BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

[GrahamO]

The two threads running have been a fascinating insight into the industry and from the perspective of a member of the SLF community for many years, it certainly is fascinating to understand how organisations operate, for good or for ill.I have been reading these threads and feel ill equipped to comment on much of the content, being a relatively infrequent flier these days but one area where I have something to add, hence this post, is that I am what is politely known as a 'headhunter' and so have some inkling into how organisations actually recruit in practice.

As an earlier poster pointed out, they were aware of a member of cabin crew who hat left their employer and was having difficulty securing employment. A suggestion was made that age 45, this was a major issue. I beg to differ.

The undue emphasis on 'what I had before' can certainly be a factor but it rarely affects the ability to get an interview - but it certainly allows an individual to blow an interview spectacularly well.

The issue is of skills and transferability between business sectors. Without knowing the full background of the individuals concerned it is possible to definitive regarding their case, however in my opinion, the real reason is that the individual has very little to offer that discriminates he/she from the other candidates.

To join another business sector, the sort of skills that employers will look for a demonstrable track record in;


IT skills
A good educational background (recent or distant plus higher qualifications)
References from comparable levels of seniority in a different organisation Market relevant 'technical' skills demonstrating the ability to make a difference to the company


Now the following bit is entirely subjective and I apologise if I oversimplify the job that cabin crew undertake, and underestimate the abilities of certain staff who have chosen a cabin crew career after working in another business sector.

IMO, there are virtually no business related skills that cabin crew possess which differentiates them from a new starter in the role.

Doing the role is hard and tiring and means you have to put up with a lot of hassle - but it gets you no qualifications, no transferable skills (except maybe patience for which business does not pay), and nothing more than this 'seniority' of which you talk.

It is in essence, not a career - it is a job. Much like brick carrying - skills wise, you are at the end of your career as you went into it, from the perspective of outside employers.

Yes, there are things like improved life saving skills, but it does not automatically make you a doctor/nurse/midwife/paramedic. You would start off as a day 1 Intern.

You would never be a firefighter - you would never have the stamina to pass the entrance exam unless you actually trained for it.

Just doing a cabin crew job is not enough. So, to address another persons point, it is risky leaving any job without skills. A 40 year old with no desirable skills is probably worse of than an 18 year old in the same situation. It does not mean that doing it is wrong, but it is risky. This is why so many people are gaining degrees, MBA, MA's etc while working in their jobs, and this is wherein the problem lies for well established cabin crew.

The employment world has moved on and having certain qualifications is regarded as minimum and many mature staff simply do not have them. If you are going to leave, get some relevant qualifications first, as being a member of the hard working cabin crew is practically irrelevant in most professions - particularly if you are used to what some regard as 'over- generous' benefits. I make to comment on the veracity of these.

Something to think about folks when you are at work - next time you need an accountant, an engineer, a mechanic, a shop worker, a medical professional, a gardener - ask yourself what skills a long standing member of a cabin crew has which qualifies them for these roles.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

[Mr Optimistic]

:ok: what tangled webs we weave: only a nationalised outfit could give this legacy. Daft management in another era. Worked for one, Railtrack, with similar culture (just loved the free tickets for family & SERVANTS) ! And where is Railtrack now ?

[R Knee]

I see someone states 6200 claims were made by strikers.

was this 6200 individuals, or was it 6200 claims

whoops,

someone else thinking similarly (MIDLGW). Suspect he's righter than drogo.

[TSR2]

Thank you for the very interesting and well expressed thoughts.

[leiard]

6200 claims made by members

3 waves of strikes in last IA

6200/3 = 2100 members on strike

[Airclues]

I wonder whether everyone who is claiming strike pay actually went on strike? BA kept the crew lists confidential so as not to reveal the non-strikers names. How do BASSA check that someone making a claim was a striker?

Dave

[Basil]

Airclues,
That would appeal to my sense of humour:
"Apply here for refund of your union dues and political levy!":E

[MG23]

Unions still have a role in protecting workers in this environment.

Absolutely. But there are unions and there are unions.

This whole affair makes me feel young again, because I grew up in the 70s and some of my earliest childhood memories are sitting at home reading by candle-light because the power workers were out on strike in support of the miners who were out on strike in support of the British Leyland workers who were striking because their daily tea-breaks had been reduced from eight hours to six. Since the 80s unions have been so tame, and now we have a no-holds-barred fight as BASSA have apparently not noticed that it's now the 21st century.

As others have pointed out many times, a 21st century union would have negotiated with the company to get the best deal for their members even if it meant giving up a few perks that they could live without; which would have been substantially better than what's now on offer. BASSA were foolish enough to call a strike over a minor issue which their members were not willing to support in large enough numbers to have any real impact on the company... and then continue even when that strategy has been clearly shown to be a complete failure.

That's what makes it all so interesting to an outsider; whereas most companies would have laid off the worst troublemakers by now regardless of cost BA have bent over backwards to be nice to BASSA strikers yet they still bite the hand that's held out to them. BA management can't do that forever and the longer the strikes continue the more they'll be able to lay off and replace with New Fleet when the time comes for the nuclear option.

[RTR]

Good points there.

From Ava
Let them sack me. I would return my uniform feeling proud of having completed a good fight against a nasty piece of management. I couldn't be less bothered as this company is not what it used to be. WW has done nothing but harm in a very short period of time. Some of us are pleased that he's leaving in a couple of months.

I wouldn't count on it!

It is amazing how many times you can easily see what really lies behind the written word. Mostly, BA should listen and do what we tell them to do. BA's management is "nasty" - of course they are - doing what they MUST do to keep the airline flying. And the company is not what it used to be.

Each ignores that BA is a business that has been beaten, bashed and bruised by a union who milked it for their own ends for all these years. It has taken a man like WW to bring the reality of the 21st century into the equation that has no room or need of militant unions. Or, indeed, militant staff who make attempts to impede this process. BASSA has no place to run, they have been rumbled, and it is now their turn to be beaten bashed and bruised. Its over folks and there is no way back to the bad old days.

Make no mistake, WW is not a fool. But he is a business man with good business sense who has refused to be intimidated by a few BASSA militants who have no better way of performing union matters than to use any 'nasty' way they can. Their tactic, there has been only one it seems, is to say to BA - WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE.

[Mariner9]

6250/13300 = "proof" that the majority of cabin crew did not work normally.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious for so many people. DH can no longer be personally affected by further strikes, yet he is apparently ready to sacrifice his members pay and possibly their career by whipping them up for more IA :=

Given that just over half of those 6250 voted no to the BA offer, this shows (if the figures are correct) that BASSA's support has dropped by about half since the last (ineffectual)strikes.

Does DH really think that further IA will have any chance of success whatsoever? I suspect he no longer cares.

Ifhe had any honour he should have resigned his post once dismissed by BA. Or at the very least taken an strictly neutral stance for his remaining tenure.

He should be ashamed of his continued role in this matter in my view :=

[ChicoG]

BA know exactly how many went on strike - they have withdrawn their staff travel, remember?

So it really doesn't matter what number BASSA fabricate (and I don't believe them for a minute, as they have been proven to be liars on so many occasions).

What matters is that BA can survive the strike now, and they've also managed to railroad New Fleet through and are therefore guaranteed the eventual cost savings that will generate.

All that BASSA should really be doing is negotiating to keep existing crew on their current earnings until they leave.

Any further disruption and I'm sure that will be the next thing under threat.

The trouble is that the BASSAmentalists still think that striking will actually achieve something.

"It will force BA back to the table!", or some other such nonsense on to which those living in La La Land probably still desperately cling.

I can only sigh at Duggie Fashion, the latest BASSA troll who has nothing constructive to offer and has decided that p*ssing off the ground engineering staff will achieve something.

if he is actually speaking the truth (which I also doubt), it would be a simple task to identify him if he continues his childish behaviour.

What a complete saddo, like the rest of them.

[ExecClubPax]

No matter what the strength of support for IA was earlier this year, it appears BASSA's membership is still ebbing away. It was 9757 on 20 July and today the website admits to only 9736.

Going down!

[Diplome]

There is a real and rather blatant problem with Mr. Holley's latest message.

Apart from BASSA's repeated difficulties with being honest in their representations (i.e. 20 planes parked at Cardiff, only 6 Cabin Crew members crossed the picket line, etc., etc.) there is the obvious fact that the Union itself stated that the strike had poor support.

From a May 16th message:

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.


The full text of that message can be found at this link.
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/409355-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-post5696463.html?highlight=missive#post5696463

We know that the numbers supporting the strike did not increase from later messages and information received from Bedfont, and from the increased flight performance by BA.

The most obvious evidence of poor support is the simple fact that the strike failed, the imposition remains and Mixed Fleet is a soon to be reality.

BASSA can attempt to rewrite history but Mr. Holley's message is a rather crude attempt at deflection.

His opening line is:


Some of you have expressed disappointment at the low turnout for the recent ballot


He then goes on to cite non-verifiable internal numbers, dismisses entire sections of BASSA's membership (Gatwick), none of which have to do with the initial point of concern, all because he cannot dispute the third-party verified low turnout for the last ballot.

Mr. Holley might as well have been speaking of his tomatoes.

[Ancient Observer]

I'm sure that various BA staff are looking for more deterrents to further action.

I would suggest that for each day of Industrial Action, two of the lucrative trips for the long haul staff should be passed to the new mixed fleet.

As with the loss of ST, each member of BA CC should be told personally by their manager that each day of IA will lead to the loss of these trips.

Day 1, lose NRT and HKG, Day 2 lose Sin, and so on. Maybe even add some of the least attractive trips in exchange?

These trips are certainly not contractural, so there is no chance of any legal action, and BA have only offered to discuss the move of routes from the heritage staff to the New mixed fleet.

A great way to strike and lose even more money!!

BA could make this work either on an "all-crew" basis, or possibly on an individual basis, just for strikers. (Although the latter might leave them open for the lawyers to earn yet more money.)

The downside, of course, would be the possible impact on non-strikers.

Diplome
Yup. It just goes to show that for Mr H., it has never been about the members. It is just about his personal love for power.

[Snas]

BA could make this work either on an "all-crew" basis, or possibly on an individual basis, just for strikers. (Although the latter might leave them open for the lawyers to earn yet more money.)

The downside, of course, would be the possible impact on non-strikers.

Please no, non striking crew have already lost enough as a result of this dispute and the foolish actions of the union.

[fincastle84]

The BBC has just announced that Unite is taking legal action against BA over the removal of ST. They are using 'uman rites' legislation.:ugh::ugh::ugh:
More easy money for BA's legal team.

[Diplome]

I will withhold my amusement at Unite/BASSA, who constantly issue critical comments regarding BA using the judiciary system to obtain relief, taking this action and actually view this as a possible positive development.

It seems a bit of a creative approach but should make for interesting reading. Can't wait to read the case history the Union uses in support of its argument.

[MIDLGW]

No doubt the "key witness" will be a crew member who commutes from Staines and hasn't used ST since 1987 :}

[slf22]

From our SA friend in the other thread
Finally!

Let's hope WW makes a fool of himself and has to return staff travel fully without any sanctions. If this happens, maybe management should be forced to reimburse all the money we have had to spend on regular tickets because they removed our concessions for taking a lawful industrial action. I bet BA would be more than thrilled to receive my claim of somewhere around two and three thousand pounds that I have spent on tickets!

If BA are found to be in breach of whatever legislation because they singled out strikers couldn't they just get rid of staff travel for all?

IIRC didn't the government do something similar when they were found to be in breach of some human rights legislation because they had differing free prescription ages?

Also how long would this kind of case take to get heard?

[dudleydick]

Is ST part of the BA staff contract? In my 35 years in the industry with a number of companies ST was always a privilege and not a right. Yes we often managed to get away with an ID90 on stand by but nothing was written into our contracts. Maybe I worked for the wrong companies! I should add that I refer to off duty travel of course.

[JayPee28bpr]

The pro-BASSA lobby seem to be taking this as a positive development, but I'm not so sure myself. It rather suggests an acceptance by the Union that staff travel will not be returned either by negotiation or industrial action. It must be remembered that Unite/BASSA said that they would get staff travel back "in 5 minutes" something over three months ago, and that no resolution of the wider dispute would be acceptable without full reinstatement of the perk. Commencing legal proceedings looks like an acceptance that Unite cannot deliver on these assurances.

I somehow doubt Unite feels confident of victory. If they were confident, I think a more attractive approach to the problem (for the staff affected) would be to get one person to resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis that removal of staff travel precluded them from getting to work which was tantamount to dismissal. They could take this to a Tribunal: cheaper and faster to hear the case. The fact they're not taking this approach suggests that they believe they will have to argue a much higher principle of law, in a higher Court, meaning much more time-consuming. As a result, I suspect those relying on staff travel will be starved out well before BA potentially loses any case. Any victory, if it really has to be litigated in this way, will be pyhrric in the extreme for the people affected.

Ava on the other thread has already mentally collected £2,000-3,000 she says she's had to spend on full fare tickets since losing staff travel on the basis of Unite's impending legal challenge. Let's assume her costs are genuine, and are replicated across the staff who commute and have lost the perk. How long can they endure such costs? What level is just too painful to continue? Intuition suggests £10k would be a very prudent average upper limit to set on this. 2,000 is also a prudent number of staff to assume are commuters and have lost the perk. That gives BA a maximum exposure of about £20 million in compensation even if they lose. Lost in the roundings in the great scheme of things, and a price worth risking if they starve out their most militant staff in the meantime. Put another way, my assumptions will have to be hopeless underestimates before BA is better off backing down on this one. Consequently, it is hard to see how today's development is in anyway positive for the staff involved.

[notlangley]

the threshold is 50% of the bargaining unit

Statutory derecognition of a trade union - an introduction | Business Link (http://tinyurl.com/2utebsx)

[Skipness One Echo]

It's non contractual but UNITE have to be seen to be doing something to justify their subscriptions.

Clearly Ava Hannah isn't exactly on the poverty line just yet shelling out several grand to cross the world to come to work for an employer she detests. Perhaps she knows a good thing when she sees it(!)

[MIDLGW]

Grab the popcorn, folks, it's getting interesting :}

[west lakes]

Er I'm sure I saw a discussion last week that a group of staff were taking BA to court over ST. Is the latest Unite stance driven by embarrassment that CC are doing their own thing?


(popcorn & pink stuff on stock)

[cym]

Have been avoiding the CC thread for a while as I find the postings to be somewhat depressing.

Have a look at the words of wisdom of new poster bacabincrewmember

[drew3325]

Well Cym having just picked myself up off the floor having caught up on the latest posting on the other forum I find it all highly amusing.

One does have to wonder as is stated on there - 3500 lose staff travel and nearly 7000 claims for strike pay..........So glad I dont have the same sort of calculator as am sure the tax man wouldnt accept such variance on figures......Almost sounds like double entry booking keeping!!!!

You could almost believe that numerous posts are by the same person with a different log on.....funny how they never seem to comment at the same time wonder why that is?

Guess it will be worth coming back in a few days time jsut to have another "laugh" at the end of the week :-)

[Litebulbs]

If they were confident, I think a more attractive approach to the problem (for the staff affected) would be to get one person to resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis that removal of staff travel precluded them from getting to work which was tantamount to dismissal. They could take this to a Tribunal: cheaper and faster to hear the case. The fact they're not taking this approach suggests that they believe they will have to argue a much higher principle of law, in a higher Court

That would take extreme loyalty to the cause. All that would happen for the affected party would, at best, be a compensatory payment as I doubt BA would abide by a re engagement order.

We all know that staff travel is not contractual, but being punished for participating in protected IA may be unlawful. In my opinion, the reason for the delay in action on this, will be that a precedent could be set and that punitive action against workers who take part in IA may be judged to be lawful.

[cym]

A hard place for Unite? For how many members given BASSA's falling membership?

Big risk me thinks

[Ancient Observer]

For customers, all this debate about who struck /when is a large dose of whatever.
All we customers want is re-assurance that those nasty strikers will not be on our plane.

PLEASE strike, bacrewmember et al, on late September out, mid October back, USA.

Please strike.

The I'll meet the better sort of folk, like Tira, Otter, GG and JSL. (As i'm booked from lhr I won't meet the nice lgw folk)

[Diplome]

My goodness at times the lack of knowledge of basic settlement procedure is appalling.

bacabincrewmember posts on CC board:

Go on then - why else would he be insistent on us dropping our legal action?


http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-74.html

The answer is simply that almost all settlement offers and final documents drafted by competent counsel will have this clause.

Its simply "housework". By effecting settlement you get rid of as many ancillary issues as possible.

What seems to be lost in all the ongoing "We was robbed" statements is that the strike was lost. Period. If BASSA wishes to ballot for another action they have that right...but this strike is lost. Imposition remains and they only Cabin Crew that have gained are those non-union members who accepted BA's offer.

[Litebulbs]

"We was robbed"

Well, in this case they were, if what has been explained to me is true. Unlawful deduction from wages and a letter inviting the individuals to raise a grievance to pursue reimbursement of lost monies. Not really standard, that, well in the UK anyway.

[Ancient Observer]

Will posters here please take a customer perspective?

Litebulbs,

We are beyond caring whether or not BA did anything to striking staff wrongly or not. If you look back over my posts - I used to be sympathetic. The strikers could not care a jot about me. _ You want me to care about them? .......................

