On Thursday, British Airways pilots went on strike for the second time this week, grounding about 1,700 flights. Wanting a greater share of profits, pilots have turned down the company’s offer of 11.9% in pay increases over the next three years.
Typical in these situations, the union and company blamed each other. The union, the British Airlines Pilots Association (Balpa), claims that company management chose to cancel flights instead of negotiating with them in good faith:
“Balpa set a gap between the first and second periods of strike action to give BA time to work with us to settle this dispute with their pilots. We had today been exchanging new ideas to do that via [the arbitration service] Acas and so it irresponsible and inconsiderate to its customers that BA has pulled out and decided to start cancelling flights now, just to save money on compensation. BA did not respond to our latest proposals before cancelling these flights.
“Passengers who will be affected by these cancellations should know that we have given BA multiple opportunities to work with us so we could call off this action.”
The company blames pilots for walking out:
“It is now a month since we shook hands on a pay deal. We urge [Balpa] to call off their strike and return to negotiations.
“To give our customers as much certainty as possible, we are now contacting all those affected to offer them a full refund or a rebook on an alternative date, destination or airline. We are very sorry that Balpa’s actions will affect thousands more travel plans.”
How effectively does each side express its perspective in the above quotes?
Research both sides of this debate. What are Balpa’s strongest and weakest arguments? What are BA’s?
What persuasive strategies does each side use in its arguments: logic, emotional appeal, and credibility?