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

VintageKrug

9th May 2011, 20:00

The £1.5m is indeed based on a figure of TOTAL receipts, some of which are remitted to Unite who (I believe to be the case, though may be wrong) then passes a considerable proportion to The Labour Party.

I do not have any reference point to know for certain what actually goes to Unite and what is retained by BASSA. Hence the need to publish accounts.

I am in total agreement with your lower estimate being around £500,000, though given some people do seem to pay more than others, and BASSA membership is down some 5,000 people on its historic high water mark, BASSA seems to have been in receipt of between £500,000-£1m per annum for many years, even after its Unite contributions are accounted for.

The point is that BASSA has control of £1.5m income, and when such large sums are involved, even holding the monthly Unite portion on 30 day deposit yields significant interest.

£500k-£1m is still a considerable sum to have at anyone organisations disposal annually, and especially so as there is no way should be spending £500k on its members or administration.

If you'll forgive me, we have had chapter and verse on the BASSA accounts and while that was indeed food for thought during leaner times, I think there are more pressing and relevant matters to be debated this week.

Will BA move to make a slew of Pursers redundant, or is it prohibited from offering redundancy while Industrial Dispute is underway?

Is it true another BASSA rep has been suspended?

I think the Offer put to unite will not be materially different from the October 2010 submission:

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

notlangley

10th May 2011, 06:40

max. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Richard228

10th May 2011, 10:01

But surely endorsement by the members means a secret postal ballot for which (as they have done before) BA would be pleased to extend the strike deadline to accommodate?I would have thought so, but then again, if BASSA were to ballot members on accepting a new offer, then the ballot could have the two options of "Accept" or "Strike", meaning that an extension of the stirke deadline would not need to be granted by BA, as there would be a new mandate? (albeit not protected of course)

So the barrier of needing to make a decision this week shouldnt really exist in my opionion.

If the Union wants to be democractic and counsult all its members, then it can do so, and get a new mandate, if that is what they decide.

To have a decission this week, by a select BASSA few, with a show of hands is a rushed measure, to achieve a desired outcome, and (again) fails any democratic scrutiny.

AV Flyer

10th May 2011, 10:16

What are the BASSA executive voting rules for carrying a motion in an emergency meeting?

Assuming Dawdler's rumour to be correct, that BASSA's GS is on his own while the rest of the BASSA committee are in favour of acceptance, then as you have pointed out the lack of unanimity would trigger an emergency meeting of the committee.

If the emergency meeting only requires, say, a 2/3rds majority then assuming the committee is three or greater, including the GS, the motion to accept BA's offer would pass.

With the support of the majority of the committee then the Branch meeting for ratification would become a bun fight between how many of the GS's supporters can be crammed into the tent versus supporters of the rest of the committee and for once there would most certainly be a dissenting show of hands which would need to be managed on the floor.

This whole performance would need scrutinising and counting very carefully by an independent auditor to make sure of fair play among people who have shown a distinct lack of integrity on many prior occasions.

Ludicrous to be thinking that this is what BASSA interprets as 'democracy' but it does seem very plausible under the current circumstances!

All conjecture, of course.

mrpony

10th May 2011, 10:39

The rules on voting are quite simple:

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.

It looks like a simple majority by show of hands. You may find a closer textual analysis informs you differently. I think the second part of this clause is a clumsy addition and it has been pointed out elsewhere that as such it may be unconstitutional because it subverts the original meaning instead of qualifying or moderating it.

AV Flyer

10th May 2011, 10:48

These rules are all very loosely drafted, for example:

"On all issues of a substantial nature voting shall be by means of a postal ballot...."

Could be interpreted to mean that as this issue is of a substantial nature then a Branch meeting is not required in favour of a postal ballot for which I am sure BA would grant a further extension to the strike date call deadline?

Further, what is the difference between a "meeting of the full Branch" and "prior to ratification by the membership" as alluded to in fall back condition (c) of failure to achieve committee unanimity in your earlier post? Does this mean that two Branch meetings with respective shows of hands are required the first being the emergency meeting and, assuming a decision in favour to put the offer to the members, the second being the ratification by the members themselves?

One can only conclude the language is deliberately vague or has not been drafted by very skilled persons.

mrpony

10th May 2011, 11:02

The drafting isn't skillful and is deliberately vague is my conclusion.

I'd be interested to see what you made of the of the clauses regarding rule changes, or the appointment of auditors from within.

The document that I have was leaked to me from the most unlikely source so I can't vouch for it. Private Messages can turn up from anywhere, anytime!

Ancient Observer

10th May 2011, 11:18

It is even more complicated than the above posts have inferred.

Once the new "deal" is available in the bassa/CC89 semi-public domain, the SWP in CC89 will again produce a public statement rejecting the deal, as they did last time. It was NOT the deal that was rejected last time - it was the shame felt by the lowly bassa branch sec that CC89 had rejected the deal before bassa had rejected the deal.

There was no meaningful discussion of the deal by folk in bassa - they just had to get their rejection in to the public domain to show that they had as many balls as the SWP in CC 89.

If I were a gambler, (which I'm not) I would predict exactly the same outcome this time. Whether it is this week or next week, CC89 will be briefed (say) tomorrow morning, they will reject the deal tomorrow afternoon, which gives bassa no time at all on Thursday to decide that they also have to reject the deal.

AND....by the way, Untie have already said that the last "deal" was the best that could be achieved by negotiation. TU officials have pride and standards and egos. (oh, well, egos, if not standards). The last thing that Untie want is any material improvement in the deal by BA.

Airclues

10th May 2011, 11:32

Perhaps someone with greater legal knowledge would correct me, but my reading of the legislation is that 28 days is the maximum extension of the strike mandate, even if agreed by both parties. After that a new strike ballot must be held. A ballot on a new deal would not act as a strike ballot under the act.

234 Period after which ballot ceases to be effective.

(1)Subject to the following provisions, a ballot ceases to be effective for the purposes of section 233(3)(b) in relation to industrial action by members of a trade union at the end of the period, beginning with the date of the ballot—

(a)of four weeks, or

(b)of such longer duration not exceeding eight weeks as is agreed between the union and the members’ employer

Dave

LD12986

10th May 2011, 11:40

Apparently another BASSA rep has been suspended, and it's because the rep refused to remove their XXXX tags.

Juan Tugoh

10th May 2011, 12:01

Apparently another BASSA rep has been suspended, and it's because the rep refused to remove their XXXX tags.

There is no known cure for stupidity.

pvmw

10th May 2011, 12:08

There is no known cure for stupidity.

Not strictly true. A bolt gun is quite effective.

Juan Tugoh

10th May 2011, 12:10

Not strictly true. A bolt gun is quite effective.

Even I would suggest that resorting to the use of a bolt gun may be a little harsh for failing to remove a XXXX tag.:}

mrpony

10th May 2011, 12:14

...this is more than likely a self-sacrifice for the purposes of providing a new martyr to parade for political reasons in time for Thursday's vote.

I just hope he/she gets the 72 virgins promised!

just an observer

10th May 2011, 12:49

According to cabincrew.com, the CC concerned refused to remove the tags after being told by the aircraft captain to do so, so it is likely the suspension is for questioning/refusing the captain's authority rather than for wearing the tags in the first place.

Would this be a sacking offense? If it is, really stupid, volunteering to be a sacked martyr, but if it warrants merely a warning, makes a self sacrifice scenario seem even more likely, and if so, those behind it, even if no longer a majority of the BASSA committee, are determined to stir up feelings at the branch meeting.

Or are we just looking for melodrama where none exists?

Mariner9

10th May 2011, 12:52

I just hope he/she gets the 72 virgins promised

72 Virgins plus box payment plus 2 local nights off for BASSA members.
77 Virgins and a hat for MF (market rate plus 10%)

mrpony

10th May 2011, 12:55

I'd assumed it wasn't a sacking offence but if it is then forget my speculation.

That sort of idiocy would indeed require a bolt-gun cure

Snas

10th May 2011, 13:09

According to cabincrew.com.....

...the point at which I stopped accepting any of the details of this chaps departure as fact.

Chuchinchow

10th May 2011, 14:15

Meanwhile, over on "the other side of the fence", things are suspiciously quiet.

No one has posted a single message on the crew-only thread since last evening.

Ho hum.

Hipennine

10th May 2011, 14:33

Many "model" disciplinary procedures based on ACAS advice will include the following as a guideline of the sorts of thing that constitutes Gross Misconduct (ie something that may result in summary dismissal:)

"Refusal to carry out a reasonable management instruction" or "failure to follow a management instruction" and bla, bla.

So if its true that a Captain instructed said martyr to comply with Uniform Standards and said Martyr refused, it's a fairly direct correlation with a dismissal for Gross Misconduct.

VintageKrug

10th May 2011, 21:02

Looks like it's going down to the wire, with no resolution today.

AV Flyer

10th May 2011, 21:49

Entaxei

10th May 2011, 22:09

Apart from the above, don't forget one thing - the BASSA rule book was modified at some stage, possibly 2007, which made the equivalant change as follows ;

In the event of a dispute the following shall come into force -
No branch meetings will be held nor decisions be made;
No elections for any branch position will be held;
These changes shall hold good until such dispute is concluded and agreed by the Branch GS.

This means that DH is in charge until he alone says 'Agreed'.
Also, what do the branch officials now consist of - any reps who have been dismissed or removed for any reason, cannot be replaced, as they cannot be elected. So any influence from reps, if it still exists, can only be very minimal, if at all.

I would expect the result to be DH saying NO - for any 5 reasons.
CC89 saying NO - for any 10 reasons.
Len Mckluck left spluttering and trying to explain why he agrees with them and why two branches can over rule the main Union. (Democracy?).

DH has got a throttle hold on BASSA and I can't see any way that it can be removed, other than by complete closure of the branch and a new entity created to replace it.

I hope that I'm wrong, for the sake of all the BA CC, who jobs are being placed in danger through the spite of one individual. Although they do of course, have the solution in their own hands, by leaving BASSA.

just an observer

10th May 2011, 23:15

I can't believe that BA is continuing to negotiate in good faith with Unite when BASSA has already telegraphed its bad faith intention to scupper. Particularly after what happened between WW & TW last time when Unite reneged after BA had actually made good faith partial staff travel return and other concessions

As no one actually knows what the branch meetings will bring forth (whatever we may suspect), BA can't really do anything other than continue to negotiate in good faith.

If BASSA/CC89 agree the proposals, nothing lost, if they don't, BA may well have handed the two branches enough rope to hang themselves.

Unite didn't renege last time, it just couldn't control it's branches.

WW and TW had also agreed a deal pre the first strike, which I suspect will still prove to be better than anything on the table this time, BASSA and McLusky scuppered that by announcing strike dates unnecessarily. I wonder how many CC will appreciate that irony? Those who resigned and/or went into work during the strike and/or voted no to further strikes presumably do. To my mind BASSA/CC89 members were completely sold down the river last March, it amazes me how many can't see it.

McLusky is now in TW's place, which is fascinating from an onlookers point of view.

AV Flyer

10th May 2011, 23:49

Unite didn't renege last time, it just couldn't control it's branches.

This highlights perfectly the madness of the entire situation. If BA keeps striking deals with Unite for which its Branches then continually scupper and Unite is not deemed to have reneged then this is tantamount to saying that Unite is not the responsible party with whom BA should be negotiating in the first place!

If Unite cannot agree a deal that it cannot persuade its Branches to accept then it has no business negotiating with BA and any such negotiations are by definition in bad faith as they are a complete and utter waste of BA's time. BA will continually, as it is right now, be drawn into negotiating against itself and being asked to give more and more and more.....

Lord knows how BA has ever allowed itself to get into such an impossibly ludicrous position as this. If I were BA I'd be looking to sort out this stupidity with the Union and its Branches very quickly, and by some hard-ball negotiations if necessary, particularly as BA holds all the cards.

If BA is ever going to move forwards as a competitive fighting unit in the airline industry it needs to sort out internal legacy messes like this and now is the time. When the dust settles things need to be a lot simpler with less organisations involved and more streamlined processes in place with BA running its IFCE operations while listening-out with a good ear to constructive feedback and practical comments from its frontline staff who provide regular service to its customers.

just an observer

11th May 2011, 01:30

AV F, I don't disagree with you, this is why I said BA, by continuing to negotiate, may have handed BASSA enough rope to hang themselves. BA seem happy to play a long game, which would presumably be on legally safer ground, if it came to law in the end.

If bookings were being affected, BA might want to speed the 'game' up, but they don't seem to be.

The long game also reduces their 'bad guy' image with crew, who BA still have to work with in the long run. It's a 'hearts and minds' thing, at the start, BASSA had the advantage, but it's losing credibility, it's better in the long run for CC to lose faith in BASSA because of BASSA's own actions, rather than BA making a martyr of BASSA.

Betty girl

11th May 2011, 08:04

I would agree with you Just an Observer about BA winning hearts being important and I feel crew were comming round to see that BA was not so bad and that Bassa had let them down....

However in the space of just a few weeks BA has started to lose it's credibility and the trust of many, because the transfer of work between the fleets is not being done at all well and many WW and E/F crew are not picking up full rosters and this is scaring even the most faithful crew.

It really is important that BA does this in the way they promised, ie. only transfer work as the fleets shrink as otherwise it is just allowing Bassa to say' I told you so'.

What seems to be the problem is that not enough part time has either been given or taken up but if this is something that they cannot correct, they need to pause and slow down their plans or else they will find that people will rush back to Bassa.

Lets hope that whatever they have been talking about is good for all and we can finally move on. Fingers crossed!!

just an observer

11th May 2011, 09:21

Betty Girl, I gathered from other posts that BA have overestimated the extent of part time take up, and in any event, probably are not averse to being overstaffed in the short term while the threat of IA still exists.

I daresay it will correct itself once the dispute is over, although perhaps over a good few months, even if BA were really the villain BASSA paints it, it would not want to pay staff it does not need, not even at MF rates. What they do need to do, is to continue to keep CC in the picture re route transfers and so on. This is very different to asking BASSA's permission, before anybody jumps on me for that comment.

During the IA, BA have been very careful to do only what they have said they will do, and do nothing that has not been announced beforehand, it's just really a question of keeping that up.

Betty girl

11th May 2011, 09:59

Yes, I agree but is important that they slow down the recruitment of new entrants if they are having problems with reducing our community.

I am sitting at home having been non op'd ( not operationally required ) and I should be working today. It is a waste of current crew and will just add to the feelings of worry many already have about this new fleet.
I have got 5 unfilled work days on my roster this month and many other Pursers and CSDs have up to eight. On WW there are many with weeks of 24 hour availability on their rosters too.

