BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III

[Diplome]

AV Flyer:

I must respectfully disagree.

If I were BA I believe I would leave the offer on the table, and continue with the return of staff travel at its present level for strikers.

Let it lie there, with its pay raises, opportunity for full return of staff travel, etc., to show contrast to the inflammatory rhetoric that offers no concrete results to BASSA and Amicus members.

My belief is that it is never a good move to meet extremism with extremism in negotiations. If the opposition is insisting upon cooking its own goose you leave them alone in the kitchen.

[AV Flyer]

Diplome - I agree, it's just the devil in me wanting to break out - but not entirely.

The sad and pathetic fact is that BASSA/AMICUS have lost badly and they simply don't realise it. Unfortunately, from now on they are going to make increasingly ludicrous demands and wildly thrashing gestures as their desperation grows while to the rest of us observers making themselves look stupid. Part of me was wanting to spare the embarrassment of this ugly spectacle by bringing the whole sorry mess to a close in the shortest possible time.

By denying their rank and file members a consultative ballot on the current offer BASSA/AMICUS's reps have denied themselves valuable feedback on the true level of support they would have for a strike so, along with not realising they have lost, they are now rushing head-strong into a strike ballot, with its associated fall-out with Unite and its strong potential for being unprotected, in the misguided belief their foot soldiers are firmly behind them.

Cooking their own goose - self combustion - shooting themselves in their feet - BASSA/AMICUS and their reps are going down in an ugly way and, as you correctly observe, all that BA have to do is take a ring-side seat and watch.

AVF

P.S. Ironically, BASSA & AMICUS appear to be working together more coherently now than they ever have before - pity they couldn't have done this a lot sooner.......

[20feetretard]

Surely CC will see from this that BASSA are now in the final stages of digging their own graves and don't seem to mind who they take with them.
They have painted themselves in to a corner with just about everyone, very few have any respect for what they stand for or what they want. The latest missive regarding negotiation is remarkable, describing what they feel negotiation is and then stating that before they start to negotiate that they want a certain set of criteria fulfilled!
They are scoring so many own goals...Mr Woodley now appears to be the latest target as he couldn't give them what they demanded and therefore they are stamping their feet and seem to be attempting to go it alone, despite the courts proving previously that they were unable to 'negotiate' in any coherant manner. I wonder if Mr Woodley is close to casting them free. I bet BA can't believe just how well this is going...BASSA/CC89 are doing a better job of cost reduction and reducing union influence than they could have ever hoped for.
Surely now CC, take a step back and just for a moment try to avoid confirmation bias. Take a couple of moments to ask yourself if there are any reasons to think that you are being led astray, perhaps not even maliciously but through sheers incompetence. Ask yourself why even members of Unite are not backing BASSA and are even voluntering to work in your absence? Look at the facts and don't be too proud admit that you may have made a mistake. Your colleagues will support you...everyone wants this to end and to move forward.
If you feel that you must follow the BASSA leadership...that is your perogative, but please find out where they are taking you and what is in it for you.

[Ancient Observer]

I have heard from a reasonable (but not always perfect) source that the SWP have taken up positions in this dispute again.

Let's be very clear - the SWP and their friends do not give a fig for the BA CC, and are not interested in solving the problem - they just want the fight and the publicity. They are run by millionaires, so the fate of a few BA CC is way down on their list of priorities.

We will now see traditional SWP positions emerge - the "negotiated" compromises that WW and the Unite Gen Secs have reached will be abandoned. Rather, the bassa/amicus junta will revert to positions at the extreme end of their earlier demands. e.g. rather than agreeing the de-facto manning standards, they will ask for a much higher crewing number on every plane. Rather than talk about ACAS arbitration, they will ask for immediate re-instatement of everyone, including DH and the person fired back in 2007, and that re-instatement will be a pre-condition to even meeting BA..
.............and so on.
Then, when BA start moving away from the negotiated positions, the SWP fascists will claim "foul" and try to get on the moral high ground opposite ordinary crew members.

I've lived/worked through this sort of political domination of industrial disputes, and the only way through for BA now is to play hard-ball, but with an eye to the moral high ground.

Compared to SWP and friends, even DH makes sense.

[manintheback]

If I were BA I believe I would leave the offer on the table, and continue with the return of staff travel at its present level for strikers.

Let it lie there, with its pay raises, opportunity for full return of staff travel, etc., to show contrast to the inflammatory rhetoric that offers no concrete results to BASSA and Amicus members.

The problem is BA are almost certainly losing meaningful amounts of advance bookings. I am going to Dubai for a family holiday next Feb but not booking BA just in case. I've been caught before and there will be many like me.

I suspect BA will wait until they know the Xmas period cant be hit and will then go all in to end it.

[Diplome]

I'm not sure there is an "all in" for BA without a strike ballot being issued.

There are of course, some business decisions that may be made as the result of BASSA and Amicus' rather bizarre and inflammatory behavior.

Mid Fleet, within training capacity, can be accellerated with their mandate being expanded to include routes that are most lucative to BA. It would be unreasonable to expect BA to keep a "hands off" policy on those routes when BASSA and Amicus are intentionally placing their viability in peril.

Of course, if BASSA and Amicus call for strikes then BA and its employees will respond appropriately, and that could be a tad painful (an understatement) for the militant crew.

It will be interesting to see how Unite respond to the actions of BASSA. Unite is undergoing significant challenges and changes not related to this dispute. How will they respond to the tail trying to wag the dog?

[Richard228]

suspect BA will wait until they know the Xmas period cant be hit and will then go all in to end it.which is pretty soon.

Assuming that Unite allowed BASSA to issue a ballot tomorrow, the ballot would close in 4 weeks, i.e. 15th December.

One week prior notice would then have to be given, which makes 22nd December the earliest it could happen (ignoring lack of protected status etc for the moment).

So BASSA have only three days to convince unite to ballot to hit xmas day by my math.

[Mariner9]

So CC89 have openly listed 4 areas of dispute clearly linked to the current dispute. There can be no denying that any imminent strike will be unprotected. Its almost as if they are daring BA to sack their members...

[leiard]

I feel sorry for the LGW cabin crew - they are caught up in all this nonsense - they have done a great job on all my flights.

[Neptunus Rex]

manintheback
You, Sir, are a wimp. I have never worked for BA, but I say that they will win through, despite the shouts of BASSA, and your booking would be safe. Show some mettle, man, otherwise why post on here?

[LD12986]

Richard228 - You also need to add 7 days notice to BA of intention to ballot. Unite could cut short the ballot process, but as many crew commute from all over the world and some trips are 10+ days, 4 weeks is needed.

[LD12986]

Latest is that TW is to contact BA to restart discussions on a new offer, so no strike ballot for now.

[call100]

the SWP fascists
http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/scratchhd.gif
Either or.....

[SwissRef]

Latest is that TW is to contact BA to restart discussions on a new offer, so no strike ballot for now.

Are BA likely to back down from their "Final" offer? I doubt it.

At present they have all (and more) than they want:
Crew Complements reduced - initial savings made
New fleet implemented - more savings made
No pay rises for most CC, and no share offer - more savings made
Group of VCC - strike busters, reduces future losses due to CC strikes.

Where is the incentive for BA to settle? They just need to repeat their last offer (which TW said was the best they could get). It isn't even in TWs interest to get a better deal, as he would look a fool if he did - given what he said about the last one.

The people who need to settle are the CC - gain their pay rises, full restoration of seniority, etc.

BA will happily accept Unite to discussions, but very much doubt there will be any significant improvement to the offer.

[paulthornton]

As I've not had anything relevant to on this topic I have refrained from opening my mouth so far. However, Yellowdog posted on the CC thread earlier today asking people not to forget Gatwick crews....

Well, as SLF who travels from LGW wherever possible I have a big :ok: for them, thanks very much for the consistent and excellent service. Consider yourselves very much remembered!

Paul.

[Ancient Observer]

Woodley will already have told BA NOT to increase their offer. When a National Official says that's all I can get, if the Company later shifts one inch they will lose credibility for 10 years. Whilst Woodley won't care, he'll be well and truly "retired" - probably with a few NEDs from North West based Companies.

call 100 - fascist behaviour patterns are common with far left groups. Both Militant on Merseyside and SWP use fascist behaviour patterns.

LG W - I've seldom used BA from lgw, but when I have I've had good service.

When do Unite take a Vote of ALL BA staff?? I imagine that the Engineers must be fed up with the Heritage CSDs on £80k per annum.

[Ancient Observer]

Betty Girl's concerns about the hats and jackets made it to the Business section of the Sunday Times.

[Diplome]

Ah...those pesky little hats.

As I've had a vodka tonic and think I "know who I am" at the moment ( for Safety Concerns sake) am I the only SLF that feels the fuss over a hat is a bit much.

If I was Legacy Crew I'd be worrying about Mixed Fleets service feedback. If they compete or exceed Legacy you will have a lot more to worry about than a hat.

[Dual ground]

Betty Girl's concerns about the hats and jackets made it to the Business section of the Sunday Times.

Whilst I as an outsider cannot see why this issue should cause such a fuss, I think it's only fair to point out that apparently many crew have concerns about it. Betty Girl mentioned it on the other thread and I mentioned her post here. Subsequently, she got dragged into rather an unpleasant exchange of views on this thread, which resulted in one poster getting a temporary ban.

Personally I think it's unfair to associate this issue of uniform standards with any one individual.

I am rather surprised it made the Sunday Times I must say.

[Haymaker]

Pesky hats indeed. Unfortunately, whilst I am sure the original intention was to make a much more serious point than simple hat envy, in the cruel glare of press publicity perception is all.

More importantly, has anyone seen any press coverage of some much bigger issues which have been discussed recently in these forums - BASSA accounts, officer remuneration and election by show of hands?

[Colonel White]

I can picture the scene now at ACAS

TW Members want a return to the collectively agreed crewing levels
No

TW Members want acknowledgement that collective agreements will not be broken by BA and will only be varied by further negotiation and collective agreement;
BA No

TW Members want reinstatement of all lost staff travel benefits to strikers (including accrued seniority/status tickets etc);
BA You can have that but it won't be until 2013
TW Wasn't that what you said last time
BA Yup - we like consistentcy

TW Members want 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”);
BA No reinstatement, they got caught with their pants down, unless Unite want the dirt split on this
TW No

TW In view of how the dispute came about and how negotiations since have been conducted, members want 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).
BA Is that what you want Tony ?
TW No
BA Thats a pity but we'll agree to say No as well

TW Not a lot of change then
BA No. Tell you what though, Got a nice little offer for them
TW What's that ?
BA They can all have hats .....

[TopBunk]

TW Not a lot of change then
BA No. Tell you what though, Got a nice little offer for them
TW What's that ?
BA They can all have hats .....

TW They won't wear that:p

[Sporran]

Col White,

Oh so very true!!!:D

It still beggars belief that the complete muppets/ bassa reps (delete as rqd) have the gall to even make their statement.

We all said that the 'turkeys voted for Christmas' last year!

This year it is much worse - the turkeys have voted for Christmas, put the oven on gas mark 8, climbed in and are just waiting for someone to close the door...........:ugh::ugh:

If only.....

[LD12986]

What a mess!

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

16th November 2010 - AMICUS UPDATE - Report Back (Unite Meeting)


In a surprise turn of events today AMICUS have been branded terrorists by Unite and Tony Woodley in particular. The BASSA Branch Committee have now twice verbally ejected us from the negotiating committee because, apparently, our views are “too radical”, “too direct” and “not subtle enough”. They have “lost patience” with us.

The day started with a message from BASSA saying that our update of last evening (15th November 2010) was not helpful in its content. Despite a request for reconsideration, the day has ended in much the same way.
We have yet to establish why, though we accept that we have sought to address the matter of imposition, and that is where we differ from the various communications the BASSA Branch Secretary has posted.
It now appears that our friend's personal blog has somehow become the joint committee's final position – arrived at without discussion or debate. That in itself is not an issue, however, everybody and both branches are entitled to input and opinion - and in the face of that, without further debate or discussion, we, the AMICUS “branch of Unite” have, by personal communication from the BASSA Branch Secretary, been excommunicated from the BASSA negotiating team. In no uncertain terms, we have been told there will be no "joint" business from today.

So why?
We have no idea - but have the feeling this is about more than just words.
We offered to do a joint communication, but this too was declined. We hope that decision will be reconsidered by the committee as a whole, but we cannot condone a less than honest and truthful position.
We are deeply saddened and disappointed that this has happened. We have offered a line of further communication on the subject, but this has also been rejected.

The outgoing joint general secretary of Unite also today branded us as “terrorists”.
Why you ask? Because firstly we would not support the farcical ‘recommendation’. Having previously shared our intentions with our BASSA colleagues (who at that time disagreed with our position), we bit the bullet and were honest with you and Unite about this. In our humble opinion, a recommendation of the current BA offer and its Litigation appendix is morally indefensible. Unite chose to ignore our protestations about the offer, so we were left with no choice but to formally reject it.

It has subsequently and reluctantly been agreed by all parties that the consultative ballot is now dead in the water. It is our understanding, as ALL parties had previously AGREED (and is indeed promised in Unites intended letter of recommendation) we would now go straight to an industrial action ballot. This is therefore what AMICUS proposed today. We did suggest one proviso - that being, we should use the ballot period to determine if British Airways were minded to engage your reps from both branches on our issues, including the primary reason we took industrial action in the first place: IMPOSITION AND A UNILATERAL DISREGARD FOR OUR AGREEMENTS.
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.
Needless to say our point of view was again ignored. It then became once again apparent that it is not about the logic of our argument, but the weight of the numbers we represent. On basis that only 40 AMICUS members claimed strike pay, versus 7000 BASSA members, our democratic right to an opinion and our ability to represent you is extinguished. We can’t help but feel that this sounds a little like life in British Airways. Long live democracy…?

It was stated that we, the AMICUS section committee do not represent the membership, even though in an unprecedented move we took a valid and necessary stand to protect your rights which ultimately reflected the mood of the joint membership. It was not comfortable for us to do this alone, especially as we have stood shoulder to shoulder with our BASSA colleagues thus far. But we wholeheartedly believe it was the right thing to do. We have supported industrial action for the first time in our history. With clear consciences, we took the brave step of rejecting the ridiculous offer that was being pushed on you.

So where do we stand?

Our BASSA colleagues would like Tony Woodley to go back to British Airways and propose that if the points in the BASSA Branch Secretary’s latest blog are met then the deal can be salvaged as it stands. 3 of the points relate to the full reinstatement of staff travel, binding ACAS arbitration for all disciplinaries arising out of the dispute (see our earlier update on this) , and the removal of threats if a new facilities (reps) is not agreed within 8 weeks. It is also means that all the toxic elements of the deal which ultimately benefit the company will remain in place, no doubt including the litigation section, bar the stipulations in the blog regarding those off sick during the dispute and those who had pay deducted. In short, all other aspects of litigation are surrendered, including our appeal to the Supreme Court on the contractual issues of our collective agreement – the original basis of our dispute, imposition. Unite declined to comment upon the progress or intention to support any such appeal.

We then suggested, at the very least, we should put a time scale on Unites “return to talks”, and the reason for that limitation as an undertaking is because British Airways have a notorious track record for delaying. We also pointed out that we believed it is unacceptable to be constantly running to British Airways trying to resolve the dispute that British Airways initiated in its unreasonable approach and behaviour. This is even more difficult to stomach as British Airways are now in profit in spite of our industrial action, the ash cloud and numerous hefty fines being imposed for malpractice and unlawful conduct. Needless to say were any of the required "permanent structural cost savings" actually necessary?

So where do we go now?

We believe it is appropriate to offer you, the membership, the opportunity to tell us if we are not representing your best interests. Call it a vote of confidence if you will. If you don't want us to maintain the position we have taken, or indeed if you wish us to adopt another approach please communicate with us via our website. The alternative is that we withdraw from the debate altogether to allow our BASSA colleagues to determine our collective futures should you wish it.

Our previous communications did not reveal this unfortunate, untimely and quite suprising dischord as we hope that it would resolve itself quickly. However, it seems we are not being heard, and the true reasons for this are still as yet unknown.

We will in the meantime continue to represent you with humility, integrity and above all naked honesty. We will continue give you our collective opinion; we feel you deserve the direction a lot of you have been asking for and require – in fact you pay for it, and we will strive to do this subject to being involved in the proceedings.


The Amicus cabin crew section/branch
Of Unite the Union.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Wow, you seem surprised by all this. Bassa have trashed CC89/Amicus for 20 years, you then sit on the top table with them at Kempton Park and yet you still THINK? they are with you. Ummm! Remember that TW is ex TGWU and even in his last days in Unite still sides with Bassa. Bloody hell, even I'm starting to believe that Father Christmas might come down my chimney next month.

[AV Flyer]

I was wrong. BASSA & AMICUS are at each others' throats as much as ever they were. Silly me.

BA must now be asking itself "Who am I negotiating with?" It has made successive concessions during its protracted negotiations with TW, all in good faith, and in the belief that he would then secure a consultative ballot which has not happended. Rather, the whole thing has been blown back in BA's face saying they were negotiating with the wrong people and must start over again!

