British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My ideas, hope they help.
Plodding along said...
Well how about this for starters!
Stop the ballot and get around the table to negotiate the following ideas.
Accept that everyone in our company needs to save a lot of money.
Ask for new fleet to be integrated, with current crew.
To achieve this we have to have the same slip patterns, you can’t have half the crew on a night stop with the other half on 2 local nights rest in SFO for example.
Maintain all long range services (over 12.30 hour duty) which involve an 8 hour time change at 2 local nights rest. Give a reduction on all other flights.
This would keep West Coast services inc. PHX/LAS as they are and also protect ALL Far East services. South America, India and MRU would reduce but our services are not daily to most of those,
CPT/JNB trip lengths would decrease, however there is little time change in that part of the world.
Accept the monthly travel payment but negotiate a condition that it is reviewed annually to account for any increase in long range flying. (The downside is that it could also reduce).
Accept the changes to crewing levels.
On Eurofleet negotiate to keep last day finish times and 10 days off per month for existing crew. (New contracts would only have 9).
In return allow short turnarounds/fix links on all services. Remember our hours are governed by scheme/industrial limitations so there is only so much flying we can do. Also the nature of our schedule allows for a lot of night stopping, again helping with lifestyle/work load.
There is some pain in my suggestion, we all have to give a bit.
The benefits for us would be an integrated fleet, current crew being able to move between fleets and main crew looking forward to promotion etc. (Our fleets have growth planned in the medium term, A380 B787 etc. Despite the crewing level changes, promotion opportunities should be available).
We would keep ALL our pay at current levels. Meal allowances would remain unchanged and trip lengths to some of our favourite destinations would be protected.
The company would save on future contracts, (market rate, hourly rate, productivity, increment scales etc). It would save on crewing levels. It would have improved utilisation of aircraft and crew on all fleets.
As an ‘old contract’ leaves the business the company would save again as their replacement would be a lot cheaper to employ.
What ever happens a NEGOTIATION will be required at some stage.
The sooner that happens the sooner we can look forward to our futures rather than staring into the abyss.
Hope this helps.
(I am cabin crew at LHR, these comments are my personal ideas. They do not represent my employer’s view or any other party).
Please could someone outline how crew would prefer to make these savings (if at all) assuming it's not the way BA has imposed.
Well how about this for starters!
Stop the ballot and get around the table to negotiate the following ideas.
Accept that everyone in our company needs to save a lot of money.
Ask for new fleet to be integrated, with current crew.
To achieve this we have to have the same slip patterns, you can’t have half the crew on a night stop with the other half on 2 local nights rest in SFO for example.
Maintain all long range services (over 12.30 hour duty) which involve an 8 hour time change at 2 local nights rest. Give a reduction on all other flights.
This would keep West Coast services inc. PHX/LAS as they are and also protect ALL Far East services. South America, India and MRU would reduce but our services are not daily to most of those,
CPT/JNB trip lengths would decrease, however there is little time change in that part of the world.
Accept the monthly travel payment but negotiate a condition that it is reviewed annually to account for any increase in long range flying. (The downside is that it could also reduce).
Accept the changes to crewing levels.
On Eurofleet negotiate to keep last day finish times and 10 days off per month for existing crew. (New contracts would only have 9).
In return allow short turnarounds/fix links on all services. Remember our hours are governed by scheme/industrial limitations so there is only so much flying we can do. Also the nature of our schedule allows for a lot of night stopping, again helping with lifestyle/work load.
There is some pain in my suggestion, we all have to give a bit.
The benefits for us would be an integrated fleet, current crew being able to move between fleets and main crew looking forward to promotion etc. (Our fleets have growth planned in the medium term, A380 B787 etc. Despite the crewing level changes, promotion opportunities should be available).
We would keep ALL our pay at current levels. Meal allowances would remain unchanged and trip lengths to some of our favourite destinations would be protected.
The company would save on future contracts, (market rate, hourly rate, productivity, increment scales etc). It would save on crewing levels. It would have improved utilisation of aircraft and crew on all fleets.
As an ‘old contract’ leaves the business the company would save again as their replacement would be a lot cheaper to employ.
What ever happens a NEGOTIATION will be required at some stage.
The sooner that happens the sooner we can look forward to our futures rather than staring into the abyss.
Hope this helps.
(I am cabin crew at LHR, these comments are my personal ideas. They do not represent my employer’s view or any other party).
Join Date: May 2003
Location: london
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unite brief the city..........
From Andrew Lobbenberg, European Transport Equity Research RBS.
On Friday afternoon the aviation leadership team at Unite briefed city analysts on the ongoing cabin crew dispute at BA. Relations seem very poor between the union and management, with the union in our view resenting the company’s efforts to drive through a cultural shift that secures decision making for head office. We think the strike vote will be close. The key technical issue is whether BA’s recent operational changes have imposed contractual changes or not. This will not become clear until the February court ruling. We therefore think that the union, if it does win a mandate, will look to delay strike action until the spring.
Unite’s position is that it has engaged with BA and from the start of negotiations has recognised the need to make concessions given the current acute downturn facing the industry. Unite said that BA’s opening proposal to them, many months back, was remarkably similar to what BA has now imposed. This cost cutting package was not deemed acceptable to members and was rejected. Unite came forward with its own package of cost saving measures, centred on a two year pay freeze, a 2.61% pay cut (as offered by pilots) and increased flexibility in the context of disrupted operations. The union’s view was that this package would be worth around £100m. The company had Price Waterhouse evaluate the package. They evaluated its impact at £54m. The union sees this as ironic since the value BA ascribes to its imposed changes is £50m, less than was offered by the union.
Following the failure to agree a mutually satisfactory package of cost saving measures, the company is imposing cost cutting measures, including the reduction of staffing levels on long haul and short haul aircraft and is planning in the future on implementing a new set of terms and conditions for future new joiners, which will cross utilise crew between short and long haul operations. The company claims that staffing levels are not contractual and can be changed without union agreement after consultation. The union claims they are contractual and that proper consultation did not take place. The company has already implemented the long haul staff reductions and is due to implement short haul during December.