We are at our busiest period of the schedual and it would normally be unheard of to have crew not used at this time of year and 120 new crew are joining each month on M/F.
I do understand what you are saying and I hope it does settle down but it really important that BA keeps the faith of thoes that were loyal to them and leaving us sitting at home with no work when we rely on our work to trigger allowances is not good. It was also happening on M/F too, although I think it has improved for them this month due to gaining the Amsterdam and Manchester routes.

I am just saying that it would be silly of them to get the numbers wrong for a long period because it is scaring many, including myself, and it could be got right so easily by only growing M/F as the current fleets shrink by whatever means part time, VR, etc etc.

AV Flyer

11th May 2011, 13:04

JAO - Your comments make complete sense - I never was known much for my patience!

BG - It is wonderful reading your exchange with flyeruk69 on the "other thread" and I think that this approach between CC on both sides of the IA will be instrumental in bringing life back to normality when this is all over - which will be very soon now.

However, please forgive me but I cannot stop myself from commenting on the causes of this dispute particulary when you suggest BA have been heavy handed, BASSA somewhat instransigent and flyeruk69 suggests that with an agreement reviewing crewing levels the outcome could have been different.

This entire matter was unavoidable, it was destined to happen because of weak BA managment over the years not standing-up to an over-zealous union executive. The consequence was that all the power lay with the union such that at the slightest suggestion of a change by management the union would snap its fingers call a strike and bring BA to its knees.

BA simply had to do something to restore the balance. It could not go on. If BA settled on the union's terms yet again it would have been back in dispute time and time again at every slight issue - e.g. hot towels, window blinds, working one down, etc. BA's response was to slowy build both internal staff and external contract resources to effectively counter and neutralise any such union action and then to lock-horns over proposing a much overdue and vital cost savings program even though in the short-term it meant carrying a large CC staff overhead - which you are currently experiencing.

This was the point where the power struggle began in earnest between a controlling union executive (DH/LM) and BA management (WW). When a power struggle ensues there can be no compromise, it is an all-out war and can only end with the defeat of one of the parties - in this case BA made sure it would not be them. DH and the union executive will never willingly surrender the power that BASSA has established. If you read the ten points in the strike ballot they are all specious and DH has said himself that once these are conceded by BA there would be even more to follow. What he is really saying is until full power and control over BA's IFCE operations is handed back to him he personally will not settle irrespective of the wishes of his CC members.

CC have unfortunately been somewhat unwitting pawns in this struggle and in many ways have been oblivious to the reality of what is happening at the top as the union executive has been extremely economical with the truth and even openly deceptive over all reporting matters. This is before we get into matters of potential accounting irregularities, etc. One would hope that CC will have learned a valuable lesson here in the dangers of only listening to their union and will take a more balanced view of information released by both union and employer in the future.

We will possibly see in the next few days the end of the war with the defeat of the current BASSA executive. There really can be no other outcome.

If any of this makes sense to you and you are able to understand the above reality and pass it on to all CC who wish this dispute to end then your first challenge will be in persuading the BASSA executive to give its members a truly democratic postal ballot. Until now the only way to vote, as you found, was with your feet leaving the current BASSA executive in place but weakened only slightly with each departure.

It is also time to begin planning what comes next after the current BASSA (& CC89) executives depart. Is it one new Branch? Does it include MF? Is it still to be affilated with Unite? Will PCCC play any part? One thing for sure is that BA wants a mature, intelligent, informed and constructive union executive with whom it can negotiate collective agreements for CC moving forwards as, contrary to BASSA's rantings, it was never out to bust the union but to restore a more equal balance of power. What BA doesn't want is a multi-factional, in-fighting, deliberately obfuscating, intransigent and immature power-wielding mob whose only method of negotiation is to say "NO" then call IA at the drop of a (MF?)(:)) hat.

LD12986

11th May 2011, 13:26

Going back to the rhetoric from BASSA before the strike ballots kicked off, I doubt reviewing crewing changes would have made any difference. Remember BASSA sought a mandate of "no negotiation" to permanent change and a mandate to ballot for industrial action in the event of any imposed changes. It was telling that the joint statement from BA and Unite delaying strike action included a reference to the need for crew to accept permanent change.

VintageKrug

11th May 2011, 14:20

BG - It is wonderful reading your exchange with flyeruk69 on the "other thread" and I think that this approach between CC on both sides of the IA will be instrumental in bringing life back to normality when this is all over - which will be very soon now.

However, I cannot stop myself from commenting on the causes of this dispute particulary when you suggest BA have been heavy handed, BASSA somewhat instransigent and flyeruk69 suggests the outcome could have been different.

This entire matter was unavoidable, it was destined to happen because of weak BA managment over the years not standing-up to an over-zealous union executive. The consequence was that all the power lay with the union such that at the slightest suggestion of a change by management the union would snap its fingers call a strike and bring BA to its knees.

BA simply had to do something to restore the balance. It could not go on. If BA settled on the union's terms yet again it would have been back in dispute time and time again at every slight issue - e.g. hot towels, window blinds, working one down, etc. BA's response was to slowy build both internal staff and external contract resources to effectively counter and neutralise any such union action and then to lock-horns over proposing a much overdue and vital cost savings program even though in the short-term it meant carrying a large CC staff overhead.

This was the point where the power struggle began in earnest between a controlling union executive (DH/LM) and BA management (WW). When a power struggle ensues there can be no compromise, it is an all-out war and can only end with the defeat of one of the parties - in this case BA made sure it would not be them. DH et. al. will never surrender the power that BASSA has established. If you read the ten points in the strike ballot they are all specious and DH has said himself that once these are conceded by BA there would be even more to follow. What he is saying is until full power and control over BA's IFCE operations is handed back to him he personally will not settle irrespective of the wishes of his members.

CC have unfortunately been somewhat unwitting pawns in this struggle and in many ways have been oblivious to the reality of the what and why is happening at the top as the union executive has been extremely economical with the truth and in many ways openly deceptive over all reporting matters. This is before we get into matters of potential accounting irregularities, etc.

We will possibly see in the next few days the end of the war with the defeat of the current BASSA executive. There really was no other outcome.

If any of this makes sense to you and you are able to understand the above reality and pass it on to all CC who wish this dispute to end then your first challenge will be in persuading the BASSA executive to give its members a truly democratic postal ballot. Until now the only way to vote, as you found, was with your feet leaving the current BASSA executive in place.

It is also time to be planning what comes next after the current BASSA (& CC89) executives dpeart? Is it one new Branch? Does it include MF? Is it still to be affilated with Unite? Will PCCC play any part?

A very succinct summary.

It is essential Unite launches a strategy to clear out the dead wood, and lays the foundation for successful BA Union/Branch structure beyond the next BASSA Elections (which, assuming the strike is resolved by then will, I seem to recall, be in October 2001).

If a Branch Official remains unopposed it is technically possible for him to be re-elected, which could mean another few years of Holley (though I would imagine no longer working for BA would be a barrier to that happening, but sticking to the Rules and Constitution are not extactly this lot's strong point...)

Shack37

11th May 2011, 14:55

It is essential Unite launches a strategy to clear out the dead wood, and lays the foundation for successful BA Union/Branch structure beyond the next BASSA Elections (which, assuming the strike is resolved by then will, I seem to recall, be in October 2001).

Lost already then? Just when they thought it was all over.

LD12986

11th May 2011, 18:46

Looks like a deal has been agreed between BA and Unite:

BBC News - BA strike: Hopes rise for end to cabin crew dispute (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13368142)

notlangley

11th May 2011, 19:18

In a statement, the Unite union said McCluskey would address a mass meeting of cabin crew members and hold a press conference straight afterwards.
link (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/11/ba-union-idUSLDE74A2AO20110511?feedType=RSS&feedName=industrialsSector)

notlangley

11th May 2011, 19:20

Where: Bedfont FC, The Orchard, Hatton Road, Bedfont, Middlesex TW14 8QT
When: Thursday 12 May 2011, 12.00pm

notlangley

11th May 2011, 19:24

Thursday 12th May 2011 - 11.30am

ALL UNITE MEMBERS WELCOME

This meeting will be to give you a FULL update on where we have reached in talks with British Airways as they reach their conclusion.
It is important that all available members attend. Spread the word!

Jurys Inn Heathrow
Jurys Inn Heathrow Hotel, East Perimeter Rd
Hatton Cross
Heathrow, TW6 2SQ
UK

Dawdler

11th May 2011, 20:18

Where: Bedfont FC, The Orchard, Hatton Road, Bedfont, Middlesex TW14 8QT
When: Thursday 12 May 2011, 12.00pm
Thursday 12th May 2011 - 11.30am
Jurys Inn Heathrow
Jurys Inn Heathrow Hotel, East Perimeter Rd
Hatton Cross
Heathrow, TW6 2SQ
UK

Two meetings on the same subject two different locations, two miles and half an hour apart. It is clear that the main players will not be able to be at both meetings. I see that the Unite trade union is well and truly organised!!!!
Particularly so as the first one states "ALL Unite Members welcome.

LD12986

11th May 2011, 20:25

I wonder if it might get ugly at tomorrow's meeting (ie police get called).

Litebulbs

11th May 2011, 21:11

Concluded to the content of both parties sounds good.

Mariner9

11th May 2011, 21:14

It sounds just as good as when TW and WW concluded a deal to the content of each, and hour or so before a strike was announced by BASSA :E

Litebulbs

11th May 2011, 21:16

If accepted, it will be interesting to see if the contributions drop off. This thread should dry up overnight, because the SLF will be able to SLF again!

Litebulbs

11th May 2011, 21:17

But if Bassa and high ranking officials within that association are saying it?

Mariner9

11th May 2011, 21:24

If so Litebulbs, then I would think (and hope) that this sorry saga will indeed be over. However I haven't seen any such postings.

Has anyone posted a link to positive words from BASSA? The last SWP update posted on the other thread seems pretty adamant that no settlement without immediate reinstatement of those dismissed, return to previous crewing levels, and disbandment of MF will be acceptable.

All will be revealed tomorrow no doubt.

Richard228

12th May 2011, 06:41

I'm a little confused as to why Unite have called a meeting at a seperate location, half an hour before the BASSA meeting was scheduled.

Has the BASSA meeting now been cancelled, and is just the Unite one going ahead?

Or is this an attempt by Unite (and perhaps some BASSA reps?) to get the word out first and undermine the second meeting?

anyone have any idea?

The press releases sound good, but as has been mentioned a few posts up.... we have been here before....

Hotel Mode

12th May 2011, 06:56

I'm a little confused as to why Unite have called a meeting at a seperate location, half an hour before the BASSA meeting was scheduled.

No mystery.

One is BASSA the other CC89.

Richard228

12th May 2011, 07:29

No mystery.

One is BASSA the other CC89.Thanks for the clarification.... could be an interesting day....

ChicoG

12th May 2011, 09:08

Where: Bedfont FC, The Orchard, Hatton Road, Bedfont, Middlesex TW14 8QT
When: Thursday 12 May 2011, 12.00pm

Gives them time to get the bouncy castle in.

vctenderness

12th May 2011, 09:22

Gives them time to get the bouncy castle in.

Dress code: Striped pyjamas, star of David, Pig Masks, yellow t -shirts, ball and chain, red eye masks, small child, BMW M3, large PIMMS, I Love LA shirts, Porn star T shirts, Kitchen fitting posters.
:hmm:

ChicoG

12th May 2011, 11:28

BA strike: Airline and union agree to end dispute
Union members are expected to be balloted over the next month

The Unite union has said that British Airways has agreed to restore travel concessions as part of a deal to end long-running industrial action.

An agreement to end the dispute will also see some staff receive top-up payments written into their contracts.

Both issues were at the centre of the bitter dispute which has lasted for almost two years and involved 22 days of strikes.

The agreement will now be put to a ballot of about 10,000 union members.

In a statement Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said: "We always said that this dispute could only be settled by negotiation, not by confrontation or litigation. And so it has proved.

"I am particularly pleased that travel concessions will be restored," he said.

ChicoG

12th May 2011, 11:32

BA has agreed a deal with staff to end a two-year dispute that prompted a series of crippling strikes.

As Sky News revealed last night, members of Unite are meeting near Heathrow airport to hear details of the proposed deal and decide whether it should go out to a ballot to finally end the row.

The union describes it as an "honourable agreement" which will lead to the return of travel perks to cabin crew - removed by then-BA chief executive, Willie Walsh at the height of his row with Unite.

It is understood that progress has also been made on the other main sticking point covering disciplinary action against dozens of Unite members.

The proposed deal will cover too the issue of time off for union reps as well as the ability of Unite to represent staff working on BA's so-called new fleet.

Pay is also expected to be covered by the proposed agreement, which will be explained to today's mass meeting by Unite's general secretary Len McCluskey.

Any ballot will start within the next few weeks, with the result likely in July, ending any fears of further disruption to BA flights this summer.

It is understood that union officials will recommend the deal to cabin crew, who will then have to decide if they want a ballot or if it should be rejected, which would raise the prospect of more industrial action.

However, hopes are high that the dispute, the longest and most bitter in the transport industry for years, is close to being resolved.

The row started in February 2009 over cost-cutting but developed into a fallout over travel concessions taken away from union members who went on strike.

Members of Unite staged 22 days of strikes last year which cost BA over £150m and threats of further walkouts soured industrial relations at the airline.

Travel concessions were removed from those who took industrial action and there were a number of disciplinary cases taken against Unite members.

The two sides came close to a deal last year, but peace hopes collapsed, leaving the dispute deadlocked.

BA's former chief executive, Willie Walsh, moved on to head the airline's merger with Spanish carrier Iberia, and Unite elected Mr McCluskey to succeed former joint general secretaries Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson.

The change in leaderships gave a fresh impetus to moves to resolve the row, leading to new talks in recent weeks.

Unite members voted recently to stage more strikes, but the union held back from naming dates in a sign that progress could be made.

Around 7,000 Unite members were affected by the removal of travel concessions, an issue at the top of the union's agenda for resolving the dispute.

Ancient Observer

12th May 2011, 11:48

I'm sure that someone out there will be able to inform us what the strikers have received out of their strikes?? Where, exactly, is the positive benefit for strikers?

Has the "imposition" been removed? Are flights still departing 1 CC member down?

Meanwhile, what exactly have BA not got from this strike? I suspect the BA management feel a bit like Arsenal's "unbeatables", winning the league without losing a game.

