British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The management can sack who they like - senior cabin crew? The first 50? Bassa reps?
Actually, I don't think they will sack anyone arbitrarily. I think they'll be able to find a few hotheads who will step out of line, against union instructions, and they'll be shown the door pretty sharpish and in a public manner. Staff travel will be stopped too for all in the short term, and with the threat of long term removal for strikers (precedent set in various other areas). The worst threat before the strike occurs, will be reserved for those who plan to call in sick. Pattern sickness will be the excuse that the company will use in order to suspend all those who are too scared/skint/reluctant to strike, but who are too scared of union retribution to go to work.
All in all, it will quickly turn nasty - people are used to BA being one of the most touchy feely companies in the UK to work for, and they'll get a shock when they see how they can be dealt with in the real world of big business.
Bassa seem to portray this strike as a risk free, cost free exercise. In reality, there's a lot of risk attached, and it's going to cost cabin crew dearly.
Actually, I don't think they will sack anyone arbitrarily. I think they'll be able to find a few hotheads who will step out of line, against union instructions, and they'll be shown the door pretty sharpish and in a public manner. Staff travel will be stopped too for all in the short term, and with the threat of long term removal for strikers (precedent set in various other areas). The worst threat before the strike occurs, will be reserved for those who plan to call in sick. Pattern sickness will be the excuse that the company will use in order to suspend all those who are too scared/skint/reluctant to strike, but who are too scared of union retribution to go to work.
All in all, it will quickly turn nasty - people are used to BA being one of the most touchy feely companies in the UK to work for, and they'll get a shock when they see how they can be dealt with in the real world of big business.
Bassa seem to portray this strike as a risk free, cost free exercise. In reality, there's a lot of risk attached, and it's going to cost cabin crew dearly.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker,
I've just realised that you edited your post 4061... Wouldn't it have been easier to let me (and the rest of people here) know when I kept asking about question 3?
Anyways, as some might not have seen your response, here it is:
Well, this looks to me like the union's proposal. I did ask for what your (as an individual) cost ideas were. I'm guessing here, but I get the feeling we'll never know.
By the way, the above "proposal" has been proven not to hold water, and even the union has admitted that. I'll give you an example as to the £60 million "saving" for a new disruption agreement. What Bassa included in that figure was hotel accomodation for stranded passengers, transport and other items that doesn't come out of the IFCE budget. Therefore, it was pretty much ripped to shreds by PWC.
Gg
I've just realised that you edited your post 4061... Wouldn't it have been easier to let me (and the rest of people here) know when I kept asking about question 3?
Anyways, as some might not have seen your response, here it is:
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
Last edited by A Lurker : 5th December 2009 at 09:43.
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 behalfLast edited by A Lurker : 5th December 2009 at 09:43.
By the way, the above "proposal" has been proven not to hold water, and even the union has admitted that. I'll give you an example as to the £60 million "saving" for a new disruption agreement. What Bassa included in that figure was hotel accomodation for stranded passengers, transport and other items that doesn't come out of the IFCE budget. Therefore, it was pretty much ripped to shreds by PWC.
Gg
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: france
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you saying a Purser with 20 years in the company calls in sick on the strike,gets sacked illegally as they have a doctors certificate or was in hospital on the day and wins his case for unfair dismissal in court and after 2 years gets paid 12 grand damages 
? There has to be a mistake there otherwise BASSA would tell us.
? There has to be a mistake there otherwise BASSA would tell us.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamgirl
You said
"I've just realised that you edited your post 4061... Wouldn't it have been easier to let me (and the rest of people here) know when I kept asking about question 3?"
If you can remember I said that I would answer that question when I had the time to do so - the fact that you couldn't be bothered to check that I had answered is your short coming not mine
Also you say:
By the way, the above "proposal" has been proven not to hold water, and even the union has admitted that. I'll give you an example as to the £60 million "saving" for a new disruption agreement. What Bassa included in that figure was hotel accomodation for stranded passengers, transport and other items that doesn't come out of the IFCE budget. Therefore, it was pretty much ripped to shreds by PWC
Can you provide me with the link thats says the Union said it didn't hold water and a link to where PWC ripped it to shreds??????
"I've just realised that you edited your post 4061... Wouldn't it have been easier to let me (and the rest of people here) know when I kept asking about question 3?"
If you can remember I said that I would answer that question when I had the time to do so - the fact that you couldn't be bothered to check that I had answered is your short coming not mine
Also you say:
By the way, the above "proposal" has been proven not to hold water, and even the union has admitted that. I'll give you an example as to the £60 million "saving" for a new disruption agreement. What Bassa included in that figure was hotel accomodation for stranded passengers, transport and other items that doesn't come out of the IFCE budget. Therefore, it was pretty much ripped to shreds by PWC
Can you provide me with the link thats says the Union said it didn't hold water and a link to where PWC ripped it to shreds??????
