British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Guardian ...
As a long-serving BA cabin service director, I would like to make the point to our passengers that this is not simply about money for us. We are hugely concerned about safety. Fewer crew members on board has serious implications for our abilities to carry out mandatory safety-related duties, yet we are forced daily to attempt to comply to the same standards with fewer crew.
So next time you go to buy a ticket with British Airways, remember that the cabin crew so vilified and undermined by their own employer have also been attempting to ensure the best is maintained for you!
As a long-serving BA cabin service director, I would like to make the point to our passengers that this is not simply about money for us. We are hugely concerned about safety. Fewer crew members on board has serious implications for our abilities to carry out mandatory safety-related duties, yet we are forced daily to attempt to comply to the same standards with fewer crew.
So next time you go to buy a ticket with British Airways, remember that the cabin crew so vilified and undermined by their own employer have also been attempting to ensure the best is maintained for you!
The union cannot claim they are concerned about damaging the airline's reputation when its members are freely coming out with comments like this.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DP
You omitted the following letter which was also in The Guardian
Dispute over BA strike decision
The High Court decision to grant an injunction against Unite, over its
strike ballot at British Airways sets two dangerous legal precedents.
First, for a judge to take into account the level of disruption ensuing
from the action is not one that has a basis in law. A judge has to look
at the technical competence of the ballot and whether due diligence was
taken by the union in conducting the ballot. This primarily means: were
all the types and locations of workers that are likely to strike notified
to the employer.
Second, the number of those voting in the ballot who are no longer
employed by the company could not have materially affected the outcome of
the ballot. To judge otherwise is to interpret the law in a new way, for it is always the case that some workers who voted in a ballot may not be
around to take part in any strike action.
The law governing industrial action ballots was already onerous, despite
some well-intentioned recent reform by labour after lobbying from unions.
This interpretation in the BA case tightens the screw even more,
substantiating Unites claim that the ruling was a disgraceful day for
democracy.
Professor Gregor Gall (University of Hertfordshire)
Dispute over BA strike decision
The High Court decision to grant an injunction against Unite, over its
strike ballot at British Airways sets two dangerous legal precedents.
First, for a judge to take into account the level of disruption ensuing
from the action is not one that has a basis in law. A judge has to look
at the technical competence of the ballot and whether due diligence was
taken by the union in conducting the ballot. This primarily means: were
all the types and locations of workers that are likely to strike notified
to the employer.
Second, the number of those voting in the ballot who are no longer
employed by the company could not have materially affected the outcome of
the ballot. To judge otherwise is to interpret the law in a new way, for it is always the case that some workers who voted in a ballot may not be
around to take part in any strike action.
The law governing industrial action ballots was already onerous, despite
some well-intentioned recent reform by labour after lobbying from unions.
This interpretation in the BA case tightens the screw even more,
substantiating Unites claim that the ruling was a disgraceful day for
democracy.
Professor Gregor Gall (University of Hertfordshire)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA may have helped the Mail story by briefing off the record but like most news stories in the popular press, the Mail knew exactly what position it would take before it got any facts.
And what did you expect in terms of media coverage? You were closing to ruining Christmas for nearly 1 million passengers who, like everyone in the UK, have had a pretty rotten year. Papers like the Mail will always side with their readers.
In terms of public perception, the Mail coverage was pretty tame compared to what would have happened if the 12 day strike would have went ahead, at a time when there is usually a dearth of news coverage. The strike would have filled the 24 hour news channels and have been on the front pages of all the newspapers and you would have faced considerable public anger.
On Lord King and Colin Marshall, they ran BA in a completely different era - no LCC competition, no Open Skies (the treaty, not the airline), no competition from Emirates/Ethiad etc. When you could charge £400 (at old prices) for a short-haul flight, you didn't need to worry about your cost base. One of BA's many problems is that it has more nimble competitors and BA's is hamstrung by its cost base and working practices.
And what did you expect in terms of media coverage? You were closing to ruining Christmas for nearly 1 million passengers who, like everyone in the UK, have had a pretty rotten year. Papers like the Mail will always side with their readers.
In terms of public perception, the Mail coverage was pretty tame compared to what would have happened if the 12 day strike would have went ahead, at a time when there is usually a dearth of news coverage. The strike would have filled the 24 hour news channels and have been on the front pages of all the newspapers and you would have faced considerable public anger.
