Agreed - but how much of your total flying over the past, say 5 years, required these decisions?
1%? 5%?

In many other jobs - the on-job experience is required as a minimum.

In CC - the minimum is the safety standards to operate doors, evacuate, use equipment and react correctly to medical and fire emergencies etc.

While I'd agree that an experienced crew member is more likely to have had issues in the past and therefore the experience to deal with them - I'd say it's a smallish percentage of the whole CC workforce. Thankfully - full blown emergencies are rare. Side effect being that not everyone sees them or experiences them.

No-one knows how they'd react in a life threatening situation at 30,000 feet until it happens. Whether VCC or a crew member with 5-10 years experience that has been lucky enough to have not been involved yet.

Now - if you are talking about on-board service - different matter and I'd agree 100% that neither VCC or anyone can do the job without on-job training.
My point is that there are few jobs in other departments where you can do ANYTHING without on-job training. Legal minimums don't exist.
You might know how to use a Maintenance Manual for example - but there aint no course that will tell you how to apply it. Well, there is to a point, but as I said before, it takes a few years to learn enough to know.

Spanner,
You don't need to worry because no one could ever fill in as an engineer. You are totally right. You can be sure that there will never be VCC Engineers.

We just do happen to be in a job that anyone could do to some degree to get the company through a situation like this.

I don't think many other jobs could be so easily filled as you say. No one could learn check in or be an Engineer as you say.

Edit: this response was to your post a couple above.

Sorry Betty - I do respect your points and views and have done over the decades this thread has existed.

But you want to leave it there! Thanks but I don't.

Eddy raised the point that folk like Wonkaside and MM have been making for a while.
"Your next"
"All your roles will be filled with volunteers - see how you like it".

I have the utmost respect for the CC role - not least since I have done the course and a few flights. It's the hardest thing, mentally and physically together that I have ever tried and completed.

But - when it comes down to it -to suggest that any Engineering strike could be back-filled by volunteers is plain ridiculous. We are not all "database typists" or double-entry book-keepers. My God, and there was me thinking that the word "Engineer" automatically pictures a greasy oik with a spanner in the hand!
While I love the fact that folk know it is not - the sheer differing levels of skill-sets across the Engineering board (and other departments, but I can;t speak for them) makes any possibility of VEng, well...impossible.

I'm not sure why Eddy is going down this - "be careful, you might be next route".
Surely the danger of VCC was always in-mind with mass industrial action. My colleagues and myself were talking about it 20 years ago.

It's not putting anyone down - just making the point that an employee group that can be replaced by other folk with 3-4 weeks minimum training ought to be careful when bluffing a poker hand.
One day - your hand might get called. It was.

I think CC had a battle to fight. A genuine one that would have garnered support from many folk across BA. But the battle they chose was the wrong one. And now we are into striking over issues absolutely nothing to do with the original.
And the battle that should have been fought has become a minor skirmish caught up and brushed aside by the BA tanks, almost as a side-issue.
That to me is the saddest part of the whole thing. And the blame for that sits squarely with BASSA and Unite.

Edit: And I will leave it there! Sorry if I come across as a bit off. Just a bit peed off with this result.

Eddy,
If you can learn the art of Revenue Management or even better still, Revenue Accounting in anything less than six months then please go ahead. It is not data imputting - it is protection of revenue and in many cases, it is poorly paid. In BA, much of it has been sent to India so those jobs (and staff) have gone. One incorrect assumption in a particularlar market, peroiod (i.e. Easter) or even individual flight can lose a fortune almost overnight. Some of the highest paid staff at the Locos are the Revenue Management team as they can kill an airline so quickly.

In two airlines I worked for and I am sure that it goes for others, it was commonplace that when a female CC member became pregnant and could no longer fly, they were brought into the office to undertake admin duties. Given the size of one of my employers, that meant a permanent supply of "temps" thus preventing us employing permanent full trained staff. It does work both ways. I know this is a different scenario to the current BA situation but the reverse has happened before.

Chin up - it will be over some time

Before we all get into a heated debate over which jobs we could all do with a few weeks training, would it not be beneficial to return to the topic in hand, namely BA CC Industrial Relations and in particular the recent ballot result ?

On that point. It strikes me (no pun intended) that it is interesting that Len McCluskey was making less strident noises about strike action and in the past few days Unite have been talking more about a work to rule or 'guerilla action'. Not to sure what is meant by the latter term, but it sounds like the branch executive playing fast and loose with the member's interests to me. If the union call a strike but all turn up for work, what does that do for them ? Apart from make them all look like a bunch of charlies. If there is a code word that will be passed around the union membership that signifies 'turn up for work' , what happens when the line of communication breaks down and some members don't get it and fail to report for work ? This is not protecting members, it is putting their livelihoods at risk. The union is obliged to give 7 days notice of any strike action, has 28 days from the ballot result to give notice of any strike action and then only 12 weeks in which to conduct any walk outs. The legal process doesn't prevent them from taking off the cuff action, but such action would be deemed unofficial.

It is high time that Unite looked at these ballot figures and realised that they are now very much in a game of diminishing returns. Better to cut a deal now when you have a slender majority of support from members than to let it roll on and see that support eroded further.

One final thought. I noted that at the BASSA meeting at Kempton, members were urged to re-elect Lizanne Malone to the Unite executive. I thought that Duncan Holley had stated publicly that both he and Lizanne woud be retiring in October this year. So how come she is standing ?? Or was Duncan telling porkies.

OK Spanner,
I'm off to bed now but please do remember that Eddy, Ottergirl and me are not in the union anymore and did not strike. I know your all upset because I am too.

It really is not nice walking in to T5 in uniform on a strike day!!!

Although it's nice when you get into the CRC and the aircraft. Actually strangely nicer than normal because you are working with like minded crew.

Anyway Stay safe.

I know - and I think we all want the same thing.
Night.

So the figures of the ballot are out.

The thing that has struck me about CC disputes of now and the distance past is that despite the majority voting for a strike, only a handful ever have.

I have commented in the past that BASSA are still stuck in the seventies. In the seventies, if the majority of a union voted to strike then everyone went on strike - give or take a few (even those that voted no!)

So, in the modern world union members take a bit more control of their lives, if they vote no, they come into work, thus splitting the effectiveness of their union. This has been so apparent in this dispute.

The union are playing a game here. They are holding on until things get better in the company and then use that as an excuse that jobs, conditions etc. need not be changed. (this was suggested at the start of the dispute by some PPruners)

The union have now backed themselves into a corner. This dispute needs to be settled. The way to settle now is for the company to give the 90 days notice with a new contract - the union certainly do not seem to sensibly settle this dispute - (based on the one offered to the non union members) This will at least close the book on the story. (of course with many books you get a sequel, but not too soon in this case hopefully!)

So to the figures.

The majority of elegible union members have voted to strike. FACT!

The FACT that is reduced from previous ballots is irrelevant, it is a majority.

Statistically (lies, damned lies and statistics...) Of all the CC community, less than 50% are commited to strike action. These figures cannot and should not be used as an excuse that there isn't a majority for a strike.

How many times have you read that a company that has many unions for one group of workers, in a strike ballot, have had one union not voting for a strike? Admittedly not often but it has happened. This is the same with the CC, though of course the non union members are the group that are not going on strike.

Apologies if this is a bit dis-jointed and any clarification needed, I will try to provide.:uhoh:

What I do agree with the majority of posters here is that most of the cabin crew I come across in my job are friendly and pleasant. I could probably count on one hand (maybe 2 at a push) the number of rude cabin crew that I have come across. And to be clear, I meet them everyday at work.

the ONLY job where the actions you take in a split second during which you're under immense pressure can have such a major impact.
Pilot?
Ops Control?
TRM?
Engineeer?

Care to add any more?:ouch:

BA have achieved the cost savings target for IFCE! - Fact

Mixed Fleet is in, all cabin crew are working to the compliment reductions for over a year. Fact

Cabin crew appear to be striking to get ST back, which would never have been removed had they not gone on strike in the first place. (already partly given back, with a full return in a little over 2 years)

BA have not moved from the last offer made to TW. Fact

Is it now safe to assume that this next action will be unprotected? And will the union leadership advise its members accordingly?:eek:

I voted YES. The ballot result presents a vote in favour of a strike. I agree that the support for an IA has gone down and I know that a strike will not have too much of an impact on BA's operation. Striking crew, MF crew and VCC will replace us. We all know that.

When I joined BA it was a requirement, above an GCSE, to be fluent in at least one European language. I was able to present four foreign languages. Some may say that I'm "overedcuated". The point is that it's extremely saddening when management says that even trained monkeys can do our job. It really proves how much they appreciate what we're doing. Some of us have been with BA for a long time, personally coming up to over 17 years, and really given them everything.

Can I afford to strike? Not really. I really struggled financiially after the last strikes and for the first time in my life I had to pay my bills using credit. Do I live a wealthy live? Anything but it. But, what can I do when BA is wanting to get rid of me? It's sadening to hear "colleagues" saying that we are replacable and that our job is not a career. It's not fair and very rude.

We are not all selfish crew wanting to destroy BA.

Is it now safe to assume that this next action will be unprotected? And will the union leadership advise its members accordingly?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gifIMHO, Yes I believe this action is unprotected which maybe why UNITE have not declared strike dates. On the previous occasions the union have been pretty quick to announce these dates. I know they have 7 days now to do this and I really hope they reconsider their position.

As for your second question they have a moral obligation to advise their members that their action would be unprotected but I think that they will sincerely believe the opposite and so they won't.

MissM

Is the reason you voted 'yes' because the "management" believe "trained monkeys" can do your job, or because of the staff travel issue??

I too have worked in BA Engineering for over 20 years and have seen my job 'dumbed down' by the regulators.
The requirements all those years ago to become a LAE with CAA Section 'L' licenses were much more stringent than the EASA Part 66 licences we all have now.

It's not the management to blame for your predicament regarding job qualifications; it's EASA and the CAA. It is the regulators who decree the minimum qualifications for our jobs and any good management would start recruiting people who met those quals and pay them a salary commensurate with those quals.

Sadly change is part of life. British Airways is constantly evolving and we all have to change with it. If we don't we will only get left behind..........

the ONLY job where the actions you take in a split second during which you're under immense pressure can have such a major impact.

Pilot?(my red)
Ops Control?
TRM?
Engineeer?

Care to add any more?Some very convenient quoting there.... What I actually said was :

but along with our pilots (my bold), I think ours is perhaps the ONLY job where the actions you take in a split second during which you're under immense pressure can have such a major impact.
And I have to disagree that split-second decisions are as important in these roles as they are for Pilots and Cabin Crew. In Engineering, for example, there's often time to realise a mistake has been made, if at all. And there's usually time to rectify it.

Onboard a plane during an emergency, if you freeze, you cost lives (potentially).

We are not all selfish crew wanting to destroy BABut that's exactly how you're actions are perceived.

So, if you want to destroy our livelihoods, then we have to fight back.

You are clearly unable to provide an intelligent and reasoned analysis of why you voted YES.

Can you blame BA and its supporters for wanting to be rid of troublemakers like you?

In Engineering, for example, there's often time to realise a mistake has been made, if at all. And there's usually time to rectify it.


Ummmmm, not if that mistake has been taken airborne there isn't! Couple that possibility with the tight turnaround times and the wish of the company, passengers and crew to get the aircraft away I would humbly suggest that the engineers role is, at times, very pressured, safety and time critical to all of us who fly.

Irrespective of all of the 'my jobs more critical than your job' playground speak I think this could be a very telling time for those who choose to support IA. Len McKlusky wanted a yes vote, it is his first big show in his new (secure) job and he wants the ability to spout his rhetoric to the press.

This is now no longer about imposition, Mixed Fleet, pay or conditions. This is now, according to the press from various sources, about the CC community wanting their toys back after their tantrum.

As always I feel deeply sorry for all of the crew who have been led down the garden path by these self centred individuals on the BASSA board. Let them take the first step across the fence at Bedfont on day 1 and see what happens.

As alway, good luck!

Eddy, sure you dont mean to but your posts seem to be indicative of the mind-set of some crew who think they are so special you've almost elevated us to cartoon super-heroes! I'm sure you don't mean them to come across like that, but were I any other employee reading them, I'd be pretty miffed, to tell the truth. Rather shows a lack of awareness for what all other departments actually do.

Yes, what we do is special and our medical training is good but my point is, we're all dependent upon one another within the company - everyone is expert in their own field and is deserving of the utmost respect.
Let's leave the egos behind, stop the tit-for-tatting and concentrate on what lies ahead, eh? :)

Just a word of warning to all those who have voted yes. During my working life I have listened to the union twice and lost my job twice (along with several thousand others) and your new leader Len was in charge both times. He is now at the top of his career and I am still living in a 3 bed semi, a few of my colleagues actually committed suicide as their lives fell apart thru losing their jobs! Just please beware of listening to someone who has nothing to lose by their actions it could cost you very dearly. Good luck all, an EX docker.

Eddy... there are many realtime events in Engineering during which there are many opportunities to **** up royally! Starting/operating engines, taxi-ing a/c, operating powered flying controls, working at height, replacing slide rafts, replacement of high voltage equipment etc....:E

Unite have been talking more about a work to rule or 'guerilla action'. Not to sure what is meant by the latter term, but it sounds like the branch executive playing fast and loose with the member's interests to me. If the union call a strike but all turn up for work, what does that do for them ? Apart from make them all look like a bunch of charlies. If there is a code word that will be passed around the union membership that signifies 'turn up for work' , what happens when the line of communication breaks down and some members don't get it and fail to report for work ? Work to rule or 'guerilla action'? If they call a strike, could they make their members turn up, but then let them "change their minds" after they have checked in for work? It would initially cause havoc, but then again, as such tactics will be revealed to "No" voters, they would find their way through friends and colleagues to BA management. No big surprise then.

I don't think it would be legal to deploy "Chaos" Alaskan style strikes in the UK. Also, handing out flyers to pax about "evil management and hard working conditions" would not create a big stir nowadays. Budget airlines and global recession have changed the perspective of the average pax.

What most of you on this forum fail to comprehend is that the 78.5% of us who are supporting our union, realise only to well, that this whole dispute is about union busting. Bill's promises are empty without a union, We are all only 90 days
away from being on the new contract ourselves. You only have to look at recent events at Aer Lingus to see how the company can impose changes at will. Without a union, you have no legal voice, and you have to fight with no protection. It's good to see their Pilots are supporting them!! Wake up people, if you still can't see the bigger picture, god help you.

I will never suport a "guirella action". We are already working to our agreements and such action wouldnt make too much dispruption.

You said :"So, if you want to destroy our livelihoods, then we have to fight back"

What makes you think this industrial dispute has anything to do with destroying your livelihood?
And does your "crusade" to save your livelihood give you the right to wilfully undermine another group of colleagues' legitimate right to take industrial action?

It seems to me that there is a pungent "dog eat dog" culture in this airline, and that the boss has been very successful in pitting each group of employees against cabin crew.
Though I thought this type of methods belonged to a more obscure part of history .It is all well and good in the UK.

Mohitomaster,

The Union strapline of 'Union Busting' has grown so stale it is well past needing to be put deep down in the bin. The Union (Unite/BASSA et al) have had no constructive, reasoned or valid argument against the requirement for the IFcE department to implement cost savings measures with the rest of the company. They have been unable to force/cajoule/bully their unwillingness to change through with IA threats and action and are left still in the water.

As BASSA were patently incapable of negotiating in a rasonable manner in the first place, as they lost grip of the power they had through vague IA threats, they had to come up with a new threat. Union Busting.

If BA wanted to 'bust' the Union they could have done quite easily and legally over the past two years after failed legal action by Unite and highly questionable actions of the BASSA board in giving advice to mmbers (former and not) and posting confidential personal information, or implenetation of various employment laws stating that the action would cause detrimental losses to the company. Given the past economic situation I don't think any employment tribunal would have disagreed.

BA would be quite happy to work with a rational, forward thinking and pro active BASSA. Sadly such an entity doesn't exist. Unite calls for negotion but seem to forget the BASSA shouted mandate of 'no negotiation'. It's still available on You Tube.

All work groups require some form of Union representation in a company as big as BA. However the time where the Union hold the power to dictated company policy is behind us. BASSA have always based negotiations upon the premise that IA will cause the company to fail and the IFcE management to give in to their demands. No longer. It will be interesting to see if the PCCC garners enough support to be recognised and perhaps we will then see a period of Union representation that represents the entire CC workforce not just those at the top.

'Work to rule'? I'm fairly certain the others of us in BA wouldn't notice the difference. Laminated Card anyone?

Edit: For Mildly Militant:

This stems from the initial messages from BASSA that, if the implementation goes through the company wouldn't be worth working for thus it would be better to 'bring it down'

No 'dog eat dog' just a frustrated sense that BASSA have had BA by the balls for too long and, IFcE, as a department have failed to change with the times for too long and been supported by the rest of the employee groups for too long. Hence the 'willingness' of the VCC community. If BASSA have a 'valid' argument then the willingness wouldn't be there.

"No 'dog eat dog' just a frustrated sense that BASSA have had BA by the balls for too long and, IFcE, as a department have failed to change with the times for too long and been supported by the rest of the employee groups for too long. Hence the 'willingness' of the VCC community. If BASSA have a 'valid' argument then the willingness wouldn't be there."

One would think that it is up to the people affected by the required savings to decide whether there is a legitimate argument for industrial action.
Furthermore,as I've said before over the past 13 years Bassa have made significant concessions.In real value over the past 14 years, CC salary have significantly decreased and conditions have eroded.This has given the company a significant advantage against their European competitors.
IB,AF,UA,CO c/c earn more and often work less than BA crew. Yet we are constantly compared with EZ jet (same earnings as BA post 97 crew) Ryan air, VS and the middle eastern airlines.Personally I think Unite has a very valid argument, and really struggle to comprehend why colleagues from other department would want to get involved.
I wonder if the loaders called for industrial action, would you feel as comfortable getting involved in a dispute that is not yours?