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would a fairer outline response to BASSA members not have been .....
Q. Can BA legally sack me for going on strike?
A. Absolutely not. The law is clear if you are on a lawful strike within 12 weeks of when it was called.
If BA does dismiss you in this period, you will have an automatic right to unfair dismissal and BA will be penalised and have to pay an amount of compensation to anybody that they dismiss on this basis.
While the law allows a maximum payment of £66,000, in order to give a realistic picture of the law and compensation, this equates to about £12,000 for a 42 year old purser who has served 20 years and who is on £30,000 basic. There may be a wait for this payment of up to 2 years until the court case is heard. BA can not be forced to re-employ you at the end of the court case.
Probably not.
WOULD I BE PREPARED TO TAKE THAT CHANCE AS A RESULT OF WHAT THE COMPANY HAVE IMPOSED ON ME????????
Probably not.
Q. Can BA legally sack me for going on strike?
A. Absolutely not. The law is clear if you are on a lawful strike within 12 weeks of when it was called.
If BA does dismiss you in this period, you will have an automatic right to unfair dismissal and BA will be penalised and have to pay an amount of compensation to anybody that they dismiss on this basis.
While the law allows a maximum payment of £66,000, in order to give a realistic picture of the law and compensation, this equates to about £12,000 for a 42 year old purser who has served 20 years and who is on £30,000 basic. There may be a wait for this payment of up to 2 years until the court case is heard. BA can not be forced to re-employ you at the end of the court case.
DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT BA WILL ACT ILLEGALLY??????
WOULD I BE PREPARED TO TAKE THAT CHANCE AS A RESULT OF WHAT THE COMPANY HAVE IMPOSED ON ME????????
Probably not.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is very touchy ground but, to put it simply, BASSA are NOT telling their members the whole truth.
If, and it's a big if, BA decided to terminate someones contract IT WOULD NOT BE ON THE BASIS THAT THEY TOOK STRIKE ACTION!
If you do not turn up to work on the day of IA and you are rostered to work then you are IN BREACH OF YOUR CONTRACT. Simple.
The nitty gritty will be argued out at tribunal later but BA WILL NOT BE SACKING YOU FOR TAKING PART IN IA THEY WILL SACK YOU FOR NOT WORKING YOUR ROSTER AS AGREED.
What you do when you are not at work is irrelevant to BA neither is what you do when you 'skip' a days work. All they are interested in is the fact that they can conduct their business as planned.
Are you really willing to take the risk to protect a bunch of life timer CSD's on their massive pay packets at the top of BASSA?
If, and it's a big if, BA decided to terminate someones contract IT WOULD NOT BE ON THE BASIS THAT THEY TOOK STRIKE ACTION!
If you do not turn up to work on the day of IA and you are rostered to work then you are IN BREACH OF YOUR CONTRACT. Simple.
The nitty gritty will be argued out at tribunal later but BA WILL NOT BE SACKING YOU FOR TAKING PART IN IA THEY WILL SACK YOU FOR NOT WORKING YOUR ROSTER AS AGREED.
What you do when you are not at work is irrelevant to BA neither is what you do when you 'skip' a days work. All they are interested in is the fact that they can conduct their business as planned.
Are you really willing to take the risk to protect a bunch of life timer CSD's on their massive pay packets at the top of BASSA?
Sly Lowlife Freight
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAW175
And to all the “normal” people or occasional passengers here, please butt out. As said before, this is a Cabin Crew thread. If you want to give your 50p’s worth in, go to the Mail or Sun. Looking at your comments, this is where you belong anyway.
And to all the “normal” people or occasional passengers here, please butt out. As said before, this is a Cabin Crew thread. If you want to give your 50p’s worth in, go to the Mail or Sun. Looking at your comments, this is where you belong anyway.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: france
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tough decision if you happen to be rostered for a trip that departs on day 1of the strike knowing the vast majority of your co workers are sitting smug in the enviable position of being on days off/holiday/down route.Also there will be others reporting as normal perhaps.:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to reply to Desertia but the post has disappeared.
I think that at the moment BASSA are trying to get a large yes vote to strike and are not pointing out the downside deliberately.
They can then frighten BA with that large yes vote.
However, past history shows that, if a strike is actually called, not many will go on strike.
I think BASSA haven't grasped the nettle that BA are not going to roll over and their bluff will be called.