On Lord King and Colin Marshall, they ran BA in a completely different era - no LCC competition, no Open Skies (the treaty, not the airline), no competition from Emirates/Ethiad etc. When you could charge £400 (at old prices) for a short-haul flight, you didn't need to worry about your cost base. One of BA's many problems is that it has more nimble competitors and BA's is hamstrung by its cost base and working practices.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad that negotiations are perceived as the way forward. I have dug up the textbook on negotiating (Getting to Yes, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In) to reaffirm the basics for successful negotiation.
I always find that negotiations go wrong if the premise of either party is that one sides needs to lose in order for the other side to win. The positions (staffing levels, newfleet) are not as important as you think. They are mere representations of your interests, which I interpret as involvement, a satisfying work environment with the possibility of advancement and appropriate rewards (and they not always need to be financial).
If you can determine what the interests of the shareholders are you can maybe start to invent options for mutual gain. Apparently it is not about cutting Capex alone, otherwise the proposal by Unite would maybe have found a listening ear. I think they need more fundamental changes in order to survive. You need to establish which.
I would hire an experienced team of corporate negotiators who will first make inventory of all interests and try to find a win-win. Money better spend in 2010 than on a union (but that is an opinion, not a fact
).
Secondly you should have a representative in the board somewhere.
- Separate the people from the problem;
- Focus on interests, not positions;
- Work together to create opinions that will satisfy both parties;
- Invent options for mutual gain; and
- Insist on using objective criteria.
I always find that negotiations go wrong if the premise of either party is that one sides needs to lose in order for the other side to win. The positions (staffing levels, newfleet) are not as important as you think. They are mere representations of your interests, which I interpret as involvement, a satisfying work environment with the possibility of advancement and appropriate rewards (and they not always need to be financial).
If you can determine what the interests of the shareholders are you can maybe start to invent options for mutual gain. Apparently it is not about cutting Capex alone, otherwise the proposal by Unite would maybe have found a listening ear. I think they need more fundamental changes in order to survive. You need to establish which.
I would hire an experienced team of corporate negotiators who will first make inventory of all interests and try to find a win-win. Money better spend in 2010 than on a union (but that is an opinion, not a fact
).Secondly you should have a representative in the board somewhere.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Lurker
To preface this, a cursory glance at Mr Gall's previous writing will show he is a strong supporter of unions, on pretty much any matter.
Firstly, from what I can tell (from the digest), the judge didn't take the level of disruption into account when reaching a verdict that BASSA had acted illegally. The only point where the level of disruption was mentioned is in the remedy to the action, where it is decided that the grant of an injunction was more suitable than awarding BA damages.
Secondly there is a difference between "it is always the case that some workers who voted in a ballot may not be around to take part in any strike action," which implies incidental mistakes, and the deliberate actions of BASSA in breaking the law. Indeed, that is what the whole case came down to - the fact the union, and in particular Ms Malone, were fully aware of their initial error, yet continued to encourage ineligible voters to participate.
You omitted the following letter which was also in The Guardian
Dispute over BA strike decision
The High Court decision to grant an injunction against Unite, over its
strike ballot at British Airways sets two dangerous legal precedents.
First, for a judge to take into account the level of disruption ensuing
from the action is not one that has a basis in law. A judge has to look
at the technical competence of the ballot and whether due diligence was
taken by the union in conducting the ballot. This primarily means: were
all the types and locations of workers that are likely to strike notified
to the employer.
Second, the number of those voting in the ballot who are no longer
employed by the company could not have materially affected the outcome of
the ballot. To judge otherwise is to interpret the law in a new way, for it is always the case that some workers who voted in a ballot may not be
around to take part in any strike action.
The law governing industrial action ballots was already onerous, despite
some well-intentioned recent reform by labour after lobbying from unions.
This interpretation in the BA case tightens the screw even more,
substantiating Unites claim that the ruling was a disgraceful day for
democracy.
Professor Gregor Gall (University of Hertfordshire)
Dispute over BA strike decision
The High Court decision to grant an injunction against Unite, over its
strike ballot at British Airways sets two dangerous legal precedents.
First, for a judge to take into account the level of disruption ensuing
from the action is not one that has a basis in law. A judge has to look
at the technical competence of the ballot and whether due diligence was
taken by the union in conducting the ballot. This primarily means: were
all the types and locations of workers that are likely to strike notified
to the employer.
