BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

[west lakes]

From the CC thread

UNITE slap BASSA down
FROM UNITE HQ, yet another gaff from BASSA doh:D



Quote:
This Notice is given in accordance with the requirements imposed upon the Union by the
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Only the Executive Council
can authorise industrial action and it can only do so after a secret postal ballot.
On 2 August 2010 a posting was published on the BASSA website entitled ‘Closing Window
Blinds at the End of Your Flight’. The posting asked cabin crew not to agree to close the
window blinds at the end of each flight. This posting could be taken as a call to take
industrial action. Cabin crew should ignore this posting and should close the window blinds
at the end of each flight as instructed and work normally.
The Executive Council has not authorised any industrial action by Unite the Union members
employed by the above company and this Notice relates to all and any calls, or threats of,
such action

Some interesting things in that notice.

[LD12986]

Indeed. Has the Executive Council actually given authorisation for a third ballot?

[west lakes]

Part of my thought relates to the discussions before Christmas that BASSA, after the problems of a few years ago, did not need Unite's permission to call a strike. this seems to refute this argument.

[LD12986]

My understanding is that after the 2007 strike BASSA changed its constitution so that a strike could be only be called off with the permission of BASSA (so Unite couldn't do a deal with the company without deferring to BASSA, which is what happened in 2007).

I don't think BASSA can start a ballot without permission from Unite.

[Litebulbs]

Agreed, legislation backs that up.

[Litebulbs]

Window Blinds.

The union have clearly had to repudiate the call from BASSA and are probably hoping an ex employee made the call.

As it is an addition to what is custom and practise, what would happen, as an individual who forgot or chose not to do it? Would it be refusing a reasonable instruction?

Now before everyone starts getting all Daily Mail on me, I am asking what legal challenge could be made.

Have a listen to the audio file on here regarding holiday pay and trade unions. Interesting HR speak (definitely non union) about the law.

XpertHR > Article > Podcast: Holiday pay; working with trade unions survey (http://www.xperthr.co.uk/article/104157/podcast--holiday-pay-working-with-trade-unions-survey.aspx)

[Mariner9]

Personally Litebulbs I was quite heartened by the Unite memo which seemed to me to spell out the situation succinctly to their members, and thus protecting them from possible sanction.

Whether their advice that failure to close the blinds may be classed as unprotected IA is correct or not is unclear but sounds plausible to an employment-law numpty like me.

If you think otherwise, what would you say were Unite's motives in the memo? Seems to me that they could only be to either protect their members (as they should) or to give BASSA a bloody nose.

[Hipennine]

Litebulbs,

If somone was dismissed for "forgetting" or "choosing not to", and then they went to an employment tribunal, it would be the panel that finally decided whether it was a reasonable instruction or not. Without taking a management or Daily Mail stance, in this case, BASSA Admin would seem to be believe that it is not reasonable (in Employment law context), whereas Unite's position would seem to be that it is reasonable. (note, they make no suggestion that closing the blinds should be subject to a grievance procedure, failure to agree, etc.).

Additionally, an ET would look at each case on its merits (and presumably BA's own internal processes would do the same for the dismissal to be fair - if they didn't, it would be automatically un-fair, irrespective of reasonableness). For eg, was there a pattern of not doing it, did the individual state that they deliberately didn't do it, were there any extenuating cirumstances, etc. It is exactly the same with any disciplinary issue investigation. So there is no simple answer to the question.

FWIW, I can't see an argument that because it has been custom and practise not to close blinds, that therefore an instruction to do so is unreasonable is going to get anywhere.

nb what has a discussion about the very specific area of Illegal Deduction of Wages (which carries its own very particular set of case law and legislation) got to do with closing blinds ?

[oggers]

We have become used to reading a mountain of puerile trash from Duncan Holley. I admit it has been quite entertaining reading the guy make a total fool of himself – a touch of the David Brents. Now the latest is, I think, quite the most ridiculous offering to date.

Nice cut and paste description of the US ideological issues in prosecuting the 2nd Vietnam War. Not a single lucid comment on why BASSA are unable to arrive at a ceasefire in their own - somewhat less grave but evidently just as ideological - conflict.

I would be most interested to see what the 100-odd intellectual IR experts of ‘letter to the Guardian’ fame have to say about it. I would say that this latest is a clear illustration of that vital piece of information that they were missing when they penned it - ie the man running BASSA has a kangaroo loose in his top paddock. Or maybe DH passes for the model of a good union leader – in the rarefied atmosphere of the IR intellectual's world? :rolleyes:

[Litebulbs]

If you think otherwise, what would you say were Unite's motives in the memo? Seems to me that they could only be to either protect their members (as they should) or to give BASSA a bloody nose.

It is an interesting situation, no doubt carefully mapped out by the management team. For BASSA to make the statement that they did, in my mind was unlawful, causing Unite to act. What you do as an individual, is up to you. Not closing a blind is at best, a potential capability issue, if you do not comply. As a collective group, i.e. whole crew in a premeditated action, is industrial action short of a strike, which in itself, is unlawful if there has not been a ballot etc.

However, it would not be a contractual obligation, exactly like the hot towels, so you would not be in breach, unless it could be proved that it was a reasonable action.

Do you think it is reasonable? I am sure if you asked someone walking down the street, that if he/she was asked to close a window blind by his boss, to aid in a potential cooling of a room, what would be his/her response?

[Litebulbs]

what has a discussion about the very specific area of Illegal Deduction of Wages (which carries its own very particular set of case law and legislation) got to do with closing blinds ?

Nothing at all, just interesting tribunal legal speak, with a bit about working with unions at the end.

[mrpony]

The missives from Bassa's bunker do verge on the ridiculous. Try imagining the music that would accompany the words being read out in solemn tones during the 'film of the dispute'. (Title: IMPOSITION). I find this renders the words funnier. Though still, of course, tragic.

[west lakes]

Do you think it is reasonable? I am sure if you asked someone walking down the street, that if he/she was asked to close a window blind by his boss, to aid in a potential cooling of a room, what would be his/her response?


As far as I understand it, after all passengers have disembarked the outgoing crew are obliged to carry out a chck of the aircraft which involves visiting every seat.
So the instruction(?) to close the blinds is not a great imposition as they will be close to them anyway.

Personally I tend to look at such minor things with the view of "If it's not illegal or dangerous" my employer has every right to request me to do it during work/duty times.

[oggers]

..from LD12986 in the CC thread:

DH:

and the original problems have not been solved...So this dispute will carry on and on

LD:

Another strike, to have any hope of withstanding a legal challenge, has to be based on an entirely new set of issues. Comments from Duncan like those above will be seized upon by the lawyers.

It's a good spot. And significant I think, coming as it does in a demi-official communication from BASSA. Although I'm sure BA will pursue all avenues, I don't think BA would have to mount a legal challenge to capitalise on this particular issue. I think BA will warn potential strikers that they aren't protected, sack any that do strike anyway and fight off any unfair dismissal cases arising. Perhaps?? Based on the way they went about the ST and sicky issues. :hmm:

[Litebulbs]

Personally I tend to look at such minor things with the view of "If it's not illegal or dangerous" my employer has every right to request me to do it during work/duty times.

I agree, when you have a normal industrial relationship, but that is probably not the case at this time.

[Ancient Observer]

For a while, some Unite Officials saw the BA issue as a way of getting publicity. In a TU of that size, most of the members do not know the candidates for election to Gen Sec., so any publicity is good publicity.
(Bill Morris's election to the T & G GenSec job was a good example..............he needed publicity, and his agent, Fred Higgs, got him that publicity. However, in the process, Fred got to know too much, so Bill "fired" Fred in to a job in Brussels)

That motivation appears to have reduced. Unite now appear to be in a risk/damage limitation mode. I suspect that this mode will last for a few weeks until the Unite GenSec election is closer - then it might be back to "any publicity is good publicity".

However, looking at it from the Unite National Officials perspective - the "cuts" which the UK coalition Government wish to put in place will overshadow the BA dispute for many months to come.....................so maybe the top brass will leave the BA dispute for a while?? ............in which case, bassa might get their desire for a marathon??

[pcat160]

Anybody else think Duncan’s employment prospects with Unite have taken a bit of a hit lately?

[RTR]

However, looking at it from the Unite National Officials perspective - the "cuts" which the UK coalition Government wish to put in place will overshadow the BA dispute for many months to come.....................so maybe the top brass will leave the BA dispute for a while?? ............in which case, bassa might get their desire for a marathon??

Therein lies an interesting scenario. First there is Unite who have just bought BASSA and Holley to heel and who once again demonstrated, if ever a demonstration was needed, that he can and does stupidly step over the line. It is little wonder that in Simpson's view he and the leadership are "clowns." Then this week we see that Holley demanded that the cc should not deal with the cabin blinds. What happened? Unite then issued a stern warning to ignore the order saying that Unite's Executive Committee had not approved such a course of action, which clearly breached the rules and would be illegal. Further stating in an immediate 'command' that no such action should be undertaken. Making the gaffe prone Holley once again looking the fool he is.

Second, Holley has decided, apparently on his own, to have a meeting on 6th September at Kempton Park to discuss current questions and with a distinct reference to "holding a ballot" with a view to hold further IA over the Christmas period. Without doubt to teach BA who is boss.

This man is a rebel. Out of control and a thorn in Unite's side. With Woodley and Simpson leaving at the end of the year and with the distinct possibility that McCluskey will be taking the reins of Gen.Sec. it begs the question - who can control Holley? He is persona non grata as BASSA's rep to BA - they fired him. He appears to control the rest of the reps and still calls the tune of BASSA's latest Abba hit.

That begs another question. Why are Unite allowing this clown so much rope? Could it be that they want him to hang himself? Where is Malone? Where is Stott and I can imagine that 'window' Everard gets his oar in too.

How can BASSA continue? It has its own constitution and has to abide by Unite's rules, as we have just witnessed, and yet there must be an election of its officers soon, at which point Holley MUST stand down, along with Everard and perhaps others.

Since Holley has always had the reins he must soon relinquish them but - is he cheating? That is a question for Unite and one can hope that it is under review.

Of course, in the other corner is BA..........what they will do is pure guesswork. They are at the moment ignoring BASSA and dealing with Unite only. You could take a bet that Woodley and Simpson have had enough. Unite cannot have this embarrassing union on board for much longer. With there being no hope of resolving anything with BASSA it must be clear to even the most ardent union supporter that BASSA is a rogue union.

[LD12986]

How can BASSA continue? It has its own constitution and has to abide by Unite's rules, as we have just witnessed, and yet there must be an election of its officers soon, at which point Holley MUST stand down, along with Everard and perhaps others.

Since Holley has always had the reins he must soon relinquish them but - is he cheating? That is a question for Unite and one can hope that it is under review.


The elections must be due soon. I believe the last elections did not happen because of the "war" with BA.

Duncan has been Branch Secretary since 1997 and having been able to wield significant power over that time, letting go of that power is not easy and evidently not pretty to watch.

[Phil Rigg]

BA now hold absolutely all the cards and simply have to sit back and wait for BASSA to make the next move. If BASSA does nothing while making pathetic and ineffectual flutters e.g. "Window BlindsGate" then UNITE will slap them down thus doing BA's work for them. If BASSA capitulate and agree to BA's current offer then fine. If BASSA ballots for a further strike then BA's lawyers are poised and ready on all fronts. BA will first caution CC that striking may not be protected. We have already seen 4900 first time strikers diminish to 4200 second time around and further diminish to 3500 rejecting BA's current offer. BA will easily cover the further diminished hardliners who do strike by VCCs and even MF if the strike does not happen until Xmas 2010 assuming their lawyers fail to halt the strike through the courts. DH really needs a friend to take him to one side and suggest he does the honest thing before his megalomania leads him to endager his livelihood further or even his personal safety. Finally BA is clearly in discussions with PCCC to potentially replace BASSA moving forwards.

If there is a card that BA does not hold then I cannot think of it......

[Litebulbs]

I don't know Phil,

BASSA's best move would be to do nothing, in my opinion. Unite wouldn't act against that, but the membership might. There is the current terms and conditions and through custom and practice, the requirement to work. If you are limited to 900 flight hours and 2500? working hours, then you could have an implied unlawful deduction from wages.

Just a thought, with no basis in case law to back it up.

[Phil Rigg]

Interesting point LB but if BASSA does nothing (other than its ineffectual and thus completely ignorable grumblings) isn't that just fine with BA as their CC are currently working to BA's "imposed" new terms and conditions anyway? If BA have not spoken directly to BASSA since 2009 then that situation is just fine with BA as its operations are all under BA's control and any feeble attempts to obstruct unreasonably will be snuffed out by UNITE for fear of being accused of unoffical IA. OK, so WW doesn't have a Union to negotiate with for the forseeable future but BA has nothing it requires of its CC union for the immediate future and PCCC is in the wings should things change.

Are you suggesting that UNITE/BASSA could launch a legal action against BA the potential liabilities for which could exceed its war chest thus forcing it to have to settle to BASSA's terms again?

[Litebulbs]

I am not suggesting one way or another. One example to add weight to my point would be the current case at the ECJ between BA and BALPA, with regard to holiday pay and where both flight and cabin crew on leave believe that they should be paid full pay (allowances etc), rather than their basic salary. If you were to go from flying, to not flying, when other employees were flying in place of you, then I imagine their may be a case to argue.

In not doing anything, then BA would be paying staff not flying and also new crew flying too. It all goes back to the dismissal/re engage SOSR defence, if BA was to act.

[just an observer]

How does the pilots claim to payment of allowances etc while on holiday compare/match with ground based shift workers at BA who don't get shift pay as part of their holiday pay? Shift pay is normally paid as an average monthly, not based on what shifts happen to fall in any particular month, but my OH's pay drops when on leave, which I understand to be lost shift pay.

[Litebulbs]

What is OH? I never lost shift pay when I took leave at BA.

[G-BPED]

What is OH? I never lost shift pay when I took leave at BA.

Other Half or Partner :)

Regards,

G-BPED

[somewhereat1l]

Are BA adding 15 minutes to duty time for the crew to close window blinds? If not then why should the crew perform that role? Sorry but if I am off duty then thats my time not the company's.
e
I believe BA allow 30 minutes after gate arrival to allow for disembarkation, security checks and clearing passport control. This is the same as my airline here in Oz and generally it can take 20 minutes to get the PAX off so you are soon into your 'own time'. This has been done for years and the crew say nothing but to be asked to perform another duty would definately be a no from me. Its not a reasonable request to be asked to work and not be compensated.

Also, have BA done a risk assessment on this practise?

[MIDLGW]

Somewhereat1l,

Crew won't have to be paid an extra 15 minutes. Why? Because on a B777, it will be an average of 8 blinds per crew member (max) to shut, whilst doing the security check. It will take an extra 90 seconds (on average) to do, so why want pay for 15mins? (By the way, I'm BA CC)

As for the risk assessment - don't even go there. Crew close (or insist on closing) blinds during the flight with passengers seated, whereas this new thing about closing the blinds will be easier due to no passengers being in the seats during the procedure. No risk assessment needed, as far as I'm concerned.

[Lotpax]

Phil Rigg

There is another scenario, in which nobody does anything, the ill feelings fester, colleague v colleague friction (the strikers feel badly treated, those who worked feel let down by management not achieving a definitivie settlement) , service deterioates due to reducing morale and the airline's reputation suffers further.

I have seen this happen at other corporations following industrial action and remember that some very unpleasant things have been said between different groups of people in this action, so it may take a long time, if ever, to return to normal.

Whilst I am a great believer in the right of management to manage and am not a lover of unions, I cannot help but think that the BA management could have done better in this instance, even given the very difficult people they were dealing with.

[ChicoG]

Whilst I am a great believer in the right of management to manage and am not a lover of unions, I cannot help but think that the BA management could have done better in this instance, even given the very difficult people they were dealing with.

Lotpax,

It so easy to throw out accusations such as this, but how about specific examples of actions BA have taken where an alternative would have been better for all (or the majority of) stakeholders, within the constraints of course of containing horrendous losses?

[cym]

Its the backing away from dealing with 'very difficult people like these' that got us into the mess we currently with a union that has a desire to manage the airline - thats not their role.

BA are asserting themselves and BASSA are wanting to throw their toys out like a spoiled child.

[johnoWhiskyX]

From TC post of the other forum. regarding BASSA revealing the real names behind the forum names of anyone disagreeing with DH's views.

Surely that isn't allowed in a unions constitution? Revealing members names that don't agree with the leaderships views. What next?, revealing anyone voting in a balot opposite to the leaderships reccomendation?

Anyone confirm this is what bassa have done?

[Lotpax]

Why do you think I was implying that the BA management should have ''backed away?"

Just interested, as I did not say nor mean that.

Offering staff travel back did not exactly do the job, did it?

Neither am I paid anything like the big bucks the BA top team draws, so I don''t feel any inclination to declare what they should have done.

I just don't see how one is too impressed with execs who allow an industrial dispute to roll on for many months, whilst the brand is suffering colateral damage.

Just my two cents, don't really care whether you agree and acknowledge your right to have a differing opinion.

[LD12986]

I do agree that BA should not have let this dispute drag on for so long.

