British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only) [Archive] - Page 12

HiFlyer14

15th May 2010, 10:12

I sincerely hope that BA succeeds in this injunction, because this unnecessary, unfair and ridiculous strike action is causing untold upset to our customers, crew and our company. What on earth is the reason for it?

BA have more than one ground for an injunction, and I wonder if they will use them. The letter from the Unite joint general secretary's is very incriminating. It makes no mention of the word "imposition" as the basis of this strike, but actually states "the overriding factor in rejection was the vindictive approach taken by the Company in disciplining, and in some cases dismissing employees, for various misdemeanours attributed to the dispute".

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/20100512145940215.pdf

Well this gives BA two further reasons for injunction:
a. The strike action HAS to be based on imposition, this letter is clear evidence it is not.
b. "the action is not in support of an employee dismissed for taking unofficial industrial action" Could not turning up for rostered flights be classed as taking unofficial industrial action?

When BA achieves an injunction :ok:, they should leave the strikers at home on 24hr/ non ops etc. Then come 18th June deadline for the facilities agreement with Unite, BA should ballot each and every single crew member and see if they still support Unite or if they would prefer a more balanced, collaborative approach such as the Professional Cabin Crew Council.

There has to be an end to this outdated, unwanted union holding our company to ransom, and this is the only way out that I can see. BASSA back in the building after all of this is simply untenable, unworkable and unacceptable to the majority of hardworking, loyal and excellent BA employees.

I am BA crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

Eddy

15th May 2010, 10:39

From A BA passengers (remember them) point of view this planned injunction is the worst possible scenario.
I agree with you to an extent.

I hope the strikes go ahead.

.....prefer a more balanced, collaborative approach such as the Professional Cabin Crew Council.Don't forget "anonymous" :ugh:.

gr8tballsoffire

15th May 2010, 11:36

Essesdee
Ottergirl is right to an extent.
Every CC external recruitment campaign I have been involved with in the past 5 years has always involved offline CC, however there are external consultancies that BA have used in previous campaigns who would be able to provide the means to recruit large numbers of new intake.
The blockage may occur with the subsequent administration such as taking up references and the required security checks.

BlueUpGood

15th May 2010, 11:53

By massively simplifying the payment structure (as the company has proposed) real savings would be made without significantly affecting CC wages.
Win-win.

Trouble is, a bidding system means the BASSA reps can't cherry-pick the money trips, and with a simplified allowance system (hourly rate), there won't be any money trips.

Yet again, real progress in IR and CC T&C's has been hamstrung over the last few years because of the greed of BASSA reps only interested in themselves.

essessdeedee

15th May 2010, 12:12

for fear of repeating myself. No CC participated in the least 2 recruitment campaigns I have neen involved with

Eddy

15th May 2010, 12:16

Trouble is, a bidding system means the BASSA reps can't cherry-pick the money trips, and with a simplified allowance system (hourly rate), there won't be any money trips.

Yet again, real progress in IR and CC T&C's has been hamstrung over the last few years because of the greed of BASSA reps only interested in themselves.Harsh and untrue. Bassa's reps get their fair share of good trips AND bad. Atleast, they're rostered them. In the past, the reps have had the ability to be de-rostered should they need to undertake union/office duties. As they would all enjoy the same level of fair share as everyone else of the good trips and the bad, it stands to reason that the majority of trips they'd be de-rostered from would be at the lower end of the scale.

So while it might appear as though the reps are doing more good trips than others, it's not at all true - they're simply doing less of the bad ones because those make up the bulk of the average crew member's roster and they are therefore most likely to be removed in place of union work.

gr8tballsoffire

15th May 2010, 12:34

for fear of repeating myself. No CC participated in the least 2 recruitment campaigns I have neen involved with

Esseesdee
It really is not a worthwile debate, but I have been involved in every CC recuitment campaign in the past five years and I can assure you that all those occassions offline CC HAVE been involved apart from internal promotion interviews, for obvious reasons.

That's my last comment on this...total waste of time and energy.

rubik101

15th May 2010, 12:36

I understand that the issue of reinstatement of ID travel for certain CC members who had this 'privelidge' withdrawn is a major plank in the Unite argument for the non resumption of talks with BA. If it is a privelidge, it is within the Company's gift to bestow, or not, as they see fit. If the price for striking is the loss of these privelidges then I can't see, legally or morally, from where the Unite argument stems.
Your job is legally secure but the 'perks' are not.

gr8tballsoffire

15th May 2010, 12:40

CantFlywithoutengine

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/infopop/icons/icon13.gif Shame on you, BASSA Crew
There are 14000 BA Cabin Crew, 10000 of which are represented by Unite/BASSA According to Unite , there was a 71% turnout for the ballot . Which is 7100 people (71% x 10,000) According to Unite, 81% voted to reject Willie's offer . 81% of 7100 is 5,751. 5,751 crew members is 41% of the crew population of 14000. This means 59% (100% less 41%) of Crew are willing to accept Willie's latest offer and get on with it. I'm sorry but I'll repeat - a 59% majority wanting to accept the offer and move on. Those who rejected the offer should go with the 59% majority and sign up to Willie's offer. During the last strike, when the [alleged] majority were in favour of striking, they were calling on the minority to join in in solidarity, otherwise they were 'Scabin crew'. So what's the name for them , now they're in a minority , refusing to join the majority in solidarity and accept Willie's offer ? "Hypocrites" in my book.

And the fact that our lovely Gatwick crew have to put up with this really riles me.

Anyone who thinks the overwhelming majority of crew want to reject the offer and strike is more bonkers than Tony Woodley, Len Mcluskey and Hartley Hare.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5694650) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5694650&noquote=1)
You are absolutely right and it amazes me that Unite are allowed to get way with this spin. It needs to be challenged in the media!!

jockmctavish

15th May 2010, 13:03

A history lesson:

There was something similar tried once before, as the vision of the late Mark Young who was Balpa's General Secretary at the time.

It was set up with about 6,000 BA cabin crew leaving the TGWU, mainly from the BASSA longhaul branch. It came under enormous vitriolic attack from the shorthaul Bassa branch, including many lies and accusations which led to successful libel actions against the TGWU. These took about two years to reach the high court and ended up costing Bassa/Tgwu around three quarters of a million pounds in total.

During the intervening two years, many crew believed the lies and mud slinging propaganda from the Bassa faithful and drifted back to the old union. There was also anti feeling from some of the shorthaul pilots (called pinkies due to their left wing leanings) many of whom were married to shorthaul cabin crew in Bassa.

Balpa lost the will to move forward with the federation and the cabin crew needed a new home. They entered an agreement with the EETPU (electrician's union) which merged with the AEU (engineers) into the AEWU, which became part of AMICUS which is now part of UNITE. So the wheel has turned full circle. Maybe it should roll forward again!

This scenario started over twenty year ago and refers to Cabin Crew '89.

Times have changed, Unite is split and very unpopular with many cabin crew. It is hated by many pilots. The PCCC is not a Union, is unlikely to be accepted by the majority of crew, and anyway would find it almost impossible to raise the funding to become one. There members/leaders however would be needed, along with other fed up crew, for their initiative and drive to get a fledgling union off the ground.

Anyone out there brave enough to run with this?

flybymerchant

15th May 2010, 13:17

Eddy, surely the very fact that many cabin crew feel they don't get their fair share of the lucrative trips, together with the accusation that the union reps mainy seem to go to the best paid destinations should be enough for the union to support implementation of a fairer, more transparent system, like the pilots have, wouldn't you agree?

It would surely improve the morale and job satisfaction of the entire community if everyone felt they were being treated more fairly?

Just the simple accusation of illicit cherry picking by those with their hand in the biscuit jar should be enough for a responsible administration to push for fairness and transparency. There has been no sign of either of these traits from the current union as far as I can see, and not just in regard of taking better paid trips for themselves, effectively stealing money out of the pockets of the less well paid and probably harder working masses. It smacks of corruption, which of course should not be tolerated.

Where there's smoke there is often fire, and a fair and equitable union would and should surely do more to demonstrate that it puts it's fee-paying members and their plight before themselves. Unfortunately you have to concede that there appears to be little if any evidence of this from BASSA, which seem intent on slandering other work groups and poisoning their subservient and subguided electorate against their colleagues and employer.

This underhand playground tactic has directly ensured the animosity of everyone outside of BASSA against those in it. Those within the company can maybe see how it is the union fatcats that are trying to ruin the company and the livelihoods of so many innocent workers, not just from the cc community obviously. I'm afraid the public and our dwindling fare-paying customers are now wise to what it sees as BASSA's (the leaders of the cabin crew, elected by the cabin crew) repeated and selfish lies, resulting in them blaming all normal cabin crew.

These self-serving, over-grandiosed, greedy few have been polluting the good name if BA cabin crew for a long time now (and obviously by implication the once good name of the wider BA) and the fact that the cc have done little to stop or question them makes all BA cabin crew guilty in the eyes of the outside world. Of course WE know there's probably more to it, but the numbers trumpeted by BASSA make it hard to feel sorry for the community as a whole, and it's a GREAT shame that the brave few who voted against them, who have left the union, who never belonged to the union and who back BA will inevitably be lumped into the same deceitful, disgraceful and disingenuous group.

report call sign

15th May 2010, 13:17

malcolmf

15th May 2010, 13:35

Add in an electronic swap system which would enable crew to pick up overtime trips and swap with colleagues to legal minimums, like the pilots have and it could be a deal maker.
It would probably self finance, sickness rates would plummet, less staff needed in Current Ops. and far less crew on 24 hr and standby.
3000 pilots have been on this system for a while and have any crew heard any significant whining? Believe me if the system was bad then there sure as hell would be.

Eddy

15th May 2010, 13:42

HOLD ON A MINUTE!
you are saying the same thing but in a different way.
If BASSA reps dont go the bad trips (whatever they are) then they must be doing the good ones!
The fairest way forward is the monthly travel payment and there is no getting round that!Not really....

It would be absolutely sickening if the reps were given good trips as a result of their position by calling up and demanding them, for example. But that's not how it works.

The reps are, as far as I'm aware, rostered along with everyone else. Sometimes they'll get a good roster, other times they'll get a bad one.

Most of the time they'll get an average roster, much like the majority of other crew.

The reps have the luxury of being able to be de-rostered with some regularity to undertake union duties. I don't have a problem with them all sitting down together and working out when they each have bad trips and de-rostering themselves over that period. It's a perk of the position.

So no, I'm not saying the same thing as you. I'm saying that the reps are given their fair share of good trips and bad, but because of the way their union work gives them the luxury of being able to be de-rostered largely at a time of their choosing, they might avoid doing the bad work. But that doesn't mean they come by the good work through underhand tactics.

There are people who AREN'T reps who will routinely go sick for crappy trips and tend to only do nice work as a result but because they aren't in a 'public' position within the community, they aren't scritinised as much as the reps are.

Eddy

15th May 2010, 13:47

HiFlyer14

15th May 2010, 13:53

For the record The Professional Cabin Crew Council is not connected to BALPA, BA management or any other union.

We are a Council not a union and we are a group of cabin crew trying to find a better way of conducting employee relations with BA. We believe that if Unite had accepted the offer last year , we would all now be in a much better position: we would have had an Optional MTP, we would have had a share scheme, a bonus option and an extra free ticket. The MTP would have served us well during the recent ash disruption. And the chances are that by working harder and progressively with BA we could have sought to deter the start of New Fleet.

Instead we are all in this absurd situation of having our futures put at risk, crew don't know who to trust, crew are afraid to be seen talking to pilots, we stand to lose more money, many have lost staff travel and huge amounts of pay and for what? We are all working to the new crew levels so what have
Unite achieved? Nada. Niente. Nothing. Rien. Zilch.

Jock - can you please provide evidence as to why the PCCC "is unlikely to achieve the majority of crew" rather than making such sweeping and inaccurate statements.

Eddy - I am not sure why you seem to hold it against us that we remain anonymous? I agree it is not ideal but regrettably with the mentality we are up against it is the only way at the moment. Besides, how many crew know who the Bassa or Amicus reps are? We are a large company with many people not knowing who their manager is.

Who we are won't really change anything, it's what we believe in and what we are trying to achieve that counts. Any crew member who does not support Unite should no longer be paying them otherwise you are funding their cause. Have you cancelled your Unite membership Eddy?

Joining the PCCC will cost crew nothing at the moment and may gain them everything. What have they got to lose?

I an BA crew and this is my own view and not that of BA.

Keepthembodiesmoving

15th May 2010, 13:58

Trouble is, a bidding system means the BASSA reps can't cherry-pick the money trips, and with a simplified allowance system (hourly rate), there won't be any money trips.

BlueUpGood, do I understand correctly that there currently is no bidding system for cc in BA? :confused:

Eddy

15th May 2010, 14:08

Eddy - I am not sure why you seem to hold it against us that we remain anonymous? I agree it is not ideal but regrettably with the mentality we are up against it is the only way at the moment. Besides, how many crew know who the Bassa or Amicus reps are? We are a large company with many people not knowing who their manager is.
I don't hold it against you as much as I think it's inappropriate. When I choose a union to represent me, I want to know who is behind that union. It's why I joined Bassa and not '89 when I first started at BA - I had two choices but only ONE of them came to my course and introduced themselves.

I've come on here with my real name and location clear to see, and I've said that I went to work during the last strike and will do so again during the next one. I've had messages in my dropfile calling me a "scab" and asking me if I'm proud of myself (to which I'm pleased to answer : yes, I am - thanks for asking).

I think Bassa has an important place in this company but I'm convinced that we're in real danger of seeing another good offer being withdrawn by BA. That (along with another couple of reasons) is why I resigned my membership of Bassa (or tried to - the money is still being taken from my payslip :mad:) and 'broke' the strike.

I'm just an average crew member, not trying to lead or influence anyone else and not trying to set up a new body offering crew 'union' representation. But my name is out there and I'm suffering some backlash as a result.

That you're trying to set up a new body of crew to be involved in negotiations with the company but aren't prepared to tell us who you are doesn't sit well with me.

The Bassa reps are, in my mind, selfless and dedicated people who put their careers on the line regularly when dealing with a notoriously difficult management team.

I don't agree with the cause on this occasion which is why I haven't supported the industrial action, but that doesn't detract for one second from the respect and admiration I have for the union's reps for doing what they do so publicly.

flybymerchant

15th May 2010, 14:10

Do other Cabin Crew feel that 'it averages out', or is it true that it's the same old faces in the same old places?

Even if it's only a 'myth' that the same people get to go to Narita sometimes twice a month, and other crew don't even get one in a whole year's worth of rosters, surely it's enough to engender negative morale?

The pilots' bidding works on a seniority based system. We all accept that we will have more control over our roster and greater ability to go to 'better' destinations as time goes on, it's a good system.

Also, because of the natural variety amongst a large group of people, different people want different things. The company releases 200+ lines of work each month for my fleet.....we all prioritise them electronically. We are able to, for example, select and prioritise lines by 'weekends off'. I arrange the 200+ lines top to bottom and, having been in the company for only 4 years I always get my line within the FIRST 10 out of 200! Often it's in the first 5. This increases my job satisfaction. There's no reason why the CC union wouldn't want this increased flexibility and TRANSPARENCY (for the majority) unless the guys at the top were on the take, IMHO.

Could morale benefit from everyone KNOWING they're being treated fairly? I think so. Do the Union want a happy workforce? No, it would appear not....how else would they 'offload' their bad trips to less important people? How else would they be able to justify so many days every month in the 'office', requiring them to dump badly paid trips, whilst also cashing in on the double expenses whammy of being PAID to do union work?! Do BALPA reps get paid?....nope:=

Jadzia

15th May 2010, 14:18

BlueUpGood, do I understand correctly that there currently is no bidding system for cc in BA?

Eurofleet and the LGW fleet cabin crew use a bidding system for their rosters.

report call sign

15th May 2010, 14:43

EDDY

Very balanced posting and i agree on many points you make, well!

Jusat one thing
LEGALLY you are required to inform the UNION as well as pay services, that you wish to resign
informing payservices only is not Leaving the union
you MUST inform the union themselves, yourself! (E mail will do)

jetset lady

15th May 2010, 15:21

I'm sorry but I agree with Eddy. Listening to what the crew are saying, you will struggle to achieve a membership of any size all the while you refuse to reveal your identity. For one, as you know, crew are very mistrusting at the moment and some are still convinced that PCCC has management roots. For the record, I do know that this is untrue. Secondly, they are asking how you will stand up for them if you can't even face BASSA.

Now I can't actually provide solid evidence for you on the above but unfortunately, I am getting to hear a lot of what crew are saying with regards PCCC. As you and others probably guessed way back when, I am the one that was "outed" on a well known forum for supposedly being a foundee member. Even now, crew are still aproaching me asking questions, despite my denials. So please don't insult me by coming back with how worried you are about your safety. Been there, got the teeshirt! Crew will believe what they want to believe. I can deny it till I'm blue in the face but it's not going to make a difference. As for asking how many crew don't know who the Amicus/BASSA reps are, at least the information is freely available to them if they want to find out.

I really hope you do make something of PCCC. God knows, we need all the help we can get right now but until you're willing to stand up and be counted, I fear nothing will come of it.

Slickster

15th May 2010, 15:23

I think the key word here is "transparency". It's all very well, people coming on here reckoning they "do all right" when all is averaged out. Do you? Can you prove that to me? Didn't think so.