ChicoG

12th May 2011, 11:54

Meanwhile, what exactly have BA not got from this strike? I suspect the BA management feel a bit like Arsenal's "unbeatables", winning the league without losing a game.

Er, that's "Invincibles", Mr. Observer.

:}

LD12986

12th May 2011, 12:10

Now that the details are coming through BA has not given way easily:

Staff travel will only be returned in full when new working relationships between BA and Unite are fully implemented. BASSA and CC89 will cease to be two independent branches.

Independent review of disciplinaries is only for uncompleted cases

Any further pay rises above previous offers have to be met by productivity savings.

Dear colleagues

I am pleased to announce that a settlement has been agreed with Unite in
the long-running dispute over cabin crew issues. Unite will recommend
acceptance of the deal in a ballot of members over the coming weeks.

I welcome the fact that at last we have reached a point where we can put
this dispute behind us.

I want to pay tribute to colleagues at all levels of the company whose
determination and hard work over the last 18 months did so much to create
the conditions for the settlement that has become possible in recent weeks.
This has been a remarkable team effort.

Our agreement with Unite involves acknowledgement by the union that the
structural changes we have made in crew operations are permanent. The
changes in numbers of onboard crew will remain, and the recruitment of new
crew at Heathrow on different terms and conditions will continue.

Unite has also acknowledged that we need to modernise the way we work with
each other. So we have agreed changes to our internal procedures that are
better suited to our highly competitive, customer-focused industry while
ensuring that workplace issues can be raised promptly and effectively.

Once these new working relationships are fully implemented, I will
recommend to the Board the full restoration of staff travel concessions to
crew who went on strike last year.

We have given assurances to address concerns on earnings and lifestyle
associated with the introduction of new crew, and there will be an external
review process for uncompleted disciplinary cases arising from the dispute.

In line with previous offers, crew will receive pay rises of up to 2.9 per
cent this year and up to 3.0 per cent next year. Further rises of 1.1 per
cent this year and 0.5 per cent next year are available, subject to
equivalent additional productivity savings.

We all have enormous admiration for the professionalism and skills of
British Airways cabin crew. Together we have a great future in serving our
customers and making this airline the envy of our competitors. It is time
for us all to move forward.

Keith Williams
Chief Executive

Ancient Observer

12th May 2011, 12:16

This new Union bloke isn't much of a negotiator, is he?

The Untie bloke at Astra Zeneca negotiated for the full return of lost pay after the staff in Macclesfield went on strike.

On another point, the BBC are reporting this in their Business news. Shouldn't it be in the Sport news? A 10 - 0 win to BA??

ChicoG - thank you for the correction. That sounds better.

SwissRef

12th May 2011, 12:19

So what are the changes to the last offer agreed between WW and TW, but rejected by CC89 & BASSA?

VintageKrug

12th May 2011, 12:22

Here's the old deal, from October 2010:

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

Mixed Fleet were always allowed to join Unite, so that's not the big win it's being presented as.

teddybear44

12th May 2011, 12:30

What's the deal with the volunteer crew? Do they keep them or not?

mrpony

12th May 2011, 12:32

There was a diehard interviewed on 5live just now who was very satisfied with everything that has been 'achieved' by the Union but was unhappy that Willie Walsh was still the boss.

That's a cracker. Innit.

Ralf Stosser

12th May 2011, 12:34

Mmmmmm.

Big difference between being allowed to join and being represented by. Baggersup points out the salient implication of income stream.

I guess it's also syonara time for the PCCC, if Unite ties up mixed fleet, their % of the workforce will be unassailable.

Also, what do the loyal staff who worked through the industrial action get for their loyalty?

At least it looks as if sanity is being slowly restored, a corporate entity like this cannot have industrial troubles with several thousand employees on an ongoing basis, it looks really bad for the brand.

LD12986

12th May 2011, 12:53

Regarding Mixed Fleet and union membership, Mixed Fleet is a lower paid and more transient workforce with no seniority, so they will be less prepared to pay £15 a month to Unite than other crews who have an interest in union representation to protect their career earnings.

Dawdler

12th May 2011, 12:57

I note that the union have several things to implement, then:

Once these new working relationships are fully implemented, I will
recommend to the Board the full restoration of staff travel concessions to
crew who went on strike last year.

It appears there are rumblings at Bedfont about abandoning of all dispute litigation and the fact the mid fleet is still going to be a stand alone fleet and will continue to take routes. We don't know how strong these rumblings are or how many, but no doubt the death of BASSA will be a bitter pill for some to swallow.

mrpony

12th May 2011, 13:15

It's funny what watching the news does. I've just had remind myself that there was no option available to Len other than to accept what BA offered in the hope that it could be made to look 'honourable' and fair with suitably cheerful wrapping paper, and a nice ribbon.

There was no option to strike.

For a moment, Len had me going.

Mariner9

12th May 2011, 13:18

No element of "revenge" for the BASSA hardliners in the proposed settlement that they evidently so long-for.

Rumblings at Bedfont maybe a sign that a postal ballot will result (yet again) in a rejection. Here's hoping the apathetic abstainers will have the wherewithal to actually vote this time and a resounding yes is returned.

A BASSA supporter on Sky opined that no settlement would have been possible with WW. In a way I think he's right - the union have so personalised this dispute and demonised WW to the extent that I doubt anything WW proposed (other perhaps than his own resignation) would ever have been accepted by the "faithful" :rolleyes:

rethymnon

12th May 2011, 13:25

.........what makes you think BASSA would have accepted WW's resignation? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Juan Tugoh

12th May 2011, 13:26

I guess this means the end of the PCCC - it has missed its moment through it's own timidity. What a shame, it had lots of potential; an opportunity to break out from the confrontational approach to IR that BASSA represents. Now the issue has been dealt with and UNITE will represent Cabin Crew, there will be no impetus or reason to join a shadowy group that failed to show the moral courage (perhaps for very good reasons) to step into the light.

A missed opportunity I would say, and sadly, I suspect, we will revisit the whole sorry saga of cabin crew in dispute with the company within the next 5 years. BA has missed a once in a generation chance to reset it's relations with the CC unions.

Richard228

12th May 2011, 13:29

So the union is going to recommend agreement by its members, and sacked reps will not be reinstated. BASSA and CC89 will be merged to create one branch... called Unite.

I wonder how long it will now take for DH to do the honorable thing, and offer his immediate resignation?

The battle is over, he is not a BA employee, will not be BA employee, and as I understand the rules, once the ballot result is in, he cannot continue to represent its members.

Tomatoes are calling.....

maeboyce

12th May 2011, 14:01

Well hopefully today is the start of the break-out of peace between BA and some of its cabin crew.

I do not think BA have been in any way unfair to their VCC or staff who worked through the strikes, so I really hope they are comfortable with todays news. Hopefully Betty Girl will give us her views later. They will also benefit in the long run from the productivity increase in pay as it was promised any better deal would also go to people who signed the earlier agreement (if targets are met), and have played a huge part in the survival and future success of their company.;):D

Dont want to sound too personal but I dont think some BASSA reps will be sorely missed by either side of this dispute.:ouch:

moses30u

12th May 2011, 14:09

teddybear44

12th May 2011, 14:14

Still confused about the position of the VCC Fleet created by BA. Now that they have created them, is it the case that they now run this fleet down following the (apparent) resolution to the dispute? Is there someone here who can illuminate?

mrpony

12th May 2011, 14:16

“Walsh is no finance person and is very emotionally driven. Keith is very driven, level-headed and straightforward,” one headhunter says. “They make a dynamic team. They work perfectly.” For his own part, Williams has spoken recently about his relationship with Walsh. “I know what he’s thinking and I know he knows what I’m thinking: we’ve had a pretty close relationship,” he told Bloomberg.

Keith was standing at Willie's shoulder as the hard and controversial decisions were made, feeding him the financial info. and supporting him. They've done a great good/bad cop act and have got virtually everything they wanted. And they all love Keith! Brilliant.

moses30u

12th May 2011, 14:23

Quote:
“Walsh is no finance person and is very emotionally driven. Keith is very driven, level-headed and straightforward,” one headhunter says. “They make a dynamic team. They work perfectly.” For his own part, Williams has spoken recently about his relationship with Walsh. “I know what he’s thinking and I know he knows what I’m thinking: we’ve had a pretty close relationship,” he told Bloomberg.
Keith was standing at Willie's shoulder as the hard and controversial decisions were made, feeding him the financial info. and supporting him. They've done a great good/bad cop act and have got virtually everything they wanted. And they all love Keith! Brilliant.

___________

MrPony - They might even let you join in for a 3-sum!! ;)

Dawdler

12th May 2011, 14:26

I wonder how much better off the BASSA members feel now, compared with two years ago?

notlangley

12th May 2011, 14:32

Hi Betty,
Now that VCC are to be disbanded, it will mean that they will not be flying as cabin crew in order to maintain "recency"._ This will mean that those job-slots will become free for permanent cabin crew (either Mixed Fleet or any other)._ Therefore the current overmanning of cabin crew should be at an end and BettyGirl will not be short of work.
Keep safe, NotLangley

LD12986

12th May 2011, 14:44

Well done to those cabin crew who stood their ground. They can be proud of what they've achieved, despite the BA PR machine doing its utmost to demonise them and create tensions between their own workforce.

I think BA knew they were on a hiding to nothing regarding the staff travel anyway. It must really piss some people off that Walsh promised the volunteers that they wouldn't get it back! He can't help himself that one.

Is it coincidence that as soon as he moves on, Williams speaks with BASSA and a deal is agreed?

Again, well done to the cabin crew and also Keith William's team.

The return of staff travel in full was part of the previous offer agreed between WW and TW and BA was never going to let this side issue hold up a settlement.

The offer agreed between KW and LM actually has far more strings attached: a complete restructuring of the branches and relations between BA and Unite. Crew reps have to deliver on their side rather than make empty promises.

The deal is actually worse for the branches and crew than the previous offer. If it's easier to swallow because crew think Keith is a nice guy then so be it but it's absolutely clear from the terms of the offer that Keith is no fool and he understands exactly what BA has been up against.

Ralf Stosser

12th May 2011, 14:45

The offer agreed between KW and LM actually has far more strings attached: a complete restructuring of the branches and relations between BA and Unite.

This was probably a union win from BA :E

moses30u

12th May 2011, 15:02

LD12986 - As a real self-loader, I admit to not knowing the detail. Looking at things at a general level, it seems to me that compromise has been given on both parties - something which Walsh has never done in his career.

Regardless, this is a real opportunity for BA to clean up their brand and move on. I fear this will be hard to achieve in the immediate future whilst both sides claim the pyrrhic victory.

What I will predict however, it will get alot quieter in this section of PPRuNe shortly!! Crew bashing might even stop to a trickle from now on!

mrpony

12th May 2011, 15:09

yes of course, your 'in the oil' aren't you as your first post says, having no other interest in BA etc.

yes, really. right. OkeyDokey.

seat 13a

12th May 2011, 15:13

Nonsense - clear win for BA, CC and SLF...

Game, set and match...

moses30u

12th May 2011, 15:13

mrpony - you're back from yer love-in then.

teddybear44

12th May 2011, 15:18

I understand that the VCC were asked to provide a stop-gap to help out, nothing more, but they must have put in a lot of effort and time to qualify to meet the standard, as well as keep the show on the road. Anyone else feel that it is a bit of a shame that they are apparently to be disbanded. Would it have been fair to offer some a shot at flying now and again just as a a bit of recognition. Would be in my book, but then again, I don't work for an airline.

moses30u

12th May 2011, 15:31

moses
yes of course, your 'in the oil' aren't you as your first post says, having no other interest in BA etc.

yes, really. right. OkeyDokey.
__________________

I find it remarkable that people who agree with your views, never have their integrity questioned. Yet when I come on and stick up for the minority, your only retort is that I must be a liar, cabin crew and a fraud.

Hmmmm.

When I say I work in the oil, I work in the oil - pal.

Manchikeri

12th May 2011, 16:06

I find it remarkable that people who agree with your views, never have their integrity questioned. Yet when I come on and stick up for the minority, your only retort is that I must be a liar, cabin crew and a fraud.

Hmmmm.

When I say I work in the oil, I work in the oil - pal.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say - pal.

Litebulbs

12th May 2011, 16:29

Surely every member of the SLF thread should be happy that getting to their destination will be unaffected by industrial action (acceptance depending)?

Betty girl

12th May 2011, 16:39

Notlangley,
Hi, In answer to your question, VCCs going, makes no difference to me sitting at home more often having not been rostered a flight because the VCCs were always extra crew and have not recently been rostered with E/F or WW. The lack of work is due to not enough part time being offered or taken up prior to the transfer of some of our routes to Mixed Fleet. I am optimistic that this is a short term problem and hopefully people will feel more secure now to take up these offers and it will, I hope, balance out. I hope so anyway!

As for the offer, I have not read it yet but have been told it is similar to what I had already signed, as I thought it would be, and I am therefore happy. I am happy it is all over but also sad that this situation ever happened and I do feel that it could have been handled better by WW.

I do note though that BA have got a lot of what they wanted. A new way of working with BASSA, less reps off-lined, less meetings with reps and the golden prise of an army of cheep labour which are, I hope, going to eventually get a few improvements to their pay and rostering but will save BA a huge amount of cash!!! So I feel BA are the winners in all this.

Ancient Observer

12th May 2011, 16:41

Litebulbs - No, No, and No again. It isn't about just getting there. It is about service.

Take off your TU hat, and put on your SLF hat. All the reports on here and on Flyertalk have said two things. 1. Service consistency is bad at BA. Some flights are great, some are awful. 2. Service was so much better when the strikes were on. GG, BG, Hiflyer et al were able to deliver consistently better service when the strikes were on.

Whatever deal has been done must ensure that service is delivered excellently, every time, at each and every moment of truth. The managers must be improved to help CC deliver this, and CC must be free from bassa to deliver service, rather than worrying about their "rights".

Otherwise, this Pension fund with a little airline attached to it will go to the wall.

ZimmerFly

12th May 2011, 16:54

I find it remarkable that people who agree with your views, never have their integrity questioned. Yet when I come on and stick up for the minority, your only retort is that I must be a liar, cabin crew and a fraud.

A little slip there moses.....we have had 2 years of dubious "majorities" and now you feel they are a "minority" :\

pwalhx

12th May 2011, 17:08

All a bit to late, people like myself have found it more pleasureable flying with other airlines. Hollow victory for whoever claims it.

