BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV

[TightSlot]

The story continues..........................

[Landroger]

May I just ensure that my recollection of matters discussed in this thread is more or less clear?

To date - in something like two years - no BASSA supporter has posted a clear, well argued, fact based explanation of their case?

Mr. Holley - or some doppleganger of his - has posted on this thread, although largely rhetoric and unsubstantiated gobbledegook aimed at the emotions of his flock, rather than to support what is virtually unsupportable?

BA have, on the whole, said very little on the grounds that rationalising with BASSA tends to be an oxymoron. They have mostly stated their intention and then done what they said on the tin.

Because of the nature of a transient and remote work force, coupled with an almost cast iron strangle hold on communications with them by one party, the 'normal' implications of Union ballots has been distorted to the point of irrelevance? A big vote in favour of a strike does not actually imply a big turnout at the picket lines, indeed almost the opposite?

The majority - by a very large margin - of bullying and harassment has been of non strikers by strikers - no fact based evidence to the contrary has every been seen by this thread?

The people who set up and expanded the PCCC have, thus far, remained largely unknown for very obvious and understandable reasons. They have though achieved a great deal with very little, although with the remarkable support of many passengers?

The only reasoned support of any union view has been by Litebulbs - not directly involved with the BASSA dispute - and even he expresses some disbelief in the way BASSA act and have acted. He and 'Eddy' have been left to at least clarify possible points of view and moderate any Daily Mail tendencies in this thread - for which thanks.

It is difficult for anybody, let alone we SLF, to see where BASSA can or will go next?

Roger.

[rethymnon]

'it is difficult to see where BASSA can go next' - or words to that effect.

remind me, what did the oozlum bird do?

however, a brilliant and pithy summary of two years progress.

[Litebulbs]

1. To date - in something like two years - no BASSA supporter has posted a clear, well argued, fact based explanation of their case?

2. It is difficult for anybody, let alone we SLF, to see where BASSA can or will go next?

Roger.

1. I think there has been some debate on this. The biggest fact is that BA is still here and does that fact change the fight for survival to an opportunity to remove staff cost? Now I know it is a balance and it is in no way as simple as that, but to me, it is for the employer to take the staff along the road and the first job is to convince rather than dismiss the reps. But as a rep, I would say that. Have the savings so far been more or less than the cost of lost business (200000) and contingency?

2. I know the rhetoric by some on pprune likes to dismiss any action as ineffectual, but 6000 no's after two years is still a huge number and so is the cost of past and future disruption.

I wish more Bassa members posted, but I doubt that from my experience,the battering that you sometimes get, will make some of the less thick skinned think why bother.

[Hotel Mode]

I wish more Bassa members posted, but I doubt that from my experience,the battering that you sometimes get, will make some of the less thick skinned think why bother.

They're pretty thick skinned. A quick look at the BA section of Cabincrew.com will show them at their best. Bullying mixed fleeters and claiming anyone who disagrees is a pilot or a manager.

The reason they dont come here is because they cant peddle their lies and exagerration with impunity. If somebody came on here and actually presented a cogent, well thought through and sensible argument without blaming everyone else then I'm sure their views would be listened to if not liked. It comes to something when their best spokesman is a rep from another part of Unite.

[Litebulbs]

Just for the record, I am not a spokesperson for Unite or Bassa, just an interested party, who happens to be a workplace rep and as such, my views are my own and in now way represent the views of Unite/Bassa/Amicus etc. etc.

Hopefully you are still allowed to have a view that you can express in a public discussion forum. :mad: :confused:

[Betty girl]

There is a poster on the site that Hotel Mode mentions called 'ally' and I would happily put a bet on that it is DH or another union rep. He says that he does not work for BA but knows every detail, even the details of DH's next hearing!!!

[Chuchinchow]

He says that he does not work for BA but knows every detail, even the details of DH's next hearing!!!

If it is DH, then he is telling the absolute truth for once.

[Sporran]

Betty Girl,

Just had a quick look - and it is so good to get back to 'the university of adults' from the 'kindergarten' over there.

This thing called 'ally' is rude, obnoxious and totally deluded. he is not on his own though cos there is also some REALLY sad and hateful thing called huw on wings.

[Landroger]

My initial remark was to the effect that no BASSA supporter had posted a fact based outline of the CC case, LB.

The biggest fact is that BA is still here and does that fact change the fight for survival to an opportunity to remove staff cost? Now I know it is a balance and it is in no way as simple as that, but to me, it is for the employer to take the staff along the road and the first job is to convince rather than dismiss the reps.

As I read this and the other thread over the years, it seemed to me that the fight for survival was exactly that and was the entire reason for negotiating with all the other departments and Unite branches. Having successfully negotiated with all the other sections, it remained for the Cabin Crew to ante up. Week after week BASSA were constipated and BA issued what amounted to an ultimatum - crap or get off the pot. Now we know how it played out.

It seemed to me that BA were trying to convince rather than punish, but, as time went on BASSA became more defensive and cornered by their own attitude. With direct contact with their own employees virtually impossible and the provocation becoming too much to ignore, BA began to take steps. Legal and, in the minds of many, very restrained steps.

2. I know the rhetoric by some on PPRuNe likes to dismiss any action as ineffectual, but 6000 no's after two years is still a huge number and so is the cost of past and future disruption.

But as I said LB, if a contrary organisation has hijacked the communications link between employer and employee, simply by using utter rubbish to blind those employees to reason and then telling them to completely ignore their employer because everything they say is a lie, what is that employer supposed to do? The huge vote in favour of Industrial Action was, I'll admit, quite impressive, but when the reality of walking out came round, the vote looked a bit 'overstated'. And so it has gone on.

Just for the record, I am not a spokesperson for Unite or Bassa, just an interested party, who happens to be a workplace rep and as such, my views are my own and in now way represent the views of Unite/Bassa/Amicus etc. etc.

I knew that LB and I'll admit it has been rather amusing to see other forumeers accuse you of supporting BASSA. :ugh: You may not, as you say, be the official Unite spokesperson, but you are however, by default, the voice of reason from the the union side, so to speak. Given that that they are unable or unwilling to make their own case for themselves.

Roger.

[LD12986]

Holley should win his tribunal.

It was clearly a case of constructive dismissal

Regarding this post on the crew thread, for DH's sake, I hope his lawyers know the difference between constructive and unfair dismisal. DH was sacked rather than forced to resign.

[Litebulbs]

My point about the fight for survival is that BA has survived. Has BA actually made any saving within the crew community today? It will have saved, but there has been a cost too.

Long term viability is obviously very important, but what happens if the profits are even further up this year?

Weak, I know, but it is late.

[yotty]

I thought that if you were sacked from BA you would not get a pension, you would just received what you had paid in?

[notlangley]

In the Soviet Union it was said "no answer is an answer".
I wonder if, next week, we will discover that no decision to set dates for the strike is the decision by Unite the Union._ There will be several consequences of this - one is that the new contract will not have been removed from the table._ Quite soon (next month?) there will be a pay differential between those on the new contract and those who are not._ The pay differential is a tiny amount - not likely to influence anyone - but there is some quite primitive sadness about being left out of a pay rise.

[hula]

what happens if the profits are even further up this year?



We can finally start investing in our aircraft. airport experience and on-board product again! And all have some sort of profit share!!:eek:

[Joao da Silva]

But as I said LB, if a contrary organisation has hijacked the communications link between employer and employee, simply by using utter rubbish to blind those employees to reason and then telling them to completely ignore their employer because everything they say is a lie, what is that employer supposed to do?

Sort it out, very quickly!

[Mariner9]

Long term viability is obviously very important, but what happens if the profits are even further up this year?

In the ideal world BASSA would ask to see the accounts (having signed a confidentiality agreement) and use them to negotiate a realistic, affordable improvement to their members' T&C's in their role as a progressive, engaging union.

In the current (un)real world, BASSA will refuse to negotiate with BA, then refuse to put BA's offer to their members. They will then convince their membership to vote for further IA which will be carried by the majority of their remaining, ever shrinking, membership.

Do I have a career as a fortune teller? :ok:

[Entaxei]

There is a very good case for BA to say to BASSA, you show me yours and I'll show you mine - talking accounts of course!! :E

[Mariner9]

I see we have a new BASSA mouthpiece on the other thread.

He/she seems very interested in the funding of the PCCC. Wonder what his/her reaction would be upon seeing some earlier comments from some of our regular SLF correspondents on here that they would happily contribute to the PCCC :ok:

[Ancient Observer]

I see that the junta have nominated one of their "helpers" to be a new troll over on the CC only thread. As their knowledge of BA CC is limited, they would seem to be one of the SWP members that have hijacked this dispute for their own strange ends, (or rather, the strange ends of the multi-millionaires that control SWP).

Anyway, rather than answering where bassa have spent their net income of nearly 1 million pounds per annum over the last 5 years, they appear to be fixated about who paid £150 for the pccc's registration as a TU. £5 million versus £150!!!

As a matter of fact, I did not pay that £150. I was not asked to. Had I been asked to, as I'm unemployed, finding a spare £150 would not have been easy, but I would certainly have tried!

Now for the £4,000 for full certification.

I believe that the T & G/Unite do and have done a great job in many circumstances, but that their spoilt teenager in bassa is making a mess of the T & G's reputation.

[fincastle84]

I think that CCCP is probably related to A Lurker!

Moving on, time seems to be running out for any strike to be called. At the same time, Bassa/ Unite don't appear to be attempting to either put any pressure on BA or to win the hearts & minds of the travelling public.

We live in interesting times.

[Chuchinchow]

Ancient Observer, on 16 November 2010, opined thus: the SWP and their friends do not give a fig for the BA CC, and are not interested in solving the problem - they just want the fight and the publicity. They are run by millionaires, so the fate of a few BA CC is way down on their list of priorities.

Ancient Observer related, on 23 December 2010, that: I wish that BA CC in bassa would do some half-intelligent investigations of SWP. Owned and run by millionaires, they have a completely destructive perspective, and don't let boring things like real workers and real people stand in their way

Ancient Observer, again on the alleged backers of the SWP, has told us today:
As their knowledge of BA CC is limited, they would seem to be one of the SWP members that have hijacked this dispute for their own strange ends, (or rather, the strange ends of the multi-millionaires that control SWP).


Would Ancient Observer care to elaborate on those assertions, please? Who are these alleged "multi-millionaires that control SWP"?

I ask only because there seems to be a great degree of dissimulation happening on "the other thread", and we would never descend to such stratagems here - or would we?

[Joao da Silva]

Anyway, rather than answering where bassa have spent their net income of nearly 1 million pounds per annum over the last 5 years, they appear to be fixated about who paid £150 for the pccc's registration as a TU. £5 million versus £150!!!

I do think that funding for the PCCC is a legitimate question, just as it is for BASSA andother unions/branches.

[Ancient Observer]

Chuchinchow

I'm pleased that someone has an interest in the facts. The Redgrave family run the SWP. Have done for about 40 years. Look up the Redgraves and the various branches of the family on Wiki. Then Google "Redgrave family and SWP".

Look for the Socialist Worker Online.

Vanessa used to take the lead, especially in demonstrations in London. Less so outside London.
Corin was a bit of a naughty boy when he was around. He left the SWP to join the WRP. That reminds me of the "What have the Romans ever done for us sketch", and the radical difference between the Judea Liberation front and the Front for the Liberation of Judea - who didn't speak to each other.
Of course, Corin being both the child of multi-millionaires, and one in his own right, went to Westminster school and Cambridge.
As both are smallish organisations, the SWP and the WRP often work together.
Lenin had a great phrase for those seduced by revolutionary violence. Lenin called those like the Redgraves "Useful idiots"

Back to the BA CC dispute?

[Diplome]

Funding for the PCCC at £150 is an issue...seriously???

Can we please keep ourselves grounded in reality. You can spend that on a dinner for two or four on sushi...and all of the sudden its an issue????

You have a Union that has been collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds from its membership...and then collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds from other divisions for their cause...and we are questioning £150.00?

Oh the drama. That a group of like-minded Cabin Crew outside of BASSA could come up with £150.00. Would that even pay for the Bouncy Castle at Bedfont???

[Wirbelsturm]

I do like that other forum. They use words on there that I had to look up in Wikipedia, unfortunately they were all blacklisted! :\

I especially liked the HUW strap line of the pilots being paid 40% more than market rate. I wonder where he got that one from as LH/AF/KLM etc are running far better pay than BA have. Oddly enough I have a feeling that quite a chunk of the wage bill goes to the pilots in most airlines!

