BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

[Juan Tugoh]

Litebulbs - yes, what you say makes sense.

I do remember that DH posted something at the time of his dismissal that BA refused to de-roster him and that he decided that it was more important to do union work than turn up for his rostered duties. This posting, which I cannot be bothered to look up but is out there in the public domain, may well come back to bite DH hard. It may cost him both any ET verdict and potential unfair dismissal compensation.

It would not be the first ill-advised posting from the BASSA leadership, LM's comments wrt members leaving on VR being entitled to vote for IA that they could not possibly take part in would be one of these.

[dogandduck]

Not only on the forum, Duncan, live, on the Victoria Derbyshire show admitted that his union work was more important than fulfilling his obligation to work for British Airways despite being payed a basic wage of 45K to do so:ok:

[Litebulbs]

Not only on the forum, Duncan, live, on the Victoria Derbyshire show admitted that his union work was more important than fulfilling his obligation to work for British Airways despite being payed a basic wage of 45K to do so:ok:

But, if the working relationship between BA and BASSA was good, then it would be money well spent, but I am going to say that!

[vctenderness]

The way it works for cabin crew is that reps are given a normal roster and all scheduled meetings have to be applied for in advance of this. BA were always very good on this point. Sometimes meetings come up post roster publication and, again, BA would usually deroster for these (including purely on TU business).

What was never acceptable for TU reps to do was take themselves of of a rostered trip. It did sometimes occur but BA would chastise the rep. In times of Industrial strife BA always get more restrictive and in the case of DH it should be noted what time of year this happened. Christmas for reps would always be easy to get time off, however if you were threatening strikes over Christmas period this facility would be withdrawn and the reps would keep their roster or get standby instead.

I would guess BA will have a watertight case on this and will be able to quote chapter and verse on the TU deroster facilities if it comes to a IT.

[Litebulbs]

One thing I do note is both threads are quieter outside of office hours!

[Timothy Claypole]

Has the working relationship between BA and BASSA ever been good? For as long as I've been in BA it's been either BA do as BASSA say or industrial strife. You don't need to pay someone £45K to orchestrate that.

[Litebulbs]

What can I say to that? However, if there is an industrial collective recognition agreement, then you should stand by it.

I have just been watching BBC News and BB of the TUC was talking about focusing on the current proposed cuts. The BBC then fanned it up to nationwide co-ordinated secondary action. Lets all go on strike, that will solve everything.

Regards,

Disgruntled from Gatwick.

[Litebulbs]

The way it works for cabin crew is that reps are given a normal roster and all scheduled meetings have to be applied for in advance of this.

Is that the case for the Chairperson and Secretary?

[vctenderness]

Yes exactly the same. The Secretary/Chairman would be treated as a 'Senior rep' and give consideration for attending more meetings than others. However the rules applied equally to all reps and for operational reasons de-roster could be refused for them.

[Litebulbs]

However the rules applied equally to all reps and for operational reasons de-roster could be refused for them.

I imagine that if there is no evidence to counter what you say, it is going to be a very short tribunal. It will probably hang on reasonable time off and whether it could be proved that over time, less time off was allowed because of the dispute. But the mandate not to negotiate is a glaringly big statement, when you are trying to defend time off to negotiate!

[Timothy Claypole]

I don't believe Holley even tried to defend his time off as negotiation time. He's stated publically that he took the time off to update the BASSA membership lists for a forthcoming ballot!

[Litebulbs]

If that is the case, then that would be a reasonable request from the Branch Secretary, especially because of what happened in previous ballots and the reduction of crew and therefore members.

[Timothy Claypole]

It mattered not to the pre-tribunal hearing whether his request was reasonable or not, they made it clear it was BAs prererogative when Holley should work. BASSA had stated that they would only deal with BA for disciplinary and H&S cases, does BA have a requirement to release BASSA reps for any other purposes? The law only requires reasonable time off for union work, yet Holley had only flown 20 hours in the previous year, compared with a typical 500 for Eurofleet crew.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Well said. The problem has been that generally MOST reps have used the system to get out of unwanted trips. One rep told me last year that there was a majority who would use EVERY opportunity to do ANY other work, disciplineries, office duties etc rather than fly. Of course the minute a decent trip came up then they did it. Friend of mine was on the crew car park bus a few months ago and heard a loud mouthed rep OPENLY telling everyone that he wouldnt be doing the long day he had just got from Av , and instead would be doing an office duty. Shorter and more lucrative.

[Litebulbs]

The law only requires reasonable time off for union work, yet Holley had only flown 20 hours in the previous year, compared with a typical 500 for Eurofleet crew.

I am sure that if 20 hours in a year can be proved to be normal for a Branch Secretary, then there would still be a case.

[Litebulbs]

Well said. The problem has been that generally MOST reps have used the system to get out of unwanted trips. One rep told me last year that there was a majority who would use EVERY opportunity to do ANY other work, disciplineries, office duties etc rather than fly.

If what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt you, then it is no wonder that the rest of BA feel the way they do about BASSA, if pprune is the majority opinion. However, if you read other forums, that view changes.

[Neptunus Rex]

Oh Litebulbs,
How sweet of you to play the ingenue!

[Ancient Observer]

The case most often quoted in time off for TU duties is Beecham vs Beal. It went to the court of appeal. (1982). Beecham became Glaxo Smith Kline Beecham. (Glaxo SK, or GSK).
Beal was an activist ASTMS rep within GSK, and Ian Moore, the then HRD was fed up with Beal. Ian, as an ex-TGWU convenor at the (then) Michelin factory in Scotland, didn't have much time for ASTMS generally. This was in the days when CliveJenkins, the ASTMS GenSec was doing dodgy personal property deals in Camden, using ASTMS money, and most of us in the trade were aware of it. Clive resigned "unexpectedly" in 1988.
(Clive regarded himself as an expert on Aviation)
The case was about Beal attending an ASTMS "conference/meeting" which Ian believed had no direct relevance to GSK. Ian saw it as Beal skiving, yet again.
At that point in time, Ian had a "mate" in the GSK legal team who was assertive, so they thought they'd take on ASTMS about time off for this meeting. Unfortunately for Ian ASTMS used a bright left wing QC who was trying to make a name for himself in the Employment law market, and who saw this case as a way of getting his name known. (Even BA's famous lawyer, Webb, was young once!).
The case went to the Court of Appeal, and Beal won. The Court put quite a wide definition on what "reasonable time off for TU duties" actually was. Ever since then, employers have been careful about when to refuse time off.

Er, except Ian. The next time Beal asked for time off for a very similar meeting, Ian told Beal that he could not have the time off. If Beal wanted to challenge GSK on that point, he could take them to court. ASTMS declined the opportunity to take GSK to court.

[fincastle84]

I am sure that if 20 hours in a year can be proved to be normal for a Branch Secretary, then there would still be a case.

As a share holder in BA I would sincerely hope that 20 hours work per annum wasn't the norm for ANY BA employee!

[fincastle84]

The next time Beal asked for time off for a very similar meeting, Ian told Beal that he could not have the time off.

Excellent post AO, thanks. This is why DH doesn't have a leg on which to stand. He was refused time off & in turn refused to work. Gross misconduct-bye bye.:(

[Litebulbs]

You missed out the flown hours from your post.

[Timothy Claypole]

If what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt you, then it is no wonder that the rest of BA feel the way they do about BASSA, if PPRuNe is the majority opinion. However, if you read other forums, that view changes.

Yes, it certainly is difficlut to find a negative view of BASSA reps on any forum where they control the moderation!

[cavortingcheetah]

So, Ancient Observer, at the end of that extremely interesting post of yours, and purely because I'm too lazy to research it, what was the appeal judgement or guidance on reasonable time off for union duties?

But work loads for union business such as balloting and the like in 1982 must be a far cry from those of today where the Internet and perhaps reduced numbers of union members surely enormously reduces time required for extraneous duties associated with union management. So any guidance from the Court of Appeal in 1982 would have been predicated on old working practices?

[Neptunus Rex]

Blimey, Fin, I am not surprised you are one concerned shareholder.
45, 000 quid divided by 20 hours = 2,150 quid per hour!
I think BALPA should be told!

[JUAN TRIPP]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JUAN TRIPP http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/417709-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-ii-101.html#post5931939)
Well said. The problem has been that generally MOST reps have used the system to get out of unwanted trips. One rep told me last year that there was a majority who would use EVERY opportunity to do ANY other work, disciplineries, office duties etc rather than fly.

Litebulbs wrote in reply
If what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt you, then it is no wonder that the rest of BA feel the way they do about BASSA, if PPRuNe is the majority opinion. However, if you read other forums, that view changes.



I have over the years got to know a number of people within cabin services, and the ones who I trust and who trust me have mentioned MANY scenarios about what Bassa have got upto. Now I'm not being naive, BUT as I said these are people I implicitely trust. The stories of Bassa not turning up at numerous meetings is well recorded as an example. In fact CC89 regularly got fed up of that happening to them as well. DH mentioned on radio 5live, that ALTHOUGH Bassa didn't win the 97 dispute, it meant BA brought in a more softer person to deal with them. Over the next 8 years the lovely but ineffective Joy Hordern ( or joy Hidden as she was known as) did pretty much everything DH and his troops wanted. Hence according to DH all was happy. It was only when WW appointed Simon Talling-Smith that things started to change.

A dear friend of mine sat in the same office as Joy for years, and used to tell me that Bassa had her EXACTLY where they wanted her. Any problems and the little threats started.

Now I know that its not that simple, but I don't think I'm far from the truth. As for putting even a percentage of what I've written on Crew forum or the Bassa forum would result in the the usual - you must be a pilot/ waterworld latte drinker, VVC etc!

[Hand Solo]

I seem to remember it being under the reign of Horden and Street that Bassa got BA Ops to divert an aircraft in flight as the crew were at risk of going outside their industrial agreement (not scheme). The lever was threats of non-cooperation. Can you imagine that happening now? Just goes to show what a crazy messed up organisation BA once was.

[JUAN TRIPP]

There aren't many outside camp Bassa who have known all the things that they have done over the years, but I bet WW has been told/advised of many of them. Thats why what is happening now will not change and the likes of DH,LM and the rest are still it seems in deep denial

[Exasperated]

From the GMB website

Monday 13th September

GMB GROUND STAFF AT BA HEATHROW OVERWHELMING VOTE TO ACCEPT DEAL TO ASSIST TO SECURE FUTURE OF THE AIRLINE

This vote is a ringing endorsement of all the hard work done by GMB workplace negotiators at BA over 12 months to secure a negotiated settlement

Over 1,000 GMB members at employed as ground staff at British Airways at Heathrow have voted by an overwhelming 97% to accept an agreement recommended by negotiators last month to assist secure the future of the airline.

This agreement concludes negotiations on this issue which began in January 2009. The main features of the new deal are agreements on new employment and staffing levels, new arrangements for meal and other breaks, new arrangements on flexibility, agreements on ongoing procedures to deal with further changes that may become necessary over the coming period. Overall employment levels will fall by 500 (some 200 have already left), all by voluntary means and with reasonably enhanced severance arrangements and with provisions for redeployment. The deal also included a one year pay freeze to October 2010.

Mick Rix, GMB National Officer for civil aviation said "This vote is a ringing endorsement of all the hard work done by GMB workplace representatives at BA over 12 months to acheive a negotiated settlement to secure a future for the airline. GMB members hope that the future for BA will be bright and that when growth resumes that the prosperity can be shared between our members and the company."

This proves that BA can negotiate and so can unions (except BASSA). Also proves that BA are not into "breaking" unions. Anyone from BASSA care to comment on the last paragraph.

It's all about working together and this proves it beyond doubt.

Ex

[Hipennine]

Can anybody explain to me why an organisation with 10,000 (??) , members paying £15 per month each does not employ professional staff to look after membership records, ballot organising etc. These tasks require no special sector industry knowledge. Surely, sensible convention would be that the reps represent members interest rather than undertaking the time consuming administrative minutiae ? Nor is it reasonable that an employer is compelled to release an individual rep to undertake such duties, whilst being paid by the employer ?

I can understand a union branch of say 50 people needing to do the admin voluntarily, but for a group with membership fees exceeding £1.8m pa it beggars belief. Or is there some ulterior reason for the union branch to organise this way ?

[Ancient Observer]

cavorting.

It's easy to research, there is an acas code, and all the time off
provisions were brought together in sections 168 - 170 of the Trade
Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
Although 1982 is a long time ago, most of the post Thatcher Employment legislation in this area dates back to the 80s and earlier.
Union duties must relate to the official’s own employer
and not, for example, to any associated employer.

There is a distinction between duties and activities.

If DH has said in the public domain that he wanted the time off to update the branch records, that is, at best an activity, not a duty. Some ETs would NOT even regard it as an activity as defined by the law and acas.

Duties are to do with the relationship with the employer.
I should not repeat theacas code here. You can find it at

http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/l/q/CP03_1.pdf

Note one quote "There is no right to time off for trade union activities which themselves consist of industrial action." getting a ballot ready for Industrial action will fall in to this category.

Finally - it is the Rep's task to ASK FOR time off - not to just take it!


On the GMB deal, the GMB is run more as a business than as a "battling" TU. It is more interested in gaining members and organising the members than it is in striking - but as they've shown at Astra Zeneca, if they have to strike they will do. Both Mick Rix (Aviation) and Alan Black. (Chems/Pharms) are people who can do deals. Mick has an interesting background................

Alan should be a Prof. at a leading Business School. Quite why he's an FTO I have no idea.

[cavortingcheetah]

Ancient Observer,
Thank you for that very detailed explanation to my question which I much appreciate. The ACAS document is a little open to individual interpretation I should have thought. So thank you for pointing out some of the more salient points. I would have think it reasonable to assume that anyone who was used to working within the framework of the document would be well aware of its actual boundaries. Reasonable however was always a very individual word and has often been left to the law courts in its interpretation.

[Hotel Mode]

On the GMB deal, the GMB is run more as a business than as a "battling" TU.

Its not just a GMB deal, Unites members on the ground have also voted and accepted overwhelmingly.

[Dairyground]

The problem has been that generally MOST reps have used the system to get out of unwanted trips.


A reasonable solution to that problem, and to the general one of people "going sick" before an unpopular trip, might be to arrange matters so that on returning to work their first trip was the one they missed. A side effect would be that anyone missing a lucrative trip for a genuine reason would not lose out.

[Chuchinchow]

It would appear that the BA strike-related threads, both here and in "the other place" are mortally ill and that their demise is imminently expected.

These long-running, contentious, but often amusing discussions have gone through a number of incarnations. Now they are being deprived of the nourishment of readers' contributions and the consequent oxygen of publicity.

While the dates of the funerals have, understandably, yet to be announced mourners are earnestly requested not to send flowers - yellow or otherwise.

Grateful thanks are extended to all contributors who expressed sympathy (or otherwise) for the causes discussed on the threads.

The probable cause of death has been diagnosed as apathy and boredom.

[MPN11]

Hello CCC ... the oxygen of publicity indeed. I now have to remind myself to read [occasionally] the outpourings on the subject, as they have become so empty of interest.

Ho-hum ... I'm flying BA, and I'm asking myself what that BASSA nausea was all about ;)

[Neptunus Rex]

Yes, it's all become so tiresome, so I'm off to the Military bits to see if I can inveigle Fin 84 into a bit of banter.
Back when this one generates some interest.

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

[TightSlot]

The probable cause of death has been diagnosed as apathy and boredom

Some of us died of these afflictions rather earlier than today


:)

[MPN11]

TS ... you have my genuine sympathy, as you have had to read all this stuff. ;)

However, it's nearly over now ...





