BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV [Archive] - Page 5

mrpony

17th Mar 2011, 12:02

The law that the CO oversees is quite specific about who can access accounts.

Supplementary to the law is an open invitation to complain made by the CO - I think that an unentitled member of the public would have to present something compelling for the CO to act. Specifically, something more than a few words clipped from the internet. A verified copy of a letter from a union to one of its members refusing availability, for instance, might suffice. If you look at previous similar cases as per VK's post-up you'll see that the CO first established that a valid request had been made and refused before the law was enforced.

Only a guess.

On the other hand, the CO can take things raised in the media as a trigger for action and since we are corresponding on this forum (part of the 'new' media) perhaps things are already happening?

P.S. Re yr reply below: I sort of agree in that it ought to be compelling enough LB, but that's because I believe Bw's posts. What if Bw's posts were pure fiction?

Litebulbs

17th Mar 2011, 12:15

Surely the letter that BASSAwitch put in the public domain is compelling reason?

VintageKrug

17th Mar 2011, 12:30

I don't doubt the letter/email exists; but a cut and paste on a web forum from a third party not connected with the correspondence is no evidence whatsoever.

BASSAwitch has the correspondence, is directly entitled to see the accounts and is in contact with the Certification Officer. They are the party best placed to take this forward; it would be good to see other Unite/BASSA members supporting their former "comrade" but I suppose "brotherhood" only goes so far.

Until we hear back from Bw, there is little to be gained from private individuals pursuing this.

I would still encourage those who do have a vested interest to contact the CO directly using the link below and support transparency, so that it is clear to members exactly how much is received in BASSA subs, what the reps get paid, and to assure them that an independent audit has been properly carried out which demonstrates no potential for fraud.

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

If, like the refusal to view the BA accounts, BASSA members are content not to see information to which they are legally entitled, then that is a matter for them, and they can keep sending cheques into a black hole.

Litebulbs

17th Mar 2011, 12:34

For what reason will these interested parties complain, if it is all based on a cut and paste made on a public forum?

Ancient Observer

17th Mar 2011, 12:42

LB,
Have you got out the wrong side of bed recently?
You appear to be a little obtuse and difficult, which is not your previous style.
From my idiot perspective, VK is providing detailed info on what might be done, and BW is doing it, entirely independently.

End of. Simples?

Litebulbs

17th Mar 2011, 13:07

That may be your view, which you are certainly entitled to. As I see it, some are campaigning rather than posting on a point, which is my view.

A post was made detailing information on how to bring a complaint to the CO, from an interested party, so I have asked why the interested party who made the post, has not followed the intent of it.

It would seem that at least there is consistency if somebody holds a different opinion than the main body of the thread, but I have been called worse than difficult and obtuse on 'ere, so I suppose it goes with the territory.

Ancient Observer

17th Mar 2011, 13:51

"Always look on the bright side of life, ti-dum, ti-dum"

As I've posted before, VK's arrival on here, (but not on flyer-talk) coincided with McCarthy's departure from BA.

Of course, VK has not denied that he is McC. (He actually said "Who's McC?", which was a very unusual comment from one who knows so much about this dispute.)
VK's articulation sounds like a BAe manager, which McC was. (BAE).

However, allowing for all that, Mr LB, might I suggest that you are, perhaps, protesting a little tooooo much about the VK role?

Litebulbs

17th Mar 2011, 14:06

OK, I will stop, unless it is on something else not connected to the issue in question.

VintageKrug

17th Mar 2011, 15:14

I have very clearly stated that I and anyone closely connected to me is not nor ever has been an employee in the travel industry, specifically BA, Burke Group, BAA etc. nor worked for BA in any way whatsoever (contractor etc.) and I hereby categorically state I am not "McCarthy" who I have since googled to learn was once an HR Director at BA.

Though I am told there has in the past been a whole thread on me on the BASSA forum which does seem somewhat paranoid and extreme, but if they prefer to waste time on conspiracy theories and people who post on internet bulletin boards while losing your membership and the argument, so be it.

I don't think one could make that anymore explicit unless I asked Stephen Fry to t w e e t it. At least Derek Simpson would get the message.

I would have no compuction whatsoever in raising the matter with the CO, however unlike the BASSAmentalists I am careful to assess the likelihood of success before heading in; at present Bw has stated the matter is being taken forward, has been directly in touch with BASSA and is personally entitled to view the accounts, and that avenue has the highest chance of success.

Again Litebulbs you don't seem to appreciate there is no allegation of financial wroingdoing; it is simply the act of refusing access to the accounts which is illegal.

But if BASSA members are content to throw money into BASSA without a care in the world, then they are completely entitled to do that. But was I a past or present member of any similar organisation I would be asking questions about where the £1.5m-£2m of annual subs went for the past five years, not to seek out fraud, but to assure myself all was well.

Just for interest's sake it would be interesting to ask the same question of BALPA; would the accounts be made available without issue?

BASSA has so far failed to do that, and that is illegal.

ChicoG

17th Mar 2011, 15:25

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but assuming BASSA comply with the law when requested to do so, are they entitled to make whoever has requested the information sign a non-disclosure agreement?

Because if they are, then the PPrune SLF feeding frenzy will never get off the ground.

