British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tunbridge Wells
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutjob wrote (please tell me how to quote!!!)
"Many posts ago you called for people to respect the views of others. You seem to have dismissed Glamgirl's plan to enter CC representation out of hand. Yet she see comes across as eloquent, adult, informed and also represents the views of many of us "moderates"
Nutjob, whilst I may disagree I do respect her right to have these views; to quote Voltaire:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire"
What I think might be more useful to the whole cabin crew community would be to argue these eloquent points in a wider sphere, ie: crewforum.
It's anonymous, so I don't understand why anyone would feel threatened (as Glamgirl has said she has felt in the past)? I've argued some unpopular points of views on there, and yes, there are some "robust" posters, but the moderators do a stirling job and will not put up with any perceived threats.
If Glamgirl wants to get the backing of the majority of cabin crew, surely a good place to start?
"Many posts ago you called for people to respect the views of others. You seem to have dismissed Glamgirl's plan to enter CC representation out of hand. Yet she see comes across as eloquent, adult, informed and also represents the views of many of us "moderates"
Nutjob, whilst I may disagree I do respect her right to have these views; to quote Voltaire:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Voltaire"
What I think might be more useful to the whole cabin crew community would be to argue these eloquent points in a wider sphere, ie: crewforum.
It's anonymous, so I don't understand why anyone would feel threatened (as Glamgirl has said she has felt in the past)? I've argued some unpopular points of views on there, and yes, there are some "robust" posters, but the moderators do a stirling job and will not put up with any perceived threats.
If Glamgirl wants to get the backing of the majority of cabin crew, surely a good place to start?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one that hits you isn't the one you see!
I know we're discussing vociferously the rights and wrongs of BA's intention to impose amended working practices on the CC. Whether there should only be 2 of them on a 747 and beaten with birch sticks for 2p/hour or if they're actually the downtrodden saviours of BA who deserve a 150% pay rise.
But there is actually another very serious danger to all our incomes regardless of which side of the locked door you work.
I have been told by a well informed source that last years audit of crew allowances went very badly and on the evidence the Inland Revenue (IR) collected the vast majority of crew do not spend anywhere near their downroute allowances. As a consequence, the IR are looking to review the taxation levels on allowances and bring them in line with rates on basic pay, i.e. 25-40%!
And thus we all lose. Makes the BASSA-BA spat look like a storm in a teacup IMHO!
But there is actually another very serious danger to all our incomes regardless of which side of the locked door you work.
I have been told by a well informed source that last years audit of crew allowances went very badly and on the evidence the Inland Revenue (IR) collected the vast majority of crew do not spend anywhere near their downroute allowances. As a consequence, the IR are looking to review the taxation levels on allowances and bring them in line with rates on basic pay, i.e. 25-40%!
And thus we all lose. Makes the BASSA-BA spat look like a storm in a teacup IMHO!
Last edited by demomonkey; 8th Nov 2009 at 09:09.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Demomonkey,
Re taxation on allowances, not quite true, in that it doesn't affect flight crew in the same way as cabin crew for several important reasons.
Firstly we (FC) negotiated a while ago to have some of the allowances rolled in to our basic and move to an hourly rate, which incidentally makes bidding a lot 'fairer' and balanced. This means the amount we had to show we spent was much less, and spend it we did.
Secondly we (FC) actually took the tax exercise seriously.
Our reps have been busy arguing our case with HMRC, and we are likely to get a very similar tax rate as before.
Compare and contrast with the cabin crew. Oh dear.
Firstly, many many crew weren't taking it seriously. No idea of the future impact. No thinking ahead. Huge amounts of selfish crew 'ah, someone else will do it'. Loads of commuters who don't pay uk tax, 'why should I bother'. Then your own worst enemies, the hundreds of crew trying to defraud HMRC by collecting handfulls of receipts from the coffee shop and submitting them. (7 coffees within 5mins of each other, 30mins after you were airborne? Really? A full shop from Waitrose 2hrs after clear time? Don't think so.
The general consensus from people in the know is that CC are a) going to get totally hammered for tax (how many spent their full ZRH lunch when you don't even get off the plane on a day trip) and b) are lucky not to be arrested for attempted fraud.
Everyone could see this coming, you can't justify a ZRH lunch payment when you don't step off the plane etc. BASSA could have captured the allowance spend when it was at a record high (due 1 euro = 1 pound) and converted it to an hourly rate that would have benefited everyone, and balanced bidding.