Second, the number of those voting in the ballot who are no longer
employed by the company could not have materially affected the outcome of
the ballot. To judge otherwise is to interpret the law in a new way, for it is always the case that some workers who voted in a ballot may not be
around to take part in any strike action.
The law governing industrial action ballots was already onerous, despite
some well-intentioned recent reform by labour after lobbying from unions.
This interpretation in the BA case tightens the screw even more,
substantiating Unites claim that the ruling was a disgraceful day for
democracy.
Professor Gregor Gall (University of Hertfordshire)
Secondly there is a difference between "it is always the case that some workers who voted in a ballot may not be around to take part in any strike action," which implies incidental mistakes, and the deliberate actions of BASSA in breaking the law. Indeed, that is what the whole case came down to - the fact the union, and in particular Ms Malone, were fully aware of their initial error, yet continued to encourage ineligible voters to participate.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Henkybaby i love your posts i think you are spot on with everything you write.
However in my experience working with most cabin crew NOT all but most .
Nothing is ever good enough you could hand them a million pounds and they would still complain . Oh it doesn't have a big red ribbon wrapped round it i'm calling the union, that is what your dealing with.
I did a nightstop last week and on the transport to the hotel one girl complained about how rude a passenger was to her on the flight etc.How it was unacceptable the way she was spoken to etc etc .When we arrived at the hotel the way she spoke to the receptionist was disgraceful .They are spoilt drama queens.
Nothing will ever satisfy them they complain about working Xmas,New Year,weekends they forget that they work for an airline.
WW should start new fleet and set the tone from the start .
However in my experience working with most cabin crew NOT all but most .
Nothing is ever good enough you could hand them a million pounds and they would still complain . Oh it doesn't have a big red ribbon wrapped round it i'm calling the union, that is what your dealing with.
I did a nightstop last week and on the transport to the hotel one girl complained about how rude a passenger was to her on the flight etc.How it was unacceptable the way she was spoken to etc etc .When we arrived at the hotel the way she spoke to the receptionist was disgraceful .They are spoilt drama queens.
Nothing will ever satisfy them they complain about working Xmas,New Year,weekends they forget that they work for an airline.
WW should start new fleet and set the tone from the start .
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WeatherMap,
I am sorry to disagree. If the cc constantly complain about their remuneration then something else is amiss in the company. They either are not appreciated enough in other than monetary terms or they do not feel like they are really part of the company. I do not dare guess but 'starting fresh' will most likely lead to the same problems since we are dealing with regular people.
In order for BA management to be able to get the changes they want they need to find out what has caused the cabin crew to feel this way. They need to establish their interests and acknowledge them.
It is a lost art to listen in order to understand. Most people listen in order to reply. One of the two parties needs to stop arguing and start listening. Whomever does that first will benefit the most. That is negotiation practice, not a belief.
I also wanted to say something about the way unions negotiate. Why are they so hell bound on a win-lose scenario? Why is it a fight? Unions were most effective in the time that the companies were also owned by management. In those times a strike would hurt management directly leading to speedy resolutions. That has brought a lot of good to many people, mind you!
Companies nowadays are no longer owned by individuals but by many shareholders who are not actively managing the company. So a strike no longer hits management personally. Shareholders won't easily get involved so the tactic of the strike has become ineffective. It is no longer a fight in the same ring.
The only way a strike can possibly work nowadays if it affects the public. Whether or not that is fair is not up to me, but it does mean that a strike today needs public support.
Back to the wonderful art of negotiating though.
Successful negotiation also requires respect for the other's views even if you don't agree with them or even understand them.
I am sorry to disagree. If the cc constantly complain about their remuneration then something else is amiss in the company. They either are not appreciated enough in other than monetary terms or they do not feel like they are really part of the company. I do not dare guess but 'starting fresh' will most likely lead to the same problems since we are dealing with regular people.
In order for BA management to be able to get the changes they want they need to find out what has caused the cabin crew to feel this way. They need to establish their interests and acknowledge them.
It is a lost art to listen in order to understand. Most people listen in order to reply. One of the two parties needs to stop arguing and start listening. Whomever does that first will benefit the most. That is negotiation practice, not a belief.
I also wanted to say something about the way unions negotiate. Why are they so hell bound on a win-lose scenario? Why is it a fight? Unions were most effective in the time that the companies were also owned by management. In those times a strike would hurt management directly leading to speedy resolutions. That has brought a lot of good to many people, mind you!