:p

Shack37

17th Mar 2011, 15:47

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but assuming BASSA comply with the law when requested to do so, are they entitled to make whoever has requested the information sign a non-disclosure agreement?

As long as no irregularities come to light if/when the information is made available as requested.

Ancient Observer

17th Mar 2011, 15:51

VK - I could not see the point in you and LB tweaking each other.
I accept that you are not connected in any way with the "travel industry". We could spend weeks on JB trying to define that. Let's not.
Good. You'll both now stop it. We'll await BW's further posts - if they want to post any. As ChicoG says, we may all miss the feeding frenzy.

On the money front - and it is always worth following the money, I have always had enormous sympathies with Branch Secs in TUs dealing with the money. From the 70s on Merseyside...........Lots of big old pennies in ancient Old Holborn tins come to mind. However, somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 million quid a year is some very real money.
To slightly mis-quote - a million here, a million there, and soon you're talking about real money........

mrpony

17th Mar 2011, 15:58

There is no confidentiality requirement in the relevant Act for members or ex-members. If an accountant attends then they have to sign a confidentiality agreement.

X767

17th Mar 2011, 22:55

Throughout this sorry tale, Litebulbs has been the staunch guardian of the trade union viewpoint. However, I fail to see how his insistence on VintageKrug entering the fray has anything to do with the legitimate request from Bassawitch for sight of the Bassa accounts. We await the revelation !

Litebulbs

17th Mar 2011, 23:19

I am awaiting BASSAwitch and any info that may be brought back. I have learn't something on here on this issue, that lay reps can be paid a wage from members. Do I agree, no. Is it allowed, yes.

Litebulbs

17th Mar 2011, 23:32

If I believed that a representative had been unfairly dismissed for trade union activities, morally rather than legally, then I would happily see a compensation remuneration paid from union funds, whether at branch or national level.

pcat160

18th Mar 2011, 01:07

VintageKrug

18th Mar 2011, 08:03

gr8tballsoffire

18th Mar 2011, 14:39

Liebulbs

Just to put the DH dismissal case into context...

Some years ago an ex-GMB rep colleague got involved in a dispute with a passenger (in support of a CC member) on board whilst on duty travel.

The CSD reported him to management and he was subsequently sacked (actually allowed to take early retirement on appeal). His behaviour WAS unprofessional and GMB did not support him. It may have been harsh, but he did bring BA and the union into disrepute.

Contrast that with DH. He was able to get away with unprofessional behaviour for some time despite official warnings. He has brought CC, BASSA and Unite into disrepute and I find it incredible that there are CC out there who still believe he was unfairly dismissed. As for UNITE, their reputation hasn't exactly been enhanced by this fiasco. A terrible advertisement for the union movement.

RTR

18th Mar 2011, 14:58

gr8tballsofire
As for UNITE, their reputation hasn't exactly been enhanced by this fiasco. A terrible advertisement for the union movement.

Some of their conduct in the past two years has been reprehensible and even sometimes repugnant. McCluskey at Sandown was showboating, whilst Woodley and Simpson were going through the motions of supporting BASSA but all the while were thinking that the BASSA reps were "deluded clowns." Now that Woodley and Simpson have gone it is left to McCluskey (Lenny to his friends :yuk:) to showboat his support once again with rhetoric that is so worn out by previous 'great' union leaders leaving us with one sentence: they ALL RUN WITH THE HARE AND THE HOUNDS.

In McCluskey's case I cannot subscribe to anything other than he has lost his way, never mind the plot. The latest soft ball ballot will be a farce whatever the result.

gr8tballsoffire

18th Mar 2011, 19:10

Litebulbs

Many apologies I just noticed a typo against your name. I assure you it was simply that, a typo!!

Litebulbs

18th Mar 2011, 19:55

Litebulbs

18th Mar 2011, 19:58

Litebulbs

Many apologies I just noticed a typo against your name. I assure you it was simply that, a typo!!

Made my eyes open, but we all typo!

Litebulbs

18th Mar 2011, 20:02

What do you consider to be "trade union activities"? Would setting up a porno site be "trade union activities"? Would DH's refusal to report to work be "trade union activities"? Would interfering with company investigation of vandalism be "trade union activities"? What is the definition of a "trade union activity"?

The porno site was not a good move, although it it hadn't had the BA links, then it would have been a different story.

We will see what the facts of the case are with regard to time off work for trade union duties.

I don't know the last one.

MPN11

18th Mar 2011, 20:13

In fairness, there have been several "not a good moves", including the personal demonisation of WW, blatant lies and the alleged aggression to those disagreeing with the BASSA line.

However, we [or rather you] are where we/you are.

Where does it go from here?

Yet more ballots to annoy people and [hopefully] damage forward bookings? So routes get dropped and fewer CC are needed?
Or BA caves in to a revised set of irrational demands from DH [I say that deliberately, as this is HIS battle, not the rank & file]?
Or BA achieves REAL profitability in the competitive marketplace, and can actually afford to buy all those new aircraft that are on order?

Isn't it honestly time to call it a day? Personally, I don't care one way or the other ... I fly BA from choice, and despite all the bluster and blather it has always delivered me, through 2 strike phases, on time at the right airport. You are fully entitled to take whatever actions you deem appropriate, but it broadly has no impact on BA or the SLF. Which suggests to me it's basically over ....

west lakes

18th Mar 2011, 20:18

time off work for trade union duties.Even Safety Reps who are legally allowed time off work can only do this with mutual agreement, we were specifically warned on the union operated training course that we could not take time of without agreement.