From what I saw, my ex (CC) got a hell of a good roster, a lot of the time. It was a standing joke with us, that she was shagging a scheduler. On the other hand, other CC friends I have hadn't had a sniff of her trips for years.

Now, I might be wrong or I might be right, but a transparent system would solve all the arguing, wouldn't it? But BASSA don't seem to want that. I wonder why?

wiggy

15th May 2010, 15:37

Listening to what the crew are saying, you will struggle to achieve a membership of any size all the while you refuse to reveal your identity.

Looking at this from the outside, so to speak, I agree with Jetset Lady and other commentators such as Eddy. From the conversations I've been involved in there are a significant number of Cabin crew around who would be interested in an alternative representative body. However Cabin crew by their nature are "people people" :ooh: and they're not going to jump ship and join some abstract organisation, they need to know who's involved in the PCCC.

TopBunk

15th May 2010, 16:03

I can understand peoples reluctance to embrace the PCCC without knowing who they are, but I believe it is pointless to announce anything more right now.

There is nothing that the PCCC can achieve in the current dispute to resolve it / change the outcome. It is therefore only right and proper that in the vacuum created by the detruction of BASSA in a few weeks time when the cabin crew are analysing what went wrong, that the PCCC formally announce themselves with their proposals for the way forward and put themselves on an election platform.

fred737

15th May 2010, 16:05

>
> Beginning to think the strike is all about "staff travel" and that the
> offer isn't so bad?
>
> Maybe you even voted to accept it, or are beginning to think, as the
> strike dates approach and the threats increase, that it may be easier
> to
> give up.
>
> Then it's time to explain exactly what you would have been be
> accepting.
>
> Though the dispute is about imposition, British Airways has insisted
> that
> several other major items must be given before any settlement of this
> dispute. None of these are particularly to your benefit.
>
> What does Mr. Walsh get in his "fair" offer, and what do you get? Make
> up
> your own mind.
>
> There is no contractual right to any of these points, there also is no
> agreement - just their words on a piece of paper and an intent. You
> would
> need to decide how much you trust those words, because words are all
> you
> will have, nothing more.
>
> * Cost saving
>
> A commitment to provide an ongoing saving per year of GBP124 million.
> This means continued cuts as the previous cuts decline in value.
>
> * Pay
>
> It is, in effect, a four-year deal. Two years frozen and two years
> capped
> at inflation. This amounts to a 6% pay cut.
>
> * New Fleet
>
> Must be agreed and introduced. No future recruitment to ALL existing
> fleets as people leave. The resulting recruitment goes to new fleet as
> it
> grows. Our routes will then move to new fleet season by season.
>
> There is no agreement to cover how many, or how fast, or which routes
> move. This will be at the sole discretion of British Airways and will
> be
> on a commercial (cost) basis. This is projected to be 20% of routes
> within
> 18 months.
>
> New Fleet crew are already flying alongside you on a different
> agreement -
> less days off, hourly pay etc. How long will you survive on your
> current
> fleet and agreement? Nobody knows.
>
> * Monthly Travel payment
>
> No guaranteed agreement whatsoever. How long will this continue to be
> paid, when half our routes have moved to new fleet? Will this then also
> be
> cut by 50% and so on? If this is all about cost cutting then it's
> highly
> unlikely this will be paid for very long.
>
> * Crew complements
>
> Over 1200 were removed, 184 would be returned. When, where and who
> would
> again be at British Airways sole discretion. You will pay for these
> crew
> with the removal of language and telephone allowance, removal of EDR
> days,
> variable pay freeze, meal allowance freeze and crew food downgrade.
>
> * Promotion
>
> How, when and if this would happen in the future on existing fleets is
> simply not fully explained. What is explained is that there will be
> plenty of opportunities on the new fleet. How will this happen with
> only
> one supervisory grade onboard?
>
> * Assurances
>
> There are some, but these have been made specifically around
> "contractual"
> items only. This means current basic pay and leave. The rest, days-off
> down route, MBTs, all your flying agreements, variable pay etc British
> Airways believes to be non contractual and so are NOT protected.
>
> * Part-time
>
> Everybody who wants part-time of any type will of course get it, which
> is
> good. The downside being that every single resulting vacancy goes to
> new
> fleet and our work with them.
>
> * Your employment rights
>
> Will be downgraded with severely reduced protections around
> disciplinary
> and grievance procedures and reduced rights to appeal any decisions.
>
> * Redeployment agreement
>
> The new redeployment agreement will give British Airways the right to
> move
> you to any part of the business that they see fit. If your base and
> fleet
> are closed down, you do not have to be offered a role similar to your
> current role. If you refuse the offer, you will be put on the 'new'
> careerlink, given three months to find a job, and if you fail, your
> contract with British Airways will be terminated.
>
> * Removal of current Trade Union recognition and facilities
> agreement
>
> In effect, this would end the trade union recognition in British
> Airways
> that you have known for your entire flying career.
>
> * Litigation
>
> British Airways insist, as a precondition to their proposal, that all
> court cases against them for the loss of earnings, staff travel and for
> breach of contract by the imposed removal of a crewmember, must be
> dropped.
>
> Sound good to you so far? Well, if all this is agreed and then fully
> implemented to British Airways' full and total satisfaction, then, and
> only then, at their total discretion, would they reinstate staff travel
> for strikers - but with NO seniority and NO length of service tickets.
>
> So what is in it for you?
>
> ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING if we are brutally honest. But you will have to
> make
> up your own mind on that one, come Tuesday 18th May. This is about
> changes
> so huge and far reaching that they will change everything you thought
> you
> knew about flying forever. If we do not secure a fair agreement, with
> words that can be trusted now, we never will do so again.
>
> Far from being an intransigent trade union, as Mr. Walsh loves to
> portray
> any union that questions his strategy, Unite was always keen to avoid
> unnecessary disruption for both you and BA customers, if at all
> possible.
> So much so that they even offered to "recommend" an acceptance of this
> deal if Mr. Walsh acted as though he intended to honour his own words
> in
> this offer, and also fully reinstated staff travel - but Willie Walsh
> refused.
>
> We hope that you can see this is not just about staff travel for us as
> crew, but for Mr. Walsh it clearly is, he is using it as hostage to get
> everything he wanted in the first place. He is making it seem a
> magnanimous gesture, to offer partially back what he calculatingly had
> taken away! It is a smoke screen; to slip in unnoticed all that he
> wanted
> in the first place! To risk a three week strike and all the heartache
> that
> goes with it, to gamble on the future of our airline to protect his own
> ill-advised public statements on punishing people is reckless and shows
> a
> lack of true statesmanship, as befits his position.
>
> Backing BA? To do what? This ill-advised strategy is ruining the best
> airline in the world for all of us.
>
> It will not be long before people wake up to the fact that Mr. Walsh is
> the problem not the solution.
>

sk8erboi

15th May 2010, 16:51

Tony Woodley, the joint general secretary of Unite, told the BBC he would "seriously consider" calling it off.

"You would have to be stupid to want to ground planes that are going nowhere anyway," he said.

That's very big of you! Means everyone gets paid too!

report call sign

15th May 2010, 16:58

Mr Woodleys strike game tricks hey!
think he can turn it on and off like a light bulb does he
WELL! hes gonna get one hell of a smacking shock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jockmctavish

15th May 2010, 17:15

Sweeping? Maybe? Inaccurate?

Well how many cabin crew have signed up so far?

report call sign

15th May 2010, 17:41

signed up to what may I ask?

Beagle9

15th May 2010, 17:53

Fred737

Question for you. I ask this as cc myself.

When, in the last 15 months, have BASSA come up with a realistic, costed, ALTERNATIVE proposal to the knub of the problem - long term cabin crew costs being significantly higher than rival quality, longhaul and shorthaul airlines?

Their only proposal (the one that they persuaded the membership on a show of hands to be the ONLY proposal they would accept discussions around) was mainly short term and was valued by PWC at one third of what they claimed. That, I'm afraid, was either:

a. Breathtakingly incompetent b. Cynically dishonest. There is, I'm afraid, no middle ground on that one.

So, I say again, when has BASSA proposed a workable alternative to New Fleet?

Do they REALLY believe that we can carry on into the future as we are?

Eddy

15th May 2010, 19:10

So come on : what are our honest predictions for Monday?

Will BA win the injunction?

MrBernoulli

15th May 2010, 19:19

Will BA win the injunction?I don't expect to lose my money.

And I didn't bet on a union .....

Hotel Mode

15th May 2010, 19:20

So come on : what are our honest predictions for Monday?

Will BA win the injunction?

Difficult to say. Looking like BASSA did balls it up again but it may just be seen as a technicality.

4 options

1 - Unite win outright, no injunction and judgement made in their favour - We're in the same position we were yesterday morning, so no loss to BA

2 - BA fail to get injunction but judgement reserved for full trial. Unite now liable for damages and crew liable to get sacked if they strike and subsequent judgement goes against them. Disaster for Unite as they cant call strikes off due 12 week rule.

3 - BA get injunction and judgment reserved. Still disaster for Unite. Strikes off and long legal case ahead. Meanwhile yet another ballot has to be called, but may be deemed to be a continuation of previous one so the protected 12 weeks wont apply.

4 - BA Win, injunction given and judgement for BA - Unite liable for damages for first strike and crew at risk of retrospective removal. (cant see BA doing this last bit??)

Once again, BASSA have lost before they've even started. BA seem not to do anything without a plan.

If Tony Woodley is daft enough to cancel the strikes for the ash, I'd imagine BA will be in court for damages there too unless its part of a settlement.

essessdeedee

15th May 2010, 19:28

I have been involved in every CC recuitment campaign in the past five years

you must have taken over where I left off then. It looks like we could both be right :D

ottergirl

15th May 2010, 19:31

The pilots' bidding works on a seniority based system. We all accept that we will have more control over our roster and greater ability to go to 'better' destinations as time goes on, it's a good system.

When we first introduced Carmen (the crew bidding system) we could have gone down the seniority bidding route but it was deemed that with crew post 97 on considerably less basic pay it would not be fair for them to also have the least chance of bidding to maximise their earnings. This two-tier pay system is why we do not have the senior crew doing all the best trips! Pilots are all on one pay scale.

Litebulbs

15th May 2010, 19:47

Once again, BASSA have lost before they've even started. BA seem not to do anything without a plan.

That will only be true if it is not option 1 of your post.

From Tunbridge Wells

15th May 2010, 19:51

So come on : what are our honest predictions for Monday?

Will BA win the injunction?

I believe they will

flybymerchant

15th May 2010, 19:54

When we first introduced Carmen (the crew bidding system) we could have gone down the seniority bidding route but it was deemed that with crew post 97 on considerably less basic pay it would not be fair for them to also have the least chance of bidding to maximise their earnings. This two-tier pay system is why we do not have the senior crew doing all the best trips! Pilots are all on one pay scale.

Sorry, I think my point was that therein lies lots of the unfairness in the current system....people should by all means be paid that little bit extra each year than the previous based on experience/seniority, but the day-to-day work, that we all have to do should carry an element of standard pay, so that the senior people can't double their advantage, or if they're bassa reps, triple it.

Cabin Crew seem to spend so long looking at what the pilots have and complaining, so why has no-one suggested copying the sensible parts of their agreements for the better good of the majority of cabin crew?

AtlasDrawer

15th May 2010, 20:01

Did anyone look at the ESS message from BA about the court injunction (on the news section) and how the crew that decide to go on strike could have 'limited protection' (BA's words not mine)if the strike was deemed to be illegal?. That would make you seriously question whether going on strike is a great idea? I , obviously plan on going in to work but if I was planning on going on strike , after reading that I would be seriously worried and seeking legal clarification from the union.

As I no longer have access to the BASSA website, can anyone clarify for me if this statement from BA is being addressed?

AD

gr8tballsoffire

15th May 2010, 20:17

Eeesdeedee
LOL

fred737

15th May 2010, 20:17

Beagle 9

I can offer you no Bassa answer. I merely posted, as information, what a friend sent to me.

F7

holedriller

15th May 2010, 20:42

Can anyone explain the logic in the timing of the series of strikes to start on Tuesday, why 5 days on followed by one day off, repeatedly. That is, if there is any logic! What is the benefit to the union and members of the intervening one day at work?
Holedriller

Eddy

15th May 2010, 20:53

I suspect it could be to ensure people are able to get home within a reasonable period of time and avoid the risk of people being stuck away for 20+ days.

ottergirl

15th May 2010, 21:12

so why has no-one suggested copying the sensible parts of their agreements for the better good of the majority of cabin crew?

Actually, they have. Before Carmen (CC SYSTEM) was purchased the CC unions did ask if we could look at Priam (I think thats the right name for the FC system) but were told that it would be too expensive to administer for CC due to the complexity. The pilots apparently accepted 'draft' as a way to offset the cost of the bidding package they use; it is much more complex than Carmen. Our current system does have the potential to be used for WW crew but research suggests that the success rate would be pretty low given the allowance based remuneration. Other airlines use it for trip swapping and leave alllocation as well so it could do more if we let it.

TheKabaka

15th May 2010, 21:25

I think flyby was referring to the dreaded hourly rate, which BASSA has poisoned crews mind against. It evens out the amount you earn by locking in a higher basic (I guess by the equivalent of MTP), and means all destinations are equal so you can bid for what you want, not what pays most.

I have never met a crew member who understood the hourly rate, they always say "it would mean £2.70 an hour and I can't live on that".

Another example of dreadful reps. this could be a real advantage to crew and BA but no crew/rep will even examine it as an option.

Caribbean Boy

15th May 2010, 21:30

holedriller (http://www.pprune.org/members/190040-holedriller) wrote:
Can anyone explain the logic in the timing of the series of strikes to start on Tuesday, why 5 days on followed by one day off, repeatedly. That is, if there is any logic! What is the benefit to the union and members of the intervening one day at work?The intervening one days are useless to BA as the operation cannot be switched from partial to full and back to partial so quickly. So, 20 strike days effectively become 23 strike days of partial service, thus ensuring more losses for BA and more misery for passengers.

giza

15th May 2010, 21:30

Have I got this right, CC get a basic wage, on top of that you get a myriad of variable pay, amounting to , on average, the monthly payment that is around 6 to 8 thousand pounds a year, and then on top of this you get down route allowances. I know this is all negotiated so I dont have an issue with it, but you can see as more of this becomes common knowlwdge, the less sympathy you will get.

For comparison, what do I get if I travel overseas, arrange and pay for my own hotel and claim it back later, I bring back any reciept I have for legitimate expenses (meals and transport) and get reimbursed. No profit made.

So do you see how other people view some cc, talking of good trips and bad trips, surely overseas allowances started off years ago the same for you, so that you are not out of pocket in carrying out your job. How over the years did it become such a major part of your income.

By the way, a VCC friend of mine who did a 4 day trip on what he assumed was new fleet rate, ie no vairable payments and fixed daily rate, said he was really pleased how much money went into his account at the end of the month. I think you will find there are plenty of people outside the door that would jump at new fleet.

I hope the strike does not happen, but if it does good luck to all of you who work, I will be backing BA and have signed up to support you as I did last time.

ottergirl

15th May 2010, 21:37

Another example of dreadful reps. this could be a real advantage to crew and BA but no crew/rep will even examine it as an option.
Not quite true. Amicus/CC89 members voted, on the recommendation of our reps, in favour of it. Our vote didn't count because BASSA voted against. Truthfully, on Eurofleet at the moment, with the Euro rate having been so good, we are far better off than we would have been on the proposed hourly rate. In this instance, it was good to have rejected it.

TheKabaka

15th May 2010, 21:40

That's interesting Ottergirl I did not know that. The point remains wrt to BASSA and also how they have misled most crew (not you clearly) about the hourly rate.

dave3

15th May 2010, 21:40

TheKabaka

15th May 2010, 21:45

BA do not want to reduce salary of current crew by one penny. I know you will say ah but they will in the future. Well how about a strike ballot if your salary does get cut?

Don't strike on something not even a threat yet

M.Mouse

15th May 2010, 22:51

Priam (I think thats the right name for the FC system) but were told that it would be too expensive to administer for CC due to the complexity. The pilots apparently accepted 'draft' as a way to offset the cost of the bidding package they use...

Bidline is the name of the FC system It is complicated and costly to administer. Draft was the backstop, when it was introduced, to guarantee that BA would never be in the situation of having NO pilots available for a trip. Bidline was under threat until extensive, wide ranging (and very unpopular with some) changes which were negotiated a couple of years back. It was recognised by BALPA that the world had changed and sensible change had to be agreed or the entire system was under threat, does that sound familiar?

Have I got this right, CC get a basic wage, on top of that you get a myriad of variable pay, amounting to , on average, the monthly payment that is around 6 to 8 thousand pounds a year, and then on top of this you get down route allowances. I know this is all negotiated so I dont have an issue with it, but you can see as more of this becomes common knowlwdge, the less sympathy you will get.

Almost right. The amount you quote is conservative which is why the often heard mantra of how little CC earn (usually just the basic being quoted) is so laughable. Unfortunately, as in so many aspects of this dispute, the average outsider has little real understanding of quite how ludicrous BASSA's defence of the indefensible really is. I have watched and been inconvenienced (along with our passengers) for many, many years as the BASSA tail has very successfully wagged the BA dog while living high of the hog. What we are seeing now should have been dealt with long ago but, in general, BA management are fairly spineless and actually not very good at managing. Unfortunately BASSA have failed to notice that the top man now is someone who says what he means and means what he says. To even the most blinkered observer it is plain that BASSA are going to be finished it is just a matter of a little more time.

