British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations

[Carnage Matey!]

CFC- the fact that the savings target leapt from £82 M to £126M is solely due to BASSA failing to meet the negotiating deadline. It was made abundantly clear to all departments that targets would increase if they failed to meet the deadline. The fact that the first financial quarter ends on 30th June is a coincidence. The deadline date was set by Keith Williams in order to give him time to tap the capital markets before they shut up shop for the summer.

[Perry-oaks]

Originally Posted by CFC

So I ask you to check your thoughts/timelines/figures.

My thoughts -

IFCE are set a target of £82m, and are encouraged to agree by end June or face drastic consequences.
IFCE/Bassa reach no agreement by the end of June - the target rises to £126m.

Bassa make an initial offer which they valved at £171m (but now reduced to £100m)

BA and PWC valued the 'generous offer' at between £52m and £54m, but the offer was on a temporary basis with full payback after two years.

After months of talks they still reach no agreement so the company impose the 'drastic' consequences.

- No CC needs to take a pay cut (but a company wide pay freeze is implemented)
- No CC will need to work any more hours (SH will still do highly inefficient trips)
- No threat of compulsory redundancy (VR available)
- No change in the astonishing allowance structure
- No change in the ridiculous disruption agreement
- one head off long haul flights, but actually still have the same number of people conducting the service


The original target set by BA for CC was a relatively easy target IMHO, because as has been shown the target can be reached by reducing crewing levels and a pay freeze - so no one looses out financially or needs to work extra hours (well except for CSD who apparently has to work for a change on LH!). Now the company is losing even more revenue with the threat of strike action with no sign of this extra revenue loss being tacked onto IFCE's savings target (yet!)

If BASSA agreed to the changes, you would still have many CC earning twice as much and working considerably less than the industry standard. Present crew seem to be fairly minimally affected by the new deal all the CC complaints about being overworked and understaffed etc are smoke and mirrors

However, I do understand that if you are 23 and looking to retire as CSD at 85!! then your future may not be as rosy.....

[midman]

CFC,

The negative response to Bassa's approach was from pilots - as I mentioned, the opinions of those from in front of the locked door is almost unanimously negative.
As an aside, I would say that the response from cabin crew has been roughly 50/50 regarding Bassa, although many who said they would vote yes also said that they would not strike, or they would call in sick. (This is WW's view too. He simply doesn't believe that there are enough cabin crew willing to refuse to turn up for work, and a 100% yes vote on its own will impress only one group of people.)

As for what your industrial action is for, I'm surprised that you do not have a reason to strike, as surely you must be striking on order to achieve something specific. Also, how is your union possibly able to negotiate on your behalf if you don't express an opinion on where you expect those negotiations to lead? Blind faith is very dangerous, or is the prospect of discussing areas for negotiation even more risky?

I totally respect anyone's right to decide which way to vote, but when people advocate voting one way on the basis of spurious rumour and emotive rhetoric, there has to be a response which involves reasoned argument and a questioning of the aims of such drastic action.

I would urge others to ask the same questions, as I couldn't countenance taking such action without asking where it was going to take me.

[Clarified]

Good evening fellow posters! This one is for A Lurker.

(Been away for a few days, catching up on posts).

New Fleet as yet, has not been brought up and UNITE themselves say at the moment BA Cabin Crew are not in dispute over New Fleet as this is a totally separate issue to the recent imposition.

A Lurker, all I hear pouring out from our colleagues over this ballot is ‘new fleet’ and ‘crewing levels’. Many ‘yes’ voters have told me ‘new fleet’ is the reason they are ticking the box. (Thankfully I have also met some ‘No’ voters).
As you know, I am not a member of the union. Please can you explain what the ballot is officially about. eg. Is it imposition or are there any references to crewing levels and new fleet? (I am confused, again)!
If the ballot is about imposition then surely you have to look at what it is the company is alleged to have imposed. There are reasons why these changes have been introduced. (Crewing levels gives hugely needed savings now the other will do the same when the company chooses to recruit again).
I doubt that Unite have any influence over New Fleet, surely the company can do what it wants with its business as long as T & C’s of existing staff are not changed?
(If they are, then I think they have to be given 90 days notice and the job description has to change by 60%, any legal eagles like to help on that one)?

Your second sentence!

