BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV [Archive] - Page 4

Betty girl

3rd Mar 2011, 15:58

Mrpony,

As I have said all crew on worldwide are experienced, I shouldn't think that you would get many that have flown for less that 5 or 6 years except maybe the odd temp and most of them are on their second season, so they are ALL very experienced to do the Club service.

Please see my post a few above where I explain why some crew, not all, may choose to work elsewhere and that all will inevitably work in club on some flights due to there being so many crew and seniority varies wildly from flight to flight. One flight someone could be most senior and another they could be 7th etc. Some crew do like Club, some don't but I very much doubt that that would affect the service they gave you.

I am not sure why, which positions crew work in, is such a problem, I hear that Mixed Fleet crew also don't like the club service and some of the CSMs on that fleet have not themselves been flying for even 5 or 6 years let alone the rest of the crew.

All aircraft have popular positions and not so popular, for instance on E/F some crew are not keen on doing the Duty Free sales but other crew just love it. That's just how it is. It's not because they don't like Club passengers because our regular business travellers are the most laid back and easiest passengers to serve, it's just the current product that some don't like.

These are my views and not those of my employer.

seat 13a

3rd Mar 2011, 16:01

Reading the CC thread on crew allocation, I'm aghast.

I used to work on Fleet Street - old Spanish practices, and clocking in as M Mouse. Look what happened to them.

As pax I'm not at all comfortable with self-allocation or seniority... Whatever happened to management?

Betty girl

3rd Mar 2011, 16:08

I just give up!

MPN11

3rd Mar 2011, 16:09

Thanks Betty and others for helping this flow along. Some very interesting angles, which may be solved in part by any imminent re-arrangements of CW catering.

It is a messy service to do and does not flow well and takes a lot longer than some of our previous club services for no apparent reason other than it was not thought out well, as I have said it is bound to be revamped soon because of this.
"Messy" because ... why? Because we have our meals in CW delivered by instalments, instead of being delivered en-masse?

Crew do get embarrassed to constantly be having to apologise re wine selection and running out of the main meal choice too and this does happen sometimes, well every day really, in the Club cabin.
I don't recall ever failing to get my meal choice, but the wine issue is certainly a PITA for everyone. I know the wine list points out some choices may not be loaded, so why does BA print them in the first place?

As to the chilled red, coming from the same freezer cabinet as the cutlery, I remain confused ... if only the white wines could be put in there, instead of being kept nice and warm. That's "Messy", and happens to me on nearly every trip. ;)

seat 13a

3rd Mar 2011, 16:12

Please don't give up, Betty girl - we need the feedback. But don't you sometimes think you can't defend the indefensible...?

Maddie Baddie

3rd Mar 2011, 16:13

Most crew on WW are very senior and experienced. The least senior crew would have been recruited at least 5 years ago with exception of some temporary crew would be on either their second or third contract which would be equivalent to almost two or three years flying. Even if they are left with the last working position in Club World they are well experienced.

Crew have different preferences where to work and choose their working position accordingly. Some prefer to work in a certain cabin whilst others prefer to choose a position based on whether it's on main or upper deck, 1st or 2nd break or a duty free position.

There are, however, crew who will avoid certain cabins at any cost and work in the same cabin every time whenever possible. Personally I have noticed that since imposition in 2009 that Club World has become a less preferred cabin to work in whilst World Traveller has become more popular. Having said that, even before imposition it would vary depending on aircraft, destinartion and time of the day as every set of crew is different.

Betty girl

3rd Mar 2011, 16:27

Well the thing is, I don't think it is as bad as you are all making out!

It's good to have crew working in cabins they LIKE to work in.

Even Mixed Fleet crew put down a preference of where they would like to work.

What would be the point on Worldwide fleet, of the CSD randomly putting crew in cabins that they might not like working in. BA is so big it is very unlikely that he has flown with more than a third of them before.

I have heard that it is quite sycophantic on Mixed Fleet as all the crew are vying for the favour of the CSMs.

MPN11

3rd Mar 2011, 16:32

Thanks, Maddie ... I see your point clearly.

That broadly conforms with my view, as pax in CW; some CC are happy to be there doing the job, and some clearly aren't.

Anyway, I'm vaguely glad the CC get a choice. The SLF don't, of course. I suppose the next SLF question has to be "Why do we pay this much money for a Lottery Ticket?"

It just doesn't sound right to me.

Maddie Baddie

3rd Mar 2011, 16:41

It's good to have crew working in cabins they LIKE to work in.

I totally agree with you but there's a problem that many crew constantly at the bottom of the seniority list, which we know won't be changing to their benefit, are being left with less favourable working positions. In my experience they are since imposition in Club World. I know of several fairly senior crew (at least they would be on EF) on WW who are always being left to work in Club World.

Crew who actually enjoyed working in Club World have moved themselves to the back of the aircraft. Not necessary because the cabin has become more demanding since working with less crew but also because of the reasons which you have mentioned previously.

I think it's something BA would need to adress in the future but I doubt very much the union will agree to anything else as they consider choosing your working position according to your seniority is a privilege. It's a privilege when you have enough seniority to be one of the first to choose but not when you are at the bottom of the seniority list which will never change.

mrpony

3rd Mar 2011, 16:43

You are putting savlon on this cross-thread infection but haven't cleaned the wound first!

Here's my interpretation of what happens:

1.Club is the last position chosen by the overwhelming majority.

2.Position choice based on seniority means that the very senior never do it and the very junior do it nearly always. P.S. see Maddie says so.

3.Service in Club suffers in a slight but noticeable way because it is the hardest to do but is remunerated in the same way as the easier positions - it makes you less happy or more grouchy depending on your approach to life.

Your solution seems to be to make Club easier/flowier/simpler. I'd do the opposite and make the other positions equally difficult!

Not really.

Maddie Baddie

3rd Mar 2011, 16:44

It's good to have crew working in cabins they LIKE to work in.

I totally agree with you but there's a problem that many crew constantly at the bottom of the seniority list, which we know won't be changing to their benefit, are being left with less favourable working positions. In my experience they are since imposition in Club World. I know of several fairly senior crew (at least they would be on EF) on WW who are always being left to work in Club World. For example, before imposition certain positions in World Traveller were the least favourable ones because they included boarding duties and looking after passengers with special needs to name a few.

Crew who actually enjoyed working in Club World have moved themselves to the back of the aircraft. Not necessary because the cabin has become more demanding since working with less crew but also because of the reasons which you have mentioned previously.

I think it's something BA would need to adress in the future but I doubt very much the union will agree to anything else as they consider choosing your working position according to your seniority is a privilege. It's a privilege when you have enough seniority to be one of the first to choose but not when you are at the bottom of the seniority list which will never change.

Litebulbs

3rd Mar 2011, 17:40

Whether this is a pejorative term is surely age related? When you get to a certain age yourself (I have) ' matronly' is far from unattractive!

Absolutely. It is a feminine and age related comment, which when used in the context of a work environment could potentially be discriminatory.

Punters can freely comment on this, but BA would not be able to deliver.

MPN11

3rd Mar 2011, 17:48

It is a messy service to do and does not flow well and takes a lot longer than some of our previous club services for no apparent reason other than it was not thought out well, as I have said it is bound to be revamped soon because of this.

Still hoping for some sort of response.
What is so "messy" and/or "non-flowing"?
Could someone explain what the problems actually are?

If it impacts on the SLF, and we understand the problems faced by WW CC, then OUR comments and/or complaints to BA could be more effective ... and make things easier for you in the process.

Betty girl

3rd Mar 2011, 17:49

Maddie Baddie. I agree with what you say. I mentioned on the CC thread that it needed to change for exactly the same reason as you mention but what I was trying to explain, not very successfully, on this thread, is that, all the crew are very experienced and just because it wouldn't be their first choice of position, and for some it still is their first choice, it does not mean they will get unhappy crew.

Yes you are right that because there are going to never be any new crew on E/F and WW the system should get changed because why should the very junior crew always get no choice for ever more. I agree with you but not sure if the CSD deciding would be good either, maybe it should be left to a computer, mind you BA computers haven't got a record of being very fair either!!!. Maybe the replacement for 'Tracie' computer can roster people more fairly and allocate positions using fair share, who knows!!!

TopBunk

3rd Mar 2011, 19:31

... maybe it should be left to a computer,

but isn't that exactly what BA proposed about 2 years ago with its premium crew initiative? Computer rostering to ensure everyone familiar with all roles?

There a re some Pursers who we all know who have palpitations if they didn't work in First and had to work Economy. OK, some crew aren;t First trained, but in general BA wanted to ensure the rest had relevant and recent experience of all positions. The problems on the day when a senior purser is called out to work from QRS and ends up as WT purser are quite amusing!

All this of course was scuppered by BASSA -as usual, iirc.

Colonel White

3rd Mar 2011, 20:18

...maybe it should be left to a computer, mind you BA computers haven't got a record of being very fair either!!!. Maybe the replacement for 'Tracie' computer can roster people more fairly and allocate positions using fair share, who knows!!! Ahem... as one of the IT brethren I would like to point out that the algorithms employed in computer systems are all as specified by the business area (in this case cabin crew) and that they will have been agreed with the TU's in that area. So if you think that the way in which rosters are planned is unfair, it is likely to be because that is what the union (in this case BASSA and CC89) agreed was reasonable. If the system doesn't currently allocate positions it is not because the capability did not exist when the system was being built, it is almost certainly because the union would not accept a system that did that task. In my time I have seen really good cost saving measures get watered down simply because if implemented they would have resulted in a walk out by staff. BA had plans for vehicle tracking systems in the early '90s that got shelved because ground handlers realised that it would highlight the inefficiences and kicked up a stink. The technology finally came in just as BA was moving into T5 - some ten years later.

Betty girl

3rd Mar 2011, 20:39

Well I am sure you are both right and it is the same as the pilot seniority system, once you start to get more senior, you don't want the system changed.

The difference from now and two years ago is that with the cabin crew seniority, some people will now remain at the bottom forever as no new crew will ever join Worldwide again.

So maybe it is time that they somehow change the system but I doubt it is anyone's priority at this time!!

PAXboy

4th Mar 2011, 02:03

MPN11I don't recall ever failing to get my meal choice, but the wine issue is certainly a PITA for everyone. I know the wine list points out some choices may not be loaded, so why does BA print them in the first place? Once the menu is available on the seat back display - this will stop as they can then just display what has been loaded. Getting rid of the silly bits of card, with their related cost, is long overdue.

Once upon a time, they wanted CW to feel like F and a good High Street restaurant with the menu card. I think we all understand the way the system works and don't need that. Oh, the other thing to do for all CW + F pax is the option to receive the menu choice when you check in - not before - as an SMS, possible as MMS with pictures of the dish. You then respond by SMS and they can load up more appropriately. Note I am NOT saying 100% but if they see that one dish is more popular, they change the mix.

I usually travel now in WT+/PE cabins and they have often worked through what I want as the things I cannot eat are not on the alternative menu lists. That is, I can't choose a dish that has no spices or black pepper or pasta. So I often have to reject three dish choices and then ask if they can get me one 'from another cabin' and they usually can.

Once they have got the SMS menu on check in sorted for F + CW, then it can be expanded to WT+/WT. I worked in telecommunications/IT for 27 years and I know that it's not difficult. Almost, you might say, a piece of cake.

Now, can I charge BA for my consultancy fee when they implement this? :p

ChicoG

4th Mar 2011, 04:55

Yes, I have to say that if you make a meal selection and decide the day before that you don't fancy it at least it's your fault, and you can probably still eat it.

There's nothing more irritating for me than supposedly having three meal choices and then finding that, due to your seat and bad luck, you're left with only the choice of something you can't even eat!

If you can preselect special meals, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to preselect ANY meal.

A properly managed system of pre-selected meals is entirely workable with today's technology, and as I said before, the people that say it isn't understand the business but not the IT. The logistics are a piece of the proverbial.

MCOflyer

4th Mar 2011, 05:33

ChicoG

4th Mar 2011, 07:31

Already done on Singapore Airlines. It's called "Book the Cook" and you can choose one of many selections up to 30 days prior to your departure date. I'm flying JFK - FRA in business class and selected the rack of lamb from eight possible choices.

Thanks for that. And that's the kind of airline I'd fly. I was on Cathay last year and they were doing a food festival up front with a selection of dishes from a famous Hong Kong chef. It's this kind of thing that attracts me to fly.

The days of "Chicken or Beef" should be long gone, and well done to the airlines trying to improve the onboard experience in this manner.
I digress. No doubt BASSA would call this interfering with their work.

:E

GrahamO

4th Mar 2011, 08:17

Would it be fair or unfair to say that as a result of its higher than market staffing costs, that BA is unable to offer these kind of options ?

Spending the same on staff costs as other full service airlines, getting the right service levels and be able to offer better food - or is that too simplistic ?

Lord Bracken

4th Mar 2011, 10:29

One could make a very strong argument that cutting food cost has been the easy way out for BA over a number of years: the Club 'slop and drop' bowls don't shout "strike!" at the drop of a hat, for example.

MPN11

4th Mar 2011, 10:47

Once the menu is available on the seat back display - this will stop as they can then just display what has been loaded. Getting rid of the silly bits of card, with their related cost, is long overdue.

A good solution, provided that:

The IFE is serviceable ;)
The IFE is switched on in less than 1+ hours after take-off.

VintageKrug

4th Mar 2011, 12:16

mr pony

I think BASSA may already be in default on clause 28 because they have apparently said that records are not available. Small point you are entitled to ignore.

The 'elections section' of your post describes a potential minefield with added anthrax, cluster bombs, and GPS-guided bunker-busting missiles for BASSA if they haven't observed the detailed requirements of the Act.

Has the market in administrative ineptitude been cornered? Possibly.

Agreed 100%.

BASSA started spreading rumours (on the day the latest balloty launched!)that Mixed Fleet crew will now have dual bases, suggesting MF contracts are coming to Gatwick, in a desperate attempt at boosting their diminishing support from Gatwick.

It would be interesting to hear how BASSAwitch is getting on.

spock33

4th Mar 2011, 12:52

Just to lighten the mood, I'm pleased to report an excellent flight in J on 1 March BA2153 LGW-GND. One slight problem was a dicky seat mechanism but we were moved to a serviceable one. A BA guy on staff travel took the dicky one as J was full as was WT+. Oh, & the map display was programmed with Jamaica as destination! Fortunately the 2 winged master race found Grenada OK!

Not much sign of Bassa's tactics deterring the pax on this flight!

Oh yes, & as ever, great friendly service, even the quality of catering has improved.

Jarvy

4th Mar 2011, 13:00

I am a bit confussed about the meal service taking 3 hours in Club World. Between Mrs J and myself we do about 10 round trips a year between Boston and LHR, and although the service can vary between excellent and poor it has never taken more than 2 hours.
As a side note the company that Mrs J works for has just changed its prefered airline on trans atlantic to BA, so they must think its all over.

west lakes

4th Mar 2011, 13:20

suggesting MF contracts are coming to Gatwick, in a desperate attempt at boosting their diminishing support from Gatwick.

From what I understand, the MF basic is higher than the LGW basic anyway!

Yes I've had the LGW experience havinf travelled LGW - MBJ and return at the end of last month. Absolutely no problems, complaints or concerns on either flight

mrpony

4th Mar 2011, 13:47

Perhaps BASSAwitch has decided not to broadcast what's happening and adopt a lower profile. Understandable if so; as an ex-member identity is a problem - why issue an invitation to be chased remorselessly by a braying pack of bitter logic twisters?

On the CC thread page 168 PC767 takes a compliment about MF service and smartness and attempts to subvert it by:

1. suggesting a conspiracy is promoting uniform availability to MF Crew at the expense of others.

2. questioning the credentials of the person who gave the praise.

3. appropriating the debate by claiming it is about the effect of 'imposition' on customer service when it hadn't been.

4. blaming imposition as the reason for the strike and MF as the reason for its continuation confusing cause with effect as only the faithful seem able to.

So it goes.

Lord Bracken

4th Mar 2011, 14:54

I am a bit confussed about the meal service taking 3 hours in Club World. Between Mrs J and myself we do about 10 round trips a year between Boston and LHR, and although the service can vary between excellent and poor it has never taken more than 2 hours.

Agreed. I fly around 6-8 roundtrips a year in J and have never had a service go as badly wrong or be so drawn out as is apparently the norm if you believe what is being posted on the other thread.

Maybe it's different on the upper deck (my main route is JFK and I try to avoid the 777)...

Dawdler

4th Mar 2011, 15:51

It would be interesting to hear how BASSAwitch is getting on.

Probably doing the decent thing and waiting the 28 days. Therefore having nothing much to report.

Ancient Observer

4th Mar 2011, 15:59

Injunctions due to TU incompetence

One for the anoraks........