Hopefully the airline will be there to thrive once this malignant influence has been excised.

exeng

15th May 2010, 22:53

what a nonsense to say "Im backing BA" If you work for BA your backing BA what ever your opinion no one employee is beter than the next equality isnt that what we are told!
the public vote has become a life style vote... if the company were happy to pay the crew this amount... the crew were happy to sign the contract then why should they justify their wages to anyone...
Today 22:40

Pass that one by me again because it didn't make a lot of sense at first reading.

Are you saying - no employee is better than another? Equality means we are all equal?

The crew don't need to justify their salary to anybody - is that correct?

What is this about a public vote being a lifestyle vote? Forgive me but I don't understand.

Your view Dave3 is important when viewed on such a public forum - can you clear these points up please because a lot of jobs are at stake.

Kind regards
Exeng

wilsr

16th May 2010, 00:54

>>For comparison, what do I get if I travel overseas, arrange and pay for my own hotel and claim it back later, I bring back any reciept I have for legitimate expenses (meals and transport) and get reimbursed. No profit made.<<

With respect - and I obviously don't know your own job - cabin crew and pilots' allowances are a bit different to most employments' reimbursements.

If one is to spend a whole career basically living away from home when working, it only seems reasonable to me that the employer should not only pay for your hotel etc but also something towards leisure activities.

At home you can enjoy life at very little cost - as well as doing all the myriad things that are necessary such as decorating the house, cutting the grass etc. Being stuck in a hotel room - whatever the standard - would be a waste of a life if you didn't get out of it. And "getting out of it" is pretty expensive when you are away from home.

IMO over the years the allowance system has provided a quick and dirty way of giving crew sufficient "extra" to be able to actually do the things that most people take for granted.

(Nothing to do with the strike issue but since allowances have been brought into the argument....)

etsd0001

16th May 2010, 02:28

wilsr

I would counter your post by saying no one forced you to choose a career where you worked away from home, it was a personal choice made of your own free will.

Therefore I would suggest the company's only obligation would be to cover your overseas living expenses and not your overseas entertainment expenses

A Ground Engineer who has worked overseas.

Matt101

16th May 2010, 06:25

Devils Advocate. If BA only reimbursed the actual expenses of living oversees then crew would only be "living" on their basic. For new joiners this is circa 10,000 pa dependant on base.

I am afraid that this is not going to attract many new employees to the role. Certainly not good ones. Moreover it would force out a lot of other people.

Basically the money saved would no doubt be lost in the demand for an increase in basic pay which, in this hypothetical case, the Cabin Crew would be more than justified in asking for.

The Allowance system is deeply complicated and probably needs a reform but the money it provides to Cabin Crew isn't really going to be saved as it forms part of a reasonable salary for many. (Not all Cabin Crew are raking it in).

Any savings would probably come from the simplification of the payment process.

Juan Tugoh

16th May 2010, 06:53

Please do not forget that BA does gains an advantage from the allowances in that they do not pay any pension contributions on allowances. The allowances monster started in the 70's when the then Labour government imposed pay freezes. Allowance were not included in this, so they were a way to pay staff more without breaking the pay freeze. For the crew receiving the allowance, the pay off for it being non-pensionable was the low, almost zero, tax paid upon this extra money. HMRC has finally recognised this money is mainly income and now taxes more of it.

Sadly this allowances system has since grown into a monster that is expensive to administer, and can cause wild variation in monthly pay. It has become very corrupt with some CC inexpicably getting lots of premium trips while others appear on these trips once in a blue moon.

cheeky chappy

16th May 2010, 08:46

>>For comparison, what do I get if I travel overseas, arrange and pay for my own hotel and claim it back later, I bring back any reciept I have for legitimate expenses (meals and transport) and get reimbursed. No profit made.<<

With respect - and I obviously don't know your own job - cabin crew and pilots' allowances are a bit different to most employments' reimbursements.

If one is to spend a whole career basically living away from home when working, it only seems reasonable to me that the employer should not only pay for your hotel etc but also something towards leisure activities.

At home you can enjoy life at very little cost - as well as doing all the myriad things that are necessary such as decorating the house, cutting the grass etc. Being stuck in a hotel room - whatever the standard - would be a waste of a life if you didn't get out of it. And "getting out of it" is pretty expensive when you are away from home.

IMO over the years the allowance system has provided a quick and dirty way of giving crew sufficient "extra" to be able to actually do the things that most people take for granted.

I think you have a very twisted view as there are plenty of "Joe public" out there who find it hard to swallow that crew get to fly around the world, stay in luxury hotels, eat for free while on duty, get enormously discounted staff travel when they are off duty and then expect everyone to feel sorry for them when they have have to bear their share of the savings the company has to make if it is to remain solvent.

Sorry for the cliche but most people have to scrimp and save all year to do the things that crew seem to take for granted...

dave3

16th May 2010, 09:08

what I am saying is that the quote"im backing BA" includes everyone.. however it seems now to be used as a quote to put down anyone who has a different oppinion. Anyone working for BA is backing BA just because some have a different vision does not mean they are not backing BA. everyone in the company is a number and I feel we are all equal.. everyone has a part to play from the cleaner to the top... however it seems thatsome think they are more important than others... With regard to the public vote on the strike... the public (I feel) are voting about a lifestyle they think the crew have. Nights away from home in exotic destinations.. hotels sun pools... meals ....what they dont see are the missed birthdays. missed weddings.. missed school plays... lonleyness having to be away with 11+ strangers every trip... realy what would make the public happy.... if the crew stayed in tents at the end of the runway???? It is unfortunate that due to time differences and rules crew need to stay away from base... unfortunately sometimes the destination is sunny unfortunately sometimes there is a pool.....This is a job with a life stlye and an agreed contract with the employer... why should these crew justify what they earn or the life style to the public... we are not owned by the government anymore...

TopBunk

16th May 2010, 09:25

More from Unite:

Thinking of Working?

The emperor's new clothes...please read on.

Forget the media hype and the BA news hysteria.

British Airways is not going out of business and is not going to be
destroyed by you taking part in lawful industrial action - but your union
will be if you don't.

The only person increasingly likely to damage British Airways is Mr. Walsh
and he is doing a pretty good job of that all by himself.

What CEO in their right mind would drag their own company through a month
of bad publicity just to prove a point? Trouble is nobody will tell him;
anybody that dared to air an alternative view has been silenced, or has
simply moved on.

If you choose to go to work over this next dispute, then you too are
playing along with the "I am backing BA, flag waving crowd" - sadly this
is an empty chant, invented by cynical managers who have worked for this
company for a couple of years, yet this "sound bite" is also being
unquestioningly and naively swallowed by people who have worked for BA for
decades who really should know better. Their loyalty should be to the
airline that they remember, not to the one being rebuilt in Mr. Walsh's
image. For when it's their turn to be sacrificed for greater profit, make
no mistake, they will be, pilots included.

We are all British Airways, not just those who work in Waterside; what
gave them the right to hijack our airline's good name for their own ends?

If the same number that broke the strike before do so again, then it's
over; your union has been destroyed, not by Mr. Walsh - he could never
achieve that - but by you from within, by deserting us when the going got
tough.

We all have to decide what we want; we are grateful for everybody that
believes they are standing up for their union, though we greatly
appreciate that, we want you to know that this is really all about
standing up for YOU.

At the end of the day, it's your job, your life, your career and your
bills that have to be paid. British Airways no longer wants you to have
your flying agreements, they have told you that; that's why they have
already introduced new contracts and soon, a new fleet.

What stops them from putting you on new fleet, declaring you surplus,
ending any part of any agreement they choose? Not a lot to be honest.

90 days notice, that's about it.

Only a few hurdles are still in their way - cabin crews' belief in their
own rights and a strong union to fight for them.

If you chose - and it will be your choice - to break the strike and go to
work, you have effectively and actively chosen to serve notice on both of
these, in that one gesture.

The strike is over imposition. Why? To send a clear message to British
Airways that you value your agreements and are willing to fight to protect
them; this resolve is what will protect you in an uncertain future. If
you're not bothered, then let's stop fooling ourselves, it's over.

Unite has compromised so much to try and get a deal and thus avoid you
having to go on strike, as we know this can be a daunting prospect, but
let's be brutally honest, this has been to the point of being seen as
almost desperate and at times almost embarrassing how conciliatory we were
all prepared to be. While Mr. Walsh has persistently rejected every
compromise, remained openly provocative and deliberately confrontational.

If you are not concerned by all of this, fair enough. Go to work and be
counted by Willy Walsh every single day, on every single news channel
around the world, as a number, a statistic he can use to show how much
cabin crew "support him" and his actions.

It's a blunt message but a true one; there are no hiding places left for
any of us, no fence to sit on - you're either with Mr. Walsh and Mr.
Francis and ALL that they stand for, or your colleagues that are standing
up for what's right. There is no middle ground left anymore.

No second chance, right or wrong, this is a moment in your personal
history.

It's up to you; by all means go to work, but in doing so you are making a
bed for us all to lie in, that is why we are appealing and pleading to
every single person, no matter what decision you made over the previous
strike, to now support yourselves before its too late.

We are sorry if this message sounds a little harsh or even negative, but
what needs to be said needs to be said, before it's too late. If it is
over and your union is destroyed, then your job will change beyond
recognition in the years to come. We do not want there to be any doubt
that we tried to warn you.

Tuesday 18th May - See you there or not, It's up to you...

If you have already decided to break the strike, there are no hard
feelings you are still fellow crew, we would only ask you to consider
printing this out, putting it away in a draw. In few years from now, you
may across it and reflect what might have been.

"If we fight for our rights and our dignity, we cannot promise you that we
will win but if we don't, then we have already lost them."

Get Smart

16th May 2010, 09:31

They obviously haven't read the Financial Mail headlines today! :ugh:

Record losses at British Airways spark survival fears | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1278655/Record-losses-British-Airways-spark-survival-fears.html)

ottergirl

16th May 2010, 09:40

I think you have a very twisted view as there are plenty of "Joe public" out there who find it hard to swallow that crew get to fly around the world, stay in luxury hotels, eat for free while on duty, get enormously discounted staff travel when they are off duty and then expect everyone to feel sorry for them when they have have to bear their share of the savings the company has to make if it is to remain solvent.

Sorry for the cliche but most people have to scrimp and save all year to do the things that crew seem to take for granted...

With life comes choices. There is nothing to prevent 'most people' applying to work as cabin crew if they envy the lifestyle that much. In reality, it would not suit everyone. I have known crew sobbing in the briefing room because they can't face 10 days away from home, crew that have had to leave because they find they are permanently airsick and we have our own in-house version of the Samaritans because at one stage the suicide rate was higher than the national average. So, do come and join us if you fancy it but, as with all jobs, there are pro's and con's.

The amount you quote is conservative
maybe on long-haul. For Eurofleet crew it is considerably less but I still wouldn't want to swap with WW crew.

wiggy

16th May 2010, 09:43

The articles in the financial press will make little difference. Some of our colleagues seem to be so disconnected from the reality of the wider BA that I honestly think that even if the Company folded and "For Let" signs were glued to the windows of CRC they would still expect to be paid every month.

As an aside why can no-one say " Because I was on strike I lost my Staff Travel"? The latest euphamism (?sp.) I heard yesterday was "Due to the Current Industrial situation I've got to pay more for my tickets"......

flyingsoldier1993

16th May 2010, 09:45

Finally Unite/BASSA admits that plenty of people did not follow their mad and self destructive calls for battle.
And rather than looking inward as to why and how relations with their enstranged cabin crew population can be be improved.
They simply start shooting all blame for the failure of their miserable tactics at their own members for not participating in the last 2 strikes in the numbers they so long had us believe.:=
Very typical of the self serving and self obsessed Unite/BASSA leadership.
What else did we expect?:confused:
People are leaving Unite/BASSA in droves, cabin crew as well as ground staff. :D
Come on Unite, it's time to take a good long hard look at yourself!!!!!
And maybe admit that you done an incredibly terrible service in representing the best interest of your paying members.
I do hope your members, history and BA will hold you to account for this mess.
:ugh:

WeLieInTheShadows

16th May 2010, 09:49

Amicus DID suggest that the hourly rate was the way forward at the start of all this. When they suggested it as part of a possible "way forward", BASSA would not even consider it.

The injunction is a tactic to scare the crew. It may work.

The truth is that the figures were correctly posted for everyone to see at the time. But I guess if I were BA I'd try anything and everything.

Worrying part of all this is that when it IS resolved, there are then going to be 4 fleets, all on different T&C's.

Not ideal.

Granted the legacy fleets will shrink over the years, but LGW has been promised growth (LH anyhow if the MOA can be changed).

Now if LGW was "so great", why didn't they say "new fleet will have LGW fleet T&Cs". Nope, it's going to be all different again. More cost (short term at least). More complexity. Doesn't make sense does it?

LGW agreements, whilst far cheaper and economical than the legacy fleet ones, are still prohibitive in certain areas, far more than what BA has said the the new fleet will be. Also do LGW crew really believe that once BA have a fleet with aircraft with just main crew and one SCCM at LHR, that also operate to an agreement less restrictive than their own, that this model will not come to LGW? It will basically be what we're seeing now in reverse. Goodbye CM (we're already waving a long term goodbye to CSD).

There is more change to come I think. And those who are now being thanked for coming in, and having done their bit for accepting change and cost savings in the past will once more be asked to "give again".

Obviously I really hope I'm wrong. I really do.

Get Smart

16th May 2010, 09:58

Ottergirl, valid points and I find myself often agreeing with you, however, if cc find themselves sobbing in crc because they can't take another 10 days away, then they too have the choice to leave. As cc myself, I acknowledge that we do have a good job, we are well paid for what we do. I can fully understand why the public have no sympathy for us. We are all master of our own destiny so if the job makes you unhappy, you have the choice to find another occupation. ;)

Its time for us to accept the moderate change before us in order to obtain long term employment security for everyone at BA and even the thousdands of companies and its employees that rely on trade with BA - around the globe.

Get Smart

16th May 2010, 10:07

Sadly, I agree with you. What will it take! We can only hope that with the meeting on Monday with Phil Hammond and WW/Unite, and with the court injunction, something positive may come of it. :rolleyes:

Abbey Road

16th May 2010, 10:09

WeLieInTheShadows, LGW agreements, whilst far cheaper and economical than the legacy fleet ones, are still prohibitive in certain areas, far more than what BA has said the the new fleet will be. A bit difficult to believe, but if you can provide a representative illustration, that would be useful. Thanks!

Max Tow

16th May 2010, 10:15

From the Unite plea to working cabin crew quoted above:

" If the same number that broke the strike before do so again, then it's
over; your union has been destroyed..."

A quite amazing admission which will only serve to reinforce and reinvigorate BA's view that this episode can be ended with a few more heaves. How can this be the same union which only a few weeks ago was claiming that BA's contingency plans to keep flying were "a work of fiction", then that only 26 crew members broke the strike and that half the fleet was parked at CWL & SNN whilst many of the rest were positioning around empty?

Shouldn't there be an explanation somewhere between these statements as to why the union had been telling large porkies to its members in repeatedly denying BA's operational figures?

It is also interesting that they are now unashamedly characterising the struggle as for the survival of the union, and by implication its leadership, rather than the future employment of the individuals whom it has led into this appalling fix.

Meal Chucker

16th May 2010, 10:36

I also saw TW's sky interview. Opps!

He stated the Business side has been sorted out in principal, and that BA needs to back down on being petty and vindictive towards union members with regards to staff travel, suspensions and dismissals.

The strike ballot mandate is for imposition NOT staff travel and suspended crew, so Tuesday's strike could be classed as unofficial industrial action then!

gr8tballsoffire

16th May 2010, 10:53

Have just experienced the benefit of Mr.Woodley's aggressive style of presentation and my blood pressure is sill on the rise. It is no wonder we have no settlement is sight. His style may be suited to the docks of Liverpool or the Gorbals of Glasgow, but negotiating with a sophisticated employer it certainly is not.
One thing that he has confirmed is that the dispute is now simply about ST and disciplinaries. My understanding is that the strike mandate is about imposition, SOOO has he left the union open to a further court challenge??
We also had the usual mixed messages.On the one hand they were making noises yesterday about cancelling strike action due to the ash threat, on the other Mr.Woodley was very definite that the strike would go ahead.
What a muppet!!! Let's suppose the strike goes ahead and the ash closes LHR. Strikers get no pay, BA saves money...strike action even more pointless.
A real indication of the muddled thinking even at the top of the organisation.
OK...blood pressure getting back to normal.:\

Max Tow

16th May 2010, 11:07

An interesting interview. It's strange that TW is forcing thousands of his members to risk their livelihoods through strike action to overturn the results of a handful of BA disciplinary hearings. If the individuals concerned have been incorrectly disciplined or victimised by BA, are there not sufficient fair employment laws in place after 13 years of government by the union-backed Labour party to achieve redress? Or is it perhaps the case that TW fears that BA are enforcing legitimate punishment for real offences against fellow workers, so that there isn't a hope of reversing and saving face except through strong arm union action? Ditto with staff travel - if as the union has repeatedly assured its members before sending them out as cannon fodder, staff travel is a contractual benefit incapable of removal, why does it not simply go to court and prove it for a fraction of the cost and suffering of 10,000 lost incomes over 20 days or more?

gr8tballsoffire

16th May 2010, 11:14

The strike is over imposition. Why? To send a clear message to British
Airways that you value your agreements and are willing to fight to protect
them; this resolve is what will protect you in an uncertain future. If
you're not bothered, then let's stop fooling ourselves, it's over.