When the strikers see something..................anything from a customer's perspective - just once - maybe we'll listen.

[Litebulbs]

You are a customer, so you have a choice. Fly somebody else. It is along the same line as, if you don't like it, leave.

[Diplome]

Litebulb:

Some of us may take a differing view. We will continue to support BA during this fight for control of the airline, and we wish to see the more militant of BASSA's members "Fly somebody else".

At this point I view any legal action by BA that squeezes BASSA into a settlement or makes it impossible for its most hardcore members to continue employment to be a pro-passenger result.

As for your comment above regarding recommendation of filing a grievance as "not being standard". I don't believe that "being standard" is the issue. Is it legal? If the answer is yes, no problem. If not, does the benefit outweigh the cost and any fine, etc.? Its a business.

[Litebulbs]

I understand that you wish to protect and enhance your stock and no doubt there are many like you. I am more interested in protecting and improving the rights of workers. That is what leads to the debate.

[JayPee28bpr]

Ava Hannah on the other thread is posting that she's already told her manager that she'll have to resign soon if staff travel isn't reinstated. So there's your test case. Except it won't be, because we all know Unite/BASSA has no case.

But let's assume there is a case, and it duly goes through the High/Appeal/Supreme Court. Then on to ECoHR if Unite loses. Where the case will be versus the UK government not BA. If they win that, they have to wait for the government to amend UK legislation. Then hope BA don't contest whether the change actually applies to them. And where in the 30,000 cases ECoHR gets this year do you think this will rank in importance and hence prioritising? How long do you think it will take? Won't all affected staff have "done an Ava" by then?

How much will this cost Unite's members, and how will you justify the spending of your members' subs to fight such a pointless case? At what point are you, personally, going to tell the full time leadership that you're not prepared to sanction further subs from members you represent being spent this way?

As I said before, worst case this costs BA £20m if they lose, and keep in mind they'll have got rid of a lot of expensive staff at zero redundancy cost, so the net cost to them is a lot less than £20m. I doubt they care whether Unite takes this case, other than it's diverting internal resource from real work like the Iberia merger, pension scheme changes, etc.

BA's share price is outperforming the market very handily over 12 months (by 35%). Consensus profit forecast isn't moving despite all the hot air from Unite. BA promised cost reductions, they've delivered them, the market likes it. If Unite/BASSA doesn't, well that's just tough I'm afraid. Cabin crew really aren't the only stakeholders in BA. The Iberia/AA deals are likely to be a much bigger contributor to profits/share price than anything Unite might do, well at least at BA. A strike at BAA Heathrow could hit the BA share price, I guess. In short, the investment community has moved on from the BA dispute. If BA has to chuck a bit of money at it because they're deemed to have breached human rights law, so be it. Far cheaper than backing down. I suspect they won't even end up doing that, though.

[Litebulbs]

Really good post. You are correct with regard to the Unite membership and how much more of their subs they want to be directed to this dispute, if it was not for the action in punishing workers for taking IA.

My concern, as being a slightly left of centre chap(ess as it is anonymous), is that legislation may be introduced way before the state has to abide by any EU directive, if our right of centre coalition decides to push through laws to allow the austerity measures in the public sector.

[ChicoG]

Unions without a clue are prone to such strategic threats, right before returning to negotiations. They got no game.

Absolutely correct. And let's also hope ACAS demand that all mobile communications devices are turned off, so we don't have to read any more of Derek Simpson's appalling drivel, or have another invasion of Socialist Worker's Party dole scrounging lefty layabouts.

I dread to think what Tony Woodley looks like after a few weeks dossing around in a luxury Cyprus villa. He must be glowing orange!

:}

[JayPee28bpr]

You are correct with regard to the Unite membership and how much more of their subs they want to be directed to this dispute, if it was not for the action in punishing workers for taking IA.



Somehow I just don't see the 2 million Unite members who do not work in the airline industry seeing the BA dispute quite this way. I have yet to meet anyone who sees cheap fares for airline staff as a fundamental human right, and certainly not one they'd want their money spending to defend.

You are in the bizarre position of defending a dispute that is now all about getting back a perk, actually about getting the queuing order for that perk (the perk itself was offered to be returned). The perk would not have been threatened if staff had accepted an earlier (better) offer than the one many of them now claim they would have accepted if only BA had included full reinstatement of their travel perk.

[Mariner9]

Quite so JP. It is also worth adding that BASSA members claim that ST will be returned by legal action in any event, and thus if they believe their own propoganda there is no need for further IA.

[Ancient Observer]

JP
:D:D

If a writer had described that in a fiction book, he/she would not have had many sales. What a case study of monumental incompetence.

Litebulbs
Go read something that is really about Socialism and employee rights. This dispute has nothing to do with either Socialism or employee rights.

[call100]

The bile continues I see.....Unite will not take any legal action unless their Lawyers consider they have a case. Woodley and Simpson don't make these decisions.
I doubt they would know if it had any chance in court or not any more than most of the posters on here...:hmm:
As for the dispute, it's time to conclude it one way or the other now. It's the wrong dispute at the wrong time.
Have you all considered what you will do for a pastime when the dispute is over? Oh yes! We have the BAA dispute looming....That's bound to be wrong!!! Sharpen the pencils.....;)....

[Tamazi]

I have only skimmed through this thread and never posted on it. The CC thread I have and do read on a daily basis.
Drew3325 on #778 is spot on.
I have frequently been left wondering just exactly who is a genuine poster (cc) and who isn't. I doubt I'll ever know. I do sometimes think that, if they are real cabin crew, had I known what numpties they were - serving me my meals etc., over the years - I might never have flown with our national carrier. I alternate between total despair and peels of laughter.
Roll on the end and more power to Walsh and his successor.

[leiard]

Does any one remember any more what the IA was all about ?

Unite cabin crew members at British Airways recognise the pressures facing the company in the midst of the current economic crisis. Negotiations have been going on for over a year, but despite cabin crew being asked to make the heftiest sacrifices of all, British Airways continues to provoke cabin crew by imposing changes and refusing to negotiate openly and fairly. [from the unite website]

BASSA have gained nothing for their members - apart from the loss of the perk of staff travel !

[beamender99]

It has been used by Greek-Cypriot refugees displaced by an invading Turkish army, Irish women asserting their right to abortions and burka-clad upholders of religious freedoms.
But now the Unite union is planning a fresh test for European human rights legislation: it plans to use it against British Airways to force the carrier to reinstate ultra-cheap Caribbean flights for striking cabin crew.
Unite said on Monday that it planned a legal challenge over the decision by BA chief executive Willie Walsh to strip striking crew of their travel privileges allowing them flights anywhere on the BA network for just a tenth of the usual fare.
"After careful consideration, Unite believes that management's action breaches European human rights legislation," said the union, claiming 6,000 crew were affected.
BA hit back saying: "Staff travel is a non-contractual perk. Cabin crew knew if they took part in strike action they would lose their travel perks. We will defend our position vigorously."
It is yet to receive formal notice of any action.

[JuliaHayes]

"You are a customer, so you have a choice. Fly somebody else. It is along the same line as, if you don't like it, leave."

Oh, the screaming irony. From reading this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that the majority of SLF who post would very much like to understand why it is that your advice isn't taken by the militant CC who so very clearly hate the company they work for.

[The SSK]

Litebulbs: You are a customer, so you have a choice. Fly somebody else.

Such as your own employer? You have stated often enough that you work for another airline.
You're not exactly impartial in this matter, are you?

[Litebulbs]

You are in the bizarre position of defending a dispute that is now all about getting back a perk.......

Yes I am and I if you explained this to any union member, they would agree. There is a fundamental right to strike in the EU. The UK is bound to the EU legislative process. How bound to human rights legislation could be tested with this case however. If you have a right, it goes that you should not be punished for it.

[Papillon]

There is a fundamental right to strike in the EU. The UK is bound to the EU legislative process.

An interesting, and carefully worded comment there. I note that you do not claim a fundamental right to strike in the UK, and equally, the UK is not bound to all parts of European law, or indeed all parts of the legislative process - something that may become even more interesting should the coalition go ahead with its idea to re-assert the primacy of Parliament within the constitution.

This is another area where lawyers suck their teeth, call it a fascinating case and mentally start riffing through which Lamborghini they want next.

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Tamazi
I have only skimmed through this thread and never posted on it. The CC thread I have and do read on a daily basis.
Drew3325 on #778 is spot on.
I have frequently been left wondering just exactly who is a genuine poster (cc) and who isn't. I doubt I'll ever know. I do sometimes think that, if they are real cabin crew, had I known what numpties they were - serving me my meals etc., over the years - I might never have flown with our national carrier. I alternate between total despair and peels of laughter.
Roll on the end and more power to Walsh and his successor.

Tamazi,
With respect, we aren't all numpties!
Many of us are genuine, passionate cabin crew who love our jobs and care about our customers and BA. We didn't go on strike, we accepted and recognise change.
If, as you claim you read the cc thread on a daily basis, you would have been able to differentiate real cabin crew from the BASSA trolls.
By the way, I also agree, more power to Willie Walsh and Keith Williams, I totally support both of them.

[Litebulbs]

An interesting, and carefully worded comment there.

This is a potential mine field and at best (me being a union person), it will be seen as unlawful. If it goes BA's way, then it could seriously damage collective action in the UK, even more so than this current dispute has.

Now I know that the majority on this thread think that this will be a good thing, but there are a few people who believe that a right to strike, or at least the right not to be punished for it, should be a part of the industrial relations process in this country.

[Papillon]

If it goes BA's way, then it could seriously damage collective action in the UK, even more so than this current dispute has.

I don't really see why, to be honest, Litebulbs. This just centres around the question of a non-contractual perk, I don't see any reason at all why it would have a wider application in terms of discrimination against strikers. There's no reason to assume it would, because that is clearly stated in legislation when it comes to contractual issues and couldn't be simply overturned by a BA win in court. It's a side issue, ultimately - which of course is part of the ludicrousness of the situation.

[R Knee]

I agree with some but not all of your views LB, but I have difficulty in reconciling the withdrawal of an industry wide perk - reduced cost travel, available to travel agents etc. - with a punishment.

It's a bit like your newspaper delivery chap(ess) deciding you have 'punished' them by not giving a Christmas tip this year.

[cym]

even when ur paid considerably more than the paperboy working for the newsagents down the road - get real!!!!!!

[Litebulbs]

The point I am trying to make and it would seem badly, is simply that IA is not something that is punishable. The only legislation that I can see for taking IA, is that it is now a fundamental right in all but 3 states in the EU and within the UK there is no precedent either way on the issue. If BA removed the perk for all cabin crew, then my argument would loose some weight, but that is not the case.

[R Knee]

If you are referring to me Cym how do you know the payment either I or my paper round person receive? This is reality not your mistaken supposition.

Incidentally text speak is not the normal mode of communication here. I also suggest you remind yourself of the rules concerning personal attacks.

[Litebulbs]

even when ur paid considerably more than the paperboy working for the newsagents down the road - get real!!!!!!

The level of pay should not come into it.

[west lakes]

Litebulbs, I can see your point that only strikers lost the perk (ST) which does, from some points of view, appear as victimisation. Perhaps if the perk had been removed without prior warning, more would see that viewpoint.
However, fair warning was given which, I think, most see as changing the situation substantially.

The legalities of it will, no doubt, be debated for a long time, or until a court rules one way or the other.

(Though to be honest the constant repetition of arguments does get a bit tedious)

[R Knee]

Thanks LB (cym). But I still don't believe removal of ST is a punishment, A travel agent that failed to add value would lose access to this perk industrywide. Here's a chance for you to expand on your comments so far - what's the difference?

[cym]

Sorry I was supporting the point you made - I am in total agreement!!

[Papillon]

and within the UK there is no precedent either way on the issue

Remember how our legal system operates. Something is entirely legal unless and until there is either statute or case law to specifically say that it isn't.

[cym]

So whats your thoughts about prevailing market rates and the impact using those as a realistic benchmarck could have on unemployment rates?

ps I support realistic union participation as well. BASSA - lost cause

[R Knee]

Understood cym

[Litebulbs]

Thanks LB (cym). But I still don't believe removal of ST is a punishment.......

Then why was it removed from some staff in a bigger group of staff?

[Tamazi]

Tiramisu, My apologies if my posting came across as if I was referring to all. I was not. My reference was to the band of Bassa hardcases who need no naming. They are the ones who I find difficult to label as genuine BA cc. I have no issue with the majority of postings on that thread and certainly not yours. Sorry.

[TopBunk]

Folks

I state my position, again, for those not aware.

I am a (recently) retired ex-BA employee with 20 years service, and therefore not allowed to comment elsewhere, by decree of the mods.

I am fully aware of the issues in this dispute.

Can I just post an observation that it really doesn't matter what gets posted here, whatever Duggie/Ava/BACCM (all the one and same troll) say is just hot air.

What matters is that BA have wiped the floor with BASSA ( or more that BASSA have performed an in-house frontal lobotomy and handed victory to BA).

The lack of acumen displayed by BASSA is unbelievable, they have signed their own demise at every step.

Duggie can proclaim till the ends of time that black is white and that all will be ok when WW goes. The fact is totally different. They (BASSA) are history.

If (I doubt it) Unite ballot again, BA WILL operate 100% of Longhaul, and the mis-guided souls wil not have a job to come back to.

As I see it, the only out for BASSA is to prolong the dispute until WW leaves for IAG/TopCo and then settle immediately with Keith and claim victory in that they have got rid of WW.

The truth is that in the meantime that the settlement will have got worse and that the MF will have accelerated.

Another point for the 'Legacy Fleet' - they seem to assume that the route transfer/top up will remain as per previously suggested - I would be extremely surprised if this is the case. BA may well take the opportunity to accelerate the savings by giving MF all the (current) 48hr slip routes and make them 24 hours (think HKG, NRT, BKK, SIN, SFO, LAX etc) savings millions per year in HOTAC.

[cym]

People need to make informed decisions and cope with the consequences.

Did WW say if you go on strike ST will be removed? Did BASSA say no probs - ST will be restored in 5 mins? What is the reality of the situation - Unite want to go to the ECoHR.

Questions, yes or no, good or bad; are BASSA doing a good job for their members? What is the impact on Unite membership within BA?

[Litebulbs]

I cannot comment about the BASSA part, as I am not a member. As for Unite, at the start, no. They have raised their game somewhat, but nowhere near the level that Mr Walsh has played, but he does have the balance of UK law on his side. But regardless of that, my union has an awful lot to learn on how a CEO of his ability operates.

[cym]

Thanks for your reply, I appreicate your point of view.

However if you factor in the feelings of the staff that did not go down the IA route, the reduction in BASSA membership as per their website since it began, the lack of consultation with their members re offers tabled, the offence caused by BASSA to their engineering fellow union members re the fitness of aircracft to fly. Added to this the lack of pretty obvious public support the the action to date and the unknown potential damage of going down the route of ECoHR to restore staff travel to a limited number of BA staff, and the unknown impact this may have on the current current legal precedence in the UK for non contractual rights and HMCRC view of these benefits. Also would any such finding apply to BA staff or all CC that are UK based?

A good place for a union to be? Again I totally support TU's, they have a critical role to play. This dispute is deffo in lalaland, Time to call it a day

Btw I am ex BA CC and want whats best for the company as a whole. Swim together or drown as a self interest group is my message to Duncan!

[R Knee]

Once again you prevaricate LB.

To use the same analogy:

I choose annually to tip my paper delivery boy/milkman/dustman etc. (my staff)

If I choose not tip the dustmen (part of my staff) one year because they dropped some rubbish I am not punishing them, merely removing a perk. The tip wasn't contractual!

[JayPee28bpr]

If it goes BA's way, then it could seriously damage collective action in the UK, even more so than this current dispute has.


Sorry but if you truly believe this then I want some of whatever you're smoking. It won't get anywhere near a Court, or at least not one that's going to set a precedent. BA can settle the problem within months, ie as soon as large numbers of the awkward squad who rely on staff travel have left.

I think you should be more worried about how many individual contracts BA now has saying "we'd like to accept the deal". It it's a lot, and with the prospect of upto 1,300 awkward squad members resigning soon, then there's not a lot to stop BA calling a derecognition ballot is there? Do you think one reason BA sent the same package of documents to every member of staff, even those it knew were in the Union, was to gather precisely this information, ie to ascertain the possibility of winning such a ballot? How do you interpret Walsh and Broughton's comments at the AGM about being "sick and tired" of BASSA?

[Litebulbs]

Once again you prevaricate LB.

To use the same analogy:

I choose annually to tip my paper delivery boy/milkman/dustman etc. (my staff)

If I choose not tip the dustmen (part of my staff) one year because they dropped some rubbish I am not punishing them, merely removing a perk. The tip wasn't contractual!

To not agree is not prevarication. Dropping rubbish is not a protected right. What will be tested is whether going on strike is. If it is, taking action to prevent or punish will be unlawful.

[Litebulbs]

For the record, I am not smoking anything and to suggest as much is insulting (well it isn't really, but some like to think things like that are)

I am not worried in the slightest about how many contracts BA have. If 50%+1 have signed, then that is democracy. If a de recognition ballot is the outcome, then so be it. If it happens and the cabin crew would prefer not to have recognition, then that is their choice. The best thing to come out of the Thatcher years is secret ballots. Have your mass meetings, but vote on your own.

