BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions V

[Ancient Observer]

mrpony,

I would be interested to know the real percentages of
1. Dedicated, customer service oriented staff versus
2. Deluded, entitlement oriented self important staff.

Clearly, the BA CC posters on here want to get on with delivering great service.

Where are the others? On the bassa website?

Also, another number that would be interesting.....

Of the "Let's strike" voters, we know that only about 40% would actually strike if asked to.
How many of them are the part-time hobby jobbers? How many of them are full-time "I need the money to pay my bills" people?

I might respect the second group taking Industrial action, but not the hobby-jobbers, who just use the job to fund drop head BMWs and this year's Wimbledon tickets.

Anyone have any decent estimates?

[mrpony]

Tks for that. V. interesting and memory-jogging. An armitage shanks defecation interface indeed!


And this for poster Hula on the CC thread.:ok::ok::ok:

[BBOWFIGHTER]

I enjoyed an evening with two friends last night who both work for BA one is a CC the other an engineer. One fired off mail to Len McCluskey to question the outrageous rep/s who used, once again, a period in modern history in an attempt to assert BASSA's determination - this case it was 'KristalNact' - a worse case would have been most difficult to imagine. He asked L McC, without going into specifics, what he thought of Unite being bought into disrepute. I saw the mail he sent and it was well written and something for LMcC to respond to - or he should have done but didn't. As he heard nothing he asked again - nothing. Then we see that LMcC has spat forth some drivel about the strikes and the reps will be at "negotiations for the first time in a year."

How? Holley and his gang of nasty sidekicks will NOT BE ALLOWED TO NEGOTIATE? BA are bound to exclude them - they are sacked! But lets assume UNITE know that. It will be most interesting if the meeting happens without the Chairman (well maybe her) but not Holley who has caused this ridiculous situation.

What I see, and I am sure I am not alone, is that BASSA and Unite truly believe that they have a platform to stand on when the one I see has woodrot and has crumpled to a point where it will support only a few people. Then it will be seen that many of those would not dare to venture onto it and fall into the mire that BASSA made for itself and - them.

The bluster that Len McCluskey uses is of course typical of his idols of the 70's but has no place in British unionism today. Will he learn? I doubt it.

[iainar]

When first I started work, an electronic engineering apprenticeship with a prominent equipment manufacturer in the mid-sixties , there was still very much 'a job for life culture' - nothing would change. The company was run by tradition. We're British, we're the best, the customer will come to us we told ourselves. The market served was global, both commercial and government agencies (cost + whatever it cost contracts). Competition was limited. Life was good.

I'm old enough to remember the industrial unrest of the 60s & 70s when strong unions told weak managements how it would be. Unfortunately for these two squabbling parties , their members and the employees, the 'eye was off the ball'. The product was poor, in some cases exceptionally poor. In concept, design and execution - be it service or hardware. Competition from the Far East was growing at an outstanding pace with a completely different culture and attitude. British companies merged or were taken-over in an attempt to protect and strengthen their markets. Today, none of these businesses exist. Vast numbers of people went through the trauma of redundancy.

I did most of my business travelling in the 70s & 80s and one could see the same thing happening with the airlines. Singapore Airlines was THE carrier whenever possible. Thai and Malaysian airlines could be pretty good too. At the time there was only one prominent British carrier (although others were growing), BOAC/BEA, who then merged and re-named British Airways. Unfortunately they had the 'we're the best take it or leave it' attitude. As regards other 'Western' airlines there are some that were household names and aviation pioneers at that. All gone. I suspect younger staff in the airline industry may never even have heard of them.

Sad? Yes, but all part of evolution. Nothing is forever. For an organisation to survive it must be acutely aware of its environment and capable of responding to the climate in which it finds itself. By 'Organisation' this includes management, employees and unions. All working for the common good of the 'organisation' with an eye on the ball that matters. Failure to achieve this at any level will inevitably lead to failure of the organisation. Whether the culture, attitude, operating and or social principles of the competition are right or wrong is immaterial, that's the competition.

Can British Airways survive this Cabin Crew dispute? Undoubtedly it can. Will it continue as the British Airways it was before? No. It is already in the its second corporate merger process with more possibly to come. Whether this is Deja Vu or evolution in favour of the company, as always, time will tell. Getting to grips with operating costs in order to compete in this type of market is a long term quest, the results of which will only be known years hence.

To me, one thing is clear. It will not be successful in these enterprises without mature, positive and forward thinking contributions from ALL the workforce.
My despair is that once again we see a section of trade-unionism self-destructing regardless of the damage caused, in particular to its own members. But I suppose that's evolution for you. Or is it Deja Vu?


Tapas anyone?

[AV Flyer]

The dynamics that exist going into these so-called 'negotiations' couldn't be any more dysfunctional if someone had deliberately made them up. If the current level of dysfunction will even allow the parties to bring themselves to engage - which will, no doubt, be revealed shortly.

We have a so-called 'dispute' over an entire laundry list of specious, ill-defined and fuzzy issues that cannot be definitively described or much less negotiated because the real issue is that of a power-struggle over who controls IFCE's operations that neither BA, Unite, BASSA or CC89 can publically admit is the one true reason.

We have Unite, who has responsibility for negotiations with BA and who has ultimate say on whether IA is called or not but not whether the 'dispute' is resolved and whose General Secertary is using '70s tactics as the only tricks he knows while desperately hoping he appears to be in control in his new job for which only 15% of his members actually elected him.

We have BASSA, who has ultimate say whether the 'dispute' is settled or not but not whether IA is called but whose General Secretary and several key Reps are either on suspension or have been dismissed from their employment (allegedly for engaging in gross misconduct related to the 'dispute' and so far upheld by any ETs) and thus under BASSA's own rules are no longer eligible to be BASSA members let alone executives with negotiatory responsiblilities.

We have CC89, whose position and responsibilities should be identical to those of BASSA but holds an irrational hatred of BASSA and can't bring itself to work with them in any way.

Then we have BA who cannot admit that their only reason to 'settle' would be if either BASSA's current leadership or BASSA itself, as the representative union for the CC, is deposed and replaced as any settlement would simply preserve BASSA's disruptive power into the future. Having gained all the power, and at great cost, BA will not budge until either of the above happens as it simply cannot allow itself to capitulate or relinquish anything now having come so far in such a painful manner and would also be grossly unfair for everyone else involved with the company who has had to endure the unpleasantness.

In the middle of all this are a minority of the CC themselves who, in spite of having had no reduction in their Ts & Cs, continue to vote for IA (even though less that half of this minority would ever take action) because they have this 'bad feeling' that they have been hard done-by (and might be even harder done-by in the future) despite being made an excellent offer, including guaranteed pay rises few others have been offered, and told their future livelihoods will be protected - which is more than just about any other person currently in gainful employment on the entire planet has right now!

Finally we have the truth that BA holds all the cards, and knows it, while Unite, BASSA & CC89 are all on their backs blustering away in complete denial and misguidedly believing they hold any power whatsoever.

Feel free to contribute if I missed anything!

AVF

[glad rag]

Shut the operation down on a Friday start re-hiring Monday.

Simples.

[LD12986]

AV Flyer - That pretty much sums it up. Whatever BA gives it will never be enough for BASSA and CC89. They have lost power. They will continue to lose power. They will never give in.

[MPN11]

Eloquently expressed, and you have saved me trying to compose something in similar vein. I'll play it in a different form, drawing on your excellent analysis ...

The Cause ... is weak, ill-defined and petulant.
Unite ... remains in the grip of 1970's Trades Unionism.
BASSA ... I find it hard to find words suitable for Public expression, but I'll go for Leadership self-interest as a catch-all: along with disgusting behaviour and childish rhetoric.
CC89 ... could possibly have helped. Why didn't they?
BA ... has finally almost recovered control of the Company after decades of concessions. There can be no turning back if the Airline is to survive in this decade.


Then there are the CC. I will not insult any of them by trying to generalise, as they are many different people with different motives and/or aspirations.

Full-time or Part-time
Primary earner, or needing to supplement family income, or "Hobby job".
All the different 'Fleets' and bases.
Different aircraft types.
Favourite [or otherwise] routes.
Different pay-scales and T&Cs.


It's a mess, jointly created by BA and the Unions since privatisation. And it has to be sorted out. The fact that BA has said existing T&Cs will be maintained apparently holds no sway with some existing staff ... they either refuse to read what BA says, or disbelieve anything BA says.

So, the 5,800 "Yes" voters have spoken, or at least made noises about 'sending a message to BA'. I'm sure the courage of their convictions, and unswerving support for BASSA, will be reflected by the way a substantial percentage will report to work as normal if a strike is approved. And that is where I find it difficult to accept their posturing and general behaviour. You want to strike? Go ahead and do it, but don't keep making meaningless gestures by ticking the "Yes" box if you don't have the intelligence to work out what you're actually saying, and lack the courage to follow up with the action.

In this area I actually agree with Mr Holley ...

If you voted "No", then walk away from the Union that is mis-representing you, and has lost legitimacy through it's fiddling with rules to keep Holley in place and he's being funded with your money.
If you voted "Yes" to strike, then bloody well do it and have the courage of your supposed convictions.

You will, of course discover that BA will operate without you, and the SLF actually won't miss you.

... and [breathe] [/rant]

[Litebulbs]

Are we talking about trade union collective power (Unite) or the power of the individual to have an input to working conditions?

If it is Unite power, then they came to an agreement with BA on a deal. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if an open vote (no recommendation) would have happened, but we will never know.

How much did individual power affect the passenger prior to this dispute and how often? If the dispute was settled tomorrow, I get the feeling that many that contribute to this thread would still not be happy. These 6000 potential strikers would still be in employment, so there is a big chance that they will be there for some time to come. Surely you want them to be happy at work, because that is what you will experience as passengers, not their terms and conditions.

[pcat160]

First let me say that was a great post. I think it reflects the thoughts of many pax that visit this site. Unfortunately the fact remains that the rabid dog will continue to bark and try to bite as long as 9000 CC continue to feed it. These 9000 will continue to receive the representation that they are paying for and that they deserve. We pax will, as another poster put it, continue to experience a percentage of grumpy crew and inconsistent service.

[MPN11]

Hi, Litebulbs

Are we talking about trade union collective power (Unite) or the power of the individual to have an input to working conditions?

No problem with sensible inputs, I'm sure. But surely existing CC have their T&C protected anyway.

If it is Unite power, then they came to an agreement with BA on a deal. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if an open vote (no recommendation) would have happened, but we will never know.
Indeed. Union power seemed to have pulled the plug on that agreement. Strange.

How much did individual power affect the passenger prior to this dispute and how often? If the dispute was settled tomorrow, I get the feeling that many that contribute to this thread would still not be happy. These 6000 potential strikers would still be in employment, so there is a big chance that they will be there for some time to come. Surely you want them to be happy at work, because that is what you will experience as passengers, not their terms and conditions.

Ahhh ... there's the nub of the problem.

Individual CC power may, or may not, have affected the quality of service [or indeed competence or courtesy] in recent years. We will all have a view on that, I'm sure.
Do I want them to be 'happy at work'? Actually, I don't give a sh1t. I pay for my ticket, I expect to get what it says on the box. I'm not in the business of paying money to make BA staff happy.

Let me tell you a tale.
In my mid to late 40s, I was also unhappy at work. I had enjoyed a very successful career, but I felt undervalued. I was largely ignored as a human being ... I was just "office equipment" as far as my superiors seemed to view me.
So what did I do? Did I kick and bitch at the structure that paid me a good salary? Did I deliberately undermine the workplace, or fail to do what I was paid to do?
No ... I left, to do something else that gave me job satisfaction, and at the same time put me in a position where I was recognised as someone who 'added value'.

I gave up a 30-year career. Perhaps those who complain so much about working for BA could consider a similar move? Then the SLF wouldn't have to be cared for by people who clearly don't give a sh1t about the paying punters? It's not a Charity donation, it's a salary for doing the job ... and the existing CC have their existing salaries protected.

BASSA does not run BA any more. Simples.


Sorry if that's a bit hard-ball, LB, but I needed to say that. ;)

[Litebulbs]

Not hard ball at all and all valid points, but I would suggest that you are talking about the extremes, rather than the majority.

If you take out all other factors, then seeing a new fleet of employees on minimum wage plus expenses, when you are either above or a long way above that position, will bring a certain amount of fear for your future. That will be the majority position. There will be some who are at the very top, who will be fearful of far more than that, but it is the majority who count and it will be the majority that will decide the end to this.

As to a career change, if you go from one profession to another, but retain a package broadly the same, then all well and good. The elephant in the room here, is that you will have a large number of employees who are type cast to the current job and ALL of its benefits and whose most recent training has been solely for there current job. To take those skills to an equivalent UK based employer will in all probability lead to a pay cut.

So to put it simply, BA crew are paid on the face of it, above the market rate for the role in the UK and their employer has introduced new employees below this. If it was me, I would be worried and be striving for watertight guarantees. Whether they are achievable is the discussion point.

[AV Flyer]

Having started to take back control for IFCE operations, BA management now has no choice but to start doing the job it should have been doing all along and for which its neglect led to this sorry situation in the first place.

BA's choice not to take the dismissal/SOSR route means that it now needs to start working with its current WW LHR CSDs, PSRs & CC to create together and implement appropriate crew performance management procedures, etc., such that the consistent high customer experience that it is going to need to compete with other WW airlines in the years ahead is reached and maintained.

There will be much resistance and friction along the lines of "Windowsgate", etc., but BA has no choice having taken back the reins to now inspire and lead its CC into delivering new and higher levels of in-flight customer experience.

If BA management does not step up to the responsibilities it has recovered then the LHR WW CC will be in a vacuum and will rapidly regress back to the prior situation.

AVF

[BetterByBoat]

Sorry Litebulbs but any professional who is grumpy with customers because they have a grudge against their boss isn't a professional. Perhaps that is part of the problem - they just aren't suited to customer service roles.

"So to put it simply, BA crew are paid on the face of it, above the market rate for the role in the UK and their employer has introduced new employees below this. If it was me, I would be worried and be striking for watertight guarantees. Whether they are achievable is the discussion point."

This, Litebulbs, is a smoke screen. The original dispute (from which all other disputes arise) was about imposition and "No negotiation". It is a sad sign of the mess that this dispute has become that Cabin Crew seem to have forgotten what it was they started striking about.

[Litebulbs]

I don't know if it makes a difference, but striking was a typo and I have changed it to striving.

[MPN11]

Not hard ball at all and all valid points, but I would suggest that you are talking about the extremes, rather than the majority.So much has been extremes, hasn't it! ;)

If you take out all other factors, then seeing a new fleet of employees on minimum wage plus expenses, when you are either above or a long way above that position, will bring a certain amount of fear for your future. That will be the majority position. There will be some who are at the very top, who will be fearful of far more than that, but it is the majority who count and it will be the majority that will decide the end to this. i can understand that ... but nothing in life is ever guaranteed. The futility I see in this is that BA are NOT changing existing T&Cs, they are just recruiting the successors on newer, cheaper terms. period!

As to a career change, if you go from one profession to another, but retain a package broadly the same, then all well and good. The elephant in the room here, is that you will have a large number of employees who are type cast to the current job and ALL of its benefits and whose training has been solely for there current job. To take those skills to an equivalent UK based employer will in all probability lead to a pay cut.Ahhh ... type-cast indeed! There's another issue!! That's what happens when you embark on a full-time career with no other external options. That's what MF is designed to allow - a few years travelling with work before settling down.

So to put it simply, BA crew are paid on the face of it, above the market rate for the role in the UK and their employer has introduced new employees below this. If it was me, I would be worried and be striking for watertight guarantees. Whether they are achievable is the discussion point. Yes, over-paid by Industry standards, and expecting guarantees that simply aren't going to be offered in the 21st Century. If any BA CC can produce documentary evidence that says "You have a job for life on your existing pay rates" I'll willingly be amazed.

