British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations

[Carnage Matey!]

Originally Posted by am i bothered

1. The deadline for the 30th June was a self imposed deadline. The fact that more talks are scheduled for the end of the month concludes the fact that talks will go beyond this date. The reason being apart from engineers and pilots no deal has been struck with the other departments.

The June 30th deadline was imposed by Keith Williams so he could go to the capital markets with a funding proposition before they shut up shop for the summer. He was succesful, but only on the basis of his business plan delivering all the savings it detailed. You can stall the talks all you want but the £350M BA needs to survive is only coming when you deliver all your savings in full. Dragging talks out only means you have to save the money over a shorter period of time: more pain for you.

As for the union being made to look foolish for turning up for talks after this date I beg to differ. It was broadcasted on sky news that one side didnt turn up even though we are supposedly in a fight for survival. This was repeated through out the morning until they decided to call in Acas.

Nobody who matters was fooled by that little stunt. ACAS were not called in as a consequence of your TV charade.

Why were ACAS called in before a failure to agree had been registered??

Because the negotiation period was up. BA does not dance to your unions tune.

2. Acas are not coming to impose a solution. Correct me if I am wrong but both sides I thought had to agree for the findings to binding.

ACAS never were coming to impose a solution. They were there to facilitate talks, but once your union has made it clear it won't agree to the targets then ACAS can do no more. BA, on the other hand, have ticked another box on the SOSR checklist.

3. SOSR is something I dont know too much about but am keen on researching it further. An alternative proposal has been offered which believe it or not offers a lot of savings and improved productivity. The issue here is not the amount of savings but how the savings are to be achieved.

Well you'd better learn fast. See my previous point. The BASSA proposal delivered a third of the savings BA wants. The issue most definitely is the amount of the savings, as well as how they are achieved.

4. Forced redundancies could be imposed but this is a very messy area as this prohibits further recruitment for a minimum period and could seriously hamper the operation when extra man power is required.

BA aren't going to be recruiting for some time. Almost certainly longer than any prohibited period as a result of CR. If they are short of manpower they'll just operate the flights with reduced crew levels. Do you really think existing crew levels are going to be in place like they are now after this is over?

5. If we are in so much dire straits as this thread suggests then why would a strike fund be necessary. A company that has been offered in excess of 150 million in savings turns it down then is prepared to utilize a war chest is not fighting for survival.

Because you've only offered £50M and the company needs £173M. The strike fund is an investment in the companys survival. If the company isn't to end up like GM then it needs to force change, and that may require money.

If employees are dismissed for taking part in legal strike action then this will back fire and the strike I presume will continue until all are re instated just like what happened at Total.

Do you know what actually happened at Total? It doesn't seem like it. How many months do you think the die hards will stay out on strike without pay when so many crew are drifting back to work. There's barely any serious appetite for anything more than a protest ballot at the moment.

Also with regards to the external audit if this was as one sided as some seem to think, then why was this not plastered all over corporate media channels??

Do you mean the PWC audit? Why would it need to be? You've all been told individually by email, no need to trumpet it. Are you seriously trying to suggest that because it wasn't on the front page of the BA News that it must have been false?

Also talks were not stonewalled as some describe. Alternative offers were presented yet one side refused to budge one iota.

BASSAs counteroffer (in the last two days of the three weeks talk period) was laughable. Absolute peanuts of savings, as the PWC audit confirmed. Why should BA budge? The bottom line is you have to save the cash they want, not what you want.

Also with regards to them being well prepared. I beg to differ. Terminal 5 need I say any more

BAs lawyers weren't responsible for T5.

What would the defence be for SOSR??

The company is losing money faster than it can earn it and unless the savings are made the company will go bust. It's the best defence there is. It's the only defence. And BA have ticked every box in the negotiation checklist to show a High Court judge they've been reasonable.
Notification period? Check.
Talks with the union? Check.
Consulation with staff? Check.
ACAS involvement? Check.
Talks with senior union officials? Check.

It would have been used time and time again if it was that simple.