... probably. :cool:

[JEM60]

MPN11
I also sympathize with TS. When this is over, I shall miss her sensible posts though, for they were always worth reading.

[Landroger]

Given the potential for riotous assembly and unruly behaviour on this thread (and the one in 'another place') I reckon the mods have done a tremendous job in keeping it on the island. :)

Thanks Mods. :ok:

Roger.

[notlangley]

As T.S. Elliott might have said
This is the way this thread ends, this is the way this thread ends.
This is the way this thread ends, not with a bang but a whimper.

[pcat160]

Hopefully the end will not occur until we learn how Duncan’s day at the station worked out.

[fincastle84]

TS ... you have my genuine sympathy, as you have had to read all this stuff.

I think that you should be banned for creeping to the Mods! Surely the old irascible MPN11 hasn't drowned in this sea of apathy?:ok:

[MPN11]

Morning, Finky. think that you should be banned for creeping to the Mods! That would make a change from the other reasons for which I have been banned.

Anyway, I'm a good boy now. And BA is flying, so I have no need to be irascible. Apart from teenagers on noisy mini-motorbikes and a few other issues.

[MPN11]

The "Other Thread" suggests that DH had a hard time at the Police Station.

Should we now be sending flowers?

[Dawdler]

Any colour but yellow, white lilies perhaps?

Interesting to read his perception of his most recent employer:-
The injustice that is out there at present is incredible and we must keep going, fighting the fight against what I beleive to be an utterly corrupt ruthless company with no morals.How do you suppose he came to that conclusion?

[Schroedinger]

The rumors of its death have been exaggerated. Or mis-stated, or?

With thanks to Mr Clemens

[Mariner9]

I'm looking forward to being flown to Nairobi on Sunday (1st class thanks to BA's oneway upgrade offer :ok:) by "an utterly corrupt ruthless company with no morals" :rolleyes:

ISTR that Mrs Holley is a BA CC. I do hope she's not on my flight if she shares her husband's stated view of her employers :=

[MPN11]

Take a white lily just in case. If she's there, and actually working, she might appreciate the gesture. Other gestures might be deemed harassment.

Awww ... bless. I feel a rant coming on. I'd better go and have a bath.

[MPN11]

I feel a faint inclination to support "The Bedfont One" with a cash donation.
I have some odd foreign coins in a drawer somewhere.

Oh ... bit tricky to carry that through Security. Sorry Duncan. :}

[MPN11]

Oh, bitchy bitchy ;)

[Neptunus Rex]

Would someone with legal knowledge tell us what charge or charges DH could face, and what are the possible penalties. Could punitive damages be included?

[MPN11]

1. Oh, please read Post 2642 on the other Thread. It nearly cost me another keyboard!

2. @ NR ... ISTR could be up to 2 years, but it depends on what, if anything, DH is charged with ... He being a completely innocent person until the Court [not BA] decides otherwise.

[MPN11]

Bloody Hell, Baggers ... you have a complex mind!! :ok:

I could guess that 'stern words would be spoken' but I do agree that the upcoming "Winter of Discontent Mark II" doesn't need Holley as the Fairy on the Christmas Tree. :(

[MPN11]

Or, as one of my sainted bosses used to scream when something blew up publicly:

Or, as I said to my last Boss before I retired, "Sir, shouting at me doesn't alter my opinion." I enjoyed that moment, deeply. He'd been my instructor some 25 years previously, and we fell out over a technical issue ... I complained to the Course Commander.

Some people are just 'natural shouters'. How are things at Farnborough these days?

[Papillon]

Baggersup, it's not down to the government to decide. They will have no say whatsoever - and not just because they aren't supposed to, but because legal people have a nasty habit of screaming to the press at the first sign of political interference. It's happened before when the government were daft enough to venture an opinion. The CPS will decide themselves.

[fincastle84]

Holley seems to have lost his marbles from reading his latest rant, which includes............ BA has mounted a full frontal assault on Unite by what it is doing to the members and the reps and, to my mind, UNITE have been pretty toothless in response. They now have to wake up and smell the coffee. It is all very well sending umpteen reminders for us to vote for Milliwhatsit but, what is the point if back at the coal face (ie the front line) So not only does he want to screw BA, he wants to take Unite with him. (I'm almost tempted to support him, just to see the end of Woodley et al. Well, maybe not!)

[pcat160]

It appears the poll to determine if members were willing to have their dues increased by 5 lbs did not go so well.

[jetset lady]

May I ask a quick question? Now that Duncan Holley has been interviewed by the Police, can the CPS, when deciding whether they should take action, take into account any further communications from him in regards to the dispute? His writing remains aggressive and comments such as...

Was going to finish off with a "they'll never take me alive" sort of sentiment but in this day and age don't want to tempt fate. At least not with the thugs BA employ nowadays.

...are surely bordering on the limit. (I wanted to say defamation but I can't remember if thats the correct word and my mind has gone blank!) Would his solicitor not have advised him that for the moment he needs to be extremely careful? Or is it the case that once the interview has been completed, only things that were said during that time can be used to make the decision?

Apologies for asking but I am not familiar with the law in these circumstances and I thought I would be more likely to find someone on this thread that may have some knowledge of how these things work.

[Airclues]

pcat160

It appears the poll to determine if members were willing to have their dues increased by 5 lbs did not go so well.

lbs is a unit of weight

Do you expect us to take your post seriously?

Dave

[pcat160]

Other side of the pond, different keyboard. Please tell me how to be more appropriate, --s h---.

[notlangley]

5 pounds is ok._ Also GBP5._ A fiver is also ok.

[JayPee28bpr]

This is all about damage control now and getting staff travel back for our members


If this is correct, then why didn't Unite just accept the recent offer that included return of staff travel (albeit with reduced seniority)? I can't see why BA will improve this aspect of their offer.

Unite seem to be fighting the wrong battle here. They currently have very limited influence on the process for transferring work to New Fleet. Once in New Fleet, they seem to have very little scope for organising the workforce. If BA wants to play hardball it can just treat New Fleet as a separate bargaining unit can't it? And then make Unite jump through all the hoops to force recognition via the statutory route as opposed to a voluntary recognition agreement. Meanwhile they could do a deal with someone more amenable than Unite to grant them recognition voluntarily in New Fleet, thereby creating a bit of healthy competition to win members, ie more likely to be much more emphasis on member interests and input as opposed to the current top down management style employed by BASSA.

[Mariner9]

Now that Duncan Holley has been interviewed by the Police, can the CPS, when deciding whether they should take action, take into account any further communications from him in regards to the dispute?

Does anyone actually know why Holley was questioned? I was under the impression that it was probably due to his threats against that non-striking CSD rather than his ongoing tirade against BA in general and WW (and lately BF) in particular.

However if it is the latter, the police certainly will take anything further he has to say on the subject into account - and he would have been cautioned in that regard.

[davidexba]

On the old DH front, I note he still maintains that it was and is BA 'bullying' and general thuggery that got him summoned to the nick.

Fails to mention that it was undoubtably on the back of a complaint made by a staff member about DH's behaviour and electronic communications with the individual concerned. I would say that BA had a duty of care to support that individual against DH's diatribes.

Anyway, DH keeps mentioning a taunting thread that the person started on the BASSA forum that kicked the whole thing off. Has anyone had an eye-ball of what was actually said in that initial posting/thread that was so awful that it was taunting other people?

[Richard228]

I too would like to know what was in that original thread, that led to DH's predicament.

DH continues to refer to it as a "Mocking" thread... was it mocking, or more accurately someone simply expressing their own point of view?

would be interested to know!

Cannot help but feel that whatever that original thread though, DH is showing astonishingly high levels of hypocrisy.

[Skipness One Echo]

It appears the poll to determine if members were willing to have their dues increased by 5 lbs did not go so well.

Don't apologise, it made me smile and I knew what you meant. I mean some of them could do with losing 5 lbs but then so could we all.

[dogandduck]

The so called "mocking thread" was far from it, it was just critical of BASSAs' use of ABBA analogies, amongst others in one of their (many) newsletters.

Good old Dunc seemed to take this personally as I assume he is largely responsible for these pieces of "garbage" (the newsletters that is), and launched a tirade against said person, which included "outting them" on a largely anonymous

[The SSK]

So Mr Holley is an ABBAmentalist?

When he finally leaves his post, will he go out humming 'I was defeated, you won the war'?

[MPN11]

OK ... I've caught up with the last here and on the other Thread.

"Hello, Mr Holley ... zzzzz. You have nothing to say, nothing to offer, nothing to resolve any issues. You just moan and groan as your imagined support evaporates. Would you be kind enough to spare a few million people who fly BA any further inconvenience by concentrating on your greenhouse? Thank you."

[Juan Tugoh]

I think that many of the "normal" cabin crew are not particularly interested in or motivated by the BASSA leadership. I think that many of the "normal" crew see the value of being in a trade union that is the formally recognised negotiating body with BA. BASSA have over the years created an enviable set of T&Cs for their members.

Many crew believe that this will be sorted and when it is, they will still need a union to protect them in the small things, a place to go for guidance and assistance if they have a legitimate dispute with the company, say over absence or some such. BASSA, like most unions is not all bad. The leadership are way off base in this current dispute but that in itself does not negate the positive benefits of being in a TU.

There is no sensible alternative for CC, the PCCC is a toothless and faceless thing at the moment and can do nothing to materially assist any potential member as BA does not recognise them.

BASSA may well need reform and I think that it's constitution is deeply flawed - a show of hands can postpone elections. Even during the WWII we had elections and Churchill was thrown out - so there is no democratic reason to not hold elections. DH is holding onto power and influence undemocratically but that is a matter for the future.

Leaving BASSA right now may well be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, leaving crew exposed in industrial matters but also allowing the union to become ever more extreme. Others though, are just apathetic.

[MPN11]

IMO, a neat summary, Juan.

There's nowhere else for them to go, and they feel a need for some 'employee protection outfit'. Which is fine.

Whether the Company needs BASSA, and a collective of union radicals and over-paid part-time workers, is a different issue.

[Colonel White]

Something that is unclear to me is why cabin crew could not resign from BASSA, but then join another branch of Unite. I can understand the problems with joining a seperate union like GMB as BA do not recognise them within the bargaining group, but surely the folk who are hacked off with BASSA could either join CC89 or indeed the LHR branch that the rest of the BA workforce are members of. Unite would still be recognised so it wouldn't alter anything there and the probability is that there would be a better set of reps to deal with and a more reasonable executive. .

[Neptunus Rex]

Juan,

Winston Churchill lost the election in July 1945, after the war in Europe had been won. He went on to win the election in 1951 and retired from politics in 1955.

[Juan Tugoh]

Hi Neptunus Rex,

The war in Europe had been won, but the war in the East had not. In 1945 Britain was still very much at the heart of of global empire much of which was in the East. Britain was still very much still at war. The Election of 1945 was held (for the most part) on 5th July, the first atomic bomb was not dropped until 6th August. As far as the British public were aware, at the time of the election Britain was still very much engaged in a World War. What was your point?

[notlangley]

I was 13 years old when Churchill lost the election._ And so far as I was concerned the war was still on and Attlee was PM when the Japanese surrendered.

[kappa]

pcat160,

Try keying in ‘Alt 156’ to bring up the GBP currency symbol: £. For hundreds of other non-keyboard symbols and hieroglyphics, Google 'ASCII Symbols'

[Neptunus Rex]

Juan and notlangley
You are both correct, of course. I think it is a matter of perception, which is one of the most significant factors in politics. People in Britain in 1945 wanted social change, so Atlees slogan about "not going back to the 1930s" struck the right chord. Atlee had been Deputy Prime Minister under Churchill and had served with distinction in the Army in WW1, so was seen as a capable and honest leader. Churchill had led the winning side in the war. Although he was defeated at the ballot box, he retained the affection and admiration of the people.

DH, LaLa et al have not won their war; they long ago snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. As you say, Juan, reform is needed.

[johnoWhiskyX]

Some time since I last visited this discussion. Nothing seems to have changed much, other than DH appears to be reaching the end of the rope provided to "hang himself with"

I too am confused by the lack of action by "normal" Bassa members in allowing themsleves to be led down a delusional and destructive path. I can understand their need for recognised representation, but staying in BASSA is only feeding its leaderships ego and matyrdom personae.
At one point I could Sympathise with BASSA members still in the union but against it's course of action, now i cannot. Sheep to the slaughter.

[101917]

As is normal with cult leaders Holley considers himself above the law, as do his followers.

[notlangley]

Atlee had been Deputy Prime Minister
When I was a boy he was called Attlee or Clement Attlee - never Atlee.
Clement Attlee appeared to us after the 1950 election as a tired and exhausted man - and that was the most important factor in the 1951 elections._ The Labour government had run out of steam and the alternative was the Conservatives.
I have no connections with airlines except as passenger._ This is why I read this thread becaue I expect that those airline people who know what they are talking about can answer the questions of PAX like me.

[Juan Tugoh]

I too am confused by the lack of action by "normal" Bassa members in allowing themsleves to be led down a delusional and destructive path. I can understand their need for recognised representation, but staying in BASSA is only feeding its leaderships ego and matyrdom personae.
At one point I could Sympathise with BASSA members still in the union but against it's course of action, now i cannot. Sheep to the slaughter.

Never underestimate the power of apathy. Most crew are just not "engaged" in this dispute. Many cannot even be bothered to vote in the ballots on IA. Taking a positive act like leaving the union is just too much hassle for many crew. This is a modern British malaise - how many could not be bothered to vote at the last general election? Yes they will pick up their mobiles and vote for the X-Factor, but to get involved in stuff that actually affects them is beyond the interest level of many in society.

[HiFlyer14]

Many crew believe that this will be sorted and when it is, they will still need a union to protect them in the small things, a place to go for guidance and assistance if they have a legitimate dispute with the company, say over absence or some such. BASSA, like most unions is not all bad. The leadership are way off base in this current dispute but that in itself does not negate the positive benefits of being in a TU.

There is no sensible alternative for CC, the PCCC is a toothless and faceless thing at the moment and can do nothing to materially assist any potential member as BA does not recognise them.



This is untrue and incorrect.

BASSA have already reneged by not assisting non-striking crew who have needed representation in, for example, attendance meetings, etc. The reps are "too busy" to assist. BASSA are, it appears, only now supporting those who went on strike. There is no benefit whatsoever for non-striking crew still remaining in BASSA, they are wasting their money and are now simply funding this dispute. The sooner the finances are cut from BASSA, the better for all of us.

By contrast the PCCC are willing and able, to attend meetings with colleagues, and will do so in our own time, if necessary. Any colleague can attend with another, so BA could not refuse. Additionally, we can now refer crew who have suffered an accident or injury at work to a solicitors for free legal assistance. We have our first case ongoing so we are assisting materially.:ok:

We are doing everything we can, in our own time, and at our own expense, to assist our fellow colleagues in finding a better way forward out of this cesspit that BASSA have plunged us all into, so it is frustrating to see sweeping generalisations such as:


There is no sensible alternative for CC, the PCCC is a toothless and faceless thing at the moment and can do nothing to materially assist any potential member as BA does not recognise them.



The law states that when we have 40% of the membership, we can apply to BA for recognition. It is only when people leave BASSA, and cut off the funding to this utterly ineffectual organisation and join the PCCC that we will be able to move forward. Everything has to start somewhere, this is the beginning for the PCCC and like most organisations, we will grow as people realise the benefits.

