hahahaha
Nutjob - Re transfers for LGW...
Quote:
"No rules regarding this were changed in the first proposals.[...] You were NOT striking over this and it's quite worrying (yet common) that you believe you were."
And in a single post, you have exposed the entire pointless nature of this entire thread. However, that's not entirely your fault, it's representative of a group of people not evolved directly and talking about a subject which does not impact upon them directly. Unless that is you are cabin crew at LGW, and in that case I will happily withdrawn my statement.
Fact. There was 8 dispute items in the ballot which directly concerned LGW. Including transfer rights. Right from the first ballot. If you’re unaware of them, you either didn’t read the enclosed letter of dispute or didn’t receive it as you were not qualified to receive it in the first place.
Ex LGW crew, so well-aware of those transfer restrictions. I had misinterpreted your post as referring to transfers to the (then non-existant) MF or between WW & EF. I do regard the LGW transfers (or lack of) as a genuine issue and one that does need addressing. It IS important and unfair that LGW have their careers so restricted. But it is the difference in cost-bases between the fleets that is the very cause of that restriction. If it didn't cost BA a lot more money to let you move to WW or EF, then surely they'd have no issue. As it is, the allowances and agreements are such that a LGW crew member costs much more when they transfer. LGW crew are now moving to MF. I personally know a few. I guess BA allow that because they "cost" BA similar amounts at either base.
BA are bound to have a starting point that differs wildly from what the employees want. It then becomes the role of a professional union to attempt to negotiate a middle ground that satisfies both parties. A good start for the union would be to ask their members what is essential, what is a "nice-to-have" and what is relatively unimportant. The union should then return to BA with their own (wildly optimistic) wishlist. Negotiations then take place.
Imho BA would find it difficult to find a good reason to block transfers if IFCE met it's cost-saving targets. It's small-fry compared with being able to set crewing levels on a less-costly fleet where those all-important targets have been met. BASSA played into BA's hands by not meeting the cost-savings. BA were then always going to have the motivation and justification to play hardball.....and they did.
Yet we never approached a point where BA's moves were limited because:
a) BASSA didn't poll us regarding our wish-list - there was no "look people, we're going to have to give something, so what's important and what's not?"
b) BASSA offered temporary cost-savings that still fell short of our target (PWC is your reference if you can manage to believe their independent assessment)
c) BASSA refused to meaningfully negotiate (see court records)
Hence....BA imposed the new crewing levels and imposed MF. Blame BASSA, not crew like me who ARE informed and made the above points on BASSA Forum over a year ago, only to be threatened with all sorts. We COULD have avoided this if we'd boxed clever. In time, you will see just where DH & LM have led you with their childish approach.