Unite applied to the High Court to have an injunction placed on BA to stop it implementing new staffing levels. The injunction was not granted but an expedited court date in February was set for a hearing on the matter. The union characterises this as a victory: it says that BA sought to have the injunction dismissed and setting an expedited court date recognises that there is some merit to their case. The union says that BA sought to be awarded costs but failed. The union also said the judge offered to impose an interim injunction but said the union would be liable for damages had it lost in the final hearing – a risk it was not financially able to take.
The union is now balloting for industrial action. The ballot will conclude on December 14 allowing the union, if the vote is successful, to launch industrial action from 21 December. The union said it was confident of a strong vote in favour of industrial action. The union also said it would not be surprised if BA sought an injunction against the ballot on technical grounds. Unite said it did not expect its ballot to fall foul of the same problems that the BALPA pilot union strike vote did last year – challenging BA’s right to maintain operations in other European countries. The pilot case also related to concerns about future use of the open skies airline, which is not permissible under UK labour law – ballots may not be about potential future action by the company. But the union does still expect a legal challenge. It argued that if BA does find a technical flaw in the ballot procedure, the union could correct and re-ballot immediately. They argued that in such scenarios the blocking of industrial action typically strengthens union’s case towards staff and results in stronger votes for industrial action in subsequent ballots.
The union also flagged that if it were successful in winning the injunction in the February Court date, staff would be able to claim damages. Under BA’s previous operating conditions crew who operate flights short of a cabin crew member can claim an extra £200-260 per sector (depending on seniority) and get a day off in additional compensation. If BA were found to have forced staff to operate with fewer crew than contractually agreed, the union expects to be able to claim this level of compensation for all flying since the introduction of the currently imposed conditions. It estimates this as a cost of £10m per month in additional sector pay, with the cost of extra leave on top.
The union also argued that building up this dispute with cabin crew will only make its pension deficit negotiations all the more fraught and could jeopardise the June 2010 deadline for finalising the deficit recovery scheme.
Our thoughts
There are three key issues. Can the union win a strong strike mandate from staff? Are the changes made by BA contractual or not? What is the timing of events?
On the strike mandate, the union sounded confident to us, but they could not hold a briefing and do otherwise. The union accepted under questioning that this dispute did not have public support. We do think this will play a role and will weaken support. We do not expect staff eying part time working or voluntary redundancy to support the strike. We would expect weaker support for strike action at Gatwick – somewhat simplistically, management are trying to make Heathrow staff productivity as good as Gatwick – the only reason Gatwick staff might chose to support industrial action would be to keep alive hopes of transferring in the future to the significantly more lucrative operation for them at Heathrow. Otherwise, the union is working hard to get a positive vote with a strong turnout. We do not think the union will get a very very strong mandate, though it might or might not get a majority for action. We think it will be close.
We are not employment law experts and have no clear view as to whether the changes made by BA are contractual. The company states confidently that they are not contractual. The union argues the reverse.
In terms of timing, we think the union would probably prefer for strike action to be delayed until after the court has judged on the contractual/non contractual issue. Were the union to call strike action before there is legal certainty on whether BA’s changes to terms and conditions are contractual, then should they lose that legal question, they would be liable for very significant damages that might bankrupt the union. We therefore think the union wants to threaten strike action over Christmas, to deter passengers from booking BA, but will want to defer action into the spring. The union will be looking for the cycle to improve and hence strengthen its hand. The union will be looking to run the dispute on towards the June 2010 pension deadline. If there is a vote for strike action, it is possible that there could be a real game of poker, with the union hoping for an injunction from the company to protect its holiday operation, whilst the company could choose to hold back and see if the union dare actually strike without legal certainty of its position.
Underpinning this battle there does appear to be an ideological dispute. The union contends that the new HR leadership and senior BA management are seeking to exclude unions from having a say in operations. The significant cuts to management ranks have seen many operational leaders who had good links with unions, leave the company – this has cut off the working relationships. Repeatedly, the union contended that the reductions to staffing ratios were weakening BA’s premium positioning and threatening the brand.
We do not think BA management would dispute that it is seeking to exclude unions form management decisions. We think BA’s leadership is keen to force cultural change on the institution and breaking established union management links is key. Rebasing management of the company so that decisions are made in head office and not by labour, is a key part of the management change being sought.
Unite’s position is that it has engaged with BA and from the start of negotiations has recognised the need to make concessions given the current acute downturn facing the industry. Unite said that BA’s opening proposal to them, many months back, was remarkably similar to what BA has now imposed. This cost cutting package was not deemed acceptable to members and was rejected. Unite came forward with its own package of cost saving measures, centred on a two year pay freeze, a 2.61% pay cut (as offered by pilots) and increased flexibility in the context of disrupted operations. The union’s view was that this package would be worth around £100m. The company had Price Waterhouse evaluate the package. They evaluated its impact at £54m. The union sees this as ironic since the value BA ascribes to its imposed changes is £50m, less than was offered by the union.
Following the failure to agree a mutually satisfactory package of cost saving measures, the company is imposing cost cutting measures, including the reduction of staffing levels on long haul and short haul aircraft and is planning in the future on implementing a new set of terms and conditions for future new joiners, which will cross utilise crew between short and long haul operations. The company claims that staffing levels are not contractual and can be changed without union agreement after consultation. The union claims they are contractual and that proper consultation did not take place. The company has already implemented the long haul staff reductions and is due to implement short haul during December.
Unite applied to the High Court to have an injunction placed on BA to stop it implementing new staffing levels. The injunction was not granted but an expedited court date in February was set for a hearing on the matter. The union characterises this as a victory: it says that BA sought to have the injunction dismissed and setting an expedited court date recognises that there is some merit to their case. The union says that BA sought to be awarded costs but failed. The union also said the judge offered to impose an interim injunction but said the union would be liable for damages had it lost in the final hearing – a risk it was not financially able to take.
