BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III [Archive] - Page 3

Juan Tugoh

6th Nov 2010, 10:28

It is entirely reasonable to assume that union officials are entirely pure in their motives and actions.There has to be trust or a union is a pointless waste of time. However, it is also reasonable that union accounts are open and available for public scrutiny, it is also reasonable to expect that the accounts are audited by professional accountants and the audit reports are freely available. Any attempt to hide accounts or any failure to have them audited by professionals leads people to a suspicion that there is something to hide.

I do not accuse any BASSA member of any financial mischief. The lack of freely available information and seemingly deliberate failure to publish accounts and audit reports compiled by a professional independent accountant could lead the cynical to think that someone in the BASSA leadership does have something to hide.

Perception is everything here, the perception that BASSA has something to hide, or has some shady financial arrangements is perpetuated by a failure to clarify their finances. The defence that they are innocent and don't have to prove their honesty will not wash, if they are innocent why hide the evidence? It is the perception of something hidden equalling misdeeds that is corrosive. This perception can be easily dispelled but BASSA must come clean to do this.

Colonel White

6th Nov 2010, 14:21

Juan Tugoh
Totally agree that it is a case of perceptions. One of the things I find depressing about this dispute is that the more that one digs, the dodgier the dealings of the people that members depend on to represent them appear to become.

Let's be honest. The bulk of the reps are CSDs. That's like asking your supervisor to understand your position, including the issues or otherwise with the chain of management that starts with him or her. So they can't really relate to the shop floor issues, because they are part of the chain of command. Any comment that threatens their position is hardly going to be escalated.

I don't want to be overly critical, but having a chairperson who has sadly been on long term sick does mean that they are out of touch with what is happening at the coal face. More so if they are domiciled overseas. In that situation, wouldn't it have been better for the chair to have stood down until their health returned and let someone else take up the reins. Apart from anything else, it might have helped with succession planning.

vctenderness

6th Nov 2010, 14:59

I have still to see any evidence that anyone is being given anything other than legitimate expenses.
Provide the proof and I'll join in the condemnation.

I didn't for one moment suggest anything other than legitimate, in fact the opposite.

BASSA branch secretaries receive commission based on the number of members paying subscriptions as outlined in my previous post. The reps also claim daily expenses in the region of £100 per day for attendance at meetings.

What proof do you need?:ugh:

It is a fact that the books are never brought to the members for inspection and the committee never informs the membership of the amount of claims they have made either per month or per year.

I would be better for all if this transparency existed.

Litebulbs

6th Nov 2010, 15:45

The reps also claim daily expenses in the region of £100 per day for attendance at meetings.

I would hope that they do receive this, as it would be a day off, or de-rostered from a trip, therefore costing them in allowances.

Can you explain the commission in more detail please? Does this go to the branch or into DH's actual personal pocket?

Litebulbs

6th Nov 2010, 16:27

I was at a meeting with two BA reps, earlier on this year. One was a purser and one main crew.

As to the chairs sickness, for all we know, it may have been bad toe. I am sure that in this time, the chair would have been more than able to fulfill the role of overseeing and guiding the representatives, especially as the reps are struggling for release.

vctenderness

6th Nov 2010, 16:58

I would hope that they do receive this, as it would be a day off, or de-rostered from a trip, therefore costing them in allowances.

Can you explain the commission in more detail please? Does this go to the branch or into DH's actual personal pocket?

If you read my posting number 518 I explain in detail. The commission goes directly to the Branch Secretary DH. it is rumoured that he puts a percentage back into the Branch fund but this is not, as all things with BASSA, publicly shown in any accounts.

In the 'good' old days the whole sum ie members subscriptions, commission, branch fund was paid quarterly into the Branch Secretaries personal bank account!!! I would hope this does not happen today.

I have never said the reps should not be paid for their time but the CC89 reps do it for much less £60 per day.

Litebulbs

6th Nov 2010, 17:12

But you said believe, rather than actually know with regard to DH.

I would suggest that the CC89 reps should look up, rather than reduce another arrangement.

vctenderness

6th Nov 2010, 18:06

But you said believe, rather than actually know with regard to DH.

I would suggest that the CC89 reps should look up, rather than reduce another arrangement.

I DIDN'T!!! I said I BELIEVE that DH puts SOME of his commission back into the fund. I did not say that I only believe any of the rest of the explanation.:ugh:

As for CC89 looking up to BASSA's expenses Its the members money and they at least tried to be careful with it!:=

notlangley

6th Nov 2010, 20:47

It might be an interesting situation if Unite were to threaten the prosperous BASSA with derecognition unless BASSA changed its accounting procedures - change it so that BASSA show absolutely all their accounts to a professional accountant from a particular date.
It would seem to be a reasonable request from Unite, because BASSA readily admits to a membership of 10,000._ It would most certainly be a reasonable request because of the vast sums of money going into the BASSA conduit.

Of course BASSA would be free to choose to go with a different Trade Union.

But that would be sad._ Unfortunately BASSA have become a pariah organisation because of the awful image they had given to cabin crew by the well publicised antics at Bedfont._ Also the ambitions of BASSA are irrelevant to the Nationwide employment challenges that Unions are currently facing._ If BAASA negotiated with, for example, NUM (who have been "proved absolutely right" in their 1985 predictions) then even NUM might be reluctant._ After all it would be a poor thing for NUM to call a strike of cabin crew and then suffer the humiliation of seeing workers from a different Union (Unite) come in to work as strike breakers._ Workers of Unite successfully strike-breaking an NUM strike - no absolutely not!

So probably BASSA would have no choice but to employ a professional accountant.

"proved absolutely right":-_______link (http://www.num.org.uk/)

Colonel White

6th Nov 2010, 22:53

Litebulbs
I was at a meeting with two BA reps, earlier on this year. One was a purser and one main crew.

As to the chairs sickness, for all we know, it may have been bad toe. I am sure that in this time, the chair would have been more than able to fulfill the role of overseeing and guiding the representatives, especially as the reps are struggling for release. I was very careful to say that the bulk of reps were CSDs, not all. The chair's sickness is documented as being osteoporosis (see press reports from last December). This prevents her from taking up her flying duties and BA would, quite rightly, not roster her for any duties as a consequence. Thus it is reasonable to assume she would not have any regular contact with the rank and file members, although I note in the Unite Executive council minutes it hasn't prevented her from attending their meetings. Whether she would be able to oversee and provide guidance for the representatives from her home in California is open to question.

Entaxei

6th Nov 2010, 23:00

Do we have a Chartered Accountant on here, who could explain why a union such as BASSA do not appear to be taxed - and - what would cause HMRC to decide to carry out an investigation.

This situation seems a total anomaly compared to the rigour with which HMRC carry out any investigations into possible tax losses. In this case where would they be able to find records? :confused:

LD12986

6th Nov 2010, 23:12

Entaxei - I'm not an expert on corporate taxes, but I suspect a union would not be subject to tax because it is not deemed to be carrying out a trade. I think trade union dues are also VAT exempt.

just an observer

7th Nov 2010, 00:16

Unions are mutual traders, ie, they only have income from their own members, which they spend for those members benefit. There is no profit element involved, hence no tax is due and there is no requirement to submit accounts to the Revenue.

However, this does not mean that no accounts are prepared at all, a statement of income and what it is spent on can/should be prepared and supplied to members.

AA SLF

7th Nov 2010, 00:25

Looking in on the Cabin Crew forum to read the "BA Crew ONLY" thread and I find it is dead. But the very interestin thing is another thread below the "crew ONLY" thread titled "BA LHR Mixed Fleet". This thread has been LOCKED! Read the entire thread and can see NO REASON for it being locked. No attacks of any kind - no playing the person rather than the ball!! All in all, a very harmless thread full of polite posts.

Is it now the rule of the "flying dragonS" that there can only be ONE thread in the CC forum about BA CC - in ANY form? Are we allowed to post in this thread using the words - "BA" or "CC" or "cabin crew"? Only time will tell. . . .

Mystified in Texas . . . :sad:

kappa

7th Nov 2010, 02:23

AASLF, it isn't dead, it is bedtime in the UK. But I too am mystified why the MF thread was closed with no explanation. From what I read it was quite informative. Maybe there were subsequent removed posts that caused it to be locked.

Entaxei

7th Nov 2010, 08:47

LD & Observer

Thanks for the response - if I have this correctly .....

The only requirement for accounts, is that which an individual union decides it wants, (if any), for internal purposes and maybe to show its membership where their money goes .........

So, any taxes payable are those due as personal tax, from any individuals who are in receipt of money from the union, for any purpose to do with carrying out union duties in some fashion, be it attendance money for reps or full blown salary for union officials, such as Branch Secretary, Chairman, etc..

For example, as CC, this would of course be in addition to their normal employment income, for which BA supply details to HMRC. Presumably therefore, there is a requirement upon the union as an employer, to provide details of payments made to individuals, in which case I would presume there to be normal employment and accounting records and of course those covering overheads - or is there some loophole whereby this can be avoided - do HMRC only look at the individuals declarations ?

In theory, this seems to be a decent sized black hole, which money can be poured into and vanish. I find it hard to believe in this day and age, that there are not any other checks and balances.

TightSlot

7th Nov 2010, 10:23

The MLF thread was closed for good reason

just an observer

7th Nov 2010, 11:03

Unite the union would have a PAYE scheme in operation for its salaried staff either full or part time.

I do not know whether attendance money paid to reps who lose money as they are 'off work' is taxed at the time of payment by the union, but it would be taxable on the individual who should declare it to HMRC by self assessment if it is not taxed, or taxed at the wrong rate.

The Union would have to declare any untaxed payments made, and there is a form to be submitted to HMRC to do this, it is sent along with the normal end of tax year payroll documentation.

Some payments made to reps etc might be classed as expenses, and as the union has a PAYE scheme with the Revenue, HMRC may have been involved in determining what they can class as expenses and pay tax free (just as they have with CC and pilot allowances)

I do not know if BASSA have any directly paid employees, they may all be paid by Unite, rather than locally, but if paid by BASSA, they would also have a PAYE scheme, and the same rules would apply.

vctenderness

7th Nov 2010, 11:45

Just to add a bit of clarity to this. BASSA is not a union. It is a branch of a union, Unite, therefore it escapes a lot of bothersome interference by accountants, Certification office, HMRC etc.

The main union UNITE has to provide details of its finances, administration costs, payments to General Secretary etc. each year and publish it to members.

The tax man has shown interest in BASSA in the past and I think an investigation may still be ongoing. The fact that BASSA never tells its members anything about the finances means they tend never to feature on the members list of priorities.

One day a group of brave souls will go to a members meeting and demand to see the books as is their right under rule, but I wont hold my breath!

Litebulbs

7th Nov 2010, 12:02

Why would they have to be brave? There is no irregularity.

Diplome

7th Nov 2010, 12:26

Come now Litebulbs. Irregularity or no irregularity we have seen what happens to individuals who question any action on the part of BASSA leadership. It would take someone brave or reckless to openly question any of the BASSA leadership nest.

Litebulbs

7th Nov 2010, 12:44

Oh to be the brave and reckless at Bedfont. I would see it as a personal responsibility to open my mouth, if I did not believe or trust my leaders. I am sure I could muster up more than a few friends to protect me from a cabin crew mob.

Diplome

7th Nov 2010, 12:58

I would count those at Bedfont as reckless, but hardly brave.

..and I believe you underestimate just how spiteful BASSA leadership can be when dealing with dissent.

This is not a "normal" union we are speaking of...its something quite different.

Snas

7th Nov 2010, 13:02

I was rather of your view Litebulbs, I failed to understand what could be feared from a CC mob, what where they going to do, break into your home and criticise your curtains?

However, the peer pressure and pack mentality in play is actually a lot more real than you might imagine if you haven’t been exposed to it.

Litebulbs

7th Nov 2010, 13:15

Fair points, but it would not be the individual against the mob, if you believe the figures on 'ere. It is easy not to feel threatened sitting in front of a monitor typing, but I am a rep and like most reps outside of BASSA, I am the one getting it in the neck, from faceless people on a keyboards or standing up at meetings telling employees their jobs are at risk. As I hope you can imagine, that is not all hamburgers, ribbons, xxxx's and yellow pens.

just an observer

7th Nov 2010, 13:35

Just to add a bit of clarity to this. BASSA is not a union. It is a branch of a union, Unite, therefore it escapes a lot of bothersome interference by accountants, Certification office, HMRC etc.

If BASSA make payments of salary to any officials, they would be required to have a PAYE scheme. Whether or not they were a union, or a branch of one, would not matter, only if said salary were paid from their own funds.

However, payments of out of pocket expenses could be made without HMRC involvement, if that was all that was paid.

Generally, any organisation/club which collects subscriptions from members, prepares accounts to present to members showing how their money has been spent. These accounts are usually available to members to approve at an AGM. This has nothing to do with HMRC requirements.

Mutual trading organisations can be expected to make Returns to HMRC in certain circumstances, see this link
HM Revenue & Customs: Unincorporated organisations and Corporation Tax (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ct/clubs-charities-agents/clubs.htm)

vctenderness

7th Nov 2010, 14:08

If BASSA make payments of salary to any officials, they would be required to have a PAYE scheme. Whether or not they were a union, or a branch of one, would not matter, only if said salary were paid from their own funds.

However, payments of out of pocket expenses could be made without HMRC involvement, if that was all that was paid.

Generally, any organisation/club which collects subscriptions from members, prepares accounts to present to members showing how their money has been spent. These accounts are usually available to members to approve at an AGM. This has nothing to do with HMRC requirements.

Mutual trading organisations can be expected to make Returns to HMRC in certain circumstances, see this link
HM Revenue & Customs: Unincorporated organisations and Corporation Tax (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ct/clubs-charities-agents/clubs.htm)

There lies the rub! 'Out of pocket expenses' HMRC would not consider £100 per day to be just that. The reps are not salaried staff but elected representatives.

Amicus CC89 reps get £60 per day less tax and NI which can mean taxation at 40% for most. This goes back to the formation of CC89 when a deal was struck with HM Revenue at their request (HMRC). The TGWU has avoided such arrangements for years despite attempts by HMRC to tax these sums that is why I say I believe the investigation is 'ongoing'.

It is absolutely correct that accounts must be kept and should be available for inspection by any member at the monthly branch meeting that is in the Unite rule book and BASSA branch consitution - but it just NEVER happens.

Litebulbs

7th Nov 2010, 14:10

Well join BASSA and go and ask.

vctenderness

7th Nov 2010, 14:31

Well join BASSA and go and ask.

Thanks but no thanks! If people who do have their money taken from their salary each month and are completely unaware of what happens to it then good luck to them. I'll keep mine safely away.:hmm:

just an observer

7th Nov 2010, 14:42

Well as treasurer of my club I pay 'out of pocket' expenses - they give me a receipt and I repay them what they have expended (out of their own pocket) on the club's behalf.

That is not the same as a flat rate amount. A flat amount, especially if it is to recompense for reduced income while you are rostered off duty, would be taxable, somewhere, and I can't see why HMRC haven't enforced this with BASSA reps, or any ex T&GW members, if they have already done so with CC89/Amicus. It wouldn't take years. A 'back years' investigation may take time, but not enforcing correct compliance from a given date.

Maybe they have, but you are not privy to any evidence to that effect. And if you are not a member of that union, you should not be privy to that evidence.

All you can do is persuade someone who is to find out. Or what Litebulbs said.

Neptunus Rex

7th Nov 2010, 14:46

Litebulbs
Oh to be the brave and reckless at Bedfont. I would see it as a personal responsibility to open my mouth, if I did not believe or trust my leaders. I am sure I could muster up more than a few friends to protect me from a cabin crew mob.It seems to me that there are two significant admissions here.
1. You would feel the need for protection if you were to open your mouth.
2. You have absolutely no idea of the state of BASSA's accounts.
Both of which are deplorable, more so for a 'rep.'

Litebulbs

7th Nov 2010, 14:56

Rex,

A lovely bit of spin.

Why should I have any idea of BASSA accounts?

I doubt very much if I would need any protection.

Neither deplorable.