A rough recommendation was about 1/2 hour per week in normal circumstances

Litebulbs

18th Mar 2011, 20:20

If the you you are referring to is me, then I need to explain that I am not an employee of BA, although I am SLF.

Litebulbs

18th Mar 2011, 20:23

Even Safety Reps who are legally allowed time off work can only do this with mutual agreement, we were specifically warned on the union operated training course that we could not take time of without agreement.

You are allowed reasonable time off for union duties. No doubt the ET will will clear this up soon enough.

MPN11

18th Mar 2011, 20:26

@ Litebulbs ... my error. I had forgotten that. Sorry.

The general comment still stands, though.

Litebulbs

18th Mar 2011, 20:36

No doubt we will have to wait any see if a Bassa member replies.

west lakes

18th Mar 2011, 20:40

Litebulbs

Sorry I added this as an edit

A rough recommendation was about 1/2 hour per week in normal circumstances

Litebulbs

18th Mar 2011, 20:46

Now some are pursuing certain individuals and a particular branch for visibility of accounts. Now with a branch of 10000, would 1/2 hour per week, be enough time to reasonably carry out those duties?

west lakes

18th Mar 2011, 20:53

That's where negotiation etc with the employer comes into force and as has been stated previously doing some duties in your own time etc,
Additional to this are of course joint meetings, safety inspections etc. with the employer.

Of course with a large number of members the number of reps would be increased to reduce the burden on the individual.

west lakes

18th Mar 2011, 21:04

But thinking it through this time off was during a dispute with BA, so a question in return.
Is it reasonable for an employer to allow a rep paid time off to carry out union duties to the furtherance of an industrial dispute with that employer and when the facilities agreement (which often includes agreement on time off) has been suspended?

As I commented, last year I think, in many cases reps apply for and are granted unpaid leave during a dispute with the union compensating them for lost income (I understand unite has done this in the past)

dilldog01

18th Mar 2011, 23:11

I could be wrong but wasn't it the case that BASSA took the decision to withdraw from the facilities agreement with BA which allowed him time off for union activities...so he was basically taking time off when there wasn't an agreement in place with BA for him to do so because BASSA had torn it up.

The Blu Riband

19th Mar 2011, 08:16

It was Bassa that withdrew unilaterally from the facilities agreement.

Didn't the judge at the first injunction discover that neither of the main Bassa reps - DH and LM I believe - had actually flown with the new crew levels, and had only flown once between them in the last 6 months (from memory).

DH is alleged to have paid someone else from his own pocket to do Bassa admin.

Whilst I usually respect Litebulb's stoic defence of Bassa I can't help thinking that part of the problem is that not enough union members and socialist supporters have questioned their actions and strategy.

I'm not accusing Litebulbs of blind faith but there are certainly not many Bassa members who are brave enough or of sufficient independant intelligence to change the direction of this out of control , ego-driven and irrational rabble aka Bassa.

ChicoG

19th Mar 2011, 08:24

The porno site was not a good move, although it it hadn't had the BA links, then it would have been a different story.

Litebulbs,

Even if it hadn't had the BA links, then the rep in question would probably still have been dismissed from BA, disrepute and all that?

Litebulbs

19th Mar 2011, 08:53

Where have I stoically defended Bassa and I am certainly not a Socialist.

Litebulbs

19th Mar 2011, 08:58

Litebulbs,

Even if it hadn't had the BA links, then the rep in question would probably still have been dismissed from BA, disrepute and all that?

I don't see how it could be, unless porn is illegal, or the new union in question was linked to BA, which I believe it is NOT.

ChicoG

19th Mar 2011, 10:00

I don't see how it could be, unless porn is illegal, or the new union in question was linked to BA, which I believe it is NOT.

I don't think any respectable business with a disrepute clause in its contract would have any problem dismissing an employee for being a pornographer.

Betty girl

19th Mar 2011, 10:19

Well I don't think Litebulbs stoically defends Bassa.

I think Litebulbs defends Unite as he is a member and the job of Unions in General. I think he actually has an open mind about most things but likes to look at things from both sides.

I don't like how Bassa have manipulated its members and taken them out in a pointless strike and I know they have done this before but that does not mean that I don't think unions have a good role to play and I LIKE the way that litebulbs explains things from a union perspective.

I find him very helpful and informative.

mrpony

19th Mar 2011, 10:29

....have to agree with BG on this one. LB is never rabid and is always considerate. Someone willing to express an opinion that doesn't chime with majority on this thread is welcome. It can be a bit like the Daily Mail sometimes.
LB is one of the only voices on this forum that takes on board others' opinions and learns from them. Most are too entrenched to change.

All hail the Litebulbs!

VintageKrug

19th Mar 2011, 10:40

That would suggest you believe the trade union to be above the law? Is that your position?

Yes I do. The law on unfair dismissal is about process and balance of probabilities. If each case was examined and an ET could substitute it views over that of an employer, then I would be happy to accept their view.

I do think Litebulbs usually holds reasonable positions - or at least is open to opposing perspectives, even if those differ from the views of others. And I absolutely agree that employees in lower paid, cyclical industries can benefit from collective representation.