Please please please can we draw a line under what Eddy said last night.

I don't agree with what he said and I don't see anyone else agreeing with him either, so please lets all just discuss what this thread is supposed to be about.

Everyone's job is important for one reason or another. We need ALL our staff to be doing their jobs well to make our airline great.

Miss M.
I don't myself understand why you feel BA are wanting to get rid of you, as you put it.

The agreement guarantees that you will remain on your current terms and conditions unless otherwise negotiated, so I just don't understand why you say that.

This is what Bill said only on 20th January 2011, day before yesterday, Thursday afternoon on his webchat. It could not be more clear.

These are some quotes :-


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
''I have no plans, intentions or otherwise to "starve crew of work " or force anyone to join Mixed Fleet. Couldn't be clearer.''

''Mixed Fleet crew will represent 42% of all crew in 10 years time, not 4 as you suggest.''

''I'm glad you like the initiative of showing all Mixed Fleet routes on the manpower thread on this forum. We wanted to give transparency as promised, and to ensure colleagues were bidding for the right trips for their fleets.
I too read many of the rumours which once again proved to be without any foundation re high earning routes.
When we spoke about routes with Unite, we were all very clear that during the start up phase of Mixed Fleet (probably the first 18 months) it would be difficult to give much advance notice of routes moving. However, in steady state we have committed in the offer to discuss with Unite which routes will move on a seasonal basis. This would then allow us to publish them as you suggest.''


''Routes attract various allowances including meal, box, back to back and destination as an example. As long as a balance of high, medium and low earning routes are maintained in proportion to the number of existing crew in existing fleets, then the ability of crew to earn their variable pay remains too.
As an underpin to this arrangement, we have introduced the Top Up Scheme which will guarantee that your variable pay cannot be lower than that earned on average in 2009/10 (as detailed in the collective and individual offers)''


''I've always said I can see routes moving between fleets on a regular basis and I've also said that new routes will go to both existing and mixed fleets dependant on customer and business need. You're seeing a good example of this with Buenos Aires going to Worldwide Fleet and Haneda going to Mixed. I also expect Mixed Fleet to grow slowly to represent only 42% of all crew in 10 years time.''

''So new aircraft and new routes will continue to be distributed fairly and transparently all fleets based on commercial need.''

''I want to be really clear, that contrary to what you may have heard from other sources, we have NOT terminated the redeployment agreement.
We have talked in the past to all Trade Unions across BA about working towards a modern approach to an agreement that is almost 40 years old, while continuing to try to avoid compulsory redundancies.
In IFCE we have adopted an entirely voluntary approach to any leavers through increasing part time offers and voluntary redundancy. This remains our approach.
There are currently no talks underway re updating the redeployment agreement.''


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

How can you read all of that and still think he is going to get rid of you or force you onto Mixed Fleet. That is of course if you actually bothered to read his webchat on the ESS Forum.

The "Dog eat dog" environment was created by bassa with their hate campaign against pilots. The long list of lies has created the atmosphere between us and acted as a carrion call for the VCC program.

IFCE like the rest of BA were given a savings target based on the cost savings BA had to agree to in order to borrow enough cash not to go bust.

All other departments achieved this. BA cannot back down as all other departments would want their money back & the banks would therefore want theirs. This is a fight bassa cannot win, the best outcome is to minimise the loss.

The continued inability of bassa to grasp reality does turn other employess against strikers. We need our jobs, strikers seem to think they are untouchable.
Each period of industrial action will inevitably lead to a worse situation for bassa members. Your call.

I disagree with you I do not recall receiving any comms from Bassa regarding Pilots BEFORE the volunteering campaign started.
I think many crew have distanced themselves from pilots as a direct consequence of knowing that :
1-some were absolutely happy to undermine their legitimate right to take industrial action
2-that if they expressed their disapproval they would be likely to be disciplined .

Lastly Aer Lingus pilots (ialpa) have collected 100 000€ to support their suspended cabin crew colleague who have been suspended for working to rule.

What does that tell you?

One would think that it is up to the people affected by the required savings to decide whether there is a legitimate argument for industrial action.
Furthermore,as I've said before over the past 13 years Bassa have made significant concessions.In real value over the past 14 years, CC salary have significantly decreased and conditions have eroded.This has given the company a significant advantage against their European competitors.
IB,AF,UA,CO c/c earn more and often work less than BA crew. Yet we are constantly compared with EZ jet (same earnings as BA post 97 crew) Ryan air, VS and the middle eastern airlines.Personally I think Unite has a very valid argument, and really struggle to comprehend why colleagues from other department would want to get involved.
I wonder if the loaders called for industrial action, would you feel as comfortable getting involved in a dispute that is not yours?

Who do you think other departments get 'compared' to? In 'real' terms the value of CC hasn't changed as much as many in BASSA would believe it. The savings per department, if you wish to go back and have a look, were calculated on what the company felt the departmental overheads were. Oddly enough IFcE came out with a large overhead calculated by the fact that, in real terms, verses competitiors the average wage bill was too high. Why, when other departments had rationalised block payments into an hourly rate, couldn't the CC do the same? Oh, hang on, it would mean that those at the top, the same who sit on the BASSA board, those who can 'pick and choose' destination would lose a bit and those who had just joined would benefit.

IB,AF,UA,CO earn more and do less? Do you, per chance, have figures to back up that statement? I just wonder as I have former colleagues of mine flying for some of those companies and I can assure you that the working conditions, renumeration and hours are not as good as those you enjoy. If BASSA are so confident that BA are 'shafting' their workforce why don't BASSA emplore BA to benchmark CC T's& C's against those carriers? I think you would be in for a shock, especially against AF, UA and CO etc who have dastically changed since mergers, Governmental underpinning required change.

There has been no undermining your legal right to take IA. Where has this happened? Supporting the company against ill advised and idiotic strike action in order to protect my future employment? Yep. Just because I don't agree with what BASSA are doing doesn't mean that we have to accept the lunacy of the BASSA IA. I'm not in BASSA, not associated to BASSA nor affiliated to BASSA. Thus, if the company asks me if I wish to volunteers to keep our passengers flying during a lunatic Union driven, ill thought out, un necessary strike thus potentially protecting my job into the future then it is my business, becomes my business and has everything to do with me.

Lastly Aer Lingus pilots (ialpa) have collected 100 000€ to support their suspended cabin crew colleague who have been suspended for working to rule.


They have a totally different situation perhaps?

Had BASSA a valid argument, one that was comprehensible to all, one that didn't change every time Heathrow changed runway then I would support the validity of IA. They don't, I don't.

1-some were absolutely happy to undermine their legitimate right to take industrial action


Never happened. Irrespective of who volunteered to do what your fundamental right to take IA has never, ever been affected by the actions of others. The 'impact' of that IA, maybe, the right to sip pimms and slag everybody off from the roof of an open topped bus? Never. (again, the video is still to be found on You Tube. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing.)

2-that if they expressed their disapproval they would be likely to be disciplined .


You are perfectly entitled to disagree. I've had adult, interesting and grown up conversations with those who went on strike. But after the aircraft has landed and we have all completed a professional service to our passengers to the best of our ability. Skulking around complaing or being surly whilst onboard or 'blanking' other members of the crew for their preferences is not acceptable. That behaviour on board would get a mention. What you do, talk about and discuss outside of the company time, as long as it is sensible, is up to you. Naturally with the caveat of not bringing the company into disrepute. :E

What most of you on this forum fail to comprehend is that the 78.5% of us who are supporting our union ...mohitomaster,
Perhaps what you fail to realise is that your union can't even do basic mathematics!Unite balloted 10,220 cabin crew. They voted as follows on the question “are you prepared to take part in strike action”:
* Number of ballot papers returned = 7,335
* Number of ballot papers found to be invalid = 5
* Total number of papers counted = 7,330
* Number voting YES = 5,751 (78.5% of valid vote)
* Number voting NO = 1,579 (21.5%)
So, I think you'll find that 7330 is 71.7% of 10220, not 78.5%! And 5751 is less than half of all BA cabin crew! Claiming to support your union rings very hollow when it is certain that 5751 of you won't actually be bold enough to actually go on strike.

What makes you think this industrial dispute has anything to do with destroying your livelihood?Mildly Militant,
Anyone posing that question has obviously given no thought to the problem. No thought, whatsoever! Have a think (hard work I know ...) about how BASSA's juvenile crusade wilfully undermines the financial viability of the entire company, consequently threatening everybody else's livelihoods.

It seems to me that there is a pungent "dog eat dog" culture in this airline, and that the boss has been very successful in pitting each group of employees against cabin crew.
Though I thought this type of methods belonged to a more obscure part of history.The boss has little to do with it - BASSA and Unite have done all their own groundwork in annoying all the other work groups in BA. Other members of Unite, who are not cabin crew, have had enough of paying 'extra' to support those who wilfully (if not thoughtfully :rolleyes:) lost themselves income in an action that was so obviously doomed before it even began.

You'll find that all those other work groups think that it is BASSA's "methods" that should be consigned to "history".

BASSA has tried to demonise pilots over the VCC issue, and indeed have a history of demeaning and belittling pilots.

BASSA has acted in such a fashion that a highly educated and unionised workforce have been so incensed by the irrational acts of BASSA that they have decided that they would rather help to try to break a strike than to support it. This is true of many workers within BA who are in many cases members of UNITE. The selfish and stupid attitudes witnessed - I'd rather see the company we all work for go bust rather than give an inch - have lead to a situation where union members of the same union would take active measures to break the strike. This is not just about pilot VCCs, indeed the pilot VCCs are significantly outnumbered by VCCs from other areas of the business.

Public and indeed workmate sympathies have been lost, and lost to such an extent that they have transformed into active anti-strike actions. The strikes are not only unjustified but that the issue has been so badly handled it has turned other workers against the strike. That is what this tells us, not that the poor CC have been in some way victimised, rather BASSA has made them into an unloved and marginalised minority.

This is a huge shame as the CC are hard working and dedicated and have played a large part in helping to make BA what it is today. BASSA on the other hand seems to represent everything that is backward thinking and wrong within BA.

You wrote :"Have a think (hard work I know ...)"

With that sort of approach to industrial relations, no wonder we don't seem to be getting anywhere...

Of course I have considered BA's financial situation, clearly my assessment was correct as we made our first profit (158M) in two years despite the strikes and volcano.So when exactly was your livelihood put at risk?

In other words the "fight for survival" was hyped in order to obtain significant concessions from staff, including asking staff to work for free....

Mildly Militant,

The reason we made that money was because of the cost savings in ALL departments and including OURS.

We saved £127 million and are on target with the introduction of Mixed Fleet to continue to make £65 million more each subsequent year.

These savings were unfortunately imposed on us. I personally would have much rather had a union that had worked with BA to achieve them instead of causing my community to be thought of the way we are now and actually causing BA to lose money unnecessarily through a strike that has gained us nothing but heartache.

Of course I have considered BA's financial situation, clearly my assessment was correct as we made our first profit (158M) in two years despite the strikes and volcano.So when exactly was your livelihood put at risk?


Ahh, the twenty/twenty hindsight priciple.

I'm glad your assesment (after the event) was correct. Such a shame, at the time, that the city investors (oddly enough required in the airline world) didn't have your expertise when deciding whether or not to invest in BA as a company with its emergency business plan.

As Betty Girl has stated the imposed IFcE cuts have been part of the plan. Also many other departments wouldn't sign off permanent changes until ALL departments fell into line.

But thats all niff-naff and trivia. BASSA forecast everything would be ok and they didn't need to make any permanent savings. Whilst all the other departments, including may belonging to Unite, were negotiating their savings BASSA claimed they didn't and still don't need to change.

And still you wonder why other departments don't support BASSA's actions.

BASSA has tried to demonise pilots over the VCC issue, and indeed have a history of demeaning and belittling pilots.

BASSA on the other hand seems to represent everything that is backward thinking and wrong within BA.

I think VCC's have been drawn in as there is now light at the end of the tunnel to change cabin crews archaic working conditions as well. This strike has been the 'last straw' and allowed the company to move into the 21st century - for example :-

Why are there no fixed links(many routes could do this), why are certain working days and associated minimum rest down route shorter for CC than pilots, why do BASSA keep blocking BA from doing their own service requirement (WT+ new product, hot towels etc), being flexible (eg if someone goes sick downroute), turfing inbound Club passengers off shorthaul Club seats as the PAX number triggers another crew member, rigid performance management to keep CC standards up

I am sure the list could go on and on - these are the things that need to change.

I think if BASSA was a good union, it would have evolved and helped to make BA great again - as BA has many really good crew - it is not though and membership should have their eyes full open to that and what could possible happen to them next, is the risk worth the reward ?

I agree with you BG but firmly believe that there clearly was a hidden agenda in this dispute.
From the outset, positions on both parts were polarised. I believe Bassa offered significant concessions offering EF to do 767 WW and agreeing to a PSR reduction on WW and 757. The list goes on. The reply we were given in Oct 09 was that MF was to be scrapped if we accepted the following:
-9 days off/month on EF
-Double nights on WW reduced to single nights (loss of allowances)
-Unspecified ground duties for crew who have reached 900hrs
-Mixed flying on 767 for EF with a PSR removed
-Reduction of Annual leave
-Removal of LDP,CAT,ERB,ETP

All in all a gradual move to us becoming the MF. This offer was rejected by a vast majority and Bassa registered a failure to agreee.Almost at the same time the imposition started and the dispute escalated.
The escalation provided an opportunity to crush Bassa by describing them as a bunch of irresponsible uncompromising militants.
If I had not worked for other major carriers before I probably would have fallen for it. However I have worked for airlines where the union was far more "militant" than the one we've got and was aware that Bassa was very reluctant to take action.
The threat to remove staff travel incensed rather than appeased and no attempts were made to resolve this situation from then on.the agenda became extremely clear:
to destroy Bassa at all cost (remember the 11th hour agreement was rejected for a difference of 10M).

The 11th hour agreement was rejected because you did not save the required money. The sum was not negotiable, which BASSA did not realise. It didn't matter if it was £10M, £1M or £20M. What mattered was BASSA trying to dodge their share of the savings when everybody else had met their targets.

The biggest problem in the run up to the imposition (1 crew member down on WW and EF!!! How drastic CSD having to take part in the service, heaven forefend!) was that BASSA consistently failed to accept the financial environment, they failed to realise that the changes needed to be permanent and, when their threats failed against the management they started on the Union busting trail.

Everyone needed to change, everyone else managed to negotiate changes including other members of the Unite group. Only BASSA, as usual, failed to agree and went nuclear at the very thought of imposition.

BASSA were offered,a long way back, the ability to negotiate MF off the table. As with all negotiations there is room for manoeuvre unfortunately BASSA refused to even start negotiation. So, the Union busting rhetoric comes from BASSA, BASSA has failed its membership through poor/absent negotition and now BASSA are scrabbling around trying to keep the dispute alive whn everyone else has started ignoring it. This continued action will only harm those who take part in it. BASSA could have prevented all of this but BASSA didn't want to.

Hi Eddy, hope you are keeping well.

Mildly wrote:
"What makes you think this industrial dispute has anything to do with destroying your livelihood?"

It is the threat from too many CC to rather see BA go bust than to concede a single penny in concessions ie to destroy my livelihood, that prompted so many other staff in BA to work to keep the airline flying thru previous strikes and no doubt this next one too. Comparisons with Aer Lingus fall down at that point as I have not heard that the EI cabin crew expressing the same stubborness to their Pilots.

Wirbelsturm
Obviously the ones busting the union are not going to advertise it....It stands to reason.

Stroppy

I have never heard such comments from c/c.Wanting to destroy the company they work for?
I am not questioning what you are saying but would be truly shocked if a fellow colleague made such remarks and would seriously consider their mental fitness.

Having said that I.A does not automatically result in companies going under, otherwise no one would ever do it.I also would doubt that Unite who has a vested interest in the success of BA(large membership) would allow such damaging strike take place.

Mildly Militant

I agree that it has been badly handled on both sides.

It was the offering, by the union, for 767 longhaul work to be done by E/F that lost you a lot of your E/F support. Most of us ( except those waiting for WW), are on E/F because we wanted to do E/F work. Having to take all Worldwide's grotty 767 work that would have meant a reduction in allowances for us ( and probably yet more money for WW), basically to protect the CSD job on our fleet was not something that most of us wanted, anyway.

However if we get back to whats on the table now.

A promise to transfer routes fairly.

A promise to keep our terms and conditions unless otherwise negotiated.

A promise to not force us onto Mixed Fleet.

I don't understand the problem unless it is all about staff travel or getting peoples jobs back that have been suspended.

Well I can understand that but I don't think it is fair for a union to paint this offer as bad when the real reason for not accepting it is something else. The offer is fair and actually pretty good. It is the Mixed Fleet crew that get the raw end of this not us but that's another matter. You are not fighting for them, you are fighting as pawns for Duncan Holey, I'm afraid, who has misled you all, throughout all of this.

Mildly Militant,

I can understand that BASSA wish the Union busting idea to be there, it motivates the membership to accept actions that they possibly might not accept under normal circumstances. When a member questions an action by the board which has little or nothing to do with the current situation then the Union busting card provides an excellent get out clause.

Do you not think that, a a corporation, BA has had ample opportunity to 'bust' BASSA? Given both the opportunities presented by ill advised Union actions under SOSR and the finacial ability through the Courts to 'destroy' BASSA after Lizannes idiotic attempt to sway votes during a ballot, BA could have walked all over the strikers.