Knocking those of us that are trying to do something about this dire situation serves no purpose in this dispute. The statement about apathy is more correct. Thank goodness we are not all apathetic to what is happening.:)

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

[vctenderness]

Actually the GMB do have a recognition agreement with BA for cabin crew. However it has not been implemented for many, many years there used to be an Air Hostesses Association which was a branch of the GMB and had a seat at the ACC NSP.

Whether they would want to enter the boiler room at the moment is, of course, understandable. I can see a new force emerging at some point in the future be it GMB or PCCC as cabin crew will still need reprentation.

BASSA is a spent force and totally discredited it only needs a little more time for this to sink in.

[Tiramisu]

Posted by Juan Tugoh
Never underestimate the power of apathy. Most crew are just not "engaged" in this dispute. Many cannot even be bothered to vote in the ballots on IA. Taking a positive act like leaving the union is just too much hassle for many crew. This is a modern British malaise - how many could not be bothered to vote at the last general election? Yes they will pick up their mobiles and vote for the X-Factor, but to get involved in stuff that actually affects them is beyond the interest level of many in society.

I think the engagement is there, however it is one sided and it is only with BASSA who they see as God. BASSA can do no wrong, why would they, they are crew themselves and why wouldn't they care about fellow crew or have their interests at heart as it affects them all.

I've been away all week and on observation, you need just one rotten egg to spoil the rest in the basket. One miserable militant who will rile things and try to influence others.
Crew are scared, too scared still, to say that they came to work so what hope is there that they'll stand up against the BASSA leadership, we've all seen what happens to those who dare. They are bullied, harassed and being on a nightstop on your own can be lonely for the younger crew if not included.
Some crew who came to work even, CSDs and Pursers don't have the guts to say they came to work, they all want to have a quiet life which is sad. As I myself and many others have said said, it is a cult and they cult will be stay strong until either BASSA is broken or the militants leave the company.

[Ancient Observer]

In response to the question about why the other bassa members - the ones who are not a part of the cult, appear to do nothing, posters need to "think themselves into" the position of those non-cult members.

Firstly, CC jobs are not like other jobs. There is no 9 - 5, and the cameraderie, such as it is at present, is different. It's not the same workgroup every week. Each "job" involves a different workgroup. Compare it to lots of very short term projects, with different project leaders, not many of whom appear to support the company.
Also, the "managers", (other than the Heritage CSDs, who appear to be a very mixed bag of folk from the very good to the other end of that spectrum), are invisible to many crew.
So, you turn up, you do your job, you may or may not socialise if away from home.
What's there to bind you together? Well, as with many employers, moaning about the boss/employer is a good start. Having fun with colleagues is another. "Belonging" to the TU (was) a more or less mandatory part of belonging. So even if you have no intention whatsoever of striking, you are unlikely to resign from the TU.

Many people use their jobs to give "meaning" to a part of their life. If for 40 years that "meaning" has meant being in the TU, then you don't change it just due to this little dispute.
Also, as others have said - many folk still belong to TUs due to the notion of "Insurance" or "Just in Case".

As any half decent academic* will tell you, NO TU can live up to the "Insurance" promise. They are simply not resourced enough. Even Balpa, which is the most expensive TU, cannot resource all the claims on its time. Unite stands no chance of ever resourcing all the potential claims on its time. However, they neglect to tell you that when you join, and once you are in, they do not tell you that.

*"Half-decent academic" does not include the twits from places such as Middlesex Poly who wrote in to newspapers to bemoan BAs approach to ER. Other than the usual list of Trots and TU sponsored Pinkoes, the others were remarkably dumb to add their name to a letter without getting some information first. And the UK allows these dimwits to educate our children???

[Litebulbs]

Some interesting points which I generally disagree with, but that will be of no shock to you.

I would suggest that the insurance policy, however poor, would be better than none. In my company we have union and non unionised groups. Which do you think have the greater influence?

Still, if you like to include terms like trots and pinko's in your point, then I doubt if you would reach out to the non engaged. Still, I am sure it serves a purpose somewhere.

[call100]

Exactly Litebulbs.....Too many think that using silly language of that sort gives them some kudos with others of the 'Flog em' brigade.
I think too many years trying to justify the doing down of various workforces may have taken it's toll.....:)
Many people stay members for many reasons. Most of them because they are happy with the local representation they get. I think too many on here are using BASSA ignorantly to justify general gripes about the TU movement borne of their political incline.;)

[MPN11]

Trying to be fair and moderate, I think the general readership are not trying "to justify general gripes about the TU movement borne of their political incline."

I think many people are actually really very tired of having their lives severely disrupted by Trades Unions. The ability to take IA may well be a part of the 'power of the Union', but the reality is that millions of people are adversely affected by it [wherein, of course, lies the power].

Whether it's Post, Refuse, Rail, Underground, Cabin Crew, Miners, Firemen or any other sector of the major 'service industries' ... the rest of the population gets a bit pi55ed off having their lives massively disrupted. There is anger out there. Not necessarily because the strikers or disrupters may not have a good cause [or not] ... just simply that the rest of society is getting a bit tired of small groups messing their lives about.

Despite being a Right-winger, I can accept there are good causes where the Union should rightly [ooops, did i say that?] take some form of action. However, any expectation of Public sympathy should be carefully considered. Sadly, that hasn't been the case. The Public [i.e. some poor innocent victim like me] is expected to accept a battle between Management and Union ... with the Public as the victim, and management as the Villain, and the Union as the Hero in the White Hat. Guess what? I don't want to be a pawn in the power-struggle about who runs the Company, or whether a 15 minute tea-break is acceptable.

@ call100 ... That's why people are pi55ed off, and it has nothing whatever to do with political inclinations.

[kappa]

Bloomberg are reporting that Unite are going to the Court of Appeal Oct 11,12.

British Airways Union to Appeal 2009 Cabin-Crew Contract Ruling Next Month - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-17/british-airways-union-to-appeal-2009-job-cuts-contract-ruling-next-month.html?)

Doesn't the Unite action mean that everything relating to the IA is on Hold until the appeals court rules?

Seems to me this is another step for TW to draw out the drama at the expense of BASSA and DH.



http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5942620) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5942620&noquote=1)

[call100]

Trying to be fair and moderate, I think the general readership are not trying "to justify general gripes about the TU movement borne of their political incline."

I think many people are actually really very tired of having their lives severely disrupted by Trades Unions. The ability to take IA may well be a part of the 'power of the Union', but the reality is that millions of people are adversely affected by it [wherein, of course, lies the power].

Whether it's Post, Refuse, Rail, Underground, Cabin Crew, Miners, Firemen or any other sector of the major 'service industries' ... the rest of the population gets a bit pi55ed off having their lives massively disrupted. There is anger out there. Not necessarily because the strikers or disrupters may not have a good cause [or not] ... just simply that the rest of society is getting a bit tired of small groups messing their lives about.

Despite being a Right-winger, I can accept there are good causes where the Union should rightly [ooops, did i say that?] take some form of action. However, any expectation of Public sympathy should be carefully considered. Sadly, that hasn't been the case. The Public [i.e. some poor innocent victim like me] is expected to accept a battle between Management and Union ... with the Public as the victim, and management as the Villain, and the Union as the Hero in the White Hat. Guess what? I don't want to be a pawn in the power-struggle about who runs the Company, or whether a 15 minute tea-break is acceptable.

@ call100 ... That's why people are pi55ed off, and it has nothing whatever to do with political inclinations.
I was referring to those who use McCarthy type language when discussing the subject of TU's and IA..
TU members are often not considered members of the Public when it comes to discussions about the way IA affects.:confused:
I don't disagree that people get racked off with it all. Society has grown a very me, me, me outlook and people rarely, if ever, consider what the IA is about.
I have been in the position where strike action was voted for. The meeting to discuss the timing of the action took two days. Whatever we did was going to affect someone. We didn't want to strike in the school holidays (even though this had most impact) as many hard working families would be affected on their main holidays.
Business flyers would be affected if we had any prolonged strikes.
Struggling airlines may be tipped over the edge. Etc. Etc.
Whatever the decision, someone somewhere was going to feel as you do. We eventually came up with a strategy that impacted on the employer more than the travelling public. However, it would have still upset some people. Luckily we negotiated a settlement before we had to test it (Much the preferred option).
Using IA irresponsibly is a big problem, but, irresponsibility is subjective and the people involved in the decision are often as blinkered to the effects on others as others are to the reasons for the IA.
Most disputes are resolved amicably, the nature of the beast means that no one reports any of these. It's not enough to get Daily Mail readers wound up any more than they already are.;)
I don't agree with the methods used in the BASSA dispute and I don't agree with fighting your dispute in the press or on forums like this. Unfortunately 'Society' has moved in that direction and people are emboldened by the anonymity of media like this.
As for IA in general. I believe that it must always remain a possibility otherwise there would be not negotiation of anything. The notion that all employers are reasonable, altruistic entities is far far from reality.
But it has been proven that the successful companies are those that work hand in hand with their workforce to reach amicable and beneficial (to both sides) agreements.
Sorry this went on longer than I intended......:)

[Juan Tugoh]

it has been proven that the successful companies are those that work hand in hand with their workforce to reach amicable and beneficial (to both sides) agreements.

This seems self evident, it is also misleading. It implies a responsibility on the company while letting the workforce off the same responsibility. Both company and union have to be reasonable for this to hold true. In this case it is quite clear that the union local branch has not behaved reasonably. BA may not be angels in this, but BASSA and it's officials have behaved appallingly over the progress of this dispute. This is where a lot of anger comes from.

[Ancient Observer]

I wonder what "society" is when IA is being considered? - (If it is considered at all, and I'm not convinced that the bassa cult care about society at all).

If only 16% of the private sector, and less than 60% of the public sector are in TUs, (and some of them are mandatory, such as BMA), then the majority of society are not in TUs.
What, then, is "society" to those contemplating engaging in IA?? I have no idea. In the past, when I was in a 100% pre and post entry closed shop, I might have known, but now??

Litebulbs
- on the inability of TUs to deliver the insurance, that was not my opinion, but the opinion of a bunch of Unite and GMB National officials at a dinner at last year's TUC.
On the trots and pinkos - it's a quote from Private Eye. Have you read some of Huw Benyon's stuff?? Not exactly "academic".

[call100]

This seems self evident, it is also misleading. It implies a responsibility on the company while letting the workforce off the same responsibility. Both company and union have to be reasonable for this to hold true. In this case it is quite clear that the union local branch has not behaved reasonably. BA may not be angels in this, but BASSA and it's officials have behaved appallingly over the progress of this dispute. This is where a lot of anger comes from.
It implies nothing of the sort. If the two are working together for the good of both company and workforce obviously they have equal responsibility. Nothing else was implied. Nothing I said lets the workforce or the off anything.
I do not disagree with your summing up of the BA dispute. I would guess that BASSA had a lot of support in the beginning, but, lost it mainly down to the way they have conducted themselves.

[ChicoG]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to take people like Holley, Everard et al and refer to them as "workforce". This is what the dispute has always been about.

If you consider them hard workers, start considering for whom you think they are working hard.

I have to add: When he was posing as "Richard" and spouting all the crap about how hard BA were being on the crew - the word "macho" springs to mind - my immediate thought was "what an obnoxious, lying :mad: ". In retrospect, I haven't changed my opinion. And I don't think much of Victoria Derbyshire for not doing any homework and letting him preach such nonsense either.

But I suppose it is, after all, the BBC, who are mostly a waste of money these days anyway.

[call100]

As usual you are mixing up the BASSA/BA dispute with the general point!

[Hotel Mode]

As usual you are mixing up the BASSA/BA dispute with the general point!

This isn't a general thread though. It's a very specific one.

On the wider point, If BASSA and other unions continue on the path they seem intent on then they may be making more anti union law inevitable. If we see mass disruption over the next 12 months we'll either see legislation in this parliament or if the Lib Dems baulk Cameron will call a snap election and no doubt win convincingly on an anti union platform.

I don't think we need better legislation just better unions. Theres too much representation of their political ends and not enough of their members.

[ChicoG]

Due to technological shifts and global competition, some businesses and industries simply can’t afford to pay the wages that prevailed even a few years ago.

An extremely pertinent point, but one that may not jump out to the average BASSA diehard if they decide to start quoting this article from the current Newsweek:

How Our Quest for Bargains Could Hurt the Economy (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/13/how-our-quest-for-bargains-could-hurt-the-economy.html)

[call100]

The main problem is greed. Shown at times by both sides but of late mainly by employers. The difficulty is, trying to sift out those employers jumping on the bandwagon and cutting for cuttings sake and those in trouble.
Many workforces are now being shafted because they have helped the company out with pay freezes and cuts to Terms and conditions. Some companies saw it as sign of weakness rather than strength and have come in with further cuts despite making more profit than forecast and paying CEO's record salaries.
It's no wonder some people are saying enough is enough.

Hotel Mode This isn't a general thread though. It's a very specific one.
Stop referring to Union(s) then and stick with BASSA...
I don't think we need better legislation just better unions. Theres too much representation of their political ends and not enough of their members.
Agreed to a point. I think many Unions have excellent local representation and that is where most agreements are made.....As for the higher echelon....No argument.

[notlangley]

All quotations from 19 September 2010 The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/19/unite-court-ba-airline-dispute)

The British Airways cabin crew dispute is set to return to the courts. The Unite union said it will lodge an appeal at the high court this week over the withdrawal of travel concessions for almost 7,000 of its members who went on strike earlier this year.　

Unite said it also expected to lodge an appeal in the European court of human rights by the end of the month, challenging the government to "put its house in order" over balloting for industrial action.
Unite has faced legal action by BA over previous industrial action ballots, complaining that it faced an injunction because fewer than a dozen ballot papers were spoilt out of thousands of members who voted to go on strike.



In a third legal move, Unite said it will take a case to the Court of Appeal on 11 and 12 October to claim that BA's reduction of crew levels was a breach of contract.

[MPN11]

Oh well, "The Winter of our Discontent" was expected!!

1. "Concessionary Travel" ... The travel concession was a concession, not a right, and employees were warned it would be withdrawn. I personally can't see that one going very far, if at all.

2. "Umin Rites" over the ballots? That's a giggle, surely? IIRC the problem was not 'a dozen spoiled ballots' but that ballot papers were being sent to all and sundry. Some other balloting practices, like not asking LGW CC, might be raised by the BA lawyers.

3. "Breach of Contract" ... now there's a trick BA missed. Does this mean that somewhere in the documentation is something that says hat the number of CC on a flight is 'contractual'. Or does this just refer to BASSA/Unite insisting that THEY manage the company, and manning levels on aircraft?

I'm glad Unite has an enormous fighting fund for all these actions; it will show the BASSA membership that their subscriptions have not been completely wasted.

I regret I'll be out of the country when this happens [flying BA of course] so I shall be relying on PPRuNe to keep me informed ;)

[Ancient Observer]

I'm flying BA L/H in a couple of days, in Econ plus.

I wonder whether I'll get hot towels, or whether the cult's stipulation of no hot towels for econ plus is how BA still manage the place.....................

[Mariner9]

Well I got hot towels in First yesterday :ok:

I would describe the attitude of the CC on board to be just as professional & courteous as ever (of course), but they seemed somewhat subdued. I didn't see many smiles amongst the crew on the flight. Having said that I had no real complaint, the service was excellent.

I flew the same route (London-Nairobi) last week with Virgin Upper Class - I have to say the attitude of the Virgin CC seemed so much better on those flights, they all appeared happy, plenty of smiles, and were friendly and willing to chat. Of the two, I have to say I preferred the Virgin experience.

I await my return leg with BA (in Club this time) with interest.

