BA Flight Crew and the Absence Management Procedure

[ShortfinalFred]

Rather like California's 'three strikes and your out' rule for criminals who offend three times, (which leads to a mandatory life sentance I believe), BA have introduced an Absence Management Policy, (AMP), applicable to Flight Crew and indeed throughout the airline, with the exception of Cabin Crew who'se union refuse to agree to it.

Of note is that this is an ABSENCE policy - whatever the reason - three times in six months or somesuch, and you are into letters from BA that directly threaten your continued employment, and a formal interview process that can lead to dismissal.

The REASON for any absence is all but irrelevant. Colds, Flu, minor op at the local outpatient clinic, it matters not, it would seem. You have been absent and so you trigger the process. Three times and you are in serious, career-threatening trouble. ANO notwithstanding, if you dont show up, you are in the process.

This has led, reports indicate, to a significant increase in people showing up for work clearly unfit to fly. A head cold that would not impede a ground-based worker can be totally debilitating for a flightcrew member unable to clear their ears or sinuses in climb or descent.

People can bleat all they like about Flightcrew responsibility but it takes a very brave man to defy BA these days, witness the Captain who recently, it is alleged, refused to accept an A320 with a U/S fwd toilet on a long sector when his female P2 said she would need to use it for 'phsyiological reasons' and was worried about leaving the flightdeck to traverse the length of the cabin to the rear toilets.

Said Captain was, it is alleged, told by his manager that he had made a "career-ending decision" and was to be suspended on the spot, later reversed amid much backtracking by BA, but you get the picture.

N.B. The CAA are unlikey to "bite the hand that feeds them" , (BA are one of their biggest revenue streams), by calling them to account over this or anything else.

The reason for this post in this public venue is as follows:

To warn BA crew about a number of things, and to avoid doing so on the BALPA BA message board, which is monitored daily by management and where anyone posting critical reports, (multitudes), is logged and placed in the "troublemaker" file for future reference.

Warning one - however far fetched it may seem - this AMP policy has been deliberately applied to flightcrew in BA in inflammatory and insensitive way. Why?

BA is overrun with Management Consultants, who teach that an angry and preferably divided workforce is easier to manage towards significant structural change in a unionised environment, especially if you can divide them from their union. Note therefore the significance that BALPA signed-up to this AMP.

By applying this and a whole raft of measures in a way designed to belittle and infuriate Flightcrew (routeing of post flight transport to maximise CC advantage etc etc) they are creating the scene for a strike, indeed threats have been made that this is the route BALPA would take if ANY BA flightcrew are dismissed as a result of this policy - a ballot for industrial action would be held.

One might ask, therefore:

Why would BA WANT a strike?

Remember the recent pensions vote? New entrants now have one of the worst defined contribution schemes in the industry after a muddled ballot question from BALPA led to a result that indicated existing pilots would NOT strike to defend the principle of a defined benefit scheme for new entrants.

Existing Flightcrew with their very expensive, (after years of BA's 'pension's holiday' from contributing to it) Defined Benefit Scheme represent the "hidden value" waiting to be "unlocked" within BA, to use Management Consultant Speak.

"Unlocked", that is, by inducing the Flight Crew to enter a strike where support is low and the premise for it, the support of one individual affected by the AMP, unlikely to be solid enought to sustain it.

Once a strike starts then the way is clear for DRASTIC action by BA against a group who have negated their contract of employment by striking = 'bye 'bye DB pension scheme for the existing crew, who now represent 'the luddites' to the Management Consultantcy Crew who see breaking this groups' pension rights as the key to a massive re-rating of BA's earnings prospects, hence share price, hence management share options value hence their fees as consultants that are, of course, performance or 'value' based.

Seems far-fetched? Think it through and re-read it and then think of how things are going for us right now in so many areas. Why might this be?

Warning two:

BA are deliberately treating Flight Crew, it could be alleged, in a way calculated to cause maximum offense wherever possible to individuals who cross the organisation in any way whatever, even unwittingly.

The aim of doing so?

Induce as many early retirements/trainer resignations (especially senior folk) as possible.

Result?

Lower pensions costs.

End game?