This isn't about Union busting, it is about striking a very careful balance between those who feel wounded by the company with its approach toward BASSA and those who feel wounded by their treatmentfrom BASSA. It difficult line to tread and I, personally, think the company has, for the period of this dispute, excercised extreme constraint. For how much longer though is anyones guess.

BG the offer to undertake WW767 on EF was on a bidding basis and aimed to alleviate the removal of 2 PSR pos on WW .Thus trying to avoid an end to promotion.As to the promises, that is exactly the essence of the problem is that they are aspirational and unlikely to be contractual.In light of the recent court case to establish which parts of the agreements were contractual. The company's legal team argued that what they deemed contractual was your basic pay,annual leave and sick pay.Anything else is a nicety and not a contractual right.This was partly accepted by the Judge.

It's not so bad if you are SCCM on an old contract it very bad if you are main crew on post 97 contract.

Surely claiming costs for court cases and sueing for lost revenue would be a good start to 'bust the union'?

The notion that BA has the power to 'bust' the union Unite is ludicrous, Unite is there to stay. That's why BA happily and successfully found a solution with Unite over pensions and agreed new terms and conditions for our ground staff. However, I think BA is fed up with BASSA and their obstructive behaviour at every corner.

Well that sums it up Mildly Militant because they were shafting E/F with their rubbish 767 work to protect WW pursers! Great.

Anyway as you yourself say, all agreements in the past have not had these cast iron bits in them that you say you want this time.

I am actually not sure that, that was exactly what the judge did say. I think he said BA had broken the agreement but because Bassa and Amicus would not sit in the same room and negotiate, he saw it as reasonable because and, this is the debatable point, BA said they were in severe difficulty and might have otherwise required to use SORS or whatever it is called and the judge agreed this was a better option.

I have signed the agreement and I really worry that some crew have not even read it!!!

Please I implore all of you. Sit down quietly and read the actual agreement, not Bassa's slant on it and you will see that it is actually a good agreement for us current crew.

I will admit that the version that the Union has to sign has bits about not taking BA to court and re-working the way they deal with BA and I think this is the sticking point and NOT what BA is offering us crew as safeguards because they are as good as they have ever been before. I think you will agree that BA have always been a good employer.

I feel that some strong personalities have got in the way on both sides of this dispute, I notice that Bassa and Amicus are arguing yet again! and I had hoped that someone other than Walsh would be involved this time because I just do feel that a fresh look by someone else might have helped. But there you are, that how I see it all.

P.S. Glad that we are able to have an adult debate between us, hopefully you wont get chased away by others that just want to have a go and not actually try and understand where you are coming from.

Thanks BG

P.P.S. It is only bad for post 97 crew if BA don't keep their promise to transfer work fairly. I just don't get all this mistrust for a company I have always found very fair in the past.

Excellent post Betty Girl - As always :D

there are so many strands to this issue that it is difficult to know where to start.

clearly BA has got industrial relations very wrong over a long period. it is unfortunate that there seems to have been no company wide job comparison, with staff involvement, to minimise the sort of bickering over job importance we have seen here recently. presumably the 'you are BA' comment, intended to give cc a sense of worth, has backfired badly by turning in to a rather precious sense of over importance in some heads. this in turn has emphasised the grievance felt by others in the company as they see the cc union branches refusing to chip-in to turn the company round.

the job has many points of comparison with work in the hospitality industry. not all i know, but over a wide range of skills that are used on a day to day basis ( as opposed to those high-end skills needed exceptionally in an emergency). many of those jobs in the hospitality industry are paid at little above the minimum wage. as other posters have suggested many cc resent any attempt at 'evaluating' their job skills on a realistic basis: hence references to them 'living in la-la land' elsewhere in this forum.

there is nothing unusual in having people working on short service contracts alongside those who intend to stay in the industry and pursue a long-service career: the RAF pioneered this approach virtually from inception. it is unreasonable to assume that all who become cc can have a career purely in cc stream through to normal retirement. perhaps the company should look again at an outlet for cc into other branches of the company mid career? that can only happen realistically if there is not a financial penalty in such a move - again, an incentive not to over-remunerate cc at the top end.

nor should we overlook the fact that it is the skills needed for the job that the employer will value and pay for, not your personal skill levels. your personal skill level is only relevant so far as it chimes with the needs of the job. see the Goldthorpe studies at Vauxhall's where PhDs were working on the production line at one stage.

this really is a mess and i cannot see any sign that the cc union branches have any strategy, least of all an exit strategy.

Hi Mildy,

I have personally heard exactly that position expressed, yes she may have been mad but would not listen to sense, and sadly it is a position that has been posted on other forums too.

With EI, I understand that they made a lot of concessions earlier which I believe is not the case with Ba/Bassa, and hence they have probably kept the support of their Pilots - also, perhaps they havent historically rubbished their Pilots and criticised their parentage either ;)

BG thanks for your kind words.As you have said in your post you were not ecstatic at the idea of WW 767 work on EF, other C/C wish it were the case... And I think that is the very problem Bassa is faced with.Over the years the company has recruited a wide variety of c/c coming from an extremely diverse background,national origins,culture,values ect. In the 80's the recruitment standards were set as to attract mostly candidates from a British middle class,educated background speaking at least a foreign language.Post privatisation cost control became more pressing, it was proving more difficult to attract candidates of the same calibre whilst controlling cost.This is when the recruitment wave of Spanish,Italian and French started. Early 2000 c/c recruitment was relaxed and targeted everyone and anyone no language required.As a result Bassa are representing an odd mix of people with different priorities, aspiration,lifestyle ect.
It is almost impossible to satisfactorily represent such a diverse bunch.of staff. I have no doubt that this fact alone makes it difficult for Bassa to reach an acceptable agreement.
This fact has probably not been overlooked by the LT when they decided to remove staff travel, knowing that that alone would put Bassa in a very difficult position. It was inevitable that many people would back the company mainly to keep their staff travel and retain the ability to commute from Europe and not out of sympathy for the company

Rather than stimulate a constructive dialogue this has cause the dispute to drag on, resentment to fester and a sincere feeling of discrimination amongst those who went on strike.Ultimately nothing is resolved, people (on both side of the fence) keep suffering and the dispute drags on. This is why, in my opinion,the meddling and interfering from other department has not helped at all. Allowing this dispute to be dealt with fairly and constructively should have been the priority on both side.Not the childish behaviour that has been observed..

Stroppy

As I have said before many significant concessions have been made by Bassa since 2001.In real term C/C salary has been on the decrease for quite some time.In terms of productivity we are far more productive than many European flag carriers where the max annual flight hours are capped at 700/800 hrs.

BA WW crew fly to their max all the time.PSR positions have been eliminated, many crew have taken voluntary p/t since 2001 and the list is still not closed.EF crew have a meal break but can be on duty 7 consecutive days and work 60 hr in a week.At what point does a union says no before it stops representing its members interest?

Tolliver

I don't think BA wants to bust Unite but they'd be delighted to bust Bassa.Most c/c in the Union relate to Bassa rather than Unite.

This is why, in my opinion,the meddling and interfering from other department has not helped at all.
That has to be seen in the context of where we were 2 years ago, the other unions had been allowed to see the company books (which BASSA refused as they wouldn't sign a confidentiality agreement) and had decided that the company was in such a dire financial position that pay cuts and efficiency savings had to be made. We then saw one group offering very short term loans and refusing to negotiate meaningfully.
Basically we were all scared for our futures, and that of our families. A lot of us felt we had to do something. With hindsight, perhaps we were fooled.

I tent to lurk on this thread rather than post, but I wanted to say how much I appreciate you coming on here and giving us your views.

I am in the opposite camp from you; I am cabin crew but am against the strike. I would appreciate you telling me what you hope to achieve if there is another strike. I knew what last year's strikes were all about, but am not clear exactly what you are after with this one.

Also, one thing I keep hearing is the fear of MF growing so quickly that it will dwarf us until we are forced onto it (and sooo often I hear less-mildly-militant people saying how they hope the strike-breakers are the first ones forced onto it). MF taking my favourite routes has indeed always been my main worry. However, Bassa's last proposal (in March I think) before the strikes last year wanted the crew member back on board. They specifically stated that, as 1000+ more crew would have to be recruited for this, these new crew would be the start of MF. This would have hugely accelerated the growth of MF, so the last strike last year was actually a strike with one of its aims being to accelerate MF! How do you square this with the anti-MF rhetoric?

Thanks for your time and thoughts,

It seems to me that there is a pungent "dog eat dog" culture in this airline, and that the boss has been very successful in pitting each group of employees against cabin crew.

Mildly Militant,

You're wrong. Its not the BA boss that has pit me against the cabin crew. Its the actions of BASSA, namely a constant stream of anti pilot invective and the BASSA led attitude that the rest of the company can make savings and tackle inefficiencies but we refuse to do so.

Reap what you sow, BASSA.

Mildly Militant,

I do understand that different types of crew want different things but predominantly thoes crew that wanted 767 ww work on E/F were people that actually really wanted to be on real WW fleet anyway.

So isn't it great that this offer is also giving all of them the chance to transfer over and all the worldwide crew desperate to come to E/F that chance too.

So lets recap on the offer.

* Assurances that work will transfer fairly, infact so far WW and E/F are ahead because so far the routes that have moved over are none of the good paying ones.

* Assurances that we can keep our current agreements unless negotiated otherwise.

* A Top up agreement, so just in case you have really bad luck and get a rubbish year of rosters, BA will top up your varriable pay to the same as the 2009/10 years amount. (and this figure will increase year on year in line with our pay increases as does our varriable pay do now).

* Part time for ALL on the lists.

* Transfers between WW and E/F for ALL on the lists.

So what more do you want?

It sounds so good to me.

This is what really gets me I am not sure what you are striking about!!!!

I can see how having staff travel removed upset you but THIS very good offer was on the table before you lost staff travel and before DH got sacked, others got sacked, others got suspended. In fact at the time of this offer only a few reps had been suspended for fighting between each other and had this offer been put to us two Christmases ago, instead of calling a strike, they would have more than likely been reinstated by now.

So basically in my eyes you have been really badly led by DH, he has led himself and the rest of you down a long and bad path, lost you your staff travel, loads of money and made cabin crew a hated spicies for apsolutely nothing. To get staff travel back and a good offer that have been there ALL along.

So basically in my eyes you have been really badly led by DH, he has led himself and the rest of you down a long and bad path, lost you your staff travel, loads of money and made cabin crew a hated spicies for apsolutely nothing. To get staff travel back and a good offer that have been there ALL along.

spot on:D

DH has absolutley nothing to lose (like the Unite top dogs). Bitterness is a powerful motivator

Hi Mildly Militant

Thanks for your reply. I remember Bassa totally misrepresented the pay cut etc taken by the pilots and even suggested that the profit share element would mean a pay rise thus rabble rousing against the old enemy ( not that i'm describing crew as a rabble...)

Whilst i'm not comfortable with volunteers "strike breaking" I believe many staff were in fear of their jobs and decided to act to keep their employment. The real enemy here is bassa, they have tried to damage our employer when administration was a real possibility, they have worstened the T&Cs of those they represent and they have poisoned our working relationship. I would certainly volunteer to destroy bassa & have crew represented by a competent union who actually look after your future.

Very pertinent questions Mesmer - I have often wondered how these two diametrically opposed issues could be resolved. Like you, I welcome informed debate and look forward to hearing a response soon from someone who is a supporter of IA. I would also like to know if the issues of Staff Travel and reinstatement of suspended/sacked crew are on the agenda this time. If so, then surely there is no way strike action could be a viable option, as both these issues are most definitely linked to the previous action. I have even read that Amicus (with 20% strike-following members?) state that the original reason for the dissent, ie imposition, must be addressed before any other dialogue can take place. Can this be real??

WIRBLESTURM: I am WW CC and I think your postings on page 128 are spot on.

BG

A very astute and sensible post.

The best that strikers can hope for is that they lose a few days pay.

The deal will not improve, staff travel will not be reinstated (in full) and those sacked will not get their jobs back.

It could be much worse if BA start playing hardball!

Actually, it's is hard to believe there are still 5700 crew who don't understand what's going on.

Thanks Blue Rib.

Malcolmf thanks for a clear explanation of why you felt it was necessary to back ba.Though I do not condone strike breaking ,based on your view of the situation it might appear to be an acceptable solution if you are truly concerned about your future.Survival instinct ect

Gear Up Cheer Up

"Reap what you sow." is it really necessary to add this sort of comment to the debate?
I personally did not sow anything.I respect EVERYONE I interact with during a day's work and always make a point of being extremely courteous,approachable and open minded.
However as a human being I am also entitled to make personal choices and to exercise certain rights.I find it saddening that professional adults should treat each other in this fashion.

Strimmerdriver

"they have worstened the T&Cs of those they represent and they have poisoned our working relationship"
As far as worsening our T&C's I believe your claim to be incorrect.To date they have not changed except for the pay freeze.With regards to poisoning relationships I find it difficult to blame solely Bassa.
Firstly it would suggest that Unite's members do not have a mind of their own,which I find condescending in the extreme.

Secondly they have not been present in T5 since their eviction of the office over a year ago.To claim that they are the devil incarnated seems a bit OTT,considering that so far they have been excluded from the premises.However I will grant you that some members could do with an extra semester at the finishing school, the same could be said for many people I encounter at work who are not in a union or who are in a different group of workers.What has been poisoning, is probably the desire for revenge by many who had an axe to grind against my profession for whatever reason.They appear to have seized upon this unpleasant industrial unrest to settle old quarrels.

Lastly many who took industrial action have been victimised not only through the removal of staff travel,but also being reported and subsequently suspended or sacked for non offences.Whilst others who did not strike are enjoying complete impunity and can carry on bullying c/c who went on strike.
Because the fear factor is key in this battle .
Others have had pay deductions which exceeded the number of days they were on strike for (WW crew having 6 day pay docked when actually on strike for 3 days).All of which indicate that a large proportion of people have suffered unjustly simply for exercising a basic right over an employment dispute.Are these acceptable and progressive 21st century industrial relations?
Does it signal a willingness to settle and move on?

Mildly Militant,

I can't imagine what you mean when you say that those that did not strike are bullying. Most people that did not strike don't say anything or actually pretend they striked for a peaceful life.

I personally have not seem any bullying but I do find it intimidating if I see XXXX tags or a yellow pen but I do however realise that it is not meant in an intimidatory way. That's just how it makes me feel. Haven't seen any for a while though. Strangely one steward that did have a yellow pen had just got given CSM but made me promise not to tell the rest of the crew!!!

Anyway Mildly Militant you have not answered my question about what you hope to achieve by striking?

You also haven't explained what is wrong with the offer, other than this cast iron guarantee that we have never had before?

Mildly Militant,

The example of someone who 'only' went on strike for 3 days losing 6 days pay is because that is how you are rostered. The length of the trip dictates the number of days off. In are totally and completely linked.

The company stated very clearly before the first strike that strikers would lose pay in this manner.

The 'only' chink in your favour relates to people that were genuinely sick and have had pay docked. The problem was always going to be that since cabin crew sickness rate and 'no-show' rate is so high - exactly how did you expect the company to tell the difference?

Loss of travel victimisation - pull the other leg! Again you were all warned that if you took industrial action you would lose the NON CONTRACTUAL perk of ST.

Some postings on here stating that 'Cabin Crew are BA', the rest of us are not so pertinent to the airline and how this particular poster would rather see BA go under than accept the deals on offer. Nice eh?

And this has been a long time issue with some CC. I am sure if there was an awards ceremony for Cabin Crew, they would not invite Ricky Gervais as the host!

Betty Girl

I admire your attempts to persuade the "for strike action" CC to read the proposals. Clearly this is falling on deaf ears.

We can all speculate what BA might or should do, time will tell but hopefully sooner rather than later.

Mildly Militant

I would be curious to see concrete proof of all these non strikers that have been getting away with bullying with impunity, in the same way I'd love to see proof of all those strikers suspended and sacked for nothing.

In my experience these stories are usually the result of "My friend was suspended and all he did was........." anecdotal evidence. Imparting of facts, even between friends, tends to be selective. I mean, they are hardly likely to say, "I got sacked today, I was a complete idiot..."

As for stories of sacked and suspended colleagues on various forums and newsletters, well, that's not "proof" I'm afraid.

Interestingly, anecdotally, from reliable sources, I've heard of at least two hot headed militants (one of whom shouted in his managers face that she should "Get out of my ******* face , you ****** *****!") be re-instated with no further action. It works both ways.

I have heard that Duncan Holey has posted that ALL 1579 that voted NO to strike should leave the union now as they are not welcome anymore.

What about all those that voted YES but came in to work!!

What about all those that abstained and did not even bother to vote!! Are they welcome!!!

Strange kind of democracy they have at Bassa when you can only be a member if you agree with Duncan Holey.

That should surely send a shudder down the backs of even the YES voters!!!!

Can anyone post his ramblings if they have access. Thanks BG.

They should take his advice and leave Betty. That would mean there are 4079 of us who dont belong to that organisation. Another nail in their coffin..:rolleyes:

I have heard that Duncan Holey has posted that ALL 1579 that voted NO to strike should leave the union now as they are not welcome anymore

Never ever thought I'd agree with DH, buts he's right. PLEASE leave Bassa now. The less members they have, the less power they have. Then with dwindling numbers they will hopefully be derecognised.

If it is true that DH thinks all no voters should leave the union - and I have no knowledge either way - it would be a foolish thing to suggest. BASSA has lost some c2500 members over the last 18 months, another c1500 would seriously diminish the influence that BASSA has, indeed it would push it toward the point where BA may consider de-recognition.

