRL as they claim the work they have been doing at the PFR is to continue.
They have, meanwhile, been informed that Nuvia is setting aside the payments to which they would have been entitled for being made redundant.
It is believed this totals more than £1million for the employees, most of whom have worked at Dounreay for more than 20 years.
Lin Turner said: “Unfortunately, the workers have been caught up in a unique position.
“They are caught in the middle of a dispute between two companies.
Employment Law Update: Shanahan Engineering v Unite EAT Case
Shanahan, an engineering construction contractor, employed more than 145 people on a site, constructing two generators. The short-term work meant that a number of redundancies were expected. Shanahan and Unite agreed a selection process in advance. For health and safety reasons Shanahan's client, Alstom, instructed Shanahan to drastically change the nature of the work at short notice. Shanahan had to make 50 redundancies quickly.
Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) requires employers to consult collectively (with unions or elected representatives) where 20 or more redundancies are proposed within a 90-day period. Consultation should start at least 30 days before the first dismissal takes effect.
There is an exception for special circumstances "which make it not reasonably practicable to carry out the normal 30-day consultation. Shanahan made 50 redundancies without carrying out any consultation. Unite brought a claim on behalf of employees that Shanahan had failed to comply with section 188 TULRCA. The tribunal decided Shanahan had breached its duty to consult. Even though the "special circumstances" defence applied, Shanahan should have carried out however much consultation was possible in the time available. The tribunal awarded maximum 90-day protective awards in relation to the employees.
Shanahan appealed. The EAT said because special circumstances existed which affected the timing of the consultation, the obligation to consult still remained. The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision that Shanahan had failed to consult but remitted the case for the tribunal to reconsider the level of the protective award.
Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA) requires employers to consult collectively (with unions or elected representatives) where 20 or more redundancies are proposed within a 90-day period. Consultation should start at least 30 days before the first dismissal takes effect.
There is an exception for special circumstances "which make it not reasonably practicable to carry out the normal 30-day consultation. Shanahan made 50 redundancies without carrying out any consultation. Unite brought a claim on behalf of employees that Shanahan had failed to comply with section 188 TULRCA. The tribunal decided Shanahan had breached its duty to consult. Even though the "special circumstances" defence applied, Shanahan should have carried out however much consultation was possible in the time available. The tribunal awarded maximum 90-day protective awards in relation to the employees.
Shanahan appealed. The EAT said because special circumstances existed which affected the timing of the consultation, the obligation to consult still remained. The EAT upheld the tribunal's decision that Shanahan had failed to consult but remitted the case for the tribunal to reconsider the level of the protective award.
BA Dispute: Unite Recommends Rejection Of Offer
Unite to tell cabin crew to reject offer
Unite has told BA cabin crew has said it will "strongly recommend" that they reject the latest offer from the airline in a ballot vote.
Unite said that although progress had been made during talks since the March strikes, an agreement had not been reached.
"The blame for this rests exclusively with an intransigent management which is determined to attack trade unionism and persecute its employees who supported the strike action last month," said Unite's joint general secretary Tony Woodley.
Tony accused BA of "victimising" cabin crew who had their travel perks taken away after the strike, and of taking "vindictive and disproportionate" disciplinary action against it members.
Unite said that the new ballot would close on May 7th.
Tony Woodley said that there were three main reasons for rejecting BA’s latest pay proposal. First, BA removed free and discounted travel concessions from members of staff that had gone on strike. Mr Woodley said: “This plan aims to treat loyal employees and trade unionists as permanent second-class citizens, branded for having supported the union and humiliated for having taken democratically endorsed and fully legal strike action.”
Second, the union said that BA was taking disciplinary action against more than 50 crew accused of breaching company rules in relation to the strike. This is thought to include promoting the strike. Unite said that four crew members had been dismissed for breaching the company’s rules. The union wants these disciplinary hearings to be held at Acas, the conciliation service.
Finally, the bigger issue of pay cuts and changes to working conditions has yet to be resolved.
Tony Woodley said: “This is at the very least a major failure of industrial statesmanship by Willie Walsh [BA’s chief executive], fanning the flames of conflict at the very moment when peace would otherwise have been at hand. At worst, it is a clear statement of intent, that the company wishes to break trade unionism among its cabin crew.”
Unite has told BA cabin crew has said it will "strongly recommend" that they reject the latest offer from the airline in a ballot vote.
Unite said that although progress had been made during talks since the March strikes, an agreement had not been reached.
"The blame for this rests exclusively with an intransigent management which is determined to attack trade unionism and persecute its employees who supported the strike action last month," said Unite's joint general secretary Tony Woodley.
Tony accused BA of "victimising" cabin crew who had their travel perks taken away after the strike, and of taking "vindictive and disproportionate" disciplinary action against it members.
Unite said that the new ballot would close on May 7th.
Tony Woodley said that there were three main reasons for rejecting BA’s latest pay proposal. First, BA removed free and discounted travel concessions from members of staff that had gone on strike. Mr Woodley said: “This plan aims to treat loyal employees and trade unionists as permanent second-class citizens, branded for having supported the union and humiliated for having taken democratically endorsed and fully legal strike action.”
Second, the union said that BA was taking disciplinary action against more than 50 crew accused of breaching company rules in relation to the strike. This is thought to include promoting the strike. Unite said that four crew members had been dismissed for breaching the company’s rules. The union wants these disciplinary hearings to be held at Acas, the conciliation service.
Finally, the bigger issue of pay cuts and changes to working conditions has yet to be resolved.
Tony Woodley said: “This is at the very least a major failure of industrial statesmanship by Willie Walsh [BA’s chief executive], fanning the flames of conflict at the very moment when peace would otherwise have been at hand. At worst, it is a clear statement of intent, that the company wishes to break trade unionism among its cabin crew.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