The union is now balloting for industrial action. The ballot will conclude on December 14 allowing the union, if the vote is successful, to launch industrial action from 21 December. The union said it was confident of a strong vote in favour of industrial action. The union also said it would not be surprised if BA sought an injunction against the ballot on technical grounds. Unite said it did not expect its ballot to fall foul of the same problems that the BALPA pilot union strike vote did last year – challenging BA’s right to maintain operations in other European countries. The pilot case also related to concerns about future use of the open skies airline, which is not permissible under UK labour law – ballots may not be about potential future action by the company. But the union does still expect a legal challenge. It argued that if BA does find a technical flaw in the ballot procedure, the union could correct and re-ballot immediately. They argued that in such scenarios the blocking of industrial action typically strengthens union’s case towards staff and results in stronger votes for industrial action in subsequent ballots.
The union also flagged that if it were successful in winning the injunction in the February Court date, staff would be able to claim damages. Under BA’s previous operating conditions crew who operate flights short of a cabin crew member can claim an extra £200-260 per sector (depending on seniority) and get a day off in additional compensation. If BA were found to have forced staff to operate with fewer crew than contractually agreed, the union expects to be able to claim this level of compensation for all flying since the introduction of the currently imposed conditions. It estimates this as a cost of £10m per month in additional sector pay, with the cost of extra leave on top.
The union also argued that building up this dispute with cabin crew will only make its pension deficit negotiations all the more fraught and could jeopardise the June 2010 deadline for finalising the deficit recovery scheme.
Our thoughts
There are three key issues. Can the union win a strong strike mandate from staff? Are the changes made by BA contractual or not? What is the timing of events?
On the strike mandate, the union sounded confident to us, but they could not hold a briefing and do otherwise. The union accepted under questioning that this dispute did not have public support. We do think this will play a role and will weaken support. We do not expect staff eying part time working or voluntary redundancy to support the strike. We would expect weaker support for strike action at Gatwick – somewhat simplistically, management are trying to make Heathrow staff productivity as good as Gatwick – the only reason Gatwick staff might chose to support industrial action would be to keep alive hopes of transferring in the future to the significantly more lucrative operation for them at Heathrow. Otherwise, the union is working hard to get a positive vote with a strong turnout. We do not think the union will get a very very strong mandate, though it might or might not get a majority for action. We think it will be close.
We are not employment law experts and have no clear view as to whether the changes made by BA are contractual. The company states confidently that they are not contractual. The union argues the reverse.
In terms of timing, we think the union would probably prefer for strike action to be delayed until after the court has judged on the contractual/non contractual issue. Were the union to call strike action before there is legal certainty on whether BA’s changes to terms and conditions are contractual, then should they lose that legal question, they would be liable for very significant damages that might bankrupt the union. We therefore think the union wants to threaten strike action over Christmas, to deter passengers from booking BA, but will want to defer action into the spring. The union will be looking for the cycle to improve and hence strengthen its hand. The union will be looking to run the dispute on towards the June 2010 pension deadline. If there is a vote for strike action, it is possible that there could be a real game of poker, with the union hoping for an injunction from the company to protect its holiday operation, whilst the company could choose to hold back and see if the union dare actually strike without legal certainty of its position.
Underpinning this battle there does appear to be an ideological dispute. The union contends that the new HR leadership and senior BA management are seeking to exclude unions from having a say in operations. The significant cuts to management ranks have seen many operational leaders who had good links with unions, leave the company – this has cut off the working relationships. Repeatedly, the union contended that the reductions to staffing ratios were weakening BA’s premium positioning and threatening the brand.
We do not think BA management would dispute that it is seeking to exclude unions form management decisions. We think BA’s leadership is keen to force cultural change on the institution and breaking established union management links is key. Rebasing management of the company so that decisions are made in head office and not by labour, is a key part of the management change being sought.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Woking
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarified, I'll re read your post in greater detail later, as far as I remember an integrated fleet was on the table during negiotations in the summer.
BASSA did not accept it or try to tweak it (such as swap 9 days off for fixed links).
If forced back to the table again are you saying BASSA would accept it this time?
I would have thought BASSA should have done a bit of polling to find out what crew do/do not want.
It does look like a bit of a personal agenda from senior old contract CSD's.
Just a point of note of saying you can't get much more work out of crew, maybe not on longhaul but certainly on shorthaul.
Many full time shorthaul cc do in the region of 500 hours, made up of lots of single sector days and standovers.
I don't think they will be too chuffed if BASSA agreed to fixed links ending up with mainly two day, six sector / three day eight sector trips and 750 hours pa.
It would mean then that shorthaul would bear most of the pain, although that would probably suit the longhaul CDS's quit well.
The article above seems informative.
BASSA did not accept it or try to tweak it (such as swap 9 days off for fixed links).
If forced back to the table again are you saying BASSA would accept it this time?
I would have thought BASSA should have done a bit of polling to find out what crew do/do not want.
It does look like a bit of a personal agenda from senior old contract CSD's.
Just a point of note of saying you can't get much more work out of crew, maybe not on longhaul but certainly on shorthaul.
Many full time shorthaul cc do in the region of 500 hours, made up of lots of single sector days and standovers.
I don't think they will be too chuffed if BASSA agreed to fixed links ending up with mainly two day, six sector / three day eight sector trips and 750 hours pa.
It would mean then that shorthaul would bear most of the pain, although that would probably suit the longhaul CDS's quit well.
The article above seems informative.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Andrew Lobbenberg, European Transport Equity Research RBS.
The union contends that the new HR leadership and senior BA management are seeking to exclude unions from having a say in operations. T...We do not think BA management would dispute that it is seeking to exclude unions form management decisions. ....Rebasing management of the company so that decisions are made in head office and not by labour, is a key part of the management change being sought.
The union contends that the new HR leadership and senior BA management are seeking to exclude unions from having a say in operations. T...We do not think BA management would dispute that it is seeking to exclude unions form management decisions. ....Rebasing management of the company so that decisions are made in head office and not by labour, is a key part of the management change being sought.
This ballot is being sold to Bassa members as a dispute about imposition. What Bassa tells the city is that it's about power. Power to control the day to day operation, and BA quite rightly want that control back.
Interesting too that they think the ballot will be close....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Will Union Stop Lying To Its Members?