As and when New Fleet is imposed there will be a second round of balloting and the threat of IA will once again be upon us

I am getting a mixed message.
On one hand you suggest that if a new fleet is ‘imposed’ there will be more balloting, but then use the words ‘threat of IA will once again be upon us’. Does this mean you feel threatened by IA or we should be, or the company should be?
In my view your words are very ambiguous.
I think what is becoming clearer by the day is this.
If, the nuclear button is pressed I think our company will have a nuclear response!
What else could they do? Capitulate to the Union so this can all happen again, (as suggested by you in your comments over ‘a second round of balloting)’. I really don’t think that will be an option, can you imagine another year like this one?
I think it will be out of our department’s hands. In other words, everything that the heads of our department have tried to fairly negotiate will be irrelevant.
It will be escalated, the situation will now threaten our business. The offers that were on the table will disappear.
Where will that leave the union? Will the company offer any or some of its previous proposals? Who knows the answer to those questions?
Will we still see aircraft flying out of our base? I think so.

Careful consideration needed, don’t you think?

(All the above are my personal views in response to your post and don’t represent the views of my employer or any other party).

[Geebs]

Trying to get a little clarity

CFC,

Rather than infer that Jockster is on the drink as you have in your reply to his post, why don't you submit what you believe the result of IA will be or what it will achieve?

The question has been asked of pro-BASSA/UNITE contributors numerous times in this discussion but no clear reply has been forthcoming.

Granted the general tone on this thread towards your camp seems to have turned a little over the past day or so and you feel a little defensive but this may be down to frustration more than anything else.

When there's a request for someone from the group who argue for IA to explain what they believe will be achieved with a strike, the group goes quiet for a while then comes back on a different line of discussion.

Are you able to clearly state what the goals of IA in December/January are for the Union(s) and most importantly, what it will bring the members?

Thanks,
Geebs

[Desertia]

Did anyone post this on this thread? He seems fairly specific on his figures:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...s-part-II.html

A Lurker, I think the question of BASSA avoiding the accounts review has been answered, but if you want to try and blame BA for BASSA's refusal to sign an NDA then let me know.

In my job I sign them all the time, and it is a fair and reasonable request. I suspect we all know why BASSA didn't want to sign one - the accounts aren't much use if you can't blackmail BA with them, are they?

[A Lurker]

Desertia

BASSA did not refuse to sign an NDA as it never got that far - BASSA wanted an experienced accountant to look at their 'books' BA refused - thats as far as it went - so no NDA was required

[A Lurker]

Clarified

I appreciate that as you are not a member of the trades union you may not be fully aware of the facts so I will gladly help shed some light for you.

We are balloting at the moment because of the impositions made by BA - in one of my previous posts I listed around 18 reasons post 3472 - I will not re-list them here again as that question has been answered in full.

At this moment in time UNITE are not in dispute with BA over New Fleet



(If they are, then I think they have to be given 90 days notice and the job description has to change by 60%, any legal eagles like to help on that one)?


As and when New Fleet is imposed there will be a second round of balloting and the threat of IA will once again be upon us

I am getting a mixed message.
On one hand you suggest that if a new fleet is ‘imposed’ there will be more balloting, but then use the words ‘threat of IA will once again be upon us’. Does this mean you feel threatened by IA or we should be, or the company should be?

In my view your words are very ambiguous.

I'm sorry my words seem ambiguous - I shall try to state my views again for you. If New Fleet is imposed there will certainly be another round of meetings and ballots and a threat of IA will once again happen. I don't want IA, neither do many of my colleagues, however if New Fleet ever happens then the job as we have known it will disappear - and after 20 odd years of working for BA I would fight against that threat.



(All the above are my personal views in response to your post and don’t represent the views of my employer or any other party).

[A Lurker]

Glamgirl

A Lurker,

I have some questions for you:

Do you think that the show of hands at a union meeting for members to agree to "no further negotiation" was an intelligent and well thought out way of doing things? As in show of hands/2000 members = minority of members.

It is the democratic way in which we do things in the UK - just like a General Election ie Is it right that we have a Government when only 50% of the electorate vote? Everyone who is a union member is entitled to go to the meeting and vote.

