British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only) [Archive] - Page 22

Wirbelsturm

18th Jun 2010, 11:36

Those who crossed Unites picket lines did so for a variety of reasons. The vast majority did not cross picket lines because of unilateral support for Willie Walsh.

Most who I talked to worked for personal reasons ranging from financial responsibilities, no voters, those that felt the action was unjustified to absoloute rejection of BASSA. There were also many who are not in the Union. Thus action by them would be considered secondary and illegal therefore they had to work. They were still screamed at by the BASSA open topped bus as 'scabs'.

BASSA has a fantastic ability to 'broad brush' anyone who does not agree with their viewpoint. Anyone NOT striking is a scab, irrespective of if they are in the Union or not. Anyone who does not accept the bullying and harrasment claims are either management stooges or liars. There is no capacity within BASSA to believe that people and members can ascertain whether or not action is justified. If BASSA say it is then it must be.

Time for BASSA to be kicked out and meaningful representation to take their place.

Swissflyer

18th Jun 2010, 12:13

I have worked for many years in the airline industry. I have worked as CC and even as a CSD. I have also held senior management positions in airline commercial and operational departments. I have been following this thread firstly, because I think it gives a good running account of the current thinking of those directly implicated in the IA, and secondly, because the IA has directly affected my personal and professional life... and not in a pleasant way.

One observation I hae is that there appears to be an inabiliy on the part of many CC to understand what an airline is, why it exists and who it is meant to serve. Fair enough, in the fat old days, especially where quasi state run airlines plowed the skies, there was little incentive to worry about bottom line results and there certainly was no real competition for custom. This is not the case today.

I congratulate the BA staff who have acted reasonably and made the sacrifices in their respective departments for the good of "their" company. The air transport industry is not immune from the same socio-economic adjustments that are being made across all industry. No one wants to see their conditions made worse, but in difficult times, difficult actions are called for.

As for the BASSA crew who believe that they are able to play the same game but with different rules, I am afraid they will remain unable to understand.

ottergirl

18th Jun 2010, 12:21

they are worth more,individually, than LHR cabin crew put together

Thanks Middy - you have managed to insult the entire cabin crew population at LHR in just a few words and, I suspect, you don't even know me!

Litebulbs - to answer your question. This 18 hours debate that is getting so het up is actually a bit of a smokescreen. A standard rostered cabin crew duty of up to 11 hours triggers a 12 hour 30 rest period. If the planned duty is up to 12 hours 30 minutes planned then it comes with 15 hours rest afterwards. It is only if a planned rostered duty is delayed so long that the duty period is over 12 hour 30 minutes then the cabin crew can ask for 18 hours off. As a Eurofleet CSD I have only had to use this twice in the last 3 years so it is hardly a common occurence but I accept it can happen at the most inconvenient time.

The LCA flight is historically planned with a night sector which restricts the hours further which is why it is a nightstop. It would be so close to the legal limits that BA has opted for the nightstopping of the crew. This does give shorter days but they are balanced against a DME etc to avoid the crew running out of weekly hours too quickly. To get the maximum efficiency from a CC roster it is ideal to have some short days and some long ones and aim to have the hours as close to the limit as possible. (Mixed flying actually reduces the maximum duty day as crew are not always acclimatised and also maximum monthly hours.)The difference is that Flight crew tend to try and achieve their hours as quickly as possible to have more days at home which seems to suit them but to be fair, their work is less physical. I bet my feet hurt more than theirs after a 12 hour day!:\

Litebulbs

18th Jun 2010, 12:32

Great post. I agree with your comment about a smoke screen. I think the management speak term last year was "sweating your assets" and some comments were made about too much rest.

Question to you, if I may? Do you come closer to working your 900 or 2000 hours in a year?

ranger07

18th Jun 2010, 12:37

BA STRIKES: European holiday spots likely to be worst affected | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287569/BA-STRIKES-European-holiday-spots-likely-worst-affected.html)

Looking through the associated reader comments, as expected, lots of anger, but makes for uncomfortable reading when you hear of those that wish for our demise because of this minority.

ottergirl

18th Jun 2010, 13:23

Hi litebulbs,
Probably I'm not the best person to ask because the CSD rank on Eurofleet is notoriously under-used. I am 75% as well. My current 900 hours accumulation is around 430 so that would translate into about 600 for full-time. Eurofleet never gets anywhere near to the 900. Look at a 11 hour 20 day with four sectors to EDI and GLA for example. The actual flying hours will be only around 5 hours, the rest is taken up with briefing, turning the planes around and waiting around for the next sector. I have never added up my total work hours for a year so I don't know what they might be.
OG:)

ottergirl

18th Jun 2010, 13:28

ranger07
That serves you right for reading that dreadful rag! Actually they are just guessing that european holiday spots would be affected - why would they? If we are truly going to operate 100% of the flights then that shouldn't be the case. A classic example of Daily Mail scaremongering. This quote was interesting though as it bucks the trend of thoughts on this forum.

The service on the 2 flights that came during the strike period was appalling, the ratio of crew to passengers was depleted and I dread to think what would have happened if there had been an emergency.

I will never fly with BA again.

Crash_and_Burn

18th Jun 2010, 13:31

Someone mentioned a staff forum today?

Was it real, or rumour? Any feedback?

CB

circuitbreaker13

18th Jun 2010, 13:31

So another Ballot!!!!

The past set of strike actions where caused not only by the approx 3000 striking crew but by all crew voting yes for strike action.

I have more respect for the cabin crew who voted yes and did strike then for the many who voted yes and then turned around saying they are backing BA.

So if you really want to back BA vote NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Litebulbs

18th Jun 2010, 13:59

My current 900 hours accumulation is around 430 so that would translate into about 600 for full-time. Eurofleet never gets anywhere near to the 900.
OG:)

Do you get anywhere near the 2000 working hours? I am asking because, as I see it, BA will be trying to get all cabin crew closer to the 900/2000 limits. But that work has a cost too.

Nobody from either side of the debate on here has said that they want to work less and they are contracted to 900/2000 I would imagine. Can you get that amount of work in, with your current agreements?

Timothy Claypole

18th Jun 2010, 14:26

The cabin crew on Eurofleet can't get anywhere close to 900 hours with their current agreement. In contrast the pilots can get up to 850 hours with the same duty times.

MissM

18th Jun 2010, 14:26

flapsforty

I am not doubting your moderating of this forum at all. I have seen in the past when you, and your other moderator colleague, have dealt with posts which have not concerned the topic and discussions which have become either too personal or nasty.

Many have expressed their appreciation for my presence, which I am grateful for. It makes my writing more interesting. I will continue to post for as long as I can contribute something to the discussion.

the flying nunn

I have been striking over imposition.

Do not worry about the MTP. It should be introduced soon as confirmed at BFC. BA and BASSA only need to negotiate a good deal concerning it.

MrBunker

Crew crossed the picket line for several reasons but no doubt they are supporting our management. The rest of us are trying to save our careers by trying to get the best possible deal with BA.

The strikebreaking crew are happy to enjoy terms and conditions, which the rest of us have fought and are figthing for, without actually fighting for them themselves. It's a cowardly and unforgivable behaviour. I cannot stress this out too many times.

Don't worry. I, or anyone else, am not expecting any rewards for taking industrial action.

Wirbelsturm

18th Jun 2010, 14:36

The strikebreaking crew are happy to enjoy terms and conditions, which the rest of us have fought and are figthing for, without actually fighting for them themselves. It's a cowardly and unforgivable behaviour. I cannot stress this out too many times.

Miss M, go back a few replies, BASSA have never fought change. They have never negotiated change. Every time there has been a potential change they have screamed IA and weak, ineffectual management have backed down.

This time management didn't back down and BASSA haven't got a clue what to do except strike over nebulous changes to non contractual agreements.

As to the Daily Hate Mail, at least BA doesn't get its quotes from such rags as 'Morning Star' like BASSA do.

Litebulbs

18th Jun 2010, 14:39

The cabin crew on Eurofleet can't get anywhere close to 900 hours with their current agreement. In contrast the pilots can get up to 850 hours with the same duty times.

How about World Wide?

Timothy Claypole

18th Jun 2010, 14:48

900 hours is more common on WW. The efficiency saving there have to come from less crew on board and fewer supervisory grades.

Crew crossed the picket line for several reasons but no doubt they are supporting our management. The rest of us are trying to save our careers by trying to get the best possible deal with BA.

Do you not see the irony that with every passing period of IA the deal BA offer you is getting worse, and will never be as good as the one are you were offered prior to IA? The people who are genuinely trying to get the best possible deal from BA are those who are defying the union and working. The strikers are merely trying to save as much face as possible now.

MrBunker

18th Jun 2010, 14:57

MrBunker

Crew crossed the picket line for several reasons but no doubt they are supporting our management. The rest of us are trying to save our careers by trying to get the best possible deal with BA.

The strikebreaking crew are happy to enjoy terms and conditions, which the rest of us have fought and are figthing for, without actually fighting for them themselves. It's a cowardly and unforgivable behaviour. I cannot stress this out too many times.

Don't worry. I, or anyone else, am not expecting any rewards for taking industrial action.

I cannot disagree with you strongly enough. Whilst I don't doubt for a single moment that SOME crew may have crossed the picket line and are solely riding on your coat tails whilst you fight (whether rightly or wrongly) for what you believe in, I know for a fact (because my wife is one of them) that many crew went to work because they were happy to accept the changes to their existing terms and conditions as proposed by BA and are not sitting at work on strike days "happy to enjoy terms and conditions that you are fighting for" (to paraphrase). My wife would happily accept the offer of June 2009, or indeed, late 2009 for that matter. She is as offended by the suggestion that you are doing her fighting for her as you seem to be at the notion that some crew just didn't see the problem with the BA offer in the manner that you do. I suggest you proffer the notion that my wife is a coward to her face should the opportunity avail itself. She'll leave you in no doubt that she would be mortified to be associated with Unite and your actions either by membership, shared profession or mistake. Bluntly, and I use her words her, not mine :- Don't flatter yourself that you're fighting for her terms and conditions - she'd accepted change and to attempt to bolster your increasingly asinine moral justifications for this fight by endeavouring to say you're fighting on behalf of those too cowardly is your arrogant assumption that they share your worldview. Rest assured they do not all and some made a different interpretation of the data and made their decisions accordingly. Many crew who worked were genuinely proud and happy to do so - a concept that seems bewilderingly alien to you.

Rant off, but by association you denigrated my wife.

MrB

This is not a good v evil fight, it's a question of approaches and philosophies at most.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 15:06

I have been striking over imposition. So with respect, when will it end for you?

He imposed. NOTHING will change that. There will always be the threat of him doing so again in the future. As I see it, if you're striking over imposition, there is absolutely, positively no solution to this dispute for you; for the imposition will always have happened and the cloud of further impositions will always hang above our heads.

Wirbelsturm

18th Jun 2010, 15:08

It's a cowardly and unforgivable behaviour. I cannot stress this out too many times.

As opposed to irrational, damaging and obstinate behaviour based upon factless, ill thought out and antagonistic Union rhetoric?

Odd how 1500 people max seem to think they know/knew far better and have a clearer picture than the 40,000 or so that could really see what was happening in the world.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 15:15

Excellent post, Mr. Bunker. Still cannot believe you got Mrs. Bunker - or any woman - to marry ya! :}

I share your wife's disappointment at the comments made by MissM who, despite this, I still maintain an enormous amount of respect for - she, unlike many of her colleagues who went on strike, seems more than capable of having a civilised, reasoned, mature discussion about these issues.

I, like Mrs. Bunker, would be happy to sign up to the deal of June 2009. I'd also be happy to sign up to all of the subsequent deals since then.

I am prepared to BEG the likes of MissM to stop doing my fighting for me, if that's what she believes she's doing.

The only way is down, when it comes to the likely deals we're going to be offered. Take a look at the deals that we've been offered since June 2009 and it's hard to miss the fact that sweeteners and generally positive elements of those deals have been rubbed out as strikes and threats thereof took hold. We're never going to get back to 2009's offer.

The biggest problem we face now is that not only do Unite/Bassa absolutely have to get us a deal as good as that offered in June 2009, they also absolutely have to get back staff travel for those who have lost it.

The latter is going to be a struggle. The former? I've more chance of getting my end away with Sandra Bullock.

Bassa and Unite, sadly, cannot win this one. They might settle, but it will be for something WORSE than they've previously been offered. That would make the strikes retrospectively pointless; the £1m+ bill to Unite absolutely wasteful and the heartache and strife for those strikers who have lost loads of money an absolute kick to the baby maker.

I'm ready to back Bassa next time around if I feel a strike is justified - I'd rejoin the union to go on strike if I did - but on this one I can only hope that the Bassa white towel is thrown in and thrown in soon.

Out of interest, MissM, if Walsh offered us June 2009's deal AND the full reinstatement of Staff Travel, would you accept?

What EXACTLY will it take for you to tell your reps "take it"?

Litebulbs

18th Jun 2010, 15:30

900 hours is more common on WW. The efficiency saving there have to come from less crew on board and fewer supervisory grades.

So with your two replies, the WW current crew savings are complete, although this is a simplistic statement. With EF, if the agreements were changed to allow increased flying, there would be another redundancy/part time working issue? This is regardless of the cost of existing crew contracts and new fleet/contract?

Litebulbs

18th Jun 2010, 15:33

Out of interest, MissM, if Walsh offered us June 2009's deal AND the full reinstatement of Staff Travel, would you accept?

What EXACTLY will it take for you to tell your reps "take it"?

That is the £140m question.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 15:36

Right Engine.

I don't know the reasons why BA crew night stop in LCA, perhaps it is to do with flight departure times into LHR, I honestly do not know.

But I do know that as BY cabin crew I operated there and back. My question is, do the BA pilots operate a there and back LCA, and just exchange cabin crew downroute?

I honestly believe this has nothing to do with 18hrs rest or long day payments. An 18hr turnaround has to be more effective and cheaper than a night down route, allowances, additional crew requirements.

As I say, there will be a more appropriate reason, beneficial to BA rather than the one you suggest.

(Edit. Just saw Ottergirl's post a page back.)

MrBunker

18th Jun 2010, 15:43

Excellent post, Mr. Bunker. Still cannot believe you got Mrs. Bunker - or any woman - to marry ya! :}

Nor I, nor I!

The latter is going to be a struggle. The former? I've more chance of getting my end away with Sandra Bullock.

Although I believe the odds are improving with regard to your last statement!

ATB

MrB

Apologies for somewhat irrelevant levity.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 15:52

A point for consideration. I had a downroute chat with a slightly inebriated pilot on my last trip. Although trying to avoid the obvious chat, of course the topic arrived at the current malaise. His gripe, he'd lost over £10k per annum. I will never argue that is a good thing. I 100% support any notion that over £10k is alot to lose.

But in a cloud of emotion, passion and alcohol he further disclosed his total salary was over £100k per annum. Again let me be straight, I do not resent that figure, the chap has worked hard and jumped through countless hoops to get there. And it is no doubt deserved.

However, percentages and figures aside, over £10k from over £100k still equals over £90k and will have less of an impact on his standard of living than the BA proposals have on the earning potential of the vast majority of BA cabin crew. (ie not the tiny minority of over 30 year service CSDs often quoted as examples - I admit they exist, but they are a dying breed and I stress a minority not representative of the rest of us. And to clarify, its not their faults, it was what they were offered.)

I've never been a socialist, but slowly I drift towards their argument on wealth distribution. Similar to the extreme of Walsh giving up a whooping £67k from his equally whooping £700+k per annum, and expect his cleaner to make a similar gesture.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 16:04

Everyone budgets to live within their means (or should).

A pilot may have budgetted on 100k a year so for him to suddenly find himself earning 90k, despite the latter still being an enormous figure, would be a real blow to the system - perhaps as big a blow as me finding my 30k a year drop by the same percentage of earnings to 27k.

It's impossible to judge who will be hit hardest by any pay cut. Impossible.

Sure - it could be argued that for a pilot to spend c. £6k a month would take a lot of effort, that's not to say some of them aren't doing just that.

What Mr. Walsh earns doesn't bother me. Nor does what Mr. Bunker earns (but he has told me before, pre-marriage, and I will be expecting him to buy the beers when we next fly).

I only care about what I earn. I only spend what I have available to spend and I only look out for protecting my own terms, conditions and earnings.

But I can recognise that protecting these things doesn't have to be as straightforward as towing the Bassa line. Sometimes you have to look at things closely yourself and determine whether, believe it or not, the company isn't actually out to screw the pooch.

The pilots should keep their noses out of what cabin crew earn (just as cabin crew should keep out of what the pilots get in their bank every month) but, unfortunately, Bassa has made this all very public by calling for unjustified, unwinnable strikes to take place which are creating a VERY REAL threat to the future stability of the very company responsible for paying every single one of us. That's why the pilots are so keenly involved in this whole situation - and I really can't blame them this time.

Chuchinchow

18th Jun 2010, 16:19

Do not worry about the MTP. It should be introduced soon as confirmed at BFC. BA and BASSA only need to negotiate a good deal concerning it.

And when will that be, MissM? BASSA, unfortunately for its striking members, does not appear to understand the meaning of the word "negotiating" judging by its past performance.

If it did, this dispute would never have come about.

demomonkey

18th Jun 2010, 16:27

If I want to earn what WW earns, I'll apply for his job. I know it comes with 25 hour days and more problems than I have hairs to pull out so I won't be applying for it.

And that's fair.

What is unfair are examples where 'Execs' vote themselves 7% increases but 'reward' their staff with 3%. This is a general comment, not one aimed at BA.

BASSA are experts at obfuscating the issue and bending light. The reasons for this dispute are lost in the mists of time. Unfortunately the solution to this situation seems equally intangible. People who were dismissed by fair and due process cannot and should not be reinstated. At some point BASSA you're going to have to realise this if you're ever going to move on.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 16:28

Yawn.

Chuchinchow. There are stuck records in the BASSA camp, but there are also stuck records on the other side. You appear to have succumb to the notion that the self styled un-reasonable man was the only one to negotiate. (Something of a reasonable thing to do.)

I don't know, I wasn't present, were you? But I'd say that when it suited both sides had periods of non-negotiation

Chuchinchow

18th Jun 2010, 16:29

Has anyone any idea of the current number of members of BASSA, please? The union no longer seems to be publishing that figure on its website.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 16:35

It is my understanding that the BASSA reps are not demanding that those who were sacked should be automatically re-employed, nor, that those still suspended should be allowed back to work unchallenged. I believe that is the view of the baying mob.

BASSA reps were happy to accept that each case should be viewed individually by ACAS, neutral, and an assessment made. From what I've heard, heresay I give you, some people deserved their suspension or dismissal but many others didn't. Case by case by a neutral party seems appropriate to me.

demomonkey

18th Jun 2010, 16:35

Litebulbs wrote;
So with your two replies, the WW current crew savings are complete, although this is a simplistic statement. With EF, if the agreements were changed to allow increased flying, there would be another redundancy/part time working issue? This is regardless of the cost of existing crew contracts and new fleet/contract?
Or you could argue that with a more flexible EF (i.e. able to do fixed links - wash my mouth out) the airline would need less people on any given day and therefore crew could have more days off/month for the same salary. You would personally recognise a benefit of not having to travel to work so often and more time off. Plus you would avoid doing those inefficient and often wasteful one out and one back trips. Not good?

My personal viewpoint, not those of others

Abbey Road

18th Jun 2010, 16:36

BASSA, unfortunately for its striking members, does not appear to understand the meaning of the word "negotiating" juding by its past performance.

If it did, this dispute would never have come about.Nail on the head! BASSA has never 'negotiated', in the normal meaning of that word. Never! Piss-poor previous BA management has just thrown money at BASSA and it's BASSAmentalists in the past. Consequently, we have the problem we have today - a CEO trying to change the appalling behaviour of a group of people who can't negotiate because they have no negotiating skills or experience to do so.

BASSA are left clueless by the words and terms normally used in negotiation, and no-one in their hierarchy knows who to approach for advice. Surprisingly, perhaps, UNITE are pretty useless at it too, because they seem to have a similar attitude to BASSA. With threats and lies being their usual method, BASSA are now genuinely distraught at their utter incapability to get any positive results (as in 'positive' for dinosaur industrial thinkers) for themselves! BASSA are gobsmacked that anyone or anything could possibly refuse them what they have led themselves to believe is their god-given right.

It is so weird to watch happening, but it is so obviously going to happen, because this group are not even on the planet. Entertaining, but utterly exhausting to watch, as it is so fruitless. Mighty damaging for the rest of BA's employees, too, which is why BASSA and their banner waving zombies need stopping. Very soon.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 16:43

Thinking on, I always thought that the obvious inefficiency on short haul BA was necessary to accomodate the feeder traffic into long haul BA.

Which, if true, may negate an argument that suggests BA short haul should be compared with the likes of easyjet and ryanair. Passengers here are looking at costs, not ease of connections. Of course the two may overlap whereby an easyjet flight arrives in time for a BA long haul, but that is by chance from a passenger point of view. BA has a responsibility to feed its long haul routes, the others don't.

Is this why BA's 'Go' was a bad idea? At the time I thought it's sale to be a daft move.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 16:44

BASSA reps were happy to accept that each case should be viewed individually by ACAS, neutral, and an assessment made. From what I've heard, heresay I give you, some people deserved their suspension or dismissal but many others didn't. Case by case by a neutral party seems appropriate to me.While I agree that some deserved it and others (the majority) didn't, I think getting a neutral party involved in inter-company disciplinaries sets a very, very dangerous prescedent.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 16:46

Her information has been shown to be misleading at best. Debateable. She ignores other peoples' opinions and information.Debateable.She is insulting and contemptuous to anyone who disagrees with her.Debateable.She has repeatedly lied and clearly states that all contrary views are lies against her.They are only lies if SHE doesn't believe what she's saying. You cannot criticise her for telling porkies if she firmly believes what she's saying; and she seems to.

Either way, her input is refreshing. When you compare her conversation skills with those of her like-minded colleagues on Crew Forum, you'll see that MissM is very much a cunning linguist compared to some of the people over there whose sole purpose in life now appears to be making miserable the atmosphere for those of us who worked during the strikes.

The Blu Riband

18th Jun 2010, 16:47

The majority of the Bassa mentalists only communicate via the Bassa forum.
They do not read ESS .
They do not listen to anybody who doesn't agree with the lemmings views.
They seem incapable of rational thought or developing any kind of discussion.
Any contrary view is quickly derided in as rude a manner possible.

Everyone is against them. Everyone else is wrong.

The Blu Riband

18th Jun 2010, 16:49

They are only lies if SHE doesn't believe what she's saying. You cannot criticise her for telling porkies if she firmly believes what she's saying; and she seems to.

Possibly.

But she is repeating lies that have been pointed out to her many times.
Does she never question what Bassa tell her?
Does she not wonder what the hell the reps are trying to do?

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 16:52

Oh dear, Abbey Rd. Another one succumbs.

So, in the post privatised history of BA, there has, in your opinion, never been a capable manager, leadership team, board or CEO. You'd happily write off the reputation and hard work of many because Walsh has a confronational attitude.

Even though BA's only loss has occurred under Walsh's tenure.

I'm not a manager but it seems you over egg the power of BASSA, and belittle all current management. After all, you infer, Walsh is the only man with balls. What would they have done without him. Perhaps not dived into a costly, by reputation and fianancial, dispute and set departments against each other, which will harm future efficiency. Bugger all those previous managers who have taken time and effort to break down barriers and advance one team integration in the pursuit of an efficient happy workforce.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 16:57

Eddy.

Ultimately the judiciary are independent and neutral and all those under suspension and dismissed could make their representations.

However, to help bring this destructive dispute to a head, an independent review of cases would be appropriate and a small price to pay. Both sides would naturally have to agree to be bound by an independent assessment.

Chuchinchow

18th Jun 2010, 17:06

However, to help bring this destructive dispute to a head, an independent review of cases would be appropriate and a small price to pay. Both sides would naturally have to agree to be bound by an independent assessment.

Why move the goal posts again? What's wrong with the current disciplinary hearing process - agreed to by both BA management and BASSA's leaders? Put another way, if it ain't broke don't mend it.

The country's laws are not changed just to accommodate a specific situation so why do that here?

So many questions - so little time.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 17:14

Very well put, CCC.

Bassa has been very critical in the past of people breaching agreements when it's suited them - the example I remember is the CSD who diverted to PIK from a long-range service and, instead of having two local nights in PIK, continued to London with the flight crew the following morening.

This CSD was the scum of the earth to Bassa's hardliners when he did this....

So why is Bassa now looking to flex an agreement that it has negotiated with the company?!

Sadly, this is one of the other reasons I left Bassa.... One (of only two) time when I called them about a breach of agreements relating to my roster, the rep I spoke to said they would allow it because it basically suited them at that given moment.

As a direct result, I don't get to work in my favourite cabin - First.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 17:16

Compromise. Thats why.

In this dispute neither side trusts the other. That is why the goalposts should be altered. There can be no allegations or come back, no prejudicial view and a tick in the box of issues to achieve an achievement. (edit - I clearly meant to type agreement!)

This dispute is an exceptional case, not a run of the mill disagreement between disgruntled colleagues. And not only would it satisfy the BASSA and LT camps but it would seem a fair compromise to those caught up in the middle departments, who's loyalties, publicly or othewise, are split.

Compromise. Thats why.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 17:18

Eddy.

Compromise. Thats why.

BASSA are now looking to flex an old agreement in the search for a settlement. I believe, you believe, and the reps believe that change will occur and is necessary. The problems are in the details. So BASSA agree to a change, they compromise.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 17:27

But they are looking to change a tried, tested and effective agreement at a time when the nature of the incidents for which people are facing disciplinary action really lends itself to ensuring full investigation adhering to the mutually agreed rules.

Yes - a lot of the people facing action are innocent. There's no doubt in my mind. But as someone who is being increasingly ignored, threatened and subjected to notes in his dropfile, if I saw someone being effectively 'let off' with a B&H charge without proper investigation, I'd be extremely angry and extremely worried about how much the company really intends to protect me and others like me in the future.

But again, I grant you, the majority of the people facing this action are absolutely innocent - one such person has now returned to work - and I look forward to the company recognising that.

Bridchen

18th Jun 2010, 17:28

Chuchinchow

I can't access the forum anymore, but on their home page for log in is 'About Us.'

It states there that the current membership number is 9818. Many people are holding off resigning so that they can take part in the next ballot.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 17:37

Who mentioned failing to do a proper investigation? The system works in normal circumstances but this isn't normal, and we agree there are innocents involved, so called casualties of war.

In my view the best way ahead, the best resolution for both sides lies in independence. How would staunch supporters of BA's actions feel if suspendees were found not guilty. Betrayed, suspicious of the motive. Equally how would stauch BASSA supporters feel if suspendees are sacked.

The point is, to mend the wound without offending either party, an independent body should be entrusted to make an impartial view which, by agreement will be binding to both sides.

Again, this is no ordinary situation, it is somewhat exceptional and damaging.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 17:49

Bridchen.

Do you know many people holding off their resignation or is that a sweeping statement.

How many people make many?

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 17:50

I get what you're saying, PC767, I really do. I too recognise that bringing someone else in to deal with this would probably move things along swiftly and amicably.

But again, it sets a prescedent. Just as Walsh set a dangerous one with imposition, if BA caves on the disciplinaries they'll forever be living under the threat of Bassa not liking the fact that BA is playing by the mutually agreed rules.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 17:58

This situation is unprecedented. An amount of the suspensions and dismissals were vindictive, were designed to intimidate.

Trust. This is not just about an agreement, it is about rebuilding trust as well. To ensure there is never a question of intent or motive involved in the re-appointment or dismissal of staff, then I suggest the only fair way is an independent investigation and decision on each case.

Bridchen

18th Jun 2010, 18:01

PC767

Yes, I know many, and quite a few have stated it to me on board. But I haven't taken a show of hands, if that's what you mean. ;)

Caribbean Boy

18th Jun 2010, 18:06

Eddy (http://www.pprune.org/members/79133-eddy) wrote:
Yes - a lot of the people facing action are innocent.The evidence is to the contrary. Willie Walsh gave these figures at a colleague forum.

For 28 concluded disciplinary cases on bullying and harassment, there were:
5 - no further action
3 - referred back to their manager
13 - final written warning
2 - final written warning and demoted
5 - dismissed

So, 20 of the 28 cases were serious, three fell into the category of worth a slap on the wrist, only five were innocent.

If any of those who were disciplined feel aggrieved, then they have a double-appeal process they can invoke. Why are they not appealing? Because they are as guilty as hell. Unite knows this (as they would have provided assistance during the disciplinary hearings), yet they want Willie Walsh to rescind the penalties.

This I regard as probably the most deplorable act by this union during this dispute. Any right-minded union member should be appalled that Unite wants perpetrators of bullying and harassment to get away with it.

Tiramisu

18th Jun 2010, 18:36

Posted by The Blue Riband
The majority of the Bassa mentalists only communicate via the Bassa forum.
They do not read ESS .
They do not listen to anybody who doesn't agree with the lemmings views.
They seem incapable of rational thought or developing any kind of discussion.
Any contrary view is quickly derided in as rude a manner possible.

Everyone is against them. Everyone else is wrong

That I'm afraid is the BASSA Way.

Today in CRC, I witnessed the most appalling intimidating behaviour against non striking cabin crew encouraged by a BASSA rep sitting around in the cafeteria with her fellow strikers.

I personally never had a problem with Willie Walsh returning Staff Travel with seniority, but now I can't wait for him to do whatever he has to to get rid of this militant minority and their despicable behaviour. They give the rest of BA cabin crew a bad name and I cannot wait to see the back of some of them.

Miss M,
With regards to your suggestion that I should go to New Fleet, Mr Bunker has answered most eloquently on my behalf. I'd like to add though, Miss M, as your Union BASSA failed you, perhaps you and your fellow strikers a should give it a go because there may be nothing else left for you on any other fleet. Infact you'd be really lucky if you're even given an option to go on it.

sixmilehighclub

18th Jun 2010, 18:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissM
Crew crossed the picket line for several reasons but no doubt they are supporting our management. The rest of us are trying to save our careers by trying to get the best possible deal with BA.

No. I Crossed the picket line also trying to save my career.
Please look at the bigger picture.
Our jobs would not have been that much different the first strikes round if we'd accepted the offer on the table.
You may feel our careers are protected by strike.
I feel our careers are put in jeopardy with every step we take along the path with striking. The reason being that we lose money as a result of every strike, and the more
key we lose, the more someone in the company will suffer. How is that fair?

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 18:53

Caribbean Boy.

I'm led to believe, though I have no figures to hand, that the number of cabin crew suspended and/or dismissed as a consequence of industrial unrest is closer to 60. The figure of 28 may have been added to.

And although you state 20 out of 28 were serious, on who's assessment was this based. Have you the details of all cases? And therein lies my point. BA management believe they were serious. They may well have been serious, but without independent assessment how can those decisions be trusted. And I'm certain that had 20 people been released with no further action, then ardent supporters of Walsh and his way would have been equally suspicious of the result and outcome.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 19:00

And although you state 20 out of 28 were serious, on who's assessment was this based. Have you the details of all cases? And therein lies my point. BA management believe they were serious. They may well have been serious, but without independent assessment how can those decisions be trusted. But if you follow that ethos, EVERY SINGLE TIME British Airways puts someone into a disciplinary process, they'd have to get an outside and neutral party involved to actually make a final decision. It's not practical.

Thunderbug

18th Jun 2010, 19:05

PC767

I understand your concerns about the disciplinary procedures, but why change the process during industrial unrest. These procedures are agreed procedures between union & company. They are published in the Employment Guide and provide a process for dealing with a number of issues that are deemed disciplinary - not just bullying and harasment. These procedures have checks, balances and the ability to appeal. They apply to ALL BA employees; cabin crew, ground staff, pilots, managers, etc.

Why does BASSA feel that the rules that apply to everyone somehow don't apply to them?

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 19:05

Tiramisu.

I trust you have reported your allegation to the correct authority and not just highlighted it on here.

I understand that anybody, strikers or non-strikers can apply to join new fleet, albeit with certain conditions inposed. Individuals will make their own decisions. For me, on what I have seen proposed by BA up to now, I'll stay where I am. When the fleet is formalised I'll make another decision. But, business rarely makes changes which benefit employees financially.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 19:07

I've just spoken to Tiramisu and heard about what happened in CRC and I'm disgusted. Absolutely disgusted. The immaturity of (fortunately a minority of) people seems to know few bounds.