I can imagine that the top table is sick and tired, just as probably every other employee is too. The line has been drawn and the button will be pushed if nothing comes out of the ACAS meeting.

[Mariner9]

This is a potential mine field and at best (me being a union person), it will be seen as unlawful. If it goes BA's way, then it could seriously damage collective action in the UK, even more so than this current dispute has.

If you are correct Litebulbs that this dispute will have far-reaching negative implications for future Union action, it is even more depressing that this dispute arose over a few hundred CSD's (many of whom were BASSA reps) being told to push a trolley.

[fincastle84]

[quote]The line has been drawn and the button will be pushed if nothing comes out of the ACAS meeting. [quote]

The button was pushed before last Christmas when the initial strike ballot took place. Since then we have had several strikes with ever decreasing numbers involved & a rapidly decreasing effect on BA's operations. We have also had various additional ballots again resulting in ever decreasing support from the Bassa members of a rapidly decreasing union membership.

The attempt to sue BA using 'uman rites' legislation is Unite's final attempt to gain some mileage out of this dreadful situation. If they were confident of their position then they would have ballotted for further IA ages ago. The fact that they haven't is a tacit admission that they & Bassa have screwed up big time.

I for one am very pleased that they have & Mr Walsh can now continue running BA the way he wants, free of interference from the union numpties.

[Tiramisu]

Tamazi,
Thank you, and not a problem. I shouldn't have been so sensitive myself, however cabin crew in BA have now been tainted by the disgraceful actions of some of the BASSA militants. Sadly, mud sticks and the half decent reputation of BA cabin crew has been destroyed for many years to come.

[fincastle84]

Sadly, mud sticks and the half decent reputation of BA cabin crew has been destroyed for many years to come.

T, don't beat yourself up, there are millions of loyal BA pax like myself who are only too well aware of what's been happening & who love you all to bits. You've probably noticed that there aren't too many complaints on this forum, well only about the Bassa numpties.

Chin up girl!:ok:

[PleasureFlyer]

As SLF who tries to fly BA when possible I would just like to add my comments on my recent experiences. I have just completed 4 sectors in 4 days (GVA-LHR-MAN-LHR-GVA) which were actually my first flights with BA this year. Normally have done around 12 sectors by now but neither I or my company could take a risk with me not getting to where I needed to be.

I have to say I received some of the best service I have ever had on a BA.

The GVA-LHR-GVA in particular were excellent (club) with happy smiley crew. One of the crew had a BASSA lanyard on and possibly that means he went on strike - but I won't speculate any more than that - but he also seemed happy - at least certainly not grumpy. Even before the strikes there were many crew who seemed dissinterested in what they were doing, something has changed and for the better.

I was very surprised that club on both sectors was completely full (20 pax and it has been a long time since I've seen that) and in Y it also looked pretty much full as well. Surprised seeing as BMI/Swiss also now do GVA/LHR and would have thought they may have 'stolen' a lot of pax, and in fact I used them on my last LHR visit.

All in all it reminded me just why I prefer to fly BA, the outstanding service, the excellent lounges and the main reason: the excellent crew. So to people like Tiramisu - KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK YOU DO :ok:

I will end just by saying to BASSA - please don't try to ruin my holiday later this year - I really need my 2 weeks away.

Thanks for 'listening'..

PleasureFlyer - Backing BA.

[Neptunus Rex]

Restoring BA's reputation will be easily enhanced by two factors, viz the continued enthusiasm and dedication of Tiramisu and all the other good guys and gals, plus the sacking of a significant number of malcontents.
That shouldn't be too difficult.

[GCI35]

Postings on the other thread regarding ST have been going on ad nauseum for weeks, so I'll be brief. We know it's not contractual but a concession in the gift of the airline. In my humble opinion withdrawal of ST from strikers may or may not be in compliance with Staff Rules & Regs, but bringing the airline into disrepute is. To that end BASSA strikers, rather than conduct their campaign with a modicum of decorum chose to denigrate the CEO publicly, parade outside the Aurora Hotel with a makeshift band - of sorts - and with the display of anti-BA banners at Bedfont plus the screaming banshees outside the law courts they did their cause more harm than good. If they've lost their ST it's no-one's fault but their own.
As a tongue in cheek suggestion; give the commuters who've lost their travel concessions extra crew chits, LHR-XXX-LHR. If you live in JNB, work your passage as supernumerary crew. Simple!
Only joking!

[Neptunus Rex]

If you live in JNB, work your passage as supernumerary crew. Simple! CC135
Ironic! This whole debacle started when the CSDs decided that it was beneath them to work their (imposed) passage.

[Safety Concerns]

It is quite amazing how much "schadenfreude" is going on here. As far as staff travel is concerned you should be very careful what you wish for regardless of your view about the strike and strikers etc..

As far as I am aware, the threat to remove staff travel was made before strikes actually began, therefore also before the so called lack of decorum which apparently warrants some form of disciplinary action. Therefore this approach is irrelevant.

It is no longer about whether staff travel is a perk or not, it is about whether a company has the right to discriminate against those participating in a legal action. The action is legal regardless of support, non support. Therefore removal of staff travel as a form of punishment because you disagree with someone's opinion and not because they have done something wrong could well be considered as bullying and seriously backfire on BA.

Therefore any threat to remove something, anything because you choose to participate in legal strike action, is bullying. If this goes unchallenged, what will be next?

Shift change tomorrow, what no, you have just lost staff travel. Some of you are so quick to criticise those having a different opinion you can't smell the coffee. And that isn't a vote of support either way, its just recognising that the staff travel saga is far more significant than many seem to realise.

[LD12986]

Whilst BA's reputation has undoubtedly taken a considerable knock, with the end of this saga in sight, there are reasons to be cheerful. Anti-trust immunity with American Airlines and the consequent lifting of restrictions of mutual earn and burn restrictions between AA and BA should bring a lot of traffic to BA. Capacity on BOS, DFW and JFK has already been increased in anticipation of this. Similarly the Iberia merger should bring a lot of feeder traffic from Spain. The LGW and LCY operations are doing well, with signs of long-haul expansion at both.

Hopefully with BASSA's strangehold over the operation diminished, we may see product and operational improvements that have been held back because of BASSA. And not just hot towels in WT+.

With the containment of BASSA being the last of BA's legacy problems, it can now focus on putting its best foot forward and getting out there and competing.

[maintprog]

Safety Concerns wrote;

Therefore removal of staff travel as a form of punishment because you disagree with someone's opinion and not because they have done something wrong could well be considered as bullying and seriously backfire on BA.



I don't see this as removal of the perk just because WW disagreed with CC's opinion.

There had been many months where it would appear that BA attempted to talk but BASSA stonewalled.

WW was quite clear that if no effective solution was in place by June he would have to impose a solution and that deadline was extended to allow BASSA to get their act together and have effective discussion.

WW responded to BASSA 's call for damaging industrial action against BA by telling them he could not continue to give a generous perk to anybody who took damaging action against the company.

The real surprise here was for striking CC that they could not bite the hand that feeds them without some retaliation.

[Safety Concerns]

you really need to learn to distinguish between your emotion and opinion and fact.

All strikes/industrial action are damaging. The fact is the strike/industrial action is legal and procedures/laws have been followed. The consequences as far as staff travel is concerned is totally irrelevant.

Therefore as i said, you really need to be careful what you wish for. Staff travel should never have come into the equation. You should be asking yourself, after removing all the emotion, all your own personal views on the strike, whether in all honesty, you would support staff travel being removed under any circumstances even when you have not done anything illegal or anything that would instigate a grievance or disciplinary action.

Most of you, if you were to be totally honest, do not support such behaviour. So why don't you jump off the bandwagon and consider what you are saying.

[GCI35]

Exactly, but is the lady in JNB a CSD? I believe she mentioned being 50% and graced LHR with her presence every 28 days.

[SamYeager]

you really need to learn to distinguish between your emotion and opinion and fact. Most of you, if you were to be totally honest, do not support such behaviour. So why don't you jump off the bandwagon and consider what you are saying. Pot, kettle, black?

[Airclues]

The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, Section 229(4), states that the following statement must appear on every ballot paper;

If you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment

Could BA argue that the granting of staff travel is done to reward loyal employees who have not breached their contract?

Dave

[Safety Concerns]

Basically no. That paragraph is there for a number of reasons but staff travel isn't one of them.

There has already been a similar court case although in reverse. The employer offered free flights to all those who continued to work and refused to take part in strike action.

The strike duly finished, the union waited until the first person took up this offer and then successfully went to court on the basis of discrimination to get strikers a free flight as well.

They won apparently because the strikers had done nothing wrong and so the offer of a free flight for some employees and not others was discrimination.

I have no axe to grind in this dispute mainly because I have no idea whats really going on between BASSA and BA. However the staff travel issue is below the belt, uncalled for and my money is on it biting BA back very hard.

Again you should be careful what you wish for. This tactic has serious implications for everyone if not very quickly beaten back down.

[Mariner9]

This tactic has serious implications for everyone if not very quickly beaten back down.

Not sure quite how it will have "serious implications" for most contributors to this (SLF) thread SC. Unless BA remove our airmiles that is.

But on a serious note, I personally support the removal of ST because in my view, it resulted in a large number of CC working rather than going on strike, thus allowing the airline to keep flying through this ridiculous dispute.

[Colonel White]

I can see where Safety Concerns is coming from and might be tempted to agree where it not for the fact that BA has removed staff travel from groups of workers in the past, albeit for relatively short periods of time. True, it wasn't as a consequence of strike action. The arguement runs thus. Staff travel is a gift from the company and is something the company can rescind at any time and for any reason it sees fit.Employees who behave in a manner calculated to lose the company revenue shall be deemed to have acted contrary to the good of the company and any gift from the company will be rescinded. The penalty is not for going in strike, it is for harming the revenue stream of the organisation.

[MIDLGW]

In regards to ST (sorry to harp on about it), the company has removed it from individuals in the past as a consequence of bad behaviour. Nobody batted an eyelid then so what's different?

[LD12986]

I have no axe to grind in this dispute mainly because I have no idea whats really going on between BASSA and BA. However the staff travel issue is below the belt, uncalled for and my money is on it biting BA back very hard.

Again you should be careful what you wish for. This tactic has serious implications for everyone if not very quickly beaten back down.

If this were a dispute like previous disputes where management offer a pay deal of x%, union proposes y%, strike ensues, then many may agree with you that withdrawal of staff travel is below the belt.

However, I think many would argue that this is no ordinary industrial dispute it is the behaviour of BASSA that has been well and truly below the belt.

The industrial action started in response to BA changing the crewing levels on aircraft to achieve costs savings after no less than 9 months of negotiations with BASSA during which (as documented in a High Court judgment) BASSA refused to sit in the same room as the reps from CC89 and there were, in the words of the High Court judge, "heated arguments" between the two factions. Also, the largest accountancy firm in the world found that BASSA's own cost-saving proposals were not even one third of what they claimed.

Many would argue that BASSA's behaviour has been wholly unwarranted and massively disproportionate - not least because the "imposition" that prompted the strike was a direct consequence of its own failings. There can be no clearer evidence of this than the massive response of BA's own unionised workforce to mitigate the impact of the strikes. Has there ever been an industrial dispute where the strikers have been undermined by their own fellow unionised colleagues?

So let's put this another way, if a group of workers inflicts £150m+ of damage to a company which makes changes found by a High Court to be perfectly reasonable when in the teeth of one of the biggest crises in aviation and the near meltdown of the global financial system, should that company continue to provide that group of workers with a generous non-contractual perk?

[Ancient Observer]

Safety Concerns

As young Roger used to sing, Whooooooooooooooo r u?

You are articulate, not connected with Aviation, and suggesting via implication that you are simply "interested". You have quoted one case without a link to the case.

You do not sound like a bassa apologist.

However, we've been short of bassa folk both on here and on the CC thread, over the last couple of days, so clearly their BFC core team have retreated back to their Berlin bunker so that new instructions can be issued to the poor sods who are instructed to keep the good fight going on PPrune.

My guess is that you've picked the short straw, and been asked by the Heritage bunker crowd and their SWP supporters to find novel ways of fending off those nasty people in pprune who care about customers.

I have a simple response to this whole "perk" debate that bassa are so keen to keep alive.

No-one else in this working world gets free trips to the Caribbean for them selves, their whole family and their mates, FOR FREE.

Just no-one.

So all the legal stuff matters not one-jot. Whilst the Daily Mail might take one approach, and even the Times might become a little Murdoch like with overtures of Murdoch speak, when the Grauniad and the Eye turn against CC - as they now have, that is it. End of. Simples.

Oh, and by the way - the BA action sets no precedent at all for anyone. Let's not have any of this "it's the end of the working class's ability to take industrial action against their oppressors" stuff. It would not be true, and no-one is buying it.

[Ancient Observer]

I note that the Ruling Junta from the Bunker have issued new instructions to their jack-booted (and Jimmy choo booted) blitzkrieg leaders. Duncan says

"the strife and hardship you are all currently facing without your staff travel etc."

Yup, he's really concerned about working BA CC like Tira et al, isn't he?

[johnoWhiskyX]

@Safety Concerns
"There has already been a similar court case although in reverse. The employer offered free flights to all those who continued to work and refused to take part in strike action.

The strike duly finished, the union waited until the first person took up this offer and then successfully went to court on the basis of discrimination to get strikers a free flight as well.

They won apparently because the strikers had done nothing wrong and so the offer of a free flight for some employees and not others was discrimination. "

What court case was this? from a common working stiffs perspective it seems a fair deal.. don't strike and we will give you a non contractual perk for your loyalty.

As opposed I suppose to stike and we will remove your non contractual perk.

I havent heard BA saying anything about the removal of ST being permanent and forever. But BASSA can't negotiate on when or if because of its stated position and harm done to its members who have lost ST.

[Safety Concerns]

I think too many of you are allowing your anger at Bassa's behaviour to get in the way of some real life realities.

So you get to go to the Caribbean free and? The seat was empty anyway.
Just like bankers get cheap loans, the car industry offers cheap cars, MP's get expenses, there are perks in every walk of life. Maybe 20-30 years ago a trip to the Caribbean was something special, now its relatively normal.

But you are all still missing the point in your haste to beat down the big bad Bassa. The why's and wherefore's of the strike are opinions and nothing more. Bassa believe one thing, it seems the majority here at least believe something else. Dismiss all that for a few seconds and THINK.

You tread a very dangerous path for all, in all airlines by supporting BA in getting away with using a "perk" to in effect, discipline or discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong.

And whether you agree or disagree with their industrial action, it is legal and they have done nothing wrong. Don't lose sight of that fact.

It isn't about the strike. The staff travel action goes much further than that.

To be clear:
Oh, and by the way - the BA action sets no precedent at all for anyone. Let's not have any of this "it's the end of the working class's ability to take industrial action against their oppressors" stuff. It would not be true, and no-one is buying it.

It has nothing to do with the strike, it has nothing to do with contractual or non contractual, it has to do with punishing individuals who have done nothing wrong. Their crime is to have a different opinion to company management. That's why this has the potential at least to set a very dangerous precedent.

[LD12986]

So if the courts decide that the removal of a non-contractual perk is legal, does that also mean that BA has done nothing wrong?

On the one hand you're saying that as the industrial action is technically legal any points of principle surrounding it should be discarded and CC cannot be deemed to have done anything wrong, but removal staff travel must be opposed on a point of principle.

[TrakBall]

Safety Concerns

I agree that this is an emotional issue and has been made so mostly by BASSA. However, I believe that when removal of staff travel was first announced, BA indicated they were doing so in part as a cost saving measure. In other words, those who cost the company revenue and expense would have to shoulder the burden of added cost savings.

Remember, staff travel actually costs BA taxes that have to be paid to HMRC along with catering, fuel and back office expenses.

Given those points, I don't see this as a punishment but as a legitimate way for BA to save costs and fairly allocate those cost saving measures to the employees that directly cost the company money.

TB

[Safety Concerns]

Look, a strike and its consequences are well known. You cannot use that as a basis for claw back.

Even then the who is right and who is wrong is largely opinion. You may believe your right in condemning the strikers and you may well be right that they have it all wrong. But time may also potentially show Bassa to be correct. We can't say today.

So far you are all arguing from the perspective that Bassa are fundamentally wrong and so they deserve all they get. Guilty until proven innocent would be a better term.

But that is missing the point. You allow someone to tinker with perks and use them as a weapon at your peril. There will be no winners here if you are not careful.

@Ancient Observer, Roger was often very vocal and a lot can be gleaned from the lyrics of "won't get fooled again" yet we do, again and again and again and again

[Dairyground]

No-one else in this working world gets free trips to the Caribbean for them selves, their whole family and their mates, FOR FREE.

Perhaps not to the Caribbean, but in the days of British Railways, and possibly still in the current franchise era, railway workers had the privilege of cheap travel for themselves and their family at any time (a return ticket for half the published single fare) and a limited number of free tickets each year. Some of these free tickets could be used for journeys outside the UK, to the South of France, for example.

on a slightly different theme, various quotations from legislation and supporting documentation that have appeared on this and the other thread imply that an employer may lock out strikers who attempt to return to work. The only sanction on the employer appears to be that the period during which strike action is protected is extended by the length of the lockout. So sanctions against strikers, including financial sanctions, are permitted. If my reading is correct, there seems to be no case in UK law for the return of discounted travel to strikers, let alone compensation for having to pay full fare to get to work or fly on holiday.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Bearing in mind BA have some outstandingly clever legal folk, just look at their success rate so far, I suspect the ST thing is a complete non starter :ok:

As an aside we are off to Denver on the 3rd Sep any chance of a strike over that period as it would be nice to get a happy crew :ok:

[Litebulbs]

Oh to have your ability to underline a point. Excellent reading. Many may not agree, but at least the contributors will have to put some effort into reasoning against your points.