[MPN11]

But on the other hand the last appeal went well. If they can once again find at least one judge who appears to think 11 is the same thing as Zero, then they have a shot.

Who cares? The Members of the Union are paying for the Game, with their subscriptions.
Enjoy. :ok:

[Litebulbs]

If the case gets to explore punitive action to dissuade/persecute union members for taking protected industrial action, then it is money well spent, whatever the result.

[MPN11]

No problem, Litebulbs.

You clearly see it as persecution.
Others may see it as a reflection that BA runs BA, not BASSA.
We shall never agree on that basic point.

Peripherally, do I think it was a fair sanction?
I think it may have been a bit 'robust', but it was clearly stated what would happen. IMO, from that point onwards, the striking CC dug their own hole ... with fanfares of trumpets, the Bedfont Festival and parades along the Bath Road [not forgetting all the other aspects that BASSA introduced to the equation].

If a sensible, adult resolution had been sought, who knows what BA might have said or done? However, BASSA chose the ultra-militant path instead of negotiation [did that EVER happen?]. So BASSA is where it is, in a location of it own making. Militant to the last, using the Courts instead of reasoned debate, and apparently revelling in every moment. That's fine, that's their right.

Have you noticed that BA is still operating? Pax are flying? Aircraft are not parked at Cardiff and Shannon? Oh ... and the new Mixed Fleet arrangements have happened already.

Feel free to campaign, but perleeze have a good argument/case for damaging BA even further.

[Litebulbs]

Have you noticed that BA is still operating?

I had noticed, but the fight for survival seems to have been last years argument. But I am not campaigning for specifics, just discussing broader principles.

[MPN11]

No problem, Litebulbs.

Happy to discuss the 'broader principles'.

Which are?

[BTW ... enough screen time for one day, what with my job and other things. Perhaps tomorrow, if you're free?]

[Litebulbs]

Punitive action against workers, who carry out protected industrial action.

[Juan Tugoh]

the fight for survival seems to have been last years argument.

Perhaps that is because BA achieved the "survival savings" it needed by imposing what was needed on the cabin crew and negotiating savings with the other staff groups. The survival issue "going away: does not mean that it was some kind of opportunistic subterfuge. Nor does it mean that it has gone away, just that it is being managed.

Our economy is still in crisis, mortgages are hard to get, quantative easing may have been reduced but it is still going on. Business traffic may be recovering but it is still down on what it was 3 years ago. The market for the legacy carriers has changed, and the way that BA and the other carriers do business has changed.

The unions need to accept this basic premise and develop ways to work within this new structure, ways to work with business rather than against it. UNITE, and their client BASSA have completely failed to grasp this nettle and they are handling this whole dispute in a manner which is proving detrimental to their members. It is more about old fashioned union power and the political ambitions of the union leaders.

[LD12986]

Punitive action against workers, who carry out protected industrial action.


Let's put in another way shall we?

The global financial system has gone into near meltdown to the extent that one of our major retail banks was 30 minutes away from turning off its cash machines. The aviation industry enters the worst crisis in its history. Several airlines go out of business.

Cabin crew union refuses to negotiate permanent savings. All they offer a temporary savings that aren't even one third of what they claim to be and refuse to discuss any further.

After months and months of fruitless negotiations (all documented in a High Court judgment), BA makes non-contractual changes found by a court of law to be reasonable.

In spite of the fact that the company allowed an extension of the deadline to call industrial action to let members vote on the BA offer, Unite calls industrial action anyway. Industrial action that arose as a direct consequence of the failings of the union itself.

Litebulbs, tell us why staff who participated in this action and deprived the hand that feeds them of £150m should continue to receive a generous non-contractual benefit from the company.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs, tell us why staff who participated in this action and deprived the hand that feeds them of £150m should continue to receive a generous non-contractual benefit from the company.

Because, as it stands today, protected industrial action is not unlawful. What will be explored (well maybe), is if there is a right to strike. It may possibly be a human right within the EC, but whether that right is enforceable in the UK, is a discussion point. If it is a right, then I doubt very much if sanctions could be handed out for exercising the right.

[AlpineSkier]

Litebulbs

I'm sure you were aware before it was posted here that "perks" can be withdrawn anytime, but for you to mention it now weakens ( or confuses ) your argument.

I absolutely agree that the withdrawal of ST was a punishment for the legal IA.

However since the law says that the IA is protected and also says that a perk can be withdrawn anytime, then there is a stalemate until this point is considered and a judgement given.

I don't see how it can be done, but I feel that some law of relativity is necessary and that if a union calls IA for something frviolous ( hot-towels or window-blinds for example ) then their action should be able to be declared unprotected )

I feel it morally correct that people lost ST for taking part in this farce ( see previous para for reasoning )

[Colonel White]

Whether the removal of staff travel was a punitive action depends on how you view the sequence of events.

The initial strike ballot took place in November 2009. BA was successful in getting a high court injunction that ruled the ballot as being void. In January 2010 Unite then announced that they intended to go forward with a new ballot, at a time yet to be determined. At that point BA stated that a direct consequence of going on strike would be the permanent removal of staff travel benefits. So before any ballot took place, the workforce had been advised that anyone who went on strike was kissing goodbye to this perk. Now it could be argued that BA were attempting to dissuade union memebrs from voting for strike action. The alternative view is that perks are there to reward the workforce and clearly, if a group of workers act in a way calculated to hit the profitability of the company, then they should have any perks removed.

What happened next is well established. The cabin crew members voted for strike action, a number of them did walk out and, surprise, surprise, did have their travel benefits removed. Howls of indignation. Did they think that it was an empty threat ? Did they not see that by walking out, they were going to cost the company money ? Of course they did. The trouble is that the cabin crew expected BA management to crumble at the eleventh hour and give in to the union demands. It didn't happen. In fact the more Unite and BASSA turned down offers made by BA, the poorer the offers became. Why ? Because it is manifestly unfair to penalise other sectors of the business simply because the cabin crew representatives were unwilling to countenance the changes in working practices being put forward.

If BA had not warned cabin crew up front what it intended to do if a strike took place,but had withdrawn staff travel after the industrial action had commenced, then it would be seen as punitive action, but the very fact that staff were warned well in advance meant that they acted in full knowledge of the consequences. Thus it was not punitive but consequential.

[Litebulbs]

Perks can be removed at anytime, for all, or for under performance of some. But we are talking about industrial action. Now, clearly a business can do what it wants, when it wants and at any time. It is then for the courts to decide whether it was a lawful action.

[Litebulbs]

If BA had not warned cabin crew up front what it intended to do if a strike took place,but had withdrawn staff travel after the industrial action had commenced, then it would be seen as punitive action, but the very fact that staff were warned well in advance meant that they acted in full knowledge of the consequences. Thus it was not punitive but consequential.

But the question is whether BA have the right to do what they did. If it turns out that the right to strike, is a UK right, then it would be unlawful to take action to stop individuals exercising that right. It does not mean that BA would have to return ST, but they may have to compensate for a potential unlawful action.

[Colonel White]

Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it could (and probably will) be argued that just as an employee has a right to withdraw labour, an employer has an equal right to withdraw perks. The pinhead we are trying to balance an infinite number of angels on is whether BA in removing staff travel perks from those who went on strike were acting in a manner calculated to prevent staff from exercising the right to strike. Since the removal of the perk was after the individual had gone on strike, it could be argued that the act of removal did not prevent the individual from taking strike action but was consequential.

Unite will need to establish that the threat of removing staff travel was not only intended to prevent staff from going on strike but also was the sole reason that some staff chose not to go on strike. Going to be quite a tall order given the abuse heaped by BASSA on those who did work normally.

[101917]

LB – you are beginning to sound like a stuck record and none of your arguments are convincing.

BA did not take any action to stop individuals exercising their right to strike.

4963 cult members chose to follow their leader and are now suffering the consequences. I suspect their judgement call was made partly on the advice that staff travel would be returned in “5 minutes”. It was their decision.

Quite frankly I will be amazed if the Courts deem any of BA’s actions to be unlawful.

[just an observer]

If BA had not warned cabin crew up front what it intended to do if a strike took place,but had withdrawn staff travel after the industrial action had commenced, then it would be seen as punitive action, but the very fact that staff were warned well in advance meant that they acted in full knowledge of the consequences. Thus it was not punitive but consequential.

BA simply warned them in advance they would be punished for striking. It's still a punishment.

In previous IA throughout the airline for at least 30 years, maybe 40 or more, staff travel has been routinely withdrawn at the start of IA, and always returned with full seniority on agreement. Why should CC have seen this time as any different?

[Juan Tugoh]

then it would be unlawful to take action to stop individuals exercising that right. It does not mean that BA would have to return ST, but they may have to compensate for a potential unlawful action.

Removal of ST evidently did not stop a strike and it did nothing to remove any such (as yet to be proven) right. It did place consequences upon such action, of which there are several others - you do not get paid while on strike, should this then also be lumped in with removal of ST as an illegal act?

There has been no erosion of any right to strike, BA placed a consequence upon an individuals actions, making them take some responsibility for the harm done to the company by their actions. The union does not like that as it diminshes their ability to force a company to it's will through the blackmail of a strike. It is therefore attempting to muddy the waters, to make this an issue of the right to strike, which it patently obviously is not.

[Colonel White]

Again, hair-splitting. BA warned of the consequences of strike action. Depending on which side of the fence one sits, it could be seen as consequential action or punishment.

The fact that staff travel had routinely been withdrawn prior to any previous IA suggests that the company had established a precedent for such action which the union had accepted as fair and equitable (otherwise they would have complained about it before) The difference this time around is that BA are not proposing to return it with seniority. There is nothing to compel BA to return it with seniority. The very fact that the company has offered to return it in the first place indicates that the removal was not punishment. In his original talks on the matter Willie Walsh was pretty unequivocal that anyone who went on strike would lose staff travel totally. That meant not just whilst they were employed by BA but also on retirement. I'd suggest hat he has moved considerably from that position in negotiations.

Why should cabin crew have felt that they would get staff travel back with full seniority ? Just because your granny has always knitted a pair of socks for you for a Christmas present doesn't mean that you will always get a hand knitted pair of socks every year. At some point the good lady will shuffle off this mortal coil and unless you are able to persuade another member of the family to take up the role, the socks will become a thing of the past.

[just an observer]

While googling for other IA/punishment/legal position info, I accidentally found this Independent article from 1997. Interesting paralells.

Punishment, fear and humiliation - the bully's way - Opinion - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/punishment-fear-and-humiliation--the-bullys-way-1249635.html)

In this instance, did CC get travel back immediately on settlement or 3 years later as threatened, can anyone answer? If immediately, and with seniority, it would underline why CC would have expected to get travel back this time whatever the prior warnings. It puts BA in the position of 'the boy who cried wolf'.

[Meal Chucker]

In previous IA throughout the airline for at least 30 years, maybe 40 or more, staff travel has been routinely withdrawn at the start of IA, and always returned with full seniority on agreement.


My experience of previous IA was all staff travel privileges removed for a period of 1 or 2 years for all strikers, but returned with full seniority.

[Litebulbs]

As JAO says, ST has been removed plenty of times before, during industrial action, but for all of the group in dispute and that is speaking from experience at BA.

Just because an employer warned an employee group about sanctions, does not make it lawful. It is not splitting hairs, it is simply an opposing point of view. You either accept or ignore it, that is your choice.

[Litebulbs]

LB – you are beginning to sound like a stuck record and none of your arguments are convincing.

Feel free to ignore my posts. That is your right.

[Colonel White]

A few points about the 1997 dispute. Bob Ayling was a lawyer, so would have had a reasonable view of the legal ins and outs. The points laid out then were a combination of direct possibilities (dismissal for breach of contract, liability for damages) consequential actions (removal of staff travel) plus punitive measures (no promotion, removed from any options for early retirement or severance available under various re-structuring schemes).

BA has had two changes in CEO since Ayling, neither of whom have opted to resurrect the global tailfins, so it is not guaranteed that when the current incumbent said that staff travel would be withdrawn, it mean that it would be returned with full seniority. The point I'm making is just because one CEO acts in a particular way is no guarantee that others will follow suit. Moreover, my understanding is that previously staff travel was not universally withdrawn, but only applied to those who went on strike.

If the unions had considered BA's actions to be aimed at preventing staff from exercising their right to strike, why did they not pursue this in 1997 ? There has been no change in the TULRCA.

[Papillon]

But the question is whether BA have the right to do what they did.

And the answer is yes they do - until or unless the courts decide otherwise. That's how it operates, you can do whatever you like until the legal system (or Parliament) decides otherwise. In all honesty, continuing to go on about it is pretty pointless, they can and have done it. At some point in the future it may be decided they couldn't, but as of right now, they can.

[ChicoG]

Given that the courts found BA's actions in removing one crew member to be reasonable, this implies that BASSA's industrial action was unreasonable; in fact I wondered why BA aren't suing BASSA for the damage inflicted on their business.

So before the issue of ST is dealt with, let this one be concluded.

It is my humble opinion that since one was a direct result of the other, they should not be dealt with by the courts as as separate issue, but as connected events.

However, Litebulbs would have us believe that it is legitimate for a union to inflict serious financial damage on a company even when it is not reasonable to do so, and that they cannot face any sanction for doing so. This may be true, but it is wrong in my opinion.

Litebulbs has it that BA's actions in removing ST were also wrong.

Since two wrongs don't make a right, I'd suggest the courts adjust accordingly.

Then you have the possible scenario of (a) BA taking GBP150 million off BASSA to make up the losses unreasonably inflicted upon them, and then (b) BA giving strikers back ST and giving them the tickets they would have used when they were unavailable (which can easily be calculated based on previous use).

(Should each party win their respective cases, I would accept punitive damages to be equal and therefore cancelled out).

I believe this would be fair.

[Litebulbs]

And the answer is yes they do - until or unless the courts decide otherwise. That's how it operates, you can do whatever you like until the legal system (or Parliament) decides otherwise. In all honesty, continuing to go on about it is pretty pointless, they can and have done it. At some point in the future it may be decided they couldn't, but as of right now, they can.

I agree and said as much a few posts ago. I have been hoping that somebody would have produced a case where a benefit was removed, due to industrial action. As nobody has, this case will be ground breaking and as some have said, may stir the current Government into legislation changes.

[Papillon]

I believe that's because (from my vague reading of the matter) it isn't a problem under English law, but it might (perhaps, maybe, possibly) be something that European law has a view on.Therefore it's not surprising that there hasn't been a test case, because it's only very recently there's been anything to even remotely suggest a case.

(Not a lawyer caveats etc etc)

[Colonel White]

Making offers that are worse than their predecessors is not punishment but financial necessity.If a union has called a strike there will be an immediate hit on bookings.when the strike takes place there is also the potential loss in revenue. If the company is expected to magically conjure up more cash,it has to come from somewhere. Sadly in this case the procrastination by cabin crew means they are the last group to settle.

[LD12986]

I see the latest rumour from BASSA is that BA has appointed Savils to sell Waterside!

Sorry to disappoint the BASSA acolytes, but WW is staying in the UK and IAG will have its own offices in the UK.

[ChicoG]

I think from the below that BA would be perfectly entitled to ask the court to adjourn this hearing until after the October case is finished.

Unite is to launch a legal battle at the High Court this week over the removal of travel perks for up to 7,000 cabin crew who went on strike for 22 days this year at a cost to BA of £150m.

The dispute over travel perks, which include heavily discounted fares, are a bitter point of dispute between BA and Unite.

A date has not been set for the appearance but Unite said it is expected before the end of the week.

