BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III

[west lakes]

It's in the comments. (as is some other stuff!)

British Airways to restore travel perk to striking cabin crew - Cheapflights.co.uk (http://news.cheapflights.co.uk/2010/10/british-airways-to-restore-travel-perk-to-striking-cabin-crew/#comments)

[Dawdler]

Unless I am mis-interpreting the question, I think you'll find the the "court settlement" story was "broken" on PPrune by Juan Tugoh in post # 762. He mentions that it came from elsewhere without naming the source.

[Diplome]

Westlakes:

Thank you for the link.

Its late, I've had two cocktails, but this is an arena I'm rather comfortable with, even with the warm company of Mr. Absolut.

Seriously people, a "hush hush" court case?? Over these issues? And the argument provided is so "meat and veg". No citations, no dates...BASSA seriously has to get better writers.

This is placed in the same file as the "I have a daughter who has never worked who was offered a leadership position in Mixed Fleet", which lies right next to the "20 Planes parked at Cardiff" paper.

I'm not sure what is more ridiculous. Someone writing this sort of message thinking it has enough foundation to be plausible, or those so pathetically looking for hope that they view it as concrete enough to base future action on its content.

If any Cabin Crew are willing to accept that post as "proof" then they each give lie to assertions about being thinking, capable professionals.

I'm pouring another cocktail...and will then cite the "hush hush" court case that has me being declared a natural blonde.

[Mariner9]

Litebulbs - you surely don't believe that nonsense regarding the "secret" Court case do you?

As a union man, I would have thought you would be loudly cautioning your fellow union members not to allow such garbage to influence their decisions regarding the offer. People's careers are on the line here.

[west lakes]

I enjoy, in a perverse way, the surfacing of this type of "galley fm" rumour where I work.
Sadly so many take them so seriously and when they are, easily, shown to be false it is still so difficult to get folk to accept the truth.
As for BA denying it (as suggested elsewhere) in the minds of those that believe it would only confirm the untruth.


Mariner 9 - Hi, Kirkbride might be getting a fuel supply!

[LD12986]

The suggestion that there has been some kind of "secret" court case that required BA to pay damages is complete and utter ******** and I can't believe anyone can take the suggestion seriously.

Even if there had been a case, it would never have been heard in private.

[MCOflyer]

Could it be that this rumor was started to keep the Bassa faithful in hope of court decision in their favor regarding ST? May be a tool to swing the vote to the "No" side.

Just a thought from an interested observer.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs - you surely don't believe that nonsense regarding the "secret" Court case do you?

As a union man, I would have thought you would be loudly cautioning your fellow union members not to allow such garbage to influence their decisions regarding the offer. People's careers are on the line here.

Absobloodylutely agree. But I am not a BASSA rep and I cannot directly respond. However, if I was a betting man, I would put a £5'er on the removal of a benefit because of strike action, could prove to be unlawful.

As to the link, I think it is a load of tosh, but it appears to be another rallying call. I didn't research the link, I saw it somewhere else. New rules need to be drawn up in this 24/7 media world. As you say, the link should be dismissed, but that would be seen as weak by a very vocal group, therefore discrediting the comment that you were trying to make.

Make sense?

[notlangley]

This isn’t just any crummy source of information._ This is from that most reliable source - Car Rentals.The fact that the carrier has finally buckled goes against the word of its boss Willie Walsh, who had previously insisted that the perks would not be reinstated while ever he was at the helm.I would invite BASSA to accept their victory and recommend a yes vote to their members (to accept the 15 October agreement) and ask them to celebrate BASSA’s historic victory.
_______reference:-______link (http://news.carrentals.co.uk/british-airways-to-restore-unclear-travel-perks-for-crew-34219746.html)
____________________________________________________________ ____________
I do not have nor ever have had any employment in any airline, airport, airplane manufacturer or whatever.

[ZimmerFly]

Judging from the syntax, spelling and grammar, I question the reliability of that source. :}

It is, of course, just the opinion of the author of that article, like many "facts" on this and the other thread. :ugh:

[Granary]

The veracity of such mutterings are always open to question on PPRuNe i.e. read the Red wording at the bottom of each page.

A closed court, in secret session - on matters such as staff travel. HOW pray tell can anyone believe it? It can happen but only in the mind. In this case it is about as real as a rainbow round the sun.

As for giving in! I doubt that WW has done that but I do think he has given great thought to it and decided that it is a concession he can live with because if it comes up again he will drop it in the laps of BASSA. Then see how long "5 minutes" lasts then!

[Neptunus Rex]

From the Union:
Contained in the offer from Mr. Walsh, you will notice his insistence that your union recommends the offer or it will not be made available for you to vote on, denying you your democratic vote. For this reason alone, your union will fulfill (sic) that request, because to do otherwise would be to deny you an opportunity to vote."Translation: "Our arms are being twisted, we have to be seen to recommend the offer, but you can imagine what we really think. We are giving you the opportunity to vote." ie (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) against the offer.

All BA Lawyers to Immediate Readiness!

[MPN11]

Nothing new there, then. Just the usual denial of reality.

I'm always moved to [nervous mode] when I hear the word 'democratic'. It gets used so often in North Korea, Burma, Yemen and other well-known 'democratic' places.

I suspect BA's competent legal people will analyse every utterance, as they have over the last [how long?] ;)

[Papillon]

HOW pray tell can anyone believe it?

I can't quite believe the veracity of such an utterly preposterous notion is still being discussed to be honest.:\

[Litebulbs]

From the Union:
Translation: "Our arms are being twisted, we have to be seen to recommend the offer, but you can imagine what we really think. We are giving you the opportunity to vote." ie (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) against the offer.

All BA Lawyers to Immediate Readiness!

Why would you say that? BASSA have recommended the proposal. I am surprised that it isn't being spun as capitulation.

[ZimmerFly]

How can you call this a recommendation? ( my bold )

Contained in the offer from Mr. Walsh, you will notice his insistence that your union recommends the offer or it will not be made available for you to vote on, denying you your democratic vote. For this reason alone, your union will fulfill that request, because to do otherwise would be to deny you an opportunity to vote.
:confused:

[Litebulbs]

Because is says your union recommends the offer.

[west lakes]

From the CC forum

So really BASSA are saying:

"We have been told we have to reccommend this offer to you, so we are, even though we don't want to, dont like it, and would really like you to vote against it, but can't say so"

Not really a ringing endorsement, is it?

I wonder if any reps are criticising the offer on the other forums?

I can't say that I disagree with that

[Litebulbs]

Your union RECOMMENDS the offer. Now for any moderates who have any doubt over the choice that they need to make, just refer any questioning by fellow employees back to that statement.

It doesn't say recommends a bit, or we don't really recommend it. It is clear.

Just one more time, Your union RECOMMENDS the offer.

[Diplome]

Litebulbs:

The language used in Unite/BASSA's missive is unfortunate at best.

If the militants have their way and this goes to another strike you can see Mr. Holley's inability to negotiate and conduct himself as a professional come back to haunt them.

A shame to imagine what could have been accomplished had BASSA more capable leadership.

[Dawdler]

The agreement that was forced on Willie Walsh.
This isn’t just any crummy source of information._ This is from that most reliable source - Car Rentals. :
The fact that the carrier has finally buckled goes against the word of its boss Willie Walsh, who had previously insisted that the perks would not be reinstated while ever he was at the helm.I would invite BASSA to accept their victory and recommend a yes vote to their members (to accept the 15 October agreement) and ask them to celebrate BASSA’s historic victory.It is clear that the author of the quote above has not read the offer. i.e. the without seniority condition has obviously escaped his notice.

[Litebulbs]

I think it is defining language. Whatever the implied taint, it still says recommend. I can just imagine the strong language from Unite to the BASSA representatives, especially as they could be employees soon!

[west lakes]

you will notice his insistence that your union recommends the offer

I'm sorry but I struggle to see how shortening the above statement to

Your union RECOMMENDS the offer.
and making it into a complete sentence of it's own and at the same time changing it's meaning is correct.

The only positive statement from the union is contained in a part sentence
your union will fulfil that request

[Litebulbs]

Have they recommended it, or not?

[west lakes]

As they stated they have fulfilled Mr Walsh's request to recommend it - but without actually saying the words "We recommend this offer"

Pedantic I know.

[call100]

It can't be any clearer......The choice is now down to the members........The Union has officially recommended acceptance. People can still argue for or against a yes vote. There is nothing that BA lawyers or anyone else can do to stop that.
Personally I doubt Walsh said anything threatening about the deal. A deal is put there and the Union choose to recommend it or not.....Quite often the company will say the offer is subject to recommendation but never in a threatening way...That would be a sure way not to get a recommendation.

[Litebulbs]

We could be going for hours on this, not that I am stubborn!

[Litebulbs]

It has always been the case in any offer that I have been involved with. It is due process.

[binsleepen]

Lightbulbs,

I have to disagree with you, BASSA wrote:

Contained in the offer from Mr. Walsh, you will notice his insistence that your union recommends the offer or it will not be made available for you to vote on, denying you your democratic vote. For this reason alone, your union will fulfill that request, because to do otherwise would be to deny you an opportunity to vote.

They are not recommending the offer they are just reporting on the conditions attached to the offer that must be fulfilled before the offer can be put to the membership. They use the phrase "your union will fulfill that request" That is written in the future tense i.e. something that will occur at a later date and that has not yet happened.

Your highlighting part of a sentence is like reading only the bold text from the sentence below.

Mr Walsh categorically denied that he said that he really admired DH and that he looked forward to long and fruitful future discussions with him before going down the pub with him to discuss tomatoes.

Regards

[Litebulbs]

What did the offer say? It is only an offer if it has a recommendation. So if the offer goes out to ballot, then it will be recommended, else it will not be an offer.

[binsleepen]

Litebulbs,

Point taken but also in the letter WW says

A key element of the agreement is the need for both parties to conduct industrial relations differently from today. Industrial relations in this business needs to be more positive, respectful, open and understanding to the needs of the company and its managers, as well as its employees.

This does not seem to be the start of that new positive era.

The BASSA statement seems to say 'we don't like the deal, we would rather you voted against it, if you do we will issue a strike ballot immediately but we have been ordered to put it to you, and in order to do that we have to hold our nose and pretend to recommend it'.

If BASSA think that this is the best deal they can get they should put out a positive statement to that effect clearly recommending that members vote for it . If they don't like they should say so and then deal with the consequences of that decision.

Regards

[Colonel White]

Being a sad bunny with nothing better to do on a Sunday evening, I trawled through BAILII. This is the list of court cases that have been heard and the outcome. Bunged in British Airways as the search criteria and it came up with all manner of cases where the company name had occurred. Oddly enough there was nothing, absolutely nothing about a case involving BA and any cabin crew members suing over removal of staff travel. Ah, I hear you say, that's because it was a recent case and it probably hasn't been recorded yet. But the latest date I saw details of was one in October 2010. Moreover, any such case would be a landmark hearing which other lawyers would wish to reference in future. So far from being secret, the legal profession would have an intense interest in the outcome and make certain that it was well documented.

So how come the total absence of any record ? Unless it never happened except in the fertile imagination of one of BASSA's finest. I rest my case.:ok:

[Litebulbs]

Believe me, I understand the point you are making. However, most posters on both threads allude to the silent majority. Now I am a union man (now that would make a catchy song) and would love a closed shop, with punishment in law, if you did not vote (with the option of apathy on the ballot paper), because in my mind, you are an employee who belongs to a union.

The recommendation takes the executive out of the equation; isn't that what everybody wanted?

[Shack37]

So how come the total absence of any record ? Unless it never happened except in the fertile imagination of one of BASSA's finest. I rest my case.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif



Because it was secret:E

[Juan Tugoh]

Now I am a union man (now that would make a catchy song) and would love a closed shop

Is it not a little a little hypocritical to talk of democratic rights while holding an aspiration that would deny workers a democratic right to not be part of a union?

The abolition of closed shops, voting by a show of hands and the enforced political levy was a massive step forward in UK industrial relations and allowed the country to move away from the industrial blackmail the so characterised the 1970's. Amongst other legislative measures it broke the power of the overmighty union barons. As a union member, I am saddened to hear that there is still a yearning within the union movement for a return to the bad old days of the 1970s when the unions were instrumental in making British Manufacturing Industry what it is today - extinct.

[Litebulbs]

I think you have missed the point of my post. A closed shop would be far more democratic, in that every employee in the affected area would be able to vote.

Legislation dictates that to be able to negotiate, you need union recognition. To be able to vote on awards, you need recognition, but many have said on here, that you have a minority dictating to the majority. Is that fair?

[Safety Concerns]

Juan, I can't speak for those who decided upon strike action in the 1970's but grew up against it. I think many are anti union today in the UK because of the hype surrounding a terrible era. HOWEVER..........

Aviation today specifically in the UK is all about cut backs apparently to compete on the global stage. So now we have a world leading British industry, aviation, that is committing suicide without union help.

To compete effectively on a global stage the workforce needs to earn whatever the lowest figure is out there is before management cease with the cutbacks.

So who is really to blame for destroying an industry?

The coal miners as I remember were fighting against pit closures because the UK was apparently not able to compete with European subsidized pits. Aviation is unable to compete with the far east or Malta with its lower cost base.

Do you play along until you can't afford to go to work or do you stand and fight?

If you go along with it you lose your job eventually, if you fight it, the unions are monsters, dinosaurs.

Who has the right answer?

[Shack37]

I think you have missed the point of my post. A closed shop would be far more democratic, in that every employee in the affected area would be able to vote.

Litebulbs, how can obligatory membership of any organisation be democratic? By definition it is not so.

[Snas]

Do you play along until you can't afford to go to work or do you stand and fight?

So much discussion about pay again.

This IA started because the CSD was asked to assist in the service, thats all. What a dogs dinner the union has made over it. Pick your fights with care, although it's too late now of course this fight was picked as the Union's stand and it's been lost, totally lost.

[Safety Concerns]

Sorry SNAS I should have added that the comment was meant generally and not in defence of this particular strike action.

[Litebulbs]

What you want is for everybody to vote. OK, the vote does not have to be for anything (apathy option), but everybody should have the choice.

How do I get to vote? I belong to a union. So how do I get everyone to vote? I get them all into the union.

There is another way, however. Allow the right to negotiate without union recognition. Extend the negotiating rights to the ICE regulations. Then every employee has a voice.