So, according to this it IS about imposition, no mention of ST/Disciplinaries.

How do they square this with TW's statement on the Beeb/SKY that it IS about ST/Disciplinaries.

Do these people talk to each other???

Abbey Road

16th May 2010, 11:15

BA saves money...No, BA still loses money! Aircraft sitting on the ground does not save money! They have to be airborne and earning to avoid losing money. There are still massive overheads that have to be paid, even if there is no flying!:rolleyes:

demomonkey

16th May 2010, 11:17

Just as a point of order 'the Union backed Labour Government' in it's 13 years of office did not introduce any radical changes to the law relating to strike action. The vast majority of the current law concerning strike action dates back to the 1980s and was (IMHO) rightly introduced in the wake of the Miners Strike of 1984-85 by a firmly right wing Government.

And to be honest, does any political party give a toss about such a small trivial strike?

gr8tballsoffire

16th May 2010, 11:18

Abbey Road
BA save money on CC pay!!!

Eddy

16th May 2010, 11:31

And to be honest, does any political party give a toss about such a small trivial strike?

Let's cancel this strike, let's sit down around the table and hammer out a solution.Seems that perhaps they do.... Mr. Hammond is planning on sitting down with both sides.

demomonkey

16th May 2010, 11:49

My point exactly Eddy. Pre-election the Conservative party were severely criticizing Gordon Brown and the Labour party for not immediately intervening to bring the strike to an end.

Now they're in power, they're doing exactly what the then Labour Government did and try to bring both sides together for 'talks'. No more tough talk. Two quotes spring to mind;

"Stupidity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results" and
"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!"

:ok:

Buter

16th May 2010, 12:30

"Stupidity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results"
I believe what you have done here is paraphrased the definition of insanity. It's okay, though, it's still applicable.

B

christmaslights

16th May 2010, 13:08

invented by cynical managers who have worked for this
company for a couple of years, yet this "sound bite" is also being
unquestioningly and naively swallowed by people who have worked for BA for
decades who really should know better. Their loyalty should be to the
airline that they remember, not to the one being rebuilt in Mr. Walsh's
image. For when it's their turn to be sacrificed for greater profit, make
no mistake, they will be, pilots included.

We are all British Airways, not just those who work in Waterside; what
gave them the right to hijack our airline's good name for their own ends?

I can truly say I am ashamed I was part of this union. A union that only wants to create divide, create hatred. Whatever they have against WW it does not justify the words they are using to create anger and division.

They are right in one thing though: WE ARE ALL BRITISH AIRWAYS INCLUDING THOSE WORKING IN WATERSIDE, THOSE WORKING IN CARGO, THOSE WORKING in NCL, THOSE WORKING IN NYC, THOSE WORKING IN INDIA, THOSE WORKING in JACKSONVILLE, THOSE WORKING IN ANY OTHER PLACE IN THE WORLD THAT IS NOT A TERMINAL OR AN AIRCRAFT.

We all contribute to this airline and we have given for the good of everybody in the company inc. cabin crew. But now that it is their turn to give BASSA still has the audacity to still play the hate card?
Enough is enough.
Trying to maintain your conditions? OK we all get it. Trying to justify your existence by creating division? UNFORGIVABLE.

Even more unforgivable is to believe what they say.

Sorry for the rant but this has set me off and I am still shaking in anger. Clearly this is my opinion only and does not represent British Airways in any way.

Get Smart

16th May 2010, 14:16

Everytime I go to work now, I am flying with more and more crew that have become disillusioned with Bassa and have hence resigned or intend to resign and this is largely down to how they have conducted themselves. The dwindling membership speaks for itself.

These emails that are being sent out now are merely preaching to the already die-hard militants who intend to go down with Bassa. I doubt many crew who are reporting to work or intend to report to work this time around will take any notice of their badly worded and inappropiate messages. Reading them only reassures me that they are the desperate ones, not BA. Bassa are spinning out of control. They have no cards left to play. Never did anyway. :bored:

Wobbler

16th May 2010, 16:03

WeLie In The Shadows

The truth is that the figures were correctly posted for everyone to see at the time. But I guess if I were BA I'd try anything and everything.

I guess we'll find out tomorrow. Can you tell us how the results of the ballot were disseminated to the members as I have no idea? Was it text / email / letter and did they contain all the information required below?

As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of—
(a) votes cast in the ballot,
(b) individuals answering “Yes” to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,
(c) individuals answering “No” to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and
(d) spoiled voting papers.

Network Rail against RMT in April stated that the RMT had to take active steps to ensure its members were informed of the result as above. A text telling them to look at the website was not sufficient.

License to Fly

16th May 2010, 16:07

I have a gut feel the strike will not go ahead this week, (and a small maybe, the New Fleet may be born this week with the first offers of employment sent out to illegal strikers)

However if it does, there have been lots of CC this week that say they cannot afford to strike this time (and they are happy to settle now)

From the union email, it looks like the strike will not be supported as the unions are wanting - i hope it doesn't get nasty as the strikers realise their time is up, but i wouldn't put money on it as tensions are running high.

Maybe those people CC who are undecided will read the union email and realise that its better to gamble with BA than side with a desparate union

Backing BA
Not backing those who look to ruin BA

Bengerman

16th May 2010, 16:17

An absolute fundamental of industrial relations............if you cannot win the strike, do not start it!

Abbey Road

16th May 2010, 16:45

Weird! Earlier today someone posts the most recent communication from BASSA, clearly stating:The strike is over imposition. Why? To send a clear message to British Airways that you value your agreements and are willing to fight to protect them ...Then today, Tony Woodley tells Sky TV something entirely different:He said there were no longer any outstanding conflicts over restructuring or cost reduction, and that the only remaining points of contention related to action taken by the management against staff. "We've now got an agreement with British Airways that covered the main requirements for this business going forward...all of those requirements have been agreed in principle now, and that's why customers and shareholders and the board need to ask the question: why are we still in dispute?
"And the reason, quite simply, is this: that Mr Walsh now is taking petty, vindictive action by not putting our people's staff travel back on and at the same time victimising up to 50 of our people, 5 of whom have been sacked for what I consider to be petty, vindictive issues from British Airways."Is Tony Woodley actually trying to undermine the BASSA case? Does he fear that BA actually has a very good case for the court hearing tomorrow, which could seriously end up damaging UNITE's bank-balance? Is he now giving BA more ammunition to shoot down, at the very least, the forthcoming strikes illegal because they are not about "imposition"? Amazing! There seems to be something going on here .......:D

PoliticsHome | It's Walsh's fault there's still a dispute, says Tony Woodley | On Air Today (http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/9167/its_walshs_fault_theres_still_a_dispute_says_tony_woodley.ht ml)

TopBunk

16th May 2010, 17:02

AbbeyIs Tony Woodley actually trying to undermine the BASSA case? Does he fear that BA actually has a very good case for the court hearing tomorrow, which could seriously end up damaging UNITE's bank-balance?

I think you may well be right. Bear in mind also that he has already said that if there is volcanic ash affecting the UK, he will seriously consider cancelling the first of the 5 day strikes.

Ok, so he says this is in deference to the travelling public [excuse me while I choke on a grape:rolleyes:].

In reality it is because:

he wants to buy time to see the outcome of the court case so as to limit Unites liabilities, which could financially ruin Unite
he wants to minimise Unites costs as they pay out £30 per day to strikers
he sees that BASSA are totally beaten
he wants to disassociate himself and Unite from BASSA
he knows that only BASSA can call off the dispute
he knows by giving BA additional evidence that it is not about 'imposition', he can help protect Unites money for deserving (rather than undeserving) causes
he knows that BASSA are totally out of his control.As an aside, where has Len McClunky been for the last month or so? Is he in a Bangkok sex-club or is he in Cuba with Castro or has he been sent to Coventry?

keel beam

16th May 2010, 19:48

It is no surprise to me that this dispute has gone off on a tangent.

When I was involved in strikes in the seventies, the dispute always departed from it's original cause as it dragged on. Usually it was because of a sacked shop steward.

In todays dispute it is re-instatement of staff travel, sacked staff........

gr8tballsoffire

16th May 2010, 20:26

Abbey Road
Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. Of course you are right that BA suffers financially during ash related disruption. It would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
The point I made was that if the CC strike coincides with that period, the company mitigates some of it's losses by not having to pay the salaries of any CC on strike.
Can't make it any clearer than that.

Abbey Road

16th May 2010, 21:03

gr8tballsoffire, I'm still not convinced. :ok:

If many/most aircraft are not flying, cabin crew are not required to turn up for work. Consequently, BA don't know who would have been striking, and so has to continue paying them. Surely?

gr8tballsoffire

16th May 2010, 21:27

BA strike staff are told: adapt or be wiped out - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article7127708.ece)

Duncan Holley, branch secretary of Bassa — the section of Unite that represents the cabin crew members — yesterday threatened new tactics because the strikes meant that staff were losing wages.
“Our members are not well paid and are not the sort of people who are able to sustain a year out, so we might have to alter our tactics to begin a guerrilla campaign against British Airways,” said Holley.
“There are a lot of options open — calling then cancelling strikes, short strikes, announcing long strikes to hinder bookings.”

Confirms just how right BA were to get rid of this loony. A great advertisement for the union movement.
Holley disciples may well have to sustain themselves for longer than a year. There is not likely to be a great deal of demand for ex-BA dinausaurs at the job centre.

.

giza

16th May 2010, 23:55

Dave, ref your post 2850, backing ba does not mean just working for ba, it means volunteering for extra duties, free of charge and in your own time, did you even know that that was happening, so no, you are not backing BA just by coming to work. You are not if you have a different view that means you take strike action.

Backing BA (no really I am) regards G:=

oldbird

16th May 2010, 23:59

Latest Duncan Holley rant
BA strike staff are told: adapt or be wiped out - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article7127708.ece)

Duncan Holley, branch secretary of Bassa — the section of Unite that represents the cabin crew members — yesterday threatened new tactics because the strikes meant that staff were losing wages.
“Our members are not well paid and are not the sort of people who are able to sustain a year out, so we might have to alter our tactics to begin a guerrilla campaign against British Airways,” said Holley.
“There are a lot of options open — calling then cancelling strikes, short strikes, announcing long strikes to hinder bookings.”

Confirms just how right BA were to get rid of this loony. A great advertisement for the union movement.
Holley disciples may well have to sustain themselves for longer than a year. There is not likely to be a great deal of demand for ex-BA dinausaurs at the job centre.

Sounds like he's talking about CHAOS a la Alaska Airlines. Worked for them lickity split.

flybymerchant

17th May 2010, 07:27

Does anyone have the figures? Last we heard I think it was 52 out of 55 BASSA reps of sick, is that accurate or verifiable?

I went to the last court case and saw the usual group of La-La Malone's Crones (the BASSA top-table troughers) and was shocked to hear that they were almost ALL off long-term sick......still claiming a hefty salary (WAY above the national average) and yet, this is the funny thing......they were in FINE spirits! All walking, talking, joking and smoking!

They obviously hadn't yet put 2 + 2 together and realised that their QC was an absolute numpty compared to BAs, oh, and they have YET to win a case!!! Nothing to do with the completely outrageous claims they make, the lies they disseminate and the obvious error of judgement with all the mud they try to sling at BA!

Yeeeeessssssss.......not one comedy crutch?!! No bandaged fingers or affected limps? Nope. SO what is it that's keeping these top-of-the-paychain 'workers' off work indefinitely? Psychological issues? Debatable, but have they claimed this as their excuse/sicknote? In today's age of encouraged hypochondria it's not hard to see how some lazy bandits have taken advantage of a generous employer's code of care. These guys really are leading by example, as evidenced by the legendary and world-leading BA cabin crew sickness rate (3 times the national AVERAGE)!! Go BASSA!!! Don't let them work you to the bone comrade, make sure you take at least 2 hours off between EVERY short-haul sector that touches Heathrow!

That newspaper quote from Nigel Stott said...

When asked why he had taken so much time off, Mr Stott said it was because his mother had died. However, public death records suggest his mother, Beryl Stott, died on April 26, 2008.

Read more: £40,000 BA steward is too ill to fly... but not to play a key role in strike | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278898/40-000-BA-steward-ill-fly--play-key-role-strike.html#ixzz0oAKYRqEY)

More lies, deceit and taking British Airways, its customers and its honest, hard-working employees for a ride.

Have these people no shame?

And what does this say about the lemmings who have confidence/trust in these trouble-makers and follow them into battle against their co-workers?!

Also, I noticed that he gets about £40,000 with NO flying.....how does he justify that to some of the cabin crew he supposedly represents, who have been on here complaining about only being paid £20,000 for a full year's FLYING work?

Does no-one ask any questions of these industrial saboteurs? You know, the people they elected to be their council and representatives, giving them a mandate to operate in their 'best interests' and provide a company/public facing image of them to the wider world? Yes, that is how the rest of the world outside of BA sees the behaviour of BASSA....as DIRECTLY representing the views/opinions/desires of the average BA cabin crew member....you can see why the public are a little p!$$ed off and are baying for blood!

Thank goodness for the PCCC, a small glimmer of hope on the dirty grey horizon of aggressive & destructive industrial relations.

I just hope that more and more cabin crew somehow manage to shake off this terribly destructive and seemingly inbuilt (since initial SEP) attitude of mistrust, jealousy and hatred for people who ARE ON THE SAME TEAM!!!!!!

Why the PCCC have kept their anonymity is obvious......that they felt they HAD to, should be enough for BASSA members to hang their heads in shame and resign

As soon as WW starts sacking militants and issuing new contracts/recruiting onto new fleet, more and more CC will start to realise that this bunch of incompetent commercial terrorists have failed them at every turn and every hurdle.

It should also, at some point I hope, become apparent to the unseeing what has been in front of their eyes all along; that this was never about YOU, it was only about THEM!

It just happens that you make up a large and unruly mass of unthinking, unquestioning, unwavering foot-soldiers that the union have consistently demonstrated that they can lie to with impunity, deceive without blame and use as a simple army of brainwashed cannon-fodder to use against British Airways and its Employees.

...........I blame the pilots.

Get Smart

17th May 2010, 07:28

The results of the ballot were published on Bassa website but perhaps BA lawyers may be going down the route that not everyone has access to the internet therefore results should have been posted to everyone. That's a guess. On the other forums they remain convinced that BA are simply using this as another scare tactic but I think we know they wouldn't waste their time and money on a costly court injunction if they didn't think it was worth it. Unlike OH Parsons, BA lawyers would have done their homework.

If Unite postpone the strike due volcanic ash, then when they recommence it, they are likely to be pushed over the 12th June so either way, they are seriously running out of options. :eek:

stormin norman

17th May 2010, 08:43

Its been rumoured that cabin crew reps get paid for duties by UNITE.
Does anyone know if they do and how much ?

ottergirl

17th May 2010, 09:17

It just happens that you make up a large and unruly mass of unthinking, unquestioning, unwavering foot-soldiers that the union have consistently demonstrated that they can lie to with impunity, deceive without blame and use as a simple army of brainwashed cannon-fodder to use against British Airways and its Employees.

Insulting and unnecessary. More suited to a soapbox in Hyde Park than a discussion forum. Just because 5000 crew have a different opinion to your own does not empower you to be so rude. While I am no supporter of the strike, I do understand that many of my colleagues feel very strongly about their choice and have not taken the decision unthinkingly or unquestioningly. This sort of rhetoric is unhelpful because all it achieves is to drive the wavering further into the enemy camp. Try persuasion instead of abuse and you may be more successful in securing a future for all of us.:=

Der absolute Hammer

17th May 2010, 09:37

Thought that union reps had a statutory duty in Britian to get paid regardless of the productivity of their labors......

The BA comrade out in California: £50,000 a year union activist who lives in LA and hasn't flown for a year | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1236471/The-BA-comrade-California--50-000-year-union-activist-lives-LA-flown-year.html)

Of course it is from the Daily Mail and that means it is all a dirty rotten lie. Perhaps she gets more than that?

Then there is this:

Trade union reps are volunteers. They do not receive extra pay for their work as reps, though many are entitled to time off with pay to undertake their role as a rep.

(Which explains the per diem £100 of course) and that comes from the little lion's mouth.

Trade union representatives : Directgov - Employment (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Tradeunionsintheworkplace/DG_179246)

Bridchen

17th May 2010, 10:12

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueUpGood
Trouble is, a bidding system means the BASSA reps can't cherry-pick the money trips, and with a simplified allowance system (hourly rate), there won't be any money trips.

Yet again, real progress in IR and CC T&C's has been hamstrung over the last few years because of the greed of BASSA reps only interested in themselves.

Harsh and untrue. Bassa's reps get their fair share of good trips AND bad. Atleast, they're rostered them. In the past, the reps have had the ability to be de-rostered should they need to undertake union/office duties. As they would all enjoy the same level of fair share as everyone else of the good trips and the bad, it stands to reason that the majority of trips they'd be de-rostered from would be at the lower end of the scale.