BALPA ended up in an impasse over Openskies however it was then generally accepted by the membership that BALPA didn't have the power to stop BA operating another AOC in a seperate country. However, by negotiation, BALPA have placed protections against undermining UK operations. Sadly BASSA haven't had such foresight. Neither did BALPA condone or deny any member their wish to operate as VCC. Oddly enough, as consenting adults, we were all left to make that decision ourselves based upon our own overview of the situation. Couple that with exhaustive briefings by BALPA on their take on the companies position and accurate financial briefings I think we can now see why some pilots and many, many groundstaff took up the mantle.

Makes for a fun, unmoderated read though! :E

[ManfredvonRichthofen]

perhaps slightly off the thread but....

My thoughts:

I no longer book flights with BA just in case. I used to travel on BA about 10-15 times a year.

I have my views on the strike(s) but really I am not particularly interested in what BA CC's gripes are. I am interested in getting from A to B.

I am sure I am not alone.

A shame really.

[Chuchinchow]

Thank you for your prompt response, Ancient Observer. The scales have now fallen from my eyes!
Back to the BA CC dispute?

Yes, why not? It is far, far better than any television soap opera.

ManfredvonRichthofen:

You, me and thousands of other discomfited BA passengers.

[pencisely]

Isn't the fact that BASSA have sanctioned that DH & Co will stay in office until "this dispute is over" a fundamental admission that "this" dispute i.e. the recent ballot is a continuance of "that" dispute i.e. that which resulted in IA in 2010.

How can the BASSA officers then possibly take a position that the current dispute is not related to the previous one when they have sanctioned their own extensions to office on the basis that it is the same disppute.

Should make an easy target for the BA legal team.

Have I missed something?

[RTR]

This does need addressing. If mis-use of funds has occured an extraordinary meeting should have been called. There are serious issues to answer and perhaps Unite should be questioned.

[Litebulbs]

BALPA ended up in an impasse over Openskies however it was then generally accepted by the membership that BALPA didn't have the power to stop BA operating another AOC in a seperate country. However, by negotiation, BALPA have placed protections against undermining UK operations

We have disagreed on many occasions, but that underlines where you are as an employee.

Damage limitation and well done for it.

[notlangley]

On 10 January 2010 Brian Boyd, the National Officer of Unite the Union said that the membership of Bassa was 8975._ However on the cabin crew thread at least one poster still talks of this membership as being 10,000.
Can any BA CC give me the correct figure for the total number within the working group that these 8975 come from._ The most common figure bandied about is 13,000, but I always suspect round figures like 10 inches in a foot, they are can be as much as 20% in error._

Please tell me - what is the figure that PCCC is looking at with a view to obtaining 40% thereof?_ I discount Mixed Crew because they are a different working group.

[Joao da Silva]

Diplome

Funding for the PCCC at £150 is an issue...seriously???

Can we please keep ourselves grounded in reality. You can spend that on a dinner for two or four on sushi...and all of the sudden its an issue????

You have a Union that has been collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds from its membership...and then collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds from other divisions for their cause...and we are questioning £150.00?

Oh the drama. That a group of like-minded Cabin Crew outside of BASSA could come up with £150.00. Would that even pay for the Bouncy Castle at Bedfont???Of course it is important, it does not matter whether it is £150 or £150,000, a new union is in the process of emerging and funding should be transparent.

PCCC is an anonymous organization and it is time for it to step out into the light.

I really do think it is a shame that you have to post in a way that belittles someone with a different view.

Just because you do not seem to be able to agree with the the principle of equality, does not justify what is quite a spiteful rant.

The definition of spiteful from the Oxford Dictionary is "a desire to hurt, annoy or offend."

[LD12986]

The total number of BA cabin crew given by the airline when the last ballot result was announced was 13,500. This will include international cabin crew at bases such as SIN, NRT etc.

[hellsbrink]

Well, JdS, I think it's safe to assume that those involved in setting up the PCCC have actually ensured that those WHO NEED TO KNOW will have all the details regarding funding, the names of those involved/running the PCCC, etc. In other words, the "transparency" will be there as far as regulatory bodies goes.

Since they are not fully up and running YET, why should they tell the world and it's dog who is in charge, etc? They have satisfied the regulators and, going by the comments read elsewhere by BASSA acolytes, why should they face the prospect of some severe victimisation by these people for daring to do something that opposes their "view"?

The time will come when they, the PCCC, will tell everyone who is who (bearing in mind that they are still in the infancy stage) but, right now, they have satisfied the regulators in regard to all details regarding funding, who is who, etc, so that is, realistically, all they have to do right now.

[ChicoG]

Yes the latest incarnation of "PiB" has gone to ground in the face of a very simple question about how a BASSA member goes about seeing where or on whom their money is being spent.

No surprise there then!

:rolleyes:

[Litebulbs]

Why is it that it seems to be accepted by most the Bassa should declare all in a transparent way, but the PCCC should not?

Either they both should, or both should not.

[notlangley]

It is of course possible for a CC member to belong to both BASSA and PCCC.

Total crew number 13500 (from LD12986)
40% of 13500 = 5400
This 5400 could come from non-union members, those who voted NO in the most recent election, and the third set would need to be some of those who were non-voting members.
1) Non-union are 13500 minus 10220 = 3280, but say 3000.
2) NO voters = 1579, but say 1500.
3) 900 are needed from the 2885 non-voters.

The 900 from the non-voters won’t be easy._ It will take some time - and probably needs a guarantee from PCCC that any member on the old contract can stay on that old contract for as long as he/she chooses.

[Mariner9]

Why is it that it seems to be accepted by most the Bassa should declare all in a transparent way, but the PCCC should not?

Either they both should, or both should not.

I'm not sure it is accepted. I would imagine most on here would expect transparency from both.

I see Hiflyer has commented upon the PCCC funds in general (there aren't any yet) and the £150 in particular (no registration fee paid) on the other thread. I look forward to details of BASSA's millions in return :hmm:

[Papillon]

Why is it that it seems to be accepted by most the Bassa should declare all in a transparent way, but the PCCC should not?

Either they both should, or both should not.

Quite right.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable which of the two is currently a bigger question.

[fincastle84]

At the end of the day, whether or not the PCCC either publishes its' accounts or even comes to fruition as a major player, is of little importance during the next 2 weeks.

It's Bassa as the major player which has to reveal its' plans for their way forward.

As an aside, I can't believe that in law they would have been allowed to exist this long without proper accounting procedures..................................... would they.:confused:

[Snas]

As an aside, I can't believe that in law they would have been allowed to exist this long without proper accounting procedures..................................... would they


I think it is the case that the Union (Unite) have to publish accounts, the branch (BASSA) do not.

It is worth remembering that BASSA are not a union.

[fincastle84]

Thanks for the clarification. Does Bassa have a written constitution?

[ChicoG]

Why is it that it seems to be accepted by most the Bassa should declare all in a transparent way, but the PCCC should not?

Either they both should, or both should not.

Your statement is of course correct.

However, AFAIK the PCCC are not yet soliciting any subscriptions, so how exactly can they say what they are doing with their members money?

BASSA on the other hand ARE collecting a very large amount of money, yet refuse to say how much of it goes into reps pockets and what for.

So when a BASSAmentalist starts pointing the finger at the PCCC, one rather thinks it's a case of people in glass houses, etc.

[hellsbrink]

A very valid point, Chico, methinks all of this is that Bassa are now feeling a bit scared of the PCCC before it has even gotten off the ground so are now trying any smear they can to try and discredit it before it even becomes a possible threat to their "empire".

[gr8tballsoffire]

Pencisly

Well spotted, great post.

[Mariner9]

Does Bassa have a written constitution?

I would imagine the following would pretty much cover it ;):

1. The BASSA leadership is always right.
2. No questioning of the BASSA leadership is allowed. Refer to rule 1 if clarification is required.
3. You can only be in BASSA if you are serving as CC with BA.*
4. You are entitled to take part in a democratic ballot.** However if you do not vote in accordance with the BASSA leadership's wishes you will be asked to leave.
4. It is mandatory to hate and mistrust Pilots, Willie Walsh, Pilots, Bill Francis, Pilots, anyone not in BASSA (especially CC89 and PCCC), and Pilots.

Notes:
* This rule does not apply to any member with the initials DH.
** This right exists even after you have left either BA, BASSA, or both.

[call100]

Re the PCCC. I would have thought that anyone wanting to join them would also want to know where they were coming from.
I know it suits some of the more rabid on here that they are just different from BASSA so that's enough. However, surely a potential member would want to be sure that they are not just company stooges or political pawns. Knowing where their funding originates is just a fundamental question you would ask before joining any organisation.
If they are genuine and truly represent their membership then I wish them luck. To be different they must be more transparent. The leadership must stand up and be counted. If they are afraid of some sort of campaign against them then they shouldn't be in the positions they have put themselves.
I note on their site that they say you do not have to leave your current TU to be a member of PCCC. I'm not sure this is correct, however if it is that would be an opportunity for BASSA members (if they wished) to join and influence or destroy anything that PCCC want to achieve.
Whatever happens, division will be the way within BA for a long time to come.:(

[notlangley]

call100 saidI note on their site that they say you do not have to leave your current TU to be a member of PCCC. I'm not sure this is correct, however if it is that would be an opportunity for BASSA members (if they wished) to join and influence or destroy anything that PCCC want to achieve.
Whatever happens, division will be the way within BA for a long time to come.How true - you have discovered a major problem that PCCC will have to cope with.

[Snas]

Here is my fav quote of the day....


"Working to rule, is working to the company’s own rules. Only the goodwill of the workforce brings common sense to working practices," one Bassa member said.


Source: - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8293621/Cabin-crew-plan-guerilla-tactics.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8293621/Cabin-crew-plan-guerilla-tactics.html)

[Diplome]

Why is it that it seems to be accepted by most the Bassa should declare all in a transparent way, but the PCCC should not?

Either they both should, or both should not.


Litebulbs:

I certainly don't expect anything more from BASSA than to file the financial disclosure documents required by law..no more no less, and as a non-member I certainly don't feel entitled to know what they do with every pound that comes their way. The same can be said of the PCCC.

This demand by some for "transparency" over such a small expenditure by the PCCC is nothing more than an attempt to infer that somehow their money is soiled by BA.

I do agree that it is time for the PCCC to come out of the shadows and put a face on the organization and am hopeful that that happens soon. While I understand, given the history of some members of BASSA, that they might be hesitant, I don't see how they can continue to claim leadership from behind a curtain. It may also help them defend against the charges of being simply BA minions as they would be seen as actual Cabin Crew seeking alternatives to BASSA.

..and Joao..try not to take the board so seriously. Its simply a group of individuals interested in a particular situation. Rudeness directed at me personally does nothing for your argument.

[notlangley]

What the Telegraph does not realise is that it is not BASSA’s call._ It is up to Unite to say what sort of industrial action.
Unite is very quiet.
Unite may silently pass the deadline in which case there is no industrial action.

[notlangley]

I really do think that you sometimes cannot see past the end of your nose, with all the spite that you apparently have from the tone of your postings.Whoever said this should apologise.

[Diplome]

notlangley:

Its quite alright. With such a diverse group following this adventure we are bound to attract those that are less than friendly at times...

..and I notice that Jaoa is busy deleting and amending previous posts.

If only it was as easy for BASSA and BA to rewrite history ;)

[Joao da Silva]

At least you got the name right, this time ;)

[rethymnon]

surely, even the smallest, local group that has funds would expect to publish rudimentary accounts that members can question? i would be reluctant to belong to one that did not but then, i'd be there to question what is spent in my name first of all.

are there not members of BASSA able and willing to make a written request for the accounts to be either, published or provided to them personally?

if that doesn't work, is it beyond them to write to Unite, requesting that they require BASSA to provide this information.

Failing response to those requests, reference to the TU oversight body might be productive.

a bit of pro bonno legal work might be necessary if nothing comes of those approaches. It must be possible to require disclosure in law if you have a legitimate interest.

i take it no one is suggesting more heinous than a failure to publish (audited) accounts?

on a different tack, the suggestion that PCCC members shouldn't put themselves forward if they are afraid of attack, doesn't merit consideration: no one should be attacked for holding different views however much we may disagree with the views held.

certainly, there will be a time, not too far distant, when PCCC will need to declare their hand, personally and financially, but they are entitled to a breathing space to 'put the package together'.

[Haymaker]

As notlangley correctly points out, this is not BASSA's call. However their view is interesting in that it is effectively an admission that a full-blown strike would produce an embarassingly low turn-out, which would be hopelessly ineffective against BA's improved contingency plans.