But the belief that Unions are "above the law" is of considerable concern.

On the specific matter of the fake "mirror" PCCC.org website filled with porn, set up by a BASSA rep in early 2010, it is my understanding that Unite have declined to support his defence; I would imagine these are the sort of people who benefit from monies donated to crewdefence, which also does not publish any accounts.

PS it's means it is! ;)

Betty girl

19th Mar 2011, 11:10

Sorry!! Bad habits die hard!!I have corrected it yet again!!

Litebulbs

19th Mar 2011, 11:19

But the belief that Unions are "above the law" is of considerable concern.

Why would that be of concern? Anyone who is paid above £5.93 is above the law etc. etc.

It is my opinion that most trade unionists would believe that TULRcA 1992, is not a position that is acceptable. It appears that the CBI think it is too employee biased.

mrpony

19th Mar 2011, 11:36

It's BASSA's tits that are on its committee.

VintageKrug

19th Mar 2011, 11:56

It is my opinion that most trade unionists would believe that TULRcA 1992, is not a position that is acceptable. It appears that the CBI think it is too employee biased.

That is a different issue.

Your position is that Unions are above the law. That is, whatever laws are in place, you believe Unions are above them. Even if the laws were changed, they would still be above them. That is plainly wrong, and I don't think it's your intention.

If you disagree with the law, that's different.

What I think it is that you are setting out is that you disagree with the law, and wish it were changed, as do many other Trade Unionists.

I don't think Civil Society would function very well if one group believed it was not subject to the laws of the land - especially one which has been in place nearly two decades, well over half of which was during a government backed by the Trades Unions themselves, to the tune of tens of millions of pounds.

http://dailyelection.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/brown-doing-sweet-ba-poster-conservative-unite2.jpg

So while Unions may disagree with the law, there is absolutely no doubt that they must comply with it. :=

I think it may be this misguided belief about the legality of TU legislation, and the ways in which it might be changed, is at the heart of much of Militantism we see in organisations like BASSA.

Strikes, especially ones conducted in the way BASSA have gone about theirs, do nothing other than strengthen the need to have labour laws which restrict industrial terrorism.
---

Once again I anoint Bettygirl with the fizz of forgiveness. :D

Litebulbs

19th Mar 2011, 12:15

Where have you made this assumption?

My original post was about compensating from union funds, somebody who has been unfairly dismissed.

There is no law that says an employer has to act in a reasonable manner to there employees. There is no law to say that an employer has to reinstate an employee who has been unfairly dismissed.

If a union was to formulate a procedure to investigate an unfair dismissal and make its own judgement and either compensate or not, I believe that it would not be unlawful, or above the law as you put it.

Ancient Observer

19th Mar 2011, 12:36

OH, FFS!!!!!

I value LB's contribution, as well as that of VK.

However, I DETEST it when you start nit-picking with each other, drifting well away from the BA CC Dispute.
If you want to have pre-GCSE debates about the law, pprune lays on Jetblast for just this sort of thing.

Please STOP IT.

Let's get back to the BA CC Dispute.

Litebulbs

19th Mar 2011, 12:46

I will again comply.

Manchikeri

19th Mar 2011, 14:07

I DETEST it when you start nit-picking with each other, drifting well away from the BA CC Dispute.
If you want to have pre-GCSE debates about the law, PPRuNe lays on Jetblast for just this sort of thing.

Please STOP IT.

Let's get back to the BA CC Dispute.

Well said - and about time, too!

Chuchinchow

19th Mar 2011, 14:10

er, can we talk about the dispute?

When I suggested that you all flamed me.

notlangley

19th Mar 2011, 14:29

I’m in my book._ The book is mine.
Thou’rt in thy book._ The book is thine.
He’s in his book._ The book is his.
She’s in her book._ The book is hers.
It’s in its book._ The book is its.
You’re in your book._ The book is yours.
They’re in their book._ The book is theirs.
BASSA’s book keeping’s in BASSA’s good books.

mrpony

19th Mar 2011, 15:15

Watersidewonker has re-emerged. There follows a brief history of postings:
NOV 2009
I will be voting yes on my ballot paper as i have seen the way people are treated in BA and the imposition is just another example and i don't need to look anything up as my little cabin crew brain can still think for itself.
DEC 2009 on learning that ballot was invalid
BA failed to supply names and leaving dates of people leaving on VR i also think the goverment got involved so as not to create even more problems for Brown
MAR 2010
I can't wait to see the airport ground to a standstill and all those dogooders coming in only to be told to go home again the twists are starting to unfold.

So here we go round 2 time to stand up and be counted don't be afraid of the management spin all that staff travel twaddle loss couldn't give a flying xxxx . Proud to stand up and be counted rather than pussy foot into work on a strike day. Bedfont is calling you know you want to.
MAY 2010
I can't help but tell you all the support has increased amongst crew for this dispute so your 5000 number mentioned will swell over the coming days of this dispute await the falling apart of the operation. The last few days I have updates from people on euf and ww telling me of loads of single figures on euf and figures below 30 on ww. Weakness is from the management side and strength from the union side little William your days are numbered.
OCT 2010
Well looks like all you chaps will be working at Xmas then manning the doors say goodbye to a spiffing good roast on Xmas day because this offer is dead in the water. I'm just waiting to see the looks on the faces of the so called backing BA chaps who find the department they work for goes adios to Espana with no sense of loyalty shown by the little man. Wake up your days are numbered as your jobs can be carried out cheaper on the continent
JAN 2011
What a long game of chess this is turning out to be. I feel we are now stronger and prouder than before to be supporting our union against this dictatorship roll on Friday another great ballot result once again.
MAR 2011
Oh sometimes the truth hurts Bassa remains strong in the face of a broken regime.