So while it might appear as though the reps are doing more good trips than others, it's not at all true - they're simply doing less of the bad ones because those make up the bulk of the average crew member's roster and they are therefore most likely to be removed in place of union work.Regarding the above post - BASSA reps do get £100 day for their lost allowances as they stated on the BASSA forum regarding "our brave reps" (Puke! They seem to think they've taken part in the Normandy landings because the Daily Mail does an article on them, or Duncan Holley gets sacked when he should know better)

If they de-roster themselves for the worst trips, then let's work this one out. The last time I did a 3 day DEL, I seem to remember getting in the region of £80 in allowances as a crew member. No overtime, obviously. So for losing a 3 day trip a BASSA rep would get £300. Well that's better than any 3 day trip on current rosters is worth. And how do we know what else the union pays them? They mention nothing about travel expenses, Heathrow accomodation, payment for "working" days off. They make me sick. And talkiing with a lot of my friends lately, they're having that effect on more and more people. What a bunch of idiots. And as for Duncan Holley - well I can't find words.

flybymerchant

17th May 2010, 10:25

Persuasion has failed.

So has delicately tip-toeing around the issues for fear of upsetting people's sensibilities.

We're all adults here, and the bullying, the lies and the potential destruction of a British Institution and all it's innocent hard-working employees can no longer be tolerated - I think these things should be said before the inevitable cries of 'unfair dismissal' attempt to claim they weren't warned/aware of the consequences of their actions/bovvered when they continued to jeopardise all our futures.

This has got FAR more serious than that now. Company-wreckers need to be made aware that this is not 'sending a message to Willie Walsh' and it will not 'encourage him back to the negotiating table' unless that is to hand out new contracts or to advise us about the bankruptcy of British Airways.

BASSA needs to stop lying to its members and its members need to stop swallowing what they (let's be fair here) know are lies, for everyone's good, including that of the strikers.

It's like Stockholm syndrome, where victims develop an inexplicable attachment to their kidnapper....I fail to believe that ALL BASSA members are not aware of having been lied to, not mislead, LIED to, by their union. To not investigate the (many) untruths and to specifically block out all other contrary evidence and opinion does, I'm afraid, make you complicit.

These things need to be mentioned to the strikers so that they don't sleepwalk into their own dismissal. So that they don't believe that everyone's cool with the pacifying fix-all, "everyone has a right to strike either way and I support that (pls don't bully me for not striking)"

People may have a 'right to strike', but you cannot condone their action if it's achieved in the manner in which this dreadful and damaging campaign has been. Especially when it's so obviously been achieved by corrupt means, for corrupt ends, and so cynically and selfishly threatens to destroy to WHOLE cake if it has to share ANY of its vastly oversized slice. They didn't BAKE the cake, they didn't PAY for any of the ingredients and yet they've been happy for so long to sit around the table with colleagues, keeping their HUGE, disproportionate slice to one side whilst accepting smaller slices from all of their 'co-workers' around the table!

Effectively that is what has been happening in BA for well over 10 years now! All departments have been asked (many times) to modernise, rationalise and save money.....all other departments work a bit harder, earn a bit less than before, tighten their belts and keep BA flying, supporting our company and our future.....and the cabin crew department just says, "NO". They maintain their gold-plated Pay & Ts&Cs and we all know who pays for it!!! Now is the chance of the CC unions to give just a TINY amount of extra work, with NO PAYCUT and NO REDUNDANCIES, to make a token effort to give what is probably only a few% of what the other departments have given.....and they can't do it......many strikers have said that they would "rather see the company go bust".

Even if everyone else decides to tell the strikers that they are supported and cherished, I just wanted to put it out there that they most certainly are not.

BAAlltheway

17th May 2010, 10:51

Even if everyone else decides to tell the strikers that they are supported and cherished, I just wanted to put it out there that they most certainly are not.

Whilst i do empathise with FBM's somewhat harsh statement above, and reluctantly agree that unfortunately it does now represent the view of many inside and outside BA, i would like to reaffirm that that is not how i or most of the BA folks i know view ALL crew.

We now know that the majority of crew (according to numbers of actual yes votes as % of all crew, regardlesss of BASSA spin) do not support this latest action.

Whilst antipathy to the remaining BASSA-ites grows, certainly at least in the circles i move in, there is immense sympathy for the rest of the BA CC who unfortuntately, are being hoist by the petards of their millitant collegues.

Once i again, should these strikes actually proceed, i will be showing my support for these CC colleagues, by backing BA, by volunteering to support crew wishing to work, escorting and driving at LHR and LGW.

BAATW

report call sign

17th May 2010, 11:09

I think you may well be right. Bear in mind also that he has already said that if there is volcanic ash affecting the UK, he will seriously consider cancelling the first of the 5 day strikes.

Ok, so he says this is in deference to the travelling public [excuse me while I choke on a grape:rolleyes:].

In reality it is because:
he wants to buy time to see the outcome of the court case so as to limit Unites liabilities, which could financially ruin Unite
he wants to minimise Unites costs as they pay out £30 per day to strikers
he sees that BASSA are totally beaten
he wants to disassociate himself and Unite from BASSA
he knows that only BASSA can call off the dispute
he knows by giving BA additional evidence that it is not about 'imposition', he can help protect Unites money for deserving (rather than undeserving) causes
he knows that BASSA are totally out of his control.As an aside, where has Len McClunky been for the last month or so? Is he in a Bangkok sex-club or is he in Cuba with Castro or has he been sent to Coventry?

TOPBUNK

SPOT ON
WHEN WILL THESE SHEEP UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON
Get back to work and grow up
the ones ready to take your jobs off you are getting closer and closer
read what topbunk has written above and digest! it may become too late
FUNNY how the top notch of BASSA AND UNITE has gone underground
Uuuuummmmmm wonder why!

Bridchen

17th May 2010, 11:13

I agree with you BAAlltheway. Most people I speak to in the airline do not hate all crew. That is our only way forward. The rest of the people trying to punish all for the minority action will be left behind. I've had private messages of support from our premium passengers and colleagues on this and other forums. That is where I take my guidance from, not a minority that want to use any crew member as a punch bag because they have no control over the actions of some. If they have no control over them, how do they expect us to? These people are not listening. I've tried, and friends have tried. We've had to agree not to contact each other any more. What else can you do? Personally I don't agree with physical attacks on persons or property. I think we just have to accept that there are elements of unilateral and extreme anger on both sides, and take our cue from the majority who lie somewhere in between.

report call sign

17th May 2010, 11:20

I really feel that whatever the outcome in court today UNITE are still going to be on the back foot
Its amazing that trying to save face sometimes slaps you in it!
wake up UNITE you are not too big to fall!

Bridchen

17th May 2010, 11:23

And I also agree with you, report call sign. The BASSA constitution was changed after the UNITE top brass (now departed) did a very bad deal on pensions for BASSA in exchange for the brilliantly orchestrated wild cat strike by Gate Gourmet being "forgotten" by BA. Unfortunately it left the power of settlement solely in the hands of the BASSA reps. In other words a bunch of berks. Every time I've gone into the BASSA office for help or advice, I've been faced with a wideboy, sitting legs akimbo on the desk, who looks at me like I've interrupted a cabinet meeting. They've lied to me personally about other matters in the past during their power struggle with BA. I despair!

Beagle9

17th May 2010, 11:32

Since it's all got so heavy now, how about a bit of light relief.

Go to untiteba.com and have a look at the link "Video made with BA crew imput" for 3 minutes of hilarity.

demomonkey

17th May 2010, 11:55

It's such a pity BASSA didn't put as much effort into checking the legality of their actions as they do with their cinematic productions. Obviously colouring in WW's eyes red, drawing horns on his pictures and making up slightly assuming 'willy' jokes consumes so much time at BASSA HQ that they forget such small trivialities.....

Another day in court. Another victory for each side's legal people (financially) and another inch in the rift between CC and BA. Plus ca change.....

BentleyH

17th May 2010, 12:43

Unfortunately public anger has also increased due to the fact the strikes are taking place when there is already disruption due to the Ash problem. Interesting to read comment from the public about impression created by those Tv interviews. It seems that Woodley and Co have come across as thugs. I don't believe most crew would want to be represented by a union that creates this sort of impression.

M.Mouse

17th May 2010, 12:59

The BASSA constitution was changed after the UNITE top brass (now departed) did a very bad deal on pensions for BASSA in exchange for the brilliantly orchestrated wild cat strike by Gate Gourmet being "forgotten" by BA.

I am sorry but that cannot go unchallenged. I have no idea about the Gate Gourmet allegation but I do know that the rabbit BALPA pulled from the hat during the intense and difficult pension negotiations benefited CC extremely well because it was applicable to ALL flying staff. If we had relied on BASSA's input the pension situation would have been very different.

giza

17th May 2010, 13:09

What Rabbit, and can we have some please. Pension agreement voted on last week for general staff was pants !

Thunderbug

17th May 2010, 13:29

The Rabbit that Mr Mouse is referring to was produced at the previous pension discussions approx 3 yrs ago.

Bridchen

17th May 2010, 13:41

Yes, what was the rabbit? Nobody told us including BALPA. I have never heard anything about this via rumour, flight crew, BA or otherwise.

BlueUpGood

17th May 2010, 14:11

Yes, what was the rabbit? Nobody told us including BALPA. I have never heard anything about this via rumour, flight crew, BA or otherwise.

Are you surprised? BALPA reps negotiated a significant improvement for flying staff.. including cabin crew. I will leave it to someone more versed in the agreement and with a better memory than me to provide the details. However, BASSA's input to the negotiations was zero, and so were very silent on the whole issue, other than to pillory one of the architects of the deal, a BALPA rep, for his efforts on behalf of all flying staff :mad:

Pathetic. And to think there are people who want to be represented by such people :ugh:

License to Fly

17th May 2010, 14:17

passengers are not happy & BA are not happy ... a recipe for disaster :ugh:

Hotel Mode

17th May 2010, 16:17

Just got off the staff carpark bus and lots of cabin crew were saying the words loudly :-

see you tomorrow

I think many CC have finally realised that the game is up and do not want to lose almost a months salary... Just ask yourselves, is the risk really worth any potential rewards of striking?

Or maybe they're off to bedfont?

Bridchen

17th May 2010, 16:53

If someone makes a statement to make a point, then at least be able to provide information or we're all :ugh:!

License to Fly

17th May 2010, 17:07

BA granted an injuction .... and win again

Unite to appeal tomorrow though

so what does that mean now ...

CantFlyWithoutEngine

17th May 2010, 17:07

Wooo hoooooo the strike's off, injunction granted to BA ! Hahahahahahahahaaaaa

MarkSpeed

17th May 2010, 17:08

Its been called off. Injunction done.

MrBernoulli

17th May 2010, 17:10

Anyone surprised? You shouldn't be. :rolleyes:

ArthurScargill

17th May 2010, 17:14

BA granted an injuction .... and win again

so what does that mean now ...

Exactly !!
Cabin Crew breath a sigh of relief. UNITE off the hook a little bit. BA can fly its passengers, assuming it hasn't already given all its custom to other airlines.... but still nothing resolved. :ugh:

swalesboy

17th May 2010, 17:16

De Ja Vu

So will Willie Walsh now threaten Unite with a whopping compensation claim if they do go on strike. Previous strikes will now have been illegal.

I think he has a cunning plan.

License to Fly

17th May 2010, 17:30

Unite being interviewed on SKYnews in next few minutes ...

I wonder what cliches they will trot out this time (yet another bad day for democracy etc etc!)

TopBunk

17th May 2010, 17:33

It is now time for CC to realise that WW has outmanoeuvred BASSA at every stage of this dispute. Furthermore they must realise that BASSA/Unite have been shown to be totally inept at representing them and has been shown incomptent at running what must surely be pretty simple, a ballot.

I'm sure that a huge majority of the crew would now love to turn back the clock about 8 months and vote for what was on the table then, rather than what they wil end up having to accept.

WW now has so many irons in the fire with which to threaten BASSA/Unite that even they must surely realise that the game is over.

After all, even they themselves said that at the weekend in their missive to the believers when they said 'strike or it's the end of BASSA'.

Let's all hope that we can now put this evil empire behind us and move forward.

essessdeedee

17th May 2010, 17:33

Do I assume that this makes the March strikes illegal and BA can now dismiss strikers and pursue unite to recover losses?

Hotel Mode

17th May 2010, 17:41

I've heard theres now plenty of samosas available cheaply in the Bedfont area. :ok:

Interesting to see what WWs plan is.

ArthurScargill

17th May 2010, 17:43

Do I assume that this makes the March strikes illegal and BA can now dismiss strikers and pursue unite to recover losses?

I don't see how. In fact, i think all this has shown is that on the latest ballot, UNITE did not inform it membership correctly (whatever that means) of the result.
To be honest, unless i'm missing something, i don't see what this has achieved at all other than to delay strike action even further. we don't appear to be any nearer to:
a) a resolution or
b) the demise of BASSA

So as somebody else asked, where now ?

MrBernoulli

17th May 2010, 17:44

Do I assume that this makes the March strikes illegal and BA can now dismiss strikers and pursue unite to recover losses?I suspect that it could, but I don't think it will ......... yet.

UNITE has a lot of other groups under it, so busting UNITE's bank balance would anger many of it's members who are in other sections of BA, and also many others who have absolutely nothing to do with BA. More likely BA will tell UNITE something along the lines of "This is how it is going to be ....... sign here, and here, and here." UNITE are effectively hog-tied. BA may even 'ask' that current BASSA leadership are all removed from post, never to hold same again, and insist on new elections. BA may also actually take some form of financial damages from UNITE (enough to make them wince), as a further lesson, but are unlikely to break their bank ...... unless the stupid buggers continue to play stupid buggers!

Hotel Mode

17th May 2010, 17:49

Quote:
Do I assume that this makes the March strikes illegal and BA can now dismiss strikers and pursue unite to recover losses?

I don't see how. In fact, i think all this has shown is that on the latest ballot, UNITE did not inform it membership correctly (whatever that means) of the result.

This case is about the ballot for the March strikes. So these strikes are retrospectively illegal. What BA does about it is another question.

Wirbelsturm

17th May 2010, 17:50

i think all this has shown is that on the latest ballot, UNITE did not inform it membership correctly

Not the 'latest' ballot, this injunction goes back to the original ballot for strike action under the auspices of 'will you take industrial action yes/no?'

The problem was the dissemination of information after the ballot (Where have we seen this sort of problem with BASSA/Unite before I wonder!!!!). BA have stated that pinning a piece of A4 onto the notice board in the CRC was not legally sufficient.

It would seem that the Judge agrees.

This would, if correct, make the initial strike and subsequent strikes illegal.

ArthurScargill

17th May 2010, 17:54

Oh - i obviously WAS missing something then !
If thats true, then this is indeed big news.
6-0, 6-0, 5-0 to WW. Will unite retire hurt or go all out for the white wash then ?

Wirbelsturm

17th May 2010, 17:59

It has always been a common misconception that the employment laws are there to protect the employee.

In many cases though the employment laws can offer far greater protections to the employer.

ArthurScargill

17th May 2010, 18:00

But I do believe that the right to strike action is an important democratic right that we all should have. It would appear that the courts have begun to erode this right and that is not a good step.

Fair point but the flipside is that its 2010. Employment law is well set and offers more protection to Joe Bloggs than any union can guarentee.

In the modern world i don't see a need for unions, other than to perhaps agree safe working conditions and such like, but even most of that is probably covered by law.

My view is that if you feel the need to strike against your employer, you're ready for another job. remember you work for the empoyer, they don't work for you. If you don't like it, go and find something better. simple really :confused:

Abbey Road

17th May 2010, 18:06

But I do believe that the right to strike action is an important democratic right that we all should have.ONLY if there is accompanying responsibility. Nobody has any inherent rights - such utopian tosh!

mur007

17th May 2010, 18:12

Fair point but the flipside is that its 2010. Employment law is well set and offers more protection to Joe Bloggs than any union can guarentee.

In the modern world i don't see a need for unions, other than to perhaps agree safe working conditions and such like, but even most of that is probably covered by law.

In the UK, I would agree with you - there are sound and generally fair laws which protect both the employer and the employee. However if you go beyond the UK and look in countries where Unions are not as strong or simply do not exist at all things are very different. The 'Tesco Value' jeans that we pay less than a fiver for (I don't buy them myself of course!) will not have been made by someone who enjoys those same priviliges that we have here.

I'd argue that the reason we have such good laws in the UK is because we have unions and that the reason it may feel that we do not need unions also is because we have them! There is certainly a balance to be struck: too much union power (as was seen in the 1970s, early 1980s) is not healthy but too much employer power is not healthy either.

Eddy

17th May 2010, 18:12

Disappointing ruling in the courts.

I'm not taking part in these strikes as I have (tried to) left the union and don't agree that striking is the right move here; but I think the judge has made a terrible ruling and, as put so eloquently above by another poster, it seems one's ability to engage in strike action in this country is being slowly eroded.

This is a ridiculous ruling. Very disappointed (not just for the union and those members who voted in favour of the strike, but for society and the rights of workers).

BikerMark

17th May 2010, 18:13

Arthur Scargill: "In the modern world i don't see a need for unions, other than to perhaps agree safe working conditions and such like, but even most of that is probably covered by law."

In an ideal world possibly, but very often the company does need reminding about the legalities & technicalities of employment legislation.

It's my experience that BA managers are not always well-briefed here (often relying on PMA) and TU reps are far more knowledgeable. Things like EG902 or EG300 can be a hard & lonely place without union representation.