It would be very foolish for BA to concede any further from its current offer. The Union's Branches are continuing to adopt their no, no, no, policy and BA is negotiating against itself by repeatedly offering more and more.

The Union's Branches do not want to settle. They want nothing short of full restoration of their original power and control over BA's ICFE operations.

As I suggested earlier, BA should have shut the door on the continuing negotiation option by taking the offer off the table on the grounds of "failure to recommend the consultative ballot" leaving the Union and its Branches the choice of call a strike ballot or capitualte.

BA simply now has no choice whatsoever other than to bring this matter to a close in short order otherwise it will begin to appear to its shareholders, loyal employees and customers as weak and unable to manage its business properly. These groups and others will rapidly start to loose confidence in BA's current management if they don't act quickly and decisively from this point forwards.

BA must now adopt a policy of "No more Mr. Nice Guy".

[Litebulbs]

As I see it, one branch wants to pursue resolution industrially and the other legally. How the mother union resolves this will be interesting.

[JUAN TRIPP]

BA must now adopt a policy of "No more Mr. Nice Guy".

Avflyer, I couldn't agree more. Time to end this once and for all

[Entaxei]

With that blast from the past from Amicus, the following is part of a posting on the 11th (634) - re the influences at work on the union side;

"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."

Subsequently had a posting exchange with 'Safety Concerns' which I am certain is a troll cover for Duncan Holley (636-639), which ended with the response;

"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."

Sound Familiar? - and we're all worried about hats?

With all the determination from the union side to wreak BA, I can't see any way forward, other than a wildcat strike taking place at Xmas, which will have no effect on BA's operation, and BA being forced into firing all striking CC, which is of course the cause celebre that the union forces are after - but that will probably have no other effect than ridding BA of all malign employees in one fell swoop - game over.

[PAXboy]

This provided me with the best laugh in months:
The BASSA Branch Committee have now twice verbally ejected us from the negotiating committee because, apparently, our views are “too radical”, “too direct” and “not subtle enough”. They have “lost patience” with us.This means that BASSA are CAUTIOUS and SUBTLE and invites the idea that they might be losing patience??? Oh wow. :D

[JUAN TRIPP]

p.s. Hey Mr. Tripp, didn't I once work for you? Some of the heyday ex-PanAm-ers on here must pause when they see your name pop up. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

LOL. I thought his name was Juan Tripp(e)!! Still a great name for a CEO of a airline company!

[MCOflyer]

You are so right about Pan Am. When I worked for AA in the early 70's Pan Am was an icon. Now, what is left of it is part of Delta.

You knew they were in trouble when they sold their building in NYC. Unruly labor problems and poor management did them in. No one ever thought Pan Am would fail because they had been around for so long.

Beware! It can happen to any airline.

[TopBunk]

... because British Airways have a notorious track record for delaying [negotiations]

Unbelievable, and proved in court to be the Union side that refused to talk to each other and BA over several months last year.

How the members can claim support for these idiots that run the cabin crew unions amazes me.

Still, at least So where do we go now?

We believe it is appropriate to offer you, the membership, the opportunity to tell us if we are not representing your best interests. Call it a vote of confidence if you will.

offers the membership the chance to speak out; and at least with CC89 (unlike BASSA, where any negative post is moderated) that might mean something.

Got to say though, that the various Unite factions do give good entertainment value. They certainly come up with stunts that take you by surprise!

[kappa]

Baggersup, I can't let this remark go unchallenged: We were always aware that BOAC and PanAm were the two airlines to beat in service.When those two airlines were flying, I was a very frequent trans-Atlantic pax - and IMO, TWA beat both "in service" across the ocean. I'm not knocking BOAC or PA, but while you may have been looking to beat the other in service, TWA was eating your lunch on the USA-LHR routes! To be fair, I think PA had the better intra-Europe service under the Fifth Freedom and cabotage rights that existed following WW2).

Remember, those were the days of government set fares. The only lure to the pax was in-flight service, the schedule, and the most modern (and fastest) aircraft.

Mods, sorry for continuing the thread drift

[manintheback]

I'm not sure there is an "all in" for BA without a strike ballot being issued.

The SOSR route.

Seriously doubt BA would sack strikers who made the decision by ballot. May be legal but would create one hell of a backlash.

manintheback
You, Sir, are a wimp. I have never worked for BA, but I say that they will win through, despite the shouts of BASSA, and your booking would be safe. Show some mettle, man, otherwise why post on here?


Not my fight, why risk my hard earned. BA management care for me (or you) as little as BASSA do. Lost my 2007 trip to SAfrica due to strike action, got compensation from BA because of its criminal price fixing.

[Richard228]

On basis that only 40 AMICUS members claimed strike pay, versus 7000 BASSA members, our democratic right to an opinion and our ability to represent you is extinguished.so, only 40 Amicus members claimed strike pay...

Question, How many BA cabin crew are in this branch of the Union, and how many Amicus reps are there?

Seems to me, that if only 40 members went on strike, then the hard line Amicus is taking is unlikely to be representaitve?

If you don't want us to maintain the position we have taken, or indeed if you wish us to adopt another approach please communicate with us via our website.
which is hardly a fair way to guage support of its members?

They want members to expose their views on this matter publicly on the Amicus website - I doubt many would dare do this. And if not many do, then Amicus will carry on, thinking it has the support of its membership? absurd!

Only way to fairly guage opinion is a secret ballot of its members.

[Snas]

If in BA’s eyes BASSA have become largely irrelevant then I’m unable to find the word that would describe how they view Amicus.

Let them huff and puff, few care, I most certainly dont.

I'm more alarmed at Unite and their inability to control this situation. I have always known that BASSA were clowns, you only needed to read anything they put out to know that you were dealing with people of limited ability.

Unite however, as I say, are the shock for me. I would say the super union experiment has failed, there isnt any central strategy at work here it’s just chaos that has now descended into an undemocratic farce where a few reps get to decide there will be no ballot, having previously promised there would be, this is Unite’s branch, it is they who are tainted by all this just as much as the BASSA circus.

[Diplome]

Does anyone know the number of Cabin Crew represented by Amicus? I've read it somewhere but can't locate the post.

[winstonsmith]

Does anyone know the number of Cabin Crew represented by Amicus? I've read it somewhere but can't locate the post. Probably somewhere around the 1000 mark - maybe a bit less these days - they're a very small branch compared to BASSA yet have completed all negotiations in the past.

[LD12986]

I would not be surprised if BA responds to TW's plea for a revised offer with a terse instruction to get Unite's own house in order first.

Does the number of strike pay claims by CC89 members (a mere 40) exclude claims from the reps themselves?

[Richard228]

Thanks winstonsmithProbably somewhere around the 1000 mark - maybe a bit less these days - they're a very small branch compared to BASSA yet have completed all negotiations in the past.so lets say Amicus/CC89 have:

1000 members
20 Reps (thye had this number of reps in 2005 from what I can tell)

This means, assuming each rep went on strike, that each rep has been able to convince only 1 member each to also go on strike!

thats only 2% of the membership in total they have pursueded!

And yet Amicus takes such a hard line, seemingly against the will of their membership... most bizarre!

[AV Flyer]

LD12986 - I would likewise be surprised if BA do not send Woodley back with his tail between his legs. If it doesn't then BA will look like a fool.

BA made several hard fought concessions during its negotiations with TW including returning ST and making a special case of its previously Union-agreed disciplinary process to include ACAS arbitration. Both of these were counter to WW's public announcement at the Malta conference that no concessions would be made so, clearly, they were not offered easily. These concessions were accepted by TW on the basis the offer would not only be recommended but also actually presented to a consultative ballot of the rank and file.

The way the Union and its Branches are behaving is causing BA to negotiate against itself. If BA falls for this trick it would be very naive indeed especially when it currently holds all the cards and its only really acceptable outcome will be to crush BASSA's current leadership thus preventing this whole ugly episode from happening time and time again.

If BA does agree to restart negotiations at the very least it should strip back its previous ST and disciplinary concessions and start again from where it began before but this time with a clear understanding that anything agreed stands for the ENTIRE Union and its Branches and not just for TW.

Don't forget this entire matter is actually one of a monumental power struggle for who controls BA's IFCE operations.

No more Mr. Nice Guy!

[WillDAQ]

Something that's been bugging me..

From the other thread:
then we should all be very worried indeed about the state of CRM within our company.

To quote wikipedia:
Crew resource management or Cockpit resource management (CRM) is a procedure and training system in systems where human error can have devastating effects. Used primarily for improving air safety, CRM focuses on interpersonal communication, leadership, and decision making in the cockpit.

There seems to have been a trend over these threads to take CRM, which is ultimately quite a specific set of skills to minimise human error and converted it into some notion that all crew have to be best friends.

[Juan Tugoh]

It is TW that has egg on his face at the moment. He publically stated that the last offer was the best that could be expected, his branches told him it was not good enough and sent him back to BA with his cap in his hands like Oliver asking "Please Sir, can I have more?"

BA does not need to do anything. TW is the one that is in a difficult position - will BA trust him with any further offers? The last one was conditional on several things, one being a recommendation from the union, TW gave that recommendation and his underlings made him look foolish and out of touch by refusing to recommend the offer. TW is the one that needs to make things happen to restore his authority and reputation.

BA on the other hand have the savings they need, they have not given a pay rise to the majority of crew, have introduced MF and can continue to grow MF as quick as they like without interference. They can transfer whatever work they like to MF without interference from the union as there is no agreement for route transfers for them to breach as UNITE have failed to negotiate one. There can be no court challenge to the route transfers as there is no agreement to breach.

BA can sit fat, dumb and happy in the knowledge that every day that passes moves a strike away from the holiday period and the savings they are reaping continue to grow. BA has no pressing need to settle this dispute immediately, they can afford to wait the unions out. If BA do act it may give the unions a new legitimate reason to strike, at the moment BA can sack people that strike as the action would not be protected.

AMICUS, the bit part players in the IA with only 40 strikers have effectively ruined the latest chance for a settlement - democracy in action? 20? Reps, looking after the interests of 40 CC, out of 13000 dictating whether there will be a consultative ballot on a settlement to the dispute. You couldn't write this stuff - nobody would believe it.

[labrador pup]

WillDAQ - CRM can also stand for Customer Relationship Management and this definition is probably nearer to what is affecting BA's customers/clients/passengers (choose whichever is your favoured tag for SLF today :ok:)

[rethymnon]

going off at a slight tangent, can i assume that we must now treat BA cabin crew as 'royalty'?

'spect duncan will want an invite!

[benhurr]

Cabin Crew are an important part of CRM - the wikipedia entry is wrong to suggest it is confined to the cockpit. If the relationship between cabin and flightdeck is poor then this has a clear impact on safety.

[WillDAQ]

Cabin Crew are an important part of CRM - the wikipedia entry is wrong to suggest it is confined to the cockpit. If the relationship between cabin and flightdeck is poor then this has a clear impact on safety.

Undoubtedly, however it's the definition of relationship that's skewed.

It does not mean relationship in terms of how they interact social downroute. It's about clear concise communication of pertinent facts in a timely manner and focusing on the job in hand in an un-emotive manner.

Now undoubtedly for pilots there is a softer aspect to this as the actions of the pilot and co-pilot are strongly linked: they are carrying out different interlinked tasks at the same time.

However, for a large group of cabin crew carrying out tasks which are essentially stand alone how well you get on with the other crew really shouldn't be an issue.

[vctenderness]

BA cabin crew undergo CRM as part of their annual checks along with flight crew colleagues.

The interaction of cabin and flight crew is essential to safe operation of any flight.

The British Midland incident proved this.

With out doubt ensuring cabin and flight deck work as a team is paramount.

[LD12986]

On the number of Amicus reps, the last page of this document lists 21 Amicus reps at the time of publication:

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

[Colonel White]

AMICUS, the bit part players in the IA with only 40 strikers have effectively ruined the latest chance for a settlement - democracy in action? 20? Reps, looking after the interests of 40 CC, out of 13000 dictating whether there will be a consultative ballot on a settlement to the dispute.

It's actually worse than that. Consider. The reps would all have been duty bound to walk out on strike. So in fact only 19 ordinary members of CC89 walked off the job.

[LD12986]

And so it continues:


17th November 2010 - AMICUS UPDATE - The Facts


The AMICUS/CC89 Committee would like you to be aware a few supportable and provable facts in the face of smooth talk and diversionary personal slights.

1. The BASSA Branch Chair was not present at yesterday’s meeting, or the last 3 negotiating committee meetings.

2. The AMICUS/CC89 senior reps were denied access to the meeting yesterday on the instruction of the BASSA Branch Secretary. If they attended – he would not attend.

3. The reaction you have witnessed to the AMICUS/CC89 article of 16th November 2010 is a direct result of the BASSA Committees nervousness about support (on their own forum) for AMICUS/CC89 and our views, supported by the majority of their membership. We put this down to human nature – but you still deserve the truth.

4. ALL AMICUS/CC89 reps have been barred from the BASSA Forum and committee emails.

5. The BASSA branch secretary has now twice ejected CC89 from the committee. The last time was yesterday, as a result of our article of 15th November 2010 – when apparently, without debate, his own blog was the FINAL position of us all. Democracy? What’s your view?

6. The BASSA branch committee ALL wished to accept the BA deal offered on 15th October, bar a handful of the newest reps who had to lecture the committee about their “principles” at a recent All Reps meeting in London.

7. Remember, these points are all supportable – many in print.

8. The BASSA Branch Committee allowed Unite to control and write their members communication on the subject of the offer. The review the offer itself content and the litigation review was controlled by Unite – the people who wanted us to recommend it. This was a watered down version of the truth – and you deserve more. We disagreed with their approach. You deserve the TRUTH together with clear indication as to the impact those items would have on your present and future career.

9. The BASSA Branch Committee wanted to continue with the recommendation of the offer – until we published our withdrawal and rejected the offer – and you responded with your approval of that position. Their hand was forced and they had to respond by following suit.

10. It was at this point AMICUS/CC89 published their 3 main articles (starting with the Formal Rejection on 3rd November . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE (http://www.UniteBA.com) ) but maintained a face of joint harmony between the committees within those articles, even though we had been `ousted’ and castigated for our view. Whilst we are committed to telling you the TRUTH, we felt that the BASSA committee ought to be given some breathing space, cut some `slack’ since their track record should and might eventually make them see sense. Written communications between us confirm this. The very next BASSA statement piggy-backed the extent of that courtesy because they KNEW they would be criticised by you if they did not. Their member’s forum posts helped them `see sense’ – but the praise for AMICUS was clearly a little too much for the BASSA committee to stomach.

11. The BASSA Chair has now clearly stated online that the BASSA Committee “did not agree with”the view of the AMICUS/CC89 committee. We would like to suggest that you re-read the last 3 AMICUS/CC89 articles on this website so see exactly what it is that BASSA do not agree with. (. FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE (http://www.UniteBA.com))

12. The BASSA Committee DO NOT AGREE with the following statement (amongst all others since 3rd November 2010):

In order to restore the relationship [between the trade unions and BA] 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).

13. AMICUS/CC89 have been offered a merger with the BASSA committee. We do not feel it is the right time for this to be considered, since we do not believe that the views of the BASSA committee are entirely representative of the whole joint membership. This has become clear in the last 3-4 weeks.

14. Any rep who sought to join BASSA did so under the impression that they would need 2 years membership in order to be considered a rep if there was to be a merger in the future.

15. We have been told by Unite, in no uncertain terms, that any rep who thinks we can address the matter of imposition now is on “a different planet”.

16. A member of the AMICUS/CC89 Committee has been told directly by Lenny McCluskey and the BASSA Branch Secretary to `wind his neck in’.

17. The BASSA position, as of yesterday – in the meeting with the JGS Tony Woodley was that the 4 points outlined in the BASSA Branch Secretary’s email were indeed the only 4 points required to end this dispute. The BASSA forum posts have provided a wishful get out clause, when hoping for the best i.e. that they were only just a starting point. Read the blog again. This is/was not the case.

18. Sometimes, it is human nature for individuals to think their past experience in different circumstances and different times is faultless and above reproach. We all admit that BA is a different animal these days and one which nobody from the TU side has ever experienced before. It is not important to be right, or to know best. It’s important to do the right thing for the membership and listen to their voice. According to the forum posts, we did this.

19. It is very easy to dismiss ones short comings by turning the issue in to a `personal attack’ as the BASSA Branch Chair has done today, rather than focusing on the actual issues. AMICUS refuse to make any of this personal. We will simply give you supportable facts and truth – and sometimes, that is uncomfortable to hear.

20. TW did indeed call an AMICUS/CC89 rep a “terrorist” and this was not challenged by any member of the BASSA Committee.

21. AMICUS/CC89 have requested an IA ballot to commence and whilst this is underway, talks can recommence to address all of the points in (12) above. This was denied. AMICUS/CC89 requested a time limit for the intended `return to talks’. None was given.

22. All costs of this dispute are carried by Unite.

23. AMICUS/CC89 will live through and weather any opportunistic personal attacks designed to undermine us and our position – but it will not change unless you wish it. The BASSA Branch Committee had lost touch with your views; do not want AMICUS/CC89 to be the ones who haven’t, and now for them, it’s become personal. Fibs, or half-truths have short legs.

We implore the BASSA Committee to lay down their swords against us, listen to the members, stop the personal and diversionary slights and get down to business - together.