Entaxei

7th Nov 2010, 15:12

Thanks LB - but I'm just a chicken livered coward of impeccable breeding.

However, the image that comes to mind immediately following the question, must equal 'the King has no clothes on', before the world descends upon the luckless questioner.

A large part of the conumdrum here would appear to revolve around the statement that BASSA is not a union, but just a branch of Unite. The problem with this, is that BASSA seem to have sucessfully changed their own rules and regulations, such that they seem to have almost complete autonomy in the way in which they operate.

Mind you that could just be a sweeping generalisation!! ;)

LD12986

7th Nov 2010, 16:08

From this post on the CC thread, it seems that DH does not intend on going anywhere soon:

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/429534-ba-cc-industrial-relations-current-airline-staff-only-56.html#post6044063

Wow xxxxxx what a really unpleasant post. So unpleasant in fact I was tempted not to respond but because of my professional duty I will try to explain -
Firstly I am not saying mistakes have not been made along this very long road, that would have been an impossible task to deliver. No one - even you - can surely claim to be 100% perfect. But since we released news of Columbus I think our successes have outweighed our minuses. My conscience is very clean on that score.
But for many reasons (some of them impossible to be 100% public about) I believe this recent decision taken to be another plus in the overall bigger picture. Read on

As I have said many times this dispute is just not about BASSA v BA. We have to factor in a third very important party and that is Unite - and that is a political minefield that has to be "played" "nurtured" and "manipulated". No, that is not an ideal situation - I would much rather we were the master of our own destiny (and maybe we will be one day) - but for the duration of this dispute, at least, we have to make do with what we have got. Quite a few reps wanted to reject the deal, myself and Lizanne included, but weighing up the practicalities and the fact Woodley would have been reluctant to give us an IA ballot without taking the deal to the membership, we all agreed after a long debate and vote to remain neutral to enable a consultative process to take place - in contrast to 2007.

Walsh would not have that. We could have then told him where to stick it, but - and this is crucial - in the end the importance of letting YOU tell him where to stick it (if that was what you wanted) swayed the argument and we very reluctantly let the ballot progress with a red ringed "recommendation". We were confident the membership would see why we were doing what we were. We would get to where we want to be albeit it taking a little longer. Now to answer the nasty bit

As for developing some balls - not a phrase I particulary like using but let me tell you something. I have known Lizanne for 35 years, and no stewardess has "bigger balls" - in fact no person I know is as loyal, straight-talking, unafraid and unflinching against all odds. She is plain talking, fearless and probabably the most unselfish, generous person I have ever known. Your post is incredibly insulting and totally unwarranted. You should have been around on the day the Daily Mail plastered her face all over their front page in an attempt to turn the general public against her. She caught the tube to London that day - she had a duty to represent you. That xxxxxx took balls!
As for myself - well I'll just give you facts. I have participated in every strike in BA over the last 35 years and been on every picket line. I have been suspended 4 times, faced three gross misconduct charges - 2 of which I survived. Last time I was not so lucky but I knew what was right and what was wrong and gritted my teeth. So sticking up for my union rights I got dismissed. I knew all along that was my likely fate but because I believed I was in the right and could not let BA dictate to me how and when to conduct my union responsibilties I made the stand. I sacrificed a career because, for the future branch secretaries of BASSA and the future reps - it was the right thing to do and I would do it again tomorrow. And you want me to grow some balls? You do?

Well xxxxxx, the good news for you is that come Dec 2011 - 13 months time - you will be able to display how big your balls are and stand for either Chairman or Branch Secretary because I am not standing and I believe Lizanne too is stepping down. Outsiders ie non reps are quite entitled to step in and stand for the 2 leadership positions, so I will look forward to receiving nominations from those of you who think you could do a better job. Seriously xxxxxxx you seem quite a warrior so give serious consideration to putting your name forward.

rethymnon

7th Nov 2010, 17:00

on the other forum, there is a calculation that puts this at circa £60,000 pa in addition to his BA salary, allowances etc.

surely the Revenue cannot be ignoring that sort of additional income -assuming of course the calculation is close to the truth?

this really does all come back to the membership: only they can remedy this situation. 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilance' and 'a sick society will look to sick leadership' are two phrases that come to mind. ultimately, the members must act - even if that 'act' is continuing acquiescence.

Entaxei

7th Nov 2010, 17:02

"Outsiders ie non reps are quite entitled to step in and stand for the 2 leadership positions, so I will look forward to receiving nominations from those of you who think you could do a better job."

Is this an indication that the current holders, DH & Lizanne, are going to select the nominees to recommend to the members!!

Does anyone know the current actual rules that would apply to these elections?

TSR2

7th Nov 2010, 17:25

so I will look forward to receiving nominations from those of you who think you could do a better job."

From the information posted on this thread, I think the average person on the street could not possibly do a worse job.

notlangley

7th Nov 2010, 18:01

Transgressors are "bystanders, encouragers and contributors".

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/07/british-airways-disciplinary-rules-ballot)

Colonel White

7th Nov 2010, 22:20

Notlangley

ahhh. I see you have found another nugget of journalism in the mould of Woodward and Bernstein. Interestingly, the Grauniad article fails singulary to produce any evidence. It has all the hallmarks of a conversation with a bloke in the pub. Once again we are treated to tales of shadowy groups who are alleged to have spied on BA staff. Interesting that even Unite, when asked, refrained from comment. Maybe the upper echelons of the union are in cahoots with BA management:hmm:

I'm not sure what the Guardian is seeking to achieve by publishing this article. It sounds as if the paper wishes to whip up enthusiasm amongst crew for a rejection of the offer put forward. I just hope that the paper will be on hand to provide assistance to cabin crew who might be out of pocket as a consequence. It's very easy to be an armchair Trot, especially when it's not your job on the line.

Litebulbs

8th Nov 2010, 00:35

fails singulary to produce any evidence.

Should sit well on the threads.

Litebulbs

8th Nov 2010, 01:02

Now I should support it and say "look at nasty BA", but it doesn't feel right at all. Imagine the first time it was challenged in court and the damage it would do.

notlangley

8th Nov 2010, 06:27

I apologise Colonel White and to all others._ It was bad judgement on my part to point at this particular newspaper article._ The anonymous person who gave this malevolent material to the reporter is clearly a member of BASSA or similar whose motive is to destroy with lies and bent words._ I should have had the maturity to ignore this newspaper article.

Apologies again. Notlangley

Diplome

8th Nov 2010, 07:09

NotLangley

No reason to apologize. Though I agree with others about the lack of facts to give more depth to the story, it is out there and knowing that BASSA is this thin re complaints is interesting in itself.

And to members of the forum my apologies in advance for any particulary bad typing today. Injured my arm yesterday andtrying to do most computer work with one hand.

Joao da Silva

8th Nov 2010, 07:12

PPrune

I hope that you are going to provide a counselling service for when the BA industrial dispute ends.

There will be a large hole in the lives of some posters :E

notlangley

8th Nov 2010, 07:35

There will be a large hole in the lives of some posters
Not for another 25 years if the NUM is any example.

This hanging-on-to-the-past can be a serious impairment._ It does make sense of the point in the letter that said that relations between Union and BA must improve._ I wonder if this means that the three year period before the restoration of privileges will be extended to five years, ten years, unless and until relations do improve.

Diplome

8th Nov 2010, 07:36

Joao da Silva:

A bit amusing that you make such a comment while referring to critical observations regarding Mr. Holley as "character assassination".

The situation between BA and BASSA has many individuals interested, though a full life is possible while remaining informed.

Many on this board can also walk and chew gum at the same time. :)

Joao da Silva

8th Nov 2010, 08:03

Ah, but the difference is, Diplome, that I have not named any particular individuals, nor have I suggested that my comments apply to all here.

Neptunus Rex

8th Nov 2010, 09:04

From the latest Holleygram on that other thread:
It would appear Unite and BA agreed these on Friday, and Saturday lunchtime the senior BASSA reps saw the appendix containing the litigation details for the first time. Translation: Holley, La La et al, yet again completely sidelined by Unite.

Snas

8th Nov 2010, 09:32

In amongst Mr Holley’s latest ranting he does actually make an interesting point, in that those that have been dismissed don’t get to vote on an offer which would remove their ability to be represented, and funded, by Unite should they take court action over their dismissal.

I hadn’t considered that side effect and it’s an interesting situation.

That aside he does seem to be pushing the bounds of the agreement when it comes to recommending the offer, if his words collapse it and the offer is pulled (which I don’t personally think BA will do) he will have then unilaterally have decided the result for all members.

The Blu Riband

8th Nov 2010, 10:43

those that have been dismissed don’t get to vote on an offerDH is really desperate now. He originally included ACAS participation in the disciplinaries, now he wants crew to vote against it. What can else BA do?

he will have then unilaterally have decided the result for all members. He has already decided! He is clearly challenging BA to pull the offer.

the senior BASSA reps saw the appendix containing the litigation details for the first timeWhy is this union so disorganised? Does it really take 3 weeks to get a Bassa rep to turn up and read a Unite document?

Ancient Observer

8th Nov 2010, 11:05

Joao is so right...............

"There will be a large hole in the lives of some posters"

Those of us who have observed this dispute for the last couple of years will obviously have no life left if the dispute is ever resolved.

My immediate thought was to raise a subscription fund for bassa so that it could afford to continue to fight the good fight against BA and those others of a capitalist persuasion, who were repressing the working class CSDs with their continued accumulation of previously expropriated surplus wage labour, but then I realised that all the combatants, from the bassa branch sec and his Heritage CSDs through to the monumentally incompetent BA management shower were all very much better paid than me.

But maybe Joao has identified a new business opportunity for me. I should set up as a pprune counsellor, to counsel and give advice to those poor folk who become alienated from society and who suffer from anomie (Durkheim) if this dispute is ever resolved. (Thinks - I'll only charge 300 UKP/hour plus expenses. bassa and BA can afford that)

However, as baggersup has reminded us - follow the money. There is not much chance of my new business taking off, as the dispute will not end while the Branch sec is raking in between 5% and 8% of about 2 million UKP of subs.

Remind me when it does end. Counselling services - guaranteed outcomes, only 300 UKP /hour, and the first session at a special introductory offer of UKP 500/hour.

Diplome

8th Nov 2010, 11:12

Snas:

It is an interesting issue but one that would be of concern only if the vote was close enough for those few militants who have been dismissed to have had their votes capable of making a difference in the outcome. Otherwise its a moot point.

Right now I don't think that Holley is thinking of what BA will do as much as he has been trying to manipulate around Unite. It is obvious that BASSA's conduct has been the subject of some discussion among the big guys and BASSA has received some rather firm instructions regarding their communications.

Unfortunately for Unite, Holley just can't help himself. Its almost laughable how little restraint this man has in the face of any critical commentary.

Perhaps Holley is hoping that the General Secretary election will go his way and a new, more militant Unite, will sweep in and save BASSA from this travesty of their own making.

I remain surprised that the BASSA membership can read these messages of disorganization and not demand improved representation.

Ancient Observer: Good luck with the counseling career. Keep office hours in a good sushi establishment and I might even spring for a session just for the fun of it.

...and I agree. There is a possibility that with Mr. Holley at the head there is simply no negotiated conclusion possible. Fascinating set of circumstances for BASSA and its members.

Ancient Observer

8th Nov 2010, 11:13

A further part of vct's history lesson.

It wasn't just any old tobacco tins that were used to collect subs at branch level. The had to be the larger Old Holborn tins, as the UK's currency in those days included pennies that were so large and heavy that only the biggest tins would do.

However, Old Holborn was a relatively expensive tobacco, so branches had to duck, dive and deal in order to get enough tins of Old Holborn size...............and no matter what the branch Sec did, those tins grew legs and disappeared at an amazing rate..............

Entaxei

8th Nov 2010, 11:30

Because there's no one there but drunken duncan?

As he is no longer the Branch Secretary and as such has no authority?, with a quantity of reps dismissed or suspended, is there an audience available?

Is there a figure anywhere of the normal number of reps then in existance when this all blew up in Q4/2009

The number dismissed or suspended and the number of volunteers DD called for some weeks ago, when the withdrawal of facilities hit and he did not appear to consider appointing replacement or additional reps - if such authority was in being of course.

For all we know, we could just be responding to the many ramblings of a drunken ghost writer.

Joao - Lisbon

Fear not - The use of the word Drunken in reference to Duncan, is only a fond reflection of his many posts, which for the past year or more, have entertained us with accounts of the quantities of alcohol that he had drunk or intended consuming. :E

vctenderness

8th Nov 2010, 11:41

Ancient Observer

8th Nov 2010, 11:52

VCT
That's what it was like on Merseyside. Maybe your memory is from a richer area.

Entaxei

8th Nov 2010, 14:02

Funny thing, I can't remember anyone ever trying to do a runner with one of those full of coppers - although I think today that would be a hernia job on the Saga policy!

manintheback

8th Nov 2010, 15:29

End game soon. BA have to get closure on this. Xmas period not that far off so I would expect a SOSR to be coming the Crews way on about the 2nd Jan. 90 days later its finished.

vctenderness

8th Nov 2010, 16:08

VCT
That's what it was like on Merseyside. Maybe your memory is from a richer area.

Down here in the beautiful south they used Ogdens Nut Brown Flake;)

MPN11

8th Nov 2010, 19:43

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/429534-ba-cc-industrial-relations-current-airline-staff-only-58.html

Post 1146 ... I honestly can't be bothered to either cross-reference or even quote the ranting.

Summarised ... "Everyone hates us, even Unite, fight on to the death, BA can't survive". :} :} :}

LD12986

8th Nov 2010, 21:19

Is the pressure cooker about to burst?

RTR

8th Nov 2010, 21:42

What pressure cooker. It seems to me that the pressure cooker has blown its valve. Four unions at each others throats says it all about this dispute. That unsavory offering by Amicus/CC89 shows that they are running around like headless chickens. Their rhetoric is intimidatory and BASSA have all but lost the will to live - let alone the plot. It is a hopeless mess been bought about by stiff necked intransigence, self serving reps and a group of reps who haven't got a clue.

Unite are mastering this dispute right now having got BA to offer a reasonable solution. No other result is possible and the sooner everyone recognizes it the better. The best is now on offer and it should be accepted.

The idea that they can get control of BA is stupid beyond words. BA have had enough of unions trying to run the airline - now the experts are back in control. If the unions don't like it there is always the knackers yard.

Diplome

9th Nov 2010, 02:08

Reading BASSA's latest notices and the most recent one from Amicus/CC89 my first thought is...

"They are offering nothing....absolutely nothing to their members".

Its important to remember that these are the Unions that stated they would have "staff travel back in five minutes" and with that representation ensured its loss.

This missive is full of personal anger regarding Amicus/CC89 and BASSA reps not being shown the respect they so crave and feel they deserve...but they do nothing to earn that respect.

Where is the reasoned and thoughtful argument regarding what Amicus/CC89 and BASSA would request at a negotiating table and what improved results they would expect to obtain for their members? I'm not reading it.

As for discussion regarding the positives and negatives that must seriously be thought through by each member what is offered is this denial of reality.

Everything is on our side, don't forget that. Ask yourself this question;

How long can British Airways hold out against a proactive union that uses it best resource proudly and wisely: REGULARindustrial action? How long could Willie Walsh sustain the cost of the VCC's, falling bookings because people won’t trust the airline to deliver, the loss of market share and brand erosion and all the other costs that have totalled in excess of £200 million. We would like to know the real cost of this dispute to date.

While I am sure that BA is taking the threat of industrial action seriously to state that "Everything is on our side" is to deny recent history. The imposition (imposed only after BASSA and Amicus refused to negotiate) is a reality, there is no support from other divisions in BA and BA and its employees have proven that they will not allow a group of militants to bring the airline down.

Recent financial reports prove that BA and its employees are more than capable of weathering attempts to hold the company hostage.

The risk to striking cabin crew is significant and it is obvious that everything is not on BASSA's or Amicus' "side".

I remain genuinely stunned at the communications and actions of these Unions. It's so far from my personal observations concerning other Unions facing difficult negotiations.

If BASSA is brought down it will not be due to the actions of BA.