Higher management bonuses accrue thereby and lower costs to BA.

Warning Three:

This is how the game will be played for the rest of our careers - we are now, by our own vote, the "Legacy Flightcrew", by definition a higher cost group than our replacements, and a 'legitimate' target' for on-going cost reduction.

Warning Four:

It could be alleged, looking among other things at the recent tribunal about a female flightcrew member seeking greater opportunity for access to care for her child, and by other actions, that BA is possibly institutionally sexist, and that intimidation of individuals on a routine basis through the AMP has led to a climate of "process-driven, institutionalised intimidation" of its flight crew workforce, especially given their responsibilities to the ANO that drive them into conflict with the AMP by default, ( and it is inconceivable that BA flight Ops Management are not aware of this).

Knowing that a tribunal award for unfair or constructive dismissal tops-out at around the £50K mark it is very much in BA's interest to drive-out as many expensive legacy flightcrew as possible = much cheaper to go to a tribunal than go on employing them when you look at how cost effective the new guys and girls will be by comparison.

Result?

Be very very careful how you deal with these people in future. Getting everything in writing from any management seems like a good start.

Lastly, I know that this post will pewrhaps generate responses from outside BA. its not really meant for that audiance, but I and others dont dare post under our names on the BALPA BA board or where we could be traced. We have kids to feed and mortgages to pay. If anyone wants to past this on the BALAP BA board, feel free but think first about the career consequences.

[Planter]

So, another BA DIRTY TRICKS campaign, only this time it's against ITSELF!

[Airbubba]

>>People can bleat all they like about Flightcrew responsibility but it takes a very brave man to defy BA these days, witness the Captain who recently, it is alleged, refused to accept an A320 with a U/S fwd toilet on a long sector when his female P2 said she would need to use it for 'phsyiological reasons' and was worried about leaving the flightdeck to traverse the length of the cabin to the rear toilets.<<

In the U.S. he would have probably been in more trouble with the company if he accepted the plane after a female complained...

[RMC]

Much truth in what you say about intimidation and it this does need action to resolve it sooner rather than later.

On the admissible reasons front though there are several which are not counted towards the three strikes....cant remember them all but the list is made up of surgery,broken bones etc. Really should start to file this stuff somewhere where I can find it!

Not saying the scheme is a good idea but we have at least two crew on our fleet who spend several days (at least) on the sick each month (normally weekends / nightstops.....even the sim if they dont feel like it).

I have been called in on standby for these two several times in the last 12 months and they are a liability. There will be no industrial action if these guys get the bullet thats for sure.

Note in 2002 the skipper in question had almost 100 days on the sick (none of it longer than one week...so no doctors note reqd).

The problem is, obviously, that they are going to use this process to try and intimidate the good guys. We will all be keeping a very close eye on this.

[JackOffallTrades]

I have been placed under the new absence management policy. I triggered stage one through long term sickness and loss of my medical.

I returned to work faced with a formal meeting and the prospect of triggering stage two if I had so much as cold over the next 6 months.

What a lovely welcome back.

I would be spending the next 6 months worried about going sick or reporting when not fit and generally feeling bitter about the whole thing. However, because of what has happened to me lately I looked at the bigger picture:

Health first
Licence second
Job third.

Thats right, BA came last in my simple list of priorities.

I think it is about time we (the BA pilot workforce) stopped feeling threatened by these pathetic management schemes and stood up for ourselves. With the help of BALPA.

:* Grrr...

[pax britanica]

As you gather from my nickname I am just a humble slf unit but I do travel BA a great deal. Service can be variablebut is generally good and all my traveling life I have had absolutely implicit confidence in the guys-and these days- girls up front.

From what you are saying this situation is being deliberately threatened by BA management by deliberately inducing a climate of fear, distrust and angst among the BA flight crew community purely for their own personal financial gain (ie perfromance related bonuses).


Given the very sensitive nature of aircrew work and the almost unique possibility compared to comparable jobs that they may inadvertantly do something that makes headlines around the globe isnt this something that if there is any truth to it that BA would be desperate to keep from any form of public dissemination.