24. AMICUS/CC89 will continue to tell the TRUTH no matter what is thrown at us. YOU deserve it, WE deserve it, and the BASSA Branch Committee deserves it.

25. This is no trivial storm in a tea cup – it is an indication of who or what is leading the BASSA Branch Committee. We sincerely hope they humble themselves and see the error of their ways, for all of our sakes.

26. Members can now join the new Email Update List via our website http://www.UniteBA.com (http://www.uniteba.com/)

[west lakes]

The reps would all have been duty bound to walk out on strike.

At least one of them was seen in uniform, on duty, on a strike day

[RTR]

This is farcical, utterly and totally farcical. Amicus v BASSA now and sorry to say they are acting like spoilt children who have had their ball taken away.

How can you take them seriously? The 'threat' here is that they are now fighting among themselves with NO regard for the members they represent, its a fight between each faction - in certain instances for their individual selfish reasons. They have lost the plot entirely.

Unite now have a major problem on their hands and I would doubt that Tony Woodley wants any part of it. But he has to act positively - its time to crack a few heads.

I wonder if WW would like to shout "enough is enough, if we cannot have a union who really knows what unions are for, then we don't want any at all."

The 'Gen Sec' of BASSA has an awful lot to answer for as the main protagonist. He is still trying to run things his way and unless he is removed this farce will run and run with no end in sight. Now BASSA and Amicus are causing untold damage to the cabin staff's well being. That is bad!

Its all becoming rather childish.

[WillDAQ]

BA cabin crew undergo CRM as part of their annual checks along with flight crew colleagues.

The interaction of cabin and flight crew is essential to safe operation of any flight.

The British Midland incident proved this.

With out doubt ensuring cabin and flight deck work as a team is paramount.

Well obviously, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Instead it seems that many SCCM are reluctant to assert their authority because they're worried it would harm CRM... when in reality the priority should be:

1) Get the rest of the crew to do their jobs properly.
2) Worry about things like CRM.

[notlangley]

The Ballot for the General Secretary of Unite is over
The member is responsible for posting the ballot paper in the envelope provided to reach the Independent Scrutineer by 4pm on 19 November 2010
________________________Reference:-__link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/PDF/001-ballot-Guidelines.pdf)
We now wait for the result

Following the count the Independent Scrutineer will issue to the Joint General Secretaries the Ballot Result and Report for the General Secretary election.
Upon receipt of the Independent Scrutineer’s Report, the Executive Council will declare the Result and notify all branches.
Reference:-________ibid (http://www.unitetheunion.org/PDF/001-ballot-Guidelines.pdf)

[spin_doctor]

Bit of a tangent really but about the CRM issue - as far as I'm aware there is no more of a problem now than there has been previously. CRM does indeed cover the whole crew and thus the pilot/cabin crew interaction is important (note, it used to be called cockpit resource management which probably explains the misleading wiki entry).

The confusion comes from a large number of crew who really have no clear idea what CRM is actually about, and imagine it to be another way of saying 'be nice to each other'. It's not.

The Midland (kegworth) crash highlighted the need for effective communication between pilots and cabin crew, and that this had to be two way. It is possible to work well with the rest of the crew, communicate effectively, issue instructions when necessary and take information from others without being best mates with everyone.

Sadly this is a concept that many people struggle with. I have heard, in all seriousness, cabin crew say 'that Captain didn't even smile when he came onboard, that's not very good CRM is it?'.

[LD12986]

Duncan is reported to have claimed in his lecture that a strike ballot will issued within two weeks with the aim of strikes in January 2011. We shall see....

[Colonel White]

Ah yes, I also read the report on Duncan's 'lecture' . Must have been a real thriller, managed to attract over 50 people - mainly students. His predictions are interesting - he obviously thinks that the negotiations can be concluded inside of two weeks and that they can automatically reject the offer from BA without consulting the membership. Novel, given that the last round of negotiations by Tony Woodley took about a month. Duncan also needs to recognise that negotiation involves compromise, a concept that seems to have so far eluded him.

My prediction. The negotiations will take a damn sight more than 2 weeks to conclude. Unite will insist that the branch put any offer to the membership potentially with no recommendation, but also with an independantly drafted explanation of it - i.e it won't have the usual BASSA rhetoric, but equally won't have management spin either. At ths juncture it is impossible to say how the union membership will react as there are no clear figures indicating how many are left. After the CC89 spat I would imagine that overall Unite probably has around 8000 cabin crew members. Anyone got a better estimate ?

[Roccoreid]

Are we getting close to the point of BA asking Unite to prove it has the membership to be the Union of choice for cabin crew?

Now if I was Unite I would think hard about losing both BASSA and CC89 and run my own Cabin Crew branch of the union. Why? Well I reckon a lot of current crew still want Union representation but not the current set up. In one fell swoop order is restored.

[AV Flyer]

The negotiations will certainly take a lot longer than two weeks to conclude. They may take even longer than that to get started!

I just cannot see BA jumping back into negotiations with TW after his failed attempt to have BA's last offer even recommended by the Branches let alone put to a consutlative ballot. It's BA's turn to call "no negotiation" but this time around on the very legitimate grounds that the Union's internal dysfunction is causing it to negotiate in bad faith.

Other than potential damage to future bookings, which is diminishing as the public realises the Union's threats are but a paper tiger, BA has every justification to wait until the Union can demonstrate it has got its house in order before re-engaging in talks. This may involve Branch leadership changes and other internal structural alterations needed to transform itself into and re-emerge as a coherent, functional and mature trade union representative body fit to take on the might and intellect of BA in the 21st Century.

[From Tunbridge Wells]

if I was Unite I would think hard about losing both BASSA and CC89 and run my own Cabin Crew branch of the union. Why? Well I reckon a lot of current crew still want Union representation but not the current set up. In one fell swoop order is restored.

Couldn't agree more - I suspect the wheels may already be in motion

[Litebulbs]

It would be interesting to know the termination clause and its timescale.

[Safety Concerns]

there is no legal minefield it is all very easy.

If a voluntary agreement is in place between BASSA and BA or Unite and BA then the ONLY people who can terminate that agreement are the signaturies.

A voluntary agreement is not covered as far as derecognition is concerned and therefore membership numbers/level of support is totally irrelevant.

If however there is a statutory agreement in place (which I know there isn't) then one, as in the bargaining group, could force a derecognition ballot.

It is this that the new cabin crew group have failed to grasp. So unless BA or Unite terminate the agreement it is status quo for a long time to come.

On that basis perhaps a more positive approach should be adopted by BA management as far as discussions with BASSA are concerned. What do you think Diplome?;););););););)

[notlangley]

Sorry Safety Concerns (post 816) can you straighten up my blurred tone-deaf thinking?

___1) Are you saying that the arrangement between Unite and BASSA is voluntary?
___2) Are you saying that one party (Unite) to the arrangement can terminate the policy?
___3) Are you saying that the other party (BASSA) has no legal redress?

[Hipennine]

IIRC BA offered Unite a voluntary recognition agreement for MF early on in the proceedings, which Unite turned down. Therefore what happens in MF is of no interest to Unite unless BA offers again, or Unite decides to get 50% plus of that group and go for statutory recognition. However, in the meantime, some other organisation could form/represent MF crews and request recognition from BA voluntarily (or VV), or statutorily.

nb Notlangley, I think SC means that the arrangement between BA and Unite(including its differnt branches BASSA and CC89) is voluntarily for TU Recognition purposes -ie it has not been subject to a Statutory Recognition Request. What the constitutional arrangements are for the relationship of BASSA and CC89 within Unite seem to be shrouded in mystery.

[Safety Concerns]

notlangley post 817. As far voluntary agreements are concerned there is only one way to end them. Derecognition of voluntary agreements can only be achieved when one of the parties concerned terminates the agreement.

The legal redress is the statutory agreement route which then involves the numbers game.

So for those hard of hearing, BASSA membership could go down to 1 member and BASSA are still entitled to enforce the voluntary agreement within BA.

(as per hipennine clarification in post 818)

as for the situation between unite and bassa wait for the general secretary result. Could be more interesting.

[notlangley]

Four brooms in the cupboard
Each searching for happiness
Will BASSA get a clean sweep?
Its anybody’s guess

[Dual ground]

Given the history of "negotiations" between BA and Unite, and the obvious inability of Unite to rein in the BASSA committee, I would have thought that for BA terminating the Voluntary agreement may well be tempting.

Force BASSA to prove, once and for all, just how much support they do have amongst the rank and file members. Could they actually reach the magic 50% + 1 threshold after their performance over the last 12 months?

[AV Flyer]

With the greatest respect SC, I would suggest should BASSA's membership fall to one (1) then way before that the other 12,999 CC staff would have been begging, and thus giving a resounding mandate to, BA to terminate any voluntary recognition agreement which it would have been more than pleased to do.

[AV Flyer]

It appears that Unite has decided to wait until its GS ballot result is announced before going back to BA which means that any approach to BA will now not be by TW but by its new GS. BASSA seem happy to wait believing that the new GS will be Len McCluskey whom they believe to be a staunch BASSA supporter and thus a strong negotiator on their behalf.

Thinking back to last Winter, then LM was very vociferous and invovled in the dispute prior to the strike calls when he very notciably went silent and withdrew. It was widely thought he withdrew as he was concerned being publicly mixed-up with BASSA's dispute could damage his GS aspirations.

Should this be true then BASSA would be ill advised to raise any hopes of LM stepping in upon his becoming GS. It would not be the first time a politician had made false promises privately to gain votes and I could imagine BASSA's state of desperation making them very susceptible to voting in misguided belief.

We will no doubt see ........

[Safety Concerns]

With the greatest respect SC, I would suggest should BASSA's membership fall to one (1) then way before that the other 12,999 CC staff would have been begging, and thus giving a resounding mandate to, BA to terminate any voluntary recognition agreement which it would have been more than pleased to do.

with the greatest respect av flyer I never suggested any different but my own view is that BA haven't got the b*lls due to the inevitable repercussions elsewhere.

BA don't need a mandate to terminate the agreement as numbers and support are irrelevant.

The GS election will resolve this dispute one way or the other.

[AV Flyer]

SC - With a 12999 CC not being members I think even BA would have the confidence to terminate the agreement.

You seem to think that BASSA's leadership is somehow invincible and untouchable. Can you explain the basis for this confidence as I seem to be missing something?

[Safety Concerns]

no i just think the reality of potential issues right across the board (everywhere unite has its finger in a pie) is too much of a risk for BA.

Its a big loss for unite to lose an agreement. You seriously believe they will let go just like that?

[AV Flyer]

SC - So you would be thinking that the new Unite GS would support BASSA far better than TW ever did and also be prepared to extend BASSA's IA to other BA related Branches within Unite?

There would be very many "ifs" to resolve before other Unite Branches that have already settled with BA would take IA in support of BASSA's CC.

Is this the basis for your confidence in BASSA's leaderships power base?

[AV Flyer]

SC - I may be misunderstanding something from your earlier posts.

Are you saying that both BA & Unite would have to agree to terminate a voluntary agreement or is it sufficient for just one party to terminate for the agreement to be terminated?

[Safety Concerns]

no my own view is that len will continue on the current path whereas les will bring this to an end very quickly. Most commentators are expecting a len victory.

ba is a prestige company and so brings prestige and status to any union involved with it. The reality of breaking a voluntary agreement under such circumstances has very little to do with the members or lack of them in any given workplace.

I would be very surprised if both have to agree to terminate the deal.

[Litebulbs]

I doubt if both parties will need to agree a termination, but I imagine the notice will be reasonably long, but only somebody with access to the recognition agreement will be able to clear that up.

If BA thought that it was anywhere near 50%-1 of the whole cabin crew community, then I am sure that it would be general knowledge. If you add the alleged 7000 strikers to the CC89 non striking membership, then you are a long way off 6750 not in Unite.

If BASSA and CC89 use check off, then that would be another indication of numbers.

[Safety Concerns]

just to ensure we are all talking about apples.

voluntary agreement- can only be terminated by one of the signaturies
statutory agreement - numbers are significant and can lead to a derecognition ballot driven by the workforce

so union members cannot terminate a voluntary agreement, there is no mechanism in place for such an action.

[Litebulbs]

I agree. However numbers do come into it inasmuch as if BA were to terminate the recognition agreement, then Unite would immediately show that it had over 50%+1 membership, so not requiring a ballot, as I understand it. I am happy to be proved wrong though.

[Safety Concerns]

Perhaps the most unfortunate point arising from your comments is that you openly suggest the politics of Unite and its Branches has nothing to do with representing its rank and file members who pay their subs in good faith. A sad comment that many have made here before throughout this entire thread.


No quite what I am saying. I am saying that if the voluntary agreement is at risk of being terminated then members views and numbers will be totally irrelevant in the discussion that would ensue. It would then all be about politics and nothing else.

Whether you feel that unite represent your views now or not, only the individual can determine.

[Safety Concerns]

litebulbs it would make no difference. Voluntary agreement terminated process reset.

of course unite would be free to go down the recognition route again but you can't force a company into a voluntary agreement.

end result is that numbers are completely irrelevant.

[Litebulbs]

I personally will be looking at my membership of Unite if a certain candidate is elected. That candidate will have to say and do quite a few things to change my preconceived ideas. Time will tell and hopefully the 24th will make this post irrelevant, but I doubt it.

[Litebulbs]

SC, nobody can force a voluntary agreement, but what happens if BA serve notice? What would Unite do?

[Safety Concerns]

I suspect they would follow the statutory route in the hope that they can overturn the decision to terminate in the mean time. All in all bad news for unite which is why it will never happen.

consequences for BA would have been clearly explained and BA doesn't want to risk facing them in my opinion.

[AV Flyer]

Litebulbs - Sorry to hear that. It is always unfortunate when, because of significant changes by the leadership/mamangement of one party, another party feels sufficiently compromised that upon principle they have to walk away. Particularly if that relationship has strong personal elements developed over a long period of time. But who are we other than our personal value systems? We have nothing else to base our decisions on and would be compromising ourselves completely if we were to let it pass.

[Ancient Observer]

Unions do not like de-recognition. If BA gave notice to terminate their arrangements with bassa/Unite, then Unite would be upset.

However, Unite being upset is nothing new. The cases of de-recognition of the T&G that i can think of - without doing any Internet research include:-
BP. Shell. ICI. Unilever. Astra Zeneca. The list goes on.

All of these are much much higher profile and higher prestige than BA.

For the oilies, the T & G tried to mount a campaign, with National press releases, a determination to "picket" their petrol stations and all that stuff.............Now, here's the test ............does anyone reading this remember any of that? Did you refuse to buy Shell petrol? I thought not.

Does anyone remember any of Len's campaigns in Liverpool, (which, of course, led to the end of the jobs that he was allegedly trying to protect.) ? I thought not.

If BA de-recognised bassa, what exactly are bassa going to do about it? Would the engineers come out in sympathy?? Of course not. Would BA CC strike??? - Not enough of them care enough.
It would be a modest risk, but easy to achieve, and forgotten in a couple of years.

The new GS, whoever she is, would make all the right socialist sounding noises, but would know that she has about as much power as a cough in a hurricane. She's going to much too busy worrying about Government budget effects to worry about BA.

[AV Flyer]

Just announced on the rolling BBC News 24 channel. Len McCluskey has been elected the new GS of Unite. The BBC said "he received more than 100,000 votes which is double that of his nearest rival".

With an alleged 1.5 million members (the BBC's news article went on to say "over one million members"), am I the only one who continues to be disturbed by these so-called union and branch "resounding majority votes" from what amounts to minority membership turn-outs?

If I were Unite I would be looking very closely why so few voted as it could well explain its rapidly diminishing membership.

[Safety Concerns]

I'm with litebulbs on this one if Len is confirmed and my membership will be terminated.

No vote is stupidity

[AV Flyer]

SC - Sorry to hear that too.

Further to the BBC News 24 announcement there is a PA news article here:

The Press Association: McCluskey elected new Unite leader (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hndx_yGc_-p8gTMWArffrL_sJ4iw?docId=N0189441290347385567A)

Barely a 16% turn-out, if that.

[Litebulbs]

Oh dear. Looks like I will be working with different officers in the not too distant future!

[Neptunus Rex]

AV Flyer

If those figures are correct, and who is to doubt the Beeb, then less than 20 % cast a vote, unless there were loads of votes for loads of other candidates. Even so, It does not show huge interest in the outcome.

And another thing, were any Union 'Block Votes' involved?


Totally irrelevant:
"Doodley Doodley Doo Doo!" (Check my Post Number; think Mosquito.)

[Ancient Observer]

Len is as effective as a chocolate teapot.

He can tell decent jokes, but that's about it.

[AV Flyer]

NR - Only four candidates polling a total of 101,000 + 52,000 + 46,000 + 39,000 = 238,000 out of 1.5 million is 16% or out of 1.4 million is 17% turn-out. My understanding is one member, one vote for one of the four candidates - but I stand to be corrected.

Wasn't that 633? "Taa Da Da Da Da Daaaaaaa!"