It's not that simple. You have to prove the company may go under to justify it. This is a worse time for the industry than 9/11. Even Easyjet and Ryanair are taking a hammering. Now is the time they can convince an impartial outsider of the necessity for change.

The legal team are responsible for making sure everything is above board and then advise the membership accordingly. Unites legal team are known to be one of the best in the business.

No, they are not. Good lawyers don't work for trade unions on low salaries. What Unites lawyers do know is when BA has them by the balls over the Gate Gourmet dispute, the statute of limitations for which is unexpired. What they should also know is the SOSR rules, something which BASSAs reps clearly do not. I expect when the Unite lawyers give them the low down on how BASSAs conduct has holed any defence against SOSR below the waterline we'll see a few reps leaving to spend more time with their families.

[Flap33]

Ok, I will give you my opinion on a couple of other points you raise.

With regard to redundancies, BA have announced and are going to operate 8 fewer 747s this winter, 8 fewer 767s and a small number of 737/757, in total 22 aircraft out of approximately 280. Any company can make excess staff redundant, BA have too many Cabin Crew for the new sized operation. I guess they could carry the excess crew by spreading out the work and filling the rosters with standby/24 hour but that would hit your take-home. Just in case you haven't been made aware, BA has filed an HR1 form for 100 pilot redundancies - you see, it's not just Cabin Crew.

Don't mention to the average man on the street that there are members of Cabin Crew that regularly earn £45K+, and that even a post-1997 joiner can expect to make in the region of £30K once allowances are added in. I bet that Mr Joe Average might consider that a wee bit excessive.

The support for a strike is the million dollar question, I doubt very much given the state of the economy, the jobless total currently heading for 2.5milion that there is much appetite from the masses to strike and risk it all for the benefit of so few (remember 60% of the wages budget goes to 25% of the crew). Equally, BASSA have traditionally held strike ballots then caved in at the 11th hour, ala 2007.

The BASSA proposal was fiction, £60M for the disruption agreement - they must have been rolling around on the floor when that was presented to them.

Is that a better effort?

[am i bothered]

So why were Acas are called in before a failure to agree has been registered?? Before the talks have formerly ended?? Strange??

If they decided that talks were over then why the need for ACAS if they were not prepared to alter their position. I

think you have contradicted yourself. On one side your saying they were not prepared to negotiate any further and on the other your saying they called in ACAS as they wanted to reach a solution. You cant call in ACAS if you are only prepared to have it your way and your way alone.

50 million?? More like 150 million??

Why were unites accountants excluded from the audit??

You know as well as I do that anything that goes in the companies favor will be plastered all over the media machine.

[Carnage Matey!]

Not strange at all. In fact entirely normal. ACAS can help facilitate talks. They can't do that if talks have ended, can they?

As for £150M savings, I think we all know the PWC figures revealed the true value of BASSAs proposal. £60M from the disruption agreement? It was such a ludicrous suggestion it was almost pitiful.

[am i bothered]

It is very strange to call in ACAS before there is break down in talks. One side wanted to continue the other did not so ACAS were called in. Before a formal failure to agree was registered.

Why call in ACAS if you are not prepared to alter your position or negotiate??

[Juan Tugoh]

you have picked on the one area of weakness in my posting

Not so, actually you were dealt with in a fairly restrained manner. There are several weaknesses in your posting not least is the oft repeated lie that BASSA offered £150Million of savings - they didn't it was, when properly costed, only £54Million.

Next is SOSR and forced redundancy. Its apples and oranges. You would not be made redundant if SOSR is employed. A new contract will be issued, if you fail to sign it you will be deemed to have resigned. The company will stop paying you and you will have to go an industrial tribunal and claim unfair dismissal. All the company has to do is to tell the court that the actions that it has taken are, in the company's view, essential to it's survival and voila you will lose the unfair dismissal claim. It gets worse - whether the company was in a fight for survival or not is irrelevant, only that company believe it is in fight for survival.

So you will have resigned - no pay off, no on-going staff travel and a pension only at 55,60 or 65 based on years served to date.