Now, what do BA do
Suspend all the sick takers on basic pay pending the outcome of a pattern sickness disciplinary - some will go.
Unfairly dismiss the trouble makers - probably make a concession to take most of them back when BASSA concede they have lost.
Remove staff travel for a period of time, say one year, from all strikers - bad luck if your a commuter.
These items will be advised to cabin crew by BA when a strike is called, only adding to BASSA's problem of getting people to go on strike.
I think BASSA haven't got a long term plan in all of this and that is evidenced by where we are today.
I think that at the moment BASSA are trying to get a large yes vote to strike and are not pointing out the downside deliberately.
They can then frighten BA with that large yes vote.
However, past history shows that, if a strike is actually called, not many will go on strike.
I think BASSA haven't grasped the nettle that BA are not going to roll over and their bluff will be called.
Now, what do BA do
Suspend all the sick takers on basic pay pending the outcome of a pattern sickness disciplinary - some will go.
Unfairly dismiss the trouble makers - probably make a concession to take most of them back when BASSA concede they have lost.
Remove staff travel for a period of time, say one year, from all strikers - bad luck if your a commuter.
These items will be advised to cabin crew by BA when a strike is called, only adding to BASSA's problem of getting people to go on strike.
I think BASSA haven't got a long term plan in all of this and that is evidenced by where we are today.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Finncapt
I was thinking much the same, but my question is this:
What do BASSA expect to achieve from a YES vote and subsequent strike?
WW has already stated that he will NOT back down, BASSA have stated much the same. So my own personal deduction is that the wnner in all this will be the party with the deepest pockets.
Or have I missed something?
What do BASSA expect to achieve from a YES vote and subsequent strike?
WW has already stated that he will NOT back down, BASSA have stated much the same. So my own personal deduction is that the wnner in all this will be the party with the deepest pockets.
Or have I missed something?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Getting sacked for striking
Funny thing just happened - my Postman just walked up my driveway and made a delivery - yes the same Postman who was on strike a few weeks ago. Oh and Tube trains still seem to be running.....
Once again I 100% believe that BA will never sack a person illegally.
Once again I 100% believe that BA will never sack a person illegally.
What do BASSA expect to achieve from a YES vote and subsequent strike?
The threat of IA appears to be just that - a threat in the hope that BA would back off. But as many have posted here, their bluff has been called and now some sort of cack-handed face saving exercise is underway - "Oh dear, looks like we will have to ballot ..... what then?"
Unfortunately, that is what you get when the members of a union don't pay close attention to who they are electing as reps, and allowing said reps to play personal power games once elected.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lurker, I don't think they will either, but the point is that they could if they felt forced into it. It's unethical to tell people otherwise.
In other news, I notice the BA's London City Business-only operation is already making a profit - 10 weeks after it started.
"...the service is profitable in terms of its load factor, a measure of seat occupancy, which is “better than breakeven.”"
Yet more reason for the shareholders to be satisfied with Wicked Willie.
Full article here:
BA says business-only NYC route in black - European, Business - Independent.ie
In other news, I notice the BA's London City Business-only operation is already making a profit - 10 weeks after it started.
"...the service is profitable in terms of its load factor, a measure of seat occupancy, which is “better than breakeven.”"
Yet more reason for the shareholders to be satisfied with Wicked Willie.
Full article here:
BA says business-only NYC route in black - European, Business - Independent.ie
Last edited by Desertia; 10th Dec 2009 at 09:23. Reason: Article Link
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I've no particular admiration for BASSA tactics, I think it is strange that the knock on costs of diversions in passenger accommodation etc. aren't counted to cost savings. Also has no one counted the reduced cost of HOTAC, 15/16 down to 14 saves between 5 and 10% on the hotels budget.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there will be others reporting as normal perhaps.:
In response to the question about what do BASSA hope to achieve with IA, I'm afraid the honest answer is they don't know as they do not have a plan. If they have a plan, then they certainly haven't told us, the members, about it. They are relying, somewhat foolishly, on the vein hope, as A Lurker and others have demonstrated, that WW will back down and negotiate. The diehards truly believe that. It beggars belief that the Union could lead people down this path to destruction, without a Plan B.
Who knows what will happen. The only thing cabin crew can do is inform themselves of all the facts, the main one being that if you strike you are in breach of your contract. The imposition of crew complements is in the courts, so if you go on strike and the courts rule that it is not contractual, then what? Has the strike been illegal?