It is a debate that has no influence on what is actually going on within the BA community, but I am learning from it.

[Neptunus Rex]

If after their interminable deliberations, the Eurojudges were to decide that 'a trip to the Caribbean' is indeed a Human Right, can we all get one?

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/beach3.gif

[Juan Tugoh]

If after their interminable deliberations, the Eurojudges were to decide that 'a trip to the Caribbean' is indeed a Human Right, can we all get one?

The argument is not that the trip to the Caribbean is a human right, but that there is a "Right to Strike" without there being any form of discrimination or punishment involved.

There is actually a wider point of law here; the various treaties and agreements that the UK has ratified actually make it clear that taking strike action should be viewed as a suspension of contract rather than a breach of contract. It is an interesting note that for 13 years a Labour government saw fit to do nothing about this failure to comply with the relevant EU legislation on this. A Tory/LibDem government with a stated intent to reassert the supremacy of UK courts over the EU is extremely unlikely to change anything.

As any case that goes upto the ECHR is basically a case of individuals against a state, that state's law's having failed to protect those human rights, BASSA will need to get the government to change it's policy for this approach to work.

There is an interesting case that may have some relevance, that of Danilenkov Vs Russia. The case revolves around discrimination for union activities. Sound familiar? Well Danilenkov et al won, but read the whole thing and you find that the victory was pyrrhic - each of those in the case were awarded 2500 Euros compensation, but never got back their jobs, and the whole thing took several years.

[fincastle84]

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/beach3.gif

Are you the blonde on the right? If so, may I come with you to the Caribbean? It's a long time since we went on detachment together.

Seriously though, having read Holley's latest rant on the CC thread it's obvious that not only is Unite devoid of ideas but so is Bassa!

[bizdev]

"discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong"

As I understand it, if you go on strike you are in breach of your contract - however you are protected from sanctions by employment law for a number of weeks.

But if you are in breach of your contract, how can you have "done nothing wrong?" :confused:

[JayPee28bpr]

I actually agree with you that there is far too much emotion in this debate, and that is clouding judgement. However, the main result is that we see people assuming this matter is going to end up in front of the judiciary at a suitably senior level to produce a precedent-setting decision. I'd suggest you fall into this category too.

This issue will never get anywhere near that stage. As I've noted earlier, BA will settle the issue, probably once they've starved out a lot of commuting strikers. If we are to believe the tales of hardship about striking commuters, then there really are possibly hundreds of crew who will have to leave soon because they cannot afford to get to work. So this issue really does seem to have provided BA with an unexpected benefit, namely managing out a significant number of expensive (and relatively disaffected) staff at zero cost. Once they've actually gone, to be replaced with lower cost staff on New Fleet terms, BA can afford to reach a (financial) settlement with Unite/BASSA. If BA really does not want to reinstate seniority for staff travel, it could always offer cash compensation for its loss to the staff affected. That immediately renders any legal action very much harder to sustain as BA would have implicitly acknowledged the principle behind the Unite/BASSA argument if not necessarily agreed to their preferred means of rectification. You will never get a precedent set simply because one party does not agree with how the other prefers to rectify a breach.

In any case, you seem to forget that BA has actually offered to reinstate staff travel for strikers. They simply will not do so with previous seniority. Therefore the human right that Unite/BASSA really seems to be asserting here is the right to contined preferential treatment in respect of a perk, ie effectively stating that ANY variation to the perk linked to industrial action is a breach of workers' rights. If the Court were to agree to this then I would have to acknowledge how right you are in terms of its impact on employer/employee relationships. Unfortunately there is no precedent to support interference at such a level, and a lot of precedent to suggest the Court will not see it as within its competence to interfere. To do so would imply a degree of intrusiveness in individual agreements way out of line with the intentions of either Parliament or the framers of the ECoHR.

But let's say BA really is as intransigent as you imply, and takes "the bosses" position versus Unite's "the workers" position as a fundamental matter of principle. It duly ends up either at the Supreme Court or ECoHR. "The workers" win. The next question is how will employers generally react? You seem to assume that they'd just accept the result and do nothing. I suspect the reality would be rather different. Either employers would simply withdraw all non-contractual benefits from all staff, hardly a victory for "the workers" generally. Or, more likely in my view, they'd tighten up the language dealing with circumstances in which they may be withdrawn, such that employees acknowledge certain specific cases in which they will no longer qualify for the perk or its terms may be varied (such as engaging in industrial action even when such as action is "legal"). Leaving aside the current dispute, many people (not all of them on "the workers" side of the debate) would welcome greater clarity in certain aspects of employer/employee relations, including discouragement of "at our complete discretion"-type wording in contracts or related documents.

From a financial perspective, it makes no sense for BA to pursue this issue to its ultimate legal conclusion, irrespective of whether or not they believe they'll win. The costs almost certainly exceed any financial settlement they'd have to offer Unite/BASSA to resolve the matter well before then. Again, provided BA made a reasonable offer, then the Court will not entertain a case against them.

Whilst there is a degree of emotion displayed on here, the dispirting fact for Unite/BASSA is there is no such display of emotion from BA. They clearly set out what they wanted to achieve in terms of cost cutting, clearly stated what they would do to undermine any industrial action and the effectiveness they anticipated from their contingency plans, and delivered on it. Everything BA has done to date has been driven by delivering the improved cost base it promised investors. Resolving the staff travel issue will be no different. As and when BA can settle it at lower cost than continuing to oppose Unite/BASSA, and in a way that does not require them to back down on what they now consider the principle of non-return of seniority, they'll take it. This is only a matter of principle to those on one side of the argument.

I am a betting man, and I would take a big bet that this issue will not result in a precedent-setting Court decision.

[SwissRef]

From a financial perspective, it makes no sense for BA to pursue this issue to its ultimate legal conclusion, irrespective of whether or not they believe they'll win. The costs almost certainly exceed any financial settlement they'd have to offer Unite/BASSA to resolve the matter well before then. Again, provided BA made a reasonable offer, then the Court will not entertain a case against them.

.......

I am a betting man, and I would take a big bet that this issue will not result in a precedent-setting Court decision.

I agree that BA almost certainly don't want the cost of taking this to court. however it is to be remembered that BA have good in-house lawyers (I've worked with them over the years) who will do most the work. The question that is more interesting is how long can BASSA/UNITE financially support the legal action? Especially if their funds are drained by other strike action across the public sector.

So yes I would expect this to be settled before it got to the final day in court, but that will probably be due to BASSA/UNITE needing to save funds/running out of funds, and so accepting pretty much any settlement from BA. Especially is BA ensure the day in court is pushed out 2/3 or more years.

I also see that some people think that victory in court would be a huge win. But to settle out of court in 3 years, would be a very hollow victory, and even then the court is highly unlikely to enforce the return of ST with seniority (return of ST maybe, but the seniority highly unlikely). By then BA is likely to have returned it anyway. But I also see that this is not a clear cut (either way) case. Imagine also the affect if UNITE/BASSA were to refuse all settlement offers and then LOSE in court in 2/3 time, and then have BA's costs to pay, even if they only get 50% of the costs awarded against them. They have a lot more to lose in a long drawn out court case.

[Litebulbs]

That is an absolutely fantastic post on how you see it playing out. The added benefit to BA is that if Unite do settle, then the reps will have to explain why they did, to a workforce who were expecting staff travel back in 5 minutes.

If you don't mind am going to ask my regional officer how he sees the staff travel issue playing out and I would like to use that post as an example.

[oggers]

...I see that with this admission we have officially come half circle from the 'staff travel isn't even as good as paying to book EasyJet' message.

You'd think the union were fighting to get ST back for the foot soldiers. But BA have offered to reinstate ST anyway. The hardship is actually being endured so the architects of this debacle can retain their place in the pecking order for seats, 'J' entitlements and 'firms'. :*

[Safety Concerns]

you really do need to detach the staff travel issue from the dispute itself.

If this was about hardship of individuals getting to work, I would have expected action immediately. I suspect that Unite

a) didn't consider that BA would follow through on the threat
b) expected this to be over by now and staff travel fully re-instated

You don't start legal action on the basis of the threat of removal and you don't start legal action if you are expecting the issue to be resolved within a reasonably short period. We now clearly have neither. Therefore legal action has been instigated because the premise of using perks as a weapon against individuals who have done nothing wrong, is in itself fundamentally wrong.

Removing all the political aspects to this issue of BA wouldn't want and Unite wouldn't want, looking at Unite's financial figures for 2009, I don't think you need to worry about whether they can afford this.

[oggers]

You write:

The why's and wherefore's of the strike are opinions and nothing more. Bassa believe one thing, it seems the majority here at least believe something else. Dismiss all that for a few seconds and THINK.

Followed immediately by a rather big opinion of your own:

You tread a very dangerous path for all, in all airlines by supporting BA in getting away with using a "perk" to in effect, discipline or discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong.

:ok:

Having done, as you say, "THINK" I would argue that the bigger danger here is allowing a union to pursue reckless and unjustified IA without regard to the consequences for the wider workforce, public and all the ordinary people who have invested. But it's still just an opinion.

[Litebulbs]

Do you agree with the points that JayPee is making? Unions are very good at the "greater good" actions. The successful outcome of the legal route, would be for the courts to agree or for BA to settle prior to that. But as JayPee states, BA are under no obligation to reinstate full ST, but may have to compensate. Unite win, but still no ST at the level it was and some very annoyed members.

[Safety Concerns]

@oggers you are missing the point completely. I may even agree with your final statement but at the end of the day it has nothing to do with the staff travel issue. Detach the two, separate them and then look at the issue of punishing innocent people. Do you agree with punishing innocent people?

Having done, as you say, "THINK" I would argue that the bigger danger here is allowing a union to pursue reckless and unjustified IA without regard to the consequences for the wider workforce, public and all the ordinary people who have invested.

Again this is your take on the situation and in fact mine as an outsider. However it is still only an opinion as there is obviously disagreement between two sides. Even if you take the opposing view, it does not give you the right to punish those on the other side.


@litebulbs. My heart tells me that any right minded judge will force the FULL reinstatement of staff travel as it was prior to the dispute. My head tells me that the outcome will set a precedent (if it goes that far) that could go either way.

[Litebulbs]

The only way that the legal system could force full reinstatement, is if they made the compensatory award at a level that BA would baulk at. They have been quite happy with the £150m cost so far.

[Safety Concerns]

I am not sure I agree. I think a lot would depend on what the court decided. If a human rights breach is accepted it would reflect very badly on BA and could potentially cost them dear in a number of ways.

Human rights breach isn't good publicity. But that is what makes this so fascinating. A real time, live lesson in how not to conduct industrial relations.

That said, whatever side of the fence you sit, you overlook basic fundamental principles at your own peril.

[Juan Tugoh]

My heart tells me that any right minded judge will force the FULL reinstatement of staff travel as it was prior to the dispute

Sadly for the BASSA case, the English legal system quite often cannot force the system to be changed back to it's initial conditions. Rather it awards compensation for losses.

As ST has already been offered back but with ammended DOJ etc, BA can easily argue that financial loss incurred is zero or very low. BA have offered that ST is returned so it can be argued that all that is preventing it's return is the stance of the union. If the judge were to agree that the financial losses incurred have been caused largely by the refusal of the union to accept its return then the compensation awarded would amount to nothing. BASSA would win but gain nothing.

This is not a clear cut case either way, and BASSA may rue the day they took it to court. BA have a long history of appealing everything, to the highest court possible and dragging every court case out as long as possible. This could easily take years of going back and forth with no actual change for those involved. If you can afford years of buying commuting tickets as your extra earnings dwindle as NF grows, then good luck. In the meantime BASSA are sidelined and made to look irrelevant.

This may well be an important point of principle for the union movement, but that will not help current BASSA members who have lost their ST through their own stupidity.

BASSA here are fiddling while Rome burns, this whole issue is a smoke screen - it grabs the heartstrings and diverts attention away from the real issue. BASSA have significantly mismanaged this whole affair and the deals offered by BA are getting worse with each iteration. The imposition has happened, NF has happened,and BA are now managing their business with no reference to BASSA.

BASSA have failed to stop anything BA wanted and in fact gifted them some things that were at one stage off the table - NF. Indeed membership levels have reduced, LGW is almost wholly ignoring BASSA.

I'm sure BA is more than happy with things as they are going.

So keep on with the pointless sideshow that is the ST court case, BA and WW will continue to run the business without BASSA.

[oggers]

@oggers you are missing the point completely.

No, I took your point but, with respect, didn't respond. What I was doing was making a point of my own ie you wrote:

The why's and wherefore's of the strike are opinions and nothing more....Dismiss all that for a few seconds and THINK.

Followed by:

You tread a very dangerous path for all, in all airlines by supporting BA in getting away with using a "perk" to in effect, discipline or discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong.

You've said some interesting stuff but I'm genuinely interested: what is it about your above comment that you think elevates it above the "why's and wherefores" and 'nothing more than opinions'? :hmm:

[AlpineSkier]

@Safety Concerns


Do you agree with punishing innocent people?

No, but I do agree with punishing stupidity , even if it is legally protected.

I think this strike sets records in all kinds of negative waysr and therefore feel that it is right to punish the strikers, even if I believe that many are simply gullible fools who follow their reps without demur.

If you believe that the strike has been driven by the personal motives of CSD's likely to suffer a small disadvantage, who have then misled or lied to the bulk of their members to get their support, then although legal because they went through the motions, the thing is a fraud.

Litebulbs, are there any precedents for members taking legal action against their reps/unions for -what i would term as - deception ?

If it could be shown that the reps were pursuing their own goals and using the members to achieve them whilst deceiving them, could they be sued for loss of earnings and other things or is there anything in TU legislation that gives them protection?

[Litebulbs]

SC - but the issue at stake is not a fundamental human right in the UK. The previous Government decided that with the opt out of the Treaty of Lisbon and I bet the new Government will not be rushing to change that position. However, I have also read that the opt out may fail if tested the correct way, so it is precedent time, unless BA settle as JP suggests.

My point now is how Unite are briefing this to its members at BA. Unite may win, but the affected people may still not get ST back.

[Litebulbs]

I think this strike sets records in all kinds of negative waysr and therefore feel that it is right to punish the strikers, even if I believe that many are simply gullible fools who follow their reps without demur.

If you have a right, you cannot be lawfully punished for it, but who is to say it won't happen, regardless of the right.

Litebulbs, are there any precedents for members taking legal action against their reps/unions for -what i would term as - deception ?

That is an interesting point. If it was proved, then as far as I am aware, both BA and Unite members could pursue damages. I little light reading for me now to see if I can find anything firm on your question.

[Papillon]

However, I have also read that the opt out may fail if tested the correct way, so it is precedent time,

To an extent - and that's why it's an example of the lawyers licking their lips at a nice big fat fee. However, as I understand it, that would be a matter of finding against the UK, not against BA, because it would be the UK in breach whilst BA were merely following English law as it currently stands.

Now, I'm no lawyer, so would welcome correction, but as far as I can recall, in these instances the requirement is on the state to change the law to comply, rather than the company to offer redress specifically.

That being the case, even if it did go to the ultimate end, I can't see how it would benefit those who have lost their staff travel right now. To use an example, the ECHR found against the last government over the question of DNA retention - when they gave their judgement it then took that government several months to come up with a response, during which time there was no right for people to have their profiles removed from the database, and even then the government came up with a response that caused campaigners to state that it wasn't good enough and was probably still in breach. That particular campaign has been made moot by the arrival of the new government determined to change the rules on it completely, but it's a good example of even a ECHR ruling not meaning that all is suddenly fine and dandy.

[Safety Concerns]

@oggers, I am genuinely not trying to elevate any point above another. All I am saying is that the tactic of using staff travel as a weapon is fundamentally wrong and should be considered in isolation.

I actually agree with many posters on the strike issue itself but you cannot allow stupidity, opinions or the right to strike be punished unless somebody somewhere has done something wrong. It is a fundamental principle we all share and enjoy and is a basic of peaceful, civilized life. Lynch mobs, arbitrary punishments, mobbing you name it, belongs elsewhere and not in the 21st century.

And if you wish to counter with but Bassa members have done this and that forget it. If they have behaved inappropriately there are procedures to deal with it and if proven may even result in the removal of staff travel.

As much as we may detest such behaviour, we cannot punish until proven guilty.

@litebulbs this is what makes this interesting. It has serious consequences at many levels depending on what happens next. I suspect Unite will be briefing as they genuinely perceive the situation. We need to accept that may not be as we perceive it.

Their lawyers obviously have a contradictory opinion to those of BA's lawyers. Unfortunately we will have to wait and see!

[Snas]

Litebulbs, are there any precedents for members taking legal action against their reps/unions for -what i would term as - deception ?


Were such a thing to happen I bet that 5 minute comment about ST will come back to bite them in the ankle.

[42psi]

Surely the first stage for any BA employee is to raise the thing as a grievance through the internal system.