MCOflyer

9th Nov 2010, 03:26

Well said and spot on! These two unions just do not understand what is going on and will lead their members to whatever you call your unemployment queue in the UK.

notlangley

9th Nov 2010, 07:17

What was previously on the other thread was a private e-mail._ However the Amicus committee have now put it into the public domain:-______link (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)
Nevertheless it is a pity that they have not clarified this mystifying paragraphAnd why can’t our BASSA colleagues include a letter, already published, in the voting pack that tells you how they feel about the offer? Maybe because it might persuade you to do the right thing?I cannot guess what this "letter" might be saying._ But it is published._ Does anyone have a copy?

Hipennine

9th Nov 2010, 08:58

I really thought that this dispute was just going to finally wither away. However, the sheer intransigence (whether semi-covertly by BASSA, or openly by Amicus) being demonstrated and advocated to members, is pointing increasingly to a bloody showdown.

To the informed observer, it is clear that for too many years, BA's Management created a parallel universe in IFCE, where the normal rules of industrial engagement and organisational effectiveness have been abandoned in favour of some apparent desire to be seen to be nice to employees and particularly the Unions. A generation of employees now believe that to be the norm, and can't comprehend that BA is now determined (neccesarily) to revert to the universe that most of us inhabit. Perhaps the Reps, having been closest to the previous management approach, are the greatest confirmed believers in the reality of the parallel universe - up until this dispute, their entire experience is of the old style regime. They therefore find the greatest difficulty in coming to terms with the "normal" universe.

Unfortunately, all the signs are that the Branch Committees and a goodly prportion of the membership simply can't come to terms with the new reality, and there can therefore only be one outcome.

just an observer

9th Nov 2010, 09:46

the normal rules of industrial engagement and organisational effectiveness have been abandoned in favour of some apparent desire to be seen to be nice to employees and particularly the Unions.

It wasn't so much a desire to be seen to be nice, as fear of the consequences of strike action in one of the areas where flying could be stopped by a strike. BA took the easy way out, gave CC what they wanted.

BA cannot ask the rest of the staff to take pay freezes and productivity cutbacks in manpower (ie working harder) if they aren't seen to be applying that to all staff including CC.

BA have now found ways to keep flying - the VCC/wetlease - and deter CC from striking - staff travel, and not being able to go sick, which many CC did in the past rather than actually strike. BA also need to be seen to protect strike breakers from harassment, hence the disciplinaries.

Skylion

9th Nov 2010, 10:55

Let's not forget a matter of much greater importance, so far ignored by "analysts" and the unions,- and most of the staff.

On 24th January BA as a standalone independent company ceases to exist. It becomes a component of Spanish registered International consolidated Airlines Group (IAG) and has to fight for funds within that group.

Fortunately for the BA part of the business, Iberia is a similar, high cost legacy carrier with problems of old fashioned labour agreements, an indifferent overall reputation for service and although it has an attractive and under utilised base , Spain isn't actually on the way to anywhere other than South America for passengers originating outside a corner of southern Europe and South America.

It is time that the unions , shareholders and all other interested parties moved on and started thinking about this rather than wasting their time on relative trivials like this particular dispute. There's a tsunami out there!

Chuchinchow

9th Nov 2010, 12:12

Amicus/CC89 and BASSA reps not being shown the respect they so crave and deserve

They may certainly "crave" respect but (IMO) they most certainly do not "deserve" it.

Respect is a quality that must be earned.

Diplome

9th Nov 2010, 14:25

My error..should have placed quotes around that section.

Its a line from a movie that I've always remembered. Spoken by a rather greasy character who is his own worst enemy who just couldn't understand why the world was not recognizing him for the fabulous leader he felt he was.

notlangley

9th Nov 2010, 16:37

Jerry Hicks says

almost certainly as a result of growing anger on the cabin crew ‘forum’.

link (http://www.jerryhicks4gs.com/2010/11/ba-cabin-crew-battered-and-bruised.html)

Snas

9th Nov 2010, 17:11

From that link above: -

The atmosphere of fear in the work place is so great that issues of safety are not being reported through fear of reprisals from managers and other senior personnel. Numerous safety reports sent to British Airways and the CAA are felt by crew to be ignored.

I dont believe a word of the above and suggest that Unite make the allergation direct to the CAA if they do, backed up with evidence if they can.

Mariner9

9th Nov 2010, 17:45

AV Flyer

9th Nov 2010, 18:26

Not one of the various union communications linked on here in respect of the BA offer provide any caution whatsoever to their members of the consequences of rejecting this deal. Nor provide any guidance as to what they hope a subsequent strike will achieve.

Shameful.

I feel that as the instigator of the current offer, and particularly as both BASSA & CC89 have now openly stated they do not recommend acceptance, Unite should step in here and warn both the Branches (that BA could pull the offer) and their individual members of the dire consequences of rejecting this deal. It is clear the Branch leaderships have descended into "we will fight to the death without any thought to what we might achieve and to hell with the consequences" mode and any rational thought has been abandoned.

Over to you Unite..........

LD12986

9th Nov 2010, 21:38

I think it was planned by BASSA that they would send a letter with the ballot information, and BA may have already raised objections regarding the content of the letter.

Either way, Unite need to get control of this situation and explain clearly to members the implications of voting no.

This is such a farce!

pcat160

10th Nov 2010, 03:15

How long will it be before one of the retiring General Secretaries of Unite has to “Take One for the Team” and tell BASSA/CC89 that there will be no vote for Industrial Action much less an actual Strike. Look at the upside and downside for Unite if there is actually a strike. Unless a new justification for IA can be found that Unite’s legal council will guarantee (guarantee may be too strong) is not a continuation of the previous IA Unite can not authorize a strike ballot. The potential liability to Unite could be significant. In the US we would ask outside council for an opinion letter. Even if this issue could be dealt with there are other costs to Unite of a strike. Legal expenses defending their reason for striking as well as legal expenses defending those that may be terminated could be substantial and ongoing for a long time. There would also be the expense of strike pay. What could be accomplished other than causing BA some financial stress? Nothing, but Mixed Fleet would grow rapidly and BA would be rid of some employees they do not need.
Even if a strike was called, how many would actually strike? Not many in my opinion. This time any reasonable person (I know there may be a good number that do not qualify) will know the consequences of striking. What Staff Travel they have will be gone, they may be sacked and have to deal with that through the system, and BA will continue to operate the majority of their flights. What could be gained by a striker? Would some BASSA/CC89 supporter please let me know.

Ancient Observer

10th Nov 2010, 10:56

The key legal issue is whether or not a new reason (which is unconnected to the old reason) can be found for striking.

If individuals strike without a new reason, they lose their protection from whatever the employer decides to do about the employee's breach of contract.
BA might welcome such a strike, as it would enable them to fire the strikers whilst retaining all the non-striking crew.

However, the issue in this case is not really about the employees.

If any official of a TU incites a person to breach their contract, outside a "protected" strike, then the TU is liable for damages. If bassa or cc89 officials incite their members to do anything other than what BA tell them to do (remember the blinds fiasco), then Unite becomes liable to pay any and all of BA's costs...............and those costs could include "damage to reputation".
That's why the Unite Exec retain to themselves the right to authorise any form of Industrial Action.....................but the Exec are also s***-scared of "renegade" officials.
If bassa/cc89 do anything naughty, Unite will write to BA within 24 hours to disown their actions.
er, stalemate?

rethymnon

10th Nov 2010, 13:38

have just 'enjoyed' the link to this on the other forum!

it's so woolworths! 'santa's grotto' only needs slight manipulation!

Lou Scannon

10th Nov 2010, 16:14

I have just suggested on the "Grotto" link that the BASSA leaders who didn't strike themselves over the requirement for CSD's to work the cabin, chip in for the hardship fund.

I wonder if it will appear?

notlangley

10th Nov 2010, 19:16

Appendix II___________link (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

Mariner9

10th Nov 2010, 20:40

LD12986

10th Nov 2010, 21:09

Interesting link NL. It would apppear to cast doubt on the many posts on here suggesting a split between Unite/BASSA/CC89. All three seem united in their condemnation of the deal, and not a single word of caution to their members regarding the consequences of rejection.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but whilst CC89 and BASSA are united in their condemnation of the deal, the commentary linked to above, is not the official line from the Unite leadership (which negotiated this deal with BA)?

notlangley

10th Nov 2010, 21:50

As you say baggersup - there will very likely be an offer by BA to former BASSA members who have left since 25 June._ This will increase the number of ex BASSA members who have accepted substantially the same offer.

The new General Secretary of Unite will be tempted by this growing group within the shrinking Heritage Cabin Crew._ The newly elected General Secretary may well see these as potential members of Unite._ But members in some other way that does not give power to the troublesome cults.

The cults could become more concerned with the lower ranks of cc if it was easy for Union members to anonymously switch funds between BASSA/cc89/PCCC groups._ This could be done if the individual cc paid his annual subscription directly to Unite - and ticked one of several boxes for the 5% subsidy to a group selected by this tick._ There would need to be one more box to tick - a charity for the member who hated and detested all existing groups._ Ie tick BASSA or cc’89 or PCCC or charity._ Each group would try with their words (on their web sites) and their deeds to behave in an attractive way to ordinary cabin crew members.

It is all in the numbers._ And numbers will be listened to.

(p.s. 5% is a guess - it could be 6% or 10%)

Colonel White

10th Nov 2010, 23:02

Baggersup. If the Unite members reject this offer BA don't have to do anything. They could be a little vindictive and rescind the staff travel they have returned as a goodwill gesture, but that would probably be a mite inflammatory. If BA sit tight a) Unite are unlikely to grant a request for a further strike ballot as they have already said that the offer on the table is the best deal going. b) given the lack of incentive for Unite to call a further strike ballot, the status quo will persist. At some point the BASSA membership will get hacked off by their leaders' singular inability to do anything about the situation and will either call for fresh elections or start leaving in droves. As soon as the membership drops below the threshold BA will derecognise the union.

The ball is firmly in the union's court. Given that Tony Woodley has endorsed the deal, I suspect that the Unite leadership know that the legal action they have outstanding is a bit of a long shot and being able to say that they dropped it in order to get a decent deal from BA is not only a useful face saving exercise, it is also a cost saver as well. They are probably reluctant to get too involved with the dismissals and other disciplinary cases as the dirty laundry that might be aired could have a nasty comeback on the union (they allowed members to do what ?? in the name of the union ) . The Unite leadership know that it's game over and high time to move on to something more pressing. The BASSA executive still think they can operate as an independant union, but have no place in the negotiations. BA have stated that they will only deal with Unite as BASSA and CC89 are branches of the union.

From the members standpoint, the likelihood that many will heed a strike call next time around is low. Last time they walked out, they lost staff travel for six months. Now, knowing that BA have no qualms about pulling the plug on this perk and that the union is not able to get it returned in short order, they may be more cautious about wanting to walk out again. They also lost a lot more than just the few days pay that they were on strike for. The adage of 'once bitten, twice shy' is pretty appropriate. If the BASSA executive persist in seeking strike action, they may be dismayed at how irrelevant they are percieved by their members, their union leaders and their employer. Time to learn some new tricks.

notlangley

11th Nov 2010, 08:06

Caribean Boy on the other thread says
Quote
From the intranet (published today)

Mixed Fleet launched on 1 November, with the first flight to Prague. Other initial Mixed Fleet routes are Pisa and St Petersburg. Las Vegas and Denver will come on line in December. 145 crew have already started or completed training, with plans on track to deliver a further 120 crew per month
end of Caribean Boy's quote

This matches with the "BA News" on thebasource (http://www.thebasource.com/) on 1 November. However the statistics of new crew is "new-news" and relevant to forward predictions (1,400 new crew per year)
The first flight crewed by BA’s new Mixed Fleet cabin crew took off today. BA854 London - Prague was operated by A319 G-EUOD. The Mixed Fleet cabin crew are employed on new contracts and will be type rated for the A318/A319/A320/A321 and Boeing 777. Initial Mixed Fleet routes are Prague, St Petersburg and Pisa with Las Vegas and Denver to be added in December. Heathrow flights will operate with either existing or Mixed Fleet crew but the two will not work together on the same flight.

Mariner9

11th Nov 2010, 09:46

There seems to be a broad consensus on here and the other thread that Unite will not allow a strike ballot. However I am not so sure. The Unite communication (and it is Unite, not BASSA) linked by NL from their website says as follows:

Amongst other things this means that the union and its members surrenders the right to seek permission to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal that crewing levels, though collectively agreed and incorporated into the contract of employment, were never intended to be contractually binding. The logic of this decision is absurd. The Court of Appeal accepted that the decision of the trial judge back in February was completely flawed and could not stand. They rejected too BA’s principal argument that an agreement about crewing levels was “not apt” to be incorporated into the contracts of employment. But they held that neither BA or the union negotiators (nor the members) could have intended that crewing levels were binding in spite of the express provision in the contracts incorporating the collective agreements spelling out the crewing levels. In other words they held that we were agreeing that BA could alter the agreed crewing levels unilaterally for any reason at any time. This needs to be appealed.

The litigation section also means that the union to which we all pay our subscriptions agrees not to use those subscriptions to support any legal claims covered by Appendix II - no matter how outrageous or unlawful the situation in which you find yourself. One wonders: what is the point of being in a union then?

That is hardly the communication of a Union enticing its members to accept a proposal. If the union do not apparently want their members to accept a deal, and TW says no better deal can be obtained through negotiation, what else is left other than a strike?

Meanwhile, we've got BASSA, led by sacked and retired BA staff (that cannot be sacked by BA or even lose any wages or ST through a strike) who are chomping at the bit for a strike in a seeming desire to gain revenge on BA for "losing" the last round of strikes.

So my money is still on another strike, despite its utter pointlessness, and likely disastrous consequences for the strikers.

Snas

11th Nov 2010, 10:01

If the union do not apparently want their members to accept a deal, and TW says no better deal can be obtained through negotiation, what else is left other than a strike?

They could always accept that a strike is their only option, and also accept that a strike wont work, and therefore accept defeat.

It's an option!

BetterByBoat

11th Nov 2010, 10:14

I doubt that is a Unite website - the url might be UniteBA but despite the Unite and BA logo, all the contacts are Amicus \ CC89 (and there is an Amicus logo up there as well).

The content seems sadly reminiscent of a teenage tantrum where common sense has gone out of the window in favour of blaming everyone \ anyone for their own predicament.

Ultimately, I'd expect a "No" vote to the agreement and then the ball is in Unites court (could be quite literally). Do they call for further IA which all but the most blinkered know will fail? Or do they just ignore it and hope (like BA) that BASSA will gradually fade away?

Hotel Mode

11th Nov 2010, 10:39

The Unite communication (and it is Unite, not BASSA) linked by NL from their website says as follows:

That is absolutely not Unites communication. Its CC89s website and their comms.

slf22

11th Nov 2010, 11:59

From a poster on flyertalk
Unite has suspended the ballot on the latest offer:

Statement by Tony Woodley, Joint General Secretary:

"From the outset of this dispute, Unite has endeavoured, under the guidance of cabin crew representatives, to negotiate a settlement that would be acceptable to our members and address their real concerns. It has been made clear on many occasions that Unite and I personally will not under any circumstances recommend to our cabin crew members any offer that was not also recommended by our elected representatives.

Shortly after this latest offer was negotiated, including as it does significant modifications of BA’s previous position in relation to staff travel and discipline, it was reluctantly agreed at a meeting of cabin crew representatives that it be recommended. This was in order to ensure that the offer could go out to a ballot, giving the members a chance to express their views, since British Airways had made a positive recommendation from all parts of Unite involved in the dispute a precondition for the eventual full restoration of the staff travel concessions unjustifiably withdrawn from crew who took lawful industrial action.

Our cabin crew representatives have, on reflection, decided that they can no longer support a recommendation of this offer to the membership, even in the heavily qualified terms originally agreed, and have so advised cabin crew. Accordingly, the union will no longer make such a recommendation. Any sense that this offer is being presented to cabin crew over the heads of unwilling representatives would be deeply damaging to the union and its members above all. Our unity has been a vital source of strength throughout this dispute.