BA like many large uk companies is intrinsincly badly managed because sadly us Brits are in general very bad managers as evidenced by the large numbers of foreign managers in UK enterprises (and succesful football teams). Management consultants are scum but they are a fact of corporate life doing the dirty work for large enterprises

It seems to me as an outsider ( and tell me to shove off if you want but I do help pay your wages and synpatgise with what you are saying ) you have two choices

1 Go very public with these allegations -especially in the USA where BA are very popular with US flying public but certainly won't be if the mystic of the cool calm 'Captain Speaking' Brit at the controls is dispelled

2 Choice 2 -and you have alluded to how hard this is but it remains an option, is to go the CAA route. It appears from what you say that there are strong supporting arguments that what is happening causes real potential problems for the flight crew operating environment. I know how hard it is to concentrate on the job when this sort of thing goes on at a company-if you fly for US Air or United it must also be hard to focus on the complex task in hand when the comnpany faces bankruptcy. However they are circumstances betonf the companys control-what you appear to be saying here is that BA are deliberately creating an atmosphere that cannot help but reduce the operational effectivenes of its crew. As much as the CAA might be in BAs pocket-they could never defend that once the Sun got hold of it

I am very sorry to hear-but not surprised - that such things go on and that management in a company where integrity and responsibility are critically important could act in such a reckless and unethical manner

Good luck
PB

[AndyPandy]

The irony is that, although absence through 'sickness' is endemic within certain departments in BA, one department in particular has refused to sign up to the new 'Absence Monitoring Programme', namely cabin crew.

The policy is flawed and is having dangerous consequences i.e. people coming in to work when clearly unfit to do so. The procedures are being applied with rigidity and the subtlety of being slapped in the face with a wet fish.

I am not a conspiracy theorist and don't believe that this is part of a wider BA strategy just more of the usual incompetence.

It is very disheartening to the vast number of us who take pride in being conscientious and are only absent for genuine reasons of sickness.

[wiggy]

Andy Pandy-
I agree with you, I'm not convinced it's a conspiracy theory - frankly if management can't get the basics right (e.g.cabin crew numbers, uniform issue) I fail to see how they can organise anything as complex as ShortFinalFred suggests - though they are quite capable of exploiting a situation to their advantage.

OTOH I am less than impressed with BALPA signing up to this deal and worse still their subsequent actions ( or lack of it), especially when compared with the seemingly more robust response of the CC unions. Smacks a little too much of some BA BALPA Reps wanting to go down the PC road for my liking. The BA BALPA reps should never, ever, have agreed to subjecting their members to this process; we are subject to a whole extra set of medical considerations, above and beyond that of the Ramp or Office worker, and we simply should not be expected to be bound by the same rules.

We now have seemingly increasing numbers of worried colleagues posting messages in "another place", probably because as we head towards the end of the UK winter and into the flu season: illness and the "three strikes" are catching up with people. Some of these messages are very worrying - there is no doubt these individuals feel threatened, albeit subtly, and as a result some have flown when they should not have done so - either because they may have self medicated and/or they were still ill. Some of these are now sick again as a result and are heading towards the more terminal stages of the process. BALPA are claiming at the moment that all is not lost because they have forced an early review of the "Attendance Management Process"(AMP) ; well that's fine as long as AMP is reviewed - and then scrapped. But sadly it won't be - BA BALPA do not have a glorious history in recent years of forcing the Company to backtrack on anything, so at some point this year a BA pilot will be fired over this. Of course then BA BALPA will expect our support, etc, etc ( or more probably have a vote about having a ballot - sorry, in "joke" that the BA guys/girls may get ).

pax brittanica you are right, these pilots are living in a climate of "fear, distrust and angst", unfortunately I doubt the UK CAA will confront BA over this since they (the CAA) will never bite the hand that feeds:

[Diverse]

Can't wait for the time when their cancelling flights because so many crew are suspended or dismissed for falling foul of this bizarre set up. It's bound to happen.

[Re-Heat]

Of course the whole AMP programme may have been established in order to ensure that those who are sick also are provided with support through management to allow their quicker return to fitness...whoever devised it in an a business whose reputation depends upon safety has therefore failed to bill and sell it to the workforce as such, which in my opinion is inherently dangerous.