Companies nowadays are no longer owned by individuals but by many shareholders who are not actively managing the company. So a strike no longer hits management personally. Shareholders won't easily get involved so the tactic of the strike has become ineffective. It is no longer a fight in the same ring.
The only way a strike can possibly work nowadays if it affects the public. Whether or not that is fair is not up to me, but it does mean that a strike today needs public support.
Back to the wonderful art of negotiating though.
Successful negotiation also requires respect for the other's views even if you don't agree with them or even understand them.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by romans44
Tiramisu I respect the fact that you voted no and respect your views too..But I think you must respect the fact that over 91% of CC don't agree with you.Only 700 or so people voted no..Surely that must mean something...
This is not about what is good for the individual, in my opinion that is a bit selfish, this is about what is good for the majority of the comunity...if we
were to fight for what each and everyone of us wants we would be forever arguing. Don't you agree?
Tiramisu I respect the fact that you voted no and respect your views too..But I think you must respect the fact that over 91% of CC don't agree with you.Only 700 or so people voted no..Surely that must mean something...
This is not about what is good for the individual, in my opinion that is a bit selfish, this is about what is good for the majority of the comunity...if we
were to fight for what each and everyone of us wants we would be forever arguing. Don't you agree?
Both you and I know that a lot of crew who voted YES have little or no understanding to why they they did that. As a CSD I talk to my crew and this has come out in conversation. Most of them are so scared and all just want to get on with the job. Some of them have never seen or met a Rep, let alone go to a Union meeting. All the information they have is based on the literature sent out by BASSA. One of my crew had a VOTE YES TO STRIKE sticker on her crew handbag which I asked to be removed. I asked her how she got it if she'd never met a Rep before, to which she replied that while walking in CRC, someone thrust a fistful of these stickers in her hand.
My point is that these young innocent crew voted No on the basis of what little they read and are fed from BASSA. Some have never read BA NEWS, Cabin Crew News or their ESS messages from the company, not having a balanced view. I can only conclude that majority were following sheep, doing just what others did as many have said to me. I see it all the time. It's like a religious sect, BASSA has become a religion that crew are following without knowing what's good or right about it.
Is bringing BA down to it's knees by one section of the workforce good for the majority of the airline's employees? In my opinion, that is what I call selfish.
I am BA cabin crew and the above represent my views and not those of my employer's.
Last edited by Tiramisu; 19th Dec 2009 at 12:24. Reason: Punctuation
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
weather map are you a CC member?
it saddened me when I read post like yours?
I would never dream to pass judgement on a comunity of people based on the action of a few.
If are a pilot, may I just say this:
How many times I have seen pilots taking food from passenger, how many times I have seen pilots getting off an aircraft before passengers, because they have a tight connection, How many times I heard pilot talking about passengers on a crew bus, how many times I have seen pilots being rude to receptionists around the world. Still ,I don't pass judgement based on the actions of the few.
This forum should not be about being rude to our colluegues but about discussing this critical situation.
it saddened me when I read post like yours?
I would never dream to pass judgement on a comunity of people based on the action of a few.
If are a pilot, may I just say this:
How many times I have seen pilots taking food from passenger, how many times I have seen pilots getting off an aircraft before passengers, because they have a tight connection, How many times I heard pilot talking about passengers on a crew bus, how many times I have seen pilots being rude to receptionists around the world. Still ,I don't pass judgement based on the actions of the few.
This forum should not be about being rude to our colluegues but about discussing this critical situation.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did a nightstop last week and on the transport to the hotel one girl complained about how rude a passenger was to her on the flight etc.How it was unacceptable the way she was spoken to etc etc .When we arrived at the hotel the way she spoke to the receptionist was disgraceful .They are spoilt drama queens.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arbeit Macht Frei
It has been on the news that this sign has disappeared from above Auschwitz concentration camp.
Will it appear above the entrance to CRC I wonder?
It has been on the news that this sign has disappeared from above Auschwitz concentration camp.
Will it appear above the entrance to CRC I wonder?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
henkybaby,
They did until a couple of years ago. That was one of the reasons we're in the state we're currently in. "Empire building" is the most succinct description. Thankfully, the gentleman in question has retired and thanks to the requirements of EU-OPS, for the first time in years Flight Operations now have control of safety and operational aspects of the cabin crew role.
Secondly you should have a representative in the board somewhere.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Henkybaby
You've made some excellent and thought-provoking posts recently, trying, it appears, to really move this thread along and up, onto a somewhat higher plain.