Under these circumstances, I have suspended the ballot on the offer and will meet with all of our cabin crew representatives as a matter of urgency to consider the next steps. Our representatives will determine what course of action should be followed in order to secure an offer that can be recommended to the members, who will ultimately decide when this dispute can be settled."

Richard228

11th Nov 2010, 12:30

Quotes from BASSA, 20th October 2010: (my emphasis)

"Very shortly, later this afternoon, we will publish all details of the offer for you to consider."

"Is it perfect? No. Far from it. Does it address the issues of staff travel and disciplinaries? Yes it does. Is it to a level that is satisfactory? That will be your decision."

"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."

"We are all the union, every single one of us, therefore we are not in the business of denying you that opportunity. So please be assured you will get your chance to vote to accept or reject it."

"This has been a very bitter and damaging dispute for all sides and the airline as a whole. From that the resolution will never be perfect. This is a resolution. Does it go far enough? That’s for you to decide."

so a few weeks after this statement, BASSA have gone back on their word and are denying their members a voice.

Mariner9

11th Nov 2010, 12:44

Why delay the strike vote for a pesky formality like doing what they said (in writing) they would do in asking their members whether to accept an excellent offer or alternately prolong the dispute and risk losing their careers?

Well at least the question of whether Unite will actually allow a strike ballot will be answered soon enough. (It will have to be quick if they are to obtain their much-longed-for Christmas Strike).

notlangley

11th Nov 2010, 13:15

Presumably the Holly and the Ivy will now see us through two more Christmases.

SwissRef

11th Nov 2010, 13:23

Given that BA returned Staff Travel as a gesture of goodwill, whats the chance of them removing it again as this offer is not being accepted?

And I think BA are probably laughing about it.

No need to return ST with seniority. Most staff with no MTP - so less potential cost. Most staff with no pay rise - reduced cost. None of which will change while this dispute runs on. So cost savings to BA.

Any lost staff would be replaced with Mixed Fleet - cheaper again.

BA have gained all that. What have the strikers gained?

rethymnon

11th Nov 2010, 13:34

if Unite are withdrawing the ballot, it will be a victory for the (mostly sacked) reps over the members. it's difficult to read it any other way and going on past performance, Unite are gambling on the membership being supine enough to accept it.

Snas

11th Nov 2010, 13:51

Unite are gambling on the membership being supine enough to accept it.

I agree, this is amazing.
Bassa members should be asking "Why am I not able to vote to reject the offer?" at the very least.

Richard228

11th Nov 2010, 13:55

I think BA can sit back and watch for now, and repeat their message about "100% long haul to fly" should any strike be forthcoming.

They have already won so much from this dispute, and they have two jokers in their pack:

1) If all staff keep their staff travel per the last agreement (despite the union reneging upon it), then how many strikers, when it comes to the crunch, will prepared to stomach a further strike, purely to continue the campaign, when they know that another strike will result in their ST being removed again - no "5 minute" return folks!

2) Unprotected Strike. Quite what the union will ballot members on is unclear, as so much has been covered in previous private negotiations, and in the public domain, that it will be difficult to substantiate a new protected reason to ballot. If BA call the strike unprotected, and commence proceedings accordingly, how many staff will be silly enough to actually strike and leave their careers in the hands of the lawyers?

....especailly based upon BASSA's recent history in the courts

Chuchinchow

11th Nov 2010, 13:58

Presumably the Holly and the Ivy will now see us through two more Christmases.I don't know about the Holly, but The Ivy does a fantastic Christmas dinner!

On another note, I see that a prominent poster on the other thread has upped sticks from her previous domicile and now resides in Canterbury.

Is this because it is closer to LGW or because of the superior facilities of the local cathedral?

The way things are going for the BASSA die-hards they are certainly in need of divine intervention.

Edited for advertising.

Chuchinchow

11th Nov 2010, 14:03

We have not heard a single peep out of that erstwhile long-distance commuter and prolific poster, Ava Hannah from South Africa.

Is she still (allegedly) spending thousands of Rands to get to work every month, or has she returned to the recesses of BASSA spin doctors' imaginations?

I suspect the latter.

rethymnon

11th Nov 2010, 14:17

MissM moved location shortly after I pointed out there is a 'Dover' in California. just coincidence.

Chuchinchow

11th Nov 2010, 14:20

MissM moved location

And there was me, trying to protect that delicate flower's feelings by not naming her!

I suppose she just might have upped sticks to Canterbury in New Zealand? Oh silly me, she has not got her staff travel concession back yet!

R2D2-LHR

11th Nov 2010, 14:27

Does the M in the name stand for militant?:E

TopBunk

11th Nov 2010, 14:33

Well it certainly doesn't stand for Marple, as she shows no ability to rationalise events a come to a logical conclusion.:rolleyes:

... but then again, maybe I am wrong, after all it is a work of fiction:)

notlangley

11th Nov 2010, 14:42

On Flyertalk Speedbird218 quotes something from the BA Intranet - scroll down to posting 1057

the airline says
"We believe that British Airways cabin crew deserve the opportunity to vote on these proposals, which address all their concerns and represent a fair resolution of this dispute.

"The way forward is for all sections of Unite to put aside their internal divisions and allow crew to have a direct say on their own future."

___________link (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1107414-67-reject-bas-final-offer-latest-strike-discussion-71.html)

Entaxei

11th Nov 2010, 14:47

With all three Union elements, Unite, Amicus/CC89, BASSA, now agreeing, in the statements made in the last few days, we can clearly see that the Cabin Crew/Union Members, have no relevance or influence in any way to any of the issues with BA that the unions may have, real or imagined, or their intended actions.

Also it would appear that any reps still existing or involved, probably only have any voice if they agree with those that are driving the unions strategy, if that is not too grand a description.

The influences that now appear to be the driving forces in this conflict are;

TW, whose ambition is probably to retire with the crowing glory of politically (& financially) owning the labour party and co-ordinating nationwide strikes to bring down the coalition government. (No - crowing is not a spelling mistake!). Needs to go along, under pressure, with the other elements, otherwise seen to be weak and won't win his accolade.

New Unite General Secretary - currently infighting between half a dozen wouldbe's, including ancient warriors from the Coal, Motor and Docks industry, with a pedigree of wreaking industries and lives in the name of power, versus the Hammer & Sickle Marxists with the same ambitions. Personal power.

Hammer & Sickle boys, in the form of Jerry Hicks - seems to be gaining quite a base in various branches of Unite and possibly elsewhere, including Amicus/CC89, on what seems to be a base of pure rhetoric and has no relevance to/or intention of relying on/or needing members votes for taking action. Wants a strike - political power.

BASSA Branch Secretary and Chairman - desperately hanging onto power in order to keep their income coming in, until they can retire with a union pension at the earliest possible moment, appear not to place any importance on the needs and wishes of their members/reps and have no intention of arriving at any form of agreement with BA. Started as normal power demand now appears to be personal gain, but hates WW - will sabotage any attempt.

Reminds of McBeth, Blasted Heath and Witches Brew.

And still members of BASSA want/demand a strike!!! :rolleyes:

Chuchinchow

11th Nov 2010, 16:41

Well it certainly doesn't stand for Marple, as she shows no ability to rationalise events a come to a logical conclusion.

... but then again, maybe I am wrong, after all it is a work of fiction

Perhaps our esteemed fellow correspondent is also a work of (BASSA) fiction? After all, she is one of that drunken Duncan's most devoted disciples.

Safety Concerns

11th Nov 2010, 17:38

and you still consider this discussion to be objective?

are unions not actually run by the members?

If bassa members are so adamant that their leadership has got it wrong won't they vote with their feet?

This unfortunately remains in the most part an anti bassa, anti union thread.

Snas

11th Nov 2010, 17:56

If bassa members are so adamant that their leadership has got it wrong won't they vote with their feet?

Agree with us or leave...!
Do you consider that reasonable?

Mariner9

11th Nov 2010, 17:57

I dont think the discussion is objective SC, its clearly subjective.

Unite/BASSA/CC89 have withdrawn their members' chance of having a say in their own future.

If decrying this is anti-union then so be it.

Litebulbs

11th Nov 2010, 18:56

For those that are interested -

XpertHR > Article > British Airways cabin crew lose breach of contract appeal (http://www.xperthr.co.uk/article/106073/british-airways-cabin-crew-lose-breach-of-contract-appeal.aspx)

For those of you that are itunes enabled, there is an xperthr podcast on this too.

gr8tballsoffire

11th Nov 2010, 19:13

SC
You may have noticed that several thousand already have left!!

The 8-9000 members who still pay their dues are once again being denied their democratic right to vote (on a very generous BA offer) by a thoroughly discredited leadership who are hanging on by their fingertips at the edge of the precipice. Let's hope they don't take the majority of honest, hardworking decent colleagues with them.

This group of "reps" are the worst example of a union leadership looking after their own narrow interests. They are a disgrace to the whole union movement.

It is difficult to figure how they still have the support of approximately 4-500 members. Beyond belief!!:ugh:

gr8tballsoffire

11th Nov 2010, 19:25

SC
I should have added that the majority of comments are NOT anti union or anti BASSA, but anti the incompetent and anti-democratic leadership.

You say that the union is the members...you are absolutely right, Tell that to Holley/Malone and their acolytes.

Entaxei

11th Nov 2010, 20:27

"This unfortunately remains in the most part an anti bassa, anti union thread.
are unions not actually run by the members?"

Duncan - why do you continue to hide behind this meaningless label - "Safety Concerns" you are not - unless you're talking about window blinds of course.

You have got BASSA under your and LA's control and the idea of members actually being able to run the union is laughable, you have no intention of taking any action other than calling now for a strike over Christmas - forget the ballot and any form of democracy - presumably this will be on a show of hands at Bedfont.

So why don't you go away and tend to your tomatos.

Safety Concerns

11th Nov 2010, 21:15

you can all say what you want it makes no difference. Until bassa members either hand in their membership cards or call for a vote of no confidence in the leadership, everything is fine and dandy.

I would like to tend to my tomatoes but I am too busy preparing for a xmas strike.

RTR

11th Nov 2010, 21:21

Holley has demonstrated time and time again that he AND BASSA will not allow the members of BASSA the rights they have to be consulted on any matter they do not WANT them to be involved in. It is unconstitutional, unethical and downright outraqeous that they should be denied of the basic rights of a union. It is, therefore, beholding on UNITE that they instruct BASSA on the matter and bring them to heel.

If it does not happen then UNITE should demand that they resign forthwith.

Litebulbs

11th Nov 2010, 21:35

Interesting points, but I struggle with the union instructing the membership. You have to remember, they are a service supplier which is paid for by the membership. Much has been made of the bad old 70's on both threads, but when it suits, posters want to empower centralised control.

Dawdler

11th Nov 2010, 22:02

Your point about some people wanting to empower centralised control could easily be negated by Unite allowing a ballot on the deal, or indeed holding a ballot themselves over the heads of the BASSA and CC89 committees. What could be more democratic than allowing the members themselves to decide whether to accept the deal or reject it?

The members would then be responsible for the result, and their union officers for dealing with that result. What are Unite afraid of? Clearly they want rid of this dispute, but if the members as a whole are committed to carrying on, so be it.

Much like any professional advisor that you may employ, the union officials can only advise what the ramifications are of any course of action and deal with the outcome.

If your Doctor advises you not to skateboard on the motorway, but you insist on doing it, the Doctor is morally obliged to treat your injuries. Likewise, whilst taking union dues off workers the union are obliged to represent their members whether they believe in the action or not.

Entaxei

11th Nov 2010, 22:08

"you can all say what you want it makes no difference. Until bassa members either hand in their membership cards or call for a vote of no confidence in the leadership, everything is fine and dandy."

Hi Duncan - what does it feel like to emerge into the light after hiding away for so long. I must admit that your above message does encapsulate very nicely the conundrum that faces the Bassa members - their chance of being able to get a concerted call for a vote of no confidence in you is zero - given the scattered and roving nature of their occupation - and with the few reps left, it is unlikely that any rep or number of them, would be allowed to canvas for a vote - plus of course some members still believe that you are actually looking after their interests!!. You could always alter the rules of course.

You obviously feel that you have a hand of aces, and as you say, "EVERYTHING IS FINE AND DANDY".

So the only way that things are going to change, is to convince your members to leave - hopefully that process will have now started as they read your response. Unless of course Unite despose of you!.

PAXboy

11th Nov 2010, 22:38

When the Union (or those that speak loudest) said:Any sense that this offer is being presented to cabin crew over the heads of unwilling representatives would be deeply damaging to the unionOne can only surmise that they were deliberately making it easy for BA, who shall doubtless drive the cart and horses through the open gate.

The question I have is: does the postponement of this ballot allow those reps dismissed by BA to continue in their union post? When do those elections come up? Do tell me if I've missed something.

kappa

12th Nov 2010, 02:18

Baggersup, there is an opposite take from yours (post 642) on this situation set forth on the CC forum above in posts 1218 and 1219:

It is Unite that have withdrawn the ballot not Bassa and Amicus. Unite don't want it to go ahead because Bassa and Amicus have both recently said they will encourage a NO vote. Unite don't want a NO vote for the offer because that would make it hard for them to deny Bassa and Amicus another strike vote.There is additional reasoning in these two posts which I believe is more accurate interpretation than yours in which Unite has predicted a 'Yes' vote on the BA proposal. And I recall the wording used by Woodley about the ballot was “suspended”, pending talks between Unite and the two branches.

PAXboy

12th Nov 2010, 03:35

kappa, that would indicate you think that BASSA will only call the ballot when they think they'll get a No. If Unite think it's going be Yes and Woodley is now working behind the barricades (again) then this will indeed run on and BA can just get on with business. So, that's a win-win. No final showdown, and BASSA can claim they never lost! :E

Richard228

12th Nov 2010, 08:38

Tony Woodley of Unite said:

Any sense that this offer is being presented to cabin crew over the heads of unwilling representatives would be deeply damaging to the unionor to put it another way....

everyone in the union is equal, but reps are more equal than others.

Juan Tugoh

12th Nov 2010, 08:54

everyone in the union is equal, but reps are more equal than others

Spot on. The reps are no longer the elected representatives of the union members. The mandated election was suspended before the first aborted 12 days of Christmas fiasco until the dispute is settled. As DH cannot stand for re-election as he is no longer employed by BA, (the same is true for some other reps) there is no will within the BASSA reps to settle this dispute as it means the end of their power. For DH it also means the end of a lucrative source of revenue. The reps no longer have any interest in the democratic rights or wishes of the their members, this is all about personal power and influence.

Chuchinchow

12th Nov 2010, 09:24

Tray Surfer, over on the crew thread, has blithely informed her readers, colleagues (and her managers, come to that) thatI have no hesitation going in and out of the flight deck and feel that some Pursers are quite happy for me to do flight deck service. I still ask, crew permitting, if I can go in the flight deck for take off and landing, much to the dislike of some, but it is always welcomed by the flight crew.

If this cabin crew operative is happily joyriding in the cockpit for take off and for landing then 'ipso facto' her door position has been left unmanned.

Just what does this say for the safety of all on board Tray Surfer's flights during the most critical stages? Does the CAA know about this wanton violation? Surely flight safety is more important than Tray Surfer getting her jollies?

More to the point, does British Airways' leadership team condone this practice?

Tray Surfer

12th Nov 2010, 09:40

I think I need to correct some of what you may have thought...

When I stated "crew permitting", it meant the number of crew. i.e. if we are above the legal minimum required to be in the cabin, say for example 5 on an A320, or 6 on an A321, then there is no reason what so ever that I am able to go in the flight deck for take off and landing and it is positively encourage by our flight crew, which I can assure you would not happen if they thought it was not legal.

I really think you have completely over-reacted to my post without having any understanding of how we operate onboard. Maybe a better approach would have been to ask how I am able to do this instead of immediately accusing me and the airline of risking passenger safety.

Oh, and by the way, no need to be stereotypical to presume that because I am Cabin Crew (no need for the word "operative" on the end) that I am a woman... I am male.