My understanding is that courts tend to only want to look at something like this after any established process has already been exhausted.

Courts seem to be unhappy of anyone going straight to litigation.

Has Bassa/Unite started/prompted/supported this route yet.

If not then are BA's legal team not likely to simply point this out and suggest the court refuse to consider until other options are exhausted?




To me the key is going to be how a court (if it gets there) will consider the "perk".

Is it the company making a legitimate removal of it's goodwill towards employees who have clearly demonstrated their withdrawal of goodwill towards the company.

Or is it an effort to punish for taking industrial action.


Any court delivers "the law" as it's written .... not "justice" .....

[JayPee28bpr]

Feel free to use my points internally in Unite.


I've got another angle on this for you to think about too. There are plenty of comments around in the public domain from striking cabin crew saying that they aren't bothered about losing staff travel, not that valuable etc etc. They can hardly now claim "punishment" by virtue of losing it, at least not to the level of a human rights breach. Equally, however, we have evidence that at least one commuter, Ava Hannah, may have to quit her job because of loss of staff travel. Cases like that clearly can be construed as disproportionate or "punishment", possibly to the level of a breach of rights, and may be worth contined pursuit.

Let's just consider what this actually means. It is really saying that BA effectively have removed Ava's ability to get to work. This is what differentiates Ava & Co from the bulk of strikers. The loss to Ava is fundamantal, to the non-commuters it's inconsequential. Let's assume Unite take this as high as they can, and ultimately win. At first glance this looks like a "win for the workers".

The UK government duly changes UK legislation, but the Conservative interpretation of the judgement is most likely to be to create a broader "right to get to work", rather than a narrow "strikers cannot be punished". What this would mean, perhaps, is that everyone has a right to expect, for instance, public transport companies to provide them with a reasonable service to allow them to reach their place of work on each and every business day. What implication does this have for workers in the public transport sector? Well I would certainly think it would make it possible for affected companies to impose no-strike clauses on some of their workers at least, or even for the government to make it illegal for public transport workers to go on strike, simply on the back of complying with the Court's judgement. What do you think the rail Unions would think of that one?

I'm really being a bit mischevious here, but there is a serious point to illustrate. And that is there are many rights enshrined and protected by the Human Rights Act and ECoHR. My mischevious scenario highlights how these rights can conflict, and therefore need the Court to decide which is more fundamental than the other. There is already the power to enforce no strike obligations on certain workers (police, military) within the terms of HRA/ECoHR. So the right to strike isn't universal, and I'm not suggesting a government could invent something totally new on the back of a seemingly favourable decision for workers' rights. They could screw you with your own victory though.

On the subject of the staff travel dispute generally, what we have is a classic "Men are from Mars" etc scenario. I'm sure you are very genuine in your view of this as a matter of principle. But to BA it's just all about the money. Basically, you just don't talk the same language as each other. Now I'm surprised if this is the case at the Woodley-Walsh level, as TW is generally pragmatic. It begs the question why he's part of the BASSA panto act. More on that in a moment. For now, you just need to accept that WW & Co don't get bonuses for "winning the argument" or upholding principles. They get bonuses and other incentives for share price performance. This isn't dependent on much else other than their ability to deliver profits, ie all about the money. They'll happily concede the principle of cheap tickets for staff when it pays to do so. Indeed they did concede it as part of the last offer. They just won't reinstate the old queuing system, and nor will any Court of sufficient seniority to matter do so either. As I've implied before, Unite is just wasting its (actually yours and the members you represent) money if it is really serious about pursuing the legal route.

The questions you should be asking internally are actually very simple. How has Unite allowed itself to get into the position where the BASSA tail so very clearly wags the Unite dog? On what basis can BASSA apparently require endless amounts of other branches'/divisions subs to be spent on actions and disputes with very limited bearing on the rest of the Union's activites? Is there, in fact, any limit on what can be spent? What are the strategic implications on the Union's ability to fight other issues affecting much larger groups of members, eg changes to public sector redundancy terms? If it's clear BA has no intention of giving back seniority, is Unite really going to stand on a matter of principle and allow hundreds of members to be starved out? What matters to Unite: winning the principle or protecting people not previously threatened with losing their job with precisely that fate? Now that 2 senior BASSA reps have been dismissed, with 4 more on the same track, isn't there a major conflict of interest between their interests (actually their complete lack of any future interest) and those of members most affected by the staff travel ban? How does Unite propose to resolve that conflict of interest in order to represent the bulk of members and not the chosen few?

Hope that helps.

[Litebulbs]

To an extent - and that's why it's an example of the lawyers licking their lips at a nice big fat fee. However, as I understand it, that would be a matter of finding against the UK, not against BA, because it would be the UK in breach whilst BA were merely following English law as it currently stands.

I agree with your point on what would happen if this went to ECHR. If it was found that UK law was incorrect (a big if), then it would mean secondary legislation in the UK. But the precedent could be achieved in the UK courts long before Europe.

[LD12986]

On the subject of the BASSA reps, I think there's a strong case that they have been grossly negligent in fulfilling their duties, as per my post below:

On the subject of liability, I wonder whether there is a case for current/former members of BASSA to make a claim against the union for gross negligence, for the following:

- Repeatedly failing to attend meetings with the company and properly participate in those meetings it did attend (see High Court judgment and BASSA's dismissive reference to "a presentation by a junior financial clerk from Waterside" which it refused to sit through)

- Not putting the company's original and reasonable offer to its members

- Misrepresenting the company's position to its members

- Making false representations to the membership (see Duncan Holley's "100% true" claim that the pilots were blocking the return of staff travel)

- Allowing its own internet forum to be used to encourage CC to threaten and intimidate non-strikers

- Failing to allow the company's offer before the first strikes to be put to a ballot of the membership even though Willie Walsh allowed an extension to the deadline to call a strike to allow the ballot to happen

- Making false statements regarding staff travel ("it will be back in 5 minutes!")

- Making false statements regarding the impact of the strikes

If anyone should be stepping aside to secure agreement its the BASSA reps, not least those who have been sacked and have no interest in the long term health of the company.

[Litebulbs]

Were such a thing to happen I bet that 5 minute comment about ST will come back to bite them in the ankle.

That is one thing that I have learnt (am still learning as I have just c@cked up on recently!) as a rep; don't offer something that you are 100% sure of and even then, don't promise.

[Tiramisu]

Posted by LD12986
On the subject of the BASSA reps, I think there's a strong case that they have been grossly negligent in fulfilling their duties, as per my post below:


On the basis of the above, if my move to Mixed Fleet is expedited as a result of BASSA's negligence and incompetence, if I was a member could I then sue BASSA for loss of income etc?

PS:JayPee, excellent posts btw and yours too Juan Tugoh.

This thread is getting more interesting than ours, wish you could all post on the same thread!:)

[JayPee28bpr]

Thanks for the compliment.

You can only sue officers of the Union, I think. Unions are effectively Trusts and as such have no legal personality. So you can only sue the officers. I believe you are not a member, so your scope to sue them is less than if you were, ie they probably owe you a lesser duty of care than their members. I say probably, because you are caught by the collective bargaining agreement even though not a member, which confuses things a bit.

As to the officers' liability, there is probably something in the Union legislation that gives them some protection. Otherwise nobody would ever volunteer to be a rep! I suspect legally reps are viewed more as "knowledgeable amateurs" rather than "experts". Full time officials are probably deemed to have a greater level of knowledge (even if they don't in practice). That's why TW joining the BASSA panto act is intriguing. He probably has a lot more to lose if members decided to challenge him over Unite's handling of the dispute. Going after someone like Holley is less likely to deliver a result, unless the claimant can show very obviously that the BASSA reps knowingly put their own personal interest above those of the wider membership.

In general, winning a tort action (eg negligence) is much harder than winning a breach of contract case, and I doubt there is a breach of contract case here against BASSA. If I'm right that you're a non-member, then you personally definitely have no case. Even members would struggle, though. I see little evidence that BASSA has failed to deliver the services it contracts to do so in return for membership fees (I'm assuming this is structured as a contract, which may well not be the case anyway). BASSA might have provided the services badly, but they have provided them. Anyway, legal action is overrated. It's expensive and takes time. By the time you've got a decision you've usually forgotten what the issue was.

[101917]

So taking legal IA is breach of contact. A company withdraws pay from its employees and they know in advance the consequence of their action, yet this is not seen to be a punishment etc etc.

A company warns its employees in advance of the consequences of their action, the withdrawal of staff travel privileges, that are not in any event contractual, and up goes the cry of punishment etc etc..

Had the withdrawal come after the event, with no warning, then possibly a case could be made, but in advance no chance.

While I fully understand those taking IA feel aggrieved, the way to get ST back fully is to accept the offer and over time re-negotiate the return of seniority to it. Assuming of course seniority is still legal after the 2006 age discrimination act is fully implemented in Oct 2011.

[ChicoG]

A large company here provides free transport (buses) to the workplace from all local destinations.

A few years back, the newly formed trade union suddenly started beating the drum demanding "transport allowance" far in excess of the cost of petrol for those that used their own vehicles.

To settle the dispute, the company agreed to give a sum of money to all employees by way of transport allowance.

They also mandated the purchase of a book of tickets to use the company bus service. You can guess how much the tickets worked out at.

So all it did was put a few quid in the pockets of those that could afford their own car and to drive into work.

Yes, these Union reps know how to look after themselves the world over.

[Litebulbs]

On the basis of the above, if my move to Mixed Fleet is expedited as a result of BASSA's negligence and incompetence, if I was a member could I then sue BASSA for loss of income etc?

As it stands and as I understand it, you will be voluntarily moving to a new contract, so it must be acceptable for you to do so. It is a contract drawn up without negotiation on behalf of BASSA, so if you do not like it, your issues will be with BA.

[Litebulbs]

Again a well made point. As I see it, you have two parts to one issue. If you forget the detail of staff travel, then the wider point is as Safety Concern states; that you have a right (well you might have) not to be punished for taking part in industrial action.

I understand your point of which right as more right, but disagree about the right to get to work (there isn't one) over the right to strike (there is, albeit within the EU). You can only proceed on what is available in current legislation, even if the specific part is not there. Statute law is always expanded on with case law.

I agree that "it isn't fair or just" has no weight in BA's actions, as it is all about money and that is what will decide this particular issue. If the cost of compensation outweighs the benefit to BA of following its course of action, then staff travel may be returned to its pre dispute level.

As to your last paragraph, as I have said before, I would love to be in the branch meeting when this issue is discussed. I just wish Len Mccluskey was involved more now, as it would improve Les Bayliss's chances to be the next General Secretary of Unite.

[Diplome]

Safety Concern:

Human rights breach isn't good publicity. But that is what makes this so fascinating. A real time, live lesson in how not to conduct industrial relations.

I don't feel that BA have much to worry about in regards to fallout from a "human rights breach" even if they were on the receiving end of a negative court decision.

The vast majority of the flying public are well aware of what an almost distasteful use this is of a system that was designed to protect much more significant abuses of individuals.

I believe that anyone who feels BA has absolutely no exposure is looking through rose-colored glasses. However, as has been noted above, BA is making business decisions and even if in two or three years time a positive decision was obtained by BASSA, BA's position still may represent a sound business policy.

What I don't see happening is BASSA membership holding their representatives to account for some absolutely inane conduct. One has only to read Mr. Holley's latest missive which contains five paragraphs of rambling absolutely devoid of anything but "We'll get back to you" to understand that this is a rather militant faction that will accept any abuse from their leaders.

All sorts of interesting issues surrounding this situation, but many not really relevant to the events in the immediate future.

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Litebulbs
As it stands and as I understand it, you will be voluntarily moving to a new contract, so it must be acceptable for you to do so. It is a contract drawn up without negotiation on behalf of BASSA, so if you do not like it, your issues will be with BA.

Very much so, Litebulbs.
Considering the ridiculous dispute we were in due to working one down which has caused little or no hardship at all, the loses suffered by BA as a result of BASSA/UNITE, BA have been extremely fair and reasonable. It could have been far worse, so no qualms there.
However, you didn't read my question. This is what I posted.
if I was a member, could I then sue BASSA for loss of income etc?

I used the word if.

Jaypee,
You are welcome and thanks for the answer, appreciate it.

[JayPee28bpr]

This issue is really one of proportionality. An action, ie withdrawal of staff travel seniority, that results in losing preferential queuing rights to cheap holiday tickets, is very different to one that may cause someone to have to give up their job because they can't afford to get to work. So my point essentially is that if Unite wants to make a legal issue of this, they need to focus on those cases where the effect (job loss) is way out of proportion to the underlying cause (legal strike action). Taking a "one size fits all" approach to the issue looks very unlikely to succeed. The Telegraph (not my paper of choice I assure you) is correct to label the current approach as fighting for the right to a cheap holiday in the Caribbean. Separate out those members for whom loss of staff travel really does equate to loss of job, and you can argue constructive dismissal, and from there discrimination by virtue of participating in industrial action. Cheap holidays are not protected in any way shape or form. Non-discrimination for participating in legally called strike action is protected.

Unite would still face serious hurdles in winning such an action, not least the fact that they would effectively be arguing that staff travel was contractual, when there is acknowldgement all round that it isn't. There is also the fact that staff choose to live where they want. BA does not require the likes of Ava to live in S Africa and commute. Against that there is evidence that BA has encouraged the practice of European staff to live in their homeland and commute to London. I doubt Unite would get a precedent-setting decision even if they take this approach. However, they are far more likely to pressure BA to settle, such that no commuter actually loses their job. I would have thought that ought to be a Union objective.

All this of course further raises the question of why Unite made the return of staff travel such an issue in the recent ballot. The pragmatic approach would have been to recommend acceptance of the deal, thereby getting commuter staff travel returned immediately. They could have reserved their right to contest the initial staff travel withdrawal via legal action if necessary. I know BA made cessation of all legal action a condition of the deal, but if the only thing preventing settlement was Unite's wish to clarify this point of law, then BA would have settled. Not doing so would make them the intransigent party, not to mention risking a higher settlement cost if Unite eventually won. Bad tactics in my view.

Agree with you re McLuskey. He must have dirt on lots of people in Unite. No other logical explanation for him being so senior.

[Safety Concerns]

i disagree JayPee28bpr. The Unite statement said Unite, which represents 11,000 BA cabin crew, believes that the action by management was a breach of European human rights legislation, and that the concessions were withdrawn without proper disciplinary procedures being followed.

And that is really the crux of the matter. It is about selective punishment of individuals who have done nothing wrong. It is not about money, individual hardship cases because they can no longer get to work cheaply or anything else.

It is purely and simply a very basic point of principle.

The chance of success is much greater sticking to that basic principle than trying to defend someone who should have made sure cheap travel was a contractual item if you depend on it so badly.

6,000 odd individuals have been punished but for what? Going on strike, come on now. You are not in breach of contract by participating in a legal strike. You cannot be dismissed for striking (technically now of course). If you are dismissed it will be an unfair dismissal case.

So unless BA come up with a pretty good argument as to why they punished these individuals without following due process, they will in all likelihood lose the court action.

[Litebulbs]

You are not in breach of contract by participating in a legal strike. You cannot be dismissed for striking (technically now of course). If you are dismissed it will be an unfair dismissal case.

I support you in your views, but you are in breach of contract if you go on strike. The "golden formula' rule applies for protection from tort for the union involved, but an employer can dismiss for breach of contract, although if it was for taking part in protected industrial action, it would be automatically unfair. The employer could still still pursue damages for the breach of contract by the individual however.

The balance of law is firmly with the employer.

[LD12986]

Safety Concerns - You keep saying that CC have "done nothing wrong" and this is because it is objectively lawful industrial action. Any subjective views on the strike are deemed irrelevant.

If the courts find that BA has acted legally in removing staff travel from strikers will you accept that BA too has "done nothing wrong" and any subjective views "it's a point of principle" etc should also be ignored?

[cdtaylor_nats]

If BA was found to be in the wrong for removal of staff travel from commuters, could it not get round the constructive dismissal argument by offering relocation to the Heathrow area to those commuters?

[Safety Concerns]

ld should that happen it would be a very sad day for the average worker, wherever they work.

Any subjective views on the strike are deemed irrelevant.

I am not advocating that. I am only saying that it is improper to gloat over someone else's problem, even more so when they have done nothing wrong.
Two wrongs don't make a right

The rights and wrongs of the strike itself will never be settled because its based upon perception of the problem and opinion. you have those who fervently agree and those who fervently disagree. Just like city and united, tory and labour etc. etc..

In a normal conversation in a bar without the excess baggage surrounding this issue if I were to ask whether you agree with indiscriminate punishment, or punishment of those suspected of being guilty but not yet found guilty or punishment of those who held a different view you would almost certainly disagree with it.

You should be looking inward now and ask yourself why you really support punishing those participating in legal industrial action.

[Ancient Observer]

This has developed in to a fascinating debate. One of the problems that I am having with the debate is the fact that so many issues are intertwined.

I'll have a go and some seperation - maybe someone could improve/develop it?

Unite vs Bassa. Unite is the "Union". It does have a legal presence, and can be sued for its actions, as can its employed Full Time Officials. (FTOs).
For instance, if a TU Official unlawfully induces an individual to breach their contract outside the limited protection, then both the TU and the Official could be sued for damages...............by employers and by other people who have rights.................such as customers with contracts with the airline.