I disagree that such management action is new in BA - divide and rule is far from in favour (as they may have discovered if they employed a management counsultant) - but a continuation of the gigatic state-owned monster that it has always been. Think what could be achieved if the workforces acted together?

Existing Flightcrew with their very expensive, (after years of BA's 'pension's holiday' from contributing to it) Defined Benefit Scheme represent the "hidden value" waiting to be "unlocked" within BA, to use Management Consultant Speak.
You cannot unwind a DB scheme except upon liquidation of the sponsoring company, or where every last pensioner has expired. The obligation still exists to make up the defecit on BA. The cost to transfer all to a DC from DB at any date would be the same, as (apart from the reduced cont'n rate on the new DC scheme) no savings would be made, as the obligation to make up the defecit on the DB scheme to those who had already paid into it would still exist.

BA's attempts to (illegally as ruled in High Court) claim the excess on APS is however a different matter - if they manage to arrange this somehow, then they would be in for a winner. In reality they won't be getting the excess until the last one who is a member of that scheme dies. Not any time soon then.

[wiggy]

Re-Heat
Yes, AMP was, and to some extent still is, being sold as a support measure. Sadly it seems to be scaring the wits out of some of my colleagues - given the wording of the letters I'm not suprised.
What most of the pilot force find particularly galling is that the one department that historically has suffered the highest absenteism levels in BA has yet to sign up to this scheme. Perhaps their Union Reps had more sense than BALPA's.

[JackOffallTrades]

Management would love to put the cabin crew on this scheme.
If they can enforce it on all the other departments in the company then they think the cabin crew union will bow under pressure.

What they fail to realise is that if they did and followed it rigidly there would be no cabin crew left.

:\

[maxy101]

shortfinalfred BTW, I understand that there isn't a ceiling for compensation/awards from an industrial tribunal if the company loses on certain grounds, i.e sexual, racial discrimination, or interestingly now, sexual orientation discrimination.

[M.Mouse]

Existing Flightcrew with their very expensive, (after years of BA's 'pension's holiday' from contributing to it)

You make it sound as though BA deliberately took a 'pension's holiday'.

The reality is that the laws are strict and BA were compelled to stop pension contributions to remain within legal constraints.

[Right Way Up]

All this seems rather ironic in a week when the EU are crowing about protecting passengers rights in the case of cancelled/delayed flights. Perish the thought that they might protect the safety of passengers by stopping companies "forcing" crews to work when unfit. Or even by producing non-fatiguing flight time limitations, so that passengers are not flown by pilots struggling to stay awake.

[wiggy]

Just to clarify this "Existing Flightcrew" expression: all Existing BA Fightcrew are not in a scheme from which the Company took a holiday.

There are two defined benefit schemes in existence at BA and the Company only took a holiday from the "older" scheme, the one enjoyed by those who joined pre-late '80s. Most of the current workforce is on the so-called "New Airways Pension Scheme" - which is a also a defined benefit scheme and whose funding is looking a bit thin..and some are now sadly on a DC scheme. Therefore Existing Flightcrew could be on one of three schemes - but they all wish they were on the first one.

Now back to the thread:D

[ifaxu]

similar scheme operates within Nats with the result that Atcos feel pressurised into attending when not fully fit. Also under the auspices of looking after our wellbeing mmmmmm........

I wonder how CAA/SRG feel about this situation which puts both sets of licence holders under increased pressure to fly/control when medically unfit.

[Ghengis Cant]

BA is overrun with Management Consultants, who teach that an angry and preferably divided workforce is easier to manage towards significant structural change in a unionised environment, especially if you can divide them from their union.

I have to congratulate Fred on smacking the nail right on the head.

The pinciple of "divide and rule" appears to be drummed in at BA management school nursery and no where more so is this policy more evident than in BACX where the same Absence management policy has arrived on the seemingly endless conveyor belt of nasty things.

The tortuous passage of CX from one failed business plan after another as management thrash first in one direction then another (variously chasing profit then excusing themselves for loosing again) contains shining examples of this tool which is enthusiastically applied at every opportunity by its BA managers.

