BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions V [Archive] - Page 3

Entaxei

13th Apr 2011, 22:49

With the potential information emerging from BASSA's 1997 history, current missing accounts, minutes, etc., coupled with their apparent inability to find anyone to talk to, it would appear that the only likely event still to happen is for some misguided souls to go on strike and be fired, which presumably would get rid of the remaining hardcore militants.

However, this would still leave the CC89 branch, which have recently been following the same style of leadership and responses as those of BASSA, although probably from a SWP background rather than one of paranoia. This element could presumably be directly squashed by Unite as a straight forward branch disciplinary matter, to bring it into line.

This could then produce one new CC branch for Unite, for it would not seem sensible to allow the old branch titles to continue, given the attached baggage.

So that only leaves a couple of questions -

1) Given Mclusky's current declared wish to have all and sundry go on
strike for various reasons, is it really a good idea for BA to have all their
CC tied up in a new union setup of this nature or -

2) Give PCCC recognition rights to MF and Unite for rest or -

3) Allow a free for all between PCCC and Unite.

It would also be nice if, whatever was agreed, that the union parties involved would publicly declare the full financial details of their operations, to ensure that there were no dark corners remaining.

Hope springs eternal as they say - who's Hope, did I hear you ask! ;)

notlangley

14th Apr 2011, 06:55

Lots of people on this thread have been confidently predicting that X will be revealed on such and such a date._ It is then embarrassing that this tantalising piece of information called X (accounts, EAT result etc) does not come forth.

I can now confidently predict that within the next five days there will be a relevant piece of information that will come from either Unite or BASSA or from some Officer or Spokesperson of such organisation.

Correction - wherever I have used the sexist word Spokesperson, please change this to Spokesperoffspring.

Entaxei

14th Apr 2011, 08:27

But under the Harman equality act, I did not believe that you could use this expression, as Audi had copyrighted this in German throughout the EU and also other American connections, something about 'Doorsprings' ?. I may be wrong of course. :cool:

mrpony

14th Apr 2011, 09:39

I can now confidently predict that within the next five days there will be a relevant piece of information that will come from either Unite or BASSA or from some Officer or Spokesperson of such organisation.

Will it have something to do with not striking?

Richard228

14th Apr 2011, 13:44

Will it have something to do with not striking?perhaps to send another message by having another ballot - that'll show 'em! :sad:

MPN11

14th Apr 2011, 16:16

From another Forum ... BBC says that Unite and BA have extended talks for another 28 days.

Looking for the link ... Joint statement by Unite the union and British Airways (http://www.unitetheunion.org/news__events/latest_news/joint_statement_by_unite_the_u.aspx)

notlangley

14th Apr 2011, 16:57

LD12986

14th Apr 2011, 17:04

Looks good and the change in tone seems very positive.

I guess it's different for Len now he's actually the General Secretary and has to stand by the decisions he makes.

Snas

14th Apr 2011, 17:12

The joint statement is nice, but I'll await BASSA's statement before I judge I think..!

MPN11

14th Apr 2011, 17:22

Interesting view on things ...

LD12986 ... Here its down to Len McC.
BettyGirl ... Over there its down to KW being in charge.

I think the SLF should strike over the lack of clarity ;) :D

Tigger4Me

14th Apr 2011, 18:02

MPN11

14th Apr 2011, 18:09

Another great analysis, baggersup.

How does Holley fit into the equation? I'm assuming he's marginalised by Unite at the moment, so how does Len McC or anyone else prevent him from kicking off again [to prolong the dispute and his BASSA salary]?

GrahamO

14th Apr 2011, 19:06

Interesting to see a whole lot of assumptions implictly being made about the outcome ....

A lasting settlement will require resolution on matters important to cabin crew:

The above does NOT mean that the cabin crew demands will be met in any way whatsoever, yet I sense that a lot of posters are assuming this ..... or maybe its just my assumption.

The listed issues are of just as much import to BA, namely the non-interference in internal procedures for staff discipline, and the fact that the clocks cannot be turned back and BA legacy crew (or whatever they are called) are going to have to accept the gravy train has left the station and their lifestyle is going to have to suffer.

Just my views - I doubt that KW will give anything away that WW fought to defend.

LD12986

14th Apr 2011, 19:59

Interesting view on things ...

LD12986 ... Here its down to Len McC.
BettyGirl ... Over there its down to KW being in charge.

I think the SLF should strike over the lack of clarity

If believing that KW is the Mr Nice Guy who has helped find a settlement (and we're not there yet) then so be it. But BA management and the Unite leadership have never been that far apart. The issue has always been, and remains, BASSA. Unite's lack of appetite for further IA has been clearly demonstrated by how long they took to reballot after the last round and they have denied BASSA strikes over Christmas and Easter, which many of the hardcore were salivating for.

When Len was campaigning for Gen Sec it suited him to align himself with BASSA to make a name for himself during the dispute. Lizanne Malone and Duncan Holley are on the record as holding out for Len to take over from Tony Woodley so BASSA could up the ante against BA.

Now Len is Gen Sec he is faced with the decision to call a strike that could expose Unite to ruinous litigation and be ineffective. He really has no choice but to get a deal from BA that he can present to BASSA without losing too much face.

LD12986

14th Apr 2011, 21:19

Interesting to see DH's spin on events at . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE (http://www.uniteba.com) where he reiterates the laundry list of 10 issues (whereas the joint statement distiller them into three issues) and suggests that the 28 day extension is a goodwill gesture for BA returning staff travel and "justice" for disciplined crew, when nothing has been agreed.

VintageKrug

14th Apr 2011, 22:13

I think he's just sidelined now. Time to look to the future.

Where are those accounts? And when's the next Branch election.....if there will be a Branch to elect to....

Litebulbs

14th Apr 2011, 22:30

If there is a palatable result, then the Bassa Branch will grow......

Ah, the rhetoric that we spout!

mrpony

14th Apr 2011, 22:45

I just wonder how Unite and BASSA are planning to allocate the power (jobs and money) after this agonising, badly-choreographed climb-down.

Litebulbs

14th Apr 2011, 22:50

Well, if any member money was going to any lay rep, other than for reasonable expenses, then that should be stamped out straight away. Then it is down to the members, not Unite, BA or even pprune!

pcat160

15th Apr 2011, 04:29

Right On !

pcat160

15th Apr 2011, 04:49

28 more days for Len to let the air out of the balloon, good luck!

mrpony

15th Apr 2011, 07:19

Then it is down to the members, not Unite, BA or even PPRuNe!

That's the problem. It hasn't been down to the members who have been systematically duped and are still being. The plan will be to hang on to as much of the dosh as possible and I'd like to bet that the carve up has already happened. This is now a news management exercise. Not that this is anything new. You're right though, it's up to them. But only if they can get their hands on the levers of power. The way that BASSA is set up makes this virtually impossible.

Juan Tugoh

15th Apr 2011, 07:43

UNITE and BASSA have delivered to BA a once in a lifetime opportunity to reset or redefine the relationship they have with the union. It is fairly clear to most impartial observers that this relationship has been disfunctional for years and needs to be changed. If BA now fail to act and let BASSA off the hook then it will be another management failing of monumental proportions. (BA's relationship with UNITE is a normal one, it is the relationship with BASSA where the problem lies.) The days when BA essentially let BASSA be the middle management for the CC need to be assigned to history books that look at how not to run an airline. I hope that this extension is merely indicative of real negotiations taking place and not signs of KW deciding to end the dispute by caving in - the historic way that BA dealt with BASSA and why we are in the position we are in now.

Ancient Observer

15th Apr 2011, 10:21

Juan,
yup. Maybe BA need to increase the number of "managers" as a section of CSDs do not want to do the real "management" job. They also need to get those managers out and about, pro-actively engaging with CC, to "replace" the management role that bassa seemed to be carrying out.

BA will need to relate to some sort of union - whether it is a re-formed bassa or PC3.

I wonder how PC3 is getting along?

Northern Flights

15th Apr 2011, 10:36

JT & AO

For me, the key words in the joint statement were:

...it is recognised by the Union that that the management and acceptance of change is the key to lasting peace.

Ancient Observer

15th Apr 2011, 11:05

Whilst I agree that there needs to be more acceptance of change, research in many Companies shows that the Climate - (a way of measuring culture) is created by the local manager.........and NOT by the CEO. (Google Glowinkowski for a recent, and UK based approach to the research)

If there is no local manager it is not surprising that over time the Union rep takes over that role. The simple fact that they are there and available, often senior, gives them that managerial role.

So if the manager is absent (at their desks, for instance, or without enough time to meet their very mobile staff), BA should not be surprised that there is no change orientation........ The Rep is effectively managing the place.

This is not bassa's fault. it is BAs, and they need to act on it NOW.

LD12986

15th Apr 2011, 17:52

Whilst KW obviously would prefer his time as CEO is not blighted by industrial action, he is no fool and he has not just walked in at BA off the street. Have been close to WW he has seen first hand the tactics of "Lenny" and BASSA.

BA has always made clear that Unite needs to change the way BASSA operates and I can't see BA agreeing a settlement without a robust overhaul of relations rather than simple promises to restart relations which is what happened when Tony Woodley and Willie Walsh shook hands on a deal in 2007.

pcat160

15th Apr 2011, 18:33

I cannot believe how naive some cc posting on the other thread seem to be. KW was promoted to his present position by WW. KW reports to WW. KW is carrying out decisions that have been make by WW. Nothing will be done without the concurrence of WW. KW may put on a different face, but the policy will be that of WW. As another poster pointed out, a perfect opportunity for the “good cop, bad cop” strategy.

Betty girl

15th Apr 2011, 19:02

Pcat,
No one is being naive. Obviously WW and KW have the same aim and that is to implement cost savings and curb Bassa and of course KW is accountable to WW, but he is no more a puppet to WW than WW was a puppet to Broughton.

The point being made, was that the way he is going about dealing with Bassa is totally different to the way WW went about it, and in my own obviously naive, in your eyes, opinion, he is doing a much better job.

If you honestly believe that someone would take on the job of being CEO of BA and not be making his own mind up, how to deal with a union problem, it is you that is naive. KW has been tasked with the job of running BA and that is what he is doing and he is answerable to WW but WW is not running BA anymore in the way he used to.

KW has brought in lots of new people and a totally new customer focused ethos has been brought in, similar to when Marshal was CEO. It is a total breath of fresh air. I do think WW did a good job as CEO and he was extremely talented at curbing costs but as a CEO he has never been very popular and I feel he lacked the customer and product focus, that also needs to be part of a CEOs vision, in an industry like ours.

Anyway enough from this naive crew member.

MPN11

15th Apr 2011, 19:47

I don't think any of us can assume we know the relationship between WW and KW, or how he/they will continue to play this match.

I would draw a different analogy ...
WW opened the batting for BA, and played a fine defensive game whilst putting up a creditable score against the opposition.
KW came in as Number 3 to score the runs and win the match.
[I have no idea who was Number 2 ;)]

The scenario has changed constantly over the last 2 years. BASSA's apparent strength overturned by VCC, the ludicrous legal scenarios on balloting ... and indeed overall legality, which still continues.

The fact that there has been a change of CEO should not, IMO, be seen as a different scenario for CC. There is just a different CEO, with exactly the same objectives as WW, but with a significantly different game to play.

Unite now needs BASSA like a boil on the bum. Their antics could cost the Union £Ms if they don't get it right, and the entire legality of the 'continuation dispute' is as yet un-tested in the Court. DH's credibility/sanity has been exposed too often [and I have every belief that both sides of the dispute have staff reading this and other Forums]. The entire probity of BASSA's operations is questioned.

That is the situation KW now faces - a completely different one to that originally facing WW, when keeping BA flying was the prime concern. Now, thanks to WW's initiatives, KW can look towards keeping BA flying as an economic entity in the long term.

Where the CC fit into all that is, of course, entirely down to their personal circumstances, political persuasion and long [or short] term aspirations. Or, of course, they could leave ... and let the SLF and BA fly in peace. :cool:

Betty girl

15th Apr 2011, 19:56

Exactly MPN, None of us knows the relationship, you and pcat included, but some of us work for BA and therefore have a better understanding than some others.

Have you personally met or corresponded with KW?

Didn't think so, well some of us have and that helps us make our, own naive, minds up about how we personally feel about him.

Dawdler

15th Apr 2011, 20:04

I am getting a sinking feeling that KW is going to allow BASSA to still exist after all this.

There is no doubt that any large worker group deserves and should enjoy union representation. I believe that Unite or the PCCC would be the natural successors to the current rabble. For the things they have done and the way they have conducted themselves for the last two years, I have no doubt that BASSA as a unit and the careers of the individuals who have driven it should be crushed, pulvervised out of existence.

Only then can true peace be achieved. The attitude of BASSA up to now of "The answer is NO! What is the question" and "WE are the airline" has brought about all the troubles of the recent times.

Weak BA management in the past allowed BASSA too much say in how the airline was run. WW was correct in his view that this was unacceptable and he HAD to wrest control back from the union.

BASSA were not bright enough to see by refusing to look at the books, they played right into his hands (thank the lord). But their antics, scratching cars, sabotaging certain functions in aircraft, setting up porn websites, threats to co-workers who went into work, and many other behaviours documented here and in the press, have negated any claim they might harbour to represent anything ever again.

As I said in my opening sentence I fear that KW is about to give them a window of opportunity to remain and to crow "victory" at the end. I sincerely hope not.

Betty girl

15th Apr 2011, 21:48

Dawdler,
All right minded people would like it to be closed down but unfortunately it has too many members.
Just like London Transport would like to get rid of Bob Crow and the RMT, but they can't, it is just not an option!

LD12986

15th Apr 2011, 22:59

There are no easy options for finishing this dispute and BA will (as it is evidently doing) have to choose from the least worst option.

BA forcing a settlement (through SOSR for example, or sacking strikers because action is deemed to be unprotected) would leave a clear victory for BA and BASSA crushed but you have to consider the demoralising impact of that on a very large contingent of crew who support BASSA. Plus there is the wider PR impact of giving legs to a dispute where the media has largely lost interest.

BA is now negotiating from a position of considerable strength. It has, and will continue to have, everything it originally sought in cost savings proposals. The growth of Mixed Fleet and maintenance of the VCC programme has permanently restricted the effectiveness of any future threat of industrial action and that is important. No-one would have predicted three years ago that BA would have introduced Mixed Fleet entirely on its own terms and built up a substantial volunteer cabin crew workforice. Some obvious troublemakers have been sacked and will not be returning to BA.

The complete destruction of BASSA has never been an option. If BA and Unite agree on a deal that is palatable to the branches (frankly, I think this is unlikley in any event) the BASSA hardcore may crow victory but they have been so indoctrinated into believing everything BASSA tells them and nothing will change that. BASSA will claim victory because they claim this dispute was always about union busting. However, at least when this is over, there will be a elections for new reps (possibly for merged branches) and some troublemakers will hopefully be soon forgotten.

Betty girl

15th Apr 2011, 23:05

Good post LD.

Mariner9

16th Apr 2011, 05:44

The BASSA victory claim mentioned on the other thread reminds me of the Monty Python duel scene were the (by then) armless and legless knight asks "can we call it a draw?" :p

gobfa

16th Apr 2011, 06:07

After reading the latest DH rambling, I don't think it will be long before

YouTube - Napoleon XIV: 'They're coming to take me away'

rethymnon

16th Apr 2011, 09:20

i think the 28 day extension says it all. unite have been granted extra time to dig their own grave.

we know that, barring something unforeseen, unite will not agree further strike action: the cause is too inextricably linked to the earlier action.

they have been given a further period of time to accept what must look very much like the settlement tony woodley thought he had achieved. that extra time also moves the threat of a strike further in time from the ballot that authorised it - extra time for tempers to cool and interest to wane. even if a strike were then called, the response is likely to be so small as to be derisory.

BA do not need to do any more to 'destroy' BASSA as some have wanted. The key players in this dispute are now ancient history and will be replaced. Those who replace them in BASSA or Amicus will be starting from a totally different point and perspective and will be aware that power has shifted elsewhere. If BASSA regains credibility it will have been earned by reps who have accepted that fact and truly represent the community of members.

time for the academics to start competing for the book (and film?) rights-serialisation in the Daily Mail perhaps?

wiggy

16th Apr 2011, 09:30

The key players in this dispute are now ancient history...

Sadly one of them certainly is not; DH is still in a position to "poison the well" and continues to do so. Until he is denied his position and the soapbox that goes with it the unrest will not end.

gobfa :ok:

Entaxei

16th Apr 2011, 10:32

Don't forget the quiet one (now) - I seem to recollect seeing a few times in the past 3 - 6 months that Malone is now on the executive committee of Unite.