Bassa is a branch, with no legal standing.
Unite have allowed a situation to develop where it has little/no leverage over Bassa. The devolution of power to branches started years ago. Jack Jones was its author.
Bassa reps. The reps as individuals employed by BA have no legal standing as reps. They have a duty of care with the advice they give, but only as individuals. I cannot recall any case of an employee suing a rep successfully, even after woeful advice was given. Over the years, tribunals have passed comment on some pretty poor advice given by reps - but I do not remember any successful litigation.
Employee contract law vs (European) Human Rights. (Interesting that we qualify Human Rights in that way. They are not human rights in China/USA/Russia/India, all great countries with large populations.)
The contract law is quite simple - you sign a contract and are supposed to deliver whatever you promise in the contract. When you breach that contract in the context of IA, there is some, limited protection, (detailed in earlier posts). In the UK context, the notion of a "Right" to strike is, and always has been, quite limited. This has never been about fairness/justice, it is just the law.
The European notion of being able to strike has always been balanced by the rights of other stakeholders. There never has been some sort of absolute right to strike, as Courts have always paid attention to the rights of other stakeholders. Taking it to the extreme, if me exercising my right to strike means that there is a very high probability that someone else will lose their right to life, then the couts will balance the interests.
Perks.
I think we're agreed on this, the ST is a non-contractural perk.
Innocence
We are clearly not agreeing about the use of this word. Just because someone has used the available legal protection in the context of IA, it does not mean that they are "innocent". "Have they done anything wrong?". Different views have been expressed...........
Dismissal.
Any employer can dismiss any employee at any time. A year or two later that employee might/might not receive compensation for that dismissal from a Tribunal if the Tribunal thought the dismissal was unfair. Some dismissals are more unfair than others.
Redress. - if the employee is right
It is very seldom what the employee wants. It is normally financial, and the methods of calculating "loss" are seldom satisfactory.
As to ST, both staff and the TUs have to face 3 ways at once on calculating the loss. 1. Did I lose the retail value of (say) 4 First tickets? 2. If I did, what about the Revenue view of that? 3. What is the cash value of the perk to those who are unable to take advantage of it? - A pregnant female unable to travel - should they receive compensation?

That's as far as my typing takes me. I don't know if it helps??

[JayPee28bpr]

The problem I see with your approach to the issue is that you're talking about the principle of removing staff travel generally, and whether this constitutes "punishment". BA have already effectively conceded the point, though. They offered reinstatement of staff travel, but without seniority, as part of the deal to settle the overall dispute. Unite/BASSA rejected this following a consultative ballot. Note that the Union could have ignored the ballot result and accepted anyway. So the reason striking staff no longer have staff travel privileges is simply down to the fact that members declined the offer including its reinstatement in a ballot, and the Union chose to follow the result even though not strictly obliged to do so.

There is plenty of evidence in the public domain stating "we'd have accepted [the deal overall] if full staff travel rights had been offered". So staff cannot now claim their rejection of the deal to reinstate staff travel was merely incidental, and that the main reasons for rejection were unconnected with staff travel. On top of that, one of Unite's main stated reasons for not recommending acceptance of the offer was that it did not include reinstatement of full staff travel rights. Therefore the reason why strikers don't have any staff travel rights now is because they declined them. BA offered them back. I just don't see how Unite can construct a valid case against BA on the overall principle of removing staff travel, because BA actually hasn't done so.

[Litebulbs]

However, you didn't read my question. This is what I posted.

I did read your question, just failed to understand it first time; the member bit.

I doubt very much if you could sue for loss of earnings, as you would be bound by the collective agreements in place and I imagine the agreement is between BA and Unite. There would be a vote and the result would decide. That is collective bargaining. As it stands at the moment, the only loss is in energy for working with reduced crewing levels, the rest is hypothetical.

[Litebulbs]

I do not agree. Just say money was withheld in the form of unlawful deduction from wages due to IA, but for days when the action was not in effect. The business offered to reimburse, but not the full amount, just because it felt the need to sanction an employee group. That would be the same scenario, apart from the minor technicality of a contractual obligation.

You go on strike you loose pay, you return to work you get paid the same as before (unless the union signs a new agreement to allow the return). You go on strike, you loose staff travel, you return to work, your staff travel benefit is reduced.

[fincastle84]

You go on strike you loose pay, you return to work you get paid the same as before (unless the union signs a new agreement to allow the return). You go on strike, you loose staff travel, you return to work, your staff travel benefit is reduced.
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=5837539)

This is the nub of the argument. Salary is contractual, staff travel isn't. End of story, please move on.

[cym]

But staff travel is not a contractual right

[Litebulbs]

But staff travel is not a contractual right

Agreed and if ST was removed for all, because of the cost of IA, then there would be no argument, but, well we know the rest.

It will be interesting if the ST policy changes to reflect that if IA is carried out in the future by any department, then the benefit will be removed.

@fincastle84 - this is a thread about the BA dispute, if you are getting bored, the you are under no obligation to read.

[cym]

..and reinstatement has been offered with loss of seniority, which was turned down by Unite. Seems to me the loss of that is a very dodgy basis for thier proposed legal action.

Also, they need to beware, if ST is considered to be more than a perk then it could well become a benefit in kind and HMRC may want to take another look at its taxable status. This would impact on all airline staff, not just BA CC. How would that go down with the non CC Unite members across the airline sector?

Bottom line? BASSA is out of control in terms of the best interests of all Unite's airline members. Unite need to sort that issue out and maybe we have a solution?

[Juan Tugoh]

it could well become a benefit in kind and HMRC may want to take another look at its taxable status

It already is and BA picks up the liability on behalf of it's staff. It is a an agreement made with HMRC that has been in place for many years. But for those who think that BA gives away ST for free it can come as a surprise. Commuters benefit greatly from this perk.

[Litebulbs]

Do any of you on here feel that it is highly unlikely that a senior reps committee would have 5 of the 7 members (taken from the other thread) up for gross misconduct? Do you think it was reasonable for BA to refuse ACAS as a mediator at the panels (well, if you believe BASSA's statements)

[fincastle84]

@fincastle84 - this is a thread about the BA dispute, if you are getting bored, the you are under no obligation to read.

I'm not bored but there is no point in continuing to replay the same old cracked record. Your needle is stuck in the groove as you've just agreed that ST is non contractural so please change the record.

Moving on myself I'm off to NBO tomorrow on BA65 so I'll catch up after some quality time in the Mara. Hope to have a couple of great flights there & back.:ok:

[Litebulbs]

Likewise for you point fincastle. I do not agree with your position, so can you stop making it please?

[cym]

Would welcome your thoughts on my last post

[LD12986]

Do any of you on here feel that it is highly unlikely that a senior reps committee would have 5 of the 7 members (taken from the other thread) up for gross misconduct? Do you think it was reasonable for BA to refuse ACAS as a mediator at the panels (well, if you believe BASSA's statements)]

Why should an exception be made for the BASSA reps (at one time there were demanding that all disciplinaries were dropped)?

The fact that the action taken from disciplinaries varies from no further action, to written warnings, to demotions and sackings suggests that the company is not just looking to sack troublemakers. And the company did suggest that ACAS could be an observer to confirm normal procedures were being followed.

BASSA claim Duncan Holley's sacking was entirely unjustified. Yet the Employment Tribunal had little difficulty throwing out his demand for immediate reinstatement pointing out that he did not have the option to choose when he worked.

[42psi]

Staff travel and other "perks" (such as groundstaff being allowed to finish early etc) are non-contractural.... don't think there's anyone who essentially disagrees with that ??

The company allows them as an expression of it's appreciation that the staff show their goodwill towards the company in how they work.

That is, the staff demonstrate their goodwill by acting in a way which enhaces the company .. perhaps by not insisting on breaks when it might disrupt customers, not claiming overtime for sake of five minutes extra work, using discretionary time when duty hours are under pressure .. etc, etc...


I believe any company is free to withdraw any of these at any time for any individual or group who have shown their goodwill has been withdrawn.



Equally the staff are entitled at any time to decide that they no longer want the companies goodwill and as long as they work within the terms of their contract that should be OK...



It's an open and freely entered "bargain" on both sides, which can cease at any time on the whim of either side.... without penalty to either side.


As for HMRC - at the moment I believe staff travel is one of those things where the employer pays a "notional" tax .. based on the fact that it is a "casual/inconsistent" perk.

If it's decided that staff travel is a right/contractural benefit then I think it would indeed carry implication not only for all BA staff but for all staff in this industry.

I suggest it would move from a notional tax rate paid by the employer to a firmly taxed benefit in kind which would have to appear on the payslip and be taxed directly to the employee (perhaps along similar lines to company cars with private use allowed).

So then the commuters will be even more unhappy .. maybe faced with getting staff travel back but have to pay tax on it as it's used :{

That would also increase the cost of the perk to the company. Right now with the state of the industry I suspect that any attempt to get the employer to absorb any extra cost itself would surely fall on deaf ears.....

Whatever way you look at it and whatever you believe the outcome would be .... it's a can of worms waiting to bite :E

[Litebulbs]

JT answered the part on tax. As to your last paragraph, I agree with some of it. I have spent most of my working life at BA (although it has been a while since I left), so I am only too aware of how BASSA operate, but in my old department, "I wish we stuck together like the cabin crew" (although I am sure we used a more industrial term for our flying colleagues on both sides of the door), was said many times.

I am a firm believer in people power (members) and it should be a bottom up arrangement. The ideas come from the floor and the reps put flesh onto those ideas and present them. It does appear that the relationship is the wrong way round. But that is only my opinion from afar.

[Hotel Mode]

It already is and BA picks up the liability on behalf of it's staff.

Not quite right I thought? BA picks up the liability for the "free" tickets, ie the annual 1/2/3 ID100s as they are a free benefit. ID90s do not have any tax paid to HMRC by BA. (it would be a huge subsidy to airborne commuters apart from anything else)

[JayPee28bpr]

Do any of you on here feel that it is highly unlikely that a senior reps committee would have 5 of the 7 members (taken from the other thread) up for gross misconduct?


In normal circumstances I'd say "Yes". But we're talking about probably the most dysfunctional leadership team I've ever heard about. We're also talking about a group that clearly runs the branch as their collective fiefdom with no regard for the membership.

I have no doubt that BA's actions in respect of the BASSA leadership has the full tacit support of Unite's full time officials who either cannot or dare not remove them from office. As a rep yourself I'd be a bit surprised if you have any support for Everard, ie the one creating the porn website. I'd be rather shocked if that wasn't regarded as being somewhat offensive to your Union's female members and contrary to your Union's equality and diversity policies. What do you think is a suitable punishment for creating pornographic websites and then using keywords etc to link them to that person's employer? For me, I'd have sacked him, just a lot quicker than it took BA.

I chat to a member of BA's cabin crew who has not gone on strike. This person is not prone to exaggerate or hyperbole, but just wants to go to work, pay the bills, enjoy a quiet life. The level of harrasment routinely experienced at work is truly shocking. My criticism of BA would be more that they appear to be too slow in dealing with the matter. Having said that, cabin crew do appear to be a bit of a sensitive lot. I've already offered my contact a spell working with me to toughen them up a bit.

[just an observer]

I've answered this point much earlier in this thread, but as it has come up again - the law is that a benefit is taxable on the amount it costs the employer to supply it, not it's market value to the general public. (Company cars are a whole separate issue)

ID90s do not cost the company anything, as the 10% paid covers the cost of admin and meals, and of course the seat would have been unsold anyway.

ID100s do cost the company the cost of admin and food/drink etc, (but not the seat as even though 'firm', staff do still not get on if a passenger comes at the last minute) and BA pays tax on calculated amount on behalf of the employee. By the way, an employer paying an employee's tax bill is also taxable, and that is included in the 'settlement' the employer pays to HMR&C.

[cym]

Thanks for your response, I fully appreicate the its not a happy place for you to be and would like to say thanks for your williness to debate on this subject which is hard for all concerned in terms of retaining their jobs, CC or non flying.

The way I read your last post is - 'well if all airline staff are taxed on ST so that (and this is what its all about IMHO) BASSA CSD's dont have to get behind a trolley and serve passengers' its a price worth paying by the majority (10,0000's) to maintain the staus quo by the minorities (100's). How fair is that?

[cym]

What about confirmed seats?

[Litebulbs]

Don't bring up the Everard incident. I wronged Tiramisu on that one. If there was no dispute, he might have got off, but why get yourself into that position?

As to removal of the reps, I do not agree with you that Unite would in any way support it, for whatever reason. I have never believed in FTO's getting involved at any level, unless asked. For me, any union is a service provider, no more. If businesses offered the same protections to their works councils, that union recognition provided and the state recognised those protections, then why have a union? But the law and big business require a balance, however bad it may be. As others have stated, this dispute will be text book stuff in years to come.

[Litebulbs]

The way I read your last post is - 'well if all airline staff are taxed on ST so that (and this is what its all about IMHO) BASSA CSD's dont have to get behind a trolley and serve passengers' its a price worth paying by the majority (10,0000's) to maintain the staus quo by the minorities (100's). How fair is that?

Well, I could go on about unions protecting minorities, but that will get me a proper flaming. However, I would be lying if I did not agree with you. But if it was me, I would not have approached it the way BASSA did. The blitzkrieg at the start did not work.

[just an observer]

What about confirmed seats?


ID100's are confirmed seats - or at least they can all potentially be if BA offer any confirmed seats on the flight you want. As I said, even if you have a firm seat, it does not mean 'you will definitely get on whether a full fare paying passenger wants it or not' you are simply right at the top of the list to get on in an otherwise empty seat. The good bit is that if you don't get on the return journey, BA have the same duty of care as to a normal passenger, and pay your accommodation costs. Never had to put that to the test mind, we have never failed to get on when we have a firm seat.

BA have it to a fine art, they know their routes and the popularity/busy periods, they don't give out 'firms' unless they are pretty darn sure the seat will be unsold.

[cym]

LB - top bloke - thanks for your candidness. Wish you could get involved and sort this mess out, your are pragmatic and I salute you!

jao - you airline staff? if so when did you last have an st pax offloaded? Am ex crew and I have never seen it, upgraded yes, offloaded no

[JayPee28bpr]

Ah, "my Union right or wrong". The thing that amuses me most about the traditional Left is the way it slags off everyone else for unquestioning loyalty to its particular tribe, but elevates the same behaviour amongst its own to quasi-religious status. I say that as a member (yes, fully paid up and everything before I moved to Ireland) of what is now itself the defunct New Labour project (Blairite Wing - until he committed the UK back to imperial expansion in Iraq).

WW is doing your Union a favour by getting rid of the BASSA reps. Without wishing to be provacative, I think Walsh comes out of this whole episode as the biggest supporter for responsible Trade Unionism. He could have acted far tougher, but still clearly remains committed to Union involvement. Where he deals with normal human beings, eg resolving the pension issue, he strongly supports a collectivist approach (I don't incidentally).

In BASSA he has a group of self perpetuating reps. See the seniority requirements for progression in their ranks to see what I mean. And don't forget the show of hands at some London racecourse agreeing not to bother with elections whilst "the war was on". So he's set about doing what the members cannot do and, disgracefully, your Union's paid officers will not do, namely remove them. I say Unite is a disgrace for several reasons. Firstly, it's obvious that the reps are hugely conflicted. Why is suspension of the disciplinaries such a big issue, other than the fact a high proportion of them involve BASSA reps, to give but one example. Secondly, during the election campaign, one of Woodley or Simpson spoke at a Unite4Labour rally and said that BASSA had no chance of winning its dispute with BA and that the branch leadership was deluded. So what have they actually done to provide proper leadership to their several thousand members affected? Nothing is the short answer.

[Safety Concerns]

Now there's something we can agree upon.

[Litebulbs]

Some interesting points. I suppose it revolves around where your loyalty lies. You are an employee first and it appears some have lost sight of that. But there is two sides to this. Business uses reps on a regular basis, to be the delivery mechanism of their ideas, but when it goes wrong, you are the brunt of all problems from all directions.

When you get it right, the collective approach works, but the law has moved away from this over the last 30 years, but individual rights has not been kept in alignment. That is why we still have unions, so business and the state has to take some responsibly for this too.

[just an observer]

jao - you airline staff? if so when did you last have an st pax offloaded? Am ex crew and I have never seen it, upgraded yes, offloaded no

OH is staff. Not CC. Staff don't get on the plane at all if it's full, so offloading should not be an issue. It's done at check in.

A long time ago, 25 years at least, OH and I and two friends ( one of whom was also staff) plus 1 child each were actually sat on the plane, when 4 passengers turned up. As we were actually on board, the adults were offered jumpseats, 2 crew seats, 2 in the flight deck (and we were told, specifically, the Captain had given permission). Obviously the crew seats were stowed during the flight, so the guys spent the flight on their feet. I daresay had there been a seat in a higher class they would have got it, under those circumstances, but in 40 years of OH working for BA, that's the only time.

As for upgrades, the rule as I understand it is that you can be upgraded 1 step from your entitlement in order to get on, and again that would normally be done pre boarding. Whether that has changed in the new ST rules since April 09, not sure. The '1 up rule' may not apply at all anymore. We have made it into First on 3 occasions I think, when Club has been full. Each time done either at check in or at the gate, not on board, and the last time was a good few years ago, about 2000 I think.