Litebulbs

12th May 2011, 17:32

As far as I am aware, the dispute was due to the financial state of the company, not about its service standards. You will get good and bad service from all fleets.

oggers

12th May 2011, 17:41

At last. At the end of the day this deal isn't as good for cc as the one on offer before the first round of strikes to say nothing of what might have been were it not for the juvenile 'no negotiation' nonsense at a time when the rest of the company was pulling together to stay in business.

We all know the reason this dispute has finally been settled. Unite had nothing left except the hollow threat of a strike, BA were operating the way they wanted anyway, and WW moved up to IAG which enabled Unite to save face by blaming him whilst actually accepting a lesser deal :D

RTR

12th May 2011, 18:08

I have just witnessed on TV the acts and antics of a group of people who, quite rightly, should be enjoying the fact that the dispute was over. But were the digs and childish rants and wolf masks meant to prove something? For me it was embarrassing that people who should have known better behave in this way. The only message anyone could get from their ridiculous line of underpants (again) and that "It is time for a snip Willie" shows that they are trying to gloat but have failed. Instead, the rabble, who never know when to stop proved that a serious dispute was the the farce that it was.

Its over folks. Thank Unite - because it wasn't BASSA who got the result. They weren't capable.

Diplome

12th May 2011, 18:21

I see this settlement as a very positive move for BA. It truly is a rather stunning display of how to neuter a dysfunctional union and it is obvious that Unite felt the need to contain BASSA and have cooperated with BA in solving the BASSA problem.

A diminished influence and a very diminished reputation. Legacy cabin crew, though trying to put on a game face and squeeze a win out of this, must be cringing inside.

Now perhaps BA can start working on elevating their service level without a "No" being declared at every turn.

Winner: BA, its employees and passengers.

Loser: BASSA and the PCCC.

fruitbat

12th May 2011, 18:46

BA have recruited a director from Jumeirah Group with the intention to improve the BA service and product offering. He is determined to focus on the customer experience and admits that 'too much cheese has been scraped off the pizza'.

There will be less focus on cost and more of a focus on improving the whole experience to put BA back amongst the leading airlines. Big improvements are on the way especially in areas such as catering.

The relaunch of the brand will see big changes over the next year. The dispute settlement allows this process to start. Exciting times ahead.

jimd-f

12th May 2011, 18:48

we don't seem to have had any real reports yet of what happened at todays meeting. did DH say anything?
remember that there are still 5800 BASSA members who have consistently voted for strikes.
if DH decides to make some statements about sacked staff not getting fair treatment, no real benefits in the new offer etc, and CC89 make statements/complaints about 1 union in future it is still possible for the new offer to be rejected totally.
this is not over yet.
from all that has gone before, i cannot see DH resigning yet, and his input could still have a great say on this matter. do you think he wants to give up the earnings/influence he has without a fight.
i doubt UNITE would want him on the payroll, as that would scupper any chance of this agreement working, so his only foreseeable income over the next months/years is his union stipend and expenses.
my reading of the facts we have at the moment is that this is a comprehensive win for BA, and a loss for PCCC.
however, if BASSA gets a rejection vote to the deal, PCCC can then come out into the open and shout from the rooftops. this is the only real chance they have to influence the future.
they may, of course, be able to get a majority at Gatwick and get recognition there; but that will again mean coming out into the open.
so, although it looks good at the moment for a settlement, we need to wait aand see how BASSA and CC89 react to this.

Dawdler

12th May 2011, 18:59

Nothing on the news pages of UniteBA yet. perhaps they're struck dumb.

. LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

Betty girl

12th May 2011, 18:59

There will be an end. They will vote to accept and their Union is recommending it.

SamYeager

12th May 2011, 19:05

I find the proposal to disband BASSA & CC89 to be replaced by one Unite branch at LHR and a separate Unite branch together with new NSPs ,whatever they are (LB?), quite interesting. I wonder if this is Len's way of stopping the BASSA tail wagging Unite's tail? Perhaps this is Len's win out of all this?

Betty girl

12th May 2011, 19:28

I think it is a good move. I actually respect Unite as a union, it's just BASSA and CC89 that I have lost repect for and I felt they had got too powerful and had stopped representing the majority of their members.

I will wait and see what happens but I might rejoin in the future if the people at the top change to ones I could trust.

Litebulbs

12th May 2011, 20:21

National Sectional Panel if I remember correctly.

SamYeager

12th May 2011, 20:25

National Sectional Panel if I remember correctly.

Thank you LB. Could you elucidate further for those of us who are a bit weak on jargon?

Litebulbs

12th May 2011, 20:33

It is where the senior reps from all the different branches (or workplaces/areas) have tea and cake, then pop in to a meeting to run the Airline, if you believe what is said on here.

SamYeager

12th May 2011, 20:40

It is where the senior reps from all the different branches (or workplaces/areas) have tea and cake

:hmm: I'll assume its the part I quoted - some sort of inter union liaison committee?

Betty girl

12th May 2011, 20:43

In this case, I think NSP refers to the groups of reps that discuss different issues with BA. In the NSP both BASSA and Amicus(Cc89) had reps. BASSA had a larger number. I believe there are different NSP's to discus different subjects but all that is about to change.

My manager has told me that prior to the strike sixteen different meetings a month took place with BASSA. This is going to be reduced to one a month and that sounds good to me.

Chuchinchow

12th May 2011, 22:35

Surely every member of the SLF thread should be happy that getting to their destination will be unaffected by industrial action (acceptance depending)?

To paraphrase Janette Winterson, "BA is not the only carrier".

I am sure, Litebulbs, that any SF worth his/her salt is/was perfectly capable of finding alternative carriers during the entire dispute.

The trouble is that many former BA pax will not return to flying with a company which has had such an appalling, demoralised and dispirited cabin attendant work force up to now.

I see BA having to shell out for a lot of advertising and other blandishments to tempt business passengers back into the fold.

Chuchinchow

12th May 2011, 22:42

Litebulbs has told us that: As far as I am aware, the dispute was due to the financial state of the company, not about its service standards. You will get good and bad service from all fleets.

Err yes - and what about the removal of a cabin crew operative from each flight? Have we already conveniently forgotten that as a cause de guerre?

VintageKrug

12th May 2011, 23:15

The trouble is that many former BA pax will not return to flying with a company which has had such an appalling, demoralised and dispirited cabin attendant work force up to now.

Not really.

Premium and absolute passenger numbers have been improving even despite the threat of IA.

The "relaunch", and of IA and improved BASSA-interference free customer experience (hot towels in WT+ anyone?) can only help that.

The bottom line is that most BA cabin crew stuck to their knitting and continued to deliver good service. That was my experience on over 120 BA flights during the course if this action. Those that did not, well, a new culture of performance assessment will see to that. And Mixed Fleet, once bedded in, will prove to be a boon for passenger service, equal to, if not exceeding, the others fleets in terms of service.

This is a real opportunity for customers to become central to what BA is all about, and I commend it wholeheartedly.

Ralf Stosser

13th May 2011, 06:07

Premium and absolute passenger numbers have been improving even despite the threat of IA.Of course they have been. The world is coming out of a very deep recession and companies are lifting travel bans, there is a natural 'drag' effect.

Chuchinchow is right, though, once a company loses a loyal customer, it is hard work to reclaim them.

I asked you a few posts back if you work for BA and I notice you did not respond.

I put it to you that you know little about the real workings of an airline and that you might be better to refrain from posting such definitive comments about the situation at BA and listen to Betty Girl (and other employees) who actually understand what they are talking about.

mrpony

13th May 2011, 08:36

When I say I work in the oil, I work in the oil - pal.

Blimey, it's Van McGogh. I wonder how he keeps his glasses on straight?

call100

13th May 2011, 08:43

Surprised no one commented on this
One representative at the meeting, Duncan Holley, said there had been a "wind of change" at BA under new chief executive, Keith Williams.

Mr Holley, who was one of those sacked by the airline during the dispute, said the airline had taken some "brave steps", and the union should match those brave steps.

BBC News - BA strike: Airline and union agree to end dispute (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13373638)

Glad that an end is in sight for the sake of everyone who works at BA.

VintageKrug

13th May 2011, 08:56

we don't seem to have had any real reports yet of what happened at todays meeting. did DH say anything?

This was passed to me via Private Message, I believe it's a DH penned response. I have added the numbering. Judging by the spelling errors, it seems genuine:

What have you got?

1. A permanent contractual top up payment if you are out of pocket through routes going to mixed fleet - plus a review of fairness of distribution.

2. Staff travel back in it's entirety. (Remember that was only happening over WW's dead body).

3. No more VCCs

4. Independant binding arbitration for all discips and sackings

5. Your union back as before with reps in offices etc

6. a pay deal the same as the pilots

7. no new redeployment agreement

8. A guarantee that your agreements will be honoured as long as you remain employed at LHR as cabin crew.

9. Transfer rights and part-time tights restored on a vacancy led sytem

10. In house promotion will continue

There is probably more but I am still trying to calm down after coming in from a fantastic meeting and reading your post, but I will say this to you this my friend -

What you really have got out of this dispute is something that is not tangible, nor will it be of much financial benefit.

It is something that money cannot buy - it is called dignity pride and respect and that means because of the stand you took, BA will now be treating you like human beings - you have earned the admiration of the trade union world and even the media who today were full of praise for what we have all done.

And finally you will have learnt the value of unity, comradeship and togetherness that can only be achieved by standing up side by side to be counted in extreme adversity.

I have lost a lot of things during this dispute but i am so proud not only of myself but so proud in those of you who had the guts, the courage and the loyalty to back me, back BASSA and most importantly back yourself. I would do it all again, I suspect even with hindsight so would most of you.

The big question on everyone's lips is what exactly "part time tights" are? Weekend leisurewear for some crew, I'm certain, but did this private indulgence really have to be mentioned in the context of an industrial dispute? :eek:

Perhaps some new uniform requirement for legacy crew? :rolleyes:

mrpony

13th May 2011, 09:02

What you really have got out of this dispute is something that is not tangible

In the event of further IA, BA should remove all intangible benefits that CC have derived from this action.

Mariner9

13th May 2011, 09:06

Reading between the lines, the return of ST ("over WW's dead body") is the item that makes this an "honourable" deal.

BASSA have (in their view) an element of revenge in that they perceive WW will be unhappy.

What they are (perhaps conveniently) missing is that ST will be returned only in exchange for a sea-change in industrial relations.

In my view, ST removal was always meant as a strike deterrent, not as a punishment. No need for such a policy going forward if industrial relations are finally normalised.

Once again, sound strategy from BA, with BASSA seemingly missing the point.

fincastle84

13th May 2011, 09:13

Once again, sound strategy from BA, with BASSA seemingly missing the point.

Absolutely on the nail. Bassa have been totally suckered in by BA's "bad cop, good cop" routine. The baddy, WW, has moved onwards & upwards, & KW has the Bassa members eating out of his hand. Great psychology.

Glad it's all over & looking forward to massive improvements in the overall BA product.

YorkshireTyke

13th May 2011, 10:08

the return of ST ("over WW's dead body") is the item that makes this an "honourable" deal.

So let's hope that KW also does the 'honourable' thing and restores ST concessions to those old pensioners - who never went on strike during their years of loyal service - that WW kicked in the guts by taking the promise of lifetime ST away from them, before the final date for that foul deed actually kicks in.

Betty girl

13th May 2011, 10:23

Yorkshiretyke,

Did you not work for BA for very long then!

As I understand staff travel for retirees is that you keep your concessions for the same length of period that you worked for BA.

So if you retired at 60 and had worked for BA for 25 years you would keep your staff travel until you were 85, 35 years employment would mean you would keep them until 95 years old! It is only those that never worked for BA for very long that will lose them early.

I do agree that it is a shame this change has been done retrospectively but overall staff travel for retired staff is still a great thing to have been able to enjoy and still a great benefit. I am sad for you that due to your lack of service length you are being affected by this change. I think you are still able to take advantage of Hotline tickets though.

Good luck in your retirement

mrpony

13th May 2011, 10:55

The way Duncan is spinning the deal means he is out to gain something personally
From CC thread by The Blu Riband

Dunc needs Unite to be nice to him. His future depends on Unite for either or both of the following two reasons:

1. Accounts.
2. Job.

So of course he is fully behind the deal because of the 'winds of change' that have blown through BA and can declare a moral victory with benefits that are 'not tangible'. He will be towing the Unite line with horrible and hypocritical tenacity for the foreseeable future. Watch and retch.

Mariner9

13th May 2011, 11:31

I'm thinking along similar lines mrpony.

One single union branch moving forward.

So no more BASSA and that pesky rule that reps must be serving BA CC.

DH installed as a permanent salaried secretary of the new single BA CC union? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Dawdler

13th May 2011, 11:39

DH installed as a permanent salaried secretary of the new single BA CC union? I wouldn't be at all surprised.

Would Unite dare to be that blatant? - No I wouldn't be surprised either, however would he be allowed to confront BA execs face to face?

Betty girl

13th May 2011, 11:47

That wont happen and I am sure all the reps will still be current cabin crew. There maybe full time officials but I very much doubt that DH would be chosen, after all I am sure they are wanting to attract back their previous membership and M/F crew, and employing DH is hardly going to do that!!

Even though DH has a following there are many within Bassa and particularly Amicus who do not like him.

VintageKrug

13th May 2011, 11:48

Is it time for Unite to remove this image from its website?

http://uniteba.com/ESW/Images/walsh_red_eyes.jpg

Dawdler

13th May 2011, 11:49

I hope not! He does seem to have a peculiar relationship with the truth as has been demonstrated over the last eighteen months.

mrpony

13th May 2011, 11:51

I can't imagine a scenario where the Head Gardener is allowed back into close contact with, or even near, BA's tomatoes. Something at Unite's head orifice maybe.

I am convinced that 'the accounts' is a story that needs air. It suits both Unite and DH to stifle the story ultimately, but in the meantime Unite have someone's balls in a vice. Ouch!

LD12986

13th May 2011, 12:03

Although Unite has a track record of giving jobs to sacked BA employees and I believe one of the reps sacked (NM) now works for Unite, I think there is absolutely no chance of Unite giving Duncan a full time role. I expect Unite are glad to see the back of him as much as BA.

Richard228

13th May 2011, 12:05

VintageKrug

13th May 2011, 12:08

DH has taken a leaf out of the Mythbusters in his approach to selling this particular turd to his Faithful flock:

YouTube - Mythbusters Polishing a Turd
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI)

LD12986

13th May 2011, 12:37

When Unite merges the two branches, I do hope it takes full control of BASSA's assets including its domain name and server. It would be unfortunate if BASSA was allowed to continue in an unofficial form with its toxic forum being used to stir up trouble.