Even if they maintain the recognition there would be significantly less people for BASSA to call upon when they need industrial muscle. This will not be the only dispute that BASSA gets into with BA, telling people to leave the union will leave BASSA much weaker when and if it has a really important problem with BA that genuinely motivates a vast majority of members. I'm not sure that even DH is so stupid as to suggest such a thing.

Don't know if this is allowed but here goes. This is a part of DH's latest mantra

Now BA's plans are in the open I would like to send this message to
everyone who has either left BASSA, voted NO, or to a lesser extent not
voted. You have been given your say and the majority has spoken. If you
have any integrity you should accept Bill Francis's offer straight away
because your actions and votes are a tacit acceptance of what BA propose.
Don't sit back and see if your brave colleagues who voted YES can fight
your fight for you. That is cowardice, you have made your bed and now you
must lie in it, alongside Bill. Good Luck, it has been nice knowing you.



Have to say I have NO idea why the near 3000 crew in Bassa who didn't vote either way are in the union. I despair.:ugh: £17/month for what. At least I met some crew who have staayed in Bassa for the last few months to vote no, and did.

He is more NUTS than I even thought because if they take his advice it will mean Bassa can be derecognised. There surely must be other reps that can see how silly that statement is.

A union is supposed to follow it's member's views. If all it's original members were still there, he would not have got his majority.

Cannot he not understand that he is supposed to understand and take on board the feelings of ALL his members, not just the ones that agree with him.

Can someone brave post the whole ramble from him.

Thanks BG

P.S. Thanks JT for posting that bit.

Duncan's latest:

I am very conscious you have heard nothing from BASSA since yesterday's
deeply satisfying ballot result so just a few personal observations if I
may be so bold.

Firstly I find BA's response very revealing. They wasted little time in
trying to manipulate the figures to illustrate their rather tired
ideology. Instead of spending their efforts on seeking a way out of this
dispute they continue to pour scorn at a result any government would be
tickled pink with. Instead of reflecting that yet again there is a near
80% YES vote, they try to add up all the non-voters into the NO camp -
spin so blatant even Tony Blair would turn red - to try and convince their
lapdogs in the media all is falling apart. Don't they instead ever
consider the sensible, mature response i.e. let's cut out the belittling
sneers and let's take up Len's offer of starting sensible dialogue? Why
mock those who are prepared to make a brave stand for what they believe
in? Wouldn't they stand up and resist changes if their livelihood were
threatened? Why try and cheapen something that has been democratically
conducted and passionately undertaken?

BA really need to grow up - accept that Walsh's dream of smashing the
union is just that - a dream and a very immoral one at that. BA's style of
industrial relations is bankrupt, it has been for years and no matter how
much they bully their workforce those methods only worsen the situation.
The situation is crying out for proper leadership from their side. If it
is genuine then a way out can be found.

Now BA's plans are in the open I would like to send this message to
everyone who has either left BASSA, voted NO, or to a lesser extent not
voted. You have been given your say and the majority has spoken. If you
have any integrity you should accept Bill Francis's offer straight away
because your actions and votes are a tacit acceptance of what BA propose.
Don't sit back and see if your brave colleagues who voted YES can fight
your fight for you. That is cowardice, you have made your bed and now you
must lie in it, alongside Bill. Good Luck, it has been nice knowing you.

I now turn to those magnificent 78.5%. You have made BASSA what it is; on
behalf of the reps I say it is an honour to continue to represent you in
this on-going struggle. One day when this is over, you will look at
yourself in the mirror and say "you know what, I am proud of myself, I
stood up to bullying, intimidation and treachery and I fought for what is
right. I fought for my colleagues, my family and for my dignity. I did the
right thing".

Next week the committee members available will meet in conjunction with
Len and Co at Unite to decide the next steps. I have listened to all your
messages, nothing is ruled in or out at this time. We must tread warily
ensuring everything is done effectively and correctly.

Regards to all those who stood tall.

Duncan

This statement has created an opening which the PCCC should exploit. This is their time. Derecognise BASSA and start again. I imagine BA would be delighted and might even cede some ground going forward as a mark of good faith for the future.

I agree wideboy69, the PCCC should use this opportunity to increase it membership figures. We also have some 300 potential members on Mixed Fleet (where if rumours of poor rosters etc are to be believed, they could really use some support).

For some of us the forum on the PCCC has been a breath of fresh air, members can express their views in an adult manner and don't get harassed for having an opinion that differs from the norm. It also helps to know that there are many like minded crew out there desperate for a union with a fresh approach that TRULY wants whats best for ALL it's members.

Why else do you think DH has to make up such ridiculous stories about who is behind it? He's sees it as a real threat and if the waning support for BASSA is anything to go by, he has very good reason to be scared!

Our crew community want something different from a union and BASSA are failing to provide it.

Widebody,
It really is much harder than you think to get recognition as a union that is able to speak for your members. Any union be it Bassa , PCCC or another already established union needs to have a membership of at least 40 % before BA can even talk to them and that is a steep hill to climb especially considering that a lot of BA crew didn't bother to vote this time. Of course it may have been in some cases that they had actually already left Bassa so didn't feel able to use the ballot, we can't be sure that the membership figure of people being sent ballots was correct because we know of many already that were sent ballots even though they had left.

What could come out of this sorry affair is that cabin crew end up with NO one representing them and that would be an absolutely awful situation and basically brought about by one man and woman. Holey and Malone. Thanks, you two, you have really done your union a disservice.

This truly is one great big mess that these people have put us in.

The bizarre thing is that until there is actually a strike, he won't know if the ones who voted no accepted the majority viewpoint and still went on strike. What he was confirming is that no dissenting voices are allowed in his Union.

Malcomf: Likewise, he also doesn't know until a strike how many of his 'yes' voters are going to cross the picket line like they did in vast numbers last time?

If you have any integrity you should accept Bill Francis's offer straight away because your actions and votes are a tacit acceptance of what BA propose.


Usuale babble, except for the bit quoted above.

Is this union rep giving permission to current union members to accept the deal that could not be offered to them legally as it would have been encouraging them to leave the union?

I love Duncans maths. Did he read the same primer as the former shadow Chancellor?

2 out of 3 is a 66% Majority and 2 out of 4 is 50% whilst 2 out of 5 is 40%! If you whittle out the non militants, the questioners and the descenters and achieve a 'core' which is smaller than the previous then assuredly your percentages will go up. Brilliant. Also wasn't Tony Blair for the 'red' camp anyway as the leader of New Labor :E.

So, come on all those who have not voted or voted no, now you see just how much your Union gives a damn about you. They don't. In BASSA world the dictatorship that is run by DH demands that you toe the line or get out. How nice. Time to resign and look at alternatives. BA doesn't want to destroy the Union, it never has wanted to that has always been a BASSA 'crumour' to instill vitriol, all BA want is a Union that is prepared to negotiate like adults and not try to run the company.

let's take up Len's offer of starting sensible dialogue?

The option of dialogue that BASSA tacitly refused to consider.

You reap what you sow.

Thankfully Duncan will be history after this flash in the pan dies down.

I'd be interested to hear Mildly Militant's take on Duncan's latest missive, as, although I disagree with his take on the dispute in general, he does speak eloquently in his support for the union position.

My take on BASSA and this dispute is this.

BASSA have failed, because they have been lead but someone who has no interest in economics, or business, just in living the Walter Mitty - like dream inside his head of revolution, resulting in some sort of Socialist utopia where the workers rule the world and there are no fat cat bosses. That he can only do it in a small way at BA, rather than in the country at large, must be a very great dissapointment to him.

This has meant that BASSA have acted totally unprofessionally and illogically, relying on pure emotion to rally the troops, as evidenced by this latest outpouring of his.

Witness BASSA's reponse to the offer by BA at the beginning of the recession, to look at the Company accounts. They declined, stating "we're not accountants".

Unbelievable! How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously, or more importantly have your counter proposals taken seriously, when you have no accountancy skills. (Or you are unwilling to employ an accountant).

That might explain why BASSA's £172m of savings plan was actually only worth £54m, of course. (Or was that just a cunning plan to appear to be reasonable, while allowing you to yell, "See, they're only interested in union busting!" when it's rejected.

BASSA can't, or won't see that BA needed/needs to significantly cut costs to survive. Claiming that this years tiny profit after 2 years of losses is proof that there was never any "Fight for Survival", or that there was never any need for IFCE to significantly cut costs, is laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Company's financial commitments over the next few years.

I am sure that BA saw some time ago (probably during the 2007 dispute) that BASSA couldn't or wouldn't grasp the financial realities of BA in the 21 century and started planning to neuter them.

I am convinced that Operation Columbus was hatched the day after the 2007 dispute was "settled" and BA walked away with very little.

I have no doubt, that BA Board has played hardball during this dispute, (removal of staff travel, using VCCs, sticking to it's guns over the final offer), because they knew that this was a fight that HAD to be won, if the airline were to survive more than another 5-10 years. Having about one third of your total workforce on terms and conditions that are vastly out of step with most of the industry would have eventually made it very difficult for BA to compete. Now, with Mixed fleet, that cost will gradually, but significantly reduce year on year.

I used to be a member of cc89 because they were lead by clever, balanced people, who were much more business focussed. They understood the needs of the Company and were able to negociate deals that benefitted BOTH parties. Unfortunately in it's current Amicus guise and leadership, it is trying to out BASSA BASSA, so I had to leave.

I long for a time when there is a new cc89 (cc11?) to join.

Talking of the PCCC. Tiramisu hasn't posted for a while. I hope he/she is well, happy in life and hasn't been bullied. Same goes for Glamgirl whose posts I always enjoyed.

While on the subject of bullying, one of the cabin crew I flew with a while ago had a large letter S scratched into her car door in the crew car park while away on a trip last year. Interestingly the perpetrator was caught in the act and has been suspended.

Doubtless DH will say that suspending this brave person, who was merely expressing an opinion about a non-striking crew member, is an act of bullying by BA and grossly unfair?

Mildly Militant

In post 2542 you say BA should be comparing the T & Cs of it's crew to those of other flag carriers such as AF/LH/CO/UA. Fair point, apart from the following:

Their home base isn't London, one of the, if not the, most competetive markets for international air travel. To say that Easyjet, and the like, are not a fair comparison, misses a very important point.

Easyjet is only irrelevant if our customers don't see them as a competetor. Unfortunately, in Europe, where I operate as crew, they very much do. Many people may prefer to travel BA, but they will only do so if the difference in fare is relatively small. I am constantly shocked to see how little some of our customers have paid - fares you would have dreamed about paying 10, even 15 years ago.

The case is less clear cut on WW admittedly, but have you seen the TV ads for Emirates? - flights to Australia from SIX different cities across the UK. The same airline with orders for 90, yes 90 A380s.

I don't know where you get your information on AF, LH etc. Are you sure they still have T & Cs superior to ours?

I was on one German nightstop where a Lufthansa crew was at pick up and I asked them what they were doing that day. They were just about to start a 6 sector day!

Qantas have, I believe, had for some time their version of Mixed fleet and a variety of different contracts as well as their legacy crew.

A number of the US carriers pilots and, I think cabin crew took a pay cut when the recession hit.

I was a passenger on an Air France 2 years ago and I asked the SCCM if they'd had any changes to their T & Cs and she confirmed there had.

Sometimes we might WANT something to be so, because it allows us the luxury of staying as we are; that's what BASSA plays on, but it's only by being realistic about what the situation actually IS, that we can work to make sure our long term future is assured.

I have printed off DH's latest missive, and will be showing it to those crew out there who did not or will not be striking in the future. IF they are still members of Bassa after reading that threat, then there is no hope for us ALL in the future. I feel that actually a lot of crew who didn't vote had actually received a ballot paper, despite leaving either Bassa or Amicus. I encourage others on here to print it off and do the same. There are a lot out there who do not read any of the forums or stuff from Bassa despite being members.

PS. Beagle9 - great post

From DH I now turn to those magnificent 78.5%. You have made BASSA what it is; on
behalf of the reps I say it is an honour to continue to represent you in
this on-going struggle. One day when this is over, you will look at
yourself in the mirror and say "you know what, I am proud of myself, I
stood up to bullying, intimidation and treachery and I fought for what is
right. I fought for my colleagues, my family and for my dignity. I did the
right thing"

Might want to add ".......despite having no job, no pension, not being able to afford the bus fare to meet my comrades at Bedfont"

I thought BASSA sent out about 10000 ballot papers?

I now turn to those magnificent 78.5%.

If they did, I make it a magnificent 57%. :rolleyes:

Dave if you look at post 2475, on 21 Jan, you can see the exact figures without Bassa mis-spin.

Also BA quote that there are 13,500 cabin crew altogether if you include Mixed Fleet.

Cheers, Betty. I was just looking at BASSA members.

If DH wants to kick out anyone who didn't vote yes, he's going to have to kick out 4469 people out of 10200. If that's the case, he can't claim 78% support.

No surprise there then.:=

I have read on another forum a reproduction of a long post by a Bassa member on the Bassa Forum, saying how disappointed they are with Duncan Holey's latest post and how he is the problem. He voted NO to all the strikes and does not understand how Duncan Holey can post a post like he has in a democratic union and risk the union being derecognised

Wonder if it will be allowed to stay on the Bassa site or will the dictator remove it!!!!. It is very uncomplimentary to Duncan.

I bet WW can't believe his luck, he has just sat back and watched BASSA destroy itself. I can't even remember the last communication from our CEO regarding the dispute they have been few and far between throughout. All he has had to do is sit back and watch them implode!! How sad that it one man and his ego has brought it to this (I mean DH by the way).

The post was eloquently written and truly heartfelt and I would have to agree probably the view of the 'silent' majority within the union. Very brave to write it, but something must be done to stop this lunacy.

I have been in work all over this weekend and the feeling I am getting is that people really can't grasp how only 5700 members are still up for the fight when they have lost ST, pay etc. Maybe some are suddenly realising that BA was telling the truth all along that only 5,000 went on strike and this figure reflects that with some additional support? The thing is most of us knew that 7000 never went out on strike only DH felt the need to embellish the figures to hold onto support.

Now these 1500 or so no voters and the 2000 or so abstainers have had the call to 'foxtrot oscar' from their dear leader, will they follow through with it?

but when i see the likes of an innocent rep like NXXXX MXXXXX, single Mum and all that

What an utter utter chauvanistic condescending ***** this individual is. And he doesn't even realise it.

Single Mum "and all that".

Disgrace. Still easy from your comfortable position of BA and BASSA funds.

I sense desperation with that pathetic ballot result.

Well, from what I have read, the NXXX MXXX dismissal hardly covers BA in glory. DH may or may not be of liking to PPrune, however that representative has lost her career.

Possibly poor words by DH, but they are an unvetted personal opinion, rather than a proof read legal statement.

As I said, it was what I have read. I am only too willing to be educated in opinion.

I hold no faith in tribunals in ever turning over a correctly reasoned dismissal by an employer, outside of protected rights. One of the many failings of employment law designed in the 90's and not massively changed since.

But I would say that.

The reason Nxxx Mxxxxx was sacked was not that she was "representing" the crew or any other "official" reason from Bassa. It has to do with a serious incident onboard an aircraft (without pax at the time), where when the crew were due to be interviewed, Nxxx Mxxxxx encouraged them to lie. That's just one of the real reasons. I know you all probably want me to elaborate, but I can't. Sorry.

Well done to those few who have the guts to stand up to DH and are trying to get some answers. I suspect their access to the Bassa Forum will now be denied, and no doubt, their membership cancelled for them.

If you were present MIDLGW then I cannot argue against your understanding of the reps dismissal, however, my understanding is that she explained to the crew involved that they could not provide a statement based on hearsay, they could not report what they hadn't seen, they could not report the rumour they had heard as fact.

On that basis BA were unable to discipline anyone.

The reason Nxxx Mxxxxx was sacked was not that she was "representing" the crew or any other "official" reason from Bassa. It has to do with a serious incident onboard an aircraft (without pax at the time), where when the crew were due to be interviewed, Nxxx Mxxxxx encouraged them to lie. That's just one of the real reasons. I know you all probably want me to elaborate, but I can't. Sorry.

Well done to those few who have the guts to stand up to DH and are trying to get some answers. I suspect their access to the Bassa Forum will now be denied, and no doubt, their membership cancelled for them.

Very strong words and unless you where actually present in the company of those people at the time, very difficult to prove.

I suggest that you are posting 'fact' on hearsay and I would suggest that your posting, unless you are able to prove its validity is slanderous

I suggest that you are posting 'fact' on hearsay and I would suggest that your posting, unless you are able to prove its validity is slanderous

I'm not posting on "hearsay", nor am I posting slanderous words. I know what I know. Whether you believe me or not, is up to you.

Bassaswitch.

Your example is not hearsay.

LGWMID.

You were not there - I don't believe you.

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, knows the full facts on here. Instead we sit back and let reputations be maligned for no better reason than it makes Bassa look bad.

The least I know about this incident is equal to the amount you know and I suspect MIDLGW. I offer an alternative rumour for the sake of balance.

PC767, I don't have a problem with you not believing me. It's your perogative. I'm confident enough in what I know that a few people not believing me is not an issue.

The only reason I brought this to people's attention, is because I'm tired of the lies about sackings and suspensions. I know some have been re-instated, and good for them. I know some haven't been re-instated, which means they did something seriously wrong. Some cases have been more public than others, such as D.H. and M.E. Both of these guys claim to be innocent, but we all (well, most) know better.

There is a lot of misinformation, even by Unite, on BA's EG901 disciplinary process. You get the impression that people have been disciplined or sacked for doing little or nothing wrong.

But EG901 is quite clear on what the process is. Briefly, there is first a preliminary investigation (PI) to determine if there is a case to be answered. If there is, then there is a hearing. You may ask: Who carries out the hearing? This is the answer (quoted verbatim from EG901):

a manager with no prior involvement in the case, a management grade or equivalent if dismissal is a possible sanctionIf the case is found against the employee, the employee can appeal twice against the sanction.