Ask yourself this - why are we having a strike at all? The imposition in the courts is due to be heard in February. Why not wait until February and then, if and when the courts decide if it is contractual or not, negotiations could begin. But BASSA chose not to wait. Why not? There is nothing to be gained now from striking, because ultimately the decision is in the hands of the courts. The fact is striking and winding people up is the only thing that BASSA can do. It is their last clutch at the straw of power. They know they are doomed, so they want to fire this parting shot.
It's over BASSA. Over for you and, if you're not careful, it will be over for all of us. I give up now. We have done as much as we can to inform cabin crew to be very careful about which way they vote. Please be very careful about going on strike and read all the facts about it from both sides.
Beyond that, if people are on a mission to self-destruct, there appears to be little else we can do. I shall watch them cheering at Sandown on Monday, with my head in my hands.
I am BA Cabin Crew and the above represents my own personal viewpoint and not that of BA.
malcolmf,
Such things are, of course, all cost savings! However, BASSA was using all the money saved from any diversion as a a saving from the cabin crew budget - wrong!
For example, if an aircraft diverts then the landing fees, parking charges, extra fuel are all costs incurred, but they are borne by other budgets, not that of the cabin crew. But BASSA thought it was a good wheeze to claim all savings (by re-rigging their disruption agreement) made by not diverting as their own - clearly that is nonsense! However, it is indicative of BASSA's muddled thinking.
HiFlyer14,
That was probably a rhetorical question, but for the benefit of others who may not know - BASSA forced it's own hand by calling for a strike ballot. It declared earlier (threatened,in other words) that it would immediately ballot for strike if anything was imposed. BA called it's bluff, imposition occurred (because BASSA wouldn't negotiate) so in a self-defeating attempt to save face it has balloted.
Does BASSA know what happens during and after said ballot/strike? Like heck it does!
I think it is strange that the knock on costs of diversions in passenger accommodation etc. aren't counted to cost savings.
For example, if an aircraft diverts then the landing fees, parking charges, extra fuel are all costs incurred, but they are borne by other budgets, not that of the cabin crew. But BASSA thought it was a good wheeze to claim all savings (by re-rigging their disruption agreement) made by not diverting as their own - clearly that is nonsense! However, it is indicative of BASSA's muddled thinking.
HiFlyer14,
Why not wait until February and then, if and when the courts decide if it is contractual or not, negotiations could begin. But BASSA chose not to wait. Why not?
Does BASSA know what happens during and after said ballot/strike? Like heck it does!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again I 100% believe that BA will never sack a person illegally.
What the concern is is that BASSA have supplied their membership with a definitive statement that is, potentially, incorrect.
Do you not feel that ALL options, possibilities and outcomes. however unlikely, should be laid before the membership before making such a momentous decision?
Sadly that isn't and never has been the BASSA way.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And
In my view the recent Royal Mail dispute has nothing to do with ours. (Incidently, during the strike days I saw lots of postman, posting and Royal Mail lorries and vans bombing around)!
I think it's about the company believing it has the right (as a last resort), to bring in change in areas it thinks it only needs to consult on, (non contractual).
Contractual issues around pay and leave do require negotiation with the trade unions but don't form part of this dispute (crewing levels are pending trial). No pay or leave is changing. (The company has made an offer around consolodating variable pay, they are not imposing it and have only suggested it because crew asked fot it)!
It's an item for future negotiation.
The company will be able to demonstrate that it has tried very hard to consult what ever happens.
Also, re. the what happens if list of stuff from the Union.
I understand an employer can give 90 days notice of contractual change, as has been the case in loads of other deparments.
So, it can change your contract if proper guidlines are followed.
For strikers; dismissal is an option, but not legal (as said before). If you do strike you are definately in breach of contract, where does that leave your old contract if you return?
If the company wanted to lockout strikers I would imagine the easy way would be to deactivate their ID cards.
Lockouts, can really concentrate the mind, it gives some control back to the company, creates a lot of uncertainty and is perfectly legal. (The company does have to add on lockout days when totaling up the 12 week period when they can then dismiss strikers legally).
Will the union cover pay for lock out days?
I have always understood that staff travel is non contractual, however as said before a test case may prove otherwise.
That does not stop the company putting an embargo on all staff travel, for all staff when ever the company wants. It has done this in the past and I am sure it will again. It has to provide as many seats as possible for customers who are disrupted.
Anyone know anything different from the above?
Can anyone shed some light on the law/process around freezing a ballots result in order to delay taking strike action within the required 4 weeks?
So it can be taken at a later stage.
(As usual all my thoughts in response to previous posts. They do not represent my employer or any other party)
I think it's about the company believing it has the right (as a last resort), to bring in change in areas it thinks it only needs to consult on, (non contractual).