(Courtesy of Eversheds)

04 March 2011
Key strike law decision from Court of Appeal

The law relating to industrial action is complicated and many aspects are unclear, mainly because of conflicting court decisions, complex statutory rules or because of the absence of judicial interpretation. In particular, uncertainty exists over the degree to which trade union failures in the strike ballot process will invalidate any strike that follows. Today's decision from the Court of Appeal departs from recent High Court decisions and will be welcomed by trade unions but not employers.
Background

For a trade union to organise lawful industrial action, it must comply with a number of specific statutory requirements. These include conducting a ballot and notifying the employer in accordance with detailed rules set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).
A breach of these ballot and notice rules can result in industrial action being stopped by a court injunction, usually obtained by the employer. This has been illustrated in recent times by injunctions involving, for example, British Airways and Network Rail. However, trade union criticism has been mounting against the TULRCA rules and the way the courts have interpreted them. This includes union criticism that the rules are too strict and inflexible, thereby allowing employers to obtain injunctions. Today's case considers some of these criticisms, in particular:
· the extent to which accidental failures in the balloting process can be ignored
· the extent of the obligation on trade unions to maintain accurate membership records in order to comply with employer strike and ballot notices, and
· the nature and detail of the explanation that the trade union must provide to explain how it arrived at the information provided in the notices to the employer (about the numbers of employees involved in the action, their categories and workplaces).
Decision

The case involves two separate transport strikes, involving London Midland Railway and London Docklands Railway, both of which were halted by employer injunctions granted by the High Court in December and January respectively this year. Aslef and RMT, the two unions involved, were successful in their appeals against the injunctions on the following grounds:
· whilst sending ballot papers to two members who were not entitled to vote (where over six hundred were balloted) breached TULRCA, the statute provided a defence (section 232). This defence permits small accidental failures in relation to entitlement to vote and the conduct of the ballot to be disregarded. The Court of Appeal held that to take advantage of this accidental failures defence, the failure must be unintentional, but it did not also have to be unavoidable. In other words, just because the union could have taken steps which avoided the error, like keeping better records, this did not mean by itself that it was deprived of the accidental failure defence because of human errors and failings
· in addition to the specific accidental failure defence (above) in TULRCA, the unions argued successfully that a general principle of law permits other "trifling" errors in the ballot and employer notifications to be ignored and should not form a basis for invalidating the whole process
· the Court departed from previous High Court case law by deciding that, when complying with TULRCA rules about notifying the employer about the numbers, categories and workplaces of the employees involved in the dispute (in the ballot notice), it must provide those figures which are as accurate as reasonably practicable in the light of information it possesses at the time. The Court stated that these were "important limiting words" which need to be given weight when considering a union's obligation. As such, the trade union had complied in the circumstances. Importantly, by focusing on the information actually in the hands of the union, the Court rejected the notion that trade unions have a duty to keep proper records, or collect further information, specifically in order to comply with the balloting and notice rules under TULRCA. However, this does not mean that trade unions escape any obligation in this respect; as the Court pointed out, it must still supply the employer with information as accurately as it reasonably can, for example, collate and obtain relevant documents from union officers and analyse the information
· the Court of Appeal decided that a trade union's duty to provide an explanation of the figures (about employee numbers, workplaces and categories) contained in the strike and ballot notices is not an onerous duty. Again, this runs contrary to recent High Court case law and means that the repeated use of a formulaic or generic explanation, as is often the case, can suffice. In reaching this decision, the Court of Appeal approved the analysis of what is required under paragraph 16 of the Industrial Action Code of Practice.
Comment

This decision will be welcomed by trade unions, given the less prescriptive approach taken by the Court of Appeal to the standards they must reach in order to comply with the statutory ballot and notification process.
However, that inevitably leaves employers with less certainty when it comes to relying on the information supplied by the trade union, for example, identifying those employees involved in a potential strike. This, in turn, makes contingency planning that much harder.
While the case will reduce the number of employer injunctions granted on minor technicalities, it does not spell the end of all injunctions. The rules under TULRCA are there to be complied with, trifling and small errors to one side.
RMT v Serco Limited and ASLEF v London and Birmingham Railway Limited (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/226.html&query=)

MPN11

4th Mar 2011, 16:49

@ Ancient Observer · the Court departed* from previous High Court case law by deciding that, when complying with TULRCA rules about notifying the employer about the numbers, categories and workplaces of the employees involved in the dispute (in the ballot notice), it must provide those figures which are as accurate as reasonably practicable in the light of information it possesses at the time. The Court stated that these were "important limiting words" which need to be given weight when considering a union's obligation. As such, the trade union had complied in the circumstances. Importantly, by focusing on the information actually in the hands of the union, the Court rejected the notion that trade unions have a duty to keep proper records, or collect further information, specifically in order to comply with the balloting and notice rules under TULRCA. However, this does not mean that trade unions escape any obligation in this respect; as the Court pointed out, it must still supply the employer with information as accurately as it reasonably can, for example, collate and obtain relevant documents from union officers and analyse the information

* = My emphasis.

That goes some way to explaining the detailed breakdown of membership provided by Unite to BA ... i.e. they have done all they can to get the number correct.

What it does in respect of the reasons for IA will, of course, be a different and more complex question.

VintageKrug

4th Mar 2011, 17:50

I totally respect BASSAwitch's lower profile, though I disagree that a union can benefit from 28 days notice once it has clearly stated the records are not available.

I actually think today's ruling from the Appeal Court is positive; it is right that small technicalities should not be used to obstruct people wishing to conduct a legitimate strike.

But it really isn't that difficult to conduct a compliant ballot, and in BASSA's case the very stark "re-calculation" of the numbers post the censure by the Electoral reform Service does suggest there was considerable error beyond simply small administrative difficulties.

It seems Unite has brought in the big guns to get BASSA's membership records in order; so I don't anticipate any challenges on that fron this time round. HOWEVER, having said that, there will be several hundred people who will have resigned from BASSA following Duncan Holley edict to do so on 23 January 2011:

Holley: Now BA's plans are in the open I would like to send this message to everyone who has either left BASSA, voted NO, or to a lesser extent not voted.

You have been given your say and the majority has spoken. If you have any integrity you should accept Bill Francis's offer straight away because your actions and votes are a tacit acceptance of what BA propose.
Don't sit back and see if your brave colleagues who voted YES can fight your fight for you.

That is cowardice, you have made your bed and now you must lie in it, alongside Bill. Good Luck, it has been nice knowing you.

So while I think it will pass legal muster, I think it will still overestimate the current BASSA membership.

That still leaves the issue of connected strikes, which these clearly will be, and whether or not the action will be "protected" or not.

I think the three hours quoted is from doors closed to final collection, so that would align with the 2 hours from wheels up I typically experience when relegated to Club.

Either way, BASSA members should seek out the accounts and also challenge the basis upon which no election for the Branch officer positions have been held.

The vitriol which drawing attention to this issue attracts might suggest there is more to this than meets the eye.....

Chuchinchow

4th Mar 2011, 18:22

ChicoG

4th Mar 2011, 18:38

On "the other thread" pc767 is obviously disgruntled.

He now blames the passengers in J for all the ills engendered by the CW service and has the effrontery to tell all and sundry that
Quote:
If all the equipment is working, if all the product is available and if passengers are in the mood to take just what is given then service can be consistent. However we all know the reality..
Talk about cutting the branch on which he sits!

Have just returned from a rather excellent soiree so will play the ball not the man.

But it is terribly funny to hear that the new crew on BA, this "MF" lot, who generally appear to be happy with their T&Cs, and also generally appear to be pleasing the pax that fly with them, are somewhat irritating the old guard.

And yet the same legacy/"first fleet" dinosaurs cannot for one minute see it from the punters point of view, and cannot understand that keeping the customers spending money is really the key to their employment and rewards.

Perhaps they should be working in an environment that does not require satisfying customers instead of themselves?

All it needs now is new/refurb'ed aircraft with decent IFE and I'll be back like a shot. Hopefully the money BA have saved, thanks to the BASSA junta's antics, will shortly be spent in that direction, ensuring the future of the airline and all of the people who actually want to work for both the company and their futures, instead of themselves and their vacuous venality.

My dream is that BASSA members understand the value of a good union and the damage of bad union leadership; and that they ensure the former by putting a firm kick up the backside of the latter (preferably out of the door, because if they could see it from the perspective of those out us outside, they would realise how empty and self serving is the rhetoric of people like Holley, Everard, Malone, et al).

MPN11

4th Mar 2011, 19:21

@ CCC ... and hello!

If all the equipment is working, if all the product is available and if passengers are in the mood to take just what is given then service can be consistent.

I sometimes have to shake my head quite hard to try and get into the mind of some posters. So do I understand that Premium pax are not to disturb the Union-approved activities of the CC? Provided we have serviceable IFE [fingers always crossed] and that the food/wine has been loaded properly [as if] we are supposed to sit meekly?

Heaven forfend that we should ask for more coffee or wine, or the notional 30-munite juice round. For consistency, and the benefit of CC, we should accept what we have been given as our basic requirement, and then shut up.

Remind me, someone, why do I find these attitudes repugnant and self-serving?

617sqn

4th Mar 2011, 19:55

I have read pc767's post and I did not take it the same way as some of you here.
How I understood it, he/she says that when pax have ad hoc requests it will be dealt with,but may slow the service whilst that crew member goes off.
If a pax asks for a wine that is running out the crew member will go to the galley,look for the wine,look for the corkscrew etc.
The same goes for if the IFE has to be reset.

While this is going on the other pax in the cabin are not being served and slows the service.
I suggest you read the whole post not just what has been quoted and see what you think.
I really didn't get the feeling that pc767 resented people asking for things.
I didn't feel any malice was intended.

deltahotel

4th Mar 2011, 20:06

Out of interest, what is the pax/CC ratio in the various cabins on long haul? You can tell I don't get out/far much.

617sqn

4th Mar 2011, 20:19

There are 6 different configurations on the long haul fleet.These are 2 that are probably used the most.

747 high J
first 14 pax 3 crew
club 70 pax 6 crew
WT+/Wt 215 pax 5 crew

777-200 4 class
First 14 pax 3 crew
club 48 pax 4 crew
WT+/WT 160 pax 4 crew

LD12986

4th Mar 2011, 20:26

I'm sure PC767 can speak for himself, but I think he reflects the views of many crew in that they:

a) want to deliver a good "product"/service to customers they can be proud of;

b) they do not want to have to continually apologise for failures elsewhere that are outside of their control (IFE problems) or less than brilliant ideas (ie wine lists that include wines not loaded on the aircraft); and

c) they want assurances that Mixed Fleet will not adversely affect their earnings

None of this is unreasonable. The problem is that no-one on the side of crew is providing any answers/solutions to c). BASSA's only response seems to be:

i) portray the company as the enemy that must be feared and resisted at all costs

ii) say no

iii) call further strike ballots

Crew need effective union representation, not least to keep management honest. All we have at the moment is BASSA being hell bent on pursuing a strategy that is doomed to fail and ostracising themselves from the rest of the company, and crew are passively giving BASSA a mandate to do this. And a better working relationship between crew and management may also help deal with a) and b).

deltahotel

4th Mar 2011, 20:28

Again, forgive my ignorance, but reading the 'other thread' (is that like 'the scottish play'?), the issue seems to be the time to do a full meal service in Club class. Have I got that right?

Betty girl

4th Mar 2011, 21:28

LD12986, and 617sqn,

Very informed and fair minded posts.

It is such a complicated situation and even those like me, that can understand why the company have made these changes, can't help but feel worried about the future.

It is all so mixed up and complicated even for those of us that did not strike.

On the one side we have Bassa making things far worse than necessary and scare mongering crew and making some of them believe that they are going to be forced onto an inferior contract within a year!!

But on the other side we have BA fawning over Mixed Fleet crew putting them in a hat and positioning their desks right in the middle of the report centre almost as though on purpose.

It's hard to make people on this site realise but the vast majority of crew are just hard working normal people whether they are Mixed Fleet, WW, E/F or SFG. There are over 14000 of us and there must be only about 20 or so that regularly post on here and those that do post have very polarised views in general, whatever side they are on.

What upsets me is when someone like PC767 tries to make a point, sometimes not that well, but then people take his words out of context and others join in and before you know it, ALL cabin crew are the devils incarnate, well except for Mixed Fleet crew, they are always the angels!!!!
When in reality we are mostly ALL, a good bunch of hard working people and the vast majority of us LOVE BA and love our job and are just a bit scared of all this change.

wiggy

4th Mar 2011, 21:44

But on the other side we have BA fawning over Mixed Fleet crew .....positioning their desks right in the middle of the report centre almost as though on purpose.

I'm sure the Mixed Fleet desks are indeed positioned by BA management, "on purpose", in a very public position in crew report, but I doubt fawning has anything to with it.

Betty girl

4th Mar 2011, 22:19

I believe that pprune prefer us to refer to a post number rather than clipping out, not even complete a sentence, and run the risk of changing its meaning!!

Litebulbs

4th Mar 2011, 22:33

Please stop posting contrary views. When you agree its fine, but please accept that you are struggling with anything to do with the job of cabin crew.

Betty girl

4th Mar 2011, 22:49

My view is my view and as I actually, WORK for BA and am actually a cabin crew member, my view is actually more valid than yours.

I actually feel I am VERY consistent in all my views. I am pro BA and anti Bassa but I believe in people debating in a fair and reasoned manner, whoever they debate with and not tarring any particular set of workers as if we are all bad or all good.

With that I will leave you but please feel free to disregard anything I say if you don't like it. I won't be upset!

wiggy

4th Mar 2011, 22:50

Betty Girl

If it's my post you are referring to then I am replying to your post #800, in part:

But on the other side we have BA fawning over Mixed Fleet crew putting them in a hat and positioning their desks right in the middle of the report centre almost as though on purpose.

Not sure why you think any editing changes the logic but just to be clear my comment about the positioning of the desks stands. For completeness I don't have an opinion on the hats - though I have to wear a uniform hat/cap myself.

Regards

ChicoG

5th Mar 2011, 02:42

When in reality we are mostly ALL, a good bunch of hard working people and the vast majority of us LOVE BA and love our job and are just a bit scared of all this change.

Fear proprogated by union scaremongering. If they'd done their job properly, and BASSA members had accepted simple imposition when asked and when it was needed, none of this would be happening.

There is a way to make sure this doesn't happen again. Get rid of them!

But as far as I can see, there is a real fear of the consequences of daring to challenge Holley and his fawning cohorts.

VintageKrug

5th Mar 2011, 06:28

For the record, I think Betty girl has indeed examined the evidence presented to her here and elsewhere and exercised independent (as well balanced) commentary on this whole affair.

However her incorrect use of its/it's (exemplified above!) is still of some considerable concern to me ;) :8 :)

I dread to think what is posted on the BASSA forum, and anyone sourcing their views from that site is bound to have a completely different and twisted perspective, given the snippets we see posted by the BASSA forum lice.

It is clear that BASSA is now in its death throes, with a bankrupt argument and indeed has used intimidation (viz. outing non-striking crew members.VCC) throughout this dispute to misinform (viz. "planes parked at Shannon) and mislead (viz. staff travel "back in five mins) its membership.

Might I suggest that the positioning of the MF crew report desks et al. is entirely subsidiary to the pressing matters of:

1. what the mood of crew is now that yet another ballot has been launched. Are people fed up, and following DH's demand to leave BASSA?

2. whether or not this strike is connected to previous actions, and how an unprotected action will affect BASSA's ability to garner support. Are crew generally aware that unprotected action means they can be dismissed with minimal compensation?

3. why there seems minimal interest in accessing the BASSA accounts?

4. whether the "show of hands" at a sparsely attended meeting is sufficient for BASSA's officers to remain in post, some drawing a considerable £50k+ annual stipend?

5. whether BA's pending legal challenge could render Unite liable for the cost of the strikes to date?

Avionker

5th Mar 2011, 06:58

Betty girl

I think that in his last post Litebulbs was deliberately misquoting you, in order to prove your point. I hope that's what it was anyway.

Betty girl

5th Mar 2011, 10:22

Sorry Litebulbs, I did not see the irony in your post, I do now.

I was surprised by it because I took it literally by mistake!!!!

VK. I have corrected the 'its' and given myself a telling off for letting you down!!!

Litebulbs

5th Mar 2011, 10:43

In hindsight, it was a cheap shot using you to make a point at others. There are better ways of doing it and I will mark it down on my learning curve!

Apologies.

Snas

5th Mar 2011, 10:48

BASSA is the official voice of BA cabin crew, so if any member is unhappy about how they, or their role, is perceived I suggest that they start there.

Litebulbs

5th Mar 2011, 11:15

There is a problem with that reasoning. Many people have urged BA cabin crew to leave Bassa and many have. Who is their voice now? There are many anti Bassa, pro BA cabin crew who post on here, but it does appear that whenever they give opinions that point out flaws in service or general working conditions, the mob:E turn on them.

Diplome

5th Mar 2011, 11:46

"mob??". Quite an overstatement...much as Betty Girl's reference to people here smearing "all" cabin crew. That simply is not the case in general.