Incredible.

Is this dispute-related enough?

VintageKrug

19th Mar 2011, 15:15

The legalities of the strike - and the operations of the union branch involved- are central to this dispute.

I am sorry if such discussion exceeds your intellectual capabilities.

Now, how is the Certification Officers investigation proceeding into this union branch which defies the law and point blank refuses to reveal whether or not it has properly audited accounts for the £1.5m of subs it collects annually from hard working cabin crew?

jetset lady

19th Mar 2011, 17:33

I am sorry if such discussion exceeds your intellectual capabilities.

Coming from someone that lacks the emotional intelligence to concur that they may have been incorrect on certain points despite being told by someone with direct knowledge of the situation, I find that quite hard to take. (The lack of manners in refusing to even acknowledge the poster/s, I put down to good old ignorance.)

I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing more than a bumph specialist, VintageKrug. Lots of pretty words that, when analysed, turn out to have very little substance and generally say the same thing over and over again. Ancient Observer has been involved in this thread from the very start and while we don't always agree, I have far more respect for what he has to say on the subject than someone who appears to have fallen into the trap of believing in their own publicity. Looking at the number of regular posters that have drifted away, I'd guess I'm not the only one. (Then again, that could also be because there is very little left to say that hasn't already been said...)

MPN11

19th Mar 2011, 17:58

(Then again, that could also be because there is very little left to say that hasn't already been said...)

I do believe that's a large part of the 'problem'.

There's no real news, a limited set of subjects that haven't been talked to death ... so some people pass the time by bickering.

TightSlot

19th Mar 2011, 19:26

... so some people pass the time by bickering.

Amen to that!

GrahamO

19th Mar 2011, 19:30

Isn't this the nub of the whole dispute.

Apparentely asking for a legally binding contract that protects our earnings and futures is too much to ask for.

Yes it is. No person on the entire planet is immune from the effects of competition, and the future. Apparently BASSA believe they should be.

Until these fools realise they are asking for the impossible, they are going to miserable for the rest of their lives.

Mr Optimistic

20th Mar 2011, 10:15

Then again, that could also be because there is very little left to say that hasn't already been said...

Wonder how many posts there have been on both threads since it all kicked-off. There again, I still don't know the outcome of the great hat debate (I think they look good).

MPN11

20th Mar 2011, 10:54

"BA v. BASSA" = 5361
Current CC Thread = 3571
TOTAL = 8932

SLF Part 1 = 2260
SLF Part 2 = 2277
SLF Part 3 = 1878
SLF Part 4 = 1061
TOTAL = 7476

Overall = 16,408 :eek:

call100

20th Mar 2011, 11:14

Coming from someone that lacks the emotional intelligence to concur that they may have been incorrect on certain points despite being told by someone with direct knowledge of the situation, I find that quite hard to take. (The lack of manners in refusing to even acknowledge the poster/s, I put down to good old ignorance.)

I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing more than a bumph specialist, VintageKrug. Lots of pretty words that, when analysed, turn out to have very little substance and generally say the same thing over and over again. Ancient Observer has been involved in this thread from the very start and while we don't always agree, I have far more respect for what he has to say on the subject than someone who appears to have fallen into the trap of believing in their own publicity. Looking at the number of regular posters that have drifted away, I'd guess I'm not the only one. (Then again, that could also be because there is very little left to say that hasn't already been said...)
Thank goodness. I was beginning to think it was only me that thought that!!;)

Mr Optimistic

20th Mar 2011, 11:40

Top marks that man. Now at 1 minute to write a post and say 30 reads at 30 seconds each......16 minutes of human existence extinguished with each post. It is surely a humanitarian disaster.

MPN11

20th Mar 2011, 13:38

I found more! Indeed, there are even more than this, but the sun's shining and I have other things to do ;)BA CC Strike Threat = 1074
BA CC Industrial Relations IV = 3713
BA CC Industrial Relations V =3882
BA v. BASSA = 5361
Current CC Thread = 3571
TOTAL = 14,101
..................
BA CC Strike Threats = 370
SLF Part 1 = 2260
SLF Part 2 = 2277
SLF Part 3 = 1878
SLF Part 4 = 1061
TOTAL = 7,846

Overall = 21,947

I think the Moderators deserve a round of applause for handling all this, especially given the heat generated by the subject. :D

VintageKrug

20th Mar 2011, 13:47

Does anyone have the youtube link with the BASSA "no to negotiation" show of hands?

I hear mention of it, esp. from Wibelsturm (apols if spelled incorrectly, will correct at som stage!) but haven't been able to find it.

Ancient Observer

20th Mar 2011, 13:56

JSL. Thank you for those kind words.

Let's hope that Litebulbs keeps contributing. I wouldn't want our temp. wind-up merchant to put off LB.

It is interesting that posting on sites such as this can reveal an individual's lack of emotional (and other) intelligence. Whether it is arrogance (e.g. BAE) or reveals a real problem with a 15 year old moving towards Autism cannot be diagnosed from here. A very good friend of mine works with Autistic children. They really do need a great deal of help.

Neptunus Rex

20th Mar 2011, 14:17

Mods,

As this thread has become so utterly tiresome, but I know that you have to monitor it, could you please give the rest of us a "Heads Up" when anything of consequence is posted?

Perhaps start a new tread: "BA - Action at last," or something apposite.

mrpony

20th Mar 2011, 16:12

Humbug.
This thread was far better in the old days!
People just don't know how to behave on this thread nowadays!

What is the end game?
Surely BASSA (as currently led) will never be able to agree anything and as it appears to have the veto over anything Unite agrees it will take BASSA's leadership, and perhaps some elements of its constitution, to change before this dispute can be considered truly over.

On the CC thread there is an interesting exchange about what might end the dispute. With respect to all posting, shouldn't it be obvious that before the end, BASSA needs a new beginning?

GrahamO

20th Mar 2011, 16:46

How do you negotiate with any opposing party when this is what the opposite side of the table have to deal with ....

I have no issue with Unite handling initial negotiations provided that the negotiator is correctly and fully briefed of cabin crew expectations, and does not commit to any decisions without refering back to bassa in the first instance.

In other words, you give your negotiator, no authority, no power and just a set of ears. No acceptance of any change without a vote of the 'bruvvers' on every issue, so its pointless meeting to 'agree' anything. May as well just post a list of demands and demand that the company to give in to everything ...... hang on a minute , where have I seen that ?

No wonder BA don't want to waste their time dealing with either part of the union, as anyone they are going to talk to cannot agree to anything. Just like before .

mrpony

20th Mar 2011, 16:58

A bit harsh that. I've done some quite high level negotiations in my time and some have involved recourse after recourse to a controlling authority.

The problem identified by PC767 is that the BASSA leadership can't be trusted in a negotiation whether sat at the table or not. This reinforces my point above.

Can this whole thing end with LM, DH et al in place or do they have to 'cleansed' from their position? I am sure it's the latter. If so how to get them out?

Manchikeri

20th Mar 2011, 17:20

MissM has enlightened us thus:

I think you, and many others, are not actually understanding what the strike was all about. It was about the principle of imposition, not the actual fact that a crew member was removed and the CSD role became a service role. Many of you seem to think that's it all about the CSD having to do a bit of work onboard.

That, of all the thousands of messages posted over the last two years, sums up this benighted and miserable dispute.

Manchikeri

20th Mar 2011, 17:43

More from the pen of MissM:

If BASSA withdrew the facilities agreement, why is almost nobody talking about it?

Perhaps, MissM, because if any rank and file member of BASSA has the temerity to question the branch secretary with elemental questions such as that, he/she runs the risk of being told to Foxtrot Oscar?

Why don't you ask that very pertinent question, MissM, and report back here on DH's response?

If you dare, that is.

Capot

20th Mar 2011, 18:10

Overall = 21,947 It was about the principle of imposition, not the actual fact that a crew member was removed and the CSD role became a service role. Many of you seem to think that's it all about the CSD having to do a bit of work onboard.I've been following this over the last week or so, only because some time ago I booked a BA flight for Mrs C 'n me next Thursday, rather against my better judgement but the price and timings were right.

What the statistics demonstrate, yet again, is that with the British there is a direct correlation between the utter, futile triviality of a cause and the amount of time your assembled barrack-room lawyers, observers, simpletons, participants, stirrers and others will devote to pointless disection of its most unimportant details, together with snide abuse of anyone who disagrees with them.

Remind me of when this nonsense started. Was it in 2009? Or was it 5 decades earlier? It seems to have been going on for ever.

If a hard core of BA CC want to strike, no matter how ineffectual that might be, for God's sake just do it and get it out of your systems. You never know, someone may notice.

The rest of the country just doesn't give a toss about your grievances, such as they may be. We are worried about swingeing cuts in public expenditure, loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, keeping our businesses solvent, our reducing incomes, launching into yet another bloody war, horrific loss of life and runaway nuclear accidents in Japan, and so on.

Guess what; we are NOT worried about the self-esteem, loss of staff travel, incomes, or even the jobs, of a number of BA's cabin staff.

I'm now reasonably certain that my BA flight will operate as planned this week, probably with pleasant and competent cabin staff working normally, so I'll stop reading this thread before I go into meltdown.

mrpony

20th Mar 2011, 18:15

Have a lie down. Perhaps consider taking up meditation, or painting.

MPN11

20th Mar 2011, 18:31

I'm now reasonably certain that my BA flight will operate as planned this week ...

Well, they have done over the last 12 months, including when there were strikes actually taking place. I know, I've flown through a couple of them without any significant problems. There is no strike, nor announcement of strike, nor anything ... except normal BA operations. I'm still making forward bookings, as I have been since this whole thing started.

As you've only been following this subject for the last week or so, I suppose your uncertainty is understandable. Perhaps your "rather against my better judgement but the price and timings were right" comment implies you really weren't really bothered?

PS ... please skip the ad hominem tactic. There's enough of that already from folks who understand the story.