A Unite spokesperson said: “We are being forced to defend our members and their rights to just treatment in the court room because BA refuses to play fairly at the negotiating table.”

In a similar move, Unite will come head to head with the British flag-carrier in the Court of Appeal on 11 and 12 October, over claims that BA’s reduction of crew numbers on long-haul flights was a breach of contract.

Unite took BA to the High Court earlier this year over the disagreement, but the court threw out the dispute and ruled in BA’s favour.

[notlangley]

How about 6,700 as a better estimate of the number of cabin crew who have lost their travel concessions?

BA is also in the high court this week, as Unite seeks legal redress for the removal of travel concessions from an estimated 6,700 flight attendants who joined 22 days of strikes this year. Meanwhile, the union is taking a dispute over the treatment of industrial ballots to the European court of human rights after a cabin crew strike vote was ruled unlawful last year.

The root cause of the dispute, the unilateral reduction of staffing levels on flights, is also being taken to the court of appeal next month by Unite, which says the move constitutes a breach of contract. So far, the high court has backed BA's assertion that crewing levels are not a contractual issue.

______Reference:- _______Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/sep/20/bmi-high-court-pay-freeze)

[notlangley]

Wikipedia says

The High Court deals at first instance with all high value and high importance cases, and also has a supervisory jurisdiction over all subordinate courts and many (but not all) tribunals.

The quotation in posting 2143 is possibly more reliable since it does not use the word "appeal".

[Ancient Observer]

Whilst I have sympathy for Litebulbs' position, - crudely put that strikers should not be punished for going on strike - we have to examine the law to decide what protection strikers actually have.

The starting point is the contract between an individual (CC) and the employer (BA).
1. Protected from breach.
If a CC withdraws their labour, they are in breach of their contract. The protection from a "protected" dispute is simple - BA can only dismiss them unfairly. - They can still be dismissed, but it will be automatically unfair if the dispute is protected. If the dispute is not protected, BA can dismiss them with no fear of an ET, if they follow a reasonable (not "fair" ) process.
There is a debate to be had about UK law, and whether or not it meets EU requirements, but we are years away from debating this. The EU can only enforce its law directly opposite a State - the UK Government.

The point that really concerns the TUs is the second point.
2. Protected from inciting a breach.
If the dispute is a protected dispute, the TU is protected from civil litigation by the employer when it incites a person to act in breach of their contract. If the dispute is not protected, ANY action by an Official of a TU which might be seen as inciting an individual to breach their contract leaves the TU open for civil litigation for unlimited damages, (and for injunctions).
You'll remember the speed of Unite in rushing out a denial of the window blinds instruction from the junta. You'll also note the Unite rules - only the Exec can authorise ANY action. This is an attempt to protect the TUs assets, which BA could attack if unofficial action takes place in any way authorised by any Official.

So, it all turns on the contract. Was ST in the contract or not? If it was not, then BA can withdraw it whenever/however they decide. If it was in the contract, they can't.

End of. Simples.

The law might be "wrong", but that's how it is.

Faced with bassa's behaviour, (read the court case), BA probably felt they had no option but to do what they did.

[ChicoG]

How about 6,700 as a better estimate of the number of cabin crew who have lost their travel concessions?

It's going to be extremely interesting to see how many BASSA can actually prove, rather than the number in Duncan Donut and Mark Eversohard's pot luck DBase II (remember that?) database.

[Juan Tugoh]

BA state that they have removed ST from c4920 cabin crew. BASSA claim they have processed c6700 claims for strike pay. Given BASSA's track record on precise admin I suspect that their numbers will not bear as close a scrutiny as those of BA.

[Ancient Observer]

Huh! it looks as though I'll be commenting on here for a while. I've just tried to book in online for my flight.
To cut a long story short, the lady from BA customer services has told me that I can't - apparently I have a "booking", but according to BA I do not have a "ticket"

Partly in reply to JSL and others, I thought I'd come back to BA for L/H, and I made a booking MONTHS ago.

Now, they will not guarantee me a flight, and I have to go to the airport to get a ticket - I can't pay over the phone.

Clearly, BA either do not want or do not deserve customers.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Can anybody explain to me why an organisation with 10,000 (??) , members paying £15 per month each does not employ professional staff to look after membership records, ballot organising etc. These tasks require no special sector industry knowledge. Surely, sensible convention would be that the reps represent members interest rather than undertaking the time consuming administrative minutiae ? Nor is it reasonable that an employer is compelled to release an individual rep to undertake such duties, whilst being paid by the employer ?

I can understand a union branch of say 50 people needing to do the admin voluntarily, but for a group with membership fees exceeding £1.8m pa it beggars belief. Or is there some ulterior reason for the union branch to organise this way ?


I and many others have questioned this for many years. Where does all the money go, where are the audited figures for the membership to see, how much exactly goes to Unite, who is on the payroll of Bassa ( I recently found out that 2 of Bassa's biggest crew supporters ( CSD's)) were in fact auditors for Bassa. How much are they paid etc? It only came to light in the last 6 months that the reps were paid £100/day for 'office' duties, because DH tried to explain where his money was earnt from after an expose from the Daily Mail.. There are SO many unanswered questions still to this day. All I have ever wanted is a professional union run by professional people and Bassa have for years falied on both counts. With £1.8 million/year one could have EXPECTED better but alas no.


On a lighter note I was in my local supermarket yesterday selecting some tomatoes ( Oh my, how my days just fly by!! ) There were some grown in Hants, Sussex and Kent. Thought I'd better not take a chance on the Hants variety. Just 2 mins later a call was put out for a Mr. Holley to come to the desk!!. I kid you not. I was half expecting Mr Tomorite to be seen carrying his best cherry variety to the veg dept.

[just an observer]

My experience of previous IA was all staff travel privileges removed for a period of 1 or 2 years for all strikers, but returned with full seniority


My experience as a spouse of BA staff is that ST was returned immediately on settlement of the dispute, with full seniority. (3 times to my spouse)

My point was not so much the right or wrong of removing it permanently, which a court will decide, as to show why CC would assume removal would not be permanent whatever BA said beforehand. BA have always said it, yet always given it back. So CC weren't just believing BASSA and it's '5 minutes' claim, but going by history.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Sorry to interrupt

But Duncan's wife does not fly, she used to but not for quite some time now (this I know - I know people he knows http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif).




Sorry to disappoint you Atlas Drawer but Mrs DH still flies. She moved from Eurofleet to Worldwide last year. She is a purser, and is a lion compared to her 'pussycat' husband!! Louise will be giving it 100% towards the cause I can tell you.

[Hotel Mode]

My experience as a spouse of BA staff is that ST was returned immediately on settlement of the dispute, with full seniority. (3 times to my spouse)


The dispute isnt settled though. So whether staff travel would or wouldnt be returned on settlement is still in question. In no previous dispute has staff travel been returned before settlement.

It was in the settlement agreement of course, the BASSA membership however elected to continue the dispute.

[JUAN TRIPP]

My point was not so much the right or wrong of removing it permanently, which a court will decide, as to show why CC would assume removal would not be permanent whatever BA said beforehand. BA have always said it, yet always given it back. So CC weren't just believing BASSA and it's '5 minutes' claim, but going by history.

Ancient Observer, you are so right IMO. Its the history bit that many I believe were following. Even if you had only been with BA a few years, the old lags were quoting chapter and verse from previous campaigns. But the 'one trick pony way' hasn't worked this time. I said at the time of the removal to several crew that I believed WW was going to stick not twist this time. DH like Arthur Scargill before just thought, well its worked before so it'll work again:ouch:

[SwissRef]

so Unite claim almost 7000 strikers, and BA just under 5000.

If both have to provide their lists to court, what impact on the "missing" 2000?

Potentially they have fraudulently claimed strike pay, or incorrectly claimed they were "sick" or BA have made an error in not removing their ST.

So they could be sued by Unite for claiming strike pay when they weren't on strike, disciplined by BA for calling in sick when they were on strike, or have their ST removed by BA (particularly if BA win the case).

That would be a great own goal - court action that makes 2000 workers worse off!

(Possibly missed a scenario, but you get the drift)

[The SSK]

JUAN TRIPP you seem to be the subject of veiled threats on the other thread (p*sts 2678 and 2680). Should this be something for you to worry about?

[just an observer]

Ancient Observer, you are so right IMO. Its the history bit that many I believe were following. Even if you had only been with BA a few years, the old lags were quoting chapter and verse from previous campaigns. But the 'one trick pony way' hasn't worked this time. I said at the time of the removal to several crew that I believed WW was going to stick not twist this time. DH like Arthur Scargill before just thought, well its worked before so it'll work againhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/shiner.gif

That wasn't AO, that was me :) And I also thought Walsh was being so dogmatic about it this time, that he would look really silly if he backed down later, so was unlikely to, but then I'm not CC - it's easier on the outside looking in.

[just an observer]

Potentially they have fraudulently claimed strike pay, or incorrectly claimed they were "sick" or BA have made an error in not removing their ST.



Or - some went on strike during the first period, and claimed straight away, and again in the second period, and BASSA haven't counted names, just number of claims.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Sorry 'Just an observer' for mixing you up. JT


SSK wrote
JUAN TRIPP you seem to be the subject of veiled threats on the other thread (p*sts 2678 and 2680). Should this be something for you to worry about?


No not really. Dave3 got upset last week when I posted about the Manchester memorial being connected with the Bassa meeting. All I did was say what a lot of people said, but he particularly got upset with me. Thats life

[moleytt]

There's obviously been an ongoing discussion on whether ST is considered to be a perk or not. Surely the easy answer would be for one of the CC who contribute on this thread to look through their contract and confirm whether it is included or not. If it is, then BA are in breach of said contract; if not, it can be assumed it's a perk and it's removal or otherwise is at the discretion of BA - unless the court rules otherwise.

(Sorry if this has already been done - I have been reading all this thread and the other thread but can't remember whether this aspect was confirmed or not.)

moleytt

[Diplome]

SSK:

Its rather amusing to see dave3 argue that just because I tell you you have to keep a secret you have to keep a secret.

fruitbat's post put it bluntly:


If you don't want people to know, then don't write it!



Incredible how vehemently BASSA members object to their statements being public.

[ChicoG]

They don't want their comments in the public domain because they know that without the backslapping cohorts "megaditto'ing" every word, they are mostly embarrassing and pathetic.

I should add: and they are more often than not snide, sarcastic, sneering, vicious, malicious, dismissive, petulant half truths or outright lies.

[Ancient Observer]

Juan,
Please keep posting and copying.
thanks
AO

[Neptunus Rex]

...snide, sarcastic, sneering, vicious, malicious, dismissive, petulant half truths or outright lies.How sad - how very sad.

Tell us some more!

[ChicoG]

Neptunus, I can offer you numerous examples. Just get on the CC dispute thread #1 and start reading.

[just an observer]

Moleytt, staff travel is definitely a perk and is not contractual. It can be removed and generally this only happens if someone abuses staff travel itself. My spouse has been with BA a lifetime and I can't recall ever hearing of it being removed as part of, say, a disciplinary, unless the disciplinary was for the staff travel abuse in the first place.

However, as staff travel is available to all staff who don't abuse staff travel, withdrawing it from a group who happen to take part in a legally authorised strike (even if the grounds for voting for said strike are pretty thin) sounds like punishment to me. Yes I know they could have had it back without seniority, but in some ways that's worse, I know how I'd feel if as a family we had to go back to the bottom after years of working ones way up the priority ladder.

To imagine my spouse to have to make a decision to risk that against going against his union colleagues would be agonising however he felt about the IA itself. And if he voted against a strike but the majority vote was in favour, then he firmly believes he should strike. CC have always been a bit half hearted about actually going on strike, as opposed to simply voting to give the union backing in negotiations, in the past many have got round it by going sick, hence the requirement to provide medical of sickness proof this time or it counts as on strike.

[77]

Re Staff Travel
I am fairly sure that during periods of industrial disputes staff travel has been suspended for all staff not just those involved in the dispute.
Except for those returning to base from holidays etc.
This meant that those going on holiday would have to cancel.
I always assumed that this was to reduce the risk of lots of stranded staff overseas and to allow the airline to concentrate its efforts on fare paying pax.

[Dawdler]

There is a rumour about that DH will have no further action taken against him by the CPS. At least one poster on the other thread seems to equate this as "having no case to answer" whereas being I believe being cautioned as to ones future behaviour is not quite the same thing. Which one of these applies here perhaps we will learn later.

[just an observer]

to 77

Yes staff travel is often 'embargoed' during times of IA, but this is different to your right to it being removed, which happens only to the people involved in the dispute, and has been restored (in the past) on settlement. Embargoes also apply at certain times of the year on certain routes anyway.

We in fact called a halt to a planned holiday this year on the assumption staff travel would be embargoed, but in the end it wasn't.

[77]

Agreed. Staff travel has been "removed" or "embargoed" in the past during industrial disputes for all staff. Usually restored. Your entitlement (not right) to staff travel is also suspended when off work sick.
It is not unusual to remove staff travel entitlement. The difference in this case is not restoring the entitlement. BUT they were warned.

[call100]

It's definitely something to be left to the court.....Us mere mortals will no doubt continue to argue the points even when the decision is made.

An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. A "right" is itself an entitlement associated with a moral or social principle, such that an "entitlement" is a provision made in accordance with legal framework of a society. Typically, entitlements are laws based on concepts of principle ("rights") which are themselves based in concepts of social equality or enfranchisement.

If nothing else it will be interesting. ;)

[Lou Scannon]

As one of the SLF without staff travel: Just came back from Denver in BA Club.
Outbound a good flight with no attitude problems from the cabin crew and on the return the CSD was working the cabin with the rest and I was greatly cheered by a male attendant called Tony who seemed to have a humorous quip for everything I could throw at him.

No sign of any hot towels but there again it was Club and not a cheap UK Charter flight!

Pity that the flight deck were so uncommunicative. Apart from a brief TOD chat there was nothing even when we obviously had to hold for 15-20 minutes and this threw the original arrival estimate.

It looks as if there is some hope for the future of BA.

[wiggy]

Glad you had a good flight.

Pity that the flight deck were so uncommunicative. Apart from a brief TOD chat there was nothing even when we obviously had to hold for 15-20 minutes and this threw the original arrival estimate.


FWIW the brief is pretty much to try for minimum announcements, certainly from the flight deck, once airborne (to avoid disturbance to those sleeping/watching PA's/enjoying the Cabin Service), though an extended holding delay probably would be worth a mention.

[just an observer]

Agreed. Staff travel has been "removed" or "embargoed" in the past during industrial disputes for all staff. Usually restored. Your entitlement (not right) to staff travel is also suspended when off work sick.
It is not unusual to remove staff travel entitlement. The difference in this case is not restoring the entitlement. BUT they were warned.


We seem to be at cross purposes here. An embargo is not the same as removal of entitlement (and by 'right' I meant entitlement, if you want to split hairs). An embargo is by it's very nature temporary. Staff affected by an embargo know that it is temporary and just due to circumstances, and that everything will return to normal for them in due course.

An embargo on staff travel for all staff during a strike to avoid having staff stranded all over the place is very different to having your entitlement to staff travel removed. Staff affected by an embargo still have an entitlement, and can go on applying for tickets for periods outside the embargo period. My spouse has had his entitlement removed during IA 3 times in the early part of his career, and restored as part of the settlement, but has been affected by an embargo more times than I can remember.

As for no entitlement during sick leave, that is a pretty obvious restriction, to avoid people self certifying sickness just to enhance holiday allowances.

[vctenderness]

What has not been made clear here as yet is that ST has been removed from employees in the past for taking Industrial Action.