The World changes. HMG is now about to prune the Military to un-heard of levels, and making redundant the very people whose lives are on the line in 'Stan. The majority of those signed up to do 22 years [if they got promoted far enough, and lived long enough] ... they may not now get to do the 22, one way or another.

You will understand that I really don't have a huge degree of empathy with those senior CC who expect to remain in post, on fixed T&Cs, until they draw their State Pension [or whatever BA's employment cut-off is]. However, BA seems to be allowing that ... and for which BASSA calls for strikes? Can you see the illogicality of that?

[AV Flyer]

The Union's responsibility will be to work collaboratively and constructively together with BA management in providing practical feed-back and recommendations from its vast experience in actually delivering the IFCE service to BA's customers.

A sensible and intelligent management will always respect constructive and hard experience-learnt recommendations regarding the practicalities of service delivery and will tailor its programmes to incorporate this extremely valuable in-house knowledge accordingly.

With careful financial mangement and respect of the situation by both sides an improved customer service combined with the recognition that WW CC numbers will be diminishing over time will all help to support and justify the continuing higher salaries paid.

AVF

[MPN11]

Perfect, Sir Humphrey :ok:

[Litebulbs]

You are right about guaranteeing the future, nobody can. However a case could be made to draw build assurances into an agreement that takes into account downsizing etc. Speaking from my slightly left of centre viewpoint, you can write what you want, but SOSR overrides it anyway:ouch:

[Litebulbs]

Ditto to MPN11!

[gr8tballsoffire]

One thing that is forgotten in this debate is that CC are able to apply for other roles via the internal system like any other staff member.

I know of many who have, and some of those ended up in senior management roles, including Joy Hordern who went on to become Head of CC in the late 1990's.

There is no neccesity to stay as CC throughout your BA career, but thousands do, because they enjoy the lifestyle and the generous allowances.

[MPN11]

The latest from MissM BA have trained thousands of VCC's and their only purpose is to destroy our strike. Is that to show respect toward a loyal workforce? Another example is BA have also completely ignored a long-standing agreement with regards to part-time contract. Crew have been offered part-time over others who are on the part-time list. Many have been waiting years and are stll waiting. Is that respectful?
A curious view.

I thought the idea of an airline was to provide a service to the paying SLF, and if the regular over-paid staff won't do it then someone else will ... to help the Company as well as the SLF.

Silly me. I must visit Planet BASSA more often.

Enough for today ... I'm beaming myself back to Planet Reality. :cool:

[AlpineSkier]

Drawing from the other thread ( my emphasis ) by Miss M

BA have trained thousands of VCC's and their only purpose is to destroy our strike. Is that to show respect toward a loyal workforce?
Absolutely superb. Would anyone like to try and teach this woman the meaning of irony ?

[VintageKrug]

BA have trained thousands of VCC's and their only purpose is to destroy our strike.


I disagree with that assertion. VCCs already serve other useful purposes, for instance to:


provide a supplementary, trained team of people in times of operational stress (e.g.snow/poor weather) when other staff may not be able to report for work
ensure that if BASSA refuses to permit invocation of the Disruption Agreement (as it has several times in the past year) BA can still get its customers home
enable variety of experience to desk based staff
ensure management have a genuine perspective of how their decisions impact the "coal face", and feedback changes where necessary


All of the above are valid reasons for deploying VCC, beyond simply strike breaking. VCC will continue long after BASSA is forgotten.

[LD12986]

I suspect there are many BA cabin crew who, whilst not overtly militant, have become so conditioned to believing whatever BASSA say that if BA said today (Saturday) is Saturday and BASSA said no it's Wednesday, they'd believe BASSA.

There also seems to be a view that cabin crew have unfettered right to strike which must reign supreme and anything done that impedes the impact of a strike is a complete abherration.

[Litebulbs]

If, as and when a strike is called, would you -



pursue an injunction
explore the legality
let them get on with it

Each sends a message.

[west lakes]

Or take advice to decide if it was unprotected, than seek damages from the union band possibly dismiss striking staff or warn them they face dismissal.?

I somehow don't think that seeking an injunction to see if it is unprotected or not makes any sense.

[AV Flyer]

Good. Well that's all decided then!

Seriously, back in the real world, this thing has an awful long way to play-out yet and vestiges of it may never go away.......

[Litebulbs]

Yep, just 6000 to go!

[AV Flyer]

.... I would let them get on with it but issue a warning to the union members stating that BA considers the action unprotected because of the language in the published reasons to strike specifically linking this IA to the previous and mentioning the possible consequences of taking unprotected action - which may be news to some as the Union, in all its bravado, appears to have been remiss in advising its members of the consequences of their actions.

I would also put the Union on written notice of the liabilities of their calling unprotected action.

Then I would sit back and see just exactly what happens. I would take the opportunity to see just exactly how many of the CC were prepared to go out on strike under these circumstances which would give BA a much needed calibration of the real current size of the problem (and not the size based on "sending BA a message") remembering that it was down from 4900 to 4400 at the end of the last period of IA.

Depending upon the remaining size of the real problem I would then decide on my next action.

What would you do if you were BA?

[Litebulbs]

Give in and give them what they want!

[HiFlyer14]

You are right about guaranteeing the future, nobody can. However a case could be made to draw build assurances into an agreement that takes into account downsizing etc. Speaking from my slightly left of centre viewpoint, you can write what you want, but SOSR overrides it anyway.

Good evening Litebulbs.

Although no company does guarantee anyone's T&C's, BA actually did originally. In the initial negotiations (term used loosely) we were offered a Monthly Travel Payment MTP to replace existing allowances. It was even calculated on the year 2008/9 (high profit) allowances.

BASSA said no and walked out the room.

Had we had the MTP last year, with ash cloud, snow disruption and now this year with all the flight disruption due to political unrest/natural disasters we would have undoubtedly been quids in.

To see Miss M demanding a guarantee now, whilst still funding the union that threw it away, makes me weep.:{

[AV Flyer]

But what is your understanding of what they actually want?

[Litebulbs]

Hi HiFlyer,

I'm glad you popped in, as I was struggling with my own question!

What can I say, that hasn't already been said in a court decision explaining the whole union divide.

[LD12986]

.... I would let them get on with it but issue a warning to the union members stating that BA considers the action unprotected because of the language in the published reasons to strike specifically linking this IA to the previous and mentioning the possible consequences of taking unprotected action.

I would also put the Union on written notice of the liabilities of their calling unprotected action.

Then I would sit back and see just exactly what happens. I would take the opportunity to see just exactly how many of the CC were prepared to go out on strike under these circumstances which would give BA a much needed calibration of the real current size of the problem (and not the size based on "sending BA a message") remembering that it was down from 4900 to 4400 at the end of the last period of IA.

Depending upon the remaining size of the real problem I would then decide on my next action.

What would you do if you were BA?


Agree with this.

Looking at the way BA has allowed this to drift on with long periods of inactivity (as regards negotiations) whilst building up VCC and Mixed Fleet, I think BA will just try and see it out. BA has had a year to plan for further strikes.

I really do wonder how much appetite there really is for further strikes. There will be a lot of empty promises in those yes votes. Also add that since last year we have 20% VAT, higher fuel prices, inflation, weak consumer confidence...

[Litebulbs]

OK, visible figures on the growth of MF.

[PAXboy]

LitebulbsIf you take out all other factors, then seeing a new fleet of employees on minimum wage plus expenses, when you are either above or a long way above that position, will bring a certain amount of fear for your future. That will be the majority position. There will be some who are at the very top, who will be fearful of far more than that, but it is the majority who count and it will be the majority that will decide the end to this

It has been said before, whilst the printing unions DID get thrown out completely, BASSA are being offered a continuation of their lovely terms for their working lives - I think that's the case?

I've been working for 33 years since I left college (in more than one field) and I have seen so many ivory towers pulled down that when I saw them advancing on the one in which I was standing, my main thought was, "Well I've had a good run" But, it looks as if these folks keep their Ts&Cs and have to work a bit harder? In the middle of the worst recession since the Depression, that is a job that thousands want. To jeopardise all that they have worked for?

That is what I don't understand. YES, I can understand that it's not nice to see new generations coming in on less but that's the case in ALL lines of work, because we in the UK have increasingly overpaid ourselves - now it's time for a market correction.

[Litebulbs]

The print unions went because of technology (simplistic I know), but crew will be here to stay. The demise of the rates of pay for crew at BA is inevitable as the new contract is is place.

I doubt if there will be any more redundancies, unless there is a downsize, or the senior grades go to be replaced by something like a non union management flying grade, so SOSR will be the only way to remove current terms. By all accounts, this would have already have happened when the fight was on. So to me, all it needs is to explain this in an honest manner, which should remove the fear.

[west lakes]

all it needs is to explain this in an honest manner, which should remove the fear.

But, and this a big but, before that can have the slightest chance of working far more cabin crew need to be convinced that BA is telling the truth, or BASSA needs to be telling the same thing.

The mis-trust of management is, I think, far deeper than a lot realise and is not confined to LHR

[Betty girl]

Hi Litebulbs,

I watched the whole of that series 'The British at Work' that you mentioned and posted a link to in your post 250. It was a really interesting.

As you know I was not in favour of the strike and agree with Hi Flyer about how badly this was handled by the Union and in some ways by BA too. One of my biggest concerns, as well as wanting to maintain my own income due to my commitments ( which I believe will be maintained), was the terms and conditions of Mixed Fleet which unfortunately have been set very low, definitely not market rate plus 10%.

What I found very interesting in that documentary was the statistic that in 1995, chief executives earned on average 44 times more that the average uk wage; I thought that was high until they went on to say that TODAY chief executives now earn 88 times more than the average wage!!That has happened over just a 15 years period, the same period that the general wages are been pushed down!


Many of us are unhappy with what the union has done and were not happy to go out on strike but even people like me are starting to worry about this general trend for companies, not just BA, to offer the lowest wage possible and this general attitude, particularly found on this thread, that people no longer deserve to earn a good wage anymore and should be thankful they have a job.
Meanwhile, the city and fat cats get richer!! Maybe I am turning into a lefty too. Well a little more left than I used to be!!!

Take care.

[Litebulbs]

This does not necessarily have to come from BA. BA could write a legal document and send it to Unite prior to releasing it to the crew community. Unite would have to respond if its view varied.

I remember getting flamed for saying that even if a redundancy was voluntary, it was will a dismissal, much like retirement.

[west lakes]

I don't disagree, but both sides would still have to tell the same words. If the reports that a lot of CC just bin BA letters & delete emails without reading them are correct

Given the report I was given of the response of a fairly new crew member, in a crew room near you, to the suggestion she might like to meet the duty managers!

[Litebulbs]

Hi Betty,

The minimum wage was a success as long as you were below it. The problem comes if your job is affected by its gravity and its slow, weak but relentless pull towards it. BA is no different to any other business but it is frustrating.

As for the show, I enjoyed it but felt it was right leaning. No doubt as it was a BBC show, many on this thread will think it was the other way. Maybe that was its intention.

[Litebulbs]

My point (badly made) is that Unite and BA came to an agreement on a deal, so Unite and BA could agree a set of words that will lay out the law on what can and cannot be done, which could remove fear.

How could a branch reject that?

[west lakes]

How could a branch reject that?

Weeeeellllllllllll ..................... in a sensible world it would work (we often get joint union/employer statements.

But I, very sadly, don't think this dispute is in a sensible world. Nor as we know are the full time officials in a position to dictate to a branch! Unless they decide to rigidly enforce the rules of the union which could see the branch dissolved (Somehow I can't see that occurring)

[Betty girl]

Well Litebulbs I think the program veered from right to left!

Sometimes it showed the inefficiency of union regulations but other times it highlighted the good unions did for the ordinary worker. Then on the other hand it highlighted what the free market did but it also showed the excesses of that too, so for me I felt it was quite balanced.

Anyway we digress from the thread topic, well only a little, it is sort of linked.

[Litebulbs]

What happened with the deal that was brokered in my opinion, was that there was not enough supporting information. Unite is the union and if Unite wants to inform its members of a legal position then that is what Unite should do.

You cannot dress up a legal view and in my opinion it is only going to outline a minimum position. The courts did this with the manning levels, but the perceived growth of MF and how it can legally happen is something that could be clearly stated.

[west lakes]

True enough, I'm still part convinced that somewhere is an agreement with the Unions that if the branch (in whichever department) is proving difficult, the union can take over negotiations (we have this).
In which case the branch should step back. Somehow, if this exists, I can't see the branch complying.


Oh touching back to the R5 discussion, I noticed the name Nikki mentioned as one of the BASSA contributors. I wonder if this was the same one seen in the video on the Bath Rd wearing a "striking" pair of white boxers? If so she is no longer employed by BA as far as I know.

[AV Flyer]

Litebulbs - "How could a branch reject that?"

Under normal circumstances I agree and don't think a branch would turn-down an agreement negotiated by a union on those terms.

However, you do realise that - BASSA's (read DH's and senior Rep's) problem is not MF fleet size, nor suspensions, nor working on-down, nor any other specific matter, BASSA's problem is that unless an idea originates from THEM it will be automatically rejected and if push comes to shove they will go on strike to get their way thus giving BASSA complete control over IFCE operations - don't you?

This is quite simply one monumental power struggle for who is in control and under these circumstances BASSA will never, never, never, accept anything that it doesn't propose and will strike if anything it proposes is not accepted by BA.

This is a fight to the death and neither BA or BASSA can or will back down until one or the other is overthrown - and I think we all know who that will be.

Even now BASSA's leadership have no concept of BA having any control over IFCE operations and think that the entire success of BA is directly attributable to their running the most and probably only important part of the company. They also believe, even now, that BA is going to back-down and they will 'win'. They believe they have a hot-line to the CEO of the company and are still confused how the CEO has been able to ignore them for the past few months given BASSA's vital importance to the running of BA.

They have no understanding or perception even of the intellectual differences and abilities between themselves and those on the BA Board and believe their understanding of what is good for BA should stand.

Such is the deception that accompanies megalomania.

[Litebulbs]

It is a trade dispute, no more no less. What the reps should fear is if they become to disconnected from the mother union, then if BA were to target them and use SOSR, then they would be on their own.

However, I am talking from a moderate union position and doubt if I will be having tea and biscuits with the top table any time soon, solidarity or no solidarity comrade!

[Litebulbs]

I believe that Bassa have a constitution that does not allow this.

[west lakes]

And that is the central bit of confusion, when the Unite rules state at the beginning that they are the only rules applicable to Unite members. How then can a branch have it's own constitution?

[Litebulbs]

Now I am trying to recall from here and nowhere else, so I could be completely wrong, but wasn't there an adjustment after the 97 dispute? Oh, and Unite are a lay representative driven union. The biggest branch does bring in the buck;)

[west lakes]

I think the change occurred when Unite called off a strike

My thoughts to regarding the bucks.

I wonder if any other branches are allowed their own constitution and what would be the reaction if a branch decided it wanted one

[AV Flyer]

Litebulbs - "It is a trade dispute, no more no less."

I completely disagree.

It is a power struggle as to who controls BA's IFCE operations.

Did you honestly believe BASSA was ever going to accept the BA/Woodley brokered deal? BA knew they were safe in offering that deal that BASSA would reject it. If BA thought for one moment it would have been accepted they would never have come to an agreement with Woodley in the first place.

BA knew BASSA would reject it which would then let them off the hook on not having to negotiate any further. BA needed something to reasonably justify not negotiating otherwise they would have been seen to not be wearing the white hat in attempting to resolve the dispute.