AV Flyer

13th May 2011, 12:50

You have your opinions of WW, which I respect, but I don't believe he is anything as bad as you portray.

Through successive weak BA managements over the years DH & BASSA had successfuly taken complete control over BA's IFCE operations. WW couldn't just walk-up to DH and say "by the way, dear chap, that's not cricket you know, how about giving me control of my company back please."

Having let it get so out of line BA needed to restore the balance of power.

BA, through WW, had no choice but to build up defenses (VCC, MF, temp CC, contract charter services, etc.) while attempting to negotiate reasonably then take DH/BASSA head-on and lock-horns in an all out fully-fledged power-struggle (war). When you lock-horns you throw everything at your adversary that you possibly can (i.e. initially "ST gone for ever" - which, after taking the upper hand, WW did offer to return before his promotion).

As head of IAG, WW is still in charge with overall responsibility for both BA and now Iberia. Do you think he would have allowed KW to negotiate anything he would not have approved?

I was always surprised that WW was directly involved in negotiations to start with. Most CEOs have their staff front the negotiation while controlling them from a back room. Indeed as a tactic, inadvertent as it was, the Union having Unite's GS fronting the negotiations with DH in the back room having ultimate control over acceptance made BA's negotiating position all the harder. I was often surprised BA did not change their tactics in this regard and you could view the final situation of KW fronting the negotiations for WW as establishing that very position. WW's personal presence would then have been less apparent as it is now.

DH (and LMcL) need to be thankful that BA did not embarass them by making them have to make the strike call before the holiday thus making them look foolish in front of their members. The number of failed ballots was a pretty bad spectacle already. The fact they were not and are attempting to spin a victory out of a complete capitualtion is a statement of their megalomanical personalities. Indeed, Unite is lucky that BA did not let the situation develop to an eventual melt-down ending in Union derecognition.

As many have said, BA got the Union it deserved. The same is only too true for the CC in that they get the Union they deserve (elect) too.

I would suggest that intelligent, thinking, moderate and sensible CC such as yourself take great care to promote and elect a very different executive to the 'unruly mob' that wielded power before. Perhaps some of the people behind the PCCC should put themselves forward for election? In stripping the power from the current executive, BA have created an opportunity for the rank-and-file to think again and choose a very different executive moving forwards. They could, of course, sit back and let the existing power-hungry, unintelligent and immature mob to regroup under a different name, take back the reigns, and lead the Union back to business as usual.

CC have the choice.......

mrpony

13th May 2011, 12:55

Good point LDnumbers.

Forum is managed, manipulated and moderated by none other than........from a home address.

I doubt the Bassa name will survive any rebranding of the Union offer to CC because it has picked up a bit of a whiff - it's not polish-able.

rjc54n

13th May 2011, 12:58

Talking about a any 'unofficial' future for BASSA could there be any connection with the recently incorporated entity?

BASSA LIMITED
130 BOURNEMOUTH ROAD
CHANDLERS FORD EASTLEIGH
EASTLEIGH
HANTS
ENGLAND
SO53 3AL
Company No. 07492282

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 13/01/2011

Dawdler

13th May 2011, 14:36

On the other thread Pornpants asks whether this is unbiased reporting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/damianreece/8510733/IAG-investors-are-the-winners-after-BAs-cabin-crew-dispute.html

Whether it is unbiased or not I cannot say, but from my point of view the author has it just right.

SamYeager

13th May 2011, 14:47

As I see it, as soon as BASSA members vote in agreement with the new deal, DH has no option but to resign immediately. He has only held on to the post in BASSA, as a non BA employee, only because the branch was in dispute with BA.

This will then leave someone else in charge to wrap up BASSA, put the cat out, and let the new single branch be established. As this will take some time to do, I cannot see how DH could cling on to power for that long, in hope of continuing his authority?

Well of course there's now a ballot to be organised (perhaps also double checking eligibility to vote) not to mention the time for the ballot (maybe extended to ensure everyone has plenty of time in the interests of democracy ;)). No doubt the "rules" allow DH to stay in post until a formal Yes vote is declared.

A vote would also need to be made (I would imagine) to establish a branch secretary for the new branch. Not sure of DH's chances here if he did decide to stand... I would think that the ex-CC89 members and the non-strikers would vote for someone else?

Given the establishment of a completely new branch, with a new constitution etc. etc., I'm sure there's flexibility somewhere along the line to keep DH in charge to manage the transition especially since the branch will have new rules. :p As DH will obviously want to dot the i's and cross the t's all this might take until DH is due to retire anyway! I believe I've seen October mentioned in the past. The fact that certain CC benefits such as ST might be delayed is neither here nor there. :\

It will be interesting to see if DH acts in an honorable way, and stands down, to let things within BA move on, or whether he clings on to power to until the last day...

Perhaps I'm unduly cynical but I suspect that 'honorable' may not the description used. :(

All IMHO of course.

AV Flyer

13th May 2011, 15:04

Very many thanks for your reply on the Professionals' Thread. I have read carefully and thought through your responses but still can't see WW is as bad as he is portrayed by many CC.

It is very difficult to tackle an opponent who, when questioned, puts his fingers in his ears, says "no negotiation go away", and calls strike action quickly when you don't depart but instead continue to challenge his position.

As with a recalcitrant child, hard-ball and perhaps a little isolation on the naughty-step is a very appropriate response. BASSA needed to be pushed right-up to where it finally admitted its back was against the wall before it threw in the towel. It's the only way to deal with bullies. Anything short would have let BASSA live to recover for another day.

As it happens, I believe BA should have played a fraction harder and pushed home its victory just a little further and in showing clemency when it did has risked leaving a chink open for an old style BASSA resurgence - only time will tell.

I think if WW is as hard-headed as people say he would not have hired someone as apparently convivial as KW to work for him and WW's alleged hard-man attitude would have pervaded throughout the entire IAG organisation which clearly is not the case.

A good example of this effect is DH's leadership style and BASSA's appalingly immature behaviour.

But then the world would be a dull place if we all agreed.

Well done for keeping us all appraised of the inside view throughout this entire matter. I, for one, am planning travel with BA again later this year.

mrpony

13th May 2011, 15:35

I agree with the thrust of what AVF says re. WW. Plus:

WW picked himself (rightly) as the best person to negotiate with Unite/Bassa, as the mouthpiece for all the unpopular structural change that was needed and as a lightning rod for all the discontent that it caused. But remember that the main board and all the top exec's including Williams were right behind him knowing exactly what sort of character he is. WW had been comprehensively 'beasted' by BASSA from the day he joined so had little to lose by proving them right.

LD12986

13th May 2011, 21:43

Whatever happened to that 10 point list of issues that had to be resolved eh Dunc?

Has he actually read the agreement because there are going to be surprises down the line when BASSA disappears, staff travel does not come back straight away and BA asks for more productivity improvements to fund the payrise.

In the aftermath of yesterday’s “meeting in a tent” to quote C4, I thought perhaps timely to give you my personal view of where we are in the light that all members will now be balloted on the settlement document. I have just this morning read it myself for the first time, I know you are all anxious to see the small print and all being well we should be in a position to publish it on the website around noon on Monday. We did promise BA that it would have a synchronised release and that is the earliest date all sides are able to come up with and also we have yet to go through it with the reps so they can answer your questions etc when the time comes.

I have to say - speaking as a “pink-jacketed militant” - I am really comfortable with everything I have seen, I think it is a honourable conclusion to what has been a bloody battle. Compared to where we were last October this document is unrecognisable and I sincerely believe it offers all the desired safeguards and protections you have fought for and suffered for. I was very wholesome in my praise of Nigel, Chris and Len yesterday because they all deserve it, but I have got to say it seems to me that finally we have a man running BA who has some empathy with what we try to do on your behalf and some recognition that we can work together for the greater good. I don’t want to embarrass Mr Williams, and no doubt my endorsement will cause him to shift uncomfortably in his seat, but everything that has been passed back to me from those at the coal face convinces me that we now have now a leader with a genuine desire for peace and a determination to ensure the mistakes of the past are learnt from. You only have to look at the sensible language of the document to realise we are now dealing with someone who realises being fair and respectful of his employees is the most practical way forward. He has already gone a long way to earn the trust of three people I trust and that is good enough for me.

I would like to say a few words about LGW. I know the reps and those brave souls who did take industrial action feel deserted now BA have announced they are to form their own NSP but I feel they have nothing to fear. Nothing down there will change, they will still be operating exactly as they have over the last few years and indeed that document gives them as much protection as it does the members at LHR. They will have their own branch, constitution etc and I have offered my help in setting up any structures they feel they need. All 3 reps backed the action and have supported me on a personal level. They are good people and LGW cabin crew will be wise to adopt them as their new leadership, certainly to start with. The reality is however, if we had tried to resist BA’s plans it could have meant balloting LHR crews to go on strike on behalf of a base that in reality did not support us; no matter how much we try and defend what is right we have got to be pragmatic as well.

In some ways I am sorry to be leaving because I really believe this agreement will soothe troubled waters that have been far too choppy for far too long. There will be, as Len mentioned yesterday, further spats but with a trusting relationship being created for the first time in many years, life should be a lot less stressful for everybody.

As I looked out upon that massive gathering yesterday I really did feel quite emotional. The responsibility of encouraging a workforce to take strike action and all that involves was not one that sat lightly on my shoulders despite everything that has been said in other quarters. There wasn’t a night over the last year and a half where I did not doubt the direction we were all heading and I know my fellow reps all had similar concerns. But I felt we had no choice and also we would not have another chance to resist something I felt was intrinsically unjust. I am not afraid to say that I would do it all again because I genuinely believe it was the only option - I am only sorry there were so many casualties. So many of you told me yesterday how unwell this dispute had made you; it was very sobering listening.

I have certainly had my eyes opened over these last few years. I have learnt a lot about certain colleagues within BA, I have been educated about the judiciary system in this country and I have learnt a lot about how the media works. But most of all I have learnt a lot about myself and 7000 BA crew and it is those two learning curves that will stay with me the longest.

I realise that the fat lady has yet to clear her throat and there is the not unimportant matter of a ballot before this deal can be ratified. It is important that everyone has a voice and the majority decision is respected. That will happen over the next month. Please participate.

One good thing if this dispute is finally over, is I can get cracking on putting the tomatoes into the grow bags, think about going on a diet - I put on 3lbs just standing next to the burger van yesterday, and hopefully start being a bit nicer to my family, now there is not so much to get stressed about.

Finally I know a lot of you have lots of questions as to how this is all going to pan out “logistics” wise, especially those who have been disciplined during the dispute but some of the fine detail has yet to be explained to those that will be involved and of course the deal has not yet been signed off so please bear with everyone while ducks are put in a row.
Have a good weekend, especially those going to Andrea’s party and thank you all for your support without which we will not have come so far.
Rgds Duncan

Dawdler

13th May 2011, 22:10

What a nice man! :ooh:

PAXboy

13th May 2011, 22:58

What a pompous person! He uses the kind of language that is meant to be interpreted as modest but is actually self-aggrandising.

Sounds like a non-eloquent Tony Blair. That is, nothing rings true.

JUAN TRIPP

13th May 2011, 23:56

I've just read DH latest ????

I now need some help. There's now a pile of vomit all over my lounge carpet. Can't blame the dog as don't have one sadly. So any ideas folks on how I can explain this to my dear wife mañana.

( message to the mods. Sorry but we as non strikers have their fill over the last couple of years, so please allow us a little leeway to be flippant. Thanks)

Colonel White

14th May 2011, 00:15

I'm amazed. I don't know whether to pity the guy for his stupidity or get angry at the overweaning self importance, bloated ego and arrogance that enables him to lie so glibly.

The tent revival meeting attracted a few hundred supporters according to the media - In my book that is not a 'massive gathering' . The document is actually no better than that negotiated by Willie Walsh and Tony Woodley last year, but admitting that would really stick in Duncan's craw. I don't think he could ever have brought himself to recommend any deal that had been assembled by Willie Walsh. Hard to deal with someone who you have made out as the bogeyman, but then that highlights the difference between the two. Walsh never considered it as a personal thing, it was always on a business footing - what was best for the company. I do wonder how Mr Holley sleeps at night knowing that his actions have caused somuch pain to so many other people. He admits to the impact on cabin crew, but casually omots to consider the impact on other BA staff and BA's customers. But then I suppose he reckons they weren't important. In fact once he knew he had goofed and got himself sacked, he had no skin in the game at all, but could dictate from the sidelines secure in the knowledge that he was untouchable - the worst had already happened to him so he had nothing to lose by prolonging the dispute, in fact he retained an income stream as a consequence.

The offer of assistance in setting up new branches made me laugh. It would be an absolute fool who employed him in such a capacity. His apparent scorn for governance and due process means he is the last person who should be called in for advice.

I'd also suggest that any endorsement from Duncan is the kiss of death for any hopefuls looking for branch leadership. So the three reps he advocates at LGW can feel reassured !

Last thing that struck was it is somewhat ironic that BASSA must be one of the few branches in trade unionism that can claim to have had successive branch secretaries sacked for misconduct. Is it something they've been putting in the tea in the union offices ?

pcat160

14th May 2011, 03:33

While it appears Duncan has been bought off by Unite, where do CC89 and the rest of the Bassa leadership stand with this new old deal? Maybe someone such as MissM could comment.

notlangley

14th May 2011, 06:40

1) Does NSP stand for National Sectional Panel?
2) What is the NSP and what does it do?
3) What is ACC and what does it do?

RTR

14th May 2011, 07:19

The arrogance of the man is breathtaking. He is so thick that he cannot see what he has done to the CC over the past two years. His hatred of WW is of no consequence because its WW and KW who have won - not him.

I am surprised that this wasn't picked up, but for me it is the most important part of his 'statement.'

In some ways I am sorry to be leaving because I really believe this agreement will soothe troubled waters that have been far too choppy for far too long. There will be, as Len mentioned yesterday, further spats but with a trusting relationship being created for the first time in many years, life should be a lot less stressful for everybody.

Along with his hypocritical mates, Holley caused a two year 'war' that was unnecessary. Happily he will shortly be gone but his pathetic legacy will be a reminder to take the right steps at the right time and not Holley's way. He can NO comfort in fooling himself that HE achieved this agreement.

Good luck to all the CC for a future that looks much better today than it did two days ago. You really do deserve a happy life now.