During the Gate Gourmet dispute a number of TGWU (Unite) shop stewards were disciplined by BA for unlawful action.

Some where dismissed and others had their ST removed for life as a punishment.

I do not remember any court cases, human rights claims etc being made for them by the union.

If this cabin crew ST dispute gets to court I would imagine the BA brief will immediately bring this information forward.

[just an observer]

That was, as you said, for unlawful action. The Gate Gourmet dispute was not a BA dispute, (the catering had been subcontracted, and BA's own catering staff taken on, on the whole, by Gate Gourmet, it may have been, not sure, that BA sold off it's catering to GG as a lump, staff included) but secondary strikes at BA were encouraged in support, and that was clearly unlawful. The CC strike, however misguided the reasons, was lawful.

Still, if they lost staff travel as a punishment, it does at least mean it has happened as a result of a disciplinary situation, which was a question I asked earlier. Striking CC are not going to be on disciplinaries however, not just for striking, so it's unclear just how relevant it is to this.

I shall certainly watch any court case with interest.

[77]

Yes, but the point is that the employer has in the past "removed, suspended, embargoed " the "entitlement" for a variety of reasons. Previously the "entitlement" has been restored (in most cases)
Therefore I assume using precedent the employer can remove the perk. The only difference now is that the employer forewarned the employees that the removal would be permenant.
Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
However as you said the court case, if there is one, will decide and make a pretty penny for someone.

[Juan Tugoh]

Staff travel is a non-contractual and discretionary benefit granted at the sole discretion of BA and as such can be withdrawn or varied at the sole discretion of the Company at any time.

I agree to these terms and conditions

Every time you book an ST ticket you agree to these T&C's, there are others, this is the most relevant. So, each time you book a ticket you personally agree that ST is non-contractual and can be removed or varied at BA's sole discretion. I see this as being a very difficult hurdle for UNITE to overcome, particularly as the consequences of putting yourself in breach of contract by striking were clearly defined beforehand.

[MPN11]

Thanks, Juan ... that's a very important factor to be placed in the public arena.

It's a shame it has taken so long to be revealed; the Media might even have noticed that :rolleyes:

It will be a genius of a lawyer to argue his way round that one, IMO.

Right ... One down, two to go. Next case?

[TopBunk]

MPN11

That fact has been in the public domain since this dispute started.

If you search all the threads I'm sure that you'll find it.

The fact the BASSA choose to ignore it is not surprising given their form:hmm::rolleyes:

[MPN11]

Sorry, TopBunk ... so many pages, here and on the other thread, I must have missed that.

Still, it's nice to see it re-stated.

[moleytt]

just an observer: Thanks for your reply. Interesting to get the facts on what's happened to ST during past IA.

TopBunk/Juan Tugoh: That's the bit of info I was looking for. To be honest the search engine is a little difficult to pin point something like that, unless it's the way I'm using it :O

Anyway, Mrs moleytt and I are off to Boston tomorrow - with BA of course. Recent flight reports sound encouraging, so looking forward to it.

moleytt

[TopBunk]

MPN11

No problems. This dispute has been going on so long that almost everything worth saying (or indeed not worth saying) has been said several times at least that one could almost lose the will to live:hmm:

Reputedly attributed to Woodley (on this forum or elsewhere) when questioned privately at the TUC conference, he admitted that they (BASSA and/or Unite) were f***ed in this dispute, and it was all about an exit strategy.

Note: that is not to suggest that BASSA accept that viewpoint, and that, throughout this dispute has been the ultimate problem - BASSA will take no council from anyone.

BA only talk through Unite (because BASSA have refused to negotiate) and Unite can't deliver any BASSA agreement without re-instatement of those dismissed and ST for all, so we end up with apparent stalemate.

Only apparent, because in the meantime, BA are making the desired savings through the crewing changes, and BASSA through their intransigence, are accelerating BA's growth of MF and their own demise, by opting out of any discussions of route transfers to MF (for example, the newly announced routes to HND (Tokyo Haneda) and EZE (Buenos Aires) direct will almost certainly go straight to MF at a saving of about £8000 per cabin crew rotation per route - all avoidable had BASSA agreed to negotiate.

So sad that so many have been so misrepresented by so few for personal grievances and vendettas:=

[MPN11]

Thanks, TopBunk. I wasn't trying to stir, honest. I've been reading this and other Boards for the last 12 months, and I've flown during strikes, and ... arrrgh! It's so easy to lose your way and try to remember what's been said, especially at my age!

Anyway, I'm flying BA on Monday and Tuesday [CE then CW] and I know it will be a good experience. How good depends on the particular crew operating out of LHR, of course.

Fingers are crossed, and best regards to the great majority of BA CC! ;)

[dudleydick]

When is the court case re the withdrawal of staff travel for the strikers at BA? In my 35 years in the airline industry staff travel was a privilege and not a right. If the case goes against BA I would think that many airlines around the world will have to re-think their staff privileges. Just my humble opinion.

[just an observer]

in the airline industry staff travel was a privilege and not a right. If the case goes against BA I would think that many airlines around the world will have to re-think their staff privileges.


Why? IF the case goes against BA, staff travel will be no more contractual, no more a right, than it is now. And it isn't contractual. I don't think anyone here argues that it is, certainly not me. Nor Unite, I'd assume.

Presumably all the court case will determine is

1. Whether the withdrawal of a discretionary privilege, normally available to all staff, from those who went on strike, is a punishment for striking, and

2. whether an employer bound by UK law has the right to punish employees for going on a legal strike.

In this particular case the means of punishment is staff travel, but it could be anything, depending on the employer concerned. It's the principle of punishment for striking, not the method, that counts.

Other airlines around the world aren't bound by UK law anyway.

BA's lawyers haven't shot themselves in the foot yet, so they must reckon they have a good case, but it will still be interesting.

[call100]

BA's lawyers thought they had a good case when they lost at appeal last time....
One of the reasons that only a fool says they know the law is that it changes so frequently and in this field so much is based on case law.
Of course it's about a punishment for doing something lawful. BA may have messed up by just withdrawing it from the strikers. That could be seen as punishment for taking part in legal strike action. What was withdrawn is irrelevant.
I think Litebulbs has been trying to convince folk of this for a while now.
As my crystal ball is broken I won't guess at the outcome, but, it should be interesting whichever way it goes.

[just an observer]

call100, absolutely agree. IMO the answer to item 1 in my post above is 'yes' it is a punishment. We all agree that BA can withdraw staff travel at their discretion but it's the reason they have withdrawn it that counts.

As for item 2 I would like to think that punishment for a legal strike is unlawful, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

[fly12345]

Whichever way it will be judged, bassa might expect compensation for travel expences for the allegedly penalised members and if they lose they ll blame a corrupt court-judging system and the argument will be going on and on:ugh:
They are not interested in a settlement but simply to fuel their hate for the company they work for and generate as much damage they can possibly inflict in doing so.

[dogandduck]

Call100 and just an observer are I think correct.

In the first instance BASSA mentalists were running around explaining to all and sundry that staff travel was contractual, this was soon dropped very quickly, suprise suprise, of course it didn't help that BASSA sent everyone a text explaining that staff travel would be "back in 5 minutes"

Interestingly crew-defence lawyers are dipping their toe in the water at an Industrial tribunal utilising the race relations act, of course all this is being paid for by individual crew donations, and one wonders if they could afford to take this all the way to the ECJ.

What should of course be worrying for both cabin crew and BASSA are the time lines involved. I would expect BA to fight all these cases all the way to Europe if necessary.

BALPA have a similar case pending with the financial help of the TUC (should please BASSA mentalists who want them rejected from the TUC) It started out at an industrial tribunal in March 2006 and is now expected to be heard at the ECJsome time in 2011 with an opinion in 2012, and even then it gets bounced back to the British courts to deal with.

Only 6 years then ,I hope Cabin Crew and BASSA can be patient;)

[Juan Tugoh]

It starts to get interesting when you think along the appeal process.

Let's postulate that UNITE do not win their appeal and decide to take it along the ECHR route. There is precedent for this - for interests sake try Googling Danilenkov. A case before the ECHR is one against the UK rather than against the company - it would be that UK law has failed, not that BA had not complied with UK law. Even if UNITE were to ultimately win at the ECHR, it would still be down to the UK legislative body to change the law. Generally what happens is that some compensation is awarded, but again, see the Danilenkov case where the strikers were effectively gotten rid of, the compensation is paltry.

This then, is effectively a one shot go for UNITE, if they lose this appeal there would be very little benefit to proceed further for them. BA on the other hand have everything to gain by dragging this out for as long as possible. The longer this goes on - the ST issue - the better it gets for BA. The downside is very small and the strikers who rely on their ST are being slowly drained. I am still not sure that UNITE have thought this through very well.

[just an observer]

This then, is effectively a one shot go for UNITE, if they lose this appeal there would be very little benefit to proceed further for them. BA on the other hand have everything to gain by dragging this out for as long as possible. The longer this goes on - the ST issue - the better it gets for BA. The downside is very small and the strikers who rely on their ST are being slowly drained. I am still not sure that UNITE have thought this through very well


I tend to agree with this as well, which is presumably why the full restoration of staff travel was hoped to be part of the settlement deal, as otherwise it's all too long winded. Once BA took away staff travel on a permanent or loss of seniority basis, Unite weren't left with many options to think through.

[TightSlot]

It's very difficult to take posts seriously when the phrase 'BASSA mentalists' is used: It is actually the sort of language that might be expected from the very people that the phrase describes - It's entirely up to you: I would have thought that sounding like a grown up would be helpful to making your case, but hey, your thread, your words.

[Entaxei]

Just a couple of points .........

I've been following the original thread since around September last year, and this thread since it started. To my knowledge, prior to Juan's post, nobody in that time has identified the existence of, or the words of, the disclaimer regarding staff travel when you sign for it.

The existence of the disclaimer and the frequency with which it is continually being reinforced, clearly stating that there is no obligation on BA to either allow it in any instance or to continue to do so, leads me to believe that this alters all of the theories discussed and put forward, including any idea from BASSA or UNITE, that BA can in any manner be forced to give ST to anyone.

If I have an item and the sole ownership of it, tangible or otherwise, that some one else desires to have or share, I am the sole judge of what I shall do with my possession, regardless of any screams of 'give me' or 'I demand', and if I so wish I am fully at liberty to destroy that item. As indeed I am to run out of patience with any person I employ in my business, and say - you are fired - you have the legal right to sue me if you wish - I reserve my position regarding reasons.

I believe that BA may be very close to this response.

[LD12986]

I see Willie Walsh has been appointed president of the London Chamber of Commerce for two years. Looks like he will be in the UK for longer than BASSA would like.

[dudleydick]

Madrid is only a couple hours away - and with ST quite inexpensive......
Sorry I am out of here....

[Runway vacated]

.TightSlot It's very difficult to take posts seriously when the phrase 'BASSA mentalists' is used: It is actually the sort of language that might be expected from the very people that the phrase describes - It's entirely up to you: I would have thought that sounding like a grown up would be helpful to making your case, but hey, your thread, your words.


It may be difficult to take seriously, TS, but believe me the phrase is well suited. Those of us within BA have been expected to respect and treat seriously the views of people who are either hell bent on inflicting damage on our employer or simply deaf to reasoned argument. Their increasing unwillingness to either compromise or accept reality has, as has been noted on here by several commentators, all the hallmarks of a cult. An acknowledgement that any of their cherished beliefs are wrong would undermine the entire, carefully constructed fabric of lies, half truths and deceptions. Hence the impression that myself and many others get that they are brain washed and, indeed, 'mentalist'.

[TightSlot]

Yes, thanks, I had quite appreciated all that already,although it is always a pleasure to see it concisely explained again.
I can see that I'm flogging a dead horse here - you just carry on and ignore me.


:)

[call100]

Just a couple of points .........

I've been following the original thread since around September last year, and this thread since it started. To my knowledge, prior to Juan's post, nobody in that time has identified the existence of, or the words of, the disclaimer regarding staff travel when you sign for it.

The existence of the disclaimer and the frequency with which it is continually being reinforced, clearly stating that there is no obligation on BA to either allow it in any instance or to continue to do so, leads me to believe that this alters all of the theories discussed and put forward, including any idea from BASSA or UNITE, that BA can in any manner be forced to give ST to anyone.

If I have an item and the sole ownership of it, tangible or otherwise, that some one else desires to have or share, I am the sole judge of what I shall do with my possession, regardless of any screams of 'give me' or 'I demand', and if I so wish I am fully at liberty to destroy that item. As indeed I am to run out of patience with any person I employ in my business, and say - you are fired - you have the legal right to sue me if you wish - I reserve my position regarding reasons.

I believe that BA may be very close to this response.
If only it were that simple......What a wonderful world it would be.;):)

TS....Thanks for trying....

[vctenderness]

With regard to the ST disclaimer you are unable to proceed with any ST request without first ticking the box to accept the terms and conditions. No ticked box = no cheapie to anywhere land! :{

Therefore, IMO, everyone who uses ST must be fully aware that it can be taken away at the Employers behest for ANY reason.

[The SSK]

By removing ST from strikers and only from strikers, BA weren't punishing them, they were merely 'sending BASSA a message'.

[Papillon]

A minor point. Just because BA have a disclaimer saying that the staff member agrees it's a perk and can be withdrawn at any time doesn't necessarily make it legally watertight that they can do so. In the same way, just because you sign a contract doesn't automatically mean that all provisions are legally enforceable - the company must abide by the law.

If they had a disclaimer that said everyone must stand on their head and sing the national anthem, chances are that would be viewed as unreasonable and set aside - irrespective of how many people signed it.

[Timothy Claypole]

fundamentalism (ˌfʌndəˈmɛntəˌlɪzəm) http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html)— n 1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true 2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law 3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs

I always thought the term should be used as 'BASSAmentalist' rather than 'BASSA mentalist'. The latter is indeed a childish term the likes of which one would expect to hear in the playground. The former, I think, rather neatly distinguishes between those BA crew who are willing to listen to the outside world and those who do adhere strictly, and unthinkingly, to the fundamental principles of BASSAs beliefs.

[Entaxei]

Call 100 ............

"If only it were that simple......What a wonderful world it would be."

If the above dismissive and meaningless comment is the only response that you are able to make to a considered statement regarding Contract Law, then I suggest that you restrict yourself to only responding where you are qualified to do so. :E

[Entaxei]

Papillon ...........

The point that you are missing, is that the BA document is not a disclaimer, it is in itself a contract between BA and the person signing, governing that single transaction.

As one of these is signed for each ticket issued, it is each time an individual contract, not a disclaimer, therefore the concept of this being supplied only under the same contract and conditions is reinforced and updated, each and every time and, has been so for a number of years. It cannot be argued that the tickets are supplied under any other terms and conditions of contract, or even modified in any degree.

In any contract between two parties, the question of both parties being required to comply with any applicable law of contract would apply, but I would be surprised if BA had not by now, produced a nice, legally tight contract to cover this area.

Finally - if you wish to stand on your head and sing the national anthem, so be it - just sign a contract on the dotted line with anyone who is interested enough to draw up a contract!! - but just remember - you a entering into a contract of performance - not a disclaimer. ;)

[MPN11]

I've been following the original thread since around September last year, and this thread since it started. To my knowledge, prior to Juan's post, nobody in that time has identified the existence of, or the words of, the disclaimer regarding staff travel when you sign for it.

That was my feeling back at Post 2170, but I'm not searching the Web for the next week to try to find out!