If they were allowed by Unite to go down the guerilla route and test the grey areas, they would be taking on BA in a legal battle, and they have not won too many of those so far.

[Chuchinchow]

I really do think it is a shame that you have to post in a way that belittles someone with a different view.

Just because you do not seem to be able to agree with the the principle of equality, does not justify what is quite a spiteful rant.

The definition of spiteful from the Oxford Dictionary is "a desire to hurt, annoy or offend."

:confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek::confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:

[Diplome]

Haymaker:

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that impression when I read the article...but you are right. It certainly can be read as an admission of weakness.

Would BASSA attempt a work to rule assault without the blessing of Unite? Such an action may certainly cause disruption to BA but for how long? And at what cost to the unprotected Crew?

Where in the world is Litebulbs??? :)

...and pencisely's post on the previous page, which I just went back and reread, brings up an interesting issue. If this is not a continuation why are the BASSA leadership acting as if it is.

[Chuchinchow]

I know it suits some of the more rabid on here that they are just different from BASSA so that's enough

As quoting dictionary definitions seems to be becoming de rigeur here, might I respectfully point out that "rabid" is an adjective describing an animal or a person suffering from rabies?

One of the main symptoms of that disease is foaming at the mouth. The only person, currently contributing on these threads, who appears to be "rabid" is a new but prolific contributor to the "other" thread.

[Entaxei]

Reading the other thread, it is interesting to see that the Troll CCCP, appears to have lost control of itself to DH. When you read the style (wrong word surely) of the latest ranting, the wording is so very reminiscent of DH's latest rantings from BASSA.

However, at least the posts are disclosing the amount of pure hatred that BASSA and/or DH have, for anything that is really starting to threaten their version of/and control of reality and future income.

One interesting question that could be asked of BASSA, is what/who now consists of their list of Reps, given that among the number of staff that have been dismissed, were supposedly some BASSA Reps. Is there a current list of Reps?. When was the last branch management meeting of BASSA held, i.e. management - not mass meetings, and are the minutes from that meeting available to any BASSA member on the website?

I would not suggest holding your breath waiting for an answer!!.

[Mariner9]

I would have thought that DH would be too busy this week fighting his Unfair Dismissal case to post on the other thread, though you could be right.

Anyway, I've sent CCCP a PM to cordially invite him over to "our" SLF thread so we can debate with him. No response received however. It would appear that the views of the passengers he is employed to look after (or was employed to look after if it is DH) is of no interest :rolleyes:

[hellsbrink]

Let's go back to that Telegraph article for a minute.

This caught my eye

withdrawing goodwill - such as turning up early for pre-flight briefings.

Now, I don't know what the actual requirement is in their contracts but surely turning up for pre-flight briefings would be a mandatory requirement so they, the cabin crew, would know of anything "unusual" on their flight.

Was that just a bit of "journalistic licence" or is that an actual proposal from some Bassamaniac and would such an action lead to disciplinary action due to any failure to attend the briefing?

Another route that could lead to is directly into BA's hands. You don't turn up for the briefing, you don't fly, you don't get paid, you are deemed to be "on strike" and if that strike is unprotected then you better hope McDonalds are hiring...........

[TopBunk]

hellsbrink

withdrawing goodwill - such as turning up early for pre-flight briefings.

I think what they mean is they claim that the CSD (Chief Steward/ess) has to turn up earlier than their nominal report time in order to print out the briefing paperwork. Withdrawing this goodwill would potentially have an affect on punctuality, especially on LH flights.

[pcat160]

It appears that the probability of a strike is decreasing every day. Could CCCP enlighten us as to the current strike plans if any.

[MPN11]

@ hellsbrink & TopBunk ... that's the tightrope that people are going to have to tread.

Does the CSD's T&C require a slightly earlier report time to print things?
Or is that simple 'good will'?

[LD12986]

The last we heard from BASSA was that Unite was seeking an opinion from Counsel. Whatever the likely impact of IA, I think if Unite deny BASSA a strike all hell is going to break loose between BASSA and Unite.

[TopBunk]

LD

I am led to believe the BASSA's QC has dropped a little bombshell to DH over the weekend over the strike position.

Also that there is now a large difference of opinion:hmm: amongst the reps as to what to do next.

Hellsbrink

afaik the CSD's have the same report times as the rest of the cabin crew.

[call100]

As quoting dictionary definitions seems to be becoming de rigeur here, might I respectfully point out that "rabid" is an adjective describing an animal or a person suffering from rabies?

One of the main symptoms of that disease is foaming at the mouth. The only person, currently contributing on these threads, who appears to be "rabid" is a new but prolific contributor to the "other" thread.

Not one for the dictionary quote normally but in the interest of clarification...
Rabid:- going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion <rabid editorials> <a rabid supporter>
Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rabid)
As you say, it could apply to that person also....

[MPN11]

I am led to believe the BASSA's QC has dropped a little bombshell to DH over the weekend over the strike position.

If that's the case, it's not before time. Fingers crossed for an outbreak of reality, although I suspect DH will carry on trying to push his troops across 'No Man's Land" into the face of oncoming fire from BA.

Ooops ... that's again sort of The Somme, isn't it. 'Lions led by Donkeys', and the General tends his tomatoes while the troops all get slaughtered.

[Diplome]

TopBunk:

Interesting. If what you are hearing is accurate perhaps the "guerilla" tactics that Mr. Holley speaks of are all they have left.

It should make an intruiging post by Mr. Holley to his members. If true I imagine that BASSA will want to issue something to its members rather than have damage done through rumour.

Though Mr. Holley was otherwise engaged today wasn't he.

[MPN11]

I would hate to suggest that 'end game' is imminent, Diplome, but I think reality may be starting to be imposed.

[TopBunk]

I believe that Radio 5 on 2nd Feb on the 10:00 show there may be some more to learn.

[Diplome]

MPN11:

Well, it makes for a fun game of "What next" doesn't it? lol

I believe that Top Bunk must feel relatively confident about his sources or he would have been a bit more reserved in his posting, and he is certainly not the only individual insinuating that the message from counsel was not quite what BASSA wanted to hear.

I have to agree with LD12986 that even if the "end" is near, its not going to be pretty...and I believe that CC89 are likely to make as much of a fuss as BASSA. I still can't quite understand a Union being so militant (referring to CC89) towards striking when the vast majority of their members obviously don't support it.

This is certainly a time of opportunity for the PCCC and BASSA and CC89 have done much of the PCCC's recruiting for them. Incredible.

[MPN11]

We shall see ... IMO, PCCC is for the future and will be the decision of the CC, not the SLF.

What is needed now is the removal, one way or another, of the detrimental [to BA and the passengers/customers] influence of DH, BASSA and the SWP clingons.

Once reality has been restored, I'm basically unconcerned about which Union or Council represents CC. I know they need representation ... I'm convinced [from my reading over the last couple of years] that BASSA is not the 'organisation' to give them that.

[Diplome]

MPN11:

I used to be of the mind that changing BASSA from within was the way to go but I no longer think that is possible. The negativity, anger, and view of BA as the enemy in all things is just too entrenched.

The selfish part of me only thinking in terms of SLF can easily accept and look forward to the demise of a Union that causes so many problems for their customers.

However, another part of me sees it as the unfortunate situation that it is...a waste of opportunity for a Union to do well.

Cabin Crew being represented by a reasonable, pro-active and positive Union is good for not only BA but for SLF also. I hope they get there.

[west lakes]

Been away, but to ressurect the PCCC funding question, certainly in the early days and I have no reason to doubt that and I suspect still. The funding comes form the pockets of the founding members, their supporters and other interested folk, no money has ever come directly from BA.

[pcat160]

Anybody think Unite, not wanting a strike, may have intentionally held a flawed election?

[LD12986]

I'm not going to second guess what will happen next. Something has to happen over the next couple if weeks and we'll know when any announcement is made, but the Unite leadership has evidently been caught between a rock and a hard place, a company that refuses to be kowtowed by militancy and recalitrant branches. Its reluctance to reballot was clearly in evidence when it pulled the rug under the "10.10.10" ballot announcement, thus denying BASSA a Christmas strike threat.

[Chuchinchow]

I suspect DH will carry on trying to push his troops across 'No Man's Land" into the face of oncoming fire from BA.

No, not at all.

My money is on the union leadership gathering outside the BASSAbunker at Bedfont FC (DH's greenhouse, if wet) and collectively swallowing suicide pills - tomato fertiliser for the vegans.

The Beloved Leader's last will and testament will place the blame for "the absolutely necessary, unfairly prolonged and glorious struggle with the reactionary capitalist lackey known as Willy Walsh, aided and abetted by his cruel and uncaring minion and sadistic slavemaster, BF" squarely on the shoulders of BA passengers, the Bailiff of Jersey and Hillingdon Council's dustcart drivers.

Yes, I know the last statement is totally ridiculous, but no less so than this entire sad, sorry and pointless dispute.

There is one person I do genuinely feel very sorry for, nevertheless, and that is a certain cabin attendant who lives in a largish town in mid-Kent. She fervently believes in the BASSA cause, and has fought valiantly for her principles. In her heart of hearts, she is no doubt feeling very let down and betrayed by her union leaders.

[ChicoG]

She fervently believes in the BASSA cause, and has fought valiantly for her principles. In her heart of hearts, she is no doubt feeling very let down and betrayed by her union leaders.

With all due respect, she should have felt betrayed by her union leaders the minute they said they were going to refuse to negotiate and cling on to power until the dispute was settled.

There's another senile, unpopular leader doing the same thing all over the news right now.

:E

[notlangley]

Baggersup - I really do like your prophecy._ It has a good ring about it.

My line of speculation involves the revised-final-offer._ We have not heard anything recently about the revised-final-offer.
All that follows is guesswork and I apologise for all errors and misunderstandings that I am about to make.

Those wishing to accept the final offer would have to prove that they had left Unite the Union._ CC89 members pay by direct debit, BASSA members pay by deduction by BA from the salary._ I guess that those who want the contract would be required to submit a copy of their bank statement that showed that no direct debit had been paid and that therefore they were not a member of CC89._ I further suppose that they would agree that copies of this bank statement could be passed onto BA’s solicitors and could be shown to other legal officers who "had a legitimate interest" (my layman’s words - showing my complete ignorance of legal matters)._ As proof that they were not a member of BASSA the member would also agree that a copy of his/her salary statement (showing no deduction for union membership) could be passed with a degree of professional confidence through this chain of legal officers._ Surely what we have here is a portfolio._ In some cases ex-union members receive ballot papers._ My guess is that members who wish to accept the revised-final-offer were told by BA to pass these ballot papers to BA’s legal team together with a signed (and witnessed?) note to say that they "Joe Bloggs" had received this ballot paper.

What a portfolio this has now become._ We can now extract from the portfolio a pretty-well-complete dossier of members who had incorrectly received ballot papers._ If it is just one or two, the solicitors will say "forget it, no organisation is expected to be perfect"._ But what if it is 200?_ How many members have applied for the revised-final-offer._ Notlangley doesn’t know, it could be 500, it could be 1500._ BASSA might well have made the mistake of keeping a couple of hundred ex-union members on their books.

It is no problem - a strike may be possible - just wait until 2013 to allow time for this to go through all the courts of the land - "what an interesting case" my imaginary lawyers say.

[call100]

Wow! fantasy world...Bank statements? Proof?
Anyway back to reality....One of the major reasons numbers don't tally (In any other TU branch) is that many people cancel their membership with the company by stopping deductions but don't tell the Union as they don't think they have to.
Because the deductions go to a central collection of the main Union it can take some time before things are sorted out and those who have not resigned in writing are spotted....

[Joao da Silva]

If they have not written saying that they resign, how can the union reasonably be expected to know this?

I would say that a reasonable person would accept that they are still considered a member in the union's eyes, until the non payment is spotted and communications establish the underlying intent.

Direct debits may be unpaid for a number of different reasons.

As to the revised final offer, I imagine that the person accepting it had to sign a short declaration that they were not a union member on the date it was issued.

[Wirbelsturm]

It seems all is not well in the BASSA camp.

Radio 5 Live at 10:00am.

Apparently there are some discrepancies with the ballot (all conjecture at the moment) and some question over unprotected IA and the cost liability to Unite. Questions are also being asked about the state of the BASSA branch book keeping which, to quote a business advisor, appear 'murky' at best.

As stated above, all conjecture but it might explain a little about the reticence to announce strike dates after their 'landslide' victory in ballot.