Airclues

12th Nov 2010, 09:44

Churchinchow

Don't be silly. Tray Surfer said "crew permitting". This means that he/she would only request this if there are surplus crew to requirements. Nobody, including the captain, would allow it if this were not the case.
The 747 has 12 doors and 14 cabin crew. Are you saying that if a crew member went sick immediately before departure then they would be in "wanton violation" of CAA regulations if they were to depart with 13 crew?

Dave

Edit; Sorry, crossed with Tray Surfer

gr8tballsoffire

12th Nov 2010, 10:07

JT
Agree with your view re the reps self interest, however I would go a step further.
I don't believe the reps had anything other then their own narrow interests in mind at ANY time. This has been the most dysfunctional group of reps imaginable and the main reason they have been able to get away with it is the mobile nature of the membership.

I was a senior ground staff rep for a number of years and we were always around for our colleagues to take us to task if they were unhappy with any decisions. We were given very limited time away from our day jobs, so had a good understanding of the mood. We never took a penny from subs and probably spent more of our own resources than we claimed on expenses. I will always be proud of the way we represented our colleagues best interests honestly without politics or personal agendas. Years from now will the BASSA reps be able to say the same thing.

This bunch of BASSA reps seem to run the branch as their own personal fiefdom (Did I spell that correctly??? ).

PAXboy

12th Nov 2010, 11:24

That is the correct word!

fief
· n.
1 historical another term for fee (in sense 2).
2 a person’s sphere of operation or control.
– DERIVATIVES fiefdom n.
– ORIGIN C17: from Fr. (see fee).
Oxford Pocket v.10

I am looking forward to their final reckoning for IRRESPECTIVE of any genuine grievances and concerns they may have - to hobble your employer for over a year is totally short sighted. We are in the midst of a dire recession with much more hardship to come, and they are arguing in such a manner.

gr8tballsoffire

12th Nov 2010, 12:39

From the other forum

....just when you thought you'd seen it all! DH is holding court on BASSA forum and this is his latest posting (you may want to sit down incase you collapse laughing)

I tell you what this dispute has done, more than anything else and this is more important than anything tangible - it has told BA that they can't bully the membership without strong resistance. It has told BA they can't smash the union without strong resistance. It has told BA they can't just do what they please without strong resistance. This dispute has empowered you the membership to stand up and be heard. It has given you all a common purpose and it has given you pride and faith in the majority of your colleagues. It has proved that the little man in the street can oppose big corporate bullies. It has stopped BA in their tracks and quite possible helped this job from being completely worthless in 10 years time. Are you still on your old terms and conditions and has anyone forced you to new fleet? No they haven't dared. You are still earning the same money and allowances. This dispute is all about having a voice and the power to shape your destiny. I could go on all night but will finish up by saying No, Hatty, you have gained nothing you can touch and you are right those 4 things are a product of this dispute but my God how you have achieved more than you will ever know. Years from now you will fully realise what you have done. Rgds Duncan

Not quite Duncan...
New staffing levels
Loss of pay and allowances over strike period
Loss of staff travel
Cabin crew have become pariah figures in the media, amongst colleagues and the gneral public
Cost of union funds fighting unwinnable court cases
Dozens of sackings including your own due to bullyng and irresponsible behaviour
New Fleet up and running
Not allowing your members to have a voice
BA have got the savings they want and who knows what else is on the horizon
90 Day notice??

Congratulations Duncan...something to really be proud of.

I am sure in 10 years time you will be fondly remembered as the man who achieved all this.

Diplome

12th Nov 2010, 12:58

This is the point where informed SLF simply lose respect for Cabin Crew who remain supportive of BASSA.

Mr. Holley states:

Are you still on your old terms and conditions and has anyone forced you to new fleet? No they haven't dared. You are still earning the same money and allowances.

Yes, Cabin Crew are...but that was never a question.

What BA did "dare" was to offer influence over Mixed Fleet, stock shares, wage increases, etc., etc.. and BASSA said "No".

What Cabin Crew member with the intellect to brush their teeth can read the above quote and not say "I've had enough of this"?

I am past the point of believing that this is simply a group of individuals being taken advantage of by bad leaders. There IS such a thing as willful ignorance.

leiard

12th Nov 2010, 13:14

me thinks it is time to call in the men in white coats

Ancient Observer

12th Nov 2010, 13:14

As baggersup posted some time ago, in any TU issue, "Follow the Money".

I did not agree with that post at the time, but this dispute is so different, so peculiar, and so "outside the rules" of TU actions and UK Employee Relations that I suspect he is right.

There are big financial issues for the key players involved - the reps, the Chair, the Branch Sec., and until the Financial issues are out in the public domain via a proper Independent audit, then this dispute will never end.

The members need to demand that the branch should be properly audited for the last 4 years.

(The current audit is by current/ex CSDs!!!!!!!!!)

Diplome

12th Nov 2010, 13:39

In all honesty it sounds like Mr. Holley sees the writing on the wall..and at this point he is in defensive posture trying desperately to rewrite history.

Its like that fellow in Iraq who was swearing that the troops weren't in Baghad.

It has stopped BA in their tracks

Really? I'm sure that Mr. Holley was weeping over his keyboard as he typed those words.

Iberia Merger? Check
Crewing Imposition? Check
American Alliance? Check
Increase in service level after each strike? Check
Mixed Fleet? Check
Support of Public and Street? Check
Improved Financial Reports? Check

BASSA at this point would be lucky to be able to shut down a computer, let alone an airline.

Dual ground

12th Nov 2010, 13:46

And in case you haven't read the Cabin Crew thread.

MF are wearing...HATS! How much more of this corporate bullying can legacy crew handle? Other people have got HATS!!!!! and they don't...... give me strength.

MF wouldn't even exist if BASSA and CC89 had done their job, and negotiated with BA. And now apparently the fact that MF wear hats is a point of major concern to legacy crew. They obviously aren't concerned by the fact that their "leaders" have sold them down the river to pursue their own vendetta against BA and continue to draw money from union coffers despite not even being BA employees any longer....

Why don't they just say enough is enough, and leave BASSA? I really can't believe that a group of people can be so obtuse as not to see that the way ahead is for BASSA to become irrelevant. Just leave, membership numbers will fall below the level required for recognition and BASSA disappears up it's own backside. Simple.

Mariner9

12th Nov 2010, 13:53

DH's latest can be summarised that fighting BA was more important than actually achieving anything "tangible" (to use his word). Explains why there can be no settlement in this dispute - there's nothing BASSA actually want other than to fight. Miss M talks of guarantees but is seemingly unable to explain just what guarantees she is after.

I wonder how many CC who lost wages/ST/Payrise/free tickets/shareoptions/guaranteed salary through MPT, endured crew complement reductions, and have watched the introduction of Mixed Fleet etc will be pleased to have nothing tangible in return other than to say they have fought their employers?

just an observer

12th Nov 2010, 15:15

Dual Ground, the lady who 'complained' about the hats has left BASSA, prior to the strike, she is not one of the obtuse who swallow the BASSA line. She does not deserve your comments.

The point she is making is that BA are making lots of positive gestures towards Mixed Fleet, and treating the existing CC who backed BA by working throughout the IA in the same way as they are the strikers, in fact in 5 cases worse, as 5 strikers have become CSMs on Mixed Fleet.

The hat is no more than a symbol of those positive gestures.

Mind you, it's not clear how BA can treat the non strikers any better than strikers without breaking the law, but just treating Mixed Fleet the same as all the rest would be a start I guess. I daresay they will in time, it's all new at the moment.

Richard228

12th Nov 2010, 15:36

I was under the impression that not everyone gets hats because of the cost to BA.

As Mixed fleet are on cheaper contracts, BA can afford to give them these, without hurting profit margins.

I think, and perhaps understandably, people are reading to much into it?

oldflyboy

12th Nov 2010, 16:00

Given that Unite/Duncy/CC89 have all elected not to ballot or recommend this deal, what happens now to all those crew who elected to strike, or the many who did not? Will BA simply go on as they are, or should Mr Walsh simply invoke the 90 day option, introduce the new deal on a take it or leave it basis? Any ideas anyone, just what can be done?

Incidentally I bumped into a friend today who flys as crew on longhaul (non striker) and she was really worried for her future, she is concerned that BA may try to impose newfleet T&C's on current crew using the 90 day option?

A year on and this dispute sits like an open wound on the bottom of this once good airline! So Sad for all concerned, but mainly the Customer!!! :ugh:

Dual ground

12th Nov 2010, 16:53

@ Just an observer

Dual Ground, the lady who 'complained' about the hats has left BASSA, prior to the strike, she is not one of the obtuse who swallow the BASSA line. She does not deserve your comments.

The point she is making is that BA are making lots of positive gestures towards Mixed Fleet, and treating the existing CC who backed BA by working throughout the IA in the same way as they are the strikers, in fact in 5 cases worse, as 5 strikers have become CSMs on Mixed Fleet.

The hat is no more than a symbol of those positive gestures.

Mind you, it's not clear how BA can treat the non strikers any better than strikers without breaking the law, but just treating Mixed Fleet the same as all the rest would be a start I guess. I daresay they will in time, it's all new at the moment.

The impression I got from reading the posts on the other thread was that it was not just the lady in question who had a problem with the "hat issue". My comments are not aimed at her alone, but at the many who cannot see why MF should be treated any differently to legacy crew.

The simple answer is they are different, or at least as I understand it, they are. Completely different T and C's, completely different career prospects and they will not be working alongside Legacy crew, but on flights which are totally MF crewed.

They are the first few, off many, many more to come. They are the future of BA cabin crew.

The Legacy crew are in this position purely and simply because of the intransigence of BASSA and CC89. MF would not even exist if it were not for them.

It seems to me that Legacy crew should be more worried about routes disappearing to MF and the about the possibility of BA invoking 90 days notice than whether or not MF get to wear hats...

Betty girl

12th Nov 2010, 18:26

Dual ground,

You miss the whole point. I am not bothered about whether I wear the hat or not, what I am bothered about is, the fact that I have been a loyal employee and I did not strike, like 50% of other crew and am being made to feel like I am a second class citizen. Whether this is being done on purpose or not dose not alter how it makes many of us, who have been loyal, feel in our hearts.

Mixed Fleet is being brought in in a very uncaring way, to them and us current crew.

Can you imagine how horrid it is for these new young crew to be wearing a hat when hundreds of other crew in the Crew Report Centre are not wearing hats.I have received PM's from new crew saying they are unhappy wearing the hat and it makes them feel awkward. I don't think that's fair do you?

Hats or NO hats we should all look the same. It is going to be at least 10 years before Mixed Fleet is even 50 % of the workforce. Do you think it a sensible decision to have two different standards of uniform. Why not just have us all wear the same uniform and when it gets changed then bring in changes for everyone.

But of course deriding current crew that have done nothing more than work for their employer and cross a picket line, I expect is good sport for you. Not living through this hell like some of us are I don't expect you have any idea how dreadful this is for some of us.

Of course I am worried about other things but having not been in the union since last year I am powerless to do anything about it. I just think it surprising that BA want to alienate the 50% of crew that did back them by making us feel no longer valued. That's all.

rethymnon

12th Nov 2010, 19:37

could it be that the problem regarding the provision of hats to 'legacy crew' is one of size?

Betty Girl: we can cheer you on from the sidelines, but it is only you and those like you who can retrieve your union branch from those who have purloined it. they are not the Burmese junta - you have more weapons than you realise.

Betty girl

12th Nov 2010, 19:48

I think if you had read the other thread closely you may realise that I am not in the union as I resigned last Christmas for obvious reasons.

I have joined the PCCC an organisation set up by some cabin crew and they are actively recruiting members. The PCCC is hopefully going to be able to be recognised as a union soon.

So I am doing as much as I can.

It looks to me that Bassa is imploding on it's own without any help from me.

Dual ground

12th Nov 2010, 19:57

Bettygirl

If, in the last few weeks, BA had decreed that all crew were going to wear the same uniform as MF, how do you think that news would have been received? I suspect from your posts on the other forum that you personally, would welcome it. But I also suspect that certain factions would have been up in arms about it, declaring that this was yet another imposition from management, without union consultation.

"What, do away with our right to wear trousers, or a sweater? No way comrade"

So should BA just let MF start off with the same uniform standards as Legacy? Seems a bit counter-productive when they are trying to introduce what is basically a whole new product, to use business parlance.
As far as the average passenger is concerned, they probably won't notice the difference will they? Their crew are going to be one or the other, so all the crew will be dressed to either one standard or the other.

I'm afraid I really can't see how this devalues you, or makes you a second class citizen. Surely the people doing the same job as you, for a lot less money, are the second class citizens, if indeed anyone is.

Whilst I commend you for your decision to leave BASSA, and for working as normal during the strikes, how can BA legally treat you any differently to those who did strike?

Ultimately you enjoy the T and C's that you do because for years BA management have not stood up to BASSA. Those days are gone now, and I'm afraid your world is never going to be the same again.

You have a staff number don't you? Well I'm afraid as far as BA is concerned that's what you are, a number, a commodity, an overhead. That is, and as far as I know, has always been the reality of working for a large corporation.

As far as been powerless to do anything about the situation goes I really don't accept that. You and all other cabin crew members who are no longer, or have never been, BASSA members have had a year to join another union in sufficient numbers to gain recognition from BA.

Edited: Bettygirl, I have just seen your post where you mention that you have joined the PCCC. I hope that they step out of the shadows soon, so that you again have a voice which will be heard and will speak for you and not self serving union officials.

BetterByBoat

12th Nov 2010, 20:02

"I just think it surprising that BA want to alienate the 50% of crew that did back them by making us feel no longer valued. That's all."

Betty Girl - I don't think BA want to alienate the 50% of cabin crew that did back them and I think you, and others like you, are the only reason that a 90 day notice hasn't been issued.

LD12986

12th Nov 2010, 20:40

Betty Girl - I don't think BA want to alienate the 50% of cabin crew that did back them and I think you, and others like you, are the only reason that a 90 day notice hasn't been issued.

I agree entirely. I think from the outset there has been a recognition by BA that it will have to pick up the pieces of this and all crew (whether strikers or not) will have to move on. Hence why it has been so patient in trying to secure an agreed negotiated settlement.

BA could have easily expedited a resolution to this well over 12 months ago, but such a resolution would probably have had a longer term impact on crew, far greater than the strikes (however difficult things may be at the moment).

Betty girl

12th Nov 2010, 20:46

Thanks for all your posts.

I guess it will always be hard for those not actually experiencing all this, to understand what it is like at work for us crew.

Just so you know I don't feel like a number at work and I have a good relationship with my manager and also my manager's manager, if that makes sense. Both of them feel that Mixed Fleet having the hat is a mistake.

It is hard in a post to explain how it has made many of us feel and when I read my own posts back, I do understand why it seems trivial to many of you, but it is about how it is making us feel.
I did not think it would affect me but it did. I can't explain to you why but it has. What's worse is that it is singling out all the new crew too and it is hard enough when you are new without having to wear a hat that singles you out as new when hardly anyone else is wearing one.

I guess I wont be able to make you understand but it is just one more unnecessary thing added into this already awful mess.

gr8tballsoffire

12th Nov 2010, 21:27

Betty Girl

You seem to be a genuine and loyal employee who is clearly concerned about the ongoing dispute, but please have a sense of perspective. The issue of hats is hardly an area for serious debate at a time when BASSA are posturing for another strike ballot.

A vote in favour would be disastrous for people like you if BA decide to finally play hardball and give 90day notice of new contracts on a take it or leave it basis.
They would not be allowed to differentiate between the good, loyal group of staff and the loony militants. That is something you should be more concerned about.

On a human level, I have enormous sympathy with your situation and I hope PCCC will become a reality and a positive influence within BA. Good luck.

PAXboy

12th Nov 2010, 21:31

Thanks Betty girl, that's very helpful - and I DO mean that. There is only one reason I am surprised at the addition of a hat: COST. Why increase the cost of uniform in a modern world where CC hats vanished so long ago I can't remember when I last saw one.