The union’s view was that this package would be worth around £100m. The company had Price Waterhouse evaluate the package. They evaluated its impact at £54m. The union sees this as ironic since the value BA ascribes to its imposed changes is £50m, less than was offered by the union.
...and all this 'financial' hocuspocus worked out whilst refusing to look at the company's confidential financial accounts! Incredible!
Exposed as complete LIES, told directly to their fee paying members!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The union accepted under questioning that this dispute did not have public support.
Along with all the other spin that BASSA have had to put the brakes on under scrutiny.
What a surprise.
Looking after the membership? Nope! Abject power struggle? Yep.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a BA Executive Club member.
The union accepted under questioning that this dispute did not have public support.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Plodding Along!
As I understand it the intergrated fleet idea was accepted by the company, but they also needed other things to make it work and get the savings they were looking for eg. double nights down route. (If anyone one has a different understanding of this please feel free to correct me).
Hasn't this been one of the big issues all along? How and what to give in order to get the savings and not change the crews T & C's drastically.
I haven't got a clue what they are thinking!
My post is mearly my suggestion of a way forward, we are debating how it could look, what may or may not be acceptable, healthy stuff.
We need a lot more of that, wouldn't you agree?
NB. When I fly I try and avoid discussions onboard re. IR issues, however when asked my opinion I do enter into respectful debate. The message I get loud and clear is an intergrated fleet is the best option.
I would hope my colleagues representatives would be aware of that feeling.
Hasn't this been one of the big issues all along? How and what to give in order to get the savings and not change the crews T & C's drastically.
If forced back to the table again are you saying BASSA would accept it this time?
My post is mearly my suggestion of a way forward, we are debating how it could look, what may or may not be acceptable, healthy stuff.
We need a lot more of that, wouldn't you agree?
NB. When I fly I try and avoid discussions onboard re. IR issues, however when asked my opinion I do enter into respectful debate. The message I get loud and clear is an intergrated fleet is the best option.
I would hope my colleagues representatives would be aware of that feeling.
Last edited by Clarified; 30th Nov 2009 at 12:24. Reason: additional comment
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Age: 58
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarified - I don't think the Company are interested in a way forward with BASSA at all - see DaDog post earlier:-
The money issue / crewing levels are all by the by. It's about who runs the Company. The only way management can get that power back is to break the union - the earlier the better as the current financial climate helps their cause.
BASSA have fallen into the trap a treat - they have called for a strike. BASSA have to hope now that the Company block the strike using a legal challenge so they can save face.
However, better for the company to allow the strike to happen and break it - job done, power regained as no more BASSA.
We do not think BA management would dispute that it is seeking to exclude unions form management decisions. We think BA’s leadership is keen to force cultural change on the institution and breaking established union management links is key. Rebasing management of the company so that decisions are made in head office and not by labour, is a key part of the management change being sought.
BASSA have fallen into the trap a treat - they have called for a strike. BASSA have to hope now that the Company block the strike using a legal challenge so they can save face.
However, better for the company to allow the strike to happen and break it - job done, power regained as no more BASSA.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me a BASSA-basher, but....
.....good-riddance, BASSA has been nothing but a dreadful, parasitic scourge on this once great company, which, in its final death-throws (BASSA), STILL wants to bring everyone/everything else down with it.
Perhaps our children's children will learn about this at school.....maybe they'll learn how, for DECADES, a few selfish and greedy individuals got together to brainwash the masses into doing their bidding; holding a Multinational FTSE 100 company to ransom, using the company's demonstrated and world-renowned good-will and generosity with regards to terms & conditions, pension and salary against it in the most disgraceful and un-British manner, threatening to bankrupt it rather than joining ALL other work-groups in desperately needed CHANGE.
Or perhaps they'll just learn about how the company that helped to design, develop and produce Concorde, bringing supersonic commercial air travel to the world was bankrupted and destroyed by 14,000 staff members who refused to listen to both sides of an argument that threatens their jobs and just did what they were told to by the handful of most senior cabin crew members who had most to lose from their minions educating themselves.
Perhaps once this morally corrupt, head-in-sand, self-serving, ignorant, unnecessarily aggressive, spiteful & vindictive union is overthrown, those Cabin Crew members sensible/enlightened enough to post on this site (once free of the OPPRESSION) will start a new union, from the ground up.
It's the only way. Some of the CC posting on here are clearly highly intelligent, reasoned individuals with a passion for British Airways, a sense of fair-play and the sort of can-do, pragmatic approach that would see the Cabin Crew enjoy a respected, esteemed, honourable and honest representation at the highest of levels within the company....your fellow colleagues NEED you. BA Cabin Crew DESERVE better than this!
The lies, the deceit, the mis-information, the scare-mongering, the bullying, the mud-slinging, it's all GOT TO GO. Start thinking about what kind of mission directive you would like to read from the next union reps....could you deliver better representation for your colleagues than this lot?
Remember that the current warlords suspended democratic election in the run-up to this 'dispute'?...well, when it's over they will eventually have to give way to the will of the masses and to democratic protocol and allow the elections. WHY NOT STAND FOR ELECTION?
Surely only a very small minority of BASSA members would want to re-elect the current reps (after how they've 'represented' you) over someone with a sensible head on some sensible shoulders? GOOD LUCK TO THE NEW UNION.
p.s. ask yourself why BASSA have (year-in, year-out) refused BALPA's olive branch, collaborative invitation of working together to gain strength in unity on the bigger issues? What (apart from dictatorial power) could BASSA hope to gain from poisoning its members against other work-groups in the company? Why do they perpetuate lies about the pilots that they KNOW aren't true? Could it be because people are easier to manipulate once you've encouraged, developed and aggravated their prejudices? Pilots?! Look how much better they get treated! It's definitely NOT because their union is better and actually represents them, it MUST be because they're getting one up on us!!! NO FAIR!!!!
...oh, and why, after refusing to join in on any of the big discussions (pensions/cost cuttings) does BASSA just jump in at the last moment (often without asking the members what THEY want) and try to copy the deal that BALPA spent months on? Pensions? Just give us the same deal as the pilots.....is that GOOD representation? Cabin Crew members may not WANT the same deal as the pilots, they may have different priorities!