[fincastle84]

He's really on the ball on R5L. He's just been complaining about Mr Walsh being the macho CE of BA. I thought he left last month in order to run IAG!

[Joao da Silva]

The PCCC rep was made to lack credibility by McLuskey, due to the non transparency.

"John" was not his real name, didn't give more than an order of magnitude answer to membership.

They really need to come out and declare who they are.

McLuskey won that encounter 5-0, in my opinion, when he should have been beaten, as he is defending the indefensible at BA. :ugh:

[Litebulbs]

I would not be brave enough to say a 5-0 result. Half time at best. LM has made some strong statements. All the PCCC have to do is show who it is, with its committee, its member numbers and show due process in independence. If they cannot show this, he is 100% right. If they can.......

[fincastle84]

McCluskey made an absolute fool of himself by continually referring to the PCCC being a management tool. I thought that John spoke very well & obviously they will not reveal their identities because of the intimidation.

Well played John, you spoke very well.

McCluskey is floundering about calling a strike. He really is a total plonker. I'd use a stronger word but I don't also want to be banned from this thread.

He's now threatening to ban Balpa from the TUC. I'm glad that Joao supports him, I guess he's the only one.

[On Another Planet]

Listening to this on Radio5. Loved how BA are bully's yet when John points out some union reps are bully's Len laughs it off.

Also when John points out staff travel has been returned all be it with sanction's Len says no staff travel hasn't been returned.

[Joao da Silva]

fincastle84

I do not support him at all and he is arguing a fragile case, but he is being given a very easy ride.

So easy to swat the PCCC with allegations of being management stooges, because they cannot disprove this allegation.

Now you have alleged that I support McLuskey, so please read the last sentence of post #88, please withdraw this allegation, as it is untrue.

[call100]

PCCC missed opportunity.......They really must stop hiding behind the curtains.
I wouldn't join any organisation where the spokespeople stayed hidden using false names.....
If you are afraid of intimidation maybe you should review being a rep!!

[fincastle84]

I wouldn't join any organisation where the spokespeople stayed hidden using false names.....

The BA CC are contractually banned from commenting about BA in any pulic forum, that's why they don't give their real names. This has applied to both sides in the dispute throughout. It doesn't apply to DH because he is no longer a BA employee.

[PleasureFlyer]

Litebulbs

On the other thread you said "Now what has been greater so far, the cost of the action, or the saving from the headcount reduction?" I would think that in the short term the cost of the action was greater, however with new MF crew coming in, the reduction of headcount on legacy etc the long term savings will certainly be worth a lot more.

CC have delivered (although not without a fight) the savings that were being asked for and that is certainly now helping the bottom line as far as profits go - in conjunction with the savings that the rest of the business have made. Profits still need to be a lot higher though if BA are to invest in the overall product, new aircraft etc. The profit figures that were issued are not high enough to allow that to happen to any great degree.

[Wirbelsturm]

I love Lennys idea for the future! We need more manufacturing, we need more people employed, we need people off of the dole and we need investment in local services and the local economy. All good, worthwhile aims. So, how do we pay for it?

We tax the ar$e off corporations and thus drive them, like Pfizer, overseas and out of the UK. We tax the ar$e off the bankers, who are an easy target as long as you forget that they, through the tax system, bankrolled the Labour Government, and force them to Singapore,Geneva and Franfurt etc. In fact we tax the ar$e off every revenue generating company that sets foot in the UK. I wonder what Len thinks of the Irish move to maintain Corporate tax at 12.5%, one of the lowest in the EU, even after a catastrophic bail out? Odd that, could it be to entice investment to promote growth????? Surely not. The bloke is a stuck 1970's record, good to see he managed to get his old nemesis Thatcher in there, ever predictable.

Great plan Lenny, bring it on, then we can all live in the aftermath.

[call100]

The BA CC are contractually banned from commenting about BA in any pulic forum, that's why they don't give their real names. This has applied to both sides in the dispute throughout. It doesn't apply to DH because he is no longer a BA employee.

That does not preclude them from talking about the PCCC and certainly doesn't give a reason to hide...

[Litebulbs]

I do not disagree with you, but much as been said about Unite and Bassa rhetoric and the fight for survival is no different in my humble speculation.

The speculation being BA is still here, the cost of the action to date may have been more than any bottom line benefit seen so far for redundancy/part time and the new contracts. Long term profitability to become more cost effective against competitors is a standard business process.

[Chuchinchow]

That does not preclude them from talking about the PCCC

As the rise (for want of a better word) of the PCCC is a direct result of the BA cabin crew dispute I do not think that your argument is valid.

[Joao da Silva]

So, are you saying that an official of a recognised union cannot speak about that union?

[Litebulbs]

He is my leader and I was listening. I am a believer too. It takes two sentences to say it though.

Who do you count as his audience?

[Joao da Silva]

No, not for you Baggers.

I agree about McLuskey being rattled and he did clearly call 'John' a liar, but unfortunately he carried that one off.

As professional as 'john' was in approach, though, he was speaking under an assumed name and was not convincing on membership numbers - I found his 'thousands' response weak.

McLuskey was able to land some very hard hits, e.g. the management stooges attack, as the PCCC is still in the shadows.

Cheap points? Yes, but 5-0 or not, a clear victory in influencing general public opinion in my opinion and a regrettable one.

[Joao da Silva]

LB

I have always respected your integrity. Hopefully your new GS is worthy of it.

[MPN11]

Rats ... had to go out this morning, and missed the whole thing. Now waiting for BBC iPlayer to put the programme up, which is apparently "coming soon".

Interesting summaries above; that gives me a idea what to listen to carefully!

[Litebulbs]

As I said, some strong words were used, which will be widely reported to anyone who is interested in this dispute and the marker has been laid to the PCCC. We shall see.

[fincastle84]

The fun starts about 10.12. & it's a real classic. McCluskey really is a throw back to the 70s, only without the clout.

It's very obvious that at present the dispute has neither leadership nor direction.

Happy listening.:)

[Diplome]

baggersup:

While I agree that keeping the troops motivated is important, I do believe it is also important that Unite be able to communicate with the middle..those who are neither far left or right. Up to this point they have failed miserably in this task as far as the BASSA dispute is concerned.

In fact, if anything, they have raised the anger of the general public, damaged Cabin Crew's reputation, all of which does have a negative impact on their chances of success in this dispute.

As for the PCCC my opinion hasn't changed. Its time to come forth as true leaders to an alternative. Leadership isn't easy, that's why we have so many followers.

[Litebulbs]

While I agree that keeping the troops motivated is important, I do believe it is also important that Unite be able to communicate with the middle..those who are neither far left or right. Up to this point they have failed miserably in this task as far as the BASSA dispute is concerned.

Hammer, nail, head Diplome.

[Diplome]

Good afternoon Litebulbs:

While you are here I have a question. There has been talk of a "work to rule" effort by BASSA.

If the rumours that I have heard regarding the opinion of counsel are true this may be viewed by a central core of their membership as one of the few outlets left to have impact on BA.

Have you ever observed one these actions? Do you have an opinion of its chances for success.

What I have read leads me to believe that the Cabin Crew who took part leave themselves exposed to disciplinary action if they are not extremely careful...and with the smaller numbers now involved I see this as a potential danger to Cabin Crew taking part but its also an unknown area for me personally.

Any observations???

[Chuchinchow]

If BASSA members decide to "work to rule" it could be to British Airways' advantage.

At least there would be no quibbling by the employees taking such action over which passengers get hot towels, or whether or not the blinds should be up or down, or whether crews report for duty at the correct time, or deciding on how much rest time they are entitled to . . .

et cetera

et cetera

et cetera

Yes, I am looking forward to this no end. Bring it on! At least passengers, pilots, turnaround managers, crew scheduling could depend on things getting done.

[SwissRef]

If they do go down that route, then their IA seems to be:

1) Strike
2) Work to rule
3) ? negotiate perhaps?

Seems a bit backwards to me. Would have thought that a sensible route would be:
1) Negotiate
2) Work to rule
3) Strike

But that is just me....

[rethymnon]

len mccluskey = (innocent) smoothie?

[Litebulbs]

I have never worked to rule (I have been told it is too hard!). I know in one particular dispute a while back, the call was to work with lack of enthusiasm.

There is no point thinking of old ways; legislation has been in place for many years to curtail the effectiveness of industrial unrest. New thinking is required, in my opinion.

[Diplome]

I know in one particular dispute a while back, the call was to work with lack of enthusiasm.




Hmmm?? I wonder if that explains the negative reports regarding Cabin Crew on one particular route that we keep hearing about? Perhaps what others observed as rather poor and lackluster service by Cabin Crew was actually IA and no one got the word out to the SLF ;)

[RTR]

Work to rule would never be allowed and would probably be forbidden by the CAA anyway. There is a line between aircraft operations the CAA, the ANO (Air Navigation Order)and the airline's aircraft Operations Manual. ALL are 'bibles' and cannot be bought into any kind of IA or changed one iota. The crew must abide by every word written therein. No room for unions involvement in any of them.

[Ancient Observer]

I remember working in a very large factory when the maintenance engineers and their various helpers were working to rule.

The effect of the work to rule was that the managers, senior engineers and supervisors worked especially hard to make sure that the work was done, to rule, and to plan.

The maintenance organisation had never worked so efficiently and effectively. When the HR bloke got the work to rule ended, the Factory Director was very pissed off with the HR bloke.

The key point for Aviation is that if the managers et al want to make a work to rule work for the organisation, rather than the TU, it can be done, but takes a bit of work.

[Entaxei]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y2098/Victoria_Derbyshire_02_02_2011/ (http://Victoria Derbyshire)

An interesting point made by Len:

Making accusations about the PCCC being set up my BA managers. No proof offered of this but he contradicts this claim by saying "we've been trying to find out who they are" and "we don't know who they are".

Presumably the reason for Unite/Bassa trying to find out who are involved with the PCCC is either;

a) Idle curiosity.
b) To offer congratulations on joining the Union faternity.
c) Complain to the world at large that its unfair that they should do this.
d) Advertise their names and details, which could lead to intimidation - for
which of course BASSA would not in any way be responsible for.

I do believe that they are being very sensible in the manner in which they have commenced to set up the PCCC, despite calls by a number of posters, some of which are clearly BASSA trolls on the other thread and who display a very aggressive motivation against them.

They have done extremely well, as the frustration exhibited by BASSA etc. show. There is no legal requirement yet for them to provide any personal details, and they are no doubt setting into place the security needed for their personal protection as normal working CC.

It is of course, alway possible for those demanding that the PCCC come forward, to offer to be the public face of the PCCC as the main contact point, (subject to checking and suitability), with the attendant publicity, personal details, and office open to all comers.

The position may need a car protection officer/driver though and personal ex Marine or two as helpers, plus of course family and home protection squad. If anyone feels that this would be a bit dramatic, consider the rhetoric of BASSA at the Bedfont meetings, never mind some of the statements made on the BASSA forum!

Once again, they're doing very well, leave them alone to get on with it.:D

[MPN11]

Agreed completely ... those creating PCCC from the ashes have, it appears, something to worry about as far as some of their co-workers [I nearly typed colleagues] are concerned.

I have no difficulty whatsoever about them being 'on the dark side' until that day - oh! frabjous day! - when BA CC get something resembling a proper Trades Union to represent them.

My donation sits awaiting the appropriate moment.

[Diplome]

Entaxei:

I'm not sure what "leave them alone" applies to. I don't believe that anyone on this forum is bothering them.

They are part of the picture in this dispute and are open to the same discussion regarding actions as any other entity.

My personal feeling is that they should have someone come forth...its time.

...and as I've stated previously I would gladly write them a check to help their start up cause...or a cheque...:)

[call100]

Working to rule could be considered as IA and could be challenged in the courts as much as strike or any other action could be.
The accusations that the PCCC should stay hidden obviously comes from like minded timid creatures......I stick by what I said. If you want to be a rep you have to be out there. Being threatened and intimidated (attempted) comes with the territory. If they are genuine there is no reason for them to continue hiding.
If genuine, good luck to them. However, they must convince people of their commitment and direction.
As for all the other Politic rubbish talked on here, No one is going to change anyone else's mind on their political beliefs so it's all a bit pointless..

[LD12986]

Interesting to read BA's responses to Unite on staff travel, pay deductions and sickness on the CC thread.

The responses do appear to be a very comprehensive rebuttal of Unite's complaints and, contrary to the way BA management has sometimes been portrayed by Unite, it does seem that BA has sought to do everything by the book and be reasonable in the circumstances.