It was nearly two years ago the Lehman Brothers collapsed and it was only at the beginning of 2009 did the company start having talks with the unions on cost-savings. The company set a deadline of 30 June 2009 which in itself was too late. The company should have completed negotiations and had changes ready to implement at the end of its financial year 31 March 2009 so it started the next financial year with the benefit of productivity savings.

Negotiations went on way past the 30 June 2009 deadline and from the court judgment it was clear then that BASSA would not play ball. It was only towards the end of the year did the company take matters into its own hands and introduce non-contractual changes.

[Chuchinchow]

Just my two cents, don't really care whether you agree and acknowledge your right to have a differing opinion.

La politesse, toujours la politesse (polonaise).

[Ancient Observer]

A couple of posters have mentionned that PCCC are "waiting in the wings" if BA decide to negotiate with them rather than with the junta from the bunker.

That is not going to happen until/unless PCCC can prove that they have a serious majority of members in a clearly defined group. It might work if the get, say, 60% of staff at lgw, but it won't work at lhr.

If there is one thing that is guaranteed to get the whole Trade Union movement excited, it is de-recognition.

Whilst the law stops both sympathy action, and action by defined groups that are not directly involved in the dispute, both Unite and the TUC would be forced in to a major campaign against BA. At present, BA is fine opposite Unite and the TUC, but de-recognition brings in all sorts of risks that BA just does not need right now.

The only successful de-recognition schemes that I can remember are the oilies, (Shell et al) who de-recognised the T & G for their drivers, and Astra Zeneca, (Pharms) who derecognised all TUs for their white collar staff. In both cases, the employers ended up paying those who stayed with the Co. quite a lot for the privilege of derecognition. BA can't afford that. Anyone think of any more cases of derecognition?

[ChicoG]

I just don't see how one is too impressed with execs who allow an industrial dispute to roll on for many months, whilst the brand is suffering colateral damage.

LotPax, there are many of us that would like BA to be able to summarily sack these dour, miserable old timers who are a blight on the airline and put so many people off flying on it. If they had been able to do that, then there probably wouldn't even have been a strike.

But to stop employers binning people just because they don't like them, there are things called laws.

Therefore BA are operating within the law and have given BASSA every chance to wise up and do the right thing.

There is only one party dragging this out, and that's BASSA, and that's because they are also operating within the law, which protects them. However, their ability to do damage is already waning considerably, and I for one look forward to them sloping off with their tails between their legs.

I feel sorry for the decent, hardworking CC who have given their all through this dispute, but get tarred with the same brush by less well educated members of the public.

As others have said, BA need to find a way to "manage" these miserable so-and-so's out of the company, but the truth is, despite their constant bitching and moaning, they know they have it good!

[PAXboy]

LD12986It was nearly two years ago the Lehman Brothers collapsed and it was only at the beginning of 2009 did the company start having talks with the unions on cost-savings. The company set a deadline of 30 June 2009 which in itself was too late. The company should have completed negotiations and had changes ready to implement at the end of its financial year 31 March 2009 so it started the next financial year with the benefit of productivity savings.As I understand it, BA started cost savings quite some time before this. They successfully negotiated with the flight crew and the engineers and the cabin crew at LGW. [Any one with dates of those settlements?] By leaving the obviously difficult candidate to last, they had them cornered.

[Lotpax]

LotPax, there are many of us that would like BA to be able to summarily sack these dour, miserable old timers who are a blight on the airline and put so many people off flying on it. If they had been able to do that, then there probably wouldn't even have been a strike.

But to stop employers binning people just because they don't like them, there are things called laws.Would these be the same laws that Aer Lingus had to abide by recently?

There is an old saying that "where there's a will, there's a way."

[Lotpax]

Chuchinchow

Sorry, wrong country ;)

[Ancient Observer]

From the other place....

a rather accurate definition of the monumental incompetence of the junta.

However, I have to say that they learnt how to be this incompetent from previous BA management. We all get the TUs that we deserve.........

"As for industrial action, there is absolutely no hope of BASSA managing to conduct a legal ballot for any further action.

The chances of BASSA managing to identify an entirely new set of issues for a further ballot, get a decent mandate for industrial action, not mess up the administration of the ballot, and not shoot themselves in the foot by linking the strike ballot to the previous dispute in any official communications, internet posts etc are zero."

[RTR]

If people get squeamish over using military analogies, then people please wake up! Mr Walsh has been waging a ruthless “Anti Union War” for the past two years, its hard not to draw comparisons, Nicky Marcus Worldwide rep was suspended last night over an incident that arose from a disciplinary she is doing for a member - we are literally in a “battle” for our working lives.

Mr Walsh wants one glorious big battle that he wins and to the victor goes the spoils of war, we instead need to keep fighting but differently over a longer period, hence the Vietnam analogy.


Its not so much the use of military analogies, its that these people feel it is justified. It isn't. BASSA's stupid battle bought forth Iwo Jima flag raising as their symbol. That was and insult, and still is. Now they mention Vietnam, that is an insult. None of you are worthy to mention those names in the same breath for your headlong charge to the edge of Beachy Head.

In the real world poor leadership has plunged BASSA in the abyss where several unions already lay.

And to use the same 'battle' terminology for BA's determination in saving a brilliant airline, BASSA is hell bent on destroying, is also very very stupid. Bad leadership and Marcus gets what she and they deserve like the rest of the BASSA's inept leadership. Better you get one thing abundantly clear. You tried your damndest to wreck BA - and the cc lives - you failed in the former but succeeded in the latter. Does that make you feel proud?

[Diplome]

Mr. Holley's latest message raises some serious questions regarding BASSA's recent representations regarding numbers who participated in the strike.

No BASSA member should read this without taking serious pause to consider where the union currently stands.

The message in its entirety can be found on the Cabin Crew thread at http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-90.html

It is obvious from the first few paragraphs that Mr. Holley understands that many members were not amused by the flippant and smarmy tone of the original. His title of "Easy to Read" is, in itself, an insult to his members. The inference given is that he has to dumb down the message for them to understand it rather than BASSA simply communicating in a professional manner.

A few points of interest:


There are no forums where managers openly criticise British Airways leadership, or indeed Willie Walsh, or Bill Francis et al;


Mr. Holley is conveniently forgetting that thorn in BASSA's side, Pprune. Both sides are debated here on a regular basis as he well knows. His statement regarding BASSA being an "open forum" is simply false.

Mr. Holley's discussion of Mixed Fleet gives lie to those "hit and run" posters on the Cabin Crew forum who state that Mixed Fleet will fail and is nothing to worry about.

New mixed fleet is already being recruited. It starts soon, very soon. People are applying from outside and from all over BA, even a number of current crew. They must all end their current contract and be reemployed on a new, very different contract.

This Fleet is where British Airways believes the future is. Not with you. They are calling them the “creme de la creme of crew”; that’s why you cannot transfer, you must “apply” to ensure you buy into the new culture; they will be kept completely separate from current crew so that they do not learn your culture. They will even be trained by external trainers and will not mix with you. Believe it or not, they will also - no doubt as a provocative stance - wear the uniform hat, to identify them as “different” - better if you like, than you.

The roles, working practices and aggressive performance management you will have to work to on this fleet will bear no resemblance to anything you have known.

I believe Mr. Holley's last paragraph regarding Mixed Fleet is correct in part. Aggressive performance management is something that has been lacking in BA of late regarding its Cabin Crew and it shows. Mixed Fleet actually provides some hope to customers that wish to be the main concern of Cabin Crew...not worrying about the dangers of closing a shade.

And most interesting of all commentary:

Mr Walsh has all but destroyed the union. Whether it’s window blinds, new crewing levels or less rest, who in the future is going to question it? Who are people going to complain to when things go wrong? The union? If things don’t change then it’s already too late. The office has long gone, reps are being routinely sacked, the union only exists within ourselves now, its structure has been dismantled. (emphasis added)

What happened to "7,000 Cabin Crew went on strike and we're still counting". If that statement were true it certainly would not represent a union "destroyed".

Again Mr. Holley gives no clear vision and pointedly offers no direction to those who have lost their staff travel. No notice regarding when suit will be filed only a promise of a lengthy delay with no date certain for delivery of action or relief.

Members having been paying monthly dues for years, YEARS...and there have been assessments received from other Unions and BASSA can't even open a temporary office? Yet Unite is looking to expand its £100 million "training centre for shop stewards"??? Unite union facing opposition over plans to expand £100m headquarters | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1280651/Unite-union-facing-opposition-plans-expand-100m-headquarters.html)

Rather than a "rally the troops" message one is left with the impression of desperation and regret.

My musical suggestion would be to replace ABBA's "Waterloo" with Eminem's "Love The Way You Lie".

[Phil Rigg]

So we read that DH has determined there is no point undertaking further strike action and also that BASSA is not ready to settle thus his decision is to take the "do nothing" option. Based on his narrow-minded, personal, view of the matter he has it in his head that his nemesis WW is under pressure to settle before taking his promotion to IAG but I cannot see any basis for this whatsoever. WW will take his promotion leaving others who report to him in immediate charge of BA while clearly still having overall responsibility for BA as well as IB in his new role. It simply cannot be in WW's, or any directly reporting successor's, interest to settle with BASSA as any settlement will only last until the next time BASSA chooses to kick-up. BA, and subsequently IAG under WW's leadership, will be seeking a collective bargaining relationship with a union who is prepared to work collaboratively with them rather that adversarially as BASSA currently is. With DH's and other BASSA rep's memberships under question, as they are no longer BA employees, and UNITE's repeatedly expressed frustration in the current BASSA leaders it won't be long before BASSA changes it's leadership for BA to be able to reconsider while also having PCCC as a second option in seeking a collaborative union to work with moving forwards.

I say again that BA have achieved everything they currently require of their CC and if BASSA chooses to take no further action then this will be just fine with them. Further, BA clearly has UNITE's support in quashing any interim wild-cat misdemeanors. The only price is carrying some extra VCC and MF staff overhead for a while but I'm sure this will now start to be bled away as BASSA has clearly shown it has nothing more to call a protected strike over and has all but stated this in public thus showing to BA it has capitulated. Oh, and yes, the ever present unfair dismissal tribunals and claims which are simply an inconvenient but budgeted consequence of any business choosing to employ people in this current age of entitlement.

The fat lady has finally sung and it appears not to be BASSA's tune ..........

[ChicoG]

It is quite sad to read the ramblings of BASSA's latest incarnation on the CC thread; it is almost certainly the same BASSA poster who has been laughed out of proceedings because of their lack of ability to include any facts whatsoever in their arguments, and this still continues.

The personal attacks on WW are at fever pitch, and the attempts at scaring VCC and other BA employees are being delivered with an equally strident tone.

What's sad is that I genuinely believe that this misguided individual believes that people out there can still be convinced.

I can only assume that such is the level of power they've exercised over 5,000 or so of their rather gullible members, especially over the last year or so, that they think the rest of BA to be equally malleable.

I look forward to the day when BA is rid of them.

[Hipennine]

The Sandown meeting (IIRC) voted to defer elections until the dispute is over.

The web mouthpiece, who now cannot stand for re-election, is now very clearly calling for a "marathon" dispute.

There seems to be a breathtakingly obvious conflict of interest here. Could one of you who is authorised ask Hecto Vector about this on the other forum ?

[jimd-f]

looking back over some of the recent messages from Bassa Admin i found this one
"BASSA (http://www.bassa.co.uk/) > Latest News (http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/WebPages/NewNewsFrontPage1.asp)
A QUICK UPDATE (http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/WebPages/ViewArticle.asp?intNewsArticleID=1088&strMore=&strCat=onticker&intCount=)

Aug 3rd, 2010 by admin

http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/NewsPictures/x.jpg This is is just a quick update because I told you the branch committee were meeting today, mentioning there might be a Branch meeting called next week and I guess a lot of you will be "tuning in" for some confirmation or not. For various reasons which include, school holidays, availability of venues, reps on leave and a host of reasons I don’t want to reveal to BA, it was decided to hold back any branch meeting until Monday 6th September at Kempton Park (11am). This does not rule out a ballot for industrial action taking place before that date. A fuller explanation with expanded details will be put out later in the week.
The UNITE meeting with Walsh was short (but alas not sweet). He remains as depressingly stubborn and foolishly intransigent as ever, so scheduled talks next week are not expected to bring any dramatic improvements to the situation. Sadly this means the fight goes on and yesterday afternoon we were heartened when JGS Woodley and Simpson guaranteed the continuation of UNITE’s full and unequivocal support.
Like me I expect you are constantly asked by friends, family and people "down the pub" whether or not it is safe to book BA tickets on such and such date. Last year when we announced the 12 days of Xmas we attracted a lot of criticism from the media, and indeed a High Court judge, for ruining the travelling public’s plans over the holiday period. Notice was indeed short and the fact many could not make alternative plans left us with an uncomfortable feeling. If however, in future you are asked the question about when the next likely dates for industrial action are going to be, it would be wise to advise whoever is doing the asking that no dates, no matter how sacrosanct, have been ruled out.
These are tough times for cabin crew and there has been a lot of vindictive pain inflicted by BA on loyal union members. From here on in, we make no apology that we do not intend to take that pain lying down. Whatever it takes will have to be done.
See you on the 6th if you can make it. Regards Duncan".

i know that Unite rescinded Duncan's close the blinds comments, but have not seen anything about these comments which appear to me to be encouraging union members to defy the companies attempts to get back to normal.
is this part of the new plans by bassa to employ "guerilla tactics" as mentioned previously in one of duncan's posts.

[Lou Scannon]

So... if not closing the window blinds when told to was construed as a form of illegal Industrial Action.

How does that leave the crew who refuse to hand out hot towels in World Traveler class?

...or has that problem now been resolved?

[Neptunus Rex]

Best Tomato Cultivator Holley expands his greenhouse to enhance his income, as, after their latest missive, it appears less likely that his erstwhile United mates will grant him a Golden Parachute.

How embarrassing to lose two well-paid jobs, but he should not have started a fight with a manifestly better armed opponent.

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

[RTR]

BASSA must be ruing the day they once had bales of hay to chew on. Now they scratch around clutching at a famine of straws.

Never was "you reap what so sow" so true.

[Sonorguy]

A knowledgeable cabin crew member who hasn't posted in awhile wrote sometime ago that as an ex-employee Mr. H can serve in his current capacity until the next BASSA elections. At that time, he will not be able to stand for election, as he is no longer a BA employee. That is, if he IS an ex-employee now. (Not sure what the appeals process entails.)


My bold. He's an ex BA employee as he's been sacked. An ET cannot force reinstatement, all it can do is order BA to pay compensation if it deems the dismissal to be unfair. DH will remain sacked whatever the outcome of his appeal.

[RTR]

DH is an ex BA employee. He has also had two appeals on the subject of his dismissal turned down - one of them stating that he does not have the right to: "having been rostered for duty, de-roster himself because he needed to attend to union business." So, he no longer employed by BA and cannot represent BASSA at meetings with BA. As for future appeals - has he any?

If correct, I note that BASSA's re-selection of officers has been postponed by Malone so that Holley can continue his VERY doubtful position. In view of his ridiculous rantings I imagine that members of BASSA would have expected him to do the honorable thing and resign.

He is persona non grata in my view.

[Mocamps]

I recently flew with BA and had a chat with a short-haul stewardess - young, very pleasant, had been with BA for a couple of years but did not see this as a 'job for life'. She seemed to have a very realistic view of how things will go in future and totally accepted that the older crew members have had a very good deal in the past but it can no longer continue in the present economic climate. There was no resentment there, just an awareness of how the world is at the moment.

It all left me wondering what rational and realistic cabin crew make of what can only be described as paranoid rantings that are evident from some of the pro-BASSA postings on the other thread. The most recent from 'Hector Vector' are possibly the worst to date and, from what I can see, serve only to amuse most people and irritate those who can't resist taking the bait. In fact, he doesn't even seem to be able to get his story straight about whether it is he or his wife who work for BA!!

Some time ago I met someone who had flown with Liz Malone and says that she too comes across as very pleasant, rational and sensible. If that is the case (and we don't seem to hear much from her so I have no real evidence that it is not) then surely she can see that some effort is needed to try to control the likes of DH as he really does not seem to understand that his rants (as most seem to be attributed to him and they do bear a remarkable resemblance to those that he openly admits to ) are serving no useful purpose and indeed, are probably only convincing the more intelligent crew members who have been loyal to date that he has indeed lost the plot!! Why does she not say or do something to stop him?? Surely, if anything is to be salvaged of BASSA it now needs some of them to get together and try to distance themselves from these ravings?:confused:

[Mocamps]

The other thing I can't understand is why Duncan doesn't just post with his own name or at least admit who he is (or should he really be posting on this forum now as he isn't employed by BA anymore? - does anyone check this out? Mods?)

Either he does or doesn't believe in what he says. If he DOES believe it, why bother to use all these aliases and spin a yarn about his wife?

[PleasureFlyer]

Could it be that Hector Vector really is Duncan Holly and that he single handedly saved BA £60,000 by getting himself sacked??????

[R Knee]

The other thing I can't understand is why Duncan doesn't just post with his own name or at least admit who he is (or should he really be posting on this forum now as he isn't employed by BA anymore? - does anyone check this out? Mods?)

OK on this forum surely; but agree your comments for 'the other place'.