But, NO NO NO for the same reasons. 'It'll be 20p/hr" No, it'll be what you negotiate it to be. BA would save admin costs, you could have had a cut of those too (like BALPA got) but you can never , ever, EVER have a sensible discussion with CC about hourly rate because they have been brainwashed by the very people who are supposed to represent them.
The people who, funny old thing, would lose out from an hourly rate because it is FAIR. The people who are in BRU/ZRH/GVA/LIS a bit too much.
Ordinary, hard working CC, let down again by the greedy troughers at the top. (Some of whom don't pay uk tax so won't be clobbered anyway)
Re taxation on allowances, not quite true, in that it doesn't affect flight crew in the same way as cabin crew for several important reasons.
Firstly we (FC) negotiated a while ago to have some of the allowances rolled in to our basic and move to an hourly rate, which incidentally makes bidding a lot 'fairer' and balanced. This means the amount we had to show we spent was much less, and spend it we did.
Secondly we (FC) actually took the tax exercise seriously.
Our reps have been busy arguing our case with HMRC, and we are likely to get a very similar tax rate as before.
Compare and contrast with the cabin crew. Oh dear.
Firstly, many many crew weren't taking it seriously. No idea of the future impact. No thinking ahead. Huge amounts of selfish crew 'ah, someone else will do it'. Loads of commuters who don't pay uk tax, 'why should I bother'. Then your own worst enemies, the hundreds of crew trying to defraud HMRC by collecting handfulls of receipts from the coffee shop and submitting them. (7 coffees within 5mins of each other, 30mins after you were airborne? Really? A full shop from Waitrose 2hrs after clear time? Don't think so.
The general consensus from people in the know is that CC are a) going to get totally hammered for tax (how many spent their full ZRH lunch when you don't even get off the plane on a day trip) and b) are lucky not to be arrested for attempted fraud.
Everyone could see this coming, you can't justify a ZRH lunch payment when you don't step off the plane etc. BASSA could have captured the allowance spend when it was at a record high (due 1 euro = 1 pound) and converted it to an hourly rate that would have benefited everyone, and balanced bidding.
But, NO NO NO for the same reasons. 'It'll be 20p/hr" No, it'll be what you negotiate it to be. BA would save admin costs, you could have had a cut of those too (like BALPA got) but you can never , ever, EVER have a sensible discussion with CC about hourly rate because they have been brainwashed by the very people who are supposed to represent them.
The people who, funny old thing, would lose out from an hourly rate because it is FAIR. The people who are in BRU/ZRH/GVA/LIS a bit too much.
Ordinary, hard working CC, let down again by the greedy troughers at the top. (Some of whom don't pay uk tax so won't be clobbered anyway)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that the same discontent that there was with BASSA back then is apparent now. What a pity that CC89 did not manage to stay independent.
AMICUS is weak. It has lost it's independance and it is now meaningless as it has proved it has no voice whatsoever within UNITE. The one saving grace is that AMICUS members will probably VOTE NO to industrial action, as they are by nature, non-militant. And then AMICUS will have to split from BASSA as they will not be able to strike. Not sure if UNITE have thought that far ahead yet
.
Oh and about the flyers yesterday in the briefing rooms, can anyone answer the following:
If I apply to a court for a temporary injunction and the temporary injunction is denied, would that be victory or failure???
Anyway, I watched in amusement as the rest of the crew in my briefing read the flyers, then put them down without saying a word. Must have been part of the silent majority
. Times are changing. This Union is dying. People have had enough of the bullying, the lies, and in particular the non-negotiation. People want to keep their jobs, and enjoy coming to work, without this unnecessary tension hanging over us. If you want a job next year, you must VOTE NO and then Resign from the Union.
UNITE 0% (TorC - lmfao!)
Last edited by HiFlyer14; 8th Nov 2009 at 10:34.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget about how the situation has been handled.Thats in the past.But what is clear is that BA want to make changes to my contract without me having any say in it.And they want to do the same to you,and the rest of IFCE as well !! We cannot let this happen.This is were we have to make our stand ! I can't emphasise this enough.
This is why I'll be using my right to protest at this imposition and voting for industrial action in the ballot ! And I say that with a heavy heart !
This is why I'll be using my right to protest at this imposition and voting for industrial action in the ballot ! And I say that with a heavy heart !
So we are both angry about imposition. But I honestly believe that BA had no choice. They tried to negotiate. They offered several different proposals. At one point, New Fleet was even off the table! But BASSA refused to budge.
If BA simply wanted to "make changes to our contracts" they could have done so. They could have issued the 90 day consulation way back when and we would have been working like that now. They didn't. They have tried, but with money haemorraghing away, the impasse simply couldn't continue.