Now if true - will/is that enough to buy her away from BASSA and DH - and have they left her coming into a BASSA pension later this year?

west lakes

16th Apr 2011, 10:47

Don't forget the quiet one (now) - I seem to recollect seeing a few times in the past 3 - 6 months that Malone is now on the executive committee of Uni

From posters I see at work they seem to be re-electing this committee at present

AV Flyer

16th Apr 2011, 11:20

It is only after reading DH's latest missive, and the continuing comments directed by striking to non-striking CC at work, that I have to keep reminding myself of the extreme heights that DH and his followers' collective delusions have reached.

These people really still do believe that they are going to 'win' and really are discussing 25% pay rises and DH being appointed CEO of BA, etc., etc. BA's granting Unite a reprieve has been read as nothing short of "we have won and BA have completely capitulated thus the current talks are now between DH and KW to discuss the terms of BA's surrender".

"Oh and, by the way, ya-boo to the pilots!"

KW, in choosing to grant Unite/BASSA a reprieve from embarrassing themselves, has inadvertently allowed the misguided to pump themselves to even greater heights. With hindsight it may have been better to have allowed Unite/BASSA to reach the legal strike-announcement deadline and squirm if for no other reason than to make it abundantly clear to all BA-backing staff that BA has won.

It is going to be fascinating to watch the disillusionment experienced as the air comes out of the balloon and the truth emerges. Most will probably never accept it but one thing is for certain that DH won't be around in any official capacity to feed their delusional minds any more.

If there is to be any hope of of moving forward with a cooperative legacy CC then this has to be foremost on KW's list.

Yellow Pen

16th Apr 2011, 12:13

KW, in choosing to grant Unite/BASSA a reprieve from embarrassing themselves, has inadvertently allowed the misguided to pump themselves to even greater heights.

But think how much further they're going to fall now.:E

Ancient Observer

16th Apr 2011, 12:59

Deluded or not, BA has to deal with someone to represent the 5,800 "yes" voters.......
Whilst one would prefer it to be PC3 or a re-formed bassa, no Employee Relations situation that I have seen has enabled the employer to walk away from such a large yes vote, and their representatives.

Neither can BA recognise PC3 just because they are not bassa. BA have to live in and deal with the real world.

AV Flyer

16th Apr 2011, 13:35

AO - I agree. Which is why I see the very mimimum acceptable to BA being that DH is no longer involved in an official capacity when combined with LM's move to Unite central and several of the other key BASSA reps' dismissals may be all that BA can hope for in a revitalised Unite/BASSA combination.

It will be interesting to see where CC89 fits into all this. Something tells me we haven't finished hearing from them as they triggered the putting the spanner in the works with the BA/TW deal.

PCCC is always a possibility but they still don't appear to have the mettle to want to come out of the shadows even with BASSA's leadership at its most weakened right now. Somewhat surprising for a budding new CC Branch as its going to have to show some skin some time soon if it wants to stir-up sufficient support to be recognised as a legitimate Union/Branch.

Ancient Observer

16th Apr 2011, 14:15

AV - you make a good point about CC89. They appear to have a leadership that is even more controlled by the SWP than bassa, so the last thing they want is a settlement.

Maybe part on the behind closed doors deal is a forced branch merger, but the branch constitutions will have to be carefully examined to drive that through.

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 14:30

To have, or to have not!

AV Flyer

16th Apr 2011, 14:42

AO - Yes, indeed.

In further agreement with LD12986 above, it is extremely difficult to see a BA/Unite brokered deal that will be palatable to the branches short of a total return of power over IFCE operations as before which will only be over BA's dead body.

It's rather difficult to see KW doing anything other than repeating the WW/TW deal (combined with a side requirement that BASSA holds new leadership elections and only appoint BA employees!).

Will BASSA (DH) & CC89 accept this - Hell No! - STRIKE! - Ooops!

Indeed, if BA are not recognising BASSA's presence at the negotiations then would KW even accept any Unite/BA brokered deal to be offered to BASSA with a non-employee as its GS making the call whether its members are balloted or not?

Why does this all sound like deja vu?

Dawdler

16th Apr 2011, 14:45

From the other thread.
I also don't think you need to worry that KW will give in to Bassa.I think we do. Already BASSA are crowing and there is no deal yet! DH has issued a statement (on the other thread).

What will happen in the left wing press is BASSA will be portrayed as winners in " this long running dispute" Other papers which have long lost interest in the thing will follows a similar line, (we all know how lazy journalists are). The BBC with its left leanings will report the victory.

KW seems to be handing a face-saving win instead of the deserved trouncing for BASSA. KW should insist, As part of the deal Unite must agree to the disbandment of BASSA and take the members into the heart of the main union.

All of this was so unnecessary if only BASSA had been under control of reasonable people. As it is, the branch must not be allowed ANY semblance of victory in the deal to be revealed in 28 days time. If not, let 'em strike if they dare then sue the pants off them

mrpony

16th Apr 2011, 14:46

AV/AO
As long as Bassa remains constituted as it is, Unite can force nothing on it.
DH and his coterie have effective control over the whole shebang, money and all. It is very difficult to change the constitution: only at biennial meetings; with 28 day's prior notice of the change; only with a 2/3 majority in favour at the meeting; only thereafter by a 2/3 majority at a postal ballot. It's a comprehensive stitch-up to maintain the status quo.

Members pay their subs to Bassa, not Unite.

That's why I said earlier that the carve-up has already been done. DH and friends will be doing all they can to ensure that their 'legacy' isn't tarnished by a new BA-friendly leadership, and Unite don't want any shiny young radicals thinking they can get away with spending the money on a professionally run independent union(much like Balpa) rather than propping up Unite.

Also there's the troubling matter of the branch finances - you don't want people turning over all the furniture looking for that fiver you can't find. More motivation for status quo maintenance.

Just a few thoughts.

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 14:56

AV Flyer

16th Apr 2011, 14:59

mrpony - Understood - In which case this is not going to be settled any time soon.

At some point BA's management may have to accept its obligation to resolve the matter and thus by force if necessary. It simply cannot continue running the company much longer in this dysfunctional state without loosing support of the shareholders and even the Board.

What will finally drive it to stop playing Mr. Nice Guy?

AV Flyer

16th Apr 2011, 15:05

LB - How can you say BASSA's constitution is excellent when it has allowed its current GS to remain in control when he is no longer an employee (thus contravening its own rules) while most certainly not acting to the benefit of its membership?

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 15:10

Because an employer should not dictate who are the representatives. If you take out how effective or not the current incumbents are, all the employer would need to do to purge an effective branch, would be to just suspend and dismiss, albeit unfairly.

AV Flyer

16th Apr 2011, 15:22

LB - Yes, I agree. The constitution is clearly excellent in stopping the company from dictating who are the workers' representatives. However, does it not appear that this very constitutional excellence is back-firing rather badly when the incumbent representatives are not being very effective?

Dawdler

16th Apr 2011, 15:35

I think that the Bassa constitution as you portray it is excellent, I repeat excellent.

Every union branch should be lay member driven and lead. Its the alleged money side that potentially lets it down. The only incentive should be to act for the benefit of the membership.How can it be excellent when the (only?) let down is the money side. The current leaders have a distinct financial advantage in keeping the members in a dispute which to all reasonable people, should not have started in the first place?

To add that the accounts appear to remain "unavailable" in contravention of the regulations, seem also to tarnish the "excellence" a little.

mrpony

16th Apr 2011, 15:36

AV/LB

I don't understand where this is going. BA has got b*gger all to do with it.

1. Unite need Bassa's money and furthermore can't make it change its ways.

2. Bassa needs to maintain its direction of travel and the 'character' of its leadership and noone, not even the members unless they mount an uprecedented democratic assault at a biennial meeting, can stop them doing so.

All BA can do is insist that it doesn't deal with some ex-employees with whom it has a clearly tarnished relationship. I feel I've communicated badly, either that that or you're not understanding properly! Probably the former.

Juan Tugoh

16th Apr 2011, 15:44

I'm not sure that the constitution of BASSA is excellent as it has allowed a show of hands ballot to decide that the democratic process can be suspended allowing reps to remain in their posts without having to stand for re-election until this dispute is over. This dispute is being, and has been, prolonged by those same reps, one of whom at least is allegedly skimming c £50K a year out of union funds. Hardly a shining beacon of excellence.

AV Flyer

16th Apr 2011, 15:51

mrpony - No, you have communicated very well. I got side-tracked into discussing with LB how the constitution could be considered excellent for the members in their present situation.

If neither Unite nor BA nor CC89 nor BASSA's rank-and-file can change BASSA's leadership then the sooner that BA backs-away and lets BASSA have an all-out fight with Unite over giving it a strike the better for BA.

As with WW and TW before them, KW is completely and utterly wasting his time in talking with LM and can only be doing it to continue to appear the reasonable party in any future legal action while knowing no resoultion could ever be at hand.

He could be hoping to appear to the BASSA faithful to be listenting and caring in the hope that more of them walk away from BASSA sooner rather than later but this seems to be a very long game to be playing.

Finally, as mentioned earlier in the thread, he could just be deflecting any disruption until after Easter and the Wedding while beefing-up the VCCs and any other necessary defences in readiness for the next round.

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 16:05

As I said, the membership decide who represents them, not BA, Unite or pprune. I would not want to change my reps if I was in dispute. Nearly 6000 members supported the current direction of the rep team in a secret ballot.

If a deal is brokered, will BA want it to be recommended?

mrpony

16th Apr 2011, 16:17

What, not even if they caused the dispute?

But I agree about the 6000. That's democracy for yer.

I think a deal will be done but that Bassa will only cave in after it has 'persuaded' Unite to bend to the will of its current leadership. The members will have no say in this whatsoever. And if they do it'll be by paying them lip service.

AV Flyer

16th Apr 2011, 16:27

Litebulbs - I'm not all that sure that the membership is able to decide who represents them given the constitution as described but I accept that 5811 members of BASSA believe that DH et. al. are Gods and doing a fantastic job in safeguarding their future jobs and livelihooods at BA however misguided those beliefs appear when viewed by any rational outsider examining BASSA's past and future possible achievements throughout this dispute.

Juan Tugoh

16th Apr 2011, 16:28

As I said, the membership decide who represents them

Not if, as in this case the democratic process has been circumvented by the current incumbents. If there was a need for continuity then ALL the members should have been balloted, not just a few on a show of hands at a racecourse. Either unions are democratic, or they are not, BASSA is quite clearly not. They have had be forced by the courts to run a legal ballot, something it has taken them quite a while to manage. There is clearly no desire in the leadership of BASSA to follow democratic principles, and the constitution of BASSA has let them get away with this. For BASSA members, at the moment, the only people who are deciding who represents them are the current incumbents.

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 17:05

What, not even if they caused the dispute?

They maybe could have done more to prevent the dispute, but BA instigated change. No change, no dispute.

But I agree about the 6000. That's democracy for yer.The more I experience, read and learn, the more I think that the union style of democracy, bound by legislation, needs to be addressed. How, I do not know.

I think a deal will be done but that Bassa will only cave in after it has 'persuaded' Unite to bend to the will of its current leadership. The members will have no say in this whatsoever. And if they do it'll be by paying them lip service.We will see, but a vote will still be taken for acceptance or rejection.

mrpony

16th Apr 2011, 17:19

AV/Litebulbs and others

I've seen where I perhaps could have been clearer:

I was initially referring to the written constitution, or rulebook. Elections are a separate though not unrelated subject.

Hope that makes more sense with apologies if I misled you. I didn't mean to.

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 17:25

Well, if after this all members pay more attention to rulebooks and recognition agreements, then that can only be a good thing.

Hipennine

16th Apr 2011, 17:39

I can't help but feel that this all now hangs around the status of the Facilities Agreement. BASSA and CC89 were the ones who withdrew. Without a facilities agreement in place, they and Unite are a busted flush in any future BA-Union CC relationship. Unite will know that very clearly, and looking long term will want something in place, even if it means a re-write and a few other concessions "unrelated to the dispute" such as for eg "Any reps will have to be full time employees of BA, and have been elected as a result of a new open ballot, etc."

I still can't understand what on earth persuaded BASSA to withdraw in the first place.

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 17:50

I understand what you say, but it does mean that the employer could control who the reps were and 5(?) reps have been dismissed though this dispute.

However, it is the employer who employs the rep!

What Bassa should look at is full time Unite officers paid for and exclusive to Bassa. Now that would be effective.

Ancient Observer

16th Apr 2011, 18:53

In the past.....

Some years ago, a very successful and TU oriented multi-national that I used to work for had an AUEW District Cttee. in the North that hated the Employers guts. Mainly because the employer had not employed members of the District cttee.

Sounds a bit like DH utterly failing to become a pilot........- he likes utterly failing, doesn't he? He's utterly failed to be a pilot, he's utterly failed to be an employee, and he's utterly failed to be a decent TU person..........He has also utterly failed as a Southampton fan, and as someone who once upon a time might have been able to influence the Southampton Board, but that is another story.

Anyway, because that District Cttee was devoted to the failure of that employer, the local HRD set out to break the District Cttee. He was an ex-Boilermaker, so he knew how to fight low and dirty.

he succeeded. Well done Tony. Three years later the employer closed down that site. Well done the AUEW. Lose the battle, and then lose 2,000 jobs.

So - BA have their new fleet, and have their VCC. If bassa, as guided by their mates in the SWP "win" , what exactly have they won?? Answers on a post card.

Entaxei

16th Apr 2011, 21:31

Whilst it appears on the surface that things could be coming to a reasonable negotiated close, the elements of this whole situation need to be considered .....

BASSA - about 10 months ago, (seems longer), I challenged DH on this thread under his troll identity of 'Safety Affairs' regarding his sitting back and taking the money without caring about BA or the CC. His response was as long as some of the membership fees carried on coming in, nothing else mattered and nothing else would or could be changed and he was happy with this situation. I can't help feeling that this basic attitude has'nt changed.

If this is so, granted that nobody appears to have any form of a copy of BASSA regulations and that post 1997, when the last financial kerfuffle blew up with the previous GS, the regulations were formally changed, presumably during an AGM, such that more power appears to have been given to the committee and GS and, subsequent AGM's changed still more, such that now DH probably has sole capability of agreeing a dispute, regardless of any reps. (probably cannot have new ones voted in as committe meetings cannot now be held during a dispute, LenMc beginning March, stated 18 had been sacked and 70 suspended - so can't be many left!). I won't even go near the potential implications of lack of accounts/records and the new company BASSA Limited.

Then BASSA became a 'Branch' of Unite, but in view of the powers that BASSA appear to hold over and above a normal branch, refusing agreed offers, calling for a strike and listing dates, this argues that the agreement entered into with Unite was a 'special' edition, but again it seems unlikely that a copy is/will be available for members to view. However as BASSA still have ten points outstanding, there is room for DH to refuse once more to agree any solution that LenMc agrees and again demand/issue a strike call.

In the meantime 'long live the New King' so LenMc is busy changing his organisation/committee to reflect his current and future strategies, he still wants to try and settle this, it would be a 'Win', but against the overall union position against the UK govt., probably has limited resource available, but Malone has appeared.

CC89/Amicus appears to be a different setup again, now backed by the SWP, they will go along with DH in muddying the waters to ensure that no agreement is reached, but note that the reasons are never identical with BASSA, this allows them to still hold out if BASSA ever agree. However maybe LenMc could squash them reasonably easy, but has anyone ever seen their agreement with Unite?, SWP rational appears as usual to be political control.

Enough already!! - Apologies for the length, when I started typing it all seemed so straight forward - but then the corkscrew got in the way!! - does anyone agree with the above? :cool:

mrpony

16th Apr 2011, 21:57

Seek and you shall find.

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 22:06

It would be interesting to see who politicised the dispute first. There is one ongoing contradiction through most of the rhetoric presented on pprune. Are we saying that the SWP has infiltrated the Bassa executive, or is it just the Mailers having a froth.

In my time, I have had dealings with comrades, but the two Bassa reps that I have spoken to, were poles apart from Wolfie. It just doesn't sit right, having left wing activists serving gold card chalk stripes in First. The few current BA old contract crew that I know are about as close to revolutionaries as Maggie was to Mother Teresa. They know they earn a very good wage and they want to keep it and do not want it distributed into somebody elses' pocket. Neither would I.

Dawdler

16th Apr 2011, 22:16

They know they earn a very good wage and they want to keep it and do not want it distributed into somebody elses' pocket. Neither would I.

If they had bothered to read the first offer, their T&C's were left intact. New fleet was off the table. They and many others would have been soooooo much better off.

But...........

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 22:31

You are probably correct, but I doubt that any on here were party to the initial negotiations. BA crew are now where they are. They have a new contract on minimum wage (approx) plus allowances (+10% not there). That clearly lays down the intent of the employer. You cannot dress that up any further. These new employees are fully in the hands of the management team and they are on minimum wage (approx). So if Bassa are not involved, then its minimum wage (approx). Why can't people accept that. That is the value that the employer puts on its new staff.

Entaxei

16th Apr 2011, 22:40

Re SWP and political influence, this only appears to be from the time of the meeting at ACAS when SWP appeared at the meeting, possibly in response to DH texting.