If BASSA has not told you this stuff you are being badly served.

Next why the fighting fund - well that is fairly straightforward. The lawyers at the industrial tribunals will need to be paid as will the lawyers that go after BASSA for an illegal strike if they deviate one iota from the law. Keep it in mind that sick outs will not work this time either as the new contract will still start irrelevant of your sickness record and BA would be well within their rights to examine very closely any sickness on notified strike dates. Absenting yourself without due and legal reason is called Gross Misconduct and has a worse outcome than resigning.

Think on these things and look at what BA has done over the summer. Although not required it will be easy for BA to prove to a court that it firmly believes it is a fight for survival. All the moves have been carefully taken - do you really think WW working for free and asking others to do the same was just a stunt? Wake up and smell the coffee - you are being played and BASSA is not keeping you well informed.

Oh one other thing - recruitment, as no-one will have been made CR there will be no ban or time limit on when recruitment can start up again.

I am firmly on the side of all our CC, you should attempt to keep your T&Cs as much as is possible. However, you must wake up and start serious negotiating to save what you can or the imposition will be fierce.

[I-said_no]

AIB, I would not bother disputing crew matters with a large percentage of members on this forum. I am sure you know by now that most crew are SFG or FD, the very people who hate us for our agreements. Is it any of their business that pre97's can earn £40,000, do I complain about a seniour pilot retiring on a £100,000 pension.

We all know that when it comes to the crunch that there will be a massive walkout at LHR. You only need a handful of crew to go sick and BA's operation falls to bits. Think about what would happen if only a few hundred crew did not turn up.

I cannot understand why people are against fighting for what they are entitled to, are we expected to let willi steamroller us without a fight.

I do think a lot BA staff will be shocked by the number of crew who are willing to go on strike. I myself would rather be sacked then be made to take up BA's propsal and I guess that would also apply to about 6000 crew who are seniour to myself.

[Flap33]

CM and JT both make very good points.

It is not too late for the BASSA members to lobby their union, better still UNITE and DEMAND proper representation that actually reflects the opinions of its members. The majority of crew I have spoken with accept that they may have to work a little harder in order to maintain their money. BASSA say NO....

Every day we are getting closer to a legal imposition of new Terms and Conditions, SOSR will be used and there will very little that BASSA can do about it.

Come on guys, start THINKING for yourselves.

[Hotel Mode]

I myself would rather be sacked then be made to take up BA's propsal and I guess that would also apply to about 6000 crew who are seniour to myself.

The answer to BAs prayers. They would be chuffed to bits with that result.

They could easily crew most of the reduced operation with the remaining 8000 using minimum crew/max hours for the few months it would take to get 3000 or so more crew to take up the slack.

[sunnysmith]

This is just so frustrating

I Said No,

I am sure you know by now that most crew are SFG or FD

Well, I'd love to know how you figured that out on an anonymous forum!!! I get the impression that a lot of people are also WW or EF crew - they are just asking intelligent questions and are expecting intelligent answers in return!

the very people who hate us for our agreements.

At the risk of being rude: NO BODY HATES YOU, grow up!!!!

Is it any of their business that pre97's can earn £40,000, do I complain about a seniour pilot retiring on a £100,000 pension

Yes it is our business, simply because it's not competitive in today’s market. Also, you may not complain about our 'pilots' remuneration but I'm sure that a lot of your envious colleagues do - not that it matters and not that you care but it's called market forces!!

We all know that when it comes to the crunch that there will be a massive walkout at LHR

Yeah well if that's what you think then fine. However, almost all our friends including my partner will not walk out! Not a scientific poll granted, but I have to say all the crew I've met recently don't believe BASSA is doing a good job. That's not to say they agree with what BA is trying to do, it's just that they know what it's like in the real world!

I cannot understand why people are against fighting for what they are entitled to

First of all, as we keep getting reminded on CF..... no one is 'Entitled' to anything. You earn your salary and have agreements that will be honoured as long as is feasible. Unfortunately for us ALL, things are becoming less and less feasible these days!
Secondly, no one is against you 'fighting', it's just we would rather intelligent debates and intelligent negotiations from BASSA then just simple 'fighting'.