GrahamO

20th Mar 2011, 18:53

A bit harsh that. I've done some quite high level negotiations in my time and some have involved recourse after recourse to a controlling authority.

My point was not about how you felt about the approach, but how the other party feels. I suspect they were frustrated to be speaking to a monkey with whom they could not reach agreement, rather than the organ grinder. My appraoch in such matters when confronted with 'I am sorry but I have to go back and speak to my members' is to adjourn and ask them to send someone with the authority to negotiate after due consideration, and not to send a note taker.

One will always have to refer to subject matter experts in details technical areas but it sounds like they sent you in to agree to very little and to report back. Professional negotiators are given limits and work within them without reference back as long as they stay within those limits. This is why professionals will often refuse to go in on behalf of one party for example, who might say 'no negotiation' as they know its pointless.

mrpony

20th Mar 2011, 19:15

You're entitled to an opinion.
To my mind it depends very much on what the negotiation is about. I've done some money-only deals worth tens of millions with a preset negotiating range of several million quid - easy and I usually do alright in this gunslinger's game. POW!
When it comes to negotiating deals about the meaning of words, it becomes trickier involving as it inevitably does the attention of other specialists and referencing back to clients/customers/colleagues/directors who all seem to have a view about what words mean.
I think you oversimplify.

P.S. Back to thread - it's the softer and wordier type of deal that this IA involves. There has never been a time when it was a bish bash bosh poker-hand type deal.

VintageKrug

20th Mar 2011, 21:47

Can this whole thing end with LM, DH et al in place or do they have to 'cleansed' from their position? I am sure it's the latter. If so how to get them out?

And this is the point indeed.

The first step on this road is for BASSA members to take an interest in the running of their own £1.5m++ per annum Union Branch; not with the expectation of finding fraud, for which there is no evidence, but to ensure that when the reins do get passed on (likely in October 2011, not unrelated to pensionable ages of DH/LM if "events" do not conspire for earlier elections to be held) that there is "new blood" unconnected with the disastrous decisions of the existing rep team which understands what has gone on in the past.

THAT is why the issue of transparency of the BASSA accounts is so important.

The law relating to transparency of TU accounts is here:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/52/section/30)

The refusal to make accounts available to a former BASSA member is here:

BASSA wrote:

Dear XXXXXX,

Your request for the audited accounts of the BASSA branch of Unite have been forwarded to me by XXXXX XXXXX.
...
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......

In solidarity,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The link for BASSA members to do something about it is here:

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

And the link to the Samaritans (and a rather sweaty man...) for those who have lost the will to live after so many pages, is here:

Samaritans Home Page--> (http://www.samaritans.org/)

Chuchinchow

20th Mar 2011, 23:44

This is the third (or possibly even the fourth) time you have cut and pasted the now stale BASSA response letter, not to mention the links to the Certifying Officer and to the Samaritans and to the TULR(C) Act, Vintage Krug.

Do not underestimate us: I assure you that we did read it all the first time you trotted it out - notwithstanding your downright rude and boorish I am sorry if such discussion exceeds your intellectual capabilities.

We also read it on its second outing.

And the third.

So please: either take your cutting and pasting techniques elsewhere or add something new and substantive to the discussion.

mrpony

21st Mar 2011, 10:29

I wonder why an intelligent person would repeatedly post up information of the sort being complained about above, despite complaints previously? Think about it.

Juan Tugoh

21st Mar 2011, 10:39

I wonder why an intelligent person would repeatedly post up information of the sort being complained about above, despite complaints previously? Think about it.

Perhaps because they are persistent? Perhaps they feel their message is not being received? There may be many reasons why they do this, it does not infer anything about their intelligence - nor does it infer anything about their reasons for repeating the information. Just because someone has complained about a post does not make it invalid, ultimately the mods will decide if it is a nuisance. I suggest that if it annoys you report it to the mods or ignore it. Casting aspertions as to intelligence and or motive reveals a lack of ability or a failure to counter the point rather than anything about the poster that made the point.

Thats me having a "Think about it."

TightSlot

21st Mar 2011, 11:19

I'm sorry, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand the point of this thread - There seems to be little to discuss (for the moment at least) and so the pack now seems to have turned in on itself.

I'm coming to believe that it is worth closing the thread, until something newsworthy actually happens. I'll leave it a day to see if there are any coherent reasons why this shouldn't happen - over to you.

mrpony

21st Mar 2011, 11:25

Interesting. I think you may have the wrong end of the stick, and that I might have offered it to you. So, I had thought about it and:

I think it's because VK has a singular message that isn't for those who normally post on here but for the reader of the last few pages who is a BASSA member or perhaps knows one. The message is regularly refreshed so that it doesn't get lost in the thread's annals and extraneous noise. If you look at my posts yesterday 1068 and 1070 you'll see I was posing a question - if to end the deadlock means decapitating BASSA ( to use an unfortunate phrase borrowed from SKY a few minutes ago), how is it done?

In that context VK's answer, which quotes me, is perfect, though not news to most on here, especially Chuchinchow.

I was prompted to post originally after looking at the CC thread where there was an interesting and thoughtful exchange about how to end this wretched mess.

