Wednesday, 28 July 2010

Now, This Is Just Taking The Mickey!

Yesterday it was water, now it’s subsidised holidays:
the Unite union is planning a fresh test for European human rights legislation: it plans to use it against British Airways to force the carrier to reinstate ultra-cheap Caribbean flights for striking cabin crew.
Can anyone say they definitely won’t succeed..?
Unite said on Monday that it planned a legal challenge over the decision by BA chief executive Willie Walsh to strip striking crew of their travel privileges – allowing them flights anywhere on the BA network for just a tenth of the usual fare.

"After careful consideration, Unite believes that management's action breaches European human rights legislation," said the union, claiming 6,000 crew were affected. "
Oh, good lord…

Angry Exile has more.

10 comments:

Chalcedon said...

Surely this is a perk of the job? It can't be a human right otherwise it would apply to us all and BA et al would go bust.

Angry Exile said...

"It can't be a human right otherwise it would apply to us all..."

Excellent point, and I wish I'd thought of it while I ranted and swore my way around the rest of it. Akubra doffed, applause, etc.

ChrisM said...

If it is a human right does this mean that all those deprived of holidays by striking staff can sue the union?

Gibby Haynes said...

There'll be no holidays, subsidised or otherwise, moronic striking BA workers, once your trade union has destroyed the very industry which employs you.

English Viking said...

Why don't BA just sack them for refusing to carry out their contracted hours?

John said...

I don't know why anyone would be surprised at the stupidity of Unite in bringing this lawsuit.

I mean you only have to take a look at the two leaders don't you? Neither of them are likely to exactly win a Nobel prize anytime soon are they

If those two represent the top of the pyramid the outlook for the lower divisions can't very good can it?

banned said...

The cheap/free flights were a freely given perk, never a negotiated contractual thing that BA were at liberty to withdraw. A plague on both their houses.

JuliaM said...

"Surely this is a perk of the job? It can't be a human right otherwise it would apply to us all.."

Quite!

"There'll be no holidays, subsidised or otherwise, moronic striking BA workers, once your trade union has destroyed the very industry which employs you."

It seems the new economic reality hasn't caught up with some unions.

However, others are adjusting their cloth accordingly.

"Why don't BA just sack them for refusing to carry out their contracted hours?"

I suspect they don't want to risk it escalating. Let the union keep spending their money on nonsense like this.

"If those two represent the top of the pyramid the outlook for the lower divisions can't very good can it?"

I can't think of any union leaders that impress me.

Angry Exile said...

"Why don't BA just sack them for refusing to carry out their contracted hours?"

As I said while ranting about this over at mine, the right to strike seems to have legal protection. Certainly being able to withdraw one's labour is an essential and natural human right - a real one rather than all these fucking made up rights - but somewhere along the line it's been extended into a right to force your employer to keep your job open until the industrial action is over. I'm sure there's more to it than that and that certain procedures must be followed to distinguish a strike from a bunch of people simply not showing up for work, but the bottom line is that apparently employees' right to strike trumps a company's right to go and hire someone else to do the work strikers are refusing to do.

Surreptitious Evil said...

Human Rights legislation? Can only be breached by government bodies, not by private companies or individuals.

HRA98 s6(1):

"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right."

Legislation (s3) and courts (s9) also get a mention. Of course, if you can take a private body to court for some other reason, the court is obliged to interpret any law with regard to the Convention Rights but I don't see how that would apply here.