But after that, when there was the bun fight of electing the replacement for Woodly, suddenly there appeared to be a candidate for the CC89 group election called Jerry ?, who was supposedly staunch SWP. Given that CC89 were a quiet branch, suddenly they were listing reasons for the dispute and possible IA, having branch and reps meetings, publically agreeing with DH on reasons for dispute etc. and also sometimes declaring their own list of demands - in other words, stirring the situation, since then they have popped now and again on the CC thread, but have been quiet of late. But are in theory at least, a potential rogue element waiting to strike (in the nicest possible way).

I have just edited my previous post, after checking, LenMc at beginning of March stated that 18 reps had been sacked and 70 suspended, so there can't be many left, as again DH stated some time back that new reps could not be appointed outside a Branch meeting, and one could not be held while a dispute was on. He then asked for unpaid volunteers!, who I presume would not be able to vote in anything anyway, even if anyone applied.

mrpony

Sorry - The hour is, I fear, getting too late and I no longer know what I'm looking for, I'll try again when daylight appears.

Litebulbs

16th Apr 2011, 22:46

Wasn't that staff, rather than reps sacked and suspended?

It is late now, so self imposed curfew before the mods step in. Good debate today however.

ChicoG

17th Apr 2011, 05:04

Quoth Litebulbs: "These new employees are fully in the hands of the management team and they are on minimum wage (approx). So if Bassa are not involved, then its minimum wage (approx). Why can't people accept that. That is the value that the employer puts on its new staff. "

Litebulbs,

I think the phrase is "That is the value that the airline industry puts on its new staff".

Wasn't the much bandied phrase "Market Rate + 10%"?

leiard

17th Apr 2011, 06:45

What I don't understand is why the 7500+ crew who did not vote strike do not join the PCCC.

They do not have to give up there membership to BASSA or any other union branch and it will not cost them anything at this stage.

By joining the PCCC and thus giving the PCCC enough members to be recognised by BA they would at least get themselves an fresh and untainted alternative to BASSA.

Hotel Mode

17th Apr 2011, 07:32

I think there is a major point being missed here.

If BASSA is anything other than humiliated in the final deal, BA are effectively giving themselves years of industrial strife. That being the main point of dispute (ie BA pay your wages, deal with it) I cant see BA moving that far. They do not want the GMB BALPA and other bits of Unite coming back saying BASSA got what they wanted by striking.

mrpony

17th Apr 2011, 07:45

Hotel Mode
Do you think BA is unaware of the fact that it could deal BASSA an utterly humiliating defeat? I don't.

It is far more likely that it is carefully calibrating the nature of the defeat such that nearly 6000 of its employees aren't carrying around great big sulky monkeys on their backs for the next x years.

Hotel Mode

17th Apr 2011, 07:55

It is far more likely that it is carefully calibrating the nature of the defeat such that nearly 6000 of its employees aren't carrying around great big sulky monkeys on their backs for the next x years.

More than a decade in BA and my experience is that 6000 employees have been sulky monkeys for that whole time. Only difference is that now they have an excuse. Sometimes you have to stop protecting people from themselves.

Litebulbs

17th Apr 2011, 08:02

That is the value that the employer puts on its new staff. "

Litebulbs,

I think the phrase is "That is the value that the airline industry puts on its new staff".

Wasn't the much bandied phrase "Market Rate + 10%"?

It was much bandied, but as far as I can see, the main crew are at or nearly at the bottom of the pile and this is my point. The employer has been given free hand in setting the terms and conditions of its new staff and that is how it has acted.

You also have a very hard roster with new varieties of combining long and short haul flights and promotion into one position, rather than one or two grades above junior.

Now I understand that the sole reason for this whole process was to make a substantial saving, but it appears on the face of it that they have wrung every last £ of saving that is possible and within the law.

Still, I do like the hat.

Hotel Mode

17th Apr 2011, 08:12

It was much bandied, but as far as I can see, the main crew are at or nearly at the bottom of the pile and this is my point. The employer has been given free hand in setting the terms and conditions of its new staff and that is how it has acted.

You also have a very hard roster with new varieties of combining long and short haul flights and promotion into one position, rather than one or two grades above junior.

Now I understand that the sole reason for this whole process was to make a substantial saving, but it appears on the face of it that they have wrung every last £ of saving that is possible and within the law.

Absolutely right. BA have taken the opportunity they were given. Why Unite as the largest uk union didnt see it is beyond my comprehension. This is an example of idiotic union behaviour and opportunism by a company that cant believe their luck. Thanks Unite, none of this would have happened if you had controlled your branch.

mrpony

17th Apr 2011, 08:29

More than a decade in BA and my experience is that 6000 employees have been sulky monkeys for that whole time. Only difference is that now they have an excuse. Sometimes you have to stop protecting people from themselves.

A demoralised sulk is worse than a sulk.

BA still have the option of acting out a 'no negotiation' stance. It's on the table where Len can clearly see it. Personally I think they'd be better off in the long run if they played hard ball now and called the bluff of the grumps. Maybe that's what'll happen. Still a long way to go.

Litebulbs

17th Apr 2011, 08:58

Absolutely right. BA have taken the opportunity they were given. Why Unite as the largest uk union didnt see it is beyond my comprehension. This is an example of idiotic union behaviour and opportunism by a company that cant believe their luck. Thanks Unite, none of this would have happened if you had controlled your branch.

BA were not given a chance, they followed through with their plan. There was no luck involved in this at all.

What only the negotiators on both sides will know and we will wait to find out is how an integrated fleet would have worked. Would it have been on the same rostering rules that the existing crew were on, but savings in salary, or the existing crew keep their new salary but new rostering rules?

It would then be down to whether you stay as you are and wither on the vine, or race to the bottom with regard to rostering.

It has been brutal, harsh and ugly, but lawful.

Hipennine

17th Apr 2011, 09:21

A couple of points:

Firstly, as a PoO, my understanding is that LizMalone has been on the Unite Exec committee for some time, not just recently - hence record of her expenses for Exec duties been shown in Unite's accounts.

Secondly, BA is required by law to recognise a "Union" not a "branch" where the appropriate numbers are achieved. Is there sufficient evidence around to possibly demonstrate that the "branch" is not a proper legally constituted organisation for recognition, because it is in breach of its own constitution and Unite's rules ? Could this be LenM's get out of jail card - Unite want to maintain recognition, but unfortunately the capitalist laws mean that the evil employer will use the law to force de-recognition, because the branch is in breach, therefore regrettably Unite has to take appropriate action to ensure that the branch becomes fully compliant, even though it doesn't want to, and bla, bla, bla ?

MPN11

17th Apr 2011, 09:45

I share your thought about whether Unite will "do something" about BASSA.

Whilst I know we are all working from limited 'facts', which is why this is a Rumour Forum, it does seem in Unite's, and the wider membership's, interest to try to achieve some form of control over BASSA. I would like to think that some of the questions discussed here are raised during discussions with BA.

However, various 'constitutional aspects' might make that very difficult to achieve. I guess it depends on what's written in some obscure part of Unite's Rule Book.

notlangley

17th Apr 2011, 12:46

Somewherene this is an alternative Universe._ Just like ours except that the Big Bang was on a Wednesday._ And outherene the Japanese tell U.S.A. that they have declared war and will attack within a defined number of weeks._ A few days before the Japanese launches its fleet the U.S.A. says would you like an extra four weeks before you attack us._ "Yes please" say the Japanese and announce that the extra four weeks was a Japanese idea._ At the end of the four weeks' extension nothing happens.

A great military victory

AV Flyer

17th Apr 2011, 13:17

Given that BA cannot do anything to actively change BASSA's current leadership (neither can Unite, nor CC89/Amicus, nor BASSA's members, nor anyone else on this planet) then it is becoming clearer to me why BA is playing the waiting and defensive game for now.

BA has the travelling public, the VCCs, the Board, the Shareholders and IA Law all on its side and has neutralised BASSA's only weapon the strike. All BA can do is to appear to be negotiating reasonably (with Unite) for now while BASSA's membership and support ever so slowly bleed away.

BA has no need to give pay rises, no need to return ST in full, no need to enter into any new facilities agreements, every reason to continue suspending appropriately misbehaving employees (from both camps), every reason to keep expanding MF, etc., all designed to grind down BASSA's membership which is now its one and only power base.

What BA most certainly will NOT do is to agree to improve its current offer otherwise it will be negotiating against itself. BA knows the only acceptable offer to BASSA is to appoint DH as BA's new CEO so there is no reason to keep offering further concessions whatsoever. Indeed, seeing as Unite reneged last time, BA has every justification to take back the WW & TW agreed ST and other consessions and return the situation to that prior to the start of the negotiations of last October.

Having said all that I still feel that letting Unite/BASSA meet their strike deadline and make the call could only help BA to weaken BASSA's support further and sooner. If they don't strike (yet again) they look like blustering fools, if they do then BA, while knowing less members will take IA with BA's defences stonger than ever before, will be able to take the numbers (and names) of CC walking-out giving it a very clear calibration of the true size of the 'hard-core' problem. This will permit BA to shape its strategy moving forwards from here.

PS. Any weakening of BASSA will also help Unite, PCCC and maybe some further bickering with CC89/Amicus to speed the process further. After all, if Unite can sort things there are a potential 13,500 monthly subs to be collected out there and, contrary to some opinions, a willing employer in BA crying-out for a union with whom to negotiate future collective agreements in a mature manner - maybe BA might increase MF's pay to cover a reasonable union subscription even!

Litebulbs

17th Apr 2011, 14:46

I really feel in these times of austerity, we should substitute negotiate to mitigate. It would probably focus people to where they really are in the employer/employee relationship.

AV Flyer

17th Apr 2011, 16:51

Litebulbs - I don't think the general management/union negotiation picture is as bad as it seems.

Remember the BA/BASSA debacle is a very extreme example where through poor managment/union communications over many years the two sides developed such a rift and a disproportionate balance of power in favour of the union that a major correction had to be taken by management to restore that balance otherwise the company was sunk.

Look instead to any other more balanced example today where, as we all know, the real power of the strike weapon is in the threat and not in the action. In any reasonable management/union negotiation the balance is better set at the start and management 'hears' the union's message and more often than not a settlement is reached where both sides move forwards still respecting each other before any action is taken.

The BA/BASSA situation is nothing short of bad blood going back decades for which there will be no short-term fix as we can see from some of the old timers' comments on the CC thread - viz. shaking-up/icing FC's beers and general hatred of pilots, disrespect of management's operational change requests, believing to be the most important part of the company, pictures of CEO with red-eyes, "CEO is pants" and "greedy piggy" chants, loutish parties at strike headquarters showing-up in BMWs and thumbing noses at everyone, mob chanting of abusive slogans at crew rest hotels, trashing aircraft crew rest areas, redirecting passengers to porn websites, etc., etc.

If anything, the above highlights perfectly why people generally feel some kind of punishment is in order and why the granting of a bonus and partial restoration of staff travel and disciplinary reviews all really grate. It's also why, when KW granted Unite a 28-day extension, the BASSA mob have interpreted it as a complete and utter capitulation by BA with a 25% pay rise coming their way - they have experienced no other way or lifestyle.

No, this situation has to be brought under control and does not reflect the general management/union negotiation situation in any way shape or form which is alive and working well anywhere else.

TrakBall

18th Apr 2011, 03:40

AV Flyer -
That was an excellent summation of the current situation.

Litebulbs -
We should not forget that Unite and BA have demonstrated the ability to work together for the benefit of the employee and the company. But we should not also defend the indefensible.

BASSA and CC89 chose not to negotiate, had new conditions imposed, and chose to respond by withdrawing from their Facilities Agreement and calling for IA. But instead of fighting their position - found untenable by a court - they chose to personalize the fight. That is why I cannot see this ending until the leadership of BASSA is replaced with a pragmatic, one may even say a business like group more interested in getting a good deal for cabin crew than personal gain or revenge.

Until then, one can only hope that true professionals like Betty Girl, Ottergirl, HiFlyer and Jetset Lady can hold out until their working environment improves.

TB

pcat160

18th Apr 2011, 04:26

While those of you on the other side of the pond sleep some of us get to post. Last night I had many wonderful things to say, however cocktail hour caused me to defer. Today I read AV Fyer’s post and he\she said everything I could have said but much more eloquently. I would, however,like to make an observation that may be worthy of discussion.

If KW/BA make any significant concessions to Bassa there may be a hugh backlash from other BA employees as well as a potential backlash from BA’s most valued customers. While it can be said that customers do not care about this dispute and only care about the reliability of the service that may be changing. The reliability of the service has been established and the core business customer is probably sympathetic to BA. Many cc posters have said that they just would like it over so life can be good again. Other cc are not so sanguine. My observation is that the majority of BA’s 30,000 plus other employees will not be so happy if Bassa is able to claim, rightfully or wrong, a victory.

I indicated in an earlier post that an agreement was unlikely given that neither side was advantaged by a compromise that the other side was likely to accept. BA is doing just fine in the current situation and Bassa, at least Bassa leadership, is also content. LB pointed out that BA has an incentive to settle because of the financial damage the threat of IA is causing. While this is certainly correct the financial damage is decreasing day by day. BA must evaluate the damage caused by the current disagreement with the consequences of any settlement.

The next 28 days will be interesting. The recent “happy talk” may develop and provide some type of accommodation or it may be just “happy talk”.

mrpony

18th Apr 2011, 10:02

Let's hope peace breaks out soon. If and when it does BASSA members may care to question some of the following fundamental principles about the way things work that are dictated by the rules under which it operates:

1. Key positions in the branch hierarchy can be filled by the same people indefinitely.

2. The Branch Secretary, though paid as a full-time employee of BA, is entitled to an honorarium (payment) defined only as 50% of the 'Branch Administration Allowance'. NOTE: This should not apply currently as DH is now not employed by BA.

3. The branch accounts are audited by two people appointed internally from the CC community. This is entirely irregular and is specifically prohibited by Unite in its rules, as well as in the relevant legislation.

4. The branch committee has wide-ranging emergency powers - it decides which circumstances allow these to be invoked - that permit it to do virtually anything it wants e.g. perpetuating the tenure of the Chair and Branch Sec despite the requirement for postal ballots every two years eslewhere.

5. Changes to the rules proposed by every-day members are only possible in the most unlikely circumstances. A change motion has to be submitted with the support of 100 members, 28 days before a meeting that takes place every 2 years. At that meeting the change has to receive a 2/3 majority vote before then being tested by postal ballot which, again, has to return a 2/3 majority. Change can be introduced by the Branch Committee far more easily and in emergencies without reference to the members.

6. The key meeting that is open to all members, and at which a lot of the 'business' is done, is the one that happens every two years mentioned above, The Biennial Meeting. This is how it is apparently defined in the branch rules:

There shall be a Biennial General Meeting of all the members of the Fund by means of a specific Branch item at the first meeting of the Branch in each Biennial period.

Is that clear??!! And how many members ( out of 8-9000 or even 10000) ever attend?

I wouldn't be happy if my tennis club were run like this. Particularly if the club committee could self-declare an emergency which removed the need for democracy.

MPN11

18th Apr 2011, 11:25

mrpony ... indeed. Good points, which hopefully might just be raised in discussions with Unite about a constructive way ahead [and out of this mess] for all involved.

Is that likely? I have no idea, but it might help Unite to take them on board and try to do something for their benefit. Otherwise Unite will continue to be wagged by the BASSA tail.

Litebulbs

19th Apr 2011, 11:42

Afternoon all,

This is linked to the thread but I want to use it for study too. One of the items linked to the dispute is the suspension and dismissal of employees. Now if all goes well through the talks, then it appears that there maybe some form of alternative dispute resolution, which will look into individual cases for fairness.

I am interested in what the reasonable person would do in some hypothetical situations and have made up a simple survey to ask some questions.

It would be great if you could have a go. If you think it is rubbish or inappropriate, then please let me know.

Regards,

Bulbs.

Range of Reasonable Responses Test for Employee Misconduct Survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KGZ7T8W)

Ops_Room_Junkie

19th Apr 2011, 12:08

L-Bulbs.

I took a look at the link to your survey, not intending to fill it in - just to look. I then decided, why not, I will fill it in.

However after 2-3 questions I stopped for two reasons.

Questions like this cannot be answered without the context and also the employee’s background; both of which are missing.

For example, An employee repeatedly ignores a work colleague when approached on issues not related to work. On the face of it this seems quite minor and also it's non work related. However if the context was that the work colleague was their line manager and the employee was ignoring them when they were simply asking after their welfare, such as how are your family? etc it puts it in a slightly different field as far as I am concerned. Not dismissal material, but certainly worthy of a chat and possible warning about attitude and conduct as it would seem to be an indicator of some other problem.
However if it were two colleagues working together and one was trying to get on with their work whilst the other was continually trying to engage them in chit, chat about issues outside work that was stopping them achieve their roles within the company, this is entirely different.