The employee is entitled to have union help at the hearing.

So, how can Unite claim that the process is so flawed, causing may cabin crew have been unfairly disciplined or dismissed?

The policy does not matter; if business want rid, then there is no comeback other than a financial penalty for acting in an improper manner. The £65K max penalty is a drop in the ocean, compared to the savings figures.

I hear that the Branch Secretary of BASSA has asked all union members who did not vote or voted no to industrial action to leave the Unite/Bassa union.

If this is true, i wouldn't be suprised if a few thousand took him up.

Well, if they do leave the Bassa branch, I would advise them to rejoin online.

So what this boils down to is N.M. encouraged crew to withhold information that could have been useful to BA. Naughty naughty, interfering with the investigative process and all that (to use Duncans vernacular).

Unless any of us have actually read the disciplinary notes and reports in any of these cases then none of us are in a position to discuss individual disciplinaries and suspensions with any degree of certainty.

What is certain is BA do not just sack people. There is a robust procedure in place which is followed when disciplining ANY BA employee, cabin crew or not. I know some peolple will crow that this process is being used more harshly in order to get rid of militant employees, but again, how are any of us able to pass judgement like that if we haven't seen or heard the evidence in question.

As already mentioned, an Employment Tribunal will have the final say.

Now can we move on....

An employment tribunal will not have a final say in anything. It will make sure that BA followed due process and examine whether their actions where a reasonable response to the alleged misconduct.It is not allowed to transpose its own view, for that of the employer.

AITO blasts BA crew strike decision

AITO has hit out at British Airways crew for voting to strike again, labelling the action “comical if it weren’t so serious”.

A statement from the Association of Independent Tour Operators says that following a “brutal” year which saw the ash cloud debacle and heavy snow disruption, a strike is the “last thing” that the airline needs.

It says: “The threat of another BA strike once again hangs over the travel industry, and on the very day when the British Airways name disappears from the London Stock Exchange, cabin crew seem to be doing their best to cause chaos to innocent travellers once again.”


It was revealed on Friday that British Airways cabin crew had voted by 5,751 to 1,579 in favour of strike action. No strike dates have been set yet. Crew union Unite said the turn out to vote on whether to strike was bigger than the last time.

Union leader Len McCluskey said: “For the fourth time in 13 months, BA cabin crew have voted overwhelmingly in support of their union and expressed their dissatisfaction with management behaviour.”

The dispute has been dragging on for two years and has already led to 22 strike days, costing BA £150m.

AITO aviation committee chairman John Tangney said: “If it wasn’t so serious it would be almost comical, cabin crew were warned that if they went on strike that their staff concessions would be removed yet they continued regardless.

“They can have absolutely no grounds for complaint; it is clear that their initial strike action was a calamitous decision and achieved nothing.

“I would recommend that travellers who are concerned about this strike to contact their tour operator who will be ready for their calls and will help re-book flights with other carriers.”

BA says it has contingency plans in place that will mean that during the next walk out it will be able to operate all of its flights from Gatwick and London City and all long-haul flights from Heathrow. Only “a minority” of short-haul flights from Heathrow will be affected.

AITO ends its statement by advising holiday makers to book with specialist tour operators in order to receive “full back up”.

Its adds: “Many of AITO’s 140 holiday specialists are ready to work around the clock to rebook clients on alternative airlines, reorganise accommodation and car hire, source new dates for holidays, and generally reassure people that they are in safe hands.

"Tour operators assume responsibility for holidays when something goes awry and, when a problem of this magnitude rears its head, who doesn’t want to have somebody to turn to for advice and practical help instead of opting for a long wait for a BA phone to be answered?”

Posted by JUAN TRIPP on 19th Jan

So the ballot result is due to be announced on Friday. How do we feel its going to go?. My guess has changed totally over the last few weeks, and now I think there will be a 'NO' majority. If Bassa/Amicus are to be believed, and that 10000 ballots were sent out, I think there will be around 8000 returned forms. Of those 3500 will be yes, and 4500 will be no. The main reason I'm saying this, is because I've met a hell of a lot of crew recently who are still in Bassa ( WHY??):ugh::ugh::ugh: but came into work and have voted NO in this ballot. I really think that Bassa will lose this one.



Got that totally wrong didn't you clever clogs. Might I suggest that next time you come on here spouting off your 'mystic meg' ideas, you engage brain first and then type.

Sorry about the above folks. I've had a chat with my alterego and I think he now understands the process a bit more. He did mention to me though that he thought DH would now go nuclear, and go for a straight solid 2 month strike. Ummm?? I've told him to stop coming out with such stupid ideas:rolleyes:

Does your alter ego have the same initials as yourself but with differing names? John Th***s!

That might explain why he speaks such a load of b***s!

I think all the 'NO' voters are on Eurofleet because I have flown with so many too. The abstainers are actually all the people who have left the unions in the last year and yet still got a ballot paper, which just leaves a few thousand hard core WW crew who voted 'YES'. On Eurofleet, the remaining 'Yes' voters are definately in the minority and seem to be centred among the Purser community (for reasons I haven't been able to fathom) and senior main crew.

It'll be interesting to see which of them have the courage of their convictions and actually 'walk the talk'.

a straight solid 2 month strike Blimey, two whole months without a non-op; I don't know if I can cope with that much work after two years of sitting around! he doesn't need you putting crazy ideas in his head, he has enough of his own!:)

Ottergirl,

Yes thats probably why I got my figures so badly wrong. Seems longhaul is a totally differant animal to eurofleet. I also agree that a lot of the crew who didn't vote had left the union, but still got a ballot form. I know a lot of that catorgory. Anyway DH has 21 days from the 21st Jan to reveal his options. He must be going through all the differant battles and wars in history as we speak, to give him ideas:)

Ottergirl,

it is very difficult to gauge the general attitude on Worldwide. Nobody is talking about the result of the ballot. I do think however that some of the 'NO' votes must have come from our fleet. At least I'd like to think so.

He must be going through all the differant battles and wars in history as we speak, to give him ideashttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif Maybe hoping that Saints can beat Man U on Saturday to inspire him! Or that the tomatoes will point the way!

I do think however that some of the 'NO' votes must have come from our fleet. At least I'd like to think so.
Tolliver, alright then you can have the 79 cos I'm sure the 1500 must be Eurofleet! :} It's harder for you guys on WW not being able to talk about whats going on and must make for some difficult moments in the bar downroute. On Eurofleet we seem to end up talking about it alot, whatever side everyone is on; doesn't seem to be a problem discussing it with the Flight crew either once the 'dancing on eggshells' bit is over with. On a long band 4 day on the 767 I generally will know which way each crew member has voted by the time we clear.

Dear Ottergirl,

if what you say is true, do you think BA will be in a position to fly a lot more shorthaul flights than during the last strike?

I agree, most people on WW don't really talk about it now.

Conversations I have had or have heard of seem to be of a much more mature approach. Listening and respecting individual views. Many don't even touch on individual views, the conversations are more general....'what do think is going to happen?'. Many even admitting that, in hindsight, BASSA have cocked things up.

I think that people are bored of the whole charade.

There are a minority who still want to feed on the doom and gloom and quite frankly, so long as they perform onboard, let them get on with it!!

Len Mclunkey, fresh from trying (and failing) to expel BALPA from the TUC, now wants their support!! You couldn't make it up.

British Airways Cabin Crew Ask Pilots to Stop Undermining Strike - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-25/british-airways-cabin-crew-ask-pilots-to-stop-undermining-strike.html)

British Airways Plc’s cabin-crew union has asked pilots to stop undermining a two-year campaign over pay and staffing levels by volunteering as emergency flight attendants during strike action, according to the cockpit union.

Unite General Secretary Len McCluskey has written to Jim McAuslan, his counterpart at the British Airline Pilots’ Association, to appeal for support, McAuslan said today in an interview in London. Some union officials have “lost the plot” over the dispute and Balpa plans to stay neutral, he said.

“We will not be encouraging our members to support the strike action, neither will we be chastising them for doing so or encouraging anyone to do the work of other staff,” he said, adding that were pilots to be consulted there would be “an overwhelming vote against supporting the cabin crew.”

A return to industrial action was backed by more than 78 percent of 7,330 flight attendants who voted in a month-long poll, Unite said Jan. 21. While the union wants talks rather than an immediate strike, British Airways says it’s not prepared to modify existing proposals and will use rented planes and stand-in staff from across the company to beat any walkout.

Contingency plans developed by Willie Walsh, the BA chief who heads International Consolidated Airlines Group SA following the carrier’s merger with Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana SA, are likely to hold up well, with support from most employee groups, McAuslan said. British Airways succeeded in keeping flights operating during five strikes spanning 22 days last year.

Rift Concern

McAuslan said he’s concerned that a rift is developing between flight attendant and pilots as Unite’s BASSA division, which represents cabin crew, holds out for a better deal from the airline after blocking a settlement in November.

“Unite is the prisoner of a branch that’s lost the plot a bit and cabin crew who have been badly led are frustrated,” he said. “But at the end of all of this flight and cabin crew need to work together. This is a safety critical industry.”

Unite has no comment on Balpa’s remarks, spokeswoman Pauline Doyle said by telephone. The union’s leadership aims to meet with cabin-crew representatives later this week to determine the next course of action, she said.

Pilots will begin negotiating a new pay deal of their own in the spring, McAuslan said at the briefing.

do you think BA will be in a position to fly a lot more shorthaul flights than during the last strike?
Hi Tolliver
Yes I do! I think they could have operated a lot more last time as the TV room was stuffed full of crew on standby but they were already committed to the wet-lease deals they had set up. In the end, they were sending real crew and VCCs home because the CRC was at capacity and they had run out of mobile phones. They used some Eurofleeters to cover TLV and Calgary as well. On the second wave, some of the strikers from the first came in so they had even more crew to choose from. I would hope that BA wouldn't be so quick with the wet-lease next time.
OG

Thanks, Ottergirl. That's very interesting. If I was representing my fellow union members I would think very carefully about what another strike would or could achieve.
Bassa is on the brink of becoming completely irrelevant. That would be the worst possible outcome of this dispute. In fact it could put the future of all legacy crew at risk. Is it not time to admit that the current battle has been lost and concentrate on damage control?

The latest outbursts from the Bassa Secretary are not exactly shocking news to those of us that "did give a fig" and walked away from him. It looks like, if he gets his way, that a few thousand more will now make an exodus from the Union at his command.

Everybody on here, accept a few newbies, have witnessed the posts he has publicly made about other Bassa supporters that have disagreed with him in the past 12 months. They have been humiliated and harrassed by him to the point that the Bassa Secretary was called in by LHR CID regarding his "mailcous communications" which he openly admitted was regarding his personal comments made to a particular (named) CSD in personal emails.

He sent that message, about leaving the Union now, to 1279 people. So far he has apologised to only one of them publicly on his forum.

I recall the ballot paper requesting that members were to decide upon Industrial Action in response to the 5 points of dispute. I do not recall the threat of "I will be demanding you all to leave BASSA if you dare vote NO as we only want YES voters around here from now on".:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Does anyone know if all of the Bassa Reps, LH and SH, could possibly be offering their 100% backing to the Chairwoman and Secretary after this latest outburst.?

As few of us still have access to their website, we would appreciate any quotes.

I have been 'unconnected' for a week or so and have been trying to catch up on this thread since the ballot announcement.

One thing I think has been missed is that the figures quoted for the ballot result include the Amicus members as well.

It is, for this purpose, a single workplace and all Amicus/CC89 members would have been sent a ballot paper and would be in the figures quoted.

That means that BASSA has lost far more members than has been suggested here. I think Amicus are claiming 1400ish members at BA so knock that off the BASSA figure straight away.

As for DH this must be the moment that BASSA members really need to ask the 'fat lady to sing!':ok:

Regarding Len's latest missive, he seems to have forgotten that more volunteer cabin crew members came from Unite than BALPA. :oh:

Regarding Len's latest missive, he seems to have forgotten that more volunteer cabin crew members came from Unite than BALPA. :oh:


Len is continuing the same old b:mad:ks from the BASSA hierarchy. It gives me the impression that he has been given selected information with regards to the dispute, complete with the hatred against pilots. Clearly not acceptable.

We could very well see a dig at other VCCs but that would be a bit too close to home for him. He has to get his own house in order. This dispute has not only split the CC community, it has split the workers in his union. I think he is a stealth bomb of the union, he will probably severly diminuise the union if not destroy it completely, as he did the Liverpool docks.

Just had a read on their website, they are now officially a listed Trade Union with the Certification Officer in London!.. We finally now have an alternative union...Goodbye BASSA!!..Finally people have had enough of being misled down the road to no-where!..have a look under the "news and notices" section on the website....PCCC – Professional Cabin Crew Council (http://www.mypccc.co.uk:D)

BASSAwitch:

I notice in the Daily Mail there is a direct quote from the PCCC. Very interesting then you should mention that if Unite don't bring DH to heel they will leave in huge numbers. Especially with today being the day that the PCCC have been listed on the Schedule of Trade Unions.

After DH's command to leave at least now these members who have stayed in a 'bad' union like BASSA rather than no union at all have a fresh alternative? :O

Hi Bassawitch:

Yes thats correct. Not sure why the list at the certification office dates back to March 2010, but it is official. You can find out more on the homepage on the PCCC website. And yes it's a very important step and a great sense of relief for many of us who feel they have not been fairly represented. :ok:

BASSAwitch

The Professional Cabin Crew Council did not apply to be listed. The Certification Office has added us to the list of the Schedule of Trade Unions as you can see here:

The official certification office website. We provide information regarding trade unions, employers' associations, political funds, employment relations and more. (http://www.certoffice.org/links/index.cfm?action=display&strLetter=p&strType=t&showActive=1)

This verifies that, contrary to BASSA rantings, we are completely independent from BA, we are not management. We are cabin crew who believe that BASSA have misled our entire community.

With over 6000 crew NOT voting in favour of strike action, our community is crying out for change. The PCCC intends to ensure that happens.:ok:

Firstly, my congratulations to the PCCC team.

However....a couple of questions:

Firstly, on the 'news' section of the website it says "The PCCC is now an Officially Listed TRADE UNION", but on the 'About' section it leads with "Firstly, we are not a Union." Can someone explain?

Secondly,I find it hard to believe that a 'Union' can be officially recognised if all the personnel remain anonymous. I fully understand the desire to remain anonymous; I cannot understand how an organisation can be officially listed as a Trade Union whilst retaining its anonymity.

Firstly, on the 'news' section of the website it says "The PCCC is now an Officially Listed TRADE UNION", but on the 'About' section it leads with "Firstly, we are not a Union." Can someone explain?

Thanks for your good wishes 28L.

We had to put that on the about page when we first started so as not to mislead anyone. Our web designer is currently at 35000 ft! As soon as they have landed, rested and have internet access it will be updated! But thanks for bringing it to our attention. And point taken about the anonymity.;)

www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk) ( Just incase anyone missed it):ok::ok:

Congratulations PCCC and all the crew who have worked so hard to set it up. Any time you are ready to take some subs from me just let me know. I'd be rubbish as a rep but am happy to support Hiflyer while she represents the rest of us. Feel the fear BASSA, time for a new world!

Would every single one of you please spread the word.

We now have an alternative to Unite, an alternative to McLuskey, and an entire Bassa committee that failed tp stand up to the Secretary and the Chairman.

Mypccc.co.uk will soon have the ability to recruit members as an active Trade Union. The forum will still maintain anonimity, unlike the Bassa Forum where the Secretary "outs" any former Reps or Members that disagree with him.

Let's get atleast 40%, for a start, so will everyone of you now spread the word ????????

Pretty please with a cherry on top.!

As a long time reader but new poster I just want to say a huge congrats and thank you to the PCCC team.

Think this may put the longstanding rumour to bed that the PCCC has been set up by BA management. To be a recognised TU a body must be independant of an organisation. At last we may have sensible people representing our views and protecting our future.

Am reading so much rubbish and hatred on another forum about the PCCC,just shows how uninformed these people really are and how much they rely on galley fm to base any decisions they make.

It's up to PCCC members now to spread the good news,think there are at least 1579 crew out there in limbo land after being told where to go!

For any doubters,I am a EF psr,not a BA manager.

welcome brownhair

I have not even bothered with that other forum as it was merely a tool for hurling abuse at the defenseless.

I have not had access to Bassa since I started to disagree with the die-hards and fantasists.

This forum, occasionally, deletes posts that would be considered ordinary on that other site.

You will find a better quality of opinionated exchange here as it has Moderators and a policy of protecting free speech whilst observing respect for the forum users.

You are even allowed to put pro-Bassa posts up, we even encourage them so that we can see all points of view.

I encourage you to join the new TU, spread the word.

Thanks Lib Dem

You're so right about those other forums although haven't had access to BASSA forum for quite a while now, I do miss it for the laughs though:ok:

I am a member of the PCCC already and just directed two friends to the website this morning to join.

Think it could get even more interesting and nasty at work now but am fully ready and prepared for that,skin is growing thicker and thicker by the day!

Like you I am keen for the PCCC to grow,let's hope it does quickly for all our sakes.

Thanks for the welcome,see you on the other forum (the nice one!)

The Professional Cabin Crew Council did not apply to be listed. The Certification Office has added us to the list of the Schedule of Trade Unions as you can see here:

The official certification office website. We provide information regarding trade unions, employers' associations, political funds, employment relations and more. (http://www.certoffice.org/links/index.cfm?action=display&strLetter=p&strType=t&showActive=1)

This verifies that, contrary to BASSA rantings, we are completely independent from BA, we are not management. We are cabin crew who believe that BASSA have misled our entire community.