Tightslot - why not give it a month? Things will change over the next week or so and you could then watch it explode in a supernova of hubris and indignation!

notlangley

21st Mar 2011, 11:27

On the other thread Miss M says on____link (http://www.pprune.org/6317782-post3561.html)

Many crew have waited years for part-time and just because you have signed an individual offer with them doesn't mean that you should be able to jump the queue.
I have added the bold type.
It seems to me that part-time can only come about with new recruits._ These are coming each month as the Mixed Fleet produces another 100 or so._ Miss M goes on to sayI'm not expecting BA to close down the fleet but we need to have some sort of control of it because otherwise we are going to lose everything.My bold again.
But those who have applied for part-time will gain exactly what they applied for (thinks - thanks to Mixed Fleet).

MPN11

21st Mar 2011, 11:40

@ TightSlot ... I can understand your frustration, but this is the only place we SLF can twitter about the subject [some of the time]. I suggest that locking the thread might result in loads of little new ones popping up!

At least this thread is keeping all the noise in one place, however ineffectual and irrelevant it may be at times.

Manchikeri

21st Mar 2011, 11:48

I'm not expecting BA to close down the fleet but we need to have some sort of control of it because otherwise we are going to lose everything.

When is MissM (who is clearly an intelligent and sapient person) going to realise that the role of cabin crew in British Airways is primarily to ensure in-flight safety and cabin service?

That's it. No less and no more.

Leave "control" to the British Airways board of directors and its delegated leadership team.

Ancient Observer

21st Mar 2011, 11:55

Tightslot.
Not an easy judgement.
As a regular visitor/contributor I can't say I would miss it when there is so little going on in the actual dispute. Maybe close it until the next ballot result? However, MPN11's point has a fait amount of validity. This thread keeps all the noise in one place.
As ever with modding - a balance!

One thing I would suggest is to implement PPrune rules very vigorously. Ban for a month or two anyone who says stuff such as
"I am sorry if such discussion exceeds your intellectual capabilities."

VintageKrug

21st Mar 2011, 12:22

Indeed there are many who don’t read through the whole thread, or dip in from time to time, who are perhaps not as close to the real issues of this dispute.

I can only speculate as to why people like churchinchow feel threatened by reposting pertinent information and links, or indeed others posting in other threads where there is clearly an effort being made to obfuscate and divert attention from pertinent information.

BASSA's hounds now appear to be after me personally, since they are not willing to be transparent:

http://www.imasuper.com/myuploads/2009/03/release-the-hounds.jpg

For too long there has been speculation and hearsay in relation to the strikes, and the time has passed for that.

I was amazed to read some of the posters on here had not seen the representation of Walsh as the Devil which has graced www.uniteba.com (http://www.uniteba.com/) for over a year. How on earth is that representation relevant, professional, or reasonable? It’s not, and it’s typical of the bullying behaviour displayed by the thugs (and I use the word advisedly) running BASSA.

Factual arguments, backed up by referenceable documents, preferably from independent sources where possible will help cabin crew and us passengers make up our own minds.

It would seem sensible for BASSA to release its accounts and demonstrate the value £1.5m-£2m of annual subs (do many cc actually know that is the amount they contribute collectively every year?) have delivered to itsmembers for their hard-earned £15/month subscription. There is no allegation of fraud whatsoever. And if salaries have been paid, that’s fine as long as the membership is fine with that, and reckons is has and continues to receive value for money.

Contrary to assertions made elsewhere, I have no “skin in the game” on this dispute – it is a matter for BASSA members to resolve themselves. As has been said, BASSA is bigger than two people, but now is the time to look beyond this dispute, which is to all intents and purposes lost, and on death’s door, to the future and how BASSA can attempt to redefine itself as an organisation with the interests of its membership at its heart, and also an interest in the success of the employer which sustains its membership, and pays its former members’ pensions.

Sadly, many are scared to speak out, ask questions or propose a contrary perspective and I have to say that was I in any way connected to BA I would indeed to intimidated by the past form of BASSA in both its words and actions against those who take an opposing view. That is a sign of weakness, not strength.

This dispute is less and less about BA Cabin Crew, imposition or indeed any contractual negotiations. It is quite clear that there are larger “weird and wondrous” forces now at play in this dispute, including the Socialist Worker’s Party www.socialistworker.co.uk with its anti-capitalist and almost anarchic agenda, and cabin crew are being very dangerously placed in the middle of such toxic organisations.

The week commencing Monday 28th March will be interesting.

We will see the ballot result, which will no doubt be spun as a “stronger” result for BASSA (as even more right-thinking members of the ever-diminishing Union resign, increasing the percentage of “YES” votes), and leave a hardcore militant group determined to strike, without protection, come what may.

We should be formally party to the judgement from Duncan Holley’s Employment Tribunal, though the fact no-one has tweeted that he’s won tells us with some considerable accuracy how that went.

We should also hear more on the Certification Officer’s views on the way in which BASSA administrates itself, initially focussing on its accounts, and perhaps also its internal election of branch officers.

All in all, interesting times, and an opportunity for reflection in the period of calm before the storm as to what Industrial Relations at BA will look like a year from now. Certainly, a great deal of rumour and speculation in the coming week.

For those who have not yet had an opportunity to read the reasons why BASSA has nowehere to go, with much of the (referenced) evidence all in one place, I would refer them to this earlier post:

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/441165-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iv-29.html#post6265674

BASSA don't like that sort of thing, and there is probably a jolly good reason why they don't.