However, what the Courts make of the overall issue of withdrawing ST will be very interesting. Having read a lot of comments, here and elsewhere, I'm slightly less confident about the decision in respect off BA's position. It does have a sense of 'punishment' about it ... and it will undoubtedly take an expensive lawyer with experience in the field of IR to determine which way it goes.

I guess we have to wait and see - the decision won't be made here! ;)

[just an observer]

Entaxei, can I refer you to a recent post.


We all agree that BA can withdraw staff travel at their discretion but it's the reason they have withdrawn it that counts.



If the reason for withdrawal is to punish a legal strike, they may be on dodgy legal ground. The point has also been made that we are talking about the principle of punishment for striking, the fact that the means of punishment is staff travel in this instance is irrelevant. Your post did not debate on that point at all.

There are wider issues involved than BA's provision (or not) of staff travel. BA does have the power to withdraw staff travel, but their doing so could set a precedent throughout employment law as it relates to strikes. This is what any court case is likely to cover. As Call100 says, it's not as simple as ' BA can withdraw staff travel whenever they want'.

[TopBunk]

I've been following the original thread since around September last year, and this thread since it started. To my knowledge, prior to Juan's post, nobody in that time has identified the existence of, or the words of, the disclaimer regarding staff travel when you sign for it.


Entaxi, MPN11,

You may be right, and I couldn't easily find the quote via the search function, but I have seen it posted somewhere quite a while ago (and I'm sure I'm not becoming senile and only remembering it from the BA Staff Travel internet site!) The trouble is that this dispute has generated upwards of 15,000? posts over the last year, so trawling through them is tiresome and unwieldy with the tools provided.

I guess the only proof is someone finding a link in these threads - I can't be bothered to research it any further.

Anyway, the bottom line is that it is certainly out there now, and adds to the understanding of the arguments.

[MPN11]

@ TopBunk ... whichever! ;)
Probably an issue for someone very highly paid in the legal profession to determine whether the exercise of that clause could constitute unfair treatment of a striking employee. At the moment I'd go for an each-way bet.

[Hotel Mode]

Entaxi, MPN11,

You may be right, and I couldn't easily find the quote via the search function, but I have seen it posted somewhere quite a while ago (and I'm sure I'm not becoming senile and only remembering it from the BA Staff Travel internet site!)

And I posted the exact quote from BA in reply to Litebulbs during the strike. It has been on here several times.

[MPN11]

Hotel Mode ... that's cool. Think how many thousands of posts over the last year or so, on 2 different threads here [never mind other Boards]. Some things get missed, or forgotten.

Let's talk about the issues, eh?

[call100]

Call 100 ............

"If only it were that simple......What a wonderful world it would be."

If the above dismissive and meaningless comment is the only response that you are able to make to a considered statement regarding Contract Law, then I suggest that you restrict yourself to only responding where you are qualified to do so. :E
Sensitive sole are we? I think it was a case of you reading into it something different to what was meant....
I could have said your post was a load of tosh but resisted and posted a wish. Obviously you are no more qualified to comment on anything regarding the position of ST removal and Employment law. You made that clear in your post.:E
This is why we await the outcome of the court case and the legal arguments during it with interest.

[77]

Does the result really matter anymore.
BA now has its new Mixed Fleet. (lower cost)
As routes are transferred to MF and "heritage crew" leave the airline it would seem to be game,set and match. !!!

[Litebulbs]

To me, this whole issue will be based on two statements -

"Right of Collective Bargaining and Action’, stipulates: Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interests, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action" Article 28 The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

"For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the charter creates justifiable rights applicable to the UK except in so far as the UK has provided for such rights in its national law" Tony Blair 2007

This clears it all up?!

House of Lords - European Union - Tenth Report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/6209.htm)

From 5.29b onwards.

[Juan Tugoh]

Litebulbs, thank you for the link.

What seems (to me) to be clear, wading my way through it, is that the picture is confusing. There seems to be a right to right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels. It is far less clear whether there is a right to strike, despite the concluding part of Article 28.

5.36. Article 28 of the Charter does not create a free-standing right to strike

It states further that the right to strike is already recognised as a general principle of law. This "principle" seems to be where the fun starts as:

Such principles, explained Lord Goldsmith, "only give rise to rights to the extent that they are implemented by national law or, in those areas where there is such competence, by Community law"

So, is there a right to strike in the UK? or is it a principle, which is not enshrined in law? The problem arises from this distinction. IF there is only a principle and no right, can BA be acting illegally by "punishing" strikers, as their rights have not been infringed. This I suspect will be where BA's case will reside. As it seems unclear and confusing to the scholars of EU and UK law, this is likely to run a long way before a clear resolution is reached and may even force parliament to make clear what the relationship is between UK law and EU law. Does an EU law that is directly contradictory to UK law mean that UK law must bend?

This is a fascinating conundrum and may have far reaching consequences. It also shows that there will be a lot of scope for appeal after appeal on this subject. I do not expect a swift resolution to this issue. Sadly for BASSA, a speedy resolution is what they need, the longer this goes on the longer a new "normality" is established.

[Litebulbs]

I seem to remember either on here, or in conversation, that neither business or unions have wanted to test where the UK sit with regard to the right to strike. As I see it, it is an implied term in the UK and in some instances it would be reasonable to strike and the law will se it that way. In other instances, it is not. The greyness of our current understanding of a right to strike, allows a case by case approach. However, if this right is explored more, one side will win and one side will loose and until now, no side really wanted to take the risk of getting a definite answer. But all of this, is just my opinion!

[Juan Tugoh]

What you say rings a bell with me too, what I hadn't quite appreciated was the delicate nature of the legal position. The danger of the politicians becoming engaged in this and clarifying the position with an eye on their beliefs wrt the EU and EU law and interference. If not careful here the unions may end up with a law passed that clearly defines UK law's supremacy and the establishment that there is no right to strike in UK law. That would be a disaster for unions and the working man.

[Chuchinchow]

Biteme asks, somewhat plaintively:


BigBrutha,

Lets say for a minute you are in my shoes, been on strike, lost your staff travel and don’t agree with the route that BA are taking your department.

What would you do?


There would be only one possible course of action: resign.


Immediately.

[TopBunk]

CCC

I am sure we can see through Biteme as just the latest incarnation of the duty BASSA troll, possibly DH himself, he says I was lucky to have been off and attend every meeting that bassa held.

If not DH then just another troll trying another lame story to try and influence opinion. Good for him for trying, bit so easy to see through.

All you have to do is look through the posting history - the poster has been resurrected from the portfolio of BASSA rep pseudonyms.

[Timothy Claypole]

Actually biteme is not DH, or even one of the usual BASSA trolls. He's one of the more moderate posters on the crews own forums. Unfortunately he does share their common position of being unaware of much of their unions amateurish behaviour and a reluctance to accept evidence of what has gone before. If crew knew half of what their union had been up to (and also hadn't been up to) they'd be aghast.

[notlangley]

I am concerned about biteme (on the other web) and others like him._ Change is difficult._ He is 47 and therefore has given the best years of his life to a job which appears to be a very sociable job but could in reality be quite lonely._ Biteme is clearly a conscientious person and no doubt is very good at his job._ But what a curious job it is!_ In most jobs one has colleagues and they are the same colleagues for years._ Each person knows the strengths and weaknesses of the others._ And during the off-duty periods the group will chat together about sport or aging grandparents or hobbies and since the individuals know each other quite well they know what to joke about and what not to joke about._ These off-duty periods when e.g. they are having a break for lunch establishes relationships that enable them at work to deal with each other in a professional and confident manner._ But how does it work if one has 10,000 colleagues?_ Clearly it doesn’t work._ It would be a real strain.

Please can one or two BA cabin crew staff tell me (because I don’t know) are you with strangers as colleagues?_ Or do you arrange your bids for routes so as to meet up with familiar faces?

[YorkshireTyke]

……removing ST from strikers and only from strikers…….


NO, he's taken it away from the oldest pensioners too - why ?

I see that Wee Willie has awarded himself a Million Pound Share Option !

Madrid is only a couple hours away - and with ST quite inexpensive......

I bet he keeps HIS Staff Travel !

(P.s. where's ExSp33db1rd when we need him ? )

[PleasureFlyer]

Willie Walsh (as thats his name, Wee Willie is not his name) did not and cannot award himself anything. Any increase in salary, bonus, share options etc has to be proposed, and accepted by the whole board. He has no say in the matter. What he can do, and what he has done in the past is to decline what was offered.

[AlpineSkier]

@ Yorkshire Tyke

ExSp33 has had the moderatorial duct-tape applied to his mouth on this subject.

Are you taking up his cudgel/Zimmer-frame;) ?

[617sqn]

Notlangley
I am BA cc based at LHR worldwide fleet(longhaul)
We would never be rostered to do a trip with the entire crew again as it would not be possible.Some people may have part time,leave or UK request days next so it would not work.
I will check in for a long haul trip and not usually know anyone on the crew.
I can appreciate that this does sound strange to non flyers who have familiarity in their work place.
Crew,both in the cabin and the flight deck,get used to getting on board not even knowing everyone's names.We all know what tasks have to be done before passenger boarding.This is a very busy time so no real chit chat can take place.
Crew have to be able to work in a team of strangers and get the job done.
As far as I am aware most UK airlines work like this as it makes it easier for rostering.

[ChicoG]

And the world without the BASSA dinosaurs continues to function and move on.

BA today signed an agreement to start a transatlantic joint business with American Airlines and Iberia worth a combined £4.4 billion in annual revenues.

The deal, approved by the EU and the US, allows the three airlines to co-operate commercially on flights between the EU, Switzerland and Norway and the US, Mexico and Canada.

The benefits from the joint business will be shared between the airlines irrespective of which carrier takes the booking.

BA said the joint business will launch next month and provide customers with greater access to discounted fares, more convenient connections and better access to the airlines' global network.

BA's planned merger with Spanish airline Iberia is set to go ahead soon.

[notlangley]

I am grateful to you for your reply which was exactly the opposite to what I had expected._ There is a particular advantage in this shuffling of personnel._ As I see it, the advantage is that it is a force that reduces polarisation between ex-Amicus and ex-T&GWU._ With my limited vision as a PAX I have formed the view that ex-Amicus has by metamorphosis become CC89 and ex-T&GWU has by metamorphosis become BASSA._ Therefore the shuffling of the rostering should be of value to most cabin crew because when the hue and cry has died down, it will enable old divisions to disappear into irrelevance.

However it is a bit tough on the loyal, the shy, the boastful, the loner, and those who do not doubt._ I do hope that BA has clubs like rowing clubs, sailing clubs, athletic clubs, skying clubs because these social organisations are very important to soften the cultural change that will take place to Unite BA CC members in 2011.

Twenty years ago I was in an organisation that downsized._ There was no bullying, no differences between Management and Trade Union._ It was very smooth and voluntary._ It was driven by the government who held our purse-strings._ Even so there were tragic results because one or two employees could not accept change.

Help for the individual is needed._ And it is difficult to identify those individuals._ I wish that I could have spotted them, but maybe I would have been of no use.

[Charlie Pop]

You've got that the wrong way round I think. First there was BASSA. Then when people became disaffected by BASSAs militancy a breakway union, CC89 was formed. CC89 and BASSA became affiliated to Amicus and TGWU respectively. Amicus and TGWU then merged to become Unite.

[617sqn]

Well whatever the politics are we are all strangers 8 miles high going away for up to 9 days.
As we walk through the airport chatting it would be hard to guess we only met 10 minutes ago.
Crew have a natural ability to make friends and get on with the job as a team of strangers.
As in all walks of life some are more skilled in this area than others.
It is very strange though to do a 9 day trip and have a good time,then land back at LHR,say goodbye, maybe never see them again and do the same next trip.
It is difficult when you have things going on at home.You may feel very sad and not want to go away andyou have no friends with you.
You have to paint the smile on,walk into the briefing room and get on with it.
I have left a close relative in intensive care and gone into work feeling very fragile.How I kept that smile going I will never know.
As part of the briefing the CSD will say to call them anytime if you are upset.On the whole,crew are good to each other.
Things are a bit more challenging at the moment,which is a shame.
I have never seen any crew take their grievance out on a pax.In fact I have seen some very militant crew being outstanding.The pax would never guess their stance.
Anyway,back to topic.Sometimes good,sometimes bad can be lonely.
I can't see us being rostered any other way so we just get on with it.

[Fly380]

617 Squadron.
As a retired BA 744 upfronter we had the bidline which ensured that people of similar seniority often flew together. I understand BASSA turned down BIDLINE.:ugh:

[MCOflyer]

I am sorry to reply to your post many hours later but I do hope you read this.

I flew ATL - LHR - EDI three weeks ago and was surprised by the level of service in Club World. I have been watching this site for several months wondering if my holiday that was booked in December would actually happen. Talking to 2 of the crew that took care of me I was surprised to find they were strikers. Your comment about the smile was so true.

With all the garbage going on in their lives there was never a hint of it to their customers. Thanks to the 4 crews I flew with for a great trip. I will certainly book on BA when next I head your direction.:ok:

MCOflyer

[ChicoG]

I am interested why this thread is still open.

There is no strike, there is not even an impending ballot.

So why is it still here?

Lotpax,

There is still a dispute and there are still legal proceedings.

Next question?

Added: Or go and look at the link in Post 2921 on the other thread. Because there's at least one person (probably called "Richard"!) who thinks it isn't over.

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.

[Betty girl]

Fly380,
No I don't think we were ever offered bid line. It is an extremely costly method for BA to roster crew.
I am crew but while pregnant I worked in scheduling and there were nearly as many flight crew schedulers as there were WW cabin crew schedulers doing our rosters.
On E/F we do get to bid for our trips now but it is not seniority led like the pilot bid. It is done by a computer trying to match your preference with the available trips in the system.

notelangley,
Even on Eurofleet we fly with different crew each day and we all just get on and do the job. Sometimes I know some of my crew and that is good and as I only fly on the Airbus, I often know the pilots which I find great because in my personal experience, the Airbus pilots are the nicest I have flown with in my 25 years of flying.
I have worked in Cabin Crew Selection in the past and cabin crew are specifically selected on their ability to communicate with people and their ability to get on and work in a team.

MCOflyer,
I am so pleased that you enjoyed your flight with BA. It is also my experience that, whether a striker or a non striker, most crew are just as professional as they ever were. In fact, in general, we don't even talk about the strike to each other because no one wants to upset anyone else. I think this is why many of us post on here and other forums in order to get things off our chest.

[numberfifteenplease]

You've got that the wrong way round I think. First there was BASSA. Then when people became disaffected by BASSAs militancy a breakway union, CC89 was formed.

Totally and wholly inaccurate - CC89 was formed as the WW section of BA was in disagreement with the SH section - hence why most of CC89 members were from WW, plus they tried to entice a lot of Midfleet crew into their ranks.

Total garbage that it had anything to do with BASSA militancy - you really should learn your facts before spouting such rubbish

[Mariner9]

Even if your version of the birth of CC89 is wholly correct No 15, it hardly makes CharliePop's version either "totally and wholly inaccurate" or "total garbage".

Seems to me you both agree that CC89 arose due to an internal dispute in BASSA.

[Betty girl]

They are both right in a way.

I joined cc89 in 1989 when it started. It was formed by most of the long-haul Bassa reps ( who mostly had worked for BOAC) because they felt they could no longer work with the short-haul reps (who mostly had worked for BEA and British Airtours the charter part of BA and who were much more militant ). It was based at the Balpa offices and used the Balpa expertise to help them initially. Then it became part of AEEU union which itself merged with another union and then became Amicus. Then Amicus merged with the TGWU, the parent union of BASSA, to become Unite and that's where we are now. Amicus (cc89) has lost it's voice because it was the smaller of the two branches and the more moderate of the two too.