Mariner9

14th May 2011, 07:31

..where do CC89 and the rest of the Bassa leadership stand with this new old deal? Maybe someone such as MissM could comment.

In Miss M's absence, I recall she described the last deal as "crappy". When we pushed her on this forum to say why, she amongst other things mentioned her concerns that the top-up pay was non-contractual.

It appears that this will now become (partly) contractual, so to be fair, that is some improvement, perhaps substantive improvement seeing BASSA were convinced BA were acting in bad faith and would remove anything non-contractual. It appears to me however that the rest of the "improvements" in the offered deal are purely cosmetic - BASSA gain nothing without a change in their own attitudes and behaviour.

Whether that's enough to change a deal from crappy to honourable remains to be seen. Personally, I think that if WW had offered this very deal, it would still have been perceived (and spun) as the former by BASSA :rolleyes:

JUAN TRIPP

14th May 2011, 08:45

They will have their own branch, constitution etc and I have offered my help in setting up any structures they feel they need.

This is akin to getting King Herod to help open a new branch of Mothercare!!!

mrpony

14th May 2011, 09:27

Trade Unionism will never be the same without this great man.

notlangley

14th May 2011, 09:32

They will have their own branch, constitution etc and I have offered my help in setting up any structures they feel they need.
I can't think of anyone better to be their permanent Treasurer for life - as a heriditary post to pass on in his own family.

YorkshireTyke

14th May 2011, 10:29

Betty Girl,

I actually have no difficulty with the concept of Staff Travel in retirement equalling length of service, except that that is not what was offered, and promised, when we started, and for some, older than me, who cut their service by taking Severance that was dangled before them to help the Company, Staff Travel for the length of ones' retirement was written into to the Severance packet, albeit with the usual caveat of 'concession' not 'entitlement' of course, so there is no legal recourse against this retrospective attack. ( I've seen such a document )

I know of one old codger ( 77 now ) pilot who took severance at age 48, 7 years before the normal retirement age, then, of 55 for pilots, sure it suited him, to deal with a "mid-life crisis", but it suited the company too or they wouldn't have offered it. Had he not accepted the company carrot he would have retired 7 years later ( on a better pension, too ) and had 7 years more service ( that the Company would have had to pay him a salary for ) so he has effectively lost 14 years of his staff travel in retirement, and living out of the UK really feels kicked in the guts by WW and his gang.

Even pilots retiring at normal age of 55, have effectively lost 20 years travel in retirement over general staff working to 65 ( 10 years later with 10 years more service )

The number of old codgers like this who would actually take advantage of Staff Travel during their 80's and 90's must be almost negligible, so this retrospective action against them is just cruel and totally un-ethical, especially as retired staff from other airlines will enjoy our old retired geezers seats available without such a restriction, including Iberia retired staff, one presumes, or does anyone know if WW is going to try an attack them, too ?

Best of British if he does, he may need Drake and the Armada behind him if he tries it on them !

But I'm sure you're "Alright, Jack" ( or Betty, as the case may be )

notlangley

14th May 2011, 10:43

As a complete outsider I strongly agree with YorkshireTyke._ The cost to BA is slight, but much more important is the non-morality of a retrospective change of this particular benefit to those already retired._ BA should give it back to those who retired before the announcement by BA of this particular cost-cutting exercise.

Ancient Observer

14th May 2011, 10:43

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.

I couldn't go to the mid week meeting. I spent most of the day on the net trying to ensure that I've got the correct Wimbledon tickets. A friend went. I'm told we have won a great victory. I'm looking forward to hearing about what we have won.

Bye bye.

notlangley

14th May 2011, 11:15

Sorry NSP had already been explained by several posters e.g.
link (http://www.pprune.org/6447085-post871.html)
Also a Google search throws up
from the near pastNational Sectional Panel (NSP)
Where agreement is not reached locally or on cross departmental issues the NSP becomes involved. Most GMB members are represented at the Administrative Staff NSP, although our members in Engineering, IFCE and Management Grades have their own NSPs. The Administrative Staff (A Scales) NSP meets quarterly at LHR.
And from the far pastNational Sectional Panel of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport: differences arising between British European Airways Corporation and the pilots in its employment regarding the working of certain winter schedules

Dawdler

14th May 2011, 11:18

The tent revival meeting attracted a few hundred supporters according to the media - In my book that is not a 'massive gathering' .

I seem to recall hearing Lennie say there were five thousand there, which seems an awful lot of people.( as opposed to a lot of awful people):)

AV Flyer

14th May 2011, 14:27

Now that the fight is over, both BASSA's collective and DH's individual pathological insanities (hereinbefore "the BASSAmentalist culture") continue, yet again, to help BA in its otherwise difficult final task of quickly restoring CC relations to normality.

As a result of having had his back trapped against the wall, DH has irrationally and completely delusionally switched his position on what amounts to almost identical offers made by BA between March 2010 & May 2011 from 'all bad and totally unacceptable' to 'all good and what we were fighting for' (while conveniently choosing not to mention his recent specious 10 points for strike action) and in doing so has the majority of his 5811 strike-supporting CC running around partying (yet again!) saying 'My God I can't believe it but we've actually WON!'

To summarise AO's post above, the BASSA and legacy CC's indoctrinated mantra is "BA want change", "we say NO", "BA don't back down", "we go on strike have a party and behave like children", "BA back down and we WIN". CC have no reason or wish to comprehend the content or realities of what they are being asked to do and appear to have no knowledge or even seem to care that they are now worse off. BASSA says "the strike is over" ergo "we have WON".

Its deluded CC's perceived realities matter not one jot to BA as long as it has achieved everything it wanted, and ideally more, which it has infact done. The fact that this delusion has made these CC ecstatic instead of mortally shamed in their abject defeat just adds to BA's skill and accompanying good fortune in dealing with this dispute.

To us rational, intelligent and sane people this has been an amazing lesson in watching the unthinking, herd, mentality of some of our fellow beings. I would never have thought to witness such immature behaviour and stupidity among a relatively large group of people who are employed in a role giving them responsibility for the safety of hundreds of us passengers on commercial airline flights. This, in itself, is a somewhat troubling issue if viewed in isolation and should probably be a topic for another thread.

BA management must be laughing all the way to the start of their next round of customer service and productivity improving measures.......

Absolutely un - bloody - believable!

AVF

Diplome

14th May 2011, 23:56

AV Flyer:

Duncan knows BASSA lost, the BASSA members know they lost...but what else is there for them to do but try to declare some sort of victory?

They can't say "Wow, this is horrific and we absolutely messed this up from the start." So, they try to forget the reason for striking, forget what they were fighting for, and rewrite history so that they can squeeze out whatever drop of dignity there is left for them in this result.

I'm impressed as can be what BA accomplished with this settlement and it could only have happened with the cooperation of Unite who must have been darn tired of the BASSA problem. BA gives away less than in previous offers, gains MF, and they also manage to reorganize a dysfunctional union.

BA Legacy Crew are rather like the Mel Gibson of the airline world and all self-inflicted.

From a business standpoint you have to say "Well done BA".

YorkshireTyke

15th May 2011, 02:18

is the company obligated to let retired staff keep this, or indeed any ST benefit - No.

Legally obligated ? I agree no, Morally obligated - absolutely.

They were not done as a cost saving measure, indeed the changes were pretty much cost neutral.

So why unnecessarily alienate those unable to fight back ? That's the action of a bully. Those affected weren't consulted during the 3 years of "secret" negotiations, they were eventually told to " get used to it " . ( BA words, published in the retired staff magazine Touchdown )

Prior to the changes staff that resigned lost all ST,

No they didn't, if accepting Severance S.T. concessions were immediately available, and promised for life, if resigning otherwise and being eligible for a deferred pension, ( Minimum 10 yrs. service ? ) then ST was available again upon eventually becoming a "pensioner" at normal retiring age.

As an insider,

So you don't have to worry then, ST - with benefits undreamed of to those now kicked out when they were still employed pre. ST 2009 - will be available to you for many years yet to come. Well done.

Hipennine

15th May 2011, 08:42

Quote by The Moo on the other thread:

"Finally people who go on about " It's all about the removal of 1 off the A/C " are ignorant to the facts.

We went on strike due to imposition ( not the reduced crew comps ) and as this was the only thing that had been imposed this was the only thing we could cite."

If anybody wanted objective evidence of why WW had to take a sustained "hard" line (note in some industries, it would have been perceived as pussyfooting) in this IA, this quote is it. The Union went on strike because of imposition - ie after refusing to negotiate, it was disputing the fundamental right of management to manage. This was a very overt act of mutiny.

IR in major economic entities is a big-boys' game, not a nursery school romp, and it appears that many BASSA and CC89 supporters still don't understand this, which is rather worrying for the future.

notlangley

15th May 2011, 08:44

Travel for the length of ones' retirement was written into to the Severance packet, albeit with the usual caveat of 'concession' not 'entitlement' of course, so there is no legal recourse against this retrospective attack. ( I've seen such a document )

Prior to the changes staff that resigned lost all ST

No they didn't, if accepting Severance S.T. concessions were immediately available, and promised for life

rethymnon

15th May 2011, 09:32

If DH can construe the outcome as a BASSA victory, can we really criticise the sheep for following his leadership and believing what BASSA sees fit to tell them?

We have the benefit of viewing this from the sidelines and that gives us a perspective 'the grand old Dukeof York' , lost among the tomatoes, cannot have.

YorkshireTyke

15th May 2011, 09:50

So apart from bleating on an internet forum by piggybacking on a BA related thread what are you actually doing about it?

More than I'm going to tell you, mate, or you'd probably try to stop me doing that, too.

I actually started before ST 2009 was released to the 'public', 'cos I was sent a 'leaked' memo.

My lips are sealed,goodbye.

Ralf Stosser

15th May 2011, 10:36

Although I am not going to comment on the exchanges between two BA/ex BA people, this modification of a staff travel concession does at least partly explain to me the strong distrust of the company by some and their resulting desire to gain contractual rights in certain areas.

Chuchinchow

15th May 2011, 11:02

On the other thread. Dingbaticus has graciously come down from the mountain and has condescended to enlighten us with his philosophy on the proposed BA cabin crew settlement.

I ask myself why Dingbaticus' style and syntax are so redolent of, and similar to, that of a certain high-ranking BASSA personage.

Ralf Stosser

15th May 2011, 11:26

Posted by a moderator on 19 Nov last year, on the CC forum thread

Dingbaticus
Following further information and a review by the site moderators, user Dingbaticus's first post (http://www.pprune.org/6068431-post1397.html) dated 18th November has been reinstated. It seems he/she had been caught in the crossfire of a recent spate of troll-registrations. Apologies.

If anybody is thinking of registering just to troll this forum, then please don't; it wastes our time, your time and the time belonging to all the serious contributors to this thread.

CC Forum Moderators

It might be worth bearing in mind that this thread is only available to current airline employees, Mr Holley is not a current airline employee.

AV Flyer

15th May 2011, 11:53

Diplome - Given the 'winning looks' being received by non-striking CC from striking CC, as reported by JUAN T on the Professionals' Thread, I'm not sure at all that striking CC know they have lost. Indeed, non-striking CC now have another period of continuing immature and unpleasant behaviour of a different nature to deal with. Their collective patience has been and is continuing to be tested way beyond the call of duty.

What I have learned, and did not appreciate at the outset of this dispute, is that through CC's unwillingness (inability?) to think and act rationally for themselves they are an extremely vulnerable group. Without a union they risk being controlled by an over-zealous BA management. With a union they risk being controlled by a non-intellectual, bullying and self-aggrandising union executive that finds its way into power through their very vulnerability.

As Hippenine says "IR in major economic entities is a big-boys' game" and I guess this is the antithesis of CC's natural skill set and outlook on life. If CC are to avoid electing the same kind of executive in the future they will need to know they have lost, understand the reasons why, take their time to consider, then regroup and move forwards on a solid footing.

Personally, I feel the PCCC would be an excellent way forward as it has been formed by thinking, knowledgable, CC from their own realistic understanding of their situation. If they could engage an outside independent IR coach who can help them develop more of the 'teeth and needle' side of the game then I could see them being very effective representing themselves and the growing MF with BA management respecting their mature, constructive and mutually-cooperative rather than confrontational style, while making the customer the focus, in collective negotiations moving forwards.

As a Branch of Unite they could very well become a 21st Century example of a different style of union representation. If BA grows, and the PCCC is seen to maintain MF's Ts & Cs consistently above market rate over time, then other Unite Branches will be only too keen to mimic their style.

HiFlyer14 & Betty Girl - BA have knocked-out your bully so you can come out of the shadows - how say you?

PAXboy

15th May 2011, 11:53

Ralf Stosser ... this modification of a staff travel concession does at least partly explain to me the strong distrust of the company by some and their resulting desire to gain contractual rights in certain areas.If I was in their position, I might well do the same but the blunt fact is that every commercial organisation (particularly those with public shareholders) will seek to roll back any and every concession ever given. If one of the items appears to be costing the company practically zero - they will close it anyway 'just in case' and to add one more notch to their directors chair. Human beings do this.

It is particularly uncomfortable for those now in retirement as they are the post-war generation who worked hard and tried to establish a new world order - as someone once said! The economic basis for those decisions in the 1950s, 60s, 70s are all long gone, overturned and thoroughly trashed by the 80s and 90s, not to mention the ongoing current financial crisis.

In the UK, the NHS is another example of a good idea 60+ years ago that has not (yet) been adjusted to the modern era. Either the scheme must change or people's expectations of it must change for it cannot remain as planned. BA is in the same boat. Not nice but it is reality as BASSA has just discovered.

Ralf Stosser

15th May 2011, 12:28

Paxboy

You may well be right in your assertions, but all I am saying is that this episode does explain some behaviour that could otherwise seem irrationally formulated.

If a dog bites you, you do not normally offer the hand again.

PAXboy

15th May 2011, 14:06

Sure RS. I have been severely mangled by large corporates in my day and speak from bitter experience. I do not like that pensions are being clawed back and cut. It is often forgotten that 'pension' = 'deferred payment'. It is an inducement to stay with the employer longer, rather than short term gain. In the minds of too many, 'pension' = 'bonus'.

Unfortunately, as the Western world moves towards the end of this phase of it's existence, countless millions are going to lose out. In the UK, it may perhaps have been said to start with Maxwell's crimes being revealed. The process is ongoing with each 'circuit' there is another 'bump' (intended).

I have a lot of sympathy with those involved in this particular aspect of 'life' with BA.