[call100]

Seems to follow the UK's general apathy when it comes to voting. As I have said before, the vast majority of rank and file members don't give a tinkers cuss who sits on the top table. Anyone beyond their immediate FTO might as well be a universe away. :hmm:

[Diplome]

Interesting reading regarding Mr. McCluskey's election on a few fronts.

No doubt the militant section of BASSA are pleased, though I think there are a few in Labour who may be having a strong drink and saying "Oh dear".

The extremely poor turnout of around 17% could be read several ways. I guess we will all be listening to Mr. McCluskey's initial comments regarding the BASSA problem with interest.

Am I right in understanding that Mr. McCluskey was the individual who announced strike dates after agreeing to not make the announcement, and that resulted in the previous BA offer being pulled off the table?

[Colonel White]

Um.. I believe that what happened was that TW and DS were in discussions with BA. The problem at the time was that Unite were running short on time for new dates. BA offered to extend the normal deadline to allow Unite to put the offer to members on the proviso that no strike dates were called. TW said he would do that, however, at the press conference the following morning Lennie went and rubbished the offer and announced strike dates. BA then promptly withdrew the offer citing that Unite had not negotiated in good faith. Within days TW was asking BA to put the offer back on the table so that they could put it to members. Typical Unite cockup.

It will be interestingto see what Lennie does now. He doesn't come across as being as savvy as Tony Woodley. He might be the undoing of Unite. Only needs one ill-advised strike call and a company who will sue and the union funds could take a pasting. If Safety Concerns is correct that he is not of a mind to bring this dispute to a close, then he is in grave danger of winding up with egg on face.

Why ? well he's in a no-win situation. All very well to huff and puff about calling all Unite members out on strike, but what happens when either a) nobody apart from a handful of cabin crew heed the call or b) some bright spark suggests that this is secondary action. plus c) it is pointed out that the union are repeating the same issue from the previous stoppage and thus any strike action is unprotected ? So either the response is a damp squib, or results in lots of sackings and Unite being sued. Not an auspicious start. The longer it is allowed to drag on, the more ineffectual he will appear.

[notlangley]

The best thing Len McCluskey can do is ignore BASSA for the first three years._ There are many other much bigger and more important issues outside BA.

[jimtherev]

The best thing Len McCluskey can do is ignore BASSA for the first three years._ There are many other much bigger and more important issues outside BA.
Best thing for whom? For LMcC, maybe.
But what about the 5? 7? 10? thousand unhappy bunnies floating about in the UNITE-manufactured doodoo? They would be entitled to shout "Neglect! Malpractice! I'm off!", with the resultant loss of hundreds of £k of subs...

[AV Flyer]

jimtherev - Why "UNITE-manufactured"?

Unite (TW) negotiated and delivered to BASSA & AMICUS what most people in the UK would consider a very generous package, including guaranteed pay rises for the next few years, which the Branch leaderships chose to thumb their noses at without giving their members a consultative ballot (who might well have accepted if only asked).

The only people the 5? 7? 10? thousand bunnies have reason to be unhappy with is their own Branch leaderships and not UNITE. Surely?

[jimtherev]

Yes, AV, granted. But with a name like UNITE, I would have thought that a bit of head-knocking-together following the infamous carpark incident & following brouhaha just might have made TW's last-ditch effort unnecessary. Points to him, of course, but ? too little too late?

[AV Flyer]

jimtherev - Fair comments under normal circumstances but seeing as the underlying truth of this dispute is that it is fundamentally a monumental power struggle as to who runs BA's IFCE operations - BASSA's leadership or BA's management - then I doubt whether any banging of heads or extraction of offers by Unite or anything short of complete capitulation by BA would be acceptable to BASSA's current leadership - not withstanding the true wishes of their rank and file members.

[jimtherev]

... the true wishes of their rank and file members.
Yes - it's in their hands, isn't it?

[AV Flyer]

jtr - Yes, it should be in the rank and files' hands, but continually we see this incredible voting apathy whereby the leadership and their policies are elected or approved by a majority of an ever diminishing minority of those more militant members who choose to vote.

I personally don't understand the mentality/psychology of this situation? Why pay good money month-after-month to be a member of an organisation and then show apathy when it comes to voting on what amounts to very important issues?

[Litebulbs]

Cheap legal cover?

[Snas]

It's more like the herd mentality Bulbs. Cheap legal cover is available from many sources, not just the union. Indeed their legal record has been wanting of late.

[Litebulbs]

The thing about legal cover is the 50%+1. Ambulance chasers will not take the risk on at that level; union legal will. However, 50%+1 does not satisfy the membership, as is the current case with this dispute.

I doubt that anybody that has been suspended/sacked is without fault, but it is the level of fault that is in question and I would challenge anybody on here that currently is in employment, who says that they have done nothing wrong in the last year.

[pcat160]

We seem to have some detail on one sacking as well as some history of previous disciplinary actions involving the same person. I am of course referring to Duncan known as Security Concerns on this thread. If the information we have learned on this thread, much of which was posted by Security Concerns, is accurate would you question the appropriateness of the sacking in this case?

[Litebulbs]

Great question and one that I will be flamed for, no doubt.

Did DH do anything different in dispute, than was the norm prior to Columbus? I have asked the question elsewhere about full time lay reps and the facilities granted to carry out the role. There is no law governing it. If all was harmonious at BA, then I am sure that it would serve the employer well, to fund a full time rep, but that is not the case here.

So in answer, I just don't know.

[AlpineSkier]

As regards the importance of legal cover in the union/member relationship, I am sure I have read that BASSA was refusing to help non-strikers with any representation because they didn't strike .

I would have expected that this service would be part of the contract between member and union and as such non-negotiable, or is it normal for there to be a " unless otherwise deemed.... " type clause in there ?

If this clause is not present, what would a member have to do to force an unwilling union to fulfill its 'contractual" obligations ?

I just cannot see how a union can legally discrimate against its members just as BA cannot .

[LD12986]

According to The Sun newspaper one of the BA crew behind the "Santas Crew" collection for sacked/suspended staff has themselves been suspended following allegations of bullying/harassment.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

According to The Sun newspaper one of the BA crew behind the "Santas Crew" collection for sacked/suspended staff has themselves been suspended following allegations of bullying/harassment.


Santas Crew (http://www.santascrew.co.uk/#/news/4545086256)

Not only Santa's crew, but angels too. :rolleyes:

[R2D2-LHR]

Interesting that their own article is calling for a truce during the Xmas period, then why only a month ago were they asking for a strike ballot for exactly the samre period?

[Hipennine]

If the Christmas Tree donation barometer is correct, they have received to date less than £1 per claimed striker (or less than £2 if one accepts BA's figures) - that's hardly a breathtaking level of shoulder to shoulder support !

[Litebulbs]

Well, its a potentially risky job, collecting money for children. You could loose your job.

[AV Flyer]

These people really just don't want to and thus will never get it.

It is their Union-agreed procedure that BA is following. Nothing more and nothing less. If BA did not follow the procedure then it would be culpable for failing to do so and I'm sure that the individual complainant (and probably some in the Union too!) would be even more aggrieved than others in the Union are now that BA chose to not respond to a legitimate employee complaint.

Before accusing BA of raging a war over Xmas don't they stop to realise that BA has no choice in this matter?

Don't they realise that as soon as one of their (CC) colleagues files a complaint that BA has no choice in suspending pending investigation?

Don't they remember they were a party to writing the rules for the entire process?

The Union is being completely and utterly two-faced. When it suits them they want the process to be ignored. When it suits them they want the process to be rigorously followed.

Sorry BASSA but you can't have it both ways and as for threatening strike action to disrupt everyone's Xmas then appealing for a truce on behalf of the children and the angels ....... give me strength!

[StoneyBridge Radar]

No matter what has been said or done during the past 12 months, one would imagine that our differences could be forgotten for a while so innocent children caught up in this could have a better and happier Christmas?

I presume that includes the "innocent children" dragged to Bedfont and made to hawk around devil images of WW or posters claiming their Mummy had been sacked by the evil Brutish Airways.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. :mad:

[MPN11]

We are British Airways Cabin Crew who want to help our colleagues who have been unfairly suspended or sacked.

The interpretation of "unfairly" is clearly widely drawn, and presumably is only based on BASSA's perspective.

[Mariner9]

The interpretation of "unfairly" is clearly widely drawn, and presumably is only based on BASSA's perspective. Worth mentioning also that BA offered ACAS arbitration for the sacked/suspended, but BASSA/CC89 rejected the offer.

Well, its a potentially risky job, collecting money for children. You could loose your job. Maybe so. However a dismissal solely for those reasons would be deemed unfair if taken to an Industrial Tribunal. BASSA would certainly shout it from the rooftops had BA been judged to have dismissed any of their members unfairly, so I take it from their silence on the subject they have not.

[Litebulbs]

The job would still be lost though.

[Mariner9]

True, but think of the "invaluable" anti-BA propaganda available to BASSA were it to happen. The fact that BASSA cannot point to a single unfair dismissal judgement through the course of this dispute speaks volumes.

In my view, BASSA's claims of unfair dismissals for trivial reasons does not stand up to scrutiny.

[Juan Tugoh]

The point that Litebulbs makes is very important. An ET does not have the ability to enforce a re-engagement order. So the bottom line is that a lost job would not be regained.

It is a brave man or woman that is willing to risk a well paid job with good T&Cs at the moment. The economy is hardly buoyant and jobs are difficult to come by at the moment, with the knock on effects of the Irish economy and subsequent jitters over Portugal and Spain, this is not the time to be so stupid as to risk your employment over some esoteric point. Paying the mortgage should be more important than making some petty industrial point to your employer.

[Mariner9]

Quite so JT.

From the other thread: I can't help thinking this is slightly ironic, and only supports the views of the majority of the cabin crew, that current BA management are out of control

It is about time that BASSA members realised that BA's Board and Management control the Company, not BASSA.

[Litebulbs]

True, but think of the "invaluable" anti-BA propaganda available to BASSA were it to happen. The fact that BASSA cannot point to a single unfair dismissal judgement through the course of this dispute speaks volumes.

In my view, BASSA's claims of unfair dismissals for trivial reasons does not stand up to scrutiny.

I would guess that it is because the process followed is lawfully fair and that the employer believed that it conducted itself in a reasonable manner. Unfortunately for the individuals concerned, us unionists are not very good at separating a fair process (legal) and whether a decision is seen as fair by the membership (industrial).

[Mariner9]

Fair point Litebulbs ;)

In the circumstances were jobs are apparently at risk, BASSA should be spelling out your point in the clearest terms to their members.

[Litebulbs]

It is a difficult situation for Unite. No doubt the membership are not happy, but suspension pending investigation is common practice and is not an indication of any wrong doing. However, how would a comment like that be perceived?

[MPN11]

It is a difficult situation for Unite. No doubt the membership are not happy, but suspension pending investigation is common practice and is not an indication of any wrong doing. However, how would a comment like that be perceived?

Possibly along the lines of "It's ALL unfair"?

Any sense of balance, or common-sense, seems to have escaped long ago. That is the great sadness, IMO ... innocent people are being led to [whatever] with rhetoric and distortions instead of honest facts.

I have experienced "suspension pending investigation" and it's not nice. Eventually, fairness and justice won through ... but the damage had already been done.

[Litebulbs]

I am sorry to hear that and can only imagine the distress caused.

[Diplome]

MPN11: I second Litebulbs thoughts. That could not have been a good place to be.

I note that we have a new poster at the Cabin Crew forum attempting to re-write history.

The yellow pens are now about support for those dimissed. If the rest of Cabin Crew stopped to think about it they would realize that the best defense if for ALL of them to bring yellow pens to work.

Would rather negate the effect of the childish behavior.

[Dawdler]

Diplome, your comment about a new poster trying to re-write history rings true. But I suggest that his/her belief in what they write is genuine. How else could they write something like:
I believe one thing our strike did achieve is ensuring the rest of our T&Cs remain untouched.IIRC the very first offer from the company ensured that the existing T&C's in place at the time were to remain untouched, the only change being that a crew member would be taken off certain flights in an attempt to save on costs. If wiser heads had prevailed at BASSA, their members would undoubtedly be much better off now than they will be in the future. As it is, who else has the knowledge that pay increases are written into the future?

It is my view that BA's intention, after the blank refusal of BASSA to engage in dialogue, to irradicate the "Spanish Practices" was enhanced.

[Litebulbs]

If wiser heads had prevailed at BASSA, their members would undoubtedly be much better off now than they will be in the future. As it is, who else has the knowledge that pay increases are written into the future?

Are you suggesting that BASSA members will be worse of in the future? That certainly goes against the grain on both threads.

[Dawdler]

Yes! The prospect of the new fleet (which I think all will acknowledge) is bound to affect the so-called "Heritage " crews as routes are transferred over time. Further, the original deal included a share option which disappeared fairly rapidly following the first rejection.

It is clear that the BASSA committee saw only the disadvantages for their own grades and in doing so, ignored the prospects for the "worker bees". Even to the point where they deny their members a vote on the company's proposals.

[Litebulbs]

Well, that explains why they are in dispute then.

[Diplome]

Litebulbs:

I would have to agree with Dawdler in the sense that Cabin Crew will be "worse off" in the future, but only in the sense that they were given opportunities to influence certain directions, obtain share options, etc., etc. and they said "No". Those opportunities will not come back.

Legacy crew, in my opinion, will not be allowed to influence Mixed Fleet. Legacy Crew's conduct has assured that Mixed Fleet is branded something quite apart from present crew. If Mixed Fleet fails to perform then Legacy can claim a victory, but if Mixed Fleet does perform and gains high passenger reviews, then Legacy makes itself appear negative and isolated.

The offer that was pulled after McCluskey's moment of drama was not one that should have been so easily dismissed. If BASSA fails to receive everything under that proposal then yes, they are worse off.

[Dawdler]

Well, that explains why they are in dispute then.

I don't see that, because MF, new fleet, whatever you want to call it was not on the table at the time of the first offer.

However I do agree that BASSA members should be regarded as in dispute, however their dispute is with their union's officers, not their employer.

[Litebulbs]

We all know I was being flippant, but it is late.

Shares at the level they would be offered mean nothing, in my opinion. At senior levels, when we are talking about tens of thousands, then it is an income from dividends. At the lower ends of the employment scale, it is a little savings bonus that might help towards a car after a few years. Not something to base a mortgage on.

Would we (sorry, they) be in the same place if BA had said we need

volunteers to go on a good deal
for that the most senior grade will be more involved
new starters will broadly be on LGW terms
existing staff will not be affected
we will guarantee allowances in a new formatProbably not.

[Litebulbs]

However I do agree that BASSA members should be regarded as in dispute, however their dispute is with their union's officers, not their employer.

Speaking from the position of the blamed, it is always the unions fault.

"THEY CAN'T DO THAT" is a phrase that requires education, but it takes a dispute for employees to take an interest in what an employer can and can't do. There are 13000 employees who are learning this lesson today.

[PAXboy]

Next step along the way ...

BA union's 'outrage' over staff suspension - Home News, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ba-unions-outrage-over-staff-suspension-2142095.html)

The prospect of another strike by BA cabin crew loomed nearer yesterday, after a woman was sent home for organising a collection for Christmas gifts for the children of employees who have been sacked or suspended.

It makes interesting reading

[notlangley]

If a different lady were in the street making this collection then the local authority would require that the lady was licenced._ Also the person who was the organiser of the collection would be required by the local authority, at the expense of that person and after a qualified accountant has given his certificate, publish in such newspaper or newspapers as the licensing authority may direct a statement showing the name of the person to whom the permit has been granted, the area to which the permit relates, the name of the fund to benefit, the date of the collection, the amount collected, and the amount of the expenses and payments incurred in connection with such collection.

By collecting on the property of BA or BAA these anti-fraud regulations are avoided._ I believe that this was a truly innocent mistake._ I feel very sorry that this unfortunate lady has stumbled into a hornets nest.

[Snas]

Indeed, a whipround from work mates takes on a different level of responsibility when the work mates number 13,000 +

[call100]

This is what any trade union would organise around Christmas. It shows how much society has changed for the worse.
This will only act as a further rallying point for those wanting a yes vote in any future ballot.
I'm sure BA could have handled it more sensitively, if they had the will.

[AV Flyer]

Let's be absolutely clear about this before the Union, yet again, takes its emotionally-charged, morally-outraged, high-ground position - which it will anyway.

BA had to suspend the employee because another employee complained.

BA is obliged to take this action under the Union-agreed terms of its disciplinary procedure otherwise it would be in default of those terms. Further, while the Union can shoot its mouth off with gay abandon as usual, BA is bound, and as such maintains its professional pose and continues to adhere, to the terms in not disclosing the details of the complaint and thus its reasons for the suspension.

If the Union doesn't want its members being suspended for non work-related activitites in the work place then it should make absolutely sure those activites do not cause anyone to be offended and complain.

Does anyone know if the employee who complained is a Union member? If they were this situation would be even more breathtakingly hypocritical and it would be far more appropriate for Tony Woodley to direct his moral outrage at asking his offended member to withdraw their complaint than to accuse BA of B & H. Indeed, if BA played with the same lack of maturity as the Union it would be shouting its mouth off by now claiming that the whole matter was a deliberate set-up by the Union to gain public sympathy.

It is now becoming so irrationally and emotionally charged that people are losing what little common sense they had at the outset - if they ever had any.