However let him rant as it does BASSA more harm than good, and enlivens the debate from those who bite. It might spoil our fun if I asked the biters to look at the joining date/number of posts before nibbling.

Sorry I still can't get the quote in a blue box:{

Edit: A [ was missing in the end quote. Best use the quote icon and centre your cursor and then paste.

[42psi]

If however, in future you are asked the question about when the next likely dates for industrial action are going to be, it would be wise to advise whoever is doing the asking that no dates, no matter how sacrosanct, have been ruled out.

Is this not sailing rather close to the wind and annother potential route for the BA legal team?

If I understand it correctly the current industrial action has now ended .. without resolution.

Further industrial action can only take place after annother vote/ballot (on a seperate issue if, as I understand the various posts, dispute protection is to exist) when authorised by Unite - as made very clear by the recent missive from Unite on the blinds.

Can an official of Unite tell it's members to make statements about industrial action dates on a "when not if - nothing ruled out" basis??

I guess so if Unite is prepared to accept any possible consequences, but the last message from them seemed to suggest they want to keep a tight grip on any statements/instructions.....

[harrypic]

That's it!

p.s. Did his wife (a BA cc?) go on strike?

If she didnt and still has staff travel just imagine the fun some cc could have if they ever decided to take staff travel......:E

[Neptunus Rex]

Obnoxious 'Celebs' have been banned for life by some airlines, so why not obnoxious sacked staff?

[ChicoG]

Edit: A [ was missing in the end quote. Best use the quote icon and centre your cursor and then paste.

Rather than keep trying to thread a camel through the eye of a needle, why don't you highlight the text you want to quote with your mouse, then click the "Quote" button?

:}

By the way, I didn't see this pasted (my bolds):


REBEL cabin crew at British Airways again want to cripple the airline with a "12 days of Christmas" strike.

They want a repeat of the action threatened last year, which was thwarted at the last minute by a High Court judge.

Unite's Tony Woodley is due to meet BA chief exec Willie Walsh for more talks on the pay dispute on Monday.

But Bassa - the militant cabin crew union within Unite - is keen on a new strike ballot to get a mandate for the 12-day Christmas stoppage.

A source told The Sun: "The feeling is that we can't let BA run away. We need to prolong it."

BA, which is expected to confirm today that this year's stoppages have cost it almost £150million, has said it will fly all services in a strike - using volunteers trained up as cabin crew.

But the source said: "I doubt they'll fancy it over the Christmas holidays."

Two marvellous points there:

(1) The biggest selling UK daily calls them Militant.
(2) Only one person has an interest in prolonging it; once it's over, he stops getting wads of his members cash.

[Lotpax]

Please note before flaming me that I am not a supporter of unions and BASSA has handled this industrial action very poorly, in my opinion.

In the interests of balance, I would like to point out that over 10% of the BA workforce went on strike in the last round and that this is a very large minority of staff, if Duncan Holley is capable of mass hypnotization on this scale, I am sure that he will not be short of interestng and lucrative job offers in the future.

It seems now that things will likely drift into an uneasy stalemate, where dissatisfied strikers will work alongside folks who backed BA and new hires on a different contractual arangement.

The use of the word 'Vietnam', whilst repugnant to many (me included), probably describes pretty well what is might be like in the future as crew members are unsure whether their co-workers are on their side or the other and the passengers will be likely to experience service varying from the very good to the lacklustre and this is unlikely to polish BA's tarnished reputation much.

No, it takes two to tango and I don't see either party as having done a stellar job of resolving this dispute.

I'm also still interested in reasons why BA did not take the Aer Lingus approach to reducing staffing costs.

[Pohutu]

As others have pointed out, the BASSA reps who no longer work for BA do have something of a vested interest in prolonging the dispute rather than seeking resolution. But they also have a bit of a dilemma when it comes to calling any further strike action. If a new strike is called, it seems to me that there are two possible outcomes:-

The strike is found to be related to the original dispute, and anyone who strikes is therefore unprotected, or
The strike is found to relate to a new dispute, in which case the BASSA reps are no longer protected by the 'no elections during the dispute' agreement.

[Mocamps]

My point about 'Hector Vector's' identity is that if he is actually Duncan Holley (and even if he isn't!) and it is his wife who is airline staff, should he be posting on the forum for current airline staff only? Isn't it more appropriate for him to post on THIS forum? But then, I guess he's not too keen on taking on the passengers!!!

[Juan Tugoh]

If I understand it correctly the current industrial action has now ended .. without resolution.

Further industrial action can only take place after annother vote/ballot (on a seperate issue if, as I understand the various posts, dispute protection is to exist) when authorised by Unite - as made very clear by the recent missive from Unite on the blinds.

Not quite. The original ballot for IA is still good and UNITE can allow further strikes without any new ballot. The problem with this is that the protected period of 12 weeks IA is now over. This means that strikers could be sacked for breach of contract and it would not automatically be deemed to be unfair dismissal.

A new ballot would have to be over entirely new issues for there to be a new protected period, which presents BASSA and UNITE some difficulties as they clearly linked ST and Disciplinary issues in with the earlier period of IA.

The window blinds issue is illegal IA as this has not been balloted upon. BA would be within their rights as an employer to summarily dismiss anyone taking this unofficial wildcat action.

[Mariner9]

I seem to recall that Holley had only done a handful of flights over the last couple of years so you could hardly call him a serving CC even before his dismissal! However, in my view, a BASSA rep should be able to post on the other thread where the thread rules are presumably to deter "outsiders" like us SLF:p whereas BASSA reps have an obvious direct role in the matter.

With regards to the "Protected action" point made above, the latest Union mouthpiece on the other thread has already intimated that the (mostly sacked) BASSA leadership think this is irrelevant as "BA couldn't sack 7000" (yes, I know the number is incorrect and the premise is dangerous in the extreme).

Easy to have that viewpoint when you are not personally facing dismissal which is all the more reason why Holley & Co, if they had any honour whatsoever, should resign their position. Quite why the BASSA members can't see this obvious point and do something about it is beyond me :ugh:

[ChicoG]

I'm also still interested in reasons why BA did not take the Aer Lingus approach to reducing staffing costs.

Lotpax,

Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom, and in the United Kingdom it is illegal to sack your employees and re-hire them on lower pay. Perhaps Ireland does not offer the same protection?

Besides which, what was the approach you are talking about?

It doesn't appear they sacked anyone.

A total of 92pc of the (cabin crew) staff dramatically reversed their earlier vote against the rescue programme after the airline announced it would take drastic measures against them.

Three weeks ago, cabin crew rejected the cost cuts, known as the Greenfield Plan, by a majority of almost two-thirds.

The way is now clear for the airline to implement its plan to achieve over 650 voluntary redundancies within two years, pay cuts up to 10pc, which will be applied to the next payroll, and a three-year pay freeze.

Added: Link to original article.

Aer Lingus cabin crew vote for cuts after threat of sackings - Irish, Business - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/aer-lingus-cabin-crew-vote-for-cuts-after-threat-of-sackings-2114173.html)

[Lotpax]

ChicoG

Have you ever heard of SOSR? (One of the six categories of fair dismissal under UK law.)

For example, where there is no actual 'redundancy' situation but an employer wants to introduce new terms and conditions for sound business reasons.

Anyway, the threat of this by Aer Lingus seemed to focus 92% of minds in that particular dispute and a swift resolution follwed.

The BA dispute drags on and and on by comparison.

As I said earlier, I have no personal stake in this, but to balance the strong anti union sentiments on this thread, I think we should also consider whether senior management has done the best job, too.

[ChicoG]

LotPax,

ChicoG
Have you ever heard of SOSR? (One of the six categories of fair dismissal under UK law.)
For example, where there is no actual 'redundancy' situation but an employer wants to introduce new terms and conditions for sound business reasons.


For SOSR to be on legally sound ground the employer must NEED to introduce new terms and conditions, not want to!

Not to mention they would have to SOSR EVERYONE out of cabin crew, and I believe that they are not legally allowed to rehire them immediately. So it sounds to me like it's out of the question. With MF, they've found a way to introduce new T&C's anyway, so I doubt any judge would accept SOSR now.

As I said earlier, I have no personal stake in this, but to balance the strong anti union sentiments on this thread, I think we should also consider whether senior management has done the best job, too.

There is no point in considering something for the sake of it.

And furthermore, I am a firm believer in well run trade unions. However, BASSA is run by a bunch of immature, spoilt brats, and UNITE is run by a bunch of 70's-style flag-waving socialist proles.

So I don't count either of these as a well run trade union.

Next?

[Lotpax]

For SOSR to be on legally sound ground the employer must NEED to introduce new terms and conditions, not want to!Wouldn't you say that making sustained losses of several hundred million was enough reason to argue that the market has changed and requires new T&C's?

There is no point in considering something for the sake of it.As the thread title is "BA Strike - Your Thoughts and Questions", I thought that this was a legitimate subject.

Perhaps the thread should be retitled "The bash BASSA thread."

By the way, the moderator title seems to have slipped from your handle, just thought you whould be aware.

[ChicoG]

Wouldn't you say that making sustained losses of several hundred million was enough reason to argue that the market has changed and requires new T&C's?

It doesn't matter what I would say. What matters is that BA would have to prove in a court of law that it was not down to a global financial meltdown, so no, it isn't. Probably one reason why they haven't done it. Even if they sack all their cabin crew, they are not allowed to re-hire them within a year, I believe. How do they run an airline in the meantime (I could be wrong on that, but I believe that is the case; I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

As the thread title is "BA Strike - Your Thoughts and Questions", I thought that this was a legitimate subject.

Perhaps the thread should be retitled "The bash BASSA thread."

It is a perfectly legitimate subject, and you keep bringing it up, but every time I ask you to give an example of an action BA management took that has extended this dispute unnecessarily, you have avoided answering.

So by all means contribute to the debate by offering an opposing viewpoint, but it doesn't really offer much to sit there saying something vague like "For the sake of balance, BA must be doing something wrong" and then sitting back and complaining because few seem to agree with you.

I'll ask again. What do you think BA management has done wrong, and so as to keep it within a reasonable scope, let's say since January 2009 when they told BASSA they needed to make changes, since that effectively covers the period of this dispute.

I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you.

Again, I am not anti-union. Unions are wonderful things if run properly, and used for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Added: a paragraph on SOSR:

...employers should remember that establishing a potentially fair reason for dismissal is only half the battle. It must also be shown that a dismissal was procedurally fair in accordance with Section 98(4) ERA. When undertaking a business reorganisation or seeking to amend the terms of an employment contract, an employer should undertake appropriate consultation with the affected employee to ensure that all possible alternatives have been explored. Then, of course, there is still the matter of complying with the statutory disciplinary and dismissal procedure.

I think the general interpretation is that SOSR can only be used when none of the other 5 reasons apply, and therefore BA can ONLY use it as a last resort.

[Diplome]

BASSA and Duncan Holley have gone too far..my God.

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418645-british-airways-vs-bassa-current-airline-staff-only-94.html

Duncan Holley has named a non-striking member of BASSA on their forum because the individual disagreed with Mr. Holley's recent communication.

This is the same Mr. Holley who represented in his recent communication:


We have an open forum where all opinion is welcome but also be aware, it’s double edged. Your managers read it every single day, they analyse and thrive on every negative comment; any disillusionment simply plays into their hands.



I would offer that it is not managers that BASSA members have to fear, but their own leadership.

Each and every member who voted to accept BA's offer or voted in the on-line procedure where identification was required should be running from this Union as quickly as possible.

Mr. Holley has decided upon a scorched-earth policy against many of BASSA's own members. Incredible.

[Juan Tugoh]

Lets revisit what SOSR is and what the legal proofs required are.

In defending a claim for unfair dismissal, an employer must first establish that the dismissal was for one of five potentially fair reasons: capability or qualifications; conduct; redundancy; contravention of statute; or some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal of the employee (Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996). “Some other substantial reason” (SOSR) has been interpreted to mean a “sound good business reason” (Hollister v National Farmers’ Union (1979), Court of Appeal) and is frequently used to justify dismissals resulting from business reorganisations falling short of redundancy.

The proof that has to be applied as to this 'sound good business reason" is not the perview of the court - the court does not decide what is and is not a sound good business reason.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had applied the wrong legal test. SOSR did not have to be a reason that the tribunal considered to be sound, merely one that the employer considered (on reasonable grounds) to be sound

Millions in losses over several years and a group of employees unwilling to change their working practices to allow the business to attempt to stop such losses, certainly falls within this category.

SOSR can cover other things of relevance here too, and this case is worthy of some thought:

the Court of Appeal found that an employee’s personality, of itself, cannot be a potentially fair reason for dismissal. However, the way in which an employee’s personality manifests itself (in this case, with the employee making accusations against a witness, HR Director and the Chief Executive) can give rise to a potentially fair reason for dismissal on the grounds of conduct or SOSR, if it leads to an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship.

Some of the things said and done by some crew at Bedfont could easily fall within this category - WW as Hitler etc.


The point is, legally BA have a cast iron bottom line. As BASSAs own QC said in court, BA could have just issued new contracts - take it or leave it. Those who refused to sign would have been effectively resigning. This would not necessarily mean reducing pay, just formalising whatever deal BA wished to impose upon the CC at the time. Luckily for BASSA, despite and contrary to their repeated protestations BA IS committed to a negotiated settlement and has not ridden roughshod over the union. This even though they could have legally done it.


What matters is that BA would have to prove in a court of law that it was not down to a global financial meltdown, so no, it isn't.

A global financial meltdown does not need to be proven, just the company having financial difficulties for any reason is sufficient. MF or not , if the company is losing money quarter on quarter, they have ground to use SOSR as a justification for dismissal. Let us not pretend that a court really decides what is a good sound business reason - it is the company that does that.

[pvmw]

Duncan Holley has named a non-striking member of BASSA on their forum because the individual disagreed with Mr. Holley's recent communication.

It would seem an ideal opportunity to have a public face of the PCCC. If he has already been "outed" by the BASSA thugs - and even better is apparently an ex BASSA Rep. - then he has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[Lotpax]

It is a perfectly legitimate subject, and you keep bringing it up, but every time I ask you to give an example of an action BA management took that has extended this dispute unnecessarily, you have avoided answering. It is not so much a question of any action that prolonged the dispute, as any inaction that did not hasten the end, is it?

My thesis is simple, let me re-state it, the union has been awful in this dispute, but it takes two to tango and I cannot see how the senior management team can escape without questions being asked.

This dispute is nearly 9 months old, that is a very long time and it cannot be helping the brand in a hard market.

PS: Juan Tugoh

Many thanks for saving me a long typing job on SOSR :ok:

[ExecClubPax]

Lotpax

Let me make it simple for you. The BA leadership team have the full backing of the Board and Shareholders. Consequently, there are no questions being asked of it so there is no need for answers.

BTW, during all this has it escaped your notice the LT has begun sorting out the company's pension scheme (with UNITE backing), concluded a merger agreement with Iberia, neutralised transatlantic anti-trust action for the BA-IB-AA link up and secured agreement with all other employee groups for an across the board reduction in costs.

It might not seem like much to you but I'd say the LT has played a blinder in the current circumstances. No wonder the Board and Shareholders are happy!

[Shack37]

My thesis is simple, let me re-state it, the union has been awful in this dispute, but it takes two to tango and I cannot see how the senior management team can escape without questions being asked.



But this union has consistently refused to tango. Should Willie Walsh be on the dancefloor by himself?
Holley's latest outburst really is beyond the pale, he really is desperate now.

[ExecClubPax]

Question now is, will the UNITE leadership sit back or will they do something about this latest outrage. Indeed, it was TW who after the first injunction bemoaned "its a sad day for democratic unionism" or something like that.

The Animal Farm analogy is quite apt. "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." Who in their right minds would wish to belong to such an organisation where dissenting voices are hounded out?

[ChicoG]

A global financial meltdown does not need to be proven, just the company having financial difficulties for any reason is sufficient. MF or not , if the company is losing money quarter on quarter, they have ground to use SOSR as a justification for dismissal. Let us not pretend that a court really decides what is a good sound business reason - it is the company that does that.

I'm sorry JuanTugoh, but why use SOSR when redundancy is a perfectly sound reason? After all, it is the usual business process when employees are no longer required due to a "business reason".

I think BA ruled out SOSR when they failed to do this.

Don't get me wrong, SOSR probably would have been an excellent step.

But again, When you offer a new contract, you are going to penalise some more than others, aren't you? Opening a completely different can of worms.

Or why use SOSR when you can simply make people redundant?

If SOSR was as simple as many claim, there is no reason for BA not to have done it. The fact that it isn't is probably why they haven't.

:E

Lotpax:

This dispute is nearly 9 months old, that is a very long time and it cannot be helping the brand in a hard market.

I think you'll find it's a bit older than that.

I mean this was when it was already well in full flow (like 5-6 months IIRC....)

BA passengers face summer of strike chaos as boss demands further cuts in 'fight for survival' | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191611/BA-passengers-face-summer-strike-chaos-boss-demands-cuts-fight-survival.html)

:}

[JayPee28bpr]

This dispute is nearly 9 months old, that is a very long time and it cannot be helping the brand in a hard market.