The problem now is that if we do not resolve things WITHOUT INDUSTRIAL ACTION, we will be worse off. This situation is not going to go away, or get better. Our flight yesterday had a ratio of 1 crew member to every 6 passengers. That is unsustainable. Who's going to pay for all these mounting court costs, passengers booking with other carriers incase we strike, etc. Us that's who. If you think this imposition is bad, wait and see what could be around the corner. So I'm afraid you're making a stand about the wrong thing. What do you think will happen? BA will back down? They can't. Loads, yields and profits are at an all time low. There is no money in the pot to back down.
There is an alternative. We can negotiate. We can negotiate a reasonable Monthly Payment, to counter the effects of New Fleet. One crew member off a plane, is not life-threatening. It does not impact on us in any major way, especially with the current booking loads. No-one I speak to is bothered about one crew off.
If this was truly about our T&Cs, then UNITE would be banging BA's door down to negotiate on that payment, to try and get the best possible deal for us. They are not. Why not? Because it is a power struggle. BASSA want to dictate. They want to dictate when to shut down First class due to crew shortage. They want to dictate when to cancel flights due to snow, fog, rain etc. They want to dictate that their most senior members do not operate on a trolley. They want to dictate....
Well that dictatorship is coming to an end. A lot of people realise it, and many don't even want it anymore. How many people do you speak to that say BASSA should have negotiated? Everyone. Because they didn't, we now have imposition. And if they continue down this destructive path, it can only get worse.
SAVE our Jobs. VOTE NO to Industrial Action and Resign from the Union.
UNITE 0%
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was amused by this recent post on CF :
It gives an interesting insight into how a minority of our crew have come to believe that they are the best cabin crew in the world simply because they are paid so much!!!
I have always suspected she is flight crew, not cabin crew, let it be proved I am wrong.* She is far too eleuquent in her writing to be a LGW or even LHR crew member , but more so LGW because they earn a lot less then us, so without meaning to demean my LGW colleagues, she is NOT cabin crew.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll be interesting to hear the BASSA spin when they fail and end up with egg on their face again ! .Have to hand it to them they did not bad in Jan 2007 when they led the crew down the yellow brick road and called the strike off at the last minute, they blamed Unite .How are they going to dig themselves out of this one it's about the power of the people now, and those reps are on the slippery slope .
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
December 21st
If this is the day it all starts if the oh-so-pro-we're-not-going-to-lose-BASSA posters on here are correct and they are convinced the mandate will be for IA, then I assume said people are already requesting to fly that day so they can lead by example?
What's that I hear you saying?........
What's that I hear you saying?........
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly - too eloquent to be from a LGW crew member - Taken as a personal insult I should think by myself and many others, moreover it just goes to show why LGW crew shouldn't give two hoots about people like this.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Allowances
The people who, funny old thing, would lose out from an hourly rate because it is FAIR.
Firstly we (FC) negotiated a while ago to have some of the allowances rolled in to our basic
the hundreds of crew trying to defraud HMRC by collecting handfulls of receipts from the coffee shop and submitting them.
Secondly we (FC) actually took the tax exercise seriously.
you can never , ever, EVER have a sensible discussion with CC about hourly rate because they have been brainwashed by the very people who are supposed to represent them.
Now that I've got that lot off my chest I can enjoy my Sunday
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We would all lose out on an hourly rate on Eurofleet at the moment just like our Flight Crew colleagues have - who could have predicted a one for one exchange rate with the Euro? And that is the trouble with a rate independent of the local cost of living, cheaper to administrate no doubt but would be more workable if the UK became a Euro zone.
Firstly we (FC) negotiated a while ago to have some of the allowances rolled in to our basic
Not an option ever offered to us.
There were rather a lot of pilots collecting receipts too!
Secondly we (FC) actually took the tax exercise seriously.
SO DID I, in fact the weight of responsibility felt quite large for that period and I did the best job I could.
Many did and I thank those who did. Unfortunately the return from WW was too low and the HMRC will base results upon those returns. I find it sad that those who did take it seriously, and the drop in the value of Sterling has shown how important the tax benefit can be, have been let down by those who see that portion of pay as a PAYE 'top up'. Those people have failed to grasp the concept of the HMRC actions.
you can never , ever, EVER have a sensible discussion with CC about hourly rate because they have been brainwashed by the very people who are supposed to represent them.
Always remember, debate requires different viewpoints, the trick to 'civilised' debate is to be able to convince the other side with balanced, factual and reasoned arguments. Rhetoric rarely wins the day.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: uk
Age: 46
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are not brainwashed by the people who represent us to not accept hourly rate but we are TOO DAMN CLEVER TO EXCEPT SUCH AN OPTION! 