Also as I read on and on it was clear that there was an objective to these questions as they get more and more specific and include more and more detail which could be considered subjective (certainly seems to be telling the 'facts' from the opinion of the dismissed employee, rather than the company) therefore I feel I am being led to answer in a certain way, because that is the way the facts are being presented. However I am old enough and have been a union rep and manager long enough to know when I am being led.

You could ask a question ' an employee was repeatedly asked by their supervisor NOT to open the door to let in fresh air, despite this fact the employee did open the door but only a few inches and only for 30 seconds.
No Action
Verbal Warning
Written Warning
Written Warning with Sanction
Dismissal

However, if you omit the fact that the employee was cabin crew, the supervisor their CSD and the door in question on the aircraft which was at FL350.....I am sure it would be a different outcome.

I suggest you let these questions be answered by the independent review board, as they will/should see all the facts and evidence (direct and indirect). The employee will give their version one way, the company another way - somewhere in-between lies the truth.

Litebulbs

19th Apr 2011, 14:54

Thanks for the feedback and I will try to amend. What I was attempting to do was to ask questions that align to the Acas CoP for disciplinary items. All I can say is that it in no means a way to lead anyone into anything. However as a rep, I am going to say things in a way (even subconsciously) that will not be neutral and I need to adjust them for it to be worthwhile.

I will have another go at the questions as I am interested to see what the man on the Clapham Omnibus would think.

Again, thanks for your comments.

Ops_Room_Junkie

19th Apr 2011, 15:23

Bulbs.

Good luck - a hard thing to do, I wish you all the best with it.
I am glad you took the feedback as it was intended, it was not meant to be critical of the hardwork you had done.

The thing is with such matters, no two cases will ever be the same. Despite the fact the the 'facts' that are provable and submittable from both sides may be identical, there are usually many other 'factors' which are present and relevant that really paint the picture in terms of motivation, intent and history.

ORJ

Litebulbs

19th Apr 2011, 15:48

I have adapted some of the questions and locked it (hopefully) so you cannot answer more than once. It now gives the results too.

If I can ask you to have another look to see if you feel that any questions are misleading or inappropriate? If it is all rubbish, then I will have to clear the results and start again.

When I was looking into the range of reasonable responses, I just wanted to know what the range was and how it was used. Obviously the range is no action to dismissal, but how that would be applied. Simplistically it would be for being sacked for saying hello, to being let off for setting fire to the office in a fit of rage and how the average person would see misconduct compared to a management/HR team. I also wanted to see if any pattern of change happened as grades increased, or even as an individual progressed though a career. However, survey monkey only lets you have 10 questions for free!

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to help and I will let you know if it helps me get a diploma or certificate:ok:

Shack37

19th Apr 2011, 16:15

From I.A.T.U. Butler on the CC forum:

The legacy at BA as at Aer Lingus, is a company racked with industrial relations problems, but worse in some aspects, as Aer Lingus pilots did not get involved in the cabin crew dispute there. In fact quite the opposite, they supported their cabin crew.

So the pilots are only "involved" if they don't support the cabin crew. Supporting the CC is being "neutral"
I love these unbiassed opinions.

LD12986

19th Apr 2011, 16:29

And as there is now the prospect of a settlement, the spinning begins. So BASSA will have "won" this dispute because it was about union busting.

It was in fact about cost-cutting. And Unite originally wanted to "protect the brand" and "keep BA premium".

Ancient Observer

19th Apr 2011, 16:38

LB.. Interesting. Good luck with it. I've filled it in. I dunno how to do it, but for lots of the Q.s I wanted to "investigate/gain the facts". maybe the Q.s need to be longer??

On Pensions...

I note that the irrelevancy that is bassa has been ignoring BA's BIGGEST problem - a 4 Billion pound hole in its pension schemes. That is 4 thousand million pounds.

if I worked at BA I would want to throttle anyone like bassa who were putting my pension at risk. If I were, say, an Engineer, I'd want the old contract Spanish practices CSDs who regard themselves as strike leaders to be fired pronto.

They've already moved to CPI increases, rather than RPI.

Not a peep out of bassa. Sleeping under the tomato plants? Maybe still recovering from Brighton going up and Southampton now looking unlikely to be promoted?

Litebulbs

19th Apr 2011, 16:50

Cheers. I have tried to get a gut feeling response when you look at a question as it is and how the Clapham Omnibus man would (is that a white van driving Sun reader, or middle class supervisor now?) respond. Thanks for taking the time.

MPN11

19th Apr 2011, 17:16

Done, as best I could, and trying very hard not to let my feelings on the BA dispute influence my answers.

However, all data is good data ... until proven otherwise! ;)

Landroger

19th Apr 2011, 17:30

how the Clapham Omnibus man would (is that a white van driving Sun reader, or middle class supervisor now?) respond.

If they are on an omnibus LB, they are more likely to be like me - old enough to use my Freedom Pass! :)

Roger.

Litebulbs

19th Apr 2011, 18:05

Done, as best I could, and trying very hard not to let my feelings on the BA dispute influence my answers.

However, all data is good data ... until proven otherwise! ;)

That is an interesting comment. Is it ok for an employer to become less reasonable due to circumstance? Would the actions carried out by a party in a dispute, give a court more ground for lenience when judging a case?

Discuss:ok:

Litebulbs

19th Apr 2011, 18:06

If they are on an omnibus LB, they are more likely to be like me - old enough to use my Freedom Pass! :)

Roger.

You are as young as the laws that you live to!

MPN11

19th Apr 2011, 18:44

@ LB ... Is it ok for an employer to become less reasonable due to circumstance? Would the actions carried out by a party in a dispute, give a court more ground for lenience when judging a case?

You're stretching my point ... :)

I'm a mildly pi§§ed off SLF. I tried to answer as I would as the employer, given what I've learned over the last couple of years.

1. Yes, I would perhaps be less 'reasonable' if faced with a succession of cases of 'ill-dicipline', especially if warnings had been given generally to the workforce. However, as I don't know that happened in the BA/BASSA case, I tried to play a general scenario when answering the questions.

2. Any party in a dispute surely has to play by the basic rules? That would include not intimidating other personnel at the workplace etc etc. Likewise the company in a dispute should conform to extant agreements, such as agreed disciplinary procedures. It would seem to have been a bit one-sided in those respects.

Of course, if I had been the CEO a few years back, we would never have reached this position :cool:

MPN11

19th Apr 2011, 19:54

Meanwhile, on Planet Unreality [aka the CC Thread on a bad day] ... BA have not got all that they want. They wanted to neuter the unions by tackling the UK's largest trade union branch - BASSA. Once defeated all other trade unions and "associations" in BA would be cowed.

It hasn't happened. And in spite of all the sycophantic gloss and spin that the usual suspects here, try to justify their entrenched positions over several years of postings on this forum predicting the end of BASSA, the fact is the company is having to negotiate with the union. That in itself is a victory.

It's quite nice here on Planet Earth, especially as I'm flying BA next week for a nice long holiday ;)

notlangley

19th Apr 2011, 21:00

It is gift to be able to argue like I.A.T.U. Butler does on the other threadHow supposedly intelligent people can be duped in such a way with rhetoric and propaganda more akin to North Korea, than a blue chip company in the 21 st century, is beyond me.

LD12986

19th Apr 2011, 21:16

Textbook BASSA spin. It's about union busting.... We've won... You'll be next... The pilots!!!!

Dawdler

19th Apr 2011, 21:57

The Butler seems to think that ONLY the pilots volunteered to help. Going on what I read here and other fora, because one volunteered it did not necessarily mean that you flew, only that you released someone else to fly by covering their job.

I also disagree with him that BA were involved in a union-busting exercise. I am of the opinion that the non strikers are more likely to wish to see BASSA busted. A replacement is desperately needed, whether this be Unite themselves or the likes of the PCCC, I have no opinion. On the contrary, I am fearful that KW will give too much away to BASSA. I fear that this would seriously hinder any further co-operation between BA and the VCCC in the future.

LB pm sent.

west lakes

19th Apr 2011, 22:15

I was intrigued by this comment by the mods on the other thread

I.A.T.U. Butler, one more blatant breach of the rules and you´ll have to get yourself yet another new username.

Can't help but wonder if this is a BASSA person who at the start of this was boasting elsewhere that he had over 200 email addresses so could keep generating new usernames on this site!

LD12986

19th Apr 2011, 22:18

KW has a very difficult balancing act. A deal is needed to bring closure so the business can move on, and he'll have to give something to BASSA for a deal to be palatable and so they don't lose too much face.

However, taking the temperature of non-CC BA staff there is a very strong sentiment that whilst BASSA has lost in terms of not securing a reversal of the crewing changes and the dissolution of Mixed Fleet, BASSA's behaviour has been so abhorrent it must also be seen to have lost and should be given any concessions which it can use to claim victory. Put another way, BASSA has to learn that throwing hissy fits doesn't get you anywhere.

Dawdler

19th Apr 2011, 22:28

However, taking the temperature of non-CC BA staff there is a very strong sentiment that whilst BASSA has lost in terms of not securing a reversal of the crewing changes and the dissolution of Mixed Fleet, BASSA's behaviour has been so abhorrent it must also be seen to have lost and should be given any concessions which it can use to claim victory. Put another way, BASSA has to learn that throwing hissy fits doesn't get you anywhere.

I sincerely hope that this is true and KW is aware of it.

Litebulbs

19th Apr 2011, 23:14

As usual with me, I didn't make my point clear enough. I wasn't trying to stretch your point, but try to make a comment about how reasonableness can vary. It is impossible to get the tone of a post right and I was trying (and failing) to discuss rather than question.

wiggy

20th Apr 2011, 04:49

Dawdler

I agree entirely with LD's comment.

Sadly there are worrying signs that some within the company are reluctant to defend at least one Volunteer Cabin Crew (VCC) member from BASSA's attentions because of the "sensitivities" surrounding negotiations between BA and BASSA. If KW and the leadership team are now willing to close a blind eye to the continuing excesses of some in BASSA in the hopes of smoothing the way to a deal then the post-conflict enviroment in BA will be truely awful. Letting an unreformed, unreconstructed BASSA continue to exert influence will mean we will be discussing yet another strike in the not to distant future and I rather suspect that if it happens again BA will fail to get volunteers from any department.

I hope KW is aware of that.

regards

mrpony

20th Apr 2011, 09:56

....over in the SWP.

Unite delays strikes at British Airways - again|23Apr11|Socialist Worker (http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=24562)

The obvious exception being the pregnancy scam.

mrpony

20th Apr 2011, 10:25

Who blames BA for the:
...perverse use of the legal system to utilise tiny indiscretions in the balloting process to void a democratic ballot,

...ignoring the obvious deficiencies in BASSA's procedures and records.

At the same time BASSA's own peculiar attitude to democracy, exemplified below in an excerpt from its rules regarding the Branch Committee's ability to self-declare the circumstances under which full-blown democracy by postal ballot is relegated to a dodgy show of hands at a branch meeting never attended by more than a fifth of its members, is conveniently overlooked.

Voting on general matters as determined by the Committee, may be put to the Branch meeting and decided by a show of hands. On all issues of a substantial nature voting shall be by means of a postal ballot of the relevant section of the Branch Community directly affected.

Where an issue is deemed by at least a two-thirds majority vote of the Branch Committee to be of such an extreme importance and urgent nature and where a postal vote would be impractical or inappropriate decision could be placed before a BASSA 1/2000 Branch meeting for an immediate decision.

Can anyone tell me the last time BASSA held a postal ballot for anything apart from strike action (about which they have no choice but to ballot)?

Ancient Observer

20th Apr 2011, 12:23

I suspect that the Butler character is not DH. For a start, Butler sounds intelligent, but more importantly the words and phrases are straight out of the SWP hand book of spin.

Earlier someone asked about when the SWP got involved. The answer is "from the beginning". They now have controlling power in CC89 and have a lot of "helpers" with bassa.

The SWP just want the spin and publicity. They do not care about, and in many cases do not like, real BA CC. They certainly do not have the BA CC interests at heart.

notlangley

20th Apr 2011, 12:26

BASSA - Latest News REPORT BACK FROM TODAY’S BRANCH Oct 5th, 2009 by admin

At today’s well-attended branch meeting Steve Turner (joint National Officer for CAT) and the BASSA committee reported back on last week’s meeting with BA held at Acas offices in Euston, London. The membership heard how over the 3 days BA did not want to engage in face to face dialogue and how, despite BASSA asking, they did not seem inclined to put any fresh proposals on the table. The only hard fact that emerged was BA announced (through Acas) they intend to save £140million from the crew budget.

BASSA informed BA (again via Acas) that the improving financial situation meant that all previous proposals were now off the table and a blank sheet of paper between us would be a good starting place for fresh negotiations. Sadly BA could not or would not add anything to this blank piece of paper.

Also the membership were told that the Amicus (CC89) side of UNITE, led by Brian Boyd (Steve Turner’s counterpart representing AMICUS interest) has agreed in principle to finding the £140m... much to our dismay. The committee then reported back how BA were now back to their old tricks of playing one union off against another and how the political situation within the Amicus section of UNITE could seriously undermine any potential BASSA ballot on industrial action. The membership were very angry, especially as CC89 now have so few members within BA (est 500-700) and that the "tail should not be wagging the dog".

With all this in mind three proposals were made from the floor and all accepted by 100% of those present.

1.Because of concerns over Brian Boyd using UNITE’s money to publish letters criticising our own union BASSA, alongside the fact that he has agreed in writing to accept the target of saving £140m, we call upon Tony Woodley to now remove him from the talks and that this issue is also dealt with by the NEC (a governing committee within UNITE).
2.It is unacceptable to again use our money to fund representatives who are undermining the interests and motions passed by this branch. Specifically the use of a separate consultative ballot.
3.The T&G UNITE section have total control of any ballot of industrial action within BA and if this does not happen the AMICUS section is specifically excluded from any future branch of BASSA 1/2000 for industrial action.
After a unanimous show of hands it was reported back how one of the AMICUS reps taking part in the talks was taking VR in 3 weeks and how unethical it was for him to be part of a negotiating team involved in the futures of remaining crew. It was also relayed back that this same rep had asked BA to initiate a bullying and harassment investigation against many of the committee for requesting that he not participate in the talks and how BA had now indeed opened a formal procedure against certain named BASSA representatives.

The committee apologised to the floor for "the political nature" of the report back but stressed it was vital that the membership knew just what was going on backstage and, despite BASSA on many occasions holding out the hands of friendship to CC89 reps, how BA and AMICUS leadership seem determined to exploit the divides of the last 20 years.

One member then said that in her opinion BASSA should now give BA absolutely nothing by way of savings and we should all prepare for inevitable industrial action. Needless to say the speaker got the biggest cheer of the meeting and a standing ovation.
This was from a BASSA newsletter

RTR

20th Apr 2011, 12:37

IATU Butler

Remember Duggie Fashion and Hector Vector DH, they were your names too.

LD12986

20th Apr 2011, 13:05

What a brilliant glimpse into the past notlangley.

Note the comment about BA refusing to hold face to face talks whereas the court evidence was clear that BASSA and CC89 refused to sit in the same room.

The claim that CC89 had only 500-700 members is also wrong.

Also, note the comment that it would be "unethical" for a crew member leaving BA to take part in negotiations! What does that say about the sacked reps!?

And how many times has BASSA claimed that they offered BA savings just short of its target?

mrpony

20th Apr 2011, 13:19

How very dare Amicus propose a consultative ballot!!!!

notlangley

20th Apr 2011, 13:43

LD12986 saidAlso, note the comment that it would be "unethical" for a crew member leaving BA to take part in negotiations!
But presumably perfectly ok in those innocent days for a "leaving BA" member to cast a vote to strike.

OSAGYEFO2

20th Apr 2011, 14:25

AV Flyer

20th Apr 2011, 15:55

I don't suppose that anyone of you or anyone else you may know is in a position to whip-up and circulate a brief letter for signature by the (13500 - 5811) of BA CC who didn't vote to strike plus all the ~2000 VCCs and any one else caused significant hardship by BASSA's behaviour in all other BA departments within the next 28 days?

The letter should be presented to KW as he conducts negotiations basically pointing out how pi**sed-off you all are at BASSA's behaviour and that any settlement leaving the remote chance of BASSA claiming a victory would be met with a lasting ill-feeling, or even a potential back-lash, from the rest of his company.

There is an almost palpable ground-swell of feeling against the militant BASSA members that a mass letter of this nature to KW would help them all feel they had a chance to have some say in the matter.

At the least KW will receive a very strong message and may even be able to stipulate language either for BASSA to issue a public apology for its demeaning behaviour or even to gag BASSA from crowing to anyone about the settlement otherwise they will be in breach of the settlement agreement.

At the most he might just pay attention and let BASSA/Unite go ahead and meet their strike mandate deadline and have to make that strike call. After all, who is more important to him the 5811 renegades or the 40,000 loyal staff?