Do you think that it was correct procedure to (at the last union meeting) have a show of hands to delay elections? 3250 members = minority of members (again). I refer to my answer above

What are your ideas for cost savings from the IFCE budget? This figure is for the 18-month period of 01/10/2009 to 31/03/2011 and is the total cost saving.
The figure used for each crew head is £40,500 (this is not what you take home, but the cost to BA including tax, pension, N.I, - employee and employer, allowances, training etc) as it is an average of main crew, PSR and CSD put together.
Pay reduction of 2.61% (same % reduction as the pilots) £17.5 million
Meal allowance freeze £6 million (Note - this is 2 years not 18 months and is based on world average inflation not just UK)
Telephone allowance withdrawn £1.0 million
New disruption agreement for WW and an introduction for EF + SFG £60 million
(Note - It is based on data over the last 2 years and uses the cost of diversions plus the cost of a/c out of position for longer than under our new proposal. In February this year BA admitted to the press that the snow disruption cost them £20 million +. Should the next 2 winters contain little or no snow and fog, no ATC problems or T5 bag problems, then this saving will be reduced. Equally one bad winter will increase the total saved.)
Switch of PSR to main crew WW - 4 class a/c ( this was BAs original figure ) £15 million
Removal of additional crew member on WW additional routes £4 million
Switch at SFG of PSR to main crew on 777 - 3 class ( BAs figure ) £1 million
WW 767 and routes to EF - full integration, ( head saving 400 x 18 months) £24 million
EF single supervisor 757 and switch of PSR to main crew on EF767 £2 million
EF finish time last day 2200 - up to and incl. 5 day block £1 million
Head surplus at current + surplus with a/c fleet reduction (500 heads x 18 months) £30 million note - this figure of 500 quoted by BA
Natural wastage of crew leaving (200 per annum x 18 months) £12 million
(Note- this shortage would be absorbed for 18 months without recruitment. BA will not achieve a big saving on crew leaving at the end of the period, but equally some crew have already left before the Oct ‘09 start so savings balance.)
Total saving to BA over 18 months £173.5 million.

Do you agree with the union not to ask the members about what they are willing to change? I elect the union and as such I am comfortable with them negotiating () on my behalf and with the decisions they make on my behalf

[L337]

A show of hands is not a secret ballot.

In a show of hands you will not get an accurate poll of the membership. Nor will you get an accurate poll of the people who attend the meeting.

All you get is a count of those who put there hands up. Not what those people are actually thinking. All sorts of forces come into play with large groups of people. Pack mentality, herd behaviour, and peer pressure are all part of the mix. But what is not part of the mix is an accurate result.

Even in secret ballots you do not get the truth. A classic example of this was in Italy during the "Communist" party era. In secret anonymous polling before the elections, the pollsters kept announcing that the communist party would only ever get a handful of seats. Then along came the election and the communist party won hundreds of seats. People lie. To others and to themselves.

In voting for industrial action, people often think that they need to send a "signal" to the management. The union then think they have a strong mandate, and are horrified to discover that the mandate in reality is no such thing.

The truth of all of this posturing is that when the day of the strike arrives, exactly how many of the members have actually walked out.

Then and only then will we know who has told lies.

[gatbusdriver]

A. Lurker

It is the democratic way in which we do things in the UK - just like a General Election ie Is it right that we have a Government when only 50% of the electorate vote? Everyone who is a union member is entitled to go to the meeting and vote.

This is a poor analogy.

The main difference being that when we elect govenment, eveyone has an opportunity to vote. If only 50% of the electorate vote due to apathy, then so be it, but at least everyone can either vote at polling stations or by post or by proxy.

To have a meeting with only 2000-3000 crew, then conduct votes by a show of hands is hardly representative of the union membership. Many crew would not have had the opportunity to vote for a plethora of reasons (the main one being that there would have been many at work). This process is not independent, it is not audited and is not defensible.

Just to clear something up with regards salary. BA pilots may earn 30% more than charter pilots (probably closer to 20-25%), but charter pilots tend to work 650-750 hours a year compared to 850-900 hours a year for BA pilots.