Hope that history lesson helps you understand the complicated politics of unions in BA.

[77]

BEA and British Airtours the charter part of BA and who were much more militant

Perhaps you might wish to re-phrase. I don't remember any militancy in British Airtours. In fact totally the opposite.

[call100]

They are both right in a way.

I joined cc89 in 1989 when it started. It was formed by most of the long-haul Bassa reps ( who mostly had worked for BOAC) because they felt they could no longer work with the short-haul reps (who mostly had worked for BEA and British Airtours the charter part of BA and who were much more militant ). It was based at the Balpa offices and used the Balpa expertise to help them initially. Then it became part of AEEU union which itself merged with another union and then became Amicus. Then Amicus merged with the TGWU, the parent union of BASSA, to become Unite and that's where we are now. Amicus (cc89) has lost it's voice because it was the smaller of the two branches and the more moderate of the two too.

Hope that history lesson helps you understand the complicated politics of unions in BA.
CC89 won't have lost their voice unless they are doing so out of weak leadership or having no connection.
They still have bargaining rights and rights to consultation.
Are you saying that no one in CC89 is doing anything regarding the present mess or are they silent because it doesn't affect them?

[Betty girl]

77,
You have reprinted half a sentence. It was the short haul reps that were more militant than the long haul reps who broke away to form CC89.

At that time and before CC89 broke away, crew who were short haul and those that had previously been working for British Airtours were part of the short haul section of Bassa and those that were long haul crew were part of the long haul branch of Bassa.

I was not saying that any crew were more militant than any other crew, just the Bassa shorthaul reps were more militant than the longhaul reps who chose to break away and form CC89.

Call 100,
I was told that they had lost proportionately more members than Bassa due to the fact that CC89 members tend to be more moderate.

I was also told that the Unite leadership was fed up of the two unions arguing and told the CC89 reps to take a back seat for the sake of showing a unified front.

I have been a CC89 member since it started and I can assure you that the union that I have known all these years would not have wanted to call the 12 days of Christmas mess and that is why it has lost so many members.

[Diplome]

Unite's latest message:

http://www.unitetheunion.org/PDF/027-BA%20Brutish-Airways.pdf

Does anyone else notice a pattern here? Nothing new in this message. All the same old dogma heard time and time again...

..and no new ballot, no firm call to action.

How long does the BASSA membership tolerate the placating missives and no action? Perhaps its possible that Unite and BASSA understand that they have lost, that neither party wishes to take affirmative action, and this has now become a case of simply letting things stay as they are with a "We feel your pain" message to come from time to time.

For BASSA members the vision isn't exactly empowering.

[pcat160]

And of course, BASSA leadership remaining in place and collecting what ever they collect while members continue to pay their monthly dues.

[Neptunus Rex]

...which is why they are prevaricating over ending the strife, which would then require fresh elections, in which several of them would be not be eligible to stand.

[77]

I know that I only quoted half a sentence. I did not intend to mis-represent what you said. However it did seem to me that your original post linked BEA/British Airtours with the militant faction in short haul. Airtours operated both long and short haul and the sheduling agreements were different to mainline.
Originally no one in Airtours was employed by BA apart from the pilots who were on secondment from mainline. The employment contracts were totally different until they were absorbed into mainline.
As such it was a very happy operation.

[vctenderness]

Totally and wholly inaccurate - CC89 was formed as the WW section of BA was in disagreement with the SH section - hence why most of CC89 members were from WW, plus they tried to entice a lot of Midfleet crew into their ranks.

Total garbage that it had anything to do with BASSA militancy - you really should learn your facts before spouting such rubbish

Errrr..not quite accurate I am afraid!

The Longhaul BASSA committee, branch 1261 of TGWU, were being told by the SH BASSA reps that BCal should be part of the SH membership and this daft idea was backed by a certain 'Militant' TGWU official.
After representations to the highest authority, the TGWU Gen Sec - Ron Todd who just ignored them they went to a very well attended members meeting and were told from the floor to form a new union for cabin crew. This happened in February 1989 and the rest is history.

Midfleet had nothing to do with it and came many years later but did have many CC89 members.

CC89 in BA is known as Amicus Cabin Crew - but BASSA continued to call them '89. CC89 (Unite) has members in all British airlines being the only recognised union for British Midland and Virgin for example.

The dispute would have been resolved a long time ago if BASSA had sat down and thrashed out a deal with BA along side Amicus.

[Betty girl]

77,
I was not saying Airtours were at all militant just that they were part of the short haul branch back then.
They did do both long haul work and short haul work but they were all part of the short haul branch of Bassa at that time.

As Vctenderness mentioned everything kicked off after the BA and Bcal merger in 1988. At Gatwick we all merged together to become BA LGW mainline crew. Some Bcal crew went to long haul and some went to short haul and at the same time all the Airtours crew also either went to long haul or short haul at LGW but they were at that time members of the short haul section.

So the reason for the breakup was the different two branches arguing about who should have which members in their branch and a total dislike between the two branches who had originally come from two separate airlines BEA and BOAC and as history has confirmed the short haul reps were more militant than the reps who went to start up CC89, which later became Amicus.

[77]

Ok Betty,
Interesting synopsis of the history of unions in BA. Some militant, some not. However we still need some clear thinking to resolve the present impasse. Unfortunatey there doesn't seem to be any prospect of a quick solution. BA are, I would imagine, quite happy as the now have a much larger MF than they could ever have hoped for and don't need to do anything at all. Meanwhile BASSA look for a way forward but any legal action will take a long time and while it goes on those that have been on strike will continue to find life difficult.
In the end if BASSA succeed in legal action it won't really matter as BA now have this large MF and as routes are transferred, well I don't need to go on, do I??
Coming soon on a University Industrial Relation course..."How not to progress a dispute".

[Betty girl]

77,
I agree with you completely. I think that Bassa have totally let down BA cabin crew. They have made MF arrive bigger and faster. The very sad thing is that they could have had some input into the terms and conditions of the new crew and they chose not to. Now these new crew have a very inferior agreement even by the standards of a lot of other airlines.

Clauses like crew being stood down on no pay if the airlines feels it is over crewed, one weeks notice to terminate the job but the new crew have to give 4 weeks notice!!, working on ground duties whenever the company require it and working to scheme, which is not unusual, but there are no safeguards at all to how they can be rostered unlike other airlines and our own flight crew colleagues.

So yes we have all been let down, strikers, non-striker and future new crew.

[call100]

Bg...If what you say is true, about Unite asking CC89 (or whatever they are called in the mess that is BA) to remain in the background, then what has happened to them?
The scenario would have been fine in the beginning but, as the relationship go worse and BASSA were acting against what CC89 thought was their best interests, then it would not wash, whatever Unite said from on high...CC89 has a duty to represent it's members best interests.
By remaining silent they are agreeing with BASSA and if they are also losing members then it's clear to see why. BA have not asked them to remain in the background! From BA's perspective they can see it as destroying the TU base of both groups.
Why are CC89(?) not negotiating MF terms and conditions?
None of it makes any sense.

[Betty girl]

Your right, it's as if they have become impotent. On their website the only information that is put up is official messages from Unite the parent union. Nothing else is posted at all.

I think some of them were suspended over a fight with Bassa reps but I don't know what has happened to the rest of them, they say nothing, literally.

[notlangley]

I have worked in Cabin Crew Selection in the past and cabin crew are specifically selected on their ability to communicate with people and their ability to get on and work in a team.
Thank you Betty girl - this is clearly the case because cabin crew of BA and all other airlines that I know are excellent communicators and have natural charm
　
I have just flown back from Melbourne on a Qantas 747._ On the leg to Hong Kong I asked a stewardess whether her colleagues on this plane were strangers or people she knew._ She said that this route was looked after by a reasonable number of cabin crew and so she did know one or two - but she said that some of the other routes had a great many cc and that with those it was a case of strangers at the start of each roster._ On the HK-Heathrow leg I asked a steward who said that the number of cc on this route was about 500 and so the same faces did crop up._ I also asked a stewardess and she said that she always knew one or two and that from the beginning of October to just past mid November she was doing elements that were "three up, three down and four days off"._ The jargon was beyond me, also (because I am an outsider) much of what was said to me garbled-up in my mind even as I listened.

The 500 figure was most interesting._ In my opinion 500 is a good figure for a working unit, because when shop stewards are elected, they will be known by those who elect them._ By coincidence 500 is the capacity of the largest room where BASSA called a general meeting, although the reports that I read say that the electorate abrogated their democratic responsibilities and agreed to BASSA filling the shop steward gaps by co-option (this is what I read and therefore it is unreliable hearsay)._ I briefly mulled over the idea that the 10,000 heritage cabin crew could be subdivided into twenty rosters and that each roster could elect two shop stewards which would give a grand total of 40 shop stewards._ But of course such an idea is naive and unrealistic - the rosters would obviously be devised by BA - and I hate to use the word gerrymandering, but the integrity of the union would be compromised by BA being able to alter the electoral sub-units of heritage cabin crew.

To my mind 10,000 cc in a working unit is too large for democracy to be sustained and there will be many committee members whose heads are permanently in the stratosphere, pus also it is a perfect environment to produce a cult.

[Betty girl]

Thanks not langley,
I don't know that jargon either, think it must be Qantas lingo. They probably would not understand ours either. Anyway thanks for the info very interesting. I think Bassa have become a bit of a cult, some crew feeling very let down by BA and trying to cling to something. Even those of us that did not strike feel very unappreciated by a company that many of us spent our working lives serving. I know there are some bad eggs but most crew are very loyal and dedicated.

[Diplome]

Betty Girl:

Out of curiosity, why do you feel let down by BA?

I know the frustration regarding the development of Mixed Fleet exists, but from a business perspective it makes sense.

It seems to me that BA has made a relative earnest effort to provide protections for legacy Crew, they simply keep being told "No".

[Betty girl]

Diplome,
I think the strikers feel very let down mostly because they feel an injustice has been done to them in their staff travel being taken away. Now I know they were warned but working with them, you can feel the resentment they all feel and how let down by BA, by people like me that worked, particularly by other staff who worked as VCCs and most of all by pilots that worked as VCCs. They blame us all and not Bassa for the mess they have found themselves in. In their eyes it is all of us that caused their strike to fail.

The rest of us like me, that worked, do feel better about things but there is real fear in all crew that our working agreements will go in the future too. Although BA are saying they have no plans to change the way we work, we all feel like we are just numbers not people now. Mr. Walsh has managed to create a feeling among all crew that all he cares about is getting the cheapest crew possible. No longer do we feel valued as professional crew, we are now just any old crew, the cheaper the better. There has always been great pride in crew that we will go the extra mile for our customers and I think most still do but we don't feel appreciated by our employer any more. For the last year we have been publicly criticised for being paid the wage that BA agreed to pay us and humiliated in the media by our own employer and openly told that he thinks we are overpaid. So that is why even non strikers feel unappreciated and scared about the future. Unfortunately we have been led by a completely useless union that has made everything much worse.
The strange thing about all this is that the most demotivated crew on line at the moment are the Temporary crew. They have been badly treated by BA over the last 6 months and it is those crew, that are moving to Mixed fleet!!

Another interesting fact that you may not be aware of is that Iberia crew are paid a lot more that BA cabin crew, so too are their pilots. They also work to far more expensive and more restrictive agreements than BA cabin crew, who are in fact, when compared to most other Flag carriers in western Europe, the cheapest. So it is going to be interesting to see what happens when Mr. Walsh is in charge of Iberia as well as us.

Hope that explains what I meant.

[fred737]

BA cabin crew, who are in fact, when compared to most other Flag carriers in western Europe, the cheapest

If this is in fact true why have Cabin Crew, both CC89 and BASSA, consistently refused to a "Benchmarking Exercise" that the pilots went through a decade ago. Surely if the statement is true, CC would have gained from such an execise?

(The exercise took into account everything from pay to allowances, to local cost of living, to taxes, to exchange rates etc.)

Fred

[ChicoG]

BA cabin crew, who are in fact, when compared to most other Flag carriers in western Europe, the cheapest

Betty Girl, do you have a source for this statement?

[plodding along]

I think the strikers feel very let down mostly because they feel an injustice has been done to them in their staff travel being taken away.

The strikers feel let down!!!! What about the rest of us that took pay cuts and increased productivity only to watch a strike waste it all because crew were too precious to do the same?

Let's remember this is not a first, there was an aborted strike in 2007 over what exactly? 12 bizarre points.
That cost the company a fortune and arguably lost us all the full 10% bonus that year.

The following year BASSA threatened another ballot.

2009 saw another huge waste of money with the snow disruption, it was BASSA that refused an alleviation and once again cost the company a fortune.

I won't even go down the hot towel route again.

The rest of us feel let down by BASSA and it's devoted followers, we have had enough.

If staff travel was returned then the whole dispute would have been pointless and we will not doubt be back in dispute in a year or two.

Can people not see that this can't go on year after year?

Personally, I would like to see staff travel offered back in full in exchange for a £150million cost saving program from current crew.
Could be something like £30m per year for five years and easily be achieved through productivity changes.

That would be fair to all. Anyone prepared to work harder to get their collegue's concessions back?

[Betty girl]

Look, please don't take snippets of what I said and then have a go.

I was just explaining HOW strikers seem to FEEL and also how unappreciated other crew feel as well. The views of the strikers are NOT mine just feelings I get from them on line, so please don't attack my post.

Don't have a go as tho they were my feelings or that I am saying what they did was right because anyone who knows me, knows I was against the strike.

BA don't negotiate about BA cabin crew salaries and compared them to other European Airlines although the union have always tried, the airlines they have used to compare us to, in more recent times, are Easyjet, Ryanair and Virgin.

Believe me or don't about the salaries of people like Air France and Iberia it matters not to me.

[plodding along]

It wasn't a go at you, that's why I left the author out of the quote.

It's a go at the fact that strikers feel let down just because they didn't get their way for the first time in their life.

They didn't have to go on strike. It is a dispute and there are many ways to progress a dispute. The THREAT of a strike is a powerful weapon, if you just jump straight in an actually strike you had better be damn sure you have the support and a good chance of having the desired effect.
(The Christmas strike was short notice and ruthless, there were no VCC's. It had the best chance of sucess, shame Ms Malone blew it)

After that it was clear to everyone that support was limited and loss of staff travel would result. They also knew then about the third party airlines that were covering and the army of VCC's.
A responsible union would have stopped and reassesed the situation.

To feel let down afterwards is.... well words fail me.

[ChicoG]

Betty Girl said:

Believe me or don't about the salaries of people like Air France and Iberia it matters not to me.

It's not a question of believing you Betty Girl, otherwise I'd accuse you of making it up. I simply asked where you got this information.

[Betty girl]

Well I don't have a source for the salaries but my french chiropractor's sister works for Air France and their hours are very restrictive compared to ours and her pay is also more than mine (for a lot less less hours).

Just ask any pilot and he will confirm that Iberia pilots earn more than them and it is a well known fact that it is the same for cabin crew.

Just take a look at how much Spanish air traffic controllers earn ( it was recently in the papers) and you will see, just how large the wages are of ex state owned companies in Spain.

Please just remember I did not strike and I don't agree with how our union handled this and I do think further savings could have been negotiated for crew. Having said, that I feel the professionalism and dedication will be lost in time on new Mixed fleet because high calibre candidates wont want to work for these low wages or stay long and also be able to live in the London area, unless living at home with Mum and Dad.