The more I hear about incidents like this, the more I'm confident that my decision to work was the right one, for I want as little to do with the sort of people who would engage in this behaviour as possible.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 19:10

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 19:12

And for the final time, I repeat that I agree that what you propose would be a sensible way forward.... But it doesn't change the fact that a dangerous prescedent would be set.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 19:15

Despite my views being more BASSA than BA, I would never condone the behaviour Tiramisu infers. Eddy, you are merely subject to hearsay. Tiramisu I hope, has reported this incident rather than spread gossip.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 19:21

Hearsay from someone I trust implicitly - with my life, if that doesn't make me sound dramatic.

Caribbean Boy

18th Jun 2010, 19:22

PC767 (http://www.pprune.org/members/205141-pc767),

I am inclined to agree with you. I had a lengthy conversation a while ago with someone in BA who is an authority on this subject who also believes that an independent third party review would be a good idea. The reason was to resolve the dispute. Implicit in this point of view is that BA's disciplinary procedures are robust enough to withstand scrutiny.

MrBunker

18th Jun 2010, 19:22

I've made it clear that these cases are part of an exceptional circumstance. I have not stated a change in procedure should be permanent.

To negate these exceptional times back to normality and to rebuild trust for the benefit of all, I believe an independent solution is necessary. This is not BASSA wanting to change the rules to suit themselves, the outcome may confirm BA's initial assessment.

It is about settling a bitter and damaging dispute and rebuilding trust and cooperation.

I repeat for the final time, this is an exceptional case, subject to the most bitter dispute in BA's history and generally in recent times.

PC767

But the letter from Unite doesn't really ask for an independent assessment of the disciplinaries according to those procedures agreed between BA and themselves does it? It refers, as ever, in emotive language to "vindictive, disproportionate and unnecessary. Unite is therefore seeking the withdrawal of all disciplinary measures administered etc etc". So, I'm afraid it is rather BASSA looking to change the rules to suit themselves.

Hardly independent. More like, go away and leave us alone. This is not a request for ACAS to ensure the agreed procedures are being adhered to. As Eddy notes, a number of cases have been innocent and, indeed, even the CEO (much maligned as he is by so many on the Unite battlefront) has noted a number have had no case to answer and others have merely had "administrative" penalties applied. I'm not suggesting that's a pleasant thing but it's not the end of that person's particular career world. Also, appeals are available but, certainly for me, I'm not hearing much about any of those taking place.

I don't know Tiramisu but I do know Eddy and as he's spoken to her regarding today's observations in the CRC I've no reason to doubt his, and thus her, integrity in this matter and would ask you to think who exactly is bringing the bitterness and damage to this dispute. Exceptional case it may be but that doesn't mean the rules need to be flexed in order to resolve it. If anything I'd expect a more rigid application of the rules so that in the aftermath of all this terrible fiasco the review of actions will show that all applicable guides and regulations were adhered to. By both parties.

Tiramisu, on a personal note, sorry to hear about today's events in the CRC, some people very dear to me have been personally on the receiving end of some pretty underwhelming behaviour from her crews in recent times. What I do know is that BA are currently not remotely prepared to countenance such behaviour.

And finally, Eddy, on a lighter note (and, clearly, I'm avoiding football like the plague being on here at this time) it'd be a pleasure to buy you a pint when we fly next/am in the Arora. Hope you're well.

ATB

MrB

Bridchen

18th Jun 2010, 19:27

I'm also really interested to know what happened in the CRC. The fact that this allegedly involved a BASSA rep confirms to me that resigning my membership from this so called voice of crew, was absolutely the right thing to do. I was sick of being represented by people who deliberately mislead, and their arrogance in the face of letting down so many people is shocking. But for someone in the position of negotiating on behalf of crew, and to be advising them, to act in view of other crew in anything other than as an example of how to behave properly, should be a wake up call to others. Crew who are dumb enough to go along with this, will no doubt be trotting off with their P45s soon enough. How many crew have to be suspended for intimidating behaviour before it sinks in to just STOP IT and get on with the job - the reason they are supposed to be in CRC in the first place.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 19:30

Eddy.

Does the concept of a union not resisting unpopular, though maybe necessary change, for the benefit and protection of its members, providing no opposition to an unrepentant management, and allowing roughshot imposition of changes not set a dangerous precedent.

To my mind both Walsh and BASSA have dragged us into this mess in equal measure, but of the potential for precedents to be established I believe independent conclusion of disciplinary action to be the better of unchallenged and detrimental changes to contracts.

It is through both sides failing to compromise that we arrive where we are, it will take compromise to return to normality. That has to be the only fair solution.

MissM

18th Jun 2010, 19:31

MrBunker

I would have been happy to work to current crewing levels if they had been negotiated, not imposed.

You can disagree as much as you like. I still stand by my opinion that many are doing exactly what I have described. Look at the turnout of our previous two ballots, which have been in majority on both occassions. The numbers for industrial action have been high. Some of them crossed the picket line and only voted for industrial action to give the union a strong negotiation mandate. If we believe BA, the majority of crew reported for duty which includes a huge number of those who voted for industrial action. They are the ones I am referring to. Surely they can not have been pleasant with the changes to their terms and conditions because otherwise they would have voted against industrial action or not voted at all. The ones who went to work and do not mind with the changes to our terms and conditions are in minority of everyone who went to work.

Eddy

I wish it would end today but it will end for me when BASSA say that they have reached an agreement with BA.

I would accept last year's deal if included full reinstatement of ST with my original DOJ.

The Blu Riband

It's saddening to read that you don't think that I'm not debating, reasoning or listening but instead repeating, telling lies and insulting everyone who disagrees. I have tried my very best to answer and please everyone since the first day I joined this forum. I have never insulted anyone deliberately. I have used a particular nicknames for strikebreaking crew and said that it's a cowardly behaviour to go to work during the strike but it has never been aimed at anyone individually. I spend a lot of time, both home and downroute, visiting this forum because I think it is important that we at least try to explain what we are doing and for what reasons. This kind of discussion is not available at any of the other forums as they represent one way communication. If your opinion differs, it's not welcome. This sort of attitude does not serve us well.

BASSA have offered savings worth almost £63 million pounds.The pay cut, or loan as some wish to put it, represents a small part of it.

Do I respect the right of BA staff to not strike or to support the non-strikers?

Everyone who is part of our union should have supported the majority. Everyone who failed, for whatever reasons, should resign their membership from the union. I accept that there are different opinions and those not part of a union did not even have to make that decision. I am extremely disappointed with everyone who voted for industrial action but crossed the picket line. If they had no intention of going on strike, they should have voted against it. I still think they should have supported the majority even if they had voted against industrial action, but at least they would have acted according to their vote.

Moving on to your other questions. I communicate through many different forums and not only the BASSA forum, I read ESS, I listen to what other people are saying, I seem to be capable of developing discussion and I like to think that my manner is kind. I don't always believe and agree what BASSA are saying and sometimes I do wonder what on earth they are doing. They have made a numerous amount of mistakes in the past but I still have a believe that they are wanting the best for us members.

Chuchinchow

I don't know if you read my reply to you yesterday. Unless you change your patronising attitude towards me, as presented in your post including your wife's situation, I'm not sure if I want to debate with you.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 19:36

Caribbean Boy.

If the outcome of an independent assessment is binding to all, and every suspension and sacking was deemed responsible and necessary then any suggestion of mistrust would have to be forgotten. If the policy and decision of BA is shown to be robust by an indepentent party then that can only benefit all.

MrBunker

18th Jun 2010, 19:37

Bridchen

18th Jun 2010, 19:39

MissM

It's all very well to say that BASSA members should have gone with the result of the majority vote. I certainly agree that if members don't agree with BASSA, then resign. But BASSA also have a part to play. And that includes keeping their membership up-to-speed with what is going on, and that includes all serious proposals by the company, whether the individual reps agree with the proposals or not, and WHEN they are put on the table. If that mutual understanding is not abided by on either side then it should not just be members who resign from the union, but the reps who broke a code of honour to their membership.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 19:40

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 19:41

PC, just to add on a bit, I know this is hear-say (albeit from a reliable source) about this incident but I've been ignored a few times by people I'd normally have a pleasant chat with in CRC so I can speak first-hand about the indifferent treatment non-strikers are being subjected to.