[SlideBustle]

The thing is A Lurker like you and most people I don't really want New Fleet to happen I would rather a similar proposal to what BA proposed in the summer (obviously with a few tweaks - you can't do a NRT with just 1 nightstop and someone posted it can't save a lot of money anyway as people will be hitting 900 quicker and it's 2 crew over 2 nights as opposed to 1 crew over 2 nights! Also for us on EF I don't want a reduction in days off) most of the proposals on their apart from 2 or 3 were actually pretty reasonable and all BASSA needs to do is accept either change to OUR working agreements will happen or New Fleet will be brought in - either that or compulsory 10-20% pay cut for everyone! Most people don't want New Fleet but if the Union weren't so wrapped up in worrying about ''imposition'' of crew complements that are fairly reasonable and had to be done in order to stop some level of money from us burning..... they would be able to sit with BA and go back to negotiating the ''integrated approach'' which BA are willing to do. If they don't then sooner or later New Fleet WILL be imposed.... but the union can't cry when they had the oppurtunity to talk with BA...

[Golden Ticket]

By A Lurkers analogy only those who can get to the Houses of Parliament on election date would be entitled to a vote.

Also at the moment our 'democratic' process has allowed a government to be elected with only 40% in favour and this country provided with an unelected PM. Maybe the union is following current thinking on what is a democratic process.

This kind of thinking is what has allowed BASSA to run things for so long.

[wobble2plank]

A Lurker, CFC etc.

For the benefit of those who can't be bothered to trawl back over the past 200 pages where almost all of the questions are answered.

BASSA WERE given, along with BAPLA who's CC signed non disclosure agreements, the opportunity to view the confidential financial information about the company. Direct from the mouth of one of the BA BALPA Company Council who signed the NDA.

The BASSA Union representatives refused to sign hence were not given the opportunity. BAPLA were going to share figures with BASSA at a later date IF they agreed to sign the Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA). BASSA refused. Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) did the analysis on BA/BALPA's behalf (All accounts must be scrutinised by an agreed party after the signing of an NDA, which was probably the reason BA wouldn't allow your Vauxhall accountant, and haven't GM/Vauxhall done well over this recession!). BASSA refused to believe PwC's figures as well, citing the downturn as 'management spin' and PwC being in BA's 'pocket'.

BA announced the requirement to streamline and the fundamental change in the core business towards the end of 2008. The company were upfront about the crisis hitting the Airline industry and rightly so. They announced to ALL Unions that talks on cost cutting, redundancies and streamlining of T's & C's would begin with a deadline of 30th June 2009. This was to enable the company to go to the city with a confident Business Plan if BA needed more investment. BA clearly stated that if an agreement hadn't been reached by 30th June 2009 then CHANGES WOULD BE IMPOSED TO ALLOW THE COMPANY TO PROJECT FORWARD AND ACHIEVE A SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS PLAN.

Just about all Unions busied themselves canvassing members, assessing what was achievable, what the membership could live with and without, what the greatest impact would be and what savings could be met.

Except BASSA. BASSA held on to their stance throughout the run up to the deadline that they would only talk about the possibility of Compulsory Redundancy first and they would NOT entertain discussion on ANY OTHER POINT UNTIL THEY WERE SATISFIED THAT CR WOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED. BASSA claimed, quite correctly, that the preservation of jobs was their 'raison d'etre'. Sadly the 'pig headed' stance of not talking about any other possibilities was the one that got them into the difficulties they are experiencing now. Negotiation has always involved give and take, if one party will not give on the opening point of what to discuss the negotiation falls flat at the start posts.

BA informed BASSA that they could not give the CR guarantee and that a HR1 form had been submitted to the Department for Work and Pensions for a head count of 2000. Then began the BASSA spin machine. BASSA would not begin meetings with 'condescending' financial briefings. Unites Tony Woodly couldn't even be bothered to turn up to a meeting with the CEO of an international blue chip company. He sent his deputy. BASSA fell out with CC89 when they tried, in vain due to the BASSA stance, to broker a deal through ACAS.

The list goes on and on.

Just why do BASSA feel they are so special that BA should 'come back' to the table with a clean sheet?

Other departments are meeting their savings quota NOW. The CC quota, based upon the savings that can be realistically achieved within the department, is going up, and up and up and the time to achieve it is getting less and less and less the longer IFcE fails to agree its savings measure. Imposition was the only way that they were going to start paying off the savings figure.