Contractual issues around pay and leave do require negotiation with the trade unions but don't form part of this dispute (crewing levels are pending trial). No pay or leave is changing. (The company has made an offer around consolodating variable pay, they are not imposing it and have only suggested it because crew asked fot it)!
It's an item for future negotiation.
The company will be able to demonstrate that it has tried very hard to consult what ever happens.
Also, re. the what happens if list of stuff from the Union.
I understand an employer can give 90 days notice of contractual change, as has been the case in loads of other deparments.
So, it can change your contract if proper guidlines are followed.
For strikers; dismissal is an option, but not legal (as said before). If you do strike you are definately in breach of contract, where does that leave your old contract if you return?
If the company wanted to lockout strikers I would imagine the easy way would be to deactivate their ID cards.
Lockouts, can really concentrate the mind, it gives some control back to the company, creates a lot of uncertainty and is perfectly legal. (The company does have to add on lockout days when totaling up the 12 week period when they can then dismiss strikers legally).
Will the union cover pay for lock out days?
I have always understood that staff travel is non contractual, however as said before a test case may prove otherwise.
That does not stop the company putting an embargo on all staff travel, for all staff when ever the company wants. It has done this in the past and I am sure it will again. It has to provide as many seats as possible for customers who are disrupted.
Anyone know anything different from the above?
Can anyone shed some light on the law/process around freezing a ballots result in order to delay taking strike action within the required 4 weeks?
So it can be taken at a later stage.
(As usual all my thoughts in response to previous posts. They do not represent my employer or any other party)
Last edited by Clarified; 10th Dec 2009 at 12:01.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for ALurker
ALurker,
I know you are keen to engage in the debate, so perhaps you can answer for us one very simple question? (with just a yes/no answer if you like)
Do you accept that IFCE has to make permanent cost savings, like the other departments?
Thanks.
I know you are keen to engage in the debate, so perhaps you can answer for us one very simple question? (with just a yes/no answer if you like)
Do you accept that IFCE has to make permanent cost savings, like the other departments?
Thanks.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Europe
Age: 53
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth I don't think BA will be sacking anyone either. My opinion is that BA are attempting to use the 'moral high ground' to win this argument. They have to be able to show they have done everything possible to come to an agreed settlement, so plenty of negotiations, ACAS, various offers etc. Whether you agree that they have actually done this is another matter, BA will stand up in court and persuasively argue that they have ticked every box but to no avail, leaving them no choice but to impose.
Sacking striking workers would, as has been mentioned, be illegal. Unlike the price fixing which was obviously meant to be kept quiet, there could be no illusions that such a course of action would remain unreported for any time - it would be all over the mail/sky news as soon as it happened. This, in my opinion, does not fit with the way they are playing the situation.
I'm sure they will play hard ball if strike dates are announced - crew will be informed in blunt language what they will lose - ALL pay for strike days, staff travel etc. Arguments about staff travel being contractual are irrelevant. BASSA state that 'a test case would need to be brought'. Not that they are in the process of doing it, just that it would need to be done. How many months would it take to prepare and fight this case? Even if you win, that's still months without staff travel for all strikers and organisers (BASSA Chair included). Of course it is normal in these cases to agree the re-instatement of any lost perks as part of the return to work deal, whenever that is...
All crew reporting sick can expect to be treated with suspicion and will need to prove it. This will be seen as harsh treatment by those genuinely ill, those who think BA is a tough employer now will be surprised how much harder they are when you decide to withdraw your labour.
Just my opinion of course, we'll have to wait and see.
Sacking striking workers would, as has been mentioned, be illegal. Unlike the price fixing which was obviously meant to be kept quiet, there could be no illusions that such a course of action would remain unreported for any time - it would be all over the mail/sky news as soon as it happened. This, in my opinion, does not fit with the way they are playing the situation.
I'm sure they will play hard ball if strike dates are announced - crew will be informed in blunt language what they will lose - ALL pay for strike days, staff travel etc. Arguments about staff travel being contractual are irrelevant. BASSA state that 'a test case would need to be brought'. Not that they are in the process of doing it, just that it would need to be done. How many months would it take to prepare and fight this case? Even if you win, that's still months without staff travel for all strikers and organisers (BASSA Chair included). Of course it is normal in these cases to agree the re-instatement of any lost perks as part of the return to work deal, whenever that is...
All crew reporting sick can expect to be treated with suspicion and will need to prove it. This will be seen as harsh treatment by those genuinely ill, those who think BA is a tough employer now will be surprised how much harder they are when you decide to withdraw your labour.
Just my opinion of course, we'll have to wait and see.