BA cannot come to any agreement that leaves the current leadership of BASSA intact otherwise BASSA will simply kick-up again and again and again within a matter of months. If it's not hot towels it will be not closing window blinds. If it is not extra payments for non-functional lights in the crew rest areas it will be some other unhelpful matter and every time it will be "we'll strike and strike and strike until we're sick"!

Don't you see that this is all about power but no-one can admit that is what it is about? BA cannot say openly "we do not like your choice in Union branch leadership and until you change it we will not settle". Rather all they can do is appear to be negotiating reasonably while continually finding plausible reasons not to settle and hoping all the time that BASSA's leadership will self combust.

Am I the only one who sees this?

[Litebulbs]

Personally speaking, I would not want one. I work for my employer, but my union give me the facility to collectively negotiate with them and this is because of the law.

Until I see employers move out from the umbrella of legislation, then a union member I will remain.

Just take DH for example. This was such a high profile case in this dispute, if what BA and pprune says is true, then it was a cut and dry case. Just think if BA had offered binding arbitration as its first option.

[Litebulbs]

Forgive me if you are a current Bassa crew member, but if you are not, it doesn't matter what you see. If you believe this thread, then we have got an "Im Spartacus" situation and the next 50 reps will step in.

BASSAwitch could be key in this, with the information that may be forthcoming. If it turns out that any rep is being paid anything above reasonable expenses and reimbursement of loss of flight allowances etc, then I am sure that it will be a tipping point.

[AV Flyer]

I agree with you entirely that it matters not one jot what I see.

However, BA will not settle, nor has it any reason to be forced to settle, with the current BASSA leadership with its "We decide what goes on here or we'll strike" approach to working with BA management in implementing BA's IFCE operations.

The sooner that Unite and the rank-and-file CC realise this and do something to change it's WW CC branch's postion to understand that "BA's management make the operational decisions while listening carefully to CC's valuable input" then the sooner their negotiating position will improve.

I would go as far as suggesting if Unite bring BASSA under control in this way, BA would not only hand back staff travel, agree terms to protect WW fleet against MF fleet erosion (they've already offered this God knows how many times) as you have suggested and maybe, just maybe even, if the Union has good intelligent and skillful negotiators, manage to have all suspended employees reinstated or something close to this.

In order to reach the best settlement a good negotiator needs to understand the true concerns of his adversary (not always stated or obvious) and stopping thinking of this as "just a simple trade dispute" while understanding the reality that it is a "monumental power struggle that no-one is allowed to mention" will bring about the desired favourable settlement in the shortest possible time.

But then again maybe I am the only one that sees it this way!

[Litebulbs]

It would have read better if I had said what we see, so apologies for that.

[west lakes]

I can't help but think that some of your suggestions might be a step to far for "on-side" crew.
From one point of view if BA concede too much it will be grabbed by the more militant members and seen as a victory for them taking/threatening IA.
It will also disillusion some of the less militant who will see that their support has been futile if the militant crew get their own way!

[VintageKrug]

The print unions went because of technology (simplistic I know), but crew will be here to stay.

But there's an element of technological change for crew too.

In the past there was an element of "danger money" as aircraft were more likely to be involved in incidents, the on board environment was less pleasant to work in (noisier, unpressurised, turbulent), fewer crew facilities on board (e.g. dedicated crew rest), more en route stops (with all the related extra work), and the focus on food presentation as the "in flight entertainment" requiring crew to put extra effort into this aspect of the service.

Passengers now have great IFE, flat beds to promote sleeping, pre-prepared food, and although still important, passengers are less focussed on crew to ensure they have an enjoyable flight. That's not to say they're not important, they are, especially from a safety perspective, but crew are less critical to a successful experience than might have been the case a generation ago.

Virgin America now uses its IFE system to order drinks and food, and if it's not already happening, there are plenty of ways technology can be deployed to lessen the cabin crews' workload.

[HiFlyer14]

The items of dispute are as follow.

1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken.
2. Binding arbitration, through ACAS, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute.
3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates.
4. Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by the company in relation to this.
5. The immediate cessation of actions taken against elected representatives of cabin crew, including; victimization; intimidation and exclusion.

6. The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without agreement with the union.

7. The discrimination applied to union members in the allocation of part time contracts and transfers in breach of the Ops and Choice framework.

8. The company's continued and specific disregard for necessary union agreement in advance of any application of the disruption agreement.

9. The continued use of volunteer and/or temporary crew from outside the recognised NSP on both the Eurofleet and Worldwide fleets and their employment on terms and arrangements outside of existing agreements between BA and the union.

10. The company's offer of a separate pay settlement and variations to terms and conditions for those willing to accept non-negotiated changes to their contracts.


AV - you asked "What do they want?"

So, here goes:

They want part-time - but rejected it when it was offered November 09.
They want staff-travel back - but, with clever negotiating, didn't have to lose it in the first place.
They want the disciplinaries to be heard by ACAS - already offered by BA, but rejected by not balloting members previously.
They want security against Mixed Fleet - which was offered through the MTP in Nov 09, and again rejected. MF was also off the table at one point, but that offer was also rejected.
They want to be involved in Mixed Fleet - yet didn't take the chance when it was there.
They resent the VCC - yet continue to disrupt normal business by balloting/striking.
They want the Union facilities agreement back - yet they were the ones who walked out on this agreement.
They want to "negotiate" - yet they voted at Kempton Park in 09 not to negotiate.
They want sick pay for sick crew during the strike - yet we were all warned sickness would be classified as striking.
They want the reps to be treated with Diplomatic immunity!
They want full say on the Disruption Agreement - yet there is now virtually no need for one, due to the VCC's.
And they want those of us who have had the foresight to abandon this Union and accept an individual offer to be denied our individual freedom of choice and suffer in the BASSA mire.



In a nutshell, BASSA had a golden, unique, once-in-a-lifetime, not offered by all companies opportunity to rewrite our agreements, to their hearts' content, as long as it added up to the savings of £127m. They walked out on that golden opportunity and now they are crying in their milk!

Hope that clears it up for you!!:)

[AV Flyer]

It strikes me that both BA's and the Union's most important wishes are not incompatible, indeed they may even be complementary, such that with a modicum of maturity this matter could be resolved.

BA: Wants the Union to accept that it should control its IFCE operations.

Unite: Wants protection against erosion of its hard-fought Ts&Cs in the face of the emergent MF.

BA has never said it won't, and has indeed currently offered to, protect all LHR WW CC's Ts&Cs for as long as CC choose to remain employed at BA. So this is not an issue.

Is the Union prepared to accept an agreement with language stating it recognises (and respects even!) BA's right to manage its own operations, while listening to mature and constructive Union recommendations, with the joint focus on improving the customer experience while minimising the costs (essentially the direction KW is trying to take)?

If the Union can see its way to the above mature and colloborative relationship then the cost savings achieved by BA being able to wind-down its defensive VCC program alone, when combined with skillful negotiation, could have BA mangement eating out of its hands! The VCC programme would likely wind itself down anyway as the number of employees prepared to volunteer to work against such a reasonably behaving CC workforce would fall to zero very quickly!

[AV Flyer]

An excellent example of taking a snippet of someone's post entirely out of context, misquoting it, then using it as an opporutnity to say something unrelated (although I do share your frustration, understand and agree entirely with your points, and thus don't need anything clearing up for me - thanks!)

I did not ask:

AV - you asked "What do they want?"

at all and you have completely and utterly misquoted me.

What I did ask specifically of Litebulbs, and in an attempt to hear and understand the Union's view of what is really important to them, was:

"But what is your understanding of what they actually want?"

You will see by my listening to what Litebulbs replied as his/her understanding of what is most important to the Union I have attempted to propose a way forward in my later post above.

As a key player/protagonist in/of PCCC yourself I would hope that the PCCC's skills reflect those I am trying to use above if its is to become a serious competitor to BASSA in establishing an alternative way forward for CC ;)

[Ancient Observer]

Guarantees, and security of employment

Back in 1974, the Board of the UK's then biggest Company, in terms of market value, with well over 100,000 people, could see the need for vast changes in how the Company's operations worked.
They knew they would have massive TU resistance to what needed to be done. (Including openning many more plants outside the UK and closing UK plants - the broad equivalent of MF).
They had already introduced a UK-wide approach to annual salaries, consistent job grades across the UK and a highly respected procedure to deal with change - all negotiated with the TUs.

However, they had not fully dealt with MissM's problem.

How to provide "security of employment" when the business world made it obvious that providing such a thing was nearly impossible?

A rough-tough Scot, a Civil Engineer by background, persuaded the Board to work up a Board level "Security of Employment" statement.

I won't type it all in here, it is too long. (My copy is right by me).

In January 1975 that statement was published. All - TUs and managers, did their very, very best to live up to it for more than 30 years. I still had it quoted to me in 2008 when I worked temporarily for a Company from that group.

can Miss M's request for security be answered?

Yes, but only with a TU that can negotiate!!

[HiFlyer14]

Oops...

AV - I did deliberately use your question out of context, and I did it to show, Tongue-in-cheek, how utterly unreasonable the union have been. I apologise unreservedly if you took exception to this - it was in no way meant to detract from your conversation with Litebulbs but I was simply trying to outline to all our long suffering customers that many of us non-striking crew share their frustration and despair.

The point that I really wanted to highlight to BA staff, crew, and customers the world over is that everything BASSA are asking for has been offered...and rejected by them.

Apologies if that got lost in translation.:O

[Ancient Observer]

HiFlyer

Can you update us on PC3 progress?

thanks

AO

[Landroger]

HiFlyer

Can you update us on PC3 progress?

thanks

AO

Ah, now, the direct question - with both questioner and questioned very probably on line concurrently.

I am sure many of us are very, very interested in an answer, particularly from HiFlyer14 who, as we have seen, has been erudite and, so far as can be ascertained, honest.

Roger.

[HiFlyer14]

Hi AO and Landroger

Thanks for your interest in PCCC.

We are beavering away and trying to get the message across to our community that there is a better way to do business with BA. As you know, we are a peaceful organisation and simply wish to conduct business with BA in a peaceful, rational manner.

There are huge mountains to climb, not least of all the backlash from BASSA who are deliberately trying to destroy everything we do - from ripping down our notices, sending hate mail, issuing fraudulent letters alleging to be from the PCCC, publishing false 'facts' ie. Only 200 members...the list goes on.

However, our numbers are steadily climbing and we now have in the region of 1000 members. We hope to soon have the required 40 per cent of the workforce to be able to approach BA for recognition. We do not intend to start charging members until we have the necessary figures, and when we do, rest assured we will have the accounts in immaculate order.;)

We have not been funded by anyone - everything has been donated by well-wishers and we are extremely grateful for their support. There is in fact no need for funds at the moment, and it has made us wonder exactly where the BASSA money is spent.

When we are in a position to ask for recognition, you pruners will be one of the first to know!

[notlangley]

Hi HiFlyer14
I don't see you achieving 40% if you have the condition that cc must have resigned from BASSA.

[notlangley]

Let's regard this as a questionHi HiFlyer14
I don't see you achieving 40% if you have the condition that cc must have resigned from BASSA.

[Betty girl]

There are no conditions to being a member of the PCCC. (Other than being a BA cabin crew member).

[notlangley]

Thank you Betty girl - that answers a question that has been troubling me for some time.
It must therefore be tough and rough for the team launching PCCC to have BASSA cc coming into PCCC in trojan horses.

[Betty girl]

Well I don't see any Trojan horses joining. There are a few crew that are members of both but most people attracted to the PCCC have chosen to leave Bassa anyway.

The Bassa mentalist believe everything Bassa say and are therefore not interested in joining, so no, we don't have any unpleasantness on our forum at all, just a group of people sharing constructive ideas and keen for an end of all this madness.

These are of course just my own observations as I don't speak for BA or the PCCC.

[MPN11]

As SLF, I'd just be grateful if the CC/BASSA/PCCC/BA could sort things out.

It is getting really tiresome.

I know I'll still fly BA [on time, with bags] but the background bickering, which is all it is now, is getting very boring. :uhoh:

[Ancient Observer]

Hiflyer,

As I have said before, I think the whole PC3 thing is great.
However, as you know, you do not need anything like 40 % membership to approach BA.
You will NEVER be recognised for "not being bassa". You know that. The other TUs, and even the PC3 supporting branches of BA would be forced to turn against you.

You need a positive statement, and a brand, and brand values, that say what you are and what you stand for.

er, and you must - legally - be financially independent.

By what you say, you have some work to do......

Great luck!
AO

[Landroger]

Thanks for that HF, it is refreshing to see you back on this thread again.

There are huge mountains to climb, not least of all the backlash from BASSA who are deliberately trying to destroy everything we do - from ripping down our notices, sending hate mail, issuing fraudulent letters alleging to be from the PCCC, publishing false 'facts' ie. Only 200 members...the list goes on.

I can understand this sort of thing is tiresome, to say the least, but it could be viewed quite accurately as an indication of how well you are doing. If you really were a 200 member busted flush, then BASSA would surely have no need or even inclination to pull such stunts?

It seems to me - SLF outsider - that there is a mellowing of the few BASSA supporters posting on here and 'the other thread', which might indicate a slow dawning of the truth among the hard liners. It might be worth warming up your recruiting forms for a bit of a rush soon. :)

Roger.

[VintageKrug]

Has Holley posted any of his infamous "blogs" recently?

[LD12986]

There is this quite brilliant rewriting of history/state of complete denial posted by BASSAWitch on the other thread.

Remember BA also need to know we - that is BASSA - are genuine in our attemtps to resolve matters. We have to respect the two way process. Let me end this message with a couple of cliches - I hope they make sense. Apologies for having to be cryptic.
We should not make the hole Keith Williams is trying to get out of any bigger while he is - hopefully - thinking of ways to get Walsh's genie back in the bottle.

[mrpony]

HA HA LDnumbers. Outflippingstanding.

Genie pot kettle bottle waffle by a whacko in a hole.

Oh dear!

[Entaxei]

Miss M - you are a monologue operating in a monotone.

You have been posting on the CC thread for some while, I can only hope that you do cast an eye on this thread now and again.

You have been broadcasting for some months now - at least it feels like it - you have a constant drip feed that never varies - how terrible BA are as an employer, how awful it is to work for them, how they cannot be trusted without constant surveillence, how they do not treat their workers with any respect, how they do not keep to agreed conditions, agreements and procedures ................... and so it goes on & on & on......

On the other hand you agree that BASSA might make a few mistakes now & again, most done due to misunderstandings or BA statements or actions - Yes, you agree that in one or two cases, that they are not perfect and may not have done the best job in the world, but they do try and it only requires BA to sign on the dotted line, handing over the running of the operation to BASSA.

No matter what people have said to you over the past few months, your whinging continues afoot, you may make the odd one or two gestures now and again that encourages a poster to feel that they are making headway in discussions with you, then you revert to type and your previous position.

Now it has to be said, if you are genuine, shut up, leave BA and find yourself a job elsewhere with someone you trust, you will never be happy with BA and will only ever cause trouble. Alternatively you are simply a BASSA troll or construct, an unusually good one compared to previous attempts, but none the less an apologist for BASSA - equally - shut up and go away - you are wasting everyone's time and effort. (I think BG is a saint!!).

Mods - I know that you always play the ball - not the man - but sometimes the ball wears out and deflates. ;)

[MPN11]

... Alternatively you are simply a BASSA troll or construct, an unusually good one compared to previous attempts, but none the less an apologist for BASSA ...

I was having similar thoughts yesterday evening: "Is MissM actually real?"

Lucid, literate and persistent ... yes.

In fact, so many long posts, and at such frequency, I'm halfway minded to have a look back to try and see where her 75% contract could be fitted in to her PPRuNe posting schedule.

[Betty girl]

I thought all of you wanted to hear the views of real Bassa crew!