Besides, not sure of your point, even if staff are upgraded, there's still an empty seat for them to be upgraded into, so still no extra cost to the airline. They don't offload fare paying passengers and keep staff on, that's for sure.

[PleasureFlyer]

Results out £164M Loss for Q1 this year.

[ChicoG]

Results out £164M Loss for Q1 this year.

Not too far off what the Ash cloud cost.

If BASSA weren't such a bunch of useless, retarded :mad: they would have been in the black.

Thankfully BASSA don't matter any more.

Fine job, Mr. Walsh.

:ok:

[JuliaHayes]

Quote (Sky News) from Derek Simpson:

"These losses bring no pleasure to Unite. It is never our intention to see BA struggle."

Presumably he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said it :)

[Diplome]

Certainly not great news...but not all bad:


“The yields are really positive,” said John Strickland (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=John%20Strickland&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1&partialfields=-wnnis:NOAVSYND&lr=-lang_ja), an analyst at JLS Consulting Ltd. in London. “If they can do that against a backdrop of the ash cloud and strikes then it’s positive news in a difficult context.”

British Airways was trading up 1.5 percent at 219.3 pence as of 8:02 a.m. in London. The stock has gained 17 percent this year, valuing the company at 2.53 billion pounds.


British Airways Loss Widens on Crew Strikes, Volcano - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-30/british-airways-first-quarter-loss-widens-on-cabin-crew-strikes-ash-cloud.html)

Interesting that the press is picking up on BASSA's threat to give BA and their customers another "12 Days of Xmas".

BA needs to continue to minimize the impact of the militant faction in BASSA. There can be no gaining of customer confidence while they are perceived to have influence.

[Sonorguy]

Don't bring up the Everard incident. I wronged Tiramisu on that one. If there was no dispute, he might have got off, but why get yourself into that position?

I assume that if there was no dispute then he wouldn't have done what he did anyway. But if he had done that even when there was no dispute I'm sure the company's position would still have been dismissal for gross misconduct.

My company (a large private health company) would certainly take that view and we're not that well known publically. BA, as a worldwide brand, would have had little choice, even if it had wanted one.

[AlpineSkier]

@Safety Control

On the other thread you have said numerous times that it is not unlawful to strike.

It has also been written oft, that it is not unlawful for a company to remove a perk, so we obviously have two conflicting laws: a situation that can only be resolved by a judge.

I think it very unlikely that UNITE will go to court because:

1) WW has offered to re-instate ST (without seniority) and I don't believe
that the courts will descend to ruling on the minutiae of whether an ST
user is likely to get a seat or not.
2) The union doesn't want to risk its funds on a long-shot.
3) They might fear that the ruling could go against them and create new,
explicit case-law that would allow this action in other disputes.

No 3) strikes me as being a similar situation to The War Powers Act in the US where Congress disputes the circumstances under which the President can declare war, but won't take it to court because they fear losing and broadening his powers.

On another point, can any one say if BA sought costs for the cases they won and if they didn't, are there any BA insiders, who would care to specualte why not ?

[Safety Concerns]

The point you are missing about perks is that you cannot just decide today that anyone called John is no longer entitled to them.

Of course perks can be removed but only a blanket removal (all employees) or because of some form of discipline issue or similar (you have done something wrong)

To select victims on the basis of red/blue, tory/labour, city/united, striker/non striker is fundamentally wrong and could well be classed as a human rights issue.

[Papillon]

The point you are missing is that they just have, and that currently, under our legal system, they are allowed to do so, because you are allowed to do anything that is not explicitly unlawful. Unless that's taken to court and the union win - which is anything but certain given the highly debatable nature of the law in this area - then you can't simply wander on here and say that they can't do it. Just because you want something to be so doesn't mean that it is.

Right now, the airline can. If the union want to take the massive risk of going to court, then it's possible in the future that BA can't.

[mrpony]

ST has been removed - fact. What danger does this pose to anyone?

The legallity of BA's actions are the subject of discussion only; note that no legal action has been started regarding ST by Unite, Bassa or any other body.

Your concern needs to be explained to be understood.

[Sir Richard]

The "victims" selected themselves....after due warning :ugh:

[Safety Concerns]

You are quite amazing and I am genuinely shocked that this attitude prevails in 21st century Britain.

Today staff travel, what will it be tomorrow? You are allowing your glee at someone else's predicament to cloud your judgement.

You are advocating discriminate punishment. I don't like the name John. From next week unless you change your name I am removing staff travel. Fair?

Unite have started legal proceedings over staff travel and should it go the full course (which I doubt) I fully expect them to win.

[mrpony]

Unite have started legal proceedings........

What does this mean?
Has Unite given formal notice to BA regarding these proceedings?

Er NO, didn't think so. It is just a bargaining chip to be played in the ever-slimming hope of redeeming something from what looks like a lost cause.

Again the question, without glee, is:

Why should the fact that a few thousand people have had a work perk removed present the rest of us with any problem at all?

[Papillon]

Today staff travel, what will it be tomorrow?

Perhaps another non-contractual perk granted at the discretion of a company. I struggle to comprehend your end-of-the-world reading of this. I struggle even more to understand why you seem to think a perk is a matter of human rights. I can understand why a union might be interested in exploring that from a legal perspective, but it's anything but a genuine matter of human rights.

[The SSK]

Safety Concerns, if it amazes you that a significant number of people hold an opinion which differs from yours, then I think you have a problem ...

[JayPee28bpr]

Unite have started legal proceedings over staff travel and should it go the full course (which I doubt) I fully expect them to win.


You keep saying this, but I really don't understand the basis of your argument. BA offered staff travel back as part of the latest offer. Therefore Unite simply don't have a legal case for this. That's a fact. There is no argument they can put forward that would enable them to get a case listed on staff travel generally given that BA has already offered restitution and Unite declined it. As I've noted before, their only chance is to identify individuals suffering real loss (ie having to leave their job), and concentrate on those for whom they might be able to construct a case that loss of staff travel was de facto dismissal. Even that is a long shot. Again, BA offered immediate reinstatement of a commuter route, but Unite declined the offer. The Courts won't interfere in this matter, as the resolution being requested has already been offered.

[mrpony]

I've seen so many different numbers regarding this thing and having listened to D Simpson on 5live this morning am even more confused. Can anyone help me with the following:

How many are still BASSA members, and how are the numbers substantiated?

If Unite have received 6000+ strike pay applications why are only approx. 3500 being deprived of ST?

Just curious.

[leiard]

Derek Simpson "we have processed over 7000 claims for strike pay" quote from unite website

Our membership currently stands at 9562 - BASSA website

[Safety Concerns]

it isn't about the perk You need to remove yourself from the perk hang up.
It is about how we have arrived at a situation where some individuals have been punished without following due process.

They haven't offered staff travel to go back to pre strike situation at all.

SSK, it isn't about opinions. Somethings are wrong. Discriminate punishments are wrong. If there is anybody here who doesn't agree with that, we have a far more serious problem than I thought.

[mrpony]

So, 7000 strike pay claims but only 3500 ST withdrawals. How does that work?

BASSA numbers of members - how are these supported/audited?

[ChicoG]

You can disregard anything Simpson says, he is an habitual liar.

Example from today:

Derek Simpson, co-leader of Unite, again accused the airline of imposing changes on cabin crew without their agreement. He said his union negotiators had come within £10 million of the savings sought by BA - a "drop in the ocean" compared with today's losses.

Not even the fictitious figure they first came out with was close - because it was only temporary and they wanted it back.

This ridiculous old fool should just retire.

[Papillon]

where some individuals have been punished without following due process.

In your opinion.

SSK, it isn't about opinions

Yes it is. Obviously, since there's no legal case going on, and if there were, it would then be about the opinion of the judges concerning the law.

They haven't offered staff travel to go back to pre strike situation at all.

And? Who says they have to? You?

Indiscriminate punishments are wrong

In your opinion this is a) indiscriminate and b) a punishment. And only in your opinion.


If there is anybody here who doesn't agree with that, we have a far more serious problem than I thought.


It seems we do. It seems the problem is that you think that anyone disagreeing with you has no right to think so.

[mrpony]

It is about how we have arrived at a situation where some individuals have been punished without following due process.



You seem to imply that there is a due process for the removal of ST, or punishment as you wrongly call it. Which process and why is it due?

[leiard]

mrpony

who knows where BASSA and Unite get all their numbers from?.

The last round of industrial action involved 4 separate strike dates - does that mean if someone went on strike for all 4 they would have to submit 4 claims?

[mrpony]

Thanks for replying. One more thing:

Can anyone account for the number of non-voters in the most recent ballot?

[Juan Tugoh]

SSK, it isn't about opinions. Somethings are wrong. Indiscriminate punishments are wrong. If there is anybody here who doesn't agree with that, we have a far more serious problem than I thought.

But it is about opinions. Opinions are all we have until a court has decided whether BA have acted illegally.

Here is a hypothetical situation for you to ponder,

BASSA members go on strike, the strike is protected, but within that period the strikers are fired. They are illegally dismissed and take BA to a tribunal where they are automatically deemed to have been unfairly dismissed and are awarded compensation within the law up to the legal maximum of £66,200 but in most cases significantly less, the median award for this is £3,800. They are not re-instated as the tribunal cannot force BA to do that only order compensation for lost earnings.

So BA have clearly acted illegally in my hypothetical case and get punished but how does that significantly help the strikers? They have lost their jobs and are likely to get a small amount of compensation which is limited by their earnings and by an absolute limit.

My point is simple, just being right is not enough, there is no moral justice - only the law, which is blind and has no memory, it acts in accordance with its own logic and it can produce crazy outcomes. You have to know what you want out of the system, often the court will not order the system to restore itself to it's initial conditions but will order compensation, even then what the "victim" has done to mitigate their losses is important.

So consider this, those who chose to reside abroad and rely on ST to get to work, yet have refused the return of ST have done nothing to mitigate their losses. The court may order that any costs incurred after the offer of ST reinstatement was made are self-inflicted and therefore will attract no compensation. Or it may decide that as you are required to be within 2 hours of your base to cover your duties that failing to arrange to be within this time frame has also placed you outside any mitigation of costs and therefore your compensation is reduced.

Bottom line, even if ST has been removed illegally, by winning the case, which will take years as BA will appeal to the highest court in the land, does not mean ST will be returned but rather that some, limited, compensation will be awarded. If the Human Right line is followed this could take much longer and again only end up with some compensation - see Danilenkov vs Russia.

Being "right" is not enough, you need to act to protect yourself before you lose perks like ST, once gone, even though you have won in court all you may get back is a paltry amount of cash. You "win" but still effectively lose.

[LD12986]

Safety Concerns - I can assure you there is no "glee" at how things have ended up with cabin crew. It never had to come to this and it is unfortunate that CC have led to the end of a cliff by a bunch of self-serving militant reps and didn't heed the many warnings that BASSA was playing with fire.

CC were told they would lose staff travel and it was for them to make an individual decision as to whether that was a price worth paying for whatever reason they went on strike. It is unfortunate that some CC have had to learn the hard way to think for themselves and not blindly follow their union reps. It's a tough lesson but one that they need to learn.

[mrpony]

"Only 15% voted in favour with 85% finding no appeal in it at all" D Simpson Unite website

Statistics being used for support rather than illumination as a drunken man uses a lamp post.

The more I delve the worse it gets. Something like 50% of membership did not vote on the basis of BASSA's own membership numbers. This doesn't suggest 'no appeal at all' especially when previously anywhere between 70 and 90% voted 'against' BA. My guess is that BASSA's numbers are wildly overstated and have been for longer than they may care to admit, even to themselves.

Can anyone enlighten me?

[ExecClubPax]

leiard/mrpony

No matter where the figures come from, BASSA's declining membership must be a cause for concern for the Branch officials. On 26th July the BASSA website claimed 9736, today it shows 9562 a loss of 174 in 4 days.

I wonder whether anyone from the PCCC can tell us if their membership is increasing in relation to BASSA's losses.

[Safety Concerns]

I would take the latest ballot result with a pinch of salt. It is rather like a mid term by election.

That is not saying it will go one way or another its just different to voting for industrial action.

[cavortingcheetah]

On the matter of staff travel to and from place of work, you can read this:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/guidance/480.pdf

And then you can read this:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/490.pdf



After you've done that you'll be totally confused unless you are a serious tax accountant and even then this is probably what you will say.

'These guides are just that, they are guides with no force in law at the moment. However, you should not forget that courts and commissions have consistently tended to side with HMRC in their interpretation of the these rules and that the cash pockets of HMRC are actually almost inexhaustible'


I think that HMRC who will have been well alerted to what is going on with the present employment convolutions will be letting another's lawyers do the spade work for them. If staff travel is returned on whatever basis, it will not be very long before HMRC will wish to pursue the matter of taxation on that financial commodity much further.

Here's a little something from the Citizens Advice Bureau.

'If your employer reimburses you for the costs of travelling to and from work or pays these direct, for example, by buying a season ticket for you, the value of this benefit is generally taxable. However, you can claim tax relief on any travelling expenses paid by your employer to cover the cost of journeys made by you as a necessary part of your job, excluding journeys to and from work.'


It strikes me that were staff travel taxed in the hands of the employee, with top marginal rates of 40% and 50% rising to 61% when NICs are taken into account, some may find their tax bills significantly increased. This could end up altogether being a less than savoury solution to a less than satisfactory struggle. Salivating tax men spring to mind and their union is Unison not Unite.

[mrpony]

Are you saying that BA's final offer was of sufficient disinterest for approx. 50% of BASSA members not to bother voting? If so what does that say about the membership. If true it really is amazing.

I think that BASSA membership numbers are way below those that they claim. In fact I'd bet they are currently below 7000. Seriously. I can see fraud claim looming.

[Safety Concerns]

I think that's wishful thinking although there have certainly lost quite a few over this.

I also think that the recent final BA offer caused many of them to rethink why they got involved in this. Some may even have been left confused which is why I suspect many didn't vote.

Taxation of ST is coming anyway completely independent to this industrial action. We are now in Europe. The Europeans have have had a different view on this for some time and many countries already heavily tax ST. It is only a question of when and not if.

[button44]

said quote...You are quite amazing and I am genuinely shocked that this attitude prevails in 21st century Britain.

Today staff travel, what will it be tomorrow? You are allowing your glee at someone else's predicament to cloud your judgement.

Hardly glee, more complete amazement that supposedly intelligent people blindly follow and believe all they are told by BASSA. First it was imposition now it seems to be ST and yet they sang that WW could stick it where the sun don't shine and that it didn't matter to them!! So why are they reportedly paying £100 each to go to court and threatening more strikes......a very curious way of backing BA, unless they mean backing it over a cliff and sending the rest of the staff,( who really have backed the company), on to the dole queue. So not glee, anger that a minority of self serving CC are putting others livelyhoods at risk in a tough ecomomic climate.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/icons/umph.gif

[Ancient Observer]

Safety Concerns,

Clearly neither Papillon nor Juan are convinced by your case. I'm not convinced. We have acknowledged your point of view, but just do not agree.

In what has been a great discussion over the last few days, should we not just agree to disagree on the point about "innocence" and "lack of due process" ?

On the dismissal of "reps", FTOs have frequently advised managers how and when to dismiss them. For instance, one rep (a senior shop steward) I dealt with in a factory of 2500 people honestly believed that closing the factory and losing all those jobs, (and the company's investment) was a better thing to do than to allow further investment in the factory.......!!!! (Yup, it was that daft - even I could not get my Milliband/Dahrendorf on Marx mind around his logic, but it was all to do, of course, with the inevitable end of capitalism.............)

The T & G National Official was, as you might understand, very helpful. The rep was fired for a different reason at a slightly different time. Of course, he was fully, 100% represented by the Union as his appeals and Tribunals all failed. The Company would have been content to pay the cost of losing a Tribunal.

[Safety Concerns]

So not glee, anger that a minority of self serving CC are putting others livelyhoods at risk in a tough ecomomic climate.

and that is the point. You are using your opinion on the strike to justify any behaviour at all, even bad behaviour. That is wrong and that is my point.

[mrpony]

Wishful thinking......wistful maybe not wishful.

How are BASSA members counted, who counts them and how is verification done?
This will become crucial sooner rather than later - I know someone who knows someone who knows. BASSA's membership numbers have never been tested properly and the latest ballot is mighty strange. Holley et al will be in court for fraud within the next two years. Take my word for it.

[oggers]

With respect, IMO you have contributed some slightly pompous nuggets regarding what you think your fellow commenters need to do:

You need to remove yourself from the perk hang up.

you really do need to detach the staff travel issue from the dispute itself.

You should be looking inward now and ask yourself

...and a sprinkling of ‘you miss the points’:

you are missing the point completely
The point you are missing
But you are all still missing the point in your haste

Plus more than a few ‘strawmen’:

Two wrongs don't make a right

Do you agree with punishing innocent people?

It is purely and simply a very basic point of principle.

You are advocating indiscriminate punishment. I don't like the name John.
From next week unless you change your name I am removing staff travel. Fair?

Lynch mobs, arbitrary punishments, mobbing you name it, belongs elsewhere and not in the 21st century.

I were to ask whether you agree with indiscriminate punishment, or punishment of those suspected of being guilty but not yet found guilty or punishment of those who held a different view you would almost certainly disagree with it.