The kind of employee-engagement to which you allude, should, I imagine, be every employers and employees utopian dream. (Although it's possible that it would result in so much talking, that everything else would grind to a halt)
You say that BA needs to find out why their employees feel this way, and to establish their interests and acknowledge them. While it's very clear that it's going to take one "side" to make the first move, I don't quite see why the employer should be the one to do so.
The few occassions on which BA has tried to "engage" have mainly been met with derision and doubt. I'm talking here of the online surveys put-out by IFCE in the past few months, In-Touch days, Speak-Up Surveys etc. Crew managers phoning their team members seems to result in the same .... even though the most recent occassion in my case was my manager just wanting to tell me about the possibility for me to register my intent to work through the strike .... NOT to ask if I was going to.
I think the kind of thing you are talking of could maybe come around if the initative was to be taken by the employees themselves. As far as I can tell, very few of us make any effort to "engage" with the company beyond the simple act of turning-up to work.
Take for example the the recent changes to crew complements and onboard catering. Despite all the information being readily available both in printed form and online, I encountered a lot of crew turning-up to briefings without any of the new info and then arguing about working positions and the delivery of the service.
Likewise with SEP. Why am I sitting in a briefing with a crew member being asked "What are the two types of decompression incident?" to which the reply was, after a bit of mumbling, "Teapot".
I worked recently with one very pro-union crew member happily telling me that from now on they are only going to do the service "exactly as it's written because of the way this company treats us", and then NOT taking jackets, handing-out menus or magazines, offering a choice of main course meal, or 2nd teas/coffees. When challenged, he "couldn't be bothered."
The point I'm trying to make is that if employees are not prepared, or able, to engage with the most basic details of their job, then why should the company feel inclined to move-on to the softer and nicer side of employee relations?
I was derided the other day for picking-up a copy of BA News. The other crew seemed happy to almost boast that they never bother with that c*$p.
There are so obviously some very very deep divides within BA. The one that I seem to teeter on the edge of most often though is the one between those of us who hold-true to what we said at our recruitment interview, and those who, once in the door, lazily kicked-off whichever cloak they had worn to theirs.
my views belong only to me
You've made some excellent and thought-provoking posts recently, trying, it appears, to really move this thread along and up, onto a somewhat higher plain.
The kind of employee-engagement to which you allude, should, I imagine, be every employers and employees utopian dream. (Although it's possible that it would result in so much talking, that everything else would grind to a halt
)You say that BA needs to find out why their employees feel this way, and to establish their interests and acknowledge them. While it's very clear that it's going to take one "side" to make the first move, I don't quite see why the employer should be the one to do so.
The few occassions on which BA has tried to "engage" have mainly been met with derision and doubt. I'm talking here of the online surveys put-out by IFCE in the past few months, In-Touch days, Speak-Up Surveys etc. Crew managers phoning their team members seems to result in the same .... even though the most recent occassion in my case was my manager just wanting to tell me about the possibility for me to register my intent to work through the strike .... NOT to ask if I was going to.
I think the kind of thing you are talking of could maybe come around if the initative was to be taken by the employees themselves. As far as I can tell, very few of us make any effort to "engage" with the company beyond the simple act of turning-up to work.
Take for example the the recent changes to crew complements and onboard catering. Despite all the information being readily available both in printed form and online, I encountered a lot of crew turning-up to briefings without any of the new info and then arguing about working positions and the delivery of the service.
Likewise with SEP. Why am I sitting in a briefing with a crew member being asked "What are the two types of decompression incident?" to which the reply was, after a bit of mumbling, "Teapot".
I worked recently with one very pro-union crew member happily telling me that from now on they are only going to do the service "exactly as it's written because of the way this company treats us", and then NOT taking jackets, handing-out menus or magazines, offering a choice of main course meal, or 2nd teas/coffees. When challenged, he "couldn't be bothered."
The point I'm trying to make is that if employees are not prepared, or able, to engage with the most basic details of their job, then why should the company feel inclined to move-on to the softer and nicer side of employee relations?
I was derided the other day for picking-up a copy of BA News. The other crew seemed happy to almost boast that they never bother with that c*$p.