BA has no choice but to take significant and decisive action to bring this small minority (in terms of total BA) of disruptive staff under control and very soon.

AVF

P.S. Perhaps the Union has finally found a reason to ballot its members and the Union leadership will now find out what it has been trying to avoid for the last few months - just exactly how much support it still has left among its rank and file members.

[Richard228]

litebulbs:
Shares at the level they would be offered mean nothing, in my opinion. At senior levels, when we are talking about tens of thousands, then it is an income from dividendsBritish Airways has not paid any dividends for a few years now! but I take your point that share offers are worth less to the "masses". However it is still a positive benefit, and one which BASSA members were denied a voice on, because of the Union.

[nononsense frank]

BA had to suspend the employee because another employee complained.


I agree with AV Flyer. It seems to me that BASSA/UNITE are trying to use this issue as a rallying point for their members. They are trying to make it look like the personnel in question was suspended by BA simply because she was collecting for sacked members' children, when in fact they know that BA has got no choice but to do what they did in response to a complaint of intimidation (probably b&h), made by another employee/s. It just goes to show that BASSA/UNITE are desperate and will use any excuse to "whip their members to frenzy" and get a vote for another industrial action.

Below is a quote from the newsflash on Santascrew (http://www.santascrew.co.uk/#/news/4545086256) webpage mentioning the circumstances surrounding the suspension.


Today we are sad to announce that one of our fantastic Santa Helpers ( Andrea) has been suspended from duty. It has been alledged by another crew member that he/she felt intimidated into donating when dozens of other crew members were handing over money willingly. Andrea has over the years raised thousands for various charities and organisations and not a single person has ever thought of her as being 'intimidating'.

[Safety Concerns]

what a bunch of pathetic jobsworth we have become. Its a xmas whipround for a good cause. You are free to say no thanks.

It isn't the union being a problem here its society. we are slowly losing the plot.

[finncapt]

Re the collection issue.

A previous poster alluded to the fact that BA are obliged to take action if a complaint is made.

Perhaps, this was a deliberately set up situation to make BA get bad press.

I'll take my Machiavellian hat off now.

[AV Flyer]

SC - Do you know if the complainant is a Union member?

If so don't you think that the Union should deal with its own?

[Richard228]

Union leaders said:All Andrea was doing was asking people if they wished to donate any money.Was that "All" she was doing?

What was she saying to people who refused to donate? how was she reacting to other employees? what did she say when asking for money? was she criticising her employer in the workplace? and how did she act when management asked her to stop?

How did other employees feel when being publicly asked to support the sacked in front of their peers, to show support ot ortherwise publically when they want to keep their opinions private?

I dont know the answers to these questions, but there are always two sides to a story. As usual, BA do not comment on individual cases (quite rightly) so we are just left with the spin from one side (BASSA).

Tony Woodley:
I am urging you to intervene to lift Andrea's suspension immediately, failing which the consequences will rest entirely with managementSo again, the trade union wants to go against the rules and regulations that they have negotiated..... one rule for trade union staff, and another rule for everone else?

If "All" Andrea did was shake a tin, then I would have thought she will get a slap on the wrist and will be re-instated.... but first the process (which the trade union agreed upon) has to be applied. And this means she is suspended pending a review of her actions, and those who were affected by it.

Quite how Andrea felt her actions of asking for money for sacked employees were justifiable, when it was in her workplace, from individuals who have possibly been bullied by those sacked members in the first place, and was done whilst being paid by her employer is beyond me....

[TopBunk]

Might I suggest that the actions of Tomato Man and princess Lala have caused these people to lose their jobs in part, by their lack of guidance in acceptable behaviour during the dispute.

In that case maybe they, and Duncan in particular, should be donating the money he is still (presumably) raking in from the BASSA members to help the offspring of those he has, in part, caused to be sacked or suspended.

If that was done, there would be no need for collections in the CRC or elsewhere.

Just a thought, after all if Duncan is not prepared to do that, one may question his objectives and motivation.

Toodle pip ..

[AV Flyer]

The story left off with both BASSA & AMICUS refusing to recommend or submit BA's current offer to their members while Unite (TW) had declared this is as good as its going to get.

AMICUS & BASSA then came up with two different independent statements (not exactly formally structured counter offers) summarising their demands. AMICUS's was far more stringent than BASSA's which, combined with Unite's hard fought over original BA offer, meant that the three entities were at internal dispute over exactly what they wanted.

There was a brief statement to the effect that, in spite of breaking his agreement with BA, TW would take a counter offer back to BA but it is not clear what that counter offer would contain or whether that happened yet.

Unite then held its leadership ballot and is about to make an official announcement of its new GS - Len McCluskey.

A copy of a private congratulatory message purporting to be from DH to LM, which also delivered a curiously worded statement of grovelling with a veiled threat, appeared briefly on the other CC thread but was then deleted.

It was interesting to note that TW was still Unite's political spokesman today in attempting to score points over "Whip Around Gate".

BA's current offer is still on the table despite not being recommended by, or offered to, the Union and its Branch's members and contrary to the agreement bewteen BA & TW.

Over to you Unite/BASSA/AMICUS, your move .........

[Ancient Observer]

SC,
I, for one, am pleased that you contribute to this thread.
However, please comment on the issue, not the contributors.

Litebulbs contributes, but in my memory s/he has not slagged off the individuals that s/he disagrees with. Read their record to learn how it is done!

Disagreeing with Juan, Diplome and Richard is great, it gets the discussion going. Telling them to "grow up" and calling them "pathetic" is not great.

Please keep contributing.

[MPN11]

I can see parts of both sides to this issue ... I work for a Non-Profit charitable outfit [no, we're not yet a Registered Charity] and that work is full of pitfalls.

All we can do is convince those we deal with that we are a proper organisation, that the money donated goes to a properly administered cause and all that sort of thing. If people don't feel comfortable about what we're doing, they are free to walk away and say "No thanks".

However, I will draw a distinction between our 'begging' in cyber-space [and on the the ground] with collecting at the workplace when there is a distinct and pre-existing conflict between those who supported strike action and those who didn't. Regardless of the wrongs and rights of the IA, and those who have suffered in consequence [on both sides of the wire], it does seem to me a rather insensitive/inappropriate way of doing collections for one side of the dispute. I won't draw any direct religious parallels, but I guess you can imagine what I'm not typing.

Not a very good move, IMO.

[Litebulbs]

Well, I think it is a fantastic idea in principle, which I support.

Giving money to help children at Christmas who may not be in as fortunate a position as others.

But everything you then add on to the initial principle, politicises it as others have mentioned. It would be reasonable to presume, from my position as a working union member, that the person collecting the donations, would be thoroughly aware, not to knowingly rub anybodies nose in it. I mean, the collection is for sacked and suspended crews families, which would mean you would be lighting up all the anti BASSA radar's. I imagine the employee in question acted in good faith and the intention was in line with the general principle, but unfortunately the employer will be the judge, jury and executioner of the situation.

As to the complaint, that is the world we live in when you have two sides to a dispute. If anything more happens to the employee (if it turns out that they were just walking though the workplace with cap in hand, a happy smile and kind words), other than ask permission next time, then the reasonable person might just turn against the employer, for the first time in a while.

[Litebulbs]

I doubt if the breach of policy for unauthorised collections would fall foul of B&H though.

[Litebulbs]

And I doubt if you would be suspended pending investigation for misconduct.

[Colonel White]

The problem with 'collectiongate' is manyfold. To kick off with, The Harrassment act came into play a few months back This puts the onus on employers to investigate each and every allegation of bullying and harassment. If the company fails to do so, the employee can sue. So once a complaint was made, BA was duty bound to suspend the individual pending investigations.
Second point. Anyone here ever collected money in public for charity ? Then you'll know that you are not supposed to rattle your tin at passers by - that is tantamount to beggng and could be deemed to be harassment too. So rattling a hat around CRC would fall under the same catch-all.
Ah but you say. We always used to have whip rounds for staff. Yes, but that was usually amongst immediate coworkers. In a community as diffuse as cabin crew, the nature of the job means that you may only work with someone for one or two trips and that is it. Hardly buddy stuff and very different to the office situation where people may work cheek by jowl for several years. The equivalent would be running a collection within all of say Finance or Rev Man for an individual - it just doesn't happen.
Next up. The line being played is that this collection was for the children of sacked or suspended BA cabin crew. Tosh! Look at the Santas Crew website. It plainly states that the money is for sacked and suspended cabin crew. Now I don't know any of the individuals concerned, but I would bet that there are one or two single folk with no kids amongst them. So not for kids. Moreover, the last time I looked BA don't suspend staff without pay. OK so the suspended ones are only getting their basic, but that is what happens when you are suspended. I actually resent an organisation that uses children as emotional blackmail in this was to extract cash from me. It suggests that they have a pretty weak basis.
Then there's the bit about getting company permission which others have covered admirably.
The list goes on. I'm actually slightly perplexed as to why the lady in question felt it necessary to go round with a hat in the first place. She could have simply given people flyers with the website details and thereby avoided this unseemly situation.

[Dawdler]

I just wonder if "Santa's Crew" is genuine charity. I say this because I have experience of an organisation which applied for charitable status. Knowing the hoops that the Charities Commission made us jump through to obtain said status. Things like having to amend/approve our constituion, our in-house rules etc. The difficulties placed in our path because we were a "trading organisation", (We leased some land and sublet it to members). In the end we decided that it was just too much trouble.

I must say that I ambivalent about Santa's Crew's apparent objectives and have no reason to suspect anything untoward in either their collection or distribution methods. Indeed their stated aims could, perhaps should be lauded. It is just a pity that the children have parents that put them it their difficult position in the first place.

There is nothing inherently wrong about having an unofficial "whip round" but it can put the "whippers" in an awkward position whether or not they have broken any laws or conventions. It is all very sad.

[Diplome]

Can you please stop the prevaricating regarding motivation just because someone decided to use children as a political tool?

The latest posting from "Santa's Crew".:


Today I sit here typing this still in the disbelief of what has happened to Andrea Molton. I couldn't sleep last night. My mind was in unrest thinking about how someone with such a heart of gold be suspended for collecting donations for children this Christmas whilst the real criminals of this world reward themselves with large pay rises and bonuses at the expense of others? They say that 'every action has a reaction' and in this case it couldn't be more true. By suspending Andrea the news has spread around the world and we are receiving so many message of support. Mr. Walsh has his millions of pounds to try and break us but his money can not buy one thing we all have and that is our love, respect and compassion for others.You see, 'love' radiates outwards. It reaches out and embraces life. It unites people no matter what their circumstances may be. It's something we all have inside and something we are willing to share.
With this in mind I am pleased to announce that we have exceeded our £10,000 target. Today, via Bassa, we have received a donation of £5,500 from the 'hardship' fund. The hardship fund is monies sent by many private individuals, unions and other organisations from around the world. We would like to thank them all for their kind generosity and wish them all a Happy Christmas too.



The same anti-Walsh rhetoric...its simply a game.

If this group really cared about involving all in BA it would have been a fund for the children of ALL BA Cabin Crew going through difficulty at this time of the year...but it wasn't. No accountability, no specifics, its just another BASSA game...those "guerilla tactics" Mr. Holley spoke of, they are just willing to involve children in the serious business of this dispute.

I can find no information regarding individuals responsible for making sure funds are disbursed appropriately...only a "positions filled" statement.

I'm sure there are individuals that have been suspended and/or dismissed that are having hard times financially. It is unfortunate that their children may suffer the effects of their parent's conduct. But surely, if you were really caring about BA children it would be a company-wide plea, and not just for those select few (and they are very few).

Issues such as this only make me more thankful for the honorable and hard working Union representatives I know that truly do work for the benefit of their members.

...and I will add that if this had been a plea for all children of BA employees going through hardships at this time of the year, if those accountable for the distribution of the funds had been named and there was some sort of accountability in place, I would probably have contributed, and I'm not "BA".

This is just sad.

[Litebulbs]

I'm flying BA tomorrow.

[Diplome]

I hope you're spoiled Litebulbs.

I'm at home for a bit..settling in for the holidays. There is a shopping trip to London scheduled but it will be by train.

[Colonel White]

According to their website
Santas Crew is an independant fund raising organisation set up by British Airways Cabin Crew for the benefit of selected former British Airways Cabin Crew or current suspended British Airways Cabin crew who took part in Industrial Action during 2010.
So no, it is not a registered charity. The organisation does not publish names of any committee members. There is that rather dodgy phrase 'or the benefit of selected former British Airways Cabin Crew or current suspended British Airways Cabin crew...' (my bold) so anyone donating would not know which staff members or ex staff members were due to benefit from their generosity. It could be that the whole lot was going to be divvied up between three or four people. You just don't know.

Moreover, the statement that it was 'set up by British Airways Cabin Crew' is at best misleading. It has absolutely nothing to do with British Airways - a point that they mak a little further on. What it should say is that it has been set up by a number of BA cabin crew staff to raise cash for colleagues who have been suspended or sacked this year.

The other point that is slightly worrying is the fact that there is no indication of how much of any donations will end up in th ehands of the recipients. OK so maybe I have a nasty suspicious mind, but I have seen scams in the past where people have willing coughed up cash to fund raisers only to find that the fund raiser then skims off 25% for 'admin' costs and that the amount that eventually winds up with the intended recipients is pitifully small. There isno indication of accounts, audits, accountability or governance. Even a school fundraiser will provide details of what was raised and what expenses were incurred.

I'm also ambivalent about the whole deal.Yes, it is a pity when kids get a lousy Xmas because their parents are out of work or on severely reduced means. That's where there are a host of charities around to provide support. I think the point I most object to is the emototianl blackmail by saying ' oh the kids will have a lousy Xmas because nasty BA sacked mummy or daddy or has suspended them, so lets all club together so the kiddies have something'. That is patently not what this organisation is about. It is all about raising cash for those who were sacked or suspended. I don't know if they have kids. If they do I have no idea whether the kids are 8 or 18. For all I know the money could be going to someone who got sacked, is still pulling some cash from a job on the side and has no dependant kids.

I also think that anyone who acted in a manner that resulted in them getting sacked maybe should have considered the possible consequences on their family before they acted in the way that they did. There are time when, although it may seem odious, it is better to knuckle under and grit one's teeth. It's the old proverb about the reed and the oak tree and a high wind. It is better to bend with the wind at times.

It may be interesting to see how far BASSA and Unite are prepared to push this. I doubt that they will make it grounds for strike action unless BA dismiss the lady in question. I can't quite see BA doing that. I reckon she'll get a reprimand.

[fincastle84]

I haven't bothered posting on here for ages because this dispute seems to be heading absolutely nowhere & is gradually fizzling out. Or am I missing something?

If I'm wrong then when are Bassa actually going to do something positive to further their cause?

[The Blu Riband]

are Bassa actually going to do something positive to further their cause?

Very unlikely, as they never have in the past.

[MCOflyer]

They haven't in the past and will be less likely in the future. They are, by nature, self destructive. :8

[AV Flyer]

fincastle84 - Yes, I agree. BA currently holds all the cards and thus has all of the Union's possible significant moves covered. BA does not wish to "bust" the Union as it requires a representative body with which it can negotiate future collective agreements, hopefully, in a mature fashion.

The Union is reduced to making sporadic petulant moves and statements which BA continues to field in a professional manner. The Union leadership believes the fight is still on and it can still "win" and, like all power obsessed people, will never step down or surrender until they are deposed which, as BA will not do it, can only be by the Union's own members.

BA's management and Board, the other non CC BA employees, the shareholders, its suppliers, passengers and the rest of the world as a whole are waiting for the apathetic majority of CC members to do what they have to do and depose their almost comically dysfunctional, ineffective and bickering leadership or establish an alternative representative body so everyone can move forwards.

But surprisingly, as it is to their increasing detriment, CC seem to be taking their sweet time in getting the message.

If reports of the increasingly unpleasant and vitriolic environment between fellow CC are correct then BA may have to precipitate something before long as it could be deemed culpable in allowing this environment to continue. Further, there is no doubt continuing damage to forward bookings and the costs of carrying surplus CC/VCC which it can't tolerate forever.

So, how does BA precipitate something without looking like the bad guy? I'm sure it would be only too pleased for the Union to have a ballot about something, anything even, if for no other reason than the Union's leadership would get a message from its members' apathy, as indicated by their diminishing turn-outs. But as we have seen, as long as two members vote in favour from a turn-out of three the Union's leadership, in its never ceasing delusion, will continue to claim a "67% monumental victory with resounding support".

Fascinating (but also frustrating) isn't it?

[rethymnon]

today's 'times' reports that len mccluskey has warned of 'further industrial unrest ...that... once again threatens to ground British Airways jets'. it goes on '... several cabin crew members..... said they were prepared to strike again'.

the sub heading to this article read 'Don't go on holiday....Unite will support any members that wish to take industrial action' per LM.

i'm not sure when he officially takes over but it looks as if big len is anxious to export a few more jobs - assuming of course, he can find a valid, new reason for IA.

just as i thought this thread was winding down ('tho not as quickly as the CC one - they do seem to have lost interest), another cuckoo lands in the nest.

[YorkshireTyke]

The BA Cabin Crew thread is discussing cabin crew being unable to take their family with them at Christmas if they were one of the strikers who 'lost' staff travel, and one post contains this statement ............


