PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Old 24th Nov 2010, 20:58
  #906 (permalink)  
Colonel White
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The problem with 'collectiongate' is manyfold. To kick off with, The Harrassment act came into play a few months back This puts the onus on employers to investigate each and every allegation of bullying and harassment. If the company fails to do so, the employee can sue. So once a complaint was made, BA was duty bound to suspend the individual pending investigations.
Second point. Anyone here ever collected money in public for charity ? Then you'll know that you are not supposed to rattle your tin at passers by - that is tantamount to beggng and could be deemed to be harassment too. So rattling a hat around CRC would fall under the same catch-all.
Ah but you say. We always used to have whip rounds for staff. Yes, but that was usually amongst immediate coworkers. In a community as diffuse as cabin crew, the nature of the job means that you may only work with someone for one or two trips and that is it. Hardly buddy stuff and very different to the office situation where people may work cheek by jowl for several years. The equivalent would be running a collection within all of say Finance or Rev Man for an individual - it just doesn't happen.
Next up. The line being played is that this collection was for the children of sacked or suspended BA cabin crew. Tosh! Look at the Santas Crew website. It plainly states that the money is for sacked and suspended cabin crew. Now I don't know any of the individuals concerned, but I would bet that there are one or two single folk with no kids amongst them. So not for kids. Moreover, the last time I looked BA don't suspend staff without pay. OK so the suspended ones are only getting their basic, but that is what happens when you are suspended. I actually resent an organisation that uses children as emotional blackmail in this was to extract cash from me. It suggests that they have a pretty weak basis.
Then there's the bit about getting company permission which others have covered admirably.
The list goes on. I'm actually slightly perplexed as to why the lady in question felt it necessary to go round with a hat in the first place. She could have simply given people flyers with the website details and thereby avoided this unseemly situation.
Colonel White is offline