[rethymnon]

like others on pprune forums, i have great respect for Litebulbs and his measured approach to this dispute. however, i cannot, and never have as a TU member in the past, seen any real benefit in the closed shop. surely, if you cannot convince people of the benefits of union membership, you should not coerce them into unwilling membership? how can that be justified?

likewise, as a dispassionate outsider, i believe the Unite statement falls very far short an endorsement of the offer. whether it constitutes a covert invitation to vote 'no' is a matter for individual interpretation.

on another aspect, i see the BA employee banned from wearing her (christian) cross is to take her case to the european court. This sits rather awkwardly with the various posts relating to yellow lanyards and pens being displayed by striking CC: a case of rather tangled double standards surely?

[Juan Tugoh]

A closed shop would be far more democratic

Deny choice to allow choice? I'm sorry but this is errant nonsense.

Henry Ford started the ever increasing spiral in Western wages for the good of his business with the $5 wage, paying more than double the average hourly rate. He did this in order to allow his workers to be able to buy his products. Ultimately to compete for skilled labour, his competitors had to follow suit.

This trend increased the cost of material goods in the west and was, for the early part of the 20th century, successful as the "other" economies simply did not have the abililty to compete. Once the "other" economies of the world caught up and could produce the same goods for lower prices due to lower unit costs, western industry was doomed to evolve or die.

Ultimately over many years this process will lead to similar unit costs of production world-wide but it will take many years. The economy that "wins" will be the one with the remaining industry and infrastructure when then process is complete.

BA does not hold a monopoly of anything. It delivers a product that sells on price - if the price is too high, customers move to competing airlines. BA has positioned itself at the high or luxury end of the market and so must deliver a consistently high class product to survive. It is a truism that when a customer pays a lot for a service, not only must it be high quality but it must also be highly flexible and move with the cutting edge of possibility.

UNITE and particularly BASSA move with the speed of a glacier, they are a force for stagnation not for flexibility, they have forgotten that the health of the company that pays their employees is paramount - without a healthy company there are no employees and hence no union members.

The NUM may have been protesting about pit closures due to an inability to compete with cheaper foreign pits but how successful were the unions at protecting those jobs? How many miners jobs are there in the UK now? How many members of the NUM are there in the UK now?

Unions need to fundamentally change their relationship with the very thing that gives them life and livelihood and start working with the companies that employ their members. Squabbling over unimportant issues and dreaming of a return to the days of the closed shop are symptomatic of a failure to grasp the reality of where we in western industry stand. It is time for the union movement to evolve - if it does not it will surely die. It is time for the union movement to once again become a force for revolution not stagnation.

[Litebulbs]

Deny choice to allow choice? I'm sorry but this is errant nonsense.

Thank you for your choice of words.

To have a choice is to have a voice. How do you realise that voice? At this time, the only way is to be a union member.

[Snas]

(Fair enough Saftey, I'm obviously snappy this moaning :))

I have to agree with Lightbulbs on the recommendation issue, the Union has recommended the offer. The degree to which they have their arms shoved up their backs and regardless of how ungracious, reluctant and sulking the recommendation might be (and it is rather isn’t it) they have nevertheless recommended it.

Much like the child forced to apologise, no one believes he means it, but so long as the words are spoken generally everyone is happy(ish).

What type of whispering campaign will be conducted in crew report on the busses and in the galleys is another matter, but lets give all the benefit of the doubt shall we until we know otherwise.

Personally I’d quite like to see the silly red eyes removed from Mr Walsh’s picture on the UNITE at BA web page before I can believe that any form of adult discussion is actually going on. If their public facing web presence is their face, then their face is rather childish.

[Snas]

To have a choice is to have a voice. How do you realise that voice? At this time, the only way is to be a union member.


Hmm, awkward but true.

In this particular instance however BA has sidestepped the issue to a degree by making the offer available to non-union members of course.

[Safety Concerns]

UNITE and particularly BASSA move with the speed of a glacier, they are a force for stagnation not for flexibility, they have forgotten that the health of the company that pays their employees is paramount - without a healthy company there are no employees and hence no union members.

Juan, those miners jobs were going anyway. The pits were going to be closed because they could not compete.

This is the real issue facing all of us. We cannot compete, we cannot evolve enough to compete with the lowest cost based operator out there. The only way to match them is for the workforce to work for the same terms and conditions. Is this really viable in Europe? I think not.

Therefore we need a solution to the real problem. The real problem is we are unable to compete on equal terms thereby damaging the companies health. Possibly a political solution is required or we all accept that every business will run its course and the day will eventually come when it has to close because it can't compete.

[Litebulbs]

In this particular instance however BA has sidestepped the issue to a degree by making the offer available to non-union members of course.

The idea was clever, but it didn't have the affect they were hoping for I imagine, other than giving an indication of BASSA support.

[Snas]

The idea was clever, but it didn't have the affect they were hoping for I imagine, other than giving an indication of BASSA support.


Perhaps I’m being naive but I don’t think BA was hoping for a specific result as such. I think they were just allowing those members who had made a decision to not join or leave the Union to decide their own future - (so far as any of us can) and not be dictated to by the democratic and vocal minority of BASSA voters.

BASSA, who let’s face it, have already assisted in denying CC the opportunity to vote on the MTP and an additional free ticket and also offered a pay cut (where non was being asked), again with no vote.

As far as being democratic is concerned BASSA are not really a good example to say the least. The fact that representatives were elected once back in the day doesn’t give them the right to run amok thereafter without regard for the views of the members.

Is it so farfetched to think that BA felt genuinely sorry for some (non-union) CC caught up in all the crap and offered them a side road?

(Though if they take their example from MP’s I can understand the problem…!)

BA gave some CC, my partner being one of them, an escape road. Ignoring IA disruption and other items of silliness so far as contracts and T’s and C’s are concerned her view is that she’s out of it all, and feels all the better for it. To her BASSA’s actions are now a sideshow to be watched with morbid interest only.

Do you see this differently?

[Juan Tugoh]

Safety Concerns,

We cannot compete, we cannot evolve enough to compete with the lowest cost based operator out there.

business is more subtle than that, we do not directly compete with the Lo-co's, BA makes the majority of it's money across the North Atlantic, so we need to provide a consistently high quality and flexible product for a reasonable price in this area. Stupid tactics like trying to prevent the closing of window blinds and other restrictive practices are only going to lead to the company failing to compete and losing business. Even if it is the ultimate fate of BA to go bust, would it be better that this happens this year or in twenty years. Twenty years of pay, and twenty years in which the business conditions may well change and a solution discovered.

Litebulbs

To have a choice is to have a voice. How do you realise that voice? At this time, the only way is to be a union member.

Not being a union member is also a choice. If you do not want to make that choice and have a voice, that is an individual decision, it is not for any organisation to allow it's self-interest to decide that an individual's choice is irrelevant.

If it is so important for all to be union members, why are the unions not offering their services for free, allowing members to pay what they feel the union membership is worth? Closed shops are about one thing and one thing only - union power.

It is not in some way anti-democratic to be decide you do not want to be part of a union. It is not anti-democratic to decide you do not want to vote, it is not anti-democratic to decide you do not wish for your voice to be heard. Forced union membership and closed shops have the democratic credentials of North Korea.

[slast]

There’s always a dilemma when you have a majority of employees in a particular group who want to be represented by a union and a minority who don’t. As I recall BALPA (and I am sure others) resolved this “in the old days” with a “union shop” arrangement with BA. While a “closed shop” makes membership of the union a condition of employment, in a “union shop” the terms and conditions of all the employees (e.g. pilots) are negotiated with the union (e.g. BALPA), but the employees aren’t required to actually join the union. If the union negotiates benefits the non-members get them too. As the union members are also paying dues by payroll deduction (in BALPA’s case I think it was/is 1% of salary) the non-members were getting not just a free ride in terms of negotiation but actually were better off financially, so they also had the equivalent of the union subs deducted but this was paid to a charity of their own nomination.

To avoid the issue of the company controlling the ability of union representatives to have time to do business, (refusing to “de-roster”) there was a deal whereby a “pool” of work days was controlled by the union General Secretary, who decided what meetings should be attended and by whom. The union calculated how much time it needed for representation, and how many full-time people that was equivalent to. These is was paid for either by all employees giving a day off a year (I think), or the total head-count was increased by this number. The company didn’t pay an increased overall payroll cost, as when their global pay bill was divided by this increased number, every employee effectively then took a tiny pay cut to pay for them. I can’t recall all the exact details and it may have been some combination of both, but it worked pretty effectively.

[Litebulbs]

I have never heard of secret postal ballots in North Korea.

I believe reform is needed. You make a solid argument that closed shops are a bad thing, based on history. With the current system, 25%+1 of a workplace can decide what the other 75%-1 will get. Fair? Not really.

[Juan Tugoh]

With the current system, 25%+1 of a workplace can decide what the other 75%-1 will get

I completely agree that the system that allows a minority to decide for the majority is on the face of it unfair. The problem lies in the view that not voting is also a political act, a positive decision rather than an act of omission or apathy. It is a problem far bigger than an industrial one - there is the wider issue that a minority of voters can ensure that a disliked political party can be elected so long as a majority of the minority vote for them.

While we have a law that allows a very small majority of workers to force union recognition and collective bargaining on a company this problem will not go away - perhaps all deals should be put to all workers irrespective of union membership and the result be binding on the union. That way the union controls the issues they are prepared to negotiate on, but has to abide by the will of all workers. The union controls the argument but not the result. It would also encourage the union to be more inclusive, to have to take into account the views of those that disagree with them.

Whatever the solution may be, I remain convinced that forcing people to be part of a union is anti democratic and counter productive, even inimical to the well being of the company.

[west lakes]

I'm a little bit appaled by the ongoing discussion on the CC thread.
Apparently it is felt that the new LHR MF pay is too low and folk can't live on it.

I've got news for you, it is, as far as I know, very similar to what existing LGW BA crew are earning now, you know the ones that have some members of Unite among them.
The ones that BASSA offered a paycut for!

So if MF pay is low, what are you going to do about LGW crew?

(and before anyone greets this with shock, the LGW pay has often been mentioned amongst all these threads - but it's all about LHR isn't it?)

[Litebulbs]

Whatever the solution may be, I remain convinced that forcing people to be part of a union is anti democratic and counter productive, even inimical to the well being of the company.

I would quite happily in principle remove the requirement to belong to a union and have 50%+1 membership, to allow negotiating rights, if the same rights were given to workplace forums. You could still ballot the workplace to see if a collective approach was wanted.

[west lakes]

In fact the starting salary at LGW is LOWER than MF at £10,815.

Some of the T & C's are better (perhaps)

So go on, I dare someone who can to post this in the CC thread for some of the BASSA supporters to answer/discuss!

[Juan Tugoh]

I am not sure that union membership is in itself is an issue. It benefits both workers and employer to have collective bargaining. What causes problems is when a union (like BASSA) does not represent a significant proportion of the workforce and a large number of that union (who have a voice due their membership of said union) cannot be bothered to vote, thus allowing a small, vocal and militant minority to effectively dictate to the majority of workers when they are in dispute with the company.

It has been mooted before that it should be a majority of employees not a majority on union members that voted that should be the litmus test before IA is allowed to happen. This would not prevent IA for genuinely held widespread issues to be given their ultimate expression, but would prevent the worst excesses of union power.

It would also perhaps encourage more people to vote and to be aware of the issues at their workplace.

[Litebulbs]

Well, we will all find out soon enough. I just hope the turnout is high, as there is a health majority of BASSA/Unite members.

[Diplome]

west lakes:

I believe what you are seeing with some of the posts regarding Mixed Fleet is simply a reaction to a perceived (and potentially real) threat to the legacy crew of BA.

The simple fact is that the salary is comparable to Gatwick.

As I've stated before, the proof will be the quality of applicants and the customer service provided by Mixed Fleet. If the results are negative they are negative.

However, if the results are positive, and BA has managed to provide a Fleet with high passenger satisfaction rates, and Mixed Fleet stays more flexible and realistic in their approach, then Legacy Crew has a problem with the argument "We're paid more because we're better".

I'm looking forward to experiencing Mixed Fleet's product.

As for the Closed Shop issue...the most obvious argument against such a notion is Duncan Holley. Being forced to let an individual such as that "speak for me" is enough to send many a thinking person running.

[Snas]

As for the Closed Shop issue...the most obvious argument against such a notion is Duncan Holley. Being forced to let an individual such as that "speak for me" is enough to send many a thinking person running.


This is so spot on the mark it hurt me laughing. :):)

The idea of being forced into membership with people such as those I have come to know so well since the start of this would indeed cause me to seriously consider taking employment in the first please were I to have known in advance what they were made off.

[LD12986]

If current LHR crew really are so concerned about the salaries of Mixed Fleet there is still tens of millions of productivity savings that could be unlocked from current restrictive practices that could fund salary increases for Mixed Fleet.

[west lakes]

a reaction to a perceived (and potentially real) threat to the legacy crew of BA

Possibly, or is it an attempt to try to sabotage the MF concept?



then Legacy Crew has a problem with the argument "We're paid more because we're better

Given that LGW generally score higher in customer satisfaction than LHR (as commented on often in both threads) I would suggest that some LHR legacy crew already have a problem.

[call100]

This is so spot on the mark it hurt me laughing. :):)

The idea of being forced into membership with people such as those I have come to know so well since the start of this would indeed cause me to seriously consider taking employment in the first please were I to have known in advance what they were made off.
The thought would then be that DH would not be representing you because you and those of similar views would have voted for another candidate. Unless of course yours was the minority view.....:uhoh:

[Papillon]

You mean in the same way the closed shops were bastions of moderation and restraint in the late seventies, Call100?

[GrahamO]

I rarely bother to comment despite reading this forum regularly but I thought this rather lighthearted article on the dangers of closed shop unions and how they destroy a union as surely as incompetent management.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article384268.ece

No closed shop has ever resulted in long term stability - just closure of the company in question.

[Litebulbs]

You mean in the same way the closed shops were bastions of moderation and restraint in the late seventies, Call100?

Like the Master and Servants Act promoted equality and broke down the class system?

[jimtherev]

A palpable hit, 'Bulbs! But at least the servants had some status thereafter; prior to that they had none at all - no legal rights, no?

[Snas]

I’m struggling to remember (so much has happened) but did the last consultative ballot, the quickie that BASSA ran themselves that rejected the last BA offer, include Gatwick crew. For some reason I seem to recall that it didn’t. But I may well be wrong of course.

Anyway, the question is will this one be including them?

[Litebulbs]

A palpable hit, 'Bulbs! But at least the servants had some status thereafter; prior to that they had none at all - no legal rights, no?

Very true. That is what happens when you look at one thing in isolation. It is similar to looking at a period in one decade to show unions are bad. Yes, it was the unions fault, but things move on.