As proved by the CATACLYSMIC failure to negotiate/represent, when BASSA lamely offered a small portion of the BALPA negotiated (over many months) cost saving settlement, the 2.61% PAYCUT!!!! Whilst this only made up about 1/3rd of the pilots cost-savings and so was woefully short of the mark and not at all thought out, surely the point is that THIS UNION IS OFFERING PAYCUTS THAT ARE NEITHER WANTED BY YOU, THE MEMBERS, OR INDEED THE COMPANY! Such representation need to be questioned and the people responsible MUST ANSWER to the people that pay the subs, you the members!
BY NOT VOTING YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE VOTED YES.
START A NEW UNION, STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT, STAND FOR ELECTION
Perhaps our children's children will learn about this at school.....maybe they'll learn how, for DECADES, a few selfish and greedy individuals got together to brainwash the masses into doing their bidding; holding a Multinational FTSE 100 company to ransom, using the company's demonstrated and world-renowned good-will and generosity with regards to terms & conditions, pension and salary against it in the most disgraceful and un-British manner, threatening to bankrupt it rather than joining ALL other work-groups in desperately needed CHANGE.
Or perhaps they'll just learn about how the company that helped to design, develop and produce Concorde, bringing supersonic commercial air travel to the world was bankrupted and destroyed by 14,000 staff members who refused to listen to both sides of an argument that threatens their jobs and just did what they were told to by the handful of most senior cabin crew members who had most to lose from their minions educating themselves.
Perhaps once this morally corrupt, head-in-sand, self-serving, ignorant, unnecessarily aggressive, spiteful & vindictive union is overthrown, those Cabin Crew members sensible/enlightened enough to post on this site (once free of the OPPRESSION) will start a new union, from the ground up.
It's the only way. Some of the CC posting on here are clearly highly intelligent, reasoned individuals with a passion for British Airways, a sense of fair-play and the sort of can-do, pragmatic approach that would see the Cabin Crew enjoy a respected, esteemed, honourable and honest representation at the highest of levels within the company....your fellow colleagues NEED you. BA Cabin Crew DESERVE better than this!
The lies, the deceit, the mis-information, the scare-mongering, the bullying, the mud-slinging, it's all GOT TO GO. Start thinking about what kind of mission directive you would like to read from the next union reps....could you deliver better representation for your colleagues than this lot?
Remember that the current warlords suspended democratic election in the run-up to this 'dispute'?...well, when it's over they will eventually have to give way to the will of the masses and to democratic protocol and allow the elections. WHY NOT STAND FOR ELECTION?
Surely only a very small minority of BASSA members would want to re-elect the current reps (after how they've 'represented' you) over someone with a sensible head on some sensible shoulders? GOOD LUCK TO THE NEW UNION.
p.s. ask yourself why BASSA have (year-in, year-out) refused BALPA's olive branch, collaborative invitation of working together to gain strength in unity on the bigger issues? What (apart from dictatorial power) could BASSA hope to gain from poisoning its members against other work-groups in the company? Why do they perpetuate lies about the pilots that they KNOW aren't true? Could it be because people are easier to manipulate once you've encouraged, developed and aggravated their prejudices? Pilots?! Look how much better they get treated! It's definitely NOT because their union is better and actually represents them, it MUST be because they're getting one up on us!!! NO FAIR!!!!
...oh, and why, after refusing to join in on any of the big discussions (pensions/cost cuttings) does BASSA just jump in at the last moment (often without asking the members what THEY want) and try to copy the deal that BALPA spent months on? Pensions? Just give us the same deal as the pilots.....is that GOOD representation? Cabin Crew members may not WANT the same deal as the pilots, they may have different priorities!
As proved by the CATACLYSMIC failure to negotiate/represent, when BASSA lamely offered a small portion of the BALPA negotiated (over many months) cost saving settlement, the 2.61% PAYCUT!!!! Whilst this only made up about 1/3rd of the pilots cost-savings and so was woefully short of the mark and not at all thought out, surely the point is that THIS UNION IS OFFERING PAYCUTS THAT ARE NEITHER WANTED BY YOU, THE MEMBERS, OR INDEED THE COMPANY! Such representation need to be questioned and the people responsible MUST ANSWER to the people that pay the subs, you the members!
BY NOT VOTING YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE VOTED YES.
START A NEW UNION, STAND FOR WHAT IS RIGHT, STAND FOR ELECTION
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Nice
Age: 74
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, I do not think the strike will happen regardless of the voting outcome. They would have to be very sure they will win the court case if they intend striking beforehand. Public support for them would be zero if they strike over Christmas
Supposing the 1 Feb court hearing rules in BA's favour and the union have already had a strike over the issue.
What position would Bassa be in there?
Supposing the 1 Feb court hearing rules in BA's favour and the union have already had a strike over the issue.
What position would Bassa be in there?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, thanks fincastle for the comments, despite not being here for as long as some, I try to be balanced before reaching a decision.
Clarified you have hit the nail spot on really. That is actually what should of happened to start with - oh, actually it did really but as soon as these suggestions were made by the company - the union were out with the emotive newsletters.... I'm not a BASSA basher, I do support the union as there is always a place, but this hasn't been played very well at all. I'm sure there are plenty more moderate bassa members, but unfortunately the militants will always have the louder voice and be more noticable.
New Fleet proposed to start with (they knew about it 2008, just waited until this year to action it apart from the newsletters to put the fear of god in you!! Remember last years ''The airline that stole Christmas?'') Talks started around Feb/March I think, when New Fleet proposed with some changes to us like crew complements, no working down/up payment, fixed links on EF etc etc... BASSA suggested an integrated approach as didn't want to starve us of work..... BA actually did listen, however to have an integrated approach, some of our trip patterns would have to change. BA did listen but from the militants it was NO NO NO - accept our proposal - which was obvious it didn't save enough money there was hardly anything to it really!! This then dragged on and BA obviously thought we have VR/part time to give something HAS to be done,. so had to do the new crew complements, New Fleet is not set in stone, but the union rather than negotiating things as you have said Clarified, instead they have taken their membership to a position where we shouldn't be!