If you don't treat theirs views with respect they might stop giving them to us and then you would have to go back to just making suppositions, about how you think they feel!!!

[MPN11]

Betty, I assure you I [and I guess many others] want to hear both sides of the argument. :cool:

[Landroger]

Miss M - you are a monologue operating in a monotone.

Harsh Entaxei, harsh, but largely true it seems to me too. :sad: While I have appreciated her contributions on here, providing some balance, there has always been a slight doubt in the back of my mind. Something not quite right.

Along with MPN11, I have had a nagging doubt that she - we assume 'she', not unreasonably - isn't quite what she appears to be. "Lucid, literate and persistent" MPN11 said and she is all of that, but when compared to the iconic Watersidewonker and the desperate woman based in Johannesburg, something doesn't quite ring true.

I was once actually accused, by a boss (who was an @rsehole admitedly) of being 'too articulate' - which meant I used big words like marmalade and corrugated that he couldn't understand - and I wonder if this is a similar assessment? Nothing personal and I certainly don't want to play the man, I just want the ball to be a genuine game ball, not a 'ringer'.

Roger.

[Betty girl]

I am pretty sure that Miss M is a real poster.

Someone with a longer version of that name posts on another forum, and I have been told that it is male.

Surprising as it may seem, many cabin crew are articulate, even if you don't happen to agree with what they say!

[MPN11]

I was once actually accused, by a boss (who was an @rsehole admitedly) of being 'too articulate' - which meant I used big words like marmalade and corrugated that he couldn't understand :D :D

I use "marmalade" and "wardrobe". "Corrugated" is a dirty word ;)

I am pretty sure that Miss M is a real poster.

I accept your assessment of identity, and indeed gender!! :ok:

[VintageKrug]

One has to wonder why MissM is pretty much the only BASSA cabin crew member who posts on here.

I am entertained by his/her posts and there is definitely evidence that some of what is said here is registering, although there is also evidence that some of what is pointed out is simply ignored; one should remember that those crew who do frequent pprune probably do not post and simply lurk. Maybe only dipping in from time to time, rather than reading “religiously”. So there is value in setting out the position afresh.

Hence the need to reference and evidence any statements made.

It does seem to me that the 5,811 “hardcore” turkeys would probably vote for Christmas if someone from BASSA told them they’d get a good feed in beforehand. Much as I enjoy my regular interactions with crew on board, it is often (though not exclusively) the case that I am not dealing with the sharpest business brains. The decision to “trust” BASSA appears to be more of an emotional one rather than a deeply considered objective position.

It is clear that those who remain members of BASSA are harming themselves financially by denying themselves a pay rise, and paying union dues, harming the company for which they work and damaging the reputation of Unionism. BASSA is no longer a “Union” in the true sense of the word as its refusal to hold democratic elections, make its accounts publicly available and repeated refusal to allow crew to vote on proposed settlements demonstrate it is now following the agenda of the few and not the many.

I think DH’s employment tribunal judgement should be available today; it will make interesting reading, and I hope is widely circulated to cabin crew to evidence the sort of practices that their well remunerated rep thought he could engage in.

Far from quivering in my Church’s at the thought of a strike, I’m rather disappointed there doesn’t seem to be one in the offing; it would be a perfect opportunity for the turkeys to let off steam (and possible get broiled in the process), as well as demonstrating BASSA’s impotence. I’ve also never experienced a VCC flight (though have flown several sectors during previous strikes) and was rather looking forward to experiencing it.

One point of interest is the ending of the Facilities Agreement by BASSA reps themselves; I have seen this stated quite a few times, but is there any incontrovertible EVIDENCE this actually happened?

[LD12986]

One point of interest is the ending of the Facilities Agreement by BASSA reps themselves; I have seen this stated quite a few times, but is there any incontrovertible EVIDENCE this actually happened?


I can't find it now, but it was definitely mentioned in one of the CC89 updates that they had terminated the agreements because they felt that the company was no longer intent on serious discussions with the unions.

As for BASSA supporters posting, remember, to listen and understand is not to condone, and it is good to at least see contributions from the other side that are considerably better than some of the puerile/vitriolic bile that goes on elsewhere. Ultimately, both sides are going to have to move on this, and talking and listening is good.

[MPN11]

Ultimately, both sides are going to have to move on this, and talking and listening is good.

Indeed, which is why I have also apologised to MissM [by PM] for playing hard-ball.

There simply has to be a sensible way out of this impasse ... whether anyone on the Union side is interested in a solution, other than on their terms, is the core question. And I think many of us believe that there are some on the Union side whose self-interest may, possibly, exceed their interest in achieving a settlement for their members.

Whatever ... I fly BA, as usual. Thanks, BA supporters and VCC :ok:

[AlpineSkier]

@Betty Girl

I think numerous people are fed=up with Miss M, not because of her opinions and comments, but because she is a dyed-in-the-wool revisionist i.e. she is trying to re-write history to suit herself.

If you look back over her posts, she will say - at spaced intervals -

1) BA is going to cut our wages
2)BA will leave us sitting at home with no work
3) BA unilaterally cancelled the facilities agreement

just to pick up on the latest bunch.

People will then come in and refute this nonsense with concrete quotes/examples of where she is wrong and ask her to prove differently and then she goes quiet - never any response to these direct challenges.

Then three months or so later, up she pops again and re-states - with no shame- that BA is going to cut CC wages, leave you sitting at home etc etc.

The aim can only be to wear people down so that her "true version" is the last left standing, but that doesn't really stand true in the era of search engines which re-gurgitate everything with the search criteria.

Her other views have undoubtedly mellowed over the last eighteen months but she would still prefer BASSA to come out the undisputed winner.

[west lakes]

A bit of lateral thinking shows that BASSA are sticking to the vote of oh so long ago.

All they do is keep restating their position without giving anything away (sitting in a room listening to the other side and then restating positions is not negotiation in my book)
Anything the union members cabin crew have got as late has been freely(?) given by BA

[Betty girl]

Alpineskier,

I am not defending the views of Miss M, just defending her right to make them.

Can I also make it clear, that ALL cabin crew whether they be strikers or non-strikers, are fearful of our earnings going down in the future. It is not a fear that only people like Miss M hold.

I don't think BA will leave us at home with no work, but it is a common fear, however I do fear for the future because if our fleet does get smaller, there is a future chance that we would be forced onto Mixed Fleet, if some future fight for survival happened!

Now I believe BA when they say that Mixed Fleet will grow slowly, and only be 40% by 2020, but none of us has a crystal ball and we don't know what will happen to our terms and conditions, in the future, with different management.

So this dispute is not black and white at all, and it will have far reaching affects on all BA staff, because it sets a president for all departments to have new tiers of workers brought in on inferior contracts.

So I am against the strike, and I do believe that Bassa has been scare mongering, and you can't strike about something before it has happened, but that does not mean that I am happy with what has happened nor the agreements these new crew are being worked to.

Now, I don't believe that this strike has helped us, in fact, an integrated route, as in one of the offers, that Bassa discarded, would have produced a better result and that is why I was against a strike, and I feel serious negotiation would have been better. However, we are where we are, and if debating sensibly and courteously can help Miss M understand where some of us are comming from, I don't care how long it takes.

[Papillon]

Some are being rather harsh on Miss M. Given that few SLF agree with the position of BASSA, it's not surprising that her viewpoint in support of them attracts derision from many quarters. Nevertheless that is her view, and one she's entitled to hold without attracting queries about who she might be and what her motivation is for stating them.

I frequently read puzzlement from many about what BASSA want out of this, and she repeatedly explains what her own feelings on it are. Of course most disagree, many can't understand how that view can be held. But even so, she does have the right to put that point across without aspersions being cast. That's simply not fair or reasonable.

[MPN11]

I will put my hand up and admit I was 'puzzled' by MissM. There was just something that didn't seem quite right. I found the hyperbole, and the personal aspects, a little strange. If MissM finds that perception too hard to bear, so be it.

I reiterate my apology for any [I]ad hominem in respect of MissM. Such is life on an open Internet Forum. I'm sure it's the same on the BASSA Forum when one expresses an opposing view. However, this is the SLF Forum.:cool:

I do not withdraw my complete disagreement with the action BASSA is taking, or trying to take, or contemplating taking ... because I believe the "cause" is both flawed and specious.

"Play on" ....

[Landroger]

I will put my hand up and admit I was 'puzzled' by MissM. There was just something [I know not what] that didn't seem quite right. I found the hyperbole, and the personal aspects, a little strange. If MissM finds that perception too hard to bear, so be it.

I reiterate my apology for any ad hominem in respect of MissM. Such is life on an open Internet Forum. I'm sure it's the same on the BASSA Forum when one expresses an opposing view. However, this is the SLF Forum.

I do not withdraw my complete disagreement with the action BASSA is taking, or trying to take, or contemplating taking ... because I believe the "cause" is both flawed and specious.

"Play on" ....

Since I agreed with MPN11, I am happy to echo every word as above, especially in respect to any insult - unintended I assure you - Miss M may have perceived.

My 'nagging doubt' was not about whether or not Miss M was a genuine poster - it never really occurred to me that he/she was not - it is simply that MPN11's description as "Lucid, literate and persistent" did not and does not square with his/her pattern of posting as per Alpine skier #341.

Roger.

[Fender Strat]

Sorry, I'm getting a little tired with hearing about how cabin crew are fearful of seeing their income diminish in future years. In a previous job a proportion of my total salary was made up from overtime and call out payments. I was unhappy about having an income that depended on the vagaries of the business, so I sought employment elsewhere. I took a slight drop in salary in the first six months but at least I knew that it was all consolidated pay. I would have thought that if cabin crew were concerned about the variability of their pay, that they would have got their union to negotiate for a higher percentage to be consolidated. Doesn't seem to have been happening though.

On top of that is this notion of a job for life. Look around you. The catering staff found they were sold off to Gate Gourmet. The engineering staff in wheels and brakes got sold off along with other parts of the engineering division. A number of the head office functions have been outsourced to India. These areas didn't get the relative shelter of BA employing new staff on a lower starting salary. The jobs simply ceased to be done inhouse. It may sound awfully harsh, but cabin crew have been protected by weak management who were more into empathy and appeasement and a union that was able to run rings around them. It was bound to change at some point. Welcome to reality.

[Litebulbs]

Revolutionist? I do not think aspiring to protect the package that you are currently on and maybe increase it with the cost of living over time, is going to bring down any Government.

[MPN11]

@ Fender Strat ... insecurity of employment!!

Indeed, try discussing that with a sergeant who is at the moment up to his neck in mud and sh1t in an Afghan ditch, in a firefight with Taliban, with a 10km hike to eventually disengage [unless he's a CASEVAC] ... and then to discover he's being made redundant as well.

From that perspective you can possibly understand why I have not too much sympathy for those BA CC who are whining about "imposition" and "management".

I know we all choose different career paths, with their own risks and pressures ... but honestly :sad:

[Litebulbs]

I will try to treat the people who are the main point of your post with respect that they deserve, but how is the saving from MF going to help them and their situation?

[MPN11]

There is absolutely no connection at all between the sgt in 'Stan and BA CC.
They exist on completely different planets, both of which are somewhat unreal.

One puts his life on the line for his/her Country, and NATO, and the UN, as instructed ... or the Company, in this context.
The other puts his/her job on the line to defend archaic T&Cs that are actually being assured by the Company anyway. Wibble?

The sgt in the ditch doesn't give a solitary sh1t about your grievances.
Probably, although I wouldn't presume to speak for the majority of the UK population, most of us don't either :cool:

Sorry if that's a bit hard-ball, but I work for a Charity that looks after the aftermath of conflict, like the loss of several limbs, or PTSD, or widowhood. Somehow I find BA cabin crew grievances a bit petty. I guess that's why I come across as a grumpy old barsteward who really doesn't care about the CC's "grief and anguish".

On a personal level I do, however, care about being forked about when I try to fly BA in a Premium Cabin and can't even be assured that the flight's going to operate.

I'm also trying to be nice and polite, but it gets bludgy difficult some times. ;)

[west lakes]

The other puts his/her job on the line to defend archaic T&Cs that are actually being assured by the Company anyway

Sorry NO, when will you realise that generalisations like this are insulting to what could be the vast majority of cabin crew!

Yes there are some who worry about that but there are more that are upstanding fine people who live for their job and constantly go out of their way to help us the customer.

As usual this has become all about LHR and the more militant crew.

Stop and think for a while before you let your fingers go wild on the keyboard issuing insults to others!

[AV Flyer]

Is anyone able to confirm that the proposed talks/negotiations between the disparate entities are actually happening? Further, in the event that they are did all parties viz. BA, Unite, BASSA & CC89 manage to summon the maturity to sit in the same room together?

[Litebulbs]

Can I just say one more time; my closest link to BA now is that I am SLF. My next closest link is that I am a member of Unite.

[MPN11]

West Lakes, I am well aware that there is a substantial proportion of CC who are doing their job, professionally, on a daily basis.

If you step back from your keyboard a moment, and take a deep breath, you will realise that the adverse SLF comments are directed towards the BASSA militants [mainly based at LHR] who are the root of the problem.

If you care to search my posts, you will see that I have had nothing but praise for the LGW CC who have looked after me well over many years.


Some people are militant by contract, some are militant by choice. ;)

[Betty girl]

Look these insults are upsetting to everyone and many of you have not a clue what you are talking about.

All this rubbish about crew expecting a 'jobs for life'!

Who does not want to stay in a job they love and even if some of you have been forced to change your job, I very much doubt you enjoyed the experience.

I am going to stop reading this thread because there seems little point as this has just become a soap opera to some of you.

BG

[GrahamO]

All this rubbish about crew expecting a 'jobs for life'!

Who does not want to stay in a job they love and even if some of you have been forced to change your job, I very much doubt you enjoyed the experience.

Of course, but the rest of the working population do not go on strike making such a demand, and disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of us paying passengers.

The sad fact is that BASSA demand open ended guarantees from BA that they are insulated from all circumstances and changes in the future as a pre-requisite to the dispute being settled.

That in my considered opinion, shows how ridiculous the demands are, and how the only way for the dispute to be settled, is for them to lose their jobs.

[fincastle84]

Maybe folk are getting tetchy because there are no obvious signs of progress in this prolonged dispute which seems to be going nowhere.

It's probably a good time for us all to save our fingers from further keyboard agony until we see the next move from either side.

I'm off for an early night while I struggle through the latest Grisham epic, or otherwise!

[Litebulbs]

Betty, please stay as you are the link between ideas. Some would like the Master and Servants Act to be reintroduced, but you give an oposing opinion from within the cabin.

Some will be managers and some will be [trolls] like me:ok:

[west lakes]

I am well aware that there is a substantial proportion of CC who are doing their job, professionally, on a daily basis.


I hear you, though perhaps it might help all if you are specific, when posting comments, about the group that are intent on causing trouble. Face it a few more electrons here and there can save on upsets


(I'm tetchy as I know where some CC are and why, it is nothing to do with BA but about their community)

[Entaxei]

Negotiations between all parties?

So far as I know from reading the various recent posts on the two threads, the position was/is that BA were talking directly to Unite (Mclusky), but were refusing to talk to any branches, including BASSA and CC89.

This position is understandable, given the history of Tony Woodley a few months ago, prior to retiring, agreeing to recommend an offer negotiated with BA, only to find BASSA and CC89 refusing to agree and BASSA declaring strike dates to negate the offer.

Although McLusky puts out the odd statement backing the branches, it is normally in the context of the overall pattern of the Unions achieving multiple strikes in a variety of industries over the next 9 months or so, to 'reduce the cuts' and presumably force another general election. Based on this mixture of emotions and desires, it is difficult to see where anything new will emerge. There does not even appear to be an agreed list of reasons for any action, including strikes. :cool:

[AlpineSkier]

@ Litebulbs

Revolutionist?