BA share price is outperforming the market by 17% over the last year. The latest broker comments on the stock are pretty much all positive. Last week, for instance (per Barclays Wealth):


British Airways is flying high after both Citigroup and Royal Bank of Scotland raised their price targets for the airline. Citi raised its target price by 12p to 295p after expressing 100% confidence in British Airways’ joint venture with American Airlines going ahead. The bank thinks the synergies in the joint venture are worth 25p per share.


Everyone outside the BA bubble sees the dispute as over and has moved on.

[Juan Tugoh]

ChicoG

I'm sorry JuanTugoh, but why use SOSR when redundancy is a perfectly sound reason?

A perfectly sound reason to do what? Redundancy is not a reason, it is a procedure, a way of reducing staff. BA has not recently been looking to get rid of staff, indeed it is recruiting so why would redundancy even be legal under these circumstances. I did not suggest that SOSR was an alternative to redundancy. SOSR is a reason to dismiss someone.

The fifth category of dismissal reasons that capture those scenarios that cannot fall within misconduct, performance, ill-health or redundancy. The most common of which are either a fundamental breakdown in the working relationship or third party pressure that can't be linked to the employee's misconduct.

It has therefore not been ruled out, and it would be naive in the extreme to plan your life on such a notion. The SOSR defence is certainly not an easy option, if for no other reason than PR. CC have very little public support at the moment but mass sackings would certainly engender feelings of anger within the union community - and rightly so. However changing working practices to which an individual objects can fall into this category, and has been upheld at an IA.

Scott and Co v Andrew Richardson (2005)

Facts

Scott and Co were a debt recovery firm based in Scotland. Due to legislative changes, they were required to undertake more of their work in the evenings and consequently sought to change the shift pattern of their employees. Mr Richardson objected to the changes, arguing that the new shift system denied him the opportunity to earn overtime payments for working in the evenings. Mr Richardson was dismissed and brought tribunal proceedings for unfair dismissal. Scott and Co argued that his refusal to accept the new shift system amounted to SOSR of a kind such as to justify the dismissal under s 98(1) ERA.

Decision

The Employment Tribunal initially found in Mr Richardson’s favour, holding that Scott and Co had not demonstrated that the new shift system gave the business a “discernable advantage”. Scott and Co appealed.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the appeal, finding that the Tribunal had applied the wrong legal test. SOSR did not have to be a reason that the tribunal considered to be sound, merely one that the employer considered (on reasonable grounds) to be sound. Accordingly, the tribunal had erred in substituting its own opinion of whether the shift system gave Scott and Co and discernable advantage. All the employer had to do, when establishing SOSR for dismissal, was provide evidence supporting a genuinely held belief that it had a substantial reason which was not ‘whimsical or capricious’.

So altogether I'm still not sure what you are getting at here. I have presented some facts of what SOSR is and how it has been used and what proofs are used when it is utilised as a defence and who has to apply those proofs.

I personally don't care whether you take this onboard or not, but crew should be very wary of legal advice from BASSA. Muddled barrack-room lawyering has already caused BASSA some serious embarrassment; the 12 Days of Christmas was prevented because La-la Malone was willfully ignorant of the law, and the latest window blinds fiasco could have cost crew their jobs for illegal wildcat IA. Ultimately it is upto the individual to research these things themselves.

Rgds

JT

[Ancient Observer]

ChicoG

Juan is right. Can't we just leave it there and move on?
SOSR can be used any time by any employer, and it is the employer's business judgement that counts - the Court may not/are not allowed to substitute their judgement for the employer's judgement.
SOSR is also a hell of a lot cheaper than redundancy, given BA's daft, expensive, redundancy package.

Please - Move on from this boring legal technicality.

[oggers]

It is very difficult to make a succinct response to the action of BASSA in outing this dissenting member. Vindictive, dictatorial, hypocritical and generally nasty. :mad:

[Mariner9]

It would seem so Oggers, but in the interest of balance I would like to have seen the post by the "outed" individual to see if DH had any justification for getting his knickers in such a twist.

I can't really see how a post reportedly compaining about Vietnam/ABBA newsletter on their own forum can put strikers like the latest suspended rep "at risk" as DH claims, but I am prepared to consider the matter.

[ChicoG]

ChicoG

Juan is right. Can't we just leave it there and move on?
SOSR can be used any time by any employer, and it is the employer's business judgement that counts - the Court may not/are not allowed to substitute their judgement for the employer's judgement.
SOSR is also a hell of a lot cheaper than redundancy, given BA's daft, expensive, redundancy package.

Please - Move on from this boring legal technicality.

AO,

I never raised the subject again (I was asked "Do you know what SOSR is?"; while it's on the table I think it merits discussion. Since when did you decide what is boring on here and what is not? I think we can leave it to the mods, OK?

I have asserted in response that if BA were going to use SOSR then the SOR better be S.

I'm yet to be convinced simply by a definition of what SOSR is, and a few examples of where it has been used, that BA are in a position to use it, or use it "cheaply" as you say. If it were cheaper and bulletproof, why not do it?

Much water has gone under the bridge since this was first mooted on the first iteration of this discussion on the CC thread.

I for one am interested in seeing how the events of the last, say, 12 months have influenced BA's ability to simply "pull an Aer Lingus".

If you have no interest in the subject, please skip past my messages.

Until the mods rule it off topic, I think I am allowed to discuss it. Should they rule it no longer relevant, I will of course comply.

For example,

All the employer has to do to establish an SoSR dismissal is put forward evidence to support a genuinely held belief that the changes are necessary for the good of the business - they don’t actually have to result in an improvement.

And further:

* The SOSR category is a 'catch all' category designed to cover dismissals which do not fall into any of the above categories but which are nevertheless potentially fair.
* Examples include:
o dismissing a temporary employee when the permanent employee returns from maternity leave (provided the temporary employee was informed in writing at the start of the job that their employment would terminate in this way)
o expiry of a temporary contract
o dismissal because of personality conflicts
o dismissal because of third-party pressure to dismiss
o where there is no actual 'redundancy' situation but an employer wants to introduce new terms and conditions for sound business reasons

All of that makes SOSR sound like a piece of urine.

So surely it begs the question:

Why have BA not done it?

It is a valid point in this argument; after all it's been hanging over CC's heads since BA "imposed", either they are too stupid to understand it, or they believe that they have some legal protection against it.

Surely the point of this forum is to debate such things.

It might be a "legal technicality" to you, but to several thousand people it determines whether or not they're going to be employed for the next several years (if ever).

[Diplome]

Mariner9:

I believe when Mr. Holley was referring to "risk" he was simply stating that any non-striker was putting strikers jobs at risk.

In any event, there is no circumstance where the selective outing of a member on a confidential forum by BASSA is appropriate.

BASSA has repeatedly complained regarding its members being identified by third-parties....and now this. If I was a member who didn't agree with 100% of BASSA's actions I'd be very nervous at the moment.

[Mariner9]

I don't disagree that outing was inappropriate whatever the circumstances Diplome, but remain intruiged as to what was written that so annoyed DH.

[west lakes]

It is worth knowing that in the early stages of this whole mess that members were being ejected from the union for not agreeing with the majority.
I understand that this even extended to a rep at one of the bases, this was done by the simple expediant of not notifying the individual of meeting arrangements and then removing them from the commitee after a certain number of meetings had not been attended, as laid down in the rules.

In the cases of those that were ejected from the union the proceedure laid down in Unite's rules had not been followed - it was merely a decision by BASSA, a decision they, according to Unite's rules, are not allowed to make.
An appeal to Unite, as allowed by the rules, was suggested at the time, I don't know if this was done.

[Snas]

I’m sorry but I had to smile when I saw DH say….

We know who these people are, but no action has been taken as yet to eject them.


So now I know, all this time after my partner cancelled her BASSA membership (Feb) she has been calling and writing recorded delivery letters in an attempt to get them to acknowledge her departure and stop sending her ballots etc.


Now we know all she had to do was log onto the forum and type “I disagree” and bingo, you’re out. Live and learn eh.

[oggers]

In any event, there is no circumstance where the selective outing of a member on a confidential forum by BASSA is appropriate.

Yep. One shamefully ironic aspect to this is the way in which DH is comfortable performing summary executions in this manner. No agreed procedures here, no members' rights. No need for BASSA to be hampered by any of the checks and measures they would demand of BA.

I think what we are witnessing are the death throes of DH in his role at BASSA, lashing out in a somewhat spiteful and predictable manner.

[Hipennine]

One can't help but consider that this "outing" has more serious implications for BASSA/Unite.

BA has a duty of care to all its employees - hence the disciplinary action against various individuals for bullying, etc. In this case however, the act has been done not by an individual emplyee, but by the union itself through its appointed officer. Does that require BA to take action against the Union (as opposed to individuals) in order to protect its employees ?

[Neptunus Rex]

From a Dictionary:

hector
verb
intimidate, browbeat, harass, torment, plague; coerce, strong-arm; threaten, menace; informal bulldoze.Hector came to an inglorious end. Slain by Achilles, his body was then dragged around the city of Troy behind Achilles' chariot.

[JayPee28bpr]

The whole outing thing is laughable, other than the distress caused to the individual concerened which I would not wish to belittle.

BA's decision to remove staff travel perks gave rise to page upon page of posts about the alleged human rights breach of such action, not to mention threats of legal action under human rights legislation to reassert the fundamental human right of airline staff to a cheap holiday in the Caribbean. Holley's outing has resulted in a quite deafening silence in respect of the similar protections he has breached that were owed to the person outed. I would suggest Unite's approach to such matters is inversely proportional to the hurt suffered, ie something superficial such as cheap holidays attracts howls of outrage, something that matters such as controls over the maintenance of confidential personal data is simply ignored.

Holley has almost certainly broken data protection laws, and the person concerned will probably have grounds for complaint to the Information Commissioner. I think that would be worth going for. There is so much anecdotal evidence of Unite's poor control of data that there would have to be a good chance that the IC would find fault with more than just Holley's inappropriate use of personal data in this particular case.

However, the most amusing aspect of this issue is that it may well breach the, admittedly very limited, rights to privacy contained in the Human Rights Act and ECoHR. I seem to have missed the howls of outrage at these breaches from the BASSA faithful. Perhaps they're too busy lobbying Parliament over them, or demonstrating outside Unite's HQ shouting "Holley, Holley, Holley, Out, Out, Out!!!" to have posted any. Or maybe not. Seriously, a consistent approach to such matters would suggest that Unite should now take legal advice on suing itself!!!

[johnoWhiskyX]

From Hector Vector
"There is not much point taking the subs off of members if they are out to do as much damage as possible to the organisation. Once they have been identified, then chuck them out. In the past there has not been enough discipline, with some crew ignoring agreements selfishly to do their own thing, to the detriment of the majority.

Fortunately there is now a receptacle for such characters....it is called the PCCC"

My Version

"There is not much point paying someone if they are out to do as much damage as possible to the organisation. Once they have been identified, then chuck them out. In the past there has not been enough discipline, with some crew ignoring reasonable requests to selfishly to do their own thing, to the detriment of the majority.

Fortunately there is now a receptacle for such characters....it is called the job centre"

I am surprsied that the "outing!" has only just caught peoples attention. What i am more surprised at is the lack of action from Unite or the lack of a Unite member being disgusted enough to formally complain to unite.
What DH has done is nothing more than discrimination, harrasment and bullying. Unite imho should immediately call for DH to resign and new elections held or face immediate disenfranchisement (is that a word?)

I had to rush off and see if Unison (My union) were partnered with Unite because for a Union who is ostensibly their to protect it's members to do this to one of them isn't something i want to be part of or associated with.

[west lakes]

From
http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/054-Unite%20Rule%20book%20-%20effective%20from%201%20May%2009%20amended%204%20Ju%E2%80% A6.pdf

I think 27.1.5 (my bold) possibly just about covers it



27.1 A member may be charged with:
27.1.1 Acting in any way contrary to the rules or any duty or obligation imposed on
that member by or pursuant to these rules whether in his/her capacity as a
member, a holder of a lay office or a representative of the Union.
27.1.2 Being a party to any fraud on the Union or any misappropriation or misuse of
its funds or property.
27.1.3 Knowingly, recklessly or in bad faith providing the Union with false or
misleading information relating to a member or any other aspect of the Union’s
activities.
27.1.4 Inciting, espousing or practising discrimination or intolerance amongst
members on grounds of race, ethnic origin, religion, age, gender, disability or
sexual orientation.
27.1.5 Bringing about injury to or discredit upon the Union or any member of the Union.
27.1.6 Obtaining membership of the Union by false statement material to their
admission into the Union or any evasion in that regard.


(Perhaps someone who can post in the CC thread might like to coppy this to there)

[Litebulbs]

Here is a question, if I may?

If BASSA had 100% membership at LHR and had a strike mandate of 100%, would BA have pursued the SOSR dismissal, re engagement route?

[vanHorck]

Yes and perhaps some current Bassa members (notice the plural) could urge the Unite management to start following both the Bassa and PPRune fora and point them to Duncan's next gaffe.....

One should hope that either Unite get stuck in cleaning up Bassa or kicking them out, for the well being of the entire Unite membership.

Perhaps Bassa could be replaced by PCCC within Unite?

[Lotpax]

Litebulbs

That is a very interesting thought.

[west lakes]

the Unite management to start following both the Bassa and PPRuNe fora and point them to Duncan's next gaffe.

Though tentative, I do know the general secretary of the Union (not Unite) I am in does check Pprune!

[Entaxei]

But why put the PCCC into the same old strait jacket, constraints and control of these creaking dinosaurs, they hopefully represent a new, modern method of handling working relationships between employer and employed which can only be to the benefit of both parties.

They have the potential to become that rare thing these days, an entity which is able to think and act without being constrained or controlled by political considerations and idealogy - some would call it freedom!! :ok:

[Ancient Observer]

I agree that was DH has done is unlawful.

Visit the ico website...........

Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998, data protection policy - ICO (http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/data_protection.aspx)

"
The Data Protection Act requires anyone who handles personal information to comply with a number of important principles. It also gives individuals rights over their personal information.
Your rights (http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/data_protection/your_rights.aspx)

Individuals have a wide range of rights under the Data Protection Act, including access, compensation and the prevention of processing.
Your legal obligations (http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/data_protection/your_legal_obligations.aspx)

If you handle personal information, you have a number of important legal obligations. All the details are here.


"


So, DH has now exposed Unite to legal action..............as he did with the request for staff not to open/close blinds.
I expect Unite's lawyers to issue yet another stroppy letter, and for the offending post to be taken down sharpish.

[Ancient Observer]

Any current or ex-Bassa member is entitled to ask DH as sec of the org for a copy of all of the data that the org has on them. It is called a subject access request.

I would hope that a few thousand would be sent for those afraid about the branch sec's megalomania.

The letter is below, the address is here.....
Branch Sec.
BASSA
Unite House,
99 New Road,
Harlington,
Middx
UB3 5BQ


As we know that DH is monumentally incompetent at admin, one week after sending the request to the junta, a further request should be sent to Mr Simpson.

Mr Simpson
Joint gen Sec
Unite,
Unite House,
128 Theobald's Road,
Holborn,
London,
WC1X 8TN
here's the letter that the Info Commissioner suggests you should use.

"Dear Sir or Madam
Please send me the information which I am entitled to under the Section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998.
If you need further information from me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible.
If you do not normally handle these requests for your organisation, please pass this letter to your Data protection officer or another appropriate official.
Yours faithfully


"

[just an observer]

BA's decision to remove staff travel perks gave rise to page upon page of posts about the alleged human rights breach of such action, not to mention threats of legal action under human rights legislation to reassert the fundamental human right of airline staff to a cheap holiday in the Caribbean.


I am no apologist for BASSA, believe me, but I wish this somewhat flippant reference to the human rights legal bid re loss of staff travel would stop being perpetuated.

The Human Rights legislation being invoked is not anything to do with rights to holiday flights, but is to do with the human right to have a legally balloted strike without suffering the withdrawal of perks (any perks, or for that matter, any kind of punishment) enjoyed by the rest of the employer's (any employer) staff.

If it goes unchallenged, or is confirmed as acceptable, any employer can then act against any strikers in a similar way in the future, however genuine their employees grievance may be.

Certainly I can see BA invoking it any time any further unrest arises, and they (BA) may not always be the 'good guys'.

[leiard]

baggersup (http://www.pprune.org/members/67836-baggersup)

I agree - how on earth does BASSA still exist.

They have a DH as their branch secretary who has been dismissed by BA yet no doubt still retains his income of 7% of members dues (£130k+ per year).

They have an open members forum !
BASSA forum
Discussion about the "pseudo" alternate cabin crew representative body is forbidden under Forum Rules.
Anyone trying to re-open discussion about this will have their posting rights AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDED WITHOUT NOTICE.
First and only warning.
This thread is now LOCKED and CLOSED.
http://www.bassa.co.uk/phpbb3/images/smilies/icon_arrow.gif BASSA MODERATOR
They can reveal members identities as and when they wish.

BASSA is in now a stage of complete meltdown

I feel utterly speechless - why do they still have members?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/boohoo.gif

BASSA 1/117 - Welcome to the Cabin Crew Union of Thomson Airways (http://tomairbassa.net/) - Thomson Airways are also a branch of BASSA ??
sorry edited a few times not only speechless but also lost for words :confused:

[HiFlyer14]

To Baggersup, Leiard and all other very understanding and tolerant customers (hate the term SLF!)