.....This job takes you away from your family we know that happens but a system has been in place for years that helped crew.. contractul or not perhaps the courts could decide because this has been the case for years.


The bit I've underlined applies to the longest retired pensioners i.e. was the case for years, that are soon about to be kicked out of staff travel concessions totally, but that makes no difference to BA's unreasonable treatment of them - and they didn't even go on strike !!!

[LD12986]

Tony Woodley will still be in situ for another year so Len will not be the sole Gen Sec yet, so regardless of the sabre rattling I would not assume a change in strategy at the top because of Len's election.

[Hipennine]

I can't believe all the talk over on the other thread about the numbers apparently planning to be sick over Christmas. There just seems to be a complete other-worldliness in IFCE about what an employer : employee relationship means, and that with rights and entitlements, there go responsibilities. The last time I experienced some of these attitudes was working in a local authority in the 70's.

Surely they can't have forgotten from the strike period that BA is now a different beastie when it comes to tolerating non sick sickness ?

[AlpineSkier]

there are a lot of crew out there that feel unwanted and not valued by their employer and this actually includes many that did not strike. So it will be hardly surprising if some choose Christmas to go sick!!


From the other thread.

Another sign of an otherwordly attitude if people believe that being paid 25 - 55 K is a sign of being unwanted, especially when you know that this is an unskilled job.

When will such crew understand that very few of them could earn comparable wages outside BA and that the quid pro quo ought to be that they do their current job to the very best of their ability and be deeply grateful that they have such a plum position.

I have to say that in spite of her protestations, Betty girl seems to be accepting of this ( sickness fraud), although when she sees that she is drawing some criticism, she changes from "..huge numbers of crew " to " a very few crew.... " go sick

[Litebulbs]

I believe your pay range of £25-55K may be wrong at the lower end.

Betty Girl is giving her observations and feelings, which she is entitled to do and are almost always what you would expect from somebody who enjoys her job, knows that it has good terms and conditions and is against the current dispute.

It may not have been your intention to imply that she had an acceptance of sickness fraud, but that is the way it reads. Maybe it was your intention and if so, all it will mean is that there could be one less reasonable crew member posting here.

[Shack37]

Litebulbs, just what I would have said if I'd been articulate and quick enough:ok:

[wowzz]

Can just ask why so many of the BASSA work force go on so much about working at Christmas?
Here in the real world, policemen, firemen [also many other BA staff] and many others work over the festive season. Surely it cannot be a surprise to be asked to work over Christmas, especially as BA seems to be more considerate than others about recompense for Christmas working.
In the US and many other countries Christmas is not considered to be worth more than a one day holiday, and many of us SLF have to be at our desks on Boxing Day to deal with our over-seas customers.
After all this time I still do not understand why striking BA crew believe they they have a right to better T&C's than anyone else.

[LD12986]

Cabin crew sickness has long been a problem at BA LHR. It is certainly not helped on the Worldwide fleet by the fact that there are wild variations in the allowances paid on routes (hence the terms "charity" and "money" trips) and that there is no bidding system to allow crew to bid for trips based on personal preferences etc.

Replacing the archaic and utterly uncomprehensible system of allowances with an hourly rate and introducing a bidding system would help a lot, but it would mean the cake will be cut more equally and some will lose out.

[Neptunus Rex]

In one particular neck of the woods, going sick is known as a "PRA" - Personal Roster Adjustment.

[AV Flyer]

Tony Woodley will still be in situ for another year so Len will not be the sole Gen Sec yet, so regardless of the sabre rattling I would not assume a change in strategy at the top because of Len's election.

If the above is true then there was no reason for TW to delay approaching BA pending the outcome of the Unite election so TW must be prevaricating.

The so-called counter offer that DH has bullied TW into agreeing to deliver back to BA is no such counter offer at all rather it is an "if you will concede yet further on the following issues then we will not call a strike ballot and will continue pushing for even more concessions until you eventually restore all conditions prior to this dispute and we will have secured our power base back" and TW knows it only too well.

TW also knows that, having moved considerably on ST and disciplinaries, BA is not going to move one further millimetre as he stated to DH this is your best offer. I suspect he will placate DH and take his non counter-offer back to BA just so DH can hear the "hell no!" back from BA and then the big Union internal fight and fireworks can begin.

DH has to convince LM/TW/(DS?) to call a strike ballot on some issue or other..........

My guess would be this is what LM's survey of CC for BA's alleged bullying and harrassment tactics is all about in order to be able to call a ballot over something different and thus claim another 12 weeks of protection. Does anyone know if specifically BA's alleged B & H tactics used against the Union's poor and defenseless militant members was part of the previous action?

[RTR]

Its as plain as the nose of DH's face!

[TW also knows that, having moved considerably on ST and disciplinaries, BA is not going to move one further millimetre as he stated to DH this is your best offer. I suspect he will placate DH and take is non counter-offer back to BA just so DH can hear the "hell no!" back from BA and then the big Union internal fight and fireworks can begin.

Holley wants EVERYTHING back in place so that he and his 'minions' can control BA once again. The stupid thing is that it will never happen ever again but he is in denial. Woodley and co have a problem with DH and its going to take balls to tell him how it is, that his time is over and trying to dream up another of his beloved strikes is a lost cause and its time to become a tomato farmer or a samosa supplier and run a burger stall if that is his wish.

As for being part of the airline industry its over but for some reason we all seem to be unfamiliar with, but take guesses at it, he is hanging on for dear life. He cannot represent BASSA's members with the slightest degree of authority, has been sacked by BA and as each day and week passes his previous power base erodes like a sandcastle on the incoming tide, and that tide will sweep him into oblivion when the re-elections for Gen Sec of BASSA are made.

He is a militant. Infamously placed in the higher echelon of that dubious position but as always militants are beaten. That will happen to Holley and the sooner the better - for the well-being and sanity of the remaining BASSA members. Holley is NOT wanted but his problem is himself. He couldn't care less what the members want - its what Holley wants that keeps him going. He is possessed by the power to destroy BA.

[Entaxei]

Holley's also obsessed with hanging on as branch secretary for another 12 months to get his union salary (plus % of subs?), then collect his union pension!! otherwise he will have to survive the next year with only his BA pension and tomato sales. I can't help thinking how instructive it would be to read a copy of the Bassa rulebook, as amended over the past few years of course, if such a thing exists.

[hellsbrink]

Question.

Since DH and others have been kicked out of BA, would it not be possible for TW/whoever at UNITE to FORCE Bassa to hold an immediate (as in, as soon as is feasibly possible) election for these posts as these people are, afaik, now not eligible to be in these posts. That would get rid of any problems they will be causing UNITE in negotiations as well as showing BA that UNITE means business as they are putting their own house in order as far as eligibilty, etc, goes and could help make any future negotiations go more smoothly. It would also kybosh any more of the "WE WANT TO STRIKE (whether it's legal or not)" cries from a certain corner until new people were elected which, hopefully, would mean that those doing all the shouting would shut up so this dispute could be settled by people at least pretending to act like adults and not the toddler tantrums we have seen so far.


I guess it would cause ructions in unionland, but UNITE have to take full control of this mess and while Holley & Co are around that cannot happen.

[SamYeager]

@@hellsbrink Since DH and others have been kicked out of BA, would it not be possible for TW/whoever at UNITE to FORCE Bassa to hold an immediate (as in, as soon as is feasibly possible) election for these posts as these people are, afaik, now not eligible to be in these posts. Somewhere along the line I believe that Unite/BASSA agreed that elections to replace DH should be deferred until the current dispute was resolved. Given that only BASSA (DH and other reps) can agree to a dispute being ended then in practice it appears that DH is "sitting pretty" unless outvoted by the other BASSA reps. If I'm correct then you can see that DH may have what is called a conflict of interest with respect to this dispute.

[MCOflyer]

I guess being in another country with different labor laws I don't understand how DH can remain in a union office if he is compromised as far a being impartial. I have been following this for several months and keep wondering how the membership puts up with his juvenile rants that are aimed at destroying the company that the members work for.

To what end? If DH gets his way he will leave with a pension from BA and from the union and everyone else will be in the unemployment queue.

Please, if you can, explain how this keeps going on.

Thanks


Edit: Sorry, but I have mentioned this to you before. Please do NOT use unreadble fonts! The type is too small. The standard font is Verdana size 2. You have used an obscure one called Trebuchet 1. Any such future posts will be deleted.

[Entaxei]

To maybe get some glimmering of the snarled background to this lot, suggest possibly try reading posts 599,600,614,622,623,780. and in general around this area.

It seems that over the years the Bassa branch rules were gradually changed to place all the powers into the hands of the union chairman, Lizanne living in LA and Duncan the Branch Secretary, also regardless of Unite, only Bassa can call off a dispute/strike - no body appears to have seen a copy of the rule book or indeed of any accounts - nor any up to date list or information about reps, a large number of which appear to have possibly been dismissed for various disciplinary offences.

Where decisions have been taken in this dispute, other than by Duncan, it has been by a show of hands at a meeting on a small local football club pitch - obviously a democratic method of decision making for strike action, with a membership that is reported variously between maybe 6,000 to 10,000.

Enjoy gentlemen, you don't often come across a script as devious and convoluted as this!! - be very interested to see your reactions.

[PAXboy]

MCOflyerPlease, if you can, explain how this keeps going on.Ah, if anyone has the answer to that - then they might have the answer as to how to stop the madness! Speaking as UK pax, this dispute has, for the most part, every hall mark of having nothing to do with a genuine dispute with the employer.

Whilst the dispute started as giving concerns about safety and security on board, as well as other aspects of the way the company is run, it seems that it is a good old fashioned p*****g contest of one little boy against another.

As per usual in industrial disputes everyone (inside the company and out) is going to lose and many already have. Loss of value and service and money all p****d down the drain.

[rethymnon]

much earlier, i suggested that when this dispute was finally over, it would be a good subject for an academic dissertation or book. lately, on the cabin crew forum, the level of debate - everything from 'hats' to (esoteric) social groups -sounds more like a lame comedy script.

after 'made in dagenham', could we be heading for a revival of the 'carry on' series? would anyone, with an inventive turn of mind, care to suggest a suitable title and offer a few contempory names to replace the original stars?

[hellsbrink]

Somewhere along the line I believe that Unite/BASSA agreed that elections to replace DH should be deferred until the current dispute was resolved. Given that only BASSA (DH and other reps) can agree to a dispute being ended then in practice it appears that DH is "sitting pretty" unless outvoted by the other BASSA reps. If I'm correct then you can see that DH may have what is called a conflict of interest with respect to this dispute.

Then surely those at the top at Unite can see that conflict of interest, can see the membership dropping because of the handling of the "dispute" by DH, can see the monthly income dropping because of lower members, and, of course, can see their PR image being ruined by someone who was sacked and is not eligible to be part of the union in the position he holds. That could surely allow the "big men" at Unite the opportunity to say "ENOUGH" and force the issue as Unite are the ones allegedly in charge of the Unite union and not Bassa, who are merely a small part of that union.

Someone has to pull the plug on the current situation before the antics cause more issues to the entire Unite union as you can be sure that others, not Bassa people, will be leaving Unite too and they will be saying that the way things have gone in this dispute is the reason they've had enough.

How long will Unite be able to live with the "satus quo"...........

[LD12986]

On the settlement, BA is clearly in no hurry to expedite a resolution.

In part, I think BA wants to keep the moral high ground and will not use the often quoted 90 days notice to force a resolution and will want to clear resolution through an agreed settlement.

Ultimately, it will know the impact of the strike threat on forward bookings and market share (its own figures show that bookings recover sharply once a strike has passed) and on the company's reputation and brand through tracking surveys etc. The traffic figures for the past couple of months have shown a good recovery in year on year numbers and yields are also improving. It also has plenty of other things to getting on with (Iberia merger, TATL ATI etc).

The company also has the costs savings it was looking to achieve and it has been able to introduce Mixed Fleet at LHR on entirely its own terms. This would have been absolutely unthinkable a few years ago.

BA is not really losing much at the moment from there being no settlement (indeed it doesn't have to give the pay rises to union members in the offer).

I don't believe DH has any intent to settle this dispute, he gains nothing from doing so and whatever moves BA makes there will always be something else to add to the list of grievances.

[Landroger]

The following has been posted recently on 'the other thread', purporting to be from an open letter to Len McCluskey, from a concerned onlooker.

"Dear Mr McCluskey,

I am writing to congratulate you on becoming the new General Secretary of Unite the Union.

As you are aware, I have published open letters arguing that the quality of BA’s professional and experienced cabin crew is one of the few advantages left in flying with British Airways. Because of these letters and my subsequent involvements, I have witnessed first-hand the passion and enthusiasm of the cabin crew against a management that were trying to destroy the premium airline so loved by the crew.

However, I hope you would agree that Unite should and could have done better to help and represent the cabin crew in their dispute with BA’s management. It is undeniable that Unite’s badly organised campaign to convince the public that the cabin crew had no choice but to strike, has been most ineffective. Against a well managed and efficient BA publicity machine, Unite’s attempts looked amateurish.

Furthermore, Unite’s legal advisors have continuously failed to protect the cabin crew members against the brutal and most probably illegal behaviour of BA’s management. More importantly, Unite have lost important grounds to BA management during their negotiations probably because they lacked the benefit of competent professional and business advisors that BA had the support of.

I have read with interest your recent comments in the Financial Times. You stated that in your experience there is no such thing as an “irresponsible strike”. However, in modern day Britain there are many better ways than striking to protect the interest of your members . For example, in the case of British Airways, there was a golden opportunity for your Union to persuade BA’s large shareholders that contrary to what BA management were telling them, it made financial sense for BA to agree a fair settlement with the cabin crew long before there was a need to strike.

I hope you do not mind me writing this open letter criticizing the performance of your Union and agree that it is good to receive constructive criticism from an outsider with no vested interest.



Yours sincerely,"


Given that it expresses a view from a passenger/shareholder not seen on here in the history of the thread; that it mentions BASSA not at all; and that it actually accuses BA of illegal action vis:

Furthermore, Unite’s legal advisors have continuously failed to protect the cabin crew members against the brutal and most probably illegal behaviour of BA’s management.

Does anyone else get a whiff of fish and feel, like me, that the writer has anything but "no vested interest"?

Roger.

[LD12986]

What a brilliant letter from an "outsider"! How reassuring for BASSA that outsiders know that nothing is ever BASSA's fault and somebody else is always to blame.

[Alsacienne]

Crystal ball time, but why not ask folk who are more informed than I am ....

Is it worth 'investing' my hard earned cash in BA tickets for Christmas and New Year 2011 for a wedding in East Africa, when they become available ... or is a strike risk too great?

Can one insure against strikes or disruption caused by trades union action - or inaction?

And ... if I buy my tickets in January, is this likely to be the time when the tickets are cheapest or should I wait ... and if so, when might be the best time to buy? (I don't know if BA operate a yield management stategy like certain low cost airlines.)

[Llademos]

Alsacienne,

BA has consistently stated that, in the event of another CC strike, they will operate 100% of their long haul schedule and 'most' of the shorthaul.

I would book with confidence that this will be the case.

Ll

[Yellow Pen]

If you are planning to go away in Christmas 2011 I'd say it's almost certain the dispute will be over by then. BA do not have unlimited patience with the cabin crew, and the rapid growth of Mixed Fleet would negate any industrial action anyway.

[LD12986]

Latest from the CC89 branch:


28th November 2010 - Open Letter From AMICUS to Unite JGS Tony Woodley, and Len McCluskey

Open Letter - Without Prejudice.

28th November 2010

To: The JGS of Unite the Union
From: The Unite Cabin Crew/Amicus Section

Dear Sirs,

It has now been*almost 3*weeks since we met and the decision was taken to approach British Airways with four 'no cost' items that would enable the union to establish if the company was indeed sincere about their desire to find a MEANINGFUL settlement to this dispute.

The silence*speaks for itself.

As you will recall it was contrary to the position AMICUS Cabin Crew wished to adopt which was to go to an immediate industrial action ballot and use the intervening time to approach British Airways.

We must presume that British Airways has shown no interest in the items or the approach from Unite and has chosen not to respond. One can only surmise that this has been to ensure we are unable to organise and carry out any industrial action over the Christmas period.

Whilst we represent the minority of the membership and it was disappointing that more of our members appeared not to have supported the previous actions, we solemnly believe that we are left with little option but to call once again for an Industrial Action ballot. We believe that this reflects the broader view of popular opinion in the community – one which cannot now be ignored.

On a wider note, and to use the military vernacular that you favour, if the members represent the army, the committee the generals, then you must be the field*marshals? We must now ask you as the 'field marshals' to accept that the strategy recently adopted has not been as successful as we might have liked. Whilst it was one based soundly on being reasonable and attempting to find an equitable solution and agreement, British Airways leadership team have exploited that reasonableness and continued to restructure and IMPOSE changes at will. They have been relentless in what can only be termed as bullying and harassment towards the membership in a crude attempt to weaken their resolve. In truth, this has only served to raise our community’s anger and commitment to their principles even higher. BA’s approach has been summed up by the outgoing CEO, when he stated, for the record, that "a reasonable man gets nowhere in negotiations". How true that has proved to be.