[call100]

You mean in the same way the closed shops were bastions of moderation and restraint in the late seventies, Call100?
Apples and Oranges....Your missing the point...Today a secret, independent ballot now has to take place legally....Not all in the car park, hands in the air or else....
If you wish to have a different point of view, then fine. At least make it different to the point that was being made.;)

[leiard]

On reading the other thread you wonder if BASSA have any idea how many members they have.

Surely for any ballot they should have an audited membership list.

[Dawdler]

You only have to read Juan Tripp's message #844 on the other thread to realise what disarray the membership details are in! It is fine getting an independent organisation to carry out the ballot, but if they are given duff information what credence does it give the result?

Another injunction coming do you think? Or will the company responsible for running the ballot express doubts of the accuracy?

[MPN11]

@ leiard ... a nice thought, but from past evidence the list will have fully certified "Emmental" status, as noted on the CC thread :rolleyes:

As a completely unconcerned BA pax these days, I'm content to let BASSA rumble contentedly over the cliff. They have done "Stupid for Britain" often enough, and I suspect there will be more of the same. I just share some many other poster's views ... deep sympathy for the BA staff who have noticed the reality of life in UK these days, and still have to live and work in this awful Union-created mess.

[Papillon]

Apples and Oranges....Your missing the point...Today a secret, independent ballot now has to take place legally....Not all in the car park, hands in the air or else....
If you wish to have a different point of view, then fine. At least make it different to the point that was being made

Closed shops were abolished because they are fundamentally undemocratic, and within living memory were one element of unions abusing their power. You've made no good argument for why an individual should be forced to join a union at their own expense. That might be your point of view, as you put it, but don't expect everyone else to simply regard it as reasonable.

[Litebulbs]

It is an interesting debate. In my opinion, the current system does not work effectively. One of the unfortunate results of collective bargaining, is that those that do not pay, benefit from the generally improved conditions that unionised groups achieve.

It works well when you have a large workforce, but only a handful of roles. It does need both parties to talk though. Most people accept when they sign up to work for a unionised employee, that their T&C's will be union negotiated and that fact will appear in the contract of employment. If that arrangement is not acceptable, then they should not accept the employment offer. It is only one more step to make the requirement to pay for that contractually agreed position and therefore be able to vote on any variation.

[Papillon]

Litebulbs, the reverse of that is that the non-unionised staff suffer when a union over-reaches itself, or acts unreasonably. I'm quite sure you'd be less than happy if a company that made much of its staff redundant following a strike solely chose union members. You really can't point out the benefits of freeloading a good union without equally pointing out the misery of suffering the consequences of a bad one - both without union membership.

[Litebulbs]

Papillon, luckily then the legislation that allows for protection of choice not to belong to a union, also protects those that are.

I am also sure that Unites biggest branch believes that it is a good union and that is because they at LHR, are often reminded that they have the best T&C's in the UK industry.

[Papillon]

Quite so. But to advocate a closed shop on that basis is to wilfully ignore the other side of that debate. You can't have that protection for union members without recognising that aspect.

[Litebulbs]

But you are talking about a 1970's closed shop. Who knows what one would be like in 2010?

[Papillon]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that to complain that people can freeload is to ignore the reality that non-union members suffer alongside union members too, even if they disagree with them. Unions still get it wrong even now. Factories still close because the unions push the management too hard. Why should the non-union members suffer for that? Yet they do. You can't have it both ways.

[Litebulbs]

I goes back to my point that until this dispute, if you joined the company in the name of this thread, you were signing up to collective bargaining as a contractual position.

[Papillon]

Correct. The point being that you signed up to the good stuff AND the bad stuff. That's a double edged sword, so you can't complain about non-union members getting the good stuff.

Put it this way, had BA responded to the dispute with 90 day notice, as they could have done, that would have affected non-union members too. And very angry they'd have been as well. Why should they then have to pay union dues to be badly represented?

[Litebulbs]

As a point of order on myself, I am guessing that the collective arrangements are an express provision in the current contracts. I do not know if I am factually correct.

[Litebulbs]

Put it this way, had BA responded to the dispute with 90 day notice, as they could have done, that would have affected non-union members too. And very angry they'd have been as well. Why should they then have to pay union dues to be badly represented?

Hard to argue that one, apart from SOSR (in my opinion) weighs very heavily on the side of the employer and as I said previously, how do you know that the majority of LHR BASSA members think that they have been poorly represented?

[Papillon]

Ah, now you're in the realms of philosophy - if they think they've been represented wonderfully but neutral observers see a dog's breakfast, who is right?;)

But the point about such an action on the part of the employer is that if falls on all staff members, even the "innocent" (you know what I mean) ones.

[Litebulbs]

But the closed shop 2010+ would prevent that in as much as everyone is in it together?

[west lakes]

Of course the present situation could suggest that unions need to work harder to recruit and keep members.

Given the suggestions that Unite has lost members in more than one branch over this dispute suggests they got it wrong. (voting with feet)

[Litebulbs]

I was going to start with...

"you will always loose members when"

but I am not a politician. You are right of course and I am sure many lessons will be taken from this dispute, if and when it ends.

[Papillon]

But the closed shop 2010+ would prevent that in as much as everyone is in it together?

It wouldn't prevent a thing. It would merely mean that the democratic right not to be in a union has been over-ridden, and that the unions grab a lot more revenue. Why should an individual be forced to contribute?

[Litebulbs]

What if the union (bad word) was basically free from compulsory fees and had no political affiliation?

[west lakes]

"you will always loose members when"

I fully understand that bit, but you rarely get members of a union (as opposed to a branch) resigning over the actions of a branch of which they are not members
(BA engineers if reports on here are true)

[Papillon]

What if the union (bad word) was basically free from compulsory fees and had no political affiliation?

Same applies. People should still be free to decide not to join.

[west lakes]

free from compulsory fees and had no political affiliation

Or the fee was a percentage of salary, so the lower paid had a lesser burden and of course free from the political affiliation

Er that's the union I'm in and also quite a number of others

[Colonel White]

Litebulbs

FWIW the standard BA contract for all staff (bar senior management) indicates that collective bargaining is the norm and is conducted with the various sectional panels. I joined the company shortly after the closed shop was kicked into touch. I had the option of joining a trade union at that point, but couldn't see that they really helped me. I'd previously been employed in the newspaper business at one point and had seen the way that unions had managed to perpetuate some outrageous practices in that area. I'd also lived through the three day week, miners' strike etc. No small wonder that I had a view that unions seemed to be hell bent on holding companies back. Unions might have been seeking justice for their members, but they had also been targetting the rest of the population in a bid to bring pressure on employers.

So yes, I benefit from whatever deal the union strikes with management. The flip side of that coin is that the agreement means I lose any right to personally negotiate pay and bonuses with the company direct. If the deal on offer at any point in time is unacceptable, I exercise my right to seek gainful employment elsewhere. As far as disciplinary matters are concerned, I have no intention of putting myself at odds with company procedures. Maybe I'm fortunate in that my chosen field of work is one which has a reasonably high demand across industries.

[Litebulbs]

west lakes, BA engineers are always leaving Unite and its predecessors and for a multitude of reasons. No doubt many are now leaving the ALAE after its merger with Prospect.

[Litebulbs]

I am sure BA would dread the thought of negotiating with 12000 employees, based on three roles. The only way that would work, is if there was no union and terms were unilaterally imposed, leading to thousands of hours at tribunals. However, unions allow the dismissal/re-engagement route to be circumvented.

[west lakes]

Fair point Litebulbs, something that's pretty alien in my industry though.

[Papillon]

I am sure BA would dread the thought of negotiating with 12000 employees, based on three roles.

They do with office staff at Waterside. Sure, roles are different, but that makes it more "difficult", not less. Same with managers. That's why you have pay grades.

[Litebulbs]

Same applies. People should still be free to decide not to join.

But you are not free to choose what other express terms you want out of a contract? The freedom would be not to join that particular employer. You are bound by the collective negotiating facility, whether you like it or not, so why not have a vote?

[Litebulbs]

Or the fee was a percentage of salary, so the lower paid had a lesser burden and of course free from the political affiliation

Er that's the union I'm in and also quite a number of others

The Labour Party does too, although it does have political affiliation.

[Papillon]

Because they don't want to. Because they don't want to give money, because they don't agree with the policies of the union, because they see no benefit in being a member. If the union or organisation cannot convince people of the merits of joining, that's their problem, not the individuals. To have a closed shop is to remove the requirement for the union to convince people they ought to join. Essentially, it removes the requirement for you ;) to do a decent job.

[call100]

Closed shops were abolished because they are fundamentally undemocratic, and within living memory were one element of unions abusing their power. You've made no good argument for why an individual should be forced to join a union at their own expense. That might be your point of view, as you put it, but don't expect everyone else to simply regard it as reasonable.
Perhaps I didn't make a good argument for why an individual should be forced to join a union, because I wasn't making that argument....Read the post again....I merely pointed out that if you were in a closed shop with compulsory voting you would have voted for another candidate rather than DH. So possibly he wouldn't have been in office.
You were also wrong (again) in your assumption that I would expect everyone to regard the closed shop as reasonable.
I've been around members and non members for a long enough to know the varying views and reasons for people joining or not joining a Trade Union. Very few use the 70's as an argument because they understand the current legislation...

[Litebulbs]

They do with office staff at Waterside. Sure, roles are different, but that makes it more "difficult", not less. Same with managers. That's why you have pay grades.

You are not over talking ten thousand in the A grades and it is easier to set clearly defined targets to management grades.

I work in an environment of both unionised and non unionised employees below management level. It is my understanding (as I was having this very discussion today) that the unionised sections are seen to get a fairer deal by the non unionised sections.

[Papillon]

You are not talking about tens of thousands in the A grades and it is easier to set clearly defined targets to management grades.

Perhaps not tens, no, but still quite a lot. I would contend that the point stands. As for clearly defined targets for management grades....well not when I was there! :hmm:

[west lakes]

I think, that in some respects, that employers are getting a bit concerned with the "personal contract" concept for some grades of staff

I was at the top of the scale for full collective bargaining, but when unions approached management regarding the next grade up (** band managers) it took little negotiation to agree (most of them were union members anyway).

As long as it stays sensible on both sides unions can be a positive for both sides (I won't kid you we have threatened ballots twice so far this year)

But that is the rub - sensible!!

[pvmw]

I used to be in a union for 20 years. Then, the one and only time I needed them they were completely useless, so I left and have not been in one for 10 years. If my paycheck is inadequate, then I exercise my democratic right to leave and find a job that pays better. If my company decides that I am sufficiently necessary, then they will pay me more to keep me. Its called Market Forces.

I exercise my right in a free democracy NOT to belong to a union. Litebulbs proposal that I should be forced to belong to a self-serving bunch of politically motivated hypocrites sounds like something out of N Korea or the best of Stalinist Russia - but oh, so typical of a “socialist” (another definition of self-serving hypocrisy).

[call100]

I think one thing you may be missing (and many like you) is the influence that the Unions have on 'Market Forces' when it comes to pay..........
Of course it's so simple for everyone to just pack in their jobs and find another one??
By the way, I respect your right to belong or not belong...Why get so hot under the collar? It's only a discussion. It has no chance of becoming law...

[Litebulbs]

Thats fine and I hope you are not working for one a company which has collective bargaining.

[Juan Tugoh]

Allowing rubbish to be debated unchallenged as if it is entirely legitimate lends it a credence it does not deserve. To challenge such dangerous anti-democratic nonsense as the closed shop is not only reasonable, it is sensible. Allowing rubbish like this to be discussed as if it were reasonable allows extreme views to flourish, what other democratic rights would you like to be quietly done away with so that your views are allowed to take hold?

That is why people get "hot under the collar" when someone suggests we do away with democratic rights because they do not fit in with the views of one particular pressure group, in this case the unions. Thank God it has no chance of becoming law.

[Litebulbs]

Well, we shall see the outcome of the ballot. I am sure the debate will swing back to the minority deciding the future of the majority soon enough.

As I have said before, change the law and allow full negotiating rights to all employees. This will not bring the country to a stand still. It will still need unions and the funds that they have, to counter the financial strength of industry.

Another example of how the law requires union membership, is the right of representation. Would you trust to luck whether you have a legally trained and experienced colleague, that could accompany you in a disciplinary?

[Diplome]

Juan:

I can agree with much of your sentiment. The idea of a closed shop is an extremist view.

It does not "give greater voice" it takes away voices and silences the individual.

Its attractiveness to unions is obvious. How nice it would be to not be judged by performance when you are guaranteed a following..even if those followers are shackled.

[pvmw]

Thats fine and I hope you are not working for one a company which has collective bargaining.

Unfortunately I am, and the result is that I'm stuck with the union negotiated agreement rather than being rewarded according to my own performance and worth. An agreement that, of course, does nothing to consider my expectations. In fact it acts against them as, because I am not a member, the union has absolutely no interest in my situation - which would be OK by me, except that they influence my pay packet. I moved on from my previous job precisely because my market value exceeded significantly the salary that several years of union negotiation had forced upon me.

As for Call100's comments, Jaun has it spot on. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." The malign influence of the Left has to be countered whenever it raises its head, because apathy leads to dictatorship by a self-serving minority.

[Diplome]

Litebulb:

Regarding this ideal:


legally trained and experienced colleague


My observations regarding BASSA (and this is a BASSA oriented thread) is that "legally trained" is hardly the order of the day when providing representation for their membership.

If I was a member of BASSA going into a disciplinary proceeding the first thing I would say is "No thank you" to having someone who believes that the acme of communication and wise conduct is wearing men's knickers with Mr. Walsh's photo on them, and retain myself competent counsel.

[Litebulbs]

Diplome,

I have no doubt that you would be able to represent yourself competently. Could you say that all of the 12000+ employees in question could do the same?

[Snas]

This closed shop discussion has provided me with some fascinating reading today, so thank you all for that. I’d personally fight tooth and nail before I was ever forced to be a member of anything but the Human race, and I sometimes wish I could opt out of that to be honest.

But, I also agree that a vocal and excitable majority of a minority, that choose to vote, deciding what happens, good or bad, for the majority is equally unappealing.

Rock and hard place clearly.

Alas however in this particular thread, relating to BASSA specifically, I don’t think that you, Litebulbs, are ever going to generate a killer argument in favour of closed shop memberships as this particular branch is so bloody awful, by just about every measure I can think of.

(Ask people on a beach infested with jellyfish if beaches are good)

It does rather handicap you I’m afraid. In another forum less specific perhaps you might generate more consideration of your point, in here I think you are buggered old bean.. :)
and I therefore declare myself as a "no thanks" in the closed shop debate.

…and before people remind me that BASSA can’t be that bad as they are responsible for the T’s&C’s that CC now enjoy…. you are only as good as your last movie/album/match and yes negotiation with your employer even.