That is the question that many of us are now asking, and in particular it is something that the PCCC team are baffled about.

The latest outrage by BASSA gives you an indication of what we the PCCC are up against. Imagine if BASSA knew our identities? Where would this bad behaviour end? We certainly don't want it affecting our day to day work, and that is why we remain anonymous.

Many crew simply don't know about the PCCC for the simple fact that we are unable to advertise properly. We put flyers on our noticeboards - and they are literally taken down within minutes by the BASSA militants. We are accused of being BA management at every turn - we are not. But how can we get our message across when this is what we are up against? They won't even allow mention of the PCCC name on either of the other forums!

BASSA are slowly self-combusting, and the quicker the better as far as we're concerned. But it is extremely unpleasant to see our own colleagues "outed" and treated in this deplorable way.

The irony is that it appears now that the majority of BASSA members CAME TO WORK during the strike! So staying in the union serves no useful purpose for them - because they surely won't get representation by BASSA should they need it. But if cabin crew remain in BASSA, funding this deplorable behaviour, what hope is there for the rest of us?

I am a BA cabin crew member and the above represents my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Litebulbs]

The irony is that it appears now that the majority of BASSA members CAME TO WORK during the strike!

If that were the case, their would have to be at least 10000 BASSA members still.

[leiard]

HiFlyer14 (http://www.pprune.org/members/301578-hiflyer14)

the term SLF is not really a problem - a bit of tongue in cheek.

D O Guerrero (http://www.pprune.org/members/169934-d-o-guerrero)

I do not think there is any face left to save !

The Blu Riband (http://www.pprune.org/members/51552-the-blu-riband)

The only ones who have lost are those good cabin crew who trusted BASSA to look after their rights.

[leiard]

Baggersup

As for their bookeeping being in disarray. They might not want to have their bookeeping and members' lists sorted. Not having them sorted might be a strategic move on their parts right now.

Does DH have to give back some of his hard earned % of union dues if the membership is lower than claimed, or maybe he knows the real number of members by looking at his paycheck?

I am sure their book keeping is as good as they want it to be.

[leiard]

baggersup (http://www.pprune.org/members/67836-baggersup)

It is always the same - the top of the woodpile always gets the most.

That is why the likes of DH moaning about the pay of CEOs makes me laugh.
(WW gave up his bonus - did DH give up his payments while the strike was on?)

The 7% is what has been reported - I can not find any audited accounts for BASSA - so we cannot know the real sum involved,

[JayPee28bpr]

I wish this somewhat flippant reference to the human rights legal bid re loss of staff travel would stop being perpetuated.


The only thing flippant about this matter is Unite's abuse of human rights legislation in this way.


If it goes unchallenged, or is confirmed as acceptable, any employer can then act against any strikers in a similar way in the future, however genuine their employees grievance may be.



Employers already can and do withdraw perks, for a variety of reasons. There's no chance of the staff travel issue ever going as far as a binding legal precedent. And if it did, all that would happen is that employers would tighten up the entitlement wording to ensure they didn't get caught out in a similar way.

[ChicoG]

BASSA forum
Discussion about the "pseudo" alternate cabin crew representative body is forbidden under Forum Rules.
Anyone trying to re-open discussion about this will have their posting rights AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDED WITHOUT NOTICE.
First and only warning.
This thread is now LOCKED and CLOSED.
BASSA MODERATOR

Surely now Duncan and the rest of the reps have started lacing the Koolaid?

:bored:

[oggers]

....by 'Hector Vector':

http://www.pprune.org/5859940-post1899.html

A 'senior manager'. Spurious.

[Mariner9]

Well Holley does think he is a senior BA Manager

The article was printed in the Grauniad a month or so back as I recall. I note that HV hasn't provided the link and thus is breaking copyright (unless of course he was the original author, surely not ;))

Edited to add link to article: Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/28/fear-loathing-british-airways)

[Phil Rigg]

Yes indeed, the self destruction is well advanced. Hector Vector's latest post on the other thread so clearly reveals the poster to be DH. He takes every opportunity of polite and considered dissenting opinions to attempt to construct rifts based on unreasonable views from his own stable. He then goes on to relate an unsubstantiated tale of a disillusioned manager at Waterside as if this is the majority view at that facility to open his wrongly perceived rift between other pro-BA posters further.

As the very same tale came out of his stable in an earlier propaganda release of several weeks ago it has done nothing but reveal the extreme desperation to which this individual has sunk. Imagine being the general secretary of a trade union and feeling you need to spend any time whatsoever unwittingly embarrassing yourself on a public web forum to win your fight. BASSA's leaders are not worldly-wise business people they are regular high-school leavers who through a bit of savvy found they could use intimidation to wield power over management and better their lot. For the first time they are getting an insight into what it really takes to play at the level of managing a major global coporate entity and are way out of their depths. They narrow-mindedly believe their problems will be solved when WW leaves not realising that he is simply being promoted to a position where he will still have responsibility for BA CC's costs and will thus hire competent staff under him to continue the action he has started. They pretend to understand what is good for BA but have no idea of the complex inter-relationships and balances that a CEO has to deal with on a daily basis to make the entity function.

BASSA and its leadership need help to do the honourable thing before somebody's desperation leads to endangerment of personal safety. The kindest help would come from close friends. Beyond that it should come from the UNITE leadership through its personnel (sorry, HR - showing my age!) department. Unfortunately BA has done everything it possibly can to show compassion in offering to preserve living standards, etc., until these valued staff retire but BASSA's leadership has simply not seen the light.

[Snas]

Holley certainly needs to be removed, but I imagine that someone, somewhere (Unite?) is wondering how to go about such a thing.
This foolish man has become the face and voice of this dispute, the Tokyo Rose of BASSA if you like.

However, removing him is akin to the care you have to take with an employee that is likely to become disgruntled and disruptive once he knows its coming. I’m sorry to say I have in the past had to change passwords on systems overnight and intercept people upon their arrival for work to tell them it’s their last day. Underhand, but alas sometimes a requirement.

Unite could have a similar situation with DH. He has access to “official” communications channels, membership databases (such as they are) and some degree of control over the forum – he’s already lost his job remember and may decide to go out kicking and screaming perhaps.

I certainly struggle to imagine a smooth handover of power based on what I have observed / read over the last few years of these fools operation.

[Sonorguy]

"Have also been told UNITE are talking with Willie and that Woodley has expressly excluded BASSA. He and UNITE are furious with Holley. Woodley told Holley his call for wildcat action re: shades must be withdrawn as it would give the co. carte blanche to sack. Holley refused so UNITE issued retraction themselves. Fuming !! He now wants to isolate BASSA. With internal elections coming up, woodley doesn't want anything to do with what he calls the BASSA DISASTER. It's over. It's no longer a fight for CC; it's an internal fight to preserve their own positions. Don't know where we go from here."

This is a txt sent to a poster (StoneyBridgeRadar) on the other thread from a colleague. Telling, don't you think?

[JuliaHayes]

"Have also been told UNITE are talking with Willie and that Woodley has expressly excluded BASSA. He and UNITE are furious with Holley. Woodley told Holley his call for wildcat action re: shades must be withdrawn as it would give the co. carte blanche to sack. Holley refused so UNITE issued retraction themselves. Fuming !! He now wants to isolate BASSA. With internal elections coming up, woodley doesn't want anything to do with what he calls the BASSA DISASTER. It's over. It's no longer a fight for CC; it's an internal fight to preserve their own positions. Don't know where we go from here."

This is a txt sent to a poster (StoneyBridgeRadar) on the other thread from a colleague. Telling, don't you think?

On the basis of what I have seen of Woodley I don't think he has handled this particularly well - this simply begs the question "What took you so long?"

[ChicoG]

Holley certainly needs to be removed, but I imagine that someone, somewhere (Unite?) is wondering how to go about such a thing.
This foolish man has become the face and voice of this dispute, the Tokyo Rose of BASSA if you like.

Might I suggest that "Comical Ali" might be more appropriate?

:ok:

[Phil Rigg]

As we all commented at the time of the first strike call that McCluskey saw the "BASSA Disaster" with the potential damage it could cause to his union leadership ambitions early-on and distanced himself very smartly. What surprised me is how McCluskey, Woodley, Simpson, Holley, et. al., all continued to deliver the superior, righteous indignation, style union rhetoric (including factually provable lies in their often quoted numbers) to the press at large thus making themselves all look like clumsy and foolish dinosaurs in this progressive age where collaboration is the modern flavour for Industrial Relations. I have the vivid memory of feeling sorry for the undignified sight of Woodley at the end of his career being interviewed in front of the BBC News cameras trying desperately to spin the fact that only 3500 had actually been bothered to reject BA's offer and to make it sound like a crushing victory when everyone around could see it was all over!

Perhaps UNITE may be able to take the BASSA Disaster (together with its apparently overall declining membership) as a very big learning experience on how to modernise its entire approach to IR moving forwards. We can only hope they have learned that endorsing picketing with piggy posters, Hitler affiliations, men's underwear and mob mentality, jingoistic, bullying tactics, while BA's management and staff continued to work and respond professionally in the face of this unacceptable behaviour, just made the Union and its members look stupid and should have no place in the future.

No doubt we will see in time if anything has been learnt............

[Litebulbs]

I do love a bit of 70's style union rhetoric rhetoric.

[Diplome]

Litebulb..lol.

I'm of a mind at times to think the only way to save BASSA is to take Mr. Holley's keyboard away. ;)

[Entaxei]

Does anyone else begin to have the feeling that DH is becoming deranged - the image the springs to mind is the police superintendent in the pink panther, standing behind his desk, drooling, the eyes spinning as the white coats gently lead him away.

The only problem of course is that derangement can bring about a lot of destruction unless contained, and where is the containment going to come from in the present scenario - the unions (whichever one you look at) all seem pathetically useless - despite boasting about being worldwide, multimillion membership organisations.

Oh well, roll on Christmas!! :ok: (you've got to have something to look forward to).

[mrpony]

Yes he really has blown his gasket hasn't he. Sad really on many levels but then again, never mind.

[Landroger]

I do love a bit of 70's style union rhetoric rhetoric.

That's quite a droll remark. :)

Entaxei

As to Holley, no I don't think you are the only one who thinks he's deranged or, at least, very seriously deluded. I have thought that for some time, yet only now does it beg the question as to what to do about it and who is responsible?

If the Captain of a ship goes doolally, then there are procedures and protocols for deal with that situation as, I suspect, there are if the Captain of an airliner goes the same way. Rather a more serious and pressing problem there though. :eek:

If the CEO of a large company starts bothering bus queues and trying to smoke pigeons, then his/her fellow board members have procedures which, I believe, they are obliged to follow. Who though, will lead DH sobbing from the piece and ensure he is safe, warm and unlikely to hurt himself or others? :ugh:

Roger.

[Neptunus Rex]

As a long-term CSD, DH would have been earning 40K+. He is reputed to get 70K+ from his job with BASSA, giving a total of 110K+.
He lost his job, so is reduced to the 70K+. He must relinquish that post at the next election, thus leaving him with just his BA pension.
His hope was to be granted a sinecure by Unite, but his last two wobblies have enraged the top brass there, so probably put the kibosh on that.
Is it any wonder the poor luvvy is deranged?

[cavortingcheetah]

At a salary level of £110,000 there would be no personal tax allowance under the new rules established in the last Labour budget.Cigar box calculations lead to the conclusion that on £110,000 the tax liability would have been £36,440 for tax year 2010/2011 leaving a net of £73,560 after tax. On a miserly £70,000 the tax liability would be £17,654 so leaving a net after tax of £52,326. So the salary decrease might be £40,000 but in real terms any such job loss, based on rumoured figures and suspect calculations, makes a difference of only £21,214. Hard news if that's the mortgage payment of course. It is surprising just how significant the loss of the tax allowance calculated on a progressive basis on salaries over £100,000.

[Ancient Observer]

A balancing comment..............

I would humbly suggest that we might think carefully about the labels that we give people.

For about 40 years, BA managers have allowed TUs to operate virtually without restriction. It is the managers that put in place lots of the stuff that customers complain about. It is the managers that allowed check-in staff and CC to have appalling sickness records. It is the managers that insisted that on-board customer feedback sheets were handed to the "CSDs".........thus allowing editing by some. It is the managers that allowed BA CC to claim extra money for lights not working, that allowed them such stupid s/h schedules and breaks at lhr. Anyone remember the old-style baggage handling regime? Anyone remember that BA Engineering used to re-write perfectly good manuals from the OEMs??
I could go on..............

Thus, when the "managers" start to take some ownership of things that they should have sorted out years ago, those staff impacted react.

Not surprising , that.

Local reps who have only known one way of doing things - theirs - will obviously react. Very few of them have worked in the real world. (Other than installing kitchens, of course).
As it has been many years since anything was different, it is also understandable that they think it is all down to WW, and that when he has gone, everything will revert to how it has been for 40 years.

When the only life you have known changes, it is tough.

[Lotpax]

AO

Wise words.

Both parties to this dispute have a lot to answer for.

[Safety Concerns]

It is pleasing to see balance coming back into this but I can't help feeling its only because there is a sense that it's all over now.

I also wonder about some of the logic used here.

Its not ok to post in the other forum as an outsider pretending to be a BA insider but it is ok to post here as a BA insider pretending to be an outsider.

Does it make any difference at the end of the day and if it is really such an issue why not take insiders behind closed doors?

I of course acknowledge that the forum belongs to someone else and it is their absolute prerogative to do as they choose but does it actually achieve anything.

[slast]

Safety concerns
If that comment "Its not ok to post in the other forum as an outsider pretending to be a BA insider but it is ok to post here as a BA insider pretending to be an outsider" refers to Ancient Observer I suspect he/she like me is a BA retiree, so not allowed to post there. I've not seen anything to imply that we shouldn't comment here using our vast stock of ancient history lessons and maybe quite recent background!

[oggers]

the image the springs to mind is the police superintendent in the pink panther, standing behind his desk, drooling, the eyes spinning as the white coats gently lead him away.

The image that springs to my mind is this one:

YouTube - ‪Downfall trailer‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp1RXmM1-60)

The script lends itself to a parody of this dispute. There are some 'veally' good ones out there already (I particularly enjoyed the Indian Call Centre one) but I think DH warrants one of his own :E

[cym]

Hector / Duncan appears to be in meltdown on the CC tread

Reason has gone, ranting continues - talk about split personalities, wifes CC, he's a CSD, previously an aircraft owner and then a (BA?) pilot.

Talk about lost the plot. Please, any CC reading their thread think and act, you are being treated as cannon fodder for a few individuals egos

On the positive side, more time, the better the tom crop - get my drift?

[Betty girl]

Everyone is allowed to post on SLF as even if we work for an airline we still travel as passengers too.

I have got the impression that most posters like the input on this thread from people in the industry. Many of the other SLF threads actually require the input of aviation workers because they are often posing questions for us to answer.

[Diplome]

slast: I believe that post may refer to a BASSA insider posting on the Cabin Crew forum with opinions that others may not agree with in comparison to the BASSA forum being an absolute "shutdown" regarding those not adhereing to the BASSA marching orders.

I don't believe it was directed at Ancient Observer or others on this forum in the slightest.

[kenhughes]

DH may not be getting as much subscription money (if any at all), as some people think.

This is a quote from the Unite rule book (available here (http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/054-Unite%20Rule%20book%20-%20effective%20from%201%20May%2009%20amended%204%20Ju%E2%80% A6.pdf)):

17.3 Branches shall have direct access to a proportion of membership subscriptions. Such a proportion and access arrangements to be determined by the Executive Council, and may be conditional on performed compliance with financial reporting requirements. These funds may be used to meet the cost of administering the Branch; for recruitment and other campaigns approved by the Executive Council; for local affiliations; to assist members or their dependants who have suffered misfortune; or for any other worthy cause, subject to any provisions elsewhere in these rules, and that no general purposes funds shall be used for political objects. Any payments made in connection with any form of industrial action must be made strictly in line with Executive Council guidance applicable at the time.
(My bolding).

Unfortunately, BASSA's rule book is not available online to the profane and, as someone else pointed out, the audited accounts are nowhere to be found. They may not even be available to members?

[Fly380]

The Monty Python version of the dispute so far. King Arthur v The Black Knight. BA v BASSA? It's funny anyway.
YouTube - ‪Monty Python-The Black Knight‬‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4)

[Diplome]

From The Wall Street Journal regarding BA disciplinary action:

UPDATE: BA Suspends Another BASSA Representative - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100809-709281.html)

..and a WSJ commentary regarding the BASSA/Unite disagreement. The "naughty chair" comment made me smile. It looks like BASSA's branding as unreasonable is continuing.

Is BASSA an Unruly Child for Unite in British Airways Row? - The Source - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2010/08/09/is-bassa-an-unruly-child-for-unite-in-british-airways-row/)

[Ancient Observer]

Just for clarification..............

Whilst I have worked in Aviation, I do not and have never worked for BA.

Unlike the BA folk, and many others in Aviation, I have spent many years outside Aviation, where customers really do count..