I myself would rather be sacked then be made to take up BA's propsal

Ahh yes the intelligent response. Let's all get ourselves sacked so we earn no money in a world economic crisis rather than 'demeaning' ourselves for working for 'slave wages'. I hope you have been looking for a new job, because if you haven't I think you're going to be in for a nasty shock. Apparently unemployment is still rising in the UK - but you may have missed that in all the BASSA publications.

I guess that would also apply to about 6000 crew who are senior to myself

Of those 6000, how many are counting on VR (I know a few - and I'm sure they are much more senior than you mate!). Also I think you'll find that that is exactly the group of CC that BA would like to, as you so eloquently put it, 'sack'.

After the very mature replies to my last post from Flying Chick (remember me 'DARLING') I couldn't be bothered to contribute to this discussion anymore. However I am becoming more and more frustrated at how you 'senior' chaps are literally playing with the careers of my partner and our those of our friends!

so once again, lets have some intelligent answers to the intelligent questions that have been asked of you and your union!

SS

[Ancient Observer]

Juan's post is a very accurate possible scenario.

I do hope that it is freely available on the BASSA web-site, all BA CC web-sites, and that all reps are reminding staff about it.

I say that as there is another bit of law that needs to be factored in. All reps have a duty of Care to all of the people that they represent.

If a rep told me the sorts of terminological inexactitudes that are being put on this thread, and I found out that they even vaguely suspected differently, and if I suffered a loss - I'd be after that rep in court pdq.......and I'm saying that on advice from a Unite National Full Time official.

As to the Total case, it was so different as to be not comparable in any way. To start off with Total were not the employer af anyone involved. They were all - everyone of them - employed by contractors.

[Nutjob]

I-said_no

We all know that when it comes to the crunch that there will be a massive walkout at LHR. You only need a handful of crew to go sick and BA's operation falls to bits. Think about what would happen if only a few hundred crew did not turn up.

Oh heck.

1. You DON'T know there will be a massive walkout at LHR as no-one has done a proper survey - a survey where the emphasis is on "only say yes, if you are 100% prepared to actually go out on strike over this, NOT sick-out, not just SAY you'll go to give BA a scare, not sneak into work etc etc".

Those hoping for VR have no motivation to strike, those hoping for part-time are depending on a solution agreeable to BA, many don't belong to a union and have no protection if they strike, many are SFG and don't care, many don't believe BASSA have played this right, many are CC89, many won't have the balls to go out, many will believe that BA are asking too much but won't risk their entire future by striking.

2. If crew go "sick" they'll likely find themselves sacked. There was a really good reason why BA were so determined to introduce EG300.

3. BA's operation will probably not fall to bits unless huge percentages of crew don't turn up for work. They already have spare capacity. Refer to BA's required reduncancies - they alone account for over 13% of the crew community. So you'll need around 13% before you really start to have an effect.

4. Even if the above wasn't the case then BASSA could still (and probably will) be hit with a challenge as to the legality of the strike. If BA play the "see you in court" card, then you can't strike until it's resolved. Unless, of course, you and other sacrificial lambs decide to sick-out or strike illegally and teach BA a lesson. In which case, you'll achieve nothing and be sacked.

I do think a lot BA staff will be shocked by the number of crew who are willing to go on strike. I myself would rather be sacked then be made to take up BA's propsal and I guess that would also apply to about 6000 crew who are seniour to myself.

Really? People with mouths to feed, mortgages to pay, debts to service will truly give it ALL up, rather than accept BA's proposals? The next step in their master plan would be what? To go get a job doing what, where? There's a recession on if you talk to anyone except our union. Of course, the overqualified elite like our (now disappeared) PiB will get a job the next day. The mortals amongst us won't.

If you really want to take the bet or the "guess" that what you say above is correct, then I'd hedge MY bets that you'd be out of a job. I hope you have a Plan B.