I don't see anything in what you suggested to be unreasonable really, I don't think HKG/SIN/NRT/PVG etc should be done as a single night (I'm a Eurofleeter but I imagine it wouldn't be nice) but why not even just trial some of the shorter destinations having this. Didn't Virgin trial this? How did they get on?? As for EF, I didn't agree with the losing a day off, wouldn't really want to finish after 9pm on my last day, but wouldn't mind fixed links, etc (means you get home quicker!!! If you have to do more doubles so be it something HAS to be done!!) We could keep our pay and just have new contracts on hourly rate and as you said promotional prospects!! Don't really see a problem. But some people will.
Some people are never happy whatever is proposed, they don't want fixed links, to lose sa day off, less crew, a seperate new fleet, more doubles, etc etc... they want to be untouched. I don't want a pay cut or to work like a slave, but don't really think many BA proposals are unreasonable. Some I didn't agree with like I said, which is why negotiation has to be made from ALL members being asked, not just 2000 or whatever
We can't remain untouched!! Which would be lovely, but this is the real world... and look at it!! Not really pretty at the moment with a RECESSION on is it?? Really hope for the sake of everyone at BA including myself we come out of this, even if REASONABLE compromises are made, as BA are a great airline... would hate our stubbon-refusal to change at all attitude to destroy that!!
PHEW RANT OVER!!
PS: New crew complements on Tuesday, abit apprehensive, but will work as best as I can to them, I will not try to make them not work,. Don't get me wrong if they don't I will report, but if they do work then fab! That's something we will just have to compromise!!
Clarified you have hit the nail spot on really. That is actually what should of happened to start with - oh, actually it did really but as soon as these suggestions were made by the company - the union were out with the emotive newsletters.... I'm not a BASSA basher, I do support the union as there is always a place, but this hasn't been played very well at all. I'm sure there are plenty more moderate bassa members, but unfortunately the militants will always have the louder voice and be more noticable.
New Fleet proposed to start with (they knew about it 2008, just waited until this year to action it apart from the newsletters to put the fear of god in you!! Remember last years ''The airline that stole Christmas?'') Talks started around Feb/March I think, when New Fleet proposed with some changes to us like crew complements, no working down/up payment, fixed links on EF etc etc... BASSA suggested an integrated approach as didn't want to starve us of work..... BA actually did listen, however to have an integrated approach, some of our trip patterns would have to change. BA did listen but from the militants it was NO NO NO - accept our proposal - which was obvious it didn't save enough money there was hardly anything to it really!! This then dragged on and BA obviously thought we have VR/part time to give something HAS to be done,. so had to do the new crew complements, New Fleet is not set in stone, but the union rather than negotiating things as you have said Clarified, instead they have taken their membership to a position where we shouldn't be!
I don't see anything in what you suggested to be unreasonable really, I don't think HKG/SIN/NRT/PVG etc should be done as a single night (I'm a Eurofleeter but I imagine it wouldn't be nice) but why not even just trial some of the shorter destinations having this. Didn't Virgin trial this? How did they get on?? As for EF, I didn't agree with the losing a day off, wouldn't really want to finish after 9pm on my last day, but wouldn't mind fixed links, etc (means you get home quicker!!! If you have to do more doubles so be it something HAS to be done!!) We could keep our pay and just have new contracts on hourly rate and as you said promotional prospects!! Don't really see a problem. But some people will.
Some people are never happy whatever is proposed, they don't want fixed links, to lose sa day off, less crew, a seperate new fleet, more doubles, etc etc... they want to be untouched. I don't want a pay cut or to work like a slave, but don't really think many BA proposals are unreasonable. Some I didn't agree with like I said, which is why negotiation has to be made from ALL members being asked, not just 2000 or whatever
We can't remain untouched!! Which would be lovely, but this is the real world... and look at it!! Not really pretty at the moment with a RECESSION on is it?? Really hope for the sake of everyone at BA including myself we come out of this, even if REASONABLE compromises are made, as BA are a great airline... would hate our stubbon-refusal to change at all attitude to destroy that!!PHEW RANT OVER!!
PS: New crew complements on Tuesday, abit apprehensive, but will work as best as I can to them, I will not try to make them not work,. Don't get me wrong if they don't I will report, but if they do work then fab! That's something we will just have to compromise!!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strike Action
Hi Jean-Lill,
I am a bit confused. According to various internet sites re. industrial action it has to be taken within 4 weeks of the ballot closing. It can be extended up to 8 weeks but only if both sides agree!
That means any action would have to be under way mid Jan at the latest,
assuming the company did not agree to any extension.
Any legal eagles like to help me on this one?
I am a bit confused. According to various internet sites re. industrial action it has to be taken within 4 weeks of the ballot closing. It can be extended up to 8 weeks but only if both sides agree!
That means any action would have to be under way mid Jan at the latest,
assuming the company did not agree to any extension.
Any legal eagles like to help me on this one?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Age: 58
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right clarified - which is why the union is praying that BA challenge the strike mandate in the courts. If BA do nothing (which I hope and believe they will) then BASSAs hand is forced because they will have to announce strike dates within the 4 week period or come up with a good excuse why not and why they have to re-ballot.
Either way, this means a huge loss of face because the strike won't work and the inadequacy of the BASSA leadership will be shown up for what it is - rubbish! BA then regain control of the company which is the real prize in all this.
The UNITE union are going to be even more upset when the legal proceedings go against them in Feb because the legal bill will seriously drain their coffers.
All this is actually irrevelant to the cabin crew on the ground. It's about BA verses BASSA, a power struggle. I'm afraid whatever happens, New Fleet terms and conditions are on their way for ALL CABIN CREW - it's unstoppable now - sorry!
Either way, this means a huge loss of face because the strike won't work and the inadequacy of the BASSA leadership will be shown up for what it is - rubbish! BA then regain control of the company which is the real prize in all this.
The UNITE union are going to be even more upset when the legal proceedings go against them in Feb because the legal bill will seriously drain their coffers.