As yet, I have not seen the new hat but I'll bet it doesn't add much to the ensemble because one of the long standing joke in the airline world is that female CC hats have ALWAYS looked ridiculous. :oh:

These will have been designed and made and then need to replaced when lost or damaged. VERY silly and it sounds like a complete waste of money even BEFORE the mgmt learn that they can upset staff in a whole brand new way.:hmm:

Betty girl

12th Nov 2010, 21:52

Thanks Paxboy,

It is the one used for VIP flights and by the promotional teams so it is not actually new.

You can see it if you google ' British Airways hat ' and you also can see the old one that we used to wear in the early 90's.

Thanks.

west lakes

12th Nov 2010, 21:54

Not forgetting that LGW staff who do the LCY - JFK flights wear one!

just an observer

12th Nov 2010, 21:58

A vote in favour (of a strike) would be disastrous for people like you if BA decide to finally play hardball and give 90day notice of new contracts on a take it or leave it basis.
They would not be allowed to differentiate between the good, loyal group of staff and the loony militants. That is something you should be more concerned about.

Surely if BA do eventually go the SOSR route, the contract on offer would be the one Bettygirl and other non union staff signed earlier this year. So why should she have anything to worry about?

gr8tballsoffire

12th Nov 2010, 22:17

Good on her if that is the case.

just an observer

12th Nov 2010, 22:33

In fact, if BA did offer the same contract under SOSR that the non union staff have signed, non striking but in the union CC would be pretty much as they are now, with most of their existing T&Cs, the top up payment, and in possession of their staff travel. Striking CC would have the same, but a large hole in their staff travel.

I seem to remember Walsh being quoted somewhere as saying one of the reasons he was against full return of staff travel was so that those who backed BA had something more than the strikers to show for it.

The only real losers would be those under disciplinaries - some of which remember are back at work with no, or minimal, punishment as the transgressions were decided to be minor. Those actually dismissed would be able to take the full court route if they wanted, as the union/BA deal would be off.

west lakes

12th Nov 2010, 22:36

Without wanting to upset the apple cart too much.
If BA do go down that line (90 days and a new contract) they would not, legally, be able to discriminate between staff on different T&Cs. So if they were looking at the last offer that non union staff accepted LGW would be looking at a huge pay increase (and a huge cost base increase) as would post '97 staff and as MF is up and running so would they.

just an observer

12th Nov 2010, 22:40

That's a pity :)

I did Google on that point but couldn't find anything in the short time I gave myself.

Litebulbs

12th Nov 2010, 23:50

Without wanting to upset the apple cart too much.
If BA do go down that line (90 days and a new contract) they would not, legally, be able to discriminate between staff on different T&Cs.

I could be, well probably wrong, but you serve notice on a particular contract, not the individual, under collective bargaining. Feel free to appeal this decision to higher authority.

Entaxei

13th Nov 2010, 07:01

I seem to remember, but can't be certain, that when crunch got to punch, did'nt Aer Lingus just sack the lot and then took back only those individuals that they wanted, (cherry picking), leaving those left to bring individual claims for compensation - which were expected to be a long term exercise. Any ideas?

Litebulbs

13th Nov 2010, 08:34

As I understand it, you all have to be dismissed from the current contracts, then you either accept or reject the r-engagement offer. Not getting an offer would no doubt lead to an unfair dismissal claim, as it would appear that some sort of selection process would have happened.

That would more likely mean the dismissal could have been because of capability or redundancy, but the defense for dismissal/re-engagement would be SOSR.

Betty girl

13th Nov 2010, 09:18

chuchinchow,

As requested, in future, I wont post again on this thread.

My original post about hats was just in response to a poster who had misrepresented what was being said about HATS on the CC forum.

As has been made very CLEAR, No one is actually bothered about wearing the actual HAT!!!It is about how it makes us feel as loyal employees.

I wont bore you or take up anymore of your valuable posting space.

moleytt

13th Nov 2010, 09:27

This is a thread mainly for fare paying passengers ...
True, but I welcome CC input and their views of passenger comments.

You have a British Airways crew only thread: go and wash your dirty linen over there.
A bit strong and uncalled for in my opinion, given my first comment.

moleytt

just an observer

13th Nov 2010, 09:40

If, for arguments sake, we accept that BA cannot SOSR certain contracts only, and have to do the same to the entire CC workforce, offering the same new contract to all, then I am pretty confident that BA would not do it.

For a start WW as the voice of the board has said he does not want to reduce existing staff contracts in terms of salary, secondly, WW/BA have also publically said that the cost saving required has been achieved by reduction in crew compliments and the new contracts for new staff.

To avoid losing at any Employment Tribunals, an employer has to show a substantial reason - as BA have publically said the cuts in place now are sufficient, how can they prove a substantial reason for the drastic reduction that offering MF contracts to existing staff would entail?

Apart from that, CC would strike, and under this hypothetical scenario, I bet the currently non striking union moderates would also join the strike.

In fact, in this hypothesis, I doubt the VCC would volunteer either. At the moment they do so on the basis that CC have only been asked to make the same sacrifices that other staff have already made, but if CC are asked to make considerably larger sacrifices than everyone else, staff sympathies may change.

So BA would be facing genuine loss of flying ability, and loss of the PR high ground. Not to mention absolutely appalling relations with their CC staff going forward, and creating huge distrust in all the other staff groups.

I think those that run the Union are probably aware of this, if they genuinely thought an SOSR to MF terms was a possibilty, they would have negotiated a lot harder. Ironically, in a way they are trading on BA's 'good nature' in that BA does not want to go down that route. At the same time, it seems the Union are allowing, even encouraging, ordinary CC to feel the fear that this may happen, as it strengthens the union members loyalty to the union.

just an observer

13th Nov 2010, 09:44

Bettygirl, don't leave this thread, Chuchinchow is in a distinct minority almost all of us are pleased to have actual CC putting their point of view directly to us, and giving us the chance to ask our own questions of CC that we cannot do on the CC thread. He does not speak for me, and I object to him doing so in the terms that he has.

pvmw

13th Nov 2010, 09:48

chuchinchow,

As requested, in future, I wont post again on this thread.

Betty Girl. Ignore him, there is always one!!

I view frequently and post rarely. I value your posts as intelligent and articulate explanations of how you and other cabin crew feel.

If Churchinchow is stuck so far up his own posterior that he needs to take it out on you, that is his problem and not yours.

Please continue to post as you feel the need. To suggest that this thread is just for fare paying passengers is a nonsense. Without input from such as yourself how are we to get a balanced view?

notlangley

13th Nov 2010, 10:09

Betty Girl, please do not read the postings of Chuchinchow.

Betty Girl , your postings are appreciated._ Please continue to post on this thread.

benhurr

13th Nov 2010, 10:25

Although I don't agree with some of what churchinchow has said, I do feel he makes a valid point which I think perhaps needs to be emphasised.

The World outside BA is rather different to that within in.

Other cabin crew, when asked if staff travel is a contractual right or a perk, would probably say "What the hell is staff travel?"

Other cabin crew, when asked to wear a hat, would say "How much is that going to cost me?"

Other cabin crew, when offered a contract, would say "Where do I sign?"

Fair enough, these other Cabin Crew might not be as good as BA Crew - the ones I know are Eastern European, beautiful, speak at least three languages, are polite, pay for their own uniforms, rely on longer flights to earn a bit of money off the trolley sales, are employed through an agency, if they hint at complaining are sacked and have absolutely no representation at all.

For the chance of earning £11K a year they would also probably do the service wearing nothing but a hat! (I wish!).

I wonder what would happen if MOL took over the running of BA for a couple of weeks?

What would be his response to: "I am a manager but my crew keep saying rude things and undermining my authority so I lock myself in my room and daren't come out."

Making WW out to be an incarnation of Beelzebub really does highlight how far removed from the real world some BA cabin crew are. (Please note - I didn't say all.)

Joao da Silva

13th Nov 2010, 10:40

Betty Girl

Every village has its idiot.

Chuchinchow is the SLF forum's.

Please keep posting, FWIW I understand perfectly the hats issue, as these are a symbol of the loyal existing cabin crew being unrewarded for their support.

I am very surprised that CCC post's have not been moderated, especially after some recent rants about not criticising airline staff.

just an observer

13th Nov 2010, 10:47

Other cabin crew, when asked if staff travel is a contractual right or a perk, would probably say "What the hell is staff travel?"

I doubt there are any airline employees anywhere in the world who would not know what staff travel is. Workers employed via an agency may not get it, but they'd certainly be aware of it. Do you think BA staff are alone in getting staff travel?

The Blu Riband

13th Nov 2010, 11:28

I find it interesting that even a non striking, pro BA, crew member somehow blames BA for letting MF wear hats but not them. It really is a strange world in BA cabincrewland.

BA cannot discriminate against , or for, srtikers or non-strikers.

BA has a chance to start from scratch with a new set of crew. Betty is upset that there are apparently 3 MF csm's who were strikers. However, let's accept that anyone can make an error of judgement and they have passed what is a stringent application process and subsequent training course.

Why would current crew worry about hats? You have bigger issues to face!

robtheblade

13th Nov 2010, 11:41

Ignore churchinchow’s rant.

Judging by the time of his post he was either pi**ed, had been refused getting his leg over, or possibly both.

just an observer

13th Nov 2010, 11:43

My main point - why all this moaning and ranting over a hat - still remains unanswered.

It has been answered, by the very person you are having a go at. The fact that you don't agree with her, does not negate the fact that she replied.

benhurr

13th Nov 2010, 11:45

Do you think BA staff are alone in getting staff travel?

No.

Do I think that some BA staff are alone in thinking they should be delivered to the aircraft in a sedan chair because BA are so fortunate to employ them. Then my answer would be yes.

Neptunus Rex

13th Nov 2010, 11:55

Betty Girl
Although it is in the "Passengers & SLF" section, the title of this thread is: "BA Strike - Your Thoughts and Questions." It is here because non-current crew cannot post on that other thread. However, this one would not be so alive, nor so well-informed without the much appreciated inputs of yourself and other CC.

In the immortal words of Muddy Waters: "Baby Please Don't Go."

Betty girl

13th Nov 2010, 12:04

This is the last word I am going to say on this subject.

I AM NOT ASKING OR WANTING TO WEAR THE HAT.!!!

What I am saying is that uniform standards should be STANDARD and UNIFORM.

I was just pointing out, that, the having of two separate standards was actually causing many crew, that have not striked and always been loyal, to feel like they are no longer valued by BA. It is also causing distress to a great many new joining crew.

I have at NO TIME said that non strikers should have the hat and strikers should not.

I have, and always do, give the best service possible. So do thousands of BA cabin crew, strikers and non-strikers alike.

Some of the posts on here actually make me wonder if all of you actually fly on BA flights. Some of you make it sound as if ALL BA cabin crew are horrible to our customers and in my daily life, I don't see that at all. I fly regularly with loads of Gold card holder that love BA cabin crew and are very loyal to BA as a company, many of whom I am on first name terms with.

I am not actually against Mixed Fleet and never have posted as such. I do worry that some will struggle living on the current package as a main crew member but as many have said, that is their choice. I personally know many that have gone for promotion as CSM and have recommended them to do so and I would always be very welcoming to any new crew.

Could some of you now stop having a go at me personally because apart from making the mistake, of explaining my feelings of how it feels to see new crew being treated differently, and this was in direct response to a post on here, about a post I made on the CC forum, I have done nothing wrong.

P.S. Thanks very much to those that have been supportive to me. x

Ancient Observer

13th Nov 2010, 12:09

Neptunus Rex's comment about songs made me think. (OK, not a lot). Sadly, the rugby hasn't started on the tv yet.

The SLF don't have a song for this dispute. Maybe we should.

Here's a very early first draft - unfortunately, our across the pond colleagues might not get it, as it is, I believe, a very British sort of song. AND - the scanning is pathetic.
Any one else fancy a go at composing the SLF song?

She was a non-striker, but she was honest,
Victim of Bassa CSDs.
First they fleeced her,
Then they chucked her.
When she'd had a claim to make.
(Chorus)

It's the same the whole world over,
It's the non-strikers what gets the blame.
It's the branch what gets the money.
Ain't it all a bleedin' shame?

Need a verse about being left in her room?
Need a verse about hats?
Need a verse about being sent to Coventry?
Need a verse about their love for TW and WW?

Juan Tugoh

13th Nov 2010, 12:14

how can they prove a substantial reason

You have been misled as to the requirements of SOSR, there is no requirement for BA to prove that their reason is substantial, just that they have a genuine belief that they have a substantial reason.

As BA have what they need at the moment in terms of savings, I would be really quite surprised if they were to use SOSR, but it is important to note that a substantial reason could quite simply be to end the dispute.

just an observer

13th Nov 2010, 12:54

a substantial reason could quite simply be to end the dispute.

I take your point, I hadn't thought of that.

I am still of the opinion that BA won't go that route, for the other reasons I said.

It was a hypothetical situation anyway, and if, hypothetically, BA could just offer the terms signed up to by the non union CC, to specific current contract groups within BA, ie LHR WW and EF, then I would consider they might go that route.......hypothetically :)

I still think the Union is using the fear of enforced MF contracts within CC to bolster their own power over CC, whilst no more expecting it to happen than I am.

TightSlot

13th Nov 2010, 13:03

We will not tolerate users bullying others into what forum/thread they should post on. The offending posts have been removed and the user involved is having a few days off.

This thread is open to all to post on.

Diplome

13th Nov 2010, 14:31

Now why am I not surprised at that last post.

Perhaps we all need to remind ourselves that it is possible to disagree and not be disagreeable while doing so.

Safety Concerns

13th Nov 2010, 14:40

not that objectivity has been raised as an issue here. don't let them get to you betty girl.

Entaxei

13th Nov 2010, 16:12

From your post 644 of 11th November - Now this is Objectivity !!

"you can all say what you want it makes no difference. Until Bassa members either hand in their membership cards or call for a vote of no confidence in the leadership, everything is fine and dandy.

I would like to tend to my tomatoes but I am too busy preparing for a xmas strike."

I must admit that your above message does encapsulate very nicely the conundrum that faces the Bassa members - their chance of being able to get a concerted call for a vote of no confidence in you is zero - and with the few reps left, it is unlikely that any rep or number of them, would be allowed to canvas for a vote - plus of course some members still believe that you are actually looking after their interests!!. You obviously feel that you have a hand of aces, and as you say, "EVERYTHING IS FINE AND DANDY". And of course - the money keeps rolling in.

So the only way that things are going to change, is to convince your members to leave - hopefully that process will have now started given your response.

rethymnon

14th Nov 2010, 09:51

i'm a bit late on this one, but fully agree Betty girl and others like her - even MissM - should be welcome here. it is the variety of opinion here that makes the discussions so readable and we would be the poorer if we did not get the depth of feeling from the CC themselves. added to which they have access to info we mere observers cannot reach. and it should be remembered that the moderator here works to far more civilised standards than those we hear about on the BASSA forums.

i am dismayed at the repeated references to petty but vindictive bullying mentioned by others on the CC forum. even if some of the victims are delicate or over-sensitive flowers, it does make me think there is something endemic here that needs to be sorted before this whole sorry mess can be finally declared over. i wonder whether there are psychological assessments that BA could and should be using to determine fitness for CC - not just at the outset but periodically throughout employment?

finally a big 'thank you' to Gay Gourmet for the two liner on the CC forum: it lit up my sunday morning!

winstonsmith

14th Nov 2010, 11:39

Rethymon - MissM was active on this discussion thread until Churchinchow had a go at her - which he has occassionally continued to do since she left the thread. Another member also said to her return to the other thread.

Diplome

14th Nov 2010, 12:39

Miss M, as well as Betty Girl, understand that they are free to post on this thread and that many welcome the exchanges.

That does not mean that there can't be disagreement with their statements.

I should hardly be expected to tippy toe around some of Miss M's rather extreme and bizarre views simply because she is militant Cabin Crew.

Neptunus Rex

14th Nov 2010, 14:37

From Yellow Pen on that other thread:

...todays employment situation in IFCE in which a sizeable element are trapped in a job they dislike with an employer they despise because they at least have the sense to realise nobody will employ them on such lucrative terms elsewhere. I should think, that in such a situation, their employer would be fully justified in getting rid of them. Sack the malcontents and await the tribunals. In the doubtful situation that the employer lost all the cases, it would take years to resolve, and the cost would still be less than their continued employment - in more ways than one.