Where is it written that for a company to be successfully lead you have to be nasty, manipulative and devious with your workforce?
These tools are the last resort of a management that either cares not or is totally inept at basic man management.

The worst of it is that in signing up to policies like this Balpa allow themselves to be an instrument of this philosophy. Cabin crew will have none of it, so why do they do it? The cynic might look at recent past history and wonder if there are not some gross conflicts of interest going on with senior management jobs being eyed up.

The fundamental problem with both BA and CX is a complete lack of strong and effective leadership and, as a result, a workforce that not only has no faith in them but, in large part actively despises them.

Far more so in CX than BA I suspect, there is universal contempt for its management and as a result complete puzzlement as to why despite failing to produce any return for BA (Its shareholder) time and time and time again the same managers are left in place.

Treating a workforce with respect and decently does not necessarily carry a fiscal tarif. Workforces by and large are intelligent as are their unions and know that there are bad times as well as good and that a company cannot insulate them from such reality.

A well lead workforce will do everything it can to support its management if it has earned respect being fair decent and open.

Therein lies the problem.

If the BA board wont do anything about it then its high time the City and the major institutions that invest in BA and CX had a long hard look at just exactly what is going on.

[wiggy]

Ghengis Cant

I agree. Like you, I am mystified as to why BA BALPA Reps fall for these trials: bus route trials, 777 reduced crewing trials on one route last summer ( which IMHO was only terminated due to the hard work and campaigning of one or two of the ordinary line guys ) and now AMP. Time and time again these trials result in friction between the membership and the Reps.

[BOAC]

Guys and girls - for my interest only - has the administration of this policy changed from that which was in place for the last five years or so? Many of us felt the 'heat ' of it at LGW, but found that if you 'forgot' to reply to the letter or turn up for the interview nothing happened:D

Edit to make it 5 years or so - doesn't time fly when.............

[Mick Stability]

Where is it written that for a company to be successfully lead you have to be nasty, manipulative and devious with your workforce?

It isn't. It's just that it's so much fun for the psychotic pondlife that pervade our once great airline.

I truly believe the Prince of Darkness actually gets off on the hope of decimating our jobs, stealing our pensions, and consigning our profession to the realm of blue collar machine operatives.:uhoh:

[Best foot forward]

I guess BA in this case stands for Bad Attitude:O

[Ghengis Cant]

Said Captain was, it is alleged, told by his manager that he had made a "career-ending decision" and was to be suspended on the spot, later reversed amid much backtracking by BA, but you get the picture.

I forgot to mention in my last post that the words of the Airbus Fleet Manager ring very true with those in CX who endured his presence for longer than was pleasant.

The phrase "Manage him/her out of the Company" was attributed to him on more than one occasion.

The unfortunate individual so targetted would find ultimately that they had no option but to leave or fell over with stress. A policy pursued highly effectively with elected Balpa reps on the company Council might one add.

So, if you get sick, expect to be "managed out of the company" by these nice people.

[ILS 119.5]

Unfortunately there are a lot of companies applying rules like this, it seems to be the new trend. I understand the logic behind it but it should not apply to certain responsible professions such as Pilots, Controllers, Doctors, Nurses etc. Due to the nature of the aforementioned professions, it is safety critical that they are fit for duty. For the aviation profession it is against the law to work whilst feeling unwell. What next, will the Police start boarding a/c to see if the pilot has a cold and under the weather, and then if so will they be prosecuted.

I think that this should be released to the general public to show that aviation professionals are being pressurised to work whilst unfit and in fear of their jobs.

Scenario: Pilot under the weather, Controller under the weather, both under pressure as on last warning, a couple of little mistakes, major accident, hundreds of lives lost.

Wait for the accident to happen and then change procedures rather than stop the accident happening is the view of the management.

Surely it is less expensive to pay a pilot/atco a days wage to cover sickness rather than sacking someone and advertising for/training a replacement.

The profession is now undermined, belittled and not respected. Regardless of the training, medical requirements and professionalism of the staff we are still treat badly with no regard to safety.

The CAA/SRG will not do anything about this and if anyone is to blame it should be them. I think it is professional negligence on their behalf not to address such an issue. It is also up to BALPA & GATCO to do something about it. We'll see.