We must therefore ask that Unite adopt a much needed change of strategy. For clarity we do not believe that this dispute will be settled on the picket line, we believe that it must be negotiated. However British Airways must be brought to the negotiating table with the genuine intention of finding a solution and not continuing to throw "take it or leave it" offers on the table that are designed to wear us down and punish us for enacting our lawful right to industrial action.

We believe that the lawful use of regular and de-stabilising strikes and the timely and proactive use of the judicial system will facilitate such an end. We need to address the legal issues that are presented to us with more urgency. We must ask that more emphasis is put on the existing legal challenges and they are*elevated and pursued more vigorously. We must petition you to instruct our legal team to action our appeal to the Supreme Court on the contract/crew compliments case.

For the benefit of those that might call into question our motives, please be assured it is the well being of this community to whom we are actively listening- as we are part of that community. We must resist the bully and ensure we are not battered into submission. We cannot take our eyes off the ball and lose sight of why we have taken this action.
It was IMPOSITION that sparked this struggle and it has NOT been adequately addressed in our opinion. Some may wish to write off that issue, but to do so would undoubtedly be to our collective peril. The introduction of mixed fleet is now living proof of that.

It is clear that the British Airways strategy is one designed to obliterate any form of meaningful representation, now and going forward. They are adopting the carefully organized union busting strategies of bullying and harassment in the workplace under the guise of `managing’; Diverting the dispute with issues they control and use as leverage to force settlement (i.e. staff travel); and treating us with contempt which is evident in their treatment of those disciplined and sacked, their treatment of the reps, andsubjecting us to a modern day "lock out". The time has now come for us all to effect change to our benefit.

Whilst the nature law of these things will have you supporting the view of the committee that represents the largest numbers, we sincerely hope that our view will not be dismissed and the merit and relevance of the minority's contribution will not continue to be ignored or lost. Weundertake to represent the views of the whole membership and to keep the team focused for the benefit of the collective.

[PAXboy]

They are fortunate that they are not relying on public sympathy or any good support in the media ... :rolleyes:

[vctenderness]

Can I add a little clarity to some previous postings. DH is a LAY Rep and not General Secretary of BASSA he is Branch Secretary. BASSA is NOT a certified union it is Branch 2000 of TGWU now Unite.

He will not receive a pension from the union as there is no such scheme for lay reps.

However he will stay put as long as he can and draw his commission from members subs plus £100 per day (maybe more) and he is his own paymaster!

[Skylion]

Never mind everyone, while all this obsessing about CSDs pushing trolleys,reductions in crew numbers etc has been going on ,99% of BA shareholders have this morning voted the company into oblivion as standalone business. Once the Iberia merger is completed in January it will in the words of the Chairman be"more like an airline brand, rather than a publicly owned financial entity". It's successor,owned for the opening few moments of trading ,56% by BA shareholders (Note NOT by BA,- that's gone bar the paintwork) and 44% by Iberia (also gone) will be the Spanish registered IAG -International Airlines Group.
Something more worth thinking about?

[Richard228]

BBC is reporting another Ballot for strike action will be issued

BBC News - BA cabin crew to be balloted on strike action (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11866508)

The actual grounds for this strike are not stated on the web site, but they do say:
The Unite union is complaining about BA's refusal to reinstate travel perks to crew members who have taken part in previous strikes.If this is the "reason" it looks very fragile indeed.

[Richard228]

The ballot will be issued in 7 days time.. that would be 6th December.

Reason for the delay is so they can check who they are balloting..... Seeing as unite say there are 11,000 members, then it would seem this week is indeed needed to check the deplinished numbers of staff in the union!

With 4 weeks balloting (taking us to 3rd January), and one weeks notice of Industrial action (taking us to 10th January), the Union will miss their xmas strikes, despite comrade Len McCluskey's warnings to the contrary.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Should be interesting legally. Will they find a reason for IA unconnected to the previous IA? Will BA take legal action to put a stop to it?
Will BA issue 90 day notice or just sit it out knowing that support for any strike action will be even less than last time and will the lemmings jump over the cliff?
Will be fascinating watching from the sidelines.

Tony Woodley has lost any credibility he may have had by doing a complete volte-face. Having said that the last BA offer was the best they could get, what does he hope to achieve by strike action. Does he think BA will just roll over, having already made a number of concessions whereas Unite/Bassa have made none?

Do these people have any concept of what the word negotiation means?

Very sad that a bunch of, on the whole, decent cabin crew can be led by such a group of incompetent and selfserving people.

[Juan Tugoh]

I suspect that BA will sit back and watch the proceedings. They will issue a warning as to how they will view the action - whether they view it to be protected or not and what they will do to unprotected strikers.

Remember that whatever the issue is, whether it is protected or otherwise, an Employment Tribunal does not have the power to enforce a reinstatement order and so IF BA were to sack some strikers the chances of them getting their jobs back is very low. I expect BA will use all the legal tools available to them to find a reason to delay and disrupt any potential strike action.

It will be interesting to see what the turn out will be in this ballot, I am guessing that it will be a higher percentage than last time and it will be a high percentage voting for the strike. However, the total numbers balloted will be significantly down as many moderate members of BASSA have already left and so the remainder are both more engaged and more extreme. They (UNITE) represent a significantly smaller proportion of the CC community than they did this time last year.

One last thing that you can guarantee is that the numbers that vote for a strike will not represent those that will actually go on strike. BA has promised a 100% LH service - expect it to run and expect an acceleration in MF courses.

[BetterByBoat]

"Will they find a reason for IA unconnected to the previous IA?"

Does anyone know the legal details here defining "unconnected" ? Does it relate to items on the ballot paper can't be recycled for a second ballot ?

Or is it a wider definition that is open to interpretation?

[Mariner9]

I think the wording maybe different -did BA offer that the arbitrators decision was final and binding?

Good of TW to advise that his items "wont cost BA a single penny" given that one calls for repayment of salary for "genuine" sick cases and the other calls for possible reinstatement of "wrongly" dismissed staff (and hence additional salaries to pay). Surprised to see he was so frank about these :E

[LD12986]

Very poor show by Tony Woodley. He did a deal with the company in which he obtained concessions on staff travel and disciplinaries and agreed to take it the membership. He has reneged on that and put those concessions at risk. Very poor form.

The ballot result will be interesting. I don't doubt that there will be a mandate for strike action but the numbers balloted will be interesting.

I suspect BA will keep its powder dry until the ballot result is known. Though I don't doubt that the lawyers will be clocking up yet more fees.

[SamYeager]

Assuming the strike ballot actually takes place I await another "overwhelming"; vote for strike action. Whether or not the number of strikers bears any resemblance to the Yes votes is another matter altogether. :rolleyes:

[TopBunk]

I read elsewhere that BA's new CEO-elect (Keith Williams) may move HR (known as 'People' in BA-speak) into the Legal department/team.

This may mean that policy will move from one of negotiation (not that BASSA have done much of that anyway) to one of what the company legally has to do to conform with the law. This will probably result in a much harsher environment for all to work in. Regardless of whatever BASSA say, BA has historically been and still is, is very supportive employer that looks after people as one would expect from an ex-nationalised company with a civil service ethos.

An unwelcome by-product of this (in part due to BASSAs intransigence) may well be detrimental effects on other areas of the business that have been historically proactive.

Maybe the good news on this is that BA will just sack the malcontents:D:sad:

[Landroger]

I was listening to Woodley being interviewed on the PM programme this evening and it suddenly occurred to me that I must have been mistaken in what I understood about this dispute. I have read virtually every word of both threads in each of their incarnations and I thought I had a pretty good idea of what has been happening. However, Tony Woodley said it on Radio 4, so it must be true, so I got it all completely wrong.

Its all BA's fault apparently. They are simply 'arguing over the details', that will 'cost them nothing', they have 'taken away staff travel' (Oh well they will return it, but only in two years) and have sacked and suspended people 'for no reason at all.' And apparently Unite have always been there to negotiate and be the voice of reason - all BA have to do to end this dispute is to 'just give back what that have so cruelly taken away'. Well I think that is all perfectly clear - isn't it? :ugh: :ugh:

Tonight's PM Programme presenter did manage to challenge Woodley on one thing though. 'What has this dispute and the 22 days of strike achieved?' He dodged and weaved a bit, but he eventually admitted that; 'Apart from loss of travel privileges, a lost of money by our members and a lot of heart ache for everyone ......... errr nothing.'

So, who am I to believe Mr. Woodley? My own conclusions after reading these threads for almost two years? :rolleyes: Or you, who have just admitted that two years of Industrial Action has achieved NOTHING? :ugh::ugh:

Roger

[AV Flyer]

Given that TW has not only reneged on both recommending and presenting the offer he agreed with BA to Unite's CC members but now has also come out with a renewed set of conditions and announced a fresh strike ballot, I am very surprised that BA has not withdrawn its current offer as it did last time.

BA both offered and even made (as a goodwill gesture) substantial concessions on ST and to its established disciplinary procedure for IA related cases in return for nothing whatsoever from Unite. It makes no sense that BA should leave this offer on the table now that further damage to both future bookings and its brand image will have been incurred by TW's announcement and particularly as Unite has clearly shown its distain towards it.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs? Thoughts?

Err, give me a bit of time?!

[LD12986]

Given that TW has not only reneged on both recommending and presenting the offer he agreed with BA to Unite's CC members but now has also come out with a renewed set of conditions and announced a fresh strike ballot, I am very surprised that BA has not withdraw its current offer as it did last time.

BA both offered and even made (as a goodwill gesture) substantial concessions on ST and to its established disciplinary procedure for IA related cases in return for nothing whatsoever from Unite. It makes no sense that BA should leave this offer on the table now that further damage to both future bookings and its brand image will have been incurred by TW's announcement and particularly as Unite has clearly shown its distain towards it.


As far as ST is concerned, tactically, I think it would be better not to withdraw staff travel again. Someone who had lost ST, only to get it back in part and lose it again may think they have nothing to lose by striking again. The risk of losing staff travel again may make some think again about striking this time, having learned the hard way that it would not be reinstated "in five minutes!".

[LD12986]

There's a meeting at ACAS next Monday according to this:

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


We are pleased to see that a press conference was held today to announce Unite's INTENTION to ballot it's members on Industrial Action.

Whilst we would have preferred the press conference to announce that we will be giving notification on a specific date to British Airways, we are at least moving in the right direction.

Needless to say in the interim period we will ask all of our members to ensure that their details are accurate and up to date.

It is vital that you advise us if you are off work on long term sick, maternity or taking a sabbatical – or any absence that means you will not be in the workplace during any potential strike period.

YOU CANNOT BE BALLOTED IF YOU CANNOT TAKE PART IN ANY INDUSTRIAL ACTION THAT IS CALLED.

We are gravely concerned that as a result of the press conference today, British Airways have conceded to meet with Unite next Monday under the auspices of ACAS. To the best of our knowledge this will NOT include any of the representatives from either Bassa or Amicus. This is unacceptable to us and we will communicate that to the JGS on behalf of our membership.

Furthermore we are not prepared to accept any offer to settle this dispute on the basis that British Airways ONLY agree to the "four no cost items". The current agreement in any guise is unacceptable to us and we believe to the community as a whole.
Why, you might ask? Because it is built on quick sand and has no guarantees for our future. The offer does not adequately deal with the reasons why the dispute arose in the first place. To add insult to injury, it also seeks to restrict and deprive you of your statutory rights to litigation against an increasingly unreasonable employer.
We do however believe that the four items form a good basis for discussions to commence with the involvement of the reps and will clear the decks of all the diversionary nonsense that British Airways has chosen to introduce into the dispute.

We would also like to assure you that the figures recently published on some forums suggesting that only a handful of AMICUS members took industrial action are misleading and we can honestly advise you that more than five times that number of AMICUS members actually went on strike. That is not to say we couldn't do better, because we can and we must!

Today saw information come to us that Mixed Fleet will be operating the SIN-SYD, CPT and JNB from the 08th March 2010.

Whilst this has been a long drawn out struggle with many pitfalls, one positive thing that has come out of it is that British Airways have been exposed and the true nature of their intent is now glaringly obvious. Be that the misleading rationale of an airline in trouble, or the assurances that Mixed Fleet would not adversely affect us, we can now see clearly that the leadership team cannot be trusted and neither therefore can their offer be trusted. We are now in profit irrespective of the cost of this dispute, the ash cloud and the hefty fines – and yet our work is being stripped away and our agreements are being decimated on a daily basis.

If you had any doubts about your future in this once wonderful airline, be GUARANTEED of this – unless we ALL support the call for action, and, when appropriate lawfully withdraw your labour, YOU WILL HAVE NO FUTURE- the writing is on the wall!

[notlangley]

It is worth listening to Tony Woodley speaking for approximately 4 minutes starting at 11 minutes 16 seconds within this BBC news._ Better still to start listening at approximately 9 minutes 30 seconds from the beginning:_____________link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w78gt/PM_29_11_2010/)

[Landroger]

From 'THE LATEST NEWS UPDATES'

Furthermore we are not prepared to accept any offer to settle this dispute on the basis that British Airways ONLY agree to the "four no cost items". The current agreement in any guise is unacceptable to us and we believe to the community as a whole.
Why, you might ask? Because it is built on quick sand and has no guarantees for our future. The offer does not adequately deal with the reasons why the dispute arose in the first place. To add insult to injury, it also seeks to restrict and deprive you of your statutory rights to litigation against an increasingly unreasonable employer.
We do however believe that the four items form a good basis for discussions to commence with the involvement of the reps and will clear the decks of all the diversionary nonsense that British Airways has chosen to introduce into the dispute.

What do we want?
Everything!!
When do we want it?
Now!!
What do we offer them?
Nothing!!
What inspiring words - don't they make your heart beat a little faster? :ugh::ugh:

And they're back to feckin' GUARANTEES again! :ugh:

Where do I sign up to write the book of this dispute? Do you think I ought to wait until it ends before I get started? Better not - I am sixty-three after all. :rolleyes:

Roger

[AV Flyer]

Interesting listening to the TW interview on PM where he talks about his "5,500 to 6,000 members who have lost their staff travel". Given that he is exaggerating on other issues throughout this interview then I guess this confirms BA's figure 4,963 who originally went on strike to be correct.

So much for BASSA and its insistence there were 7,000+ strikers based on strike pay claims!

When will these guys stop lying or at the very least be held to the same standards of truthfulness to their members and the public at large that BA and its management are held?

[Alsacienne]

This thread moves at the speed of our late lamented Concorde ... thank you to those who advised me on BA strikes re longhaul and ticketing for next year.

[PAXboy]

... and has no guarantees for our future.No employee has a guarantee that extends beyond the period of their notice. If you are on a three month notice, then that is what you get - serving the time or money in lieu. If the company is bankrupt then you will get nothing.

ANY employee in the world can find themselves with no job. I do not like that, as I have been made redundant myself - at short notice - and seen it happen to others. But that is 21st century. Do I think that 'capitalism' [generic term] the best solution? Not necessarily but it is how the UK functions. Pretending that you can guarantee jobs 'into the future' is utter nonsense.

After all this, and saying that they WANT to settle the dispute - when BA want to go to ACAS:
We are gravely concerned that as a result of the press conference today, British Airways have conceded to meet with Unite next Monday under the auspices of ACAS.
Now they don't want to settle? They have no idea how silly they look.

[Litebulbs]

If only through negotiation at the start, both sides of the cabin crew community had ensured that any new contract worked together with existing staff. It would have been a pure natural wastage situation then. I imagine the SOSR dismissal defense is being drawn up as we speculate.

I only hope that the union that I pay my subs to has established that the reasons quoted are new and not linked to the previous action. On the face of it, I would say they are, but that will be of no surprise to most of you :ok: I say that because none of the items are about imposition, but are consequences of industrial action. I am glad I am not testing it however.

[Litebulbs]

Can't argue with any of that Baggers. If it was a political battle, then the announcement today coinciding with the merger news scored some share price points and made the statement that the unrest is not a done deal, regardless of the potential success of any ballot.

[Chuchinchow]

I suppose I really ought to offer my profound and grateful thanks to BASSA, CC89, UNITE, Duncan Holley, Liz Whateverhernameis et al. Over the last year and a half, the portrayal of their antics has been a great source of amusement to me.

Whatever will I do for light pre-bedtime reading if (not "when") this gross absurdity is ever settled I do not know. The complete mismanagement of the benighted cabin crews' grievance, from its beginning, through the sojourns at Bedfont, until the latest foolishness is unparalleled.

The briefings and bulletins emanating from the keyboard of Duncan Holley beggar belief in their lack of credulity and and their sheer stupidity. There has been a piss poor effort at media management: the flight attendant sitting with that oh-so smug look on his face while sitting in his Beamer and drinking Pimms is just one example that comes to mind. The radio interviews with "aggrieved flight attendants" who turned out to be none other than Duncan Holley is an another.

Meanwhile, I continue to back BA - by booking as many journeys on BA as possible. Meanwhile, the people who should be supporting BA to the hilt - the disgruntled and appallingly poorly led cabin crew - are considering yet more industrial action. How much longer can they hold out?