VintageKrug

15th May 2011, 14:41

With an estimated £1.5m per annum in contributions from cabin crew, there's quite a bit to play for and it's worth PCCC getting some professional help to become more structured in its approach.

Having said that, BA doesn't want a two-union situation developing, so is unlikely to support PCCC over Unite.

notlangley

15th May 2011, 15:19

Oh dear__________

mrpony

15th May 2011, 15:50

Check out BASSAwitch's latest post over on CCTV.

Having convinced some of the faithful of the 'illegality' of removing ST, poor old Dorkan is now having to convince one that it was lucky that they got it back as quickly as they did! Not 5 mins though. If only the possible future but maybe not mrspony could be indoctrinated and then de-indoctrinated like that. Life would be a bed of roses.

Worryingly, it seems that some are clamouring for his continuation in post. FFS!

Dawdler

15th May 2011, 16:11

Alledgedly from the pen of Tomato Man:

Remember we did not win this dispute, we did not have the company on its knees begging for mercy, had everyone gone on strike and no VCCs had turned we would have been in a much stronger position and perhaps got both the ST back and pressed ahead with the litigation but as strong as we were we failed to get much of an upper hand. In fact with everyone apart from the Queen and the Pope on Willie's side it was is a miracle we have got what we have.

Has he seen the light?

TightSlot

15th May 2011, 17:06

It might be worth bearing in mind that this thread is only available to current airline employees, Mr Holley is not a current airline employee.

We have previously identified the various DH personae on the CC thread and taken appropriate action when needed - this was done using more sophisticated criteria than "that bloke writes like somebody else...". We're not quite as stupid as you appear to take us for.

Welcome to PPRuNe, and thats one helluva bad start.

fincastle84

15th May 2011, 19:50

Welcome to PPRuNe, and thats one helluva bad start.

Well as this looooooooooooong dispute hopefully soon comes to a happy conclusion, you & your fellow mods are going to have so much spare time on your hands.

Thanks for your patience, & my scars which are now healed!:ok:

GrahamO

15th May 2011, 20:43

If a dog bites you, you do not normally offer the hand again.

Very true, so after BASSA went on strike, and bit the hand that fed it, is it any surprise that BA did not wish to make any concessions to the ungrateful cur ? Without BASSA, the members have nothing, but without BASSA, BA have a more effective business.

TightSlot

15th May 2011, 21:33

Well as this looooooooooooong dispute hopefully soon comes to a happy conclusion, you & your fellow mods are going to have so much spare time on your hands.

Thanks for your patience, & my scars which are now healed!

Pleasure fincastle84 - water under the bridge now, and we're all older and wiser

;)

notlangley

16th May 2011, 07:31

we're all older and wiser
We're all older and better informed
But some are better able to adjust

Ralf Stosser

16th May 2011, 10:41

Tightslot

If you re-read my post and then read Chuchinchow's post before, you will find that I was stating from the other thread that the poster Dingbaticus was not Duncan Holley, since your colleagues had investigated and cleared him.

As Mr Holley is not an airline employee (and only airline employees can post on that thread) and Dingbaticus' identity is apparently known, therefore Dingbaticus is not Mr Holley. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

What is the problem with this logic?

Back to Flyertalk, for me, if this is the way you do things here.

Betty girl

16th May 2011, 11:08

Don't go Ralf,
I think it was just a missunderstanding!

I knew what you meant.

DH has probably posted in the past but as you say not Dingbaticus, who is definately a current crew member.

Manchikeri

16th May 2011, 11:10

Back to Flyertalk, for me, if this is the way you do things here.

How to make friends and to influence people.

Chuchinchow

16th May 2011, 11:23

The only person who has equated Dingbaticus with DH is you, Herr Stosser.

Dawdler

16th May 2011, 12:54

Chuchinchow
I ask myself why Dingbaticus' style and syntax are so redolent of, and similar to, that of a certain high-ranking BASSA personage.

LD12986

16th May 2011, 16:53

CC89 have put the settlement documents on their website. It is a pity that their introductory statement is not more positively worded and conducive to the spirit of the proposed settlement:

. LATEST NEWS UPDATES (http://www.uniteba.com/LATESTNEWSUPDATES.html)

fincastle84

16th May 2011, 20:04

Thanks for posting the link. Having read the agreement document thoroughly & narrowly refused the urge to slit my wrists, I'm not convinced that the Bassa members will give their agreement.

I therefore pose the question, where do they next go?

Landroger

16th May 2011, 21:07

So your not that happy with Duncan that's because he has shown great leadership of BASSA unlike another so called union which starts with a B. Now I feel many of you have been upset by the fact that a deal is 99% sure to be accepted hard for you to understand that an honourable settlement has arrived. It's a pity some people wanted to get involved in " our dispute" and looked down to in the aviation world. I had the pleasure of hearing the comments of Air Canada and Lufthansa crew saying how brave we were to fight on and yes mention of our so called team mates let us down. When will you lot understand that once we leave the aircraft we no longer want contact with your circle as you betrayed us beyond belief. Maybe in 2013 a thaw in relations will happen to coincide with our original ban date expiration who knows. Well BASSA we are proud of you and all of the 7000 army who stood firm.

You know, in a funny way I'm going to miss him. :ugh:

Oh, and what is the 'other so called union beginning with B'? Bunion? :hmm:

Roger.

Dawdler

16th May 2011, 21:22

He actually believes it!

kappa

16th May 2011, 21:27

Tightslot posted above We have previously identified the various DH personae on the CC thread and taken appropriate action when neededMy guess is they decided to let him have one persona and that is it.

VintageKrug

16th May 2011, 21:57

My guess is they decided to let him have one persona and that is it.

persona non grata, perchance?

mrpony

17th May 2011, 09:31

Like naughty children the CC who have had their ST removed are being put on the naughty step until their 'behaviours' have normalised and all necessary change has been implemented. If you read the letter regarding ST from KW to LM you'll see that BA can withhold return until such time as KW sees fit. These are the criteria he'll be using to make this judgement:

1.Industrial relations becoming more positive, respectful, open and understanding to the needs of the company and its managers.

2. Completion of streamlining of the facilities agreement including putting in place new structures to allow this including merging two branches under a UNITE banner.

3. Communications by new UNITE branch to be more accurate and balanced than previously.

If anyone thinks that all this will happen before the end of this year then forget it. Elections have to take place following agreement of a new constitution at the very least. That'll take at least 6 months. Add in a bedding in period - ST back by next spring.

I imagine an emotional and irrational hardcore taking exception to this in a big way and voting NO, but the YES vote will carry the day

Ballot prediction - YES 4700 NO 2500.

PS Willie with devil eyes has gone from UNITE BA website. Times they are a changin'. CORRECTION WILLIE STILL ATTACHED ON HOME PAGE AS PER BETTY GIRL"S ADVICE

PPS The 'rediscovery' of Willie as per my correction above of course means that the first communique issued by CS89 after peace talks have concluded goes out under a defamatory and insulting banner on its home page. The message also includes unnecessary references to those who did not strike and to VCC.

AV Flyer

17th May 2011, 10:15

A very interesting ballot prediction. Perhaps the most interesting part is that, assuming 9800 eligible Unite members, you have predicted only a 74% turn-out. Which I could well believe.

Apathy continues to rule - OK!

P.S. Incredible - I've always found that picture to be the most profound statement of the mentality of the people that BA management was up against in trying to 'negotiate'.

RTR

17th May 2011, 10:28

Written by a professional in a professional manner. BA is back in the hands of a manager who knows what he is about. KW has clearly indicated that he will perform as agreed. He has, once and for all, made it clear that BA will deal with industrial matters with one branch - UNITE.

IMHO this new perspective is just what was wanted, that he took a relatively short time to achieve it proves that he intends to get BA back 'in charge.' Have you noticed that Len McCluskey has said little - for a change show his ability to keep shtum when required.

There will be some NO voters but the majority will be YES this time around and the changes will install themselves more quickly than imagined.

The driver's seat has been reclaimed.

All best wishes to the CC - the sky is yours.

AV Flyer

17th May 2011, 10:42

It is clear that KW has used his extremely professional approach to help him carry the way. He went into talks with LMcC in a highly professional, no nonsense, manner which makes it very hard for people to argue against him. If they do they are essentially admitting they are not wanting to work professionally and at the highest level of their game.

This then cascaded to LMcC talking to BASSA/CC89 (the epitome of the defiinition of the word 'unprofessional') in helping him to say 'look guys we're dealing with professionals now and that old c*** is not going to cut it any more'.

I might add that I found the letter P in the PCCC to be a very refreshing outlook and if you read the stipulations in KW's letter to LMcC regarding the return of ST you will see these are not dissimilar to the PCCC's mission statement:

1. Industrial relations becoming more positive, respectful, open and
understanding to the needs of the company and its managers.

2. Completion of streamlining of the facilities agreement including
putting in place new structures to allow this including merging two
branches under a UNITE banner.

3. Communications by new UNITE branch to be more accurate and
balanced than previously.

I don't mean to keep banging on but I really feel that the PCCC should come out of the shadows now and put some serious effort into trying to change the status quo of the old 70s union approach to IR. They have some excellent ideas in the area of a 'mutually cooperative' negotiation style which are far more suited to 21st Century IR than those vestigal concepts that are unfortunately still hanging around inside Unite and its GS.

Dawdler

17th May 2011, 20:00

I see there is a move to form a NEW branch of BASSA - BASSA Gatwick. Apparently all current members of both BASSA and CC89 will automatically be transferred (whether they want to or not). The new BASSA GTW will be part of Unite.

Is the BASSA brand not permanently tarnished by it's inablility to include the truth in their comms (something recognised by BA and in future their comms will be monitored as part of the "new behaviours" clause in the offer) and their various nefarious activities in aircraft, websites and in person?

The fact that BASSA has at least twice cut Gatwick staff adrift to the benefit of Heathrow staff, would not I should think, encourage enrolments.

I was interested to learn that BASSA has some members in Thomson. So it would appear that BASSA does not stand for British Airways SSA but possibly British Airlines SSA. Such a possibility should send a shiver down the spines of CC everywhere.

jetset lady

17th May 2011, 20:33

Dawdler,

BASSA have been a recognised union at Thomson since back in the Britannia days and I have to say, in my experience, they were very good. Maybe the same can happen at LGW. It seems to me and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, that the sticking point at LGW was always the fact that everything always had to be agreed by the relevant parties at LHR, be they BASSA or the Management. That seems to be changing now. In fact, whilst all this has been going on up the road, our reps have quietly sat down with the company and sorted out some of the issues surrounding one route in particular. I admit I was cynical at the start but I have to give them their due. From all accounts, they were professional, took our worries to the powers that be and got a result that was satisfactory to all.

For me personally, PCCC are a non starter for LGW, not only due to their extreme shyness but also because in my mind, they too are very LHR centric. I do know that the people behind it are dedicated, professional crew who care deeply about their jobs, colleagues and passengers but just as I do not understand their agreements and issues, they don't understand ours and that is always going to be a problem. This is not a criticism in any way. As a fledgling organisation, they have to concentrate on what they know.

I never thought I'd be saying this but maybe we need to give BASSA Gatwick a chance. Lessons have hopefully been learnt from all this. And if it does all go pear shaped, there is another large union that have offered their services! ;)

west lakes

17th May 2011, 20:55

I wonder about the need to keep a name for a branch.
Looking at the union I'm in: -
it used to be the EPEA (Electrical Power Engineers Association) amalgamated and became the EMA (Engineers and Managers Association) then amalgamated again to become part of Prospect. No separate branch name or anything except to identify employers.

Similarly my Unite colleagues were EETPU, then AMICUS now Unite. Again no special branch name or otherwise.

Yet there still seem to be egos to massage by keeping the BASSA/CC89 names at BA.
Or is it all wishful thinking as the final decision would be with Unite?

(given that in one of the histories of BA cabin crew mention is made of bullying tactics by BASSA, to get members, when they were first formed, perhaps now is the time to lose that name within BA)

Dawdler

17th May 2011, 23:00

Thank you for your reply. I hope you are right. Your comment about the PCCC being too HR centric is perhaps ironic bearing in mind the behaviour of BASSA recently. However, perhaps for the first (for ages) Gatwick crews will have proper representation. I do think that they would be better to drop the BASSA name though, because as is often said, mud sticks.

BTW I see on the other thread MissM is still playing the blame game, (at least she is consistent).
Like many others have said, we could have achieved a far better deal if everyone who voted for industrial action hadn't crossed the picket line and if VCC had minded their own business instead of interfearing(sic) in our dispute.It is a line which she has continued to hold throughout the dispute. She seems unconvinced that the whole thing was avoidable, if only BASSA had behaved like adults.

notlangley

18th May 2011, 08:14

It is important that in the future the Company will facilitate the union in representing it’s members.

Sonorguy

18th May 2011, 08:31

And equally important that the union doesn't throw its teddy and withdraw from an agreement with the company that allows them to represent its members.

notlangley

18th May 2011, 08:33

that won't happen because the right people will participate in the right meetings.

notlangley

18th May 2011, 08:57

Both the Company and Unite will provide valuable input driving a business and customer focus._ It is recognised that this is can only be achieved by Unite being able to effectively represent it’s members.

notlangley

18th May 2011, 09:13

IFCE = In Flight Customer Experience
NSP = National Sectional Panel
BRG = Business Review Group
FRG = Fleet Review Group
EG901 is disciplinary procedure

However what is much more difficult is to explain the purpose and meaning of these five items._ NSP for example has been equated to BASSA - but BASSA is the past, and the settlement is a sketchy outline of the future.

This is the point where it would be useful for cabin crew to correct any errors I have made so far in today's postings.

Betty girl

18th May 2011, 09:32

Notlangley

I am hoping that the union will rename itself UNITE and not use the name BASSA.

Firstly people like me would feel unable to join if that name is retained and BA actually like all crew to be in a union because they want to be negotiating with the representatives of ALL crew and not just some crew.

Secondly it would be hard for CC89(AMICUS) members to accept having to rejoin BASSA.

Thirdly a new start with new input from the parent union would be good and look to the future for all. Fleet review probably discusses rostering and allowances etc. and Business probably discusses things like product and service.

IFCE is the name BA call the department that covers cabin crew and the products served to passengers in-flight.

EG901 is just the code BA gives to a disaplinary proceedure in there big book of proceedures and codes of practice, there are hundreds of EG... something or others to cover every different kind of situation.