Mark.

Abbey Road

17th May 2010, 18:21

Disappointing ruling in the courts.
............................................................ .....
This is a ridiculous ruling. Very disappointedEddy, the ridiculousness here has actually been a union of the size and potential clout of UNITE being incompetent, several times! The technicality they fell foul of is small, but perhaps they should have been more careful and precise ....... though words like that don't seem to feature in UNITES skill-set nearly as much as bluster, bulls**t and bollocks.

mur007, try this as an example:
You have the right to own a car and drive it on the roads. You are responsible for obtaining a driving license, insuring and taxing the car, and driving in accordance with the rules and regulations.

Eddy

17th May 2010, 18:28

Eddy, the ridiculousness here has actually been a union of the size and potential clout of UNITE being incompetent, several times! The technicality they fell foul of is small, but perhaps they should have been more careful and precise ....... though words like that don't seem to feature in UNITES skill-set nearly as much as bluster, bulls**t and bollocks.It's hard to argue with this, but I wonder whether the fact that only now has this gone to court is largely because even BA didn't know the legislation used today existed until its legal teams spent weeks trawling over every letter of every word of industrial relations legislation currently in law?

I don't think Unite has been incompetent at all - I just think they've been unlucky. Extremely unlucky.

But I agree with you that it REALLY doesn't bode well that the airline has gone to court with Unite three times in almost as many months and has won each time, despite absolute assurances by the legal team handling the "one down" issue that we (the union - when I was still a member) would win.

I think it would be impossible to make any ballot or any industrial action entirely watertight. Infact, I'd be surprised if any industrial action that's taken place in this country in recent memory has been bang on in terms of legality.

The difference here is that BA has put enormous resources into finding the cracks, no matter how small they may be.

BentleyH

17th May 2010, 18:29

Unite cannot have it both ways. If it uses the law to hold a lawful strike with all the great protection this offers, then it must follow the law to a tee. They have no one to blame but themselves for their incompetence. Unfortunately it's their membership that will pay the cost. I'm surprised they have any money left for any more court cases.

Abbey Road

17th May 2010, 18:32

I'm surprised they have any money left for any more court cases.If they need any more I'm sure they will just tell all members (or only BASSA members?) that they are merely slapping a levy on membership dues in order to fight an unwinnable fight. Isn't that what they usually do? :rolleyes:

Eddy

17th May 2010, 18:34

Now, assuming that Unite go to the CoA tomorrow and WIN......, could they begin IMMEDIATE strike action or would they have to offer seven days' notice again?

That is, would the initial 7-days' notice be considered as having been given and tonight's ruling ignored so the strikes can proceed?

Abbey Road

17th May 2010, 18:38

Eddy

17th May 2010, 18:39

You really don't make it easy to argue with you..... ;)

Abbey Road

17th May 2010, 18:45

Eddy, its been fun! :ok:

1066

17th May 2010, 18:47

An analogy?

In the past BA only held the rope lightly with a few 'under weight' managers while BASSA took a very firm hold and pulled to win, what are now regarded as out dated agreements. I thought some CC agreements were ridiculous in my BA time up to 2001. Now, outside but, looking in from the LoCo world those agreements are unreal. Good luck to all those enjoying the personnal benefits of those agreements but CC, BASSA, Unite and 007 should not be surprised that BA are pulling so hard now with real heavyweights.

I don't recall any protests from the unions when they were using the full strength of employment law to advance their case. It is now BA's turn to use the same laws, but different parts of them.

1066

ArthurScargill

17th May 2010, 18:53

UNITE would be very, very lucky to win an appeal if you consider that the RMT lost its original case on an identical point just last month! Two rulings, on the same technicality, in two months - any appeal is nothing more than UNITE stomping and teddy-throwing, in a rather hollow attempt to appear to be doing something constructive.

Reading some of the breaking stories (ie from the Press Association), the high court judge refused permission to appeal, so theres not even a good chance the court of appeal will hear the case. I suspect they won't, but we'll find out tomorrow no doubt.
Even if they do hear the case, i can't see them overturning the decision. It seems like the law, however fiddly it is, hasn't been complied with. There hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here after all....

Eddy

17th May 2010, 18:58

Wobbler

17th May 2010, 19:11

For a union to organise a strike there are a lot of hoops that need to be jumped through. However, they don't appear to be too far off the ground, nothing too complicated or technical, so I find it amazing that a union such as Unite has not been able to comply with the relevant bits. The bit in question is below and requires nothing more than a letter to each person entitled to vote stating the numbers.

Information as to result of ballot
As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of—
(a) votes cast in the ballot,
(b) individuals answering “Yes” to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,
(c) individuals answering “No” to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and
(d) spoiled voting papers.

Despite Tony Woodleys rhetoric, the judgement has not denied anybody the right to strike. All it has said is that the rules need to be followed. You cannot pick and choose the bits you want to comply with.

As far as another ballot goes, I suspect that is a non starter. The judgement has ruled this ballot did not comply with the law, therefore the previous strike was not 'protected'. The company it would seem, could legitimately sack anyone that took strike action last time and sue Unite for damages. Whilst I don't necessarily consider that a desirable outcome, it is an almighty axe to be holding to the neck of Unite to conclude negotiations rapidly!

ArthurScargill

17th May 2010, 19:15

Shouldn't really have come as a surprise to those of us who value our democratic rights. Afterall, we live in a country where you can be imprisoned for protecting your property against worthless, caravan-dwelling, career criminal sh*t bags.....

As much as I don't agree with the strikes this time around, I absolutely DO agree that those who are in favour of them should be allowed to take action accordingly.

The courts of this country seem to be intent on starving the British people of their right to protect themselves.

The irony is Eddy, that this gross miscarriage of justice today has probably saved the jobs of all those who were planning on taking such action.
I'm not sure its right either, but then again the union have behaved disgrafeully throughout this whole sage so I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for anyone today

By the way, was just watching sky news a couple of mins ago and they answered your question - basically the strike can be called again immediately (no 7 day notice required) should they be succesful tomorrow. However, they also confirmed what i posted before about the unlikeliness of the CoA even taking this case on. I think its probably curtains for now and hopefully a resolution can be thrashed out in the coming days.

Eddy

17th May 2010, 19:18

Information as to result of ballot
As soon as is reasonably practicable after the holding of the ballot, the trade union shall take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons entitled to vote in the ballot are informed of the number of—
(a) votes cast in the ballot,
(b) individuals answering “Yes” to the question, or as the case may be, to each question,
(c) individuals answering “No” to the question, or, as the case may be, to each question, and
(d) spoiled voting papers.If that's a direct quote from legislation, I'd say Unite/Bassa complied 100%...... The ruling was wrong. Very, very wrong.

Short of standing on people's doorsteps to ensure they got the info first hand, Bassa did a good job of advising the result of the ballot.

Abbey Road

17th May 2010, 19:18

Let me try and make it plain, mur007. At no stage in this entire dispute have BASSA or UNITE ever acknowledged the need to take quick and reasonable action to keep the company solvent - to save money now! They have prevaricated, blustered, and obfuscated well past the point where all other company employees could see that world finances are in a lousy state. We are now a full year past the deadline that the company set for resolution of cost savings! And only the dithering cabin crew union remains against the company, bleeding it dry, day by bloody day!

Behind it all, whatever BASSA and UNITE say, has been the pathetically obvious point that they want to keep their status quo - "Everybody else can go save money, we're not doing it!" And they are happy to do that to the detriment of everybody else's job!

That is called not exercising responsibility! How obvious does it need to be painted? :ugh:

Eddy

17th May 2010, 19:23

The irony is Eddy, that this gross miscarriage of justice today has probably saved the jobs of all those who were planning on taking such action.

I'm not sure its right either, but then again the union have behaved disgrafeully throughout this whole sage so I have absolutely ZERO sympathy for anyone today.In which case, Arty, had I gone on strike, I'd now probably be investing heavily in Pampers for fear of Willie Walsh - who I think has had a bit of a game plan all along - coming after me and getting rid of me without annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny bother at all.

I fear all those who went on strike are now in grave danger if their records/files aren't crystal clear..... Which saddens me - a lot of GOOD people have taken part in this action.

By the way, was just watching sky news a couple of mins ago and they answered your question - basically the strike can be called again immediately (no 7 day notice required) should they be succesful tomorrow. However, they also confirmed what i posted before about the unlikeliness of the CoA even taking this case on. I think its probably curtains for now and hopefully a resolution can be thrashed out in the coming days.Interesting. Thanks. Am in a bar and, sadly, the SWI / CHA (I dunno who they are - read that off the score bitty at the top... I hate soccer ball) game has taken priority over SkyNews.

ETA : can a judge REALLY remove the right of either party to appeal? That in itself seems almost undemocratic to me. There should be a limit to appeals, but no single judge should be allowed to decree that his/her judgement is beyond question.

giza

17th May 2010, 19:30

Expert on BBC says "this injuction applies to the latest strike, the previous was legal"

either way what now ?

Eddy

17th May 2010, 19:34

Chuchinchow

17th May 2010, 19:44

If I was a member of Unite/BASSA top "leadership" I would suggest that it seriously consider finding a new solicitor and firing the current barristers.

giza

17th May 2010, 19:50

Oh well Eddy, I will watch the 8 oclock news on sky and see if they have a better expert, thats if I can tear myself away from the SWI (Swindon) v CHA (Charlton) play off 0-2 (2-3 agg)

Eddy this is a very inportant game, but admitted ONLY if you live in Charlton or Swindon . :):)

The Blu Riband

17th May 2010, 19:51

At no stage in this entire dispute have BASSA or UNITE ever acknowledged the need to take quick and reasonable action to keep the company solvent ! They have prevaricated, blustered, and obfuscated well past the point where all other company employees could see that world finances are in a lousy state. We are now a full year past the deadline that the company set for resolution of cost savings! And only the dithering cabin crew union remains against the company, bleeding it dry, day by bloody day!

Not just dithering. But lying, deceiving and down-right ignorance and stubbornness.

despite absolute assurances by the legal team

Yeah, right:ugh:

Just because your reps can't be bothered to check the facts , ask the right questions, or hear what they're being told. And that's when they're available at all, or even bothering to listen.

eg Bassa lawyer says "you cannot lose staff travel"
Rep tells crew"you definitely cannot lose staff travel."
crew believe... we cannot lose staff travel.

Duh :ugh:

Idiots and lemmings!

ArthurScargill

17th May 2010, 19:51

I'm not entirely sure that can be the case.

Crew were only ballotted ONCE (excluding the xmas debacle).... Before the March strike.

The recent online thingy was a "poll" to determine whether to proceed with the action the poll entitled the union to take.

Correct. I previously thought it was for the online poll but one of the 'non compliances' was failing to inform the membership of the number of spoilt papers (of which there were 11 by the way) so it MUST be about the original ballot.

Sky News, which i'm about to stop watching now said that renders the previous strike 'illegal' so it does have pretty serious consequences. Interviews with messrs Turner and Woodley showing them to be absolutely fuming with the decision and they are certainly going to attempt an appeal. the sky news 'expert' seemed to think the chances of the appeal a) being heard and b) being successful were extremely unlikely...

Oh and Eddy, its Swindon vs Charlton on the telebox - one for the die hards really...

Doors To Manuel

17th May 2010, 19:58

I totally disagree with the rationale and sentiment behind this strike, but do support the right to strike. Sadly, I think going to the courts is not a smart move. It only delays the inevitable and is petty nitpicking to call the ballot illegal.

As someone once said "the people have spoken, the bast5rds!". They should be allowed to walk out for what they mistakenly believe in, and then we can all get on with reaching the end of this sorry affair.:ugh:

License to Fly

17th May 2010, 20:17

"Unite...said it was “an affront to democracy in our country when our members… can vote in a very open and democratic ballot and that still be ruled unlawful.”"

Absolutely. Why on earth should Unite be forced to obey the law? I mean, _laws_ are for the little people, not Big Important People like the leaders of Unite and Bassa

Steve Turner can throw his toys out of his pram like a spoilt child, but insulting a top judge at the High Court is not really on

Eddy

17th May 2010, 20:35

The ruling was, by the Judge's own admisson, more of a judgement call than anything else..... So steady on.

Juan Odeboyse

17th May 2010, 20:35

Lic.toFly - you have to admit that the technicality that went against UNITE was absolutely pathetic in this day and age.

Democratic and free UK ... I don't think so. :\

Andyismyname

17th May 2010, 20:40

...hmmm am I correct in my recollection that a recent trip to the High Court two Reps stated that they were studying Law?

Oh the irony!!!!!!!!!!

Pornpants1

17th May 2010, 20:41

It seems that UNITE/BASSA can find time to send a ballot paper to their members but cant find time to send said members the result, including 4 mandatory items.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Simply put if they had of done this, and even if some had gone astray it would have been fine.

A barrister tells me:ok: that the law has not changed since the metrobus and the RMT result in April, it has always been a requirement to ensure the membership were notified of the result with the 4 mandatory items, hardly rocket science:eek:

I'm sure there are some crew whom as off tonight have taken part in illegal industrial action will be keeping their fingers crossed for a more positive result should UNITE follow through with its appeal.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 129146.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7129146.ece)

License to Fly

17th May 2010, 20:43

Juan

the law is the law - face it Unite got it wrong and now should pay for their mistake. What seems petty, is still unlawful.

i think BA will use this illegal strike to conclude the talks ....

JazzyKex

17th May 2010, 20:46

I think what is more pathetic is that a union the size of Unite cannot comply with simple laws!

No one argues with the democratic right to withdraw labour but if you choose to do it comply with the law.

The law is not new, the process is not rocket science so why can it not be followed? Is it too much to ask of your reps, union leaders?

Why do they expect that no compliance should be ignored?

Everyone who is up in arms about this judgement should look not at the judge or BA for bringing the case but at the union for not fulfilling simple procedure. This is not a day when democracy has been steamrollered but a day when true and repeated incompetence has been found out.

Get Smart

17th May 2010, 20:48

Juan and Eddy with respect, I beg to differ. RTM fell foul of the same rule. Unite, once again, didn't cross their t's and dot their i's and their lawyers, who may as well be respresented by Bart Simpson, once again, failed to defend. I'm truely sorry for the crew that have been mislead down such a dangerous path. They are now in a most precarious position, however, I find it unlikely that WW will sack the crew. BA have a long history of being more than fair and tolerant (unlike Bassa), but I do think WW will be able to now use his strengthened position for even more leverage and Unite will now have to accept whatever deal in put forward or be sued to buggery for the cost of the strike and possible loss of strikers jobs. Bassa will have no choice now but to admit defeat, retreat in the most face-saving manner possible, lick their wounds and hope that they still have a place within BA. :uhoh:

flybymerchant

17th May 2010, 21:00

Always somebody else's fault!!!! Incredible that even Her Majesty's Judiciary System is ganging up on poor old BASSA!!!

'Can they do that?! Can we strike on them?! Red crayons and funny name inventing hats on when we find out the judge's name!!'

In a case when future evidence coming to light MAY potentially allow for a different interpretation of the facts, or possibly even in extreme cases a different result, the Judge will often make this plain in his summary, and grant permission to appeal in such circumstances.

That this Judge has denied permission to appeal means that no amount of new evidence can change the verdict in his mind. The ballot was not carried out legally, end of.

This does NOT prohibit the headline-hungry Unite muppets from trying to look like they've got a plan or a hope by filing for appeal. The Court of Appeal can still go ahead and open up an expensive and wasteful case of appeal if, in their opinion, there is reason so to do.

There is not. Eddy, Democracy continues to hold its head high, unblemished. How can you sympathise with a Union that seems to make it's bread'n'butter'butties out of strike action and aggressive industrial unrest, yet somehow, for all the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF POUNDS A YEAR it takes in fees from rabble-roused members, it can't seem to read and comply with the rules of holding a legal ballot?!?!? It is not advanced aerodynamics, it is basic legal procedure. To suggest that it is impossible to conduct a legal ballot because 'the Government are out to get us' sounds like something you could only hear in La La Land!!

BASSA are soon to be buried 6 feet under.....finally a box payment I don't mind working harder for

Juan Tugoh

17th May 2010, 21:08

Lic.toFly - you have to admit that the technicality that went against UNITE was absolutely pathetic in this day and age.

Democratic and free UK ... I don't think so.

Are you seriously suggesting that because you don't like a law it should not apply? In this day and age is it not reasonable that a union should have to adhere to the law before undertaking action that could cost the company millions of pounds? The very foundation of democracy is the rule of law, just because you don't like a law does not make it undemocratic.

BlueUpGood

17th May 2010, 21:14

BASSA are soon to be buried 6 feet under.....finally a box payment I don't mind working harder for:):):) :D:D

flybymerchant

17th May 2010, 21:14

Was this 'technicality' more or less of a 'technicality' than when the head of BASSA openly and idiotically encouraged cabin crew on an internet forum to return illegal ballot papers, which is what she did just before announcing the 12 Days of Christmas fiasco strikes?!?! She called that a 'technicality' now didn't she? Not her fault though, of course.....silly, pesky, unfair, cabin-crew bashing 'laws of the democratic nation' are to blame!!

"Yes, occifer, I consumed 10 pints of special brew and killed all 200 passengers by trying to land nearer to a curry house, but don't you bully and intimidate me! 10 pints? 1 pint? Got nothing on me mate....technicality mate. Call in the World War II imagery experts and lets blame whoever designed this fatcat, flight attendant abusing, irresponsible decimal system!"