As for this statement:

My view is my view and as I actually, WORK for BA and am actually a cabin crew member, my view is actually more valid than yours.

This is a forum for self loading freight but we are not simple-minded individuals. Validity does not come from mere employment, it comes with reason and insight. Crew can for the most part provide insight to SLF, but as we have seen for the length of this dispute they do not always provide reason.

As for the continuous jabs at Mixed Fleet and the customer reviews of their experience...its starting to look a bit childish. If Mixed Fleet fail to provide a servicable product I'm sure that we will all experience or hear of those failures however I'm not going to feel guilty or anti-legacy crew simply because for the time being all reports that I have received seem to be of a very positive nature.

The legacy crews should be able to stand on their own service and say "Watch us set the high standards youngsters and try to catch up"...Hopefully the end result of this dispute will allow more of that attitude to prevail.

Litebulbs

5th Mar 2011, 11:55

Is mob as much an overstatement as BASSAmentalists? We all have views on this issue and there are no absolutes. Most see this from one perspective on this site and no doubt the same but opposite position is held on others.

mrpony

5th Mar 2011, 12:11

I'm sure I'm not alone in admiring the way you staunchly defend the professionalism of your CC peers and explain many aspects of a job that aren't necessarily apparent to passengers.
The situation you are in is probably appreciated more than you think. Your willingness to post on here and fend off the brickbats thrown around is all in your favour and long may it continue.

You say there are 14000 of you and only a few post on this thread. I don't doubt that. There are still some 5700 willing to vote for pointless and self-defeating industrial action and I suspect that many of the comments you feel are directed at you and your colleagues as a whole, are actually meant for and about that significant and influential minority. Incredibly 9000 or so remain paying members of BASSA. Incredible. Why?

I agree with you about what seems to be deliberate MF desk placement but also with VK about its relative importance in the long term. It seems pretty obvious that the desk is placed to make a point about the fact that MF is here to stay. Hats are to help to differentiate between MF and the 'rest' (hats look smart - I've always liked a hat). The 'rest' get paid more and have better routes but are probably actually less effective in terms of productive output because of the many silly working agreements that they observe. BA are raising the profile of MF to help make sure the new people have pride in what they do - they want them to stay despite the inequalities. It's not a snub to you but the opposite to MF crew. It can be one thing without being the other.

As for Club service. You need to be telling your manager about these things and promoting yourself as an agent for imaginative change if there is a real problem with it - hang on, I suspect anything you did say would be mangled by the union approval process and then strangled before seeing the light of day by the very same self-serving parasites that run it! How about a new thread - 'Improving Service For Our Customers In Club - how can we help?'

May the force be with you.

Betty girl

5th Mar 2011, 12:12

Diplome,

You know very well that that snippet that you highlighted was directly in response to Litebulbs post and not directed at SLF in general.

As for the ALL, some posters do tar ALL cabin crew with the same brush and some are more balanced, that is ALL that, that ALL was referring to.

Once again we have people selectively posting clips of what people write and twisting it to make a completely different point.

I post on hear to explain things to people from a cabin crew point of view when I read something that may be misleading, that all.

Betty girl

5th Mar 2011, 12:29

Thanks Mrpony,

I understand what you are saying and I do understand why the company is doing what it is doing with Mixed Fleet but all I was saying is that it COULD have been done in a better and more conciliatory way, than it has been.

Even though I do understand, why what has happened, has happened, it does affect me when I see a Mixed Fleet crew wearing the hats and I don't expect any of you to understand why because it is purely an emotional feeling from someone who has always been a loyal and dedicated employee. It makes me feel unvalued and unwanted by an employer that I have worked for for 22 years. I know that they probably do value me but it is just the effect it has on me and I don't know how to explain it to you because I don't think it would be easy for you to understand, unless you were in my shoes. I don't even blame BA as I feel Bassa have blindly led us all down this path.

As for the Club World service, there are many, many good CSDs on Worldwide and now CSMs on Mixed Fleet and I am sure that they do feed back to the company how they feel about the service, remember I am on E/F. I am sure that improvements will be made, in time. BA's a huge juggernaut and it takes time and money to alter things but our new head of department is very into customer service and I expect big changes are just around the corner.

I do feel the tide is changing and I hear daily crew telling me they are going to leave Bassa as they have lost faith in what they say anymore but ,YES, there is still a core group that still 'Keep the faith' but they are daily becoming more irrelevant.

Thank you for your support though.

These are my own views and I don't speak for BA

cessnapete

5th Mar 2011, 14:18

Just returned pax in Club from MF crewed Lhr/Den/Lhr, a few observations.
Crew all very friendly and smartly turned out with the new uniform.
On way out service a bit slow, inexperience showed, but would only be noticeable by experienced BA travellers. Service completed in well under the 3 hours sometimes quoted on this thread.
On way back excellent sector in all respects. One VCC on recency probably helped overall on return flight.
Regarding the pay etc. chatted to ex Ezy lady who said money not brilliant but BA lifestyle/routes/aircraft etc. sure beats the hell out of continuous 4 or more sectors a day around Europe in her previous life!!
Plenty of her friends queing for interview with BA.

Litebulbs

5th Mar 2011, 15:39

Has just started with MF. We haven't spoken directly yet, but she has flown for other longhaul carriers before, so doesn't really fit into the school leaver/see the world demographic. She definitely does not look like Hattie Jacques in the pictures I have seen; it must be the Hattie:}.

I am hoping she enjoys it.

mrpony

5th Mar 2011, 16:14

I am certain BA 'value' you as a loyal long-term employee who gets great results. Many businesses use a cost per person measure as a crude way of gauging a different horrid real-world capitalist value of people, all other things being equal which they never are. I'm certain BA has its own version.

I'm no expert but I would guess the difference in cost per person between MF crew and the 'others' to be between 20000 and 30000 annually at LHR when everything is taken into account.

So when you say you don't feel valued try putting yourself in the shoes of BA's management who value you so much that they are willing to keep paying you a good whack for a job with a great pension that costs a packet to fund. There aren't many employees that would get that sort of treatment in this country at the moment. And that's despite the fact what you have ended up with is worse than it would have been had BASSA simply rolled over and done nothing more than agree with most of BA's proposals and got some say in MF as well as shares and so on. So glad to hear many CC are 'losing the faith', although I prefer to think of them as having had an exorcism.

You are caught in the crossfire and for that you have my sympathy.

Chuchinchow

5th Mar 2011, 17:01

Once again we have people selectively posting clips of what people write and twisting it to make a completely different point.

I post on hear to explain things to people from a cabin crew point of view when I read something that may be misleading, that all.

Calm down, calm down, dear. This is only a website: save your ammunition for the big issues.

VintageKrug

5th Mar 2011, 17:16

BASSA's gone very quiet lately...Holley must be feeling humble after losing his ET appeal. The writing was on the wall back in June when Judge Ryan stated:

Duncan Holley's application to Watford Employment Tribunal for reinstatement was dismissed today. Holley had applied to be reinstated pending a full hearing of his unfair dismissal claim against BA claiming that the sole or principal reason for his dismissal was his trade union membership and activities. He asked the Tribunal to order the continuation of his employment pending a full hearing of his case. BA claimed that the reason for the dismissal was Holley's refusal to go to work when rostered on a number of times in December.

Judge Ryan denied the request saying he felt it was more likely than not that BA would demonstrate at trial that Mr Holley's dismissal was because of his refusal to come to work to perform his rostered duties and his refusal to attend meetings with his manager.

Amongst other things he said "The claimant is simply not entitled to take into his own hands the decision whether to work or not".

LD12986

5th Mar 2011, 17:20

There is indeed a "cost per flying hour" measure of all the different fleets (EF, WW, LGW SF).

It is a pity that BASSA did not have intelligent business-focused leadership that could have sought ways of reducing this without adverse impacts on crew and all the grief of the past 12+ months.

MPN11

5th Mar 2011, 18:00

Ahh, thank you, VintageKrug. Several people were waiting for that news.

And the source is ????

west lakes

5th Mar 2011, 18:03

The writing was on the wall back in June when Judge Ryan stated:

VintageKrug's post refers to June 2010.

VintageKrug

5th Mar 2011, 18:12

The quoted text refers to the June 2010 hearing; the rumour about the determination of Holley's ET is second hand, so I cannot corroborate at this stage.

Nonetheless, I trust my source.

'Tis done.

MPN11

5th Mar 2011, 18:31

ooops ... sorry :uhoh:
It's been a bad week, and a long day.
Apologies.

VSOP Fables

5th Mar 2011, 19:04

What was the date of the judgment VintageKrug?

Employment Appeal Tribunal > Latest Judgments (http://www.employmentappeals.gov.uk/Public/RecentJudgments.aspx)

LD12986

5th Mar 2011, 19:14

What was the date of the judgment VintageKrug?

Employment Appeal Tribunal > Latest Judgments (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.employmentappeals.gov.uk%2FPublic%2FRec entJudgments.aspx&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Fpassengers-slf-self-loading-freight%2F441165-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iv-42.html%23post6287357)

Note that is the Employment Appeal Tribunal which hears appeals of decisions of the Employment Tribunal (which is where DH's case was heard).

BA and DH may well now have an advance copy of the Employment Tribunal's decision pending public release for review for factual accuracy/commercially sensitive information etc.

lowcostdolly

5th Mar 2011, 22:56

According to sources over on cabincrew.com DH has lost his claim against BA. Apparently he was informed on Monday and will be getting the whole written judgement on March 28th.

In the meantime I suppose Unite will be trying to focus on getting their ballot right......

It's quite entertaining over in the other forum at the moment.....:E

west lakes

5th Mar 2011, 23:04

From what I recall a Unite member who has been dismissed(sacked) can only remain in Unite as long as the union supports them at any IT.
So the question is, how far will Unite go in supporting him or will the same rules apply as to others - a less than 50% chance of winning = no support.

Of course if DH ceases to be a member under the above rule, he must then cease to be Gen Sec of BASSA

ChicoG

6th Mar 2011, 04:17

I was somewhat amused by this comment on the other thread:

"...As we all can see, you are rather good at some research, however, when crew tell you what the real story is, please accept it."

Sounds like something Duncan Holley would say.

:hmm:

notlangley

6th Mar 2011, 05:23

ChicoG saidSounds like something Duncan Holley would say.I disagree._ GlamGirl is just protesting about the simplistic way that Cabin Crew are often portrayed by outsiders._ In exactly the same way a teacher or a social worker will sometimes show sensitivity about the gross simplification of what it takes to do their job.

If anyone has any doubts about GlamGirl they only have to look at -__link (http://www.pprune.org/5593527-post424.html)

VintageKrug

6th Mar 2011, 06:25

In the past BA had to talk to Unite and were constantly frustrated by their resistance to change for customer benefit. Involving unite has proved time and again to be the least effective way to re-design service on board.

Evidence to support GG's statementHere is the HotTowelGate link:

BASSA LGW/LHR - 29/01/09 Hot Towels (http://www.uniteba.com/LGWLHRhottowels.html)

And here is ClubWorldLondonCityGate:

BASSA LGW - 24/07/09 - Club World London City Service Update (http://www.uniteba.com/LGWfisherupdate240709.html)

you can see that BA originally wanted a la carte dining for London City, but it "wouldn't work" according to BASSA. Here:

LGW - 27/07/09 - CWLCY - Failure to Agree (http://www.uniteba.com/LGWfisherFTA270709.html)

you can see that Unite originally wanted Cabin Crew to have 24 hours rest in Ireland after operating the arduous (less than one hour!) LCY-SNN service.

While there may have been a few valid points in all that, it's just no way to operate a modern business.

I stand by my links (to Unite's website) supporting GayGourmet's posts; you can see both from the tone of the site and the facts of the matter that BASSA's approach was to frustrate the new service rather than embrace and support it. That was the point being made.

I clearly stated there "may have been a few valid points in all that" but there is no evidence that BASSA proposed new ways of working which would have addressed concerns (it is BASSA which stated that a la carte dining trials failed); once again it seemed BA had to do most of the running, with BASSA yet again failing to agree a variation to the Gatwick Memorandum of Understanding, thus requiring volunteers for the service. BASSA's stated response in the links "even if you have volunteered for this [new service] you can still withdraw your name at any time).

On the point of hot towels in WT+, this was still not part of the standard service on the very few occasions in the past decade or so I have not been able to be seated in Club or First. Do any passengers have experience of it being done on MF routes?

I have experienced CWLCY first hand, and the service levels are very good indeed; indeed I find Gatwick crews (and I fly quite regularly exLGW) to be much more relaxed and happier in their jobs than the otherwise good crews at LHR who are experiencing so much stress at work due to BASSA's former stranglehold on operations and working relationships.

It's good to see BASSA's influence waning.

VintageKrug

6th Mar 2011, 07:05

he links illustrated BASSA's history of intransigence, on a matter (WT+ Hot Towels) which has almost mythical status, but which many people believed was mythology. It was not meant to spark yet another irrelevant debate.

Moving on to the very valid point of "connected/protected" strikes:

Official industrial action organised by a trade union is 'unprotected' if:

the trade union has failed to hold a postal ballot in-line with the law

the trade union has not told the employer, in-line with the law, about the industrial action ahead of a ballot or ahead of the industrial action

it has been disowned by the trade union (e.g. because someone without authority called for the action, or because the trade union considers the dispute to be resolved), sometimes called 'repudiated action'

it is secondary industrial action (in support of workers of another employer), sometimes called 'sympathy action'

it promotes ‘union labour only’ practices (also known as a ‘closed shop’)

it is in support of any workers who have been dismissed for taking unofficial action

other aspects of industrial action law have been breached by the trade union

If you are dismissed while taking part in unprotected industrial action called for by your trade union, you cannot normally claim unfair dismissal if all the other employees taking part are dismissed as well.

You can complain about unfair dismissal if you are dismissed:

for an automatically unfair reason (eg because of your duties as a health and safety representative)

while taking part in the industrial action but others taking part are not dismissed

for taking part in unprotected industrial action, after you stopped taking part

Just because you can make a claim for unfair dismissal does not mean it will be successful.

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

If you read the astonishingly high number of reasons for this ballot (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html), you will note the BASSA Muppets even managed to include the phrase "related to the original dispute" in the reasons. So it's 100%, incontrovertibly a connected strike on those grounds, and likely also on other grounds as well (specifically point 6, and especially relevant once Holley's judgement is made public).

No protection from dismissal will be given to those striking; even of BASSA does not believe this, it has a moral imperative to inform its members of the potential risks.

ChicoG

6th Mar 2011, 08:20

ChicoG said
Quote:
Sounds like something Duncan Holley would say.
I disagree._ GlamGirl is just protesting about the simplistic way that Cabin Crew are often portrayed by outsiders._ In exactly the same way a teacher or a social worker will sometimes show sensitivity about the gross simplification of what it takes to do their job.

If anyone has any doubts about GlamGirl they only have to look at -__link

My apologies, no slur intended to Glamgirl.

I was merely stating that such an absolute is something on which BASSA's leadership rely: "Whatever we say is the truth, and do not question it".

And we know how reliable they are.

Entaxei

6th Mar 2011, 09:54

Of course if DH ceases to be a member under the above rule, he must then cease to be Gen Sec of BASSA

Yes - normally it would work that way - but ............

For some reason to do with the convoluted history of BASSA prior to joining Unite as a "Branch" (and that normal status is not certain) - it appears that BASSA were/are able to change their regs/rules.

One such change supposedly took place prior to/during 2009, in that it was formally agreed that no elections would be allowed at any time when BASSA was in dispute, such elections could only take place when there were no outstanding disputes, and BASSA had sole authority to agree that a dispute was settled.

This is why, when Woodley originally said that he had negotiated the best deal possible with BA as head of Unite, when he recommended and offered it to the membership, and BASSA then said it was unacceptable, he then took the posture that he could not recomend it as BASSA had refused it!! and listed strike dates!! - and now of course we have the ballot.

It appears therefore, as a result of BASSA's rules, Holley and Malone cannot be replaced until they agree this dispute with BA, even though they are now beyond their terms as officers of BASSA.

Holley drew his BASSA and BA salaries up until the time he was dismissed, at which point it is said he had just activated his BA pension. He still draws his BASSA salary as does Malone, but he also supposedly to personally get 5% of the membership fees (which were around £1.8m in 2009) as Secretary. In Q4 this year both he and Malone are supposed to be able to start drawing their BASSA pensions, so the supposition is that this dispute will be agreed by BASSA at the end of the year, which will allow Unite to agree it - if Len Mcluck wants to of course and, also if Holley's hatred of BA and its management will allow him to go on to being just a toma-toe farmer. Everything has to be supposition, as I do not believe that anyone has been able to view the BASSA Rules and Regulations or Minutes.

Have a nice day!!! ;)

mrpony

6th Mar 2011, 10:36

Holley and Malone cannot be replaced until they agree this dispute with BA, even though they are now beyond their terms as officers of BASSA

You might be right about this but:

If you read the relevant clauses highlighted by VK in an earlier post as follows........the matter of the legal requirement to hold regular Branch Elections, every five years, contained within section 46-53 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992............you will find I think that there is an overarching statutory requirement.