BASSA would certainly be given a message at just how upset the entire BA workforce has become at their behaviour which might help to sow a few seeds of doubt in their minds leading them to realise they were totally out of line - but then again I'm thinking rationally!

Lord Bracken

20th Apr 2011, 16:15

At the begining of this sorry saga BASSA stated that they would not avail themselves of the opportunity to inspect, in confidence,the BA accounts because they were not accountants and therefor would not understand them......whilst at the same time...

BASSA informed BA (again via Acas) that the improving financial situation meant that all previous proposals were now off the table and a blank sheet of paper between us would be a good starting place for fresh negotiations.

...making it truly astonishing that those with such limited financial acumen seem to have a handle on the state of the entire world economy.

notlangley

21st Apr 2011, 06:03

I now realise that it is bit obvious that the wordshow unethical it was for him to be part of a negotiating team involved in the futures of remaining crew
were written by the Secretary Duncan Holley
link (http://www.pprune.org/5234043-post1801.html)

srbrenna

21st Apr 2011, 10:19

At the least KW will receive a very strong message

:= The way to give the management a message is to run a strike ballot :E

AV Flyer

21st Apr 2011, 12:02

While reading the comments from I.A.T.U. Butler on the other thread (who is suspected of being DH given his constant demeaning of pilots) it really comes home how the BASSA brain-washing of those who do not think for themselves works.

Virtually nothing that the BASSA poster says is based on any facts whatsover and virtually everything that is said is based on an illogical and twisted form of conjecture that has no obvious basis in reality but is carefully selected to whip-up the emotions of the unthinking believers.

When CC thread posters patiently and continually try to point out the facts and the gaping holes in the imaginative conjecture the BASSA poster completely ignores them, makes no attempt to assimilate or understand their opposing view points, and just keeps trotting out more and more fantasy.

It really is incredible to observe. One has to wonder if the BASSA poster is a rational person doing it deliberately or if they are truly a completely deluded and misguided individual?

The amazing fact is that BA's management, and everyone else involved in the operations of BA, are giving them their respect and continuing to communicate patiently while taking these people seriously and negotiating with them as if they are mature, thinking and reasoning adults.

The truth of the matter is they are deluded, non-thinking, beserkers living on another planet and thus society should be allowed to judge them as such, politely ignore them, and move on without them.

In only negotiating with Unite, I guess this is precisely what BA is attempting to achieve leaving Unite to sort-out its wayward CC Branch even though it has chosen to do nothing as yet.

srbrenna

21st Apr 2011, 12:14

Yep - "You had to leave BASSA to be eligable for the deal" is a particular bit of rubbish. BA are not allowed to entice people to leave a union. The deal was open to those that had already left.

notlangley

21st Apr 2011, 13:01

In a letter dated 22 February 2011 from Brendan Gold to Tony McCarthy, Brendan Gold said of BASSA numbers that he believed that they numbered 8918.

On the other thread Rover90 said that the monthly subscription to BASSA is £16.38 from which BA deduct a handling fee of 2.5%. - Most of the money goes to Unite, what is left remains at the discretion of BASSA. - What is left is £5.28 multiplied by 8918 = £47,127.17 per month - or £565,526 per year

Presumably the accounts of BASSA read
_Income_________Expenditure_________Loss_________Prophet
£565,526_________£565,526____________0_____________0
Errors and Omissions Excepted

links_____link1 (http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103933565912-4/Letter+to+BA+re+Ballot+23feb2011.pdf)_____link2 (http://www.pprune.org/6260971-post3165.html)

mrpony

21st Apr 2011, 13:25

There are no prophets in BASSA, that's for certain.

OSAGYEFO2

21st Apr 2011, 14:38

But DH thinks he is.

notlangley

21st Apr 2011, 15:01

BASSA says that it is the biggest branch.

I can see that if a Branch or Lodge or Chapel has less than a hundred members, then it is tough work on the shop stewards - and certainly would be inappropriate for the "parent" Union to impose bureaucratic systems like auditing of accounts._ But size changes relationships and opportunities._ Relationships are easy to talk about._ Opportunities are something to privately think about.

It seems to me that 100 members is a threshold and at some point slightly above that, the parent Union should require that accounts are published every year (say within 3 months after the year end).
At a higher threshold - somewhere between 500 and a 1000 members - the Union should require that the accounts be annually audited, published and there should also be a facility for questions and answers and these questions and answers should be available as information to all those members of that Branch (and the timescale should be defined by the parent Union in the form of rules that apply to all branches without exception).

If there is someone in either Unite or any other Union reading this, then I say thank you for reading this, and I respectfully suggest that what I am advocating can only be to the advantage of the Union movement.

Ancient Observer

21st Apr 2011, 15:04

I'm sure that a patient poster on here can tell me what I've got wrong..............I'm sure there is something.........

Diary of a striker....

I went on strike. I don't know why. I lost a few days pay but gave the BMW an outing. It was like a nice little holiday. I was going to go sick, as usual, but the Union said that I might not be paid. Took the kids to some place quite near Heathrow, had a good shout, and an interesting bus ride. My employer took away my free travel, so some of the cash that I used to get from various mates from giving them freebies was reduced.
I'm told we won whatever the strike was about. I haven't got my free travel back yet, but I'm told I will get it back, with extra compensation for losing it in the first place. At one stage, someone said in 5 minutes, but I have got used to not holding my breath.
There is one less person on some of the planes that I crew on, but I haven't noticed as I'm senior and I get to sleep for lots of the time.
Someone has been leaving lights on in the bunks. That earns us some extra money for some strange reason. I always use eye-shades, so I don't notice, but the money comes in hand.
There are some new, and younger faces at the CRC. I'm told that I shouldn't mix with them as they are New. My Union rep says that the Union battled hard to keep them off my planes. I haven't seen any on the Sin and NRT routes, yet.
There appear to be some pilots and engineers and even some beancounters training up as Volunteer crew. Clearly, we are so important that every one else has to be trained up in our job.
I hope they take their sickies on a regular basis. I would not want our sickies to be lost - they come in very handy at some times of year.
The money keeps rolling in now, so I'm happy enough.
I still have not met my manager. I saw him (it would be a him) once, in the distance. The TU rep, who is around much more, has warned me to avoid managers. I'm told that the Union dislikes managers nearly as much as it dislikes pilots. When I was younger, I used to enjoy being with the pilots, in all sorts of ways, but as I've got older I don't fancy them so much.

I'm going to retire in about 3 years. I am very pleased that my Union has kept a very close eye on my pension plan, and that it is very healthy,and guaranteed by the Union. I once heard that it was owed 4 billion pounds by BA, but that can't be right.

wiggy

21st Apr 2011, 15:29

I'm sure that a patient poster on here can tell me what I've got wrong..............I'm sure there is something.........

9/10 A.O.

I would have given you 10/10 if you inserted a sentence blaming the pilots for something, anything, or indeed everything.

Keep up the good work :ok:

Ancient Observer

21st Apr 2011, 15:40

wiggy
thank you
Done.

Litebulbs

21st Apr 2011, 16:35

Sorry mods, I promise this will be the only repost -

Range of Reasonable Responses Test for Employee Misconduct Survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KGZ7T8W)

Thanks to the 44 who have completed it so far.

MPN11

21st Apr 2011, 16:41

At a higher threshold - somewhere between 500 and a 1000 members - the Union should require that the accounts be annually audited, published and there should also be a facility for questions and answers and these questions and answers should be available as information to all those members of that Branch (and the timescale should be defined by the parent Union in the form of rules that apply to all branches without exception).

If there is someone in either Unite or any other Union reading this, then I say thank you for reading this, and I respectfully suggest that what I am advocating can only be to the advantage of the Union movement.

Thank you for saying what I wanted to say, but more lucidly and without me straying into hyperbole and ad hominem. :ok:

There does seem to be a major problem with the way DH runs his fiefdom, and the only way that gets resolved is either by the members of BASSA [if they're allowed to express a contrary view] or by Unite the Union itself.

There could be a swift resolution to the entire farce if Unite's Gen Sec actually chose to take a firm [if non-public] grip of what is happening within BASSA. Then BA could talk to an adult without background noises from the SWP play-room.

Sadly, I'm not optimistic. 'Red Len' has bigger fish to fry.

hellsbrink

21st Apr 2011, 19:15

Sorry mods, I promise this will be the only repost -

Range of Reasonable Responses Test for Employee Misconduct Survey

Thanks to the 44 who have completed it so far.

Litebulbs, I would do the survey but I cannot answer the very first question as it depends on the circumstances. Let's face it, depending on the circumstances, any one of the answers is possible.

PS. There are too many questions there that are not answerable with the options you've given

MPN11

21st Apr 2011, 19:57

As a slight aside, may I just wish everyone a pleasant weekend? The UK weather looks nice, and for those who are travelling it seems there's no BA Strike either.

Happy Easter :ok:

Litebulbs

21st Apr 2011, 20:11

Thanks for the feedback. Looking back on it, I should have asked less questions, but branched each one off depending on the answers. But the initial point was to see what the reasonable person would say, when faced with a question of misconduct. We all look in at examples and there have been many discussed on the two threads (well numerous threads, but in cabin crew and SLF).

If you look at the fighting questions, I honestly thought that both questions would give dismissal as the most likely outcome. Neither did. Now if I was to just ask what would you think would be the outcome if two people were caught fighting, then I think the result would have been the sack.

Still, I am up to 53 responses now, so hopefully it will be seen as worthwhile (TV adverts can say 83% of people preferred it when 113 people are polled!)

I would ask that you have a go based on this, but I will understand if you don't want to.

VintageKrug

21st Apr 2011, 21:00

Looking back on it, I should have asked less questions..

I think you meant to write "fewer questions".

I did fill it out, against my better judgement.

Most of the responses were in the written warning/written warning with sanction.

However, I have to agree with others who have looked at it that without the exact detail of the misdemeanour, the previous employment and disciplinary history of the individual, and the contrition or otherwise of the individual, it really is very hard to make a definitive judgement.

You'll probably end up with a nice survey which tells you what you want to hear - that BA acted much more aggressively than your respondents would have under similar circumstances.

Sadly, like the GCSE-level survey on Bullying which Unite cobbled together last year, your survey will have more holes in it than a colander.

You'd be better off focussing your energies on ensuring Unite has compelled BASSA to produce accounts, have them audited and make them available to members. That's where the real danger lies for Unite.

Litebulbs

21st Apr 2011, 21:18

Thanks for the feedback and taking time to complete it.

VintageKrug

21st Apr 2011, 21:43

Pas de probleme.

I am also linking to the BA Offer put to non-union members in October 2010 as it's getting quite a bit of mention on the other thread, and might usefully be linked to there:

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

pcat160

21st Apr 2011, 22:13

I also answered your survey and have to agree with VK. The most relevant for me was not knowing the past history of the employee. If this problem was reoccurring then my answer would have been quite different.

Litebulbs

21st Apr 2011, 22:16

Others have also made that point. I added at the head of the survey, that in each case it was a first offence.

VintageKrug

21st Apr 2011, 22:20

Or even "offence"....

It's worth taking a look at Litebulbs' survey if you have time over the long weekend:

Range of Reasonable Responses Test for Employee Misconduct Survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KGZ7T8W)

Though of more interest are notlangley's stats:

In a letter dated 22 February 2011 from Brendan Gold to Tony McCarthy, Brendan Gold said of BASSA numbers that he believed that they numbered 8918.

On the other thread Rover90 said that the monthly subscription to BASSA is £16.38 from which BA deduct a handling fee of 2.5%. - Most of the money goes to Unite, what is left remains at the discretion of BASSA. - What is left is £5.28 multiplied by 8918 = £47,127.17 per month - or £565,526 per year

Presumably the accounts of BASSA read
_Income_________Expenditure_________Loss_________Prophet
£565,526_________£565,526____________0_____________0
Errors and Omissions Excepted

links_____link1_____link2

Even at £500,000 per year I am perplexed about how the money is actually spent. It's not just salary we should be looking at, but also things like expenses, company cars (BMW M3s aren't cheap!) and pension contributions which I would reckon are not inconsiderable.

I don't have a problem with people being remunerated for work they perform, but to do so without transparency, and especially when required to do so by Law, is anathema to any professional.

harrypic

21st Apr 2011, 22:57

I also responded to your survey and found, with the information you had given in the questions, I was easily able to make a judgement....you can always look for further detail as others have noted, but as in real life thats not always available.....so you judge on the information you have...

One point though, different discipline Managers will have differing views on relevant action....a classic example is the top salesman question who gets involved in a fight...a HR Director would recommend a harsher course of action than a Sales Director, who will not want to lose his best salesman and therefore may be more lienient....

I realise these types of surveys can grow arms and legs once you start to get feedback, but a function filter as well as senirioty filter on respondants may yield you more valuable results...?

But, great survey and I hope it helps you in your studies :D

Litebulbs

21st Apr 2011, 23:15

Thanks for that harrypic. I have since been shown how to set more questions within the rules of free survey monkey.

The question I ask now, looking at the results, is although dismissal has not been the first choice in any of the questions, would it still be in the reasonable range? Dismissal has been the answer in every question, by at least one person, so should it be included?

Oh for a 1000 responses, rather than 60, but an interesting 60 anyway.

Litebulbs

21st Apr 2011, 23:25

I realise these types of surveys can grow arms and legs once you start to get feedback, but a function filter as well as senirioty filter on respondants may yield you more valuable results...?

Great points and I agree that would have been more informative, rather than just having it as a tick box at the end. Hopefully I will learn from this learning exercise in researching a researching task.

Landroger

22nd Apr 2011, 12:00

Okay, here's another question of a more philosophical nature and I'm not sure it isn't a bit naughty, but there is a relevant basis for it.

How much better off would BASSA members and cabin crew in general be, if Litebulbs had been their General Secretary? And what of BA? Would it be in worse shape, the same as at present or even better?

I think I know, but what say you? :ok:

Roger.

pvmw

22nd Apr 2011, 12:24

I looked at Litebulbs; survey, but I rally can't be bothered to fill it in because the questions are so obviously designed to ensure the answers put BA in a bad light. Let me just re-phrase a couple of them. For example:-

1. An employee, repeatedly ignores a work colleague in a similar job role, when at work and working in a customer facing role and approached on issues not related to work.

An employee's locker is searched randomly in line with company policy and some low value company items are found. Similar items have been going missing for the last few months. The employee admitted to putting the items into the locker, but claimed he never intended for the items to be removed from company premises.

An employee has been repeatedly requested to smarten up in appearance (non uniform position) and attend to his personal hygiene as other members of staff have spoken to management, to meet the requirements of line management, with the reason being because there was a possibility of meeting third party clients, but not as a representative of the company

An employee had very strong religious beliefs and openly shared views whenever in conversation with fellow employees who had asked him to desist. The line manager repeatedly requested that the employee kept all views private unless asked, but request was ignored

An employee has been involved in a fight. This employee struck the other and a fight ensued. Witnesses say that a heated discussion was taking place where another employee was making accusations about fiddling the books to exceed sales targets. The employee has been employed for two years and has been the best sales person that the company currently employs. (lets be even handed, in the last question you said that he didn't start the fight.)

Or possibly another couple of questions that may be pertinent to this thread:-

An employee is recorded on surveillance camera damaging a colleagues car in the company car park. When asked about the incident, he first denies it and then says the other person deserved it,

An employee repeatedly refuses to follow the instructions of his manager, saying he has far more important things to be doing.

Its why I have such a low opinions of unions - (having once been in Amicus myself). There is truth, and then there is the union's truth - post manipulation.

Neptunus Rex

22nd Apr 2011, 12:47

Landroger
To use tha Australian term, they would all have been better off if the GS had been the proverbial "Drover's Dog."

Although it had been around since the 1940s, usually as a less than flattering term, it became more widely used after Bill Hayden infamously commented in 1983 that a drover's dog could have led the party to victory.

Litebulbs

22nd Apr 2011, 13:01

All I can say is that it is not my intention to put BA in any light, but you will have to take my word on that; or not.

pvmw

22nd Apr 2011, 14:10

All I can say is that it is not my intention to put BA in any light, but you will have to take my word on that; or not.

Forgive my cynicism!! However.....

My interpretation of every question was that is was phrased to ensure that no reasonable person would say "Dismissal". Phrase the questions a little differently, or add a couple of words to tilt the bias the other way slightly and dismissal certainly becomes an option.

As this is a thread which is discussing employees who have been dismissed for gross misconduct - bullying, vandalism, refusing to work as requested - and where every question is designed to make it appear that dismissal is an unreasonable choice then....??

To me it clearly demonstrates a bias - intentional or subconscious.

Litebulbs

22nd Apr 2011, 16:02

If you take the survey, as 76 people have, you will see the actual results to date. As the questions are not based on the current dispute, you will see that dismissal has been chosen by some, as the outcome for a fair percentage of the questions.

If I had wanted to ask questions about the current dispute, I would have done, but then it would have been with an intention to act as you state. My reason for choosing this thread on this site is that there have been numerous postings on all sorts of issues around the current dispute, so people have taken time to post on pprune to share their thoughts. I was hoping that the same would be the case for this survey. There have been 5500 views of the thread since I posted the link and I thank the 76 people who have responded.