[Diplome]

Sigh..and I was just going to go and indulge in a good book.

Thank you sooooo much LD..looks like I'll do some reading of another sort :)

[LD12986]

That can't be to obtain an injunction can it? Unite hasn't announced strike dates yet.

[Diplome]

Hmmm...is there precedent for moving to restrain a union prior to the announcement of strikes based upon a faulty ballot?

[leiard]

In what appears to be an increasingly bitter battle, the British Airways plc v Unite dispute will go to trial at the High Court in March. BA is claiming damages in respect of the strikes in March last year.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=15&ved=0CEYQqQIwBDgK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lexology.com%2Flibrary%2Fdetail.aspx%3F g%3Df227d9df-8f85-4598-ad53-291732fbc7b3&rct=j&q=british%20airways%20plc%20v%20unite%20application&ei=bPxJTf3zO8TxsgbZp92NDw&usg=AFQjCNEmXWdbp29klbpAyUhENpYKVOHafA&cad=rja

[pcat160]

I believe BA has already been awarded legal fees as a result of Unites suit over imposition. Unite may be getting a little tired of pursuing BASSA’s agendas irrespective of Red Len’s ranting. Unite’s funds for legal activities may become a little stretched. I wonder how anxious Unite will be to pursue all the individual Industrial Tribunals and claims for pay.

[notlangley]

What does TLQ mean in TLQ/10/1012 - I understand that "10" means 2010

COURT 22
Before MR JUSTICE LANGSTAFF
Thursday, 3rd February 2011
At 10 o’clock
Non Jury List
TO BE MENTIONED
TLQ/10/0410 De Bono v Wellcare Nursing Home
Not before half past 10
APPLICATION NOTICE
TLQ/10/1012 British Airways Plc v Unite The Union
Not before half past 11
FOR HEARING OF APPEAL
QB/2010/0463 Wright v Island Homes Housing Association Ltd

[LD12986]

No news from the court today it seems. And it is claimed there is a "lock down" on the BASSA forum on the topic and the legality of the ballot in order to avoid prejudicing any litigation.

[61 Lafite]

BA strike on Royal wedding? Legal challenge launched to outlaw cabin crew | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353289/BA-strike-Royal-wedding-Legal-challenge-launched-outlaw-cabin-crew.html)

Some information here.

[Landroger]

Stuff Len and the rest of them - booked BA to ORD end of February - with luck it will be a strike day. :D And the icing on the cake is its 744 on the way back! :)

Roger.

[fincastle84]

And the icing on the cake is its 744 on the way back!

At the moment the icing looks like it's all over the place after their 2 ft of snow.:eek:

Bet it doesn't take a week to get ORD fully functional, unlike LHR! Have a good one.

[notlangley]

The travelweekly is not a source that I automatically look at, but nevertheless they say this
British Airways has denied a report in the national consumer press that it has launched a legal challenge to outlaw fresh strikes by cabin crew.
BA confirmed it has merely written to union Unite and to the body which oversees trade union votes, Electoral Reform Services, to express concerns about the recent ballot in which cabin crew voted to renew strike action.
A BA spokesman said: "All we have done is highlight our concerns about how the ballot was conducted. We are in dialogue with Unite and Electoral Reform Services."
The spokesman said BA was still in the process of trying to arrange a meeting with Unite officials to try to reach a settlement.

link (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2011/02/03/36002/ba-denies-legal-challenge-to-latest-unite-ballot.html)

[LD12986]

Regarding the latest ballot, none of the challenges should come as a surprise. We already have a legal precedent for the balloting of non union members resulting in an injunction and BA raised the issue of a new ballot being linked to the previous dispute over six months ago.

Why can't BASSA maintain an accurate membership database and why is Unite only seeking legal advice now?

Also, the smearing of the PCCC continues.
. LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

[Wirbelsturm]

Must have touched a nerve, that page is now blank.


A bit like the BASSA 'what do we do now' book.

[LD12986]

It works on my computer:

30th January 2011 - Read this and ponder

Four "little" statements for you to ponder that will have a "big" impact on your working life?
*
Source - Mixed fleet contract clause, British Airways mixed fleet contract.
*
"Collective agreements "in addition to the terms set out in this agreement your employment is subject to such contract terms and conditions and any changes and conditions (whether beneficial or less favourable) that may be agreed from time to time between the company and any trade union recognised by the company".
*
Source - "About the PCC" - PCC website home page
*
"Firstly, we are not a Union!"
*
Source - "About the PCC" - PCC website home page
*
We need 40% of the cabin crew community to register with us so that we can approach BA. Only then, with your support, can we hope to have a more positive, collaborative relationship with BA.
*
Source - PCC latest news - PCC website
*
"GOOD NEWS"!
*
The PCCC is now a listed Trade Union! The PCCC is now listed as a Trade Union with the Certification Officer in London (The regulating authority for Trade Unions in the UK).
*
*As a Union was are required to comply with the Provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act (1992), one provision is that we are required to keep full accounting records and must submit an annual report of its financial affairs each year.
*
"You can now tell everyone that you are now members of a Union - the PCCC!"
*
Hello.....can anyone see where this going?

[Chuchinchow]

Whatever happened to that nice Mr CCCP who used to submit such jolly and uplifting messages on the crew thread?

[Litebulbs]

Whatever happened to that nice Mr CCCP who used to submit such jolly and uplifting messages on the crew thread?

On a trip?

[Abbey Road]

On a trip?Smoking something?:hmm:

[Litebulbs]

Did you enjoy CCCP's contribution? I did.

[leiard]

I did.

At least he/she knew how many C's there are in "Professional Cabin Crew Council"

Unite's leader Len and the uniteba website have not managed to work that out yet!

[pcat160]

Lb, I think you are starting to enjoy this to much!

[ChicoG]

I would suggest that being asked repeatedly how a BASSA member goes about finding where their contributions are being spent has raised the spectre of that subject snowballing on other forums, so he's probably decided it's best to try and nip it in the bud.

:}

[Cough]

If you are after CCCPs' whereabouts - Look about and you will see a Banned symbol...

[BetterByBoat]

Probably gone the same way as the other CCCP did in the early 90s. Disintegrated in a political and economic mess ....

[Litebulbs]

Banned? I suppose we can all get back to agreeing with each other now.

[Joao da Silva]

Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky
Will it go round in circles
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky

Billy Preston

[MPN11]

OK ... back on Planet Earth, does anyone have a vaguest idea when we might hear a result on the High Court action?

Has anyone been tracking it 'on site', so to speak?
Does anyone yet know exactly what the case is, come to that?

[notlangley]

Life is a funny thing.
One day turns out to be unexpectedly memorable.
It was the very very last time that something happened.
Someone waiting for the Watford Employment Tribunal to rule that he can return in glory as a Cabin Crew Director is maybe even now leafing through his diary/filofax and he unexpectedly hesitates at the date Wednesday 9 June 2010.
Oh what joy!
Oh what fun it was!
What halcyon days!
Then it all ended.
In the diary is written "cabin crew strike ends today".
Will there ever be another strike?
Who knows?

[notlangley]

Sorry MPN11, we don’t know._ I have played with the idea that TLQ stands for Tribunal Legal Question - but an unsuccessful google search didn’t like that phrase._ So I don’t know._ I am unable to guess._ There were two tlq/10/ cases in Mr Justice Langstaff's Court on Thursday 3 February and the first one was the De Bono case which ended yesterday with compensation being agreed.

[MPN11]

Thanks ... the silence is deafening!!

That will be some time next week, then. :hmm:

[hellsbrink]

Obviously the court case didn't go as good as Bassa hoped or they would have been howling from the rooftops over a "success in their battle for trade union survival". BA has probably scored some more points, and that is why, with a week to go, there are still no hints regarding strike action.

[MPN11]

Exciting, isn't it!! :8

[LD12986]

The complete radio silence from Unite and enforced lockdown on the BASSA forum points to Unite thinking the impact of a successful legal challenge is far more serious than BA getting an injunction because Unite tripped up on a small technicality in the ballot process.

The question is why Unite only considering these legal issues now when it is in a potentially very precarious position.

[MPN11]

The question is why Unite only considering these legal issues now when it is in a potentially very precarious position.

1. Stupidity? No that's unfair.

2. A realisation that BA is actually, really, going to sue them out of existence? Possible.

I can't think of a third at the moment.

[west lakes]

it does beg the question of what due diligence did the Union carry out before expending members subscriptions on a ballot?
This expenditure, I think, will not have been solely subscription money from BA cabin crew but from all members!

[notlangley]

CCCP stands for Союз Советских Социалистических Республик.
CCCP studied Business Psychology and Russian politics.
He says that he is a Cabin Service Director at BA

[leiard]

Another Cabin Director

BA 'sacked man who took time off for union job' | News (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23920278-ba-sacked-man-who-took-time-off-for-union-job.do)

[Tigger4Me]

I've just Googled CCCP and on page 2 it offers the, "Christmas Coup Comedy Players."

There has to be a joke there somewhere. :hmm: Answers on a ballot slip please.

[Litebulbs]

it does beg the question of what due diligence did the Union carry out before expending members subscriptions on a ballot?
This expenditure, I think, will not have been solely subscription money from BA cabin crew but from all members!

Now that is a great question that you need to ask the average member. You pay £120 per annum (£200+ for Bassa) and you expect results like "I have got what I have got and nobody is going to change that, now deliver" It appears an amount of reps have delivered by loosing their jobs, for that £100-200 subscription.

[west lakes]

I was thinking more from the position of there being, possible, major problems with the ballot result, that could have been avoided had Queens Council advise being sought before the ballot!

We recently at work had to confirm our union membership to keep the books up to date. A recent ballot was found to have a problem, the union flagged it up prior to the result, the error would not have made a difference so everything was OK

[Litebulbs]

It would be inappropriate of me to comment on the Unite membership system, whether it is good or bad.

[west lakes]

I suspect it depends on the branch more than anything.

[AV Flyer]

It's now very clear to all.

Unite/BASSA didn't consult a Queen's Counsel last weekend because they wanted a legal opinion on their mandate to call a strike following their ballot result. Queen's Counsels cost serious money (especially over a weekend!) No, they consulted a Queen's Counsel (and heard the bad news they didn't want to hear) because BA filed an ex parte law suit for an injunction to stop them announcing strike dates following an allegedly flawed ballot (probably on last Friday). The case was heard yesterday (Thursday) in the High Court. So far both BA and the union have kept the matter very quiet. BA because they have never trumpeted their moves from the roof tops, Unite/BASSA through embarrassment at their incompetence and not knowing what to do next if asked.

[notlangley]

Thank you AV Flyer. _A convincing, a well rounded and most plausible explanation that leaves no loose ends._ But eventually Unite have to explain - they can’t just say cricket is a sissy game, we prefer to play soccer - they are paid to play cricket.

[MPN11]

Whilst agreeing with the above [and thanks from me to AV Flyer as well] I wonder whether errors made in balloting are of sufficient magnitude to "materially affect the outcome"?

Whilst personally having no truck with Unite/BASSA, I had a twinge of sympathy [which quickly passed] when McLuskey commented somewhere about BA's nit-picking. Whilst 100% accuracy on a postal ballot may realistically be unachievable, what degree of accuracy is actually acceptable/unacceptable in these cases?

If, of course, BA has been made aware of dozens/hundreds of misdirected ballots there may be a case for Unite/BASSA to answer.

[Litebulbs]

My thoughts on it would be to test it using the whole workplace as the measure.

Lets use 10000 as the total staff in the department. You have a ballot and 5001 support it, then I think that an error of 1 paper would be reasonable and so on.

I am probably in the minority in the union movement, where I think the proposed legislation should be changed to workforce rather than membership. I believe that this will be a benefit to the union movement. There is no point delivering a weak mandate in the 60-70% area, let alone below 50%. As I have said before, make the right to strike and action short of a strike legal and protected, but only on a very high vote result, say 85% of the total workforce in the affected area.

This will force people to join unions and vote if they feel that there is a relevant issue, rather than sit on the backs of others.

[LD12986]

No, they consulted a Queen's Counsel (and heard the bad news they didn't want to hear) because BA filed an ex parte law suit for an injunction to stop them announcing strike dates following a flawed ballot (probably on last Friday). The case was heard yesterday (Thursday) in the High Court.

Are we certain that the court hearing on Thursday was about the latest ballot? The reference number of the case was 2010 and it as a very short hearing.

[Landroger]

I will hold my hand up and say that on first reading, I was about to object to LB's post. Then I read it again - as, in my defence, I am wont to do - and realised that not only should I not protest his post, but should support it.