Rgds

ILS 119.5

[Tinytim]

The thing is here that the idiots who dream up these policies (doubtless spotty youths fresh from business school with shiny MBAs or accounting diplomas) are taking safety forgranted. Most of these kids were in prams at the time of Kegworth and there has been no incident involving major loss of life in recent memory in the UK. Thank God.

The result is that our profession is being pressed and pressed to extract more juice from the pith and sooner or later something is going to happen to remind everyone that we operate in a hostile and unforgiving element with no hard shoulder.

The managers who espouse these policies (many of them pilots themselves who should know better) will have the blood of the deceased on their hands by pressurising unfit pilots to go to work. That is exactly what the policy does and it loads the dice of fate one roll closer to avoidable disaster.

It is bad enough that PC politically correct idiot plod breathalises pilots for executing a go around. He at least has the excuse that he got his helmet and badge after attending a course for a few weeks. Our mangers have no such excuse.

Balpa needs to tackle this head on and not take prisoners.

[Banzai Eagle]

Tinytim

I suspect that HR Dept would be the instigators of such policies, thats if BA HR is like the HR we have at the airline i work for.
The usual line at pay rise time is also Company X pays its Pilots Y so we can pay you Y or less. Great idea and how about HR getting paid the same as Company X !!! - YEAH VERY UNLIKELY THEY HAVE NO IDEA aaagh

[wiggy]

BOAC
Don't know what policy was at place in LGW 5 years back but certainly under the current 2004 scheme you ignore letters and interviews at your peril. "EG" whatever it's called has set a whole series of hurdles for pilots to trip over and when one is invited to an interview it's best not to forget to attend- it would seem to be a good idea to take a prisoners friend, er Union rep, along as well.

[Gorgophone]

Are you aware that a Bill is about to be discussed in Parliament on 4th March? It concerns Directors Duties in Health and Safety. The Centre for Corporate Accountability which investigates and prosecutes where there has been a work-related death has invited people to send the following letter to their MPs.

DRAFT LETTER



[your address]

Health and Safety (Directors’ Duties) Bill- A Private Members Bill promoted by Stephen Hepburn MP

I am writing to encourage you to support the second reading to the Health and Safety Directors Duties Bill, sponsored by Stpehen Hepburn MO - which is coming before parliament on 4th March.

[personal note about who you are]

This Bill seeks to introduce a duty on all directors to take “reasonable steps” to ensure that their company is complying with health and safety law. It is intended to fill a gap in the law since at the moment directors have no positive duties in relation to health and safety.

The Bill has wide support amongst health and safety charities, lawyers, trade unions and amongst families bereaved after work-related deaths.


We are concerned that the law as it stands places no positive legal duties on company directors with regard to health and safety. In the past year workplace deaths rose by 4%- at total of 235 workers died at work. The number of workers injured at work has also risen (up 9% on the previous year) with 30,666 workers suffering major injuries.

The existing voluntary regime which encourages directors to take positive action is failing and statutory measures are now needed.

Please help to reduce the numbers of deaths and injured by backing Stephen Hepburn’s Bill and attending the second reading debate in the Commons on Friday March 4th, 2005.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For further information see http://www.corporateaccountability.org


[your name]

[TheShadow]

I write articles (mainly on aviation safety & security aspects) for a well known Aviation Mag and I'm thinking of addressing this subject..... blow the lid off it so to speak (and maybe make them a little more honest up there in the BA HandbrakeHouse).

If anybody feels sufficiently motivated to contribute some sentiments you could write me at the following email address (replace hash marks with ampersand (@) - there to keep the spammers at bay). We're quite widely read and I know that BA Management subscribe so I'm sure they'd feel the incisive thrust of the thrust and parry, particularly if other journo's were then to pick up and probe.

james.smith##iinet.net.au

I'd need to present both sides (assuming there are two and it's not multi-faceted because of the medi-scamming scamps that have been mentioned already - and who are present in any profession).

In fact if there are any other drums that you (out there) would like to beat on any aviation safety topic, please feel free to vent in my direction.

TheShadow