If I go and post blah, blah, blah and that BA are wrong, then I expect and deserve the full weight of any and all who have taken time to fill it in. I will not do that and again you have my word.

pvmw

22nd Apr 2011, 16:31

My apologies for doubting your good intentions, it was easy to make the assumption that, as the survey was on a thread about the BA dispute, the questions were informed by it.

I'll go off and do it, tho' I still think the questions are lacking in sufficient detail to make a reasoned judgment possible. My responses will also be coloured by my experiences in my career. One example. In my previous job there was a fight between two staff. The younger, who had only been there a year or so, was out the door immediately and never seen again. The elder, been there many years, knew the right people, union man etc. got suspended for a week. In my mind, he was more culpable and should have been dismissed as well.

Litebulbs

22nd Apr 2011, 16:45

The lack of information has been the most common feedback to date. I will include it with the work I submit and will probably suffer when it is assessed. I was going to clear it and redo with fewer questions and a different structure, but I do not want to loose the 78 responses that I have had so far and I would probably be pushing the mods patience.

MPN11

22nd Apr 2011, 16:59

Whichever, you gave it a good shot ... and kudos for trying. :ok:

It's an imperfect science, and easily manipulated to skew the desired result. I'm not in any way suggesting you did that, but that's one of the biggest difficulties when composing the questions and framing the scenario.

Dawdler

22nd Apr 2011, 18:45

The fighting question was an interesting one. In such cases in my factory days, both participants were immediately propelled through the main gates on an automatic three day's suspension - without pay. Usually what happened then was at least one of them (often both) was subsequently dismissed. This was in the 1950's-1960's

I have to add that this was a factory situation with lots of dangerous machines running, heavy castings and sometimes molten metal about, hence the immediate action. Your question I took to mean the incident took place in an office. When I read it again, it didn't specifically say that of course.

Best of luck with your studies.

VintageKrug

22nd Apr 2011, 21:07

BASSA is a branch and that means it is controlled (or supposed to be controlled) by Unite. BASSA does not have the power to authorise the calling of strike action. It is impotent, and especially so in the face of the many Unite VCC members.

BASSA and Unite are separate entities and there is no automatic link between the two; Unite could terminate the arrangement as its discretion, as you have been made aware, Duncan.

BASSA, in its current dysfunctional guise, will never be granted collective bargaining rights for Mixed Fleet.

The pay on MF will be reviewed in the normal course of events, is likely to have a basic + flight pay component which is at or a little more than other airlines offer to new hires, with a performance related element which gives the "approx 10% above market rate" for those who meet the criteria.

This £1,800 per month suggested, without any evidence (as usual) as a typical Easyjet new recruit cabin crew take home pay is fantasy as I set out using referenced quotes on the previous page.

Something in the £1,000-£1,300 range is typical, and that is what MF delivers to most cabin crew currently, and this without the performance related element, which will become clearer during the course of the year.

Plus MFers are (almost) all saving £200 per annum in Union contributions which go into an unaccountable £1.5m per year BASSA black hole.

BASSA members and former members concerned about this illegal lack of accounts can email the Certification Officer to ensure this is properly addressed:

http://www.certoffice.org/Nav/Complaints.aspx

You'd be quite right to take your skills elsewhere STC if you could get a better deal there; but until there has been a full year of earnings, and the performance-related element of the package is fully evidenced, it's hard to say what your total remuneration will be, which I appreciate mustn't be easy when times are tight; however, the basic plus flight pay and Duty Free commission does seem to be the same or more than Easyjet and Virgin offer, and they don't have performance related options on top of that.

I really hope that MF continues to be the success it appears to be becoming and that as a consequence of that the bonuses will ensure that the market rate plus 10% can be adhered to for those crew who exceed expectations.

Judging by BASSA's success in "negotiating" a better deal for its current membership, I wouldn't be signing up to BASSA very fast.

Why entrust my financial future to a bunch of legacy fleet longhaul CSDs earning twice/three times my wage with most of my Union dues going direct to the Labour Party rather than to providing Union administration and support services?

Anyway, I hope Mixed Fleeters are treated reasonably by BA and in the interim are able to influence management directly to ensure transparency about the likely levels of performance related bonuses which should address many of the very valid concerns people like STC set out, and hopefully provide the financial rewards originally set out to those who joined the new fleet.

VintageKrug

22nd Apr 2011, 21:12

From another thread, an illustration of the twisting of words.

Pay - shocking; consider yourself lucky if you take home over £1100

That is quite different from what tomkins wrote:

Smell the coffee was not saying that £1100 was a monthly average ,he said you would be lucky to achieve this figure.....implying that some months you may earn less.

There was no implication from STC that you may earn less than £1,100.

While it may be the case, there is no evidence in Smell the Coffee's statement that "you would be lucky to achieve [£1100]"; what was clearly stated was that MF crew would be lucky to EARN MORE than £1100 after tax. A very different perspective.

My understanding is that BF did NOT offer market rate + 10% when compared to currently employed equivalent staff; it was market rate when compared to equivalent current UK hiring packages at other airlines.

And BA's package will include the performance bonus about which we haven't enough data to make a judgement.

That's why your example of Easyjet crew taking home a not unimpressive £1,800 net isn't a valid comparison (if indeed you can provide any tangible evidence new recruits get paid this); that would require a basic of £18,000ish not including flight pay etc. so at least £25,000 total gross per annum so it cannot be accurate, based on (anecdotal) evidence presented below:

I can only find info on Easyjet from the dreadful cabincrew.com site, which states new recruits start on £10,207 gross plus an estimated £5,103 as flight pay - so about £15,500 per annum gross plus Duty Free sales on top of that. After they are confirmed as permanent, they can expect another £2,000 per annum (and I think there's a similar step change for MF crew after a certain period of employment).

CabinCrew.com: EASYJET NEW RECRUITS WAGES (http://www.cabincrew.com/ccnetwork//forum_posts.asp?TID=39675)

From that perspective it does seem BA's £17,000-£20,000 per annum is a little better than market rate, possibly not quite 10% more, but certainly not outside that ballpark.

I don't know what the MF monthly £1,100 net works out at gross, especially when you consider that flight pay is partially tax free. But over twelve months it amounts to £13,200 net, I estimate around £15,500 gross. If you then add in four quarterly payments of £500 as the performance related incentive component, and any additional Duty Free sales, then that gets us right to the £17,000-£20,000 per annum range, which is what is quoted in the BA MF ad below:

Cabin Crew Latest Jobs - Updated Daily with cabin Crew Jobs (http://www.careerintravel.co.uk/cabin-crew-latest-jobs.htm#bmi)

Total Reward Package Cabin Crew: c£17,000 - £20,000pa includes basic salary, elapsed hourly pay and performance related incentive reward.

Of course as more longhaul and 747 routes move to MF then the flight pay proportion should increase, ensuring that across the year things do improve for MF. I would imagine the clientele on BA spends more on in flight Duty Free than an equivalent bmi or EasyJet passenger?

The only comparative data I could easily find was for Virgin (positions now filled), in the same link recruiting at a base of £11,564 gross p.a but that does not include flight pay or performance bonus; what it does do is illustrate that BA are not wildly out of kilter with prevailing alternative employers. I have no doubt that other airlines recruiting in the UK (eg Emirates/ flybe /EasyJet) pay less well than Virgin, and have other drawbacks not encountered by those working for BA (eg less longhaul flight pay component, less duty free commission, less attractive routes).

Market Rate plus 10% would have been based on the levels of remuneration for new roles available in the market at the time the offer was made (I believe this was in mid/late 2009).

Inflation will have eroded this already (by about 5%, or £800/year) in real terms. I do think that BA needs to be more transparent about the levels of likely performance bonus for MF crew as this does seem to be where the 10% differentiation is expected to come from.

I think it is clear BA needs to ensure its MF crew are remunerated at a level which slightly exceeds market rate. The performance related component and the increased proportion of longhaul and new routes may well balance this out across the year. It is simply too early to tell.

BA Cabin Crew Managers are now a lot closer to those they manage and valid concerns about pay will be directly referred to senior management and that changes can be made when appropriate, without the involvement of a meddling Union Branch.

Let's hope MF does get some sort of collective representation soon from a non-dysfunctional collective bargaining entity, perhaps Unite itself or possibly PCCC (though I don't see any evidence yet that PCCC is capable of performing such a role). Without wishing to stray OT, there is an open market for collective representation and the BASSA leadership does not hold a monopoly on such roles!

Having some sort of business-minded collective representation is important in lower paid, cyclical industries and especially where employees are positioned in multiple locations.

It is clear that the passenger feedback for MF is broadly positive, and the savings made elsewhere in the company and within the legacy fleet (despite the largely neutralising effect of the costs of the strike) are slowly returning BA back to modest profitability, and that bodes well for the performance component of the package. Long may that continue.

P.S. What does I.A.T.U. stand for? Possibly I Am Totally Unhinged? :eek:

Landroger

22nd Apr 2011, 21:43

P.S. What does I.A.T.U. stand for? Possibly I Am Totally Unhinged?

Your guess is probably more appropriate, but I'm afraid it's rather more prosaic than that VK. Possibly before your time :eek: but think seventies (?) sitcom with Reg Varney - On the Buses - with Varney playing the part of a wide boy driver called Butler. Psychotic Inspector would endlessly repeat;

"I 'ate you Butler!" :rolleyes: Geddit? :ugh:

Roger.

wiggy

22nd Apr 2011, 22:36

For the younger reader it's here, at 6:10 into the clip:http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ802o_SOZM&feature=related

wiggy

26th Apr 2011, 06:40

It's gone very quiet on both this and the other thread - signs that the storm has finally blown itself out, or the calm before the (final) storm.....or are other factors and powers now in play:confused:

Sonorguy

26th Apr 2011, 06:55

I would guess the factors and powers are simply that it's a 4 day bank holiday weekend in the UK and elsewhere and everyone has better things to be doing!

tilleydog1

26th Apr 2011, 13:38

Was there any feedback from the person who requested to see the BASSA accounts? It must be well past the thirty day limit now.

Dawdler

26th Apr 2011, 17:20

I am afraid we must assume that Bassawitch has been unsuccessful in persuading BASSA to observe it's obligations under TU regulations. We have yet to be told whether other avenues are being pursued.
On the other hand, the member may have been shocked speechless by the figures or the fact that they finally did comply. Perhaps we will never know.

VintageKrug

27th Apr 2011, 06:50

I recall BASSAwitch gave an update last week that he/she was still making enquiries with the Certification Officer to gain access to the BASSA accounts, which are legally required to be made available to current and past members of any Union.

Current or former BASSA members who are interested in knowing what happens to the £1.5m+ annual subs paid to Duncan Holley by the 9,000 or so (and falling) BASSA membership needn't wait for BASSAwitch to get a response, they can ask the Certification Officer directly to look further into the matter, via email:

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

In my view, the matter should also be directly pursued with BASSA and UNite's auditors as a matter of questionable professional conduct, as this is likely to bear more fruit, faster.

This was the last response from BASSA, back in March:

Dear XXXXXX,

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

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

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

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

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

In solidarity,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

There has been considerable focus on what BASSA "pays" its reps.

Setting aside whether you think they should be paid or not (and personally I don't think its unreasonable to be paid something if you are delivering a valuable service to members) DH has stated he receives an "honorarium" of £25,000 per annum, which is 50% of his entitlement. Good for him.

However, this does mean he has deniability when asked what he is "paid" or what "salary" BASSA compensates him with, as an honorarium is not the same as pay/salary.

There are many other ways of "rewarding" people, as MPs have proven, from employing relatives for administrative tasks, expenses claims, travel and entertainment allowance (Bedfont, anyone?), company cars (eg a BMW M3), additional payments for other duties performed, pension contributions (an area of specific focus in this situation, given typical union remuneration structures), medical insurance and any payments in connection with his recent dismissal for gross misconduct.

All of which should be looked into, though are not legally required to be disclosed as part of a request for the accounts.

It will be interesting to learn of The Unhinged One has anything to say on this matter.

vctenderness

27th Apr 2011, 08:52

I recall BASSAwitch gave an update last week that he/she was still making enquiries with the Certification Officer to gain access to the BASSA accounts, which are legally required to be made available to current and past members of any Union.

Current or former BASSA members who are interested in knowing what happens to the £1.5m+ annual subs paid to Duncan Holley by the 9,000 or so (and falling) BASSA membership needn't wait for BASSAwitch to get a response, they can ask the Certification Officer directly to look further into the matter, via email:

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

In my view, the matter should also be directly pursued with BASSA and UNite's auditors as a matter of questionable professional conduct, as this is likely to bear more fruit, faster.

This was the last response from BASSA, back in March:

There has been considerable focus on what BASSA "pays" its reps.

Setting aside whether you think they should be paid or not (and personally I don't think its unreasonable to be paid something if you are delivering a valuable service to members) DH has stated he receives an "honorarium" of £25,000 per annum, which is 50% of his entitlement. Good for him.

However, this does mean he has deniability when asked what he is "paid" or what "salary" BASSA compensates him with, as an honorarium is not the same as pay/salary.

There are many other ways of "rewarding" people, as MPs have proven, from employing relatives for administrative tasks, expenses claims, travel and entertainment allowance (Bedfont, anyone?), company cars (eg a BMW M3), additional payments for other duties performed, pension contributions (an area of specific focus in this situation, given typical union remuneration structures), medical insurance and any payments in connection with his recent dismissal for gross misconduct.

All of which should be looked into, though are not legally required to be disclosed as part of a request for the accounts.

It will be interesting to learn of The Unhinged One has anything to say on this matter.

the BASSA reps claim a daily payment for attending meetings or doing anything connected to the union.

This is in excess of £100 per day and I think that the senior reps get £125 but cannot be 100% sure now.

Also lap tops, mobile phones, phone calls, are claimed.

There is no system of control and it may be that a rep pops into the office for 30 minutes has a chat and then claims a days allowance.

The taxation of this is not clear the Revenue have persued the BASSA reps in the past for full tax and Im pretty sure that an outstanding bill was paid from the BASSA funds.

DH should not be entitled to any of this but I would bet that he claims the maximum daily attendance every month plus his commission. When he was employed by BA he was earning as much as a senior BA Captain if all was taken into account - not bad from someone who hardly ever put his cabin crew uniform on:E

Litebulbs

27th Apr 2011, 19:37

I have closed the survey and thanks to those that took part and shared their views. Now for some statistical magic and opinion (but not on here):ok:

Avionker

27th Apr 2011, 20:23

How many respondents did you get in the end Litebulbs?

Litebulbs

27th Apr 2011, 21:20

10000 thread views, 90 responses.

pcat160

28th Apr 2011, 23:01

From the other thread:

"Bill has just sent all cabin crew an email saying the following:-

This week I have held further talks with some of your BASSA representatives and this has been a positive step in our search for a way forward.

We plan to meet again next week and I will keep you updated as progress is made."

I wonder if Keith Williams and Red Len have relegated the discussions down the line.:confused:

Dawdler

30th Apr 2011, 13:54

I wonder if Keith Williams and Red Len have relegated the discussions down the line.:confused:

It would appear so:-

Lenny McClusky and Keith Williams will rejoin the talks next week. From the other thread.

It seems the crunch day is Friday next week. If they haven't reached an agreement by then, they have to decide whether they wish to strike and inform BA by the following Friday.

tempus fugit.

Neptunus Rex

2nd May 2011, 16:55

From the RAF Uniform thread:

... I am tickled pink that after decades of thinking they are royalty, finally two ex BA cabin crew have produced one :DPriceless!

Unfortunately, I am not eligible to post it in that other place. Would some kind (or malevolent) soul care to do the honours?

Megaton

2nd May 2011, 18:21

The Middleton's may have produced royalty but Kate had to marry a pilot and RAF officer to achieve it!

ChicoG

3rd May 2011, 05:46

The Middleton's may have produced royalty but Kate had to marry a pilot and RAF officer to achieve it!

That's not all she had to do.... :E

http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/full/287383348.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&Expires=1304402495&Signature=H5MrAxmlbuszJQVYnsS8cZmxzj4%3D

vctenderness

3rd May 2011, 13:02

From the RAF Uniform thread:

Priceless!

Unfortunately, I am not eligible to post it in that other place. Would some kind (or malevolent) soul care to do the honours?

Only one of the parents were cabin crew I am afraid. Kates mum served her time as 'Doris' but her dad was Oversea Station Staff. I think he was Station manager at Amman.

I am sure every one will know that amongst the cabin crew community there are many, many 'Royalty'

Juan Tugoh

3rd May 2011, 13:23

There are certainly a few Queens pretending to be cabin crew :}

LD12986

3rd May 2011, 15:39

Whilst checking the status of current cases, I came across this old case between BASSA and CC89:

Cabin Crew 89 -v- BASSA [2002] DRS 689 (28 December 2002) (http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/DRS/2002/689.html)

Plus ca change!

alpha69

3rd May 2011, 16:10

VCtenderness.