I believe that one of BA's problems - and a problem for Aviation generally, is that far too few employees have ever worked in the tough world outside Aviation.
Aviation has lived with an average growth rate of 6% per annum. Even after 9.11, this historic rate was re-established until Lehmans went down. Continued growth has led to continuous complacency.

[DeltaMikeCharlie]

I've read alot of the posts on here that are clearly anti-BASSA.....esp from you Finn. I don't really come on here much but I wish BALPA had the bloody guts that BASSA has. Makes me laugh how weak our union is.

[Safety Concerns]

I fail to understand how my last post could have in any way been linked to any particular poster. I just thought in this current lull of activities it was worth considering a few issues from a different perspective.

If its not ok to post in the other forum as an outsider pretending to be a BA insider, is it then ok to post here as a BA insider pretending to be an outsider?

Does it actually make any difference to the situation?
How can one effectively manage it?

[Diplome]

I believe that the objection to Hector is not so much his many faces and occupations, its that he simply does not engage in any sort of real exchange and simply talks "at" posters rather than "to" them.

Trolls are like that.

There is also the suspicion that its Duncan Holley...and therefore not qualified to post. His writing style is similar to Mr. Holley, but he sounds a bit more sober. ;)

[Litebulbs]

I don't know if it is DH, as I am sure the mods would have investigated (speaking from experience!)

[Diplome]

Litebulbs:

Agreed.

It could be anyone...though he does use many of the same references as Duncan. If he starts spouting the lyrics to "Dancing Queen"....case closed :)

[Litebulbs]

What will be the next move and who will make it?

[Neptunus Rex]

Priceless, Diplome, priceless!

[Juan Tugoh]

I would not expect any "moves" from BA, they have what they want. They have the savings that they need going forward and MF is being introduced.

BASSA are in a difficult position, they have to do something or this all dies a slow death.

If they do nothing they effectively sign their own death warrant. Having failed to achieve anything meaningful by this IA and giving in, crew will see them as ineffective and numbers will dwindle, though who will benefit from that CC89 or the PCCC remains to be seen.

Crew that commute by air and need ST to do that viably for the long term need some hope that they will get their ST back - even in some limited fashion, or they will have to consider their long term future with BA.

My gut feeling is that BASSA will have to do something before BA but what can they do that will achieve anything of value I am not sure. IA is at its most effective when used as a threat, I'm not sure that BA believe anymore that BASSA IA is an actual serious threat anymore. The classic "I am voting for a strike in order to force BA back to the negotiating table" has been proven to be a paper tiger. BASSA need a viable threat, if they do not have one they have little to bargain with. The members of BASSA who are most affected by IA so far, are probably now the ones that need a successful resolution to the dispute. This also puts pressure on BASSA to come up with something.

Quite what that action is and how successful remains to be seen.

[JayPee28bpr]

What will be the next move and who will make it?


My guess from Holley's increasingly demented ramblings is that he's been cast out from the tribe/pride/whatever. So next step could be elections to BASSA reps. Not sure about this as I seem to remember there are all kinds of arcane restrictive practices surrounding eligibility that limit senior office holders pretty much to CSDs only. So Unite has to sort that out first, ie make the reps sort of, well, representative of the membership.

BA won't do anything. As far as they're concerned the dispute is over. There are no strikes, they've reduced headcount by about 2,000 FTE, they've got their cost reductions, they don't even have to give the pay rises they budgeted to 90% of crew. Will they do anything to provoke a reaction? I'm not sure what the upside is for them in doing so. I suspect if, between them, BA and Unite can sort out the rep problem, BA's next step would then be conciliatory. They could then move on and concentrate on the issues that really will determine WW's legacy, namely the Iberia and AA ventures.

[Litebulbs]

Would there not be a problem of a surplus of existing staff then? The headcount was reduced, but it will grow again as this new fleet develops. He still has to get the bulk of existing crew onto new contracts, or at least new working patterns, to achieve the total savings that have been stated as necessary.

[P-T-Gamekeeper]

Not sure about that litebulbs, the imposition of 1 crewmember off the aircraft fulfilled all of BASSAs required savings. New Fleet is all icing on the cake.

[Betty girl]

I think the problem probably lies in Unite and Bassa no longer agreeing on what to do.

I think unite wanted BASSA to recomend the membership accept the last offer and that did not happen.

When DS and TW told us we were going to get the chance to vote they said that the union would NOT try and influence the vote.

However when we got the ballot paper, the union also included a copy of the offer and basically went through it bit by bit saying how bad it was.

I think BASSA would like to take BA to court over the staff travel but I am guessing that Unite are not happy to foot the bill.

I think that maybe the silence from both Unite and BASSA is because they are in conflict with each other now maybe.

[Diplome]

Good news for Unite and BA, not so good for BASSA:

BA staff close to deal - News & Advice, Travel - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ba-staff-close-to-deal-2049808.html)

The issue of staffing numbers is an interesting one. The one down scheme provided savings initially required...though we now have the Mixed Fleet recruitment and they will be in operation in short order.

There will be some natural loss due to retirement, etc., but what the regular rate of that for BA Cabin Crew is not something I'm aware of. How many of the more militant individuals who lost their Staff Travel can continue paying for their lifestyle choice? Its obvious from Mr. Holley's most recent messages that BASSA plans nothing in the short term to give them a promise of relief.

Some of those airfares represent a high price to check in and punch your time clock. At what point does it become impossible?

[Litebulbs]

Not sure about that litebulbs, the imposition of 1 crewmember off the aircraft fulfilled all of BASSAs required savings. New Fleet is all icing on the cake.

But for that icing to be realised, their needs to be a one for one replacement of old for new. That may take some considerable time.

[wascrew]

litebulbs


``But for that icing to be realised, their needs to be a one for one replacement of old for new. That may take some considerable time.``

That has always been the case in this and well documented and prepared for in BA`s proposals


Yet someone managed to scare the Bassa members with stories of 30% pay cuts, route transfers redeployment and sitting at home with no work.

So instead of a deal that compensated and protected the `legacy` crew (offered to and accepted by numbers of non Bassa members recently, albeit not as good as one Bassa refused ) the likeleyhood , unless Bassa/DH/LM come to their senses is that BA will transfer the lucrative routes to new fleet (FYI trainers have been recruited on 18 month contracts to train new fleet) and there will be a loss of earnings that may force many to seek alternative employment plus natural attrition plus crew who transfer to new fleet. That will formulate the initial growth of new fleet but you are correct that for all legacy crew to disappear some time will elapse.

[JayPee28bpr]

BA's cost reduction program is based on legacy staff being around or a considerable period. However, the initial savings projected have been delivered. Indeed, I seem to remember that all of BA's better than expected full year financial performance was down to them achieving higher than expected cost savings.

BA don't need all legacy staff to go on day one, or even any time soon. The recent investor presentation forecast New Fleet would still represent a minority of crew in 10 years' time.

However, as wascrew has alluded to, if the hardcore can be persuaded to leave, then BA has the chance of speeding up those cost savings. Rejection of the latest deal gives BA both the means to speed up the process (if we believe the Ava story, commuters will be starved out soon), and some money budgeted for other purposes (pay rises) to pay off those that go and minimise the legal risk/cost. Speeding up the move to New Fleet brings forward the cost cuts. Again, some of that opportunity saving can be used to pay for higher cost staff to leave in the first place.

[LD12986]

Litebulbs - The only significant contractual savings measure still to be agreed were the changes to the disruption agreement where I think the company wanted to remove the requirement to seek union approval before it is invoked and to remove the two night stop rule after a long range diversion.

I think the main other issue were changes to the system of variable allowances so crew did not lose out if the money trips went to Mixed Fleet and changes to the redeployment agreement.

It is for BASSA to make the next move. The company has got most, if not all, the savings it needs. Mixed Fleet is here. Non-union members have a deal that provides for two annual payrises.

BA doesn't need to do anything.

[Neptunus Rex]

I do not think that many BASSA members could afford to resign. Apart from the "doctors, dentists and rocket scientists" that Tomato Cultivator Holley would have us believe are in their ranks, few have skill sets that could be parlayed into a job with similar take-home-pay. Then there is the CV problem. With the competition for jobs these days, how many employers would take on an ex-BA striker?

The long-range commuters who have lost Staff Travel would be small in number, and should be looking at alternative travel or accommodation to get to work.

I am convinced that BA need to remove the minority of 'rotten apples' from the barrel, both to improve the morale of the rest of the crews, as well as reassuring their loyal clients that proper levels of graceful service will be restored.

Hypothesis. If 500 of the most militant CC were to be terminated, on the grounds that BA no longer had confidence in their ability to provide the necessary 'product,' what would be the result? 500 claims for unfair dismissal, which would take months to resolve. Assuming that they were all successful, and were awarded, on average, half the legal maximum, the cost to BA would be around 15 million quid. To use that appalling phrase so beloved of the cousins, "go figure."

[TightSlot]

HV - Investigation in progress and account suspended pending response - If the user is not serving BA staff, then no further posts will be allowed

[AlpineSkier]

TS

Why is BA staff the criterion ?

The sub=title says "current airline staff only " nothing about BA and there are many people who have commented on there, including Litebulbs, who have said that they are airline but not BA.

[TightSlot]

Sigh!... I meant airline staff - apologies

[Betty girl]

Alpine. It is anyone that works for an airline on the cabin crew forum. I think it is that, that person said he currently worked for BA so that is what they are looking into.

[Diplome]

AlpineSkier:

BA staff is NOT the criteria. However being a present employee of an airline is...a reasonable requirement in my opinion.

The moderators have been rather encouraging regarding participation in the forum for those that qualify. They seem to truly want engagement from all sides. You simply have to be presently a "player" to play.

[Colonel White]

Can't see BA moving a muscle. The ball is firmly in Unite's court. Which is a bit of a problem. Unite are in the process of balloting for industrial action with the BAA. They also have a clutch of other negotiations going on, plus the looming cuts from central goverment. To cap it all, they have an election for the post of general secretary as Woodley and Simpson are due to retire. I suspect that the Unite leadership have also lost patience with the BASSA branch. I think they view BASSA now as a liability that could put the union in a very nasty position if they continue to spout more of the nonsense we have heard in the past couple of weeks. If crew have been leaving the union in any numbers, the branch organisation will be working overtime to keep their records up to date. The large difference between the numbers of strikers quoted by BA and those claimed by Unite points to possible accounting issues. Put it like this, if BA reckon that less than 5000 crew walked out, yet Unite say that over 7000 crew claimed strike pay, it does sound like some people may have been economic with the truth in claiming strike pay. Last thing the union wants is a fraud investigation, but a 30%+ difference does need explaining.

There is supposed to be an appeal against the February court case on the contractual nature of manning levels that got thrown out (Malone & Ors vs BA)

My guess is that Unite will quietly drop this. The leadership know they haven't a hope in hell of turning the clock back. I think BASSA will be read the riot act. They will be told that any further comms will only come from Unite and I think Unite will ensure BASSA hold new elections. Duncan Holley will not be able to stand and I suspect that he won't get offered any role in the union - think he's hacked off too many people. Odds are he'll opt for retirement. With a number of the reps suspended or out of the company, maybe the BASSA committee will get some new blood. The Unite executive may look to replace Lizanne Malone - her track record for attending meetings over the past year hasn't been shining. Not sure how you oust someone in her position -maybe you suggest that she retires ? If BASSA can clean their own Augean stables, they may be able to rebuild their membership.

[Litebulbs]

The Unite executive may look to replace Lizanne Malone - her track record for attending meetings over the past year hasn't been shining. Not sure how you oust someone in her position -maybe you suggest that she retires ?

If there is one thing that galvanises member support, is when the mother union tries to impose its will against elected reps.

[west lakes]

All Unite need to do is ensure that their rules are followed and before you comment it clearly states that they take precedent over the rules of any constituent unions.

1.2 This Rule Book applies to all members of the Union, and represents the entirety of the
rules applicable to members of the Union, save as explicitly provided for under this
Rule Book. For the avoidance of doubt, the Amicus and TGWU Sections ceased to
exist on the day these rules came into force and neither of those sections shall
constitute a group or association or other body or organisation of members for the
purposes of these rules

From
.http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/054-Unite%20Rule%20book%20-%20effective%20from%201%20May%2009%20amended%204%20Ju%E2%80% A6.pdf

[PAXboy]

So .. if the Unite union takes it's BAA members out on strike:
BBC News - BAA strike ballot result expected (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10944100)
ao that BA has to cancel some flights and then not pay some of it's crew members sector pay....

Will those members of the Unite union, picket those members of the Unite union?
Will the Unite union have sympathy for those members of the Unite union that have been inconvenienced and lost money through no fault of their own?
Just asking.
:}

[Snas]

If there is one thing that galvanises member support, is when the mother union tries to impose its will against elected reps.

In normal circumstances I may agree with that statement. In this case however if their (some CC) perceived attacks on the reps by BA management hasn’t managed to galvanise support I don’t imagine it happening because the mother union insists some rules are followed.

I’m far from certain that many CC could actually name more than one or two of the reps and even then those names they do know may be known for the wrong reasons!

[Snas]

Ouch...!

British Airways cabin crew in vandalised a plane on Sydney-to-London flight, it has been claimed | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3091625/British-Airways-cabin-crew-in-vandalised-a-plane-on-Sydney-to-London-flight-it-has-been-claimed.html)

[MIDLGW]

I'm sorry to say this, but I suspect there will be more of this kind of behaviour being brought to light sooner rather than later. Shameful and disgusting :*:=

[west lakes]

It amazes me how folk think that they can get away with this sort of activity without being found out.
In theory all the crew could have been discliplined for failing to report it and failing to stop it.

[Diplome]

An insider said: "They rendered the crew rest area useless by pouring milk over the bunks, blocking sinks and stuffing coffee pots full of foul liquid."
The source added: "One of the people involved was suspended by post on Tuesday."


The juvenile (and criminal) actions of some of these individuals is astounding. It seems that BA may have one less BASSA militant to deal with...hopefully a few others will follow.

[LD12986]

On the BASSA/CC89 reps, it is a salient question as to what they, in particular the senior reps have all been doing as this dispute. The last page of this documents lists more than 50 reps. Why has this dispute become focused around one (now sacked) rep?

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/AMICUS_News_Oct2009.pdf

[Snas]

Unite the union - Britain's biggest union (http://www.unitetheunion.org/default.aspx)

Can you find a reference to the BA issue on the default front page any more?

There are a couple of BA bits but you will have to look for them and one called BA Update dates back to March!

So as the world moves on and focus shifts to BAA staff, and many more things generally, some CC are still left with no ST and worse terms than when all this started. Crap eh..

[Ancient Observer]

A number of posters on this thread and in the other place have referred to antique agreements, such as 1948.................
.
Outside the public sector - does any other employer have such antique "agreements"..............??

I do hope that their maintenance arrangements are more modern..............

[west lakes]

Hmm, so in 1973 I started working for a nationalised industry, at that time we had 3 sets of T&Cs
one for the craftsmen
one for the office staff
one for the engineers and managers
Now they all had odd payments and rules
e.g. Craftsmen, if they were more than 15 minutes late having their lunch they got a payment.
Engineers if more than 5 miles from base for more than 5 hours could claim a lunch allowance.

Craftsmen if they worked overtime in an emergency and didn't get home until late could claim a spoiled meal allowance and a meal allowance
Engineers were expected to work up to one hour incidental overtime and received an annual payment.

Craftsmen were paid time & 1/2 or time & 1 for overtime
Engineers just got time off in lieu

And then we became a private company! (just like BA)
Within 2 years all the old agreements had been scrapped and a single agreement signed by all unions (including the forerunners of Unite)
All of the odd payments went out of the door, all the strange working practices went out of the door.
The only differences between the different groups were the payscales (though more senior managers ended up on personal contracts)
And there we are, apart from recently where expenses payable for overnight allowances were cut, no lunch allowances (we pay for lunch at own base so why get paid if somewhere else!)
Classes of travel were reduced for all staff
No free tea, coffee, biscuits or lunches at training courses or meetings!

WL

[Papillon]

Westlakes - of course, taxpayers might be asking why that nationalised industry had such generous benefits at their expense in the first place. ;)

[west lakes]

Papillon
I was responding to Ancient Observer to show that other nationalised industries had similar T&C issues to BA, but modernised (with agreement with unions) on privatisation.

[Papillon]

I know - I was only teasing you a touch.

BA have always been that way, even within the aviation sector. In my time there, arriving from another airline, nearly two decades after privatisation, I was truly astonished at the comfortable - ridiculously comfortable - work environment to be found there.

[LD12986]

Referring to an earlier discussion about non-union members, according to the other thread 1,100 non-union members have accepted the latest offer from BA on an individual basis. I'm not sure whether this is the total number of acceptances received by BA, or the number of acceptances after BA validated that those who responded were not members of Unite when the offer was made.

[PAXboy]

SbasSo as the world moves on and focus shifts to BAA staff, and many more things generally, some CC are still left with no ST and worse terms than when all this started. Crap eh.If you read the excellent posts by west lakes, I think you will see what has happened in the last 30 years. I was working in IT during the last recession (89/92) and guess what? Pay rates dropped suddenly and took more than five years to recover properly and some took ten years.