The meeting names are just different groups that discuss different issues and if agreement does not happen it all gets passed up to the NSP meetings. These meetings are all being reduced and also the number of reps attending them, from what was there before, and the names are of no consequence really and are just name BA have deecided to call each meeting type.. ie Fleet probably discusse rostering and allowances, transfers etc. and Business probably discusses product and services on board etc.

west lakes

18th May 2011, 10:10

As I understand it some of these focus group meetings have already started or are soon to start at LGW. Membership is not soley the right of union reps but members are being drawn from willing volunteers.
This is the way it should be, with union involvement only if changes need to be agreed

Betty girl

18th May 2011, 10:38

West lake,
Yes focus groups are taking place and this is new but not really to do with the strikes.

I am involved in the Product group and these groups have been set up to try and get problems on board resolved quicker and are totally different and separate to what the unions discuss with the company in their meetings.

They are good and BA is setting them up with regard to lots of different subjects ie. there are ones on product and safety and their are also groups in other departments, pilots now have these focus groups and Aircraft turnaround managers and ground staff etc. are having them too..

notlangley

18th May 2011, 10:39

I am thinking about purse-strings._ Representatives receive money from two sources._ To quote from the Settlement
Trade Union Representative Pay

Meetings with BA, including staff representation eg, NSP, BRG, FRG, EG901 etc.
Basic pay will be paid BA.
The wording is ambiguous but I interpret it as meaning that the non-basic pay comes from the purse of the parent Union._ If this speculative interpretation of mine is correct, it may well be that in the future the finances and accounts of the three NSPs (Heathrow-Heritage, Heathrow-MF, Gatwick) will be dealt with by a full-time employee of the parent Union (Unite the Union).

The difficulty that BASSA have is not that there is an elephant in the living room - but it is the cupboard door that cannot be closed because of this enormous skeleton (probably an elephant).

notlangley

18th May 2011, 10:45

Len McCluskey said on 12th May 2011 . . . . and the implementation of the new structure for working together that we have negotiated.

Betty girl

18th May 2011, 10:54

Not langley.
I think previously reps might have been able to get their basic pay when not on BA work. ie attending union meetings that were not to do with BA and now this is not allowed.

I expect that the union pay a daily rate to the reps to compensate them for loss of flying pay. ie. allowances etc. that they would get if they were flying. BA does pay this to trainers and crew working in selection but obviously expect unite to pay this to the reps.

I think you are reading too much into everything.

notlangley

18th May 2011, 11:09

Thank you for correcting me.
Wishful thinking on my part.

Airclues

18th May 2011, 13:54

I would like to thank flapsforty and TightSlot for all their hard work in moderating this, and the other thread. It can't have been easy at times, and your patience and understanding are very much appreciated.

There are a lot of bridges to be built to restore the working relationships to the excellent level that I remember. There is nothing more to be gained from dragging up old arguments and resentments.

Might I suggest that we follow the example on the CC thread and introduce a voluntary posting ban for a while?

Dave

mrpony

18th May 2011, 15:10

I'm quite happy to keep posting until the thing is settled and will continue to do so - there's a long way to go.

JUAN TRIPP

18th May 2011, 15:50

Mr pony- I quite agree. There is a lot to be sorted out yet. I would like it to stay open for a bit longer but as ever it's the Mods call

I too would like to add my thanks to the Mods for all the work they do, but especially on this thread. Can't have been easy with all the different personalities involved. Well done

Dawdler

18th May 2011, 16:27

I second the vote of thanks to the mods on both this and other thread(s) surrounding the BA dispute. However if they think that closing the thread will end the discussion, I am afraid they will have another think coming..

It is waaaaaaay from sorted yet, indeed I understand that there are a number of posters on the BASSA forum who intend to canvas for a refusal to accept the deal. Quite where that will leave union members is anyone's guess. One thing is for certain, the fat lady is still in the dressing room, not even warming up to sing yet.

In one forum or another, the debate still has some time to run.

Litebulbs

18th May 2011, 17:12

Not langley.
I think previously reps might have been able to get their basic pay when not on BA work. ie attending union meetings that were not to do with BA and now this is not allowed.

From DirectGov -

If you are a shop steward, or equivalent trade union official, of a trade union that is recognised and independent, you are entitled to reasonable paid time off to:

carry out your duties as an official
receive training relevant to carrying out those duties

mastafreighter

18th May 2011, 17:15

Changing the conversation a bit, I noted somewhere in the murky past of posts that there were numerous comments regarding whether inflight service was/is better under WW crews or the new MF crews. I also read that PHX was changing to MF but not when.

Although airline staff, I pay full J class fares as published on BA.com so that when things go wrong, I can have a say in things (or so you would think). Having travelled outbound in early April, the lounge was packed with nowhere to sit and as usual, the crap served up as food was Chilli, Tikka Marsala or the poor salad bar. As someone who cannot tolerate spices, this is a problem for me. On board, the service was excellent but the food even worse including Tika Marsala again and Coronation Chicken sandwich for tea. Is BA not proud of its British Heritage and food? I therefore went to the Club Kitchen only to find nothing there as WT+ had raided it being unsupervised by the crew.

On the inbound flight this weekend, the food was excellent including salmon starter and Beef rib. The crew however were the worst I have ever come across. Sullen, lazy, rude and refused to have any eye contact at all. The second the trays were cleared, they were gone to be seen again at breakfast time. As we got to the train from B pier to the terminal, (and we were quick off the plane) at least two crew were on the same transit.

If the return crew were MF then BA has a problem with it's direction if this is any indication. If they were WW crew, then the sooner the route changes the better.

Having been stranded in the USA last June by BA when the PHX-LHR flight was canx due CC strike and given no assistance - just offered a flight 8 days later, this trip was a final try of BA. Unfortunately, BA failed due to inconsistency so they will lose four Gold/silver card holders as we have another UK airline that flies to that area of the USA who will benefit and hopefully appreciate our business.

LD12986

18th May 2011, 17:33

PHX does not move to Mixed Fleet until August. Crew visibility between meal services has been a long standing issue in all cabins on BA long haul and seems to be something BA cannot get a grip of and shows a lack of effective leadership/management by onboard CSDs and Pursers. Some crew seem to think their work is done once the first meal is out of the way.

At least food shows signs of improving,

TightSlot

18th May 2011, 20:00

We'll leave this open for a while, but if it becomes apparent that in fact, nothing at all is happening except for endlessly re-fighting the last battle, then we'll close it - For now, you can continue (if you must)

notlangley

18th May 2011, 20:20

There will be simultaneous relationships between BA and it’s cabin crew, Unite and it’s members and BA and Unite.
But no relationship that involves a branch/lodge/chapel/NSP?

Litebulbs

18th May 2011, 20:50

I imagine the relationship are just words at the moment. A recognition agreement will have to be drawn up and agreed, but I was under the impression that either party can serve notice on the existing agreements, but the parties are Unite and BA.

Dawdler

18th May 2011, 22:00

Thanks for keeping this thread open. However I suspect unless something dramatic emerges from the small print, nothing much will happen other than clarification of certain points of the agreement until it is put to the vote. Perhaps we should start a new thread either here or in it's proper place the CC forum, with the title "The agreement" to examine the minutiae of said document.

notlangley

19th May 2011, 05:22

Thank you Litebulbs for pointing out that the parties are Unite and BA._There is another document which is the 11 May 2011 "Briefing notes" issued jointly by Unite and BA._ And this contains the words that I was failing to find in the Settlement document
From the implementation of this agreement there will be a single cabin crew Unite branch at Heathrow.
A new single Unite branch and NSP will also be established for Gatwick to give it the autonomy to focus on its own future.

notlangley

19th May 2011, 05:39

The document that is called "Agreed Briefing" or "Unite briefing note" can be found at:-__ link (http://www.unitetheunion.org/PDF/004-Agreed-briefing.pdf)

VintageKrug

19th May 2011, 06:19

The full deal is here:

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103933565912-9/Final+Joint+Agreed+Settlement+Stoke+Place+110511.pdf

Judging by the URL the Unite "bruthers" had a nice few days at this luxury hotel to seal the deal:

http://www.stokeplace.co.uk/

ChicoG

19th May 2011, 06:23

Surely this dispute is not over until a ballot that accepts the deal?

What are the dates involved?

notlangley

19th May 2011, 07:01

MBTR = Minimum Base Turnaround

call100

19th May 2011, 10:37

JUAN TRIPP

19th May 2011, 22:25

This is the latest from DH pleading with the brothers to sign the deal. AS near as damn it, the same deal he wouldn't even put to the Bassa members last October to vote on!

I want to make a few things very clear to all those who intend to vote no - based on some of the things I have read on the forum over the last few days.

A "No" vote does not mean we immediately reopen negotiations - it means we go back onto a war footing with a strike ballot.

There will be no more tweaking to the deal, this is a take it or leave offer which your reps believe is worth accepting.

So if you still want to vote No, you of course have every right but please don't say in 6 months time you were not warned of the dire consequences.

A no vote will also put you at odds with the people who represent you. A lot of you have expressed fear that BASSA will wither on the vine in time. If it is a No vote it won't wither on the vine, because the vine will die before any withering takes place.

Am I scaremongering? No I am just being bloody upfront and honest with my opinion based on many years at the industrial coal face.

Doesn't effect me one iota but I would hate to see defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. Especially after 7000 of you put up such a good fight to get us within touching distance of that victory.

Rgds to all.

It will be very interesting to see how this pans out in the long run. I have seen and spoken to quite a number of crew in the last few days and a lot of us who have 'supported' BA in all of this feel a bit let down. For me personally I understand that politics have dominated the proceedings totally this week, and IMO *KW has got Unite and LM/DH out of a dirty big hole. How LM can state to SKY last Thursday that by 'agreeing with BA' it stopped the threat of IA is laughable. I would have loved BA to have waited 3 more days and saw what Unite/Bassa would have done. The fact that the spin that DH, *(now known as Baaaaaabera to his herd) puts on things means that most of the mob think they have won.

I truly believe BA would have put Bassa to the sword had one thing happened that I and many others still cant believe happened. The irony is that the people most at fault throughout this dispute were not DH or LM, nor even the 5700 who all kept screaming for IA. No the people that ruined it were the 4500 who stayed in Bassa throughout, even after DH telling them to go forth and multiply, yet came into work over the strikes, and had NO intention of ever striking. If they had left, Bassa would have been left with less than 40%and possibly been derecognised.

Anyway it's onwards and upwards now. However the reason there is perceived negativity on here ( its actually being realistic IMO) seems to come from those who REALLY know Bassa from old ( eg. VCtenderness ) I agree with you.

What should simply happen now is for the leaders of Bassa to start being proactive and start leading their members professionally.
Sadly it's just not in their DNA. Ive lost count over the years , the times I've been to see them, as well as written letters about upcoming problems. They have done nothing, nada, zip. The leaders have been as autocratic as anyone I've ever met. This has been seen SO many times during this dispute.

What should be happening RIGHT NOW, in the spirit of moving forward is IMO the following. ( in no particular order)

1) Take WW photo down from the uniteba.com website. Chances of this happening before July 1st - >50%
2) Tell the strikers to throw away the yellow and red pens as well as the XXXX bag tags. Also turn your ID' s around the right way. ( only those of us at work as crew in the last 2 years will fully understand this bit) chances <5%
3) Get the Bassa forum PROPERLY moderated, and thus stopping malicious childlike nasty unrealistic comments. Chances <2%.
4) Tell the strikers to move on from the backbiting in that we must all move forward together for the good of the airline. Chances 0%
5) Ensuring that the accounts are transparent and open for all members to see without asking. (why not) chances - <0%.

I can think of several more but I feel that would be a great start. But will eg. DH endorse any of the above. What do you think?

TorC came out with some interesting things regarding the behaviour and how this will pan out for the return of ST. Be interesting to see how BA deal with this.

Finally Bill Francis ( BA head of cabin services is doing a webchat on Friday. One crew member has put a question to him that they have read some disgusting stuff written by BA employees on public websites including Pprune ( how very dare they), and want a company wide email sent out to tell them to stop it. Perhaps they could send the same message to Bassa no?

PS A message to the Mods. Please don't shut this thread down just yet. There are IMO some very interesting things going to happen in the next few weeks. thanks again

pcat160

20th May 2011, 00:35

Would anyone like to speculate on the reason for Duncan’s sudden conversion?

LD12986

20th May 2011, 01:55

So basically Duncan is telling members they have to accept the offer because they've nowhere to turn in terms of further strike action (ie it would be futile at best and unprotected at worst) which is what we knew nearly 12 months ago.

notlangley

20th May 2011, 06:04

It is possible that BASSAwitch has been more successful than she realises.

It may well be that DH would prefer the members to vote to end the conflict._ The power is with Unite._ Unite may have explained things to DH - things that DH never wished to hear._ Unite may have the ultimate weapon, but would prefer not to publicly reveal what they will certainly do if the membership turns down this last chance to quietly fold up the tents of war.

cura

20th May 2011, 06:33

"Would anyone like to speculate on the reason for Duncan’s sudden conversion?"

...........a job offer with Unite?

conditional job offer - that's what i meant - it was a long night!

ChicoG

20th May 2011, 06:45

"Would anyone like to speculate on the reason for Duncan’s sudden conversion?"

...........a job offer with Unite?

A conditional job offer with Unite.

baggersup

20th May 2011, 10:03

I'm confused by the communique to BASSA members above.

It addresses the fears of some members that a "yes" vote means BASSA withers on the vine. The author contends that a "no" vote means the vine dies before BASSA withers. Hm.

The Agreement says ONE Unite branch at Heathrow will represent all cabin crew members. Doesn't this mean good bye BASSA and goodbye CC89 with a "yes" vote?

And I'm lost as to what the dying vine means, upon which BASSA will not be allowed to linger like the final scene from "Camille." Don't know what he means about the vine dying before...etc. What does this mean exactly?

The agreement seems to indicate that upon the implementation of the agreement BASSA and CC89 cease to exist.

So a "no" vote actually would keep BASSA and CC89 alive, wouldn't it?
Because another strike ballot would have to be mailed? No dying vine there.

Would BASSA/CC89 stay very much alive for a IA vote to be taken yet again? (Unless there is some BA consequence to a "no" vote that The Leader isn't telling the membership.)

On the other hand, "Yes" and it's bye bye BASSA/CC89?

His inference seems to be that if you are worried about BASSA withering on the vine, vote "yes." When their "yes" vote will produce the end of BASSA/CC89 immediately, n'est ce pas?

As I said, I'm confused....:ooh: