Latest installment from the Guardian.
British Airways told to hit union 'where it hurts' ? leaked document | Business | The Guardian
Surprised that it's been brought up today? Nope. The timing smells, and as for the spin?
Surprised that there is a report into BA/CC/Union relatioships in the aftermath of the '97 dispute? Nope. In fact I'd be gobsmacked if there WASN'T such a report.
Surprised there might be a section about how to end the relationships? Nope. Essentially think of it as a marriage guidance report... one option will be separation/divorce! The consultant would be remiss not to mention it especially as the relationships in '97 were so strained.
Surprised it was an independant consultant? Come on! BA's addicted to 'em!
Now this is pure guess-work, but this is how I might layout such a report...
-5% Executive Summary
-20% History & current status
-5-10% Competitors equivalent setups
-60% Main Options/Findings/Recommendations
- As Is (BA/BASSA/CC89/Unite/CC)
If not already done so, list key points to change
- As Is but change key personnel (been mentioned on earlier threads henky et al)
This is likely why BillF and new team are now in place. You can't win eh bacabincrew? (I seem to recall someone saying that something like 60% of the new management team are ex-CC. Please could someone re-link. ta).
Did the CC89/BASSA reps change? Anyone?
- As Is but various other detail changes, procedures, etc
- I seem to recall Joint training being mooted
- Split/change roles? Say CC89 negotiate X,Y. BASSA A,B,C. Everyone Pay.
-5-10% Other options (Unlikely/No Go/Easy to rule out options, but included for completeness)
- Works Councils
- after X years - look to merge the branches to simplify things?
- No Union at all (Ryanair) - probably listed reasons why a Union/Representative body simplfies things for BA.
- New Union (see CC89 history for background/plus/minuses), not affiliated to Unite.
- New 'BA CC only' Union, unaffiliated to TUC.
- Generally the Separation/Divorce mechanics spelled out in brief. Included here would have been pointers to the NSP regs, Legalities, HR issues, TUC issues, Comms,
PR issues, etc, etc.
Now if you take just that last bit, then you've got the article's smoking gun.
Actually, I'd be surprised if the reps hadn't seen the report in '97.