You can't rewrite the law for your own subset, so to speak. Otherwise I would alter the law for my own house and allow marijuana to be grown and consumed within its boundaries, and that would just be the start!

Post posting note: Only Trade Unions are governed by the relevant 'elections' statute as strictly defined and maybe as a 'branch' BASSA can make up its own rules???

bealine

6th Mar 2011, 10:36

west lakes

6th Mar 2011, 11:35

The point being made by Glamgirl, was that the information about the meal service and the SNN stop on the LCY-JFK was from, shall we say, the horses mouth, as the person giving it is involved with the operation of those flights.

(it is BASSA which stated that a la carte dining trials failedAs has been seen a few times BASSA has been very good at giving the impression that they are responsible for stuff like this!
I'm sure BA did as well, but we don't have access to those documents.

notlangley

6th Mar 2011, 12:37

The words that ChicoG put in his quote are"...As we all can see, you are rather good at some research, however, when crew tell you what the real story is, please accept it."The actual works used by Glamgirl wereVK, as we all can see, you are rather good at some research, however, when crew tell you what the real story is, please accept it.which was in support of jetset lady who saidSo not only do you completely ignore my explanation of, as you so quaintly call it, "ClubWorldLondonCityGate" VintageKrug, but you then go on to post the same incorrect information on another thread. Re-posting it here won't make it any closer to the truth than it was on the passenger thread.

notlangley

6th Mar 2011, 13:05

And in case one wishes to know what jetset lady stands for, she saysIt is a real kick in the teeth knowing that some of the most militant strikers will probably get more of a bonus, even pro rata, than my £400 I'll get despite being a full time purser of five years and operating the LCY-JFK route.
link (http://www.pprune.org/6272666-post3264.html)

VintageKrug

6th Mar 2011, 13:14

. LGW - 27/07/09 - Fisher - Failure to Agree (http://www.uniteba.com/LGWfisherFTA270709.html)

Which doesn't change the fact that BASSA has had a far wider reaching influence on the operation, tends to start from the standpoint of saying "no" rather than "yes" and rarely proposes smarter ways of working which actually help crew make the service better for passengers, and, indirectly, better for those delivering it.

Hopefully Mixed Fleet, and indeed the advent of management actually flying as crew in the VCC programme, will ensure such issues are fed back properly and changes made for the benefit of all, and without BASSA interference.

It still doesn't change the fact that BASSA is leading its membership into an unprotected strike and specifically exposing strikers to being fired, without recourse to unfair dismissal.

jetset lady

6th Mar 2011, 13:45

Which doesn't change the fact that BASSA has had a far wider reaching influence on the operation, tends to start from the standpoint of saying "no" rather than "yes" and rarely proposes smarter ways of working which actually help crew make the service better for passengers, and, indirectly, better for those delivering it.

But not at LGW and certainly not on the LCY-JFK route. As I have already said, more than once, the Union became irrelevant in the planning of this route thanks to their refusal to negotiate for reasons I have already mentioned.

But regardless of all that, once again, it was BA that dropped the a la carte dining idea. Unite had nothing to do with it and merely reported the results of the trials to it's members. Why can you not accept that VintageKrug? Is it so hard to admit that maybe you shouldn't have included that link? I'm no BASSA supporter as I think most know but at the same time, I refuse to try to make the facts fit my theories when, in this case, they plainly don't!

mrpony

6th Mar 2011, 15:56

In another place MissM poses the question:
Not the P45 rumour again, please. Even before the first strike in March last year there were rumours that anyone going on strike would be issued their P45.
If BA would have any intention of actually going ahead with it surely they would have issued them earlier when they had the chance? Why have they gone to court on several occassions for an injuction when they instead could have allowed us to go on strike and issue our P45?

I think the answers may be:

1. BA has to act to minimise IA-related losses for shareholders' benefit.

2. BA owes a duty of care to all its employees - something it wouldn't have been doing if it had ignored the ballots' shortcomings.

Unless anyone has any other or better ideas?

Entaxei

6th Mar 2011, 15:59

Quote .......... If you read the relevant clauses highlighted by VK in an earlier post as follows........the matter of the legal requirement to hold regular Branch Elections, every five years, contained within section 46-53 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.......Etc.....

I agree with what you and VK say - but - I have never said that what BASSA appears to have done and are doing, was in any sense legal or illegal, but it is a matter of some curiosity.

As we all know, you cannot make accusations without proof of such possible malpractices and, without copies of BASSA'a own Rules & Regulations and minutes prior to and after the linkup with Unite, and ideally a copy of the Agreement when they "joined" Unite it would seem that any evidence either way would be difficult to find.

However, thinking as an aside, figures for any income/disbursements by BASSA as a standalone entity prior to becoming part of Unite and, any such for BASSA following their becoming a "Branch" or whatever with Unite would be useful, including any political payments to the Labour party, SWP, etc., or Unite, or within BASSA, in determining the amounts of possible income/surplus - that might make interesting reading, if anybody can find any information!!.

A thought, I wonder if Reps were ever given a standard income/payment by BASSA at any time in the last 5 years - does anybody know (for certain, not as an 'I think' or rumour) and I know that it would be unusual, but curiosity calls, in fact is there any form of up to date Reps list?, as in theory Bassa cannot elect any reps at present, and they are supposed to have lost a fair few in the past 18 months for various reasons.

At least it beats Sunday TV and Ice Dancing!!. ;)

Mariner9

6th Mar 2011, 16:14

Interesting that Miss M has faith that her evil employer that sacks BASSA members for trivial reasons, and is out to union bust, will not sack her or her fellow BASSA members on the next, unprotected strike.

MPN11

6th Mar 2011, 16:34

Agree completely.

MissM has supreme confidence in the rights of her cause, which is fine.
The downside is her slight failure to grasp the realities as seen from different perspectives.

If MissM really exists as BA CC, I suspect the future holds a few pitfalls for her and some of her colleagues.

There will inevitably come a point when BA will take whatever legal action is necessary to end this farrago. The "P45 Option" is certainly one of those, especially as BASSA seems determined to lead CC into unprotected IA.

VintageKrug

6th Mar 2011, 16:58

I agree this latest strike would be the first launched in this country, let alone for UNite, without "protection" for some considerable time.

All employers have the right to sack strikers, without any recourse to be re-instated, even under a "protected" strike; it's only the amount of compensation for "unfair dismissal" which might vary.

Under unprotected action, no compensation for unfair dismissal is due.

More likely than issuing P45 will be a SOSR compulsion to sign, individually and within 90 days, the deal agreed by Unite last year (including protecting their current T&Cs and a pay rise) or be dismissed, without recourse to unfair dismissal compensation.

Hopefully by that time Unite will have its troublesome branch in order, or have formed another "branch" to develop a more productive framework for future industrial relations within BA, or it will have left its members sorely unrepresented.

Now, where are those accounts! 9 days to go!

MPN11

6th Mar 2011, 17:05

... a SOSR compulsion to sign, within 90 days, the deal agreed by Unite last year (including protecting their current T&Cs and a pay rise) or be dismissed, without recourse to unfair dismissal compensation.Which would seem to be a very sensible way forward, and could have been achieved a long time ago ... if it wasn't for some individuals determinedly perpetuating the situation.

There is a mind-set amongst some of the CC that signing up to an agreement that preserves their existing T&C represents capitulation. They should really consider the options, instead of simply posturing.

However, "You can lead a horse to water ..."

Entaxei

6th Mar 2011, 17:33

Juan, with apologies for the delay in responding to your question, out & about ..........

"what do you mean by ' A Union Pension'. Surely they don't get one of those, as they are only running the branch. Happy to be put right".

As I understand it, the union pensions for the BASSA officers, were probably agreed to, by a change in the BASSA rules prior to joining Unite, possibly proposed/voted into being by the BASSA officers of the time. Of course, at that time they were running a complete union rather than just a 'Branch', with of course the resulting responsibilities and, working for BA. I presume that Malone was already living in LA then, so must have been very busy on Atlantic crossings.

Could I ask that if you can add anything to this or my earlier post today, please PM me. Many thanks and again, apologies for delay in response.

Cheers ;)

LD12986

6th Mar 2011, 18:03

I genuinely do not believe BA will sack strikers (not least because I don't think there will be any more strikes). Everything BA has done has followed a clear warning as to its intentions and sacking strikers would deny BA any claim to the moral high ground.

If Unite was sufficiently concerned to call off the last strike ballot, then I doubt it will call an unprotected strike.

I imagine if BA does threaten to sue Unite and Unite then calls off the strike, then I'm sure it will claim that this was a complete surprise by BA, even though BA first intimated that any future strike would be a contiuation of the first strike 9 months ago!

As for the ballot result, I don't think anyone is expecting anything else than a yes vote, but it will be interesting to see how the Yes vote moves from the last amount of ~5,700 and whether we get below the 4,000 mark.

notlangley

6th Mar 2011, 18:44

According to Wikipedia BASSA were part of The Transport and General Workers' Union which in 2007 merged with Amicus to form Unite.____link1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASSA)
It a constant cause of confusion in my mind that the other aircrew branch of Unite - cc89 uses the name Amicus (instead of cc89) - and even the Courts refer to the two branches as BASSA & Amicus.

Wikipedia lists the dates and names of Unions that merged into The Transport and General Workers' Union during the years 1922 to 2006._ However BASSA is not on this list.____link2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TGWU_amalgamations)
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that BALPA is an independent Trade Union (i.e. not a branch) and therefore has more rights and more legal obligations than BASSA or cc89.

My question is - when did BASSA cease to be an independent Trade Union and become instead a branch of T&GWU?

just an observer

6th Mar 2011, 19:29

Litebulbs

6th Mar 2011, 19:40

Can you show me the legal view that the potential industrial action that is being balloted for by Unite, is unprotected, or is it just rhetoric?

VintageKrug

6th Mar 2011, 19:45

Follow the many links and quotes of the legislation I hav posted ESP. On p29 of this thread.

Litebulbs

6th Mar 2011, 20:01

I have a basic understanding of the law and I cannot find any legislation that states that the potential action will be unprotected. It may, but that will be a matter for the courts.

Just because some think that it will, does not mean it will be.

GrahamO

6th Mar 2011, 20:11

If I may, I am no lawyer but it clearly states the conditions for unprotected action here (perhaps you missed it);

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

Approximately halfway down it states "If you continue to take part in protected industrial action for more than 12 weeks your rights are different. If you are dismissed for taking part after the end of the 12 weeks your dismissal will only be unfair if, at the time of your dismissal, your employer has not followed reasonable steps to settle the dispute with the trade union."

BA negotiated with UNITE and had an agreement with the union - this is not in doubt. The union members rejected that agreement (as is their right). BA have offered to have talks with UNITE and thus far nobody at UNITE has picked up the phone. BA do not have to pick up the phone, just to act reasonably. Note that BA have to show reasonable steps to settle the dispute with the UNION, not the members and not a branch.

BA has followed reasonable steps to settle the dispute and so any action would not be protected..... IMO. The law is very clear, but I concur that a court will decide, or as personally believe, confirm that BA have been reasonable, and that action is unprotected.

Litebulbs

6th Mar 2011, 20:17

That would be correct if this was a continuation of an existing dispute; in this case the crewing level issues.

Unite believe and I would hope have sought legal opinion, that the issues being balloted are new and not connected to the previous strikes. Many on here do not agree with that.

GrahamO

6th Mar 2011, 20:38

Many people believe the world is flat despite evidence to the contrary. Even when presented wth photo's taken from space they deny it.

A cursory reading of the 10 points raised in the latest BASSA in common old plain English, reads to me like items 1 2 and 3 are clearly related to the first dispute, given away by use of the term "related to the original dispute" on one item. Item 1 refers to events which occurred as a result of the first strike, as does item 2.

FWIW, Item 4 is a general point, 5 is emotive and unspecific and cannot be addressed as it represents opinion of one party over another when there is no cardinal test in law, item 6 is laughable but probably unrelated to the first strike, item 7 to 10 - no idea if they are related to the first strike however ridiculous I may feel they are.

When one party is being unreasonable to the man on the Clapham Omnibus, in its demands (viz items 6 to 10), the effect is to lower the bar for the employer to show he has been reasonable, evidenced by the clear unreasonable demands of the union. Thats how judges and courts react - the law favours reasonableness in general and someone demanding the world be turned upside down before agreeing to anything else is likely to be harming their own case. IMO this is why UNITE are holding BASSA back - they know that the reasonableness test will fail.

I respect your views Litebulbs, but there a really are too many Flat earthers out there - and FWIW I wholeheartedly agree that the courts throwing out the recent BA case was the right result The union won because it was reasonable and BA were not.

Litebulbs

6th Mar 2011, 20:49

I agree with your thoughts and on the face of it there is more to show that it is linked, than not.

Unite will be calling the action if the ballot returns a yes. They will be liable, so it will affect me as a member if BA can sue for loss. This is why I reasonably expect that they have done their homework too.

Fender Strat

6th Mar 2011, 20:56

Litebulbs

there may be a crumb of comfort for Unite in that there is a cap set in TULRCA on the union's liability of £250,000, however, it is unclear whether BA could then pursue action through the civil courts for revenue loss.

GrahamO

6th Mar 2011, 21:33

Thank you.

Unite will be calling the action if the ballot returns a yes. They will be liable, so it will affect me as a member if BA can sue for loss. This is why I reasonably expect that they have done their homework too.I concur that it is reasonable to expect the homework to have been done - a member should question if this does not appear to be the case. I am confident that UNITE certainly will have taken advice although from reading the thread(s) this would not to have been a natural action for the BASSA leadership.

But as you rightly suggest we will see.

My personal view is that BA will not sack anyone, as they will be able to run a near complete service, but will offer revised contracts on 90 day notice. Nor will they come after UNITE for the money, but they will use it as leverage. For all the bluster, as we know from his pronouncements, Len is not 100% in agreement with BASSA and BA could probably do business with him if BASSA were not around.

People taking strike action which they believe is protected, is an easy choice for a Mum or Dad with family responsibilities, but turning down a 90 day "take it or leave it" ultimatum is much harder to ignore, especially when we know that even if they were subsequently found to have been unfairly dismissed, that they will not get their job back.

It remains to be seen however if alleged strikers being given such an ultimatum, take independent advise or just rely on BASSA. In my last two companies where unions were involved in mass headcount reductions, the union paid for independent advice for members and did not offer 'a barrack-room legal opinion' themselves.

And that as far as the recruitment market goes, being ex-BA of many years standing is not an advantage, its an albatross (and I say this as a recruiter).

I have never been in a union and have never needed to be in one. My father was a union convener in the CPSA for 30 years and we both wish that the BA Cabin crew had better representation as IMO you are all being sadly let down by your chosen representatives.

LD12986

6th Mar 2011, 21:36

This is why I reasonably expect that they have done their homework too.

Litebulbs, A reasonable person would think that. However, the fact that Unite was sufficiently concerned about whatever issues BA had raised about the last ballot to call it off at the last minute in spite of the fact that it had many months to prepare for it does not instil confidence (nor does the fact that between the current and previous ballot Unite has managed to mislay some 396 cc union members.)

Litebulbs

6th Mar 2011, 21:53

That is a good point, but again, all I can do is hope that this time it is correct. If it is not, I will ask the question, because some of the cost will come out of my subs (although not too much!).

One huge thing that I would be concerned about, if BA actually deliver what they say they can and run an unaffected operation (although last time they said that, 200K less passengers flew through LHR), would be a lockout. If you want to come back to work, then sign the new contract, if not then don't.

I don't know any law on this, so some reading now!

gr8tballsoffire

6th Mar 2011, 23:10

Litebulbs
On the other forum you question how BA can sack striking CC.
It is very simple...the CC who do not report for work on the first day of unprotected action are told verbally and confirmed by letter along with their P45 that their services are no longer required.
As someone else has stated earlier, that would concentrate people's minds!!

You may think that's harsh, but BA would be acting within the law.

Having said that, I very much doubt that BA would go that far, much more likely to pursue Unite for costs or just simply sit it out again and run a near full service proving once again the futility of this quite ridiculous IA.

When this is finally over someone should publish the details of this sorry tale as an example of how NOT to run a union branch.

VintageKrug

6th Mar 2011, 23:12

Erm, isn't that exactly what we just explained is likely to happen? Though no need for a "lockout".

One option is dismissal for SOSR (Some Other Significant Reason), coupled with a 90 day opportunity to sign up to a variation of contract; it's pretty standard stuff.

Google is your friend in these matters, as is a close reading of my summary on p29:

www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/441165-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iv-29.html

Litebulbs

6th Mar 2011, 23:16

Are you saying that BA can work outside its set polices? I am reasonably sure that a company of the size of BA cant just tell somebody they are sacked. I ay be wrong and am willing to be corrected.