From Wicklepedia:

"Michael Francis Middleton, who also worked as a flight attendant prior to becoming a flight dispatcher (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/Flight_dispatcher) for British Airways (http://www.pprune.org/wiki/British_Airways), "

Yes he did work in Amman but as Station Manager - not sure about that.

LD12986

4th May 2011, 10:12

I see according to Juan Tripp's post on the CC thread that talks are due to resume next week. I understand from BASSA's last update that the current deadline for strike action expires this week. Does that mean another extension has been agreed (if that is actually possible) or (sigh) another ballot maybe required?

call100

4th May 2011, 13:29

Better to have extensions and a peaceful solution than another round of IA.

Betty girl

4th May 2011, 16:22

An extension has not been announced.

A reprint of Bill's message was put up and mistakenly dated 3rd May and this is what JT was alluding to but it was just a reprint of last weeks message.

New routes have been announced for M/F and BA are putting a Purser back on some WW flights (although they will be working down as main crew!!!!) mainly due to there being too many Pursers at the moment. When more part time is actioned, they will remove the extra Purser again.

pcat160

5th May 2011, 00:31

"Talks update.
For the first time in over a year, BASSA reps have now been able to meet with British Airways. The talks were positive but there still remain a number of difficult areas. Though it must be acknowledged that given both the time that has gone by and the acrimonious situation that exists, initial progress was encouraging, but there still remains a lot of work to be done in a short period of time.
Lenny McClusky and Keith Williams will rejoin the talks next week.
Next week is all important.
An extension to our industrial action period was agreed, however this expires on Monday 9th May. So prior to that day we must have either reached a solution we believe will be acceptable to you, or call strike action.
Realistically given the weekend, this must be done by Friday night on the 6th May.
By the end of next week we will either call strike dates or have an offer of resolution for you."

Does this mean we will hear something on Friday or before, or is Monday the "Big Day"? Are there other possibilities?:confused:

Airclues

5th May 2011, 07:21

From the joint announcement on 14th April from Unite and BA;

The current strike ballot mandate given by cabin crew means industrial action must be announced by 15 April. Both parties accept that this would severely undermine any attempt at a genuine settlement. Accordingly, British Airways is prepared to grant an extension of 28 days to the Union.

15th April plus 28 days is Friday 13th May. Where do they get 9th May from?

Dave

Hotel Mode

5th May 2011, 08:17

15th April plus 28 days is Friday 13th May. Where do they get 9th May from?

They displayed their continuing lack of competence by getting the dates wrong.

The truth is

STATEMENT BY UNITE
May 4th, 2011 by admin

The following statement has been issued today (Wednesday) by Unite’s General Secretary Len McCluskey:
“There has been some clarity sought as to the last date on which Unite could give notice of industrial action pursuant to the last ballot it held of cabin crew members employed at British Airways. The company and the union confirm that notice of action may be given at any time up to midnight on May 15th.
“British Airways and Unite intend to make full use of the time available by continuing discussions aimed at securing a settlement to the dispute.”

PPRuNe Pop

5th May 2011, 14:34

British Airways striker sacked after 'he threatened to poison pilot' in YouTube rant | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383719/British-Airways-striker-sacked-threatened-poison-pilot-YouTube-rant.html)

Dawdler

5th May 2011, 15:52

Regarding this case, why did he not have union representation at his disciplinary hearing?

Simple really, there was no advantage to BASSA in getting involved.

Mariner9

5th May 2011, 16:17

BASSA were going to attend but also got the dates of Mr Benning's disciplinary hearing wrong ;)

Joking aside (and its no laughing matter for Mr Benning), it seems to me from the snippets we have seen from the BASSA forum that aggressive attitudes towards non-strikers are encouraged in their members, and thus BASSA could be said to be cuplable for his dismissal.

mrpony

5th May 2011, 16:33

Not much one for conspiracy theories but the Express article refers to an affair:

The tribunal heard that married Benning was suffering from depression after having an affair with another member of BA cabin crew who became pregnant but lost the baby.
Claims that she complained of harassment by Benning were denied by his legal team.

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | Printer (http://www.express.co.uk/printer/view/244737/)

There have been reports about 'trouble' within BASSA related to the fidelity of some crew. May be rubbish but it's a rumour network. Was Benning dumped for his indiscretion?

LD12986

5th May 2011, 16:45

Dawdler, But isn't the role of the rep to take the member through the disciplinary process and advise them of how to manage the process rather than make a judgment call on whether the case can be won?

Dawdler

5th May 2011, 21:29

LD thanks for that. I always thought that a selling point of trade unions was that they would always be by your side in the event of trouble with the management. Perhaps that is too simplistic a view.

On the subject of simplistic views, I see on the staff thread, A13 a new poster has offered the following advice to Betty Girl.if you were a member of Bassa perhaps you could of influenced things from within.I wonder how she was supposed to achieve that with the current set up, where they do not even put a proposal to the membership when it was agreed by the Union Gen Sec to do so?

west lakes

5th May 2011, 21:37

But isn't the role of the rep to take the member through the disciplinary process and advise them of how to manage the process rather than make a judgment call on whether the case can be won?

But.......er..........of course BASSA withdrew from the facilities agreement, which, no doubt, made it difficult for reps to assist members except in the reps own time! Yep that was a well thought out plan!

pcat160

6th May 2011, 00:24

Interesting post from FT:

This is an exchange from the BASSA forum. The italicised bit is the man himself

Quote:
Are you saying that on Thursday, the members present get to decide if its good enough? Im not going to be there and many others wont either.

OK we accept not everyone will be there but if it is rejected by those that are it simply means that the consultation process will have to wait until either (sic) we get a better deal by further strikes. .

ie: The nutters can turn up and wave their hands in the air and scupper any chance of the deal even going to ballot. I really do hope KW knows what he is doing because he may be about to lose his credibility on all sides.

Mariner9

6th May 2011, 09:29

To be fair to Unite/BASSA, they only have a week left to decide upon IA and thus do not have time now for a full consultation of their members.

I'm afraid that to end this dispute, we are reliant upon DH & Co putting their member's interests above their own.

Snas

6th May 2011, 10:12

To be fair to Unite/BASSA, they only have a week left to decide upon IA and thus do not have time now for a full consultation of their members.

...which they promised they would provide. There is nothng fair about the way they are bypassing their members, yet again.

Hipennine

6th May 2011, 10:42

So what happens if the branch calls a strike, UNITE advise that it's unprotected and therefore cannot sanction it, but the branch goes ahead anyway ?

Is this all a clever plot by Mr McCluskey to box DH et al into a corner, where the choice is back down and FO, or seriously breach the Union's legal mandate and the Union will cast you out ?

LD12986

6th May 2011, 11:41

I'd have some sympathy with the position Len McCluskey is in if it wasn't the very same "Lenny" trying to broker a peace deal who was behind the calling of the 12 Days of Christmas strikes who also went ahead and called the first strikes even though Tony Woodley and Willie agreed on an extension to allow a deal to be put to the membership.

A cynic might suggest it was convenient for Len to get behind the strikes so he could make a name for himself when campaigning for Gen Sec.

Now this has all come back to haunt him and he has exactly the same problems that Tony Woodley had.

Mariner9

6th May 2011, 11:50

Personally, I can't see Unite abandoning 10,000 x £15/month.

Much the same as I can't see the current BASSA leadership abandoning 10,000 x £? a month to put their members' interests first :rolleyes:

VintageKrug

6th May 2011, 12:42

I would imagine Holley’s “pay” is actually quite modest. It’s more the total package that would tell the true story.

He has said he gets an “honorarium” of £25,000 per annum, half of what he’s entitled to. Good for him.

I would be more interested in the detail of the Union Pension (likely to be considerable), Private Healthcare, Car Scheme, Day Rate Payments for Union Duties, Additional Union Pay During IA, connected persons employed by him (e.g. his local accountancy firm), possible family members/friends/colleagues employed to perform administrative duties (such as the disastrous and incompetent outsource of the membership records), and other expenses claimed by him (including any legal expenses).

There may also be severance payments, and then potentially a nice golden parachute into a cushy job at Unite to see out his days.

All perfectly legal and above board, I’m sure, as HMRC can no doubt attest. But in the spirit of transparency it would seem prudent to publish these figures to the hard pressed membership who fund his lifestyle.

I would imagine, all in, that it’s a pretty tidy sum, on top of his previous book publishing exploits and other “outside interests”.

-----

We still haven’t seen the judgement from his Employment Tribunal, but its obviously not resulted in vindication or re-instatement. Anyone got a link?

----

On the matter of Mixed Fleet pay mentioned on the other thread, it does seem to be on the lower side of expectations, but it is being continually compared to legacy fleet T&Cs and wages – these were common in the past at other airlines BUT ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE IN THE MARKETPLACE. In many cases, such fleets have been wound down, or their employees made redundant. BA has chosen not to pursue this path, and that’s to be respected for lots of reasons. But a more apt comparison is against the uncertainty of a seasonal chart contract or a contract with Virgin which I posted some detailed stats on the previous page which set out that BA MF pays a little more (not much) than a new recruit to Virgin might expect (though their not recruiting right now).

When you add onto that the Performance Related BONUS (which does seem to less than easy to understand) from which MF will benefit, it does seem MF will be in the range of market+10% when judged on a full year basis.

-----

The end game must surely be nearing; Holley’s statements in recent weeks have been preparing his membership for an honourable settlement, and he’s now disconnected from participation from the negotiations. If he chooses to call a strike, with or without backing from Unite, its limited impact on the BA operation will surely marginalise the militant leadership of BASSA even further (personally I rather hope he does call one, so the militant boil can be lanced once and for all).

I can’t imagine what it must have been like for Cabin Crew working under such conditions for nearly TWO YEARS now, and surely it’s time to call it a day. As ever, I continue to receive good to excellent service on board from existing crews, though it is noticeable that the dispute has diminished the “spark” that could often be perceived. Let’s hope a settlement will all all factions to move forward, and set BA’s industrial relations on a stable platform so crew have the representation they deserve and BA Management is able to manage and seek common cause with those delivering the product to passengers.

It’s good to note this month’s passenger stats revealed that BASSA’s impotent strike threats have had no effect whatsoever on forward bookings. BASSA has nothing left in its armoury.

----

I would imagine any settlement will take as its starting point the October 2010 offer, never put to cabin crew, which not all crew have had an opportunity to read:

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

It’s time to move on.

Ralf Stosser

6th May 2011, 17:53

So Vintage Krug, you seem to have good insider knowledge.

Are you involved in British Airways as an employee or consultant?

MCOflyer

6th May 2011, 19:47

This is quote frome Jeff Smisek, CEO of UA/CO, and I thought it particulary approriate to this dispute.

"And even in a unionised workforce, you can build that relationship with a unionised workforce where the worker thinks of themselves as employees of the enterprise first and union members second. If you have it flipped where it's union first and enterprise second, that's a path to ruin."

Litebulbs

6th May 2011, 20:20

But you can flip that to say that it is just a job, not a way of life and if you get pi55ed off with it, then you can cause a little disruption and mayhem until you leave.

Dawdler

6th May 2011, 22:16

I thinks that's exactly what he said.
If you have it flipped where it's union first and enterprise second, that's a path to ruin."

MCOflyer

6th May 2011, 22:18

I guess you could look at it that way as well. But if you had "just a job" would'nt you be looking to get out and into something you enjoy? Keeping a job that you dislike and making everyone around you miserable is a mindset I just don't get although I have seen that behavior all my working life.

alpha69

7th May 2011, 06:37

Bettygirl,

May I reply to a post you made on the "other forum" about passenger satisfaction levels.

You quoted the high level of stisfaction on the WW fleets and the fact that these surveys are done by the CSD handing out surveys to selected passengers.

You ust know as well as I do (as a retired crew member married to another retired crew member) that these in flight surveys are a joke. Any response that crticises the crew is binned - only the complimentary surveys forms are returned.

Alpha 69
(Retired crew member so not allowed to post on the "other" forum)

BetterByBoat

7th May 2011, 10:22

"But if you had just a job would'nt you be looking to get out and into something you enjoy? Keeping a job that you dislike and making everyone around you miserable is a mindset I just don't get although I have seen that behavior all my working life"

I guess that depends if they can get another job on comparitive Terms and Conditions to maintain the lifestyle they have. The problem here is that there are a significant number of crew with a chip on their shoulder but who don't have useful transferable skills to get themselves a job outside of the industry and who won't accept a pay cut to work for another airline.

Of course, if there are other airlines who will provide better T&Cs then the question does arise - why aren't BA cabin crew moving elsewhere? Or why don't the other airlines want to recruit disgruntled BA crew?

Betty girl

7th May 2011, 10:49

alpha,

Yes of course, I did point out that these can be influenced. In various ways! One by giving them out to only happy passengers! Two, by not handing in bad ones but this actually leaves the CSD with a low return rate figure! Some hand back 100% and they are accountable for their return rate!

Of course M/F longhaul flights are the same I believe, as they, I believe, also hand them out and human nature dictates that the way a CSM would do this would be the same as a WW CSD. In fact a CSM would have a bigger interest in only handing in good ones as their pay is performance rated partly on their survey scores and a CSD's is not. If they are done electronically on their flights ie by email (and I have to be honest, I am not sure which way longhaul M/F crew do theirs, shorthaul is definitely like E/F and by email), the problems the same, you can't compare the two sets of scores and they will look very different to WW scores!! That was the point I was making, not whether it was a good system or not because neither is.

On E/F ,where I work we have no influence over what people respond (other than giving all our customers a lovely flight) but I have to tell you that the response rates are very low when sent out by email. As a E/F Purser I can see my personal scores for each month and these can vary from 100% one month to much lower figure the next month and this is because of low return rates!
If for instance only two replied for a particular flight, one said very good and one said just good, you would get a score of 50% because you are scored on how many passengers think you are 'very good' or 'exceptional' and a 'good' does not count towards your percentage. If only one replied on your flight, and they gave you a score of very good, you would get a score of 100%!! So these scores when multiplied up by BA are really showing them a trend for a route or an aircraft and are not very precise for individual senior crew members. It is not just as simple as a score for how you were, there are scores for presence in cabin, friendly, efficient etc and all the categories get a score and do vary in our individual figures!

The email version that is on my flights on E/F and some Mixed Fleet flights is less biased but not so good to track an individual senior crew member because of the low return rate and sometimes the passengers are answering about their longhaul sector and not even your flight because they have taken more than one flight by the time they receive the survey!

Basically I was only explaining a little about how these surveys are done to show you that it is hard to compare WW, E/F and M/F's scores because they are acquired in a different way. WW one way, E/F another and M/F either the same as E/F or a mix of them both! So saying that one fleet is performing better or not, is a pretty silly thing to say. As I said, the scores on all the fleets are up and are good and BA is happy with the cabin crew on all the fleets.

I hope that has clarified it for you.

I am not saying the handing out way is good as being a E/F Purser I don't understand why WW are still handing them out, on E/F it has not happened for years now but I am not sure if the email version is satisfactory either but it cannot be influenced by the crew handing them out, as you say to their favorite passengers!

I just wish more passengers would reply to the emails but of course, I am guilty of not replying to hotels, sometimes myself, when they email me or give me a form at reception!!

The reason for me mentioning all this in the first place was not because I think WW is better or not than M/F, it was in direct response to another poster saying that M/F scores were better. They are not, they are also good but the two sets cannot be compared for the reason I give to you plus bizarrely, they often have more crew due to VCCs and supernumerary crew under training! So even if it was possible to compare the results it would not be a fair comparison anyway!! As I said, their scores were lower than WW but higher than E/F but they are obtained in different ways, so not comparable.

Wow, that's a long answer, sorry!!!

GemDeveloper

7th May 2011, 21:00

I always understood that, at least for WW, the questionnaires were handed out by the CSD to the passengers in seats that were pre-determined, and therefore the CSD was not able to influence the results by choosing the passengers who said “please”, and “thank you”, and “that was excellent”.

My experience in a career where we always were seeking good, and honest, customer feed back is that it is extremely hard to achieve. Ask folk at the time and they often are (understandably), ‘over influenced’ by the event that has just happened to them. So an excellent cabin service, and then the item they wanted is not available on the duty free cart, and they damn their whole experience. Ask them a few days later (perhaps by eMail), and they either don’t reply, or produce a bland response that is not terribly helpful. Many customer service questionnaire are banal in the extreme. I shocked some poor young lady the other week, who had called me on behalf of a motor manufacturer to ask about my experience at one of their franchised dealers, by commenting that their telephone questionnaire was clearly designed solely to give some senior suit in marketing a nice warm feeling, and they could achieve that just by p**ing into their Wellingtons.

