BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III

[notlangley]

First an apology to Dawdler, I am in Australia which is why I am posting while you are asleep.

Cabin crew who took voluntary redundancy
192 left on 31 October 2009
742 left on 30 November 2009
69 left on 15 December 2009

reference paragraph 39 of_____link (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3541.html&query=title+(+British+)&method=boolean)

[Joao da Silva]

frankly, you can't have it both ways. Either you are grossly overpaid and rewarded for doing a Noddy job that is just within your capacity or, you are grown up adult human beings who could and should be able to give mature consideration to information regarding your very demanding job- one that is rewarding in many ways and reflects your needs as a grown up, mature and intelligent human being.Perhaps some are smart enough to realise that sitting on the fence is a winning tactic, for them?

If they feel the offer is not right (whatever we may think, it is their job), but do not think that strike action is appropriate, then abstention is a principled decision.

As to the large amounts of cost to the the business, well (a) the board must also share some responsibility for this, since they are running the business and (b) it is petty cash compared to the bonuses awarded by banks, post crash, perhaps a more obvious target for ire, since this behaviour does directly affect the amount of money available for people's mortgage and other loan needs. What impact does the BA strike really have on most people?

The board may well have decided to take a hit to resolve the problem and that is a legitimate and reasonable decision, but the dispute is still ongoing after 12 months, suggesting that the strategy has not yet worked.

I wonder how long it will be until there is some pressure on the board to end the dispute? If there is a legal way of imposing the new contract, then at some stage I would expect larger shareholders to ask why this is not being executed.

Meanwhile, I notice that on some frequent flyer fora, there is an escalating amount of dissatisfaction with the premium cabin service, on both legacy and mixed fleet routes. Whilst there is always some dissatisfaction with most airlines, specific reports include dirty seats in first class, no pudding being served in first class, poor service in club world, chaotic service on a Las Vegas flight, with mixed fleet crew etc, suggesting to me that maybe a morale problem may now be affecting some cabin crew.

Let me say that I have not encountered the problems in the preceeding paragraph and believe that clubworld is a very good product, but I have pulled my flights in Jan/Feb, as I cannot justify any risk of disruption to key business trips, when there are many other options. I may like flying BA, but I have responsibilities to colleagues and my company.

Come on BA, resolve this dispute.

[Juan Tugoh]

If there is a legal way of imposing the new contract, then at some stage I would expect larger shareholders to ask why this is not being executed.

There is a legal way of imposing a new contract, indeed the BASSA QC confirmed this in the court hearing regarding imposition. All the company would have to do would be to give 90 days notice of termination of contract and issue new contracts. Those that did not sign the new contract would be deemed to have terminated their own employment. The newly unemployed could then go to an ET to dispute the legality of their new status.

However, this would be a strategy that could easily backfire on the company as it would be highly likely to motivate the wider union movement within BA to action. It is also a highly risky strategy as until now the clear weight of public support has been with BA. If BA were to act in such a high handed and arbitrary manner, it is likely that public support would be lost and BA painted as a rapacious and evil employer.

WW and the board have played this dispute well in terms of public support and seem to be sensitive to the image aspects of this dispute, I doubt they will throw a favourable perception away without many warnings. Oddly enough the current bad weather could allow BA to persue a more hardline approach...."BA cannot allow a small group of staff to punish the travelling public any more, particularly after all the disruption they have suffered this winter"

[Sonorguy]

I don’t think that the management of BA is allowed to interrogate their wages computer._ The chief person who argued this on this thread, realised his error and deleted all of his postings that suggested that BA had breached what is called in the UK the "Chinese Wall".

There is no problem in a senior manager having access to wages computer information. In fact this is essential to provide accurate accounts, especially if these involve deductions before payment to the staff member.

Chinese Walls don't exist to stop managers knowing how much their staff are paid, they were put in place to help prevent insider trading and fraud.

[Joao da Silva]

Juan Tugoh

All well and good to make your argument, to a certain point.

However, at some stage public image becomes a pyhrric victory and the large institutions are bottom line players.

The point about mobilising the other unions is reasonable, except I thought that all the other departments/branches had already made deals, involving some pain sharing.

Given this and also the humiliation of the main union by the branches, one may well have thought that a SOSR approach might not be impossible, albeit with much background preparation, to the benefit of all?

A win-win outcome, the JGS of Unite could well say to the branch members, look what happens when you ignore our advice.

[Juan Tugoh]

JDS

the problem is that by issuing a change to contract without consultation would give an issue to ALL work groups within BA and could easily provide a reason for other groups to initiate IA. This would not be "sympathy" action but a genuine new concern within all workgroups as to how BA conducts it's industrial relations.

Public perception is everything here, as you say the bottom line is all. When the public decides that BA is acting unreasonably then the bottom line will be hit. The ABBA mentality exists within many on the political left already, if this shifts to the centre ground then BA will have effectively lost this dispute. At the moment they have both the moral high ground and public sympathy.

An SOSR approach most definitely remains an option but this is not the moment to utilise such draconian measures. Remember that BA has what it needs at the moment, it has the savings it needed and has introduced NF as a bonus. The savings it required from IFCE have been more than achieved.

BASSA and UNITE are playing a game that is having reducing returns. Another strike is likely to be less well supported than last time due to ennui if nothing else. Sure the militant hard core will doubtless get a strong majority of a reduced number of votes (a majority of the minority, if you like) but it is doubtful that as many CC will actually walk off the job this time. They have just got back ST and, as the job market looks increasingly difficult outside, many will just be glad to have a regular income.

Bottom line is that BA does not need to do anything more to end this dispute than it already is doing. This next strike is likely to be, at worst, delayed by legal issues and at best prevented as the union sees big losses and possible bankruptcy from an unprotected strike. For the CC there remains the option of dismissals on day 1 of the strike and the whole thing folds. ET's cannot enforce re-engagement orders in the UK and the limited compensation awards will not pay the mortgage and feed the kids for long.

BA does not need to do anything much as some want them to.

[rethymnon]

it is not inconceivable that BA management regard this dispute as over. the postings on the CC forum have diminished and the more vociferous members seem to have departed.

we are busily debating current BASSA membership numbers and a frequent theme is how many will bother to vote and will there be any sort of majority in favour of further industrial action. given that CC now realise that staff travel is a vanishing perk, who will put it at risk when their families are looking at summer holiday destinations?

the picture is one of resignation (apathy?) and it would take something momentous to fan the flames on this dead fire.

It looks to me as though BA would be well advised to sit this out whilst advising the travelling public that service can and will be maintained. inaction here could be a safe and winning policy.

[Joao da Silva]

rethymon

Whilst I can see where you are coming from, this strategy depends on people buying in to it.

The evidence from other frequent flyer fora is that premium service is going down, this I suggest, is very dangerous.

Juan

Whislt it is true that it would be imposition without consultation, Unite recommended the last offer and BASSA and Amicus branches rejected it out of hand and without consultation; this seems significant to me.

[Chuchinchow]

I wonder how the armchair pundits on this thread - clearly all considering themselves to be very important magnates of commerce, industry and finance in their own right - who appear to have much free time to pontificate on how British Airways should or should not manage its business, would feel if their enterprises and concerns were subjected to the same public criticism and unsolicited advice?

More to the point, could any of them do better than the current British Airways' board of directors?

[rethymnon]

surely, the whole point of being 'an armchair pundit' is that one can pontificate without being remotely at risk of being required to put your money where your mouth is?

i'm in the process of setting up a small company and it does give you pause for thought when it's 'up close and personal'.

[Ancient Observer]

Chuchinchow,

er, I do not know why you think us brilliant pundits are all magnates.

Are you the HR bloke that BA have just removed? You sound somewhat unhappy.

I've said more than once that I am currently unemployed - I'm just one of the 5 million unemployed that G brown did not care about. (Too early to assess the new bunch of crooks in Parliament for their attitude to the unemployed).

Diplome has never claimed magnate-ship either.

I happily pontificate because I have worked in aviation, (and in real businesses outside the inward looking world of aviation), and because I am arrogant enough to value my own opinion, and to believe that on some parts of this dispute I both have a modest inside track, and know what I am talking about, as well as valuing the opinion of other posters here.
I also like to hear the opposite point of view.

[AV Flyer]

Interesting comment from MFCREW over on the CC thread:

British Airways declined to attend the ACAS talks and have cancelled all future meetings.

If it's true then it appears that BA have decided it is no longer necessary to keep up the pretense. Up until now BA has continued to entertain Unite at ACAS talks to keep up the appearance of being the good guy and taking every opportunity to negotiate even though it knew it could never actually settle until BASSA's current leadership had been crushed (TW never realised he was being set-up by both sides) - otherwise BASSA would just keep kicking-up again and again.

Now BA sees no merit in continuing to appear to be wearing the white hat and being the professionally reasonable and extremely tolerant party in the face of blatant childishness and abuse.

Could be signalling the start of no more Mr. Nice Guy - at long last!

[Joao da Silva]

I wonder how the armchair pundits on this thread - clearly all considering themselves to be very important magnates of commerce, industry and finance in their own right - who appear to have much free time to pontificate on how British Airways should or should not manage its business, would feel if their enterprises and concerns were subjected to the same public criticism and unsolicited advice?

More to the point, could any of them do better than the current British Airways' board of directors?As to #1, I am a director of a public company and so well used to public criticism and unsolicited advice. If I didn't wish to endure this, I would change profession.

As to #2, without undertaking due diligence, I could not say.

[Dawdler]

No need to apologise! I am always happy to be corrected if I say something not correct. However the figure of 10,800 as membership of BASSA was taken at the end of November 2009, so it may (or indeed may not) include those that left under VR terms in that month. The BASSA on-site counter gave the impression of being an automatic update, amended almost daily, but hearing from ex-members who still get mailings, one wonders just how "automatic it was. I wonder just how the ERS will actually verify the membership.

[notlangley]

You have wetted my appetite and so I have dug back into November 2009 and have put into tabular form the results of two votes to strike. _The first was evidently conducted by BASSA, and this is the one that was declared invalid on 17 December 2009._ It is interesting to see that when the second vote was taken the "Yes" votes shrank by 2000 and the "No" votes increased by 1000.

a) invalid vote (conducted by UNITE?) 16 November - 14 December 2009

_____________________Total__Yes____No___Spoiled__Not returned
Number of ballot papers_______ 9514 ___770____2_
Percentages__________100%_-_74.0%__6.0%__0.01%___20.0%



b) valid vote (conducted by the Electoral Reform Service) that ended 22 February 2010

_____________________Total__Yes____No___Spoiled__Not returned
Number of ballot papers_11691_ 7482 __1789___11______2409
Percentages__________100%_-_64.0%_15.3%__0.1%___20.6%


Reference paragraph number 4 _______link (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3541.html)

[LD12986]

If it's true then it appears that BA have decided it is no longer necessary to keep up the pretense. Up until now BA has continued to entertain Unite at ACAS talks to keep up the appearance of being the good guy and taking every opportunity to negotiate even though it knew it could never actually settle until BASSA's current leadership had been crushed (TW never realised he was being set-up by both sides) - otherwise BASSA would just keep kicking-up again and again.

Now BA sees no merit in continuing to appear to be wearing the white hat and being the professionally reasonable and extremely tolerant party in the face of blatant childishness and abuse.

Could be signalling the start of no more Mr. Nice Guy - at long last!

Though when strike dates were called earlier this year after the 2nd ballot, BA immediately pulled the offer that was on the table. So this may not be a sign of a change in direction. From BA's perspective, they need to know the ballot result to understand the strength of the union's position (though we know that ballot results and cc walking out are two different things entirely).

[Chuchinchow]

The overweening feeling of self-importance exhibited by a certain contributor to this thread never fails to astonish me!

[Entaxei]

Just as a point of information, I always find that it is far more satisfactory to own a company, rather than simply being a member of a board, main or otherwise. Removes all requirements for such outlandish practices as due diligence and the need to keep compliant accountants in train.

Similarly, it is also by far the more sensible course to keep the company outside of public ownership, simplifies decision making, particularly in areas of finance and taxation. Allows for clean disposal of any employees at any level who start to show tendencies of entitlement.

I provide this information, purely for the guidance of any that feel overwhelmed with the responsibilities that can occur in life and, in the excessive time and effort required in considering and continually advising the world at large of their possibly dubious grandour. :rolleyes:

[Diplome]

As to the issue of any forum member's curriculum vitae is it really of interest except for how it applies to this particular dispute?

I find Litebulbs insight into the Union side of the issue of great benefit to the forum but am not sure that my personal business interests could offer much insight except how it pertains to my travel choices.

..and to be honest I consider it a bit in poor taste. One of the most wonderful aspects of forums such as this is that each individual is judged on their level of discourse, knowledge and ability to engage in an exchange of ideas and opinions. Titles and bank accounts have little to no relevance.

The comments regarding numbers in past balloting is interesting. It will be intruiging to see what the next one brings. A recent poster on the Cabin Crew thread included posts from another Cabin Crew forum wherein individuals were urging people to rejoin BASSA (since deleted by moderators) That made me wonder if the loss of members is significant enough that it is being felt by the union.

One thing is certain, I don't imagine we'll be seeing bouncy castles at BASSA strike headquarters in January or February and the open topped bus should be stocked with lots of blankets.

notlangley: Do you have the numbers for the vote on the acceptance of the offer? I recall the participation numbers were quite low. It would be interesting to add those to your very helpful comparison.

[notlangley]

a) Invalid vote (conducted by UNITE?) 16 November - 14 December 2009

_____________________Total__Yes____No___Spoiled__Not returned
Number of ballot papers 12780__ 9514 ___770____2______2494
Percentages__________100%_-_74.0%__6.0%__0.01%___19.5%



b) Valid vote (conducted by the Electoral Reform Service) that ended 22 February 2010

_____________________Total__Yes____No___Spoiled__Not returned
Number of ballot papers_11691_ 7482 __1789___11______2409
Percentages__________100%_-_64.0%_15.3%__0.1%___20.6%



c) New Contract offered by BA. reported by the Electoral Reform Service on 20 July 2010

_____________________Total___Yes___No___Spoiled_Not returned
Number of ballot papers_11311__1686__3419___3______6203
Percentages__________ 100%_-15.0%_30.2%_-0.03%__54.8%

an additional reference that corrects the 2009 numbers:-___link (http://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/913485/p_and_e_update_employment_04_feb_2010.pdf)

[Diplome]

Notlangley:

Thank you so much. Very kind of you. :)

[Joao da Silva]

To CCC and others, kindly note that I have only mentioned my role to establish my credibility to speak on matters pertaining to board decisions and in particular the fine line the board treads between many factors to be balanced in making decisions.

I don't believe that I have mentioned my salary, bank account, resume or any other details apart from the function I direct and the latter only to make it clear that I am not in an operational role.

Get over it and move on.

[Chuchinchow]

I don't believe that I have mentioned my salary, bank account, resume or any other details apart from the function I direct.

Lord, we thank You for Thy infinite mercies. Amen.

Get over it and move on.

Perhaps if JdS would lead us all by example we can.

[Diplome]

Joao de Silva:

As a marketing director I'm sure that you can provide insight into how each of the parties "sell" their positions and what influences may be affecting BA's placement.

However, my personal experience is that Board membership is only as good as the Board you serve on...hence individuals will still feel free to disagree.

As for your direction to "get over it and move on" I believe that those directives to forum members are the exclusive province of our Moderators. A "Board" that I can assure you neither one of us hold office on. ;)

[Joao da Silva]

Diplome

I have an opinion, others have opinions, they will vary and I respect the different views, even if I don't think they are probably correct; it will all come out in the wash.

And I don't see why I cannot suggest that people 'get over it and move on', this thread is about the BA industrial relations, not about a small cabal of people who apparently take offence at anything outside their 'weltangschau.'

Even Litebulbs, who is the most reasonable of people and who argues his position very well has been harangued, to say nothing of Betty Girl, who has now ceased to comment.

Shall we just now focus on the issue at hand? BA industrial relations.

[LD12986]

And on the subject of the ballot, it has now formally commenced.

[Ancient Observer]

From the other place:
"(BA) ........are showing such contempt towards Bassa...."

er, I thought the point was that bassa have been so bad over the last couple of years that they are beneath contempt.

Before about 2000 they must have been quite a good union to "earn" their heritage CC such huge salaries..................

Some idiot put the CC under the Marketing Director rather than in Ops., thus they all always got what they wanted.

(Diplome - no insult intended!!)

[Joao da Silva]

Some idiot put the CC under the Marketing Director rather than in Ops., thus they all always got what they wanted.

I would be interested to know your reference for this statement.

Who do you think the cabin crew came under from 2000?

[Diplome]

Ancient Observer:

Absolutely no offense taken.

Agree or disagree the exhange continues.

As for individuals trying to brand themselves through representations of "real world titles" as if that brings quality to their engagement...

I'm now a natural blonde. No questions asked, you all must accept this..I'm a natural blonde.

...and we continue.

And back to the more serious side of this situation...is it just me or has Unite and BASSA gone a bit quiet?

I'm truly interested in how Unite/BASSA will handle this ballot and what the final vote will be.

Where do they go afte a lost strike..something many fail to address. BASSA lost their strike. Sooo...where do they go now?

[baggersup]

No, not the snow log jam (though they are doing an admirable job of that now.)

It seems BA has taken the bull by the horns and is breaking the stalemate between BASSA (Unite really) and BA.

Allowing non-union members who left the union between June 25 and December 14 to sign the offer on their own, seems like a good way forward for those who want the offer. And for BA.

BA must have received feedback from their recent survey that moved things forward.

And then allowing Unite members to sign the offer if a "no" vote is returned on IA is brilliant. Their lawyers must have been burning the midnight oil on this one.

It will be interesting, because BA are devising a system by which the most militant are going to self-select and show their colors. If there is a 'no" vote and the most militant refuse to sign the offer that is then given to union members--they have marked themselves out as the core resistors.

Interesting.

[PAXboy]

AOSome idiot put the CC under the Marketing Director rather than in Ops., thus they all always got what they wanted. if that is the case, it sounds as if someone knew what 'fun' it was going to be and offloaded them. :p

On a practical point, it MAY have been the case that their scheduling etc. is from Ops but that their work on board was from marketing. It is often the case that Marketing is given priority over service and the two are not the same thing. Marketing can think up a service to offer the client but delivering it is another matter.

However, that is all in the past as the accountants took over pretty much everything from 1990 onwards and the pendulum, has yet to swing back.

[SwissRef]

So the non-union members can get a different contract.

And those in the union can get the same one if the ballot rejects a strike.

Then perhaps, finally, BA will SOSR the remaining CC who are left on the old T&Cs. (And perhaps most the reps?)

That way all the crew would have been able to accept, and if most do, leaving only the militant, perhaps they will SOSR them to Mixed Fleet, hoping they reject the contract and hence quit....

What BA will do if there is a strike, I don't know. But they must be getting closer to the "nuclear" option.

And I wonder if BA now regret holding up the Xmas strike ballot? Snow delays mean they aren't flying anyway....

[baggersup]

Remind me never to play chess with Willie Walsh for dosh.

It seems, SwissR, that BA don't have to go nuclear. They are playing a long game (very well too) that slowly brings things forward incrementally without nukes needed.

In one handy swoop they stole BASSA's thunder and handily changed a strike ballot into a ballot on the offer. SNAP!

BA has now essentially managed to have a ballot on the offer that the union itself denied the members--by using the strike ballot as the mechanism!

This restores some power to the moderate BASSA group and may get some of the uninvolved BASSA/CC89 members back to the voting booth.

Nobody could make this up. It's genius.

And the ultimate result may be that the malcontents and militants end up ring fencing themselves if a majority of union members vote "no" so they can then have an opportunity to sign up for the offer.

If Willie shows up at my door with a chess game in hand, I'm running for the hills!!

[call100]

It's not hard to win a game of chess when playing the village idiot and certainly doesn't take genius. ;)

[Shack37]

If the strike ballot result is a "no" is the dispute officially then at an end as Unite/Bassa members are, in effect, accepting the BA offer?

Does it then follow that Bassa must hold elections to replace the reps who are no longer BA employees and therefore not able to continue in their union posts?

Or is this too simplistic a view?

[Litebulbs]

Straight to the point there call. Surely you could have fluffed it up a bit, being Christmas and all??!!

[Litebulbs]

A simple view, but the correct one in my opinion.

[LD12986]

Does it then follow that Bassa must hold elections to replace the reps who are no longer BA employees and therefore not able to continue in their union posts?

Or is this too simplistic a view?

Different claims have been made regarding the election of the reps. Some have claimed that the last elections were delayed because of the "war" between BA and BASSA. Others (including DH himself, I believe) have claimed they were properly re-elected last year.

DH has said that he and Lizanne are stepping down at the end of 2011 in any event.

The ballot result will obviously be interesting, but unless there has been a dramatic shift in sentiment, I expect there will be another yes vote for industrial action, but with a lower turnout and lower majority. It really does depend on whether previous unreturned votes are converted into active no votes.

If there is a no vote then, technically, the dispute should be cover. But whether some would ever accept that is another matter.

[Diplome]

LD12986:


The ballot result will obviously be interesting, but unless there has been a dramatic shift in sentiment, I expect there will be another yes vote for industrial action, but with a lower turnout and lower majority.


I have to agree with the above.

Ancient Observer:

I believe you may have misinterpreted my previous post. Mr. de Silva is the marketing director.

Your post was surprising. Was CC truly under "marketing"?

[Hipennine]

On the Unite BA website however, CC89 are continuing to bleat about the MF contract, and how this could soon be everybody's contract.

One of the aspects of the contract they are so concerned about (as have BASSA in other communications) is BA's requirements that employees will do other work according to the needs of the business (ie in the terminal etc.).

Can anybody explain why the Union believes that BA should continue to pay CC if they cannot undertake their normal duties for whatever reason, but there are other jobs that they could be doing ? (nb, I have successfully fought as an employer, ET unfair dismissals where this point has been contested - ie employees sacked for refusing to do other work).

[wiggy]

Was CC truly under "marketing"?

Marketing or commercial, they certainly weren't under Operations.

[gr8tballsoffire]

I left BA in 2000 and up till that time Mike Street was Director of Customer Service and Operations that included all cabin crew world wide.
I believe he retired in 2005.

[wiggy]

My mistake, I meant Flight Operations, Rgds

[fred737]

Mike Street did not retire. He was retired by Willie.

[SamYeager]

And then allowing Unite members to sign the offer if a "no" vote is returned on IA is brilliant. Their lawyers must have been burning the midnight oil on this one. From what I can gather from the other thread I believe a "no" vote would mean that the offer was still available for union members. However a "yes" vote would mean that the offer was withdrawn i.e. whatever settlement was eventually reached for union members would be worse. However my interpretation may well be wrong. :)

[Juan Tugoh]

From what I can gather from the other thread I believe a "no" vote would mean that the offer was still available for union members. However a "yes" vote would mean that the offer was withdrawn i.e. whatever settlement was eventually reached for union members would be worse. However my interpretation may well be wrong.

That is exactly my reading of the offer too. The offer would no longer be available if there is a yes vote as this would mean a strike. The strike would cost BA money which would mean that BA could no longer afford to fund the same offer to the union members.

This effectively has become not just a vote as to whether to strike or not, but also a vote as to whether to accept the current deal as offered. A clever move by BA as BASSA effectively stopped it's members from voting on the offer. It also provides some motivation for the apathetic amongst the CC community to vote - a no vote becomes a positive act rather than just swimming against the tide. Either way it is again clear that BA have, once again, attached a consequence to a strike vote.

[baggersup]

Yes, and as a less desirable act, rather than a no vote and alot of folks moving forward with a new contract, BA could probably go back to court, if there is a yes vote.

There have been quite a few messages elsewhere already about ex-union members having received their ballots, which they say they are taking to their managers for their information.

Not sure if receiving a ballot is a violation, if the ex member does not vote. But courts decide that, it seems. But if the ex members all decide to vote, when they are not entitled to, and the vote is "yes" surely BA will return to court for a groundhog day visit.

Reviewing the 5 strike ballot issues from the Unite memo, it's hard to see how all of these are "new." But perhaps Unite's lawyers have assured the union they are covered by law.

Except for Mixed Fleet, it's all related to the last strike tangentially isn't it?

After reading some of the culty messages from the other thread, it's like seeing the ghost of Union Future. Why do I see some of these folks in a few years, confused, unemployed but still thinking they need to find the CRC, shuffling around T5 in their bathrobes and slippers, unkempt and muttering "keep the faith keep the faith, holocaust, iwo jima, where's the tomatoes? where's my Pimms....no hot towels no hot towels" as they are led away by a sympathetic customer service person.

[TopBunk]

I think it is a stroke of genius by BA, even better than those already played.

This time they are in effect offering cabin crew the ballot denied them by BASSA, going over the heads of those with a vested interest in continuing the dispute as they are either sacked or suspended or motivated by a political agenda or a desire for control of the business.

BA are not breaking any laws but are clearly stating that any strike vote will have serious financial consequences for the whole cabin community if there is a yes vote (and not just those voting yes), thus making a strike call based on a small turnout unlikely in the sense that is will result in a much higher ballot turnout. imho it makes the likelyhood of a strike vote substantially less likely, and hence totally disenfranchise any control BASSA still have.

BA are effectively giving democracy back to the BASSA majority, the question is whether or not they will step up to the plate. BASSA high command must be bricking it:ok:

[Neptunus Rex]

The arriviste crewfriend, poster on that other thread, has been spoken of as a reincarnation of DH. I don't think so.

When the persecuters have been defeated we will all be better off as workers.This is pure Len McClunky, he who led so many Liverpool workers to the dole queue, but managed to avoid it hisself.

[Goprdon]

I think we can all see that a NO vote to the strike call means that BA, the Company, wins and so do the staff. However the malcontents remain.
So what about a YES vote to the strike call. It only needs a majority of voters not a majority of CC. There may not be many voters so perhaps only 3000-3500 possible strikers.
I suggest that BA might ignore the strike call. The Company might say that it has taken legal advice and believes that this proposed strike is a continuation of the previous strike and the strikers are not protected in the same way from dismissal.
BA does not instigate any Court action.
BA advises the strikers that it contemplates dismissing them.
BA now has sufficient trained staff to crew the cabins on a very large number, perhaps as much as 90%, of its flights and 100% of the higher revenue earning flights.
The strike goes ahead, probably poorly supported. BA dismisses the strikers. The strikers have to take action against the Company.
The company refuses to re-employ the strikers. BA offers a modest sum to each striker. This will hardly matter to the Company as expensive Legacy CC have been replaced by cheaper MF CC. Will Unite fund the striker's legal action? I doubt it.
The malcontents are gone . The cabin is a nicer place.
If someone who is allowed to post on the 'BA CC Industrial relations forum' would like to copy this post or part of it across to that Forum please so do.

[LD12986]

Agree with the above, apart from BA dismissing strikers.

If a strike action is called which BA believes is illegal, then the union is exposed for a claim for damages and the reps are exposed to a charge of gross misconduct.

If BA notifies Unite that it will make a claim for any damages incurred from the date a strike is called would Unite call a strike (also note how Len McCluskey seems happy to let TW carry on with this even though he has relinquished his role as JGS)? If a strike is called and the reps are immediately suspended for gross misconduct, would any member of cabin crew in their right mind go on strike?

[Litebulbs]

Can you explain why the reps would be answering a gross misconduct charge please? Unite call the action, not the reps.

[Litebulbs]

Does anyone else want to give opinion on LD's last post?

[Diplome]

Litebulbs:

Its an interesting situation. Unite can "call" the strike, but are reps who encourage and advocate what is determined by BA to be an illegal action also liable for their conduct?

I don't think that BA wishes to simply do blanket dismissals as was mentioned in a previous post. If that was to occur I believe that it would be an option of last choice and BA still has other options.

Would love to know what BA's legal department is planning to do with that ballot and vote.

[Snas]

LD, my only comment would be to remind some perhaps that Unite is the union, not BASSA. For whats thats worth but some cc members could do with remembering that now and again.

[GemDeveloper]

If BA notifies Unite that it will make a claim for any damages incurred from the date a strike is called would Unite call a strike...


Do BA have to give notice of their intention to seek damages from UNITE if a strike goes ahead? Or, can they wait to see whether the strike really does happen?

I wonder if BA might keep their powder dry for a little longer, and leave UNITE and BASSA worrying what the next BA move might be. If some CC do strike, and BA are confident in their belief that the strike is unprotected, then BA presumably could dismiss the individuals one-by-one as they failed to muster for a rostered duty. And, as others have pointed out yonks ago, even if it were subsequently shown in court that BA was offside, they don't have to re-employ the dismissed staff, merely pay them a modicum of compensation.

Whether BA then would sue UNITE for damages is a moot point. IMO, BA could just leave UNITE sweating the big drop that they might be subject to a law suit, but not actually go that far, lest they risk alienating other UNITE members who work in other parts of the Company.

There’s no need to tell the Generals mustering their army on the other side of the hill exactly what your strategy and tactics are going to be...

[Litebulbs]

I will try this from another angle. BA are encouraging employees who are members of Unite to vote in the current ballot. OK, they are suggesting that the only way that a current Unite member can enjoy the benefits of the new deal, is to be part of a rejection of the call for industrial action.

The excellent work by BA in making the ballot a vote on the current offer, rather than for industrial action and not just rejecting the ballot as potentially unprotected, implies that it will be seen as a sound and lawful process.

As to gross misconduct, I would say any reference to encouragement from the reps from what I have read, is to vote and it would be reasonable to expect one of the activities protected in law would be to support the call for action by the union that you are a representative of.

It still doesn't stop BA sacking who they want however, if it serves a purpose. The gross misconduct charge is just to stop any compensation award. However, is discrimination against an employee for union activities an uncapped award? Future loss could take the award into the millions.

[Snas]

I don’t personally subscribe to most of the dramatic predictions such as costs being claims from Unite or CC being sacked etc.

I can’t imagine any circumstance that would result in this forthcoming strike being better supported than the last but I can see that BA are significantly better prepared for it so perhaps they will just let it run and have those on strike experience the futility of it for themselves.

Those members of BASSA that chose to believe claims of aircraft parked in Wales or 747’s flying circuits around LHR whilst only 26 staff report for duty are frankly a lost cause and perhaps BA accept that as being the case. Let them deny themselves wages and ST again whilst stamping their feet trying to keep warm at Bedfont. (Can’t see any photos of people sitting in convertible BMW’s drinking in the winter now can you?)

BA’s best approach may be just to ignore the whole thing frankly.

Like the last postal strike, I didn’t notice it save for the brief respite from the unwanted crap they deliver through my door.

Strikes simply aint what they used to be…

[Ancient Observer]

snas.
You said "Strikes simply aint what they used to be".

Yup, too right. When real workers went on strike, they did not pussy foot around with these puny little 24 and 48 hour holidays that the hobby-jobbers in bassa take, they went on strike indefinitely.

I note from the other place that my post from some days ago - that the SWP are back involved in this dispute, has been proved true. As I said at the time, my source was good, but not always 100% accurate.

I wish that BA CC in bassa would do some half-intelligent investigations of SWP. Owned and run by millionaires, they have a completely destructive perspective, and don't let boring things like real workers and real people stand in their way. They will not be BA CC.
Why Unite have allowed them in is an interesting question.

[Litebulbs]

I don’t personally subscribe to most of the dramatic predictions such as costs being claims from Unite or CC being sacked etc.

I agree with you on that.

[AlpineSkier]

"...The excellent work by BA in making the ballot a vote on the current offer, rather than for industrial action and not just rejecting the ballot as potentially unprotected, implies that it will be seen as a sound and lawful process. "

But if there are ex-members ( as stated on here ) who have sent letters and then recorded delivery letters about their resignation and then still get a voting paper, surely this should be enough to highlight the word FOOL in letters one metre tall when anyone debates the question of "legal ballot "/

[Litebulbs]

So am I a fool, if I debate whether the union are carrying out reasonable measures to ensure non members do not vote?

[binsleepen]

Lb

Not at all, but it is a question of time scales. It is perfectly reasonable IMO to say 'now' do not vote if you are not a member. But, is it reasonable to be sending ballots to people who have made every reasonable effort, and more, to resign and to stop the union mailshots.

The question is whether in a court the resonableness of the former outweighs the unreasonableness of the latter, especially when the accuracy of membership details has played such a large part in the procedings over the last year and a half. I know where I stand but I'm not a judge. Does 1 statement now excuse 18 months of administrative chaos?

Regards

[Litebulbs]

This is what three Judges thought in May -

British Airways Plc v Unite the Union [2010] EWCA Civ 669 (20 May 2010) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/669.html)

[Neptunus Rex]

If 'Citizen Smith' (remember 'Wolfie?') takes out a bank loan, and agrees to pay 'n' quid a month, all is well. As soon as he fails to make just one payment, said Bank will send him a Snottogram within days, if not hours. Why cannot a modern-day Union, with loadsa dosh in its coffers, not be able to use similar cheap software to manage its affairs?

Are Luddites alive and well at Untie?

I think we should be told.

[Litebulbs]

If I refuse to answer that question, will you take that as my answer?!

[Neptunus Rex]

Refusing to answer is a cop-out.

Strike action is such a serious move, that I think the law needs to be strengthened so that any strike must be supported by the votes of the majority of the members, not just the majority of the voters. That would stop intimidation and spin in their tracks.

[Litebulbs]

You may think it is a cop out if you want, that is your choice. I could easily say that I disagree with you, but I did not. Take that as you will.

As to ballots, I agree that it should not be a majority of an minority. Not voting is the real cop out, in my opinion.

[notlangley]

I don’t know whether to tell you this._ Certainly this is probably the last opportunity with Christmas coming tomorrow._ You may wish to give money to a good cause._ There is a good cause that is called Santascrew._ One of the management of this good cause has some views of British Airways, which he says has
a gutless and ruthless management that is so full of hatred it has not an ounce of humanity left within its very core. The hatred spreads nothing but negativity, it turns friends against friends and brothers against brothers. It eats away at you day by day until you are left with nothing but resentment and anger.
British Airways was once a caring company. Sadly now the hatred has set in.
So, if anyone wishes to donate then we thank you. If you don't then that's also fine with us but we wish you a Happy Christmas too.
Jon

It is not too late to donate to:-___link (http://www.santascrew.co.uk/#/committee/4545121946)

[keel beam]

A lot has been written about this latest ballot being potentially illegal due to voting papers going to former union members.

So would BA take the union to court again if the result was in favour of the union?

More to the point, would the union admit that the ballot was illegal if the result was in favour of the company so as to wriggle out of any possible sueing/writ by the company?

Stranger things do happen!

[AlpineSkier]

I followed notlangley's link to Santa's Crew and here are just a few comments on there.


The whole Country is disusted with BA in general for this, and even more so for Willy Walsh

am utterly disgusted that BA could do such a foul deed, especially as Christmas is coming up.

punished for caring too much and for years of dedication .....I hope the world now sees whats truely happening.

Do not be fooled, our Union is getting stronger and stronger by the minute

I had previously read posts talking about cult-behaviour and just accepted it as rhetoric. Now. reading examples of member to member exchanges, I am astonished.

These posters really do seem to believe the eyes of the world are upon them and bars and offices reverberate incessantly with rolling condemnations of BA and Willy.

That there are people who are so deluded who can put up a front and appear otherwise normal (presumably) is just bizarre.

I especially appreciated the (unintended) irony in the "foul deed at Christmas" remark when one recalls the intended 12 days of Christmas strike in 2009. A real " biter bit" moment and the last comment must come from the pen of the speech-writer of "Comical Ali" , the Iraqi Propaganda Minister , who was proclaiming that the Americans were in full retreat even as he was being encircled by their tanks !

[RTR]

I believe that sooner rather than later the government WILL act to control some aspects of union activity that goes unfairly against those who do not want constant threats of IA. Unions have to accept that using tactics that date back to the '70's is not, and never will be, acceptable. But what do we have now? ASLEF have jumped on the bandwagon along with Unite and RMT run by three of the worst union protagonists of modern times, who constantly find one reason or another, it seems not to matter what, to hammer the employers.

Just look at Unite's reasoning (?) unprotected prospect of a strike! RMT's - safety - well maybe! ASLEF - triple pay and a day off in lieu. Having ignored a previous agreement. And all well paid employees!

[notlangley]

I believe that UK law is ok as it is._ What is exceptionally dificult about cabin crew is that the working force is large but the constant shuffling of personnel for each tour, means that cc very rarely see a colleague ever again (well they do, but so infrequently that it is like meeting a stranger)._ What cc89 once did idealistically was to name and display their shop stewards -____link (http://uniteba.com/REPS.html)
Sadly this did not work.

I believe that workers need Unions to prevent the lazy drift to employer exploitation._ The problem is how to get local representatives that are not randomly chosen but are activists._ Yet also to prevent the local representatives going beyond escape velocity and settling down to live on a distant planet.

I think it might possibly help if the constitution of Associations forced the resignation of pursers/managers/etc as and when there are promotions from the ranks (on the basis of FIFO - "first in first out") to keep the proportion of seniors down to 10%.

[ZimmerFly]

Not one mention of the word "Bully" so beloved by Unite/BASSA

Willie Walsh: Hero

Chief executive, British Airways

Willie Walsh has had a good year. Arguably the gods have not been on his side, what with volcanic ash in April and unmanageable snowfall in December. But Mr Walsh has won victories in his campaign to drag Britain's once-public flagcarrier into the modern age. First, merger negotiations with Spain's Iberia finally came together. Then BA's not-quite-merger with American Airlines was cleared by regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, notwithstanding the opposition of rival Sir Richard Branson. Even Mr Walsh's stand-off with the trade unions, facing down repeated strikes over terms and conditions for cabin staff, can be considered a success. The spat is not over – Unite is re-balloting its 10,000 BA members and warning the row is "deepening". But in reality the terms and conditions are already in force, BA kept most of its planes flying during the strikes, and the public appetite is waning for industrial action by people lucky enough to have jobs.

The business heroes and villains of 2010 - Business Analysis & Features, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/the-business-heroes-and-villains-of-2010-2168386.html)

[TSR2]

and the public appetite is waning for industrial action by people lucky enough to have jobs.

Should read :

...... by people lucky enough to have very good, and very well paid jobs.

[AA SLF]

The delightful, erudite Miss M is back in the other thread. You simply have to read her postings to believe that there are people who believe it is their right to dictate to company management how to run the business!!

Is it something in the water in the UK that causes so many UK citizens to behave/believe this way??

[Litebulbs]

Its probably because of things like business lobbying for the right of an employee, not to be unfairly dismissed, having its qualification timescale increased 100% to two years. So that means an employer can sack you for almost any reason, without recourse in that timescale. But hey, that's business.

[pvmw]

Its probably because of things like business lobbying for the right of an employee,........

Hardly on Miss M's agenda. She is much more concerned with hot towels, and the right of BASSA to dictate company policy.

[Litebulbs]

Anyway, Merry Christmas to all who contribute on here. Lets all wish for a sensible 2011.

[MPN11]

I was wondering when "The Season of Good Will" was going to kick in :D

Same to all of you, and best wishes for 2011 [whatever it may look like].

[Landroger]

Anyway, Merry Christmas to all who contribute on here. Lets all wish for a sensible 2011.

Amen to that LB and thank you for your erudite and reasoned contributions to this thread. :)

Ordinarily, I suspect, we would not agree on political matters, but I can see and understand your point of view in this matter and appreciate the clarifying effect it has had.

Roger.

[baggersup]

Sometimes one gets a hint of the hubris among a few of the cabin crew, as on the long haul from which I just disembarked at T5, the CSD made his first announcement saying very assuredly and with great hauteur, "I and my team in the cabin will be taking you to London tonight..."

Really? Woohoo. LOL

No mention of the chappies up front actually flying the thing. Perhaps a more inclusive "our flight crew and the cabin crew will be doing our best to make sure you have a pleasant flight to London tonight..." or soomat.

It was quite astonishing, actually, and the hubris came through in the way it was announced.

So sometimes you can see what Mr. Walsh is up against in some corners. He quickly disappeared however and we never saw him nor heard from him again, I believe. Two different women made the rest of the announcements.

It was actually rather funny, if it didn't perhaps indicate something deeper amiss in the attitudes....

T5 was the picture of sanguine luxury, empty and no hint of the recent traumas. Amazing. The arrivals lounge had about 10 of us--tops. And the staff were all in good cheer on both sides of the Atlantic. Extremely helpful to all who were confused or needed a special hand.

Every BA staffer from start to finish was superb dealing with working on a holiday etc. That CSD was the only silly "off" note of the entire experience.

Thanks BA!

[scotbill]

It beggars belief that the troll using this name on the other forum is proud to report that he/she managed to inconvenience a planeload of longhaul passengers at Christmas time by insisting on two local nights rest in a disruption situation. If true, such a person is clearly totally unsuited for the profession which is currently rewarding them so handsomely.
However, if BA management actually permitted this gross dereliction of duty. then they must be held equally culpable.

[TopBunk]

I would not be surprised if Crewfriend is not rather overclaiming his/her instransigence as being the reason for achieving 48 hours due to a diversion.

If it indeed happened, I suspect it to be more likely as a result of the pre-Christmas disruption that saw up to 30 aircraft displaced from LHR/LGW due to closures for periods of several days.

It is likely to be just more BASSA bluster, imho. One thing for sure, when the Disruption Agreement is invoked (imposed or agreed), then any crew member claiming 2 nights would be instantly carpeted to explain themselves, at this risk of suspension etc.

As I said, nothing to see here, move along, it's just BASSA bollox (again).

[BetterByBoat]

Sorry TopBunk but I' don't see how this is BASSA b****x - Crewfriend (if the forums are to be believed) is British Airways cabin crew and it is time that cabin crew started to accept a huge proportion of the blame for this mess. It was cabin crew after all that voted 4 to 1 in favour of the strike action earlier this year (and that was after the Xmas 2009 debacle so they were well aware of what they were doing).

Perhaps we should start to consider that Crewfriend may well be far more representative of BA cabin crew than Litebulbs or Betty Girl, even if we find Crewfriends views out of touch with reality and bizarre for someone who is in such a service oriented industry. Certainly spikes in sickness rates amongst Cabin Crew is nothing new. Always seem to get lots of hay fever sufferers at the same time as Royal Ascot.

Like any other profession there are good and bad and excellent and poor employees within BA cabin crew. But it is cabin crew that voted overwhelmingly for the initial strike and it is in cabin crews hands to vote "no" to further strike action. Blaming Bassa for everything is rather missing the point of who actually voted for industrial action in the first place.

[TopBunk]

From the other section:During the recent snow disruption 40 long haul aircraft diverted as LHR had closed on Saturday 18th and the following day the airport remained closed to arriving aircraft. Flights did not return to LHR until Monday 20th. All the diverting aircraft had two local nights but this was due to the airport not accepting arriving flights until Monday and nothing to do with the disruption agreement.


My bold. That is what I was intimating in my previous post, ie Betty Girl agrees.

In words of one syllable - it was the fact that LHR was closed/operating at a very low flow rate that caused the crew to slip at the airport to which they had been diverted, and not cabin crew demanding anything. That lie is the BASSA b****x.

[TightSlot]

Folks

Crewfriend is just a Troll, looking for, and to some extent getting, a reaction.

Best advice would be not to read too much into what He/She/It says

[BetterByBoat]

I understand that there are trolls on both side of this - just can't understand the BASSA bashing and the cries on the crew thread that it is a minority of cabin crew who have voted for strike action in the past. The vote in May does not support that argument.

From Notlangleys post and note that this was after the 22 days of Xmas debacle.

b) valid vote (conducted by the Electoral Reform Service) that ended 22 February 2010

_____________________Total__Yes____No___Spoiled__Not returned
Number of ballot papers_11691_ 7482 __1789___11______2409
Percentages__________100%_-_64.0%_15.3%__0.1%___20.6%

I don't know how many cabin crew BA have but I think it is a fair assessment that the vast majority are (were?) BASSA members and hence included in that ballot paper number. 64% of them voted for strike action. That is a strong madate - on an aircraft crewed by 11 cabin crew, that would be approx 7 who voted for strike action, 2 who voted no to strike action and 2 who didn't vote.

It seems many on this thread like the idea of democracy when it suits them, rather like BASSA. The mandate for the strikes in May 2010 and for the continuation of this mess lies firmly in the hands of those 7400 cabin crew who voted for strike action. The next set of results will be interesting. But it would be useful if we could remember that it is BA cabin crew who are voting and not BASSA. And that it may be that those BA cabin crew we see as "enlightened", "progressive", "forward thinking", "realistic" and "customer focused" are actually the minority of BA cabin crew and not the majority.

As I said earlier, there are poor and excellent "employees" and "management" in all companies. I'm not knocking BA cabin crew. But it is ultimately THEIR choice whether to vote to go on strike, not BASSAs. Bashing BASSA is missing the underlying reason for this continued mess - the simple fact is that the majority of BA cabin crew voted for it.

[LD12986]

The first of three updates from CC89 over Christmas.

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


24th December 2010 - A Statement

..You can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time.

This week, the possibility of further industrial action came a step closer as you should have already had, or will be receiving soon, a postal ballot for all Unite cabin crew members.

At almost the same time, you may have received Bill Francis's latest attempt to divide and conquer people; a transparent attempt to coerce people to sign up for the last offer on an individual basis. It's a shame that he won't put as much energy into finding a solution. Regrettably, he will not do that because "division" "disillusion" and "desperation" are the corner stones of any "union buster's" handbook.

We believe this controversial "last offer" is already a thing of the past; its time has been and gone. A fresh perspective is needed, some imagination, not stagnation used. However, what is clearly obvious is that a solution does still need to be found and one that will be acceptable to you, one that we feel positive in recommending and that you will feel positive in accepting and yes, that will require hard work, work we are ready and are willing to do, work that Mr Francis, judging by his refusal to even meet, regrettably is not.

If we do not achieve this, then industrial action will certainly happen again and again; it only delays the inevitable and prolongs a situation that presumably everybody wants to see solved.

A settlement that is both fair and reasonable is the only way. Dividing people even further simply isn't. This will be Lenny McCluskey's first challenge and one that we intend to fully support him in reaching a successful conclusion.

We understand how easy it is to become disillusioned with things; our struggle has been going on for a long time - more than a year - we are all human and after all, your reps are only human too. It does require patience, strength, determination, but above all "sticking together".

This can of course sometimes be easier said than done!

It is only natural that there will be a wide range of opinions on what should have happened and when, or what should be done next.
When we were considering putting the last offer to you for ballot and asking for your input, we received emails from members threatening to resign "if we dared to send out such an insulting offer" yet also from members who "couldn't believe that we would dare to NOT ask their opinion in a ballot" - in other words we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't!

However, that is now the past, the challenge now is in what lies ahead.
There is still a willingness from this union to resolve matters but this will not be on our knees, which is ultimately what Bill Francis appears to want. The time available over Christmas should have been spent in finding an offer that could prevent any further disruption to British Airways staff and customers.

Mr Francis should be spending his time finding an offer that all sides are comfortable with.

A future offer must be one that a trade union can, in good faith, put forward with our whole-hearted recommendation, the last one simply wasn't.

If this does not happen, then sooner or later the outcome will be strike action.

Everybody is an expert and everybody would do this or that differently; in the end we must keep it simple and do what we feel is the right thing to do. It is also only right to give you the opportunity to make up your own mind on whether you wish to take industrial action or not.

The bottom line must be what this means for you. We now have a culture of rampant fear within IFCE, not only for the future and what it holds but people are also genuinely frightened when they come to work, scared if they say the wrong thing they will be suspended. All pretence of management honouring our agreements is long gone, mixed fleet is here; it's sink or swim time now for the remaining years of your career.

We urge, not for the first time, British Airways leadership team to come to their senses and to also do the right thing; for them to recognise that bullying and intimidation do not work. We are a strong and determined community and we will never give up this fight until we have won our respect back, no matter how long it takes.

Existing cabin crew are in our own "fight for survival" we have no alternative but to carry on with this struggle until our future is secure, otherwise we simply do not have one.

This is not a time for ill-thought-out sensationalism or opportunist "politicking", but for clear heads and clearer thought. What is important is what can be achieved, what it will mean, and to not lose sight of what is still important; this is NOT just about staff travel, it is ALL about safeguarding your future - you could say it is where it began and where it will end.

When your future security is assured.

At the end of the day, we are a trade union and we make no apologies for that; we are not a branch of management and never will be, nor are we trying to portray ourselves to be what we are not. We are here to try and make your life better, not worse; we have been clear with our message of what will bring peace to the cabin crew community, it's time for British Airways leadership to do the same.

[LD12986]

There are actually now four cabin crew fleets at BA. LGW forgotten about again!


25th December 2010 - And So This Is Christmas

It's Christmas time, a time for peace, for reflection and for family and friends. By the nature of our jobs as cabin crew, it can often be none of these things as we often find ourselves hard at work, or away over the holiday period. Two years ago at this time of year, we warned you that a new fleet and with it, a new regime, was coming. A year ago, we were injuncted by a single judge, which prevented our first attempt to resist imposed changes to our agreements. This year, mixed fleet is here and has begun operating our routes. The things that people said would never happen are now a reality. The union offices have been shut down for over a year, many good friends and colleagues face a Christmas with no job to support their families and thousands of us lost huge sums of money and our staff travel.

So what will next year look like? Our struggle for justice is far from over and yet again, we are having a ballot for industrial action over the holiday season. However, the things that we do still have are our dignity, our belief and our friendship; those that have kept the faith know what that means.

We also have the hope that with new leadership will come a new direction.

We would rather have spent the time, even Christmas day itself, in discussions to find a solution; British Airways has yet again refused to do so, they prefer to engineer strikes to prove their effectiveness as a management to a fawning media, than try to solve things for their own staff, yet alone their customers. They will sit back, do nothing and hope for a low vote for industrial action; they will do nothing unless they have to. The only way to convince them that they are wrong, is to show your determination and to use your vote again.

So be it.

We will remain open to talks at any time and will meet any place for meaningful discussion; in the mean time, we need you to help us by providing a strong message, a message that clearly says, "this is not good enough, we will not be treated like this, we are the best cabin crew in the world so start treating us like it, or you will reap what you sow".

WE have hope because of you and the strength that you give us. If Mr.
Walsh is not careful he will leave behind only a legacy of distrust, disillusionment and a fermenting anger. This dispute is far from over, in the mean time.

May you be well,
may you be happy,
may you in live in peace.

Merry Christmas and safe flying to you and your families.

If you do find yourself in a restrained crew party somewhere in the globe, we have provided a take on a Christmas standard for you to enjoy responsibly with friends!

All together now...

* On the first day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
A survey to see what I think.

* On the second day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the third day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the fourth day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Four managers calling,
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the fifth day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Fi-ve V - C - Cs,
Four managers calling,
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the sixth day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Six ground staff scabbing,
Fi-ve V - C - Cs,
Four managers calling,
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the seventh day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Seven pilots laughing,
Six ground staff scabbing,
Fi-ve V - C - Cs,
Four managers calling,
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the eighth day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Eight days without pay,
Seven pilots laughing,
Six ground staff scabbing,
Fi-ve V - C - Cs,
Four managers calling,
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the ninth day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Nine weeks of being skint,
Eight days without pay,
Seven pilots laughing,
Six ground staff scabbing,
Fi-ve V - C - Cs,
Four managers calling,
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the tenth day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Ten crap trips,
Nine weeks of being skint,
Eight days without pay,
Seven pilots laughing,
Six ground staff scabbing,
Fi-ve V - C - Cs,
Four managers calling,
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the eleventh day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Eleven sacked crew,
Ten crap trips,
Nine weeks of being skint,
Eight days without pay,
Seven pilots laughing,
Six ground staff scabbing,
Fi-ve V - C - Cs,
Four managers calling
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

* On the twelfth day of Christmas, Bill Francis sent to me:
Twelve months of dispute,
Eleven sacked crew,
Ten crap trips,
Nine weeks of being skint,
Eight days without pay,
Seven pilots laughing,
Six ground staff scabbing,
Fi-ve V - C - Cs,
Four managers calling,
Three separate fleets,
Two sacked reps
and a survey to see what I think.

[LD12986]

Not sitting in the same room again...


27th December 2010 - AMICUS CC89 Members Meeting - 10th January 2011

For the attention of all Unite CabinCrew 89 members

Please be advised that we will not be able to hold a joint meeting with our Bassa colleagues on the 10th January 2011. Therefor we will be hosting our own meeting on that day. The details are as follows:

The Jury's Inn Hotel,
Heathrow Airport,
Adjacent to Hatton Cross Tube.
Time: 12:00 - 14:00

The hotel is located adjacent to the Hatton Cross tube Station and a short walk from Westbase carpark.

Car parking is complimentary at the hotel and tea and coffee will be available to you all.

We hope you have had a wonderful Christmas and want to wish you and your family the very best for 2011 and look forward to seeing you on the 10th!

[ZimmerFly]

"and thousands of us lost huge sums of money"

I guess that would be many hundreds of £ per striker for each day of strike then?....:}

[MPN11]

I read this stuff occasionally, but I will admit I've really lost interest. :(

There are a few Trolls and die-hards blowing wind in all directions. Otherwise, as it has been for the last year or more, we just go round and round the same circuit ... until, hopefully, BASSA runs out of fuel and spins in on the downwind leg.

I am, however, occasionally amused by the literary outpourings from the 5th Form. May I just amend ...

On the thirteenth day of Christmas, the Company sent to me:
Twelve week's pay,
Eleven ignored emails,
Ten verbal warnings,
Nine months of reasonableness,
Eight days of non-negotation,
Seven car park incidents,
Six soft tomatoes,
Fi-ve hundred V - C - Cs,
Four failed strikes,
Three days of snow,
Two final warnings,
One operational runway,
... and a Recorded Delivery P45.

I've done another forward booking for 2011 today, using my own money. Like many/most SLF, I regard BASSA as completely irrelevant to our plans. You do create the occasional giggle, but beyond that ... ONE BIG ZERO.

Happy 2011 to everyone with brains. :cool:

[Ancient Observer]

MPN,
I guess you could put that to music..................."bassa are just one big ZERO".

Rather a good slogan.

[notlangley]

Some famous names in American aviation, such as Pan Am, disappeared entirely as they failed to adapt to the new era.

Others, such as United and American, went through repeated bankruptcies as they struggled to bring costs down. Meanwhile, salaries and benefits for staff at established carriers were seriously eroded.
Reference:-_______link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12085444)

[yotty]

TSR2 Just a bit of info for you..there are 3 basic cc grades withing BA. Old contract = high pay. New Contract= annual pay around £28k. Our friend is new contract, that's how I know. Gatwick contract= less than £20k. I wouldn't call Gatwick pay "very well paid". :ok:

[Colonel White]

Quote:
Some famous names in American aviation, such as Pan Am, disappeared entirely as they failed to adapt to the new era.

Others, such as United and American, went through repeated bankruptcies as they struggled to bring costs down. Meanwhile, salaries and benefits for staff at established carriers were seriously eroded.

What the article does not state is that the salaries and benefits were eroded as the costs were so way out of kilter with the profitability of the business. The companies were faced with three options. Maintain prevailing pay and benefits deals but reduce staff numbers, reduce pay and benefits deals and maintain staff numbers, do nothing and go bust. Last option is not a good idea, so it has to be a toss up between the first two. Many airlines actually laid off staff, but that meant they had to reduce capacity, which allowed the lowcost carriers to gain a greater foothold. The alternative, to reduce pay and benefits, but maintain the same size operation allowed others to keep the LoCos at bay. It also meant that when the market picked up, they could expand to meet demand.

[kappa]

Others, such as United and American, went through repeated bankruptcies as they struggled to bring costs down. Meanwhile, salaries and benefits for staff at established carriers were seriously eroded.American Airlines, alone of the U.S. legacy carriers, has never been in bankruptcy. United, Delta, Northwest, and Continental (twice) went through a voluntary bankruptcy process in order to shed costs, leaving the creditors with losses, employees with lower wages, reduced health benefits, minimum pensions, and stricter T&C - and the stockholders with nothing. TWA, Eastern, Braniff and PanAm went out of business or were forced to merge, with all of the stakeholders getting next-to-nothing.

As a result, when compared to other U.S. airlines, AA is saddled with the highest relative labor costs and the most unproductive T&C, among all of its labor groups. In addition it still performs all of its maintenance with its own employees, while the other airlines were able to close their bases and use lower cost contract firms, many in Asia and Central America.

Sorry for the thread drift, but I couldn't let the quoted statement go uncorrected.

[BetterByBoat]

"Otherwise, as it has been for the last year or more, we just go round and round the same circuit ... until, hopefully, BASSA runs out of fuel and spins in on the downwind leg."

Same old anti-BASSA rhetoric. BASSA have a mandate from BA cabin crew to cause this disruption. The hope is that sufficient BA cabin crew will wake up and realise that:
a) they don't run the company
b) the company can continue operations without them

There are undoubtedly many excellent BA cabin crew with what, in my opinion, are realistic and reasonable views on their role within the company. Litebulbs, Betty Girl are prime examples. But as of May 2010, they were not representative of BA cabin crew as a whole who, despite the "22 days of Xmas" and the March \ April volcano events still voted overwhelming for industrial action.

It is cabin crew that voted overwhelmingly for the initial strike and it is in cabin crews hands to vote "no" to further strike action. Blaming Bassa for everything is rather missing the point of who actually voted for industrial action in the first place.

[yotty]

Just a small point BetterByBoat, litebulbs is not employed by BA and he/she is not CC! PS. I love the handle!:cool:

[Litebulbs]

And I don't want any weight in proportion to height comments either!

[MPN11]

Same old anti-BASSA rhetoric. BASSA have a mandate from BA cabin crew to cause this disruption. The hope is that sufficient BA cabin crew will wake up and realise that:
a) they don't run the company
b) the company can continue operations without them

There are undoubtedly many excellent BA cabin crew with what, in my opinion, are realistic and reasonable views on their role within the company. Litebulbs, Betty Girl are prime examples. But as of May 2010, they were not representative of BA cabin crew as a whole who, despite the "22 days of Xmas" and the March \ April volcano events still voted overwhelming for industrial action.

It is cabin crew that voted overwhelmingly for the initial strike and it is in cabin crews hands to vote "no" to further strike action. Blaming Bassa for everything is rather missing the point of who actually voted for industrial action in the first place.
I apologise for my anti-BASSA rhetoric: you are, of course, correct.

Whilst BASSA was conducting its vituperative campaigns against WW, BA and passengers, and was being taken to the High Court over its conduct, it was indeed some CC who voted for IA. We could get into an enormous numbers game here about who is in BASSA, CC87, Amicus or non-union ... but I think that's nugatory. The union [BASSA] that called for the strike achieved a majority of its members, whilst disenfranchising other employees.

Whether those CC voted "Yes" from conviction, ignorance of the facts, or simply because "BASSA said so" will remain one of the untold mysteries of this entire debacle.

[rethymnon]

that's why i come to this forum first: the CC forum lacks the sparkle and intelligence we get here. in fact, i wonder if the mods might consider a compulsory spell check over there?

ps. have just noticed that on the other forum the Mods has indicated that some cabin crew have a 'horizontal career'! sorry, can't help chuckling.

[yotty]

Litebulbs
yotty
And I don't want any weight in proportion to height comments either! Moi? :p

[Colonel White]

ps. have just noticed that on the other forum the Mods has indicated that some cabin crew have a 'horizontal career'! sorry, can't help chuckling.

Hmm... I seem to recall that certain Edwardian courtesans were referred to as 'great horizontals' :sad:

[Ancient Observer]

Litebulbs.
It is a doddle. Easy, simples, and hundreds of private sector companies do it every day.
it isn't always completely "fair", but then nothing in this world is completely fair.
Quite simply, performance targets/behaviours/survey feedback etc are set. Good ones get it, not so good ones do not.

Great Co.s fire 5% to 10% of their low performers each year. BA have not done this with CC and should have done so 20 years ago.
Then, we customers would not be faced with the heritage CC attitudes that some of the CC from lhr produce

[notlangley]

It is possible that some of the issues being voted-on affect the finances of BASSA or the wellbeing of particular officials who run BASSA (I exclude Duncan Holley from this statement).

The revenue of BASSA must have decreased

1) About twelve months ago 1,003 CC took voluntary redundancy._ I would imagine that this terminated 1,003 membership fees._ The 1,003 CC were not replaced because the manning level of certain flights was reduced.

2) Presumably the recruitment of traditional cabin crew has ceased._ There will be natural wastage which will shrink the membership of BASSA._ The total cabin crew numbers are maintained by the recruitment of Mixed Crew._ Although the 1997 contract cabin crew were accepted into the Union fold, this-time-round Unite either didn’t understand or declined the opportunity to participate in a growth area - and so BASSA is missing out on new membership fees.

3) There is a large number of part-time heritage cabin crew - the Telegraph quoted the number as being 3,000 - unfortunately I don’t have a reliable figure._ The growth of Mixed Fleet will presumably ease the way for some of the part time heritage cabin crew to move to other jobs or in some cases retire._ So that is more membership fees lost.

4) Several cabin crew posters on pprune have said that there has been a trickle of membership resignations._ This will be quantified when the results of the present ballot are published._ Then the loss of these membership fees will be clear.

[Litebulbs]

Great Co.s fire 5% to 10% of their low performers each year. BA have not done this with CC and should have done so 20 years ago.

Hmm, great companies fire 10% of their staff each year? I have never read that anywhere; can you point me to you reference?

[Colonel White]

Notlangley

According to the BASSA branch secretary, he is, or was entitled to an honorarium of £50,000 pa, but he was only drawing half that figure. Moreover, he has no real interest in the numbers of members in BASSA as he has stated publicly that he and the chairperson will be standing down at the end of 2011. I would suggest that having done reaonably well out of his position (earning about the equivalent of a maincrew member on top of his own pay), given that he is no longer employed by BA and as such would not be elegible for re-election anyway I suspect that he would be only to pleased to see the branch go to hell in a handcart. The poor devils I feel sorry for are those who will have to pick up the pieces afterwards. BASSA seems to have been a useful little earner for a number of retired staff, with at least two ex reps having tidy sinecures. Of course these are not tied in to the membership numbers. Someone really ought to ask to see the branch accounts for the last three years.

[im1234]

Hmm, great companies fire 10% of their staff each year? I have never read that anywhere; can you point me to you reference?

Try searching your own union's site Litebulbs.
http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/(JN3144)%20Performance%20Management%20Briefing.pdf

It's fairly common in the IT industry (e.g. IBM, Oracle, etc), some merchant banks, GE, Enron, etc. Can't say I agree with it, but if you're going to fire anyone then surely the worst performing x% would be the first target?

[Litebulbs]

I doubt if you would be surprised if I said that a company using processes like this are not great in my opinion.

[Colonel White]

Um... removing the low performers happens in BA. A few years ago the IT section of BA made the gift of a P45 to a number of the lowest performers in the department. But then that may be because they operate a performance management system. I believe that the same arrangement has been used amongst the management fraternity when they did some of the headcount reductions when managers were invited to apply for their own jobs. Similar exercises have been run in areas like Rev Man.

[TrakBall]

Bulbs,

At several large companies I know, here is how it works. Nobody is chucked out for one bad review.

You get an unsatisfactory annual review from your supervisor. At that point your supervisor or manager must develop a Performance Improvement Plan with specific and measurable goals. In other words, do this and this and if you maintain other performance issues, you will get a satisfactory job rating.

So employee performs and gets satisfactory rating and no problem. Employee does not perform again and gets unsatisfactory rating again and is let go.

General Electric is a different case but that is another long story.

TB

[Litebulbs]

I have seen but never been involved in this sort of process, probably because my career has been in unionised environments, but that really is the discussion point here. Do unions protect the weak or lazy?! I doubt if I would be the first to go in my current job, but I know I wouldn't be the last. However, I bet I would be more pursuasive in a capability review, than some who would deserve the job more than me!

[TrakBall]

Litebulbs,

Yes, unions do protect the lazy and incompetent. Take the NY Teachers Union as an example. A teacher fails multiple evaluations. They cannot spell, do math or English. You really have to wonder how they got a teaching certificate. The school district wants to let them go - after all, they are really hurting kids.

The union then fights it through every court and every hearing process they can despite the evidence. In the meantime, to limit the damage to the kids, all the dozens of NY teachers going through this process are housed every day in a district building away from kids but still drawing upwards of $120,000 in annual salary.

I will also say that unions protect the least competent because I have never seen a union accept a merit pay scheme for their members.

But one final comment, unions do have a role in the workplace and I think good unions can do great things for members and a business. However, when unions like BASSA (ok, I know they are part of UNITE) adopt personal or political agendas (CC89) then they cause incredible damage to their members, the company and the union movement.

TB

[GrahamO]

I comment infrequently but as this is bit closer to my business background I felt I could in this instance.

Litebulbs - the definition of what makes a great company is obviously open to interpretation however I would suggest that great companies have two traits - the ability to satisfy their customers with consistently high levels of service so that they keep coming back, and secondly, the satisfaction of the shareholders.

Staff satisfaction is only a subset of the former and is not a deciding factor in itself, as it is entirely possible to overpay staff so thay are delighted and the service is excellent, but for the company will go bust.

Perhaps your comment is illustrative of the general issue over the whole dispute and it's various facets - CC belief that their satisfaction in the round has to be achieved before any other factor such as profitability, survivals, customer feedback etc. Just an opinion of course. As a passenger, I am not overly concerned about staff satisfaction, as long as it does not affect me.

Lastly, the best example of the lower performance cull culture is in Cisco Systems who are one of the great IT companies to work for and one whom people clamour to work for ..... They remove their 10% bottom performing sales people each year, as sales people are paid to bring in orders, and if they do not, then their contract is clear about the consequences. Anyone in industry would rate Cisco at the top of the companies to work for, and they qualify as being great.

[PAXboy]

They remove their 10% bottom performing sales people each year, as sales people are paid to bring in orders, and if they do not, then their contract is clear about the consequences.If a sales person knows they will be removed for low returns, they may resort to getting sales at any price by promising things that cannot actually be delivered and 'bigging up' the ability of the company/product. Some sales people will say anything to get a sale. For 28 years, I worked in the Telecoms world purchasing equipment and services, so I was 'sold at' by many.
Anyone in industry would rate Cisco at the top of the companies to work for, and they qualify as being great.As you say, GrahamO, "the definition of what makes a great company is obviously open to interpretation". ;)

TrakBallYou get an unsatisfactory annual review from your supervisor. At that point your supervisor or manager must develop a Performance Improvement Plan with specific and measurable goals. In other words, do this and this and if you maintain other performance issues, you will get a satisfactory job rating.In theory - yes. I have seen the process used to get rid of people unfairly and to promote the incompetent. As with any system devised by one human, another human can subvert it!

[Dawdler]

If a sales person knows they will be removed for low returns, they may resort to getting sales at any price by promising things that cannot actually be delivered and 'bigging up' the ability of the company/product.

In the sales world, at least in the industrial sales world in which I found myself (trained engineer), budgets are agreed at the start of the year. These budgets will include obviously, sales and profitability targets. It is easy to end up with a full order book, the trick is to do so achieving the required (and agreed) levels of return.

Having said that, sometimes it is in a company's interest to take low profit work for the contribution to the overhead, it is called marginal costing. However any sales person who embarks on this course without the active encouragement of their line manager (and higher) is sure to be invited to a meeting without coffee in very short order. They would not last long in any company even if they thought they had circumvented the inevitable.

[Ancient Observer]

Litebulbs,
There are all sorts of great companies to work for. Different individuals have different preferences.
That unite report gives one view.
However, of those that use the 5% to 10% performance based dismissals (see earlier comments - GEC, Oracle, the big 4 accountants et al) some make the "great companies to work for" and some do not. As has already been said, people clamour to work for Oracle and some parts of GE,
They might not be your cup of tea, but they generally have no problem in recruiting great staff.
I once had the privilege of spending time on the GE people development sight - open to all staff. It was light years better than anything I had seen before, and I've worked for some very good companies. .
I guess there is a deal - work hard, deliver results, and we'll pay you well and treat you well and develop you.
Take the big accountants. They are always in the top Cos to work for. ................and all the staff know that about 50% of all recruits will be fired in the next 3 or 4 years. I spent some time learning from Ernst and Young. They are brutal with performance, but get the highest possible ratings from their staff.

Oh, and the accountants are just as mobile as CC and work with different teams all the time, just like CC..

[Litebulbs]

You make some really strong points that work for a lot of businesses.

But lets look at me, an engineer. No doubt you want to arrive at your destination on time, but at what cost? Do you think there is a difference between safe and timely, to timely and safe? The very best I can do is offer an aircraft for service on time. How I get to that situation is probably what I could be measured on.

Would you, if you were traveling in a premium cabin, be more worried about your IFE not working, or having a 100% serviceable engine fire detection system? What will get more passenger complaints? OK, it is not cabin crew, but it rolls out to a service job too.

The best Bloody Mary I have ever had was on a BA First flight. I have to quantify that because it was a staff travel ticket and I could not normally fly in that cabin, so I would also not be able to afford to experience the time that went into that drink in the economy cabin. Quantify that.

However, I personally do not want anybody obviously going the extra mile; I want to think after the event that that extra mile was spent on me, but it wasn't rammed down my throat, but that is the reserved Brit in me.

What I see in driven people is yes men, who make promises that cannot be kept. Now that is a huge exaggeration, but it is what people think at the lower end of the salary scale.

Sorry for the ramble, but man flu has kicked in.

[Ancient Observer]

Litebulbs,
I'm sure you could work out what you ought to be measured on. And it won't be safe planes - that's a given. I used to work in a factory in the North West that had the capability to take out all of Liverpool's population. All of them. We did not pay the engineers a bonus for not doing that. We would all have lost our jobs if the engineers had done it.
You can figure out who the top 10% of engineers are, and who the bottom 10% are. We all do it all the time.

It is just not fair to the majority for them to be held back by the slackers.

[Ancient Observer]

Happy new Year to all airline staff who want to put their customers first in all matters, and who act accordingly, thus not striking and giving out hot towels in WT+.

A rotten New Year to those that do not.

[Litebulbs]

Any standard capability policy would do that. One thing I have learnt through being a rep, is that fellow employees are far more critical than any management team. It doesn't take to much effort so work out who would be a safe target for a capable management team.

The biggest single issue is that crews work as teams, but very rarely are they a team that knows the strength and weaknesses of each other in a big airline. That is the team of 15 or 10 or 4, will in all probability never fly together more than a handful of times through their entire careers. BA may have 2000 engineers, but the team breakdown is governed by shifts, who work together every day. Peer pressure about letting your mates down happens and you have competition between shifts, some good some bad.

I am not saying the flying community is unique, but there are not too many places where you have a workforce of 10000+ at one base, that don't know the in's and out's of at least 40 fellow colleagues.

I have to be really sick not to go in, because I personally know who will be working extra to cover for me. Do crew? That is not to say that anything more than a small minority of crew actually go sick because they don't care however.

With the invention of the Bradford Factor, sickness is a prime measure in redundancy situations in big workforces today, which has lead to people going in, when they should not. I will not let a cold lead to my redundancy in the future.

[pcat160]

I find it interesting that no matter what type of work is at issue the union representing the employees always argue that in the particular case performance based evaluations are not appropriate. It seems tenure is always the answer.

[Litebulbs]

I am a rep of the UK's biggest union and was directly involved in negotiating in performance reviews a few years back. They have stalled now, but we will be going through the same process again in the near future. I have members asking for performance appraisals too.

As ottergirl has said on the other thread, BA crew currently have a performance review system and they have the single biggest branch within Unite.

To me they are about developing talent, but for some on here, it is a culling process. That is the difference of opinion.

[Litebulbs]

And if you are bored on New Years Eve, have a go at this -

Perfomance Review Survey of Pprune Members (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YVNTQ9T)

Please feel free to comment on the structure and content too. I look forward to your feedback and Happy New Year.

[pcat160]

My reference had more to do with determining compensation as well as promotion and termination. How do you feel about performance based evaluations being used to determine compensation disregarding promotion?

[Litebulbs]

For me personally, I think that it would be achievable, but the checks and measures would have to be scrutinised in minute detail. I have been in discussions on this very subject a few times, but failed to establish measures for the job that I do, that would have no impact on safety, because I work in a very regulated job.

If you add personal commercial pressure onto the already industry driven pressures, then some might take the buck, before doing the job right.

But this is an interesting debate and no doubt I will learn from it; if we do not get censured for thread drift.

[PleasureFlyer]

I've filled in your survey LB. Based my answers on my own experience of have PE sessions. For #10 though, it all depends if you have a good manager.......

[MPN11]

Hmmmm ... a strange sampling exercise from the SLF. However, I clicked the buttons based on my 30 years in aviation. So what does that prove? :confused:

Whatever, Happy New Year ... Nurse says it's time to get off the keyboard and take my pills.

I would have said something about Happy New Year on the CC Thread, but I've got bored with being banned, so borrocks to them. They either do the job they're paid for or they don't. As a paying customer, I have had enough bu§§eration this year from the CC dispute, and it's MY money they're playing around with.

.... yeah, OK, Nursey ... see y'all next year. :*

[Litebulbs]

No trying to prove anything, just looking for views. Please feel free to suggest modified or new questions that would suit the pax and SLF forum.

[Landroger]

Any standard capability policy would do that. One thing I have learnt through being a rep, is that fellow employees are far more critical than any management team. It doesn't take to much effort so work out who would be a safe target for a capable management team.

The biggest single issue is that crews work as teams, but very rarely are they a team that knows the strength and weaknesses of each other in a big airline. That is the team of 15 or 10 or 4, will in all probability never fly together more than a handful of times through their entire careers. BA may have 2000 engineers, but the team breakdown is governed by shifts, who work together every day. Peer pressure about letting your mates down happens and you have competition between shifts, some good some bad.

I am not saying the flying community is unique, but there are not too many places where you have a workforce of 10000+ at one base, that don't know the in's and out's of at least 40 fellow colleagues.

I have to be really sick not to go in, because I personally know who will be working extra to cover for me. Do crew? That is not to say that anything more than a small minority of crew actually go sick because they don't care however.

With the invention of the Bradford Factor, sickness is a prime measure in redundancy situations in big workforces today, which has lead to people going in, when they should not. I will not let a cold lead to my redundancy in the future.

It would appear that we have more in common than I had originally imagined and your remarks about 'teams' are interesting. My work as a field service engineer positions me somewhere between yourself - in the workshop with the same 'team' of engineers around you - and the CC who, as you say, are obliged to work as a team grown more or less instantly in (I guess) the CRC?

Although I work, mostly, on my own I nevertheless consider myself to be part of a very strong team. A team who see the installed base as 'our machines' and feel responsible for the high performance of the equipment for our customers - specifically patients. As others have pointed out companies like mine - a big, big American one easy to guess - have very ordered structures for how we should do business, but it is my belief that we FEs work better than expected, because of the way we identify with our customers/patients and see ourselves as a team.

Perhaps small teams - I cannot even begin to suggest any detail for the CC situation - might be a way forward? They can be performance reviewed more easily and may well begin to feel the encouragement, support and 'can doism' available from working in an obviously close and functional team.

I hope you are feeling better, by the way! :)

Roger.

[Litebulbs]

Do you have performance reviews at work and if so, what is the format? If you have them, do welcome or fear them?

[Landroger]

We do and you will perhaps not be surprised to learn that we - as 'ordinary Brits' - cordially hate the process. :uhoh: We have to submit an annual update to our original submission, effectively 'bigging up' our achievements and 'wins' during the past year. Our first line manager will have done his or her own assessment, which I get to see and discuss at an annual 'appraisal'.

It is a very American process and as I say, we Brits are never comfortable with its format, except that we do, reluctantly, recognise that it is at least a half way reasonable way of assessing 'what we bring to the party'. :ugh:

In my case, I am always dinged for my crap paperwork :ouch: and praised and thanked for the technical and customer satisfaction side of my job. :D :) The written element of the process is supplimented by other measurements, such as 'applied time', although we hate that particular definition.

Perhaps I should point out that we are non union in the UK, but my peers in France are very unionised and those in Germany have the Betriebsraat (sp?).

ROger.

[flapsforty]

that's why i come to this forum first: the CC forum lacks the sparkle and intelligence we get here. in fact, i wonder if the mods might consider a compulsory spell check over there?Great idea rethymnon. :ok:
We could install it in connection with a "Capital letters; when to use them." guide.


ps. have just noticed that on the other forum the Mods has indicated that some cabin crew have a 'horizontal career'! sorry, can't help chuckling.
So pleased to have added to some joy to your day.
In addition to having made you aware of a concept formulated back in 1998.

For more giggles you can google Professor A.G. Watts' inaugural professorial lecture titled "Reshaping career development for the 21st century."
It will have you rolling on the floor laughing. :)

Alternatively, if pressed for time and/or attention span, have a good belly laugh at the following hilarious line:
Career refers to an individual’s work and life roles over their lifespan. This makes it clear that people can progress through their career horizontally as well as vertically.


*****************************

Interesting discussion about performance management guys; any practical ideas on how to use it in relation to thousands of CC who are away from the office when they work and away form it when they don't?

________________________________

flapsforty
Member of the PPRuNe moderating team

[Litebulbs]

Flaps has popped in and hasn't questioned our chat, so I guess we can carry on :ok:

Two points from your last post -

bigging it up
always dingedI get the impression that bigging it up happens a lot in reviews, from talking to those that do or have them. If you can big it up, then to me, the process is wrong. Also, if you are always dinged for paperwork (as I would be!), then the system does not work.

To me, you either need to be ruthless and let fear drive success, or have a system that employees value and see the benefit of and actually want. I like the second process, but getting it would be hard work for both sides of the desk!

[slf22]

I've had three jobs in different areas of the public sector (heavily unionised) over the past ten years and all three of them have annual appraisals and probationary appraisal type affairs. Contrary to the belief of some on the other thread an appraisal doesn't take all day - the meeting will be perhaps 1 to 2 hours. You have to fill in the form before that meeting and work out what progress has been made since your last appraisal. Of course it depends on your manager (or maybe how seriously your manager's manager takes it) as to whether it is more than a paper shuffling exercise but that's the same with everything. After the meeting your manager provides you with an action plan - things to improve (if there are any) and training you should undergo over the course of the next year. You both sign off on that.

[Litebulbs]

If you use your figure for the time taken for the review, it would need 12 reviewers (managers), carrying out 4 reviews a day, for every working day of the year in the crew community. Also, who reviews the reviewers to sample for consistency?

[Litebulbs]

Come on Pax & SLF, only 20 replies but a 1000 views. It only takes a couple of minutes -

Perfomance Review Survey of Pprune Members (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.surveymonkey.com%2Fs%2FYVNTQ9T&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fpassengers-slf-self-loading-freight%2F429571-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iii-69.html)

[PAXboy]

I think that the topic is absolutely germane to this thread:

I worked in telecommunications/IT for 27 years and in a wide variety of organisations. From local govt to American merchant bank in the City of London, also I have worked freelance and in other countries.

In short, I watched the introduction of appraisals with mixed feelings and that has not changed in the 22 or so years since I first encountered them. I have been the subject of them and had to conduct them for my own staff. Whilst they were introduced with the (I trust) intention of fairness and openness, they are just like any other human process - open to movement in either direction. The 'bigging' and the 'dinging', as so eloquently named.

I have seen both of those pressures exerted, and both for and against myself. The biggest problem is that: Everybody presumed/presumes that more 'bigging' takes place than 'dinging'. So, any appraisal is automatically 'downgraded' in the mind of the senior line mgr and HR. Thus, if an appraisal contains a fair amount of 'dinging' it is perceived to be MORE than it is. What might be intended as a small 'ding' to the person to encourage them forward, can turn into an almighty 'dang' when viewed higher up the scale!

It is in the interests of many to big up, so that the reviewing mgr appears to be bringing their staff onward and upward and so they get rewarded. By the time it is found not to be the case, the mgr in question has probably left to join another company and repeat the process.

It's a bit like signing off the tech sheet of an a/c. All the process' are designed to be done with due diligence and not to be scrimped or changed in any way. If one engineer tries to bypass the system with shoddy work - it will usually be spotted quickly. But if there is a groundswell of movement to shoddy work [false appraisals] then it may be difficult to spot for quite some time. It will rely on someone with old fashioned skills and sense of fair play to bring it into the open. They may even have to blow the whistle.

When I joined one company, I was given glowing reports about one of my new staff by the mgmt. She fooled me for about two years. Only then did I see the cracks in the system and her work. She was doing just enough but had managed to fool others into promoting her. Yet she was laughing behind our backs and not carrying out the instructions I had given. She worked at a remote location, which made it more difficult to monitor closely. Those that did know what was happening, could not speak as they were dependent on her for their appraisals. Once I realised what had happened, I tightened the screws and found that she was lacking. Eventually, she left the company but she should not have got that far.

Bigging and Dinging happens every day in every company. So - no appraisal system, or one that can be subverted? Bear in mind that, whatever system of promotion is used, it WILL be subverted!

[Litebulbs]

Hammer, nail, head!

[Roccoreid]

For details of the Militaries reports best look at Rick Jolly's In Confidence for the best way to phrase.

To say this Royal Marines behaviour was unacceptable is a given, even his shockproof watch was embarrassed.

The intentions of Lt Cdr XXX are devious. If I were the Pope and him a Catholic I would be worried.

This Officer has decided that he has only a certain number of heartbeats and he does not intend to waste them on the sports fields.

Works well when cornered

This man is depriving a village of its idiot.

My Medical Officer is a contradiction. She knows tight clothes restricts circulation yet the tighter her clothes the more she circulates.

[Litebulbs]

Now that is a proper left field post! You will probably find that Bassa are to blame however:}

[Landroger]

Hammer, nail, head!

Sadly, I fear, you are both right. Paxboy has experience from both sides of the Appraisal Table and has given us a remarkably clear outline of the way it works. I once had an immediate manager with whom I (uniquely in nearly 35 years) had a personality clash, plain and simple. I recognised early on that it was 'six of one and half dozen of the other' and just stayed away from him. I made it my business to stay off his radar and visit the office as little as possible - once or twice a year was my best.

He, on the other hand, was incapable of leaving me alone and in this respect he, I consider, was seriously at fault. As a manager he should have recognised there was a problem and requested that I be 'managed' by another branch manager. At the time perfectly possible. However, he did not and there was almost open, public war between us. The way I work hasn't changed over the years, but I found out many years after him, that he had submitted poor appraisal reports on me on several subsequent years, after one infamous appraisal where he took four hours to tell me I was 'a level four'. A level at which - according to the company process book - a could not work equally with my peer group. It was usually me that was sent to help my peers when they were in trouble.

I had to refuse to accept the assessment and demand to meet the UK Service manager - who defended his prote'ge' somewhat apologetically - and hammered out a 'deal' that would overcome the immediate problem - not the subsequent six years. So, Paxboy is perfectly correct in saying that even the structured, corporate system like that, can and will be abused.

However, there is no doubt that the hard working, conscientious majority - as well as the 'walk on water' highflying minority - are negatively effected by poor performing, incompetent minorities. Which brings us back to where we started with performance assessing a large body of transient staff such as Cabin Crew.

ROger.

[rethymnon]

a few more relevant points:
1. it should be just that - a 'review,, not a 'revelation'. too often the manager uses it to bring up issues that should have been aired at the time the problem cropped up. otherwise the appraisee has no opportunity to modify his behaviour.

2. the appraisee should be entitled to a) request further training if there are identified areas of weakness. you can't ding an appraisee yet deny him/her the opportunity to improve performance and b)raise any issues where his/her job has been made more difficult by lack of personnel, equipment or managerial support.

personally, i found a refusal to 'sign-off' on an appraisal was sufficient to get a critical manager to revise it to a more acceptable form.

I do not see that it is impossible to appraise cabin crew because they work away from base or because they work in no settled team. these factors can be turned to advantage. cabin crew will be appraised over time by (properly trained-not always a given factor) senior staff and the fact that they are working with numerous seniors should help to eliminate the sort of personal bias that has been mentioned.

[Roccoreid]

The Royal Naval system of reporting gives each Subject a 24hr period to read and then comment on the report. This system allows people to contest factual inaccuracies as part of the reporting mechanism. However you get a mid period appraisal that is a quick highlight of good but more importantly things to improve. If something crops up between that and the report a written report highlighting faults would be expected.

I highlight this as the military is often seen as bad in these areas but in reality the Divisional System (an officer or Chief Petty Officer will run about 10 - 15 people) gives the report writer a structure to follow. In theory no surprises should come out of the annual report as constant dialogue is order of the day (it might just be that dialogue was strong verbal guidance in a forceful manner ie bollocking). Also our reporting is geared for merit for promotion. Performance pay of a type exists but we are much more promotion to gain pay based.

But this relies upon someone, normally the Leading Hand supervisor and above having contact in some form to review people.

Interestingly for the very new 19yr lads or lasses it comes as a very big shock to have a report that is not stellar. They tend to have gone through the school system with each report telling them they are the best and all is well. I have had to talk many youngsters through what the reporting chain is about. If you have been in the Navy less time than I have been on the crest of a wave you are not going to be A+ material first year, you need to build experience towards achieving Ninja status.

[Dawdler]

I see on the other thread that there is a discussion over rostered hours and the split between flying and duty hours. One of the first contributors mentioned that they had been rostered for 143 hours in January. There is some confusion as to whether these were duty or flying hours. Apparently if they were the latter it would be illegal. If that is the case we must assume that they are duty hours, This has been described as "busy" but not impossible. Therefore as it seems to equate to a 35 hour week for duty hours, are we now asked to consider a 35 hour week onerous? I speak as one who has endured 60 hour (5 x 12hours) weeks on alternate days and nights in a factory. That I do regard as onerous.

[Juan Tugoh]

Therefore as it seems to equate to a 35 hour week for duty hours, are we now asked to consider a 35 hour week onerous? I speak as one who has endured 60 hour (5 x 12hours) weeks on alternate days and nights in a factory. That I do regard as onerous.

This has been done to death. I suggest a reading of the fairly recent pages of the two active threads on this issue will give you an insight into crewing hours etc. Suffice it to say that 100 flying hours in a 28 day period (and the associated duty hours limits) are legal limits that have been put in place after some intensive scientific studies into fatigue. There are valid safety reasons for these limits and while, in your opinion, you do not think that it equates to hard work, your opinion is not based on any scientific evidence.

[Litebulbs]

If you look at the other thread, it has been suggested that for 11 months, duty hours are 192, with 180 in the last. This gives an average of 44 hours a week on duty. That is not too much below what is the maximum anybody can work, without opting out of the WTD.

[Roccoreid]

On the other thread someone mentioned that the course for the Terminal staff (bookings, checkin and such) is longer than the Cabin Crew course. That strikes me as odd, can someone in the know confirm this?????

[LD12986]

On the other thread someone mentioned that the course for the Terminal staff (bookings, checkin and such) is longer than the Cabin Crew course. That strikes me as odd, can someone in the know confirm this?????


It is true. Ticketing for example is extremely complicated and rules/procedures constantly change.

[Betty girl]

I think it probably is because the training to operate the computer systems and ticketing is very time consuming.
Even when ground staff first start they continue to learn on the job for years as they move though the ground staff grades because there is a great deal to learn when it comes to ticketing and it is quite complex with all the different airlines and ticket types.

[Ancient Observer]

This has been done to death elsewhere.
The key part of CAP 371 in this debate about New Fleet is section 24, Rules Relating to CC

e) The annual and 28 day limits on flying hours appertaining to flight crew do not apply.


The CC flying hours limits come from another source. Civil Aviation Working time regs, 2004.
Maximum annual working time

9. An employer shall ensure that in any month—
(a)no person employed by him shall act as a crew member during the course of his working time, if during the period of 12 months expiring at the end of the month before the month in question the aggregate block flying time of that person exceeds 900 hours; and
(b)no crew member employed by him shall have a total annual working time of more than 2,000 hours during the period of 12 months expiring at the end of the month before the month in question.




There is an Inspector in the UK's CAA who has draconian poers to enforce this stuff.

[Juan Tugoh]

CAP 371 does not directly apply to ANY BA employee. The relevant documents are all BA documents, they are approved by the CAA and differ from CAP371 in minor ways. The CAA Ops Inspector can be as draconian as he likes but must apply the BA scheme regulations and not those laid down in documents that are not applicable.

[Litebulbs]

The regulations that do concern BA is -

The Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/756/contents/made)

and

The Civil Aviation (Working Time) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1226/contents/made)

Now, I asked this question the other day. If you took at the first document and schedule 1, there is information on workforce agreements. Now are M/F operating to existing BA agreements, or is there a new one? If there is, has it been agreed, as per the legislation, or are they following CAP 371, which I imagine is a default position?

[Litebulbs]

There it is.

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

About a third of the way down and an interesting use of the word agreement, but as I read it, it is still a better document than CAP 371, which allows 210 duty hours per 28 days and the maximum in the MF scheme is 196.

[Dawdler]

Dawdler
If you look at the other thread, it has been suggested that for 11 months, duty hours are 192, with 180 in the last. This gives an average of 44 hours a week on duty. That is not too much below what is the maximum anybody can work, without opting out of the WTD.

Firstly: The figure that I picked up was 143 hours in January, fully realising that it was not the maximum.

Secondly: in reply to Juan, I do not recall saying that the crew did not work hard at all! I did say that a 35hr duty week did not to me seem an onerous committment for a full time worker. This would not have arisen if one CC member had not complained that it was so.

[Litebulbs]

It may be the case that it is a big number, if they are flying rather than duty hours. The general assumption of those in the know, (both current flight and cabin crew), is that they are duty hours however.

[Neptunus Rex]

Mods:

Can we please have a separate thread for Crew Duty Times? This is so boring to those not involved, and nothing to do with:
"BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III."

Until and unless, of course, it becomes the reason for the next strike.

[pcat160]

I am now a retired pax. During my working years bonuses were a significant portion of my compensation when working for others. Some were production based while some were based on my contributions as judged by others. No system was perfect, but all were motivating. For most employees nothing motivates like money and the more money the more motivation. MF has an acknowledged low base pay while providing for performance based bonuses. At this time a pattern of bonus payments has not been established so it is not possible to make judgments about MF’s total annual compensation. Contrary to the posts constantly repeated by some on these threads MF’s annual compensation may be significantly more than some would suggest. Since these bonuses will be discretionary and based on performance analysis MF salaries will vary and the variance will be based on performance. Those providing a consistent excellent service and creating an appropriate atmosphere with other crew members will be rewarded. Those that do not will not be rewarded. If this is not performance based management I am not sure what is.

There are additional ramifications of this salary system. Those that under perform and do not bring their performance up to par may not be terminated but will have a strong incentive, low pay, to leave. They will not be able to just get by and receive the same rewards as those that excel. MF cabin crew will look to their managers for evaluations that will increase their bonus. I dare say there will be no such nonsense as refusing to pass out hot towels with MF.

While a union may still play a roll in many areas the influence over employees will be significantly reduced. An employee will not be able to ignore their manager or the company believing they will not be penalized. While the company may not be able to terminate the employee or lower their base pay they can deny a bonus. I hope BA’s bonus program is generous so excellent performance will be well rewarded.

[notlangley]

British Airways have taken Astraeus Airbus A320 G-STRP on wet lease until 31st March 2011 to act as an operational spare for the Boeing 737-400 fleet at London Gatwick. This should allow the remaining Boeing 737-400s to be fitted with Spacesaver seats from the Boeing 757-200 fleet.What are spacesaver seats?_ Do they reduce leg-room for passengers?
Reference:-___link (http://www.thebasource.com/)

[Litebulbs]

A couple of questions if I may?

What your salary broadly in line with what is seen as a minimum that can be paid?

Did you have a transparent and visible mechanism on how your bonus would be calculated?

Would your bonus be more likely to be able to buy you a car or your shopping for a month?

Could you live off of your basic salary, say in you own owned home?

[Juan Tugoh]

The seats do not reduce legroom for passengers. The seats are thinner so that the legroom remains the same but the seats themselves take up less space. This allows about one extra row of seats in a 320 or 737.

[pcat160]

Not sure what you are trying to determine. My answers to your questions would vary depending on position and time. A great deal of my career was spent working independently or managing my own company. My post was not meant to focus on my career but too put forward the possible ramifications of the MF salary scheme. What effects do you think the performance bonuses will have?

[Litebulbs]

Sorry, it reads as a rubbish post (my one). What I should have asked is whether some sort of performance bonus was more rewarding and easier to measure when you are at the top, rather than the other end of the salary scales?

[west lakes]

Sort of again but MF are, potentially, on more take home pay than LGW cabin crew. We know how important LGW wages are to the various parts of Unite, so can someone explain the relevance of discussing MF wages!

[Litebulbs]

I imagine that LGW are still struggling under the constant threat of closure as a BA base. I suppose it is whether that constant line is believed or not.

[Colonel White]

I thought LGW had made great strides in the past few years and had managed to avoid the fate of closure. Realistically, BA cannot afford to close LGW without reducing the network. Longhaul ex LGW is mainly the leisure routes and forms a useful earner. I doubt that BA would want to abandon that business to VA. I'll concede if times were hard, it might be a possibility, but that is not the case now. Also noteworthy is that in the recent reshuffle, there was a new (well, revived really) role of head of LGW created. I think it is more likely that LGW will be run as an autonomous business unit, with shared common services with LHR. LHR expansion is pretty knackered, so I would expect to see an increase in services out of LCY and LGW in the near future.

[Litebulbs]

I hope you are right, but I bet the threat of closure (separate business unit) is still used. If it wasn't for LGW's premier carrier, EasyJet, there would never be any need for flattening the church for the second runway!

[yotty]

LGW is on the up now as far as BA are concerned... an extra 777 and a number of A319s for this years summer programme! :ok:

[notlangley]

Malcolmf asks on the other forumApologies if I've missed it, but has anyone seen the actual question on the ballot paper?
Is it "Are you prepared to take strike action" or "Are you prepared to take strike action over the introduction of Mixed Fleet" or some other reason?This is also what I have been searching for._ The best that I can find is
Unite says the five issues between the crew and the airline are:
1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken by BA.
2. Binding arbitration, through Acas, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute, which led to 22 days of strike action between March and May 2010.
3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates.
4. 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
5. The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without the agreement of the trade union.

The ballot will close on 21 January 2011.

reference:-__link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/new_ballot_of_cabin_crew_begin.aspx)
I presume that the ballot paper has a piece of paper in the same envelope that lists these five issues._ I also presume that the vote is to go on strike because of this bundle of five issues.

I have also failed to find a good reference for the wording for the ballot that was about twelve months ago.

[Skipness One Echo]

LGW is on the up now as far as BA are concerned... an extra 777 and a number of A319s for this years summer programme!
The number of 777s is a fraction of former years and even down on the consolidated fleets from 2005. There are up to 7 daily B777s out of LGW down from 9-10 in 2005.

Will BA invest in a B737-400 replacement against easyJet? People always say "yeah the A319s from LHR are coming" but they're still being heavily used at LHR and they won't be taking 25 A320s anytime soon to replace them. The decision has been pushed back to the end of the B734s useful life so they can't extend that any more even if they wanted to. Expansion at Madrid will cater for a lack of capacity at Heathrow, and I still believe when reality bites, they will *have* to put in a third runway at LHR. It's the least worst of a bad pile of options.

Tempting option : Consolidate Spanish routes with Iberia on larger capacity aircraft, free a small pile of slots up for the B777 leisure routes we are led to believe make money and move them to LHR. EuroGatwick closes as the B737s have reached the end of the road.

[MIDLGW]

Thank you Skipness and Litebulbs for "wishing" us at LGW out of a job. :rolleyes:

LGW is doing really well, and has done for some time. The 737s are due to stay until possibly 2016 due to various modifications. It makes more sense to use our own aircraft instead of leasing "new" ones which would cost more.

There will be more routes announced from LGW in due course, it's a matter of gaining slots and airframes. I personally can't wait.

[Litebulbs]

Why do you think I would wish anybody at BA LGW out of a job? I have still got loads of friends in various departments at BA LGW and I wish them every success. I am just hoping the people who determine the strategy for BA, think the same way.

[MIDLGW]

I got the idea from your recent postings about LGW being threatened with closure, Litebulbs. We within the company knows what's going on (to a certain extent), and have tried to inform you of this, but you still go on about it.

You might not wish closure on us, whence the " used, but it came across as insensitive. I have to add that I'm very loyal to LGW and therefore will defend my base.

[Litebulbs]

I speak from personal experience within BA at LGW. I work with people who took redundancy, rather than get moved to LHR and in my time as a rep at BA, numerous GM's used the threat of closure to vary working practices and shifts.

[Litebulbs]

Please accept my apologies for causing distress to you. It was not my intention.

[MIDLGW]

Apology accepted, Litebulbs. Thank you.

In previous years, yes, the threat of closure was used fairly often, but not in a few years now, due to how well we're actually doing, customer satisfaction stats, on-time departures, cost cutting, etc etc.

[baggersup]

Being in London, had dinner tonight with a fellow who helps my business partner and me out with some of our (soon to be cut back) dealings with UK industrial relations strategies.

We were discussing the confab going on over the current ballot.

He said if he were running BA, being sensitive to the fact that firing everybody who goes out on a possible unprotected strike would be destructive to the employee relations in the extreme for years, go for a middle ground.

Those who go out on uprotected industrial action, after being duly warned at least 3 times by BA in writing ahead of time, are terminated as of midnight on the day they go out on strike.

However, they can immediately reapply for their job, on the terms and conditions of the offer that was made (and being signed up to by many non-union cabin crew at present), however with a new hire date, putting them at the bottom of the seniority pile. They would be new hires on the WW contract, that they can sign themselves (presumably not union members until they rejoin later).

So no permanent loss of job in the end (unless BA decide not to hire back a handful of the worst of the worst), they have jobs under the new contract the union was rejecting and life goes on. There is a consquence to having gone out on an uprotected strike, but not permanent loss of job.

My friend and I were talking over what this does to their union membership, so not sure if being dismissed ends their union membership automatically--if not, then signing the contract on their own might be problematic if they are still in the union, even though not employed by BA.

But if their union membership ends at midnight as their job does, that would be a big dent in the BASSA union dues for a while until the dismissed cabin crew had gone through the rehiring process and were back on salary.

There's more than one way to skin a cat, but BA have been very creative so far in not going TOO far in punishing people, other than removing ST.

This idea my friend had was an interim step between permanent dismissal for unprotected IA and no consequence at all. But I don't know if once lawyered by BA's legal eagles, it would fly (no pun intended!) :)

[Litebulbs]

IF the action is judged to be unlawful, then what an idea. I suppose it would balance on whether BA tried to block any action first. If they did, the a ruling would be made prior to the action and if the courts decided there was a link, then the idea would never see implementation. Well I wouldn't walk out after the courts have told me that the action was not protected, but that is just me, but who can speak for Unites biggest branch?

As to union membership; it has nothing to do with employment status, although being a member of the BASSA branch might have. I don't know, but I imagine that the subscription is deducted by checkoff through BA pay role for the majority, so if you are not being paid by BA.......

[Landroger]

................. I don't know, but I imagine that the subscription is deducted by checkoff through BA pay role for the majority, so if you are not being paid by BA.......

Sounds of Worms Jar being opened ...... :eek: :D

Roger.

[Snas]

Well I wouldn't walk out after the courts have told me that the action was not protected, but that is just me, but who can speak for Unites biggest branch?


DH can, that’s who. And he speaks such words as “you can’t be sacked for striking”.

[Ancient Observer]

Just a quick update on Employment tribunal timings for the lhr area.

A case which I am familiar with was caused by dismissal in November 2009. The ET1 and papers were submitted in 2009. The case is now listed for January 2011, but may well be postponed due to other cases running over.

The Reading ET (where lhr cases are heard) has a serious shortage of "Judges" - the one who sits in the middle.

So if you were dismissed by BA in, say, March 2010, the case might be listed for May 2011.

DH 's case was not a "regular" case - it was fast tracked for some reason. Some sort of "relief"?

Baggersup
Whilst that theory is an interesting one, BA's track record has been even more cautious than that.
If they went down that sort of route, they would apply a process to it, with meetings involved. I suggest they would want each individual to sign a bit of paper to say that they had read, and understood the consequences of their actions.
Difficult to fix with thousands of staff.

A friend of mine runs a UK ER consultancy service. If you want details, pm me.

[Litebulbs]

DH can, that’s who. And he speaks such words as “you can’t be sacked for striking”.

He is right from the legal aspect. You generally cannot be lawfully dismissed for taking part in protected industrial action. But you have to be sacked for it to mean anything.

[Joao da Silva]

I think DH is technically correct.

Strikers are not sacked for striking, they are sacked for breaching their employment contract.

You can be sacked for not turning up for work, but whether it is because you went on strike or failed to set your alarm clock is only a detail.

However, the law allows strikers to to seek reinstatement or compensation if dismissed whilst on a strike during the protected period.

[Snas]

Technicalities aside, DH’s failure to explain the situation correctly leaves CC under the impression that they can’t find themselves out of work.

By example I can tell you that it’s unlawful for someone to steal your TV from your home, am I giving you all the information you need when deciding to lock your front door or not?

....this doesn’t of course mean that the theft won’t happen and further if the thief is caught and punished you may very well still be without a telly….

DH has a duty, as I see it, to explain the ramifications fully to his members. He’s either failing to do so through a lack of understanding of the situation or it’s deliberate on his part to ensure the greatest yes vote regardless of the possible consequences to that same membership. Either way I think his performance on this issue is poor.

[Snas]

However, the law allows strikers to seek reinstatement or compensation


Joao, you can forget reinstatement as an option. A tribunal cannot enforce reinstatement and indeed rarely orders it as a result. In the rare case that such an order is made (7 times during 2008/9) the employer can simply ignore it opting for an increased financial penalty as a result.

All topical stuff actually as I was listening to a bunch of employers moaning on the radio this morning about the fact that it's all to far over in the employees favour - I really dont see it like that, if you lose your job thats it, you are out of work, end off. At best perhaps you might get £5k-£10K as a result in most cases.

[scotbill]

I think you'll find that the point they were making was that there has been a massive increase in applications to tribunals in England - as this is a no-cost item for the applicant.
Small businesses, however, can rarely afford the costs involved and are often forced to settle out of court regardless of the merits of the case.
That is unlikely to be the position with BA.

[Snas]

Scotbill, yeah I know really.... BA would indeed be a different situation I agree.

I also agree there are too many cases without merit - Indeed my favourite example is the one I lost to a chap whose employment I terminated when his Visa to remain in the uk expired. The chairperson stating that “the purpose of the tribunal is to deal with employment law, not immigration law” !!!! (This was quite a while ago, I think they are a bit more sensible these days?)

That was the very last I attended, from then on I just settle as winning is an impossibility, even if you win, you lose, which I agree was the point they were making on the radio this morning.

But, if we set aside claims without any merit whatsoever, would you say that the tribunal system is biased to the employee? Unless the claim involves some form of discrimination the likely award for an employee treated poorly is, well, poor.

[Skipness One Echo]

Thank you Skipness and Litebulbs for "wishing" us at LGW out of a job.


Please understand I fly BA a lot and I find you guys very friendly and a huge credit to the company. I would LOVE BA to keep hold of Euro Gatwick. I just honestly believe that flying the B737-400 till 2016 is not good for the brand. Some will be 24 years old, and whilst I don't mind so much that on long haul, it's not too common on high intensity short haul, although it does happen with Lufthansa and the classic B737.

My reading of the situation is that BA have played a long strategic game. They have cut out loss making regional and used the threat of closure at LGW to introduce new Ts & Cs on Single Fleet LGW, proved they can work, then rolled them out into Mixed Fleet LHR cutting the feet out from under BASSA.

Hence the loss making regional operations are gone and BASSA nutured. Some would argue ten years overdue. The master plan may be with BA having the "North Atlantic" hub at LHR T5 and massive growth potential from the Spanish hub at MAD when the synergies kick in with the Iberia merger. Hence the possibility may be there to consolidate some slots on the shared BA/IB Spanish routes out of LHR onto bigger aircraft and free up the 7-8 daily slots for the LGW B777 fleet to move into the mainline T5 operation and onto Mixed Fleet. If this becomes possible prior to 2016, the question on the table becomes :

Might the capital expenditure to replace 25 life expired B737s to compete against easyJet out of Gatters have a better return elsewhere?

My heart loves you all, my head says the long game will see you gone.I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

[Litebulbs]

Technicalities aside, DH’s failure to explain the situation correctly leaves CC under the impression that they can’t find themselves out of work.

That is what is most worrying, if the majority of those potentially affected do not fully understand the legal side. I am not saying that they should in any way back down, but a full understanding of the potential consequences should me made 100% crystal clear.

[LD12986]

SOE - I don't believe BA will ultimately withdraw entirely from LGW. Its long-haul routes are O&D so there is little benefit in moving them to LHR and by all accounts they are doing well. Management have been very clear that there is scope to grow the long-haul network at LGW. Indeed there has been a new/reinstated appointment of head of LGW.

Also, even if some slots were freed up at LHR there are plenty of new routes in the Middle East and Asia that could be added to the route network. WW has himself said that there are a few new routes in Asia (as well as a similar number of TATL routes that should be viable when the 787 comes on line. I think New Fleet at LHR is in part to make new long range routes at LHR viable.

[Dawdler]

Following a link the BBC iplayer version of the above mentioned programme Two Quotes stood out for me.

John Hendy QC (Unite's Lawyer) "If there is a right to strike, there exists a right to bring down the company of your employer".

Sir Thomas Morrison: "It is quite unecessary to have BA type disputes going on if only the unions would follow the law"

This shows the mindset on the union's QC and the more measured response of an eminent QC now retired.

I think I heard John Hendy defend the illegality of the earlier ballot because it did not affect the result. i.e. It was only a little bit illegal.

[LD12986]

A salient point at 30 minutes is it was made clear there is no right to strike in English law.

[Ancient Observer]

I'm not impressed by their conversation at all. The coverage of the so-called "right to strike" was complete and universal. Er, there is no "right to strike" in Marxist countries. Try striking in Russia and China and Burma.

I only heard them talking about how TUs and Co.s should continue to pay them (the lawyers) many thousands of pounds per day to carry on arguing about silly points of law that the lawyers could not agree on.

I humbly suggest that their version of the "right to strike" should be re-named "the right to strike yourself out of a job"

Do they really think that BA folk have a right to strike, when Etihad, Emirates, the Asian, the Chinese and Russian airlines do not??

I'm afraid that they, and some of our UK colleagues need to spend more time in Asia.

Litebulbs - try working in China for your rights. I'm not saying they are right, but saying that you are OK to strike just opens up the chance that the Chinese will take your job...............and the Chinese are cheaper than the Welsh.

[Litebulbs]

Litebulbs - try working in China for your rights. I'm not saying they are right, but saying that you are OK to strike just opens up the chance that the Chinese will take your job...............and the Chinese are cheaper than the Welsh.

Err, what has that got to do with me?

[slf22]

John Hendy QC (Unite's Lawyer) "If there is a right to strike, there exists a right to bring down the company of your employer".

And how exactly does that help me - Jane Bloggs a member of the trade union who is paying you the trade union to look after my interests, provide advice, representation and negotiate on my behalf?

My god do these people have no common sense? I really do think that some trade unions and their legal advisors have lost sight of what they are there for. If you exercise the right to strike you also have to exercise the responsibility to ensure you protect your members interest. It is NOT in your members interests for their employer to go out of business. It is not in the long term interest of the Union either as the NUM found out.:ugh:

[call100]

I'm not impressed by their conversation at all. The coverage of the so-called "right to strike" was complete and universal. Er, there is no "right to strike" in Marxist countries. Try striking in Russia and China and Burma.

I only heard them talking about how TUs and Co.s should continue to pay them (the lawyers) many thousands of pounds per day to carry on arguing about silly points of law that the lawyers could not agree on.

I humbly suggest that their version of the "right to strike" should be re-named "the right to strike yourself out of a job"

Do they really think that BA folk have a right to strike, when Etihad, Emirates, the Asian, the Chinese and Russian airlines do not??

I'm afraid that they, and some of our UK colleagues need to spend more time in Asia.

Litebulbs - try working in China for your rights. I'm not saying they are right, but saying that you are OK to strike just opens up the chance that the Chinese will take your job...............and the Chinese are cheaper than the Welsh.
Well if it's not right for China etc to have laws banning strikes then it's not right in the UK.
As you don't believe they are right in China, do you believe it should be a right here? Or, are they right in China, Burma etc?
:confused:

[Betty girl]

If you actually listen to the whole radio show, you will see that it was a very balanced and informative programme and the barristers on both sides of the debate sounded very knowledgeable.

Obviously disputes like this keep them in business but I think that on the whole, all of them talked a lot of sense and picking out one sentence or another out of context and then arguing about it seems nonsensical.

[call100]

But you forget Betty girl that there are many on here that believe the barristers know nothing.....Mainly because the opinion does not fit into their opinions.
Personally I take the opinion of whichever Lawyer is representing my interests. That does not mean I don't understand that the opposing Legal eagle will have an entirely different point of view.
As you say, plucking the odd sentence here and there out of context and arguing over it is a bit pointless....

[slf22]

As someone who was a member of two trade unions and who held off joining unite because it was a temporary job I really do not appreciate that they employ lawyers who only seem interested in arguing points of law which taken to their logical conclusion will be to the detriment of their members. Trade Unions and their Lawyers need to remember what they are employed for and not be consumed by their own political ambitions. I listened to the entire discussion and I wasn't particularly impressed by either side. They are both as bad as each other.

[Betty girl]

I do see what you all are saying but in defence of those barristers they ALL more or less said that it was the legislation at fault and they could only work with what they had.
I doubt we will see a change in it until maybe another labour government but not even then, who knows!

[Litebulbs]

I understand what you are saying, but did some of your criticism of the show come because of its light entertainment nature? The biggest thing that I got from the show was the discussion on the statute provision and that it had not majorly changed for many years. Some of the panel wanted change and some didn't.

My opinion is more needs to be done by my union to be able to run a technically correct ballot. The rules are in the legislation, so follow them. But I imagine that it would be almost technically impossible to run a 100% satisfactory ballot. The union can only act on the information that is supplied to it by the membership and why should errors that have no possible influence on the result, be taken into account?

The High Court ruled (flabbily in the opinion of one), that minor errors should not affect the result, but that was just for the ballot and particular error in question, not a completely binging president on all industrial action ballots.

If you read this case, it shows what the courts are saying with regards to following the legislation. If change is wanted, it needs to be through the Law Lords or Parliament.

HSBC Bank Plc v Madden [2000] EWCA Civ 3030 (31 July 2000) (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/3030.html)

But change has not come through successive Tory and Labour Governments, which can only indicate that the political sphere are happy as it is.

[Betty girl]

Litebulbs,
I think a lot of what you say is true.

This ballot is yet again being badly handled by Unite, they have been sending out ballot papers to people who have resigned, quite some time ago now, who have not been making payments to them for over a year. I myself did not get one but I know of at least 6 people that have.

[rethymnon]

....must be the only profession where you get paid more to go back to court again and again when you dislike the earlier (perverse in your view) decision(s).

having said that, my contacts with the legal profession showed me that

a) no one disliked going to court more than a lawyer. if they could reasonably advise a client to settle they would do just that.

b)the quality of advice re litigation was extremely variable. TU lawyers were very much on the ball in regard to compensation claims at least.

a wise man tries to put his own affairs in order.

[Neptunus Rex]

From That Other Forum:

Litebulbs:

I would generally rather have an experienced cabin crew member with avmed and interpersonal skills treating me if I fell ill on a flight, than one of the flight crew community. Horses for courses.As if a First Officer is going to leave the cockpit to assist! Get real.

Is the venerable Litebulbs (or one of his/her mates) going to be called to the cockpit to help out with an engine failure?

"Horses for courses" indeed!

Ideas beyond your station, methinks.

[Dawdler]

Litebulbs has placed on record many times that he/she, although a union officer, is not flight crew in the widest possible meaning of the term. Think ground crew of some description, so like most of us. LB is most unlikely to be asked to help in a mid-flight crisis.

[rethymnon]

on the CC forum, there has been a chorus of condemnation/disbelief after a poster said that his wife had achieved a take-home figure of circa £4,800 one month. replies have come from both the loony fringe and those we have come to regard as moderate and sensible voices.

now i know nothing about BA pay scales and can only go on what has been posted here. the poster is close to the person said to have been paid this figure. also, in earlier threads, figures were being bandied about concerning the annual earnings of CSDs - not least those of Duncan's potential earnings from all sources. those 'projections' were, in annual terms, reflective of the monthly figure now in dispute.

by contrast, alternative earnings being offered by the sceptics, i.e. 'below £1,000 pm', seem unrealistic if pertaining to a full time employee doing a normal month's work.

whilst not suggesting £4,800 is anything like an average month's earnings, i think if this figure is really 'fairyland' as some would have us believe, we need some hard facts. not least from those who were positing an annual salary of £60,000 for 'heritage crew' much earlier in this discussion.

[Litebulbs]

The comments on the other thread were about experience and I was responding to a comment about landing on water, over helping me if I fell ill.

I am sorry if you did not understand my point and I will try to be clearer next time.

Oh, and I have been called to the flight deck for my opinion, prior to a fuel dump return, due to multiple engine issues. However, all the appropriate decisions had already been made and I just looked like another worried passenger.

[Ancient Observer]

From the other place

"£1100 (net each month) is an insult"

er, how can one spell this out to the folk in BA?? There are 5 million people in the UK who are on unemployment benefit of one sort or another.

5 million individuals, many with families.

To 5 million people, £1100 NET per month is like WINNING THE LOTTERY each and every month.

[Neptunus Rex]

Litebulbs

I have always respected your point of view, and the way in which you expressed it.

I am now retired, but when I was a Captain, I always sought the opinions of all my senior crew before committing to a course of action. The whole team needs to be involved for the best result.

Of course, it is not always possible, such as when I had an engine failure (A330) at top of descent. A busy twenty minutes, but, having been briefed in the cockpit, our Chief Purser handled it superbly. After landing, the riding engineer came to the cockpit to announce that #1 reverser had not deployed.
Our Chief Purser came to the cockpit with Champagne.

How things have changed

[teddybear44]

I'm sorry....did someone say £4800 take home? I think I just choked on my cornflakes!! Can this possibly be true?

[rethymnon]

i wonder who dreamed this up?

17% response rate (not sure how that compares) so when we read that circa 50% of respondents have been bullied or have witnessed bullying we are actually talking of around 8% of those invited to respond. it is reasonable to assume that the more sensitive are most likely to both respond and to perceive bullying. also, there is a real risk that these two categories overlap thus bigging-up the positive response.

the categories of bullying are also open to interpretation. they include (unfair) criticism, (over) monitoring and overruling for example. i think we could all answer 'yes' to that over a working life time!

interestingly it also includes 'memory loss'! so, how do they know?

as a postscipt, someone should have looked more closely at this before including the phrase 'the high level of union density'!

[notlangley]

Unite emailed 11,055 employees of the airline in late November/early December 2010Surely Unite would have attempted to e-mail all of their members? _Am I missing something?

I notice that some employees that they e-mailed were not members of Unite. _So what is the current membership of Unite?
Reference:-_link (http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/downloads/002-BA-bullying-survey-Jan11.pdf)

[LD12986]

So basically, it was a self-selecting survey with a very low response rate. It's hardly surprising that a minority of crew will seize any opportunity to criticise the company.

If BASSA and Unite were genuinely concerned about bullying they would have used a respected independent research company which would have selected respondents at random and ensured questions were properly drafted.

This seems like a rather desperate attempt to breathe life into a flagging dispute.

The self-pitying and sanctimonious bleating by some about the legal right to strike is also tiresome. BA also has the right to protect its business from disruption and run it effectively in the way it chooses. There is also the question of proportionality.

[Lord Bracken]

So any update from the frothing crowd at Kempton?

[TopBunk]

Duncan's latest rambling thoughts are on the BALPA BA forum, I'm sure they will appear here shortly!

Nothing unexpected - KTF, we will win, applause from the myopic, all praise McClunky.

[Betty girl]

Top bunk,
Can you copy it for us, if possible. Thanks BG

[TopBunk]

Just for you:)

Just a quick report back from your ever-loving Branch Secretary on today's
meeting at Kempton. Incidentally someone I know who still talks to BA has
been told by them that they think I am completely mad, and I would hate to
convince them otherwise, so forgive my rambles!!

Firstly can I say that I felt that today was one of the best meetings we
have ever had. Not only was it brilliantly attended but everyone there
generated a real positive vibe. Of course, the tone was set by a really
rousing speech by the new General Secretary, Len McCluskey who truly
caught the mood and resolved a lot of the outstanding issues. More of that
later but first he told the meeting how this dispute was like no other he
had experienced, and how, in his opinion, Walsh has never wanted peace.
"Never mind the BA brand" he said, "this is all about the Willie Walsh
brand - the actions of a mad man". That predictably drew a large roar of
agreement as did the sight of Nicky Marcus on the top table wearing the
now infamous Willie Walsh Y fronts.

Len then undertook to be 100% hands on and pledged to be totally behind
getting the deal or outcome the membership wanted.

He then said he would authorise the Unite legal dept to co-operate with
Crew Defence lawyers! That too earned a loud cheer but not as loud at the
cheer that went up when he said he had already written to the General
Secretary of BALPA to ask that BALPA members immediately refrain from
strike breaking, adding that if it continued, he would be requesting
their expulsion from the TUC. Kempton Park roof nearly blew off and the
statue of Desert Orchid even joined in the ovation. If only those
misguided pilots could have heard the commotion and the anger, perhaps
some of them might have second thoughts.

There were some questions from the floor surrounding the legal issues -
which Len addressed - but he said the industrial route was the one more
likely to succeed due to the current industrial laws of the land being
heavily biased in favour of the employer these days. However all legal
steps are judged on their merit and the ones that have already been lodged
will continue until the membership agree otherwise. It was not therefore
wise to rely on the courts settling this dispute.

Len also admitted that Unite PR had not been slick enough and there needed
to be a more high profile strategy and improvements made. Understandably
there was not much argument against this.

Following another question from the floor Len pledged in future reps would
be included in talks with the company.

Len was asked whether Willie Walsh moving upstairs would mean a more
conciliatory attitude from BA. Len said he hoped so but Walsh has already
signalled an intention to remain involved in the dispute so we will have
to wait and see but, whatever, there will have to a negotiated settlement
and BA have to accept this. It is now evident all along that Walsh has
only ever been interested in bringing BASSA to its knees and even early on
a deal everyone could have lived with, was there but Walsh chose to move
the goalposts.

Len wound up by saying he was amazed at how strong we all were and how
impressed he is with the resolve and unity. He asked that the members
"continue to believe in themselves and in their committee" and that
"justice will prevail". He understood the nature of the job and how it is
hard to present a unified face but somehow we had done just that.

Speaking personally now I thought his presence today was incredibly
uplifting and reassuring and that the words he spoke are overdue but
nevertheless very welcome. I think most at the meeting agreed. Shubha
(Unite Legal) then gave an update to where we are with all the legal cases
so far which again many told me afterwards was very helpful. It is good
that we had someone there from Unite Legal dept in person as they do have
the final word and I think Shubha will come away today suitably impressed
not only by the passion and determination, but also the intelligence of
the questions.

After Len left the BASSA committee answered questions many of which
centred around BA doing away with all our agreements and what to do if
faced with BA trying to force you to break an agreement. It was stressed
this is an individual decision but a CSD present nearly brought the house
down when she said she would be sticking to her agreement no matter what
and would expect her crew to "stick" by her. Everyone agreed we were in
uncharted waters and BA were circling like dishonourable sharks but at the
end of the day "an agreement is an agreement".

An ex-crew member then addressed the meeting giving details of an
alternate staff travel scheme he had initiated to help with those who no
longer have BA staff travel rights. There is a website and details will be
posted.

The organisers of Santas crew then spoke, thanking all those who had
donated and announcing that the appeal would keep going. Both speakers
were warmly applauded.

Finally Sean Beatty and Lizanne Malone asked for the Branches' approval to
be nominated for the forthcoming GEC elections. Sean said it was
imperative a team be elected to give Len full support and when the time
came the 6 people to vote for would be Beatty, Malone, Parsons, Holmes,
Murphy and Kwasi. (We will be posting an article on this nearer the time).

So all in all a very good meeting. Everyone I spoke to enthused about it
and there really was an incredible atmosphere of togetherness today.

Finally Nicky Marcus said a few words of thanks and also how proud she was
to represent you all. She was quite rightly given a standing ovation and
it was all very emotional, to be frank. When you stand shoulder to
shoulder at events like this there is an overwhelming sense of doing
what's right and also a great feeling of togetherness. We might all be
from very varied backgrounds etc but today over a thousand people spoke as
one and were united by a determination to resist the biggest bully in BA
history to the end - whatever that takes!

Now before BA have me sectioned I will end by saying thanks to all those
who turned up and a big thank you to those who continue to keep the faith.
Forgive the grammar in this - it has been written after a long day but I
want to post it asap for all those down route. Safe flying. Duncan

[Betty girl]

Thank you Top Bunk,
Interesting!

[LD12986]

Why the need for a scheme for those who don't have staff travel rights? Hasn't it been restored?

[Betty girl]

I think it might be for those that have been suspended or sacked but also die hard union members are not using their staff travel, although it has been partially restored, as they feel by using it they would be accepting that is was alright to have their free tickets and seniority for staff travel removed.
They believe it could jeopardize any future court case if they accept it back and use it without it being restored completely.

[pcat160]

I think there were some interesting statements in Duncan’s recent missive.

While reporting on Red Len’s talk Duncan said the following “he said the industrial route was the one more likely to succeed due to the current industrial laws of the land being heavily biased in favour of the employer these days……. It was not therefore wise to rely on the courts settling this dispute.” Now, everybody recognizes what a complete failure the last IA was and how the planned IA will be even less successful, and Red Len says the courts will likely be even less of a success than IA. Assuming most CC can comprehend what they read this should provide additional incentive not to strike regardless of how they vote. Some will of course relish the opportunity to fall on their sword.

Duncan also said “today over a thousand people spoke as one.” Given the nature of past exaggerations does anyone have a guess as to how many actually attended?

[Dawdler]

Why the need for a scheme for those who don't have staff travel rights? Hasn't it been restored?

Sort of. It was in the offer (subject to seniority constraints) that the membership were not allowed to vote on by the union. But as they weren't, it wasn't.

[Hotel Mode]

Sort of. It was in the offer (subject to seniority constraints) that the membership were not allowed to vote on by the union. But as they weren't, it wasn't.

That's incorrect. Staff travel was restored to all unconditionally with a DoJ of Oct 2010.

[Colonel White]

Interesting choice of wording by Comrade McCluskey, assuming that Comrade Holley has reported it correctly.

'...the industrial route was the one more likely to succeed due to the current industrial laws of the land being heavily biased in favour of the employer these days……. It was not therefore wise to rely on the courts settling this dispute.'

So does this mean that our Len wants to lead his troops into strike action or not ? My initial reading of this was that he thought that strike action would be more successful than chasing BA through the courts for the restoration of staff travel etc. A rerun of the Charge of the Light Brigade.

Then I had a think and remembered that the ballot paper covered industrial action as well as action short of strike. So is Len reckoning to get this sorted by calling a work to rule. It would have the benefit of being a token which might attract a larger following than strike action. It would prevent BA from withdrawing the offer from the table and it would save the union the difficulty of trying to defend in court what might be considered a continuation of an existing dispute and hence without protection. The cynic in me wondered if anyone would notice a cabin crew work to rule.

Re: over a thousand turned up at Kempton. We've done this chestnut to death. The capacity figures for Kempton Park meeting rooms are in the public domain. I can't see the racecourse making exceptions for anyone, least of all BASSA. What DH omits to specify are the number of attendees who were either BASSA personnel or ex-cabin crew having been dismissed. I trust the SWP weren't in attendance either. I did think that 1,000 people must represent about 20% of the membership these days. Still, it's better than the CC89 meeting which probably took place in a hotel bedroom and looked empty at that.

[Ancient Observer]

Re-reading some of this thread reminds me of the little history that I've read about.
In Western Europe, up to about 1450, the individual was not really noticed. Individuals did not have self-esteem or self-worth. Individuals were not even "cogs" in the machine. If you were not at least a knight, (a CSD) you did not count.
Some thinking from about 1450 allowed the idea that individuals might have value and self-worth.
This notion of an individual that had some value continued to grow with the various bits of Protestantism. Remember that the first Protestants were not outside the Catholic church - they were firmly inside and seeking to reform it.
The idea that individuals might relate personally to God, and not via the Church and its corrupt priests was liberating for many. Individuals - if they could read - were beginning to read the Bible, and not just listen to bassa.
Then, from about 1550 onwards, the formal Church responded. It set up a counter-reformation. This counter-reformation insisted that anyone who read the Bible was a sinner. Anyone who related personally to God was a sinner.
So, I suspect that I do not have to spell it out. DH is the pope. The Heritage striking CSDs are the Priests, and if you do not do what you are told, you will be helped to think right by the bassa Inquisition.

[Wirbelsturm]

Nice to see that BALPA has got a special place in Looney Lens heart. Especially as a large amount of the other VCC were from various sub branches of Unite!

Bravely follow Len my darlings, just look, saliently, at the fantastic 'dragging heels/obstinate refusal to change' approach to which he came to fame in Liverpool and the rapid dash to the job centre that he led his brave comrades when the docks industry collapsed. Except for him of course as Union firebrand fame beckoned. Let everyone else risk their jobs, Len is sorted for life on the backs of the membership thanks very much.

Well done Len, Derek Hatton must be proud. :ugh:

[Ancient Observer]

Hatton is now a multi-millionaire PR guru. The boy done well.

[Dawdler]

Sort of. It was in the offer (subject to seniority constraints) that the membership were not allowed to vote on by the union. But as they weren't, it wasn't.That's incorrect. Staff travel was restored to all unconditionally with a DoJ of Oct 2010.

Sorry for the error HM
Do I take it that everyone now has ST back (albeit with a recent DoJ)? If this is the case, why are they considering strike action?

[Hotel Mode]

Do I take it that everyone now has ST back (albeit with a recent DoJ)? If this is the case, why are they considering strike action?

They'll be threatening strike action until BA returns the status quo of Jan 2009 and give the BASSA leadership places on the board. The return of staff travel showed and their response proved what many of us thought. BASSA and their hardcore believers will never ever be happy.

[The Blu Riband]

If this is the case, why are they considering strike action?

Good question!

Most of them aren't actually considering anything, they're just doing whatever DH can get away with.

[notlangley]

_
_
_
this is what
_
_
_
this is what
_
_
_
this is what

[just an observer]

Re the Unite survey, there's a few bits of info I'd like to see included, such as -

1. Did they send surveys to BA staff in the proportion of any one department to the total employees? Ie, CC are about 13000 out of 40000 plus, so about 3500 CC should have got surveys, and so on for other depts.

2. From which depts did the 1900 odd replies come? Ie, were they mainly CC, or spread evenly in proportion across areas? Given the number of respondents that reported abuse from passengers, which only really CC or terminal staff see, I'd guess the respondents were mainly CC, who have been told repeatedly by BASSA for the last couple of years that BA is bullying them, so they would perhaps be more likely to interpret 'management' as in monitoring, leave requests, promotion - or the lack of it - as bullying.

I'd like to know more about the underlying the statistics.

The full report states 11000 surveys issued, but the headline article on the Unite webpage simply says 'The confidential survey of nearly 2,000 BA employees', which is misleading to say the least.

[notlangley]

Unite had the e-mail addresses of 11,055 employees. _And they sent a survey to these 11,055. _The number looks like it is just cabin crew - but it could be wider as just an observer says.

Included in this 11,055 was an unknown number of non-members of Unite. _How did Unite come to possess e-mail addresses of non-members? _If they are ex-members, by what right has Unite retained their data for a survey that is related to the current strike vote?

The number of responses (1,905) is such a poor response that those who by self-selection did respond are likely to be untypical of the 11,055.

My guess is that one of the ways that the mix is different is that the number of non-members of Unite who received this survey was much higher than the sample suggests. _ I would suppose that many non-members considered the survey to be invasive. _We can only guess - we will never know.

[notlangley]

The survey received responses ..... and the vast majority (98.6 per cent) were also Unite membersAccording to my calculations the 1,905 who responded included 27 non-members._ When and how were these 27 responses identified as coming from non-members?_ Did the form have a question "Are you a member of Unite the Union?"?_ Does any member of Cabin Crew reading this thread know the answer?

quotation from:- __link (http://www.bassa.co.uk/bassa/downloads/002-BA-bullying-survey-Jan11.pdf)

[notlangley]

I cannot prove anything that is in this post.

Unite sent the questionnaire (about bullying) to cabin crew and to cabin crew only._ Unite sent out 11,055 questionnaires._ Some CC Unite members were not sent questionnaires because they are not on e-mail - maybe 5, maybe 500 who use T-witter and SMS but have no e-mail address._ Another discrepancy is that the 11,055 included some ex-members of Unite (they were included because of incompetence by BASSA in updating the data base of members)._ 27 recipients of this questionnaire were angry that they were still on the books of BASSA as members of Unite - these 27 returned the questionnaire, uncompleted but with a letter stapled to the questionnaire demanding that their details be removed from the data base.

Now someone who is completely ignorant of Unions and airlines is given the job of writing words to change dry numbers into compelling words and phrases._ This is the chap who writesand the vast majority (98.6 per cent) were also Unite members, highlighting the high level of union density at the airline.This chap said that 1,905 responses were received - he added the 27 because "after all" these 27 had returned the questionnaire._ No-one checked or edited what he wrote.

[Wirbelsturm]

Reading Unites little flyer gives a wonderfully distorted view of the company which, in my humble opinion, is an excellent company to work for.

Vary rarely, if ever, does the flyer use the phrase 'of those who replied' when using statistics pertaining to bullying. The actual figures when taken against the total workforce drop from the almost 50% that Unite headline to less than 5% of the total workforce.

Considering that less than 2000 even bothered with such a waste of time survey one might realistically conclude that those who could be bothered were those with the biggest axe to grind.

Interestingly one persons view on what constitutes bullying can differ radically from the next persons. For example it is the Captains responsibility to give feedback to the crew and the First Officer on performance. This may take the case of negative feedback where performance is lacking and thus require constructive critisism. This has often been construed as bullying by certain individuals where the recipient refuses to see inadequacies in their performance and refuses to believe it the Captains position to manage the crew. No bullying intended as it is laid down as a responsibility of the Captain in JPM's. However the CC report goes in and the statistics fly.

The atmosphere within the aircraft can, very occasionally, be 'interesting' and thus anything said or done that contravenes certain recipients somewhat low threshold gets reported. Such as the report from the back that a junior CC member considered a 'heavy landing' in atrocious weather thus reported it to the company without bothering to tell the Captain (it was nowhere near but, hey, what do the flight crew know ;-) ). It makes the day at work fun! My prime aim is to ensure that any discussions are left off the aircraft and that passengers remain throughout the flight the number one priority. I am pleased to say that this approach has worked well so far and discussions pertaining to the current dispute of a contentious nature onboard the aircraft are not allowed.

I love DH's ramblings, perhaps he will overtake J K Rowling in the fiction charts?

[just an observer]

My husband, who is a member of Unite, works for BA but is not CC, did know about the survey, but hadn't heard the result. He doesn't know any CC, and didn't get the survey himself, so presumably other colleagues may have received it and there was conversation about it. That would mean it was sent out wider than just CC. The actual report does infer that, as it refers in it's conclusion in the first line 'Almost one in every two workers at British Airways has been bullied' not just CC.

I know a bit about surveys, methodology, and how to draw conclusions from statistics, and the union's conclusion extrapolates that just because 75% of voluntary respondents had been or had witnessed bullying, that percentage can be deemed for the whole workforce, is just plain wrong.

If there had been a proportional issue of surveys amongst all departments, and everybody surveyed had to respond, then that kind of extrapolation could be justified, but not otherwise.

It's also fairly easy to devise a survey, and ask the appropriate questions, to get the replies you want, to 'prove' something that you wanted to prove at the outset. We know Unite have been accusing BA of bullying for some time, and asking for the very things they set out in the recommendations at the end, which are -

Bullying to be taken seriously at British Airways
An end to the culture of intimidation, imposition and union busting
Recognition of union reps and facilities time
An independent review of sackings of crew and reps
A new corporate strategy that treats all members of staff equally and fairly and where all have a role to play and contribution to make to the business

Pity there wasn't a question as to whether staff had been felt bullied by striking CC (and the union) when they hadn't themselves gone on strike :hmm: Maybe that accounts for some of the 'other' boxes ticked.


I doubt BA will pay it much attention, but it's something Unite can quote to the media as part of it's PR.

[Snas]

I know a bit about surveys, methodology, and how to draw conclusions from statistics, and the union's conclusion extrapolates that just because 75% of voluntary respondents had been or had witnessed bullying, that percentage can be deemed for the whole workforce, is just plain wrong.


I’ve refrained from putting my pennies worth (until now..!) in on this subject for the very reason you state above – this survey is worthless by any sensible measure and tells the readers nothing, it has no value whatsoever other than to cause CC to now look for and expect bullying where there is none.

[moses30u]

....I'm an outsider to BA and the aviation industry (I'm in the oil). Whichever way you look at it, this doesn't make good reading for British Airways. Regardless of the numbers, can BA management be happy that 5% (as somebody on here stipulated the 2000 repliers constitute) of their employees feel the need to reply to a survey and answer in such damning terms?

Reading the vitriolic posts that's been posted about the cabin crew on this thread and other threads on this site, I can't say I'm surprised that they feel they're being bullied, harrased and victimised.

I've sat back and read this site from afar, until today. To be quite frank, there's been some absolute drivel on this post. Someone going on about the Reformation for heavens sake!

Take a step back, for a day or so, and re-read your posts. Cringeworthy!

[button44]

Thanks Top Bunk for posting DH ramblings, I really like this bit....

"It is now evident all along that Walsh has
only ever been interested in bringing BASSA to its knees and even early on
a deal everyone could have lived with, was there but Walsh chose to move
the goalposts.":ugh::mad:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Derek scupper that offer, so nobody got the opportunity to vote on it!

[baggersup]

Well, Moses, this group trying to pull the heart strings portraying themselves as downtrodden and abused is part of the same group who evidently brought the house down cheering when a former cabin crew member sitting at the top table during the January 10 BASSA meeting with the General Secretary of Unite was sporting the now infamous (from Bedfont piccies) pair of Y-front undies with Willie Walsh emblazoned on them.

Does that in any way temper your viewpoint of what BA might be dealing with here?

It isn't much of a stretch to imagine folks who find this crass behavior acceptable viewing front line managing from a manager as harrassment--especially as BA is trying to turn around a decades long system of the BASSA tail wagging the BA dog.

[Betty girl]

Moses,
Thanks for that. I am always trying to explain to people that most cabin crew are just as they always were, dedicated and professional, even those that have striked. It is a small number that have lost the plot.

However you are right, there are some quite horrid postings on here and more so on the CC threads and that does upset people like me and it detracts from sensible debate.

It is quite obvious that some of the flight crew that post here never liked cabin crew, even before this all started. However I am pleased to confirm that in the real world of flying on our aircraft and away from pprune most pilots are great to talk to and work with, so the postings here do not really reflect reality.

[Colonel White]

Way back when I were just stating out, I was deeply involved in the advertising and later market research business. The survey from Unite is so flawed as to be laughable.

To kick off with. It claims to have mailed 11000 members, yet there is no breakdown on the composition of that sample by grade or work area, no indication of what proportion it formed of the overall Unite membership within BA and no correlation with the overall BA workforce. There is no indication of the dates when this survey was conducted, only a date when the results were calculated.

Next, it bases all its results on the 10% or so of returns that it got. Now people rarely respond to surveys if they have had a good experience, invariably it is a way to register a complaint. So it is unsurprising that the respondent's views were mainly negative.

Looking at the questions themselves. They are not structured in clear unemotive terms. The main emphasis seems to be to determine whether bullyng is coming from BA management, The lack of impartiality in the questions is amazing.

The conclusions are deeply flawed. It would be the same as asking children in a primary school if Santa was real, taking the positive responses and then claiming they show that all children aged 5-18 believe in Santa.

So to sum up, the methodology is half baked, the sampling seriously flawed, the statistical basis completely absent, the questions skewed and the conclusions drawn not supported by the figures. If the press release had been an ad, it woud have been banned by the ASA for being misleading. Unlike the catfood ad, they don't even have the decency to annotate the figures with the statement 'of those who expressed a view' when referring to any of the figures. To claim that this 'survey' represent the views, opinions and experiences of 40,000 BA staff is sheer hogwash.

[LD12986]

So complete radio silence from CC89 it seems.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Colonel White
Excellent summary. I only wish BA Press Office would pubish a rebuttal in the same vain.

[LD12986]

I only wish BA Press Office would pubish a rebuttal in the same vain

Though, they don't really need to. Hardly any papers have taken notice of the survey.

[ChicoG]

It's been suggested on here as a "nuclear" option a few times, but here is a tangible example of one option available:

Fire brigade chiefs are preparing to sack all 5,500 London firefighters despite their decision to end industrial action.

The Tory-controlled London Fire Authority is expected to vote at an emergency meeting on Thursday to force all frontline staff onto new contracts with changed shift patterns.

The Standard understands that the authority, led by Brian Coleman, has run out of patience with the Fire Brigades Union after almost six years of talks and will press ahead with its “fallback option” of re-employing staff under new terms and conditions.

[Litebulbs]

Hmm, Brian Coleman brings up some interesting results if you search for his name on YouTube! If you also search for Dobo, there is an interesting piece on section 188 of TULcRA 1992. However it does contain strong language that some viewers may find offensive.