Litebulbs

6th Mar 2011, 23:20

Erm, no it isn't what we have been talking abou unless I have missed the words lock out. If I have, then sorry.

Entaxei

6th Mar 2011, 23:35

Re sacking someone - thats easy enough to do but - you really need them in front of you to tell them and give them their termination letter, ideally with HR alongside, the reasons -

a. Because you cannot let them carry on working or onto any aircraft,
as they could cause dissent or physical damage.

b. You need to get back the uniform and all ID's/passes they may have,
including car and specifically any airside pass.

The problem is going to be getting them in front of you, with uniform, passes etc., although I guess if the lure is the termination cheque to be signed for - which is only given on completion of handover - it might work.

Cheers ;)

Litebulbs

6th Mar 2011, 23:40

I agree with you. It is just that I consider comments about being sacked on day 1 in the same category as getting staff travel back in 5 minutes. Neither has or will be achievable.

just an observer

7th Mar 2011, 00:06

Throughout, BA has only done what it said it will do. The company has been careful to do this, including paying the bonus to staff who have been on strike, simply because they did not warn beforehand that striking would mean loss of bonus.

Following that pattern, if there is a further strike, no one will be sacked unless BA say beforehand that this will be the case, so imo this bit of the discussion is moot.

Entaxei

7th Mar 2011, 01:09

I know that we are agreeing to agree - and I agree with you - the practicalities of physically dealing with a number of sacked staff is one that might have to be addressed in bulk, maybe BA could hire the Bedfont FC unit, for say XX weeks after/if the action commences.

Essentially, security is the major potential problem that would need to be sorted out.

Just an Observer - I also agree with you, that in practical terms BA may well choose that avenue, based upon custom & practice?. Thank you for the 'moot', tis a lovely word that I have not heard for years, although I guess that that sentiment has been mooted before!

Cheers ;)

kappa

7th Mar 2011, 01:13

VintageKrug wrote:
Google is your friend in these matters, as is a close reading of my summary on p29

On PPRuNe the number of posts per page is optional - from 5 to 40 (see User CP in the yellow bar above). As a result this post appears to me on page 22. I suggest you also list the post #.

Litebulbs

7th Mar 2011, 01:24

I am not sure BA will ever say that if you go on strike, you will be dismissed, unless a court rules that the proposed action if voted for, is unprotected. If the courts do, then it would be a brave soul to carry on regardless.

Now, I have no idea, but if the ballot delivers a yes and BA take the matter to court and win, does that mean that all items listed on the current ballot paper will be seen as a continuation of the existing dispute? If so, then that is it as far as industrial action goes.

pcat160

7th Mar 2011, 03:44

Does it have to be ALL issues (items)?

Litebulbs

7th Mar 2011, 03:53

I really don't know. I am sure that just one will be needed, but my point is that if yet another ballot was called, would it have to be for something different and not linked to all the items on the current ballot? Is that part of a bigger plan?

just an observer

7th Mar 2011, 07:24

Litebulbs, I agree that BA would have to say something like 'we consider this strike to be unprotected, thus withdrawal of labour will constitute a breach of contract, and therefore will instigate dismissal proceedings against strikers on that basis' Ie, the law will decide at a later date. BASSA/Unite would tell CC they were protected, and the CC caught in the middle would have to decide who to believe (staff travel back in 5 minutes?)

That way, strikers will not get a P45 in the post, but would return to work and have a long drawn out wait, and BA would have plenty of time to recruit to fill the finite number of vacancies created. Presumably there would need to be a test case or an action against Unite first.

But, this is all hypothetical. I don't think BA will go that route. At some point they will have to build bridges with CC as a whole, and 'forcing' people to strike break under threat of dismissal will be too far.

However, BA may take legal action against Unite, if they think they have a case. Is there not a court case still pending re the original strike? BA don't seem to have any qualms about taking on Unite as a whole.

GrahamO

7th Mar 2011, 07:28

It does make sense the BA would have to follow a set-down procedure to sack someone under circumstances where there are consequences.

However, given there are no financial or legal consequences as far as the rights of the individual in relation to unfair sacking, they could from that perspective be rather brutal about it - "Here's you letter of termination - the door is that way".

Under normal conditions, they would need to be thinking about union reaction to the breach of the working agreements, however under the circumstances, I doubt they would worry about that. Pointing out that water is wet is likely to be used as an excuse for a strike in the current climate.

As any legal comeback would not allow the individual back in no matter what, the courts would not even allow an claim for unfair dismissal and however they do it, BA would undoubtedly have to go back to court one more time as the union would seek any way to get the individual their job back - as is their role quite rightly. The actual reason would not matter but no matter how they were sacked, as a case would result anyway. BASSA cannot walk away even if logic and the law and advisors are against them.

I still don't think BA would sack anyone on day 1 - just activate the 90 day take it or leave it option.

just an observer

7th Mar 2011, 08:21

Would issuing a 90 day SOSR notice actually settle the dispute? The 10 points that are listed on the current ballot would mostly still be there even if CC have accepted the contract currently on offer.

It might weed a few out however....I have a mental picture of a rep/activist trying to convince CC to continue IA on the 10 points whilst having to admit he/she has accepted the contract :)

Ancient Observer

7th Mar 2011, 08:25

There are a number of complex issues in the circumstances of an unprotected "strike" - or any other breach of contract.

This and the other thread have overly focused (IMHO) on the issues to do with the individual.

Unite will not/do not care about the individual. They never have cared for an individual in this dispute. Unite will care about their own legal and financial position - i.e. Litebulbs' subs.

There is another branch of the law - entirely independent of the TULRA stuff that Unite will have a concern about.

That is the potentially unlawful act of inducing someone to breach their contract.
If any "Official" of a TU induces someone to breach their contract outside a protected dispute, BA can take that official, and the TU, to court for all and any costs and losses arising from the breach.
Unite are very aware of that, and can and will stop the bassa junta from doing anything that opens Unite's finances as a piggy bank for BA.
That's why Unite disowned the bassa letter about the window blinds - within 24 hours. Staff must follow a reasonable instruction from their employer, no matter what the local branch might think.
At least the Unite lawyers can stop the wilder acts of the heritage junta. That legal framework also explains why the bassa junta's ideas about guerrilla action just will not work.

bealine

7th Mar 2011, 08:32

I still don't think BA would sack anyone on day 1 - just activate the 90 day take it or leave it option.I am of the same opinion. To be honest, I don't even think the 90 day option will be exercised - the company could have done this ages ago.

British Airways, the company, strives to be a fair and just employer and for all the pomposity and belligerence displayed by individual managers and TU reps alike, the Leadership Team still want BA to be seen as good employers. I really think that "the company" still wants the new working conditions accepted voluntarily.

Internally, changes had to happen to enable the airline to hold its place in the industry and, despite the pain and hardship to family men and women, every department, save one, within the airline agreed to make changes for the sake of "business efficiency".

It's easy to blame BASSA, but I feel that their management must share some culpability for failing to communicate effectively the challenges that BA was facing and the sacrifices other workers were making. I still think that if the "rank and file" BASSA members had been kept fully "in the loop" that very few would have heeded the union's clarion call and very few would have lost their staff travel.

If it really, really wanted to, British Airways could put every single employee on a new contract immediately. With the formation of IAG, British Airways plc, the name under which our contracts were accepted, ceased to exist. However, the "Leadership Team" have that essential quality - a sheer British sense of fair play - and I'm sure the idea of putting all staff on new contracts in order to disadvantage them would be dismissed out of hand.

Juan Tugoh

7th Mar 2011, 08:55

and I'm sure the idea of putting all staff on new contracts in order to disadvantage them would be dismissed out of hand.

I don't for a minute think that BA would view it this way. The deal brokered between UNITE (Tony Woodley) and BA, the deal that BASSA would not even put to a vote was seen by the UNITE leadership and BA as fair. It returned ST and included a pay rise as well as maintaining pretty much everything else that current cabin crew enjoy. So to impose this as a settlement through a forced "take it or leave it deal" would not be seen by the BA Board as doing it in order to disadvantage them.

This dispute must come to an end. It is corrosive to the business and potentially corrosive to the good and safe operation of BA's aircraft. If CRM fails to such an extent that the Kegworth situation were to re-occur thaen things have become downright dangerous. Reading some of the vile and toxic language used on some of the forums and the vilification of individuals and hatred that is evident on some forums it can easily be argued that the BA Board need to act now to bring this thing to an end.

The, so called "90 day option" could be seen as a way of ending this dispute now. The cost of terminating the employment of those who will not sign the new deal and paying off the 90 days in lieu of notice may well be a cheaper option than sustaining the losses another strike, even a poorly supported one, like the last one.

BASSA do not seem to want to bring this dispute to an end. At some point BA will have to act to end it, this may mean sackings and suspensions. It seems certain that BA will not cave in and give BASSA what they want, that would be storing up the same trouble for a couple of years down the line. BASSA has failed to see that at the moment they hold NO weapons that will work to force BA to settle, only BA's patience has kept the hold-outs in employment.

When faced with unemployment in a very difficult economic period or accepting a settlement most would opt for the continuance of pay and T&Cs.

west lakes

7th Mar 2011, 09:11

But doesn't the 90 day take it or leave still fail to address the problems.

As said given the choice of unemployment or taking it if everyone takes it BA will still have the diehards on staff who will be waiting to cause problems in the future! In reality, I guess, there will never be any appeasement with some of the CC until they leave BA's employ at some point in the future.

Bealine

I still think that if the "rank and file" BASSA members had been kept fully "in the loop" that very few would have heeded the union's clarion call and very few would have lost their staff travel

Before BA could do this they would have needed (still need in my view) to get into a position where staff actually take any account of communications from BA. As related a number of times previously, there are a significant number of staff who do not read or listen to anything BA has to tell them. Their only source of credible information, to their minds, is the union.

I am reminded of a recent discussion with a good friend.
On airport standby recently a member of main crew (aged in her late teens/early twenties) commented she was bored. The suggestion was made to go and seek out duty managers and others and introduce herself to them, find out what they did etc. This was met with horror and a comment that she wanted nothing to do with any manager!
This was not a militant, but there seems to be this huge divide that BA needs to address (of course also the question of where it comes from - I have seen comments last year pointing at the training system being responsible)
I would suggest that this is one of BA's biggest challenges

LD12986

7th Mar 2011, 09:19

It's easy to blame BASSA, but I feel that their management must share some culpability for failing to communicate effectively the challenges that BA was facing and the sacrifices other workers were making. I still think that if the "rank and file" BASSA members had been kept fully "in the loop" that very few would have heeded the union's clarion call and very few would have lost their staff travel.

If it really, really wanted to, British Airways could put every single employee on a new contract immediately. With the formation of IAG, British Airways plc, the name under which our contracts were accepted, ceased to exist. However, the "Leadership Team" have that essential quality - a sheer British sense of fair play - and I'm sure the idea of putting all staff on new contracts in order to disadvantage them would be dismissed out of hand.

bealine, I think you have a fair point regarding communication. From the outside, it seems there has been too much managing by e-mail and not enough face to face communication.

The formation of IAG does not mean current employment contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. The new BA operating entity will have inherited these contracts and the obligations that arise from them.

Juan Tugoh

7th Mar 2011, 09:30

I agree in the main with what you say. However, the baleful influence of the union would be significantly reduced should BA employ the 90 day route. The union would be largely powerless to prevent it from happening as their own QC admitted in court that this was a legitimate option for BA. Those stupid enough not to listen to BA communications on such a subject would be self-selecting themselves to leave the company. I also suspect that things would happen much quicker than people think, There would be a time window in which to accept the offer, failure to accept would lead to those failing to accept being given 90 days notice. This notice would not be worked, rather it would be paid off. Recruitment would be ramped up to cover the temporary shortfall of the few stupid enough to think they could ignore this deal. I am not sure that people who put themselves in this situation would really deserve any sympathy. It would be industrial Darwinism.

Bitterness over this dispute will linger, there is no way to avoid it, but the sooner it is over the sooner things will settle down. If fools leave the business because they failed to heed BA communications, that would perhaps teach others not to be so stupid and trusting of the BASSA leadership. The foolish notion that what BASSA says is gospel and BA can be ignored needs to be thoroughly discredited. If people lose their job over such misplaced trust then perhaps that will be the price of their stupidity. Stupid people have no place in aviation, nor indeed in any safety critical industry.

bealine

7th Mar 2011, 09:47

Whilst I see where you're coming from, I don't agree that all of BASSA's followers were necessarily foolish or stupid or deserving of the sack - misguided perhaps.

I am still of the opinion that whatever British Airways can or cannot lawfully do, the Leadership Team will still attempt to win hearts and minds voluntarily. The small number of hardcore militants will either end up doing something stupid and getting sacked or will be so disgusted at having to work a wee bit harder that they'll end up leaving. In either event, in the middle of a whacking great economic crisis, that is stupid!

VintageKrug

7th Mar 2011, 10:06

What is being set out is that any company has the legal right to "fire" (such a horrid word) any employee at any time, regardless of taking industrial action.

The employee has then the right to seek unfair dismissal, and compensation; re-instatement may be sought, but the company never has to agree to this actually happening.

If sacked under a "protected" strike, along will all other strikers (so treated equally) there may be recourse to an Employment Tribunal (ET), for compensation. Re-instatement may be sought, but even if granted is not enforceable.

If sacked under an "unprotected" strike, and treated the same as other strikers, there is no recourse to an ET, no compensation payable.

It only takes one of the formal reasons to strike to be proven as connected to render the strike "unprotected". Just one. That is why BASSA proposing ten reasons was barmy.

And including the phrase "related to the previous dispute" in the official communique to BA (http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html) means it will be very hard for anyone to demonstrate it is unprotected.

Some have stated BA haven't done this previously, but I sense a change of tone here; the previous strikes weren't unprotected, BASSA has zero left in its (already modest) armoury, and support is waning whilst fatigue with the dispute is on the rise.

I would expect a fair, but very ROBUST, response by BA once the undoubted "yes" vote is revealed.

With Holley's ET ruling being released publicly around that time, and a failure to produce the BASSA accounts (and I don't think that's really a legal issue, the contempt Holley shows his membership by refusing access to them is enough), and possible de-recognition of BASSA, the way forward for BA is clear.

If that means they have to ramp up Mixed Fleet recruitment to replace the jobs vacated by the more militant aspects of the BASSA fraternity, then so be it.

BA hasn't set out to "bust the Union", but BASSA's intransigence risks a self-fulfilling prophesy of BASSA's own making.

Ancient Observer

7th Mar 2011, 10:51

VK,

You have appeared here relatively recently. Your posts are generally accurate, if a little lengthy, and written mainly from the Employer's perspective.

A touch of BAe in there.

Are you McCarthy in disguise?

Juan Tugoh

7th Mar 2011, 10:55

If sacked under an "unprotected" strike, and treated the same as other strikers, there is no recourse to an ET, no compensation payable.

With due respect - this is rubbish. There is always recourse to an ET. It may well be futile but if sacked an employee can always dispute it.

The only thing protection provides is a guarantee that the dismissal will automatically be deemed unfair. That means compensation will have to be paid. Being sacked during an unprotected strike can still be unfair, it just means the dismissed person would need to prove the lack of fairness at the Tribunal.

VintageKrug

7th Mar 2011, 11:05

Who's McCarthy?

Unfortunately sound bites don't work, so I try to set out the position as clearly as possible and use referenceable material rather than hearsay where it is possible to do so. It is for others to make up their mind if what I post stacks up, or is a pack of deficient ramblings; where I believe the strike is unprotected, and have set out why, I have seen no such reasoned argument as to why this current ballot is unprotected.

JT, I should have perhaps used more precise language. Rather than "no recourse" I should perhaps have stated they would be "likely to have their case thrown out by any ET".

I am not an employment law expert, so welcome those with more authority on the matter than me, but the relevant guidance states:

---

If you are dismissed while taking part in unprotected industrial action called for by your trade union, you cannot normally claim unfair dismissal if all the other employees taking part are dismissed as well.

You can complain about unfair dismissal if you are dismissed:

- for an automatically unfair reason (eg because of your duties as a health and safety representative)

- while taking part in the industrial action but others taking part are not dismissed

- for taking part in unprotected industrial action, after you stopped taking part

Just because you can make a claim for unfair dismissal does not mean it will be successful.
--------

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

west lakes

7th Mar 2011, 11:27

If you are dismissed while taking part in unprotected industrial action called for by your trade union, you cannot normally claim unfair dismissal if all the other employees taking part are dismissed as well.

Which is where one of the rubs stands, BA could not just sack all day 1 strikers and ignore any others, they must sack all strikers so as not fall foul of this clause.

Joao da Silva

7th Mar 2011, 11:33

Ancient Observer

I just popped in for a look this morning.

The handle 'Vintage Krug' is well known on the Business Traveller and Flyertalk fora.

If it it is the same person, s/he claims not to be an interested party (i.e. BA staff or supplier) and is noted for cutting and pasting information from various sources.

Bye, I'm off again.