[Litebulbs]

Thanks for the response. You are correct, but the 1970's rhetoric is not relevant today, especially under the current Government. I am sure if I took the debate to the BASSA forum, I would be equally shouted down, for other things that I have said.

As long as we look to the past, nothing will change.

[Snas]

You are correct, but the 1970's rhetoric is not relevant today


Whilst I would agree with that in regards to the TU movement of today, once again with this IA and this union branch specifically we have seen a fair bit of exactly that sort of past played out again, the “I’ll fight until the company dies” kinda’ crap.

Balance is good, and you provide more of that than would be here otherwise but it’s going to be an eternal struggle in this thread whilst referring to this branch, NOT that I’m suggesting you give up however. It’s all interesting after all.

For lunch time light relief I’ll provide an example for you from my own home: -

I have always been politically active and standing more on the left certainly, in favour of unions and always have been. Not that I have ever been a member of one but as an employer my workforce once numbered over 2,000, employ that many and you appreciate a good union I can promise you.

Now, my partner, CC 15 years, never really politically minded and certainly not a union person. Was a CC89 member, because that’s what you did at Gatwick, where she started.

Now if I attempt to start the “Unions can be a force for good” discussion she opens the BASSA home page on her lap top, points it at me and walks away without saying a word – and the argument is hers, I have to concede defeat.

BASSA is her only direct experience of unions, so she’s lost to the idea forever.

[pvmw]

As long as we look to the past, nothing will change.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". How apposite, given the current state of the economy!!!

[call100]

Allowing rubbish to be debated unchallenged as if it is entirely legitimate lends it a credence it does not deserve. To challenge such dangerous anti-democratic nonsense as the closed shop is not only reasonable, it is sensible. Allowing rubbish like this to be discussed as if it were reasonable allows extreme views to flourish, what other democratic rights would you like to be quietly done away with so that your views are allowed to take hold?

That is why people get "hot under the collar" when someone suggests we do away with democratic rights because they do not fit in with the views of one particular pressure group, in this case the unions. Thank God it has no chance of becoming law.
I didn't suggest allowing the debate to go unchallenged. Once more, for yourself and the others who have difficulty keeping up...My comment did not condone, support, or demand the closed shop.
The point was made that had there been one at BASSA and compulsory secret ballots had voted in the reps, the incumbents may not have been voted in.
Which part of "You were also wrong (again) in your assumption that I would expect everyone to regard the closed shop as reasonable." or "I respect your right to belong or not belong", escaped you?
That said,, a suggestion is not rubbish just because you believe it to be.

[Shack37]

The question always comes back to encouraging people to vote. Even in a closed shop there is no guarantee everyone will vote, or vote according to their own conscience and belief. Closed shop is not, nor ever has been the answer.
The apathetic, the "it's OK, the others will make the right decision for me" and the downright "couldn't give a toss" brigades need to be convinced that their vote matters.
This dispute has been prolonged, not by Bassa branch officials intransigence or WW stubborness, it is entirely due to the apathy of the majority of Bassa members allowing a minority of their brethen to dictate policy.

[Litebulbs]

You could remove the requirement of union independance and make it a mater of discipline if you do not vote. However, there could be a no opinion option.

My biggest concern is with the current Government and the muted changes, then not voting will count as a vote.

[Papillon]

I'm not sure that will happen LB. The trouble with any of those ideas about a non-vote counting as a vote against is that you can make exactly the same kind of point for a general election or plebiscite. It's a can of worms that politicians are exceptionally wary of opening. And rightly too, frustrating as it might be that a strike vote can happen on a low turnout, it's still for the union members on either side to actually bother to vote. If they don't, judging that non-vote to be on one side or the other is also undemocratic. You see, it's democracy that matters to most of all, not pro or anti-union bias. ;)

[Litebulbs]

I have just gone back and read my closed shop statement. It was the wrong choice of words. For that I am sorry.

I am not a militant and in no way want to empower the unions in a direct way, using business and the ability to cripple it as a tool to further political gain. I have tried to explain my views, but it is easier just to say that I was wrong to make the comment.

You live and learn.

[Chuchinchow]

MissM appears to be extremely solicitous for the welfare of her new Mixed Fleet colleagues:There are too many loopholes in this proposal.

Routes will not be transferred on commercial need or on a fair basis. They will be transferred based solely on how much they cost to operate. In a few years time you can be certain that those of our on WW will be operating mostly to India.

Meanwhile, Willie Walsh will be looking at having his salary increased by 22% when BA and IB merge.

Perhaps it might be better for MissM and her fellow BASSAcentrics to concentrate on the more pressing matter of her own future? Surely her own terms and conditions should be uppermost in her mind?

More to the point, why is she sticking her nose in matters that are no concern of hers? After all, she and her ilk are dead set against the advent of Mixed Fleet.

[LD12986]

Dare I suggest that there are forces within Unite determined not to see a settlement? The message from a "member" has some very familiar undertones.

. LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)


27th October 2010 - Ballot Update

FORTHCOMING BALLOT

We were hoping that the ballot on the offer would have been posted to you by now. However it is being delayed by legal issues. One of these is the litigation mentioned in Walsh's side letter. What exactly would have to given up by both sides in the claims going through courts is supposedly still not finalised. This is a very important part of any deal, and you need to know exactly what claims we would both have to concede.

Hopefully this delay will only be short. If, however this does put back our ballot more than a few days, we will have to consider reducing the amount of time the ballot runs for, as all of you are anxious for an outcome and all our subsequent options must remain open to us.



26th October 2010 - MSG from a Member



On Friday BA will announce interim results which will show that the airline has moved into profit. It is expected that we will have a profit of around £60m for the half year so far. This includes all the costs of the volcano, plus the cabin crew dispute, estimated at over £200m in direct costs, plus well over £1bn lost in forward bookings.

Our union always said that temporary measures were needed for a temporary problem. Walsh insisted that there had been "structural change" and that the airline would never again be profitable without major concessions from employees on pay and conditions. Less than 18 months ago, Walsh stated that BA "was in a fight for survival" and "had only six months to survive".

In only July of last year Walsh said he was worried that BA's front-of-cabin traffic may never "get back to previous volumes'' – or that by the time it does, BA will be on its knees. Such traffic fell by 17 per cent in May and April 2009 and Walsh said he saw no signs of recovery.

Walsh sees no sign of recovery. Walsh sees no sign of recovery. Repeat as necessary..........How wrong can someone in his position be in such a short time?

Quite simply Walsh has attempted to use a downturn to screw his workforce and now it has backfired. BA's underlying financial health is so robust, that it couldn't help making a small operating profit in the third quarter of last year! Walsh is guilty of talking our airline down. He has depressed the share price by his downbeat comments, which are no more than insider trading in another form. QC John Hendy accused Walsh and BA in the recent High Court action, over the airline deliberately nad artificially enhancing the downturn it knew was coming, by not carrying over profit "from the peak year of 2007-08".

How must those staff who worked for a month for free now feel? They have been taken for mugs. And even worse are BA's pilots. What a shameful episode for them. Duped into believing that BASSA was out to destroy BA and their cosy little agreement, hundreds of them volunteered to fly as Scabs to break the legitimate dispute of their cabin crew colleagues. How stupid they look now, with their cheer leading morons on PPRUNE still trying to save face over the justification for their actions. What were those "books" that BALPA saw showing BA in such a dire financial position? How inaccurate those figures now appear to be. Who in BALPA is going to take responsibility for leading its members up the garden path, volunteering pay cuts and whipping up anti cabin crew sentiment? Where is the Airbus Captain? He has some explaining to do.

What goes around. comes around. It is all unravelling for Walsh and if the litigation over impositon goes badly for BA, he will have no option but to resign. He used a false premise that the airline was doomed last year, to con employees like the pilots into giving up pay.

Walsh is "entirely responsible" for his actions which has caused BA to lose so much money, over an unnecessary confrontation with his front line staff. Don't forget BA wanted £140m in savings.....that was NOT the difference between the two sides which was closer to £10m. He and his "dysfunctional management" have dragged BA through the gutter rubbishing staff who did not agree with his view and damaged the brand over such a relatively small amount. Unless of course, his agenda was simply union busting........Now that would explain everything.

So what now? Revenge is a dish best served cold. Reject the latest proposal.

Keep the faith!

[pcat160]

It appears to me that while BASSA are a challenge for Unite they are basically irrelevant to anybody else. They do not like the deal Unite has agreed to but are powerless to call a strike. There will not be a Christmas strike. The position of the majority of BASSA members is perplexing. They seem to be willing to sit it out and let those more involved decide their future, but I do not think they will be willing to strike. The world continues to turn and BA will continue to execute their business plan.

[RTR]

BASSA are like a stag beetle on its back. Legs, arms and claws in the air and nothing to fight with.

There will not be a Christmas strike.

Agreed! It would be hopeless since Unite, especially as comrade McCluskey will be seriously engaged with the firefighters, whose Commissioner stated last night that if their dispute is not resolved by November 18th ALL firemen will be given new contracts followed by redundancy! So BASSA is seemingly of no consequence to their mate 'Lenny.'

Walsh is guilty of talking our airline down.

No, BASSA wanted to but spectacularly lost.

Quite simply Walsh has attempted to use a downturn to screw his workforce and now it has backfired.

Blatantly untrue. The workforce of BA is massively behind it. BASSA is NOT the whole workforce.

So, unless ("call me irresponsible" McCluskey) is prepared to flip the stag beetle BASSA will shrivel and die.

The BA cabin staff are and always will be the best and they do not deserve the self serving leaders and reps of BASSA. They do, however, deserve honesty and integrity from both BASSA and Unite. Let us hope that UNITE will dis-engage BASSA.

[SwissRef]

Is it only me, or do others view the "message from a member" as being, not only a call to reject the latest offer, but also, as it is on the Unite website, that it is being given support from the union, and hence breaks part of the requirement for the offer? Is this the real reason for the delay - BA have responded to it by withdrawing the offer?

We have yet to see (or have reported here) an ACTIVE statement of support for the offer from Unite/BASSA, only a passive one (the "we're supporting it because we have to....").

There is also a lot of comment about will Unite allow BASSA to have a stike ballot - I'm guessing that Unite have struck a deal with BASSA along the lines of: "Don't be stupid, follow the requirements of the deal, and if it gets rejected by the members, then we will support a ballot for a strike. BUT if you don't, we won't allow the ballot." This would fit with the lack of BASSA saying anything of note - they can see the benefit of shutting up.

[VC10andCounting]

That 'MSG from a member' bears the unmistakeable imprint of Duncan Holley. I thought that Unite had been warned that the offer was conditional on an improvement in the tone of communications emerging from the union?

Edit: Oops - SwissRef beat me to it

[Snas]

Swiss

Reading between the lines of some of the latest info from BASSA I think they are having an internal struggle with the condition concerning the cessation of all court action relating to the dispute.

If there are some (many?) within BASSA that really believe that court action would succeed, on ST specifically I guess, then there will be a reluctance to abandon it, naturally.

However they can’t really take a ballot of the members on whether they should ballot the members!

There are a bit stuck on this issue maybe with the only options being the reps taking a decision off their own backs (based on feedback perhaps but not a ballot of all) to ditch court action and go to ballot on offer, or reject the offer without a ballot and carry on with court.

Bit of an awkward one that eh, if my guess work is anything near close to what’s happening behind closed doors of course.

[Safety Concerns]

I am sorry about my next comments but I have viewed this from a distance after earlier jumping in with both feet.

The one thing this whole thread isn't, is objective. This thread has become nothing more than a place for those who are fundamentally against industrial action and fundamentally against the BA situation to tell everybody so.

Those who may be in favour are quickly rounded upon and sent to Coventry. What purpose does such an imbalance serve?

Workers have come a long way since the slave labour conditions just over 150 years ago. Everything you have as a worker, including time to spend posting here has been achieved through unions. Nobody prefers striking to working just as nobody prefers war to peace.

However there are times when strikes and wars become necessary. If you don't accept that you are naive.

If I am honest about the BA situation I didn't know who was right. What I do know is that any company prepared to announce obnoxious pay rises for senior management when the company is apparently on its knees with a huge pension fund deficit is not behaving in a responsible manner.

What else amongst their statements isn't completely true?

I also question the motives of posters like Diplome with almost 500 posts 99% of them here and against the BASSA position. That is an unhealthy interest or perhaps there are other motives. Also the posting routine, few days posting, few days silence.

Anyway, the miners back in the 1970's knew their pits were going to be closed whatever they did. They also knew that the situation was immoral. Good, safe and productive pits were going to be closed because they couldn't compete with government subsidized european coal. Remove the subsidies and the coal was very competitive.

If I am going to be thrown out anyway under such circumstances I personally do believe in taking people with me. I totally support what the miners did because it hurt those whose pockets are lined with gold most of all.

Not one pair of levi jeans are now made in the USA, most are made in countries where posters here wouldn't work because of the conditions. The huge profits though still build mansions in California which are probably built by former Californian levi workers.

All I witness here apart from a few noticeable exceptions is an I'm all right jack attitude coupled with a perception that unions put that at risk.
As the profit news seems to highlights today, BA haven't been completely honest about impending doom and imminent shut down.

Who are the fools?

[Mariner9]

SC, have you considered what BA's current financial results might have been without the cost savings "imposed" on IFCE and negotiated with all other departments?

PS My "unhealthy interest" in this dispute arises through being a loyal BA customer. Yours?

[LD12986]

SC - Look at BA's accounts for the last financial year (the second consequtive year of record losses). Revenue was down by about a billion. Without cost cutting in the hundreds of millions it is questionable as to whether the company would still be here.

The "pay rises" were in fact salaries for new jobs. WW is getting a payrise because he is moving on to a different job. CEO of IAG is a much bigger, and more difficult, role than CEO of BA.

In any event, not least in a market as brutally competitive and volatile as aviation, profitability is no excuse for the long standing inefficiencies in cabin crew working practices which can work against the customer interest and should have been eliminated a long time ago.

[rethymnon]

Just as the Cabin Crew forum seemed to be getting derailed on the pay for MF, this one homed in on the pros and cons of the closed shop! we are now back on track thanks to BASSA's missive re the potential settlement1

For what its worth, much has been made of the term 'legacy crew'. Now, I always thought that a legacy was something worth having that you passed on to someone else. (Yes, I know that you have to die to make the bequest effective!) Isn't 'legacy crew' stretching the meaning somewhat? Can anyone think of a relevant alternative descriptor?

Last but not least, as a retired ex-member of UNITE, i have also been invited to vote for the next General Secretary. A pity one can't write-in a suitable name.

