On paper a workforce comprising a high number of females and gay men looked unlikely to put up resistance..........We also have a higher number of straight male stewards compared to other UK airlines....
I'm sorry but this is the kind of discrimination wolf-crying which makes crew look ridiculous. "They're victimising us because we are women/gay men/straight men/one-legged Somali lesbians" etc etc. As a community you really, really need to get away from the idea that this is some sort of socio-economic attack on you because of who or what you choose to define yourself as. It's not. It's an attack on costs, and BA really couldn't care less what gender or sexual orientation you are, nor does it feature in any of their plans. You are, in the most basic terms, a cost problem, and a cost solution must be found. If your union could deal with it in pure money terms instead of trying to whip up a victim mentality this dispute would have been done and dusted 18 months ago without a fraction of the aggro.
The CSD who was investigated did have the investigation dropped because the seat used was blocked, not available for sale and so no fraud occurred. Had it been available for sale it may have been a different story and this concerned the CSD community.
And what of the popular tale of the CSD suspended for upgrading a Captains wife? Truth or fiction? (Hint: I know the answer to that)
The Fraud Policy document was changed – a line was removed.
The BASI document is the Fraud Policy, not the letter you got from IFCE which stated things that might be considered fraud. The former is the BA rule, the latter is not. It is important to distinguish between an actual change in the policy and a change in a letter referring to the policy.