Are they officially registered and recognised with/by the TUC? If not would you care to explain.

BASSAwitch

The Professional Cabin Crew Council did not apply to be listed. The Certification Office has added us to the list of the Schedule of Trade Unions as you can see here:

The official certification office website. We provide information regarding trade unions, employers' associations, political funds, employment relations and more. (http://www.certoffice.org/links/index.cfm?action=display&strLetter=p&strType=t&showActive=1)

This verifies that, contrary to BASSA rantings, we are completely independent from BA, we are not management. We are cabin crew who believe that BASSA have misled our entire community.

With over 6000 crew NOT voting in favour of strike action, our community is crying out for change. The PCCC intends to ensure that happens.:ok:

That wont stop BASSA from spreading lies and misinformation about them.

When CC89 was formed it was registered with the Certification Officer and a certificate to this effect issued. This was displayed in the BA TU offices for all to see yet BASSA persisted with the untruth that it was set up by BA and was not independent.

If the Certification office issues a certificate to PCCC then it means they are independent and are not funded or supported by the employer.

I wish them luck and hope that they can break the mould and release BA crew from the nasty, spiteful grip that BASSA has held over them for so long.:ok:

Good luck to Pccc I hope they get lots of members.
I would love a new union on the ground as gmb and unite are all the same and only look out for the reps and what they want.

Maybe Pccc will open a ground branch once they get going.

Is it Friday they have to announce strike dates by or can it be longer.

I’ve just had a most interesting conversation with my partner, WW PSR, about Litebulb’s post on the SLF thread @<hidden> http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/429571-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iii-90.html#post6203409

His post entitled “What is a union?”

I think it may be of benefit to others, perhaps those that find themselves in conversation with fellow CC trying to explain why they have left BASSA.

“Everyone who works has some understanding of what business is. But who knows what a union is today? I have suggested it is no more than a service provider and I have been slapped down for that, because that opinion does not fit the political agenda of the more left leaning membership. They believe that it is still a movement to protect the working man against the filthy rich.”

“A service provider” That’s what your union is, no question in my mind.

Imagine that you had employed a solicitor to represent you in all this, as an individual.
Your solicitor, without asking you, told you to strike for 12 days over Christmas. Then he refused to attend meetings with your employer, he further refused to view relevant documents, BA’s finances.
Your solicitor gave you incorrect advice “you can’t be sacked for striking”. He lied to you “aircraft parked in Wales and doing circuits around LHR.”
Later, on receiving an offer from your employer, he rejected it on your behalf without asking you if thats what you wanted.

Would you be happy with that service? Would you consider changing solicitors?

I would.

My partner is reading the PCCC web site as I type this, I think they have a new member.

Congratulations PCCC and all the crew who have worked so hard to set it up. Any time you are ready to take some subs from me just let me know. I'd be rubbish as a rep but am happy to support Hiflyer while she represents the rest of us. Feel the fear BASSA, time for a new world!Although I'm not current airline staff I felt compelled to post. I have read almost all the posts in this thread, and out of all the CC posters you've come across as someone who is very knowledgeable, has a great appreciation of the issues facing CC and also someone who is quick to defend the community - one post that stuck in my mind was http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/429534-ba-cc-industrial-relations-current-airline-staff-only-71.html#post6069549.

I would suggest that the PCCC needs exactly people like Ottergirl to become successful, since she's clearly an advocate of CC, whilst being levelheaded in terms of the realities in this economy and she has a healthy dose of common sense. In essence a complete antithesis of BASSA! Now maybe she's not inclined to or doesn't have the time, but she'd definately not be rubbish as a rep...

Hi Snas,

Did you solicitor friend promise you Staff Travel back in 5 minutes or a consultative ballot on the newest proposals or did he just make these empty promises and then hope that you would forget all that stuff when it didn't happen?

Good bargain, just saved yourself £17 per month. If you renew when pccc.co.uk kick into action; I'll bet you it will be a bit more competetively priced!

I hope the new union (PCCC) will not be paying its union reps or sending a large proportion of its membership fees to the labour party ?

So nearly 7 days after the ballot result with 1/4 of BASSAs 28 day mandate gone and not a sniff from any of the unions (BASSA/CC89 or Unite). Unless you count DHs ill advised FIFO diatribe. So what is the plan? It seems a little unprepared to get a strike mandate and then have no clue what to do with it.

BA appear to have no need or desire to have further pointless negotiations so where do the CC unions go from here?

I don't understand why you would not want to see anyone getting paid for working so hard. Especially as it has all been done gratis up until now.

Fair enough, why pay to a political fund when Unite recommended Mr Milliband as the new Leader of the Labour Party only for him to reject McLuskey's latest rants as antiquated. Wasted a few million there, didn't they ?

As for paying Reps; a different matter. They are entitled to be renumerated for lost wages and lost payments/allowances as a replacement for not getting an income from BA whilst on TU duties.

In the last propoganda sheet I received from Bassa in October 2009, the LHR WW Commitee comprised of 15 lay Reps as well as two Convenors and a Treasurer. Add to this the Bassa Secretary and Chairman PLUS 8 EF Reps and 3 EF Co-ordintors PLUS 4 at LGW (no members there last time we looked) and the H&S Rep = 37 Reps.

Can you imagine the wage bills when they showed up at these Branch Meetings, Strike Days, Unite Meetings on top of everyday meetings with BA and Membership enquiries. Don't have a clue what that adds up to but I reckon they can't afford it now that Mr Holley has ordered 1500+ members to leave on top of the 3000+ already gone.

PCCC have yet to take any subs or pay any Reps but when they do, and I hope it is all set up and running very soon, I will be more than happy to pay a subscription. I am more than hapy for Reps to get paid and I am confident that, without Political funds and Unite's cut, it will be a smaller amount than £17 per month.

It's not about getting something for nothing; it is about obtaining value for money and receiving a quality service. Something that has been sadly lacking for so so long.

Hotel Trash, love the username,

Now that Bassa have portrayed themselves as even worse than useless and ineffective, the only plausible way forward is for PCCC to recruit the required numbers and start working ALONGSIDE and not in total conflict, with their Employer.
Bassa didn't even get on Sky News this time around; yesterday's news - today's chip wrapper.

As Duncan likes the dramatic maybe he's waiting to make his announcement on the 8th Feb, the anniversary of the famous

"Remember, you can't be sacked for striking or voting YES. Staff travel takes 5 minutes to reinstate..." text.

Well, not 5, but 526,600 minutes later...still waiting for some improvement to happen Dunc.

Your move.

Do they not have to give the first dates within 7 days of the ballot result

No 28 days.

But thats for action to start. The announcement must be 7 days before that.

233 Calling of industrial action with support of ballot

(b)there must be a call for industrial action by a specified person, and industrial action to which it relates must begin, before the ballot ceases to be effective in accordance with section 234..


234 Period after which ballot ceases to be effective
Subject to the following provisions, a ballot ceases to be effective for the purposes of section 233(3)(b) in relation to industrial action by members of a trade union at the end of the period, beginning with the date of the ballot—.
(a)of four weeks, or.
(b)of such longer duration not exceeding eight weeks as is agreed between the union and the members’ employer.]

Can someone clarify the certificate the PCCC now claim to hold?

They don't appear on the list held by the Cert. Office which means they are unable to apply for a certificate of independence.

What's the reason for this?

Choose an appropriate time to strike - DO NOT GO ON STRIKE DURING THE WINTER LOW SEASON

There are plenty of spare aircraft about the UK to provide lift to BA during the winter. In the last BA strike, Jet2 provided 7 aircraft to BA. This only occurred because it was the low season and their aircraft were doing nothing. It was extra income as well and to add insult to injury they use these flights to line train their pilots - some of whom are having to pay Jet2 money to train as well

Once the summer season starts, there will be less aircraft available. In addition, Jet2 will probably get bloodied during the summer as they are feeling the chill effects of Ryanair on most of their routes

FTSU...

The PCCC certainly IS listed as a Trade Union on the Certification Officers website - its very plain for everyone to see..

Id suggest you go back and have a look under Professional Cabin Crew Council or put it into the search box on the cert officers website.. They are listed on the Schedule of Trade Unions...as far as I am aware they dont claim to have any certificate -

Are you trying to discredit the hard work the PCCC Team have been doing? Every organisation has to start somewhere.. and the PCCC Team are doing all of this in their own time, without funding.

When are the BASSA mob finally going to wake up and realise that there are a large number of crew who are SICK to the back teeth of their antics!..They have failed miserably as an organisation to represent the interests of their members - what exactly do they do with all the money they receive in the way of subs??

I think that the PCCC has done very well to establish itself as a Trade Union - finally a breath of fresh air!! Goodbye BASSA - I would suggest they (BASSA) take a trip to a funeral directors and have their tomb stones engraved with 'Kept the Faith - and look where it got me!'...all in preparation for their final demise.. Bring it on!

Herc708:

Not sure which airline you work for if indeed you do, but the second round of strikes last year (15 days) were in June, which at BA is within our summer schedule. During this time there were far fewer wet lease aircraft than the previous round in March and it was clear BA didn't really require those as they were turning away VCC and not using short haul crew. I guess they had committed to leasing them though.

I would be surprised if they even bothered to use other airlines this time due to the unexpected high volume of crew that turned up for work. Combine that with the poor ballot result in favour of further action - just 43% of the total crew community plus the thousands of VCC's trained and hundreds of MF crew and I think you'll find BA's contingency plans won't include any wet lease agreements? I could be wrong of course, but it looks unlikely?

So, it would seem that winter or summer further IA action would be equally pointless and ineffective albeit for some minor disruption to our SH operation.

Hiflyer,

Congratulations on being listed. A significant step forward. I don't know where you guys find the time to do what yu do, but a lesson to us all in dedication.

Hi Bertiebirdy,

What did they get for being on strike and keeping the faith?

Well, they lost a few grand in income which was then replaced (in part) from Unite.

So they got a pink shirt with xxxx on it, a baggage label, a key ring and a yellow pen.

No wonder they all left the Union or stayed and voted NO this time.

Not so much of that Faith going about now. I think they lost what Faith was left after Mr DH told them to leave if they didn't like it.

Lib Dem,
PCCC have yet to take any subs or pay any Reps but when they do, and I hope it is all set up and running very soon, I will be more than happy to pay a subscription. I am more than hapy for Reps to get paid and I am confident that, without Political funds and Unite's cut, it will be a smaller amount than £17 per month.Could I humbly suggest that the PCCC consider basing their subscription, when it comes, on the actual basic salary (or some portion of it) so that the masses don't end up subsidising the more well off. Some of the more senior and long-serving BA cabin crew should be digging a fair bit deeper in to their pockets to get representation, don't you think? :ok:

BA has today made available on it's intranet, copies of two lengthy letters sent to Unite.

The first, sent on 13/12/10 (7 pages) covers issues raised by Unite regarding the withdrawl of ST from those who took part in IA.

The second, sent on 14/12/10 (6 pages) covers issues around salary deductions for those reporting sick during the periods of IA.

In both letters, each point and argument raised by Unite is very clearly and consicely addressed and the company's position explained. I'm certainly no expert, but it would appear that the company has very clearly rebutted all of the claims/arguments made by Unite on these issues.

Both letters asked that if Unite had any further queries about these issues, that they contact BA in writing within 7 days.

BA states that the letters were sent to Unite "to share with you". Not being a Unite member, I don't know if they have done so.

It seems these docs can't be copied/pasted otherwise I would show you.

It seems now that BASSA are well and truly on the back foot. They are having to take advice from their QC as to how to proceed. This is where the members' subs are going, evidently.

BASSA are in a vacuum as BA and UNITE are not in discussions 'at any level'.

Also, Brendan Barber is the latest target for BASSA's wrath, they are calling on him to withdraw a statement he made about BASSA or 'consider his position'.

I'm not sure their advice will be any good as D has said they are getting advice from a Queen's Council.

Westminster Council?

I suggest he sees a Queen's Counsel for better advice :ok:

British Airways union defended by TUC boss in row with Balpa | Business | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/28/ba-unite-tuc-brendan-barber-attacks-balpa-leader)

BarBars reply to BALPA chairman

Of course BarBar needs to be reminded that 5000 BASSA/UNITE/CC89(whatever they are called) members broke the strike

GMB union members worked as VCC
UNITE union members from various other BA branches worked as VCC

Still every dictatorship needs a common enemy to unite the troops,BASSA are no different:ok:

Very true I was a unite member till just after I started my crew training.
Personally I would rather spend the £14 per month on a few pints than give it to that lot.
I only told them to stick there membership as they were going to put our subs up to fund the crew strikes.

The reps never asked our views and only pushed for things they wanted.

When did anybody ever see a tu rep work Saturday's Sunday's or Christmas.:mad:

Strangely one steward that did have a yellow pen had just got given CSM but made me promise not to tell the rest of the crew!!!

Do you know if this person went on strike? This, to me, is VERY important to know. Thanks x

I'm sorry but I can't ignore it any longer. Is there any chance of dropping the silly and disparaging names? I come here in the hope of a more rounded and adult view on the dispute we currently find ourselves in the middle of, so I don't expect to have to sit here trying to work out who the hell BarBar is! BASSA are regularly flamed for their often emotive updates and name calling. What's the difference?

Well said, JetSet. If we, here, resort to using childish names, we're no better than the immature, deluded, insufferably mis-guided bunch who populate another forum (well, a majority of the most vocal - many there are still reasonable, reasoned, intelligent people).

We should be holding ourselves to a higher level here.

As for the PCCC, I congratulate them on becoming recognised, but I wonder if that recognition would have been hindered had they openly said "I don't want anyone to know who I am". I still do not want anything to do with a trade union whose leaders won't stand up and be identified - particularly when I continue, despite my move to Gatwick, to get abuse because I openly discuss my views here under my own name.

I'll join you tomorrow, even as a rep if you wish, if only you were to admit that it's important to have some accountability.

Come on, PCCC - unmask thyself (many of us know who you are, anyway).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BettyGirl
Strangely one steward that did have a yellow pen had just got given CSM but made me promise not to tell the rest of the crew!!!
Do you know if this person went on strike? This, to me, is VERY important to know. Thanks x


The person in question did go on strike I believe, if it's the same person I know.

I think BA should be applauded for giving him the job - it shows they are big enough to move on and if you are good enough you get the job

Jetset Lady,

May I humbly suggest having a look at the PCCC forum. It might surprise you.

Interesting. I can see the PCCC appear on the schedule of Trade Unions but appear to have declined to be "listed".

I'm wondering what checks are actually undertaken to appear on the schedule.

Guess I'll ask the Certification Office directly, I'll post any response here once received.

FTSU..
They have NEVER declined to be listed at all! £150 is for the certificate/schedule and thats about it! - Regardless of your attempt at discrediting a group of Cabin Crew who have clearly had enough of BASSA - they have been deemed to be a Trade Union.

I would imagine that for a group of cabin crew who HAVE NOT RECEIVED A PENNY FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE, it would require them to stoke up any fees for further certifcation officer requirements, such as the £4000 needed - this only adds credence to the genuine claim that its set up by Cabin Crew for Cabin Crew WITHOUT any external financial help.

They are required to follow all the provisions laid out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992- which includes the requirement for proper accounting records to be kept and that an annual return will need to be made.

I am disgusted to read from Mr Holleys latest missive, that BASSA claims that PCCC have been "sponsored" onto the list of Trade Unions - When I questioned the certification office, only yesterday after reading the latest in BASSA's News posting, I was told catagorically that it is impossible to be sponsored by a third party onto the list! There is no procedure or indeed allowance for BASSA's claim about the PCCC.

Still - all that said and done - we now have a new Trade Union - I am asking myself why BASSA are delaying the announcement of Strike dates and are seeking advice from their Queens Counsel? - Perhaps the Ballot is not valid, legal or lacks justification for further pointless industrial action?.. I wait with baited breath!

I'm not denying it's a Trade Union, all I'm saying is according to the Cert. Office website they have declined to be "listed", thus appearing on the "schedule" of Trade Unions. The fee for listing is £150.

So currently the PCCC is not a listed Trade Union with the Cert. Office, they are merely aware that it exists.

I am unable to ascertain what checks the Cert. Office makes to include a Trade Union in the "schedule", but I'll make sure to find out.

Fair point Snas; ftsu, why the interest? To appear on the Certification Officer site at lest means that there is due process happening.

To me, the two questions should be -

Is the PCCC a management supported tool to split the Unite presence at BA?
Is the PCCC a body set up because of the lack of support of Unite and its two branches at BA?Feel free to add.........

Brilliant Posting Bassawitch. How true:ok::ok:

Are the bosses at Bassa really running out of people to blame it all on ?

I guess so.

Are Bassa really worried about the emergence of PCCC so much that Mr DH is making national statements against their right to exist?

He should be worried.

Is this the end of Bassa as we know it?

I guess so.

Has anyone in the Bassa Committee said a single word against the Secretary and Chairman in the last two years?

I guess not.

Will the last member to leave Bassa please switch the lights off?

Let's hope so.

Good post BASSAwitch ;

Just remember 7 Up was Lemonade.

We all now know that he was given several chances to do a U-turn on his decision not to turn up for work and he was pre-warned of the consequences of not turning up for work (ring any bells?).

He martyred himself and now wants sympathy from the rest of us; well that ain't gonna happen. Any person that disagrees with him or his actions is ousted from the Union or ousted from the Forums or publicly humiliated with their faces imprinted upon pictures of ABBA.

I don't think there is anyone left who even wants him back; I certainly don't. Galley FM lately, has all been about being let down by Bassa and about being lied to by the self-martyred Secretary.

Remember, the first mandate for ballot included the imposed new Crewing Levels that BA (allegedly) didn't turn up for. If only he had been truthful about that, then things would have been so different now. CC89/Amicus knew this too, but remained silent and complied with Untie's directive to Strike; shame on them.