I also have to say that if I got into a briefing room and was completely ignored by another crew member, I'd be tempted to immediately speak to the flight crew and express my concerns.

How can you effectively execute the fire-fighting drill or medical action plan if one element of the 'team' won't communicate with the others?!

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 19:43

I would accept last year's deal if included full reinstatement of ST with my original DOJ.Thanks a million for your honesty :ok:

Doesn't this, however, make you wonder whether the strikes were needed? :uhoh:

MrBunker

18th Jun 2010, 19:49

Mr Bunker.

With such rigid views there can be no satisfactory solution for all. Rigidly there can be a solution but with a large portion of front line staff feeling resentment and loathing and that isn't a good point to start rebuilding BA back into viability.

This dispute will remain ongoing.

But, the rigidity which you feel provides such a stumbling block is in place because of an agreement between the unions and BA as to the conduct of disciplinary procedures, BA haven't changed the rules. Is it possible that some crew will have been dealt with over-zealously initially? Probably so, if not certainly so. If, heaven forbid, those innocent crewmembers are sanctioned then there are procedures of appeal in place already. As Eddy has said already, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a 3rd party review the extant and completed disciplinaries to ensure that they have been conducted in accordance with the procedures and policies agreed between the BATUC and the airline.

But that's not what Unite are asking for is it?

In fact the wiping clean of all the disciplinees' slates during this dispute is one of the 3 pillars of the next ballot according to the letter from the JGS at Unite that dropped onto the mat recently (for which, thanks, my wife's not in the union anymore - as an aside Unite might want to sort that before the ballot papers are sent out).

So it's not that I, or BA for that matter, are being rigid. Unite aren't asking for an independent assessment. They're asking for it all to be swept under the carpet, whether or not some of those crew do have a case to answer. That can't be acceptable to the majority of staff who work in BA as it shows that the disciplinary procedure in the airline is not a reliable and inviolate system, more a politically expedient tool that can be made to mean whatever it needs to be and that cannot be just.

MrB

Bridchen

18th Jun 2010, 19:52

Exactly, Eddy!

The strikes were not needed. In fact even the pre-Easter proposal would have at least been something to work on, if we had been told about it, and BASSA and Unite hadn't taken it upon themselves to effectively toss it over their shoulders by announcing stike dates. The muscle of the strike was in the threat of it. Once WW had proved that he could keep flights going, the mystery of the outcome was over. It was a debacle. It cost crew wages, ST and bargaining power.

Colonel White

18th Jun 2010, 19:56

PC767

The disciplinary procedure has been agree with all unions.
BASSA is part of Unite. For BA to permit any disciplinary actions relating to BASSA members be dealt with by an independant authority suggests
a) that the company is unable to deal with these matters in an equable manner, hence they are immediately discredited
b) that any Unite member can expect to get treated in the same way.

BA would effectively be saying 'we are not able to manage our workforce' How do you thnk that would go down ?

Moreover, there is recourse to an independant third party anyway. Anyone who is unhappy with their treatment on discipline matters can appeal to an industrial tribunal. Introducing this independance at the disciplinary stage would rob the individual of the ability to appeal to an industrial tribunal - not really in the individual's interest then is it ?

I think this suggestion is yet another attempt by BASSA to divert attention from the fact that a number of staff, some of whom are reps, have behaved in a debatable manner and have found themselves on final written warnings or sacked.

MrBunker

18th Jun 2010, 19:59

I think this suggestion is yet another attempt by BASSA to divert attention from the fact that a number of staff, some of whom are reps, have behaved in a debatable manner and have found themselves on final written warnings or sacked.

It would be if that's what they were asking for. As mentioned, it's worse than that. They want the whole raft of disciplinaries initiated during this strike to be wiped from the record and all affected staff re-instated. No questions asked. No sanction for any offenders.

MrB

MissM

18th Jun 2010, 21:12

MrBunker

I agree that we can never know every person's reason(s) for striking or not striking. I just think that crew would vote more sensibly. If they are willing to strike, they should vote yes. If they are not, they should vote no. This is why the last ballots have been very strong in numbers and it does indicate that there is a sense of disagreement amongst the crew. Something is wrong when the majority vote for industrial action but the support for the actual strike is not as strong. They should go hand in hand.

That observation is present during non-striking times. Many crew will say what the majority wants to hear. Although, it is becoming easier to spot striking and non-striking crew onboard.

Bridchen

A union has said responsibility, which I believe BASSA have been fairly good at. They also spin with the truth as BA. Every proposal which is put forward to BASSA does not need to be presented to us members.We have given our faith to our representatives and trust them in negotiations. If they find a proposal is lacking and is not good enough, they can turn it down without consulting us members.

If the open top bus has to take me to the Jobcentre, I will go there with my head high because I know I would have lost my job in a good fight which I believed in.

Eddy

The strikes were not needed. They were never needed. They never should have taken place.

MrBunker

18th Jun 2010, 21:16

MrBunker

I agree that we can never know every person's reason(s) for striking or not striking. I just think that crew would vote more sensibly. If they are willing to strike, they should vote yes. If they are not, they should vote no. This is why the last ballots have been very strong in numbers and it does indicate that there is a sense of disagreement amongst the crew. Something is wrong when the majority vote for industrial action but the support for the actual strike is not as strong. They should go hand in hand.

That observation is present during non-striking times. Many crew will say what the majority wants to hear. Although, it is becoming easier to spot striking and non-striking crew onboard.

I agree wholeheartedly with your observations above. My personal suspicions are a great deal of eligible voters ticked the box for a strike in the hope they'd never have to follow it through. When called upon to stand by their decision, I guess a great number didn't do so. On a purely hypothetical level (one where this is not about BA but the behaviour of union members in a ballot) that's not the most noble of behaviours. A vote that accurately reflected the number of people who were prepared to follow through with strike action might have led the whole dispute in a different direction.

MrB

Bridchen

18th Jun 2010, 21:28

Bridchen

A union has said responsibility, which I believe BASSA have been fairly good at. They also spin with the truth as BA. Every proposal which is put forward to BASSA does not need to be presented to us members.We have given our faith to our representatives and trust them in negotiations. If they find a proposal is lacking and is not good enough, they can turn it down without consulting us members.

If the open top bus has to take me to the Jobcentre, I will go there with my head high because I know I would have lost my job in a good fight which I believed in.

Eddy

The strikes were not needed. They were never needed. They never should have taken place. From MissM

MissM - I'm almost lost for words. The same proposal that BASSA, according to your logic, rejected as they found it lacking, is now on reflection, a proposal you would wish to accept, if your ST was reinstated with DOJ. Your ST would have been intact with DOJ at the time of the proposal, so then why aren't you asking what the union found so lacking about it? And to outright turn it down, instead of ironing out the details.

Yes, indeed, the strikes never needed to take place, therefore, why are you so willing to ride the open-top bus?

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 21:39

Mr Bunker.

Ironically I am a member of BASSA and I haven't yet received such a letter as your wife's. I am however overseas with a notoriously slow postal system.

Now, whilst negotiations were taking place, the concept of ACAS acting independently to review the suspensions was suggested and seemingly agreed to by both parties. The talks broke up over other issues and therefore no agreement was reached. This is based on press reports of the time. If Unite/BASSA are now sending out letters suggesting that a wipe clean policy must be adopted, then I can only agree that they have erred. And should the issue become ballotable then I could not support it. The only system should be fair, wipe cleans are not fair, inparticular if a third party is involved.

Colonel White. I'm a reasonable person and I do not trust BA to be fair and impartial at this time. I want to rebuild trust with my employer and feel the independent and binding solution is the best way to handle this aspect of the dispute. I want it over with no lingering doubts.

Eddy, why would you feel the need to express concerns that someone feels they do not need to engage in polite conversation with you. It isn't compulsary, and is exasperated by unproved tales of crew being off-loaded for failing to shake a captain's hand. I also feel that crucial CRM will not suffer, oh, people may nolonger have a drink down route together, but when my life depends on it I wouldn't care if the aircraft was piloted by Attila the Hun and Hilter. I would provide clear concise communication and likewise, facing an inferno onboard I wouldn't dismiss an 'opposition' crew member with a BCF in there hand.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 21:40

Gotta echo the question above.......