Did your glasses slip ?

I wrote "revisionist"

Surely an old "Leftie " knows what I am talking about ;)

Not saying you are the era of Stalin, Kruschev, Gromykin et al

[Litebulbs]

Absolute apologies for that. Talk about looking and finding something that is not there.

Self imposed naughty step for a day for me :O

[Dawdler]

I hear you, though perhaps it might help all if you are specific, when posting comments, about the group that are intent on causing trouble. Face it a few more electrons here and there can save on upsetsI think it was perfectly clear to anyone who regularly reads this thread, who MPN11 was writing about in his post. Anyone who thought he was refering to CC members in general must have had one eye off the ball.

There was no doubt in my mind and I suspect the the vast majority of other readers that BASSA members were the ones in his cross hairs.

[call100]

Of course, but the rest of the working population do not go on strike making such a demand, and disrupting the lives of hundreds of thousands of us paying passengers.

The sad fact is that BASSA demand open ended guarantees from BA that they are insulated from all circumstances and changes in the future as a pre-requisite to the dispute being settled.

That in my considered opinion, shows how ridiculous the demands are, and how the only way for the dispute to be settled, is for them to lose their jobs.
Really?
One in four nurses would strike as job fears increase (http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/news-topics/health-workforce/one-in-four-nurses-would-strike-as-job-fears-increase/5017611.article)
3,000 council staff poised to strike against cuts (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/02/23/116335/3000-council-staff-poised-to-strike-against-cuts.htm)
Academics go on strike (http://www.cherwell.org/content/11639)
More Tube train strikes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-44656/More-Tube-train-strikes-way.html)
Private jail go ahead sparks strike threat (http://www.securityoracle.com/news/Private-Jail-Go-Ahead-Sparks-Strike-Threat_18142.html)

etc. etc. It would seem that many working people are prepared to strike to protect their jobs and working conditions.
We may or may not agree with them, but, that does not alter the fact that they believe they should.

[VintageKrug]

The sad fact is that striking doesn't work.

A flexible, adaptable workforce can share BOTH the successes and the pain during trying economic times.

Having flexible remuneration, such as bonuses and share schemes aligns the workforce much more closely with management, which is why BASSA did not accept such proposals in the past.

Calling a strike is more likely to result in increased demands for cost reductions (to pay for the costs incurred during unrest), lower salaries in the long term and more polarisation.

These negative outcomes actually play into the hands of Unions, as somewhat counter-intuitively, the worse your working conditions/pay/Industrial relations are, the more likely you are to think you need a strong Union, and empower your union to deliver more extreme activities.

In fact, if you add up the element of salary union members pay to unions (is it about £150/year?) and the huge cost employers bear for supporting Unions (Facilities Agreements/time off for meetings and other duties/the costs of other consultations) such numbers could often make the required efficiencies to ensure a pay rise or maintenance of current conditions without further disquiet. In some cases, as is happening with BASSA, unions can become saprophytic, and ultimately kill off the company which supports its members.

I believe those in lower paid, cyclical industries do need progressive, business focussed representation, but BASSA is not the right entity to support BA and its people. I am not certain there is enough evidence that PCCC is the right alternative, but it does seem to me that Unite needs to take its troublesome branch in hand and rid itself of this cancerous entity.

[GrahamO]

Really?
One in four nurses would strike as job fears increase (http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/news-topics/health-workforce/one-in-four-nurses-would-strike-as-job-fears-increase/5017611.article)
3,000 council staff poised to strike against cuts (http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/02/23/116335/3000-council-staff-poised-to-strike-against-cuts.htm)
Academics go on strike (http://www.cherwell.org/content/11639)
More Tube train strikes (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-44656/More-Tube-train-strikes-way.html)
Private jail go ahead sparks strike threat (http://www.securityoracle.com/news/Private-Jail-Go-Ahead-Sparks-Strike-Threat_18142.html)

etc. etc. It would seem that many working people are prepared to strike to protect their jobs and working conditions.
We may or may not agree with them, but, that does not alter the fact that they believe they should.

All irrelevant examples - my point had you read it fully was that BASSA demands guarantees and insulation from the future irrespective of what happens to BA, its competitors, the markets etc.

Alll the above examples are simple industrial disputes to protect current conditions with none of them trying to protect current terms in perpetuity.

And the bleeding obvious point that NONE of the above are private company disputes and their jobs are never going to be affected by a competitor company.

So nice try, but 0/10 so please sit at the front of the class this time so you can pay more attention and understand better.:*

[call100]

All irrelevant examples - my point had you read it fully was that BASSA demands guarantees and insulation from the future irrespective of what happens to BA, its competitors, the markets etc.

Alll the above examples are simple industrial disputes to protect current conditions with none of them trying to protect current terms in perpetuity.

And the bleeding obvious point that NONE of the above are private company disputes and their jobs are never going to be affected by a competitor company.

So nice try, but 0/10 so please sit at the front of the class this time so you can pay more attention and understand better.:*

I think you will find their view different. You obviously only consider private sector workers to be 'the rest of the working population'.
It would seem that you don't consider that private companies taking Public sector jobs to be 'affected by a competitor company.
We are never going to agree and that is fine. No doubt you will get away with the insults and feel smug about it. It's sad however that you feel the need to proceed in that way.

[GrahamO]

I am sure we can agree that your examples were bad ones for the reasons stated and that while you may believe what you say, you have not addressed the principal points, namely that the BASSA dispute is about protecting something in perpetuity from all external factors and the examples are all from public sector disputes with no such demands.

Nor are they subject to the laws of competition being in the public sector.

Methinks your initial response was poorly thought out and while my response may have been a little robust, possibly unnecessarily, I interpreted your response not to be poorly thought out in innocence, but to be an attempt to deflect a well thought out proposition by quoting irrelevant examples, rather than accepting the proposition was correct.

The effect on the public sector jobs has never been as as result of competition from commercial companies - they have all been caused by the public sector cost base plundering the commercial sector taxes for so long that they have eaten the cupboard dry (to mix metaphors I suspect).

Competition did not cause this. Commercial companies did not cause this. Had the public sector organisations quoted run an efficient organisation, and not gorged on the public exchequer, then there would never have been a reason to consider outsourcing.

So, without any animosity, I find your examples to be inappropriate as they are neither asking for the same level of assurances that BASSA seek, nor are the complainants subject to the commercial pressures of competition. In those two points alone, your counter argument is entirely flawed - in my opinion.

[mrpony]

Is here:

http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/009-Action-alert-II-2011-04.pdf

I did a double take when I read Len calling for:

Keith Williams to reign

until I realised that the sentence carried on:

....in the aggressors.

An understandable mistake. He meant:

......Keith Williams to rain on the aggressors

Anyway, by the tone of it, it seems that Unite are in the driving seat?

[fincastle84]

Len's message is very interesting in that it seems to be laying out possibly new reasons for the the taking of IA & moving away from removal of staff travel, reduction of crew manning etc.

It's certainly obvious that Unite are, for the present, running the show.

[call100]

I am sure we can agree that your examples were bad ones for the reasons stated and that while you may believe what you say, you have not addressed the principal points, namely that the BASSA dispute is about protecting something in perpetuity from all external factors and the examples are all from public sector disputes with no such demands.

Nor are they subject to the laws of competition being in the public sector.

Methinks your initial response was poorly thought out and while my response may have been a little robust, possibly unnecessarily, I interpreted your response not to be poorly thought out in innocence, but to be an attempt to deflect a well thought out proposition by quoting irrelevant examples, rather than accepting the proposition was correct.

The effect on the public sector jobs has never been as as result of competition from commercial companies - they have all been caused by the public sector cost base plundering the commercial sector taxes for so long that they have eaten the cupboard dry (to mix metaphors I suspect).

Competition did not cause this. Commercial companies did not cause this. Had the public sector organisations quoted run an efficient organisation, and not gorged on the public exchequer, then there would never have been a reason to consider outsourcing.

So, without any animosity, I find your examples to be inappropriate as they are neither asking for the same level of assurances that BASSA seek, nor are the complainants subject to the commercial pressures of competition. In those two points alone, your counter argument is entirely flawed - in my opinion.

Your prerogative to disagree no matter how wrong you are....Have a nice day.:)

[Diplome]

fincastle84:

The only new issue I can see them bringing into a new ballot would be the overseas Cabin Crew issue. The maternity issue is resolved.

Unless they are going to strike because the strikes are doing damage to the company?? :)

All in all its a rather meager message in substance and certainly does not place Cabin Crew in a positive light.

One could argue that when "good service" comes in third there are reasons for BA to resolve the issue of BASSA wishing to control service issues.

[MPN11]

... BA cabin crew have responded to continued attacks by British Airways on their union organisation as well as suspensions and dismissal of colleagues and the ignoring of collective agreements with a resounding yes vote to continued industrial action.


Attacks on their union organisation? What have I missed? What's that supposed to be about?
Suspensions? Yes, if you misbehave you get suspended. Under the rules agreed with the Union, is it not?
Dismissals? Yes, as above.
Ignoring Collective Agreements? This is where it all gets a bit complicated to an outsider. Wasn't it BASSA that walked away from some collective agreement?

[Haymaker]

Unite's latest message is probably no more than a smokescreen to cover the negotiations with BA.

The militants must be getting concerned as the days tick by with no declaration of strike dates. The issues raised are good for a bit of rabble-rousing, but completely irrelevant to the dispute.

[mrpony]

Quite, Haymaker. I hid my sarcasm too well. It's a load of guff, and the only driving seat Len is in is the one with a toy plastic wheel. Beep Beep.

[MPN11]

Vaguely interesting to see the CC thread discussing the relative customer ratings on MF, LGW and LHR [World-Wide].

Do we SLF remember where all the trouble seems to lie?

Good luck, LGW and MF. At least your part of BA works properly, and has never failed to deliver me very good service :ok:

[Haymaker]

So it would seem that customer satisfaction is in inverse proportion to both pay and militancy. Hmmm ...

Now what was it the long-serving crew were saying about the importance of their experience and professionalism? And what message does it send to BA management as they plan their future strategy? Or am I missing something?

[MPN11]

Interesting, innit!! :cool:

I have never had anything other than average on LH out of LHR.
I have always had excellent on European Services [short and medium] out of LGW.

I won't get personal, in public, about why I think that might be.

[overstress]

I think Len McC meant that KW should rein in the aggressors as in to 'stop' or 'control' them. But we got his meaning I think.

[AlpineSkier]

Thank you for that much-needed explanation overstress ;)

[VintageKrug]

Anyone seen Holley's Employment Tribunal judgement?

Any more details on his Caution for Harassment?

Any info on those BASSA Accounts?

Who is standing for election to take over the Malone/Holley double act in October 2011?

When will Red Len finally admit he never intends to authorise a strike?

What are the "weird and wondrous" tactics we were promised?

[Litebulbs]

I think DH’s employment tribunal judgement should be available today; it will make interesting reading...................

What happened?

[Ancient Observer]

Another angle - the Pension Fund

We must not forget that BA is a small airline attached to a very large Pension Fund.
Trying to either destroy BA, or to hinder its financial progress, could create a massive own-goal. BA needs money to replace its old (but well maintained) planes, but it needs money for its pension plan even more. I wonder whether any of the bassa folk - retired or not - have even spotted this. If the Pension goes down the tube, it impacts both Pensions in payment, and service so far.

However, doesn't it look as though the dispute is over?
If 5,800 voted for a strike, of whom only 40% would actually strike, then out of a workforce of approx. 14,000 would BA actually notice the strike? - Other than the headache for the crew scheduling team?

[Litebulbs]

I think the 40% would strike has been put to bed on the other thread.

[LD12986]

Not quite. When the last strikes were carried out, approximately 7,500 crew voted to strike. Willie Walsh told City investors (so these numbers have to be accurate) that approximately 4,900 crew went on strike and of those 600 returned to work during the strikes.

So only 65% of Yes votes actually acted in accordance with their voting pattern.

Add to the fact that this time strikers will know that the removal of staff travel is no empty threat and how much basic pay they will lose and how futile the strikes have been, I'd estimate that support for an actual strike will be considerably lower.

[Juan Tugoh]

approximately 4,900 crew went on strike and of those 600 returned to work

I think this was a snapshot figure, i.e. it was correct at the time of speaking. In reality some c5700 cabin crew had their staff travel removed for striking, and in the last two ballots the numbers voting for further strikes have been constant at c 5700. This clearly indicates that should further strike actions occur BA can expect a minimum of approximately 5700 staff to actively strike. There may be more, who feel that as the strike was voted for, the democratic thing to do would be to follow this wishes of their colleagues and also strike. Various figures are bandied around as to the exact strength of current BA cabin crew, but for arguments sake lets take a low figure of 13,000. This would indicate that we can expect to see a 44% participation rate - perhaps more. This actually reveals little, if on day one ALL cabin crew that are rostered happen to be strikers then ON THAT DAY the support would be 100%.

The daily figure is far more important than the total, a well supported strike on the first day would scare the heck out of BA management and it is this vague hope that BASSA cling to. In reality these things tend to go with the average, plus or minus a small deviation and BA will have planned carefully for that, BASSA are probably not organised and forward thinking. Certainly recent history shows a particular lack of forward thinking on their behalf, I expect no different this time around. BASSA's thinking is all tactical and not strategic.

[LD12986]

The number of 4,900 was given well after the strikes had ended. The difference may be due to crew who had called in sick and had deemed to have participated in strike action (and lost staff travel)?

[Juan Tugoh]

The point about the numbers is largely academic 4900 or 5700, as I said the important number is the actual number of no-shows on day 1 of the strike, should UNITE decide that is what they are going to do.

[LD12986]

Point taken. Perversely, Unite has given BA a whole year to analyse attendance data from the last 22 days of strike action by route, fleet etc as well as training up VCC and recruiting onto Mixed Fleet.

Even if there is some disruption to long haul, the JBA with AA gives BA the entire TATL-Europe network of AA to reroute any displaced pax and of course there is the network of Iberia post the merger.

Talk of "guerilla tactics" and "weird and wondrous" initiatives is nothing more than bluster.

And the elephant in the room is still the issue of protection.

[finncapt]

When considering yes, or for that matter no, voters the numbers do not accurately reflect the position.

As I understand it a 33%, for instance, worker has a whole vote as does a 100% worker.

On the day the actual number of potential strikers is probably a lot less than the voting figures would indicate.

A strike would have to last quite a while to get through all those part timers.

You may even find that some of the non striking part timers would be prepared to move into being 100% workers to cover strikers and earn a bit of extra money.

It is a pity we don't have the numbers of "full time equivalent" voters.

[AV Flyer]

With BA knowing in advance of any new strike the names of those who went on strike last time, should strike dates be called then all BA has to do is not roster those known CC during the strike dates. Given the relatively low percentage of strking CC compared to non-striking CC that BA has available (including VCCs and MF) then for the few days of any strike action BA would have no trouble whatsoever having sufficient staff to be able to roster known non-strikers during that time and, hey presto, all schedules will fly 100%.

Having already telegraphed to BA who is going to strike, the effectiveness of the Union's strike action and even more so its so-called "guerilla tactics" are pretty much negated.

That's assuming the Union decides to stick its neck out and risk a potentially unprotected strke call in the first place.

It's going to be interesting to see the fumbling, guffling, pathetic bravado of an excuse that the Union comes up with in two week's time when it chooses (yet again) not to call a strike. It'll probably be along the same lines as with TW last time where he stated talks with BA were at an advanced stage and didn't want to upset them - only for BASSA to reject the outcome anyway!