This will force people to join unions and vote if they feel that there is a relevant issue, rather than sit on the backs of others.

I guess there will be some who argue that this would infringe some right or other, but I can see exactly where LB would be going with this if he ruled the world. :) If you have an opinion, backed either by a union or you own wit, then you are obliged to express that opinion in a democratic process. Otherwise the 'answer' from any given ballot is largely bo11ocks, as I have hinted at in posts of my own.

Well said LB, my apologies for previous doubt.

Roger.

[Litebulbs]

Roger,

That rights infringement would be questioning democracy being 50%+1 and a mere majority. Can you be democratic with the requirement to have something more than +1?

[MPN11]

LD12986 ... indeed, we are of course plaiting fog at the moment. ;)

Litebulbs ... I see where you're coming from. As with political elections, it's a bit difficult to determine a true measure of opinion when you have a <30% turnout and 53% voted for the successful candidate. However, one stumbling block [of many] would be forcing union membership, and thus union dues, on individuals. The ECHR might be working on that one for decades! Or, indeed, having non-Union personnel voting on a Union matter.

[BetterByBoat]

Sorry AVFlyer but I don't agree with your assessment. I don't see how it benefits BA to stop this strike from occurring now. At present, Unite stand to be sued and any strikers BA want off the payroll sacked if Unite go on strike under the current ballot. Why would BA want to let them off the hook?

BA have already lost revenue from advance bookings and preventing the current strike action now will allow Unite to reballot, get the same result and we'll all be in the same position in a few months time. Unite will have hit advance bookings over the summer and have a valid strike mandate.

It would make much more sense if this did relate to the 2010 dispute and BA were seeking advice \ contemplating suing for lost earnings. This would be very different from seeking the injunction to stop the strike (which ultimately they lost).

[Litebulbs]

The first stumbling block would be for me to raise it at a union meeting!

Forcing membership is here today, because of legislation. You want to collectively negotiate and vote, you need to be in a union. What I am suggesting will not change that, but will require a stronger mandate from the workforce. If 49.9% are happy with the situation, then why allow 50.1% have their way? It will be about concessions on both sides of work. A right to strike, or action short of against a bigger percentage in favour of.

Obviously it would be naive of me to think that it would be simple. Business would just be looking for it to be harder for unions to call action, without anything in return. But that isn't very coalition.

Unionism and votes are currently only pretending to be democratic anyway. If you don't like the vote, you leave. I might not like the current Government, but I still have to abide by the rules, regardless.

[MPN11]

In other words, it's in BA's interest to have an unprotected strike and mass-produce P45s? Interesting hard-ball game.

Meanwhile, suing the pants off Unite for ... what exactly? Having a legal strike which cost BA a lot of money? I'm losing the plot here, somehow.

[MPN11]

Forcing membership is here today, because of legislation. You want to collectively negotiate and vote, you need to be in a union. What I am suggesting will not change that, but will require a stronger mandate from the workforce.

Ahhh, but I don't want to 'collectively negotiate' ... because I'm semi-detached, unmotivated, broadly content or whatever other reason. Unless it's a closed shop, which I believe is now illegal, there will be a percentage of the workforce who, for whatever reason, don't wish to engage in the process [just like with Elections].

The challenge is to make membership of the Union[s] a more positive thing, involving staff and management in constructive discussions for the benefit of both sides. Sadly, there are still some Unions who are actively anti-management, anti-employer and rampantly political ... which unsurprisingly will alienate [on current figures] some 66% of the employees who may hold different political views ;)

A nice theory, but I don't somehow see it working at the moment.

[Litebulbs]

Can't disagree with any of your points. I would say that comments about the political nature of unions, is not unique to them. You have the TUC and you have the CBI.

As I said, legislation dictates that any collective bargaining has to be on the back of a recognition agreement and there is a huge difference between negotiation and consultation. You are correct that some do not want to be part of a collective arrangement, but as one of my colleagues has expressed in many union meetings, give anything that has been gained over and above the non unionised areas within the business, to charity. There wasn't too much take up on that scheme.

[BetterByBoat]

"In other words, it's in BA's interest to have an unprotected strike and mass-produce P45s? Interesting hard-ball game."

BA have lost a huge amount of revenue over the last 14 months. So yes, I think an unprotected strike is in BAs interest. They wouldn't have to sack everyone. Just those they wanted to. An ongoing strike over the summer that never ends and continues to hit bookings isn't in BAs interest. But ironically, the strongest suit Unite now have is over the threat to strike hitting advance bookings rather than any great ability to seriously hit actual schedules.

"Meanwhile, suing the pants off Unite for ... what exactly? Having a legal strike which cost BA a lot of money? I'm losing the plot here, somehow."

The strike was never ruled legal or illegal. An injunction to stop the strike failed (despite the union not meeting the requirements of the law) but that doesn't stop any future action, especially if new information has come to light. It would make a lot of sense to sue Unite for the £125 million that BA openly said they lost. It would also open the doors for "legimate" sackings of hard core cabin crew extremists.

An agreement now that allows BASSA to stay and fight another day is not in BAs interest.

[MPN11]

Agree that last point completely. There is no way BA can function effectively with BASSA trying to cause disruption at every turn. I find it sad that it has come to that point, but I don't see BA having any option other than to completely emasculate a sub-Union which has signally failed its own membership.

Oh, well, interesting times ahead [as usual].

[BetterByBoat]

Perhaps I can turn the question around - how is it in BAs interest to stop an unprotected strike now which will lead to a reballot and a protected strike in a couple of months (which will hit summer bookings)?

This current ballot is almost certainly "invalid" - it is surely in BAs interest to have Unite and BASSA have an unprotected strike now rather than a protected one in a few months??

Or do you think that a reballot would bring a different result??

Note - I'm not saying I'm right. Happy to discuss and agree to disagree;)

[Betty girl]

BA have stated that they have NOT taken any legal action to prevent this proposed strike.

They have confirmed that they HAVE written to Unite and pointed out that some of the demands on the ballot are related to the previous strike and therefore would cause any more strikes to be unprotected.

They don't need to take legal action because if Unite's legal team agree, and it looks like they do, they would not want to risk BA suing Unite for the cost of the strike. It is not because BA want to sack crew, although that could happen if a strike went ahead under these circumstances, but it is about Unite not wanting to be sued by BA for the loses.

As usual Bassa have messed up and enabled BA to prevent this strike with very little effort. As time goes by more and more crew are seeing the light and realising they have been very badly led by Bassa and as a result their support is ebbing by the day.

DH and LM have caused permanent damage to both Bassa and Unite.

Quite frankly crew are all just fed up and want a settlement and if this offer was explained to crew properly by the union and not in the scaremonger fashion, it has been up to now, most crew would be happy to accept it and move on.

[BetterByBoat]

"It is not because BA want to sack crew" - disagree. I don't believe BA want to sack all striking crew. But if Unite handed them the opportunity to sack the "ring leaders" \ key extremists then I think they would take it.

As I asked above - why would BA want to stop "illegal" \ "unprotected" strike action now which only allows for protected strike action in a few months that hits summer bookings?

[Betty girl]

BBB,

Maybe they actually want a settlement!!

I don't believe BA want to sack anyone other than a few ring leaders. What they want is for this to be over and us to get back to business as usual.

I CAN see light at the end of the tunnel.

Things have changed at work and it is hard for both new Mixed Fleet crew and current WW and E/F crew but it will be possible for us to co-exist and in time all this will settle down, I truly hope.

If this strike dose not go ahead, I really don't think there will be any stomach from the majority of Bassa members, other than the die hards, for any further strike action. That's my view.

[west lakes]

Though is it not fair to say that a lot of the ring leaders are/have handing BA excuses to dismiss them without any help from Unite.

I did hear a very little whisper that BA are investigating the branch chair over the posting of a MF roster on the internet a while back

[BetterByBoat]

I just don't believe that BA have gone through 14 months of this dispute to settle now with little result other than thousands of embittered cabin crew (who have lost staff travel entitlements and salaries) and, more importantly now, with BASSA still in place.

Even if BA want an immediate settlement, stopping this strike by warning BASSA \ Unite about the legality of the strike makes no sense to me.

BASSA and Unite will just reballot?? And we'll have another strike in the summer which just drags this dispute out even further (and into the summer schedules)?? Or do you believe that a reballot will produce a different result??

Note the pre-conditions that BASSA \ Unite have before they return to the negotiating table is all their toys back ...... do you really believe that BA will cave in to these demands now ........

[Betty girl]

BBB,

We will just have to agree to have different opinions.

Speaking as someone who is right in the middle of this and has lived through the last 2 years working along side strikers and listening to all their rhetoric and reading and listening to everything BA has said, I personally feel that the tide is changing. Strikers are starting to openly criticise Bassa in a way I have not seen before and BA have always said that they want to settle this, all be it on their terms.

BA originally wanted huge changes to our working practices but have accepted that, for now at least, we can keep our current terms and conditions and have instead decided to achieve saving through Mixed Fleet. To date BA have actually got ALL the savings they were after from cabin crew with the introduction of Mixed Fleet and the crew compliment changes which also reduced the number of in charge crew on longhaul flights and reduced it to just one on E/F flights. These savings are ongoing year on year and will increase further year on year as current WW and E/F crew leave and Mixed Fleet expands.

BA don't need to do anything because they have actually, thanks to Bassa, achieved MORE than they had hoped for. If Bassa do ballot again BA will just take it on the chin again because they have all the savings they wanted plus more and eventually Bassa will lose the will to carry on and as I have said, I am seeing that online already.

Just my opinion.

[BetterByBoat]

More than happy to agree to disagree ... that is what debate is all about. :ok:

One point - please don't think it is only cabin crew that have been at the center of this for the last 2 years. The whole of BA have been dragged through the mud by striking cabin crew and I think that you may be a little too optimistic about the way things will pan out for those who continue in their thousands (5751?) to vote for strike action.

[AV Flyer]

To achieve a clean "win" to this dispute BA needs to have the existing BASSA leadership and its key militant reps ousted and replaced with more professional, constructive and mature minded people. Whether the CC's new form of union leadership continues under the name of BASSA or PCCC or anything else does not matter to BA. There is simply no other solution that could be acceptable to BA as without this BASSA would just keep acting up again and again spewing its entrenched vitriolic hatred of BA at every possible turn.

Frustratingly, BA can do very little to force this to happen as it can only be achieved by BASSA's members either voting in new leaders or voting with their feet and leaving thus permitting BA to derecognise what is left. Neither of which, until recently, have BASSA's members been very motivated to undertake. BA has had no choice but to sit by and watch as it is illegal for it to do anything, positive or negative, to encourage CC to leave BASSA.

As such it is very hard to say whether BA's strategy should be to attempt to block the currently threatened IA through either injunction or by warning BASSA of unprotected status (with or without implied consequences) and risk continued action later in the Summer or whether to sit back and quietly allow IA to go ahead and clinically sack any strikers or to pursue any other strategy for that matter.

As BA wishes to preserve its good public image by not taking the nuclear option, it really has no choice but to fight this battle as a war of attrition. As such, I believe its only option is to continue picking away at every opportunity with every weapon it has to hand at the time. This includes suspending misbehaving reps, calling injunctions to stop IA following flawed ballots, choosing not to negotiate on the reasoned basis that Unite/BASSA/CC89's proven dysfuntion makes this impossible, etc., while BASSA's current leadership slowly self-implodes.

A strategy that does appear to be working even though significant brand damage is being done and morale among CC is poor both of which I'm sure BA is already planning how to repair once this is over.

[notlangley]

BetterByBoat saidthose who continue in their thousands (5751?) to vote for strike action
Actually, unless Unite issues strike dates quite soon (the last day is next Friday) then the figure of 5751 will never again be achieved - probably less than 5000 if this vote to strike is unfulfilled.

BASSA will change or otherwise it will give way to PCCC - BASSA has an option to survive if it genuinely wishes to stay in business.

[MPN11]

Sorry, just eaten and Rugby about to kick off ... ;)

Betty girl is right ... for those who can remember what this was all about:

BA reduce LHR CC by one to match the LGW manning level - done.
BA introduce Mixed Fleet to save paying inflated legacy wages - done.
BA agree no existing T&Cs will be changed - done.
BA say ST will be withdrawn for strikers - done, then reinstated with limitations.

And BASSA wants what, these days? Do they even know? :ugh:

[LD12986]

Regarding sacking strikers, I genuinely don't believe would do this. It would be akin to pouring petrol on a fire that is about to go out. The reaction from the rest of the company, the union movement, the media and politicians and the public is a huge unknown.