I am not unsympathetic to people who have to accept reduced pay and Ts&Cs, as I have had that (AND redundancy AND unfair dismissal) in my 30 years of working life. The point here is that the CC (and the BAA folks) do not seem to understand that, just because their line of work has had close to 50 years of expansion with only small setbacks, that it is still going to continue. They have a JOB and since we are in the worst financial crisis since 1929 - that is worth a heck of a lot.

There is no public support for any of this and they could all (BA + BAA) have negotiated their way to a new contract and STILL have had a job.

Tell me, if a company loses £1Billion due to 'IA' do you think that the company are then better able to afford to pay an increase in wages and benefits?

[Lotpax]

Referring to an earlier discussion about non-union members, according to the other thread 1,100 non-union members have accepted the latest offer from BA on an individual basis. Interesting if you add the above to the votes cast in the recent BASSA ballot, seems to add up to about 6,250, from a population of about 11,500 cabin crew.

At the moment (playing devil's advocate and using data from post #665), I make that approximately 3,449 to 2,786 in favour of rejecting the proposal, with about 5,250 unknown opinions (one cannot assume abstentions, as one does not know their reasons for not voting/accepting.) In other words only about 54% have made their views known, hardly a huge majority - what does the mute minority (46%) think/want?

Others on here may not like my thinking (and that is their perrogative), but bearing in mind the 'milk' incident (which was disgraceful) and other anecdotes of strikers isolating non strikers, I do have to wonder about the common sense of allowing a dispute like this to fester on.

Everyday, the discontent (in all camps) grows a little more bitter and the task of pulling everyione together a little harder.

From a business case perspective, it is clear that BA senior management believes it has won the dispute, but anyone who has gone through a major change program will reflect that delivery of such benefits only truly happens when the workforce pulls together and makes it so.

In other words, to deliver the cost savings, you have to attract customers to use your product and this can be directly impacted by the performance experienced from the workforce, by the customers. If your service is highly inconsistent, in a service oriented business, this is very damaging to revenues.

At the moment, what I perceive is a change program where the technical part has been delivered, but there is a blind spot to the needs of a sizable number of the stakeholders.

Given the strength of the emotions expressed by BA employees on both sides of the camp, I do wonder how long (if ever) it will be until these people are truly able to pull together and take the company forward.

Of course, I am on the outside and would be the first to accept that my perception is not as clear as those who are involved, but I wonder how this new world will rebuild BA's reputation, which let's just accept is not at it's peak following the industrial action over the past eight to nine months.

Tell me, if a company loses £1Billion due to 'IA' do you think that the company are then better able to afford to pay an increase in wages and benefits?This is a very good point. Industrial action is very costly and in non one's interests, a negotiated settlement is nearly always better.

The BA proposal terms after IA were worse than before, I believe that demonstrates the point Paxboy is making.

[Betty girl]

Lotpax,
As a eurofleet Purser I find that it has made no difference to the passengers perspective. Crew I work with on both sides of the devide seem just as commited as ever to delivering good customer service.

It is very strange though because no one can talk about the dispute at work for fear of upsetting someone else. It's very hard to explain because I, as a non striker, feel unsettled if I am working with someone who has a baggage tag with XXXX on or is wearing a BASSA lanyard but it is not because anything is actually said, it is just because I know they think completely the oposite to me.

Often you go to say something and have to stop yourself because it would be a giveaway that you were a non striker. So it is more just an uncomfortable atmosphere between crew, than anything else. Everyone treading on eggshells because opinions are so polorized.

When you do fly and work with someone who you know has the same leaning as you it is a relief to be able to chat openly about it.

I think the service the passengers get is as good as it ever was and on Eurofleet I think in most cases it is good service.

I cannot speak for World Wide crew though as I don't know what it is like on their flights.

[Neptunus Rex]

There is a simple way to fix the IA impasse, and this applies to all unions, not just BASSA. Legislation is needed to demand that a majority of the paid-up union members vote in favour of IA, rather than a majority of those who chose to vote.

Ipso facto, the union involved would have to declare an audited membership roll. Two birds, one stone.

[Airclues]

I think the service the passengers get is as good as it ever was and on Eurofleet I think in most cases it is good service.


I agree Betty Girl. I recently flew to Frankfurt and back with BA. The cabin crew were cheerful, friendly and helpful. They all went out of their way to make the passengers feel welcome even though the aircraft was completely full (glad that I didn't use staff travel!).

Dave

[Betty girl]

Dave, It could have been one of mine!!! i've been to Frankfurt recently !!!!!!

[Snas]

Legislation is needed to demand that a majority of the paid-up union members vote in favour of IA, rather than a majority of those who chose to vote.



I can see why, in relation to this dispute, you would suggest such a thing and part of my head agrees – however, that does effectively remove the right to abstain – I have any issue with the idea of that going forward.

“If you don’t vote we will count it as a NO.”

When you say it like that it does seem kind of wrong, really.

…and is the argument to automatically count it as YES not just as good? –
Try this: You are a paying, supporting member of the union and therefore by default agree to and support its actions in the absence of a specific indication (vote) to the opposite view.

Therefore “If you don’t vote we will count it as a YES”

Neither really works in my view.

[Lotpax]

Hi Betty Girl

The unease you mention (by the way, I empathise with you, been there done that and it ain't nice) is exactly what I am talking about, because some pax will notice it and others will not - also, some crews and pax 'click' better than other combinations and that's life.

If you speak with a number of frequent travellers, you will find that there is a perception (from quite a number) that BA is not as good an airline as it was in the past, perhaps due to a lot of the product cutbacks, particularly on the short haul business product.

Others swear by BA and some say 'over my dead body', but every airline generates such strong opinions.

I've only flown a couple of BA flights this year, one short haul in economy (50 mins) and a nearly 4 hour sector in business.

It would be difficult to think of how the short flight could be improved, as it was excellently delivered, but the business trip was awful , with inattentive crew who seemed to be talking to colleagues travelling as pax for much of the time. There was a 2 hour gap between the dinner service and the next drinks round (not even water in between) on an aircraft that looked as if it should have been refurbished many years ago.

From such a small sample of flights, it is difficult to determine whether this 50/50 experience is typical, but that was my 2010 experience.

I'm just about to book a return business ticket to South Africa for next month and with BA unrest and BAA unrest, unfortunately I will not be using your airline for this one, even though the pricing is competitive, I'll pay about 10% more for another carrier.

There's a real world out there and the union and management need to recognize this, sort things out and get back to fighting the competition, not each other.

I do regret that decent hard working folks like you are caught in the middle, you deserve better.

[Juan Tugoh]

There is at the moment no way of telling what is abstaining and what is apathy.

Abstaining from voting is a deliberate act, much the same as casting a vote is a deliberate act. Simply not voting could be a deliberate vote or it could be apathy.

If there was an option on the form marked abstain that you could tick then I think it would be reasonable to exclude that vote from any requirement to be part of the 50.1% of union members.

Not returning a vote should be counted as a no vote because taking strike action is a deliberate act. If you cannot be bothered to vote, what likelihood you will actively support a strike?

[Dawdler]

A spoilt paper would be indicative of abstention.

[Snas]

If there was an option on the form marked abstain that you could tick then I think it would be reasonable to exclude that vote from any requirement to be part of the 50.1% of union members.



That I could live with.

[west lakes]

option on the form marked abstain


I have seen this option, or similar on IA ballots in the past.

Or in the least rater more "choice" of action

Other options I've seen: -
Disagree with any action.

Agree with IA but not including a strike.

Agree vith IA including a strike.

All on the same paper.

I may be, in part, where this all went wrong by going straight to a strike option!

[Litebulbs]

There is a simple way to fix the IA impasse, and this applies to all unions, not just BASSA. Legislation is needed to demand that a majority of the paid-up union members vote in favour of IA, rather than a majority of those who chose to vote.

Ipso facto, the union involved would have to declare an audited membership roll. Two birds, one stone.

Your wish is soon to be proposed. I was informed yesterday that the "if you don't vote, then yes" is in the pipe line. Of course, you could just change the way the ballot paper is drawn up. However, who decides the ballot pool? The suggestion was that it would not be just union members, but the whole affected workplace group. Will the proposed legislation be fair? As we have seen over the last 13 years, not many of Maggie's laws were repealed. Dave is not going to swing to the left, so I imagine that if the con-dem-olition party get it right, then strikes will be a thing of the past.

No doubt that will be pleasing news to many on here. Who do we blame/thank for this?

[Ancient Observer]

Litebulbs -

......... probably Scargill. His fear of holding a ballot lead to the downfall of the NUM, and probably convinced the wets around Thatcher that this voting idea had more traction than they thought.
......................beyond that, you could also blame the Australians with their (political) voting process. ........................
and if you wanted to take it all seriously, the fault clearly belongs to Friedrich Hayek.

[Snas]

The suggestion was that it would not be just union members, but the whole affected workplace group.


Oh, that will be tricky.

I’d be interested to see what the definition of the effected workplace group was?

Looking at the BA IA would that include the catering staff that were on short hours due to less flights during a strike, or just other BA employees like baggage, engineers, yadda yadda - tricky one that I think.

[BillS]

Legislation is needed to demand that a majority of the paid-up union members vote in favour of IA, rather than a majority of those who chose to vote.
Would any politician vote for such legislation?

Remember UK General Elections (http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm):
2001; Labour elected with 24.1% of the electorate
2005; Labour with 21.6% (9,556,000 of 44,180,000)
2010; Conservatives 23%; Liberal 14.9%

Unite achieved rather higher majorities.....

[call100]

If you legislate to outlaw strikes or make laws to achieve them too draconian things will just revert to the bad old days.
Belonging to a Union was illegal, striking was illegal. None of that stopped brave men doing it and fighting the injustice.
The only thing that keeps the Unions on the 'legal' path is spectre of sequestration. After all, how would all those at the top survive should that happen?
The middle ground is there. but, that does not give employers freedom to destroy wages and terms and conditions thinly disguised in 'The economic climate'. Irresponsible employers are dicing with company futures more than the Unions. Usually led by bad advice from the EEF.
I cannot understand those not voting. They even get a prepaid envelope to return it.....Lazy, comes to mind.

[Phil Rigg]

Personally, given the substantial costs to the business of IA and the protection afforded to employees/union who take official IA (including not being liable for the damages they incur), I would like to go a step further and suggest a law that says:

"greater than 50% of all union eligible employees are required to vote in favour of IA for it to be consider official....."

I consider an employee's decision whether to join the union or not is in effect the first step, the second step is to actually vote when called and the third step is to vote "Yes" in favour of IA. Then, for example, if 90% of eligible employees choose to join the union and 80% actually vote and 80% vote in favour of IA the union would have 0.9 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 57.6% and could declare a majority win.

What happened yesterday at BAA with a less than 50% turn-out had UNITE saying "employees voted 3 to 1 in favour" of IA when the truth of the matter is that "only 1 in 4 eligible employees actually voted for IA" which is a very different matter. UNITE would have been able to make the very same statement had only 3 employees voted in favour out of 4 actually voting from a work force of 6,000. Which, I trust, all of us would agree is ludicrous! Likewise,as BASSA was proposing, this would also render ineffective the union balloting a conveniently selected sub-section of its membership only and then declaring the same specious statement.

The ability to cause £1bns of damages (without any liability) by simply doing nothing other than being an apathetic member of a union seems to me like an inordinate amount of power to give someone.

[Litebulbs]

Well that is one way of looking at it PR. If all employers were reasonable, we would not have unions now. As I have said before, we are only 100 years past the master and servants act. The law says to collectively negotiate, you need to be collectively recognised. Collective bargaining makes sense when you have the employee structure that BA have in cabin crew. Three roles and 12000 employees. When it works it is simple and the reps get the stick.

[call100]

Exactly....In today's society there should be no need for IA. Unfortunately there are is a breed of employer who, given an inch will always take a mile.
Of course you will never see the many, many harmonious Union/Company arrangements discussed on the likes of here..:hmm: It is unfortunately the nature of the beast.

[Papillon]

To be fair Litebulbs, you've had pretty much exactly that across the rest of BA. Sure, unions and management disagree, but they find a way through. The aspect of Phil Rigg's interesting post that is overlooked is that whilst you might have the result spun as a 3-1 vote in favour of action, provided a union isn't completely stupid, then it will be perfectly well aware that 75% of its membership did not vote in favour of industrial action. Therefore it will be cautious about calling a strike given there is every chance a substantial number of staff will cross the picketline.

Clearly, there isn't much enthusiasm for strike action amongst the BAA workers. Calling them out would be extremely risky. To that extent, BASSA have been a bit unfortunate (initially) in the BA case - they DID get a mandate for strike action. It's just that most of the crew ignored the call.

[Juan Tugoh]

To that extent, BASSA have been a bit unfortunate (initially) in the BA case - they DID get a mandate for strike action. It's just that most of the crew ignored the call.

There are certain events that "set the scene" for a number of years. There was a strike by CC in 97, where rather than actually striking most crew went sick. This had the same effect as a well supported strike and crucially BA caved in. This set the scene, for the next 13 years of CC IA.

It created a belief within BASSA that BA would give in if push came to shove. It also created within the mind of a lot of crew the belief that a vote for IA would make BA think twice and crucially, that they would probably not have to actually strike themselves. This disconnect between the act of voting for IA and actually carrying out the strike has had a major influence on the events of the last 18 months or so.

[Betty girl]

Lotpax,
Yes I think you are right, the business product has been cut back in recent times and I can really only speak for myself and my crews but I think we try harder than ever, to make up for those shortcomings by trying to be as attentive as possible.

Not sure if your 4 hour flight would have been part of the EF network because Larnaca or maybe Moscow are the only flight we do that would be that long. Anyway sounds like you were on a 767 or 757 if it were EF and they are due to be retired soon. As a Purser I no longer fly on them, thank God!! I just fly on the airbus and mostly they are relatively new and smart looking.

Anyway hope you do give us a chance again because I am constantly being told by passengers how suprised they are, how good we are!! Some people buy tickets with us because we were cheap or just happened to fit in with their schedual and then they are pleasantly suprised by the service from the crew. I think all the bad press has caused people to expect us not to be good and infact most of us, and I can only speak for EF, would bend over backwards to give good service.

[Betty girl]

Juan Tugoh,
I was crew at the time of the 97 big sicky.I don't feel that BA caved in. BASSA told the crew they had got them a big victory but everything that they gained was already on the table. At the time I was in CC89 (now known as AMICUS) and we did not go on strike. BASSA was part of the TGWU and you are right, in the fact that they made out they had got a great victory but those of us in the more honest union CC89 new that what BASSA said they had gained was already being offered prior to the strike. SO once again BASSA took crew out on strike (actually most did go sick) for absolutely nothing, just like now.

So basically BASSA have been lying to crew for years and years.The deal that had already been negotiated by CC89 back in 97, was the one that gave them all the new long range agreement, that WW crew now enjoy and yes you are right BASSA did take the credit for it but at the time they were playing their usual tricks of not wanting to sit in the same room as CC89 reps.

I feel very sorry for all the now AMICUS reps because they have been forced by their, now joint parent union Unite, to show a united front with BASSA and I am sure that many of them are upset by what has been going on but are unable to do anything about it.

[Safety Concerns]

the fact is if you are called to vote.....then vote. The result is determined by those who participate. With all these suggestions of new rules etc. what a load of nonsense.

Vote or face the consequences. One of the options on the ballot paper is NO.

75% didn't vote yes well many didn't vote no either. So what can you determine?

Is anyone aware of the percentage vote that puts a government in power?

[Phil Rigg]

I agree with Papillon's statement that any thinking union, while spinning a win, will realise the underlying truth. However, as we have seen with the BA CC IA the entire damage to the company is not just that caused by the actual number who walk-out on the day. It also includes the total amount of business and goodwill lost to its customers given the uncertainly caused by the threat as witnessed by the current press hysteria created by BAA declaring it has a "3 to 1 mandate" for IA potentially causing airport closures within as little as 7 days.

Again, this damage could be caused as a consequence of very small group of the total employees eligible for union membership actually voting "Yes" in the union's IA ballot call along with a very much larger group of aparently apathetic members.

SC: When seeking to undertake something as significant as joining the EC in 1974(?) the then UK Government sought a mandate through a national referendum even though legally it could have unilaterally made the decision based on it having been put in power by a minority of the population.

[Lotpax]

Hi Betty Girl

Yes, it was a 767 on one of the routes you mention. I am pleased that you do not work in such a horrible environment, I was thoroughly depressed after nearly 4 hours in that cabin.

Anyway hope you do give us a chance again because I am constantly being told by passengers how suprised they are, how good we are!

When the industrial action is over, I am sure I will.

As I said earlier, the London to Paris flight I took in late July was excellent, so I am not saying BA is bad, in fact having flown only 2 times this year, I would not draw any conclusions.

[Lotpax]

PhilRigg

The BAA equation (for the union) is how many people are needed to run the security and other services and will the hard core who voted yes be able to cause the airports to close.

25% of the whole workforce coming out might be more than enough to stop things dead (although I am speculating and may be very wrong.)

I've just booked flights avoiding a London connection on 4/9 and 11/9, just in case.

That is the trouble with IA for businessmen, the threat of disruption is as good as disruption in persuading us to take action.