All this is actually irrevelant to the cabin crew on the ground. It's about BA verses BASSA, a power struggle. I'm afraid whatever happens, New Fleet terms and conditions are on their way for ALL CABIN CREW - it's unstoppable now - sorry!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slidebustle - welcome to a balanced forum. You have posted an intelligent and well-thought out post, and I would like to respond to a point you raise that a lot of crew seem to be asking:
First of all, we need to be very clear on a couple of things.
1. This is not about a BALLOT. This is about a STRIKE. Do not ask yourself whether you should vote Yes or No. Ask yourself whether you are truly prepared to sit at home, on a day when you should be checking in for a flight. Are you really prepared to breach your contract in this way in the hope that the majority of other crew will do the same? Slidebustle, you probably haven't seen the previous strikes, but believe me it gets very scary in the last 24-48 hours prior to strike day.
2. Secondly, the Union is telling us that we are voting to strike, not about New Fleet, or crew complements, etc. but about IMPOSITION (and you outline your fears above). To say that we are striking about IMPOSITION is ridiculous. It has to be about WHAT has been imposed, not about the imposition itself.
Two years ago, the company IMPOSED a profit share. We didn't quite reach the required 10% profit margin, but it was felt that in view of T5 etc and the hard work everyone had put in, we deserved the reward. Did the UNION ballot about that? Of course not. So it can never be about the IMPOSITION itself, but only about the WHAT that has been imposed.
So, you then have to ask yourself WHAT has been imposed, to know whether or not you are prepared to strike, and sit at home when you should be flying. And the WHAT that has been imposed is simply reduced crew complements. End of. WW are already doing it, and due to the low loads are not having any real problems. EF start tomorrow and will undoubtedly just get on with it. So where's the issue?
Slidebustle, you have ventured onto this forum, like the rest of us, because you have a gut instinct that what the Union is doing is wrong. Do not feel afraid. Crossing a picket line at T5 will be easy - simply come in dressed in civvies and enter like a passenger! It will be a lot harder to picket at T5 than in previous strikes, and I'm sure there will be a mass of us getting together to come in to work. We will find a way.
Jockster - I would just like to correct what you have said - New Fleet is not unstoppable. BA have said it is not set in stone and that they are prepared to discuss options with the Union. This very reason makes the Union stance even more ridiculous.
VOTE NO. COME TO WORK WITH THE REST OF US.
The above represents my personal view, and not that of BA.
must admit though, I do worry when the people in BASSA say if they imposed this what next... there will be no promotion etc.... but is this all propaganda. Or do they have a point.
1. This is not about a BALLOT. This is about a STRIKE. Do not ask yourself whether you should vote Yes or No. Ask yourself whether you are truly prepared to sit at home, on a day when you should be checking in for a flight. Are you really prepared to breach your contract in this way in the hope that the majority of other crew will do the same? Slidebustle, you probably haven't seen the previous strikes, but believe me it gets very scary in the last 24-48 hours prior to strike day.
2. Secondly, the Union is telling us that we are voting to strike, not about New Fleet, or crew complements, etc. but about IMPOSITION (and you outline your fears above). To say that we are striking about IMPOSITION is ridiculous. It has to be about WHAT has been imposed, not about the imposition itself.
Two years ago, the company IMPOSED a profit share. We didn't quite reach the required 10% profit margin, but it was felt that in view of T5 etc and the hard work everyone had put in, we deserved the reward. Did the UNION ballot about that? Of course not. So it can never be about the IMPOSITION itself, but only about the WHAT that has been imposed.
So, you then have to ask yourself WHAT has been imposed, to know whether or not you are prepared to strike, and sit at home when you should be flying. And the WHAT that has been imposed is simply reduced crew complements. End of. WW are already doing it, and due to the low loads are not having any real problems. EF start tomorrow and will undoubtedly just get on with it. So where's the issue?
Slidebustle, you have ventured onto this forum, like the rest of us, because you have a gut instinct that what the Union is doing is wrong. Do not feel afraid. Crossing a picket line at T5 will be easy - simply come in dressed in civvies and enter like a passenger! It will be a lot harder to picket at T5 than in previous strikes, and I'm sure there will be a mass of us getting together to come in to work. We will find a way.
Jockster - I would just like to correct what you have said - New Fleet is not unstoppable. BA have said it is not set in stone and that they are prepared to discuss options with the Union. This very reason makes the Union stance even more ridiculous.
VOTE NO. COME TO WORK WITH THE REST OF US.
The above represents my personal view, and not that of BA.
Last edited by HiFlyer14; 30th Nov 2009 at 18:00.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Age: 58
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HiFlyer - technically you're correct (as always) BUT in order to survive long term BA have to be competitive and current T&Cs EVEN WITH the reduced crew levels are unsustainable.
New Fleet T&Cs (Virgin +10% etc) is what ALL crew will eventually end up on in the not too distant future - I'll bet my house on it.
The conspiracy theorist in me is convinced that this whole thing has been stage managed so BASSA gets the blame for the early introduction of New Fleet because the strike (which the Union called) forced the company to sack so many CC and incur losses etc.
If I were CEO and was looking to enhance my reputation for my next job- this is exactly what I would do. The benefits are HUGE and the current economic climate is perfect for such action.
New Fleet T&Cs (Virgin +10% etc) is what ALL crew will eventually end up on in the not too distant future - I'll bet my house on it.
The conspiracy theorist in me is convinced that this whole thing has been stage managed so BASSA gets the blame for the early introduction of New Fleet because the strike (which the Union called) forced the company to sack so many CC and incur losses etc.
If I were CEO and was looking to enhance my reputation for my next job- this is exactly what I would do. The benefits are HUGE and the current economic climate is perfect for such action.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slidebustle and HiFlyer14.
SlideBustle, it's great to read your views, like a lot of our colleagues on this forum you see the world in a very colourful and balanced way.
It's exactly because there are a lot of people like us that our voices are starting to be heard. I am an optimist at heart and believe in fairness and the democratic principles that living here allows.
Your post and other recent posts (Alexandraa is an example) demonstrate how much people care and also that they are willing to stand up for what THEY believe in.