Why has the CC department, IFcE, got more to pay? Simple, the successful BASSA campaign of throwing the smallest to the wolves (MAN,GLA,BHX,LGW etc.) has resulted in little or no change over the past 20 years or so at LHR. Therefore, LHR has more to give than all the other departments who have embraced change over those 20 years.

BASSA SHOULD have negotiated before 30th June 2009. BASSA should have canvassed membership opinion prior to 30th June 2009. BASSA should have adequately represented its membership with an agreement on pay, hours and New Fleet prior to 30th June 2009.

Now is too late.

All of the above is available through the company letters/newsbriefs on the state of negotiations, BASSA news letters if you can wade through all the rhetoric (and yes CFC, I'm sure the CC89 newsletters as well), the Unite/BASSA/CC89 newsflashes, BALPA newsletters, National Press and ACAS.

[IYCSWICSWICW]

Judging by the number of hits this thread is receiving, one can only hope that a good few BASSA members have now grasped the nub in this saga, ie, BASSA's inability/incapability/intransigence/stupidity....in negotiation; and, drawbridge up, siege mentality in response (medieval tactics in 2009 for Pete's sake ) .

..however, only 2 days ago, the team of 5 with me on a EF there and back were absolutely confident that BASSA is the shining beacon of moderation in all of this. Everyone else has been sold down the river and are the 'puppets' of Willie. All YES voters, and 2 were happy to see BA go bust rather then Willie have his management success. (Oh he we are tiring of this soundbite.)

..Breathtaking; however, you have to admire BASSA's ability to garner blind faith..


As Billie Jean King was heard to mutter under her breath at Wimbledon..'unbef**kinglievable'

GF

[SlideBustle]

Another post on the BASSA site from a rep has called people who vote no ''married to pilots'' and whatever the outcome of the ballot no voters should either resign from the union and stop every benefit we enjoy, or ''OBEY'' bassa's decision. They expect support from all members ''regardless of being married to flight deck''

[Juan Tugoh]

In fairness to BASSA, whether you vote no or yes it does not mean you should resign your union membership should the result of the vote go against your beliefs. There are many reasons for being part of a union regardless of a particular trade dispute.

If you feel so strongly that the union has led you up the garden path on a particular issue or that the leadership strategy/style is wrong do something about it - resign or stand for election and change the union from within.

[SlideBustle]

I know what you mean. I don't feel strongly against BASSA they actually do alot of good. I can't say whether they have led us up a garden path yet, if a strike was called then it could do good - however it could go horribly wrong. This is why I am so awfully disappointed and confused at the whole situation (don't forget I have only been in the company a couple of years) I have about 40 years 'til retirement (I want to do this job for a while and move up to PSR/CSD etc... don't know if I want to do it for 40 years but definately a while yet) so obviously I want the job to be sustainable... BA obviously can't sustain every T&C we have especially for future crew so I have no problem with change. Some people (including the 2000 people who showed their hands in June/July) do which poisons the union. Yes they do a lot of good, I would definately not want to resign and not be protected at all.... just I feel the whole no no no and militant culture needs to be stopped. As does the culture of shouting down/sending to coventry those who get into debate agreeing with BA/disagreeing with BASSA. It just ain't healthy!

I definately see what you are saying juan, just I really don't know where I stand in all this, so much (my career) at stake... I don't believe striking is the answer, particularly as BA are in financial trouble... it could very well mean the end of our careers. And the only thing imposed at the minute is the compliments.... new fleet is still up for negotiation. I would write to the union/post it on the forum to ask for them to look at alternatives but could you imagine the reply? lol

[Clarified]

Hello A Lurker

You said..

If New Fleet is imposed there will certainly be another round of meetings and ballots and a threat of IA will once again happen.

Your response seems to suggest that there is a question mark over whether 'New Fleet' will be coming.
Re read the communication from our company (6th Oct) about future crew.
I think it's totally clear.
Wouldn't you want that as item 1 if it was your list?
Is it excluded because may be it can't be challenged? (A reason to strike).
Surely that's more important than say item 12, working up pay?

[ArthurScargill]

..Breathtaking; however, you have to admire BASSA's ability to garner blind faith..

Not that hard to do :
Take a large group of individuals, install fear of change into them, ban free thinking and hey presto they will do whatever you tell them to.
Pol Pot managed it after all..