VintageKrug

7th Mar 2011, 12:40

Which is where one of the rubs stands, BA could not just sack all day 1 strikers and ignore any others, they must sack all strikers so as not fall foul of this clause.

On a single day, the actual number of "all strikers" is probably quite small. How many BA Cabin Crew work per day? Maybe between 1,000-2,000 LHR strike-voting crew of say 4,000 normally rostered (at both LHR and LGW/internationally) at a generous guesstimate. Would be interesting to get a more precise number for that, though.

Remember, it's not "all those who voted to strike" who would risk dismissal, just those who withdraw their labour on that day. And with the significant possibility of unprotected action, that number choosing to risk dismissal is likely to be less than it has been in past "protected" action.

Especially after Holley's ET tribunal judgement is made public around that time.

If we assume a generous "yes" vote of about 5,500 in the current ballot (assuming some double counting last time), and a historical tendency for less than half those to actually carry out their threat, it's actually quite a small number.

Certainly, given current overstaffing, part time flexibility, MF recruitment and VCC plus temps, as well as cover provided by leased aircraft/crews, I think the numbers lost would be manageable, though very regrettable on many levels, especially when you consider the large pool of experienced crew made redundant by airlines such as bmi who would be able to quickly re-train as BA crew if offered the opportunity to do so.

mrpony

7th Mar 2011, 12:53

The scenario VK describes is imaginable i.e. striker numbers not being too high on 'day 1' to consider mass dismaissal. More so if you factor in BA making it absolutely plain what action would be taken in the event of unprotected action (didn't Assange get clobbered for that?) and the effect that would have on striker numbers.

PaddyMiguel

8th Mar 2011, 16:11

..........what action would be taken in the event of unprotected action (didn't Assange get clobbered for that?)

Very droll, mrpony, very droll!

notlangley

8th Mar 2011, 19:42

Air China, the country’s flag carrier, signed an agreement to buy five Boeing 747-8 aircraft, each capable of carrying more than 460 passengers, as part of its drive to expand its international network.

In a separate agreement announced Tuesday but still being completed, Hong Kong Airlines, part of HNA Group, said it would purchase 38 Boeing aircraft, including 30 of the plane maker’s new Dreamliners and 6 freighters. Together, the Boeing aircraft are worth about $10 billion at list prices, though purchases are often subject to undisclosed discounts.

_________link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/business/global/09air.html?_r=1&ref=global-home)

BetterByBoat

8th Mar 2011, 21:56

Been away a while and the discussion seems to be the same ... having got it horribly wrong last time, I'll punt my incorrect thoughts out again:

1) If BA were going to sue Unite and sack strikers they would have allowed the last strike to go ahead. The timing was great as it would have had minimal impact on peak seasons and the strike was clearly "unprotected" so I think if this approach was going to happen then BA would have done it by now. Contrary to Litebulbs thoughts - I believe strikers could be sacked on day 1 without any referemce to internal process. Anyone can be sacked at any time for any reason. The recourse is through an ET but if the strike is ruled as "unprotected" then an ET is unlikely to rule in the strikers favour.

2) SOSR - 90 days - nope. Not happening. That would have to apply (I think) to all cabin crew equally. And I can't see BA penalising those that have come into work. Although from previous discussions I seem to remember some crew (e.g. LGW) saying a SOSR that applied to all crew might actually improve their T&Cs.

3) I am coming to the opinion that BA really are just going to sit this one out. They hold all the cards. They know that the number of strikers is falling. They know they can run a near full operation. So they will take the hit financially on potential lost bookings and just wait until the unions and strikers give up. My only concern with this approach is that it leaves the issues largely unresolved and potentially just puts them off for a future date.

I think one thing has been consistent throughout this dispute. BA have stated what they will do and they have carried through that promise. So I don't think we'll see any sudden sackings or SOSR. They'll announce the options facing cabin crew and let cabin crew make their own choice and decide their own fate.

Litebulbs

8th Mar 2011, 22:42

We do not hold contrary views. You are right, BA can sack who they want, when they want. But for it to be fair, due process has to be followed. Taking unprotected action would lead to a gross misconduct dismissal, but if due process was not followed, it may not be a fair dismissal and then potentially very expensive.

Going on strike and the sanctions around it are based in civil law and are statutory inventions and would be seen as unlawful, not illegal.

pcat160

9th Mar 2011, 03:56

It seems to me this whole strike issue has lost any relevance. I have four long haul segments booked in June and am not at all concerned, is anyone? The current ballot will certainly return an overwhelming percentage in favor of IA. Red Len may want to have a strike as it may coordinate with some of his other actions but will in no way further the cause of BA CC. Undoubtedly IA will cause BA some financial distress but should not impact the operation from the pax point of view to a great extent. What is in it for striking CC? I assume BA will not threaten termination for strikers but will at least do the following: loss of wages until next rostering, no bonus for 2011 ( already stated), loss of staff travel forever. If my perspective and assumptions are incorrect please correct me. If, however, my thoughts are correct what CC in their right mind would actually strike?

Mariner9

9th Mar 2011, 08:31

If BA were going to sue Unite and sack strikers they would have allowed the last strike to go ahead. The timing was great as it would have had minimal impact on peak seasons and the strike was clearly "unprotected" so I think if this approach was going to happen then BA would have done it by now.

BA did not apply for an injunction following the last ballot, and thus it would seem would have "allowed" any strike to proceed. However they did write to Unite warning them that they considered the ballot to be flawed for several reasons, which in their view would make any strike unprotected. This letter would prepare the way for sackings and damages claims against the union.

As I've said before, I think Unite and individual CC are on very dangerous ground if they continue with further strike action. I also suspect that Unite know this.

VintageKrug

9th Mar 2011, 08:37

Far from the "legal blitz" alleged by the Nazi-obsessed BASSA, I believe it was the Electoral Reform Service (who administered the ballot on behalf of Unite) who refused to give their support to the ballot result.

If you examine the most recent ballot, ERS never actually released a statement on their notepaper setting out the results of the ballot; if you notice, the third ballot announcement was on ERS notepaper:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BA_ballot_result_consultative_20_7_2010.pdf (http://redirectingat.com/?id=546X877&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Funiteba.com%2FESW%2FFiles%2FBA_ballot_resul t_consultative_20_7_2010.pdf&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businesstraveller.com%2Fdiscussion%2Ft opic%2FBASSA-Unite-Latest-Ballot-Just-43-percent-of-BA-Cabin-Crew-Support-Action%23last_post)

The latest (failed, fourth ballot) confirmation was initially communicated by Unite directly to its membership:

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/BAllot_..._21jan2011.pdf

I have never seen anything on ERS notepaper endorsing the most recent ballot result.

It will be telling on what notepaper the ballot result is publicised this time round (which I think shall be known as the “fourth” ballot).

ChicoG

9th Mar 2011, 08:57

just an observer

9th Mar 2011, 09:59

I am coming to the opinion that BA really are just going to sit this one out. They hold all the cards. They know that the number of strikers is falling. They know they can run a near full operation. So they will take the hit financially on potential lost bookings and just wait until the unions and strikers give up. My only concern with this approach is that it leaves the issues largely unresolved and potentially just puts them off for a future date. my bold

I agree re BA 'sitting it out'.

As for IA on any future date, there may be no future date. It is noticeable that ever since the last BA Engineering strike, when BA had contingency plans and managed to largely keep flying, Engineering has never that I can recall even threatened another strike - after all what is the point if the company carries on regardless. You lose money, and probably staff travel, and gain nothing. Engineering belong to Unite as well, although directly, not through a specific branch.

BA may simply want to show CC that a strike gets you nowhere, but that talking works. Eg, in one of the early offers, BA was going to reinstate some crew, leading to 184 more on WW/EF, but paid for it by withdrawing some allowances (telephone?) Those crew who gave feedback said they would rather have the allowance than the crew back, so the next offer from BA didn't give any crew back but reinstated the allowance and gave the feedback received as the reason.

In the short term future, BASSA has thrown so many 'reasons' into this ballot, that if any strike actually happens this time, after 3 months, they will definitely have nothing new left to ballot on and be clearly unprotected, thus BA will have won.

The 'hearts and minds' bit will still be unresolved initially, but if crew see that they are not put on MF contracts, and their average pay is maintained via the top up, contrary to BASSA's scaremongering, it will happen, slowly.

GrahamO

9th Mar 2011, 16:52

Is it just me or does it make anyone else feel automatically unsympathetic when anyone starts calling anyone else 'comrade' ?

Somehow it just suggests to me that such an individual is more interested in the destruction of the organisation that I am paying, than in improving the service they give me as a customer.

Maybe I am being unfair ?

Litebulbs

9th Mar 2011, 17:11

It was probably a great term 100+ years ago, but speaking from a pro union stance, it needs to be re-branded.

MPN11

9th Mar 2011, 17:23

It was probably a great term 100+ years ago, but speaking from a pro union stance, it needs to be re-branded.

Well said, Sister :cool:

Now, as you surely know these things, what's all this stuff on the CC thread about new EU rules on CC working hours etc.? Will you enlighten us, please? What's the impact on BA CC in the context of what's currently going on?

PAXboy

9th Mar 2011, 17:49

To me, comrade is very outdated and is synonymous with an organisation that is locked into a cycle of conflict - which is pointless. Further, it tells me that the two people are looking at each other - rather than outward towards the client (me). The term colleague is better as it demonstrates that you work alongside a person and in a collegiate fashion and leaves room to consider the customer.

deltahotel

9th Mar 2011, 17:57

MPN11 and others. You may wish to have a look at the 'Easa Flight Time Limitations Changes' thread in Rumours and News. If this comes in, then you can be flown by pilots with less protection than lorry drivers and at the limit the possibility exists of 7hr30min rests between long crew duty days. Yes - it will impact on CC as well.

Possibly coming to airlines near you all over Europe. Be afraid - be very afraid....

Juan Tugoh

9th Mar 2011, 17:59

The proposed EASA Flight Time Limitations are, or should be of concern to all of us: Flight Crew, Cabin Crew and Passengers. Essentially the document that controls the legal limitations on Flight Time and Duty is CAP371. All duty rigs of UK based airlines are based on this document. CAP371 is the product of years of scientific research and has its roots in the Bader Committee of the 1970s. The idea behind the EASA regulations is to bring all the countries of Europe into line, the same regulations would apply to all the EASA countries. So the smart thing to do would have been to take the best, safest regulatory environment and extend it to EASA. Instead the euro politicians have created a mish-mash set of regulations based on NO scientific input, rather the input of the airlines and whatever compromises they decided was convenient. IF these regulations go through unchanged then safety will be compromised. The Colgan Air crash in Buffalo and several other incidents have put the spotlight on crew fatigue and its dangerous repercussions. The FAA are tightening up the regulations with regard to fatigue, Euro politicians are happy to let safety be significantly eroded.

wiggy

9th Mar 2011, 18:10

As Juan said the proposals efect everybody, some of them are quite frightening and in many instances there's no science to justify the proposals, or the relevant science appears to have been ignored. It appears to be an operator's dream and wishlist.

This EASA proposals are available via the internet for our comment and input up until the 20th March.

Rescue3

9th Mar 2011, 19:07

"IF these regulations go through unchanged then safety will be compromised"

Sorry but are you saying that EASA (the European Aviation Safety Agency) is prepared to compromise safety?. If i understand it correctly they (EASA) do not pass european legislation. It is only the European Commission (through the Official Journal) that legislate.

Litebulbs

9th Mar 2011, 19:15

I am sure responsible employers will self regulate to maintain acceptable levels of safety.

deltahotel

9th Mar 2011, 19:18

Start with this BALPA - PILOTS FATIGUE WARNING (http://www.balpa.org/News-and-campaigns/News/PILOTS-FATIGUE-WARNING.aspx) There is lots available on the internet about the proposed EASA flight time limitations. Working to the limits in CAP371 is hard, but if these proposals go through you are going to have seriously tired aviators in the skies on a regular basis.

deltahotel

9th Mar 2011, 19:22

You'd like to think so and so would I, but money talks. Current simple example is that CAP371 has an annual limit of 900hours - more and more airline are treating this as a target rather than a limit.

deltahotel

9th Mar 2011, 19:26

And this FTL Campaign Site • BALPA FTL Campaign Home (http://wakeup.balpa.org/) Mods - apologies for the thread drift. These rules will impact on CC too.

Litebulbs

9th Mar 2011, 19:57

Too true. It is a bit like the minimum wage. It is portrayed as one of the major successes of the last Labour Government, although it has now allowed employers to target it as a goal, rather than a minimum position for those below.

Mariner9

9th Mar 2011, 20:28

As I understand it, BA's aircraft crewing levels still exceeds CAA/EASA minima despite the removal of 1 CC member.

No reason then to suppose that BA will take the opportunity to reduce rest periods to the revised minimas.

After all, to do so would provide BASSA with a genuinely new and unconnected reason for a further strike ballot....

Landroger

9th Mar 2011, 21:39

A B73NG Captain I know was scathing - verging on downright angry - about the EASA changes proposed. He thought it was leveling the playing field, but to the level of the lowest player.

In other words, they felt it was unfair on the smaller airlines to comply with the standards of large and responsible airlines - so they will allow/enforce/police only the lowest standards.

Not involved - except as SLF - myself, but I wasn't encouraged by what he said.

Have also noted that BALPA have an input and an opinion, but not BASSA.

Roger.

LD12986

9th Mar 2011, 22:11

On BA's approach, I agree BA is going to sit this out. It is somewhat ironic that DH now claims that the ballots are no longer about strikes, but "sending a message". It is for exactly this reason BASSA and CC89 implored their members to vote yes the first tine round nearly 18 months ago.

And collectively, through their representatives, cabin crew are enabling BA to do this by just sitting waiting for something to happen. If Unite was actually proposing new settlement offers, BA would have to entertain them.

Whilst I don't think there is any doubt there will be another Yes vote, it will be interesting to see if the Yes vote continues its downward trend:

1st ballot 9,514 out of 12,780 members
2nd ballot 7,482 out of 11,691 members
3rd ballot 5,751 out of 10,230 members
4th ballot 9,824 members to be balloted

deltahotel

9th Mar 2011, 22:13

Don't take this the wrong way, but I have no confidence that any airline will do anything within the regulations other than to follow the path which gets more work from the same number of people or the same amount of work from fewer people. If we end up working to the proposed EASA regs, I think that it will be a retrograde step in terms of safety. BALPA is engaging in this - if I were CC (in any company) I would want my union doing the same.

Colonel White

9th Mar 2011, 23:26

I reckon that the ballot result will be of the order of just under 5000 votes in favour of industrial action. This is based on looking at the numbers who went on strike last year and the general trend in voting. I don't think that the support will increase as I reckon that here are some who previously voted for strike action that are now hacked off with the union's incompetence. I can't see the shopping list of causes doing anything to appeal to more cabin crew. Unite will do well if they get a 60% turnout and around 80% in favour of strike action That will give them the 'healthy' mandate they seek, but in reality it will make no difference as they seem to have abandoned the notion of strike action in preference for 'wierd and wondrous' initiatives. I'm so excited by the thought of these that I could crush a tissue.:ooh:

Dawdler

10th Mar 2011, 00:38

Don't forget Colonel, that their illustrious leader said that there was very unlikely to be a strike no matter what the result of the ballot. So we are back to "sending a message" by a "YES" vote.

Richard228

10th Mar 2011, 09:36

their illustrious leader said that there was very unlikely to be a strike no matter what the result of the ballot

Which would make the illustrious leader a terrible poker player.

It is only the perceived actual threat that will harm forward bookings on BA......

to say you are bluffing, does not make a good card player, and will not work to his advantage..

pcat160

10th Mar 2011, 15:29

I think these statements were made to make CC feel they could vote for IA without a strike being called. “Sending a message” again. At this point this is probably the best BASSA can do.:ugh:

west lakes

10th Mar 2011, 17:10

Or if it is a good majority, just forget what had been said and call a strike anyway!

(OK it may not be well supported and may be unprotected but anything is possible)

Juan Tugoh

10th Mar 2011, 17:41

I think it is telling that last time round BA did not go to court rather they informed the ERS and union of flaws in the ballot and the union pulled the strike. Given this and that the current ballot is likely to be within the law all that leaves is the protection or otherwise. Now as BA did not go for an injunction and seemed prepared to let the union strike, merely setting them up for financial liability, perhaps this is an indication of how BA will act this time. Certainly VCC training has been massively ramped up in recent months, suggesting that BA expects a strike to go ahead.

If UNITE are stupid enough to think BA will do nothing they deserve all they get. Industrial Darwinism may be a force at play here - the dinosaur mass extinction could be mere days away. Crippling UNITE the union financially would be a smart move for BA; removing the threat of this cancerous growth interfering with the business forever.

Betty girl

10th Mar 2011, 17:50

Keith Williams and Len McClukey have has positive talks today with further discussions to take place in near future.

Just thought you all would like to know.