There are so obviously some very very deep divides within BA. The one that I seem to teeter on the edge of most often though is the one between those of us who hold-true to what we said at our recruitment interview, and those who, once in the door, lazily kicked-off whichever cloak they had worn to theirs.
my views belong only to me
Last edited by TorC; 19th Dec 2009 at 14:00. Reason: disclaimer added
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good old gregor
Ah Gregor Gall, I see his views haven't changed much since the early 1990s when as a loyal SWP member he did his upmost to disrupt the democratic activity of the UMIST student union.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ romans44
You posted " 91% of cc voted in favour ... "
Look , if you are going to use numbers you have to get them correct.
What you posted is completely wrong - see below for explanation.
1) 92 % ( not 91% ) who voted, voted yes
2) Only 80% of those union-members entitled to do so voted ( per what I have read in several papers )
so only 73% ( 80% of 92% ) of eligible BASSA members voted to strike and not 91% as you posted . PLEASE NOTE THAT.
Since there is no BASSA closed-shop, there is a non-union element ( I don't know how large ) but the reality of the matter is that it is likely reduces the YES vote even further , so probably only 60%- 65% ( my supposition/guesstimate) of cc voted to strike.
That is still a moderate majority, but I hope you see that it is not the crushing number highlghted in speeches by devious people who are happy to shout " ..92 %" .........whilst never, ever wanting to say "92 % of what ..."
I'm pretty sure you'll agree that that number will drop even further in a new ballot when less-convinced members are faced witha real twelve-day strike ?
You posted " 91% of cc voted in favour ... "
Look , if you are going to use numbers you have to get them correct.
What you posted is completely wrong - see below for explanation.
1) 92 % ( not 91% ) who voted, voted yes
2) Only 80% of those union-members entitled to do so voted ( per what I have read in several papers )
so only 73% ( 80% of 92% ) of eligible BASSA members voted to strike and not 91% as you posted . PLEASE NOTE THAT.
Since there is no BASSA closed-shop, there is a non-union element ( I don't know how large ) but the reality of the matter is that it is likely reduces the YES vote even further , so probably only 60%- 65% ( my supposition/guesstimate) of cc voted to strike.
That is still a moderate majority, but I hope you see that it is not the crushing number highlghted in speeches by devious people who are happy to shout " ..92 %" .........whilst never, ever wanting to say "92 % of what ..."
I'm pretty sure you'll agree that that number will drop even further in a new ballot when less-convinced members are faced witha real twelve-day strike ?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiramisu, I'd like to quote what you are saying but I still don't know how to do it.
Been told that there should be some buttoms on top of the square but I see nothing.
In reply to you ,I would like to say that yours is a huge assumption and it makes very sad that a CSD has such view on CC.
As main crew I always look up to CSD for leadership and guidance, to think what a low opinion you have for the majority of crew makes me wonder what it would be like working with you.
How can you rely on your crew, especially in an emergency, when you have such low opinion of your crew..
I am very proud to be part of such diverse comunity made up of ex doctors,nursers, policemen/women, teachers, supermarket workers and so on.
I mean!!!! Look at your reply to my second post. You have no problem in confirming what wheather map is saying and yet you make no comment on what I said.
I'd expect that next thing you will be telling me is that you never seen a pilot being rude, getting off the aircraft before our customers and so on.
I am begining to wonder whether you are a CSD now.
Been told that there should be some buttoms on top of the square but I see nothing.
In reply to you ,I would like to say that yours is a huge assumption and it makes very sad that a CSD has such view on CC.
As main crew I always look up to CSD for leadership and guidance, to think what a low opinion you have for the majority of crew makes me wonder what it would be like working with you.
How can you rely on your crew, especially in an emergency, when you have such low opinion of your crew..
I am very proud to be part of such diverse comunity made up of ex doctors,nursers, policemen/women, teachers, supermarket workers and so on.
I mean!!!! Look at your reply to my second post. You have no problem in confirming what wheather map is saying and yet you make no comment on what I said.
I'd expect that next thing you will be telling me is that you never seen a pilot being rude, getting off the aircraft before our customers and so on.
I am begining to wonder whether you are a CSD now.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by romans44
Tiramisu, I'd like to quote what you are saying but I still don't know how to do it.
Been told that there should be some buttoms on top of the square but I see nothing.
Been told that there should be some buttoms on top of the square but I see nothing.
Hey romans44
The easiest way to quote someone is cut and paste what you want to quote into the reply to thread window.
Then highlight the quote and then look along the top edge of the message window, you should see a number of buttons - one of them looks like a speech bubble - select this!