On the other hand, if working for British Airways is as terrible as we have been told by more than one diehard flight attendant (who vigorously demands that she or he remains anonymous) why didn't they take voluntary redundancy when it was still available, put the windfall away in their bank accounts, and seek more amenable employment? Why are they so doggedly hanging on?

Lots of questions there; let's see a few answers.

[Richard228]

I think the wording maybe different -did BA offer that the arbitrators decision was final and binding?Yes the offer from BA was final and binding.. this is what it said in the 15th October 2010 Offer:

Unite and British Airways agree that if any employee who has been subject to disciplinary action (in connection with the current dispute) by British Airways and whose name appears in the confidential annex to this agreement (a 'Relevant Employee') decides to bring an Employment Tribunal claim for unfair dismissal, then as an alternative to Employment Tribunal litigation, that claim will ordinarily be dealt with under the Acas arbitration scheme for the resolution of unfair dismissal disputes.

British Airways and Unite agree that the Arbitrator's decision will be binding and before entering the Acas arbitration scheme they will enter into an agreement to this effect, to which the Relevant Employee will also be a party.

Any arbitration hearing will take place only after British Airways' internal appeals procedure has been exhausted. In any such case British Airways will have the right to approve or reject the arbitrator proposed.So the Union are asking (and striking) for something which has indeed already been offerred! :ugh:

[Richard228]

I wonder if they are doing themselves in by doing another strike, now that Mixed Fleet is here. How many are up and trained now? More in the pipeline for coming on line by January/February?If I recall the intake of Mixed Fleet staff has been 120 per month.. so I would guess they will have around 400 in that fleet come January.

That could cover a fair number of Airbus's over any strike period, in addition to VCC's and increasing number of strike breakers (who wants to lose ST again?!)

I agree all BA need to do is engage with their lawyers, and sit back and wait.... the end of this is getting nearer....

[just an observer]

I've just listened to TW on the radio link, right at the end, he says BA's last offer which was 'reluctantly' acceptable to himself and his shop stewards, was not acceptable to the CC in general!! Yet CC in general have not been allowed to vote on it - so how does he know?

I've generally had some time for TW, I think left to himself he would have agreed a sensible deal with BA, but he can't control BASSA/CC89. But that statement was so blatently wrong, was it just foot in mouth in a live situation, or does he really think he can get away with that lie ?

Also, BA is back in profit due to the sacrifices made by the rest of BA staff, who in large part are also Unite members, including my husband. Why should some Unite members at BA be expected to pay for better conditions for other Unite members who happen to be CC?

[SLFLurker]

I've booked BA Longhaul flights next Easter because the price that BA offered me couldn't be beaten and also because I know that BA can guarantee their longhaul operation even if there is IA. (roughly 300 pounds cheaper than the deal offered with their closest UK competitor - probably around 800 pounds cheaper if you add internal uk flights onto the competitors deal...)

So it was a no brainer. Not a case of patriotism or being anti BASSA but making a sound financial decision for my family.

[Richard228]

It is interesting that TW is trying to suggest that the "original dispute where BA imposed changes on the union has well since been over" 12:03 here : BBC iPlayer - PM: 29/11/2010 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00w78gt/PM_29_11_2010/)

Has it?!!

we see here the Union starting to make their case that this ballot will be a "new" one, with subsequent protected IA.

Such a shame then, when we think back to during the last strike, when TW was on television saying to the press that the strike would be over today if Staff travel was returned!

This new ballot is going to have more holes in it than a tea bag!....

[west lakes]

So if the original dispute is over, should BASSA be holding elections as they were delayed until the end of that dispute by a vote at Kempton Park?

[Landroger]

Damn! I forgot to mention that JaO, you're right. :) He did say exactly that, but I was still pondering his admission that the IA had achieved nothing. Quite extraordinary. :ugh:

Furthermore, I was just thinking about how all the other Unions and departments at BA must feel about this situation? It is a massive arrogance on BASSAs behalf. They seem to think the Baggage Handlers, the Tug Drivers, the Engineers and all the other tens of thousands of staff - who did all their negotiating before last June and have been doing their part ever since - are simply going to sit back and watch while BA rolls over, winds back the clock fifteen months and says; 'Okay, what do you want?' :ugh:

Not only an arrogance, but an unthinking, uncaring and unforgivable insult. :ugh:

Roger.

[Landroger]

So if the original dispute is over, should BASSA be holding elections as they were delayed until the end of that dispute by a vote at Kempton Park?

A hit West Lakes, a palpable hit! :D

Roger.

[Richard228]

So Tony Woodley is trying to pretend that we have a new dispute....

well, not according to this video from 23rd May 2010 we dont!

YouTube - Unite: Strike Will End If Travel Perks Return (British Airways cabin crew strike) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvSwWnNX4U0&feature=related)

Here we have TW talking about negotations to end the dispute... including discipliniaries involving ACAS, and reinstatement of travel perks!

Sound familiar?

One word is looming folks...... "Unprotected"!

[Snas]

One word is looming folks...... "Unprotected"!


…and I can tell you that most CC don’t have the first concept of what this means. The firm belief is still that "..you cant be sacked for striking" - I hear it a lot.

[Snas]

Though if you sack those who go out illegally on the first day (experience speaking), then that's usually the last day of a strike.


Mine to.

My personal belief is that BA won’t dismiss staff for striking, partly because BA has got itself into such a position where it doesn’t matter too much, operationally, if they do strike and partly because my own observations of the company is that they are actually quite a decent employer.
Sure they are a huge employer which results in a less flexibility than you might get in a much smaller firm where the boss really does know you, but compared to others of their size they are very good indeed.

[Mariner9]

This strike ballot is solely about revenge. Thats all the BASSA/CC89 sacked/suspended reps want - the ability to hurt BA.

The only specific complaint regarding the current BA offer on the latest CC89 missive bemoans the loss of the chance of retribution through the courts. Never mind that they had flimsy cases, at least it was a chance to give BA a bloody nose. The fact that the deal was superb offer in the circumstances, providing income protection and job security for their members appears to be irrelevant. The ballot on this offer was clearly pulled in case the CC finally recognised a good deal when they saw it.

This dispute therefore is not about disgruntled cabin crew. It is mainly about disgruntled ex-cabin crew. Not a lot BA can do about that really if DH & Co refuse to leave BASSA and the CC are too ignorant of the situation and/or apathetic to remove them.

Sack the strikers maybe - but its hardly going to improve the situation. In fact I suspect that is exactly what DH and Co want to happen in attempt to garner public support against the "evil" :rolleyes: BA management.

Bad news for those CC's foolish enough to swallow the union rhetoric. And sadly I suspect they will be in the majority of those CC's with sufficient backbone to actually make a decision and cast a vote.

[RTR]

So Tony Woodley is trying to pretend that we have a new dispute....

Certain things come to mind.

1. Is TW playing both ends of BASSA against the middle?

2. Is BA keeping quiet to watch how deep both unions dig their own holes?

3. Is Unite expecting BA to push BASSA in, or will they wait for the ballot and then push both in?

Either way TW has made an almighty blunder! So have DH and the reps.

I would like to see a court, for that is where this is heading, ridicule and tell BASSA how it is, and to tell Unite to behave in a professional manner and deal with BASSA with a threat to cut them adrift. BASSA is being led that way - as we speak!

Wishful thinking but it does tickle the fancy!

[AV Flyer]

If the Union and its Branches are holding out for a resolution whereby BA agrees to leave the door open for the Union to bring future court actions over issues relating to the dispute then it will never end.

It is absolutely standard practise that both sides to a dispute agree to drop all future legal actions arising out of matters pertaining to the dispute otherwise, by definition, there is no resolution.

How BASSA and AMICUS think this could be otherwise is naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of what a legal dispute settlement agreement is all about.

I guess it's a statement that with BA always capitulating in the past, the Union and its Branches have never had to get to this level of sophistication that has applied to all other parties to commercial disputes since time began.

Indeed, one thing this entire matter has revealed is the general lack of legal sophistication shown by the Union and its chosen advisors throughout - a matter that all Trades Unions should pay attention to if wishing to pursue IR & IA effectively in modern times.

[Richard228]

Mariner9This dispute therefore is not about disgruntled cabin crew. It is mainly about disgruntled ex-cabin crew. Not a lot BA can do about that really if DH & Co refuse to leave BASSA and the CC are too ignorant of the situation and/or apathetic to remove them.very neat summary of where we are! :ok:

baggersupQuestion though. If BA warns of unprotected IA, and the crew go out on IA anyway, is BA obliged by law to sack them?BA is not obliged to sack employees who take unprotected industrial action, but they must treat all strikers the same. i.e. if they are going to sack strikers, then they must sack all unprotected strikers, and cannot select which troublemakers to get rid of.

Source : Taking part in industrial action : Directgov - Employment (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/TradeUnions/Industrialaction/DG_179248)

They can however sack the lot, then wait three months, and re-instate who they want, on whatever grounds they want, with no legal ramifications.

So would BA sack them...? I would guess that depends on the number of employees, who have the guts to take unprotected indutrial action.. if its a small number of trouble makers..then why not...? if its a bigger number then it could make bad press.

BA has handled the media very well throughout this dispute... i doubt they would do anything to jeopordise that....

[Hipennine]

If this is a new dispute, why is it that one of the main messages coming out of the CC89 mouthpiece last week in demanding a strike ballot was that "the original reason for this dispute - imposition - has not yet been resolved" ?

I'm just wondering if TW isn't actually playing a blinder and using some strategic thinking here:

Option 1 is that if a vote takes place, many will vote against, showing TW as correct and the branch committees as out of touch, or;

Option 2 is that they vote in favour, but then Unite's legal advisers declare that the strike has a high probability of being considered un-protected, and therefore as a Union they could not sanction a stike in the best interests of their members (ie it's not us but them pesky lawyers/judges/democratically elected parliament which is stopping the union from doing what the members want).

[Richard228]

remember, that based upon previous experience, nothing is ever, ever the unions fault, I'd go for option 2! ;)

[Litebulbs]

If I was trying to ensure that there was no link between past action and the fresh call, I may have used different words than these -


An immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA
Binding arbitration, through Acas, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the dispute
Restoration of the wages docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates
Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by BA in relation to this.But I am not a JGS.

[AV Flyer]

The disconnected and dysfunctional behaviour in reneging on agreements, switching lists of demands with no cohesion between them, etc., that we are seeing from the Union and its Branches is very typical of a party to a dispute who has lost badly and resorts to thrashing around and floundering hopelessly in the misguided belief and delusion it is still in control and going to "win" in the end.

The Union and its Branches have been completely out manouevered in every area by BA and without BA appearing to have had to exert much effort in the process which, frankly, leaves the Union looking somewhat pathetic.

Unite, under LM, has an opportunity to learn so many lessons about becoming much more professional and legally astute in building its future approach to IR. It will be interesting to see if these lessons have been learned moving forwards .......

[rethymnon]

hippenine may well have hit the nail on the head: tony woodley's comments on PM yesterday struck me as being somewhere between 'measured' and 'half-hearted'. it has been mentioned before, but not at great length, that unite has to keep in mind its relationship with other unite branches in BA. comment here suggests that other unite members in BA are less than happy with the antics of the cabin crew members of bassa and amicus.

no doubt those unite members will have made their distaste known to their reps and the reps will not be unaware that some vcc are their own members. in other words, members 'distaste' has been translated into positive action to support the company against another section of the union.

we keep thinking that this is coming to an end, but perhaps this time it really is. potential strikers, like missm, must weigh the further loss of travel privileges against the projected benefits of a further strike when they have been told clearly by tw that the first strike achieved nothing and what has been offered is 'the best deal available''

short of telling them rudely that they can't go back to woolworths, how more clearly does he spell it out if they prefer to believe ex-staff members who run their branch?

[Richard228]

Unite, under LM, has an opportunity to learn so many lessons about becoming much more professional and legally astute in building the future of its approach to IR. It will be insteresting to see if these lessons have been learned moving forwards .......Seeing as it was the very same Len McCluskey who put his foot in it, by announcing the dates of previous industrial action, when a potential deal was on the table, on the understanding that strike dates were not set... I don't have high hopes....

[jimd-f]

as UNITE have not conducted a ballot of members, as they promised BA they would when they negotiated the latest offer, is there any reason why BA could not, once again, make an offer to non members of the union directly.
this would serve a few purposes, in that
they could claim the moral high ground by being seen to make an offer to the staff when the union have refused
they could get on-side the CC members who resigned from the union since the last direct offer to staff
they would be in a better postion to know who were still the militants in the event they decided to take any action against them in the future
they would screw up the unions count of eligible members, which is part of the reason that UNITE won't call a ballot date yet, as they want to be sure how many members they have -at least 1 lesson learnt from the previous ballot

i cannot see UNITE agreeing to any ballot in the short term if BA was to make this offer, as it would be in their interests to see how the staff reacted to the offer.
i would bet that the number of resignations from the union, backdated a day or two ;), would be quite a significant number.

[Richard228]

one of the crucial points to consider, of such an offer, is that it is not enticing people to leave the union, as that would be illegal.

I could see BA doing this again, for the reasons you state, but it would be with a back dated point where the employee must not have been part of the union.

If they were to do this again it could be interesting, as I could see BA then having a fair number of staff "on-side" with the new contract, pay rises, guarantees etc... there would then be nothing to stop it terminating all existing LHR Worldwide and LHR Eurofleet contracts, and re-signing on new (worse) terms.

That would be an ultimatum to all staff - either accept the contract, or bye bye... you cant in all practicality sign the new contract then strike... can you?!

[Snas]

Jimd-f

It’s virtually impossible to leave this Union, their numbers will never be right.

My partner has 3 phone calls, a cancelled subs payment, 4 letters, 1 recorded delivery letter and still they have her as a member. I fully expect a ballot to arrive.

[Litebulbs]

With regard to the unlawfulness of enticing employees to leave a union: I was surprised that more of this was not made at the time when the new contract was offered.

[Litebulbs]

Jimd-f

It’s virtually impossible to leave this Union, their numbers will never be right.

My partner has 3 phone calls, a cancelled subs payment, 4 letters, 1 recorded delivery letter and still they have her as a member. I fully expect a ballot to arrive.

Don't worry Snas, Les Bayliss is going to get the membership system sorted out.........................................

[Richard228]

With regard to the unlawfulness of enticing employees to leave a union: I was surprised that more of this was not made at the time when the new contract was offered.but when it was offered before, it was based upon not being a member of the union at a past date.

As an employee cannot retrosectively not be a member of the union, it could not entice people to leave the union, and was thus legitmate.

[Litebulbs]

Yes fair point, but how would BA know if the member did not pay by checkoff? Through my red tinted specs, I thought is was sailing close to the mark, but I must have been in the minority of one.

[Ancient Observer]

Anyone remember the Monty Python sketch about the Romans?
We could construct a similar sketch here. Imagine the bassa committee meeting......................Instead of the People's front for the liberation of Judea, it would be the Tomato front for the liberation of CSDs. (and remember the dismissal by Cleese of other groups of revolutionaries? - a bit like bassa dismissing cc89)

If I were in BA I'd construct a sketch for their Christmas party based on this.................

What have BA ever given us?

Huuuuge salaries - for the elite few of us CSDs, up to £80,000 p.a.
The ability to travel the world for free.
The ability to take our family and friends around the world for free
The ability to stay in Hotels that we as individuals could never afford to stay in.
Security of employment. There are 5 million people in the UK on unemployment benefits of various sorts.
Long Careers, when other employers of CC force them to leave when over 30.
Branch income - estimated to be £2 million and never independently audited.
Part time work whenever we want.
The ability to sleep on the job and be paid for it.
Access to cheap fags and booze
Access to future partners.

I'd better stop.

meanwhile, what have bassa ever done for us??

er, the ability to lose all of the above?............the ability of one of the 5 million unemployed to do our jobs on much lower pay???

Next sketch - the Spanish Inquisition sketch.

[Litebulbs]

You can clearly see what BA give without negotiation, just ask any crew member wearing a hat!

[Juan Tugoh]

Tony Woodley's position must be somewhat precarious at the moment. He shook hands on an agreement with WW but this was rejected, without a ballot, by BASSA and CC89. So he appears to be out of touch with the wishes, hopes and aspirations of his own shop stewards - quite what the membership think, no one knows as they were not consulted. He failed to deliver the agreement he shook hands with WW, and he failed his own membership by shaking hands with WW on an untenable agreement. Does he have the faith in any one in this dispute?

Perhaps Len McCluskey will at least have the support of the shop stewards. Certainly WW would be behaving reasonably in refusing to deal with him as he cannot deliver on his promises. By playing the moderate TW is now representing no-one.

[Ancient Observer]

Litebulbs.

Nope.
BA offered to take New Fleet off the table earlier in this dispute. Bassa refused that offer aswell. They refused to discuss it at all.

New Fleet is bassa's fault completely.

[pvmw]

You can clearly see what BA give without negotiation,.....

Indded, terms and conditions that the majority of British Industry would give their right arms for!!!

Its been said many times, a significant proportion of CC have never had to exist in the real world, and would be incapable of getting a job even remotely as well rewarded. All this dispute has done is trash the reputation of BA cabin crew (in many cases unfairly) and dramatically worsen both their negotiating position and their future prospects.

Unions, don't you love them!!