If a strike is considered illegal, then the reps themselves could be exposed to gross misconduct charges, all dealt with under the company's disciplinary policy, rather than just being sacked.

[MPN11]

Agree again ... BA's primary objective is to be able to run BA efficiently, not to set off a series of sympathy actions [of whatever variety] from sackings.

I have no doubt that the embittered BASSA activists, spurred on by their SWP friends, will find their own way of achieving separation from the company that pays them with SLF money ;)


[off topic] Sorry ... it's half-time, Scotland v. France, and being reminded of what Rugby should be like instead of England's pathetic, stolid, set-piece travesty yesterday [/off topic]

[Avionker]

In relation to last weeks court case BetterbyBoat posted:-

It would make much more sense if this did relate to the 2010 dispute and BA were seeking advice \ contemplating suing for lost earnings. This would be very different from seeking the injunction to stop the strike (which ultimately they lost).

This would not have been possible if the offer, which Unite and BA had shook hands on, had been accepted by the members. Neither BA or Unite would have been able to take legal action for events which occurred during the dispute, due to the caveat contained within the offer.

The irony of course is that this very caveat was held up by BASSA and CC89 as one of the reasons that they couldn't recommend the offer to their members, and why a ballot was never held.

Own goal methinks....

[notlangley]

The figure of 13,500 cabin crew that I have been using is evidently unreliable, since it relates to December 2009No of BA Cabin Crew 13500 (http://bapress.custhelp.com , mid-Dec, I presume after the departure of those taking Voluntary Serverence)
24 January 2010 -link (http://www.pprune.org/5466354-post2865.html)

I also see that http://bapress.custhelp.com no longer exists - which diminishes the trustworthness of this source of information._ So my question is how many BA cabin crew qualify for membership of BASSA?

All that we can be sure of is that in Dec 2010 - Jan 2011 Unite balloted 10,200 cabin crew._ The often quoted figure of 2,500 for non-members is maybe nothing more than a plausible guess.

[RTR]

Betty GirlDH and LM have caused permanent damage to both Bassa and Unite.

Not to mention the Cabin Crew themselves. One of the most damaging disputes without meaning ever. If there was a case for putting two people in the stocks - it is they! Their utter selfishness and proven inability to guide BASSA is breathtaking. They have caused a massive let-down to all the CC whether some of them understand it or not. Indeed, if the TUC needed to disband a union for gross incompetence BASSA wins hands down.

[notlangley]

I have this 21 January 2011 quote from a British Airways spokesperson
"Of our 13,500 crew, only 43 per cent voted in favour of strike action in this ballot.
"Unite has lost about 2,500 cabin crew members since this dispute started, as crew have voted with their feet"

link (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110121/tbs-unite-ba-cabin-crew-back-new-strikes-327c223.html)
However the coincidence of 13,500 over a twelve month period when no staff are being recruited to Heritage Cabin Crew is a coincidence that is not entirely convincing.

[AV Flyer]

notlangley - Have you remembered to allow for all of the new Mixed Fleet recruits in your estimates of total BA cabin crew. I'm sure that BA will have included these in their 13,500 total cabin crew figure that they quoted on 21/01/11.

[Betty girl]

13,500 includes Mixed Fleet, WW Fleet, E/Fleet, SFGatwick and International cabin crew.

[Entaxei]

Every few days or so, reference is made to BASSA reps, out of curiosity are there any lists of such, detailing -

a. How many existed around August 2009 when this all really blew up.
b. How many have since left BA or BASSA for various reasons.
c. Do any unpaid voluntary ones exist, responding to DH's call a few
months ago.
d. Any appointed formally by BASSA since August 2009.
e. All current existing formally appointed Reps.

Is it not a requirement on Unions to always have publicly available a list of formally appointed Reps?

In addition, there appears to be a large degree of current information unavailable from BASSA which is required by law, including public accounts and branch meeting minutes, although possibly I'm looking in the wrong place for this. I am assuming that it is not feasible to access any up to date membership register, as this aspect of BASSA administration appears presently to be in disarray, is there any previous data/date known which was published and regarded as firm, 2009 perhaps.

Having posed the above current/potential problems and given the amount of trolling effort expanded recently re the source of PCCC funds - with the number of offers floating around on both threads to donate £150 to the PCCC, the question of where they will have obtained this sum from, will only become relevant, if at all, when they eventually are required to pay it.

In case of temptation - don't forget - play the ball

[Snas]

Entaxie, it is worth remembering that BASSA is not a union. It is a branch of Unite the union.

A number, if not all, of the legal requirements placed on unions therefore do not apply to this mere section but only the main union.

[Litebulbs]

As snas has said, the requirement is probably for executives of Unite, not lay reps: they represent fellow colleagues at a particular workplace.

It might not be palatable, but it is lawful.

And for the record, DH is a man that I respect, inasmuch as he was employed before the dispute, but now he is not. That is some sacrifice. It may not suit some, well, most on here, but fair play. Could I do what he has done?

BA and Mr Walsh have played a fantastic game. Bassa have tried to counter it. On the face of it and looking in as an independent, we are where we are.

[Entaxei]

Snas and LB -

Thank you for your information re Reps and Unites responsibilities versus a branch, I have to admit that I felt that it might be the case. However that then leads to a couple of follow on questions -

a) Presumably the questions that I posed in the previous post, now apply
to this information being required to be available from Unite - does
anyone know if it is?, would branch accounts be separate?.

b) I would assume that for its own branch members BASSA would still be
required, if only by custom & practice, to list Reps for the benefit of its
members, otherwise how else will they know who to look to with
problems.

c) BASSA, although only a branch, appears to have been able to
change its own rules and regulations in such a way, that branch
meetings and elections of officials are suspended until it declares
that the current dispute is over, also seems to be able to turn down
offers, independantly declare results of ballots, call for IA and declare
the dates on which IA will take place, behaving in fact as an
independant union. How is this? - does it mean that BASSA has
powers beyond that of a branch and therefore additional obligations.

It seems to be an nicely confusing labyrinth.

LB - Re DH, I have to admit that I do not share your view, but twould be
a grey place if all views were uniform. I would however note
that the 'sacrifice' does appear to be fully funded, both now and into
retirement at the end of the year.

There appears to be more twists available than a good murder plot!! ;)

[Litebulbs]

With regard to DH, we will shortly see the process and justification on his dismissal, if it is not settled. If we do get to see the case, then no doubt we will discuss to content outside of the legal verdict.

edit - after some advice and re-reading, what the above means is that I understand that DH will be taking BA to tribunal soon, over his dismissal. The ET will come to a verdict on whether the dismissal was fair or not. The facts will be presented and the ET will make a decision on whether BA was right to act in the way it did; whether the dismissal was in the band of reasonable responses. We will then make our minds up based on the facts and also discuss whether it was a reasonable response, based on the facts presented.

We will see all of this if the case is not settled outside of court.

[ChicoG]

One assumes that reps report both their BA and Union income, so that their tax codes can be adjusted accordingly?

(One assumes that because I can't believe the tax man wouldn't consider it "earnings" and already have taken care that they are getting their share).

[Betty girl]

Well notlangley,

I can only speak for myself but it is after the first ballot that I left the union realising that I was not going to be able to strike because I knew it was the wrong thing to do, so maybe other people felt like I did, I don't know.

[Litebulbs]

Would you carry out and support action short of a strike, if you were a union member, but voted against industrial action?

[vanmunchen]

With regard to DH, we will shortly see the process and justification on his dismissal, if it is not settled. If we do get to see the case, then no doubt we will discuss to content outside of the legal verdict.

edit - after some advice and re-reading, what the above means is that I understand that DH will be taking BA to tribunal soon, over his dismissal. The ET will come to a verdict on whether the dismissal was fair or not. The facts will be presented and the ET will make a decision on whether BA was right to act in the way it did; whether the dismissal was in the band of reasonable responses. We will then make our minds up based on the facts and also discuss whether it was a reasonable response, based on the facts presented.

We will see all of this if the case is not settled outside of court.


The Watford Tribunal heard the case last week.

[LD12986]

The Watford Tribunal heard the case last week. The Daily Telegraph had a brief report Friday saying he lost the case.

I don't think the Employment Tribunal has given its decision yet. I expect it will be weeks before we learn of the decision.

[just an observer]

Some of the reduction in crew 'numbers', so far as crew complements are concerned, in December 2009, and since, occurred because existing full time crew took part time. These and any other part time crew still have a 'whole' vote for or against IA, and presumably are better able to afford IA as they are clearly not the breadwinner of the family.

[LD12986]

This figure is obtained by subtracting the 10220 balloted in the most recent vote from the 12780 in the invalid vote twelve months ago._ Now there was something very wrong with that 12780 figure, because in the six weeks from 14 December 2009 to 25 January 2010 this 12780 dropped by a massive 1099 to 11691._ I do not believe that over one thousand members would have resigned from Unite in such a short time._ I can’t avoid jumping to the conclusion that most of these 1099 should never have been on the books._

Remember a lot of crew took (I think about 1,000) voluntary redundancy to allow the reduction in crew complements. The figure of 12,780 included crew who had left BA by way of voluntary redundancy, hence why BA got an injunction to block the strike.

Also, soundings are that the figure of 10,220 includes crew who have left the union.

At a rough estimate, BASSA and CC89 have lost at least 1,500 members during this dispute.

There may still be a strong alligence to BASSA (when this has been successfully cultivated by BASSA for decades it is not going to change overnight), but it has been weakened by a loss of members.

4,000 fewer crew voted yes to strike in the third ballot than in the first. That is a significant fall in support.

[Hotel Mode]

Thank you LD12986 for your intervention._ You are basically correct._ The grand total who accepted voluntary redundancy was 993._ The Court decided on 17 December 2009 that the last two instalments of these (amounting to 811) had incorrectly been sent ballot papers._ The consequence of this that the "2,500" figure needs to have 811 deducted plus a deduction for attrition of membership numbers._ Your figure of 1,500 "walking away" is a reasonable estimate - I would think of 1,200 which is so very similar to your estimate that I don’t disagree with your estimate.

Thats always assuming that the membership records are correct and Unite have 10200 CC members in BA. I've flown with plenty in the last couple of months who arent Unite members (and havent been for 5 years in one case) and yet got sent ballot papers for this last ballot and are thus included in the 10200. It seems to me that we (including Unite and BA) have no clue what the Unite CC membership is or how many have left.

[clocks]

Notlangley.

The "unnamed British Airways hack", " reckless statement by an anonymous spokesperson" quote you are talking about comes directly from Willie Walsh.

He wrote an article on 21st January published on the BA intranet under the news section to BA staff in response to the ballot result.

It is still there to see & the quote you highlight are his words, not those of an unnamed hack.

[LD12986]

There have been some (unsourced) suggestions elsewhere that Unite may have to do the ballot again because of the likelihood of a successful challenge to this ballot.

Aside from everyone possibly losing the will to live in the interim, if Unite considers that a strike cannot go forward because of non-union members being balloted, it would surely take weeks/months for BASSA to fix its database to be certain that there are no procedural errors. Also, the issue of protection/continuation will not go away under a new ballot

[Betty girl]

Litebulbs,
I left not just because I did not want to strike but because I could see that what Bassa was doing, was taking crew out over the WRONG issue. The main reason that Bassa wanted a strike, as far as I could see, was a vain attempt to protect the CSD rank on E/F and prevent CSD's on WW having to actually work on flights in the cabin during the inflight service routines. They had not negotiated in faith and were trying to get 767 longhaul work transferred to E/F in order to protect the CSD rank on E/F also.

I disagreed with all of this and whatever the action was I could not have supported it. Bassa have bombarded crew with misinformation and lies throughout this dispute and have said anything they could, to scaremonger crew into doing their bidding and thank God many are now starting to see the light.

Notlangley,

I think 'Just an observer' has given a good reason for all your figures not adding up as you would have liked.

As well as some taking VR, many took part time or were part time before they took VR or are just part time now. BA count people for total headcounts in parts, so 2 x 50% = 1 person and 4 x 75% = 3 people, so in that example 4 people on the total headcount of crew actually equals 6 voting people. Unless you know how many leaving were part time or how many have been given part time since the original figures, you wont be able to just add or subtract the figures accurately.
So I think you can't really compare the two sets of figures and equate it to anything understandable.

Hope that helps you understand why you are having trouble understanding the discrepancies in the figures.

[Litebulbs]

I have attempted to reply to you for the last 30 minutes and all that I can come up with is what a bloody mess, because the positions are so polarised within the workforce, regardless of what the management team are doing.