Don't BASSA realise this?

Tray Surfer

14th Nov 2010, 14:42

Just a quick Hello!

I am BA short haul crew... Love my job, love meeting all you lot when you are onboard...

I was a member of BASSA till November last year. I did, at first when this all started to brew, go along with what was being said and think that many of the points were valid. After the intention to strike over Christmas was made known, I resigned from the union. I just could not be part of something that would have ruined so many peoples time with family and friends. I then started to question what was happening and at that point decided I could no longer be part of it.

I made my decision to leave the union and as part of that, not strike. I am pleased that I made my decision and have stood by it since. I feel sorry for the vast majority of crew who have been lead up the garden path. We, the crew, are nothing more than pawns in a game between Ms. Malone, Mr. Holly and Mr. Walsh, and I do not want to be one any more.

I adore my job and worked hard to get the job with BA. I missed having face to face contact with the public in my last job and now absolutely love working onboard, and even in the terminals when walking to aircraft, I often will stop and ask if someone needs help when they look a bit lost.

I just want to get on with things. I wish Unite/BASSA would sort them selves out and stop holding us all to ransom, not just the other crew, but everyone else in the company, and the public who fly with us.

TS

Diplome

14th Nov 2010, 15:37

Tray Surfer:

These must be difficult times for you.

Please understand that the vast majority of SLF recognize that their is diversity in Cabin Crew and truly admire those that are behaving honorably.

I would suggest that "you are getting on with it", as is BA. BASSA has become more of an interesting side issue while BA and its employees look towards the future.

It is simply unfortunate that BASSA has worked as hard as possible to diminish the reputation of all cabin crew. I can tell you that your frequent business flyers do, for the most part, understand that there is a difference.

Can't imagine what this is like for you dealing with the situation from the inside but you have all positive thoughts I can send..not that that's worth much. :)

Safety Concerns

14th Nov 2010, 17:07

Diplome you are clearly not what you claim to be. I suspect that your posting rate will drop right off probably to zero once this saga is finally over.

Neptunus Rex

14th Nov 2010, 17:14

Safety Concerns

All our posts will drop to zero once this saga is over.

Capice?

Neptunus Rex

14th Nov 2010, 17:27

From that other thread:

From gingerminge (great handle, if that is the right word.)

I honestly believe the legacy fleet as it is now refered (sic) to will be around for quite a while yet.Read Tray Surfer's post #720 on that other thread. You might then begin to comprehend that you and your mates need to lift your game. Three years experience in your profession is in abundance, and merely means that BA can be more discriminating in who they select to serve your customers. The BASSA CSDs days are numbered, and it is their own fault for being too greedy, so arrogant and utterly intransigent.

MPN11

14th Nov 2010, 17:27

From the "Other Pplace" ...In simple terms which hopefully even the most entrenched die hard union member will understand...having operated a flight this week with my crew being new fleet....without hesitation I can say that atmosphere/enthusiasm/professionalism of the whole new fleet crew was exemplary.
ALL highly experienced and motivated ex VS/BMI
A refreshing change and looking forward to BUD and the rest:

And best wishes to Tray Surfer, who seems to have a firm grasp on reality.

Neptunus Rex

14th Nov 2010, 17:30

Hear Hear! Tray Surfer is a Jet.

Safety Concerns

14th Nov 2010, 17:41

All our posts will drop to zero once this saga is over

not strictly true. You yourself have many posts on many different subjects.

Diplome has 99% of its posts on this thread and all pro BA. Very revealing

Neptunus Rex

14th Nov 2010, 17:50

Oh you pedant! You know what I meant.

LD12986

14th Nov 2010, 18:01

I honestly believe the legacy fleet as it is now refered (sic) to will be around for quite a while yet.

That has always been the case. The company's projections at the last Investor Day was that Mixed Fleet would constitute 40% of crew in ten years' time.

It is only BASSA's particular brand of fear and paranoia that is responsible for the suggestion that existing crews will be forced on to Mixed Fleet or starved of work.

What Mixed Fleet does bring is internal competition at LHR and a bit of healthy competition is no bad thing at all.

Colonel White

14th Nov 2010, 18:08

Safety Concerns

If as has been suggested (and which you have not sought to deny ) you are indeed one of the architects within BASSA responsible for instigating and then perpetuating this unholy mess, do you not feel the slightest guilt or remorse about the way that BASSA have shamefully failed to explain fully to the branch membership all the aspects of the action taken.

Is it not remarkable that a deal which, according to the Unite leadership, is the best that could be expected in the current circumstances and which would have addressed the majority concerns has been cynically rejected by the BASSA leadership. From an outsider's perspective, the reasons for this seem to have more to do with the fact that the people who would possibly lose out are those who have been dismissed. Since these represent less than 1% of the membership it seems slightly strange until one factors in that these self same dismissed staff include a number of reps - oh and the branch secretary, although his dismissal was not connected with the dispute.

Litebulbs

14th Nov 2010, 18:23

LD12986

14th Nov 2010, 18:38

If it was me, which it is not, then the protection of the 1% would be a right and just cause, worth IA.

Before the frothing starts, there will no doubt be individuals who would have been dismissed for actions regardless of the dispute in question and I believe Unite would be responsible enough to point that out. The days of you can't touch me are long gone.

So going on strike because someone has been sacked for damaging company property, or taking actions that could impact on the safe operation of an aircraft during the dispute is a "right and just" cause? Do me a favour. :ugh:

The majority of those who had been suspended and had their cases concluded have not been sacked and have returned to work, so the suggestion by BASSA that the company is engaging in a form of, to use its words, "cleansing" is utter tosh.

Why should be people who, for whatever reason, behaved in an utterly reckless and foolish manner during the dispute be protected from their own stupidity and lack of judgement?

Actions have consequences.

Litebulbs

14th Nov 2010, 19:01

I would suggest that you actually read what I said.

Tray Surfer

14th Nov 2010, 19:25

Sorry, I don't know how to "quote" on here or any such technical thing yet... Or maybe I am not allowed to do that yet...

But, the quote that you quoted (if you get me..!) about the BUD flight and motivated crew etc...

I have just finished a 3 day 8 sector trip, 4 of us on the crew. Purser, No.3 and myself No.2, all non strikers. The other crew member did, but regrets it now. I can honestly say, that having established our common position on the BASSA saga, it felt just as described. We were happy, cheerful, there was laughter and joking in the cabin, double drinks and chat with the passengers. No mechanical motion through going. At the end of the 8th sector, it was as if we had known each other for years and been working together for months... All the passengers got off smiling and happy, even with wind delays and the synonymous Heathrow wheelchair problems.

I hope that is what it will be like in the future and things can get back to giving passengers and enjoyable as possible journey. Passengers get off the aircraft happy, I am happy. I feel I have done a good days work when that happens.

I am glad that some do recognize that we are not all like the BASSA Massive and don't all have yellow pens stuck in our shirts etc...

Very best to you all... :)

MPN11

14th Nov 2010, 19:46

@ Tray Surfer ... I think I really like you ;)

Tray Surfer

14th Nov 2010, 20:06

@ MPN11 - *blush*

Well, one likes to try...

Maybe MF will get me one day... :)

Colonel White

14th Nov 2010, 20:35

Litebulbs

I can understand that a union may ask its membership for support in the situation where 1% of the membership have been sacked, provided that union can demonstrate unequivocally to its membership that these dismissals were unfair. The trouble is that if the dismissals were unfair, I would expect the union to follow the normal course of appeals within the disciplinary process and if that failed, to resort to an Employment Tribunal.

The days when an employer can cheerfully sakc someone for no justifiable reason are long gone. There is adequate legislation and due process to cover these situations. Consequently, strike action is wholly unnecessary.

Litebulbs

14th Nov 2010, 20:48

Taking a case to an ET does not get a job back, just compensates generally. Now IA potentially has a cost in the £M as proved in this dispute. This makes the dismissal and the cost a business decision.

LD12986

14th Nov 2010, 21:10

And on what basis would IA (which as you note would deprive the hand that feeds CC of millions) over the dismissals be justified?

Litebulbs

14th Nov 2010, 21:16

If the majority of the collective group felt that the dismissal was unjust.

LD12986

14th Nov 2010, 21:28

If the majority of the collective group felt that the dismissal was unjust.

And how will they obtain accurate information about the exact circumstances of the dismissals to establish that it was "unjust"?

Litebulbs

14th Nov 2010, 21:37

Because if due process has been followed, then there would be an investigation. That investigation would be used as the basis for the process. The investigation is carried out by the employer. But there would no doubt be a representative of the union along with the affected employee at the disciplinary meetings who would be party to the information used. That would then be passed to the membership. The membership would then decide for itself if the decision was unjust. All above board and within the law.

Mariner9

14th Nov 2010, 21:55

What of the rights of those dismissed Litebulbs? Do you think it would be proper for the reasons for their dismissal to be put before the membership and most likely discussed on BASSA forum, then on here once someone cross-posted?

You have repeatedly called for independent arbitration in respect of the dismissals. This has been offered by BA and apparently rejected by BASSA(but quite why any BASSA member would want to work for an employer they truly believed was accurately described in that ridiculous diatribe posted on the other thread is beyond me:ugh:)

Litebulbs

14th Nov 2010, 22:06

The first right would be whether they wanted to pursue the course of action. If the employee genuinely believed that they had been wronged then no doubt you would use every avenue to maintain employment as those mortgage bills are only another month away.

Mariner9

14th Nov 2010, 22:14

But come on Litebulbs, surely even the staunchest union supporter would not believe that BASSA would properly report the reasons for dismissal without spin so that the members could make a reasoned judgement.

Even if they did, do you think the BASSA members would accept any dismissals for fellow members, especially dismissals for (for example) failing to turn up for rostered duty because they were preparing a strike ballot?

Hotel Mode

14th Nov 2010, 22:18

But there would no doubt be a representative of the union along with the affected employee at the disciplinary meetings who would be party to the information used. That would then be passed to the membership. The membership would then decide for itself if the decision was unjust. All above board and within the law.

Which therefore begs the question... Why hasn't the information on these dismissals been passed to the membership for their perusal?

Surely if the dismissals were some outrageous campaign against BASSAs membership then the evidence would massively bolster support for them?

A cynic may suggest that the cases that resulted in dismissal went so far beyond the pale that even the BASSA membership would see that justice was served. So by not releasing the details they can continue to insinuate the conspiracy outlined above, even though it's cobblers.

Mariner9

14th Nov 2010, 22:24

HM - The union have participated in the process but have to keep the details secret both by duty to their member, and likely a confidentiality agreement with BA.

If the dismissals were unreasonable then the (ex) employees can try employment tribunals. I ony know of one (DH) and that was singularily unsucessful.

Litebulbs

14th Nov 2010, 22:29

They may spin it, but lies will be explored in court.

Hotel Mode

14th Nov 2010, 22:31

HM - The union have participated in the process but have to keep the details secret both by duty to their member, and likely a confidentiality agreement with BA.
*

Pls read Litebulbs (a Unite rep) post above regarding unions releasing this kind of information. I don't think BASSA could maintain a confidentiality agreement if it did them a favour not to anyway.

In fact BASSA have many times during this dispute released confidential (but selective) details about disciplinaries that were not even concluded! They would be shouting these cases from the rooftops.

Litebulbs

14th Nov 2010, 22:34

Pls read Litebulbs (a Unite rep) post above regarding unions releasing this kind of information. I don't think BASSA could maintain a confidentiality agreement if it did them a favour not to anyway.

Why wouldn't they? You take a case to the union. If you don't want to, you are not legally compelled to do so. The reasonable person knows if they have wronged.

Hotel Mode

14th Nov 2010, 22:42

Why wouldn't they? You take a case to the union. If you don't want to, you are not legally compelled to do so. The reasonable person knows if they have wronged.

Exactly. So why aren't BASSA releasing the actual information on the offences that caused dismissal? They prefer insinuation to facts because the facts make the dismissed look guilty.

What possible harm could there be if this really was a big conspiracy against BASSA members? Surely it would strengthen public support. The silence says more than one of Duncans 800 word missives ever could.

Litebulbs

14th Nov 2010, 22:52

HM - fair points and I agree that the suspensions/dismissals are being used as a tool, but in my observations (no basis in fact as I am not party to any of it), a tool by both sides.

Papillon

15th Nov 2010, 00:44

I don't think it's fair to say BA are using it as a tool unless or until they are found to have acted unreasonably, whether by employment tribunal or (if it went ahead) arbitration. BA aren't exactly known for capriciously sacking people, there's little reason to believe they haven't scrupulously followed procedure here.

We only know of one that got as far as a tribunal. It upheld the decision. BA's disciplinary procedure has not been an issue for any union before, just the opposite in fact. There is no reason at all to suggest that it is different here.

LD12986

15th Nov 2010, 06:43

Does anybody seriously believe that BASSA could be trusted to ensure accurate information is released to members on disciplinaries?

This is the union that, 12 months ago, was telling its members that it had sought to negotiate in good faith with BA and a strong strike mandate was needed to "send a message" to bring WW back to the negotiating table. This has been thoroughly debunked not once, but twice, before the courts.

Richard228

15th Nov 2010, 09:11

The problem here for BASSA though, is that, during the course of the last year the disciplinaries have been one of the conditions to end the current course of industrial action, and I have no doubt that BA have minuted meetings as such.

So how will BASSA now claim that this is a new reason to strike, when it has been pat of previous negotations is puzzling...

As far as whether BASSA would truthfully and fully articulate to its members the reasons for their sacking, for them to make up there minds is, I think fanciful.

One just has to think back to BASSA's spin on planes flying circuits at LHR to make it look busy, and fleets of planes secretly parked in other airports as just two examples of how BASSA have, with evidence, lied to their membership to beef up their side of the story.

litebulbs:
They may spin it, but lies will be explored in court. If BASSA want to use this as a tool to get members re-sinstated through industrial Action, it will never get to court though, and BA would not release confidential employee information.. so not sure how BASSA's story would ever get visibility in the courts?

Snas

15th Nov 2010, 10:15

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that BASSA will move towards a strike with no regard for the potential consequences for those taking what may well be unprotected strike action.

I further have no doubt whatsoever that BASSA will fail to warn its members of these potential consequences and will indeed continue to repeat the outright lie that is “you can’t be sacked for striking”.

...Of these things I am certain; it is simply a bad union branch after all which shames the whole movement as does Unites apparent inability to control it or at least get it to tell the truth now and again.

call100

15th Nov 2010, 10:22

My view is that whether an individual case goes to court or not is the decision of the individual concerned. Nothing to do with BASSA other than as a conduit to a legal team or FTO who will give advice on the merits of the claim.
By the same token the individual would have to agree to the case being used for IA. You cannot call a ballot to fight a dismissal if that individual does not want it.
Those individuals will know, whether it be conscience or advice, if their case has any chance of support.
These days asking someone to vote yes in a ballot to protect an individual is taking a large risk. The days of any solidarity have long gone. Anyone who has been through that sort of ballot will tell you how divisive it can be.
The ballot, as far as I know would have to go ahead before an ET as once the decision has been made there then the ballot would be pointless. Should the strike action not result in reinstatement then the individual(s) would still then be free to go to ET.
Of course I, like everyone else on here, don't know the details or defence of the outstanding cases.

@Snas
I agree with your last paragraph....

Shack37

15th Nov 2010, 11:20

Richard228

liebulbs:

Quote:
They may spin it, but lies will be explored in court.
If BASSA want to use this as a tool to get members re-sinstated through industrial Action, it will never get to court though, and BA would not release confidential employee information.. so not sure how BASSA's story would ever get visibility in the courts?

Just a typo I'm sure (my bold)

Richard228

15th Nov 2010, 11:33

sorry - yes a typo - now corrected.

notlangley

15th Nov 2010, 11:55

I think Tony Woodley is wise in prevaricating until polling ends on Friday:-________link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/002-GS%20election%20timetable.pdf)

Diplome

15th Nov 2010, 13:04

I would be surprised if the dismissals were used as a reason for additional IA.