Do you ever feel the need, MissM, to express your anger that a good deal has been offered but, for some reason, not accepted by your elected peers?

Eddy, why would you feel the need to express concerns that someone feels they do not need to engage in polite conversation with you. It isn't compulsary, and is exasperated by unproved tales of crew being off-loaded for failing to shake a captain's hand. I also feel that crucial CRM will not suffer, oh, people may nolonger have a drink down route together, but when my life depends on it I wouldn't care if the aircraft was piloted by Attila the Hun and Hilter. I would provide clear concise communication and likewise, facing an inferno onboard I wouldn't dismiss an 'opposition' crew member with a BCF in there hand.I would love to be able to assume that, in the event of an emergency, all colleagues would pull together.

But I'd also have assumed, some months ago, that none of my colleagues would stoop low enough to engage in (forgive me for bringing this up again) the act of dropping rude, insulting, threatening notes in the dropfiles of their work mates.

Bottom line is that this dispute has revealed the true colours of many, many people.

In most cases, the true colours shown are as one would have expected - maturity, civility and decency - but in a small number of cases we've seen immaturity, a lack of acceptance and a seeming inability to interact with those with differing opinions.

I know that having a chat isn't compulsary but having a chat is certainly an important element in building the team on a plane. This job, like few others, relies on each crew member's ability to get on with absolute strangers.

Being unable to even engage in idle chit-chat doesn't bode well for the ability of the team to gel in times of need.

But you misunderstand my point : I won't go to the skipper if someone doesn't have a natter with me. I'll go to the skipper if someone flat-out refuses to communicate with me. That, in my eyes, would represent a major safety risk.

MissM

18th Jun 2010, 21:44

Bridchen

Your previous post was deleted but you said that maybe the open top bus could take me to the Jobcentre from Bedfont, hence my reply. Do you think I enjoy going on strike?

I think I have mentioned at a previous occasion that I would have accepted last year's proposal. Why was it not put forward to us members? I don't have a good answer. Last summer there were a lot of things happening. I felt we received many mixed messages from both sides. BA had caused us a lot of unnecessary worry for a long time with regards to Project Columbus. I think the sole reason is because BASSA did not want to discuss crewing levels or even a new fleet, presumingly because of what BA were planning behind closed doors.

Litebulbs

18th Jun 2010, 21:47

While I agree that some deserved it and others (the majority) didn't, I think getting a neutral party involved in inter-company disciplinaries sets a very, very dangerous prescedent.

The thing is, BA can dismiss and do not have to re engage. Once you are gone, you are gone. They may have to compensate, however.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 21:50

Colonel White.

I've just re-read your post and noted that it starts, no no no.

Does this represent BA's negotiating position?

There has to be a downside to a compromise, and the best agreements and solutions are based upon a compromise. Whilst the response to the downside is no no no, we'll get nowhere other than worse off. And I'm happy to apply that to BASSA as well. With opinions such as yours representing BA and irresponsible positions such as the infamous watersideworks representing the unions, the only way is down. And my fear is that these positions are replicated at both the top of the union and the top of BA.

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 21:52

The thing is, BA can dismiss and do not have to re engage. Once you are gone, you are gone. They may have to compensate, however.Which is why, had I been on strike, I'd be a little worried right now.

I think Mr. Walsh is gunning for a number of the community's most militant members and, as he's shown with the unjustified sacking of one of our schedulers, he's probably more keen to get rid of people, pay compensation and fire a major warning-shot across the Bassa bow than he is to keep these people in the company.

BikerMark

18th Jun 2010, 21:56

Miss M

If the open top bus has to take me to the Jobcentre, I will go there with my head high because I know I would have lost my job in a good fight which I believed in.

So, if the dispute means that you take 42,000 other BA staff members along with you, would you still hold your head up high?

As you say, there was no need for the strike. I'm somewhat incredulous that the substantive offer (leaving aside for a moment the ST & disciplinary issues) which Unite would now accept is less than the initial offer put forward last year.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 22:01

Eddy, I'd say that your comments about the crapper are unnecessary. I didn't strike but I accept the right to strike as being fundamental and I believe that strikes are legally protected whilst acting within the law. That protection runs for anywhere between 2500 to 6000 cabin crew who striked.

As for the few who are seriously militant, well yeah, it might be illegal to sack them but not impossible. After all, its illegal to drive at 40mph in a 30mph zone but people do it and when court pay the fine. Thing is they still drove at 40mph, that cannot be changed.

If Walsh really wants to resolve this dispute though, I'd suggest that sacking strikers would only escalate the bitterness and cause further action. He is a thing. BA is so big I feel that at times the CEO must be a politician as well as a businessman, sell change, inspire staff.

Bridchen

18th Jun 2010, 22:04

From MissM
Bridchen

Your previous post was deleted but you said that maybe the open top bus could take me to the Jobcentre from Bedfont, hence my reply. Do you think I enjoy going on strike?

I think I have mentioned at a previous occasion that I would have accepted last year's proposal. Why was it not put forward to us members? I don't have a good answer. Last summer there were a lot of things happening. I felt we received many mixed messages from both sides. BA had caused us a lot of unnecessary worry for a long time with regards to Project Columbus. I think the sole reason is because BASSA did not want to discuss crewing levels or even a new fleet, presumingly because of what BA were planning behind closed doors.Of course I don't think you enjoy going on strike. I'm mortified for you, actually! Seriously, and not in pitying or derogatory context. If you cannot see a reason why the proposal was turned down, then there was no good reason. It should never have been turned down, but discussed. There were mixed messages, but the fact that BASSA did not want to discuss crewing levels and new fleet did not mean that they should NOT discuss crewing levels and new fleet. They were extremely important things to discuss, and in fact they let us all down by not discussing them.

Apart from that absurd stance, we are now reduced to a much worse contract, and the mess that BASSA's recent inability to inform its membership has caused, ie loss of ST. We will have to accept reduced terms because of BASSA allowing a strike to take place when they had all the information at their disposal that could have prevented it. That was not a mistake by BASSA, but gross negligence, and totally unforgiveable. Why do you think so many of us threw in the towel at that stage? I have no wish to wave bye bye from the bow of a sinking ship while the orchestra's playing. Not when I'm being lied to by my representatives and kept in the dark to suit whatever needs suited them that morning.

The fight now is about the reinstatement of something that shouldn't even have to be on the negotiating table. What a farce!

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 22:10

Eddy, I'd say that your comments about the crapper are unnecessary.Forgive me, it's not my opinion that anyone should be scared right now, just that, given Mr. Walsh's track record, it wouldn't be unjustified to be a little worried about what the future holds.

I meant no insult or offense.

You've explained yourself why, as striking crew, I might be inclined to be a little worried. Walsh will, if he wants to (an action I wouldn't agree with), just sack people willy-nilly and pay the compensation deemed appropriate by the courts in three years time (or however long it takes to get there).

MissM

18th Jun 2010, 22:12

Eddy

If you are referring to the deal last year, yes. I wish we could turn back time. I would have happily accepted it as it meant that future crew would work on existing WW and EF fleets. It would have included the guarantee which I need over my job.

BikerMark

BA will not go bankrupt. BA have been saying on a couple of occasions that the majority of all rostered crew reported for duty in March, May and June. If a new strike goes ahead, BA will be running a 100% schedule according to our CEO.

How could allegedly a small group of strikers make BA go bankrupt when there's such a huge amount of support so that they will operate a full schedule?

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 22:12

BikerMark.

You are scaremongering. I do not believe a dispute with cabin crew will bring BA down, indeed BA will tell you how well they have coped and will cope in future action. Crikey, during the 'ash disruption' Walsh was quick to tell the world how much money BA held in reserve and how much borrowing we had arranged and therefore could see the ash out. The next week we were back to our very fight for survival.

Indeed, with every move Walsh implys that he can and will see the dispute out. Not the actions of a cash strapped chap. However in doing so he will leave a battered and bitter workforce, not condusive to driving the business forward. Lets be frank. If/when he gets his own way completely cabin crew will not actually leave, as many point out, theres not alot to go to at present.