[Juan Tugoh]

With BA knowing in advance of any new strike the names of those who went on strike last time, should strike dates be called then all BA has to do is not roster those known CC during the strike dates

The problem with this is that Ba roster on a month by month basis. The rosters are issued on approx 17th of the month previous. ie you get Jun's roster on May 17th, I don't think BA can arbitrarily change rosters, the problems created would be greater than those solved.

[AV Flyer]

JT - Knowing the scheduled roster release dates and that last month the Union were already balloting for a strike, the outcome of which would have to be translated into action with 28 days of the published ballot result date, if I were BA then I would have not rostered or rostered very thinly the prior striking staff for this and next month's schedules favouring instead those I knew would be prepared to work.

Any a priori knowledge is fair game to use by either side to mitigate effects when at war and knowing well in advance your enemy's time, place, choice of weapons and names of who is going to attack is very useful in preparing your defence to counter that action!

Does anyone know if BA have done this? Have last time's strikers been rostered unusually lighter duties for the next two months?

[bs13]

Since this is apaprently a "Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight-61/)" forum, can I ask if anybody knows anything about the possible/likely strike dates??

[MPN11]

Or, indeed, should we be discussing possible BA tactics on a Public forum? :cool:

Taking all today's posts on board, both here on the CC Thread, there's certainly a lot more to the issue than simply how many people placed "X" in the box [or a tick, or initials, whatever ... I've seen so many of those].

Some will definitely go on strike ... for political reasons. Maybe 500?
Some will definitely go on strike ... out of vindictiveness. Maybe 1,000?
Some may go on strike ... if they're rostered, unless they need/want the money.
Some won't go on strike ... they just wanted to send a message :ugh:

Out of the 5,800 who managed to vote on a nebulous question, with minimal information about the issue and the potential consequences ... how many are actually going to do it on the occasional day they're rostered?
Can't do it down-route, as I understand it: so that's a load of the "Reps" off the hook :cool:
Can't strike, 'cos I've suddenly got a really bad cold but I'll be OK in a day or two. Awww - Diddums :p

How does anyone think BA assures people that 100% of Long-Haul, etc etc is going to happen unless they have a VERY good idea what they have to cover with VCC? That's not "aircraft parked at Shannon and Cardiff", that's the reality of being a plc and having to be up front. They will fly the schedules.

Strikes? Bah and humbug.
The only real losers will be those who lose pay from posturing.
BA will prove, yet again, that they can operate under these circumstances ... if they ever happen.

See you at LHR at the end of the month, with a smile on my face and a Boarding Pass in my hand :cool:

[LD12986]

Since this is apaprently a "Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)" forum, can I ask if anybody knows anything about the possible/likely strike dates??


Nobody knows. The strike has to start within 28 days of the ballot result (last Monday) and they have to give 7 day's notice so Unite has to do something by 18 April.

Though, I think it is more likely than not there will be no further strikes because of the legal issues involved.

As for BA rostering non-strikers, this would provoke uproar amongst BASSA for identifying strikers and not following industrial agreements on scheduling.

[MPN11]

Since this is apaprently a "Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)" forum, can I ask if anybody knows anything about the possible/likely strike dates??

Oh, dear, please read back a page or twenty! ;)

1. There are no strike dates yet. They might occur in late April ...please don't ask me to regurgitate the calculations, I can't even find them!!
2. Any strikes will have ZERO impact on the SLF [unless you're concerned about Domestic flights, in which case a train/car option would be worth considering].

It seems that Unite [BASSA's Big Daddy] is trying to talk to BA, which makes a nice change. Political posturing, and chest puffing will follow. Nobody even knows whether the strike would actually be 'protected', as BA has chosen [to date] not to test that in Court.

Suggestion ... book BA, and fly BA, as I do and have done through 2 of these 'strikes'. The main effects are that militant CC lose money, BASSA loses credibility, and we SLF fly from A to B as usual. :)

[LD12986]

So nearly 10 days after the ballot result, we have no news of any negotiations between BA and Unite?

There seems to be a distinct lack of urgency on both sides to negotiate.

[MPN11]

One could consider that Unite are having difficulty persuading the BASSA Gen Sec and his Reps, and indeed Amicus/CC89, to sit round the same table as BA?
Ahhh, such a United front against the demonic BA :rolleyes:

Or there could be completely different reasons, like "Legal Advice" ;)

Who knows ... it's their problem :ok:

[harrypic]

Finncapt raises an excellent point.....all part timers have a 100% vote, even though they are 33%/50% or whatever..........

So the 5700 votes, could be made up of many part timers.....so 5700 may not be a figure of actual strength of the IA in terms of work day impact to BA...at worse case (5700/0.33) it could be just 1727 support action......

Ok, simplistic Maths above....but you get my point....

[Frognal]

harrypic

No, I don't get your point.

In industrial action, all union members get a vote, regardless of which way they vote.

Three 33% workers going on strike has the same effect as one full time worker going on strike.

The only difference I can see is that it might take a little longer for 3 x 33% strikers to lose staff travel, due to rostering patterns.

A big rabbit hole, methinks.

[mrpony]

Forgive me for putting this down on paper - it's a question really:

5700 vote to strike but only 5000 ever will. Of the 5000, 2000 are part time at an average of 50%. Everyone is rostered for flying duties 50% of available time on any given day ( a complete guess ).

Strikers rostered to fly on a given day =

[(5000-2000) + (2000x50%)]x50% = 2000

Is that about right?

[Haymaker]

Three 33% workers going on strike has the same effect as one full time worker going on strike.
Are you sure? If 3 full-timers call a 3 day strike, the company loses 9 man days. If it's 3 33% workers who are each rostered for one day the company only loses 3 man days.

Therefore the original point stands - i.e. that, although part-timers boost a strike vote out of proportion to their working hours (unfairly according to some), when it comes to actually striking their one vote is not as powerful as that of a full-timer.

[LD12986]

From the update posted by BASSAWitch, the branch reps are not involved in the talks between BA and Unite.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall when Len reports back to BASSA....

[Mariner9]

And further, no less than 4 of the senior BASSA decision-makers have been sacked by BA, and thus their interest lies only in prolonging this dispute as settlement would see them out of a job.

I woulder if Unite will employ >5000 should BA decide enough is enough?

[Frognal]

Haymaker

This If 3 full-timers call a 3 day strike, the company loses 9 man days is true in an environment where everyone works every working day.

But it seems to me it is all about crewing planes, not about productivity in an office environment. If you don't have enough crew to despatch legally, the flight must be canceled.

So if you are one down, it does not matter whether they are FTE or 33%, the effect is the same, the flight is cancelled.

[AV Flyer]

Thanks to BASSAWitch on the other forum we now have an update on what is going on. According to DH only Unite (LM) and BA (KW) have had any discussions (negotiations) and thus BASSA & CC89 have not been involved at usual. We've been here before and it didn't work last time.

Much bluster and bravado sounding like BASSA is in charge with an implied short window of opportunity for BA to capitulate before announcing strike dates with still no statement of the reality (possibly because in the delusion there is genuinely no comprehension of the reality) that it's Unite's call whether to take the risk of an unprotected strike or that there are severe consequences to individual CC should they choose to take action.

Further, continuing denial of knowledge of the outcome of the ET even though BASSAWitch believes the outcome is known but not yet published.

With all this interim preamble Unite/BASSA are heading for a big disappointment from their loyal members should they not now call the strike. As they say the clock is indeed ticking - but most certainly not for BA to feel any pressure to capitulate - as BASSAWitch says "projection" - that most wonderful of delusions!

[VintageKrug]

Such is BASSA's incompetence, we are in the very strange position that the best outcome for BA would be for Unite to actually call a strike!

[Haymaker]

Frognal

So if you are one down, it does not matter whether they are FTE or 33%, the effect is the same, the flight is cancelled. But you only have a third chance of being one down with a 33% worker. See mrpony's post for a reasonable guess at the impact.

Anyway, this is all getting a bit academic, so I suggest we agree to differ and put it to one side.

[AV Flyer]

VK - Yes indeed!

In the event that Unite calls a strike then BA's dilemma will be "do we warn Unite of the consequences of unprotected action and risk them calling-off the strike" or "do we keep quiet this time as a strike is actually the best possible outcome for us"!

[Colonel White]

Um... I think you'll find that Unite have a duty to advise members of the possible outcome of striking if they think that it might be unprotected. Now the union may weasel and claim that they have legal advice that indicates that the actually will be protected. All of which will be very interesting if it comes to court.

[mrpony]

If it wasn't for the fact Mark and I have been sacked and we now employ Ken/Penny in Unite House, BASSA would not be able to function at all so bear with us.


That'll all be shown in the accounts then will it, the money being spent on you, Mark and Ken/Penny? And the admin records will show how and why? The membership having first been consulted?

I can't believe anyone would believe this insulting pile of bullsh!t. The way is being paved for full time employees to represent BASSA after the anticipated embarrassing climb-down and subsequent reorganisation of the Branch. Now, I can't imagine who'll be up for that number, can you?

[77]

So if you are one down, it does not matter whether they are FTE or 33%, the effect is the same, the flight is cancelled

Just to be pedantic BA and many airlines normal cabin crew is in excess of the minimum crewing levels for departure.
It is not unusual to depart with less cabin crew (or possibly pilots when heavy crewed) than the industrial agreement requires, providing the crew agrees.
Of course this needs good industrial relations and the crew having taken the interests of passengers and company into account.

[Snas]

Um... I think you'll find that Unite have a duty to advise members of the possible outcome of striking if they think that it might be unprotected.

Bearing in mind the often repeated advise “you can’t be sacked for striking”, I wouldn’t place money on the Union being more accurate on this occasion than they have been on any other.

ST in 5 mins anyone?

Personally my advice to any member of crew considering going on strike would be to gather independent and professional advice on the possible consequences.

I think we can all agree that BASSA is not independent on this matter, I’ll let you form your own judgements with regards to their being professional or not – I certainly have mine..!

[Frognal]

But you only have a third chance of being one down with a 33% worker. See mrpony's post for a reasonable guess at the impact.Final word from me, the above is not a valid analysis.

A 33% worker is a 100% crew member of any given flight complement.

77

Your are right, my 'one down' was in reference to the legal minimum crew, not the industrial agreement. Apologies for any ambiguity.

[77]

Understood...no ambiguity now.
A lot of cabin crew will go the extra mile. They are not all BASSA fundamentalists.
Finally cancellation is not the only option. On some occasions it may be possible to offload a few pax if less than the minimum cabin crew so that the pax load is within the parameters for the number of cabin crew.

Not up to date on current regulations but on some small a/c it used to be 1 CC per 50 pax.
99 pax = 2 cabin crew
101pax = 3 cabin crew

[VintageKrug]

I think the effect of the many part-timers on both the ballot result and the operation in the event of a strike should not be underestimated.

Having part time staff voting to strike artifically inflates the actual damage the withdrawal of labour could inflict on the operation; having one crew member down is less of an issue as BA does not crew to minimal levels, and it's even less of an issue if that space can be rapidly filled by a VCC or Mixed Fleeter. :D


I can't believe anyone would believe this insulting pile of bullsh!t. The way is being paved for full time employees to represent BASSA after the anticipated embarrassing climb-down and subsequent reorganisation of the Branch. Now, I can't imagine who'll be up for that number, can you?


Did I understand that correctly; the Malone/Everard/Holley show could continue as they could potentially become permanently salaried BASSA reps even though two of them don't work for BA any longer??? :=

Weird and Wondrous indeed! :ugh:

It's just so very important that people within BASSA take an interest in the internal workings of the Branch and are in a position to nominate themselves to run the branch once Holley et al. step down in October; if they remain unopposed, this embarrassing shower of an "leadership" could continue misrepresenting the interests of cabin crew.

[LD12986]

Of the sacked reps one, Nicky Marcus, is now employed by Unite. Mark Everard was able to build a successful kitchen fitting business whilst working for BA so I doubt he'll be looking for a job.

I doubt DH has any chance of gaining full time employment with Unite and the fact that he hasn't a year after being sacked by BA speaks volumes.

BASSA will cease to exist when this farce is finally over as the dissolution of the two separate branches is inevitable. Unite will not a repeat of this.

[mrpony]

Did I understand that correctly; the .....show could continue as they could potentially become permanently salaried BASSA reps even though two of them don't work for BA any longer???

I don't know this to be the case. Though these people have been remarkably bad at strategic thinking in the interests of BASSA's members, they didn't get to be union top dogs without a certain amount of tactical animal cunning. They must know, whatever they say, that the game's up on this round of IA.

I'd start planning for the future if I were them, and the only paying one available is staring them in the face.

I think the members need someone to 'Braveheart' the situation. No luck thus far.

[RTR]

I still cannot agree that people like Holley and Everard can negotiate with BA when they are no longer employed by them. How can it be, whichever way you point, that these dismissed individuals could enter the office of KW to 'represent BASSA!' It is absurd. And if, as is suggested by VK, that they could become "salaried reps of BASSA even though are no longer employed by BA" they could still represent BASSA.

That is even more absurd and I really do doubt that part of the discussion KW is having with LMcC is that he will not allow BASSA reps in the ilk of Holley and Everard in his office. I'd say that is right and proper. It is so ridiculous it is in the realm of a black farce - even a comedy!

Btw. Did we hear after all that DH failed at Watford?

[Cough]

Pax per seats used to be 1/50 seats installed, now under EU-OPS its more like 1/50 seats installed when the aircraft was certified. However operators who used to operate to the old numbers can still do so, new operators can also operate to these numbers if there is someone else out there doing it!

[MPN11]

There are many interesting aspect as to who from BASSA gets involved with the 'negotiations', not least those who have a financial interest in prolonging the dispute so that they continue to be paid a salary from BASSA subscriptions.

It would appear that Malone and Marcus have been absorbed into the greater 'organisation' that is Unite ... where they can undoubtedly provide expert advice on the subject in question, and show Unite how to really 'send a message to BA'.

I would imagine BA's Legal department are considering all these aspects.
I doubt Unite's legal Department are considering the depth of the hole they're digging ... or indeed the quality of the shovels they're using.

[Northern Flights]

VK

Did I understand that correctly; the Malone/Everard/Holley show could continue as they could potentially become permanently salaried BASSA reps even though two of them don't work for BA any longer???

BASSA might at least have to amend their 'About us' page, which already appears to be out of date: "BASSA is an active and progressive union, which is entirely staffed by elected representatives, all of whom work as BA cabin crew."

•*BASSA•*About us (http://www.bassa.co.uk/BASSA/WebPages/AboutUs.asp)

[Colonel White]

Erm... I think you'll find that Lizanne Malone has had a seat on the Unite Exec council for a number of years. As far as Holley and Everard go, once the positions of chair, branch secretary and reps on the BASSA executve are filled, it will be interesting to see if there is a shake up at BASSA HQ. I'd suggest that a new crowd might wish to put clear blue water betwixt themselves and the BASSA Old Guard, if for no better reason than to stand a chance to recruit new members.

One thing that strikes me as a major flaw has been the apparent lack of succession planning. The BASSA exec must have known that its two leading members were due for retirement this year, yet there seems to have been a total absence of grooming replacements, unless of course the replacements were seen to be people who have since been sacked by BA. Net result is that it is entirely possible that people totally unconnected with the current bunch will stand and get elected. They may be somewhat dismayed at the state of the branch records and could conduct a purge of those who were responsible - a cleaning of the stables job.

[Dawdler]

Other unions have "Full Time Officials", why not BASSA? You could understand militant members might welcome DH & Co., being appointed just to "stick one up" at BA.

In my (very limited) union membership in the 1950's* I always understood that the penultimate place for a local dispute to go was York, where dedicated full time officials of both unions and employers negotiated matters over a table before going "National". I am probably about 50 years out of date with union procedures because at the first opportunity, (i.e. when I changed my job) I left the union and never re-joined, being responsible for my own pay negotiations ever since.