Eddy

17th May 2010, 21:37

FlyBy, please do not speak ill of Lizanne Malone whose intentions, unlike those of a number of her members, are nothing but admirable.

As a non-supporter of the strike, as a no-voter, a former member of the union (attempted) and as a BA-baker, I still have the utmost respect for Ms. Malone.

ottergirl

17th May 2010, 21:40

Thats an interesting position Eddy. I must confess that I have never met her so have no idea if she is to be admired or not. What makes you say that?

JazzyKex

17th May 2010, 21:44

Eddy, how is making a comment to your membership which directly leads to a strike action being considered illegal 'admirable'?

Eddy

17th May 2010, 21:52

Thats an interesting position Eddy. I must confess that I have never met her so have no idea if she is to be admired or not. What makes you say that?She's great. She loves BA. She loves BA crew. I fear she may be stuck ever-so-slightly in the past when, as a government owned company we could afford EXTREMELY generous restitution, but she cares about one thing and one thing only - CREW. She's a good person.

Eddy, how is making a comment to your membership which directly leads to a strike action being considered illegal 'admirable'?What?

me myself and fly

17th May 2010, 22:01

(SNIPPED)
The Bassa tail is wagging the Unite dog. I urge Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson to assert their authority and address this situation. The vast bulk of their 20,000 members at BA urgently want them to do so. These include the thousands of regular cabin crew who ignored the strike calls in March and, if necessary, will do so again to help us to keep the airline flying.
During the last strike, we flew more than 80 per cent of our customers. I am considering plans to raise that number towards 100 per cent should the need arise.I sincerely hope it does not. Unite’s leaders must act.

Willie Walsh is chief executive of British Airways.
I won't let these militants stop BA from flying | Willie Walsh - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7129146.ece)

fruitbat

17th May 2010, 22:14

From an analyst at the court today.

BA has won the court case and cabin crew will not be able to legally strike for the 20 days previously planned. The union did not properly inform its members of the result of the ballot in February under section 231 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. As a result, the strikes carried out in March were not protected and could be deemed illegal, in which case, BA could have the right to legally dismiss all those crew who went on strike. Under the law, if this was the case it would have to dismiss all of the cabin crew that took part and not rehire any within a 3 month period.

flybymerchant

17th May 2010, 22:15

If she really cared about cabin crew wouldn't she have spent more effort leading them wisely, honestly and honourably in these uncertain times?.....instead of presiding over a responsibility-shirking, pornsite-building, hate-preaching union......or maybe not; maybe she's quite nice when you get to know her

Lots of history's villains were able to get people to like them on their rise to power, it doesn't make them good people, just whiley; like a coyote....or a goat

JazzyKex

17th May 2010, 22:43

Eddy,

British Airways Plc v Unite the Union

Queen's Bench Division

17 December 2009

Case Digest

Summary: Interim injunctions; Industrial action; Industrial action against airlines over Christmas period; Non-compliance with statutory requirements for ballots; Balance of convenience

Abstract: The applicant airline (BA) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (Unite) from proceeding with industrial action based on the result of a ballot.
BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period.
Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A ands.234A .

According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike. Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental.

Held:

(1) There were breaches of technical statutory requirements by Unite. Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A.
Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.
Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.
Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed.

(2) The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction sought by BA. Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and the a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.

Application granted.

When the first injunction was granted (the one above) in December prior to the 12 days of Christmas strike one of reasons stated for granting it was that Unite failed to provide accurate figures regarding who was entitled to vote.

One item that came up in court was that Miss Malone when asked directly by members of the union on a web forum whether they should vote even though they were leaving BA under the voluntary redundancy and would not be in BA if a strike was voted for, were told that they should. A direct instruction from a rep which proved to be incorrect.

It also shows that the same law has been used again and Unite/BASSA has been shown to be non compliant!

Is that really the representation crew deserve?

She may be a very nice and amiable woman but is clearly well out of her depth with regards to a law pertinent to her position and further to that modern labour relations!

Whiskey Zulu

17th May 2010, 23:02

As cabin crew myself with another UK based airline, that has accepted reduced crew on flights AND taken a pay cut to see OUR company through these amazingly difficult times, I am amazed that BA cabin crew can't see that they have been overpaid (and over rated) for more many, many years and can't accept the simple fact that BA can no longer afford to bow to every whim of your union! Wake up and smell the coffee (or tea obviously!) of commercial necessity! :ugh:

ArthurScargill

17th May 2010, 23:18

Vortex, Eddy (in my opinion) is fairly representative of a large number of Crew.
Hes clealry said hes anti-strike but obviously feels a liitle 'threatened',if thats the right word by whats going on around him - particularly wrt New Fleet i'd imagine. I think him, and others like him would have liked to see the union bat that away and agree something before we got to where we are now.

Just because crew are anti-strike does not necessarily mean they have to despise their union either (though many do). Unfortunately, him and many like him, have been let down by those they trusted at the wrong time. There's no need to pillory him for his opinions. Hes one of the good ones and always posts honestly and eloquently and doesn't get personel. Everyones entitled to their opinions and if we don't agree with them, well.... tough really.

Eddy

17th May 2010, 23:33

Arty, nice post.

I am not threatened by anyone. Nobody has the power to make me feel like that. As much as they might like to think they do.

The messages and notes I've got in my suitcase that have been left in my dropfile are not, as those who sent them might have hoped, anything more than an annoyance.

Indeed, if anything, they make me less likely join their 'cause'. The more of these notes I get, the less I want ANYTHING to do with the kind of nasty people who would send them.

I back BA and I'm proud - this time - to back BA. How dare anyone question my intentions or motives..... I have enough to worry about every time I check my dropfile.

ArthurScargill

17th May 2010, 23:40

Eddy,

I didn't mean that you felt threatened personally but rather your job security/prospects. Whatever, the sentiment remains the same and i don't understand the posters point. He obviously didn't read all your posts during the first strike which gave great balance to this whole debate at the time.

Anyway, hopefully we're motoring towards the finishing line now. If UNITE loses it appeal tomorrow its all but over really. I just hope theres little bloodshed, if any, but won't shed a tear if BASSA are discredited - in fact i still think thats WW ultimate goal so there may just be a bit of collateral damage to come. Heres hoping for a UNITEd BA come next week - sorry for the carp pun.

ChicoG

18th May 2010, 04:07

Eddy,

Why don't you give the notes you have been left for BA to handle/pass to the police?

I doubt any threatening BASSA militant is bright enough to mask their tracks whether the offending items are printed or handwritten.

Give them to the company and let them deal with it as they wish.

TopBunk

18th May 2010, 04:47

Just a thought...

Unless the CoA repeal yesterdays ruling, then the last ballot was illegal, so BASSA will have to re-ballot (the process taking about 1 month) before they can take further strike action.

Now as I understand it, only BASSA can call off strike action, but to issue a ballot for that action they require the approval of Unite.

If I read the situation correctly, there is little love lost between BASSA and Unite, with the latter getting rather tired of BASSA'S antics. After all, TW said only a ffew days ago that the items of substance had been agreed with BA, just leaving the disciplinaries and ST (which WW had agreed to deliver in part).

So the question, do we think that Unite will agree to BASSA conducting another costly ballot? I vote no.

...As I said, just a thought.

Litebulbs

18th May 2010, 05:44

One question. Mr Walsh breaks the back of BASSA as an effective union and saves £100m, what then? The loss has gone up £200m which cannot all be attributed to strike action in IfCE.

Will we be seeing a new fleet style contract in other departments?

flibbertyjibbet

18th May 2010, 06:10

Will we be seeing a new fleet style contract in other departments?

No need. Other departments have things called "negotiators" whose vocabulary stretches beyond "NO".

Also, most other groups have already made plenty of concessions over the years, without using the BASSA technique of "I'm alright Jack". Possibly if BASSA hadn't carved off most of their membership onto inferior contracts and sold them down the river (LGW?), the old contract CSD's wouldn't have become so isolated.

christmaslights

18th May 2010, 06:41

Will we be seeing a new fleet style contract in other departments?

Litebulbs,

where have you been in the last 18 months?

maybe the right question should be: when are we going to stop looking at the neighbour's grass and start looking at what is being offered to you? The attitude of pointing the finger at others has not taken us (or CC for all that matters) anywhere constructive, so isn't it time to change it? :ugh:

(to be honest it is not even worth listing again all the changes other depts have gone through in recent years, as if you wanted to take notice there have been plenty of posts listing them)

MrBunker

18th May 2010, 06:49

Eddy,

It's decent of you to stand up for Lizanne and I truly don't doubt that she does love crew and, in a retro kind of way, the airline too. The problem is that she appears, to the wider airline, to demonstrate that love by broadsiding every other staff group (flight crew in particular) whenever something isn't going BASSA's way. I think that's probably why you'll find there's a great deal of opprobrium towards her.

MrB

Litebulbs

18th May 2010, 07:01

So, any answer to the question then? The loss has gone up. The savings are going to have to come from somewhere.

gatbusdriver

18th May 2010, 07:16

I think you will find that the answer is......if the company shows the unions the books and proves that they are in need of making further savings, the respective unions (although maybe not all of them!) will be willing to negotiate the savings that are asked of that specific group.

Sound familiar?

Pornpants1

18th May 2010, 07:17

Litebulbs, if it goes badly today/tomorrow in court for UNITE/BASSA, then both cabin crew and UNITE/BASSA will pay for the shortfall.

Potentially 2500 cabin crew sacked, think of the savings ;)

Of course the direction of this dispute could change this afternoon.

Great to see Tony Woodley on bbc this morning reduce this dispute to "the Judge standing up for his own class":ugh::ugh:

Litebulbs

18th May 2010, 07:30

gatbusdriver,

Thanks for the answer.

Pornpants1,

Why the dismissals, the action has been called off?

Crash_and_Burn

18th May 2010, 07:38

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding going on, on PPRUNE and in the news media..

It keeps being said that if BASSA/UNITE lose the appeal (if it even gets heard) then they will simply re-ballot for another strike.

Not that simple I'm afraid, if they lose the appeal then the strike in March was ILLEGAL. I'll say that again, the strike in March was ILLEGAL. BA then have the right to sack anyone who breached their contract and went on an illegal strike, and they also have clear grounds to sue UNITE for their incurred losses (approx £60m).

If UNITE lose the appeal, there will be NO re-ballot, they will be begging BA to offer them anything and they will sign-up to anything to prevent the Union being made bankrupt.

Personally, I think UNITE will cut BASSA loose to sink or swim (Sink in this case) as part of an A$$ saving deal with BA, and then BASSA will be sued back to the Stone Age.

IF UNITE lose the appeal, then any Striking crew and BASSA supporters are totally at the Mercy of WW. All you can hope for is that he shows you more than you deserve.

This is the End-Game, and I think we know who has won.

CB

Flap62

18th May 2010, 07:40

Eddy,

I do enjoy your postings and hope you do not give up despite some of the aggression that is being shown towards you, however you posted something which goes straight to the heart of the matter. You wrote,

but she cares about one thing and one thing only - CREW

I also work for BA and I care for the company (because they pay my wages), the passengers (because they pay my wages), fellow crew (both flight and cabin), ground staff, management team, sales teams, waterside staff etc etc.

I hope you see my point and why Ms Mallone is leading the company to the edge of destruction because, for her, crew needs come before all other considerations. Even as a union rep this should never be the case.

Get Smart

18th May 2010, 07:47

Crash and Burn, dead right!!

Even if (in the unlikely event) they do re-ballot, I doubt they'll get the supporters needed for another round. Apart from the die-hard militants, quite a number of crew will be feeling very angry and let down (once again) by the union and probably wouldn't want to put their necks on the chopping block again for such an inept bunch such as Bassa.

I would imagine there are a lot of very worried crew now who are sorry they ever even took part in this illegal strike and their trust in Bassa has all but diminished and who can blame them? If they re-ballot, maybe they'll get a majority yes vote, but it certainly won't be 81% (which really was only about 63% except they were being economic with the figures) and considering the number of crew deserting them and changing their minds from yes to no on this occasion, it's a lost cause before they even consider another ballot. :sad:

Game over. Pack up the bouncy castle and samosa stall because I don't think it'll be needed again folks. Just now, hope and pray and you manage to keep your jobs and don't become the victims of Bassa's pointless war. I don't think WW will sack strikers anyway, but nonetheless, it's not nice being in that position, but if in their loonesy, they do decide to re-ballot, then I think he would sack them. Cut the arm off to save the body would be the only course of action left to take so I'd be very careful if I were going out on another strike!!!

BikerMark

18th May 2010, 07:56

Litebulbs - quite possibly. The company does have its sights on things like the redeployment agreement and careerlink. In an email last year, Bill Francis outlined what a new careerlink process would look like - 12 months only with a 25% run down of salary and severance payment every 3 months, with statutory redundancy at the end of the 12 month period if a job's been not found.

I believe there are still HR1's proposed in the PSU operation in T5 &T3 that have been put on ice for the present, as staff are presently needed to handle disruption. Also coming along are the head office rationalisations from the Iberia merger.

Change isn't going away. Most people in BA know this and there's going to be a need for negotiation to make sure it's done as painlessly as possible. BASSA are not helping the position of all the other staff unions in this respect.

Flap62 - good post. The No. 1 aim for every TU has to be ensuring their members have a job. No company, no job, no union. Wrecking a compnay on a point of principle has to be a gross dereliction of duty for a trade union.

Wirbelsturm

18th May 2010, 08:02

So, any answer to the question then? The loss has gone up. The savings are going to have to come from somewhere.

Perhaps the full rationalisation of the IfCE department coupled with the inability of BASSA to wreak havoc over the smallest point (ingrowing toenails, migraines, hot towels etc...) over the foreseeable future will calm the investors which is, ultimately, what this is about.

Trying to change agreed deals with the majority of personell within BA (ground staff, managers, checkin staff, tug drivers, pilots, loaders, IT staff etc. etc. etc) to glean IfCE cost savings would be a drastic mistake and one that Willie would not make nor indeed need to make.

flybymerchant

18th May 2010, 08:03

Dismissals are now available to BA, if they choose, for all crew who took part in unprotected industrial action (about 2000)

I don't think Willie's ready to go down that route yet- far more sensible to point to our CRITICAL finances and directly attribute them to dodgy industrial action and moribund union 'leaders', necessitating new contracts for all cabin crew accross the board, all crew on same, easily manageable contract, allowing for HUGE savings in back office admin too.

This is where I think he's heading.

He wants to be seen to be merciful (no compulsory redundancy & no culling) but he wants to effect real change.

That said, he wants to keep public and cc alike onside to a certain degree, so that new contract has to be cleverly devised to address all of BAs productivity requirements, slashing the enormous inefficiency and poor productivity whilst still offering carrots that appease the cc. I've always thought that (short haul) if our cc came in and worked a decent day instead of one-sector days and hanging around CRC, taking 2 hrs or however long 'at table', not doing fixed links etc etc.....if they worked like cc in other airlines, BUT STILL WELL WITHIN THE UK CAA LEGAL 900 HOURS (which only came in for cc quite recently as a restriction at all I think)...IF they worked sensibly, the ineffeciency and associated costs are so high in current BA, that Willie could offer every cabin crew member two extra days off every month, 5 days extra holiday a year, protected & guaranteed pay, the original share scheme offer and reinstate (reduced) staff travel for strikers, AND EASILY SAVE THE MONEY THAT WAS ASKED OF THE CABIN CREW.

rubik101

18th May 2010, 08:55

Could someone who knows the situation in BA explain to us interested observers what function and influence the Professional Cabin Crew Council have on the present negotiantions? There is a spokesperson (Suzy) having her say on Radio 5 Live right now as I write. She is of the opinion that the whole strike call and Unite's position are not in the best interest of the Cabin Crew, let alone BAs. She seems to have a fairly accurate handle on the situation and the Cabin Crew who have also spoken on air so far have quite obviously been misled by BASSA and Unite if what Suzy says is true.
So just who is telling it like it is?

Litebulbs

18th May 2010, 09:08

How says I am not balanced -

http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file18013.pdf

Ouch, with a very big capital O.

fruitbat

18th May 2010, 09:15

This dispute is over bar the shouting...

Any crew who went on strike now have NO protection from dismissal. If Unite threaten a new ballot, BA will tell them they intend to dismiss all 2500 strikers. Without these people do you think Unite will get a positive outcome in the ballot?

If they are sacked, they will also be able to sue Unite for misrepresentation.

Unite have nowhere left to go...

Hand Solo

18th May 2010, 09:39

I'd go for Suzys version. Even today, BASSA are refusing to comment officially on yesterdays result (pending this afternoons possible appeal) but are giving the 'nod and wink' to members who are peddling completely innaccurate accounts of yesterdays court proceedings. BASSA simply cannot stop themselves from lying.

License to Fly

18th May 2010, 09:46

I think this could now tie in with the Willies presentation at Waterside last week, when he said they were looking at CC recruitment again now. I am sure he knew the court case was coming then ....

If the company decides that its best to 'let go' the strikers (which is a hard move - but probably IMHO, a very good one as it will get rid of the militants who will never really want the best for BA/always have a chip on their shoulder). Many of them are probably the high earners as well. It could bring a breath of fresh air through the airline with strikers not judging non strikers. Oh, and the 'ONE TEAM" approach would stand a better chance of working .... customers i am sure would notice this and BA would be stronger for it.

