British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[midman]

Apologies for the length of this post, but hopefully it sums up where we are at the moment. Perhaps useful at the start of a new thread?!

I think Henky is pretty much spot on when he says that this isn't about money.
If it were, then I think it would be pretty easy to come to some sort of agreement after some hard negotiating.
In fact, the problems are more deep seated and will take longer to correct, IMHO.

Henky mentions that many of the cabin crew on here refer to BA as another entity, separate from themselves, rather than being part of BA itself and therefore part of the problem and its solution. The post today from Bassa describes cabin crew being the face of BA, yet most comments I hear from cabin crew refer to BA being the 'other side', the 'enemy', with them being on the side of Bassa who are the good guys in this fight. It's BA, those other guys, who have conducted nasty tricks, screwed up fuel hedging, messed up T5 etc. They don't see themselves as having ownership of the problems within the company, and as having a part to play in the recovery of the company.

The blame doesn't just lie with Bassa. When I joined I was amazed how the company abrogates most personnel management responsibilities and allows the unions to operate as the admin executives for many basic personnel functions. I myself experienced it a few years ago when I had to decide whether to take a short haul command or stay right seat long haul. I needed lots of info regarding pay scales, seniority levels, fleet movement etc. The manager I went to just said 'Ask your union'.

This applies in IFCE to an even greater extent where the union is seen as the source of unbiased fact ("the company will just tell you what suits it best, probably to your disadvantage") and the company allows this to continue. Any problems are referred to the union in the first instance, even to the extent that the union is contacted on board the aircraft if there is any discrepancy between what the Captain wants the crew to do and what they might want. Firstly, on board, the Captain should be the authority, and secondly, if anyone should be contacted, the cabin crew should ask to use the phone to speak to management. But that rarely happens - Bassa decide.
Bassa has also enjoyed an over-inflated influence over the operation, unknown in any other airline, to the extent that aircraft are diverted in flight, or flights are cancelled, purely in the defence of cabin crew agreements.

The problem with this set up is that, whilst it keeps management and admin costs down (the union phone line gets more use than the cabin crew admin line, I would imagine), there is a problem building up for the time when established practices have to change. Especially in a crisis when change has to happen quickly.

The time has now come where the company can no longer afford the downside of the strength of the union, and has to make the company more efficient. That means more work or less pay, and some specific inefficiencies have to be addressed.

This disconnect between the cabin crew and the company means that when the company has a financial problem, the cabin crew don't empathise with the company. They look to their union for the facts. However, the union has a different problem.
The changes that will increase efficiency also mean that the union is now facing the prospect of losing its influence and the status that its representatives enjoy. They come to work each day and know that they can influence the operation themselves, delays, disruption, cancellations, sicknesses are referred to the reps who can decide what happens.

WW has decided that this arrangement is a luxury that he cannot afford to allow to continue. The appalling effect that such decisions had on our operational effectiveness last February during the snow disruption were the final straw. The argument that Ottergirl uses that the adherence to such agreements makes for a fairer system as it avoids nepotism is a totally spurious one. The avoidance of nepotism is hardly an argument for commercial inefficiency.

So how do we move forward? I can only suggest a way of avoiding the problem in the future.
Henky says that the employees need to be more involved in the decision making in the company. I agree, but don't feel that is part of the union's role.
Cabin crew regularly complain that their leadership comprises very few experienced cabin crew members - to me that is a fundamental problem. The line between the cabin crew and the running of the department should be much more fuzzy, more on the lines of Flt Ops, where most of the managers are pilots - not just ex-pilots, but current pilots. There should be a career path which could allow a cabin crew member to be on the Board of BA. I was immensely proud that until recently there was a pilot on the Board, (there's still an ex-pilot there!!!), and I'm sure cabin crew would respect and trust their leaders much more if they knew the guys running their department. (At the moment they see their union as their leaders.)

There would be a greater connect between the two groups if they were effectively blended together at the edges, with mixing between the two.

The upside of this is that there isn't any need for union agreement - their influence will atrophy, but that will happen organically, without revolution. They will return to being just the guys who sort out the pay deal, and speak for the workforce on a few big issues, but will lose ther day to day input and importance.

The downside is that it won't happen overnight.

My argument won't solve our current issues but I believe it might give us a way of avoiding them in the future. And I think it explains why it's not about money, as Henky says.