VintageKrug

10th Mar 2011, 18:30

Red Len isn't as stupid as he looks.

He will be looking for a way out of calling an unprotected strike, and moving on from this farce of BASSA's making with some dignity intact.

As it stands now, it appears there is more upside for BA Management if the strike goes ahead.....!

Still no news on those missing BASSA accounts; still if the membership isn't interested they deserve the poor leadership and maladministration which typifies BASSA.

BBOWFIGHTER

11th Mar 2011, 07:30

The new and latest edicts coming from EASA will seriously impact how an airline performs and the hours all crew will work. It will mean a massive change to airline operations. The changes will be severe. You can see the proposed new regulations here and what it can mean to airline crews. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/445093-easa-flight-time-limitations-changes.html

This will also mean that unions are an irrelevance with all airlines being subject to the new rules.

Juan Tugoh

11th Mar 2011, 08:09

The proposed EASA changes are massive for UK Airlines operating under CAP371 - BA included as the BA Scheme is essentially CAP371. They will undoubtedly make it much harder for these airlines to compete on cost with airlines that will embrace the new changes, as their crewing costs will fall dramatically as they will be able to get far more from a reduced number of crew.

How all this makes unions an irrelevance is a mystery to me. Unions were set up to improve safety, pay and conditions - this role has not changed. The power of a union is essentially the threat of crippling a company by withdrawing labour. This threat still remains for unions that can organise a legal ballot and have a just cause that mobilises overwhelming support within its members. As an example, if 90% of BA pilots were to strike BA would grind to a halt. 10% support would be an inconvenience and the threat would produce nothing, as BASSA have found out.

The safety issues here are huge. Passengers and crew should be aware of the ramifications of this issue. However, this nonsense of the irrelevance of unions is just Daily Mailesque Fear-mongering.

Betty girl

11th Mar 2011, 08:13

Very good post Juan.

Sporran

11th Mar 2011, 08:52

For you good folks of the SLF community here is a precis of the proposed EASA limits that could be forced on us. We presently work to the scientifically based CAP 371, but these new proposals would appear to come from a combination of MEPs and accountants.

1. Reducing rest has always been at the behest of the aircraft commander, after he has taken consideration of the state of his crew. Under EASA it will be at the behest of the operator, maybe even just before report.

2. The max number of duty hours worked in 7 days will increase by 5 hours, but 'nothing' is being said about 14 days!!

3. The number of early starts will be almost unregulated and the 'window' defining an early start closes to only one specific hour - 0500 to 0559, from 0500 to 0659 at present.

4. The max flying duty period would be increased. The early morning allowabel FDPs show a huge increase in those in CAP 371.

5. The flying hour limit would increase to 1000 hours per '12 consecutive months' - up from 900 hours.

6. Minimum rest away from base could be cut to 7.5 hours from the existing 10 hours.

7. The present 2 days off together in any 14 days ensures that the body gets 3 nights to recover. There is no mention at all of 2 in 14 in EASA!!!

8. EASA makes no comment regarding doing a standby at home and then being called to carry out a flying duty period. There is therefore no protection about doing a standby followed by a long flying duty period.

9. Airport standby rules would be 'watered down'.

10. The definition of 'home base' would mean that you would be expected to report directly to that home base, but not get credit for the journey in any flying duty period.

11. A lot of the definitions and interpretations that are clearly defined in CAP 371 are not even mentioned in EASA.

12. EASA make no mention at all on several critical areas, such as: restrictions around late finishes and early starts, restrictions around what constitutes a night duty and options related to night operations, control if delayed at the start of a flying duty period.

As is usually the case, BALPA recognised the unsound review process of EASA and then did a thorough study of the document. All BALPA members were then advised of the problems and encouraged to look at the proposals. We have then been encouraged to contact MPs, who were briefed at Westminster, and the next step is to put carefully considered 'arguments' against some of the draconian measures being proposed.

GrahamO

11th Mar 2011, 09:10

Interesting, as a SLF I have no idea if thats good, bad or indifferent.

But given that BA CC 'experts' tried the 'safety' angle on staffing level reductions which caused the current dispute, its hard for us SLF to know if this is a case of 'not invented here' and whether the assertion that only MEP's and acountanst have drawn up the proposal is true or not.

The latter bit I struggle with, and when people say 'scientifically based' I automatically think of the Nutty Professor and studies undertaken in the 1950's.

We shall see in due course I guess.

BBOWFIGHTER

11th Mar 2011, 09:18

CAP371 was essentially drawn up just after WW2. It is NOT outmoded but it has been subjected to changes, or attempted changes over the years, but not much.

EASA is a totally different thing. It makes changes that affect all of us and it will be very difficult to change anything. Have you heard of any union getting items in the ANO changed? No? That is because it is a legislative document and so will the new FTL scheme designed by the bureaucrats in Europe. They will accept questions but will probably do nothing.

How all this makes unions an irrelevance is a mystery to me. Unions were set up to improve safety, pay and conditions - this role has not changed. The power of a union is essentially the threat of crippling a company by withdrawing labour.

Red herring - with about as much teeth too. BASSA or Unite would have the bite of a dead frog. In the case of BASSA very true, wouldn't you say?

Please read the whole 'boring' number of pages. This will be LAW soon and who knows we might change to FAA rules..........there's a thought.

Please do not make the mistake that many have made before that a union can win over legislature.

Lord Bracken

11th Mar 2011, 09:26

But given that BA CC 'experts' tried the 'safety' angle on staffing level reductions which caused the current dispute, its hard for us SLF to know if this is a case of 'not invented here' and whether the assertion that only MEP's and acountanst have drawn up the proposal is true or not.

Indeed, we all remember when BASSA claimed losing one off the 747 was a dramatic safety issue. They, of course, know far more about safety than Boeing, the FAA or the CAA...

call100

11th Mar 2011, 09:28

It will only legislate the minimum requirements. As always there will be the opportunities for Unions (ALL) to improve conditions within their own companies.
So I don't see how the wishful thinking that it makes unions irrelevant makes any sense.

Betty girl

11th Mar 2011, 09:51

Bassa not wanting someone off a 747 has got absolutely nothing to do with this legislation.

We are all experts about something but none of us are experts about everything.

I expect it will be very hard for those of you that don't have an aviation background to fully understand the implications of this legislation.

I don't think it make unions any more ineffective or effective than they are now and I personally don't believe it will be in the interests of all airlines to necessarily adopt all of the new rules but it is definitely not good legislation.

Also just to clarify, this legislation has nothing to do with Boeing, the FAA or the CAA, it is drafted by the the EASA. The CAA regulations are more restrictive on airlines than this new proposal.

mrpony

11th Mar 2011, 10:01

As a simple piece of freight I don't have expertise but would be very shocked if even the EU had abandoned scientific analysis of these flight time limit assessments. If you go to the website it is quite easy to find that these people:
1 Dr. Barbara Stone QinetiQ, UK
2 Dr. Karen Robertson QinetiQ, UK
3 Dr. Alexander Gundel DLR, Germany
4 Mr. Martin Vejvoda DLR, Germany
5 Dr. Mick Spencer Human Factor Investigation, UK
6 Prof. Dr. Torbjorn Ackersted Karolinska Institute, Sweden
7 Dr. Ries Simons TNO, The Netherlands
8 Dr. Philipp Cabon University of Paris Descartes, France
9 Prof. Dr. Régis Mollard University of Paris Descartes, France
10 Prof. Dr. Simon Folkard Swansea University, UK
Table 1 The list of the FTL expert Team

See specialities listed here - MOEBUS aviation Ltd (http://www.moebus-aviation.com/index.php?view=partners)

....who were consulted in the course of compiling this:

Final Report - Scientific and Medical Evaluation of Flight Time Limitations
...accessible here:

http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/r/doc/research/FTL%20Study%20Final%20Report.pdf

So whilst I am keen that the UK doesn't get led down some bureaucratically-driven new and dangerous flight time limit path, I can't see that the proclamations made by some on this forum about there being no scientific basis for the proposed changes quite ring true.

P.S. If you do go to the link have a look at page 19. For any who dismiss CC's role with ill-thought out comparisons in the leisure industry, this should correct your thinking.

Tigger4Me

11th Mar 2011, 10:08

According to the Press Association Virgin Atlantic are to expand their fleet and create 450 more jobs.

Quote: Corneel Koster, director of operations, safety and security for Virgin Atlantic, said: "We have enjoyed a good year of recovery and can now look forward to expanding our network and welcoming a new fleet of aircraft.

"With the increases in flight rotations from our London airports and the new Las Vegas flight from Manchester, we will be creating jobs in both of these areas."

link (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20110311/tuk-airline-giant-to-create-450-jobs-6323e80.html)

So if they can do it...

Runway vacated

11th Mar 2011, 10:21

Mr Pony, you are quite right, a host of eminent experts were consulted. They produced a thing called The Moebus Report, which vindicated much of the existing CAP371 limts on crew fatigue.

The problem we have is that this report has been largely ignored in the drafting of the final proposals. The airlines, with Mr O'Leary leading the charge, produced their own 'scientists' that, surprise, surprise, produced a report that challenged most of the Moebus conclusions. It is this second report that is used as the 'science' behind the EASA proposals.

Remember, 'consulted' does not mean the same as 'listened to'.

mrpony

11th Mar 2011, 10:33

As stated am no expert.

So, how does the final proposal differ from the Mobeus report?

Saying that one set of scientists produces something scientific whereas another, whose results are unpopular, has an unscientific product is very unsatisfactory without some evidence.

Runway vacated

11th Mar 2011, 10:57

The proposals are in an extremely long and almost impenetrable submission by the EASA. It is not easy to give a concise reply to how they differ from a report as there is so much in them, most of which does not involve fatigue and its management.

But in essence, on the subject of fatigue, the proposals do not acknowledge the indepndent scientific evidence that was used to create the Moebus report, or even CAP371. For example, time on standby can no longer be included in duty time calculations. Theoretically you can be on standby all day and then, 10 minutes before the standby ends, be called out on a maximum duty day, as if you had just been woken after a full nights sleep. The restrictions on the maximum numbers of night duties and duty hours in a set period of time have been revised upwards, redefined or just ignored altogether. The list goes on and on.

CAP371 has the credibility of independent scientific scrutiny. It didn't 'just happen' but was created in 1970 by a committee chaired by Douglas Bader in response to concerns in the airline industry that crew fatigue lacked a formalised framework over what was and what was not reasonable and safe. Since then it has been revised, reviewed and updated in the light of new technology, new research and airline pressure.

None of these claims could be made by the EASA about their proposals. CAP371 is not a cosy little protectionist pocket to protect spanish practices in the airline industry. It affords those who do the job, day in and day out, with a measure of protection against the undeniably fatiguing nature of our job. The limitations within it have often been bought, quite literally, with blood.

The UK airline industry is at the forefront, globally, of commercial innovation and competitiveness. We achieve this with one of the highest levels of safety in the world, and within the limtations of CAP371. I, for one, would need to see utterly convincing evidence of necessity, before condoning any reduction in the safety regime we currently enjoy.

Runway vacated

11th Mar 2011, 11:12

Mr P, its not the 'scientific' or 'unscientific' bit that worries me, but the independence of that science.

If the potato marketing board produced a 'scientific' report saying that eating chips was good for you, you would take it with a pinch of salt (as it were!)

Well here we have the same. The pilots unions and the CAA haven't banded together to produce the Moebus reort, it was produced at the behest of the EASA. It back up much of CAP371, again produced by scientists independent of the industry. The 'scientific' research submitted by the Association of Airline operators does not fall into that category.

Juan Tugoh

11th Mar 2011, 11:24

There is a world of difference between an independent scientific paper that is peer reviewed and one written by a scientist for a lobby group with no peer review and for pay. The EU commissioned the Moebus report, then decided it did not fit in with what they wanted and decided to ignore it in favour of "science" done for the Airlines - hardly independent or unbiased or peer reviewed.

mrpony

11th Mar 2011, 11:43

Great stuff - thanks.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm just curious really and am in no way implying that the Pilot community is anything less than properly motivated but when it is suggested that flight safety regulations are either unscientific or supported by science coming from a less than objective source, I find it deeply disturbing. We all know how science, like statistics, can be used to manipulate the truth.

If, as you suggest, the basis for the new reg's is not to be trusted then you have a professional duty to strike rather than observe them - get BASSA round the table and go for it together! But it won't come to that. I don't think you'll find that the extreme examples you give will ever materialise in your contract.

JT you say that the science the reg's are based on is:

written by a scientist for a lobby group with no peer review and for pay.........hardly independent or unbiased

What makes you say that?

mrpony

11th Mar 2011, 14:56

Actually RV your example:

..... time on standby can no longer be included in duty time calculations. Theoretically you can be on standby all day and then, 10 minutes before the standby ends, be called out on a maximum duty day, as if you had just been woken after a full nights sleep

....is, I believe, wrong. Please point out the relevant clause.

VintageKrug

11th Mar 2011, 17:46

Interesting though Mobeus and EASA may be, what relevance does it have to the current dispute?

There is evidence BASSA has failed in its duty of care to inform its members, no change there, and obviously its lobbying activities have been minimal; another dereliction of duty.

But being a change in legislation/regulation it doesn't seem in any way connected to the current dispute.

- where are the accounts which must by law be made available on Tuesday 15 March?

- what is the feeling amongst crew about how the ballot will go (still estimating support of 5,000 cabin crew?)?

- has BASSA properly explained to its members what unsupported strike action is?

- is there any further news on Keith Williams recent meetings with McCluskey as he seeks a way out of the tricky situation BASSA have put Unite in?

Betty girl

11th Mar 2011, 18:00

VK,
No news but our new CEO KW is making himself available in our Report Centre every morning for the next two weeks before he starts work, early in the morning, specifically to talk to cabin crew, to find out how they feel and what would end this dispute.

I am sad because I wont be in work at the times he is there but I think it is fantastic that he is doing this and I really like his style of management. It is a breath of fresh air for me and I know a lot of other crew feel the same way.

PPRuNe Pop

11th Mar 2011, 18:41

Everyone should run with you on that BG. In fact I think you can all hang your hat on it. :ok:

arem

11th Mar 2011, 19:25

Beware the smiling assassin!

Betty girl

11th Mar 2011, 19:36

I don't think so 'arem' and I have to say that a lot of us don't actually want him to give in to Bassa anyway.

We have been through so much because of them, the last thing we want is them lording around declaring a victory.

He is talking to ALL crew with all sorts of views and it is a good step forward and then he will again meet with Len.

I am optimistic that his attitude and it is totally different, will go some way to end all this.

LD12986

11th Mar 2011, 19:41

A positive working relationship requires all sides to put in the effort to make it work, so at least give KW the benefit of the doubt, and let's hope his appointment as CEO can be a juncture for everyone to move forward.

VintageKrug

11th Mar 2011, 19:42

Well, Holley's been busy these past few days uploading his old photos to flickr:

self-portrait via a matchbox | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/duncanholley/5476633614/)

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/_images/_timeline/02_01.jpg

Betty girl

11th Mar 2011, 19:46

Well so far I am very pleased with what he is doing and it has made me more optimistic than I have been in a long time.

So fingers crossed X

VintageKrug

11th Mar 2011, 19:58

Yes, I agree KW is doing good things, and Red Len seems desperate to extricate himself and BA's cabin crew from this mess. The link referred to DH.

mrpony

12th Mar 2011, 09:42

There is nothing to suggest that the new proposals have no scientific basis, or that their introduction will herald a rolling back of safety standards related to fatigue of air crew. Both these claims are made by BALPA on its website and have been repeated and regurgitated on this forum.
P.S. As SLF I am disappointed to note that the the dire proclamations made by FD about the EASA proposals turn out to be rather overblown. It's the shroud-waving I object to most. As for the attitudes of some FD about CC - the words condescending and presumptuous come to mind amongst many others.

VintageKrug

12th Mar 2011, 10:50

So what happens when the 15 March deadline for BASSA making its accounts available to members passes...?

mrpony

12th Mar 2011, 11:20

Unless the Certification Officer has received a complaint from someone entitled to see the accounts, nothing. BASSA can carry on regardless unless it is challenged by the relevant authority.

BASSAwitch? Your guess as good as mine. Silenced by the 'mob'? Proceeding quietly with necessary legal moves?

JUAN TRIPP

13th Mar 2011, 08:17

So what happens when the 15 March deadline for BASSA making its accounts available to members passes...?

See CC thread. Hopefully we will start to see some answers soon

VintageKrug

13th Mar 2011, 08:34

This is good news, well done BASSAwitch for not being intimidated by the union bullies. I hope Bw reads through the posts here on this thread over the past few weeks, especially the links to relevant case law, which make it clear that the regulations do indeed apply to Branches:

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/441165-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iv-35.html#post6277970

I think the complaint can be lodged online:

Certification Officer - Complaints (http://www.certoffice.org/Nav/Complaints.aspx)

It might be as well to post the complaint here prior to sending it off, and maybe other posters might be able to ensure it "hits the mark" or make other relevant suggestions to help its wording.