[Chuchinchow]

The one thing this whole thread isn't, is objective. This thread has become nothing more than a place for those who are fundamentally against industrial action and fundamentally against the BA situation to tell everybody so.

This website - as a whole - is based on free speech, as Safety Concerns knows only too well. Safety Concerns also knows that the stock in trade of PPRuNe is debate, which means an exchange of opinions on any given subject or issue. He/she might also be aware of what Voltaire's M. Araoult said.

If (s)he has issues with that, perhaps (s)he might be more comfortable posting on the BASSA and other crew-related fora? After all, those websites are renowned for their fairness and tolerance of views that contradict their own.

Litebulbs is an avowed supporter of trade unionism. Other contributors may (and have) disagreed with that contributor's opinions, but no one can say that Litebulbs is ever treated on this thread with anything less than respect.

That being the case, Safety Concerns, I really do not think that your premise can be defended.

(Oh dear: I have disagreed publicly with Safety Concerns. Now what are the coordinates for Coventry?)

[Diplome]

Safety Concerns:

Your continued concern about the interests and objectivity of posters on this forum is appreciated.

What were the terms you used regarding an individual on the CC thread.."management stooge" "snitch" ?

I believe that if you were to peruse these threads you would see very few posters who are "anti-union". Quite the opposite.

The fact of the matter is that most here do not support BASSA's actions and in some cases remain confused as to just what they are asking for and what they expect to accomplish with their conduct.

Levi Strauss and Co. have nothing to do with the BA/BASSA dispute unless there is a uniform change the customers have not been privy to.

I hope my reply did not offend your sensibilities to the extent that you view it as a demand that you visit Coventry. You may weekend where you like :)

[Wirbelsturm]

What I do know is that any company prepared to announce obnoxious pay rises for senior management when the company is apparently on its knees with a huge pension fund deficit is not behaving in a responsible manner.



I'm not a 'regular' passenger as I work for the company. My comments and opinions are, naturally, my own. The sad fact is that many people attack the management (of which I am not one) for their 'bonuses' in the same way that they attack Bankers for theirs without realising the contract structure inherent within major corporations today.

Irrespective of what might be happening with a small minority of employees the Senior Management has a contracted responsibility to the Board for the continued growth of the company returning an investment gain to the shareholders. In order to achieve that growthand thus their bonuses they must hit specific, performance related targets. The Senior Management at BA, Willie Walsh and Kieth Williams have both surpassed what was contracturally required for them to receive their 'bonuses'. The standard pay packet for both men is below market average and the bonuses are only levied upon productivity. Considering that BA has come out of the current recession in a fairly good position with the ability to call on forward investments is testimony to good 'corporate' leadership. Personally, as an employee, I say good luck to them, they work damn hard and probably deserve it, in order for us to have it then we also need to move toward a meritocracy and performance related pay. If I want the same then I apply. I don't so I won't.

The CC dispute is something else entirely. As a passenger it is difficult to understand the longevity and scope of the current dispute without understanding how long BASSA have held the reigns of power and how deeply they have occasionally affected the operations of aircraft throughout the world.

So, please, discuss away but allow ALL posters the ability to put their opinions forward and never compare what is occuring here, in a private company, to that which happened to the miners in the 1980's.

[just an observer]

To Safety Concerns - I have a husband works for BA, and his is the larger portion of the family income and shortly his BA pension will be the larger source of retired income, of course I am interested in the financial health of BA, but as I am not myself an employee I can't post on the CC thread.

I have seen over the last decade lack of pay rises in engineering, and reductions in department manpower far in excess of the reduction on CC on board, and I am furious that some CC seem to think they are entitled to a bigger share of the BA cake just because they are frontline staff, and that they are prepared to put at risk all the sacrifices made by other departments.

The news of the half year profit is very encouraging and shows that the airline is beginning to get back, but bear in mind this is after all the savings, including those 'imposed' on CC, and that this is the 'good' half year.

A company like BA must make profits, not break even, it's not just there for it's staff, it has shareholders who expect a dividend, and banks who expect capital repayments, not just the interest that appears in the profit and loss account, not to mention investment in new aircraft.

[SwissRef]

As the profit news seems to highlights today, BA haven't been completely honest about impending doom and imminent shut down.

Again - do you understand company results? Top level figures mean nothing. It is perfectly possible to have a company posting "profits" and then going bankrupt. Have you analyised the balance sheet, investigated the P&L, looked at the various accounting treatment of the assets, the various depreciation and amortisation, the off-balance sheet finance (and the off-balance sheet liabilities)? Until you do that, you have no idea about the health of a company.

BASSA were given the opportunity to access all the public and private information to make that accurate decision, access which I do not have, and which numerous analysts in the City would love to get their hands on.

So who has been honest - hard to tell, but the headline news tells us very little about the health of a company.

[GemDeveloper]

Again - do you understand company results? Top level figures mean nothing. It is perfectly possible to have a company posting "profits" and then going bankrupt. Have you analyised the balance sheet, investigated the P&L, looked at the various accounting treatment of the assets, the various depreciation and amortisation, the off-balance sheet finance (and the off-balance sheet liabilities)? Until you do that, you have no idea about the health of a company.


A N D... the cashflow. It's usually the cashflow, or rather, the lack of cashflow, that sends Companies into bankruptcy, often at a time of coming out of a recession...

[AlpineSkier]

@ Safety Concerns

I have to say that I viewed your comment

The one thing this whole thread isn't, is objective.

with amusement.

However you regard its objectivity . I think it could be said to be honest which is more than your post is.

You seem to be using some very dodgy facts as "support" for your comments

1) the miners back in the 1970's knew their pits were going to be closed whatever they did.

Did they ? Doesn't match my memory of events but perhaps you have inside knowledge.

2) productive pits were going to be closed because they couldn't compete with government subsidized european coal.

Of course. Those major European coal-producers like S Africa, Australia ( and maybe Ukraine ? ) The first two at least were supplying from hugely-productive open-cast pits. What deep-mine can compete there ? No subsidy needed.

I don't believe Germany ever exported to the UK.

Your attempted smears of wages, profits etc have already been debunked.

Personally it always leaves a bad taste when someone serves up a load of distortions and prepared half-truths, especially when they start off by piously saying they can't keep quiet any longer ( or similar )

[Wirbelsturm]

For those that are interested, a company the size of British Airways, operating around the globe with crew positioned for 'convienient' morning flights, the cost of liquidity (the amount you need to have in cash reserves before your creditors (Hotels/airports/fuel providers/Nav agencies/Ground handling Agencies) demand cash up front), is, approximately £600-£700 Million.

Dip below this level and you start having to pay either in cash or 'up-front' something that, in our debt interest driven world, is quite difficult.

Hence the ability to attract investors, future investors and current investment is imperitive. What the CC Union fail to realise is that without the actions taken to rationalise costs within the company and bring it into a competitive level with the rest of the LH aviation world, the company could very well have folded.

We all have 20/20 hind sight it seems that BASSA have theirs rose tinted.

[Chuchinchow]

Quoth MissM: Either way, there are too many loopholes (refer to the CF and BASSA forums for details). I will vote NO to this proposal.

Marvellous: 355 prolix (and sometimes peculiar) messages boiled down to 23 words.

[Snas]

refer to the CF and BASSA forums for details


Right, since when did those two sources start dealing with details..!

[call100]

What I find annoying with BASSA is the fact that they don't do anything that indicates they are part of any negotiations at any level (Unite included).
Whenever I have been involved in consultative ballots, (a very handy tool IMO), we always agreed with the company on the communication of any offers being made. This was to ensure that the correct message was getting across and neither side could dilute or distort the facts. This was done whether recommending acceptance or not.
Once the ballot had gone out then we had a policy of only answering any questions posed by members concerning the ballot in line with the recommendation given.
So if the recommendation was for acceptance then that is the message that should be given.
This should be the way to go even if you don't agree with the recommendation as a rep. At the end of the day it should have been agreed by the majority of reps. (which makes me think this is not a BASSA agreed recommendation).
On many an occasion I have had to push a recommendation I didn't necessarily agree with. That's the way it goes and it comes with the territory unfortunately....

[MPN11]

@ Call100 ... what you are describing could be called a 'democratic process'.

Regrettably that does not seem to be BASSA's way of operating; there's is more like a mob being fired up by extremist orators and using 'dubious practices'. I shall avoid any direct reference to similar examples from 20th Century history.

[pcat160]

MissM from the other thread “vote NO to this proposal.” My question is when exactly is this vote going to take place. It seems considerable time has pasted since this ballot was announced. Maybe MissM can tell us what progress is being made toward this ballot.

[Betty girl]

I can answer why there is a delay.

Both BA's and Unite's legal teams are reviewing the wording of the section of the agreement, which refers to ACAS involvement and that is causing a delay, in case the offer wording has to be amended, prior to putting it to the vote among Unite members.

It is not Bassa delaying it. In fact I expect it is causing them considerable stress seeing as they were hoping for a strike at Christmas!!

[MPN11]

Oh well, let's cause the paying passengers [anyone remember them?] more grief.

I speak as a majority of one when I say I really don't care about this "dispute" much more.

I'm forward booked for my leisure travel, and my staff are booked for business ... with BA.
I'm also looking at a toothless dog, baying at the moon, with no clear idea of what it wants apart from something vaguely unreal and 'something' else. The probability of BASSA identifying reality is, IMO somewhere around the 0.000055% mark. They [whoever they are?] will therefore continue to howl about irrelevant things that are vaguely associated with the dispute [in that some other people wear BA uniform].

Unless someone sensible [I'm always an optimist] has something meaningful to say, I'm really profoundly bored and just carrying on "Flying BA".

[Entaxei]

As I remember from your previous postings on the other thread, none of your 'concerns' have been over 'safety', but backing BASSA 100% - not necessarily with any valid proof - to the point that you were barred from posting as you do not meet the required criteria to post.

Looking at this as an attempt by you to again influence arguments in favour of BASSA - using any elements, relevant or not, including historical ones (1970 Miners), you have succeeded in wasting everyones time and effort over the last 21 posts responding to your spurious arguments.

I also seem to remember from those previous posts on the other thread that it was claimed that the troll 'Safety Concerns' was identified as a cover for one DH.

So I guess the highlights have to be - don't feed the troll - you never can tell who or what you are responding to.

[Colonel White]

Betty Girl
you mentioned
Both BA's and Unite's legal teams are reviewing the wording of the section of the agreement, which refers to ACAS involvement and that is causing a delay, in case the offer wording has to be amended, prior to putting it to the vote among Unite members.

That's not the spin that Unite are putting on it - at least the postings on the UniteBA site don't tally. They say
We were hoping that the ballot on the offer would have been posted to you by now. However it is being delayed by legal issues. One of these is the litigation mentioned in Walsh's side letter. What exactly would have to given up by both sides in the claims going through courts is supposedly still not finalised. This is a very important part of any deal, and you need to know exactly what claims we would both have to concede.

Now I concede that they say that the litigation is one of the issues, not the only issue, but your post tends to refute this, suggesting an altogether different reason. Does this mean that the issues around the current and any potential future cases have been resolved ?

[Betty girl]

Col white.
I was quoting the words of Bill Francis. Manager of IFCS at BA from a webchat on Friday.

I have been told off by another SLF on a different thread for actually posting an extract from his webchat, even though,all he said is public knowledge already, so I will not post it and as I am not a member of BASSA, I have NO knowlege of what BASSA are saying.

[Colonel White]

Betty girl
thanks for the clarification. Once again it appears that the 'information' published on the UniteBA site is a load of tosh. I'm actually slightly bemused as it is the old Amicus web pages. I thought that Amicus, or rather CC89, were the more mderate bunch, but they seem to have been swamped with BASSA sourced rhetoric - even going as far as having that ridiculous yellow X thingy still visible (if you happen to hit the wrong page).

I did note that on said pages there was a comment that the branches may cut short the consultative ballot. This might be tricky if BA Legal and O.H. Parsons string this out for another week. If BASSA reduce the time to less than two weeks they may face a challenge on the outcome. They did state that they wished to consult all members. By my reckoning that means allowing a good three weeks, which then neatly scuppers a strike

[Shack37]

Short article in the telegraph. Seems to be praising WW whilst using Bassa style nickname?

Willie Walsh is no Dud now he's at the helm of a leaner BA flying machine - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/alistair-osborne/8097941/Willie-Walsh-is-no-Dud-now-hes-at-the-helm-of-a-leaner-BA-flying-machine.html)

[AV Flyer]

The reason that BASSA's leadership (and more militant members) no longer appear to know what they want is because this dispute was never about specific changes to CC's working Ts & Cs rather it was everything about power and control over BA's IFCE service operations.

As such, it was not the details of BA's proposed (and subsequently imposed) Ts & Cs changes that were ever even considered by BASSA rather it was the fact that BA had the audacity to propose making changes in the first place that triggered the dispute (aka "hissy fit").

Now that BASSA has lost the power struggle it is floundering in having to fall back on actually considering the detailed Ts & Cs changes which it simply cannot bring itself to do. Hence the comments by MissM and other BASSA entrenched posters along the lines of:

"All Ts & Cs in the current offer, whatever they are but have been discussed at length in various places that I'll list but have never actually stopped to read and understand myself, are completely unacceptable so I will reject this insulting and derisory offer out of hand......."

The sad thing is that in adopting this position the BASSA die-hards are still not thinking any further than "a strike at Xmas followed by a win over BA on Imposition & ST in the courts will bring Willie Walsh to his knees" when they should now be pausing to comprehend their loss of power forever (including the fact that it was a mistake by prior weak BA management that they gained it in the first place) and considering a sensible way forward.

I'll say it again, this is war and, as such, and very unfortunately for BASSA's leadership and more militant members, the only possible outcome is that one side has to be crushed.

[AV Flyer]

Given that BASSA has lost the power struggle, but, even though it is supposed to have agreed to recommend BA's current offer to its members is clearly showing it is not prepared to concede defeat, it appears that there can only be three possible outcomes:

That BASSA's non-militant members rise-up and vote to accept BA's offer thus embarrassing its leaders and militants into capitualtion.

or, should its non-militant's apathy continue and its militants prevail,

either,

Unite agrees to a strike ballot and BA holds its legal fire during what is likely to be an even more flawed strike ballot than before (e.g. BASSA/Unite having no idea who is and who isn't a member for the correct issuance of ballot papers, finding different reasons to last time for a protected strike, etc.), as prolonging the ballot through legal action(s) would not be in BA's interests, then God forbid (but BA really has exhausted all reasonable due diligence here), dismissing militant strikers for breach of contract while claiming unprotected action and taking the consequences of this decision.

or, finally,

Unite refuses permission for BASSA's strike ballot call and, should BASSA wish to proceed with the ballot, separate from Unite allowing it to tackle BA directly and call a strike ballot on its own leading to the same consequences as predicted above.