[pcat160]

It has been said on these threads that BASSA subs are paid by payroll check off. If this is correct and there are not other methods BASSA subs are collected then BA know exactly how many BASSA (not addressing CC89) members there are and who they are. From the CC89 web site : “National Officer Brian Boyd then addressed the meeting. He gave an update on the current legal situation which was welcomed by all. He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.” By simple subtraction BA know how many of the 8975 ballots were sent to non BASSA members. It is not rocket science if the assumption about how subs are collected is correct. Someone else will have to explain why BASSA can not figure it out.

[vctenderness]

It has been said on these threads that BASSA subs are paid by payroll check off. If this is correct and there are not other methods BASSA subs are collected then BA know exactly how many BASSA (not addressing CC89) members there are and who they are. From the CC89 web site : “National Officer Brian Boyd then addressed the meeting. He gave an update on the current legal situation which was welcomed by all. He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.” By simple subtraction BA know how many of the 8975 ballots were sent to non BASSA members. It is not rocket science if the assumption about how subs are collected is correct. Someone else will have to explain why BASSA can not figure it out.

It is accurate to say that all members of BASSA pay their dues by payroll deduction (there maybe the odd person that chose other methods) CC89 are virtually all on Direct Debit.

Your assumptions are therefor pretty good.

[Entaxei]

It has previously been said on a number of occasions, that the BA figures for payroll deduction cannot be correct in reflecting the total BASSA/BA staff membership, as a number of members pay by direct debit from the their bank accounts or credit cards.

Does anyone know if this method of payment is being used and although BASSA is by its title only concerned with BA CC, have they any members in other airlines, possible ex BA CC.

VC - Apologies, just found that my post crosses yours, which provides the answer. ;)

[west lakes]

It is accurate to say that all members of BASSA pay their dues by payroll deduction

A copy of those who do being regularly given to BASSA, as I recall, the inability (??) of BASSA to decipher the spreadsheet was one of their excuses in one of the court cases.

[AV Flyer]

Am I correct in thinking that the Union's monthly subscription fee is the same amount for all its members? If so can't the Union simply divide the total amount of subscription fees deposited to its bank account in any month by the amount of its monthly fee and come up with the number of members who chose to pay that month be they BASSA or CC89?

None of this is rocket science.............

[Litebulbs]

Members of the Bassa branch pay more per month than me.

[etrang]

It seems to me that we (including Unite and BA) have no clue what the Unite CC membership is

Doesn't BA deduct union dues from CC monthly salary payments? If so then BA knows exactly how may paying members there are.

[Litebulbs]

There will be the facility to pay by checkoff, but it might not be compulsory.

[vanHorck]

Is there an outcome yet in DH's tribunal and so what was the outcome? If not when is it due?

It will be especially interesting to find out how Bassa reacts, if they finally understand or if the will cry wolf once more...

[Sonorguy]

"It is not because BA want to sack crew" - disagree. I don't believe BA want to sack all striking crew. But if Unite handed them the opportunity to sack the "ring leaders" \ key extremists then I think they would take it.

As I asked above - why would BA want to stop "illegal" \ "unprotected" strike action now which only allows for protected strike action in a few months that hits summer bookings?

I think that course of action would result in problems if any of the extremists or ring leaders went for an ET. It would have to be all the strikers or none realistically.

[dubh12000]

Just as an aside, email from the BA Exec Club just now:

I realise that there may have been some uncertainty around your travel plans during recent months or indeed you may have been hoping to make a booking during the dates affected by Unite's strike action.

To avoid any concerns you may have had about losing your status and to reassure you of your value to us, we have renewed your Gold membership for another year.

Have not flown with them once in 2010.....

[vctenderness]

Doesn't BA deduct union dues from CC monthly salary payments? If so then BA knows exactly how may paying members there are.

I refer you to the answer I gave the honourable members a short while ago.:ok:

[MPN11]

I see from the CC Thread that some Union bloke will be spouting on the Politics Show tomorrow :yuk: ... I am just so excited by the prospect of hearing something meaningful that I may go and prune some roses.

I doubt very much he will have anything to say, other than the usual blather about "BA Management", "Imposition" and other things written on his little cards of 'things to say when interviewed by the Meeja'.

Days to go Len?
Very few ... so what will happen then?
:mad:

[notlangley]

Len McCluskey is going to be on the Daily Politics show on BBC2 at noon tomorrow (Tuesday 8th).
No doubt he will be complaining that as a hard hitting batsman he is togged up in his best cricketing gear - white pads, studded boots, formidable leather gloves, tough helmet etc.
Whereas those absolute rotters BA have insisted that he plays Water Polo.

[LD12986]

If Andrew Neil is interviewing him, he will not get an easy ride.

[MPN11]

If Andrew Neil is interviewing him, he will not get an easy ride.

OK .. the roses can wait :cool:

[MPN11]

Dear Baggers, I'm sure someone will post the iPlayer link that you're not allowed to watch [as a non-Licence payer] ;)

[west lakes]

Flying with BA to the Caribbean next weekend and back the weekend after. am I worried - NO

[notlangley]

baggersup saidAlas we "cousins" over here will have to go without viewing the program with Mr. LM tomorrow, and will miss any breaking news he might have on offer.
Chances are LM will just say "there will be an announcement later this week" and then stone-wall any and all supplementary questions.

[R2D2-LHR]

Nothing missed, he waffled on a bit about his members, Andrew Neil mentioned he was voted in by only 7% of Unite members and that was really about it. and LM gave his view on bankers bonuses and the use of social media.

All very boring.

[fincastle84]

I think that Len's interview with Andrew Neil was most enlightening. He was obviously totally unprepared to discuss BA. That can only mean that they have now realised that there is no way of pursuing IA as a result of their flawed ballot.

The Bassa membership aren't going to be at all happy.:{

[Mariner9]

Still too early to say IMHO. Unite have till Friday of course, and delaying the announcement till then will prolong the dipute for the maximum possible time, to the benefit of certain senior BASSA members (but no-one else :ugh:).

I think that there will be an announcement either way on Friday. BASSA are seemingly desperate to strike regardless of both the dangers to their members and the utter pointlessness of it all, so my money is still on a strike announcement come Friday.

[notlangley]

The presenter and question-asker was Andrew Neil._ Not one word about cabin crew or BASSA or BA or airlines was mentioned by either AN or LM._ I have no reason to suppose that this was a condition of Len McCluskey appearing on the programme._ However had there been such condition then this would explain the no mention of the topic._ It would also be consistent with LM’s relaxed and confident mood throughout the entire programme.

I did record the programme, but have now deleted it.
__________________________________________
Edited to add AN asked LM about strikes during Royal Wedding - AN rapidly attached a whole range of organisations i.e. an unfocussed question._ As a reflex action LM brushed this aside as being a decision of members and not a decision of Unite.

[PleasureFlyer]

breaking news just seen on SKY, that UNITE are going to declare the ballot invalid...

So where does that leave BASSA (apart from self destruction...) ?

[WillDAQ]

I fail to see how any number of re-ballots will provide them with a result which includes legal protection.

The very fact that the strike mandate came from a ballot that had to be reworded so that it didn't include issues related to a previous strike, links the new ballot to previous industrial action, making any strike illegal.

BASSA have blamed so many people and raised so many 'issues' in the past two years that there's nothing left for a clean protected strike.

So I guess plan B is an unprotected strike... lets see how that goes.

[Mariner9]

This wont change much, if anything an increased pro-strike majority (of those balloted) is likely. The next ballot will probably return a similar number of yes-voters, a reduced number of no voters (as some may have followed DH's helpful advice and left BASSA) and a reduced number of non-voters (assuming BASSA actually bother sorting out their membership list).

[fincastle84]

Bizzarely, this makes more sense than it should!

For once Baggers, I beg to disagree. Bassa/ Unite have been shown to be totally incompetent which is very embarrassing for Unite's new leader. Len will NOT be happy.

I agree that they will run another ballot but I don't think that they'll be in a great hurry. After all it costs a few £1,000s to run it properly, & even more to make a complete Horlicks of it.:ugh:

[west lakes]

In the other place

http://www.pprune.org/6231752-post2901.html

[Richard228]

you could not make this up....!

re-arrange the words

piss-up BASSA arrange couldn't a brewery in a

For how long has it been clear to all and sundry who care to look into the detail of this that it would be unprotected... and only now, 3 days before the time limit expires does the union care to tell its members.

shameful representation.

[fincastle84]

My theory assumes there is a cunning plan

..................................& that cunning plan is?

Having read Len's missive on the CC thread it looks as thought the next ballot will also ultimately be declared illegal. It's like watching mice on a treadmill.

[drew3325]

Whatever next - so this time its the fault of the ERS not BASSA, not Unite. tum tee tum. If Unite/Bassa were so confident that it is just British Airways interpretation that the ballot was invalid and that the strikers wouldnt be protected why not trip along to the High Court and contest it....Or perhaps the legal coffers are so empty after last year..........One wonders what can be balloted on for industrial action next....could it be "MF have hats and we dont" - thats discrimination.!!!!!! All out.......I wonder if the delaying tactics are that it is not Tomato Growing season yet and DH would have little to post about until such time that it is......

[davidexba]

Shameful, Desperate.

[mrpony]

Truly and completely unbelievable spin and tosh from Len.

What are the Bassa faithful going to do now? I really can't believe that 5700 people will still be willing to vote on the advice and with the leadership of DuncLen. I've read all the groupthink theories and mob mindset hypotheses and the only thing left by way of explanation to myself is that they are just too stupid to see the truth.

Has anyone got a better explanation?

[mrpony]

baggersup

It's a sad situation. By this time I expect pride has become the biggest fly in the ointment. Whilst it would be clearly be impossible for DuncLen to back down perhaps this latest balls-up will convince enough of the remaining Bassa membership to leave and make the dysfunctional 'rump' that's left small enough to be ineffectual, and ultimately derecognised. It would only take a few thousand more to up sticks and Bassa would be a memory.

[Joao da Silva]

The long duration of this dispute is informing that trust has broken down between the company and a large section of the workforce.

Until that is fixed, this industrial saga will run and run.

The union can keep the pressure on with the uncertainty of strikes and the company can use legal interventions to try to prevent them.

What we do not know is the impact of this on IAG's financial objectives.

But one thing is for sure, I won't be booking flights on BA whilst there is a risk of a strike, as I cannot really justify taking any risks (e.g. the short haul connections, which are more vulnerable to disruption than the long haul flights), when other airlines are running normally.

I wonder how many other people are taking the same view?

[MPN11]

But one thing is for sure, I won't be booking flights on BA whilst there is a risk of a strike, as I cannot really justify taking any risks (e.g. the short haul connections, which are more vulnerable to disruption than the long haul flights), when other airlines are running normally.

I wonder how many other people are taking the same view?


Honestly not bothered, Joao ... although I do recognise that some SH sectors may be affected.

Personally, we flew for leisure through "Strike 3" and "Strike 4" last Spring with minimum inconvenience and, apart from a skip-load of rescheduling, our SH and LH sectors all happened as planned. I have long since reinstated Company travel with BA.

I have forward bookings with BA [LH and connecting SH] up to late Oct, and I'm not in the least bit concerned. However, I will accept that some routes may be more vulnerable than others.

[RTR]

McCluskey's missive is just like a Hippopotamus with diorrhea! When they bring forth they use their tail to splash it all over the place just to mark their place in the water and its surrounds. McCluskey is clearing a fool who spouts like a winner but is a loser. We know it and he knows it.

He must be seething that BA have made him look like a total twit, which is why he has written such BS rubbish - in a tone trying to set out his legless stall. How does he see DH now? Because that poor excuse for a Bassa general must give him the creeps - if it doesn't it should.

His absolute twaddle only goes to prove what everyone knows, but IF Andrew Neil did accede to a McCluskey's condition not to mention BA or BASSA I would be surprised. AN does not usually fall in with that kind of tosh ......but you never do know!!

[fincastle84]

But one thing is for sure, I won't be booking flights on BA whilst there is a risk of a strike, as I cannot really justify taking any risks (e.g. the short haul connections, which are more vulnerable to disruption than the long haul flights), when other airlines are running normally.

I wonder how many other people are taking the same view?

Sorry old chap but I totally disagree. Like MPN11, I have flights booked up until October & will be booking LHR-CPT when I return from Grenada next month.

Bassa/ Unite are thrashing around in a very smelly cess pit of their own making. I don't think that BA/ IAG will be too worried about the result of any future ballots.