I really do not think the moral high ground on honesty, lies with the management team.
Quote:
Hi PWC, have some cash, look at our books and make us look good, when we are attacking terms and conditions of a group of our employees. Hmm.
Your banal attempts at word trickery may score you points on the BASSA forum but they are pitifully transparent. You don't have to say "BA" for everybody to know who you are talking about. Your attempts to skirt the issue by not naming BA specifically are rather childish. You might as well just add the word "allegedly" to all your dubious claims for all the protection it would afford you.
PS It has not gone unnoticed that, as usual, you are refusing to debate the actual issues, preferring instead to attempt to sidetrack the thread.
If PWC took BA's money and BA 'suggested' that they provide a 'favorable' report then PWC would be legally required to drop the request for auditing like a shot and report BA.
To do otherwise would be illegal collusion to provide inaccurate investment data.
Just to make things clear, I have no time for the Chair and some of the other people within BASSA I am however a strong believer in the unions and hope that some sort of deal can be carved out that doesn’t adversely affect any of the crew, regardless of their time served or how they got their perks. We all live to our means and for them to back down without a fight would be silly at best.
Though I think the behaviour of some of the BASSA people on the forums is quite clearly bullying, and the leader should put a stop to this.
I also don’t believe that any firm brought in to review finances can be truly independent, just take a simple trawl over the web and you can see many accounts where PWC have got in to trouble for “not reporting the whole case” (http://www.finance-trading-times.com/2007/08/accountingauditing-firm-pwc-in-trouble.html) just one of many, and the same could be said for the unions and large scale business too
Again I hope there is a sensible outcome to this where both sides can agree, and ultimately the crew can go to work without the stress of:
Are the union going to sell us down the river?
Are the company going to force change?
Can I continue to pay the bills?
Will I have to cross a picket line?
Etc.
All this stress is bad for service, health and ultimately the welfare of us all
A significant number of people in this debate don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that PWC are an entirely honest, professional and independent auditor. They seem to think the whole world operates on the same murky half truths and misinformation as they do.
For what it's worth, I think if PWC got wind of BASSA putting out information that they were not entirely honest I think lawyers would be called in pronto, their business depends on the reputation of impartiality.
I believe the meeting on the 14th is to discuss the Disruption Agreement, something BA have yet to touch on. Given the imposition route being followed I'd expect BA to detail the new Disruption Agreement that they intend to impose. Unite really have nothing more to say to BA. They've had 9 months to come up with an alternative solution and have almost nothing to show for it. The imposition ball is rolling and gathering momentum. Unite are about to be crushed beneath it. All non-contractual of course
Some people seem to come on here with the aim of winding people up, sort of lighting the blue touch paper, and then retiring.......and then returning. Could the moderators please bear with me.
Litebulbs, you have raised a number of points on this Cabin Crew thread. I find that a little strange. I assume, from your posts made in the "Would you go back to BA?" thread that you yourself started on 24 April 2008, that you are a former BA Ground Engineer. Other posts that you have made for example on the "Returning an a/c to CAT 3 capability" and "Interesting note about the AA Airbus crash in NYC" threads certainly point to you having a technical background.
Sadly, suspicion about quality of your work could be derived from your posting dated 11 September 2002 on the "How do you like to solve problems" thread:
Quote:
Hit it, kick it, pen it then fcuk it!!
On your posting on 10 Jan 2007 on the "BA IR Issues" thread, I found part of it very interesting, particularly your comment
Quote:
I am an ex BA employee. I flew to MAN today for pay negotiations with my current Charter airline. I sat on the bus from X car park LGW mulling over the forthcoming meeting, when three BA crew got on. Now being a union activist, (Amicus),.....
Later on that thread you state
Quote:
Been out on strike a couple of times in my career. Its not very nice, but sometimes you have to draw that sandy line. I was on leave when we went out, so after the event, I withdrew my leave and gave BA the money back. It was pointed out to be by someone who didn't want to be out (but still was!) that I was still living at home, so it was only beer money I was giving back. Yep, it was, so It wasn't that much of a gesture, but I can't help that. It was the days of the AEEU and I am not cabin crew.
I have said many times before, don't fear the management, fear the person who you are sitting next to in the crew room, bus, plane, hotel bar etc, coz I bet most of you won't be standing next to each other outside the gates!!!
So, Litebulbs, I supect you are an Avionics Engineer, who doesnt like BA, and doesnt like Cabin Crew.
So Litebulbs,.......are you an Amicus Rep?......are you Cabin Crew.....do you even work for BA, or do you just visit this thread to have a go at employees of your former company?
Last edited by Andyismyname : 12th October 2009 at 17:25.
1000 crew offered voluntary redundancy = a nice big payoff just when they wanted to leave anyway - can't see this group voting to strike.
3000 crew offered a mix of 33/50/75% part time contracts to save the remaining 700MPE - so, senior crew, who are getting a bit older, can't handle the jetlag, have grandkids etc. get to come to work, once/twice/three times a month, go to Shanghai/JNB/HKG, take the family, and get their lovely custom made curtains and STILL spend most of the month at home. Many of these crew have been on the PT waiting list for a very long time - can't see this group voting to strike.