I just wish he'd put as much effort into finding a solution and bring people onside rather than his policy of alienation and conflict.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 22:18

Eddy, I explained why a few militants may be moved on, and the likely consequences. But to sack up to 6000 crew would be a logistical nightmare, the worse PR stunt ever pulled and causes ruptions for workers throught the country. To UK Plc, a dangerous precedent and therefore objected to.

mjc507

18th Jun 2010, 22:20

So then, why not sack ALL cabin crew? There is no way to tell who voted yes; who voted no. There is no way to tell (without speaking to them - besides people lie about it anyway) who went on strike and who didn't. The cabin crew member who voted yes but went to work during every strike is still guilty of financially hurting (as well as our reputation) the company so isn't the only way to rid the cancer that is festering just to sack ALL cabin crew? Obviously, those that don't belong to a union (about 4000?) could be exempt from being sacked and once the 90 day notice is expired enough people could be hired to replace those gone. Certainly enough people who are currently at the job centre would be up for it? Also, BA could bring back those who accepted VR, if they were interested.

If BA decides to bring sacked (not VR crew) people back it would be on a reduced T&C contract and they would all be NF. The cabin crew has hurt BA very badly; why not hurt the cabin crew back? Serious question!

Bridchen

18th Jun 2010, 22:24

MissM

If you can see that, or even if WW runs it at a lesser capacity, then why lose yourself more money and put your job in serious jeapardy? What for? There's certainly pride in fighting for a good cause and losing, but losing because you won't blame the right people for your situation? Why do that? Some of you are trying to shoot the messenger. What was ever the point in that?

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 22:26

But to sack up to 6000 crew....where did you get the figure of 6,000 from?!

I don't for one second think Walsh will sack EVERY striker. I suspect the company is clever enough to have monitored places like Crew Forum, the Bassa forum and other mediums to determine who the "trouble makers" (in their [the company's] opinion) are.

Sacking ANY of the strikers will, depending on how Unite/Bassa handles the next ballot, be illegal. So there's nothing more stopping Walsh from hand-picking certain people he really wants to get rid of and then dealing with the court cases (or letting Mr. Williams deal with the court cases) in a few years.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 22:27

Well according to Walsh the cabin crew have had little impact.

I think you'll find that sacking or indeed giving 90 days notice to cabin crew who are union members is highly discriminatory and illegal, and I think I'll find that you are a late night troll.

Tiramisu

18th Jun 2010, 22:27

Tiramisu.
I trust you have reported your allegation to the correct authority and not just highlighted it on here.

I did indeed PC767. Even the most tolerant of us have will no longer put up with bullying and harassment in the workplace. This is BA's policy and a policy that I adopt as an employee.

Mr Bunker,
Thank you. Unfortunately when these things happen in CRC in large groups, it's a question of safety in numbers and your word against theirs. However broad shoulders one has, it still hurts.

BikerMark

18th Jun 2010, 22:36

I don't think I am necessarily scaremongering.

The issue is simple. If customer confidence is not there and we lose the benefit of whatever fragile recovery is happening, then we have a problem.

We'll also have a problem if the dispute leaves a legacy of bitterness in a significant section of customer facing staff. You can't run a high quality service industry with disaffected and unengaged staff.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 22:36

Dear God, Tirimisu, these things do not happen in large groups in the CRC. What type of impression are you trying to create. I'm a non-striker, I've been to every duty given with either other non-strikers or strikers. I've managed to maintain more than cordial relations with everyone, and have failed to witness baying packs of XXXX's harassing others.

Clearly though you did witness an incident, exaggerated or otherwise, and you have done the correct thing and reported it. I trust the alleged victims felt similarily moved.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 22:46

I agree with the customer confidence problem. However, whilst BASSA clearly are not helping with customer confidence, it is Walsh's confrontational approach which is stirring the hornets nest. He prodded and got a reaction, but has failed to see how his continued prodding is affecting the business.

He is the senior partner and confidant in this dispute. His reactions and actions drive the union and he must balance his actions against damaging our shattered reputaion further and losing customers in this fragile market.

I stated many months ago, a clever manager could have got their changes through. Walsh isn't clever in that respect, he behaves like a thug which isn't endearing or inspirational, (unless you happen to be a thug as well!).

Just one other point. Can you run a high quality service with cheap and transient staff, such as the 'waterstones' work force envisaged by Francis, who do a couple of years before getting a 'real job.'

Eddy

18th Jun 2010, 22:48

I think I'll find that you are a late night troll.Referring to.... me?

I've been to every duty given with either other non-strikers or strikers. I've managed to maintain more than cordial relations with everyonePleased to hear it - seriously. But could this be partly because you're, without sounding egotistical, somewhat less "high profile" than myself or Tiramisu?!

I post on a very popular internet forum quoting my real name and real location. It's not hard to figure out who I am.

Tiramisu, though covert on the forum, is well known through other means as having supported the company recently.

You.... Christ only knows who you are!?!? You've done the right thing and I often wish I'd stayed anonymous like you've done. But the damage, sadly, is done.

Caribbean Boy

18th Jun 2010, 22:50

There is a number of reported cases of a bunch of strikers which delights in making life uncomfortable for non-strikers. Usually this happens downroute though it can happen in CRC. Let's be quite clear that they are cowards, like the gang you might have encountered in your school days, which intimidates others - but only when they have numerical superiority.

I make no apology for using the word coward. They are a disgrace. Their behaviour must be reported on every occasion and, hopefully, some may get sacked.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 22:51

Mr Bunker.

This evening there was an update posted on the BASSA web site which included a letter from Unite. I presume this is an online copy of the letter slowly heading my way.

There is a line;

2. The withdrawal of all unwarranted disciplinary measures.

The inclusion of the word unwarranted needs explanation by Unite. Have Unite accepted that some disciplinary measures were warranted? Had it just been the withdrawl of disciplinary measures, then I would have been in disagreement.

PC767

18th Jun 2010, 23:05

Eddy.

I don't believe you are a troll old boy! I was refering to the post suggesting all union members regardless of whether they striked should be sacked or given 90 days notice.

Tiramisu.

I thought you witness and alleged event today? not that you were the subject of the alleged event.

As for your copies of post, well they are clearly pathetic. Where are they from? I've never stated I agree with the personal attacks and bullying, I don't, but your description of life in the CRC was seriously wrong. You imply gang warfare. Which was why I replied.

Just a thought, I haven't a clue who either of you are, nor am I too interested knowing. Sorry not to prick the egos. But if you are as high profile as you state and your profile is because of your strong views then you will attract attention. It happens in public life, ask the reps about their negative press exposure. If you have strong views and are willing to air them publicly, then you must accept that not everyone will agree and may tell you so.

Bullying though, Not acceptable.

Tiramisu

18th Jun 2010, 23:06

PC767,
Please don't patronise me with your reply. You obviously haven't been on the recieving end like Eddy and myself. It happened to me today and several times since the strike.
For what it's worth, I judge all crew, strikers and non-strikers on their performance on board the aircraft, not their views. I've also completed as many BRAVOS on striking crews as I have, on non-striking crews. It's a pity some of the militant minority don't behave as well as others.
It was also witnessed by another crew member who was with me at the time. Please tell me what you think of this. Does this create a false impression as well?

Harry’s no1 Post subject:
http://webmail.aol.com/31650-111/aol-1/en-gb/mail/styles/subSilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (http://webmail.aol.com/31650-111/aol-1/en-gb/mail/viewtopic.php?p=162440#p162440)Posted: 06 May 2010 13:48
You'll recognise the SCABS right away as they have 3 eyes and have a very unpleasant stench coming off them....

http://webmail.aol.com/31650-111/aol-1/en-gb/mail/styles/subSilver/imageset/en/icon_post_report.gif (http://webmail.aol.com/31650-111/aol-1/en-gb/mail/report.php?f=25&p=162440) http://webmail.aol.com/31650-111/aol-1/en-gb/mail/images/spacer.gifDontTouchTheTrolleyDARLING Post subject: Re: FIRST FLIGHT WITH SCABIN CREW
http://webmail.aol.com/31650-111/aol-1/en-gb/mail/styles/subSilver/imageset/icon_post_target.gif (http://webmail.aol.com/31650-111/aol-1/en-gb/mail/viewtopic.php?p=162455#p162455)Posted: 06 May 2010 13:58
dont worry,. they will need your help one day.. situation. a burning aircraft down the back.. scab caught up in balls of fire saying help me help me..
reaction.. burn you bastard burn. poor scabin crew!