Can anyone think of any other possibilities?

I guess the non-militants could show apathy by choosing not to vote on the current offer then suddenly waking-up and voting against the strike but somehow I don't see a non-militant change of heart this late in the game.

[LD12986]

The latest posting from BASSA, whilst still full of insular self-pitying drivel, is much less gung-ho about going for another strike and reading between the lines they seem to have accepted they have absolutely nowhere to turn:

http://www.pprune.org/6029442-post952.html

[MPN11]

I tried the reasonable person test on the BA dispute down the pub the other week. My trade union, protect the weak against big business views, definitely came off second best in that discussion. Still, thats my fault for having Sun reading white van owning self employed entrepreneurs as mates.

Thank you, Litebulbs ... that put yet another smile on what has been a lovely birthday, which started with a nice email from PPRuNe wishing me a happy one!

With so much grief and misery in the World, it's nice to get two really nice smiles in one day!

[Neptunus Rex]

From that other site:
Could BA survive and operate a full schedule if they did go to the extreme and dismiss future strikers. Would a threat of possible dismissal put off a few more hundred people from striking, leaving 2-3000 CC being shown the door. I think I am right when I say that BA cannot replace dismissed strikers for a period of 3 months.Not only could BA operate a full schedule for three months, I think that showing militants the door would result in a substantial increase in bookings.
Potential strikers should be afraid - very afraid. The only positive result of another strike would be increased revenue for the vendors at Bedfont.

[LD12986]

An update from Unite on staff travel:

. LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)


30th October 2010 - Legal Advice - Staff Travel


We have received many requests for clarity surrounding the return of staff travel to strikers from 26th October 2010.

Specifically, those questions centred upon the appearance of some word which appear during the login process to the staff travel system. We have therefore sought legal advice and this is provided in summary as follows:

We understand that BA require members to signify agreement to the following terms before being able to use their staff travel entitlement :

"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."

We do not definitively know whether or not this wording was put forward by BA prior to or following the current dispute. As such, at this time the issue is not clear cut.

Members are concerned at the implications of agreeing to this statement. We understand that there is concern that, by consenting to this statement, members will weaken their ability to claim that staff travel is a contractual right and/or preclude themselves from joining the High Court action against BA, or even the case being brought against the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights.

The Union's legal team has already advised that it would be difficult to establish that every members' staff travel entitlements amounted to a contractual right. However, the statement appears to claim that BA have the right to vary and withdraw these entitlements at their sole discretion. This is potentially harmful to the membership's ability to participate in legal proceedings in the High Court. It should not affect the European Court of Human Rights case.

Members who want to pursue claims for past staff entitlements lost due to the dispute should not be prevented from supporting the High Court action by signing the statement now or in the future. Those members who do sign, may be prevented from pursuing claims for future loss of staff travel if they accept BA's wording.[/font]

[MPN11]

@ Neptunus Rex ... do you honestly think the majority of the travelling public actually care any more? I personally think most people have realised that 'forward bookings' are perfectly safe, especially the 'front end' community where the BA revenue mainly comes from.

There might be an occasional Media input in the "Daily Troublemaker" but for the majority of people with money to fly BA ... they will. BASSA has become 'last week's story' and they, IMO, really don't care any more. The LCC travellers can mutter about O'Leary's latest £££ gathering exercise, and 'Orange Thing's' whatever, but the reality is that the UK's premium, proper carrier is in business, making a profit and ... there are apparently some CC causing a bit of a rumble in the background. Businesses and leisure pax are booking regardless [apart from the occasional headless hen].

IMO, the tedious on-going dispute is now being conducted by a toothless gerbil with arthritis. Irrelevance doesn't really come into the equation ... BASSA has become background noise, largely because of the stupidity of its supposed 'leadership'.

"I'm really scared of arthritic toothless gerbils, Mum. Can we fly with AA instead?" :E
"Don't be silly, dear ... it's "The World's Favourite Airline". I'll bring your own breakfast, though." :p

[Neptunus Rex]

MPN11
You are no doubt correct. I live in the tropics, a bit of a 'Lotus Eater' these days really, so I can't pop down to my local for a pint and sample opinion. I just thought that some people might be holding back until the nastiness is seen to be finished.

[MPN11]

From my 'lotus eating' location [offshore] I haven't heard anyone giving a sh8t for ages :cool:

BA operates ... simples. The rest of it has become background noise, which will IMO become ever quieter until oblivion ... apart from the vociferous former employees.

[Tiramisu]

MPN11 said,
IMO, the tedious on-going dispute is now being conducted by a toothless gerbil with arthritis.


I'm really scared of arthritic toothless gerbils, Mum. Can we fly with AA instead?" http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif
"Don't be silly, dear ... it's "The World's Favourite Airline". I'll bring your own breakfast, though.":p

I sincerely hope you don't get Arthritis one day, I find the remark offensive and a tasteless joke which is way below the belt. :sad:

[fincastle84]

Well I have to agree with the previous 2x old f*rts who proceed me. The dispute is history, let's move on & look forward to BA introducing new aircraft into service (& refurbishing the lounge at NBO)!

[notlangley]

I don’t know if this is of any help - scroll down until you see the words "Staff travel is a non-contractual" in the last paragraph of the 18 December 2008 posting.
BA-be-fair - the website of the Staff Travel Watch: Welcome (http://tinyurl.com/2c34z7n)

[west lakes]

I somehow doubt that Unite or it's legal advisor's will admit on a document that the words are as they are now.
They will seek to get BA to prove it!

[pcat160]

BASSA’s latest news update regarding Staff Travel is quite a lot of double talk. However, one should note the last paragraph.

“Members who want to pursue claims for past staff entitlements lost due to the dispute should not be prevented from supporting the High Court action by signing the statement now or in the future. Those members who do sign, may be prevented from pursuing claims for future loss of staff travel if they accept BA's wording.”

My interpretation of this is that if one signs the ST conditions their ability to claim compensation subsequent to the date of signing may be jeopardized. BASSA, by claiming they do not know when the current language first appeared, is not telling members that their legal advisors have concluded they may have already compromised their ability to pursue claims. My conclusions may be incorrect and it would not be the first time, but given BASSA’s record for misrepresentation I find the excuse of not knowing when the language first appeared to be a smoke screen.

[Chuchinchow]

New posting on Unite website:

We have received many requests for clarity surrounding the return of staff travel to strikers from 26th October 2010.

Specifically, those questions centred upon the appearance of some word which appear during the login process to the staff travel system. We have therefore sought legal advice and this is provided in summary as follows:
We understand that BA require members to signify agreement to the following terms before being able to use their staff travel entitlement :

"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."

We do not definitively know whether or not this wording was put forward by BA prior to or following the current dispute. As such, at this time the issue is not clear cut.
Members are concerned at the implications of agreeing to this statement. We understand that there is concern that, by consenting to this statement, members will weaken their ability to claim that staff travel is a contractual right and/or preclude themselves from joining the High Court action against BA, or even the case being brought against the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights.

The Union's legal team has already advised that it would be difficult to establish that every members' staff travel entitlements amounted to a contractual right. However, the statement appears to claim that BA have the right to vary and withdraw these entitlements at their sole discretion. This is potentially harmful to the membership's ability to participate in legal proceedings in the High Court. It should not affect the European Court of Human Rights case.

Members who want to pursue claims for past staff entitlements lost due to the dispute should not be prevented from supporting the High Court action by signing the statement now or in the future. Those members who do sign, may be prevented from pursuing claims for future loss of staff travel if they accept BA's wording.

Dear God!! When I was a student in the early 1970s, and working for BEA (of blessed memory) and subsequently for British Airways at LLBG, the clause that is now so "contentious" was printed on every form requesting authority for ST.

Why, after forty years, is this suddenly such a surprise for the union?

[oggers]

the clause that is now so "contentious" was printed on every form requesting authority for ST.

Why, after forty years, is this suddenly such a surprise for the union?

:eek: It's incredible how bad they are. My first reaction was amazement on learning the union didn't have any idea about this condition of ST that has been clearly shown on the ST log-in page since way back when. Silly of me given how appallingly bad they've been throughout this dispute at getting the basics right.

It begs the question: what sort of lawyers do they have on their side who didn't scrutinize the conditions of ST before launching into litigation? :hmm:

I had assumed the union and their lawyers knew about this condition but believed that ST had become a common law wife to the employment contract as well as a brazen workaround to the anti-disciplinary legislation covering the strikers. Some judges may yet find merit in that argument - stranger things have happened - but the union admission that they weren't aware of this condition hardly speaks of a legal team with their finger on the pulse.

And as a footnote, why am I not surprised that so many pro-strikers have got this far without having checked the terms and conditions of staff travel :rolleyes:

[Mr Optimistic]

Tiramisu, I have no idea who/what was the original target but somebody also needs to stick up for the gerbils:p

[PAXboy]

As a pax, on a Monday afternoon, this cheered me no end:The Union's legal team has already advised that it would be difficult to establish that every members' staff travel entitlements amounted to a contractual right. Amusing to see that admission in plain print. If they cannot establish contractual right this for "every member" then who works out which members can have it? :p :}

[pcat160]

Maybe they think that those members who have never signed the ST agreement coould have it. As I have previously posted I think the lawyers know very well the language has been included for some time. It is BASSA that are using the excuse of not knowing to avoid tellling the members that if they signed the agreement in the past they are probably toast when it comes to potential compensation. Keeping the hope of potential compensation alive will contribute to some members rejecting the contract.

[Ancient Observer]

So much for getting ST back "in 5 minutes................."

On a more serious note, this whole affair has now become one big yawn.

How long can Unite keep DH and the Heritage shower quiet? It's so boring when he's got a Unite muzzle on.

[notlangley]

There is an ongoing election for a new General Secretary of Unite.
It is said that a new broom sweeps clean.
I have heard of a BASS broom._ Is there such a thing as a BASSA broom?

[MPN11]

One bristles at the very thought. Just when we hoped we had a handle on things, there's the prospect of a new head? I'll just sweep that under the carpet and hope for the best.



[Sorry, Mods] ;)

[Entaxei]

The wording of the Terms & Conditions requiring signature to obtain a 'Staff Travel' ticket are very explicit.

a) They very clearly separate the transaction to purchase a ticket at lower than list price from any other contracts or terms and conditions.

b) They very clearly establish that the transaction is solely between BA and the other party for the purchase of a ticket at that time and they are the only parties to the transaction.

c) The transaction does not include any other transaction - past or future.

d) The transaction is clearly labelled as a Contract, solely between the parties and solely concerning the purchase at that time of the ticket, it excludes any other terms and conditions.

e) It is very clearly an agreement which is a Contract to purchase between the parties for a price advantage and as such is made under contract law.

f) It has no connection to or relevance to terms and conditions of employment.

g) As each transaction arises and completes with the issue of a ticket, the structure continually renews as another separate accepted form of contract each time one is signed - and apparently has been doing so since the 1960's
without any form of challenge by the unions.

If BASSA or whoever have received any form of advice suggesting that the ST contract could be construed as part of the employee terms and conditions of employment, then I suggest that they try engaging lawyers who have at least some understanding of contract law, rather than totally wasting their members money.

[Neptunus Rex]

"But, but (Boo Hoo) we've always had Staff Travel (Boo Hoo.)"

[nononsense frank]

With regards to the ST removal issue, I found this on the web - an analysis/article written by Stephen Ravenscroft, a partner in the employment and benefits group at White & Case, LLP. It makes interesting reading...


Withdrawing Non-contractual Benefits from Striking Workers (http://ecbel.whitecase.com/files/News/849e992a-8b89-4e3e-ba02-bcf53fb16f3c/Presentation/NewsAttachment/6a5cda9b-93d5-4439-bcaa-c36feb8ca09c/Withdrawing_noncontractual_benefits_from_striking_workers.pd f)

[MPN11]

My sympathy cup overflows ... yea, verily.

For it was written, "This is a non-contractual benefit, and if ye seriously pi$$ off he who gives that benefit, ye shall be cast into the outer darkness, and have to pay your own way from Barcelona, San Francisco or Glasgow."

Thus it was that light shone upon some of them, and they realised that being unemployed was worse than wittering about "Rights" and "Clauses". And many were brought back to the path of sensibleness.

... probably.

[Diplome]

MPN11:

You are in fine form..lol.

Seriously, even those of us who came late to this dispute understand the language regarding Staff Travel that Cabin Crew were dealing with.

And now it represents a reason to delay a ballot??? I don't think so.

There is no BASSA member that can defend this piece of inane activity because there is no defense.

Unless your legal team is Larry, Curly and Moe.

[Fly380]

Court Hearings - Court of Appeal Civil Division (http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/list_coacivil.htm)

Right at the end. On Wednsday. (Judgement of imposition Appeal).

[Mariner9]

I suspect Wednesday's Appeal Court judgement is the real reason for the delay to the ballot.

Excellent link regarding ST NF, at last we have the views of a "real" lawyer concerning the issue. I suspect it would make sobering reading for striking CC's (assuming it was properly understood). Another question they could ask themselves is why Unite have not yet pursued the return of ST through the Courts and are apparently "recommending" :hmm: acceptance of an offer that would remove any chance of such action in the future.

[just an observer]

The link above to the legal expert was very interesting, his view that TULRCA 1992 does not protect strikers from any detriment arising directly from actual industrial action, other than from actual dismissal in the protected period, would, if correct, scupper any claim by UNITE that BA were wrong to withdraw staff travel. (Sadly IMO, but I know I'm in a minority on that point here, I just don't like the idea of punishment for a legal strike)

Also, the past case quoted in the European Court, where the court agreed article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) was breached, but decided it was 'justifed and not disproportionate' would seem to make a European Human Rights ruling in UNITE's favour unlikely as well. The fact that BA have offered to give back Staff Travel in full by 2013 will make the original withdrawal seem 'not disproportionate' I should think, especially as an earlier -rejected - offer included seniority on commuter routes immediately (don't know if the latest offer does).

If UNITE's lawyers have reached the same conclusion (which would explain why they are prepared to 'recommend' an offer than precludes them from taking further court action) hopefully a sensibly worded ballot will be issued after the 'imposition' ruling tomorrow. No point trying to second guess that one, we'll hear soon enough.

[Litebulbs]

One thing I have I have misunderstood but subsequently realised through the discussions over time on 'ere, is that you will never be protected; at best you could possibly be compensated after the event.

[Snas]

you will never be protected; at best you could possibly be compensated after the event.