So that's 4000 people who are almost certainly going to vote NO.
That leaves 10,000 crew. To get a strike to go ahead you need a majority to vote YES. So, BA needs only another 3001 crew members (making 7001 people) to vote NO and BA wins. 3000 people out of 10000, 30% to vote NO is all it will take.............when the crew take home pay is even going to change?!!! Plenty will be up for a quiet life and as long as the bills are being paid & the monthly allowances left untouched, then there will be plenty of ticks in the NO box IMHO
For the record, I understand BA's auditors are Ernst & Young. However, this has no bearing on the work of PwC on the cost-savings proposals. It is perfectly normal for companies use other firms for accounting/finance work that does not form part of the statutory audit. Indeed, some corporates place a complete ban on giving non-audit work to auditors to avoid perceptions of auditor independence being compromised.
I would also give warning against questioning the work of the world's largest professional services organisation - being unused to the pressure cooker world of aviation industrial relations, they will have no hesitation in taking action against any defamatory comments.
Last edited by LD12986 : 12th October 2009 at 21:05.
According to a thread on the BASSA forum apparently all the managers in Waterside stood up and clapped with the announcement that imposition was going to happen.
This thread has now been allowed to fester by BASSA moderators to stir up emotions amongst crew. I have just finished speaking to my last contact in Waterside and not one of them remember being told about imposition, let alone a happy clappy session.
What hope do the run of the mill Cabin Crew have when this sort of blatent propaganda is allowed to go on???
We urgently need to get this thread, and this dismal situation back on track.
The Union have let us down big time. Last week they refused to enter the same room as one another and because of their own stupidity and bickering brought about this imposition. Now, because of the imposition, we have Unite notices plastered all over CRC telling us how United we must be. Laugh or cry??
Whatever, wherever, we are here now. Nearly every crew member on every plane is saying they are not bothered about working one less. Who cares? The huge problem for us now is New Fleet - yes remember the "No to New Fleet" stickers? Well, 18 months later we now have New Fleet coming at us like a train and the Union (Amicus and BASSA) have achieved absolutely nothing.
People are calling for strike. For sure WW has a legal loophole just like he did for Openskies up his sleeve, and frankly many people won't do it, especially those wanting redundancy.
The Union have overlooked the one enormous power that we do have within our hands. WE MUST DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Do not accept a part-time contract. Do not accept a transfer. Do not accept a promotion (WW PSRs). SIT TIGHT.
If we do not accept part-time, BA will not be able to bring in New Fleet - there will be too many of us. They will be forced to continue on the current basis - ie. adhoc unpaid leave, 24 hr availables not used, non-ops etc. If New Fleet comes in - you will be sitting at home anyway - better on a full-time contract than a part-time one. If WW Psrs do not transfer, there will be too many of them. They will be forced to rethink and either offer a better redundancy package, or use them to work down, up etc. But they will not be able to employ new crew, on new contracts with the current level of staff.
If you want part-time, then take it when you want it, not now when BA need you to have it to bring in the fleet that could take your job away. There will always be opportunities for us in the future to go part-time, because BA will always want current contracts reduced. There may NEVER be the opportunity to fight off New Fleet again. This is the only way, and we must stand firm and DO NOTHING.
If New Fleet comes in - you will be sitting at home anyway - better on a full-time contract than a part-time one. If WW Psrs do not transfer, there will be too many of them. They will be forced to rethink and either offer a better redundancy package, or use them to work down, up etc. But they will not be able to employ new crew, on new contracts with the current level of staff.
There's just the small issue of the HR1 BA filed for 2000 redundancies from IFCE. If people don't take VR or part time BA have ticked all the legal boxes necessary to sack 2000 crew and continue with the new crewing levels.
There's just the small issue of the HR1 BA filed for 2000 redundancies from IFCE. If people don't take VR or part time BA have ticked all the legal boxes necessary to sack 2000 crew and continue with the new crewing levels.
I see what you're saying CM, but surely they would not be able to employ new crew on new contracts if they'd just done 2000 compulsory redundancies? Don't they, by virtue of New Fleet, need us to comply??
Just trying to think outside the box abit to save our jobs, as the Union are quite clearly unable to.....any ideas?
Sadly the company has played a tight set of cards and put itself in the position where most major investors agree that rationalisation is essential to the long term survivability of the company.
What they may be able to do is to force contractual change by giving crew the option to either sign the new contract or allow their existing contract to 'expire' thus making themselves unemployed by way of resignation.
That has been the entire thrust of the push for achieving the requirements for implementation of SOSR.
Sadly, even with the supposed green shoots of recovery within the financial sector, there appears to be little evidence of it available for the aviation sector for some time to come!
I see what you're saying CM, but surely they would not be able to employ new crew on new contracts if they'd just done 2000 compulsory redundancies? Don't they, by virtue of New Fleet, need us to comply??
Hiflyer - Thanks for actually talking some sense and not just blindly following the BASSA mantra.
I dont think BA have any imminent requirement to recruit onto new fleet. Even if they did, they either need to wait only a short time or simply change the job description to avoid claims. I dont think thatll be that tricky given it will be to a new fleet.
Linear Mode