ROLL ON THE BALLOT. WAIT FOR THE RESULT TO SEE THE MINORITY.
ROLL ON THE BALLOT. WAIT FOR THE RESULT TO SEE THE MINORITY.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOO DAMN CLEVER TO EXCEPT SUCH AN OPTION!
P.s. I'm not holding my breath!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I think I can see the difference but it is exactly that difference that the company is talking about.
Why does a crew member at Heathrow earn so much more than a crew member at Gatwick for, essentially, the same job?
If the working conditions are so dire then why has BASSA allowed such conditions at LGW but baulks when they come to LHR?
Cost cutting started when BA rationlised LGW and BASSA, by allowing it to happen back then, has shot itself in the foot. BA cannot continue to operate in this century with pay deals rooted in the last.
Change is coming, BASSA LOST the injunction, otherwise crew wouldn't be working the new routines from the 16th. They have a hearing in February but that was always going to be the case based upon the fact that the injunction was a 'rush' due to the time frame as the imposition was about to take place (after 9-10 months of fruitless negotiation). Whether or not BASSA win the hearing is a long shot that I wouldn't take a punt on.
Unite/Bassa 100%? As long as you don't take into account your LGW colleagues who you have ostracised years ago.
Edit:
Please explain WHAT, exactly, makes LHR crew worth so much more than LGW crew? Please?
Why does a crew member at Heathrow earn so much more than a crew member at Gatwick for, essentially, the same job?
If the working conditions are so dire then why has BASSA allowed such conditions at LGW but baulks when they come to LHR?
Cost cutting started when BA rationlised LGW and BASSA, by allowing it to happen back then, has shot itself in the foot. BA cannot continue to operate in this century with pay deals rooted in the last.
Change is coming, BASSA LOST the injunction, otherwise crew wouldn't be working the new routines from the 16th. They have a hearing in February but that was always going to be the case based upon the fact that the injunction was a 'rush' due to the time frame as the imposition was about to take place (after 9-10 months of fruitless negotiation). Whether or not BASSA win the hearing is a long shot that I wouldn't take a punt on.
Unite/Bassa 100%? As long as you don't take into account your LGW colleagues who you have ostracised years ago.
Edit:
Please explain WHAT, exactly, makes LHR crew worth so much more than LGW crew? Please?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: uk
Age: 46
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA DID NOT LOSE! The hearing will continue continue in Feb. 
And also if the win they will have to compensate from November 16 and December 1st.
If BASSA lost it wouldn't be continuing in Feb now would it???
And also if the win they will have to compensate from November 16 and December 1st. If BASSA lost it wouldn't be continuing in Feb now would it???
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr, yes it would. The initial hearing, according to the court records it was an initial hearing, was 'fast tracked' due to the short time limits available pertinent to the case.
I.e. If they didn't get the case heard at the court by the 16th then the case would have been moot.
The judiciary decided that the case required greater representation than was available within the given time frame. Therefore they didn't pass judgment and couldn't declare the imposed working practices 'illegal'. Coupled with that decision the 'costs' cannot yet be attributed as, within a legal framework, the case has not yet been 'heard'. That comes in February.
The purpose of the injunction was, therefore, to stop the imposed changes, which it failed to do. The case hasn't even been tested yet merely delayed and BASSA claim victory?
Given that BASSA had ample opportunity to contest the 'changes' (and no one is even sure of they are contractual changes yet given that the company should, with reference to the MEL and CAA, be able to decide how many CC it needs on a service) the result of the court hearing in Feb is a difficult call.
So, as I said before BASSA LOST in their attempt to get the changes nullified.
How else can you spin it?
I.e. If they didn't get the case heard at the court by the 16th then the case would have been moot.
The judiciary decided that the case required greater representation than was available within the given time frame. Therefore they didn't pass judgment and couldn't declare the imposed working practices 'illegal'. Coupled with that decision the 'costs' cannot yet be attributed as, within a legal framework, the case has not yet been 'heard'. That comes in February.
The purpose of the injunction was, therefore, to stop the imposed changes, which it failed to do. The case hasn't even been tested yet merely delayed and BASSA claim victory?
Given that BASSA had ample opportunity to contest the 'changes' (and no one is even sure of they are contractual changes yet given that the company should, with reference to the MEL and CAA, be able to decide how many CC it needs on a service) the result of the court hearing in Feb is a difficult call.
So, as I said before BASSA LOST in their attempt to get the changes nullified.
How else can you spin it?