BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV

[Ancient Observer]

I'm impressed with the delay.

Would you bassa types please delay until mid August, when I've booked a return to the USA with some friends.

I would really like to fly on a plane with VCC, "strike breakers", and no bassa-types.

(er, thinking of some of the regulars on here) I'm afraid that I live near lhr, so lgw is not a good option)

[Joao da Silva]

Sorry old chap but I totally disagree. Like MPN11, I have flights booked up until October & will be booking LHR-CPT when I return from Grenada next month.I don't know why people have to disagree with my decision, since I don't disagree with anyone elses.

We all make decisions in the context of our personal circumstances.

If I was flying long haul point to point, I would be much less worried, but BA's record in supporting short haul is nowhere near as good as long haul.

My boss would simply ask why take any risk with an important business trip, when there are other options; and he would have good reason to ask, as his responsibility is to run the business and deliver results, not worry about an(y) airline.

[fincastle84]

I hope I haven't confused you with my choice of words. We all have differing opinions & the beauty of this forum is that we have the chance to express them.

As well as LH I will also be using SH to fly to Lisbon in July to visit my daughter & family. I will be confidently & happily flying BA.

[MPN11]

@ Joao ... don't know why people have to disagree with my decision, since I don't disagree with anyone else's. We all make decisions in the context of our personal circumstances.

If I was flying long haul point to point, I would be much less worried, but BA's record in supporting short haul is nowhere near as good as long haul.


Excuse the snip of your post, but you're quite right. It depends on which sectors you're flying, and whether there are alternatives available. In that case, your boss might well have a different opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that.

When all this started, I blocked Company travel with BA because of the uncertainty. Like so many other people, there was at times a NEED to ensure people got from A to B. Experience has shown that for our sectors, and my needs, there's no problem. And I honestly think that now applies to SH as well ... the only serious victim is likely to be UK Domestic, where there are surface transport options available.

You may have a different problem, and I completely understand that.

[MPN11]

@ Baggers and RTR ... political? Surely not?

Have there ever been any neatly and expensively printed SWP placards seen on these parades and demonstrations? ;)

[TorC]

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/Lens_letter_to_members_8_feb_2011.pdf

To all Cabin Crew Members at British Airways

Dear colleagues

British Airways Cabin Crew Dispute

You will by now have heard that British Airways has once again chosen the legal route to respond to your massive vote to take industrial action.

Their challenge to our ballot via the Electoral Reform Society carries with it a veiled threat that any action taken by our members would be unprotected, and although we do not accept their assertions we are conscious that we are dealing with an erratic management who are capable of doing anything.

Having consulted with your representatives we are not prepared to put any of you at risk and have therefore decided not to proceed with action based upon this ballot result. As your General Secretary I share your obvious frustrations.


The company of course are hoping that their latest tactic will debilitate your resolve and make you want to
“give up”. They believe they can “break your spirit”. I know differently.

Over the past 18 months I have witnessed your dignity, your determination and your sense of loyalty to each other. It has truly inspired me, and although I am as frustrated as you obviously will be, I am appealing to you not to fall into the company’s trap. Have faith in your values, your representatives and your union.

The company have already been told that we will ballot our cabin Crew once again and this will begin this month.

We have repeatedly told them that it is only through negotiation, not litigation, that a lasting peace can be achieved. Instead of playing games they would be better served in addressing the grievances of their frontline
staff. Contrary to statements they have made there has been no attempt to try to meet with us to resolve outstanding issues. But sooner or later they will get the message that we are not going away, no matter what
they try to throw at you. And sooner or later they will have to account for the damage they are doing to the British Airways brand.

Your continued support for one another over this difficult period has been a tremendous tribute to you all, your pride and overwhelming determination to secure a just and fair settlement to your grievances; you can remain assured of mine.

Yours sincerely
Len McCluskey
General Secretary

[LD12986]

So Len, it had nothing to do with the risk of Unite being sued then?

[RTR]

McCluskey spouts forth again and again from the wrong end!

He says:
And sooner or later they will have to account for the damage they are doing to the British Airways brand.

Oh really! What damage has been done? I think its the other way round. This dispute has got no-where - not even for a short while at Bedfont among the tomatoes, pina coladas and the simosas. And just like the oozlam bird they will disappear up their own 'office.'

A new ballot will be hard to effect since they keep getting wrong, and BA know full well it will happen again and again because Unite haven't got their records right and neither has BASSA. AND...........of course, the members will have a massive problem in trying to rally to this incompetent lot again.

[notlangley]

I see that the letter confirming the result of the ballot that ended 20 July 2010 was in the form of a letter from the Electoral Reform Ballot Service to Mr Brian Boyd & Mr Brendan Gold of Unite
link (http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BA_ballot_result_consultative_20_7_2010.pdf)

Whereas the letter confirming the result of the ballot that ended 21 January 2010 was from Mr Brian Boyd & Mr Brendan Gold of Unite
link (http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BAllot_result_21jan2011.pdf)

I wonder what it was about the 21 January 2010 letter from the Electoral Reform Ballot Service to Mr Brian Boyd & Mr Brendan Gold of Unite?
Why have Unite suppressed this letter?
Was there something in it?
What are we being protected from seeing?

[Litebulbs]

Good Evening All.

I would like to ask a question, if I may? Do you thing an employee rep (branch official), should lead or facilitate?

Many have posted that the leadership of the branch in question is...........

But are you calling for a change of leadership, or a change in approach? I am sure many of you would like to see a leadership change, but that does not change the view of thousands.

My personal view is that if you take this site as the popular opinion, it is as confused as many cabin crew. BA going bust is as much of a bum steer as the numerous rallying cries of the branch in question. Employment law is designed about finding a solution; is either party looking for that?

[ChicoG]

To all Cabin Crew Members at British Airways

Dear colleagues

British Airways Cabin Crew Dispute

Did Len really right this? He didn't use the word "macho" once.

:}

[keel beam]

I thought I would add this to the thread. (copied from the CC thread)


Dave3
I admire the determination of you and your colleagues to “stick it out”.
You have principles, as it seems your colleagues have. Principles can and are expensive. People in this world have lost their lives to uphold their principles (think Tiananmen Square, or the current situation in Egypt.) I of course would not advocate that the high principled cabin crew should be snuffed out and would not wish that. Replace “lost lives” with “lose your jobs”. A person must have a strong constitution to carry on with their principles to such an extent that it ends with loss of life (job).

A large number of CC have looked at the situation they are in and have decided, that despite their high principles, their families come first (call it common sense if you like). Dave3, a time will come soon when you and your colleagues have to make a decision.
Miss M
We all have careers of some sort. The job market and financial health of a company can determine how those careers go.

Clearly BA wants to have cost effective staff, unfortunately for CC, you as a group were not considered cost effective. CC costs to the company have been shown to be double or more above the market rate. So what is the market rate? It is the rate that can be sustained by the company, whether it be in wages paid (the minimum without haemorrhaging staff) or the highest price obtained on a product (without haemorrhaging customers).

To determine whether you continue your career with BA or choose another airline is up to you. People do move on to improve their careers.

[vanHorck]

I think (also in this case) a rep should be someone who understands and agrees (or at least is able to live - )with the principal view of the members.

The Rep should facilitate the execution of the opinion of the majority of the members

In this case however, having led rather than facilitated, the union has lost a lot of members which, had they still been members- might have wanted:

1. a different rep
2. a different goal and therefore method

As soon as rep starts deciding himself what the direction should be irrespective of the members, he becomes a dictator and who likes dictators?

[77]

BA going bust is as much of a bum steer as...........

We don't really know the true state of BA's finances two years ago. What we do know is that those unions that signed the confidentiality clause and looked at the books (BA) were convinced enough to agree to cost saving measures in their departments.
BASSA buried their heads in the sand and wouldn't face facts. The rest of the employees in BA made a contribution.

[mrpony]

I suspect nothing concrete by way of an explanation will be forthcoming unless someone makes a FOI request. Unite/Bassa are so bad at what they do it is indeed laughable. I echo Eddy's (cc thread) sentiments in that regard.

Bassa rumour-mill is of course blaming the 'other' union - the one they wouldn't sit in the same room as.

You really couldn't make this stuff up.

[Mariner9]

It appears to have been assumed by contributors to this and the other threads that the flaw in the ballot process relates only to membership numbers.

But does it? We havent seen the BA letter to the ERS or Unite, nor have we seen the ERS "qualification" letter to Unite.

It seems to me that a major flaw in the last ballot was that the points of dispute were so clearly linked to the previous dispute (and thus, would not be protected)

If so, how are Unite going to address this? The next (if there is in fact another) ballot question will be interesting.

[just an observer]

It appears to have been assumed by contributors to this and the other threads that the flaw in the ballot process relates only to membership numbers.

But does it? We havent seen the BA letter to the ERS or Unite, nor have we seen the ERS "qualification" letter to Unite.

It seems to me that a major flaw in the last ballot was that the points of dispute were so clearly linked to the previous dispute (and thus, would not be protected)

If so, how are Unite going to address this? The next (if there is in fact another) ballot question will be interesting.

I wouldn't have thought the ERS would have a view on the legality of the ballot if it were potentially illegal because of the actual questions asked being linked to a previous strike vote. They (ERS) would presumably only be involved if the actual people being balloted was incorrect.

However, if the questions change next time around, either I'm wrong, or UNITE were advised re 'continuation' separately by BA. I seem to remember BA making some comment re continuation fairly recently, but I think that was before this ballot was issued, if so UNITE ignored that then, maybe they will again.

If the reasons for a strike are the same next time, and BA do consider it a continuation, maybe they are keeping that objection for future use.

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=6233463)

[finncapt]

Indeed, we haven't seen any documented indication that BA have approached the ERS.

I don't think that Mr Mcluskey has said that BA have approached the ERS, although he wants us to believe BA have.

Perhaps a word between the QC's, or even just a word from the Unite QC, has indicated that, legally, Unite are on thin ground protecting their finances and members (yes in that order) and Unite are trying to escape from the position they find themselves in.

I imagine Mr Holley, and others, are privately seething as Unite have once again pulled the wool from under their feet.

Interestingly, I see that BASSA has taken moves to protect their own finances.

Is this Unite telling them that they do not want to put their money on the BASSA horse?

[LD12986]

In DH's "there's nothing to worry about" Queen's Council post, he did say BA had approached the ERS and in newspaper reports it was said that the ERS qualified the result to protect their own position.

If Unite do proceed with another ballot, I expect that we won't hear a single word from either BASSA or CC89. It was suggested in The Guardian that a post over staffing level changes (this may have been by CC89) prompted the challenge on continuation.

[Diplome]

This part of Unite's missive interests me:


Their challenge to our ballot via the Electoral Reform Society carries with it a veiled threat that any action taken by our members would be unprotected, and although we do not accept their assertions we are conscious that we are dealing with an erratic management who are capable of doing anything.

Having consulted with your representatives we are not prepared to put any of you at risk and have therefore decided not to proceed with action based upon this ballot result. As your General Secretary I share your obvious frustrations.


There is no claim that BA made an absolute statement regarding the invalidity of the ballot, only the use of the "veiled threat".

Even if such a "veiled threat" has been made its a common tactic used by companies when threatened with a strike.

If Unite was certain they had properly balloted their members they would proceed. My guess is that they have been told by counsel that they have some very real problems with their procedures and that as a result there is a large chance that their members would be unprotected and Unite would be exposed to a legitimate claim for damages.

What Dave3 on the other forum fails to recognize is that BA hasn't "gone to court", Unite has withdrawn as a result of its own decision.

What is predictable is that the failure in the balloting procedure, which had nothing whatsoever to do with BA, is somehow claimed to be BA's responsibility.

[call100]

I would venture the opinion....If any ballot was challenged because a few papers had gone out to members who had resigned from the TU by stopping their payments, then all ballots would potentially be illegal. I don't think anyone is claiming that the numbers are significant.
In this case I think the ballot will be re-run with a different question...

[jimtherev]

I'm impressed that BA's statement reproduced on t'other thread responds to Unite's ballotation without mentioning pissup or brewery once.

[MPN11]

@ call100 ... your comment re the number of 'inappropriate ballot papers' is very pertinent.

Nobody has, indeed, mentioned how inaccurate the ballot may or may not have been. However, if ex-BASSA members [and indeed ex-BA employees] keep contacting BA with information that they have received [multiple?] ballot papers in any number, the entire 'house of cards' comes crashing down.

There is simply NO justification for BASSA, at the heart of an IA campaign against BA, not having a credible database of members. The occasional error is understandable, and "would not significantly affect the outcome". My reading between the lines is that the administration of the ballot papers is an utter shambles and has a very tenuous link with the reality of the BASSA membership.

And, as more BASSA members take note of DH's latest invective, it might be some time before BASSA actually catches up with the membership list [and more importantly who is left to ballot]. I can understand the difficulty they face, and even vaguely sympathise with the sub-contracted Membership Secretary or whatever he is called, in trying to keep the database up to date. The fact remains that they NEED to do things properly, or they will just keep being laughed out of Court [literally].

[JUAN TRIPP]

I would venture the opinion....If any ballot was challenged because a few papers had gone out to members who had resigned from the TU by stopping their payments, then all ballots would potentially be illegal. I don't think anyone is claiming that the numbers are significant.
In this case I think the ballot will be re-run with a different question...


Bill Francis made a very clear statement to a good friend of mine who stated they had received a ballot form despite leaving Unite months ago. He said that they are allowed to make a few mistakes as long as they aren't 'proactive'. So yes the next ballot must be run with another question.

MPN 11 - you beat me to it, and also agree with the rest

[Papillon]

If it was merely a question of continuation, and nothing to do with the ballot itself, then I think it unlikely that the Electoral Reform Society would have been as involved as they clearly have been in terms of the question of the ballot's validity. Continuation is nothing to do with them - it doesn't form part of their role.

[MPN11]

Cheers :ok:

So ... what is the "other question"?

After 2 years the Union keeps coming back to the same sad and sorry semi-arguments.
BA's right to run BA v. BASSA's right to tell BA what it may and may not do.
Unless someone can think of a new reason, that the blathering hordes haven't used yet, it will end up being a 'continuation dispute' ... with all that entails.

Apart from BA achieving some degree of the profitability which it needs, given the massive order book for new aircraft], where does the future lie?

Legacy Crew quietly fading into the sunset?
Ongoing militancy?


I fear this will run for another few years, bubbling in the background and tainting not only the airline but also the great majority of Cabin Crew. i find it all very sad, and so completely un-necessary.

[Ancient Observer]

The details of the ballot seem to me to be a side-show to the real issue.

Thousands of staff have voted for a strike, and between half and two thirds of them will strike.

When will the responsible local BA management get out and about to talk to, to influence and to persuade staff to change their minds?.

Sitting in an office is a cop out. Waiting to be approached is a cop-out. Get on the planes, get on the phones, go and have conversations!!!
If each manager has 200 to 300 staff to oversee, 80 could easily be spoken to each and every week, 30 minutes each..

As for the CSDs that support the strike, they are supposed to be first line managers, not strike leaders. They must be performance managed out of the organisation.

[notlangley]

the ERS decided, on the basis of protecting its own legal position, to issue a qualification in its official report on the industrial action ballot_ __link (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

[JUAN TRIPP]

The details of the ballot seem to me to be a side-show to the real issue.

Thousands of staff have voted for a strike, and between half and two thirds of them will strike.

When will the responsible local BA management get out and about to talk to, to influence and to persuade staff to change their minds?.

Sitting in an office is a cop out. Waiting to be approached is a cop-out. Get on the planes, get on the phones, go and have conversations!!!
If each manager has 200 to 300 staff to oversee, 80 could easily be spoken to each and every week, 30 minutes each..

As for the CSDs that support the strike, they are supposed to be first line managers, not strike leaders. They must be performance managed out of the organisation.


Hate to tell you this, but thats exactly what the managers have been doing for a long time now. The 'Bassa' crew for whatever reason hate everything about BA except their pay and T/C's. Don't ask me why. Its been the same for 30 + years. As for the CSD's, on EF, 50 pursers were literally given CSD without an interview or anything 13 years ago. This was because BA were short of CSD's and nobody would apply, so Bassa did a 'deal' with the head of Cabin Services. ( This was just after the 97 strike, and the manager had been brought in to calm things down.) So 50 pursers were promoted on seniority. MOST of them are the worst CSD's we have. Manage them out. Yes please

[MPN11]

Good information ... I think most people understand it's a 'legacy debate' without actually realising how it was created in the first place.

I could draw parallels with my former life, where similar things occurred. Staff just time-serving to pension, with absolutely no interest in pulling their weight.

[leiard]

There surely can be no excuse for BASSA getting the membership figures wrong again.
What is DH is being paid by the BASSA members to do?, he has not got the excuse anymore that BA are preventing him from collating the number of active members because he is rostered to work.
BASSA members are paying a fortune each year, what do they get for their money?.

[MPN11]

@ Leiard ... as I understand it, BASSA pays someone to do the Membership records. That individual has allegedly sub-contracted to the work to someone else.

Who knows who got paid what. Transparency of accounts is not a BASSA forte.

[hula]

As for the CSDs that support the strike, they are supposed to be first line managers, not strike leaders. They must be performance managed out of the organisation.

Exactly. CSDs have a duty of care for ALL their crew whilst on duty, regardless of whether individuals were strikers or not. If an incident occurs down-route, CSD can not pick and choose who they decide to support. They have a responsibility to remain impartial at the very least.

[MPN11]

It cannot be rocket science to work out who your members are or how many you have!
A simple calculation of how many members you have could be made by dividing your monthly income by the the monthly dues per member paid.

Apparently not :ugh:

One could imply that the financial records are equally as inept, of course.
As is the ability to connect a Membership Number with a postal address.

"Is it a database? Is it a cardex? No, it's piles of paper ... :cool:"

I could believe the average Girl Guide unit has better record-keeping.

[leiard]

One assumes that BASSA are complying with the Data Protection Act

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/how_data_protection_affects_my_business.pdf

[/URL][URL="http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pda-union.org%2Flegal%2Fdata-protection.html&rct=j&q=union%20membership%20data%20protection&ei=EuVSTauBN86YhQeU_cDRCA&usg=AFQjCNG1SraTxpmc2t6s3i7xd2486XLf7A&cad=rja"]Pda-union.org/legal/data-protection.htm (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCMQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pda-union.org%2Flegal%2Fdata-protection.html&rct=j&q=union%20membership%20data%20protection&ei=EuVSTauBN86YhQeU_cDRCA&usg=AFQjCNG1SraTxpmc2t6s3i7xd2486XLf7A&cad=rja)

[MPN11]

Now please don't start bringing legal arguments into this.
That's apparently a typical under-hand BA trick ...

... as opposed to a legal requirement.

Hmmm ... who is the Registered Holder of the data, or whatever the correct term might be?

[LD12986]

So no word from the BASSA leadership.

Have they been silenced by Unite to prevent another cock up or are they trying to conjure up a perfectly rational explanation for this. After all, we were promised "guerilla tactics" 9 months ago.

[Northern Flights]

Is the BASSA membership database debacle the reason for the "URGENT! Update your membership details. So we can contact you in the coming weeks." message that has been prominently displayed on the Uniteba home page for a while?

[leiard]

@ MPM11

This is an organization that seems to have no accountability to its members.

They have an annual income of at least £750,000 and publish no accounts of how this money is used.

My local cricket team has more accountability !

[JayPee28bpr]

Do you thing an employee rep (branch official), should lead or facilitate?


A rep should do both. As the job title suggests, they should "represent". Therefore they need to ascertain the general will of the members who they purport to represent. They then act as facilitators of that view with the employer. Then, following whatever discussions they are mandated to hold and within the bargaining structure agreed with the employer, they report back to their members and give their opinion on the best course of action to take, ie they lead. Only they can perform this task, as only they have access to all the information and nuances picked up from discussions with the employer.

I think the flaw in your original enquiry with respect to BA cabin crew representation is a very simple one: the current branch leadership simply has no mandate to fulfil either (indeed any) role on behalf of members. They decided to suspend all rep elections until the dispute was resolved. Therefore the current reps cannot fufil their obvious role (ie obvious because they are called "representatives"). And let's not forget that they do not actually know who are members, if the issues surrounding the latest ballot (and the first strike ballot) are to be believed. It's hard to be representative when you do not actually know who it is you claim to be representing.

At the moment BA crew have two equally unappealling choices of persons to act on their behalf: the incumbent Union complete with "reps" who refuse to put themselves up for election/deselection by their (dwindling) membership; or a new group (PCCC) who are entirely anonymous to the vast majority of people they wish to represent and ask to be accepted as some kind of act of blind (literally) faith. No wonder BA isn't talking to anyone. With the best will in the world they cannot actually find anyone who they can be sure has any kind of authority to speak on behalf of crew. We know, for instance, that the full time leadership of Unite cannot fulfil this role either, given the various agreements made and then sabotaged by the individual crew branches.

So here's a question for you. Put yourself in the management position at BA. Who would you call to try and resolve this dispute? The branch leadership (not subjected to electoral scrutiny for quite some time, several reps no longer qualified to be such by virtue of terminated employment); PCCC (not sure how BA gets to do this, presumably some kind of MI5 dead letter drop as the "leadership" is known only to each other in the kind or organisational structure so beloved of guerilla organisations); Unite's full time leadership (the people with a general lack of awareness of who actually is in the Union)? Or would you just talk over the heads of the lot of them, engage with staff directly, and not bother with collective bargaining which is clearly not delivering results for either staff or company?

[notlangley]

leiard - there is an "l"missing, it is
. . . . . . pda-union.org/legal/data-protection.html
and not
. . . . . . pda-union.org/legal/data-protection.htm

[GrahamO]

"They have an annual income of at least £750,000 and publish no accounts of how this money is used."

For the financially illiterate out there, BASSA do not have to produce accounts providing their data is 'rolled up' into the corporate body that is UNITE, and is a subset of the overall union accounts.

This is exactly how any other company declares its finances, and there is no obligation to provide data cut every which way.

Your local cricket team is an accounting entity but you have no obligation to declare the finances of 'bowlers' and 'fielders' as separate entities.

[Litebulbs]

As a huge majority of staff will be still employed after this dispute is finished, then if it was me in a managerial role, I would be looking at ways for building the bridges again. I would sit in the CRC with a sign above my head saying "whatever you say to me, will not be used against you in any way, no matter how bad" and engage.

BA has made change, it is here but what needs to be addressed is this fear of a 40% pay reduction and unemployment due to MF in a few years time.

I would offer any and all explanations to those who wanted to know. Actually, I wouldn't get a manager to do it, I would pull in a team of ACAS mediators, who would be fully briefed by Unite and the management on all the details, but just have them in a room to listen to all the concerns. Build up the data and then answer it.

It should be easy, if there is no other agenda.

Discuss!

[west lakes]

Part of the problem could be external to BA i,e, society and it's occasional distrust of "managers"

I had a conversation reported to me recently, it took place between two members of crew on airport standby, at an airport where there is little union influence.

Those involved were a fairly recent recruit and a crew member who has been there a number of years.

When the younger crew member commented about being bored, the other suggested she visit the duty managers to see who they are (social call) this met with a total refusal as the younger one wanted nothing to do with any managers

I can't help but wonder how many arrive for employment with this attitude

[binsleepen]

Unite Accounts

Here http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/Statement%20to%20members%20Final.pdf

are the Unite accounts for the year ending 31 Dec 2009. On page 7 you will see one Lizanne Malone was reinbursed £223 for loss of earnings while on Unite business. There is no breakdown of individual sections.

Lightbulbs does your Unite section give its members a breakdown of its accounts?

Incidentally the Unite website has a link to BALPA which it describes as "the professional union for all UK pilots working in the UK".

Regards

[Mariner9]

That is a great plan Litebulbs. One flaw however. It will be perceived and proclaimed by BASSA as yet another example of union busting, divide & conquer, etc etc.

It would be impossible for Holley & Co to put their spin on the ACAS utterances unless made through themselves. Therefore the chances of them agreeing to
ACAS directly talking to the individual CC members bypassing BASSA would in my view be nil.

I'd also question whether those CC who apparently lack the wherewithal to vote (and there are many despite the ballot number flaws) would have the nouce to understand what they are told or to pose relevant questions.

Sadly, in my view, it wouldn't work.

[Litebulbs]

As far as I am aware, no. I pay £120 a year and am happy with what I get for that. If my branch took above what the normal fees were, I might ask. They don't so I haven't.

[west lakes]

Lightbulbs does your Unite section give its members a breakdown of its accounts

As far as I know the Unite branch where I work does (it also posts the minutes of meetings for all to see)

The branch of the union I am a member of most certainly does

[Litebulbs]

You are probably right, but if 10% took up the chance to talk, then it could be a good thing. This is not a pro management idea, as it would be independant and just looking at concerns, with no threat whether real or perceived, of intimidation or being marked out.

I was also putting myself in a management position, rather than that of a rep, especially a rep at BA.

[Litebulbs]

Where I work, the members sit across lots of branches. All of our business is carried out the branch structure.

[LD12986]

Unite press advertisement, in tomorrow's papers apparently:

http://www.bassa.co.uk/BASSA/DOWNLOADS/ADVERT.PDF

[Chuchinchow]

One assumes that BASSA are complying with the Data Protection Act

I - a private individual, unconnected with the civil aviation industry in any way except as an end-user - wish to obtain information about "a certain organisation" under the provisions of either the Data Protection Act or the Freedom of Information Act.

Is there anything in law that would prevent me paying that certain organisation the statutory fee and then demanding information on its financial situation?


Perplexed of Hamptonne

[Chuchinchow]

In the light of this:


http://www.bassa.co.uk/BASSA/DOWNLOADS/ADVERT.PDF

and this:

"URGENT! Update your membership details. So we can contact you in the coming weeks"
this is still on display:

http://www.bassa.co.uk/BASSA/downloads/bassaapplicationform.pdf

This is slapstick comedy and trade union stupidity at its very best!

[Pohutu]

I - a private individual, unconnected with the civil aviation industry in any way except as an end-user - wish to obtain information about "a certain organisation" under the provisions of either the Data Protection Act or the Freedom of Information Act.

Is there anything in law that would prevent me paying that certain organisation the statutory fee and then demanding information on its financial situation?

As far as the Data Protection Act is concerned, nothing at all, but it wouldn't get you very far, since it only concerns personal data. You could pay your £10 for a subject access request, but the reply you would get would be along the lines of

"Dear Sir/Madam, thank you for your request. We have checked our records and can confirm that the personal data we hold about you is as follows:

No records found.

Yours faithfully"

As for the Freedom of Information Act, this applies to public authorities only and does not cover trades unions.

[kaikohe76]

At the risk of upsetting some folk concerned with the possible strike by BA Cabin Crew, I will attempt to be nice & polite.

Surely from the pax side in this shambles there is a simple, quick & easy solution, not only avoid flying with BA if at all possible, but I would suggest to avoid LHR or LGW as well.

Now I do hope I have not offended anyone by this.

[Diplome]

kaikohe76:

What an interesting post.

..and No, I will not avoid BA, and am encouraging my husband's corporate account to actively engage in booking BA.

Most informed individuals understand that BA is absolutely safe for LH and many wish to book simply to support BA's stance against a militant union.
....

After looking at your previous posts it is obvious that you are simply working to damage BA's brand with no thought to the issue at hand. I will leave you to trying to sell your "cuddle class", but this forum is about exchanging ideas on more serious issues.

[strikemaster82]

kaikohe: No-one will be offended by your suggestion. However I think that your view is rather simplistic and in fact sounds like nonsense to me. Perhaps you could research some facts?

[notlangley]

The website that the proposed advertisement points to contains these wordsBA Strike. British Airways cabin crew also known as air stewards and air stewardesses or flight attendants– have voted for strike action that will cover 20 days in May and early June. This will inevitably lead to BA flight cancellations, disruptions and possible delays over the next few weeks so it is advisable for passengers travelling with British Airways during this period to check their travel plans.

[fincastle84]

Not a great idea, we Brits don't give in to bullies.

Just for your information, LGW won't be affected by any IA, neither will LHR for that matter!:ok:

[call100]

Not a great idea, we Brits don't give in to bullies.

Just for your information, LGW won't be affected by any IA, neither will LHR for that matter!:ok:
How very BASSA!!;)

[Haymaker]

The advert itself and the link to the 'Brutish Airways' site with it's background information seems to do a pretty good job of linking the next ballot to the original dispute.

If so, I am sure BA's legal dept. are delighted to have the union paying to strengthen the company's legal case.

Is Len really this stupid, or, now that BASSA have served their purpose in helping him to get elected, has he privately switched to Tony and Dereks's view that they are more trouble than they are worth? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

[RTR]

Is Len really this stupid, or, now that BASSA have served their purpose in helping him to get elected, has he privately switched to Tony and Derek's view that they are more trouble than they are worth?

Yes, he IS that stupid. He shows it by the rhetoric he uses, by using the same tone the Luddites he idolises used back in the 70's, and his so very bad grammar. His latest effort is suppose to rally the 'troops' - would that be the same troops who are willing to follow a leader who makes so many gushing attacks and only succeeds in making them and himself look silly. Guns without bullets are as useless as a seat on the beach waving a trident. Its all bluster and no brains. BA are, no doubt, just sitting back waiting for him to put his big feet into the mire again.

[61 Lafite]

Find out why this dispute is now in its third year.


You really couldn't make it up. In full knowledge that the strike action must be over different reasons, Len and BASSA sign off this statement in an advert.

I would be the first to confess that I have little sympathy for the strikers in the current market, but even so, this kind of moronic error is just beyond belief.

Lafite

[vctenderness]

Unite Accounts

Here http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/Statement%20to%20members%20Final.pdf

are the Unite accounts for the year ending 31 Dec 2009. On page 7 you will see one Lizanne Malone was reinbursed £223 for loss of earnings while on Unite business. There is no breakdown of individual sections.

Lightbulbs does your Unite section give its members a breakdown of its accounts?

Incidentally the Unite website has a link to BALPA which it describes as "the professional union for all UK pilots working in the UK".

Regards

To avoid any confusion this payment (£223) to LM is in relation to her duties as a member of the Unite Executive not BASSA.

In fact all of those members throughout the whole of Unite who cast a vote in her favour might ask them selves why she has attended so few of the Executive meetings.

[Haymaker]

As I have touched on the cock-up theory and the conspiracy theory, perhaps I should mention at least one alternative. Could it be that they have completely given up on mounting a credible strike, and switched to the 'guerrilla tactics' that they hinted at a while back?

This would make more sense for them, but not very much, as it would probably have very little chance of success and is fraught with danger.

Anyone else got any other explanations for this latest bizarre turn of events?

[Mariner9]

While the advert apparently shows a blatant disregard by Unite for the fate of their own members by clearly linking the dispute, it doesn't change much IMHO.

In my view, the only realistic way Unite could say that any further action is unrelated to the current dispute would be to accept the current BA offer, thus ending this dispute first.

If BASSA are determined to go on strike to exact revenge for ST and the "hostages" without any prior settlement of the existing dispute, they face a serious risk of losing their jobs in an unprotected strike.

BASSA/Unite should give proper, sensible advice to their members of the risks of prolonging this dispute, and they should do it now. They might start by providing their members with the advice given to the leadership from their QC rather than attempt to deflect the blame to BA for the latest ballot fiasco.

If BASSA are so convinced that BA is a bullying employer, then giving that employer an opportunity to dismiss their members is reckless in the extreme.

[Entaxei]

Lack of intelligence? - can be taken any which way!! - there are a variety available to chose from. ;)

[JayPee28bpr]

BA seems to have done pretty much everything you've suggested already. There has been an offer available for some time that secures existing T&Cs, including minimum levels of variable allowances. It appears 95% of the non-Union staff signed up for it.

Not sure requiring people to engage publicly with senior management is going to work. Rightly or wrongly, many non-striking staff feel threatened and being seen to be "communicating with the enemy" might be something they would be reluctant to do. However, BA can use online means of communicating and, again, I believe they have done so. I rather suspect that BA has a much better idea what the bulk of crew want than does Unite.

Finally, I cannot take your suggestion of using ACAS seriously. BA has signalled that, after what seems to be decades of sub-standard management of its crew, it is now going to empower its middle managers to do precisely that. The idea that there is some super-strain of managers just sitting at ACAS waiting to win the hearts and minds of the workers on behalf of a grateful employer is simply laughable. If they were any good at managing people they'd already have a proper job somewhere doing precisely that. If there is one quango that the government could get rid of without anyone actually noticing, then it is ACAS. BA employs its managers to manage. They should get on and do just that. If "the managed" don't like it, tough. We all have to put up with stuff we don't like at work.

[notlangley]

Find out why this dispute is now in its third year
The bold and underlining is added by me to emphasise BASSA’s admission that it is the same dispute and therefore is past the IA sell-by date.
link (http://www.bassa.co.uk/BASSA/DOWNLOADS/ADVERT.PDF)

[Richard228]

I'm so bored with the misuse of the word "bully" by Unite/BASSA.

Just because you dont get your way when you throw a hissy fit, does not amount to bullying.

Withdrawal of discretionary perks does not amount to bullying.

and dont try and pull on the heart strings by using the "working mum" line.. it doesn't wash.

That bassa/unite will not release full details of exactly why some cabin crew were sacked, and the fact that no employment tribunial has heard any case (except for DH's absenteeism of course) means there is no evidence in the public domain of bullying on these sacked members, and people like me, who base their decissions on facts, can only assume the sackings were correct and legitimate.

Prove otherwise unite/bassa, or stop this continued "bully" nonsense... you really are crying wolf.

[PleasureFlyer]

I wonder if it's the same working mum who missed the birth of her own child :E

[mrpony]

Thought this was a joke bearing in mind the fact that the website it points to refers to last year's action. It isn't, it's real! Unbef*****glievable. I can almost guarantee BA's lawyers have already written. Really, beyond the pale.

[Litebulbs]

I note your answers and it probably highlights why I am not a manager in today's business world.

[Ancient Observer]

As bassa net between £750,000 and £900,000 per annum, in addition to what they pay Unite, then I guess they have to spend it on something.
It can't all go on the luxury homes in California..................and you would get an awful lot of tomato seeds for that sort of money.

I wonder why the members don't follow the money, simply by asking for independently audited accounts.

[AV Flyer]

I went to the so-called "Brutish Airways" website and noted on the front page an invitation to click on a button to send BA's Chairman a personal email. I quote below in italics the form letter email wording in full:

"I am very concerned that British Airways' reputation and standing are being diminished by the long-running dispute between management and cabin crew.

Over 4000 crew have been punished for taking action to defend themselves against imposition. More than 50 workers have been suspended, most for trivial reasons. And seven crew have been sacked. This is no way for our national carrier to do business. Since this dispute started last year, millions of pounds have been lost to the company. Settling it now will cost nothing.

Please bring back the world's favourite airline.

Yours sincerely"

Note in the Union's own words my bolded number which, assuming the punishment is referring to the loss of ST, rather suggests that BA's figures of ~4900 dwindling to ~4300 striking CC would be correct and the Union's insistence of "over 7000 claiming strike pay", etc, appears to be as inaccurate as its current membership records.

I'll not mention the incorrect use of the apostrophe ;)

[Colonel White]

Since the dates for strike action noted on the brutish airways site do not have a year indicated, I suspect that BA will ask for an immediate retraction and possibly damages for any loss of business

[mrpony]

Quite, Col white. Hadn't thought of that. Big troublle ahead for Unite/Bassa.

[Chuchinchow]

I have said it before and I say it again: the way BASSA is conducting this dispute is far, far better entertainment than any televisual situation comedy.

If there was a BAFTA award for incompetence, then it would be a close-run thing, with the two main contenders being Duncan Holley and Len McLuskey.

I do feel very, very sorry for their supporting cast, though.

[notlangley]

the way BASSA is conducting this dispute is far, far better entertainment than any televisual situation comedyIn the same way that in Classical Rome it was entertaining to watch Christians in the Forum?

[MPN11]

Ho-hum ... another interesting afternoon! :mad:

I don't suppose McLuskey or Holley could muster a tablespoon of common sense between them. Do they share "Keir Hardie's Cap"? or wear it on alternate days?

It simply gets more farcical by the minute, and I really do commend BA for their incredible patience in face of these slanders. I wonder when their patience will really expire, and the BIG High Court cases start?

[strikemaster82]

I'll not mention the incorrect use of the apostrophe

Looked OK to me....

[Northern Flights]

I have said it before and I say it again: the way BASSA is conducting this dispute is far, far better entertainment than any televisual situation comedy.



I agree but, to be fair, BASSA probably has a larger budget than the producers of some of the lower-budget sit-coms. :)

[AV Flyer]

Quote:
I'll not mention the incorrect use of the apostrophe
Looked OK to me....

According to our learned friends at the Apostrophe Protection Society, see the third example under listed item 2 at the below website, whereby to indicate possession for a singluar entity that ends in an "s" the correct use would be "British Airways's reputation"

Apostrophe Protection Society (http://www.apostrophe.org.uk/index.htm)

"British Airways' reputation" implies that it is the collective reputation of several entites all named "British Airway".

But then I must admit to having no qualifications in English and have to resort to believing pedantic entities like the APS in attempting to write the correct English!

[Papillon]

As an aside, there's no such thing as "correct" English, beyond that which is generally accepted by those who use it. Pressure groups such as the APS can try to convince us all we should write "British Airways's" in this context, but most of us would look at that and think "nonsense". Therefore it is the prevailing view that is correct, not them. That may of course change in the future.

English is an organic language and no-one - NO-ONE - can tell you hard and fast rules, we have no equivalent of the Academie Francaise, and the OED merely monitor style and use, they do not prescribe or proscribe. Many of them are in any case utterly preposterous, Latin grammar grafted on to a Germanic language. The perfect example is when you are told not to split infinitives. The only reason for this so-called rule is because you can't split infinitives in Latin. In English you can; end of story. I'm not saying it's right, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying you can.

Anyway, moving on....

[Joao da Silva]

Latin grammar grafted on to a Germanic languageDon't you mean Romance vocabulary grafted on to a Germanic language?

Out of interest, there are appx 600m speakers of Germanic languages and 800 million Romance, with 70% of the latter being outside Europe.

[Papillon]

Not in the context of that sentence which refers to grammar rules, Joao - but you're correct nonetheless.

[Joao da Silva]

In which case, Papillon, where are the declensions in English? (Or Romance langauges) :E

Perhaps you ean 'vulgar Latin?"

[Papillon]

That's precisely my point, Joao - that self-appointed rulemakers decided to graft Latin grammar rules on to a language which is not Latin based. And it doesn't work, any more than making French run by Anglo-Saxon language structures. You've highlighted the idiocy of it perfectly.

[Joao da Silva]

Baggers, I was educated to love, honour and obey the Oxford 'zed', but am now accused of 'American' spelling when I write words like legitimize.

No amount of explanation will persuade some Brit colleagues that it is correct when the word comes from a Greek root. I will accept that using an 's' is also correct in English.

I would never spell analyse with a 'z.'

[Joao da Silva]

Papillon

Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here, I was commenting on the difference between classic and vulgar latin.

Have a good evening.

[Papillon]

And yet you happily write "debt" which came into English via the French "dete" as "det" without the "b", and which was artificially inserted for no good reason in the 18th century to make it look more like the original Latin.

Talking about correct when it comes to using a "z" or an "s" is a foolish enterprise, because different words have different roots and to be strictly etymologically accurate you would have to vary depending on word. Either can be used because either are correct.

And yes, Joao, I know you were - but I didn't refer to either, I talked about the use of Latin rules in grammar as it pertains to English.

[Roccoreid]

Just in case the above post was meant as a joke.

As a serving officer of Her Majesties Royal Navy, defending the nation and destroying HM The Queens enemies by attending meetings and writing emails I would never use such crude language.

Back on track.

It seems to me that Unite and BASSA are now goading BA, it's as if they want to be taken to court. They want to feed their victim complex some more.

However I suspect that BA are holding off with Unite because they know that they need them for the interaction with the other parts of their workforce. If I were a Unite member I would be worried that Len and his lot seem hell bent on dragging the union in to a mess it can't get out of.

[fincastle84]

This is a very severe case of thread drift. I hope that before I fall asleep through boredom you are able to return to the Bassa v BA dispute.:ok:

[Tigger4Me]

Wonder who wrote the ad. Do Unite employ an advertising agency? Serious question.

According to Marketing Magazine the ad was prepared "in-house." At least when the law suits start flying they can't blame anyone but themselves... Can they? :\

Link (http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1054151/BA-targeted-fresh-union-attack-ads/)

[MPN11]

If I were a Unite member I would be worried that Len and his lot seem hell bent on dragging the union in to a mess it can't get out of.

The words "Docks" and "Liverpool" come to mind.

I see a complete detachment [c.f. Scargill, 'Red Robbo', Bob Crow and many others] between the interests of the 'workers' and the maintenance of the 'Class War'. There is still a deeply-rooted mind-set in some of the Union oligarchy that believes it can change the Nation though the efforts of the proletariat. Accordingly, IMO, they continue to manipulate with no genuine interest in what happens to the workers per se ... just that the 'inevitable march to a workers' society' is the only desirable cause, and the workers are the cannon fodder in that cause.

Either that, or they're just money grabbing, dishonest, untrustworthy, morons who are only in the game for self-interest.

[Joao da Silva]

This is a very severe case of thread drift. I hope that before I fall asleep through boredom you are able to return to the Bassa v BA dispute.

As the whole BASSA IR is thread drift itself, I don't see the problem with a little deviation into an interesting area.

Thanks, Papillon, for your lucid comments.

[TightSlot]

Back on topic please

[Joao da Silva]

Tightslot

I think that thread drift had ended.

However, this thread has been dominating the forum for over a year now and, speaking frankly, it is affecting what used to be a very good forum.

If you analyse the postings and topics, this is hogging the limelight and squeezing out some more interesting content, as least as far as I am concerned. There is a place for such a topic, but if you look at the media coverage, it is getting hardly any these days, the reason being it is past it's sell by date, as are as the editors are concerned.

Still, if you are happy to preside over a forum that seems to cater for a realtively small core of members, then it is your bat and ball.

[MPN11]

@ Joao ... hardly dominating.

And as the British, and BA passengers, have a keen interest in the subject that's not unreasonable. You may not, and nobody forces you to read it.

[Joao da Silva]

MPN11

I have not done any statistical analysis on the number of posts v other threads, but my impression is that this thread is dominating, however you may be right.

Actually, I am a BA regular and am interested in what is happening, but the reality is not a lot at present; maybe there will be some more news in the future.

[TightSlot]

Still, if you are happy to preside over a forum that seems to cater for a realtively small core of members, then it is your bat and ball.
No.. I'm not really happy. I loathe this thread, and the whole situation behind it with a passion - reading it and moderating it is a chore - as, for that matter, is the CC Forum thread. The conversation on both threads has become largely self-sustaining - a platform for egos and entrenched opinions. Few of the contributors have changed their position one jot since the beginning of the dispute.

However, I'm not here to dictate what should and should not interest people, however regrettable that may be. As long as people wish to discuss the topic, then they should be able to do so. The moderation on this thread has deliberately been very relaxed for a long time, in recognition of the restrictions on non-airline staff in the CC forum. Any thread that drifts off topic into the wonders of spelling/grammar will get yanked back by the mod in any of the forums.

I don't accept that this thread is driving content away - in fact it is generating traffic to the forum. This forum remains unique on the internet as being a place where passengers can ask questions about the industry of those who actually work in it, as well as the day to day advice that is passed between contributors on a variety of subjects.

I have to say that your post made me a bit cross - It's bad enough having to deal with this stuff daily - Now I'm being criticised for allowing it to happen? Gee but it's hard to win with you guys. As with your TV, there is an OFF button, or you can change channels. If you're unhappy, take a break for a while and come back at another time

[Joao da Silva]

I have to say that your post made me a bit cross - It's bad enough having to deal with this stuff daily - Now I'm being criticised for allowing it to happen?Please read my words again and you will see that no criticism is contained.

Still, if you are happy to preside over a forum that seems to cater for a realtively small core of members, then it is your bat and ball.For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a snide comment, just an observation from my perspective about your empowerment as moderator and as you have said

I don't accept that this thread is driving content away - in fact it is generating traffic to the forum.So, not much more to say?

I will be taking a break, as there are other fora which are more interesting at the moment, but maybe I'll be back later, to have a look.

Have safe travels.

[TrakBall]

TightSlot

As an occasional poster and full time lurker on both this and the CC thread, let me say thank you for your efforts. I read these threads because I am fascinated by the union/management interplay as well as the psychology and thinking of both sides of these issues. I cannot say I know what it takes to moderate this thread and I am sure I would underestimate the effort required in any event. I just wanted you to know that I, and I am sure many of the people who post and read this thread appreciate your efforts.

TrakBall

[Landroger]

Trakball wrote;
As an occasional poster and full time lurker on both this and the CC thread, let me say thank you for your efforts.

May I echo Trakball's thanks to you and your fellow mods for the work you do on this and other forums? (fora?) I will admit to being unused at first, to the level of moderation on PPRuNe compared to my, shall we say 'home' forum. However, over the months and years I have been following this and the CC thread, I have seen just what a professional and even handed job you do.

Thank you again for keeping both these turbulent threads on the island. :ok:

Roger.

[pcat160]

I was thinking of a rather long post to establish the background for my thoughts. I have however decided to make it short. Let’s assume there is another vote for IA and the overwhelming percentage of returned ballots favor IA. Now let’s also assume that BA has suggested there may be a problem which would make the strike unprotected, real or imagined. BASSA/Unite Pronounce that Staff Travel will be restored in five minutes. How many will strike?

[ChicoG]

However, this thread has been dominating the forum for over a year now and, speaking frankly, it is affecting what used to be a very good forum.

Speaking subjectively I think you mean.

I don't think this thread will die until Holley quits or gets pushed and BASSA get real and stop using their members as pawns.

But quite why you think it is "affecting a forum" I have no idea. It's a thread on a discussion board, nothing more, nothing less.

[notlangley]

There are three things I would like to see

1) The accounts of BAASA.
2) The official report by the Electoral Reform Service on the latest industrial action ballot.
3) An impeccable record of certain words made by Len McCluskey after he had announced that there would be another ballot in ten days time._ The words that I would like to have are his original, unedited and unbowdlerised words on his reading a few hours later that BASSA have published in the Daily MailFind out why this dispute is now in its third year

[mrpony]

This copied from the CC thread:

Just some personal observations from me -

There is no way in this country any union could conduct a ballot that is 100% safe - it simply isn't possible.
Whereas before, judges when looking at injunctions would accept a margin of error, that is increasingly becoming a thing of the past. Blame the political hold on the judiciary for this, not the unions.

Even though legal advice taken following BA's letter to the ERBS seriously cast doubt on BA being successful in the High Court there was enough grey area to make it sensible to reballot. Another month of uncertainty hurts BA more than us.

An example of how ludicrous things are becoming - One of the problems surrounded a website report back from Amicus's branch meeting, held a week before the ballot closed, which said how the membership reiterated their opinion that any overall settlement must include the initial crew complement imposition. I gather BA insisted that this "report back" from a meeting had tainted the ballot (as if) and crew would now believe they were voting on crew complements. As we have already had a strike on this issue then the 12 week protection period would be exhausted and going out again BA would be able to dismiss instantly claiming the strike was continuous. Extremely tenuous I know and also highly debateable but BA are exploiting every loophole - so much so it is dangerous to even report back what members say at branch meetings.

What now? Well we said it will be a war of attrition and that is what it has become. Keep voting yes, keep the faith and keep going.



I don''t know where to start with this. I'm sure someone will dissect it.

[MPN11]

Dissected as follows ...

1. The Judiciary are corrupt because they don't agree with us.

2. Amicus have re-introduced a continuation dispute factor, even though that was previously rejected by the High Court, which complicates matters.

3. Ooops ... we might be in a bit of difficulty over continuation disputes, but if we don't say anything nobody at BA may notice.

[Mariner9]

2 main things worthy of note in my view:


DH acknowledges that there is "no way" a ballot can be considered 100% safe (while glossing over BASSA's incompetency in this regard)
DH acknowledges that if the strike is linked in any way to the current dispute, then BASSA members can be sacked instantly.

One hopes that the BASSA members might consider these 2 points very carefully when considering whether to undertake further action.

[Haymaker]

Also he says "Well we said it will be a war of attrition and that is what it has become."

He doesn't seem too distraught with the current situation. Remember, the extension to his term of office (authorised by a 'democratic' show of hands) and therefore his branch remuneration only lasts as long as the dispute does. He would then have to seek re-election, which he cannot do as he is no longer a BA employee.

[Diplome]

Tightslot:

I don't accept that this thread is driving content away - in fact it is generating traffic to the forum. This forum remains unique on the internet as being a place where passengers can ask questions about the industry of those who actually work in it, as well as the day to day advice that is passed between contributors on a variety of subjects.

I agree. This forum is unique in its ability to allow SLF to not only exchange ideas between themselves, but also to observe and discuss issues with the individuals actually carrying out the mission.

Though I'm still a nervous flyer, at least until after my first glass of wine, I believe this site has made me a better passenger. I'm certainly much more empathetic towards the issues that ground crew, flight crew and cabin crew have to deal with when it comes to making my flight not only safe but enjoyable.

Thank you for your patience and advocacy for this portion of PPrune.

[LD12986]

Regarding the ballot and DH's comments I think you can look at it in one if two ways:

a) Last time BA sought an injunction, the Court of Appeal made it clear that the requirements of the legislation were not intended to act as trip wires and scupper industrial action. If the problems surrounding non-members etc were de-mininis as implied by DG, why didn't they call a ballot and wait for BA to seek an injunction where it could have got short shrift from the courts.

b) If the issue surrounding the ballot were really significant why did it take an intervention from BA to stop the strike. Why hadn't Unite been diligent enough to spot and address them itself. The fact is that Unite was very close to, in extremis, getting its members sacked for unprotected IA.

Will be interesting to see how long Unite waits until reballotibg and the numbers being balloted (fourth tine round!).

[Ancient Observer]

Tightslot. Thank you for moderating this thread. All with a relatively lightish touch, except when we are just too silly, when extensive deleting of posts is to be encouraged.

Changing positions. You suggest that few have changed their positions. I believe that my views have changed, primarily through reading this and the CC threads.
I have maintained one consistent view - that Companies get the TUs that they deserve. Thus, I remain critical of BA "managers" at a variety of levels. BA generated bassa. It is reaping what it sowed in the past.

How on Earth BA let their "first line managers" - the CSDs become strike leaders is beyond me. That is probably the most stupid bit of non-management that I have ever heard.

My view on bassa has gone from being concerned that they were being lead astray by the power politics of Unite and the Labour Government to one of more or less complete contempt. I have worked very closely in the past with that power politics, and CC needed to know that the last people that the career unionists at HQ care about are their members, unless the member is buying a double at the bar.
My view on travelling with BA has changed from "never again" to one of a far more positive stance. I no longer fly much - my BA and SQ gold cards have long expired, but my last l/h flight was with BA, and my next one will also be with BA. That is due to GG, Betty, otter, et al, who let us know that most of their staff are decent and reasonable people.
I once thought this rather small dispute could be solved by negotiation. I have solved much bigger disputes in the past by negotiation.........with communists, with the EETPU, (er, not communists) and with all shades of politics.
I am now convinced that negotiation will not end this dispute. Woodley was the last chance. He's a good man, but he failed to move the bassa "leadership".

[LD12986]

AO, Regarding CSDs, I think this illustrates the problem you describe which has been festering for decades. They do not seem themselves as being "management" in the traditional sense.

It is telling that on Mixed Fleet the position of CSM is an actual BA manager grade and some office based duties are included in their job description and there is also a career path from CSM to a Head Office based role.

[Diplome]

Ancient Observer:

I also believe that my opinions and thoughts have changed on many issues since the inception of this dispute.

Much more weight is given to your initial postings regarding BA's previous mismanagement that aided and abetted the worst in BASSA.

I certainly do not put all unions in the same basket anymore. Their competency (or lack thereof) is as diverse as any other business.

Unfortunately, I also share your views regarding the likelihood of success through negotiation. How do you negotiate with an entity that refuses to negotiate..and BASSA/CC89 will not negotiate. Their leaders statements have shown that time after time.

I keep trying to figure out a way to satisfy BASSA's needs while still allowing a settlement that is healthy for the future...but BASSA simply needs too much and whatever the offer (and they have had a very good offer on the table that they forced BA to withdraw) they always say "No".

Maddening.

[TightSlot]

Good to hear that it has in fact been responsible for some change - Reassuring and thanks for letting me know. Onward and upwards!

[brownhair]

Ancient Observer.....I am a Purser with BA....very rarely post but just felt I wanted to say thank you for returning to BA. There are many of us like Betty Girl,Otter girl etc. I have always supported BASSA in my career but like many colleagues lost faith in them last year. The whole situation is ridiculous,working life is at best tolerable and at worst quite frightening and very intimidating for those of us that came to work.
Please keep flying with us as the majority of crew have/are seeing the light,we just need a way of identifying each other without repercussions and I don't mean with a coloured pen! Any ideas from a SLF point of view??

[call100]

AO....I agree with your post to a large extent. Having been a rep for 35 years I can say that both companies and members get the reps they deserve. It is true that the TU top table are little interested in members or disputes. This is one of the main reasons that I never involved anyone beyond the relevant FTO. Fortunately they were usually too busy to bother with the politics and stuck to the issues at hand. Any dealings with national officers were kept to facilitate meetings with government departments.
I would have considered it a major failure to have some national officer take over. To be a good rep, I believe, you have to have lost your fair share of battles to have any perspective in your negotiations at any level. BASSA were handed victory on a plate for decades and seem to have lost the ability to keep up with everyone else.
this should have resulted in a negotiated settlement long ago. I don't think BA have put enough effort into convincing those who vote Yes to IA. Whatever the outcome I think it will affect BA and it's employees for a long time to come..

[LD12986]

Regarding changing positions on this dispute, I never thought 18 months ago it would still be running today. Clearly, BA will have very accurate information on booking trends, brand perception amongst different external groups etc, but to those with an interest one way or another in the dispute BA seems in no hurry to see a clear resolution and it still appears to be overshadowing the business. Witness the lack of any major brand building marketing for two years.

I guess there are many unknowns.

Would this dispute still be running if BA hadn't withdrawn staff travel from strikers? Would the absence of this sanction have resulted in more staff going on strike? Would BASSA have found another reason to keep the dispute going?

Ditto for disciplinaries. Should they have been parked until after the dispute (appreciate this may have been difficult given some of the cases)?

Would events have taken a different turn if there hadn't been incidents affecting management credibility (T5 opening, price fixing fines) and frustrated crew (poor implementation of IFE system, product cuts/failures etc)? Or are they irrelevant? If WW wasn't CEO would it have been any different?

This dispute just seems to be at an impasse and I see no prospect of an agreed settlement.

BASSA support is dwindling, but at a very slow pace. I guess this will just slowly fizzle out.

[hula]

AO,

How on Earth BA let their "first line managers" - the CSDs become strike leaders is beyond me

I am a CSD. I am not a strike leader. I worked during the IA as I, like many others, lost faith in the Union who I believe chose the wrong battle and were interested in the minority no the majority.

I am reassured to hear that you will, like many others, continue to fly with BA. Thankyou. Rest assured I do class myself as a BA manager. I manage with passion and integrity and am not afraid to manage lack lustre, apathetic performance.

I hope that this sorry mess is sorted out soon so we can all move on and enjoy our nations airline, whether as a customer or an employee.

[Betty girl]

AO,
Thanks for including my name in your post.

I am also pleased to hear that you will continue to use our airline.

I just wanted to reassure many of our passengers that the vast majority of cabin crew on BA are completely dedicated to customer care, whether they be non strikers or misguided strikers and it is a very small number that let us down.

Thank you for staying so loyal and I hope that some of you fly on one of my flights one day.
BG.

[PleasureFlyer]

I must admit that when the dispute started I was in the process of booking flights that were to take place during the first strike. I therefore booked on Swiss (op BMI) to get to LHR and was gutted when I got to the gate and saw the BA flight I had wanted to book boarding at the next gate along.

All my GVA-LHR flights since then have been on BA and have had wonderful crew on them and spent quite along time talking to pursers about the strike. Who knows, I might have met Betty Girl, Ottergirl, Hula and others and not known it. I will continue to book BA even when/if more strikes are annouced.

In my previous job the union was a branch of Unite, and the difference between how they worked with the Co and the way Bassa work (or not) with BA are so far apart it is unbelievable. The vast majority of Unite people who are on the ground level in various businesses are great people who do their very best. It is unfortunate that Bassa have managed to tar virtually a whole union with their, IMO, bad attitude.

[SLFLurker]

I booked our holiday flights with BA (for Easter) before Christmas and was perfectly happy to be doing so - especially after reading PPRUNE for several months...

[Entaxei]

If you read all of the posts back to say September 2009, the following are some of the positions/situations that emerge .....

BASSA/DH - On the brink of being dismissed, opted to commence taking his BA pension, 20yrs?, which of course replaced his lost salary income, also receives his renumeration from BASSA and supposedly 5% of the membership fees, (est. Sept. 2009 £1.8m).

Branch regs have supposedly been altered at Branch meetings to state that no branch decisions will be made or elections carried out for any branch positions whilst a dispute is continuing, that includes branch management and reps. Unite have accepted that only BASSA can call off or agree to finish a dispute.

DH and LM will be able to commence drawing their BASSA pension around Q4 this year. DH has nothing to gain and a lot to lose if this dispute ends before the end of this year. He also displays an unremitting hatred for BA.

He has deliberately screwed up agreement being reached on at least two recent occasions and, has increased the 'reasons' for the dispute, from the original 'imposition' of having a CSD physically work and one less CC on some flights, which was declared legal by Court judgement. All other 'reasons' now involved are wishlist/pique or ST, which would appear to be not contractual, given the forty plus years it has been operating and the conditions that were/are signed to on each occasion. (Read a copy for yourself and judge).

LH would possibly also appear to be taking a slightly different route, in apparently looking to be a candidate for a position in Unite.

CC89, whilst simply a small branch of Unite, as already shown, can also screw things up by agreeing or disagreeing with BASSA at specific points in time, are now influenced/driven by the left wing/SWP aims of Jerry Hicks. Have produced their own list of reasons for the dispute.

Len McCluck, £100,00+ pa, with the background achievement of having destroyed the Docks and Dockers, is currently on a declared task of bringing about a series of co-ordinated strikes throughout the UK, to bring down the current government, he has declared the BA dispute to be part of this strategy.

With this potpourri, where the XXXX is any opportunity to settle the dispute, other than a strike and sacking all those who go out on strike - which leads us exactly to the position that all the various union players are hoping to achieve.

As an aside, with the recent establishment of the BASSA Limited company, it appears possible that the safekeeping of account records and minutes of BASSA, could be part of the reason for the existence of this company, which would block off a possible problem area.

Now - this is meant to be a summation of the position/history of the dispute to date, it does however, undoubtably knock the union elements involved and the political influences, but this is what has happened and is happening.

If anyone wishes to start the general accusations going of this being an anti union/political rant - before you put pen to printer, lets see an analysis of why it should be so, why the unions actions are acceptable, etc., based on the past eighteen months history rather than recent weeks.

[Litebulbs]

Len McCluck, £100,00+

Regardless of what I think of the man, he is the head of a union with well over a million members. I think he should be on more.

[Entaxei]

Hi LB, looks as though we're the only late birds tonight ...

Ignoring the actual character involved, I would agree in principle that the head of Unite at 1,000,000 members is worth more than £100k pa, but Cameron as PM is only paid a basic of £142k - and he's supposedly in charge of >50m of us.

We don't however know what other 'additional' income might be coming in, I would imagine that the PM's position pays a hefty pension and leaving present to recover to normal MP status, I seem to remember that MP's losing their seat, are/were entitled to £60k +. Thank God for the milk round did I hear someone say!! ;)

[notlangley]

This is probably one of the most important postings that has been made on pprune:-__link (http://www.pprune.org/6239978-post3038.html)

[PAXboy]

Thanks for posting NotL, that is most revealing. If one also considers the observations of Entaxei, then this will not end soon. For many months, I have presumed that it will just peter out eventually. with both sides claiming equal success.

It has oft been said (and in here too) that Generals always fight the last war and that is what we see. Deeply sad for all involved, not a single person or group will have benefited from all of this.

[notlangley]

This 2009 quote is historic but the bold sweep of it would appear to prevent any subsequent strike until both sides agree that the 2009 dispute is ended
The ballot of BA’s 14,000 cabin crew will open on Monday, November 16th, Unite the union has announced.

Unite says that BA’s continued failure to consult properly on 2,000 notified redundancies and the company’s determination to impose fundamental changes to working practices, work organisation and terms and conditions of employment leave it no other option but to ballot the cabin crew workforce.

link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/archived_news_releases/2009_archived_press_releases/unite_announces_dates_for_ball.aspx)
This 2009 phrase looks to me like a catch-all phrase . . impose fundamental changes to . . . terms and conditions . .
Maybe Unite has been caught-out by their own words?
Why blame BA - they didn’t dictate what words Unite should use?
(I have no knowledge of Labour Relations Law)

[MPN11]

:hmm:

You mean these have all been continuation strikes? [That's half-joking, BTW].

I can see BA lawyers earning their money soon.

[notlangley]

Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein. And he who rolls a stone, it will come back on him.
Proverbs 26:27

[Richard228]

Regardless of what I think of the man, he is the head of a union with well over a million members. I think he should be on more.I agree Len absolutely has a right to earn this wage from unite, but it does make him a hipocrite when he points the finger at Willie Walsh and his (also deserved) salary.

[LD12986]

But if the first ballot was invalid, then how could the second ballot be a continuation?

I am intrigued as to why BA is allegedly claiming damages for the the strikes under the second ballot.

[MPN11]

Because it's for the same reasons? Whether successfully implemented or not, the original ballot was for the same cause?

I don't know ... this is getting beyond my comprehension now!
Where does BOAC and BEA fit in? ;)

[slast]

<I have solved much bigger disputes in the past by negotiation.........with communists, with the EETPU, (er, not communists) and with all shades of politics.> As a matter of curiosity did you encounter the late Mark Young, a former communist in the ETU? He subsequently became General Secretary of BALPA - and would have sorted this lot out to everyone's satisfaction ages ago? He certainly was good with the BEA and BOAC issues too!

[notlangley]

11 British Airways (BA) v Unite The Union

The issue is trial of the matter that went before the Court of Appeal last May in the context of the injunction obtained against the second round of strikes at BA - that is, the requirement on a trade union to communicate the result to its members. It will be an unusual trial as Master of the Rolls Lord Neuberger agreed with BA back in May, while Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge agreed with Unite.
Claimant lawyers:
· Baker & McKenzie partner John Evason instructed Devereux Chambers’ Bruce Carr QC to lead Fountain Court’s Paul Gott.
Defendant lawyers:
· Thompsons Solicitors partner Neil Johnson instructed Old Square Chambers John Hendy QC to lead Ben Cooper.
Hearing date: March.
Judge and court: TBC; Court of Appeal

__________link (http://www.thelawyer.com/top-20-cases-of-2011/1006498.article)

[Litebulbs]

Estoppel,
Res Judicata,
Vexatious,
Discuss.

[LD12986]

I'm surprised they are taking a case on this point.

But the quid pro quo is that if Unite and its branches aren't prepared to act and negotiate in good faith, I can see why BA is pursuing all avenues available to it.

[notlangley]

Unite is able by special levies to raise funds for "striking mums".

But it is difficult to get levies from the ordinary membership to enable "overpaid" members of the legal fraternity to dress up with curly wigs and ceremonially split each others hairs.
________________________________________________

put your own apostrophe in

[Litebulbs]

I am shocked and surprised that it is not the other way round. It was not too long ago, that the UK's flag carrier was on the brink of extinction..........

[LD12986]

Can a strike be declared unlawful after the fact, due to subsequent court actions?

Yes. Absolutely. When BA goes to court to seek an injunction the only determines on the balance of convenience whether the case is worthy of granting an injunction to block the strike (and the significant financial losses that arise from it) before the issue is addressed in full by the courts.

When BA obtained an injunction against the first strike ballot there was no need to address the issue in full before the courts because Unite reballoted.

As said above, in one sense I am surprised BA is taking the case to a full hearing. It should not be spending its shareholders money on pursuing frivolous claims, but if they believe they have a case to claim damages, they arguably have an obligation to pursue the case.

[Litebulbs]

I am sure I have read something on this, but the Blue Nun is making things a bit fuzzy tonight.

[fincastle84]

Is that the new formula Blue Nun about which I was reading the other day?

Personally I've just finished enjoying eating my dessert accompanied by a couple of (small) glasses of D'Alexandrie red muscat from the Constantia Uitsig estate in Cape Town. They slipped down very well.

The only thing spoiling my enjoyment is the thought of the amount of money that the legal leeches are making from this dispute. They even manage to make the bankers look squeaky clean!

[GrahamO]

It is entirely possible that BA continuing the action has a slightly different aim.

BASSA appear to be the stumbling block for both UNITE and BA, in their eyes at least. BA can only negotiate with UNITE but UNITE cannot be trusted to deliver a viable deal in the eys of BA.

BA could continue with the case and get approval to recover costs from UNITE. As BASSA is 'ringfenced' as a seperate company (or so I believe) then BA can seek redress and have the BASSA branch effectively put out of business without affecting UNITE. Existing union members are largely unaffected but can either join UNITE or PCCC.

UNITE can then negotiate for a peaceful solution and give all members a vote on what to do, after encouraging all those who may have left BASSA to rejoin UNITE and outvote the entrenched die-hards.

In theory at least - nobody gets sacked, and a compromise is reached. UNITE is then 'united' and in a better position to speak for the majority who do not wish to strike.

I am still flying BA on short haul and have thus far not seen any bad behaviour towards us SLF.

[notlangley]

The Lord Chief Justice saidIt must be resolved by negotiation. Legal processes do not constitute mediation. To the contrary, they often serve to inflame rather than to mollify the feelings of those involved as they are in this case.

Lady Justice Smith saidI consider that the policy of this part of the Act is not to create a series of traps or hurdles for the Union to negotiate. It is to ensure fair dealing between employer and Union and to ensure a fair, open and democratic ballot.
and Lady Justice Smith went on to sayIf it were not so, the rights of workers to withhold their labour would be seriously undermined.

However the third Judge - The Master of the Rolls - said enough IMO to encourage BA to take the case farther.
link (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/669.html)

[TSR2]

I am still flying BA on short haul and have thus far not seen any bad behaviour towards us SLF.

I should think not. These people are supposed to be professional, whatever that means these days.

[vctenderness]

Have just heard that Duncan Holley will be giving an interview to Simon Calder on LBC 97.3 today at 1400

If you dont live in the London area you can listen on SKY channel 0112

[Juan Tugoh]

So what did he say?

[Hipennine]

Although setting up a Ltd Liability Company might be seen as a way of protecting funds, I would assume that unless the BASSA constitution already included a provisison for officers to do such a thing without agreement of the members, transferring existing funds, and any further subscriptions to the Ltd would be criminally illegal. Essentially a Union or a branch thereof is an entity with the members jointly and severally responsible for the shared liability, so all of the members would have to be given the option to vote on such a change of structure.

Has anybody actually checked on the identity of the directors, the shareholders, etc of this new company ? And more importantly, have the members of BASSA even been told officially of its existence, and if not why not ?

[vctenderness]

So what did he say?

Usual old tosh I'm afraid!

Wicked Willy, Bullying Management, Innocent BASSA, Were not militant (hahahahaha), We're trying to negotiate but BA wont, agreements will all be torn up, cabin crew are paupers, blah blah blah.......:{

LBC podcast these shows so it will be available to listen to.

[GrahamO]

Name & Registered Office:

BASSA LIMITED
130 BOURNEMOUTH ROAD
CHANDLERS FORD EASTLEIGH
EASTLEIGH
HANTS
ENGLAND
SO53 3AL
Company No. 07492282

Registered address

Edit: A step TOO far.

Accounts not due until 13th October 2012

[LD12986]

A check at Companies House should confirm who the Directors are, its share capital etc.

[Tigger4Me]

So what did he say?

I missed his words of wisdom but summing up at the end of the show, Simon Calder did say that DH promised BA's customers six months of disruption. And that is before they have even held the next ballot! :ugh:

[MPN11]

Awwww ... poor DH. There's nobody as unhappy as a scorned and derided militant activist.

Hipennine ... an interesting point.
However, I would guess that falls into the same 'NFI' box as holding elections, publishing accounts and running credible ballots. :(

[Betty girl]

Well I know that even strikers don't want a further 6 months of this rubbish, so more and more will, I am sure, leave the union.

DH runs the risk of BA derecognising Bassa if he's is not careful and then nothing he says will matter anymore.

[LD12986]

I missed his words of wisdom but summing up at the end of the show, Simon Calder did say that DH promised BA's customers six months of disruption. And that is before they have even held the next ballot!

If by that DH means the oft-claimed "guerilla tactics", it's about time that they got on with it. DH first threatened no less than a year of "guerilla tactics" in May last year!

BA faces 'guerrilla campaign' as it bids to halt strike because of 'illegal' tweet - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7730577/BA-faces-guerrilla-campaign-as-it-bids-to-halt-strike-because-of-illegal-tweet.html)

[Richard228]

A check at Companies House should confirm who the Directors are, its share capital etc.Companies House records show that Bassa Limited has been incorporated by a Polish gentleman named Mr Janusz Rozycki.

name means nothing to me.. perhaps someone else!?

[LD12986]

Are people sure BASSA Ltd is actually connected to BASSA, the branch of Unite? Perhaps it is just an unconnected business that shares the same name?

[Colonel White]

I'm bemused that DH thinks he can call up 6 months of industrial action. I thought that the limit on strikes was 12 weeks. Does that mean he intends to hold not one, but two further ballots ? How many of the 'faithful' does he think will follow him ? The sooner that the Unite leadership do the kind thing and sack him, the better it will be for al concerned. Is there any way that they can ditch him on the grounds of failing to keep membership records up to date ?

[notlangley]

BA argued to the Electoral Reform Services body, which oversaw the ballot, that Unite was breaching the Trade Union Act Labour Relations (Consolidation) 1992 by launching a ballot whose purpose was "unclear".


A BA spokesman urged the union to return to a peace deal hammered out last year that was rejected by Unite's branches: "There have been enough ballots. It is time for Unite to return to the deal we negotiated, which leaves our existing Heathrow crew the best rewarded in the UK industry, and to put this dispute behind us."

link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/13/ba-strike-unlikely-royal-wedding)___________

[notlangley]

? What is the purpose of5. The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without the agreement of the trade union.
How can the purpose be achieved?
How could BA respond in a way that would meet this item 100%? - or 90% - or 37%?

[pcat160]

Re: Current court hearing envolving Previous ballot

For us pax this probably means no strike ballot until after that hearing is concluded and a judgment given.

Reason being...why would Unite want to mount another ballot while the former strike may be in the process of being declared illegal, the 5000 strikers under threat of being dismissed as a result and legal damages possibly coming BASSA's way?

[JUAN TRIPP]

Are people sure BASSA Ltd is actually connected to BASSA, the branch of Unite? Perhaps it is just an unconnected business that shares the same name?


Well lets put it this way. The address given where it was registered is Eastleigh , just a few miles from DH's home. Coincidence. I think not. :=

Someone on here, sorry I don't have the time or the brains, needs to look at this in detail. Wouldn't surprise me if this isn't fishy. Lets be honest, NOBODY has set eyes on Bassa's accounts for years and my God lots of us have tried

[Betty girl]

Maybe BA think the same way as the FT and the cost of this case is worth it in terms of preventing further strikes for the foreseeable future.

I think BA may make the agreement available again for non union members to sign and every time more and more people sign it and leave Bassa, it makes Bassa weaker and weaker. (Actually having no union would not be good for us crew, so DH has got so much to answer for, he really has).

The other thing BA could do is just issue us all new contracts similar to the agreement and give us 90 days to sign and part of me wouldn't mind because I have just had enough of all of this. I know it is interesting for all of you but living through it, day in and day out, at work is just getting so hard and it's so stressful.

[Entaxei]

When you want to set up a company, the most effective/economical route is to go to a company like "Jordans" that specilises in offering 'off the shelf' companies. They continually set up new private limited companies with nonsense names, one director and one share issued, the articles of memorandum (or principal areas of activity) are as broad as possible, i.e. import, export, design, manufacture, production, agents ..... and so on.

They will check that the name you want is not used, change the name, have the single shareholder/director resign (company employee), issue a new single share in your nominees name and list them as director and company secretary if you wish (although CS is no longer mandatory).

All of this has cost you around say £350. They will also provide more services if you wish, 1st Years board minutes, change of address, issue more shares, register shareholders, accounting date, etc., a lot of this information would not have to be established or registered that quickly, so say you have around a year minimum to play with, before any of this structure need be established and registered. Again cost of this is peanuts - few hundreds.

You now have your hollow shell, you could now establish your main market drives, providing a services for your marketplace, maybe offering to be responsible for the storing, preserving, and accounting for, all records past, present and future, including accounting and board/organisation minutes, be responsible for the dissemination of information regarding same where it is a mandatory legal requirement. In that instance you would need to offer some safeguards, even a disaster recovery plan, to provide a fallback if your company failed. One would assume that all records would be transferred to electronic records for security and paper records destroyed due to the bulk storage otherwise needed.

So there you go ...... All ready for the bright new world with your new marketing concept!! and you still need to appoint an accountant and open a bank acount!.

:D

[fincastle84]

You no longer need actual strikes to pressure the company - ballots can have the same effect, since they carry the threat of strikes. It would now appear that a simple, well-placed cross on the ballot paper removes some of the need to actually lose money and stand on picket lines.

DH seems to be rapidly losing touch with reality if he really believes in what he's written on the CC thread. He is definitely running out of ideas on how to successfully pursue the dispute.

[MCOflyer]

I must call you to task. As one in the US that followed a union leader (Poli, PATCO) into a total destruction of our union and now has realized that everything I did was doomed to failure. How can you say that DH should have any respect from his union members just because he is the GS of his branch?

It is obvious to anyone that has been following this dispute that he is feeding his ego on the backs of his union members. Why is he still allowed to run a company union when he is no longer an employee of that company.

I have been lurking on this thread for almost a year now and cannot see how a person that has put forward many posts that are pro union can support a person like this.

Please tell me why you think he is worth any respect at all. I ask this of you because I respect your posts are from the heart.

[Betty girl]

McoFlyer,

I agree with what you typed but I did find it very hard to read!!!!!!

[MCOflyer]

I want to commend you for being the best your airline can muster. After reading your posts for the last year you have touched my heart with your passion for your job. I hope this works out well for all of you that support BA. I worked for AA many years ago and understand how difficult your job can be.

I really enjoyed my flights on BA and can understand why customers like Diplome, Baggersup, and the rest still fly with you regardless of the antics of BASSA/CC89.

Keep up the good work! I will certainly fly on BA when the opportunity arises. The three trips I have taken to the UK on BA have been great.

Edited to be readable = Verdana size 2, please.

[Betty girl]

Thank you so much MCOFlyer.

[MCOflyer]

I am sorry that my posts have given you a problem reading them. I will in the future change the font and the size of the type. I definitely want you to be able to read them as you are one of the voices of reason on the forum. Let me know if this is better for you.

Oh, I hope you were able to read my last post as it is primarily about you and OG. They look fine on my big monitor but let me know what looks good to you.

[Betty girl]

That's fine now and thanks for your kind comments again.

[Mariner9]

You no longer need actual strikes to pressure the company - ballots can have the same effect, since they carry the threat of strikes. It would now appear that a simple, well-placed cross on the ballot paper removes some of the need to actually lose money and stand on picket lines

A fact that is evidently clear to the thousands of BA CC who keep voting for strike action but then don't actually go on strike.

I recall DH being vitriolic about such people in the past, calling them "beneath contempt". So keeping the faith now requires an entire union to ignore strike ballots and work, and thus be "beneath contempt"?

Surely, even the most diehard BASSA members must see through such nonsense :ugh:

[Skipness One Echo]

Time to manage this nonsense out of the business methinks. The 90 day change of Ts and Cs is not unknown in the real world. I think the company have been patient enough with this stroppy bunch of spoiled and sulking brats.

Don't let the door hit you on the a*** as you leave then.

[mrpony]

...proves he has completely lost the plot or is acting in a way to deliberately undermine the future employment prospects of BASSA members.

[oggers]

You no longer need actual strikes to pressure the company - ballots can have the same effect, since they carry the threat of strikes. It would now appear that a simple, well-placed cross on the ballot paper removes some of the need to actually lose money and stand on picket lines...every time a ballot is announced it has the same effect as going on strike. The continued uncertainty keeps passengers away in their droves


So, that's now official then. And having weathered the real strikes BA is going to cave in to hollow threats of strikes why exactly?

Now, as a bit of a traditionalist I still subscribe to the theory that when bluffing, it's best not to let on. I guess he hasn't read 'Poker for Dummies'.

I also like the bit where he said it was now about "sending a message". That's an interesting new development isn't it? Not.

Will they injunct us again on our next one?
...instead of all this being settled long ago, their unimaginative and belligerent approach means our dispute is now entering its second summer. The ongoing uncertainty will now sadly continue..Oh, and by the way, this time it will have even more items on it. We will of course need to cover yet more breaches of our agreements that have taken place; they may have thought they had gotten away with those, but they haven’t.

So that's official too then: the next ballot will be a continuation of the original dispute. On behalf of BA barristers everywhere I'd like to extend a heartfelt thanks to DH for his continuing clarification of this matter :rolleyes:

[Entaxei]

Quite feasible, the effect of his actions on the BASSA membership has no relevance to him in his struggle/war against BA, financially he is copperbottomed with his BA pension, possible percentage of subscriptions, and the ability to collect his BASSA pension at the end of the year.

He only has one objective, to bring BA to heel, as it used to be, so that BASSA can control BA's operations, and in passing get rid of Willy Walsh et al. - Meglomania!! - members? - who/what are they?

[notlangley]

On the other thread Betty girl said. . and give us 90 days to sign or leave, similar to what the London Fire Brigade was going to do.

Well in my opinion the time has come.In my opinion that would be a mistake._ BA has kept its cool - made memorable by the calm and untroubled demeanour and body-language of Willie Walsh when he was surrounded in a lobby by a mob of left wing activists._ As I see it, BA are content for Heritage/Legacy/First CC to stay until they reach retirement age on substantially the same T&Cs as they are now._ When I say "substantially" I mean no-one can predict the future - would you believe Icelandic volcanoes becoming more active?_ Given time H/L/F CC will see that they are the "Preserved Cabin Crew" and allowed with respect to remain for as long as they like._ The replacing of retiring CC and the need for extra CC because of extra routes will be catered for by the expansion of Mixed Fleet._ It will take time, but enough of Cabin Crew will see and understand._ They who want the Revised-Final-Offer should be allowed to have it, and they who prefer not to sign should not be disturbed.

[Betty girl]

You might be right notlangley, just a bit fed up and the thought of this dragging on and on and on and on.......... has driven me to be open to any solution, as long as this madness ends!!!!

[LD12986]

Whilst I can see the appeal of the 90 day route, not least because it could have ended this 18 months ago, the response if Unite and crew is an unknown. I expect Unite would try to seek an injunction. I also fear that some of the more cavalier elements of BASSA would discourage crew from signing with assurances that everything will be OK...

What is also worrying is that anything other than a strike ballot paper seems to be greeted with apathy by crew.

[Richard228]

in case anyone (read BASSA) needs reminding of the fragile state of the airline industry, BBC are today reporting an expected $6 billion drop in airline earnings in 2011, through increases in the oil price.

Not only that, they expect most of the profits to come from Asia.. not good for european legacy airlines, costs still need to be trimmed people...

BBC News - Airline profits to fall as fuel costs rise, says Iata (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12446045)

[Skipness One Echo]

I expect Unite would try to seek an injunction.

Changing Ts and Cs on 90 days is a pretty standard workplace contractual change nowadays, upon what legal basis would BASSA go to court. "It's not fair so I will squeem and squeem until I am sick....M'Lord"?

[WillDAQ]

If the latest post is anything to go by, any member of Unite can issue BASSA a notice to supply accounts within 28 days.

Almost wish I was a member of unite now!

[MPN11]

That 'right of access' does, according to that CC Thread post, include 'former members' ... which could provide an interesting opportunity for those who have left the Union, and indeed BA, to see the records without fear of subsequent harassment at the workplace [not that anything like that could possibly happen, of course].

[LD12986]

SOE, I've no ide on what basis Unite could seek an injunction but as they have litigated over almost everything BA has done, I assume they will by default.

[hellsbrink]

Going back to this "BASSA Limited" thingie. One suggestion for the move to a limited company is to try and prevent them getting royally shafted by any lawsuit by BA over losses because of the screwed up strikes.

Now, this is where my mind gets working. Surely the "limited company" would be irrelevant as BASSA is part of UNITE so any damages would have to come from UNITE itself (they do sanction the IA, don't they)?

Of course, that would apply IF BASSA were to remain a part of UNITE. Could there be plans afoot to either have BASSA kicked out to "save" UNITE or are BASSA planning to break away from UNITE because UNITE are starting to see the light and are saying things the BASSA hierarchy don't exactly want to hear.............

[leiard]

TRADE UNION FUNDS AND ACCOUNTING RECORDS


http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/employment-matters/docs/06-556-trade-union-accounting.pdf

DISQUALIFICATION OF TRADE UNION LEADERS

failing to supply a copy of union rules, failing to keep proper accounting records and to provide access to those records, and failing to provide the Certification Officer with an annual return relating to its affairs (section 45(1) of the 1992 Act);

[Entaxei]

MrBernoulli on the other thread has posted some very definitive outlines to the controlling TU legislation, which are well worth reading.

One area that does need unravelling is what were BASSA before they joined Unite, (presumably an independant trade union), and on what terms did they join, because even as only a branch of Unite, they still behave in the manner of an independant and Unite appear to treat them as such.

a. BASSA can call strike dates.
b. BASSA can refuse offers from BA, even if Unite say accept.
c. BASSA can add items to a dispute list.
d. Only BASSA can call off a strike.
e. BASSA is needed to agree to finish a dispute.
f. BASSA can change/amend their regulations without Unite approval.

So does anyone reading on here know the BASSA history? - or is it
:mad:

[pencisely]

I have checked in here tonight to see where this dispute has now got to, the lack of press coverage gives the impression that it is all long since settled.

Having caught up I am deeply disappointed that the promised IA will not now be taking place this month. I will be travelling Club to Rio this week and was really looking forward to a repeat of the 3 LH flights I flew during IA last year. The atmosphere was superb, the crew numbers were down but the VCC were well supported and the service was great.

The problem for the PAX perspective is not knowing who you are dealing with, in a crew of 12 on a 744 statistics say there could be 4 - 5 of the destructive eelement. Usually you can spot them but of course you just never know for certain. Speaking personally and being so disgusted with the beahviour of this union and the damage this mentality has done to this country I have no desire to engage.

I apologise in advance, to those CC that support BA, for appearing as a surly, uncommunicative PAX but it is because I dont know which side of the fence you are on.

I support the notion of the identifying tags as it helps solve this problem.

BA now need to lance this boil in fact it seems to have become more like a small spot. They have been more than patient, nobody will now forgive them for pressing the nuke button.

The requirement to present a new ballot as being unconnected to the original dispute is clearly unachievable, on this basis it seems unlikley that UNITE will ever be able to execute a ballot resulting in protected IA. DH is making the noises that the effect of repeated fake ballots will cause the same damage. Did his mother really never read him the "boy who cried wolf" fable.

Very amusing to hear that he is a failed BA pilot applicant - very funny indeed and explains an awful lot.

I would be amazed if BA put up with this for very long now.

For those Non strikers on Rio on Thursday I thank you in advance for the commitment and courage in the face of these bullys, it is appreciated even if it will be hard to show it.

[wiggy]

The problem for the PAX perspective is not knowing who you are dealing with, in a crew of 12 on a 744 statistics say there could be 4 - 5 of the destructive eelement

Very good point and FWIW it's a problem for the crewmembers as well. They spend the first few hours (days of a long trip) trying to work out the politics of their colleagues.

Not saying it's right or it should effect customer service, but that's the way it is at the moment.

[strikemaster82]

pencisely, if you wait a little I would imagine that the end of the story will write itself with BA doing very little. There are enough developments mentioned on this and the other thread to lead those of sufficient motivation down the road to finishing this...

[BBOWFIGHTER]

Been watching both threads for quite a while. What is glaring a large majority of people in the face is that there IS something wrong. It now needs Unite or BASSA to produce requested accounts for BASSA during the next 28 days or one or both of them are in breach of the law. It can no longer be hidden and it is VITAL that any thoughts of wrongdoing, that many people are harboring at the moment, must be laid to rest. It is beholden on the officers of both Unite and BASSA to deal with the matter immediately.

What is so wrong with this situation is that is leaving a sour taste in many a mouth.

[Ancient Observer]

Entaxie,

Only the Unite Exec Cttee can authorise any IA by any Branch.
bassa do not have the power to call any industrial action.

On this fuss about Accounts - Unite is the TU as far as the Certification Officer is concerned. bassa is just a branch.

As a number of us said some time ago - in any dispute - "Follow the Money"

As to PC3 becoming involved in this stuff about bassa accounts, I would argue that they should stay away from it.

PC3's efforts need to be in establishing themselves, and in recruitment. They will never be recognised by BA just because they are not bassa. - that is not the way that recognition works!

[Mariner9]

Well it may well be illegal not to produce accounts, but it seems to me (and perhaps Litebulbs could correct me if wrong) there is nothing to stop BASSA paying their reps any sum they like without contravening any law (provided appropriate taxes are paid).

Whether those sums will be deemed fair and reasonable by the membership is another matter obviously.

However, many BASSA members are apparently happy to support their leadership in further strike action, thus foregoing significant sums. With this in mind, are they likely to get too upset by a possible misuse of a portion of their £15/month?

[strikemaster82]

I'm sure that all the accounts will be in order and that all the BASSA officers will be correctly remunerated. I'm also sure that such people, being in the public eye, will be sure to have made the appropriate returns to HMRC.

As an aside, if anyone feels that they know someone is evading tax and they want HMRC to know about it, there is a handy link here: HM Revenue & Customs: Reporting Tax Evasion (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tax-evasion/)

[MPN11]

An 'interesting' couple of days, as the focus shifts from discussing who/how/when to strike ... to the entire probity of the BASSA administration.

Isn't it strange how discussions about membership records led to revelations about the paid Rep sub-contracting the task, and led naturally to "Who gets paid what and for what?" and "Where does all that money go?"

Administrative and [especially] Financial transparency is fundamental. Whilst I'm not suggesting anything wrong in what BASSA has, or is, doing it is essential that they/Unite provide [as required by Law] the required information. That's not a witch-hunt against DH or LM or anyone else ... just a desire to see the Law complied with, and for BA CC to have an understanding of what's happening.

If there are still any Journalists reading this thread, I hope they might also take a bit of detailed interest. Relying on an individual CC member to risk retaliation from Union activists in not necessarily a desirable route to follow.

[PAXboy]

I'm not surprised that these question shave come now. When BA challenged the vote it can only have been (in my personal view) because they could show the figures of crew who asked them to deduct membership fees from pay and compared it against the numbers who voted. Unless the two tallied within a very narrow margin - the vote would be invalid.

Thus, when BA quietly waited until the last minute (.com) and pitched the numbers across the table to the judiciary, fallout became inevitable. It appears to me (personal view) that BA have won this round and, just possibly, initiated a turning point in the affairs of the whole shooting match.

[pcat160]

There was a previous link to an article that stated the problem with the vote was not the number of ballots but the ballot wording. My understanding is that the wording was so vague as to not adequately state a reason for IA.

[MPN11]

However, to be fair [which I rarely am] much of this is based on rumour and innuendo. This is, after all, "only a website" ... with apologies to PPRuNe ;)

BASSA/Unite would be well advised to dispel those concerns as quickly as possible, with independent oversight or a credible sign-off by Accountants. Straight facts are needed, not more rhetoric and obfuscation.


If the Unions have nothing to hide, they should provide the information as required by law.
If they fail that simple test, I think many people will draw their own conclusions.


I could imagine BA's Legal Department already have that up their sleeve, though.

[mrpony]

.....appeared at the bottom of this thread prior to login. They are one of two who audit Unite accounts.

Coincidence or conspiracy? Not serious about this just thought it funny.

[VintageKrug]

I have followed this thread for some time now, and I have a feeling it's over for BASSA. Let's hope the many dedicated BA cabin crew who have suffered through all the egotistical ramblings are able to find proper union representation after all this is finished.

Many thanks to Mr Bernoulli for linking to thread I started on another forum, where I set out some of the reasons why I believe BASSA is now scuppered, based on an inability to keep accurate membership records (calling into doubt the validity of any future ballot) and that even if such a ballot was supported by the Electoral Reform Service there is plentiful evidence that BASSA and Unite would be engaging in action with would be "unprotected":

Discussion - Business Traveller (http://www.businesstraveller.com/discussion/topic/BASSA-Unite-Latest-Ballot-Just-43-percent-of-BA-Cabin-Crew-Support-Action)

Here is the government's definition of the criteria for "unprotected action" which BASSA has refused to publicise amongst its membership:

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

I would strongly caution anyone considering making a Tax Evasion allegation that there is no evidence whatsoever for such an allegation against anybody. Making a knowingly false accusation would likely be looked upon most seriously.

To BASSAswitch, I would ensure you have something in writing from Unite confirming you made a formal request today, 15 February 2011, for BASSA's accounts, as well as specifying the years for which you expect accounts to be furnished to you. It might also be as well to understand how these records will be made available (electronically, on paper via a viewing etc.) and whether you will be able to make copies of the records.

There can be some debate as to what actually constitutes accounting records; you should quote the phrase "The report should show income, expenditure, receipts, membership numbers, details of branch auditors, details of any bank accounts and accounts including those relating to BASSA and its connected entities".

Ensure you have a name and contact number, and that you chase three or four times in the next 28 days to ensure the request is being progressed.

I would also suggest calling the two audit firms responsible for approving the Unite accounts as most helpfully suggested by summerishere. The auditors' contact details are set out below:

HW Fisher & Sons
www.hwfisher.co.uk/site/cms/contentCategoryView.asp?category=256

Hard Dowdy
Hard Dowdy Accountants (http://www.harddowdy.com/)

It might be as well to line up a qualified accountant to assist you in understanding any documentation which you do get to see, in case BASSA refuse to release publicly their accounts.

I am astounded despite all the murmurings on the various sites out there that it has taken this long for someone to actually pick up the phone and make such an enquiry, so congratulations for taking the initiative and indeed for braving what may well be a difficult few weeks as a consequence. Roll on 15 March!

I don't often see the Final Offer BA made to Unite quoted here, so here it is, as it's fundamental to the resolution of this dispute and speaking (as a passenger) to crew on board my most recent flights not all of them have actually read it (again, it amazes me that those affected don't even read the offer their union refused to put before them...):

www.uniteba.com/ESW/Files/151010_Revised_Offer_Collectivev6.doc

Finally, I will leave you with these words:

"Strikers are deluded if they think they can win".

And that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of Derek Simpson, Unite General Secretary:

Unite 4 Labour in Edinburgh: Derek Simpson fails to deliver|17Apr10|Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20902)

It's a real shame BASSA has dragged Trade Unionism back into the dark ages of the 1970s through their intransigence and incompetence.

[call100]

An 'interesting' couple of days, as the focus shifts from discussing who/how/when to strike ... to the entire probity of the BASSA administration.

Isn't it strange how discussions about membership records led to revelations about the paid Rep sub-contracting the task, and led naturally to "Who gets paid what and for what?" and "Where does all that money go?"

Administrative and [especially] Financial transparency is fundamental. Whilst I'm not suggesting anything wrong in what BASSA has, or is, doing it is essential that they/Unite provide [as required by Law] the required information. That's not a witch-hunt against DH or LM or anyone else ... just a desire to see the Law complied with, and for BA CC to have an understanding of what's happening.

If there are still any Journalists reading this thread, I hope they might also take a bit of detailed interest. Relying on an individual CC member to risk retaliation from Union activists in not necessarily a desirable route to follow.
I would say that is exactly what you are doing..:rolleyes:

[BBOWFIGHTER]

And why not indeed. There is also a law against union activists intimidating individuals who stand up for their rights. In this case a quest to know what is happening to the funds that the members put into the union.

To the officers of BASSA it seems you have only 28 days to produce the figures. I tend to feel that might not be enough.

[call100]

And why not indeed. There is also a law against union activists intimidating individuals who stand up for their rights. In this case a quest to know what is happening to the funds that the members put into the union.

To the officers of BASSA it seems you have only 28 days to produce the figures. I tend to feel that might not be enough.
What law would that be? I think you will find it is generally against the law to do that not TU specific. But, of course that wouldn't suit your rhetoric, would it?
I find little difference between what BASSA does and what a majority of posters on here do. Preach to the converted.
If BASSA have abused member contributions then they deserve everything that will happen to them. I'd rather wait until that is proven than make the assumption.

[Litebulbs]

Very well said. This assumption of guilt is quite annoying and I am sure that if the books are above board, there will not be a flow of apologies on both threads. Some of the stronger accusations could find there way into legal proceedings, if the damaged parties want more than an apology.

I would imagine that a fair amount of strike pay has been distributed, along with the cost mass meetings and litigation, that Unite central financing will have been paying a fair amount of attention to the money coming in against that going out at both national and branch level.

[MPN11]

If BASSA have abused member contributions then they deserve everything that will happen to them. I'd rather wait until that is proven than make the assumption.
I think most people would agree with that.

[edit = and also Litebulbs' comment above]

However, as a starting point one has to assume either innocence or guilt.
If innocence is presumed, there would be little need to seek the facts.
The converse also applies.

[Mariner9]

Some of the stronger accusations could find there way into legal proceedings, if the damaged parties want more than an apology

I've just had a quick look back on this and the other thread, and there does not appear to be any accusations of financial wrongdoing other than speculation as to whether proper accounts will be made available within the alloted timeframe.

I reiterate what I said above. BASSA can do what they like with their funds provided they are properly accounted for. They have to answer only to their members in respect of their finances, not to us.

[VintageKrug]

I don't think there has been any allegation of accounting irregularities made here.

What is being alleged is that BASSA may not have kept proper accounts (an unfounded allegation - we have no evidence either way) and that it may have made an effort to obfuscate members' enquiries to have access to the accounts made possible in the past, using unacceptable excuses such as "wait until we are less busy/out of dispute" etc.

One area which is still unclear to me is whether BASSA is a Union or a Branch.

In some ways, BASSA does act like a Union, but we should remember that it is only the Union itself which has the legal responsibilities in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992; Unite may need to demonstrate to auditors and others that it has received proper records from its branches, but I am not certain those branches themselves have a statutory responsibility to produce accounts, other than as "good practice" and in a spirit of transparency to its own membership.

I would not be surprised at all if after all this, accounts are indeed produced for the BASSA branch, but they are at such a high level and lacking in detail that nothing can be drawn from them; it is therefore

Apart from vague statements from various people that they "once" saw the accounts (at a time, date and place unspecified) and they "looked fine to them" without any reference to what sort of qualification those people had to make a judgement, we have no evidence that any accounts are kept, apart from the assurance of Unite's auditors, which I would urge BASSA members to contact directly:

HW Fisher & Sons
http://www.hwfisher.co.uk/site/cms/c...p?category=256 (http://www.hwfisher.co.uk/site/cms/contentCategoryView.asp?category=256)

Hard Dowdy
www.harddowdy.co.uk (http://www.harddowdy.co.uk)

It is not clear to me whether BASSA itself has engaged auditors to produce its own accounts; these may differ from the names above, as those relate to Unite's accounts (of which BASSA's numbers form a not inconsiderable part).

I would make the point that whatever type of accounts BASSA has kept, Unite absolutely has the right to use the full 28 days and nothing can be construed from them taking the full legal amount of time to produce this, apart from perhaps an inference that such accounts were not readily to hand and evidence of a less than transparent approach to its membership.

Even if accounts are produced, and satisfy accounting law, they may still reveal some evidence of funds being used in ways which may well be legal, but may not be viewed favourably by BASSA's membership.

However, as others have stated, it is important not to make any unfounded allegations, and to wait for the 28 days period to pass.

What is significant is that if the accounts cannot be produced in a timely fashion, then that is a most serious breach of Trade Union law, for which there could be significant legal repercussions.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/32)

That is the real issue at hand, not whether there has been any financial impropriety.

[davidexba]

What with the switch to only the 'threat' of further strikes it seems like Dunc will have more time on his hands to update his blog (http://goo.gl/PXbnv)

But seriousley, if you are wondering what right minded people would continue to support this drivel, see here (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=117378884960924&v=wall)

Feel free to join up!

[baggersup]

Pretty interesting reading, after scanning it.

One wants to buy her leader a drink "downroute." Hm. Guess she didn't get the memo he doesn't work at BA anymore....!?

Sad, really.

[MCOflyer]

After reading that list of comments by those poor misguided people I can see why this just seems to go on and on.

I guess not being directly involved gives one a different perspective.

[MPN11]

I guess not being directly involved gives one a different perspective.

Being in the real world shifts the perspective as well! :ugh:

However, I happily accept [with some reservations] the right for workers to fight for their T&Cs. The peculiarity here is that extant T&Cs are being assured, so the Union is fighting for the T&Cs of people who haven't even joined BA yet. Bizarre?

Oooops ... I forgot. One crew member down at LHR, so the CSD actually has to do some work on a long-haul.

IMO, THAT is what it's all about ... legacy CSDs [predominantly Union Reps, I suspect?] being required to get off their butts and actually do something, instead of sleeping and/or manipulating rosters to ensure the most lucrative trips.

E&OE, but I've been reading this sh 1t for 2 years now. I really wish these sad, selfish people would just go away.

[Northern Flights]

From Face book: "The strike they tried to ban continues".

Oh dear...

I clicked on the "Discussions" tab, to see the message "There are no discusions".

No, I guess that sums it up.

[notlangley]

What is MOA agreement?____link (http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

[ZimmerFly]

Perhaps it is this?

Moa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa)

:E

[LD12986]

Memorandum of Agreement

[Mariner9]

The support Duncan face_book page has less than 700 supporters I see.

So did each of those supporters vote 8 times each for strike action, or do around 4,300 yes voters not in fact support Duncan? :E

[MPN11]

Some Facebook users choose to remain anonymous ... I don't think you can blame anyone for that.

Although 700 sounds about right :cool:


BTW, "Duncan Speaks" on the other thread.

[LD12986]

Athough some of the posts on the FB page are far from former crew members, 600+ supporters shows the strength of his following bearing in mind many BA CC are not of the FB generation and some will avoid any online activity connected with the dispute because of some of the suspensions.

[Dawdler]

BTW, "Duncan Speaks" on the other thread.

Sadly been taken down by mods. I must admit unless I read it wrong, it did not seem to propagate "forum wars" or some such. It did purport to be a response by DH to something that he read here. I guess if you weren't quick enough or didn't read it properly (possibly like me) you'll never know.

[Mariner9]

What are the odds of a major UK airline being in a fight for survival and in dispute with a major section of its workforce for over two years, which has cost more than the required savings from that section, still being here today?100% self evidently. BA's management strategy was obviously approved by the investors and bankers, allowing BA to continue trading despite posting successive enormous losses followed by a tiny profit.

Is the penny finally dropping that the rhetoric is not the sole property of one camp?BA are of course entitled to use rhetoric, just as BASSA are.

But the rhetoric will not solve anything from either camp and it is pointless for interested parties and managers alike to carry it on. Flap62 is correct to a point. I dont agree. Opinion is everything, and is shaped by rhetoric. From what we have heard, many BASSA members listen only to BASSA and ignore/dont read anything from BA. If true, the leadership of BASSA are the only people who can solve this dispute peacefully should they choose to do so.

You have to look at the demands made by both branches and discuss them. Is there opportunity to return to the pre dispute crew complements? Yes, but you pull the part timers back onto full time and use new contract staff.Additional crew will cost money whatever fleet is used. That cost will have to come from somewhere. Further, what would you say to those BASSA members who opted for a part time from a lifestyle choice that their union now tells them they must return to fulltime work?

Make the MTP contractual and negotiable. BA may well agree to make it contractual and negotiable. Do you think BASSA will agree to the negotiable part?

Say ok, agree to binding arbitration, but anyone that is found against on an item that could be deemed criminal, will be pursued through the criminal system.BA have already offered arbitration. Are you saying reinstate those found guilty of gross misconduct unless its criminal?

Staff travel: reinstate it with length of service set but with the dispute 'length taken away and rounded up to the nearest year, pending any ECoHR decision on the legality of punitive measures for protected industrial action.ST removal was/is a useful tool employed by BA to deter strike action. Unite are set to take BA to court over the legality of this approach. They therefore have no need to include this requirement in any settlement, particularly a settlement that from your list effectively goes back to where things were before all this started.

Then have a serious look at the CSD/Purser grades based on how much and the way they are paid and I am not talking about cuts in the levels.I'm not sure I follow this. Are you proposing a pay rise for CSD's in exchange for them reverting back to an easier workload?. Some would say that if BA had offered this at the start while imposing cuts elsewhere (eg Gatwick) a dispute with BASSA would never have arisen.

BA need the current crew and each new employee acts as a duplicated cost, until the equivalent existing crew member leaves, unless the average existing crew member earns over £15000 in allowances per year, so the negotiations being over are not true, in my opinion. That is working on an assumption that BA will maintain current flight schedules and thus crewing requirements. BA may be set to open up lots of new routes, or to close many. We don't know.

There will be a tipping point when the new are larger than the old, but the financial state of the business may be more buoyant then, which adds weight to any future discussions.The financial state of the company depends on both revenue and costs. Your proposed settlement adds to the latter without anyclear benefit to the former (other than the removal of short-term IA losses in revenue).

I believe that Bassa will deliver another vote with convincing numbers and 6000 is a convincing number. It will be interesting if the 3000 invisible voters turn up in the yes or no camp, or that 3000 reduces along with union membership and therefore the number of ballot papers issued. I agree. And I think they would likely still vote to strike even if BA offered your proposals exactly as written.

[Litebulbs]

Well answered points, but at least we are talking.

[Skipness One Echo]

The core element that BASSA cannot and will not swallow is that full operational and management of the crewing situation is now with IFCE and not with them. No more calls to La La Lady to prevent a flight departing, no more commands to take hotel rooms in Ayrshire rather than crew the aircraft and the passengers to home base next day, no more the power and the glory of sticking two fingers up to management just to "keep them in their place".

Actually the place of management is to manage the staff, no one likes it but the buck ought to stop there, not at the whim of a militant and evidently paranoid union. I have a couple of BA flights coming up, I am not too worried about a BASSA ballot, I'm just laughing at their incompetence and intransigence. I grant you BA management have been epically inept in the past but two wrongs don't make a right and Mr Walsh has made great strides in righting a listing ship. BASSA are a cancer that needs removing IMHO, an embarrasment to the trade union movement.

[GemDeveloper]

There is a debate on ‘the other thread’ about how close, if at all, BA came to going to the wall, and whether now that it has ‘survived’, it’s all right for BASSA et al to pursue their original aims of crew numbers, etc.

The Company has survived; but no-one can imagine that the future suddenly has become rosy. Others have mentioned the need for strong business performance to invest in new products, and pay for the significant new aircraft deliveries that the Company has ordered. Add to that the ever rising operating costs, particularly of fuel, and an effortless ride to the future cannot be guaranteed.

Supporting all these expenditures requires cash. The cash will be generated by operations, yes, but to tide the Company over periods of high expenditure, some will have to be borrowed. I have mentioned already that the time that Companies get into difficulties often is as they come out of recession, as they are having to spend money to invest in increased capacity, etc., to meet anticipated future demand, but they are not yet in receipt of the revenues that future demand will generate.

So there is one other factor in the Company’s continued hard line that I suspect also is at play. My view is that the City has supported the robust management of this on-going dispute because the City sees the need to get, and keep, costs under control. If the City sees the Management weakening on this fundamental tenet of running any business, it will lose confidence in the future direction of the Company. The reaction will be that borrowing money to support the cash requirements will at best become rather more expensive, or at worst, impossible. No-one can deny that the Company needs, and will continue to need, a lot of cash to support its future. No cash, no future.

[PAXboy]

MPN11However, I happily accept [with some reservations] the right for workers to fight for their T&Cs. The peculiarity here is that extant T&Cs are being assured, so the Union is fighting for the T&Cs of people who haven't even joined BA yet. Bizarre?Not bizarre, just good old fashioned power politics.
Keep the rates high to attract new recruits to the Union
They will then be glad of the Union and see that it is working for them
Higher rates keep the Union of more critical importance to the Company
Higher rates keep the Union in more money
That makes the Union reps of more importanceThe REALLY stupid thing is that - the Union doesn't have to do all that.

1) Unions became stronger, correcting the genuine imbalance between employer and employee. Unfortunately, the pendulum then swung too far (as it always does in human affairs!) and the Union becomes as wedded to their privileges as did the bosses in decades gone by.

2) The German unions make sure that they protest prominently but they always ensure that they settle. They try not to waste their members money on strikes that - if won - come out revenue neutral, or worse. We had many UK strikes in the 70s/80s where employees 'won' but lost on the money and took two or more years to get back to where they were.

I think I'll put the kettle on ...

[MPN11]

Not bizarre, just good old fashioned power politics.

Keep the rates high to attract new recruits to the Union
They will then be glad of the Union and see that it is working for them
Higher rates keep the Union of more critical importance to the Company
Higher rates keep the Union in more money
That makes the Union reps of more importance


I take your point ... it could be described as "Power To The People [At The Top]" rather than any genuine concern for the rest of the people.


As an aside, I think I just heard on the BBC that the price of oil is going up on the back of the unrest in Libya.
BA is not out of the woods yet, by a long way.

[notlangley]

Tony Woodley said
The fifth item is about stopping BA from imposing a near minimum waged workforce and killing their brand.
link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/unite_gives_ba_seven_days__not.aspx)
So the vote to strike was a secondary action and therefore would have lead in due course to Unite having to appear in Court . . .

[notlangley]

. . . . or was it incitement to BA to break contracts between BA and individual members of mixed fleet?

[Dismissal is called "a breach of contract"]

[Manchikeri]

[Dismissal is called "a breach of contract"]

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Avitor]

It's a personal dispute, between two people with a flock of sheep in the middle. :\

[LD12986]

What do people make of this (from another public forum):

Rob.Bedcrew - 17/02/2011 11:13 GMT

For anyone who does not believe that there has been a concerted UNION-busting agenda at BA, perhaps the following will give some an insight, into the twisted slanted and underhand policies being enacted against individuals who dare to have a voice.

For those who are unaware BA have formed a secret group under the heading "Leiden" which is specifically to deal with the current industrial dispute and to silence anyone who holds an opinion contrary to their own.

How many other employees may view this and wonder the possible implications, is anybody's guess and a stark warning of what may become.

Leiden for Beginners

British Airways have a number of policies and procedures each of which have been developed and agreed with the trade unions before being approved by the Employment Policy Council. These include EG901 which is the policy dealing with disciplinaries and EG102, the policy dealing with bullying and harassment. These and all other policies comply with and largely exceed ACAS guidelines which recommend a minimum possible standard. In accordance with ACAS, these policies and procedures are accessible, in that the details of each are published, and known by all British Airways employees and apply to all employees equally.

When, early last February, at the beginning of the industrial dispute,
cabin crew were being suspended in unusually large numbers, the trade union reps attention was drawn immediately to the fact that the managers involved, acting on behalf of the Company, seemed to have dispensed with normal policies and procedures, sometimes in part and sometimes in their entirety.

An example of this is that prior to this time, in accordance with EG901
3.4 if a crew member was suspected of wrong doing, their line manager or a duty line manager, depending on the nature/timing of the wrong doing, would decide whether it would be undesirable for the employee to remain at work and might therefore make a precautionary suspension of the employee.

Indeed, from February 2010 this remained the case as per the policy for all alleged offences unrelated to the industrial dispute. So if a crew
member was suspected of misusing their staff travel or the sickness policy for instance, they would be interviewed and the manager would make a decision based on that interview whether to suspend or not.

If, however the alleged offence was somehow related to the industrial
dispute the decision to suspend was not made by the manager as per the policy. The decision to suspend had already been made elsewhere prior to the suspension meeting. In the first two weeks of February, eighteen crew members were suspended for bullying and harassment and breeches of data protection for talking on facebook or on emails or text messages about the existence of a list of pilots training to work as crew during the strike to undermine the effect of that cabin crew strike. In each case the letter notifying the crew member of their suspension had been typed out prior to
the meeting. The decision to suspend was not made by the line manager carrying out the suspension. It was made elsewhere. This is in breach of the company policy EG901 part 3.4.

The Preliminary Investigation Team exists within BA to carry out
investigations into cabin crew members when an offence is alleged in all cases of disciplinary action whether or not the crew member is suspended. The team exists with this sole remit. They have always conducted, in a non-judgemental way, all such investigations and throughout the industrial dispute continued investigating all cases not related to the industrial dispute. All cases relating to the industrial dispute, from the very first case, were investigated by an outside team of managers brought in specifically for that purpose. These managers did not have the same experience as the PI team. They were unaware of custom and practice. They worked to ACAS minimum standards. They were far from thorough. They were
far from non-judgemental.

All dispute related preliminary investigations and hearings were held in one of two rooms; syndicate room 5 or 7. All non-dispute related cases are held elsewhere. There is a card outside each room in Waterside on which the purpose or titles of meetings are noted ie: this room is in use for.....In every dispute related case it was noted that the room is in use for "Backing BA". Backing BA refers to supporting the Company in its dispute with Unite.

Immediately then, if a case was related in some way to the dispute, crew were being treated differently from how they would have been treated were the case unrelated to the dispute. Their cases were treated differently solely by virtue of the fact that they were related to the dispute.

EG 102 is the policy dealing with bullying and harassment. There is a set procedure to follow if you feel you have been bullied and/or harassed. You should, in the first instance attempt to resolve the matter informally either directly with the alleged bully or through mediation with a third party. If this fails, an informal grievance should be brought which will be investigated by a manager. If unresolved, a formal grievance would then be investigated by a second manager. At that point, disciplinary action may be instigated by the manager. In the cases of all crew accused of bullying and harassment relating to the dispute, this procedure was dispensed with in its entirety. A pilot would make an allegation and the crew member was suspended. In most cases allegations were not even made, but rather, the company took the decision to suspend and instigate disciplinary action regardless and an allegation or a 'victim' sought later. In other departments and with regard to cases unrelated to the industrial dispute, normal EG102 procedures were followed. If the case was
related to the dispute, normal procedures were dispensed with. It is
difficult to suggest that this constitutes a breach of EG102 because it
was simply dispensed with entirely.

The accused crew members and/or their TU reps expressed concern at various stages of the disciplinary procedures that ordinary policies were not being followed. Concern was expressed repeatedly that in several cases there appeared to be either no original complaint or no victim. The manager in each case simply replied in the same set wording that if something is brought to their attention, as a concerned company, they had a duty to act. To test that theory on the 12th of April 2010, the BASSA Branch Secretary sent a number of threatening or bullying postings made by pilots on the BALPA forum to Tony McCarthy. Presumably, as a concerned company, they would have a duty to act. These postings could be compared directly to those made by Cabin Crew on facebook. For instance on facebook a number of crew mention a list of pilots training as crew. At no time do they mention the actual names of the pilots. Every crew member on that
facebook thread was suspended, suffering severe financial deficit and emotional distress. Every crew member received sanctions ranging from a two year final written warning to dismissal. Pilots, on the other hand who published the name, telephone number and email address of a specific crew member on their forum and talked about wanting a list of those who had been suspended and having them 'hung, drawn and quartered', were neither suspended or sanctioned. In every Cabin Crew case, concern that the Company was not acting equitably or fairly was expressed. In every case,
the response from the hearing managers was that they were convinced that the pilots involved were being treated in line with the Company's policies and procedures. To date no pilot who made a bullying and/or harassing statement on the BALPA forum has been disciplined in any way. The Company cannot, therefore demonstrate that they have acted equitably or fairly.

A pilot wrote a posting on the BALPA website informing pilots that he had been present at a meeting on the 3rd of February with senior BA management and with input from the 'head of the company himself' in which certain things were put in place that would expedite any disciplinary processes and which convinced him utterly that the Company were using all their extraordinary contacts across industry to leave no stone unturned in exposing and punishing anyone who might pose a threat to pilot volunteers. This posting was passed on to the union by a concerned pilot who is willing to testify to this and to the integrity of the postings (in that they were not tampered with). Though the writer of this posting subsequently became the main witness or the alleged victim in several cases, the Company would not allow accused crew or their reps to question this pilot in any case as is their right according to the ACAS Code of Practice and the Company policy which states that either side may call witnesses. Indeed no request to call any witness in any case was ever accommodated by the Company. This constitutes a breach of EG 901 3.6.2 and the ACAS Code of Practice. When asked about the specifics of his posting
through a number of hearing managers, the pilot replied that he had not made the posting and that it had been edited by BASSA for their own purposes. This is a lie. Regardless, his posting backed up BASSA's belief that extraordinary measures outside of all normal policies and procedures were being taken to prosecute cabin crew in dispute related cases and that therefore they were being discriminated against.

BA managers are accompanied throughout all stages of a disciplinary by a member of PMA (People Management Advice; the BA equivalent of HR). Fifty dispute related disciplinaries of striking cabin crew were conducted before a PMA advisor titled the notes from a crew member's disciplinary, 'Leiden'. This led him, in his appeal to question the word 'Leiden'. Crew and TU reps have subsequently asked about the meaning of Leiden in various disciplinaries. Some managers and PMA advisors decline to answer, others have answered that Leiden is merely the name of a room in Waterside.
Whilst some suggest that it is the name of a particularly secure room
enabling only the manager concerned to have access to the case because of the sensitive nature of dispute related cases, others suggest it is a room where managers can compare sensitive dispute related cases to ensure consistency. Others, when pressed acknowledge that it is the name of a unit named after the room in Waterside that deals specifically with dispute related cases. One manager confirmed reluctantly that there exists a Leiden framework of sanctions which is referred to and applied in Leiden cases. Another manager has confirmed that the decision to suspend and instigate the disciplinary process is made by Leiden.

On the 16th of July a Flight Operations manager in response to questions posed in one hearing in which he had some involvement wrote that in order to protect volunteers a number of managers met in early February a number of times: He wrote -

"Either Len McCluskey or Tony Woodley had set the scene before this period by referring to the volunteer workforce as 'scabs' so it was not a surprise but it was a source of real concern. A number of meetings took place prior to 4th February.... where we discussed how to protect the volunteers, what action to take against those responsible for intimidation and where it was appropriate to draw the line. In order to promote a consistent approach, we identified and categorised 5 areas of intimidation which we considered were either gross misconduct or misconduct. We also agreed that the incidents would be investigated by a central investigation unit....that would be set up immediately."

Crew and their reps have since requested these five criteria which have never been forthcoming. Reluctantly, the Company has provided the Leiden framework in only two cases. It is undated and is version 4. The Company have been asked to provide copies of versions 1,2 and 3 and for the dates of any changes. To date these have not been provided. Most recently, in the case of one sacked crew member, a fragment of an evidently earlier framework was provided at the insistence of her solicitor. It is again undated and the sanctions available to the manager are narrower and more defined.

When asked about Leiden in an interview with Dan Milmo of The Guardian on the 7th of November 2010, BA say -

"Investigations into allegations are conducted under the company's disciplinary procedures, which have been in place for many years, are fair, open and transparent and are agreed with all our trade unions,
including Unite......This is part of an open and transparent process and copies of the matrix have been provided on request."

It must be noted that BA have a robust disciplinary procedure agreed with the TUs and that that procedure continues to be applied in all non- dispute related cases. There is no need for supplementary frameworks that apply only to dispute related cases or for a separate set of criteria. Leiden was not agreed by the Trade Unions or approved by The Employment Council. Nor was it known to either. It was not transparent or published or indeed known to the employees and the Company have been at great pains to keep its existence secret. At no time did they ever answer a concern or query by stating that they were acting outside the norm because they were
working to a separate, secret framework. At no time was any crew member aware of the existence of a 'central intelligence unit'.

Whilst, the Company finds the deliberately prescriptive nature of their covert Leiden framework an acceptable advisory tool for their chosen Leiden Unit managers to use in deciding to suspend, sanction and dismiss; indeed this being its very remit, The TU rep responsible for representing the majority of the crew and for collating information about dispute related cases and the very existence of Leiden, was accused of gross misconduct and sacked for the way in which she advised, prepared and represented crew involved.

Subsequent to the uncovering of the Leiden Unit and during negotiations prior to the current ballot for further industrial action, the Company provided Unite with a list of Leiden Cases. This matched the Union's own list of cases thought to be related to the dispute. All Leiden cases have been subjected to secret criteria and frameworks unknown to the crew involved or to the cabin crew community at large or to their unions. All Leiden cases have been treated outside normal policies and procedures. All Leiden cases have been classified as such because they are related to the industrial dispute and for no other reason. Therefore all crew classified as Leiden have been discriminated against by virtue of their trade union membership and activity.

[notlangley]

For instance on FacePPRuNe a number of crew mention a list of pilots training as crew. At no time do they mention the actual names of the pilots. Every crew member on that
FacePPRuNe thread was suspended, suffering severe financial deficit and emotional distress.I am not sure that I understand what is meant by FacePPrune.
Does that affect us here and now and tomorrow?

[Richard228]

the Company provided Unite with a list of Leiden Cases.duh! - wasn't that list was given to the trade union when the last deal was agreed? (before the union then broke their promise to ballot the membership)

As I recall, and its in the public domain, BA produced a list of employees who had been sacked during this dispute, which would have gone to ACAS arbitration - had the union members had a say of course. The union themselves wanted such a list produced, the fact it has got a name seemingly attached to it, how is that relevant?

There is a card outside each room in Waterside on which the purpose or titles of meetings are noted ie: this room is in use for.....In every dispute related case it was noted that the room is in use for "Backing BA". Backing BA refers to supporting the Company in its dispute with Unite.

Immediately then, if a case was related in some way to the dispute, crew were being treated differently from how they would have been treated were the case unrelated to the dispute.oh my gosh! the employers door, leading into the employers room, where the employer will be, has, may or will be used for the benefit of the employer in the future! not fair!!! does the union want a designated grey room with pictures of Lennin on it, with chimes of the Soviet national anthem piped gently in the background for it to be deemed a fair room!?

what total drivel!

[Richard228]

In each case the letter notifying the crew member of their suspension had been typed out prior to the meeting.hardly surprising. Been there myself, you hear the employee, and the agruments, and have a pre-typed letter ready at the end of the meeting, so that you can give to them immmediately, when a decission is made.

it is not a presumption of guilt to have the letter ready, it simply is an effecient way of dealing with the employee, and means that when they leave the meeting they have the decission, in writing, and there is no room for ambiguity.

[Richard228]

A pilot wrote a posting on the BALPA website informing pilots that he had been present at a meeting on the 3rd of February with senior BA management and with input from the 'head of the company himself' in which certain things were put in place that would expedite any disciplinary processes and which convinced him utterly that the Company were using all their extraordinary contacts across industry to leave no stone unturned in exposing and punishing anyone who might pose a threat to pilot volunteers.Good for BA! so what this pilot heard is that BA will protect their employees from threatening behaviour - I should hope so!

Had BA said they would not proect them, that would be smoething to write home about... this paragraph shows BA are a good employer IMHO!

[Richard228]

A pilot would make an allegation and the crew member was suspended. In most cases allegations were not even made, but rather, the company took the decision to suspend and instigate disciplinary action regardless and an allegation or a 'victim' sought later. In other departments and with regard to cases unrelated to the industrial dispute, normal EG102 procedures were followed.want us to take you seriously Unite/BASSA? then tell the world exactly what was posted, regardless of to whom it was posted, and let us the traveling public make a decission on this.

Quite reightly BA will not release these details, if you the union belive in their innocence so much, then make it public, and let us all see what was said.

or is the truth not worthy of public consumption, or perhaps it won't stengthen your case?

[MPN11]

Reading the post copied by LD12986 tells me that either ...

a. Someone has a lot of time to spare, or,

b. Someone in a Union has written something.

As to where it takes anyone, I defer to Richard228 to continue the anlysis.

[notlangley]

It is a pity that the inventor of that rubbish did not use some of his talent into making the "flexi fleet" become a working system.
link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/012-Bassa-TheWayForwardcombi.pdf)

[Ancient Observer]

ld 12986

You posted that rather long monologue from a conspiracy theorist.....

As someone from a much bigger Co than BA, who has lived through real disputes, where people went on proper full time strikes and lost real money over real principles, - not this nasty, convertible BMW, PIMMS drinking petty dispute, at BA, I have to say that the procss that was outlined in that post was better than anything I've managed before! However, it is/was quite typical of what TUs and corporates do.

1. You know in advance that some very nasty people are involved in this dispute. You know about the bullying and intimidation because you lived therough the Gate Gourmet dispute, when Union reps were threatening people with physical harm. You know that there are pubs close to Heathrow where plots will be hatched to hurt people - both physically and mentally.. Note that the pubs are near Heathrow, not Southampton. You would suffer at least a broken leg to go in to 2 of these pubs, which are known to Special branch.

2. You set out to protect those who will help you. It doesn't matter one jot whether they are pilots or baggage handlers or cleaners. You WILL protect them.

3. You train a group of managers to deal with the fall-out. They are not special agents from the FBI. They are just folk who do their jobs - often for less money than the strike-leaders.

4. You block book rooms. Trying to make something sinister about block booking rooms is plainly daft. When you know the sh*t will be flying, NOT to block book rooms is daft.

5. You have already told the National Officials what you are doing. Woodley et al tell you to get on with it.

6. You are unable to talk to bassa, as they have formally told you that they
6. 1. will not talk/negotiate with you
and
6. 2 have formally withdrawn from most, if not all their agreements with you,and that they have, of course, withdrawn from the Facilities agreement.

I could go on, but is it worth it? I could tell you about how the T & G officials and members used to set fire to NUM coaches, and let their tyres down, as TUs do much worse than BA did.
I'm not going to convince the bassa lot, so I'll leave it.

[MPN11]

@ AO ...Sheeesh ... I thought working for HMG and being in the Military was rough sometimes. You know, proper warry stuff.

I am [sadly] enlightened.

[Richard228]

As to where it takes anyone, I defer to Richard228 to continue the anlysis.

I'm analysis'd out for now I'm afraid!;)

I could go on... but need I?!

[RealFish]

I was going to Fisk that parranoia inducing post from Duncan (or one of his little helpers), but it's been a long week, it's still only Thursday.

With the exception of not providing an opportunity for witnesses to be questioned (if Rob.Bedcrew is to be believed - but of course really we don't know the ins and outs of the disciplinary interview, do we?), every single thing that has been described points to an organisation that really does know it stuff. I would go so far as to say BA have dealt with this in an expemplary way - that said, that judgement can only be made in the basis of what 'Robby' has told us :oh:.

When an organisation is faced with a large number disciplinary cases, it is highly probable that it will need to modify its processes to ensure that cases (and appeals) are heard in within prescribed timescales. What Rob has described is entirely legitimate, fair and reasonable, as are the logistic that have been put in place. This sounds identical to the process that, with ACAS's help, I put in place when faced with 35 breaches of IT protocols (or to put it another way, staff sending very, very mucky photos to each other, as well as customers).

And, it is absolutely right that BA will want to establish a framework, or a range of reasonable responses to the cases. Every case will be different, have varing degrees of aggravation / mitigation, and as long as the managers hearing the case hear it fairly - there is absolutely nothing wrong for them to turn to that framework to ensure that the penalty, should one be imposed, is reasonable and consistent.

No conspiracy here, therefore, just a company doing what is required of it.

Of course if Dunc can't accept that - he can always march his people to an ET. Good luck with that, I think he'll need it and so will his followers, especially if they persist with an application without merit. An award of costs against them could well follow.

[Mariner9]

I think it is said that BA have sacked 50-odd CC in the 2 year course of this dispute. Given BASSA had >10,000 members at the start of this dispute, it will only take BA another 400 years to bust BASSA by sacking their members at the current rate.

In the meantime BASSA have managed to lose ~2000 members disgruntled with their actions in the course of this dispute, and the BASSA secretary has publicly called for another couple of thousand of the remaining members to leave as they didn't vote in accordance with his wishes.

Now just who exactly is union busting in this dispute?

[Juan Tugoh]

If all that is alleged in RBs posting and the disciplinary procedures have been circumvented, modified or dispensed with just to union bust, then we will see a series of Employment Tribunals dishing out pots of compensation to those who have been dealt with in this manner.

The problem with postings on any website is that the level of proof that is required in them is very low. RB makes many allegations in his post and asserts many things, but it is the nature of this type of post that there is nothing in the way of verifiable evidence. It is all just someone's opinion.

The purpose of this posting is to preach to the choir; the intended audience already believes that BA is behaving in an underhand fashion and there is some shadowy within house organisation that is being used to union bust. The level of examination to which RBs words will be placed is minimal, as its veracity is irrelevant except where it serves to bolster up support. It helps the die-hard to "keep the faith". The problem with faith is that it relies on unprovable things - prove that God exists, you cannot, you need faith.

Without wishing entirely to dismiss this as all untrue, it does reek of the the sort of posting that you see on any conspiracy nut website. It is long on accusation and short on hard evidence, evidence that would stand up in a court of law, where hearsay and innuendo do not make a case. I await the legal cases with anticipation, after all if this is all true then we can expect to see BA losing lots and lots of ETs in the near future and paying out much compensation.

[Litebulbs]

The more I deal with legal opinion on policy, the more I realise that all you can strive for is a reasonable employer. Policies are there to give structure to a process and as there is no statutory D&G procedure now, all a business has to do is broadly follow the ACAS CoP.

Reasonable employers will consult on change, hopefully coming to an agreement, but agreement is not needed. A contractual policy, fair enough, but workplace industrial agreements are worth nothing unless it can be seen to affect an individuals contractual position, as was shown in the manning level court case.

I imagine that any modified policy is not going to be as good as the original, but I bet it would still satisfy an ET.

[Hipennine]

This is not difficult.

1/ BA has a over-riding legal duty to protect its employees going about their legitimate instructed tasks.
2/ One employee group withdraws participation from the normal consultation process wrt to disciplinary processes.
3/ (2/) occurs against a background of some quite overt threats, and actual instances of acts agaisnt legitimately acting employees.
4/ In order to ensure 1/, BA institutes a process which still complies with all tenets of fair investigation, but expedites process (essential given the circumstances), and which ensures a consistent fair and equable treatment of all those subject to the process.

I have personally been involved as an employer in an ET where I refused access to witnesses by the accused or their representatives, and which involved bullying and intimidation. The Tribunal found that this was entirely consistent with a fair disciplinary investigation, in order to satisfy my duty & responsibility to protect employees going about legitimate business. Lots of ET's have done the same. And it is also pretty much the norm that given a serious gross mis-conduct accusation (as these are, whether BASSA thinks so or not), you immediately suspend the accused to get them out of the workplace and defuse the situation (I suppose that if an accused at the initial meeting came up with some overwhelming piece of evidence { eg it couldn't be me because I wasn't in CRC that day, I was in the Co hotel in Singapore, here's a copy of my roster}, that would then have obviated the handing over a pre-typed letter). The disciplinary can then proceed in a calm objective manner at an appropriate time. As long as the the accused are clearly informed about the nature of the accusation (perhaps with copies of witness statements), that is fair. It is not fair to put the bullied into a situation where face to face the accused or their rep can brow beat them and bully them into changing their evidence. Interestingly, in my case, the Union took the view that they were representing both the accused amd accusers, and therefore their only input was to provide advice to both parties in terms of process. It speaks volumes for BASSA and Unite in this, that they have seemingly unilaterally decided not to support those members who felt they were being bullied by their colleagues.

[Hipennine]

Litebulbs,

I agree with what you say about hoping for a reasonable employer, but unfortunately, that only works where the workforce reps are also reasonable. I have direct experience of managing two workgroups in the same union branch, but one group was consistently represented by "reasonable" individuals, and it was a pleasure to work with them to drive the business forward. Over time that group obtained better and better reward and conditions. The other group consistently elected Mr No men, and used every opportunity to force conflict and objection, and try and get something for nothing. There was a management history of giving in. Eventually, the only viable solution was to either close the place down (threatening the employment of the reasonable group) or breaking them. The parallel with the BA-Unite situation is very close. One key difference was that the full-time officials very much understood what was going on, and pointedly refused to grandstand in favour of the unreasonable group, and in the latter stages became very robust in telling it like it is.

[fincastle84]

Litebulbs writes.............

Reasonable employers will consult on change, hopefully coming to an agreement, but agreement is not needed.

BA is such a reasonable employer as it has consulted on change & has reached agreement with the VAST majority of its' employees.

Lest we forget, not only are Bassa a minority amongst the CC community, they are a much smaller minority amongst the total BA workforce. I fail to see why they expect to get special treatment.

[Litebulbs]

I was in no way suggesting that BA is not a reasonable employer, if you based it across all grades and then measured it against industry.

My point is that it is in the hands of the employer to set standards. Obviously the relationship with its employees will influence how those standards are set.