Obviously I don’t speak for the forum but I dare say ‘we’ do actually get the point you are making; it is fundamentally wrong to discriminate against a group of employees who have done nothing wrong except go on a strike. You have explained why you think BA have violated the above principle.

You also said this:

I am genuinely not trying to elevate any point above another

So please stop repeating it and feel free to move on to something new.

[penned with a nod to Papillon post #949]

[Diplome]

Safety Concerns:

I have no personal problem with staff travel being withdrawn from striking workers. If it had been a contractual benefit my opinion would be different, but it is not contractual.

If BA loses any legal engagement and must return and/or compensate those individuals who have had their staff travel withdrawn then so be it.

However, at the moment, and I don't see this changing, BA is capable of and has withdrawn this perk.

As for "Unite has filed..." to be the best of my knowledge and belief Unite hasn't filed anything anywhere. The basis of your argument seems to be "It isn't fair, going on strike is legal...so it isn't fair".

Until such time as a governing body says "No" I would submit to you that it is fair, its just a result that a few individuals don't like.

[cavortingcheetah]

'Taxation of ST is coming anyway completely independent to this industrial action. We are now in Europe. The Europeans have have had a different view on this for some time and many countries already heavily tax ST. It is only a question of when and not if. '

It's here already and there is no presumption to the effect that European S&T taxation, which is not standard throughout the zone anyway, would be better or worse than that of the UK. The point is surely that if HMRC start taxing even an economy ticket, say LAX/LHR/LAX or JNB/LHR/JNB as a benefit, the amounts involved, perhaps 40% of the ticket value, are going to be enormous. The cost to the employee is likely to be significant as he/she may well be issued an erstwhile free ticket to and from work but will then have to end up paying the tax on that ticket as though its real street cost were part of that employees salary packet.

[Safety Concerns]

oggers, you know as well as I know that without this strike had someone started a discussion on arbitrary removal of ST there would be an uproar.

But I agree with you, this subject has run its course.

Perhaps in utopia the situation would have gone something like this:

"Willie, I absolutely support your stance against Bassa 100%. I do however feel your stance on ST is questionable. Please re-instate and defeat Bassa by other more appropriate means".

[Papillon]

Actually, I would think it fairly unlikely that EU membership would affect taxation in the slightest, outside of the very narrow band of VAT. It's a red line from both this and the last government that taxation is a matter for the UK, and EU partners are not relevant in that debate.

[The SSK]

Airline: "If you go on strike I will withdraw your travel concessions"
Union: "You can't do that, it would be discrimination against people taking legitimate industrial action"
Airline: "Oh, sorry, I hadn't thought of that. Please ignore that last statement"

[cavortingcheetah]

If BASSA were to win its impending court case against BA and succeed in its estimable attempt to have such travel determined as contractual, won't that unleash a really squiggly can of worms for the poor crews which have used such travel benefits.
Surely HMRC would be tempted to tax previous staff travel retroactively in the hands of the employee in whose contractual employment the benefit had legally been deemed to have fallen. The potential rewards for the nation's coffers would be huge, the issue too profitable to be ignored and the case work largely done. No doubt some negotiations could be entered into individually or collectively on the part of the crew union and HMRC but travel records are by law required to be kept for six years in order to facilitate retrospective tax assessment debts by the employer and employees and any UK tax case determined by law usually tends to the unequivocal.

[Entaxei]

Why are you on here - you have stated that you are not part of aviation - your only stance is endlessly repeating that BASSA members are being badly treated by having the withdrawal of ST as a result of taking IA - that their actions are being treated far too seriously in the responses that have resulted, despite in some cases resulting in criminal investigations - effectively that they are misunderstood and we should all back off and stop using such emotive words and responses as it is unfair!!

I suggest that you either start discussing and responding in an adult fashion or go and post on the BASSA sites, where no doubt all will be in total agreement with you.

[Safety Concerns]

that their actions are being treated far too seriously in the responses that have resulted, despite in some cases resulting in criminal investigations - effectively that they are misunderstood and we should all back off and stop using such emotive words and responses as it is unfair!!

Highlight one of my posts that supports the above.

[mrpony]

I restarted reading this forum following a conversation with a friend who knows someone who knows someone.....

I was challenged by my friend to find the flaw in Unite/Bassa's case that would be the eventual undoing of Bassa and huge embarrassment to Unite - a major flaw not necessarily obvious. I took me a while. I got there though and my friend has confirmed I am right.

I've stated it above but couched it in a different way leaving me feeling rather like a dirty troll, so I'll come clean:

Fact: BASSA membership numbers are much less than they are stating. A monitored ballot on strike action would reveal this and you can therefore not expect anything of the sort, ever!

Fact: Preparations have been made for a challenge to BASSA's legitimacy linked to membership numbers.

Fact: BASSA are totally and utterly at sea partly as a consequence of their obvious other failings but more particularly because it has been made known to them that the number of its members is under serious scrutiny. Unite will play dumb on this one, without too much effort.

That's all.

[Safety Concerns]

Mr Pony, I hate to be the one to tell you this but it looks as though you have been sold a donkey.

Let me guess, the someone who knows someone who knows someone is against the industrial action.

If Bassa and Unite were so stupid they deserve everything they get and I would start agreeing with Entaxei

[oggers]

Interesting hypothesis, and seems so bleedin obvious once it's been pointed out :eek:

I read in the Guardian that the union are claiming 67% of their members rejected the 'final offer'. Now, it was clearly 67% of the 5000ish who voted but that is different. Or is it?! Freudian slip by UNITE, predictable spin or sloppy journalism? Who knows - but it's fun to speculate sometimes. :E

[Diplome]

It would not surprise me if BASSA have no idea what their true membership numbers are.

Of interest also was hearing McCluskey (I believe) state that they had received 7,000 and some odd number of "claims" this morning.

As BA knows exactly how many have lost staff travel and the representation is being made that they will fly 100% of long haul in the event of another strike its reasonable to believe that each "claim" does not represent a unique individual.

Unite/BASSA do like getting creative with numbers.

[mrpony]

The donkey seller has asked me not to participate in this or any other forum on this or any other subject from hereon in.

My information is robust and sourced very close to the centre.

And that really is all. Bye.

[mrpony]

The source of my information asked me to desist so I did. I was only supposed to be guessing what the big flaw was, not publicising it. I have to say, however, that I agree with you and seeing as you have already put it 'out there', and at the risk of wearing my friendship with the source a bit thin, the numbers you quote are about the same as has been indicated to me.

I can well imagine the sort of chaos this is causing Bassa - I wonder of they have found out how to delete a hard drive yet?

[Skylion]

Re the alleged 7,000 claims, maybe they relate to separate claims for each strike period and therefore , each striker who was out all the time had to make several submissions?

[Entaxei]

Interesting that all your posts prior to the 28th July (3 days ago) - have vanished - so rebuttal is now impossible as are your origins - but you have been profilic in those three days.

[west lakes]

On the question of membership, as the majority will probably pay by salary deduction I'm sure BA know a fairly good ballpark figure.
(was it not BASSA's inability to decipher the salary deduction list last year that was part of the problem they had with the Christmas strike?)

[101917]

Time for some harmless speculation.

On this forum and the other one I suspect we have:


genuine cabin crew from both sides of the divide
genuine airline personnel from both sides of the divide
genuine SLF
anonymous Bassa and Unite reps
anonymous BA managers
anonymous legally trained individuals
back room lawyers
and others
For what its worth I think Safety Concerns could be employed by O. H. Parsons and Col White could well be a BA manager

[Diplome]

Westlakes:

I'm not sure what the percentage is of those who pay by salary deduction and those that make automatic payments out of their checking accounts.

Its obvious that BASSA has seen a reduction in membership, but given their own confusion regarding mailing out ballots to non-members, etc., just how quickly the numbers are adjusted after someone has departed is of interest.

Is BASSA required to present accurate numbers on its website? Is prompt reporting required or can it try to paint a rosier picture by delaying?

[west lakes]

I'm not sure what the percentage is of those who pay by salary deduction

I seem to recall, from whichever thread was running at the time, that it may be in excess of 90%

[cavortingcheetah]

101917.
'Time for some harmless speculation.
On this forum and the other one I suspect we have:


* genuine airline personnel from both sides of the divide
* genuine SLF
* anonymous legally trained individuals
* back room lawyers'

This whole BA business is not of great significance any more. I think the matter has to some degree become a devilish if silently gleeful speculation as to the fire and brimstone awaiting members of BASSA and their leaders. I have a sneaky suspicion that more people wish them ill than applaud either their actions or their moralities. No doubt the same could be said by some of the BA board and Mr Walsh but no one much these days is speculating sensibly on his demise. One hopes he is in rather better shape than was secretly John Smith. Therefore I think it is reasonable to conclude that some read these pages in anticipatory delight of the sufferings to come and that others read the paper mill in some trepidation as to what others might suggest could come.
Anyway I'll confess to being or having been all four of the above strata of Illuminati at one time or another and of course I adore genuine cabin crew. But you'd have to ask my lawyer for my definition of genuine when it comes to cabin crew and I might just have to put a disclaimer on that anyway.

[anotherthing]

Unite have for several days now indicated that the offer on the table is acceptable, IF ST is returned.

This offer is worse than previous offers dismissed out of hand by UNITE/BASSA. This has caused BA to lose money and passenger confidence - who knows how much damage to the brand has been done and the resultant knock-on cost.

So if the offer is accepted, the strikes have been for nothing - in fact they will have cost CC some Ts and Cs.

If I was a member of the BA Board (the ones who are directing WW exactly how they want him to proceed) I would be doing my utmost to make sure that the CC, who caused the losses for absolutely no reason or gain, were hung out to dry.

If the Board and WW wanted to crush BASSA (as some CC claim), is it any real wonder to any sane thinking person out there?

[JayPee28bpr]

Your speculation as regard future BA action fits in with my own. I wondered at the time why BA was sending individual contracts and "I'm not in the Union, honest" forms to people it knew were in BASSA. Then it was suggested to me that it would provide very good intelligence for BA as to the possibility of winning a de-recognition ballot, ie if lots of remaining BASSA members tried to accept the offer.

It's at times like this that Unions really wish they hadn't agreed a check off deal with an employer. BA has a very good idea how many members BASSA has, just by looking at how many staff have subs deducted from their salary each month. They know how many stopped paying in time to make a honest declaration when signing their acceptance of the offer. They also know how many signed the offer but are still in the Union and so will be getting, or already have a "We regret, but..." letter saying they can't accept the deal as individuals.

All the above is very useful in giving BA an idea as to whether or not they'd win a derecognition ballot if they went for one. It's actually high risk as, if they lose, they're stuck with BASSA for another three years at least. However, if the numbers look good, they can at least threaten Unite with it. The key point here is that, whilst BA could not use the offer to induce staff to leave the Union, there is nothing as far as I know that stops them using the offer to induce staff to vote against maintenance of the collective bargaining agreement. If I'm correct on this, then BA could go for derecognition, and state that if they win then they'll retable the offer and thereby allow Union members to sign up to it.

The above is all speculation. However, I keep thinking back to the AGM where Walsh and Broughton apparently said they were "sick and tired" of BASSA, which is somewhat undiplomatic langauge to use about an organisation they expect to continue as a valued partner in the business. The fact is, though, that BA know exactly where they stand in terms of the numbers wishing to accept their offer, whther those numbers are good or bad. Unite/BASSA don't. All they know is that turnout in their ballot was poor, with roughly one quarter of crew rejecting the offer. A little over 10% signalled they wanted Unite to accept it, leaving Unite unaware of the true feelings of the other 65%. BA, on the other hand, does know what they want. It may be good news for BA or bad, but at least they know. So, BA has full information, Unite doesn't. Familiar story, I think.

[cavortingcheetah]

There below us stands the tyrant known as Willie Walsh dressed as Caesar with a gold and red and blue crown upon his brow as he opens another season of games at the Circus Maximus. Down below, quivering in anticipation of a hot and steamy end to the afternoon's entertainment huddle the martyrs. Will the emperor hesitate for one solitary second before he signals for the opening of the gates to allow the entrance of the slavering lions and tigers? Will he for one moment in the space of time attempt to halt the frenzied stampede into the ring of the bulls and the bears eager for revenge upon those poor souls? Those members of the cult of Bassa who are about to pass united into the realms of anthropomorphic history. Can any parson save them from their dreadful plight so nobly inflicted, some say in the Forum of Rome, upon themselves for believe in their own unshakeable convictions?

[Litebulbs]

Time for some harmless speculation.

On this forum and the other one I suspect we have:


genuine cabin crew from both sides of the divide
genuine airline personnel from both sides of the divide
genuine SLF
anonymous Bassa and Unite reps
anonymous BA managers
anonymous legally trained individuals
back room lawyers
and others
For what its worth I think Safety Concerns could be employed by O. H. Parsons and Col White could well be a BA manager


Well, I think i'm four of those!

[mrpony]

Yes it is the only thing that makes sense to me - links it all up so to speak.

Why have a show of hands ballot in this day and age?

Why constantly dissemble about numbers and percentages?

All stuff about majorities and overwhelming support is just huff and puff.

A no confidence vote would be an excellent way of finishing the thing.

[Litebulbs]

Well I am sure we will know if 50%+1 of current cabin crew have signed the new deal soon, but silence could be deafening.

[pcat160]

It’s really not about how many have signed the new deal. It is about how many are currently union members. Whatever that number is I am sure it is getting smaller every day.

[JayPee28bpr]

Well I am sure we will know if 50%+1 of current cabin crew have signed the new deal soon, but silence could be deafening.


Actually I think we'll only know this if BA go down the derecognition route. Otherwise it's nobody's business, other than between BA and each of its employees individually. BA clearly don't think it's (share) price sensitive, otherwise they would have ensured they had the numbers before releasing their trading statement today. What matters is that BA knows the numbers and can formulate their position accordingly. Unite do not know the numbers and can only estimate the degree to which BA is bluffing when they meet again next week.

[Litebulbs]

Hmm, your points are normally very strong, but this last post is not one of your best. If BA had 6500 signed contracts, then we would have been told. That would be game set and match. I am not suggesting BASSA are not two sets and two breaks down, but Mr Walsh would have done what he felt needed to be done, if he had the signatures, in my opinion. What would be an interesting discussion, would be what figure would trigger an announcement?

[pcat160]

For all of us speculating as to the number of union members the only number we know with any degree of certainty is that on July 20 there were at least 5105 Cabin Crew union members. I also think it is fair to say that as many as 1686 of those members have an incentive to leave the union. Yes Litebulbs there is a deafening silence from all sides.

[Colonel White]

Speculation
Time for some harmless speculation.

On this forum and the other one I suspect we have:

genuine cabin crew from both sides of the divide
genuine airline personnel from both sides of the divide
genuine SLF
anonymous Bassa and Unite reps
anonymous BA managers
anonymous legally trained individuals
back room lawyers
and others
For what its worth I think Safety Concerns could be employed by O. H. Parsons and Col White could well be a BA manager

Close, but no cigar. I do fall into at least three of your categories though. :O
The thing that people should not lose sight of is that we are talking about two union branches. A lot of emphasis has been made of BASSA, but the other wing of Unite - CC89 - has been remarkably silent. I do wonder whether the apparent friction between the leaders of Unite, Messrs Woodley and Simpson has a bearing on the matter as well. It is a matter of public record (well actually Executive Council minutes to be precise) that Tony Woodley stated that he was unhappy that Derek failed to turn up for an Executive Council meeting on June 4th - although he had been at the previous day's session. This was as the BA strike was in its final days. FWIW Simpson is Amicus and hence has CC89 under his wing, Woodley is TGWU and has the delight of handling BASSA. I do wonder whether Simpson's tweeting was because he knew how his members were likely to jump and was offering no support to Woodley in bringing BASSA to heel. Does anyone have a clue how many cabin crew are in CC89 ?

[Litebulbs]

If you said 10 years ago, that the AEEU and the T&G would eventually be one happy family, I would have said there was more chance of the Toff's and Wig's joining up in a coalition Government. Shows how much I know.

[Litebulbs]

Not too impressive -

British Airways divides workers over pay and perks | Business | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/30/britishairways-theairlineindustry)

[LD12986]

Litebulbs - It says "more than 900" crew have accepted the offer, not "only 900".

What Willie Walsh (according to other reports) said was that if Unite's claim that there were only 900 cabin crew that aren't in Unite was true, then all would have accepted the offer on an individual basis. This is where the claim of "more than 900" seems to have come from. That's not the actual number that have accepted. I suspect Willie will be keeping his cards close to his chest for now.

[leiard]

From the guardian article

"One analyst who asked not to be named said that Walsh was wrong to remove travel concessions from staff who had been on strike, which has become a point of principle over which neither side is prepared to compromise. "The company will have to backtrack on a lot of these kinds of threats in order to get some sort of deal."

I wonder who the analyst was ?

[Litebulbs]

I suspect Willie will be keeping his cards close to his chest for now.

So would I, if the figures stated in the article are true.

[LD12986]

So would I, if the figures stated in the article are true.

If you take BASSA's claim to have 9,500 members plus the 1,000-1,500 odd members that are CC89, then even if it was just 900 non-members that have accepted that is a decent proportion of non-union members that have accepted the offer.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs - It says "more than 900" crew have accepted the offer, not "only 900".

On the balance of probabilities and as a reasonable statement, 900 would be between 900 and 950, else another figure would probably have been used?