Using customer feedback to rank customer facing staff needs considerable care, and I hope that BA is organised to do this fairly. One Lady’s “Good” is another Lady’s “Excellent”. I was forcibly reminded of this many years ago when a Senior Royal Navy Officer commented on my over-use of the adjective ‘Good’ in a staff paper that I had written at his invitation. I had failed to understand that, in the RN, the Friday before Easter Day is ‘Satisfactory’ Friday. And I also had the experience of arriving to run a Company where the Management Team had ranked every one of their staff ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’, and wanted bonuses to suit. It took a long time to get across the message that in any group of people, there must be some sort of normal distribution of attributes; and whist our people’s performance overall might be streets ahead of the competition, within our population, there must be a continuum of performance from “Excellent” down to “Poor”.

Getting fair performance assessments, and getting managers to rank people fairly, to manage poor performers to improve, or, if they can’t, to seek alternative opportunities, is hard; but it’s not impossible. I hope that the systems put in place that will determine cabin crew bonuses are transparent and clearly understood by the cabin crew and their appraisers.

Betty girl

7th May 2011, 22:06

Gem,
I agree with a lot of what you say and yes they are supposed to go to specific seats.

A lot of what you say is true and these customer surveys are not a good or accurate way of assessing individuals.

They do show trends and they are more than just about the cabin crew. They talk about food, seating, check-in etc. so they can flag up specific problems on specific routes.

Staff assessments are always hard and just as it is not good practice to say everyone is good, it is also not good practice to encourage people to assess their staff, making the assumption that a certain percentage must be below standard either.

True and valuable assessments are what is required and when someone is good it should be ok to say so. Many companies put their managers under a lot of pressure to find a fault in someone or something that needs improvement, whether it exists or not and this actually can lead to demotivated staff because they wonder what will ever make their employer happy!

So good and fair appraisals are as you say important and even more so if your pay depends on it!!.

VintageKrug

8th May 2011, 06:49

Is it time for Unite to remove the "Devil Eyes" Photo from its website?

. FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE (http://www.uniteba.com)

GemDeveloper

8th May 2011, 07:10

Betty Girl,

Please don’t take this personally (!), as I and the many who observe this and ‘the other’ thread are very grateful for your continual contributions. :)

But I do have to observe that a reluctance to appraise some staff as being lower performers than others is one of the hurdles that a good manager must overcome. You mentioned that: “it is also not good practice to encourage people to assess their staff, making the assumption that a certain percentage must be below standard either.” Well, it’s not just semantics, but someone may be performing perfectly adequately, and delivering ‘to standard’, but they may be only a satisfactory performer compared to others who are very good or excellent.

The inevitability is that the performance of individuals in a group will fall into some sort of normal distribution, the classic bell curve. Often it may be very hard to identify differences between the high and low performers; that means that the bell curve is very narrow. But within that population, the average performance is, by definition, 1.0; and if one has someone who is ‘excellent’, and one wants to rank them as a 1.2, then one has to rank someone as a 0.8, or perhaps two folk as 0.9. Ranking everyone as at least 1.0, and then some as 1.1, and a few as 1.2 means an increase in the average… and so the folk ranked as 1.0 are coming out as below average; that’s what it means.

Tough, isn’t it? And made all the more tough by your modus operandi, where you are working as a virtual team, and not able to observe people for more than the duration of perhaps two flights.

LD12986

8th May 2011, 07:53

Sigh. More mixed messages again. Unless Unite reigns in the branches, I can see history repeating itself....
6th May 2011 - Update & Members meeting

As you will have seen from the recent Unite press release, clarity surrounding the extension previously agreed to our industrial action ballot has now been agreed with British Airways to be midnight on 15th of May.

However, it is the intention not to follow the pattern of recent failed negotiations and to move away from any degree of last minute brinkmanship from either side.

With this in mind, it is very important we update you on what has happened and what will now happen.

Talks have continued this week; again some positive progress has been made. Yet it would also be fair to say there still remain several significant challenges to overcome.

Talks will therefore continue today and tomorrow, there will then be a final effort commencing Sunday evening and ending Tuesday Night. The old adage that "if there is a will, there is way" could not be more apt and we will not need any longer, to know if this is the case.

To repeat, it is both sides' intention to conclude discussion by midnight on Tuesday.

On Wednesday morning the CC89 Negotiating Committee will be briefed on progress achieved, On Wednesday afternoon ALL reps will meet to also be briefed.

The next day, Thursday 12th May at 11.30am, a meeting is already planned for all members. Venue currently TBA.

At this meeting you will be fully updated on our progress and asked to make a decision on whether to proceed with strike action or alternatively to put any settlement offer achieved to a postal ballot of all members. It is that simple.

We do not need to emphasise the importance of this meeting and indeed the decision to be taken, we will hope to see you there.

Colonel White

8th May 2011, 09:19

ah, so once again union democracy rules !!. I find it incredible that union members can accept a situation where soething as serious as determining whether or not to put a management offer to members in a postal ballot, can be determined by a show of hands at a meeting where you can guarantee that only around 10% of the membership might be present. What is the function of the executive committee ? Surely, as they have been largely instrumental (one assumes) in agreeing the deal, they should say whether it should be put to the membership. Anything less is a total abdication of responsibility.

VintageKrug

8th May 2011, 09:28

Not a cat in Hell's chance the tiny militant faction who will actually turn up for this meeting would dare put up a show of hands which accepts the offer, and in doing so let's their mandate for strike action lapse.

So it's a foregone conclusion that the show of hands will reject almost any offer short of re-instatement of the Sacked & Suspended, full restoration of staff travel, continuation of legal cases and abolition of Mixed Fleet.

It will be very interesting to see what action Unite takes after this Meeting to reign in its errant branches.

While I don't think Unite would sanction Unprotected action, I can see it wanting to be seen to support its Branch Executive, while at the same time setting out the risks of taking Unprotected Action to its membership (something BASSA has never done).

That would further strengthen Unite's agenda (to directly control BA's cabin crew membership, and more power to them) while marginalising BASSA and its militant leadership.

I would expect a BASSA-proposed unprotected strike before the end of the month, Unite treading very carefully to inform members they risk being sacked, almost imperceptible effect on the BA Operation and several BASSA crew members sacked for not turning up for work before support for action peters out, and Unite assumes direct control of the Branches, and agrees a settlement with BA which will in some way involve some sort of pay increase for Mixed Fleet (the part MF plays in this is still not clear to me, but it's definitely significant in winning over Unite).

I still don't see the PCCC – Professional Cabin Crew Council (http://www.mypccc.co.uk) playing a credible role in all this.

Colonel White

8th May 2011, 10:26

VK

you forget that the PCCC are not in dispute with BA, so have no involvement. Moreover, at present the PCCC are not recognised by BA as a negotiating body. That is not to say that they may not have influence, just that in the current setup it would seem they have no axe to grind.

I'm more interested in the legality regarding the way in which the branches intend to determine whether to put the deal on offer to the membership for ballot. Maybe the union guuys on here could comment on it. If the branch constitution allows this sort of thing to happen, it really does show that trade unionism in the UK hasn't moved on since the 1960's and 70's and has a whiff of corruption about it.

Dawdler

8th May 2011, 11:09

Is it time for Unite to remove the "Devil Eyes" Photo from its website? . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE I don't know what version you are picking up, that face disappeared from the page I pick (by following your link) months ago. How can that be, I wonder?

Snas

8th May 2011, 11:31

I don't know what version you are picking up, that face disappeared from the page I pick (by following your link) months ago. How can that be, I wonder?

It is very much there and has been throughout. Top right hand corner...

Richard228

8th May 2011, 11:33

that face disappeared from the page I pick (by following your link) months ago. How can that be, I wonder?The devil eyes picture is still there when I go that web page...

very unproffessional of a trade union to have such nonsense on its site IMHO.

Imagine the cries of bullying if BA had a devil eyes picture of the BASSA reps on one of its web sites... double standards!

AV Flyer

8th May 2011, 12:57

VK says:

I would expect a BASSA-proposed unprotected strike before the end of the month, Unite treading very carefully to inform members they risk being sacked, almost imperceptible effect on the BA Operation and several BASSA crew members sacked for not turning up for work before support for action peters out, and Unite assumes direct control of the Branches, and agrees a settlement with BA which will in some way involve some sort of pay increase for Mixed Fleet (the part MF plays in this is still not clear to me, but it's definitely significant in winning over Unite).

I still don't see the PCCC – Professional Cabin Crew Council (http://www.mypccc.co.uk) playing a credible role in all this.

Very interesting prediction VK but I wonder if Unite will allow the strike to go ahead when it potentially risks being sued for unprotected strike damages by BA?

Are you postulating that Unite will say "No" in writing (as it did with WindowsGate) then BASSA will go ahead anyway and unofficially?

AV Flyer

8th May 2011, 13:17

BASSA's executive (whosoever that may be) is being so transparent here. It is abuntantly clear, just like with the previous WW/TW negotiated offer, that BASSA has no intention whatsoever of any vote ever being put to its membership.

Rather than scuppering the membership offer vote at the executive level, like last time, it is going through the pretense of appearing to give the call to its members but is going for a meeting at very short notice at an undisclosed venue arranged by an executive who no longer work for BA but cannot be voted out and who will benefit by the dispute not being settled while asking for a non-anonymous show of hands right in front of the very people who told them if you don't agree with us you can leave BASSA!

You can see why WW/BA made it a stipulation to TW/Unite that it recommend BASSA/CC89 put the offer to a vote of its members.

I would suggest that BA places a similar stipulation on this offer to Unite and further defines the vote as an anonymous postal ballot of all members balloted in the original strike action rather than a shady, contrived, show of hands as above. BA can extend the strike call deadline some more to cover the ballot period.

If either Unite refuses to accept this stipulation or BASSA's/CC89's executives continue to play the above games it will be clear to the everyone where the culpability lies.

Further, isn't this just like the very first Xmas 2009 strike call when after TW/WW agreed an extension to allow time to ballot the executives went ahead called the strike anyway?

Yet further evidence that this whole matter is a power struggle/ego game between BA's management and the Union/Branch executives with no thought whatsoever for the membership.

BASSA's executive will call this dispute over only when full power and control of BA's IFCE operations is returned to it and not before and even should this happen (which it never will) the members still wouldn't be given a chance to vote as it would be deemed unnecessary!

When will the rank and file learn that their subscription paid executives are only acting in their own selfish interests and not that of their members?

LD12986

8th May 2011, 13:40

If Unite allows a strike without the offer being put to the whole membership it will completely destroy whatever is left of the relationship between BA and Unite. Hopefully it is just posturing.

Perversely, this could play into BA's hands if BASSA thwarting a deal prompts a wave of resignations from BASSA and a very poorly supported strike will leave members with nothing. No pay deal, no full staff travel, no facilities agreement and no agreement on Mixed Fleet.

AV Flyer

8th May 2011, 13:44

It's a bit like watching a slow-motion train wreck.

BA, under its new CEO, needed to have tried one more time by giving the Union and its Branches one more chance while conveniently taking the opportunity of avoiding disruptions over Easter and the Wedding.

When this fails BA will have a firm mandate to let the axe fall .......

Litebulbs

8th May 2011, 13:49

We shall see if BA demands recommendation from both branches this time.

AV Flyer

8th May 2011, 13:56

LD12986 - We're back to wanting to be a fly on the wall in any meeting between LM & DH!

VintageKrug

8th May 2011, 14:32

BASSA/CC89 is a branch and that means it is controlled (or supposed to be controlled) by Unite. BASSA does not have the power to authorise the calling of strike action. It is impotent, and especially so in the face of the many Unite VCC members.

BASSA/CC89 and Unite are separate entities and there is no automatic link between the two; Unite could terminate the arrangement as its discretion. It might just come to that!

Any cabin crew who remains a member of BASSA is not only wasting a not inconsiderable several hundred pound per annum, but is actively condoning this nonsense. Resign and join Unite directly, if you still feel you want to be a union member.

Dawdler

8th May 2011, 14:47

Quote:
I don't know what version you are picking up, that face disappeared from the page I pick (by following your link) months ago. How can that be, I wonder?
It is very much there and has been throughout. Top right hand corner...
Sorry my mistake I had never panned across to that corner.

Litebulbs

8th May 2011, 14:50

The not small number of 6000 Unite/Bassa members still disagree with you, after all of this time, which many choose to ignore.

Landroger

8th May 2011, 16:13

The not small number of 6000 Unite/Bassa members still disagree with you, after all of this time, which many choose to ignore.

But that doesn't make the 6000 right though, does it LB? :) That's been the whole point surely? :ugh:

Roger.

Litebulbs

8th May 2011, 16:25

What is right will no doubt be based on how much it affects you and how much you perceive it to be at threat to your current employment, with the terms and conditions that go with it.

So no doubt, the 6000 believe they are right.

Betty girl

8th May 2011, 18:58

Dawdler,
You can only see the 'eyes' if you view the page on a computer with a large screen, if you view it from a phone or a small screen like an ipad, the eyes don't appear.

Hope that helps.

AV Flyer

8th May 2011, 19:22

Yes indeed, 5811 CC members do appear correctly or incorrectly to perceive their Ts & Cs are substantially being threatened and in conjunction with their striking efforts believe that BASSA is doing an absolutely sterling job in defending their futures and is on the verge of forcing BA to completely capitulate in their collective favours thus preserving their current lifestyles for eternity.

We only have to look at the ludicrous thread posts of jublilation when KW agreed to extend the strike call deadline before the holiday to see how these 5811 deluded individuals misguidedly misinterpreted this gesture by BA as meaning they had "won" in their absolute belief that everything they hear from BASSA is the gospel truth and, should they even choose to listen, the complete opposite for everything they hear from BA.

The fact is that very little of what they hear from BASSA is true and the majority, by far, of what they hear from BA is true.

In the next few days there is thus going to be a great revealing and dawning of some absolute truths which have been conveniently hidden from CC until now and I must say it is going to be an absolutely fascinating and riveting spectacle to watch this whole debacle unfold.

Somewhere in here, correctly or incorrectly, morally or immorally, lawfully or unlawfully, certain persons have repeatedly at the very least been economical with the truth and at the very worst been telling open and wanton porkies with the deliberate intent to deceive.

That, Litebulbs, is why VK says BASSA members are "wasting" their money and "condoning this nonsense" and why Landroger says "right"(ly or wrongly) while absolutely no-one here is choosing to ignore any of the 5811 misguided CC who, as mature adults, have freely chosen to allow themselves to be deceived in this potentially unlawful manner.

VintageKrug

8th May 2011, 20:42

On the eve of what could be the most significant week of this dispute, the "Self Loading Freight" thread seems to be engaging in substantive and relevant discussion, while the "Other Thread" has descended into some nonsensical wittering about crew positions and the perennial soporific Captain vs. CSD as Manager debate.

While not wishing to over-egg the importance of pprune, I do get the impression it's one of the top five sites from which cabin crew glean the "latest" so it's slightly discouraging to see such a lack of engagement with the issues at hand.

Even the usually dreadful cabincrew.com has a few good posts, particularly by leo in this thread on BASSA Democracy:

CabinCrew.com: BASSA DEMOCRACY -HOW DOES IT WORK? (http://www.cabincrew.com/ccnetwork/forum_posts.asp?TID=43899&PN=3)

There is absolutely no suggestion by BASSA that the participants in next week's appallingly undemocratic "show of hands" (no doubt including a few children sprinkled among the masses, which couldn't be more inappropriate) will be given any advance notice of the offer BA has put on the table, and nothing substantive has been communicated up to now, either on the 10 reasons for dispute, or an how the October 2010 offer will be changed to be satisfactory.

If anyone thinks the BASSA leadership is aiming to resolve this dispute, then I want some of what they're smoking.

BASSA is playing right into the hands of BA Management and Unite, all at the expense of cabin crew, the monthly subs, livelihoods and working relationships. This level of incompetence will have serious ramifications for others who have a justifiable grievance in future, and is on the verge of impacting the credibility of unionism for a generation.

Entaxei

8th May 2011, 21:41

I believe that there is a need for some clarification on the status/relationship of the above, versus each other and Unite.

The assumptions are being made that both BASSA and CC89 are branches, and that CC89 is a senior branch doing the negotiating - or possibly both are equal branches.

In the fairly recent past CC89 has created a list of their demands, which were greater than either Unite or BASSA and included items unique to them. CC89 are also seemingly SWP connected and driven, and appear to have a relatively small membership of approx 1,000. Why are they apparently negotiating with BA on behalf of Unite, BASSA and themselves, surely they have not been given this authority by Unite, after their past performance.

BASSA have never been in full agreement with CC89 on reasons for IA. In any event, they have in the past, ignoring CC89, declared strike dates without Unites agreement, and had Unite then agree that BASSA have the sole authority to agree and finish a dispute.

SO - what is the position, I would expect a notification being issued jointly by Unite (Mclusky) and BA, not two minor malfunctioning non-entities with a history of deliberately causing problems.

How can any trust be put in the declared statement other than to view it as a declaration of intended IA and dates - or am I being cynical?