[Lotpax]

75% didn't vote yes well many didn't vote no either. So what can you determine? This is my point, Safety Concerns, unless the ballot is worded with a number of options, as described by another poster, the result must always be calculated on the votes cast, since no one knows the intention of the non voters, so the union are being absolutely correct in saying 3-1.

I also with the statements about governments being elected on very low turn outs - interestingly enough, in Australia, voting is mandatory.

Maybe that is a fairer fix for union ballots? Vote or be liable to legal action.

[Phil Rigg]

I'll make this last comment and then give everyone a break by letting it drop ;-)

All of my comments to now have been related to a general company. In the case of BAA (and to a lesser extent BA) the potential damages that could be caused by a militant few and an apathetic many will extend to many innocent third party companies and their customers including all the airlines and many others who operate in and out of their airports.

What seems wrong to me is the ability to be held harmless while causing untold damages to others across international borders just by being a member of a union and simply sitting on your backside!

If the law has given you this level of power then would it not be reasonable for it to ask you to have to lift your wrist and tick a box before being able to wreak liability free havoc on this scale?

[Papillon]

Maybe that is a fairer fix for union ballots? Vote or be liable to legal action.

Not really, Lotpax. Frustrating as it may be, not giving a stuff and not bothering to vote is a legitimate perspective. Would you really want to force people to vote one way or another when they clearly don't really care?

[Lotpax]

Would you really want to force people to vote one way or another when they clearly don't really care?

I think there is a very good argument that not voting is irresponsible, when it mandates very damaging industrial action that can affect many others.

The Australian government view seems to be that voting is too important not to care about.

[call100]

If they cock it up like BA have the airports could shut for quite a while. It only needs the Firemen to go out ant the airport is shut. I think you will find they are the one group who will remain solid.
This needs talks not macho crap.

[fincastle84]

Excuse me, but this chat should be held on the BAA thread, not the BA thread. The BA strike is finished, dead, over. The BAA strike will never happen. End of both stories!!!

[west lakes]

Slight drift, but Unite lose yet again!!

Whitehaven News | News | Sellafield tribunal win (http://www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/sellafield-tribunal-win-1.745116?referrerPath=news)

[Papillon]

I think there is a very good argument that not voting is irresponsible, when it mandates very damaging industrial action that can affect many others.

Certainly. I'm not sure too many would disagree. The question is, whether forcing those who do not wish (or can't be bothered) to vote makes that any better. Again, do you really want up to 50% of those voting only doing so because they're forced? How valid would that be?


The Australian government view seems to be that voting is too important not to care about.

Doesn't make them right. It's a fundamental right to be indifferent too - I would contend forcing people to vote is utterly undemocratic.

[Mr Optimistic]

are there any thoughts left to think or questions still to be asked ?

[Phil Rigg]

The issue is not forcing anyone to vote but to increase the requirement to call IA from the current greater than 50% of those who vote to greater than 50% of union membership or even to greater than 50% of those employees who are eligible to join the union. This latter more stringent requirement incorporates the first component of choosing to vote in favour as to whether an employee chooses to join the union or not.

When a union calls an IA ballot I would suggest that it is invariably the militant minority calling the ballot who will predominantly vote with the non-militant majority choosing to sit on the fence. For what it is worth they may as well just have a "show of hands" as they used to in the past and do away with the complexities of a third-party monitored secret ballot.

The result will always be "our members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action....." when it could equally be said "a minority of all employees who are eligible to join the union have chosen to exercise their legally protected option of causing substantial damages to their employer and all parties with whom their employer conducts business while the majority of eligible employees are indifferent".

The legally protected ease under which substantial damage can be caused to so many by so few at the individual cost to them of substituting a few days strike pay for salary does appear very unfair. But the law was never about fairness.....

[KBPsen]

That point was reached a long time ago, Mr Optimistic.

[Diplome]

Gosh Mr. Rigg, this post isn't going to have a lot of depth, but please accept that its not due to my feeling the need to be "important". I'm quite sure in that reality :)

________________

West Lakes...your post makes me wonder if I know what "West Lakes" you are referring to in your nick.

[Argus]

As part of a recent trip to Europe, my wife and I flew from Paris to London on 16 Jul 10 via BA. I had previously tried to cancel this flight and use Eurostar instead. However, we stuck with BA because I couldn't get a refund due to the package we were travelling on.

I'm glad we did travel with BA. Although only a short flight, the service was excellent, the seats comfortable, the staff friendly and the food edible.

On complementing the staff, the CSD was quick to point out that none were members of the Union.

To use the Antipodean vernacular, Missus (with the double barrelled surname), I dips me lid! Thank you.

[Lotpax]

Doesn't make them right. It's a fundamental right to be indifferent too - I would contend forcing people to vote is utterly undemocratic.

Why? Democracy is based on the majority view.

[Landroger]

I think there is a very good argument that not voting is irresponsible, when it mandates very damaging industrial action that can affect many others.
Certainly. I'm not sure too many would disagree. The question is, whether forcing those who do not wish (or can't be bothered) to vote makes that any better. Again, do you really want up to 50% of those voting only doing so because they're forced? How valid would that be?

Quote:
The Australian government view seems to be that voting is too important not to care about.
Doesn't make them right. It's a fundamental right to be indifferent too - I would contend forcing people to vote is utterly undemocratic.

Surely Papillon, indifference is what makes democracy so difficult? Not only which, there are many aspects of our lives where indifference is most definitely not optional. I found myself quite indifferent to paying my car tax yesterday - its gone up about 20% for no other reason than the government felt able to do that without much bad press, but I digress. To ignore the fact that my car tax is due, was simply not an option - very quickly someone will compel me to pay it or the car is taken away.

It is people who 'can't be bothered' who throw litter out of moving cars. It is not their right to do so and someone will, sometime, catch them at it and, quite rightly, punish them for doing so. If I see it on the roads, I tend to phone the local authority with the registration number. Not being bothered is not your right - it is not and should not be any part of public life.

I'm afraid I am of the 'rights are paid for by responsibilities' mind set - no responsibility, no rights. People have fought and died for the right to vote - and it doesn't much matter whether it is National Elections, Local Elections, Local Referenda, your Parochial Church Council or your Union trying to gauge support or opposition, then indifference is both a waste of a right and offensive to your peers.

The Australian government, on this rare occasion, have the right of it. Indifference is an antisocial - and intolerable - behaviour. Sorry about the rant Papillon - it isn't directed at you personally. :)

Roger.

[harrypic]

Apathy in voting has some very hard lessons in history - militants and fanatics will always be bothered to turn out and vote - although an extreme case, read how Hitler came to power....

[PAXboy]

As well as apathetic voters there seems to be a pre-disposition in humans to believe what they are told. If someone speaks convincingly and seems to know what they are talking about and is passionate ... name almost any dictator or president or Prime Minister. In fact, if I read the ancient history books correctly, people actually believed Tony Blair would make things better and that he was a man of his word ...

[somewhereat1l]

Tony Blair DID make the UK better.

[fincastle84]

Tony Blair DID make the UK better.

..........for Tony Blair & his family but no one else!!!!!:ugh:

I suppose that in the same sentiment Duncan Holley has improved the lot of Bassa CC & made them much wealthier during the past 6 months.

[Rusland 17]

For all his faults - and, by God, there turned out to be many - Britain did become a better place during Tony Blair's adminstration. The recognition of Human Rights in British law, civil partnerships, the end of blood sports... the social changes were fundamental and generally positive. But that's probably a topic for Jet Blast.

[PAXboy]

It certainly is one for JB. I had no idea that mentioning TB would have such a reaction. So I'll leave it by pointing out that we have been made a target for terrorists and dissent and shown to be the poodle of the USA.

Next topic!

[Papillon]

Landroger, I'm not supporting the notion of indifference, I'm saying that people have the right to be indifferent and apathetic. Whether in a General Election or a union ballot, people have the right not to care. That they then deserve everything they get as a result of that indifference is a separate point. Forcing someone to vote is an illiberal act.

[Landroger]

Landroger, I'm not supporting the notion of indifference, I'm saying that people have the right to be indifferent and apathetic. Whether in a General Election or a union ballot, people have the right not to care. That they then deserve everything they get as a result of that indifference is a separate point. Forcing someone to vote is an illiberal act.

I know you're not supporting it Papillon - I realised that when I re-read your post again - but you are propounding that the indifferent have the right to be so. It is that with which I disagree and while you might actually be right, that forcing people to vote is an illiberal act, I think the end justifies the means.

Apathy in voting has some very hard lessons in history - militants and fanatics will always be bothered to turn out and vote - although an extreme case, read how Hitler came to power....

Harrypic's observation is absolutely spot on and exactly why the relatively minor infringement of my rights, represented by requiring me to vote, is to be preferred and more beneficial to "society" - in the long view.

Roger.

[Papillon]

Indeed so. People have the right to be indifferent, stupid, ignorant, thoughtless and wrong as well - that's part of a democratic process. As soon as you add compulsion then you're also going to add huge number of votes that actually haven't been thought through, or are done for the sake of it. It is for those standing or proposing a position to exercise the minds of those they wish to vote. They need to earn the interest of the electorate.

I note the appearance of Godwin's Law within the thread, but in point of fact the NSDAP did have strong electoral support - the idea that a small party seized power is wide of the mark. Besides which, I am amused that anyone would choose to paraphrase Machiavelli when talking about democratic action.

[Juan Tugoh]

The right to vote is, in a wider democratic sense, also a duty. You cannot have the potentially ridiculous situation whereby 5 people out of a population of 10,000 vote and with only 4 candidates the one with only 2 votes wins. The situation of having less than 50% of those who voted delivering a winner is madness, yet it is the logical extension of the it is undemocratic to make me vote argument.

There is nothing undemocratic about society expecting and enforcing certain activities from its members. We all have a duty to behave within the law, merely having a system of voting does in no way absolve you from this duty. Democracy is not a free for all where you only do what you want to - that is anarchy. Society requires many things of its members, if it did not then society would break down, compulsion by the state is an absolute part of modern democratic society - it is naive to think otherwise.

However, if you do go down the line of making voting a duty, then there must also be an option which allows you to vote for "None of the above". Abstaining from voting is also an important part of democracy and is a political act. Apathy, on the other hand is not a political act. Abstaining does not mean just not voting it is a deliberate act of will. Those prepared to abstain should also be prepared to tick a box saying "Abstain".

When the outcome of a vote is as important as a general election or even as petty as a union vote for strike action we should not ever be in a situation whereby a small minority of militants can determine the outcome.

The issue of voting reform and "First Past the Post" or PR are frankly of secondary import when either can deliver power to an extreme position. It is far more important that everyone votes - even if their action is to spoil the ballot, this is also a political act. Going to a polling station and spoiling a ballot is, by far, better than doing nothing.

[Phil Rigg]

.......thus concluding that if we can't find an acceptable way of guaranteeing that all eligible parties are going to participate we at least preserve the definition of democracy being a majority by making absolutely sure that a majority of the eligible membership vote in favour, rather than a majority of those who choose to participate, before we inadvertently grant a militant minority the relatively unbridled freedom to wreak untold havoc on the rest of our lives.

I believe if this far more stringent requirement was to have been met by BASSA we wouldn't have seen the irresponsible juvenile antics displayed at Bedfont FC, nor the unacceptable bullying behaviour of pickets towards their non-striking members. Indeed, as a true majority had spoken, there would be no need to picket at all and management would have no choice whatsoever but to sit up and listen to mature and reasoned argument for a change.

[Rusland 17]

I had no idea that mentioning TB would have such a reaction.And I had no idea that posting such a message would result in my receiving such an unpleasant private message from Fincastle. And I didn't even vote for Tony Blair...

[Landroger]

Precisely JT. Although you are on the mark about "None of the above" and "Abstain", I think an "Abstention" box might be a concept too far for the indifferent. :ugh: A vote for none of the above more or less covers it, while having that indefinable suggestion of humour to soften the blow of Papillon's Illiberal Act. :)

Phil Rigg has simply put the same thing in a slightly more sharply edged form and brings us neatly back to the BA CC IA and one of the reasons why it is such a dreadful mess. Having said that, one of the main contrary issues would not have been addressed by compulsory voting. That of CC 'writing cheques their ar$es couldn't cover' by voting for strike action and then working. :ugh:

Roger.

[Sir Richard]

As we seem to have strayed onto "Voting" and "Democracy", is it reasonable that Part-Time Staff (25%, 33%, 50%), who, IMHO, also tend to be the more "Senior" Cabin Crew, each have a 100% vote? :confused:

[Juan Tugoh]

one of the main contrary issues would not have been addressed by compulsory voting. That of CC 'writing cheques their ar$es couldn't cover' by voting for strike action and then working

the answer to that is held in one of Papillon's postings:

People have the right to be....... stupid, ignorant, thoughtless and wrong as well

[Landroger]

As we seem to have strayed onto "Voting" and "Democracy", is it reasonable that Part-Time Staff (25%, 33%, 50%), who also tend to be the more "Senior" Cabin Crew, each have a 100% vote?

We haven't strayed far Sir Richard and I'm sure we will all be 'back on piste' as soon as something happens - which it isn't at the moment. This thread is less prone to descent into the utterly irrelevant, so it would be a good moment for one of the 'Cross Posters' to explain - in words of few syllables :eek: - the way 50%, 33% and 25% crew operate for us 'SLF and Allied Trades'.

Since Sir Richard has pointed out the possible anomaly, it's difficult to visualise how a quarter or a 1/3rd of a vote would work. Any offers?

Roger.

[Sir Richard]

I am guessing it could work the same way as BA count FTE, Full Time Equivalent, staff when it comes to staff numbers in the Annual Report.

4 @ 25% plus 3 @ 33% = 2 Staff = 2 Votes. :8 rather than 7 votes

[Juan Tugoh]

2 votes instead of 7. Now that concept would likely scare BASSA witless!

[KBPsen]

So if you have put in some overtime your vote should count for more than 1?

[slast]

I raised this issue earlier (post 688). I question the right of a 50% worker’s vote to strike carrying equal weight with that of a full-time worker – after all they have a 50% less chance of being required to follow through by refusing to report on a strike day, and have less to lose than a full-timer if things go wrong (as they have in the current situation).

However I don't think lots of overtime should entitle you to MORE than 1 vote, after all overtime is supposed to be occasional work in excess of contracted time. But if I was not only working 100% but also doing overtime, and I voted one way, I should certainly feel annoyed if a decision turned on the views of those without even 100% commitment. As a former "union rep" as well, I would have some doubt about how accurate an indication of strength of feeling I was getting from a ballot which didn't differentiate part-timers from full timers. That may be a factor in BASSA's misjudgement of how much impact they'd actually have when push (threat) came to shove (stoppage). Even a committed striker doesn't have any impact on the business if they happen to be at home anyway.

[call100]

It's nothing new all this. People will always speculate on ways to change the voting system until they get the result they want.
There is no excuse for not voting. It's just plain lazy. Ballot drops through your door, open, mark X appropriately, put in prepaid envelope, pop into postbox at your leisure.

[Hipennine]

It would be very interesting to have a breakdown of the 4950 (or is 7000 ?) strikers to see their full-time or part-time status. Presumably if the strikers were mostly part-timers, the impact would be significantly less on the operation, and go some way to explaining the relative non-use of VCC, CRC being apparently busy, etc. on strike days.

[Lotpax]

On the same basis, should amputees have less than a full vote?

Seems to me that an employye is an employee, regardless of hours worked and on that basis deserves a full vote.

[Juan Tugoh]

And we should definitely factor in in someone's height - shorter people should should not count the same as tall people!:)

Lotpax is right - one man(woman) one vote.

[ChicoG]

I have to say it makes me sick to my stomach watching that puke Woodley, being interviewed in regards to the BAA strike, once again pretending he gives a :mad: about the possibility of buggering up the holiday plans of hundreds of thousands of people.

If ever anyone needed a good slap, it's him.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a back door attempt at punishing BA for winning the battle with militant cabin crew.

STRIKES by members of the Unite union at BAA airports could cost British Airways up to £15 million a day in lost revenues, according to a leading industry observer.

Source: Scottish Sunday Express | City & Business :: BAA strikes to cost BA £15m a day (http://www.express.co.uk/money/view/193304/BAA-strikes-to-cost-BA-15m-a-day)

[Snas]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a back door attempt at punishing BA for winning the battle with militant cabin crew

(if that is so) …and by doing so inflict further losses on CC also in lost allowances for trips they won’t be flying. As if ST and wages lost to date wasn’t enough.

[ChicoG]

(if that is so) …and by doing so inflict further losses on CC also in lost allowances for trips they won’t be flying. As if ST and wages lost to date wasn’t enough.

And hopefully drive more people to question the value of paying so much of their earnings to what essentially looks like a political organisation trying to score points while its leaders earn a pretty penny.

I can only hope that more people start questioning why they pay money to a union that costs them a lot more than just their monthly subs.

[ChicoG]

Shock and surprise. A Unite official called Brendan Gold announces a settlement which will be put recommended to BAA employees.

I'd say he's positioned himself well to go for the Gen. Secs. job, he's clearly a whole lot better at negotiation than the other muppets.

[Litebulbs]

Or Unite are dealing with a different management team?

[LD12986]

Litebulbs, other workgroups at BA that are represented by Unite have managed to successfully negotiate significant changes with management.

The one exception is BASSA, which suggests they are the problem.