Yup, any employer can more or less do anything they like, they just have to decide if it’s commercially beneficial to them, given possible legal outcomes, and then off they go, alas.

In this case however I personally think that BA has shown remarkable restraint to be frank.

[west lakes]

Sadly that is the case, which is where as has been agreed (I think) a sensible union with corresponding lay officials, members & full time officials is a necessity.

[AV Flyer]

Just heard on BBC News 24

BASSA are so unable to know when they are beaten I can see them pushing Unite to appeal these two decisions to the Supreme Court. Whether or not they would get leave to appeal further from the Courts is another matter. Even the Courts have a method to stop time (and money) wasters.

[Diplome]

AV Flyer

Thank you for the news.

A link to the Independent for those interested:
BA cabin crew lose appeal over cuts - Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ba-cabin-crew-lose-appeal-over-cuts-2123929.html)

It must be interesting for Gatwick crew members, who have worked to this scheme quite capably with BASSA's agreement, to hear BASSA now state what a hardship it is for Heathrow crew.

What other pending court cases does BASSA/Unite have at the moment..if any?

[Mariner9]

We presumably have the much anticipated "5 minute" return of ST hearing to come, should Unite's legal team get round to actually commencing the action. Which should in itself tell a story.

I dont think today's judgement will have much impact in truth - crewing levels were never going to revert to former levels, and now LHR CC know they have no chance of compensation over having to work as hard as their colleagues in Gatwick. This will hardly improve their disposition towards BA, and they may see no other way of "revenge against the evil BA Management":rolleyes: other than by rejecting their offer and pushing for further strikes.

Cutting off their nose to spite their face maybe, but both judgement and a sense of reality seem sadly lacking from those BASSA members involved in this dispute :ugh:

[Litebulbs]

For those that are interested -

Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225 (03 November 2010) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1225.html)

[Mariner9]

Thanks for the link Litebulbs, interesting judgement.

In summary, all three appeal judges held that the original trial judge's 6 reasons to reject crewing levels for incorporation into individual contracts were each flawed, but then came up with a brand new reason for rejecting such incorporation.

To be fair, I have sympathy with Unite's decision to appeal the original judgement in the circumstances.

[AlpineSkier]

@Mariner9

To be fair, I have sympathy with Unite's decision to appeal the original judgement in the circumstances


So will you be making a donation ?:)

[slf22]

From the above court judgement:

The relationship between BA and the trade union branches representing the cabin crews is, in my experience at any rate, rather unusual. Issues which might usually be regarded as falling within the sphere of management are the subject of bilateral negotiation resulting in collective agreements. There may be historical reasons for this; if so they do not matter. The present position is that there are several collective agreements between BA and the relevant trade unions which appear to cover almost every aspect of the cabin crew working terms and conditions. None of these collective agreements is enforceable as between BA and the trade union in that in none of them is there any express intention recorded that the agreement should be enforceable, as is required by section 179 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.Does this mean that BASSA's collective agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on?

[Mariner9]

Alpine,

Seeing as how the original imposition arose as a result of Unite's incompetence, the answer is no.

If I was a Unite/BASSA member, I'd be extremely unhappy about the unrealistic approach to negotiations with BA and the subsequent shambolic escalation to IA. I wouldn't be complaining about this particular litigation though, which as I have said above, would appear to have been reasonable in the circumstances.

[AV Flyer]

Upon reading the ruling, it is clear even the judges have found it unusual the degree to which BA has allowed control of what would normally be management decisions to the Unions through the multiple collective agreements. These agreements leaving the door wide open for employees to take action in the way of Malone, et. al.

If you think about it realistically, it is absolutely absurd that employees should even contemplate dragging their employer through the High & Appeal Courts and, God forbid, possibly even the Supreme Court over what any sensible person would see as crew complements being a management decision.

I think with the advent of MF that BA will not only be looking to more streamlined CC employment contracts but will also not enter into anything like the depth, complexity and associated granting of IFCE operational control through any future MF union collective agreements.

BA will have more then learned its lesson on this one and these old style and unnecessarily detailed (now that BA has seized back control) agreements will fade away with the legacy CC themselves.

[Diplome]

Ancient Observer posted repeatedly his quite firm opinion that the present situation whereby BASSA feel as if they have a right to manage BA could only be changed by a significant shift in BA managers' approach.

I believe we are seeing the necessary shift towards BA regaining control of operations regarding its Cabin Crew. This Order contains language that can only be welcomed in the Board Room.

Will BASSA respond reasonably? We can only hope though I'm certainly not placing bets.

[rethymnon]

a common thread in postings by 'Miss M' and others has been for the need to have legally binding agreements with BA. repeatedly she has rejected the 'assurances' that other crew have been willing to accept as too airy-fairy and incapable of enforcement.

i look forward to her comments on this reasoned judgment. 'contortionists' and 'hoops' come to mind!

[Neptunus Rex]

Does this mean that BASSA's collective agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on?It means that the Bassa lawyers did not do their homework and aren't worth their fat fees.

[eticket]

As a lay person it was interesting reading the appeal judgement.

My totally informal and at times very wrongly worded / termed thoughts are:

The Cabin Crew initially won the argument that they were making. However the consequences of enforcing that argument would mean that BA would be unfairly disadvantaged and so BA's greater potential suffering won the day.

Some points / thoughts:

a) The Lady Judge found the way that that BA and the Unions were agreeing things between each other to be unusual and that really BA should have been managing rather than coming to a lot of agreements.

However it is the following that counted in the case.

b) There was a disputed Section 7 in an agreement. This needed examining to see if the individual bits in it were aspirational, (unenforcable and losable by a Cabin Crew member taking BA to court over a breach of the relevant point) or potentially enforceable and winnable by the Cabin Crew member if a breach was made, ie potentially contractable. (The other sections of the particular agreement were littered with enforcable and unenforceable.)

The Lady Judge initially concluded that the Cabin Crew were right and that the parts of the relevant section that they contested were enforceable.

Half-Time: Cabin Crew 1 BA 0

c) BA's turn and the judge then looked at a replay of the first half and realised that the impact of saying that the relevant bits were enforceable, could then lead to unfairness to BA and that this unfairness was never the intention of the original agreement.

(As an example if Cabin Crew Complements were enforceable in an individual's contract then it would give too much power to an individual Cabin Crew member if they refused to work when presented with a One Down situation.)

So she gave a point to BA and another as the disadvantage that BA would be in would be far worse than that of the Cabin Crew.

So overall it was:

Cabin Crew 1 BA 2

Victory for BA but a fair effort by the Cabin Crew.

(Yes I do know that it is more complex than I have written above.)

[SwissRef]

Not really.

What she said was:
The agreements are not legally enforceable on employees individual contracts. So she had to rule for BA. BUT if they had been legally enforceable, then there was a lot going to the Cabin Crew position. However this was not relevant, due to agreements not being legally enforceable. The sections you quote from fall into the discussion of the position had the agreements been legally enforceable.

Or at least that is my take on this.

And I'm still at awe at some comments, such as:
Not all judges agreed, when 1 wrote it, and the other two agreed with her!
BA are paying Unites legal bill as BA got costs! when this means BA can claim their costs from Unite.

So BA won. BA even won costs (best they could get in a case like this, for "close" cases they generally don't award costs). Unite didn't signal they intend to appeal, so no leave to appeal given. (although given the latest offer with "drop all legal action" means it would be hard from them to appeal (start new legal action) and keep the offer)

Really looking forward to reading the "How it was won from my garden" - a fantasy by DH.

[Diplome]

The "money" paragraph:


Set against that are the disastrous consequences for BA which could ensue if this term were to be individually enforceable. It seems to me that they are so serious as to be unthinkable. By that I mean that if the parties had thought about the issue at the time of negotiation, they would have immediately have said it was not intended that section 7.1 could have the effect of enabling an individual or a small group of cabin crew members to bring a flight to a halt by refusing to work under complement. So, if I apply the rule by which a term of uncertain meaning is to be construed, that of asking what, objectively considered in the light of the factual matrix against which the agreement was made, the parties must be taken to have intended the provision to mean, I am driven to the conclusion that they did not mean this term to be individually enforceable. I accept that there are pointers towards individual enforceability but these are not conclusive. In the end, I think that the true construction of this term is that it was intended as an undertaking by the employer towards its cabin crew employees collectively and was intended partly to protect jobs and partly to protect the crews, collectively, against excessive demands in terms of work and effort. I think that it was intended to be binding only in honour, although it created a danger that, if breached, industrial action would follow.
emphasis added

The "what ifs" that precede this statement are simply background noise to the conclusion reach by all three judges regarding true construction.

...and I'm having a hard time believing that there is anyone out there that doesn't understand that Unite/BASSA will be paying BA's costs. No one could be so foolish as to misconstrue that award.

[west lakes]

None of these collective agreements is enforceable as between BA and the trade union

In a way this worries me, it is suggesting that in some cases BA could declare "open season" on the cabin crew. I don't think (hope) that they will, but it suggests that the union needs to go cap in hand to BA to "legalise" this situation.
They seem to be upset with the offer that the loss of ST will be over their heads for the future - this could be far more serious.

(though I can't prove it, was a figure of £4.8 million not mentioned as BA's costs at the time of the earlier case?)

[MPN11]

As AV Flyer observed, this is much about the legacy fiasco of BA 'management' as anything.

However, time to move on into the world of reality and common sense. i have some slight sympathy for some CC, but it's a hard world out there [as all other parts of BA have noticed, and acknowledged].

In the final analysis, 'working one down' and having the CSD do something constructive is hardly Armageddon ... except for the CSDs who believe in the their own self-importance. If they were that good, they might have actually ensured a decent CW service on my last few sectors: as they didn't, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

[Neptunus Rex]

From that other thread, again:
Does anyone know what BA's costs were and how much this pointless legal challenge will have cost Unite?I'll wager that when the BASSA lawyers see the BA legal bill, they will need smelling salts and a large glass (or two) of Pomeroy's house Claret.

[Chuchinchow]

MPN11 has observed thatthis is much about the legacy fiasco of BA 'management' as anything

If you listen very carefully, MPN11, you will hear Giles Guthrie turning in his grave up at Westmount. :E

That beautiful house, at the top of La Vallee de Rozel, must be a miserable place these days.

[Mariner9]

None of these collective agreements is enforceable as between BA and the trade union :ouch:

ISTR someone (Litebulbs?) cautioning on here a while ago that the union should seriously consider the implications of court action as they may not appreciate some of the points arising from the judgement. Wise words with hindsight :D

[MPN11]

@ Chuchinchow ... noted :ok:

[LD12986]

As Amicus has now formally recommended rejection of the offer as they clearly find the idea of BA running the business unpalatable, will BASSA follow suit?

. LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

[Haymaker]

According to the Amicus letter, BASSA are going along with the Unite line.

Did anyonone predict this? Be honest. Better still, can anyone explain it?

[Chuchinchow]

MissM, over on the crew thread, has plumbed new depths with her sophistry and her complete disregard for logic:Our court case was not about imposition which our dispute is about.
:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:

[west lakes]

But as is being suggested it needed Unite, BASSA & CC89 to recommend the offer, so it might, very shortly, be withdrawn!

[AV Flyer]

So much for the Union (and its Branches) agreeing to recommend the offer to its members as an agreed BA stipulation in the latest Unite/BA negotiations.

Over to BA if they wish to cry 'foul' and pull the offer.......

[AV Flyer]

According to the Amicus letter, BASSA are going along with the Unite line.

Did anyonone predict this? Be honest. Better still, can anyone explain it?

Nope!

My first explanation is as a sub-plot to this whole debacle BASSA & CC89 are at odds with each other and as they appear to be taking different positions we can only assume their hatred of each other is greater than what they feel individually towards BA!

I guess it could just be a throw your toys out of the pram hissy-fit in response to today's ruling.

AVF

[Chuchinchow]

MissM (again):Quote:
Also, if NO results in a strike, which may well be unprotected, there is always your job to lose potentially. Far from nothing I think. Unquote.


Don't go down this path again.

Or, are you suggesting that BA will issue SOSR? We have been hearing this rumour for probably a year. If they were serious about it they would have issued it a long time ago.

Let's drop SOSR.

That's odd - very odd. No one other than MissM herself had mentioned SOSR in the context of this morning's verdict.

[MPN11]

Who is "Miss M"?

Given 'her' didactic outpourings, I have reservations about whether 'she' is real or not. Especially as she toes [not tows'] the Party line consistently.

However, I do not care about 'Miss M'. The endless denial of reality, the dogma and the outpourings of 'Group-speak' say enough for me.

What I DO care about is the survival of BA, in all its disparate parts.

The bickerings of a few CSDs, who need a reality check on where they stand in the 'Great Order' of employment, does not concern me one jot. The 'part-time lemmings', supplementing their partner's salary, don't bother me much either.

However, best wishes to all good BA staff, and perdition to the destructive and incompetent and idle. I do somehow feel that BA will be a better place without the latter.

[RTR]

After such a long laborious attempt to understand Miss M who appears not to even understand herself with her mutterings that have no logic. She (if this a correct assumption) - but she might be a He - fires off salvo after salvo of sheer boredom and who must now decide if she is sustainable. Now it is time, in my view, that she should pack her bags and go. She has lost the plot and spoils both threads by her intransigence and boring attempts to justify herself. Since she cannot after today believe BASSA so she should leave BA too.

Its a lost cause - whoever you are - and we would all now be better of without her and get on to some level headed discussion.

Now, where were we..........................?

[fincastle84]

Some months ago I, along with many others, declared that the dispute was over & Bassa's position was totally untenable.

As far as I can see since then nothing has changed , so moving on.......

[LD12986]

Duncan opines on today's events (ignoring the Court of Appeal ruling!)

Just come in from various child minding duties (Louise on a trip) so forgive my late entry into the debate. I think I will let the dust settle a bit before making massive comment but in the meantime can I say this.
A lot of what is said publically these days has to be taken with a pinch of salt and a lot of reading between the lines.

I have no problem with AMICUS’s statement - I have been waiting for 21 years to hear them say what they said tonight and I never thought it would happen. But it has and fair play to them - they are a different beast from the one BA gave birth to back in 1989. They have every right to announce what they have - there is no real discord between us.

Obviously tactically they have chosen to "play" things differently to us. If we had done what they have now done there would be no ballot and many could then criticise us for not facilitating you, the membership, a chance to at least be be heard. My view is - and always will be - everyone has got to have a chance to cast their vote, whether they are rabid constant forum users or live in the outback of Australia with no contact with the outside world. That is a basic right of union membership and to ensure that would happen we (BASSA) had to take steps that most of us felt uncomfortable with, but it was for the greater long term good.