HiFlyer14's reference to coming to work in civvies etc. is not something I would do. I will walk straight through the front of the building having parked my car in OUR car park. There is no need to wear a false nose and glasses, our democratic country protects people who choose to exercise their right to work. Any attempt to obstruct that right could be deemed unlawful. Come to work, lots of us will.
SlideBustle, thanks for your observations on my earlier post, I would like to keep those double nights in the Far East and West coast though. Part of what makes this job so great is being able to have that time in places like that. As you suggest, it's all about solving the problem together and meeting people halfway. Anything else just doesn't feel right especially at the moment. (More company lay offs today in the news, it's not good out there). Lets help our business and ourselves, surely that's not a bad thing is it!
It's exactly because there are a lot of people like us that our voices are starting to be heard. I am an optimist at heart and believe in fairness and the democratic principles that living here allows.
Your post and other recent posts (Alexandraa is an example) demonstrate how much people care and also that they are willing to stand up for what THEY believe in.
HiFlyer14's reference to coming to work in civvies etc. is not something I would do. I will walk straight through the front of the building having parked my car in OUR car park. There is no need to wear a false nose and glasses, our democratic country protects people who choose to exercise their right to work. Any attempt to obstruct that right could be deemed unlawful. Come to work, lots of us will.
SlideBustle, thanks for your observations on my earlier post, I would like to keep those double nights in the Far East and West coast though. Part of what makes this job so great is being able to have that time in places like that. As you suggest, it's all about solving the problem together and meeting people halfway. Anything else just doesn't feel right especially at the moment. (More company lay offs today in the news, it's not good out there). Lets help our business and ourselves, surely that's not a bad thing is it!
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to keep those double nights in the Far East and West coast though.
It is worth noting though that Virgin crew do significantly more cabin/meal prep prior to boarding so their duty days are around 30 mins longer. Would that be a good compromise? Downroute reports at -90mins which means fewer trips down to nightstops?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!! There are some excellent posts here. Clarified, yes know what you mean about not losing double night, it's all abit give and take, the union could say oh no thanks - how about doing ......... instead? Will save the same amount. Company accepts that. Company suggests another thing... union accepts, company proposes another... union offer alternative etc. Unfortunately that's not how it's gone. Looking back at my newsletter outlining their ''integrated proposal'' back in June/July... some things I think are acceptable, some things need tweaking but hey that never happened!! I feel new fleet is more likely to happen with a strike than no strike!! lol Ironic!
Hiflyer, that's what I thought, striking about imposition does hold no substance, there needs to be a real reason.... which I suppose is why BA might be able to stop the strike anyway! If BA all of sudden imposed a 30% PAY CUT I could understand..... it all depends on the reason.... There are some people who will purposefully go slow, secure cabin too late resulting in go arounds just to make it look like it doesn't work. It does beggar belief!! I can't really comment on the crew complements yet, will have to see tomorrow, but if it is truly bad and customers don't get served ONLY THEN will I tell the company, and offer suggestions on what's wrong/what can be done.... If customers complain at the lack of product that will be fed back - with reduction in product, that is a different story, I'm sure if there is any adverse feedback the company will tweak... it's all about experimenting with what they can save on... what the customer finds important and what they don't - causing wastage!!
I think, you know what, I have made my mind up. Over the last week or so I've been leaning towards no as the thought of striking is too scary - for a start and also I've been askingdo I think it will be productive or worth it?? Will it make BA back down? Almost certainly NOT! What's held me back from voting no though is the thoughts of ''what if everyone else/BASSA is right - I would have got rid of my t&cs in one swoop blah blah... but I've come to my senses. BA has imposed new crew complements that's all. Is that enough to warrant striking and staying at home when I have a flight? Not really. BA are willing to negotiate, but unite, we are running out of time!! As they will lose their patience (if they haven't already!!) Need to save money ASAP! It CAN be done reasonably...
You can't strike based on speculation anyway which is what it seems many people are doing. ''I'm striking because whatever next???'' Totally not based in any reality!! Just speculation. I might strike next week because BA MIGHT merge with Ryanair AND easyJet and I don't want them to do that.... Well they did merge with Iberia, who's to say they won't with RyanEasy??....
Those who have heard the ''I'm striking because what will they do next'' mantra will see what I'm getting at!!
Hiflyer, that's what I thought, striking about imposition does hold no substance, there needs to be a real reason.... which I suppose is why BA might be able to stop the strike anyway! If BA all of sudden imposed a 30% PAY CUT I could understand..... it all depends on the reason.... There are some people who will purposefully go slow, secure cabin too late resulting in go arounds just to make it look like it doesn't work. It does beggar belief!! I can't really comment on the crew complements yet, will have to see tomorrow, but if it is truly bad and customers don't get served ONLY THEN will I tell the company, and offer suggestions on what's wrong/what can be done.... If customers complain at the lack of product that will be fed back - with reduction in product, that is a different story, I'm sure if there is any adverse feedback the company will tweak... it's all about experimenting with what they can save on... what the customer finds important and what they don't - causing wastage!!
I think, you know what, I have made my mind up. Over the last week or so I've been leaning towards no as the thought of striking is too scary - for a start and also I've been askingdo I think it will be productive or worth it?? Will it make BA back down? Almost certainly NOT! What's held me back from voting no though is the thoughts of ''what if everyone else/BASSA is right - I would have got rid of my t&cs in one swoop blah blah... but I've come to my senses. BA has imposed new crew complements that's all. Is that enough to warrant striking and staying at home when I have a flight? Not really. BA are willing to negotiate, but unite, we are running out of time!! As they will lose their patience (if they haven't already!!) Need to save money ASAP! It CAN be done reasonably...
You can't strike based on speculation anyway which is what it seems many people are doing. ''I'm striking because whatever next???'' Totally not based in any reality!! Just speculation. I might strike next week because BA MIGHT merge with Ryanair AND easyJet and I don't want them to do that.... Well they did merge with Iberia, who's to say they won't with RyanEasy??....
Those who have heard the ''I'm striking because what will they do next'' mantra will see what I'm getting at!!