It's still a good idea to copy both BASSA's and Unite's auditors as well as Unite itself in order to get things moving faster.

Bon courage!

mrpony

13th Mar 2011, 10:34

....might also like to read this re. complaining about financial irregularities :

http://www.certoffice.org/CertificationOfficer/files/e2/e24516cf-7702-47e9-ac3c-53f5e59d8799.pdf

I note that BASSAwitch is preparing for a barrage of abuse after complaining. The CO can protect identity as provided for in above.

P.S. binsleepen - litebulbs knows the score on tribunal result link

binsleepen

13th Mar 2011, 11:44

Mr P

A very interesting link. If DH's charge of misconduct is upheld at his appeal tribuneral could this be linked to here:

GROUNDS FOR ACTION

1. The Certification Officer will consider whether it is appropriate for him to investigate the financial affairs of a trade union or employers' association if it can be shown that any of the following circumstances exist:

􀂃 that the financial affairs of the organisation are being or have been conducted for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose;

􀂃 that persons concerned with the management of those financial affairs have, in connection with that management, been guilty of fraud, misfeasance or other misconduct;It also states in Para 37a

Investigation of financial affairs

37A. Power of Certification Officer to require production of documents etc.

(1) The Certification Officer may at any time, if he thinks there is good reason to do so, give directions to a trade union, or a branch or section of a trade union, requiring it to produce such relevant documents as may be specified in the directions; and the documents shall be produced at such time and place as may be so specified.My bold in both cases

Regards

Litebulbs

13th Mar 2011, 12:44

I imagine that it could be the case if the person in question had been disciplined by the branch or parent union. It is a trade union issue, not an employment one.

VintageKrug

13th Mar 2011, 20:08

Thanks for the link mr pony.

It appears it's not just past or present Union members who can alert the Certification Officer of concerns about maladministration:

WHO CAN COMPLAIN

2. A member of a trade union or employers' association may tell the Certification Officer
of circumstances suggesting one or more of the situations described above. However,
the Certification Officer can also receive approaches from any other source and will
consider these on their merits. In addition Certification Office staff will watch out for
references in the media to situations which suggest that the relevant set of
circumstances exist in the financial affairs of either a trade union or an employers'
association.

Litebulbs

14th Mar 2011, 13:03

We shall await your feedback then.

VintageKrug

14th Mar 2011, 16:02

I think it's best we wait for the response from the Certification Officer to BASSAwitch's concerns.

I would hope that other members and former members of BASSA would expect transparency from their Union; that Holley is not prepared to make the accounts available, and apparently has quietly set up "BASSA Ltd." for an as yet undetermined purpose, does raise questions which most right minded people would want answering.

However, it is for the members of BASSA to direct their own Union branch, and members will always enjoy the leadership they deserve.

Litebulbs

14th Mar 2011, 17:22

But surely your post 965 means that you can pursue the issue and as you have spent so much detailed time on it, why not use your research?

If your post means that you personally can approach the CO and you are clearly upset by what is going on at the branch in question, then I would have thought that legislation would allow you to get the information that you require.

Or you could trust to luck that the CO is a member of pprune.

Chuchinchow

14th Mar 2011, 17:22

Who are all these self-important, non-airline employed, busybodies who apparently have nothing better than to poke their noses into the affairs of a trade union in which they do not, have not, and probably will not ever be subscription paying members?

Have they got nothing better to do than to display their self-importance and their propensity to stick their (uninvited) oars in?

Let BASSA members inquire about their branch's account for themselves if they so wish. It is absolutely nothing to do with potential passengers, probable passengers, past passengers - or anyone else, apart from the branch members themselves.

Ancient Observer

14th Mar 2011, 17:34

Chuchinchow,
when I first read your post I had a lot of sympathy for what you were saying. If I were a member of a private club which only did legal things legally then I would not want the outside world to be probing in to us.

However, bassa are not a private club. Further, they have expressed on a number of occasions their desire to muck up MY and other people's lives.

If I fly with BA, bassa's strike threats are a real pain. They want to ruin my passenger/customer experience.
They are probably unable to deliver on their threats, but they make it clear that they wish to negatively impact the passenger.
If I fly with BA I do not get hot towels in econ+, courtesy of bassa and weak BA managers.

I could go on with this, but it becomes boring.

By expressing their desire to muck up the lives of SLF, bassa have said that they want a public debate. They want to be with the big boys and girls.

A public debate includes Accounting for each and every penny that they have had over the last few years.

I hope that some bright QC picks up this case and gets all the dirty laundry - if there is any - out in the open.

Skipness One Echo

14th Mar 2011, 17:50

Let BASSA members inquire about their branch's account for themselves if they so wish. It is absolutely nothing to do with potential passengers, probable passengers, past passengers - or anyone else, apart from the branch members themselves.
Chuchinchow is online now Report Post Reply

How many holidays have BASSA ruined? How much disruption? How much militancy and arrogance to management and the paying public? So when Joe Public asks "Hey BASSA, are you sure the money you take from your members is spent wisely and within the rules?" suddenly that is unreasonable. Perhaps it's vile and bullying too?

Seems like a quietly put, reasonable request for transparency. Being so obviously reluctant to be open with members and former members leads one to conclude they are keen for people to remain in the dark. One rule for the rest of the world, another for the BASSA-mentalists?

call100

14th Mar 2011, 18:05

Well thats three who could contact the CO and make a complaint, who, despite stirring things regally here, with no evidence, choose to do nothing when they have the opportunity.
If someone at BASSA has cooked the books then they will eventually get caught and dealt with as appropriate. To this date we have seen no evidence of any wrongdoing.

VintageKrug

14th Mar 2011, 18:28

Let BASSA members inquire about their branch's account for themselves if they so wish.

Er, that was exactly the point I was making. Though obviously it passed you by.

Former BASSA members are now making the right moves to obtain the transparency which BASSA is legally required to provide. It seems prudent to await the CO's response before making any further waves.

No-one is alleging any "cooked books"; it is the lack of transparency itself which is against Trades Union legislation.

The legal position is that the general public have the right to raise concerns. As a BA shareholder, it is very much "my" business. Should further obfuscation be forthcoming from BASSA, it might be an option to become more involved.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the findings from DH's recent Employment Tribunal have already piqued the interest of the Certification Officer.

The bullying aggression shown in the rest of your post says a great deal more about what BASSA might have to hide, than I ever could.

mrpony

14th Mar 2011, 18:35

Your tirade is difficult for me to understand since you asked:

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?

...not so long ago.

The Certification Officer has made a deliberate attempt to open the door to outsiders.
What harm could be done by informing about missing records that are meant to be kept as a statutory necessity?

Chuchinchow

14th Mar 2011, 19:51

As a BA shareholder, it is very much "my" business.

"As a BA shareholder it is very much [your] business" to interest yourself in the running of that company - to a certain degree, that is true, but after that you leave the day to day management of BA in the hands of its chairman, directors and the leadership team appointed by the BA board.

"As a BA shareholder" it is absolutely none of your business to poke your nose into the internal affairs of a trade union you do not belong to, have not belonged to and etc etc etc.

By your logic, because you may pay council tax in a town "it is very much [your] business" to investigate what that town's employees wear, eat for lunch and so forth.

Let BASSA members challenge their branch secretary to produce audited accounts; it is absolutely no business of anyone else - not even the self-appointed inquisitors of the PPRuNe SLF threads.

And for the avoidance of any possible doubt, and before the herd instinct kicks in with snide negative personal comments against me, I am not nor have I ever been a member of any trade union during the course of my entire life.

WillDAQ

14th Mar 2011, 20:58

Sorry but what a lot of tosh...

BASSA is part of a trade union and comes under trade union law. If it is breaking that law and is discovered, the defence of "oh, but we were rumbled by a non-member" simply isn't going to cut it. The law is the law and if you can't run a trade union legally then you face the consequences.

If you came across someone you believed to be burgling a house, but it wasn't yours, do you somehow magically lose the right to call the police?

VintageKrug

14th Mar 2011, 21:48

It does seem to me that the demand for legally mandated transparency has hit a particularly raw nerve with BASSA......

But Unite has history in this regard. Unite has been censured for denying access to the accounting records of branches of the Union itself:

1: on or around 3 May 2006
the Union breached section 30 of the 1992 Act by
failing to provide Mr G King & Mr M King with access to the accounting records of the 1/230 branch (http://www.employees.org.uk/accounts-tgwu.html#Unite-TGW-union-complaint-1)
of the union

2: on or around 6 December 2005 the
1/230 branch of the TGWU in breach of rule 10.4(a) of the rules of the union
failed to elect the members of the Cab Trade Advisory Committee (http://www.employees.org.uk/accounts-tgwu.html#Unite-TGW-union-complaint-2)

Richard228

15th Mar 2011, 08:05

Who are all these self-important, non-airline employed, busybodies who apparently have nothing better than to poke their noses into the affairs of a trade union in which they do not, have not, and probably will not ever be subscription paying members?This works both ways Chuchinchow

If this is none of our business, then why does BASSA/Unite run full page adverts in our national newspapers?

This union is constantly trying to win public support for this Industrial Action, and as such, we have every right to respond to it. Perhaps you do not like hearing the reasoned arguments that appear here, and dont like the fact that you cannot control what is said, or our opinions?

We have every right to express these opinions, to debate the issues, and to raise any possible shortcomings in the running of the union.

There are people on your side of the fence who join in this discussion, and I welcome it. Please feel free to also enter the debate on this forum, but don't try and silence us.

Litebulbs

15th Mar 2011, 08:14

If Unite have a history, then I am sure the CO will be hearing from you.

Again, we await your feedback to support BASSAwitch's investigations.

mrpony

15th Mar 2011, 09:09

Shaka Zulu has posted up a BASSA rant about sexism amongst the pilot/management community. It's a bit of a larf. This is the best sentence:

It would appear that cabin crew, and by de facto, predominantly women, had to be kept in their place at any cost.

I like the faulty use of Latin so much - no-one uses these little phrases in a public forum if they have any sense. It appears a bit conceited to start with, and it doesn't communicate to all who read it either. But when you get it wrong as well. Ha Ha.

Worse still is the logic - it goes like this:

Many CC are women, when one is persecuted on the basis of one's sex it is sexist, therefore if the mainly male BA/pilots/management/forum members etc do not accept our terms they are being sexist.

The Latin for this type of wonky thinking is cum hoc ergo propter hoc!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Northern Flights

15th Mar 2011, 11:59

Very well said, Richard228 :D

Slfsfu

15th Mar 2011, 13:08

I thought it was "Post hoc ergo....." but you make a good point.:D

O tempora, o mores.

Next thing you know BASSA will be shouting "Adeste Comites" - but I suspect it will be much in the way of Gen. Custer

Chuchinchow

15th Mar 2011, 13:18

There are people on your side of the fence who join in this discussion, and I welcome it.

If you take the trouble to read my past messages you will see "on which side of the fence" I sit. But clearly you have not.

Ancient Observer

15th Mar 2011, 13:19

I don't think I'll need to get out my 50+ year old Virgil.

It is much more like "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it infamy"

Chuchinchow

15th Mar 2011, 13:21

Shaka Zulu, on "the other" thread, has told us:

It would appear that cabin crew, and by de facto, predominantly women, had to be kept in their place at any cost.

I wonder what that person's take would be on the flight deck crew that operated my 777 JFK-LHR flight last week? All three pilots were women.

Slfsfu

15th Mar 2011, 14:52

AO - loved it !!

We might continue the theme with XXX - "He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy." (fill the XXX and change sex as appropriate!!)

MPN11

15th Mar 2011, 18:42

If you take the trouble to read my past messages you will see "on which side of the fence" I sit. But clearly you have not.

The problem, Sir, is that you dissemble :cool:

Your views are clearly expressed. You do, however, sit on two fences :eek:

Regards ;)

fincastle84

17th Mar 2011, 06:47

Whilst on my recent trip to the beautiful island of Grenada I met a fellow holiday maker whilst having my morning exercise on the lovely, sandy beach. We eventually started conversing about air travel & in particular BA, which we both had used from LGW. She then launched into a vicious attack on WW & told me in great detail what she would like to do to him!

I was somewhat taken aback until she revealed that her daughter is LHR based CC. I soon gave up attempting to reason with her as it became very apparent that her daughter is an ardent Bassa supporter! It was quite a shock to hear at first hand some of the Bassa tripe which has been published on PPrune!:cool:

As an aside, both our flights were absolutely packed & the service was, as ever, both friendly & efficient. We landed at LGW yesterday morning, 40 minutes early!:ok:

VintageKrug

17th Mar 2011, 09:09

It's worth taking a look at the offer which was sent out most recently to BA cabin crew not in the Union:

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

It does seem very reasonable to me; BA is restricted due to collective bargaining agreements from offering this directly to Unite members, but there's nothing to stop people leaving Unite, signing the deal when it (or one like it) is next offered and then rejoining their Union after.

Litebulbs

17th Mar 2011, 09:14

Have you approached the CO yet?

VintageKrug

17th Mar 2011, 09:24

I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave some days ago.

I wonder how many have followed Holley's order on 23 January for non-strikers and no-voters to resign from BASSA and accept the above offer?

Now BA's plans are in the open I would like to send this message to everyone who has either left BASSA, voted NO, or to a lesser extent not voted. You have been given your say and the majority has spoken.

If you have any integrity you should accept Bill Francis's offer straight away because your actions and votes are a tacit acceptance of what BA propose.

Don't sit back and see if your brave colleagues who voted YES can fight your fight for you.

That is cowardice.

You have made your bed and now you must lie in it, alongside Bill. Good Luck, it has been nice knowing you.

Litebulbs

17th Mar 2011, 09:31

So why post so much information and especially the info that says you can personally seek what you appear to desire, if you want others to carry out the work for you? What have you got to loose or hide?

VintageKrug

17th Mar 2011, 09:54

Rather the question should be what has Duncan Holley got to lose (not loose) or hide from breaking the law and not making the BASSA accounts available to his members and former members.

You are, as is ever the BASSA way, personalising the discussion.

It's not a strategy which has worked, and nor will it.

I have nothing whatsoever to do with BA, BASSA, Unions, Union-bashing organisations such as the Burke Group, or the transport industry more generally and nor does anyone connected with me, if that's what you are implying.

In fact I believe very strongly that in lower paid cyclical industries such as BA, business-minded, pragmatic employee representation is essential. It would be good for BASSA to have the right leadership, though personally I think the "brand" is too damaged to ever recover.

This BASSA shower of a leadership team has woefully misrepresented its membership, but it is for its (ever diminishing) membership to realise this and take action itself.

Threads like this set that out, and provide the evidence required for people to make up their own minds, unlike other sites where dissention is censored and adult discussion stymied.

The transparency of the BASSA accounts are a matter for BASSA members/former members in the first instance, as the accounts themselves can only be made available to BASSA members or former members and not members of the general public.

Litebulbs

17th Mar 2011, 10:16

You have to personalise the issue, because you are representing your own position. You found some information which you posted on this thread to say that anyone could approach the CO. You are obviously interested in the result, so why not find out for yourself and report back?

mrpony

17th Mar 2011, 10:16

I don't believe that the Certification Officer would be responsive to a suspicion aired by a member of the public anyway, unless there was evidence to suggest that there was good reason to intervene. Otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harriet could ring in a suspicion and the whole system would degenerate into turmoil.

VintageKrug

17th Mar 2011, 10:37

Quite right.

There is no evidence or suggestion of fraud on the part of BASSA, but it is now in violation of the law for not permitting access for members and former members to its accounts within 28 days of being asked to do so.

This is being addressed by Bw who has made representations to the Certification Officer, setting out concerns, in response to BASSA's contemptable response to the original enquiry:

Dear XXXXXX,

Your request for the audited accounts of the BASSA branch of Unite have been forwarded to me by XXXXX XXXXX. I have now had a chance to make enquiries on your behalf.

We have been made aware of a campaign on various discussion forums to expose alleged financial irregularity involving this branch. Your correspondence appears to repeat these insinuations. I can assure you that these allegations are completely baseless and potentially libellous.We cannot agree with your assertion that these branch accounts have been requested by "many members". In fact your request is the first such made to the best of my knowledge.

We have been told by the branch secretary that the accounts you are seeking are not available at this time. If at any time in the future they do become available for members and ex members to view, we will endeavour to make that known to you. As is common practice we will always insist that you view such accounts unaccompanied on Unite premises and in the strictest confidence.

If there are any further queries you have on the accounts of this branch please get back in touch with me directly.

In the meantime I thank you for your concern and for your continued support of Unite the Union.

In solidarity,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Other BASSA members and former members can set out similar concerns here, simply using this online form:

Certification Officer - Complaints (http://www.certoffice.org/Nav/Complaints.aspx)

I am sure all Union members would welcome the easy availability of a route of escalation, supporting the "little man" in the fight for transparency against large, powerful and well financed organisations with a reputation for bully-boy tactics.