With the greatest of respect, something else you have to consider here. No matter how much you are - understandably - frustrated with Unite, when it comes to calling IA ballots they have the final say. So falling out with them could mean cutting off our own noses to spite our face. Think hard on that. The BASSA committee know what we are doing, this is not a 2-way dogfight between us and BA - there is a third interested party in this high stakes poker game and we must be aware of that in all our tactical moves. Everything is done with a purpose, please bear that in mind.

So where to we go from here - well WW could spit his dummy on the back of AMICUS’s statement or he might prefer to let things ride - we will know soon enough.
The ballot is still not ready to go out because BA are unhappy with us including the reps letter which we published on this website on Sunday.
Is it right that BA should dictate what we say in a preamble to a ballot, despite the fact it has been on our website? That debate was taking place tonight before AMICUS walked into the headlights.

The whole thing is quite bizarre. But please remember BA are reading every word. AMICUS BASSA and UNITE need to keep united. personallyI think WW is vulnerable, there are cracks and doubts much deeper than ours so, let’s just keep our nerve. I think there will be some more developments over the next 48 hours and I will get back to you when and if.

Please keep calm, I am not unduly worried by any of today’s events - remember this is a game of poker and that is not trying to belittle the stress, strains and confusion I know you are all feeling. Keep the Faith. It has been a year since we started down this never ending road but we have come too far to be diverted from the the cause that set us on the road in the first place .Rgds Duncan

[Lord Bracken]

Drunken Folly's time is up. Meanwhile, the airline gets on with things...

[Hotel Mode]

Given 'her' didactic outpourings, I have reservations about whether 'she' is real or not. Especially as she toes [not tows'] the Party line consistently.

However, I do not care about 'Miss M'. The endless denial of reality, the dogma and the outpourings of 'Group-speak' say enough for me.



You dont have BASSA forum access do you? Loads of Miss Ms left. Its their relevance I doubt. I return to Japanese holdouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout) because thats what they are.

[dubh12000]

More than a few of the CC are still going on about a "No right to strike" clause in the offer ............. which is not true.

Do they even read through these offers for themselves, or just go along with what is discussed in the galley?

[LD12986]

I wonder if it's too far fetched to suggest that BASSA was well aware that Amicus would do this in order to get BA to pull the offer, thus allowing them to go straight to a strike ballot.

[BetterByBoat]

But why would BA remove the offer?

Just because they could doesn't mean they will. It would seem to be logical for them to wait and see the result of the ballot and act accordingly rather than withdraw the offer now.

[Juan Tugoh]

I have to agree with BetterByBoat, there is no value in withdrawing the offer now. All that would achieve is to pave the way towards a potential Christmas strike. The CC89/Amicus part of UNITE is relatively small and it's membership are traditionally less militant than the BASSA section. The chances are that they will have little impact on the consultative ballot, given the tendency to apathy in these exercises.

BA have all they need to withdraw the offer, or to vary it's terms - it was a condition that all parties would recommend the offer, this condition has not been met, but if there is still acceptance of the offer then this is irrelevant the dispute will be over. An end to the dispute is probably the biggest issue for BA. They also have the option of denying the CC89 members the fruits of the offer now should the deal be accepted, ie the BASSA members will get their ST seniority back in 3 years but not the CC89 people. or perhaps not the paydeal part of it, or nothing at all. They have not met their part of the deal why should they gain any benefit from it should it be accepted? How many CC89 members are there out there? Can they have any effect on BA without the support of their BASSA colleagues?

Silly and dangerous games form the irrelevant CC89 reps.

[Granary]

Please keep calm, I am not unduly worried by any of today’s events - remember this is a game of poker and that is not trying to belittle the stress, strains and confusion I know you are all feeling. Keep the Faith. It has been a year since we started down this never ending road but we have come too far to be diverted from the the cause that set us on the road in the first place .Rgds Duncan

It is really galling to see this poor excuse for a rep to have the cheek to 'represent' the BA CC when he has effectively been fired from BASSA (since he cannot stand again) yet pontificates as tho he's still in the driving seat. He has, of course, been fired from BA and surely BA would never let him through the door to negotiate. Ah, negotiate! A word he threw out of his vocabulary many months ago! Forget that!!

A rubber gun is all he has. Yet he still thinks he's king of the castle. Time for a siege I reckon. The BASSA members should get rid of him. Surely the good reps find him an embarrassment.

[Joao da Silva]

Please may we stop the character assassinations of Duncan Holley.

Until the next elections, he is the legitimate secretary of BASSA.

Personnally, I am very much against the BASSA way of working, but character assassination is puerile and stupid.

[wascrew]

is the cc89 rejection at all linked to one or more of their reps under suspension and/or threat of dismissal?

i just dont understand what the unions think can be gained by this and/or any furthur negotiations (if they bothered to attend any that is!) and/or any industrial action that would only jeapordise their members futures and careers within BA


i dont understand either how supposedly mature individuals believe the rhetoric that eminates from the unions and are not able to research the facts

[Ancient Observer]

Whilst I agree that "character assassination is puerile and stupid"

I would be very worried by the following from bassa,

"The BASSA committee know what we are doing"

For the last 18 months, I've been convinced that this dispute is primarily the fault of BA management in the past.

However, I cannot think of a single instance in the last 18 months when "The BASSA committee know what we are doing" has been either accurate or true.

[call100]

is the cc89 rejection at all linked to one or more of their reps under suspension and/or threat of dismissal?

i just dont understand what the unions think can be gained by this and/or any furthur negotiations (if they bothered to attend any that is!) and/or any industrial action that would only jeapordise their members futures and careers within BA


i dont understand either how supposedly mature individuals believe the rhetoric that eminates from the unions and are not able to research the facts
Reading the 'Amicus' Statement I get the impression that the call for rejection is as much about Unite not including them in any negotiations and making an agreement without consulting the reps and members.
It would seem that in his hurry to get something moving Tony Woodley has ridden rough shod over a section of employees who will be affected, without even a nod to their thoughts.
It's amazing how T&G and Amicus are still so divided within BA. If the moderates are now becoming involved and not being as predictable as some on here thought they would be, it could become interesting again....;)

[plodding along]

Not unlike the recent pension changes then.

UNITE balloted all staff groups except the cabin crew.

It speaks volumes about UNITE's true support of BASSA and CC89.

[Diplome]

call100:

I'm not sure what you would consider "interesting".

There is an offer on the table. It will be accepted or rejected. BA will continue to prepare for possible strike action and each and every act of obstruction put up by BASSA/Amicus/Unite that prevents BA from planning for the future will only accelerate Mixed Fleet.

As for Mr. Holley being the Secretary of BASSA, no one is arguing that he holds that post. What is up for discussion is some of rather bizarre actions that have placed BASSA cabin crew in their present situation.

I must agree with Ancient Observer. Any representation by the BASSA leadership that they "know what they are doing" is rather incredible, but there's always a first time for everything.

[call100]

It may not be interesting for yourself but please don't assume that others don't find the internal wrangling so.

[vctenderness]

[quote=Joao da Silva;6038255]Please may we stop the character assassinations of Duncan Holley.

Until the next elections, he is the legitimate secretary of BASSA.

No he is not! To be a member of BASSA in BA and to be a Rep and indeed the Branch Secretary you need to be employed as British Airways Cabin crew at LHR or LGW - DH is not.

If he had not been dismissed but decided to retire before the elections were due he would now not be able to be BASSA branch Secretary.

He wants to continue to draw is very inflated commissions from the members subs so will hang on as long as he can.

[call100]

[quote=Joao da Silva;6038255]Please may we stop the character assassinations of Duncan Holley.

Until the next elections, he is the legitimate secretary of BASSA.

No he is not! To be a member of BASSA in BA and to be a Rep and indeed the Branch Secretary you need to be employed as British Airways Cabin crew at LHR or LGW - DH is not.

If he had not been dismissed but decided to retire before the elections were due he would now not be able to be BASSA branch Secretary.

He wants to continue to draw is very inflated commissions from the members subs so will hang on as long as he can.
I thought we had laid this myth to rest.

[Ancient Observer]

call 100.
No we have not. When a full and detailed audit of the sources and uses of all cash by bassa from 2007 to end 2010 is published and signed by a reputable firm, then the end of that part of the saga might be in sight.

[LD12986]

A full copy of the BASSA constitution should also provide an answer. Surely in the interests of transparency this is already freely available to any current and potential member of BASSA?

[Tigger4Me]

I wonder if any member has ever tried to query the accounts. If I were a BASSA member I would be seriously concerned where the money was going. If the powers that be within BASSA cannot complete a simple admin task like a membership list, what chance is there of managing a budget of circa £1.7 million?

[Litebulbs]

The subs are £131.52 per year. Bassa members pay an extra £5 I believe. I also think that a branch can claim 5% of the subs for admin etc. So that is £60k from the normal subs and £45K based on 9000 members.

Now where that £100k goes, who knows?!

[call100]

OK.....but it's all pure speculation and fantasy at the moment....If it makes you happy then it's all fine....:)

[rethymnon]

the question of where the money goes raises interesting issues. perhaps a devout BASSA member (MissM?) knows or can find out and let us in on the nuts and bolts.

presumably there is a branch treasurer (and auditor?) who will publish an annual report for members. he would also keep the committee informed on a meeting by meeting basis.

members should have this info somewhere and should be able to enlighten us. if for no other reason, just to show us what a biassed, bigotted lot we are!

al capone was eventually done for tax evasion i believe - there are many ways to skin a cat if one is creative!

[JUAN TRIPP]

I have for years been asking where Bassa'a money goes. ( They have had circa 12000 members at approx £17/month for years now - Thats nearly £2m/year!!! ) One of the reasons I left them years ago was that despite asking and writing to Bassa/TGWU on MANY occasions, I was met with anything from Shrugs of the shoulders, to 'why would you ever want to know that' and even 'stop asking such stupid questions - nobody else has EVER asked this' Eventually I was told ' why dont you just leave this union, we dont want people like you here. ( That was the nice edited version!! )

Even though I know and have known many things about Bassa which are now much better reported - DH collecting £1000's/month in membership contributions into his back pocket being one, I've only just found out that a well known CSD on Eurofleet is apparently an 'auditor' of Bassa's money. He kept that quiet I can tell you. What I find amazing, is that for an 'organisation' that takes £2m/year, how is it that hell any member cannot easily get to see the yearly audit. As far as I can see it doesn't exist.

Questions I have asked, and a few friends too, include, what is the reps daily rate, what expenses are they entitled to, how much really goes to Unite, and the old one - how much does DH get as the GS.

It still is and from I can work out always will be a TOTAL mystery

[Litebulbs]

How high up do you have to be, to fall into the prime driver?

[Neptunus Rex]

1.75 million pounds. It will be interesting to see how that compares with BAs' legal costs for the latest High Court action. I doubt that BASSA is a net contributor to Unite's funds.

[notlangley]

One of the Mods once said that postings on these threads is like listening to drunks in the kitchen when the actual party is upstairs._ The 509 posting of Juan Tripp is an honourable exception to this._ It would be wonderful if the seed that JT has planted can grow and enable British Airways cabin crew to reform and transform BASSA.

[just an observer]

The subs are £131.52 per year. Bassa members pay an extra £5 I believe. I also think that a branch can claim 5% of the subs for admin etc. So that is £60k from the normal subs and £45K based on 9000 members.

Now where that £100k goes, who knows?!


Litebulbs, the Unite website shows subs as £10.96 a month, hence your £131.52 above. However, CC on here have said they pay £16 a month, so it's £5 a month more, not £5 a year as your arithmetic above suggests. That totals £540,000 a year for BASSA, not £45000 (assuming 9000 members). I daresay BASSA may not claim the 5% admin expenses but it's still a pretty hefty budget.

[Hipennine]

I'm sure that this has been posted before, but it's interesting, and answers many of the generic questions, and supports or rejects many of the posts above re access to Union accounts:

Unite - Transport and General Workers Union accounts - investigation by the TGW Union Certification Officer into a branch accounts (http://www.employees.org.uk/accounts-tgwu.html)

[Litebulbs]

I am glad you observed! Well done and apologies for my poor math.

[Dual ground]

Anyone else noticed how quiet the Cabin Crew thread has been since the announcement of the Appeal Court ruling?

Litebulbs, you have been the voice of reason from a union point of view, during this whole dispute. Mind if I ask what your view is, regards the Amicus/CC89 refusal to recommend the latest offer? More specifically do you think that BA will now withdraw the offer?

[vctenderness]

OK.....but it's all pure speculation and fantasy at the moment....If it makes you happy then it's all fine....:)

Err.. no its not I posted this back in September and I can assure you it is absolutely accurate so call100 please have a read!
With reference to the money earned by DH I have noticed some misleading statements on this thread.

A little history lesson. Way back in the mists of time TGWU shop stewards working in factories and the like used to collect the members subscription in cash, usually using a old tobacco tin. The Employer would 'take them off the clock' in other words they would not be paid for the time taken to collect the dues.
In order that the shop steward would not lose out financially they would be able to keep a percentage of the money to compensate. This used to be around 15% of the dues.

This was know as Branch Secretaries Honorarium. This system applied to the BASSA Branch Secretary even though the subs were collected by BA by Payroll deduction. BA deducts a sum from this for administration 2.5% ish.

The remainder would be kept by the BS and for many years was not treated as income by the Revenue although I am not sure of the tax position today. A number of years ago the TGWU reduced the % kept by the BS to, I believe 8% so today it could well be 5% as mentioned elsewhere.

When the merger between TGWU and Amicus first came to light BASSA made a big thing about having secured 'assurances' (written in blood no doubt) from TGWU GS Tony Woodley that their 'financial arrangements would remain the same 'no matter what happened to the merger'. You can assume from this that would include the continuation of the BS Commission. BASSA made big play about this in a Newsletter (without mention of BS Commission).

I believe that DH pays a sum of money into the Branch fund but, crucially I believe, not all of it.

No member of BASSA is brave enough to challenge them and ask to see the Branch books and the amount of Honorarium being paid. The Branch Auditors are a couple of well trusted members who, I am led to believe, never make a financial statement to the Branch members at their meetings.

I have heard people refer to the disclosure of money paid into and spent by the union which is required by law. This actually refers to the 'big union' ie Unite today. A notice to members is issued and all monies are detailed in this including GS earnings and Executive Council expenses however the branches are not required to declare this. Two BASSA reps are on the EC and their expenses for that role are declared in the statement. This bears no relationship to their earnings from BASSA as lay reps which is not declared.

The sums claimed from BASSA are quite considerable being in the region of £100 per day for attendance to meetings. The tax position of these monies is also favourable.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=5964055)
15:40