If BA take him back, I'll start a grievance procedure of my own !

If BA take him back, I'll start a grievance procedure of my own !Ain't going to happen - BA will never take DH back, regardless of a tribunal's decision. The law does not require them to take anybody back.

Holley should win his tribunal.

It was clearly a case of constructive dismissal

This should be interesting.............

CCCP we'll just have to wait and see won't we?

I don't think there is any point in getting too excited about the PCCC. Even if you do not agree with BASSA, most people would want to join an effective union that will support them through disciplinaries and other problems. If the "union" is too biased in favour of the employer, then who would have any confidence in that association being able to fight your corner?

Clearly it is a quasi union set up under the auspices of BA. If there is no joining fee or subs, who is paying the bills?

For example in Mixed Fleet contracts, if a union agrees inferior T&C's, then BA can implement them. Who is to say that the PCCC is sufficiently independent to protect current MF crew from any further erosion of their contracts?

Clearly it is a quasi union set up under the auspices of BA.Not clear at all! Where is the verifiable evidence for that? Not BASSA fairy-tales - evidence!Who is to say that the PCCC is sufficiently independant to protect current MF crew from an further erosion of the their contracts?And that "who" includes you too. You have no idea what they are capable of. Envy - such an ugly thing. :p

For example in Mixed Fleet contracts, if a union agrees inferior T&C's, then BA can implement them. Who is to say that the PCCC is sufficiently independent to protect current MF crew from any further erosion of their contracts?

Now as a member of Unite, I obviously do not want the membership to drop, because a new union becomes a viable alternative. However, how can you say with any certainty, that the people who are trying to set up this body are not independent? The certification officer will be the judge just like it would have been for Unite.

As it stands at the moment, there is no union for mixed fleet and somebody is to blame for that too. People will have differing views on where the blame for that should lie.

OK Then. Who are the people setting up the PCCC?

Names please.

There is no union for MF crew, as that is the last thing that BA wants. If there had of been union involvement in the setting up of MF, then the contracts would have been far better. MF crew do not work to any "agreement". It is simply a "framework" as dictated by BA.

The law is quite clear on how a union can force recognition. All any union has to do is gain sufficient members within a workforce and the employer has no choice, it must accept that union for that workforce. BASSA and the PCCC both have the opportunity to represent MF CC, it will be interesting to see which union ultimately wins the battle to gain members within MF.

Have a look at this site on the guidance for Independence -

The official certification office website. We provide information regarding trade unions, employers' associations, political funds, employment relations and more. (http://www.certoffice.org/guidance/index.cfm?pageID=guidance)

Lots of statutory stuff. You will see your right to protest is contained in the guidance.

It is not clear at all, that there is any desire by the BA cabin crew workforce for another union. History has shown that BA will use a "sympathetic" union to push through its agenda.

As members of the PCCC would never strike, crew would be far better off simply investing in Crew Defense for the legal cover. Why join and pay subs to a "union" that is more likely to unravel your T&C's than protect them?

CCCP
If there had of been union involvement in the setting up of MF, then the contracts would have been far better.
And if BASSA had sat around the table long enough, they could maybe have had some influence in that. Instead they preferred to throw a hissy fit and refuse to sit in the same room as Amicus, letting down not only their current members but also all those generations of crew to come. Big thank you to our esteemed BASSA leaders for that :D
It is not clear at all, that there is any desire by the BA cabin crew workforce for another union.
Well there's rather a lot of new members over on the PCCC forum who completely disagree with you. If you're right then you have nothing to fear; if you're wrong then there's a new union coming to a workplace near you very soon!

For any union involvement in the setting up of MF contracts I'm guessing that would have required the union reps to attend meetings, sit down with BA and negotiate? Looks like BASSA have also failed MF along with the rest of us.

Instead of thinking of posts in an attempt to discredit the PCCC, why not ask yourself why so many crew have turned their back on BASSA? The PCCC has been created out of sheer frustration with the current unions. What is so wrong with trying to do something about improving a worsening situation? I commend the people behind it, so many of us are unhappy but only a few of our colleagues have actually got up off their backsides to do something about it.

You are right that it is not clear whether there is a big desire for a new union, but some want one.

I wish all crew were in Unite and voted. That would give the clearest picture of where the dispute was today.

The PCCC made a fair bit of noise initially, and then went rather quiet for a while. No doubt BASSA/Unite thought that was that but they were quietly working towards certification, to our collective surprise I think.

It must have been rather a shock for some in BASSA/Unite, hence the flurry of posts attempting to cast doubt I guess.

crew would be far better off simply investing in Crew Defense for the legal cover

But crew defence is not an insurance policy is it? Are you trying to sell/promote insurance? Its an open ended commitment. The last I heard was a fighting fund of £90K........ that buys you about 3 days in the high court, and lets be honest thats where all the cases will end up:p waste of space if you ask me:rolleyes:

Clearly it is a quasi union set up under the auspices of BA.

Clearly? Where is the evidence? I have read/seen no-where that this is evident. BA have categorically denied their involvement. I'm sure I read in another post that BA are not permitted to assist (by law??)

BASSA have always crowed that BA is involved and so thats what the minority want to believe. They can't bear the thought of beloved BASSA actually being wrong and being replaced by a more progressive, engaging group of represenatives.

In time, our Ts and Cs WILL change. FACT. Crew need a union who recognise this, and work WITH BA to find mutually accetable ways of working. Ways that benefit the individual and the company.

Who is to say that the PCCC is sufficiently independant to protect current MF crew from an further erosion of the their contracts?

And whos to say that the PCCC are sufficiently independent to work with BA and current MF crew and improve their contracts? Something that BASSA could have been involved in from the start.

But no, they'd rather shaft MF crew to maintain their own T and Cs and pay then have the audacity to try and defend them and show support.

The MF contract is tough already. I see no furthur erosion to this contract!!

As members of the PCCC would never strike,

Really? Says who?

A huge sweeping generalisation, but, seeing as you stated it Whats the point of striking?...'history has shown' previous strikes (by you know who) have proved worthless and have gained nada!! :D

Engaging, negotiating and an understanding of 'the bigger picture' will deliver results. With no lies, loss of pay,friends and stress.

Clearly it is a quasi union set up under the auspices of BA. If there is no joining fee or subs, who is paying the bills?



Who is paying the bills eh. Tell you what, as you seem to know so much about Bassa, a genuine question. Up till a year ago Bassa had 12000 ish members at just under £17/month. Thats around £1.9 million/year. So around a million goes to unite, but where does the rest go. Thing is nobody but the hierachy in Bassa know. The accounts are about as transparent as armour plated steel. So before you start worrying about the PCCC's finances, please give us all a breakdown of bassa's, because I can tell you it's been a mystery to many of us for years. This is a GENUINE question.

As for crew defence, same question. Where are the accounts, who holds them, do any of the crew who have contributed know the financial state of play today. I said the same to a crew member who had donated £100 to CD. He couldn't answer any of those questions, but told he knew the 2 crew involved were 'good' guys even though he didn't know them personally. Told him he might as well give £100 to a stranger in the street. Unbelievable.

Who is paying the bills at the PCCC. Who paid the £150 registration fee?

What are the names of the crew who are proposing to put themselves forward as reps, Secretary, Chairman.

Come on. Answers please.

Chigley. It is no good trying to manipulate the truth.

BASSA were never going to negotiate any deal for the MF becuase they were and are, against the setting up of a entirely new fleet on new terms and conditions.

BA could have started new applicants on lower salaries with those crew assimilated amongst the existing crew, as what happened post 1997.

Quite simply, a non unionised MF workforce is all part of BA's union busting strategy. For all the good that the PCCC would do for any MF crewmember, the reality is that the joining the Girl Guides or Boy Scouts, would be a better use of meagre MF crew wages, than paying subs to the PCCC.

DFTT!!!!!:ugh::ugh:

Who is paying the bills at the PCCC. Who paid the £150 registration fee?

What are the names of the crew who are proposing to put themselves forward as reps, Secretary, Chairman.

Come on. Answers please.

My God a whole £150 who could afford to stump that up!!!

Better to ask BASSA where the huge sums of money paid into the Branch fund over the years has been spent.

Branch Secretaries on huge amounts of commission, not even bothering to fly for BA as the allowances would be pocket money.

I am not a member of PCCC but am sure when they are sufficiently able they will reveal their names and their structure.

Isnt it terrible this democracy thing people choosing an alternative to the God like BASSA tut tut tut:ugh:

For a long time now I have considered a Union (particularly one the size of Unite) as being a business. Litebulbs recently converted me into describing them as a Service Provider.

Now here we find ourselves with effectively two service providers competing for members, or shall we call them customers. All the usual tactics of business are being deployed from advertising one’s own brand to suggesting that of your rival is inferior.

For BASSA/Unite I suggest that they start to think more effectively along those lines. Each customer lost to a rival makes them weaker and the rival of course stronger in equal measure. There is nothing stopping BASA/Unite touting for business amongst MF employees also of course, they just need to make their brand / services attractive to them.

My partner has switched brands and whilst any benefit from doing so, at this early stage, is difficult to perceive she certainly doesn’t think that there is anything whatsoever to lose from taking her custom elsewhere, BASSA/Unite had moved so far from her position and were making it very clear that they didn’t want her as a customer anymore after all.

So Union’s - Welcome to the world of commerce.
First lesson – “Don’t alienate your customers”

BASSA were never going to negotiate any deal for the MF

It seems ironic as one of the points for negotiation NOW is to discuss MF terms and conditions...a little bit late for that.

Perhaps BASSA should have accepted that this was going to be a reality and actually negotiated either better Ts and Cs for MF, or (as you suggest CCCP) designed an integrated system that was going to give BA the planned savings (long term) and that was an acceptable balance for current crew . BA put forward an integrated option (which I believe could have been tweaked through discussion and negotiation) but it meant giving up some of our current agreements.

So whilst BASSA were up in arms about the smoke screen of imposition, BA's baby has sailed right on in, just how they want it.

I want to know who is backing the PCCC?

Who has paid for the website?

Who stumped up the £150 to register it as trades union?

As I have stated, the PCCC has been set up under the "auspices" of British Airways, but BALPA's fingerprints are all over it.

Studied Business Psychology

If you studied the above then you should be able to understand why BA do not wish to deal with BASSA and why many members of BASSA are disillusioned with their 'Union'.

BASSA never wanted New Fleet which, on the whole, is understandable. However BASSA never wanted change, never wanted their gravy train to be de-railed and never wanted serious negotiation with a company that they have always held in contempt. BASSA had the opportunity to influence the inception of NF or even the shelving of the fleet if certain cost reducing effieciencies were met. They refused.

Ask your branch leaders why they are so against the PCCC? Why does another Union threaten BASSA so much if it is of so little substance? Why have BASSA and Unite embarked on yet another slander campaign trying to convince everyone that the PCCC are management 'puppets' when they are supposed to be so insubstantial?

The truth is that BASSA fear the PCCC as it could, possibly, in the future give an alternative to the lumbering, 1970's Unionistic dinosaur that is BASSA and put an end to the bluster, rhetoric and vitriol that are the BASSA communications.

Some good has come from this past two years. The realisation that BASSA are inept, outdated and inconsequential. This has led to the formation of a group which has a totally different mind set to that one at BASSA, a willingness to put aside the 'no no no' mantra and engage in negotiation. (the you-tube video is still there if you want to watch the 'no negotiation' chanted agreement again). Perhaps they have a hard struggle ahead, perhaps the company will be willing to finally engage with a Union that has an adult approach to negotiation. Time will tell. At least there are those with the courage to stand up to the BASSA bluster and bullying and try and represent their members in a fair manner encompassing the whole spectrum of members from the new joiner to the CSD instead of protecting the top of the tree only.

The rest of the company now want to see an end to this. Union busting has only ever existed in the fevered minds of the BASSA faithful. The company could have exterminated BASSA last year or the year before, but they don't want to. BASSA have eradicated their own power and position by thoughtless acts, thoughtless communication and bullying, slanderous tactics.

Time to say goodnight BASSA.

As I have stated, the PCCC has been set up under the "auspices" of British Airways, but BALPA's fingerprints are all over it.

Muck stirring. As you so wish to have facts about the PCCC, where is your proof of such allegations?

How much did it take the BASSA IT expert to set up his 'mucky' websites? Can no one in BASSA afford to pay out £150? Nope, costs too much to service the BMW M3's and the Audi TT's!

As I have stated, the PCCC has been set up under the "auspices" of British Airways, but BALPA's fingerprints are all over it.

Yahoo, he we go again. I really need to unerstand this fixation with pilots as currently I simply dont get it.

Yahoo, he we go again. I really need to unerstand this fixation with pilots as currently I simply dont get it.

Especially as there were more Unite VCC members from other departments than Pilots that volunteered. Talk about desperate mud throwing.

So here is Weeblestrim wading and lowering the tone of the debate, by dragging in his personal jealousies over what cars a few cabin crew happen to drive.

You must leave such bias and vitriol out of a public debate such as this Wibble. You are letting your side down.

BASSA does not want Mixed Fleet anymore than BALPA would welcome a BA version of JetStar. You see there is an overwhelming stench of hypocrisy when BA pilots work as auxillary crew to try and break a cabin crew strike, yet would walk out tomorrow if BA imposed a JetStar operation in BA.

BASSA only survives because it has the support of its membership, as illustrated in the last ballot. That is what is called democracy Wibbly. There is nothing democratic about the PCCC. Autocratic yes, as no one has been voted onto its platform of leadership. It is still a virtual union. A mirage of quasiness.

But who stumped up the £150 to register it as a trades union?

What are the names of the cabin crew who are going to be its representatives?

What is BALPA's involvement in the PCCC?

Why all the secrecy?

Hi CCCP.

I disagree with your points of view so far, but it is good to have you here to debate our opinions.

You stated (sorry I don't know how to do the quote thing):
"BASSA were never going to negotiate any deal for the MF becuase they were and are, against the setting up of a entirely new fleet on new terms and conditions."

However, their offer to BA on the 10th March 2010 states:
There will be a new separate mixed flying fleet for new crew, with separate terms and conditions and sole bargaining rights for Unite.

So I believe you should retract your statement. But there is more: BASSA wanted the crew member put back on board, but BA had given out part time and VR, so there were not enough crew for that - they would have to recruit loads more crew. BASSA's solution was to put these crew into New Fleet, accelerating its growth tremendously (in appendix 1 of the same offer):
Unite accept that by BA removing impositions and recruiting, this will facilitate the launch of New Fleet. Equating to initially 700 heads and by increasing productivity

So, in their own words, BASSA's last offer to BA before the strikes would "facilitate the launch of New Fleet".

Personally, I was worried about the set up of New Fleet. I was happy to work harder on board, but I didn't want New Fleet set up in case my favourite routes went to them; this was one reason I left BASSA - any strike by crew would be striking in favour of BASSA's way of saving money.

Therefore: The strike was an attempt by BASSA to facilitate the launch of New Fleet with an immediate 700 new recruits - just to get that person back on board on existing fleets.

I would appreciate your (or anybody else's) thoughts on this.

M

This thread is not about BALPA - It may suit some interested parties to dry and deflect the argument that way, but that's just smoke and mirrors and not what we are about here. From this point onwards, references to BALPA will result in posts being deleted.

Please also remember that the use of the word S**b will result in immediate post deletion, whatever the context may be.

AS someone observing this never ending saga from a distant planet I am more that ever suspicious that Bassa and BA are in it together, conspiracy theory at its best.:rolleyes:
An incredibly confused and dysfunctional union playing a very predictable dead wish game and a BA reluctant to press the nuclear button.

Have we hit a nerve CCCP? I do enjoy a little childish name wrangling.

Jealousy? Not in the slightest. Bias and vitriol? Please re-read and explain where those appear? The remark about the vehicles was put in as the pictures from Bedfont contained such images. As the imposition was supposed to hit the CC in their pockets those images caused interesting comments in public blogs across the internet. If, as you state, you studied psychology then you must see the negative impact such images would have on the ability of the BASSA campaign to garner public sympathy.

The major reason that many of the other departments workd as VCC (all other departments) was that we could see the major financial difficulties that the company was in at the time. It was job protection pure and simple. Are the conditions the same now? Possibly not. Are the VCC's needed quite so much now? Possibly not. The ability to fend off this mess WAS in BASSA's hands, they squandered it.

As to your 'support' of the BASSA heirarchy I seem to remember the clause which puts off the election of the board until completion of the current dispute. Again, the video is available on the internet. As the current board has completely screwed up the current dispute it would seem that the 'democratic' members (who don't even get to vote on acceptance) aren't being given a very democratic voice on who controls the current dispute.

CCCP: Союз Советских Социалистических Республик - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Always nice to have you briefing on democracy!

Mesmer. I have BA's Offer in front of me from the Way Forward Agreement of April 2010. It states:


"There will be a separate mixed flying fleet for new crew, with separate terms and conditions and bargaining rights. There will be a separate negotiating body for the new fleet, which will not discuss the terms and conditions of current crew"

This does not appear to be on the BASSA agenda.

The separate negotiating body is of course the PCCC. This has been BA's plan all along, hence my allegation that it has been set up under the "auspices" of BA.

One of the letters from Bill Francis, way back in the early days of the dispute, contained a clause that would shelve New Fleet if BASSA would agree to permanent cost savings measures which included rationalisation of various payments into an hourly flying pay rate. Good for the junior members, not so good for the senior CSD's.

BASSA refused.

New Fleet went ahead.

Cost savings achieved.

But CCCP, my quotations was taken directly from the BASSA offer of the 10th March 2010. I am not sure I am allowed to post links to a BASSA website here, but will happily send you the link if you would like.