I know there will be some that say the 'militants' are generally very nice people - well, yes, but not all of them are and numerous CC have been out of order in numerous ways during the last 12 months. I think a clean slate would be appreciated by most of BA and our customers.

If this did happen, i am sure the amount of volunteers/part timers could cover the shortfaul whilst the NEW Fleet is recruited (whenever the earliest that can be). bear in mind c.3000 strikers (does anyone really know the exact number?!) would not be hard to replace with some new working practices and some goodwill from current part timers....

I have had enough of my holidays and work being disrupted by this :- "malevolent union" (quote from one of BA's big shareholders, Standard chartered? maybe, who own 7% of BA, on Radio 4 yesterday 6.15am)

watch this space ... any news from the BASSA forum today ?

Juan Tugoh

18th May 2010, 09:58

Interesting point about the illegality of the strike is that should it be upheld by the CoA today, then the strikers will have been on an illegal strike and would have lost the protections of the law wrt to dismissal being automatically deemed illegal. The breach of contract would have been an individual act and so BA could decide whom it wished to sack. They could cherry pick those they wish to get rid of. Instead of sacking everyone they could just sack those who were on strike for the whole period of the last strikes, ie both the 3 and 4 day strikes. Anyone who went on strike for some of the period could be spared, allowing the most militant strikers to be got rid of. BASSA and UNITE have really screwed up on this one.

Shaka Zulu

18th May 2010, 10:04

To say that the previous strike is unlawful is simply not true.
The injunction has been granted on account of the 20 day strike.
AI: it hasn't been PROVEN yet (in a full court case) that the previous strike was illegal.
Sure, there is a strong case for it and as a Union I sure as hell wouldn't want to fight that battle but as for now, the previous strike is deemed 'legal'.

Now what I think will happen and this is being aluded to with statements from Walsh in the papers is that there is a slow wedge driven in between the UNITE union and BASSA shop stewards who have been crying for guerilla tactics.
With the huge potential case overhead UNITE will cut BASSA loose to sink or swim (Sink in this case) as part of an A$$ saving deal with BA.

So I repeat, if they sack 2500 crew from the march strikes atm that would still be unlawful dismissal until proven that strike was illegal. Judge hasn't made a judgement on that!

I think it's game/set and match BA if the appeal gets turned down today.
Woodley already stated they had an agreement in principal and it will be ratified as soon as the Union clears up their BASSA branch.

Unfortunate though, I'd rather see those berks leave the company and have a fresh 'One Team' approach.

License to Fly

18th May 2010, 10:07

I take this to be setting up the dismissal of the strikers (if you can run 100% of services why bother with the troublemakers?) unless BASSA agree fully now - what do others think?

-------------------
Willie Walsh wrote a column on the industrial relations situation in this morning’s Times.

In it, he spoke of his delight for our customers that the unjustified threat of a 20-day strike against British Airways was quashed by the High Court yesterday, before outlining his thoughts on the dispute itself.

"I am absolutely delighted for our customers that Unite’s extreme and completely unjustified threat of a 20-day strike against British Airways was quashed by the High Court yesterday. What would have been the longest strike at a major UK employer for a quarter of a century was an absurdly disproportionate response to the changes we are making to cabin crew operations as we strive to return to profitability.
Reprieve

"However, I am very conscious that the court has done no more than provide a reprieve. We still have to reach a resolution to this dispute. We have spent 15 months talking to Unite and its cabin crew branch, the British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association (Bassa), about the need to find more efficient ways of working. Almost a year ago we successfully concluded similar discussions with our pilots and engineers, and had already cut our manager numbers by a third.

"Our package for cabin crew is very fair, especially in view of the fact that we have lost hundreds of millions of pounds over the past two years in the worst recession the airline industry has known. We have met both the needs of our business and the genuine concerns of crew members."

Permanent savings
"In achieving permanent savings, we have carefully avoided compulsory redundancies. Instead, we have provided voluntary packages for those wanting to leave the company, allowed more crew to work part-time, and brought onboard crew numbers on flights from Heathrow into line with those at Gatwick. We have provided extra assurances that when we recruit new crew in the future, existing crew will have promotion opportunities and fair access to the most desirable routes.

"We have offered rises in basic pay in the coming two years that would be gratefully seized by many employees in other parts of the economy. And, uniquely among UK airlines, we continue to pay incremental salary rises to a large majority of crew. Under our proposals, existing crew will remain easily the best rewarded in the UK industry.

"We have provided an undertaking that there will be no victimisation arising from this dispute. And, to the annoyance of many thousands of our dedicated employees, we have offered to reinstate staff travel for cabin crew who went on strike in March.

"Over the weekend, Unite’s joint general secretary, Tony Woodley, described our offer as an “agreement in principle”. I respect Tony. But it has become abundantly clear that he and Unite’s co-leader Derek Simpson cannot deliver an agreement — because Bassa’s committee and shop stewards do not support them."

Ballot
"Bassa’s organisers do not accept there is any agreement in principle. In the face of Tony’s words, they have just issued a detailed criticism of our offer.

"Even if the 20-day strike had gone ahead, they were planning another ballot so they could continue disruption later in the year. They talk openly of a long “guerrilla campaign” designed to undermine customers’ faith in British Airways and inflict as much commercial damage as possible.

"This is an extraordinary position for a group of trade unionists to take. They positively relish the prospect of a prolonged attack on the customers and business that provide their members with well-rewarded jobs, generous pensions and enviable lifestyles. And they have no concern for the possible consequences of their campaign for thousands of members of Unite and other trade unionists employed in different parts of BA."

World has changed
"In other words, the obstacle to the resolution of this dispute is the refusal of this small group of Bassa hardliners to accept that the world has changed.

"To Bassa, we are still in the 1970s: British Airways is nationalised, facing little competition and ever ready to do a cosy deal with the unions knowing the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

"Nearly everything harmful about that culture has now disappeared at BA — apart from the legacy of a hard core of union activists who think they have a right to control day-to-day cabin crew operations.

"The Bassa reactionaries do not care about our customers, colleagues in other departments or even their own members. What they care about is preserving the appearance of their own importance. So Bassa cannot countenance a deal that involves permanent change. They cannot accept management’s duty to manage in the interests of our customers, all our employees and our shareholders.

"The Bassa tail is wagging the Unite dog. I urge Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson to assert their authority and address this situation. The vast bulk of their 20,000 members at BA urgently want them to do so. These include the thousands of regular cabin crew who ignored the strike calls in March and, if necessary, will do so again to help us to keep the airline flying.

"During the last strike, we flew more than 80 per cent of our customers. I am considering plans to raise that number towards 100 per cent should the need arise.I sincerely hope it does not. Unite’s leaders must act."

Chuchinchow

18th May 2010, 10:11

Just because crew are anti-strike does not necessarily mean they have to despise their union either (though many do).

Quite correct. However, in this case BASSA's "leadership" team has been seen and proven to be cynical, selfish and deceitful.

Mizz Liz HoMalone's call to BALPA to "Foxtrot Oscar" was the beginning of a misbegotten and completely mismanaged campaign. She and her accomplices have now painted themselves into a corner from which they have absolutely no way out.

License to Fly

18th May 2010, 10:13

Shaka Zulu

I think you have missed the judgement here - the judge has ruled on the February ballot results, which was the basis on the March strikes. Thus the march strikes (assuming the appeal fails today) were also illegal and potentially leaves strikers very open to the jobcentre.

The recent ballot was no more than a straw pole and has no relevance in law - it was just for the Union propaganda basis (as they knew that anyone left in the union would still be favouring their point of view, whilst if people generally didn't they have resigned)

From Tunbridge Wells

18th May 2010, 10:26

Chuchinchow

18th May 2010, 10:34

he wants to keep public and cc alike onside to a certain degree

Flyby, with the greatest of respect, I think that "to a certain degree" might be superfluous! Perhaps we can replace that phrase with "totally"?

Andyismyname

18th May 2010, 10:59

I have been disgusted by the negative campaign run by the BASSA top brass throughout this saga.

They have been happy to place the company at great risk, to cause us to lose many passengers, to consistently lie to us, and to denigrate so many of their colleagues. They have also led their colleagues into a strike, which was probably unlawfull, leaving crew members open to dismissal, and a possible damages bill as well.

They can blame no one else but themselves with the failure to follow correct ballot procedure. I seem to recall one or two reps having the cheek to state in the High Court in February that they were studying Law.

It is time that Malone, Stott, Deveraux and others admitted that their incompitence and resign. Surely enough is enough?

melc

18th May 2010, 10:59

Bearing in mind that Ms Malone receives around £100 per day for her BASSA 'work' its in her interests to keep this union going. Perhaps if it no longer exists she will have to go back to work. Is she still living in California with a bad foot!!!

gr8tballsoffire

18th May 2010, 11:02

Saturday 22 May – support the BA workers’ struggle and the right to strike with The Flying Bike Picket! Workers' Climate Action (http://workersclimateaction.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/saturday-22-may-the-flying-bike-picket/#more-288)

The words have a ring of BASSA about them don't you think?

Does anyone else find it ironic that a Climate Action Group have an advertisement for NetJets at the bottom of the page. Hyprocite? Moi?

essessdeedee

18th May 2010, 11:04

According to Derek Simpson, on skynews, they are only having a hearing today to find out if they can appeal. Only then, they will find out if they can appeal.

Apparently they (the union, only made a "minor" error.

well..... that's OK then!:=

Fox3Maddog

18th May 2010, 11:16

Dismissals are now available to BA, if they choose, for all crew who took part in unprotected industrial action (about 2000)

Am I missing something here? Can these crew really be dismissed for having taken part in IA that they understood to be legal at the time, but has been subsequently proved to be illegal after the event? Surely it is the union who must bear the brunt of retributions given it was their c**k up? If not, then this is a deeply worrying precedent for the future - nobody will be able to carry out IA without the spectre of being subsequently fired by having the action ruled retrospectively illegal. Misguided though they may be, the strikers have a democratic right to IA should the majority demand it (never thought i'd hear myself say it..)

freddydog

18th May 2010, 11:17

I'm sure if it had been the other way round and BA had made a " minor error " then Unite would have taken them to the Cleaners.

Andyismyname

18th May 2010, 11:20

Fox3Maddog

Yep! There are certain procedural steps which must be followed to allow a ballot to be legal, and to give the workers balloted the legal protections.

If those procedural steps are not followed, then there is no legal protection.

If I can find the requisite guidance on the web, surely the BASSA Top Brass should have been able to as well?

OverFlare

18th May 2010, 12:22

Am I missing something here? Can these crew really be dismissed for having taken part in IA that they understood to be legal at the time, but has been subsequently proved to be illegal after the event? Surely it is the union who must bear the brunt of retributions given it was their c**k up?

Interesting one this. Presumably if cabin crew who went on strike in March were sacked (I am still not sure whether this could happen yet or only after a full trial hearing to examine BA's claims) then they could sue Unite/BASSA for damages including loss of earnings. It is, after all, entirely the union's fault that the individuals are in this position.

Moreover, although there might be limits to the amount that an employer can sue a union for, I don't believe there are any limits to the amount a union member can sue his or her own union for.

Snas

18th May 2010, 12:38

Lots of speculation here with regards to the consequences for crew that have already been on strike, who knows.

As far as crew seeking recompense from the union is concerned remember that the message "if you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment." was clearly included on the ballot paper which crew recieved. Fair warning was issued therefore.

Striking carries a risk, fair or not.

gr8tballsoffire

18th May 2010, 12:56

SNAS
Yes indeed, however I would expect my union to behave responsibly, to protect me and not the reverse.

melc

18th May 2010, 12:59

according to the BBC, Unite are in court at 2.00pm today to see if they are allowed to appeal against the judgement - lets hope not!!

ranger07

18th May 2010, 13:22

I would'nt wish anyone to lose their job, but hey, these are people that are keen to jeapordise our career/retirement...they've demonstrated absolute disloyalty in the process..I won't be reaching for the kleenex that's for sure..!!!

melc

18th May 2010, 13:31

From what I understand there has been agreement reached but the sticking point is now to reinstate staff travel which WW has agreed to and re-instating sacked staff. On the latter every company has a policy which covers instant dismissal or letters of warning leading to disciplinary action.
With instant dismissal there has to be very good reasons for doing so - you can't just sack someone today the laws protect the employee - therefore unless BA want to see themselves in court they will have had excellent reasons for gross misconduct - bullying being one of them. They must also have witnesses attesting to this.

I am sure they have covered the letter of the law and if these people have truly bullied and harrassed non striking CC staff then they deserve everything they get.

To me, its just another excuse to strike - if WW agrees to reinstate these people then they will just find something else to strike about - they seem intent in bringing the downfall of BA and they should be stopped - CC its time you started voting with your heads - otherwise soon you won't have anything to vote for.

Satan

18th May 2010, 13:42

A very interesting comment to Gregor Gall's op-ed piece in the Guardian today. Not something I've seen mentioned on here before:

AnnAthema
18 May 2010, 1:38PM

Just a small point of public record from the court case yesterday worth highlighting; after the result was received by Unite from the scrutineers it was passed to the BASSA branch for dissemination to their members. It was commented in court on how the result was up on notice boards at BA's Crew Report Centre within an hour of it being released to Unite, similar time-frame for text messaging, and the weblink was created by a rep named Marley. Technically speaking, the buck should stop at the Branch Secretary or Chairman's door as the responsible officers.

Therefore, strictly speaking, the errors in passing the information to the membership were those of the officers of the BASSA branch, and NOT Unite. Perhaps a bit more time spent studying TULRA in future for BASSA? They have let their membership down quite dramatically by making simple errors where they should have ensured they were absolutely watertight.

The right to strike is fundamental, but the responsibilities of the Union, or in this case, the BASSA branch, seem to have been somewhat misplaced in this dispute. No-one to blame but themselves, really.

If that is true, then it puts a different slant on the culpability of BASSA in this embarrassing episode. Bit more time in the TULRA books indeed, and a bit less time whooping and hollering over the result, maybe?

Adi54321

18th May 2010, 14:34

Reading Willie's letter to the Times I think the crew should worry more about the last paragraph where he says " During the last strike, we flew more than 80 per cent of our customers. I am considering plans to raise that number towards 100 per cent should the need arise.I sincerely hope it does not."

Answers on a post card as to what they might be ...

Hotel Mode

18th May 2010, 14:44

Well, with no industrial action taking place BA are free to recruit...

melc

18th May 2010, 15:02

Posted on the BBC News website latest:

AT THE COURT

Emma Simpson Business correspondent, BBC News
The hearing is taking place in a packed small courtroom, tucked away in the east block of Royal Courts of Justice.
The big guns have been brought out to grapple with the legal arguments on this one.
The Master of the Rolls along with the Lord Chief Justice are on the panel.
So far much of this emergency session has focussed on the interpretation of section 231 of the 1992 trade union law.
It's technical, but there's a lot riding on the outcome and right now it's unclear how long this emergency application going to take.

Low Cost Eng

18th May 2010, 15:28

In the event of the recent ballot being declared illegal by the appeal court it is being claimed UNITE can absolve themselves of any responsibility to their members by having warned them on the ballot paper that they could be in breach of their contract by taking strike action. If that is so, then the warning issued by Willie Walsh that any Cabin Crew striking would permanently lose their staff travel must have the same validity.

HiFlyer14

18th May 2010, 15:29

Could we ever have believed that a Union that we all trusted and paid subscription fees to could have achieved the following:

A. Rejected incentive schemes (shares/bonus/free tickets that most people could only dream of) on our behalf without our consultation.
B. Created a rift between the cabin crew and every other BA department that most of us would never have thought possible.
C. Made the general public hate us.
D. Initiated New Fleet immediately by requesting crew back on planes.
E. Wasted thousands (millions?) of hardworking members' subscription fees on 3 lost court cases.
F. Accused anyone and everyone of being wrong and "out to get them" - WW, BF, PWC, BALPA, PCCC, Pilots, Scabin crew, Waterside Workers, High Court Judges, BBC et.al.
G. Rejected a Monthly Travel Payment that has huge benefits to crew.
H. And finally, unbelievably and shamefully they have led their members to strike on an ILLEGAL ballot, putting them at severe risk of dismissal.

They have achieved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF BENEFIT TO THEIR MEMBERS and are decimating our once respected community.
Members must now reject this appalling behaviour and resign from Unite. A simple phone call to pay services is all it takes.

It is imperative now that we all stand together to reject Unite and the atrocities they have committed. It is our jobs, our futures, and our livelihoods that they are playing with.

Whether you are a striker, a non-striker or someone sitting on the fence you owe it to yourself and to your future to resign from Unite. We all need to stick together, and find a new way forward for ourselves. This is our opportunity for all of us to be one community again. Too much energy has been wasted against one another, against the pilots and against other BA colleagues. Let's turn that energy into a positive force to create a stronger, better workforce without the thorn in the side that is Unite.

Unite have now shown their true colours: a despicable Union that has achieved nothing but hatred for us. Appallingly, they have now even put their own members at risk of dismissal.

Enough is Enough! Resign from Unite immediately so that we can get our community and our company back on its feet.

The PCCC are ready, willing and capable of taking on the challenge of leading our community to a brighter future. Doing nothing is simply not an option - we all have to take responsibility for our future.

See our new website at www.mypccc.co.uk (http://www.mypccc.co.uk/) and get onboard!

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.