* As 16 year old engineering apprentices we were strongly co-erced (i.e. forced) to join the AEU even though it was not quite a closed shop.

[LD12986]

In terms of successors at BASSA, I think anyone will have difficulty escaping the shadow of Duncan et al. I would not assume DH will let go of BASSA easily. There are certainly plenty of ex crew who spend their comfortable retirement on other fora poisoning the well.

The fact that BASSA and CC89 have managed (entirely through their own collective actions) render themselves impotent in negotiations with everything delegated upwards to Unite reflects badly on them (just where does all that money go?). Going forward, I expect both separate branches to be dissolved with Unite keeping a firm grip on things.

[Mariner9]

I suspect that the majority of posters on here would say that DH & Co have led BASSA poorly (or perhaps appalingly), perhaps citing the loss of ST and wages, the lack of a payrise, the introduction of MF, the loss of respect for cabin crew amongst their BA colleagues and the public, the antagonistic attitude to their excellent employers etc etc.

However, I rather suspect the 5,000-odd yes voters would say they are perfectly happy with the leadership who portray themselves as Martyrs to the cause standing firm against a vindictive employer :ugh:

The 3,000-odd who seemingly can't be bothered to vote on their own futures would appear unlikely to care who leads them.

The no-voters are in a significant minority, and its possible that some/many have left BASSA following the latest ballot result.

I rather suspect therefore that there would be little opposition from the BASSA members if DH&Co were to install themselves as permanent salaried officials.

[gr8tballsoffire]

Should the present BASSA leadership stay in situ as full time officials the IR relationship with BA would be in danger of remaining in a state of permanent dispute. I cannot see BA allowing that to happen and will find (legal) means to sideline the likes of DH and LM unless Unite reel them in.

As an aside, I was meeting friends in Covent Garden last night and was gobsmacked to see a rather fine building right in the middle of that area belonging (or rented) to Unite. Why is it neccessary for a union to have offices in one of the most expensive parts of London?

[Litebulbs]

I was at the Unite office the other week. It is dead handy being there, as the TUC is just round the corner. If you think that about the London office, you should go and see Esher Place. Right in the heart of the broker belt is a beacon of trade unionism:E

Would I campaign for removal of these assets etc, to bring down my £120 per year subs: na.

[Snas]

you should go and see Esher Place. Right in the heart of the broker belt is a beacon of trade unionism


Unite is a business in every way that a stoke broker firm is, I'm surprised by nothing that they do accordingly. Far from speaking from a high horse unions these days are right there at the trough with all the other little piggies....

[gr8tballsoffire]

Litebulbs

This is exactly the kind of profligacy that I despise in present day unionism.

Snas makes a good point about them joining the rest at the trough!!

We should be able to differentiate between bankers who rip us off and unions who are supposed to protect us (funded by OUR subs).

Sorry mods...off thread, but relevant to BASSA's less than clear financial arrangements.

[RTR]

The very grand buildings, offices, cars, high salaries and perks are part and parcel of any of the union hierarchy who despise it in the high ranking CEO's and managers they deal with, trying to belittle them and make them squirm - but after 5 o/clock they love it!

[MPN11]

Nothing new about 'nice offices' ... back in the 60's one of the big Unions had their HQ on Richmond Green :cool:

[Litebulbs]

Esher Place is Unite's national training and conference centre and is also an asset if the union and its funding is well worth a percentage of my subs.

i am sure that any General Secretary would be happy to compare their remuneration package with most FTSE CEO's.

[LD12986]

I'll have whatever he/she is smoking.

Swales you will soon find out.

There will be no more strikes as there will no need to be. The end is very near and the company has given in.

I also hear that some senior heads will roll and all the sacked will be re-instated. That's right your nemesis once again a CSD.

Staff travel is back in full with a compensation ticket with a higher priority than anyone else, and payments for lost earnings.

Mixed fleet stopped and the ones integrated.

BASSA to be apologised to and recognised. Agreements to be re-enforced and strengthened.

I'm hearing complete victory.

You lot have been shown up and disgraced and you will never recover from this.

[ExXB]

Is that not irony? Or sarcasm?

[MPN11]

... or a Troll?

It has about as much factual substance as the sermon our cat gave last Sunday to a small congregation of mice.

[Mariner9]

Amusing though. There hadn't been a post on that thread for over 24 hours till Crewfriend came on proclaiming victory.

I do hope the thought of a promised victory will cheer up any sourpuss BASSA cc's who are going to be looking after my comfort and safety on my Club Europe Athens flight this coming Sunday :rolleyes:

[Ancient Observer]

That "contributor" over on the CC thread sounds just like some of the Trots and SWP characters that I used to deal with in the 70's and 80's.
I knew a lot more Marx and Miliband than they did, but still they trotted out the same old, same old.

And, just like to-day's lot, they could not negotiate their way either in to or out of, a paper bag.

That one sounds like SWP. She/he conveniently forgets that the SWP is owned and run by Millionaires as a bit of leftie fun on the side for when they are not appropriating someone else's previously expropriated surplus wage labour

[Neptunus Rex]

'Crewfriend,' starring on that other thread, is a tonic.

Reading his posts, I had a mental picture of the inimitable Robert Lindsay playing Wolfie Smith of the Tooting Popular Front in the '70s sitcom "Citizen Smith."

Perhaps Crewfriend could write the script for an updated version - "Citizen Holley," with the pilot episode entitled "Tears Before Bedfont."

[MPN11]

Humour is temporarily cancelled, as "Crewfriend" has joined a couple of others in the Sin Bin.

However, the latest missive from HQ BASSA is on the CC Thread. It includes ...

As cabin crew, we still have ten points of dispute between British Airways and ourselves; these still remain and must be resolved.
Ooops ... continuation of previous dispute

Strike action is still very much a tool at our disposal, AND LEN HAS STATED THAT HE WILL NOT HESITATE TO ANNOUNCE STRIKE DATES, IF REQUIRED.
Once he's sure that the strike would be legal

However, as long as there remains a possibility of achieving that without resorting to strike action, then obviously that must be the preferred path.
Which is why we keep calling for a vote for strike action

:ugh:

:ugh:

[LD12986]

The last time Duncan said "there's nothing to worry about" was before Unite went to see a QC about the previous strike ballot...

I really can't see BA changing its position significantly.



BASSA - Latest News BASSA STATEMENT Apr 8th, 2011 by admin

Firstly, please accept our sincere apologies for the lack of updates this week; this was not deliberate but a prudent necessity.

Please be assured that there currently is no need for concern, though concern is of course understandable. Be reassured, things are happening behind the scenes involving your senior BASSA reps and the highest levels of BA management, it is the first time this has happened, it is tentative and exploratory, the fragile first green shoots if you like of a possible peace; it remains a fragile peace, but it is encouraging that there are even signs. There is a long, long way to go, but everything has to start somewhere and we would be irresponsible if we did not at least play our part in allowing this to be given oxygen.

Mr Williams brings with him a different perspective, and we intend to give him the opportunity to solve this dispute if we possibly can.

This will not be at any price.

As cabin crew, we still have ten points of dispute between British Airways and ourselves; these still remain and must be resolved.

Strike action is still very much a tool at our disposal, AND LEN HAS STATED THAT HE WILL NOT HESITATE TO ANNOUNCE STRIKE DATES, IF REQUIRED.

However, as long as there remains a possibility of achieving that without resorting to strike action, then obviously that must be the preferred path.

Every opportunity will be given to British Airways to join us in that aim.

We totally accept that it is extremely frustrating for you not to hear specifics, but please bear with us a little longer, we know what needs to be solved and your reps will be directly involved in trying to do so.

This does not mean that we will be successful in this dialogue and the fact that we have remained fairly silent, communication wise, does not mean strike action has gone away, it has not, far from it, but we hope you will see the sense in exploring every opportunity first.

A cynical view could be that this is just a stalling tactic to delay any action until after the Easter holidays, but we do not believe this to be the motivation, we will accept these approaches as genuine, until proven to be otherwise.

We will update you further after the weekend but for now, enjoy the sunshine and let us do what we do best, look after you.

We haven’t come this far to let you down now.

[notlangley]

1) Is Duncan Holley a reliable source of information?

2) Does anyone have a reliable source of information to support the statement that Mr Holley has taken his case to Appeal?

Candidates can answer questions in any order - however candidates who answer question (2) first, should state the relevant UKEAT number in their answer.

[mrpony]

I've just had a translation of the post above the one above sent to me:

Look, we haven't got a hope in hell of winning this thing, we can't strike anyway. The hole that has been dug by BA that I told you about isn't actually a hole in the ground. It's more like the diggings from a hole that's been made into a platform from which BA can dictate the terms of a settlement. It's still a hole though. I told you to keep the faith. Well I've had a bit of a think about that and faith is very subjective. When I've decided what faith should now be, I'll let you know. Keep paying your subs.

.

[LD12986]

In terms of the ten items in the dispute, BA will give on some of the relatively superficial issues (eg, pay for crew on sick during the strike) to give Len something to take to the membership, but will not give any ground on the fundamental issues (Mixed Fleet, save for some general promises to consult etc). Unite will not give BASSA the strike it is salivating for. BASSA will try and spin this as a massive "victory".

Unite know BA will challenge this strike on the basis it is unprotected. BA told Unite this over 9 months ago.

The members have been led up the garden path and tens of thousands of members' funds has been wasted on futile ballots.

[pcat160]

Unite has over one million members. Bassa and CC89 have less than 10K members. Bassa and CC89 are less than 1% of Unites total membership. How far will Red Len go for 1%?

[Ancient Observer]

pcat
In the system that Mcgrumpy is in, it is very seldom about the numbers. It is more about his personal position in the UK's "Broad Left". If he can gain more credibility within the Broad left by having a strike, then he will do so.


The actual TU members are, and have always been, an irrelevance, once he has the ballot result. If the ballot result had been against the strike, Mc Grumpy would not involve himself at all.

[AV Flyer]

The moment that DH says "Please be assured that there currently is no need for concern........" then any sensible person would realise immediately that there should be great cause for concern. You don't hear BA making any statements like that because they don't need to - any rational person knows that BA is in charge.

After all the financial cost and personal pain experienced by people involved with BA's operations, that have been caused by BASSA's behaviour over the past 2 years (and prior), I really can't see BA (KW) making it easy for BASSA by letting them off the hook and settling at this time. BA would just be allowing DH and others to remain in power, claim a glorious victory, and repeat the entire charade again and again upon any future whim.

It may be that KW leaves the current offer on the table thus keeping it on record how BA have continued to be reasonable and negotiate in good faith while realising that BASSA will never agree to the offer. Remember that the current offer already has partial ST concessions made by BA last time on the agreement it would be presented to the BASSA members upon which Unite then reneged. BA would be more than justified in taking back those ST and any other concessions made and starting the negotiation over again from where they were prior to the last round should it wish.

No, this is BA's and all its backers' moment of glory where, after a long road, while showing extreme and mature patience in the face of thuggish and childish behaviour, it now has a chance to make the BASSA/Unite leaders squirm and reveal to their loyal members the lies, deceit and falsehoods expressed by them right-up to the very end. The more that DH spills his 'everything is fine and we're in control' messages the harder he will fall when the disappointment following the truth that will emerge within the next 12 days is felt.

As LD12986 says, I'd love to be a "fly on the wall" when KW's best offer falls well short of DH's power hungry aspirations and LM explains to DH he can't have his strike particularly after DH has put it out to his faithful that "LEN HAS STATED THAT HE WILL NOT HESITATE TO ANNOUNCE STRIKE DATES, IF REQUIRED." The fact that he feels the need to capitalise the words says much for his real internal feelings of insecurity in this regard let alone the need to have to say it in the first place. Remember that D (I'll strike and strike and stike until I'm sick) H has been wanting his next strike since 10.10.10.10......... and even before then.

If BA were to capitulate by making yet further concessions and settle at this stage then they would be in a worse position regarding DH & BASSA than ever before. They would throw away a very large part of the potential gains they could have made and it makes no sense whatsoever after the patience shown and the efforts that everyone backing BA has expended in the face of the BASSA inspired adversity.

Indeed, having come so far, BA would be doing itself and its supporters a severe injustice if it were not to let this play out until the strike dates have to be announced thus allowing Unite/BASSA to decide the next move. If they don't announce a strike they will look like incompetent fools (yet again), if they do announce a strike then BA has a plethora of preplanned, both defensive and net-tightening, options with which it will be only too keen and ready to respond.

[mrpony]

Thanks AV for the comparison with Violet Elisabeth. V. funny.

[AV Flyer]

mrp - You're most welcome. Yes, a very memorable character indeed.

Perhaps I should have written - I'll stwike and stwike and stwike until I'm thick!

[LD12986]

AV Flyer, you sum up the position perfectly.

KW knows exactly what he is dealing with. Unite has previously managed to squander every attempt by BA to settle/negotiate in good faith.

BA is not going to give ground easily and any movement on the truly substantive issues on Unite's shopping list (staff travel etc) is going to come with some pretty robust conditions.

One other point on strike action. Even though a full long haul schedule is planned, it is worth noting that since the last strike, BA has merged with Iberia and it has a joint-business with AA and Iberia for all transatlantic travel from Europe. Almost all (if not all) TATL services by AA carry a BA code and again almost all (if not all) Iberia long-haul services carry a BA code.

So even if one of BA's four weekly services to Mexico should be cancelled, most passengers could accommodated on Iberia's twice daily services.

Similarly if some of the CDG-LHR flights are cancelled, any transfer pax to North America could be accommodated on AA's direct flights to BOS, DFW, JFK, MIA and ORD which all carry a BA code.

[MPN11]

I suspect BASSA/DH hasn't noticed that, being too busy trying to find a slot at Bedfont for the next demonstration, and trying to get an access pass to Unite's HQ.

Nice point :ok:

[AV Flyer]

A very good point LD12986 - yet another tool BA has to mitigate the effects of any IA.

I am sure that BA will prefer Unite to call IA so it can determine the true number of named CC who are still prepared to strike rather than the 5811 who anonymously just wanted "to send BA a message".

Once this true number is known BA can form a strategy to bring about resolution. The lower the number the easier it will be to force the issue e.g. derecognition, voluntary redundancy, etc. The larger the number the more likely it will have to engage in a Mexican stand-off and war of attrition while waiting for rank-and-file CC to become disillusioned and finally replace BASSA's leadership either in-situ or by forming another Branch e.g. PCCC, with a leadership who is prepared to work with BA in a mature manner.

Either way, the remaining minority militant 'legacy' CC will never "feel" anything other than hard-done by BA even though the majority are happy enough to move-on.

The whole sad and sorry mess was brought about by a succession of weak, ineffective and generous BA managements allowing the CC Unions/Branches to run IFCE on pretty much their own terms while encouraging CC to believe they were the elite thus making them feel their relative importance to BA's operation was higher than it really is. Indeed, BA's 'weak' generosity continues today when instead of taking the SOSR option, as has been validated by opposing Counsel even, it continues to honour legacy CC's Ts&Cs, including future pay rises, when others have received cuts - not that CC, in their deluded Union-led bubble, even remotely comprehend let alone appreciate any of this.

The epitome of the current madness to me is the compensation payment for a burned-out light-bulb in the crew rest area. Lights bulbs burn-out for Christ's sake. Crew have emergency torches or could be trained to replace light bulbs as they do at their own homes! I don't suppose that Flight Crew receive a compensation payment when a key flight instrument fails? Instead they are trained to keep everyone safe by continuing to fly using a limited panel. As for the significant drop in bulb "failures" during the strikes, well, I'll hold fire as it speaks volumes for why it's long overdue that BA management take-back control.