Mesmer

Had a response back from a nice man at the certification office. It appears the Pccc's newfound union status is rather less concrete than it would appear.

As they have declined to be listed, at a small cost of £150, then there are limited investigations carried out as to whether it is indeed a trade union or not. To appear on the "schedule" of trade unions and not the "list" is not sufficient evidence to qualify as a trade union in a court of law.

Additionally, no checks are carried out as to whether the "union" is independent or not. This is only dobe after a request for a "certificate of independence" is received.

So to summarise.

The pccc may not be a trade union
If it is then it is NOT considered to be independent by the certification office.

That is how I see it too.

Wibbly. The type of cars some crew may drive or have parked at Bedfont is a superfluous observation, that only gives someone like myself who has studied psychology, an insight into your personality.

The other day I saw a Captain driving a beat up old Renault Laguna with the exhaust rear box blowing. I could surmise from that he is probably on his third marriage and canot afford anything better. However if BA pilots were in dispute with the company, I would not read anything specific about his choice of vehicle or his ability to run only an old banger as most of his salary is going out in alimony.

BA's financial position in 2009 and its future prospects were exagerrated and talked down respectively, in order for Walsh to push his agenda of pay cuts, using the downturn as an excuse. BASSA's position was that the recession was temporary, as it has proved to be.

The only people with egg on their faces, are the ones that believed Walsh's warped rhetoric.

Excellent research ftsu.

CCCP,

BA's financial position in 2009 and its future prospects were exagerrated and talked down respectively, in order for Walsh to push his agenda of pay cuts, using the downturn as an excuse. BASSA's position was that the recession was temporary, as it has proved to be.


Ah, once again, 20/20 hindsight, what a wonderful thing. So, in the fevered imagination of BASSA, without looking at the financial data from the company nor accepting the independant findings of PwC, the companies position was exaggerated and talked down. My, perhaps BASSA should also have been running the economy with such erudite foresite. All recessions are temporary CCCP, the question is for how long. Have you, perhaps, considered what position the company might have been in if they didn't impose change? Let me help you. The dispute has cost BA money. That's a given. They have, however, implemented changes that make the business a far more attractive long term investment vehicle saving millions a year far into the future. The emergency business plan that was presented to the city at the start of the recession hinged upon stabilising forward costs in order to be able to plan against volatile fuel prices. The major consideration in that business plan was stable, long term employee costs. Not savings that had to be given back in two years as the BASSA plan called for (with interest). If that stability had not been achieved then the long term investment in the company could well have dried up and we would be sitting here saying 'bugger, now we all need new jobs' or be at the mercy of an asset stripping company.

Temporary only to BASSA who's influence within the company now seems to be temporary as well.

As to cars, it seems to be you who has the fixation and the vivid imagination, I merely used the reference as a means to describe that most of us can afford £150 if we wish. How much is an Iphone 4 these days? (no I don't have one) :E

CCCP

do you know why Bassa haven't announced strike dates yet?

Mesmer. I have BA's Offer in front of me from the Way Forward Agreement of April 2010. It states:


"There will be a separate mixed flying fleet for new crew, with separate terms and conditions and bargaining rights. There will be a separate negotiating body for the new fleet, which will not discuss the terms and conditions of current crew"

This does not appear to be on the BASSA agenda.

The separate negotiating body is of course the PCCC. This has been BA's plan all along, hence my allegation that it has been set up under the "auspices" of BA.

No it doesn't! That refers to the NEGOTIATING BODY' currently for cabin crew the ACC NSP.

BA are saying that they will set up a separate body to negotiate terms and conditions for MF. That is actually a benefit to current crew as they will not cut across the existing agreements held within the NSP.

If BASSA had played their cards right they could have recruited new crew and have had a seat on the new body.

In fact in one of the offers made by BA during this debacle it actually offered negotiating rights to Unite (someone who can find the document put it on here please)

Stick to facts:=

Just to put this one to bed:

I don't think there is any point in getting too excited about the PCCC. Even if you do not agree with BASSA, most people would want to join an effective union that will support them through disciplinaries and other problems. If the "union" is too biased in favour of the employer, then who would have any confidence in that association being able to fight your corner?When you are in a disciplinary, it is not for BASSA (or any other representative) to "fight your corner".

They attend to ensure that the policy is followed and that a fair hearing is held. Managers are accompanied by colleagues from the people department to ensure the same.

BASSA do not represent you - they merely assist and advise - something that your own manager or a colleague could do equally well.

BASSA cannot influence or change the outcome of the disciplinary.

They use scaremongering tactics to lure crew into thinking that they NEED to be a member of a union... "in case you end up in a discip".

BASSA reps are not lawyers. A discip does not involve anything more than an interview with the employee, and the manager makes their decision based solely on the evidence presented and their own opinion.

The policy which covers discips is very clear and the process is clear cut.

It boils down to:

1. What is the allegation?
2. How do you respond?
3. Do the witness statements corroborate what you claim?
4. Is the allegation found?
5. If yes, what is the sanction?

BASSA cannot prevent you from being disciplined or even sacked, and in clear cut cases, they tend to advise the member to resign before they are dismissed. Or they might even use underhand tactics and advise you to go sick so that you can delay the inevitable and start seeking alternative employment, although this will not prevent the inevitable.

BASSA cannot prevent any of the process from occurring and cannot protect you from the consequences of something you may have done.

To protect yourself, all you need to do is keep your nose clean.

I think the DH case proves that beyond any doubt - if they can't protect one of their own, they certainly can't protect anyone else from the inevitable if they have committed a transgression of some kind.

The only crew who have guarantees around their future earnings and careers at BA are the very ones who are not members of the union, and who have signed the individual offer.

So, I disagree - whether in a discip, or in a collective bargaining situation, being a member of BASSA is less and less relevant and at the moment, and given the predicted outcome of this dispute, is IMHO worthless.

You are about 70% right in what you say, in my opinion.

Thanks LB - this is as I understand the policy - appreciate there is a lot more detail to it but just really wanted to make the point that being a member of a union is more about collective bargaining than getting you off if an allegation is made.

And just to clarify that therefore I think that the PCCC or any other eligible organisation / indivuidual with knowledge of BAs internal procedures would be able to offer the equivalent levels of support to an individual in a discip.

Cheers....

GG

Gay Gourmet. You are right.

BASSA cannot defend anyone who BA is determined to sack, even the Secretary.

Only an Industrial Tribual will be able to determine if IFCE played fair and that the removal of DH was not politically motivated, as BA pursued its policy of union busting.

Many BA pilots have joined the Air Transport section of UNITE or the IPA, because they just want the legal cover and do not believe their previous assocation has any teeth to stand up to a belligerent employer.

DH, by his own admission, didn't turn up to work. He was warned, he still didn't turn up. He had a contractual obligation to the company and voluntary obligation to the Union. He chose the latter.

Unfair dismissal? Even the tribunal didn't think so, nor any other rational employee.

BA shut down the offices of BASSA and denied the reps and leaders of the union, the ability to function. It was a deliberate union busting strategy.

DH has a responsibility to represent as Secretary of BASSA, over 10,000 BA cabin crew. Part of a union busting strategy is to isolate the members from their union officials.

It will be interesting to see what the Tribunals view is of BA's behaviour.

I am pleased that via this thread, it has been established that the PCCC is indeed a quasi union.

CCCP, your pattern of postings, diversionary tactics, refusal to answer questions and your use of English remind me of other usernames who no longer seem to post here.... but no matter as I expect you will not be here for long.

You baldly state that Many BA pilots have joined the Air Transport section of UNITE or the IPA, because they just want the legal cover and do not believe their previous assocation has any teeth to stand up to a belligerent employer - this thread is not about pilots, remember, but perhaps the mods will allow me to point out that your statement is incorrect and has already been done to death on this and previous threads.

One of BASSA's methods is to keep repeating untruths on the basis that eventually some of it will stick, but that won't work on PPRuNe.

BA shut down the offices of BASSA and denied the reps and leaders of the union, the ability to function. It was a deliberate union busting strategy.Again, CCCP, no. Unite tore up the Facilities Agreement in Decmber 2009. BA had no hand in this.

(The Facilites Agreement was a document that sets out the requirements for BA to allow reps reasonable time to man the office, attend meetings and other day to day functions.)

This means that the "ability to function" as you put it was removed by the union themselves.

The offices were shut down by Unite themselves.

When you read the rhetoric about BA refusing to allow reps to man the office or to attend informal meetings, this is nothing but union spin.

Unite withdrew from this facility of their own volition and therefore BA cannot abide to an agreement that no longer exists.

If Unite had not torn the agreement up, then your reps no doubt would still be able to do the things that they decided they no longer wished to do.

Again, this is an example of your union acting without your best interests, and then being more than economical with the truth about what really happened. But then there is nothing new there.

There is no union busting strategy - BA need crew to be represented by a union, and have never said anything to the contrary.

PCCC has been given a real slating by........the Bassa faithful.

Anybody with a mind of their own has no qualms or worries about the setting up of a rival Union to Bassa and Untie.

I welcome CCCP's comments as they give us an opinion which, somewhat unfactual and surreal, allow us to understand the mindset of those that have started their anti-PCCC rhetoric.

Bassa have communicated to the entire membership that all those who did not support DH's last ballot should leave Bassa. The membership was never even consulted on the matter and total alienation was the outcome.

So why deny those former loyal members of Bassa an alternative ? In 1993, Bassa refused to accept that MidFleet even exsted; hence 1,000 new people and newly promoted people joining CC89 for a chance of whatever protection was on offer.

Most of us sincerely wish that we had not been misled by Bassa and that the dispute was finished months ago without too many bloody noses. The simple fact of the matter is; that's not how it panned out.

Therefore, PCCC was formed out of the old Law of Natural Selection; necessity is the mother of invention. Hence; thousands of people flocking to PCCC whilst Bassa does little more than hurl abuse at them on their way out.

PCCC was of Bassa's making, not Balpa or BA. Balpa have denied any aquaintences with PCCC and BA have not yet recognised them; that should be evidence enough for you.

As far as their identities being made public; be patient. It will be a mandatory requirement when approaching BA for recognition. It will also be necessary when charging subscriptions as the members demand transparency of accounting.

BA shut down the offices of BASSA and denied the reps and leaders of the union, the ability to function. It was a deliberate union busting strategy.


Maybe on planet Bassa - but the reality is BASSA removed themselves from the facilities agreement as a form of protest against company.

It's ironic really, that by removing themselves from the facilities agreement, Bassa lost the ability for a rep to be able to de-roster themselves from a trip. The very thing DH lost his job over, talk about shooting yourself in the foot!!

Why are people giving the time of day to someone who comes on here to deliberately (IMHO) stir up more animosity?
I'm reminded of my little toy troll I had when I was 6 years old

it has been established that the PCCC is indeed a quasi union.

Only time will really tell. One thing is for sure is that the PCCC is growing. They are offering a viable alternative to whats on offer now. If they succeed, great. If they don't we'll be no worse off!!

BA shut down the offices of BASSA and denied the reps and leaders of the union, the ability to function. It was a deliberate union busting strategy.

DH has a responsibility to represent as Secretary of BASSA, over 10,000 BA cabin crew. Part of a union busting strategy is to isolate the members from their union officials.

It will be interesting to see what the Tribunals view is of BA's behaviour.







Err Wrong again I am afraid!!!

Prior to T5 BASSA and CC89 were virtually the only organisations to have office facilities provided by BA.

It is not a requirement and BASSA had removed themselves to a suite of offices on the Bath Road prior to the T5 opening. They then moved into the new Unite building, again on the Bath Road.

DH should not still be the Branch Secretary. It is clear in the rule book that you need to be employed as cabin crew in BA to even be a member let alone Secretary. So if DH had taken severance or retired would he still insist on being Secretary (drawing a big fat commission)?

10,000 cabin crew?????

DH has a responsibility to represent as Secretary of BASSA, over 10,000 BA cabin crew.

He also had a legal, contractual obligation to his employer above and beyond the voluntary obligation to the Union. Also he had a moral obligation to his peers who had to continually stand in for his rostered 'no-shows'.

Now he is in an elevated position within BASSA, prolonged by a vote not to re-elect the board until the dispute is concluded, with no vested interest in concluding the action. Rather frightening really.

Moral obligation and DH? Having a laugh!;);)

FTW:

Sadly just a 'turn of phrase'! :ok:

DH should not still be the Branch Secretary. It is clear in the rule book that you need to be employed as cabin crew in BA to even be a member let alone Secretary.
I read somewhere that as BA was in dispute when DH was sacked, his status as Branch Secretary is "held" until the dispute is over. Hence it is in his interests to keep this dispute going as long as possible as BASSA will keep paying his salary. Once it is over, he is effectively out of his BASSA job (as he is no longer BA and unable to represent BA crew according to BASSA rules).
Call me ironic, but I see him as prolonging this dispute for his own monetary gains and not the welfare of the crew.

Who is paying the bills at the PCCC. Who paid the £150 registration fee?

What are the names of the crew who are proposing to put themselves forward as reps, Secretary, Chairman.

Come on. Answers please.


CCCP

Interesting that you think there are so many bills to pay. I guess that's a natural assumption being as BASSA have collected £150,000 PER MONTH off us for years. It really does beg the question - where on earth does it go?

Well, as far as the Professional Cabin Crew Council is concerned - we have no bills - yet. No-one paid the £150 registration fee, the Certification Office listed us after making their own enquiries. (I think someone from BASSA shopped us, so that backfired somewhat!) It also puts paid to the sponsorship rumour that BASSA are peddling - or else the £150 would have been paid, and indeed the £4000 needed next for the Certificate.

Everything we have done has been donated by well-wishers - our website FOC, our flyers FOC, our business cards FOC. We have had numerous offers from across the globe for funding - many of them are on the SLF thread - thank you all again for your huge support. We have replied, and thanked them and politely declined any contribution - ask them.

We have crew members from each fleet involved, the names of whom are irrelevant as we intend to get most of our direction from the forum members themselves. It's not about the reps, it's about the members. Strange eh?;)

Simple. Effective. Cheap. Democratic.

Everything BASSA isn't.

Now, can I suggest you run along and ask the same pertinent questions of BASSA. And do print the answers here for all of us to read.:ok:

Even after many posts you still haven't answered my question. Simply where can a Bassa member find out what happens to all the money it receives. £1.9 million/year. Forget the PCCC, where does your money go and who authorises payments such as setting up false websites for porn sites and the £5000 given to santas crew. Please answer or as I believe you won't as you are scared?

Sorry highflyer, I must have posted same time as you. Great post by the way.

Hi Flyer, I am in the PCCC. I will give you £150 in two seconds flat, but I know what would say!:=:ok:

I just hope that all of you here that support the PCCC have signed up for Bill Francis' latest offer.

If not, why not?

I have and would sign again without hesitation, if there is another strike I guess you might end up wishing you could have done the same.
Interesting times ahead.

CCCP - We have. And effective from one hour from now, we are 2.9% better off!

Cheers!:ok:

CCCP

Most certainly have, old chap/chapess!

oh damn you highflyer you beat me to it. yes looking forward to the pay rise. CCCP please answer my question or is it embarrassing you. I'm starting to get bored. Seriously where does a bassa member find the annual accounts.

JT

Duncan's potting shed perhaps?

Are you seriously suggesting that DH has buried the accounts in his garden! Come on CCCP where are the accounts. Please don't bother coming on here talking about the PCCC and their accounts unless you can answer this simple question. Thankyou

....well his tomatos have been doing so well, he must be putting something, er.................."rich" on them;)

Having no vested interest in BASSA - I really cannot see nor understand why you all feel it acceptable to post scorn, abuse and, to be honest, made up rubbish on this thread.

This thread and the postings here are no better (it probably should be worse) than wahts posted on other forums - cant you see you are acting no better than the other lot?

Although to be honest when I speak with the vast majority of Flight Crew and mention this forum, the majority of them roll their eyes and utter an expletive - even your own colleagues think bad of this place.

HiFlyer14,

You made the following statement on the 25th January -

This verifies that, contrary to BASSA rantings, we are completely independent from BA, we are not management. We are cabin crew who believe that BASSA have misled our entire community.

Do you wish to withdraw this statement or do you still maintain that appearing on the "schedule" of Trade Unions proves that the PCCC is an independent Trade Union?

Sorry you feel like this. Can assure you just a bit of light hearted banter. Nothing nasty. What has been asked of CCCP is a serious question of where does all the Bassa money go and where can members see the accounts. Many of us have asked this for YEARS. Just getting a bit frustrated at CCCP asking about £150 when we are talking millions. Just sometimes you need a bit of light relief IMO from all this c---. Sorry if you feel like this. Even though I'm no longer a member of Bassa, I still have a vested interest, in that they are still causing a lot of angst amongst ALL crew. At least on MF:ok: you can come to work knowing that everyone is batting for the same side.

If it would keep the sceptics quiet; I am prepared to pay this £150 to PCCC as a gift. They may then choose, if they wish, to use my real name on their accounting.

I am BA Crew and a PCCC member.

However, Miss BA and hundreds of others, seem to have beaten me to it.

Matter closed.

CCCP (backwards pccc)
If around 1500 CC have accepted the offer (and like me received a pay rise today) then isn't it reasonable to assume that many if not all could be PCCC members?

So could this 'quasi-union', that you think no-one wants, have 1500 members already?

If Amicus only have 1300 members then isn't it reasonable to think that the PCCC should have at least as much representation as them?

Good to see that Hi-flyer answered your question so that you know the name (albeit forum) of at least one founder of the new union; now you can tell CF that it really is set up by cabin crew for cabin crew.

Well said OG. Yes it seems that CCCP is the founder of that lovely website Crewforum. Anyway let's see if he answers the question about the Bassa accounts. Come on its good to talk