To use the excuse that "they were punished for supporting their Union" will not be enough for the Press or the public.

Using that logic the gentleman who is arrested for rioting after a football match could be said to be "punished for supporting his team".

Questions will be asked regarding specifics, what exactly was said on Facebook, etc., etc.. and I don't believe that BASSA wishes to expose some of the specific conduct to the light of day.

Though BASSA could surprise me. Wouldn't be the first time.

...and Safety Concerns, you may have better luck being taken seriously if you would debate the issues rather than engaging in the tiresome "You must be management" deflection.

I have the same status as you, or Duncan Holley for that matter, with BA. SLF.

Diplome

15th Nov 2010, 14:15

...and speaking of paranoia and overwrought rhetoric, from the Cabin Crew thread a posting from the BASSA forum.

This statement is a perfect example of "When you can't discuss the issues go for the drama!!"

It is clear that Willie Walsh and the Board members of BA who appointed him, are out of control. They represent the worst excesses of Capitalism not seen since the banking disaster. Where the banks got involved in a crooked exploitation of the financial system, BA has sought to profit through rigging fuel surcharges and cargo pricing. In both cases, British Airways has been heavily fined on either sides of the Atlantic, and as far away as Australia. Yet apart from one fall-guy, a hapless BA senior manager by the name of Keith Packer, who was jailed in the USA for 8 months over cargo price fixing, no other senior members of British Airways have taken responsibility for their illegal actions and activity. There is absolutely no doubt that the Board of British Airways and the Leadership Team, have made some disastrous decisions and the company has suffered through fines and huge losses, plus over £1bn lost in inappropriate fuel hedging positions. The negative publicity for British Airways and the damage sustained to the brand and the companies image, is unimaginable

A "dictatorship in a democracy", why? Because Willie Walsh has been recruited by the Board of British Airways, not because of his business acumen or previous success as a CEO, he was hired because he is willing and able to say and do absurd things.

He started in this vein as a union rep for IALPA, where he was quoted as saying: "in negotiations, you get nowhere by being reasonable". He has tried to orchestrate a'coup d'etat' on the unions in BA and BASSA in particular, using the recent recession as an excuse to drive down wages and conditions of ordinary employees in the airline, whilst his own pay and that of his co-directors soars.

Willie Walsh represents as the CEO of British Airways, greed, exploitation and failure. He failed at Aer Lingus in his attempt to organise a Management Buy Out, he failed the airline by putting it in the low cost model and he failed to leave Aer Lingus in a viable state. He has also failed at British Airways. Industrial relations are the worst in the companies history, the share price is depressed because of his actions, and rather than riding high out of the recession, there is a sense of doom amongst employees at the airline. You hear it from the engineers who haven't got the spares or manpower to fix the planes, you hear it from the ground staff who struggle to deal with the volumes of customers as their own numbers are reduced and you hear it from the cabin crew.

It appears that the Board and LT of British Airways have great instincts for personal profit, but have no values or concern for the majority of staff that generate those profits, and who now work harder for the same money, or less in some cases. Where are the profit sharing schemes for ordinary employees in BA? When was the last Share Save scheme?

BA's cabin crew are being victimised solely for the profit motive. And we tacitly accept this "dictatorship" every time we turn up for work. What is worse, is that we have seen in our own dispute Capitalism trumping democracy. Democratic ballots for industrial action, have been overturned by the friends of Capitalism in the High Court. Judges who are supposed to use common sense and intellect in their deliberations, have cast aside legitimate and lawful democratic ballots because of flimsy technicalities. That is where we are as a democracy in the United Kingdom and it stinks. Unscrupulous employers use this avenue to fight a dispute that they have deliberately created though imposition, using High Court judges to bust unions.

And in this warped void of a capititalistic society that people like Willie Walsh congregate, it is perfectly acceptable to make people poor. Witness the Mid Fleet. No agreement there to work to, only a "framework". No decent wages or conditions, just exploitation of unemployed people or others, who thought that BA is an honourable employer and things 'will get better'. But the fact is that MF should be a glaring example of what life would be like in BA, without union representation. For all those crew who went to work during the dispute, this ultimately will be your reward.

Our dispute with Willie Walsh has now evolved. This is not about imposition and the false premise for that reduction in crew complements that BA was in a "fight for survival", this dispute is now a revolt against management greed, incompetence, bullying and harassment. It is a defining moment.

Are you prepared as decent people to allow this dictatorship in a democracy to continue? Is it right that you are coerced and bullied into accepting inferior pay and conditions, AFTER the company has turned the corner and is once again, as predicted, making substantial profits? Is it right that your democratically elected union representatives and your union, are trampled over by the mantra, ego and dogmatism of one person? Is it right that colleagues have been suspended and sacked just for supporting the dispute?

Then it is your duty to vote NO at the next ballot.

This short sentence reveals how far wrong these "leaders" can be.

Our dispute with Willie Walsh has now evolved

This dispute is not with Mr. Walsh. It is with BA and includes their Board members, stockholders, employees and a significant portion of the Cabin Crew.

And sadly, through that entire wordy communication there is nothing for BA members to see as a possible resolution. Simply a demand to "fight to the end" with nothing about negotiations, proposals, or how this "revolt" is going to make car payments, pay for groceries or keep their members jobs any more secure.

Ancient Observer

15th Nov 2010, 14:29

That's SWP twaddle. Maybe the SWP mafia are moving back in to work with the bassa Junta.

Now that we've been informed by Safety Concerns that Diplome isn't who she thinks she is, ,maybe Safety Concerns will let us know who they think they are for to-day, and whether or not they have any financial interest in this dispute?

It's normally after about 10.00pm before I realise that I am not who I think I am...............

Richard228

15th Nov 2010, 15:35

Goodness me! what a load of political feet stamping!

there are many points one could discuss from this, just to isolate a few...

They represent the worst excesses of CapitalismHardly, employing child labour in third world countries with no health care is what I would classfiy as the "worst excess".

Employing staff with nice salaries, and pension plans, is hardly the "excess". Indeed does the fact they are striking over current T&C's show they want to retain this "worst excess"?!

hired because he is willing and able to say and do absurd thingsHe was hired as the best man to do the job. If they wanted someone to "say and do absurd things" they would have hired Russell Brand.

Where are the profit sharing schemes for ordinary employees in BA?BASSA rejected the BA offer of a share scheme for employees, denying them the right to share in company profits.

Dont point the finger dear BASSA, merely look in the mirror.
overturned by the friends of Capitalism in the High CourtOh dear, No one likes a bad loser! Is this an accusation from BASSA that the high court justicies are biassed?

If only BASSA and its members read the courts rulings they would not find bias, but merely black and white evidence of how BASSA got things wrong.

using High Court judges to bust unionsoh dear, the high courts, dear BASSA, are used to uphold the law. If you fail through the courts it is because your case did not stand up to the scrutiny of law.

If you had a good case you would have won. You didnt, and you lost.

Are you prepared as decent people to allow this dictatorship in a democracy to continue?There is no dictatorship dear BASSA. Like all CEO's Mr Walsh can be held to account and fired at any time by the shareholders or the board.

The fact is that they actually like what he is doing, and have appointed a successor who will pursue the same maanegement course.

Oh, and the vast majority of other BA employees also agree with him.

So what do we have now?

A cry to continue the strike action to dismantle the capitalist empire? do BASSA members realise their careers are being linked to such rhetoric I wonder?

Mariner9

15th Nov 2010, 15:56

That BASSA missive is such utter nonsense it hardly seems worth commenting upon.

It would be interesting to have seen the responses on the BASSA forum to the message though. Do the BASSA members really buy this stuff?

M9 (Flying BA tomorrow)

Lord Bracken

15th Nov 2010, 16:14

It would be interesting to have seen the responses on the BASSA forum to the message though. Do the BASSA members really buy this stuff?

Unfortunately, due to the prevalence of "obsolete intellectual equipment" amongst the BASSAmentalists, yes they do.

Neptunus Rex

15th Nov 2010, 16:37

That latest BASSA missive rants against Capitalism. It also seems to come from a different writer or writers than before. What is their alternative? Perhaps they would prefer to work for an airline in a Communist state. Let them try Mainland China, North Korea or Cuba. Let them see how far their Union activities would be allowed to criticise the management. What are they smoking?

call100

15th Nov 2010, 17:25

LD12986

15th Nov 2010, 22:45

And backwards we go...

http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html (http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

A select group of senior reps from the joint negotiating committee will be meeting with Tony Woodley and Co tomorrow to discuss the way forwards.

It is clearly unacceptable for the same offer documentation to be rehashed and re-presented for acceptance, or rejection once again. As we have said in earlier updates, for a successful resolution to this dispute, the company would need to recommence discussions with the local representatives from both AMICUS and BASSA with headline items from both sides featuring equally and settled by mutual consent.

Definition: Negotiation - mutual discussion and arrangement of the terms of a transaction or agreement.

In view of the recent impositions which fly in the face of agreed and required negotiation principles, the company would need to now clearly demonstrate their genuine willingness to be “committed to beginning the process of restoring and improving relationships at all levels” as contained in their latest offer, under Working Together.

In order to restore the relationship and for us all to recognise the merit of that intent, as we understand it, the issues that BA now need to resolve are very simple:

(i) return to the collectively agreed crewing levels (BA has spent far more on this dispute than removing crew was ever going to save);

(ii) acknowledgement that collective agreements will not be broken by BA and will only be varied by further negotiation and collective agreement;

(iii) reinstatement of all lost staff travel benefits to strikers (including accrued seniority/status tickets etc);

(iv) no victimisation (including full reinstatement of all those dismissed, and restoration to their former positions of all those otherwise penalised in this dispute – (the foregoing are now identified in the current offer documentation as “relevant employees” and “processed employees”);

(v) in view of how the dispute came about and how negotiations since have been conducted, a recognition that the AMICUS/BASSA are the elected representatives of the cabin crew with whom all future negotiations will be conducted (save where existing collective agreements or AMICUS/BASSA otherwise expressly agree in advance).

Colonel White

15th Nov 2010, 22:47

I wouldn't put too much into it. It's a typical hi-jack of a dispute by the likes of the Socialist Workers Party as mentioned by Ancient Observer. It happens at some stage in most major disputes with a large national profile.
It only confirms how out of touch they are with TU membership...I doubt even those who vote for IA will do so based on that document. Given that the item appears on a union sponsored site, it is painfully obvious that this diatribe, if cobbled together by the SWP or similar trendy lefty organisation, was written with the full knowledge and I daresay, at the behest of the branch leadership.

Of course the crowning irony is that what we have here is a classic example of left wing hypocrisy. If the militants in the union were true to their left wing beliefs, they would not be working for a capitalist organisation. They would have set up their own collective operation. Moreover, they would recognise the equal value of other workers within the enterprise, so clerical staff, ground crew and even sales people would be acknowledged as having equal say. Quite a contrast to the rather pompous view expressed by some BASSA supporters that cabin crew are the most important part of the organisation.

I just wonder how many of the remaining BASSA members truly understand what life in a Marxist/Leninist state is really like. When the notion of luxury for the masses is frowned on. Where there are no such things as designer labels. Where utilitarian is the watchword.

Maybe the best example of what happens when a left wing sponsored group seize control of a nation is Zimbabwe, where both ZANU and ZAPU wee sponsored by the Chinese communist party and the Soviet communist party respectively. Come to think of it, the current leader of Zimbabwe has shown a remarkable reluctance to relinquish power. Who does that remind you of ?

Diplome

15th Nov 2010, 23:17

LD12986:

What are they thinking? This is madness.

(i) return to the collectively agreed crewing levels (BA has spent far more on this dispute than removing crew was ever going to save);

(ii) acknowledgement that collective agreements will not be broken by BA and will only be varied by further negotiation and collective agreement;

(iii) reinstatement of all lost staff travel benefits to strikers (including accrued seniority/status tickets etc);

(iv) no victimisation (including full reinstatement of all those dismissed, and restoration to their former positions of all those otherwise penalised in this dispute – (the foregoing are now identified in the current offer documentation as “relevant employees” and “processed employees”);

(v) in view of how the dispute came about and how negotiations since have been conducted, a recognition that the AMICUS/BASSA are the elected representatives of the cabin crew with whom all future negotiations will be conducted (save where existing collective agreements or AMICUS/BASSA otherwise expressly agree in advance).

There is no individual other than the most militant of Cabin Crew that can defend this communication.

Rather makes a mockery of their request for negotiation but for once they have stripped away the rhetoric and are finally stating what they specifically want...though it is incredible that what they are demanding won't even settle the dispute in their eyes but simply be an act of good will on BA's part.

Fools rush in....

call100

15th Nov 2010, 23:48

Given that the item appears on a union sponsored site, it is painfully obvious that this diatribe, if cobbled together by the SWP or similar trendy lefty organisation, was written with the full knowledge and I daresay, at the behest of the branch leadership.

Of course the crowning irony is that what we have here is a classic example of left wing hypocrisy. If the militants in the union were true to their left wing beliefs, they would not be working for a capitalist organisation. They would have set up their own collective operation. Moreover, they would recognise the equal value of other workers within the enterprise, so clerical staff, ground crew and even sales people would be acknowledged as having equal say. Quite a contrast to the rather pompous view expressed by some BASSA supporters that cabin crew are the most important part of the organisation.

I just wonder how many of the remaining BASSA members truly understand what life in a Marxist/Leninist state is really like. When the notion of luxury for the masses is frowned on. Where there are no such things as designer labels. Where utilitarian is the watchword.

Maybe the best example of what happens when a left wing sponsored group seize control of a nation is Zimbabwe, where both ZANU and ZAPU wee sponsored by the Chinese communist party and the Soviet communist party respectively. Come to think of it, the current leader of Zimbabwe has shown a remarkable reluctance to relinquish power. Who does that remind you of ?
A long way from a dispute within BA...I doubt any of the rank and file are thinking of left wing world domination.http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/laughpound.gif

AV Flyer

16th Nov 2010, 01:20

At this stage, and in the interests of acceleratng a conclusion, if I was BA I would pull the pin from the proverbial grenade and toss it into the BASSA/AMICUS/Unite meeting later today by taking the current offer off the table (on the legitimate grounds of BASSA/AMICUS's failure to recommend) and then watching the ensuing bickering, in-fighting and panic with mild amusement.

This would remove several of the options from the Union and its Branches' discussions leaving them with nowhere to go but either call a strike ballot or capitulate to working under the present Ts & Cs for the foreseeable future.

Unite cannot possibly approve a strike ballot and BASSA/AMICUS will not capitulate - but there would be no other options.

But then I have been known to be mischievous!

MCOflyer

16th Nov 2010, 02:34

TRX75

16th Nov 2010, 03:20

From the latest BASSA missive posted in the other thread
Is it right that your democratically elected union representatives and your union, are trampled over by the mantra, ego and dogmatism of one person? So they've finally realised what a liability Duncan is! :D

Richard228

16th Nov 2010, 07:25

AV Flyer:
if I was BA I would pull the pin from the proverbial grenade and toss it into the BASSA/AMICUS/Unite meeting later today by taking the current offer off the table (on the legitimate grounds of BASSA/AMICUS's failure to recommend) and then watching the ensuing bickering, in-fighting and panic with mild amusement.
I'm sure its tempting... but my money is on BA lettting the staff keep Staff travel as agreed, only to individually lose it again if they are involved infurther industrial action.

This way, when the Union call the next strike, how many of the staff will strike:

a) and actually have the stomach to lose those benefits again, in the knowledge that the union most certainly can't get the benfeits back in "5 minutes" (instead waiting for a possible 5 year plus journey through the European courts)

b) strike knowing that the legal grounds were being contested and could be unprotected, and result in instant dismissal, and the end of their career, and all of their T&C's

Game over BASSA?

Colonel White:
If the militants in the union were true to their left wing beliefs, they would not be working for a capitalist organisation.Indeed, the irony works on so many levels! If these BASSA militants were so ingrained in these beliefs would they really be basing the core of their careers around looking after First and business Class passengers?!