The complete fairy-tale dream was further supported by an entire UK nation who believed in its colonial heritage along with the romance and excitement of world travel around its empire as represented through its supreme Flag Carrier - the one and only BA!

Interesting how times change.......

[Yellow Pen]

The whole sad and sorry mess was brought about by a succession of weak, ineffective and generous BA managements allowing the CC Unions/Branches to run IFCE on pretty much their own terms while encouraging CC to believe they were the elite thus making them feel their relative importance to BA's operation was higher than it really is.

Oh how true. Only a week ago I was listening to a CSD tell a manager that the reason gold card holders flew BA was the crew.

The epitome of the current madness to me is the compensation payment for a burned-out light-bulb in the crew rest area. Lights bulbs burn-out for Christ's sake. Crew have emergency torches or could be trained to replace light bulbs as they do at their own homes!

To be precise, the problem is not the lights going out but the lights staying on (their default fail-safe status). It's remarkable how many lighting control panels were affected once the payment became known!

[AV Flyer]

Yellow Pen - Apologies for the misunderstanding, however, what you suggest is happening is far worse than what I thought was a simple service matter. What you describe would essentially amount to tampering with the installed equipment on an airliner.

I'm not familiar with Aviation Law but could imagine that such an offence would carry a considerable penalty if convicted. For the professional CC to engage in such an activity in the interests of increasing their pay sounds pretty bad to me. Who knows what other systems could be inadvertently disrupted in the process?

To your knowledge, how has BA management handled this matter when brought to its attention?

[Litebulbs]

So you are alleging that a member of the cabin crew would interfere with an aircraft system and this would not be addressed by both engineering and cabin crew management?

[AlpineSkier]

You know, i think he is , LB.

[Hotel Mode]

I think it was addressed in 2 ways. Firstly the procedure was changed to have the Captain involved if a claim was made (any claim without their say so became invalid) and CC management took to inspecting the bunks before the crew boarded on some long range flights.

[Litebulbs]

So a plane lands and something is reported as broken, to allow an extra payment. Now who looks at the broken thing? Do you not think that if a repetitive problem that was not there, but now is, then it would not be looked into?

[Yellow Pen]

So you are alleging that a member of the cabin crew would interfere with an aircraft system and this would not be addressed by both engineering and cabin crew management?

No, I'm alleging that a member of the cabin crew would interfere with an aircraft system to get an extra payment. There is a reason why any claim for 'Bunk lights wouldn't go out' payments now require a corresponding entry in the aircraft tech log and an investigatory inspection by engineering.

[mrpony]

Great move by KeefW this:

BA turns to psychologist to heal rift with union | Business | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/10/british-airways-psychologist-industrial-relations)

completely discombobulating for dh I imagine.

[Litebulbs]

So it would appear that what you are suggesting may have happened, but it has been correctly managed now?

[Shack37]

So it would appear that what you are suggesting may have happened, but it has been correctly managed now?


That's how I read it and with other reports/story's previously posted on the subject, plus the not so veiled threats from DH (guerilla warfare etc) it doesn't seem so far fetched.

[mrpony]

is this personal?

[LD12986]

Interesting development re the appointment of a psychologist. Though, I suspect that attitudes in some are so hardened that nothing will change things.

[Litebulbs]

is this personal?

Na, my bulbs are secure.

[PAXboy]

'Bunk lights wouldn't go out'
Then get a set of sleep shades from F. One set that I purchased years ago and have washed STILL keeps full daylight out. A bunk light would be no problem.

Sorry - but I just can't get concerned about such things. If I was a BA shareholder, I would have been asking questions.

[Litebulbs]

No need to worry, it is being managed now, it appears.

[VintageKrug]

In some of the posts above there does seem to be a suggestion that this blatant sabotage for financial gain was somehow caused by management's failure to manage.

I would suggest it is not about that at all.

While there are many hard working, diligent cabin crew there is also a small minority intent on harming BA in "weird and wondrous" ways.

It's good to see it's easy to frustrate their childish antics. But it shouldn't have to be that way.

BASSA et al must take responsibility for such "guerilla" activity, and BA must take a harsh line with the perpetrators to ensure they are performance managed out of the business.

BA Management has neutralised the threat to passengers, but the threat to other BA employees, shareholders and pensioners remains; it will remain until BASSA's present leadership is marginalised and voted out.

That can only come from within the ranks of current BA cabin crew.

[wiggy]

BA Management has neutralised the threat to passengers, but the threat to other BA employees, shareholders and pensioners remains

VK

Very true. Most observers can now see that the strike is a busted flush, but just how are the company going to rehabilitate those strikers who arrive at work clearly still carrying a grudge against pilots/non - striking cabin crew/uncle Tom Cobbley and all? I've not seen evidence of sabotage and/or bullying, but I have seen instances crews certainly not, shall we say, "getting along".

[LD12986]

I've taken many flights where you simply would not notice that an industrial dispute was ongoing. There have been others where crew seem disengaged or where interaction between crew members is distinctly frosty. But that has been the case long before the dispute started.

[mrpony]

BASSAwitch's detective skills come to the fore again:

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/429534-ba-cc-industrial-relations-current-airline-staff-only-192.html

Someone's beginning to feel powerless and left out. Such a clever move by BA.

I get the Guardian and am starting to be unimpressed

I bet the Editor's quaking in his boots. Unbebloominglievable.

[LD12986]

I think BASSAWitch is on the money. The Guardian has published numerous stories that appear to be sourced directly from Unite, as well as comment pieces from supposedly anonymous pilots and managers (where it is always claimed WW is on the cusp of losing support at Waterside).

Through dogged determination The Guardian has been influential in getting News International to admit that phone hacking was far more widespread than it originally claimed. It is a pity that it doesn't deploy the same investigative skills when reporting on BASSA.

[mrpony]

If I haven't misunderstood, it is a certain Branch Sec who is unimpressed with the Guardian's reporter and reporting.

Q. Why?

A. Because the journalist didn't deride BA's initiative (in introducing a psychologist into the equation) depsite the fact that the leaked details were quite specifically meant to lead to its ridicule.

That's my guess.

[hula]

I've taken many flights where you simply would not notice that an industrial dispute was ongoing. There have been others where crew seem disengaged or where interaction between crew members is distinctly frosty. But that has been the case long before the dispute started

Exactly. Stick 14 cabin crew together on an aircraft, for upto 9 days, not everyone is going to get on. Thats human nature and not just unique to BA. It happens in the cockpit too. Pilots don't always get on. (but SLF don't get to see that bit!!!;))

[Frognal]

Surely, crew on aircraft should not let their customers see that they are not getting on?

It seems to me to be a basic customer facing competence.

No doubt we all work with people we can't stand, but we never criticise or show emotions about them in front of the punters.

[AV Flyer]

Interesting development BA's engaging a psychologist.......

I can't quite place it, or the reason why BA should be playing it this way, but I have a hunch that BA's running of the entire matter from the start has been nothing short of professional and legal perfection.

It's almost as if BA is serially documenting its case ready for presentation to a judge who would be unable to do anything short of finding entirely in favour of BA's reasonable and overarchingly considerate behaviour in the face of Unite/BASSA's ill-disciplined thuggishness.

Hiring a psychologist just adds to BA's continuing impeccable record of bending-over backwards to try everything reasonably possible on this planet to achieve a negotiated settlement.

Is BA quietly preparing itself for a 90-day SOSR contract change after all?

Apparently an employer needs to show a breakdown in a relationship between two groups of employees (e.g. strikers and non-strikers) which is harming service delivery and has a negative impact such the two groups may no longer be able to work together (e.g. the frostiness towards each other and BA's customers).

If a psychologist were to determine the situation irremediable then an SOSR contract change could be deemed to be 'fair' under employment law.

But I'm not a lawyer!

[harrypic]

I think more likely an action against Unite for damages....and consequential loss....

[Litebulbs]

How did BA manage to recruit so many Millitant Tendancy SWP activists to work in a business orientated customer service role? Was there a tick box on the application form?

Ok, this is a bit cynical of me, but surely the balance of pre 97 employees must be in a senior role, so is it some deep plant to bring down the Guv'nor?

[Dawdler]

is it some deep plan(t) to bring down the Guv'nor?

Indeed I believe that was one of the stated aims early on in this dispute. It went something like "If we bring down the company - so be it".

[Hipennine]

Well, if the collective psychosis of 5700 of your customer facing workforce continues to be led and influenced by the likes of DH (with SWP add-ons), irrespective of how illogical that might appear to those outside of planet BASSA, employing a good shrink to help understand, and more importantly, turn around that collective psychosis is a very sound business/commercial strategy. Where else do BA go without using the nuclear button ?

[mrpony]

Couldn't agree more Hipennine. It's a great move designed to address the problem, not the way the problem is manifested. A clinically trained specialist in group dynamics and communication will quickly diagnose the trouble.

[malcolmf]

1997, nothing much has changed!

Sacked BA union man to appeal - News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sacked-ba-union-man-to-appeal-1266001.html)

[fincastle84]

1997, nothing much has changed!


Blimey, apart from the name change this article could refer exactly to the present dispute. Even the Bassa finances were a shambles back in '97.:ugh:

[AlpineSkier]

@ Litebulbs

The above article from 1997 contains the following :

Mr Coleman picks up nearly pounds 50,000 a year just in commission on his members' pounds 120 annual union subscription.

Mr Coleman also gets a 7 per cent cut from union subscriptions and pounds 75 a day he receives from branch

You have mused a few times that you feel any commission payments(unverified for current situation ) would be unacceptable.

In light of the above quote and general knowlege that big things like this don't change without a huge public fuss, would you not think that it now seems more likely that there is a big rake-off going to the lay-official(s) ?

[LD12986]

The parallels to 1997 in that article are remarkable:

- BASSA and CC89 at war with each other
- BASSA Branch Secretary sacked for gross misconduct
- Systematically weak administration on the part of BASSA

The real difference this time is of course in 1997 the LCCs and Middle Eastern carriers were tiny compared today, oil wasn't at $110 a barrel, there was no punitative taxation of aviation, no easy online price comparisons between airlines.

Running an airline was a walk in the park then compared to today.

Pity BASSA have had their fingers in their ears ever since.

[AV Flyer]

As discussed before by several of us, this entire matter is a very bad and sad indictment for the dreadful state of the Trade Union movement in the UK today.

A picture of WW with red eyes on Unite BA CC's front webpage pretty much sums it all up for me - high school children, if that!

I'm sure that BA, while wanting to negotiate collectively with a representative union rather than CC individually, would much prefer dealing with a professional entity run at a similar level to that at which it handles its own PLC affairs.

The CC members should demand nothing less themselves in exchange for their monthly subs.

Perhaps this is what PCCC are trying to offer if they could only pluck-up enough courage to face the BASSA bullying and unpleasantness head-on to get their message across to CC.

Beyond that CC will get the representation that they choose.....

[Frognal]

If long term psychosis is really the problem, then a clinical psychologist does not have a big enough range of treatments to deal with the problem.

[Ancient Observer]

Frognal,
technically, that is correct. To section someone with the sort of paranoid schizophrenia or whatever psychosis is at work, would require both a clinical psychologist AND and psychiatrist.
My only problems with that are that the nutty medics at Uni all did psychiatry, and the nutty psychologists all wanted to go down the clinical route.

Have the medics made any progress yet with lobotomy reversals?

[Frognal]

Ancient Observer

Emperical evidence from this dispute suggests that lobotomies performed on senior union (and some may also say senior executives) have not yet been reversed successfully, given the behaviours.

I don't think a clinical pyschologist is needed, just a psychiatrist with a bulk supply of strait jackets and a very large syringe ;)

Or a very optimistic psychiatrist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yvVygeK8VI

[pcat160]

Last Friday, April 8, Duncan said "We will update you further after the weekend but for now, enjoy the sunshine and let us do what we do best, look after you." Duncan we are waiting.

[Litebulbs]

You are probably right and if you are, it is definitely wrong.

[Litebulbs]

Sometimes I feel like an idiot trying to maintain the moral high ground, by standing on a bucket in a pool of quicksand!

[RTR]

If reports of very lucrative payments are true (which unbelievably no members seem to actually know for sure), then you have a justification for a very serious resource guarding battle. Some might not want to give up that kind of income stream without a fight. My bold.

It is now beginning to smell. Right there is probably the nub of this ridiculous dispute. It is time for the rules to be observed and BASSA's accounts being made available. Thoughts are inevitably wandering and it is incumbent upon BASSA to produce them for inspection - last week would not be too soon. It cannot be a problem to open the accounts for inspection if there is nothing to hide. I am not suggesting for one moment there is but doubt is rising.

[Diplome]

Litebulbs:

I don't see you as an individual who tries to defend the indefensible..not in the least.

You have a firm belief that an honourable Union, acting in the best interests of its members is a valuable entity.

I believe many here share your belief. It is frustrating for me to consider some of the conduct observed during this "situation" and I am not a Union member. It must be even more painful for those who have worked, for the right reasons and with the right intentions, the Union side.

I'm hopeful that there will be change within BASSA. It would be a great thing for the Cabin Crew community and my personal opinion is that they deserve better than what they are receiving at the moment.

[Litebulbs]

Cheers, but I suppose it is only fair to say that my beliefs and self proclaimed moral high ground (blowing smoke up my own backside on rereading!), only counts for the left had side of the world! There are plenty on here who think that me and my lot are all something from a previous era; individual rights and all.

[mrpony]

Litebulbs
Bo**ocks to the daily-mailers. Your consistent and self-effacing balancing commentary is appreciated by more people than you think.

[Sonorguy]

Frognal,
technically, that is correct. To section someone with the sort of paranoid schizophrenia or whatever psychosis is at work, would require both a clinical psychologist AND and psychiatrist.
My only problems with that are that the nutty medics at Uni all did psychiatry, and the nutty psychologists all wanted to go down the clinical route.


Point of order, but this is incorrect. In order to detain someone under the Mental Health Act outside of a hospital setting you require the assessments of a psychiatrist, another doctor (who may or may not be a psychiatrist, it's often a GP) and an Approved Mental Health Professional, who is a social worker 99.99% of the time but could theoretically be a nurse, although I've never seen one.

In a hospital a detention can be carried out by a doctor or an RMN nurse but not a psychologist (unless they are registered as an RMN as some have done this first).

Psychologists aren't used as they aren't qualified to carry out the detention, even the clinical ones.

Back to the thread!

[Ancient Observer]

Sonorguy - Er, OK. We just had a moment of Jet Blast, so I joined in.

Looking forward, how on Earth are future relationships in the BA CC world to be re-set, and then properly maintained? It will take more than one psychologist. Over 5,000 normally reasonably intelligent folk are still voting for Industrial Action.

There is plenty of evidence that high performing Companies perform better than mediocre Companies by having a better "Climate". Climate is the Quantification of culture. Google Glowinkowski for more info, and/or read his book. (Amazon have it).

The "Climate" in BA CC needs to be measured, and those bits that are poor need to be changed - radically. This sort of change takes time - at least 2 years and up to 5 years.
Meanwhile, we pax have to put up with cheaper products as dictated by BA served to us by some staff who are clearly great and switched on to service, and others who are, er, not quite so well motivated.
Further, unless BA are going to fire the bad performers - and dodgy reps, and I see little evidence that they are going to, relationships will need to be re-built with (hopefully) a re-launched bassa (or maybe PC3) and a new group of sensible representatives.

Quite a job to be done.

As I've said before, I would start by energising the managers of CC - and if necessary increasing their numbers whilst getting rid of/"creatively externally re-deploying" those CC managers who want a desk job, and who can't/won't make the effort to get out there pro-actively to meet the crew on a regular basis.
I'd also remove from line roles those CSDs who see them selves as strike leaders rather than as first line leaders in a potentially great Company.

However, I would like to see more signs that this is happening!!