[Human Factor]

Think about what would happen if only a few hundred crew did not turn up.

BA want 2000 redundancies. That would probably reduce the requirement to 1500 or so.

[saintjoseph]

fwiw- even though there is still a "hold pool" for potential cabin crew, training for new crew is still ongoing. (from a trainer's mouth yesterday, and is rostered certainly next month). there are a lot of lhr crew who will not strike. there are a lot of lhr crew who are not members of bassa. there are a lot of lhr crew who just do the job and go home and couldn't give a monkeys about the politics. lgw will not strike, some may go sick, but there won't be a mass walkout. (i'd put my mortgage on it, and my children's!). which begs the question, if lhr do strike, it's not unanimous and it's not going to cripple the company... it might cause it to stumble a bit, but it's a quiet time of year... so if you are used to £40k pa, and you find yourself without a job, and no pension, no staff travel etc ask yourself is it worth it just to keep people who've had the cream for years 2 have it a little bit longer, rather than take vr and bow out gracefully. coz the reality is you'll work a bit harder, that's it. if you have secondees from lgw on your flights talk to them! they're not subhumans living off scraps and working in a call centre on their day off. they get by, with a smile, and get the same if not better gpm results than their colleagues on the golden runways!!!

[am i bothered]

The problem here is that whilst change has been offered and in part is inevitable trying to change everything over night in one foul swoop will only result in failure. As I said before what we need is a buy in not a macho man contest which will can only be very damaging.

The disruption agreement is probably the biggest issue in the talks. The company seem to be running the operation at a knife edge at the moment with no slack in the system whatsoever. Under the Operational recovery procedure this will continue and if its one thing people need its control why should peoples days off continue to change at the behest of the company?? People have lives outside work and its unreasonable to be on flexible rosters whenever demanded so as to allow this farce to continue.

Now 60 million has been quoted in previous times of disruption?? You cant have it both ways. If the savings do not even come close then why has 60 million been quoted in previous times of disruption.

Also this may not be the case at LGW but any strike at Heathrow will be widely supported. Many commuters will not be able to continue flying if all the changes come in with out negotiation. Some of you may say well its not all about commuters. Very true and that would be normal to state that fact. However if someone signs a contract that enables them to commute, to pull the rug from under their feet will only result in conflict. Just like anyone else who has mouths to feed, a mortgage to pay. Change has to be negotiated with benefits for all parties, give and take. Take take take is only going to result in one thing. A strike with the vast majority in support.

Lets hope a solution can be found so everyone can move on. At the moment there is an article stating that any dispute could cost in excess of 300 million. Not the best quality paper granted but never the less a solution needs to be found.

[wee one]

yada yada yada.
enuff said
lets just wait and see shall we.

[747-436]

Now 60 million has been quoted in previous times of disruption?? You cant have it both ways. If the savings do not even come close then why has 60 million been quoted in previous times of disruption.

This has been answered numerous times. The £60 million disruption cost is the lost revenue, compensation paid out and all the other costs associated with it. As has been explained on here the £60 million in the union proposal took in to account those costs where as the actual cost associated with the crew in disruption is a lot smaller and not £60 million. It was a small percentage.

So the union proposal would NOT save £60 million in times of disruption.

[Nutjob]

AiB

Lets hope a solution can be found so everyone can move on. At the moment there is an article stating that any dispute could cost in excess of 300 million. Not the best quality paper granted but never the less a solution needs to be found.

Problem is, the IFCE savings alone would save BA that in less than two years if they push through their changes. I'm betting they feel more than a little motivated. In fact, it's a no-brainer. They ARE going to get us. As I've stated many times before, I'd rather we'd pushed for a more agreeable solution than SOSR will impose upon us.

[am i bothered]

As stated before I dont know too much about SOSR

If people would like to give examples of when it has been used in the past so in essence providing mini case studies it would make very interesting reading.

The argument here is not really the amount of savings give or take a few million its how the savings are to be achieved. So logic would tell me that SOSR would be extremely difficult to apply in this case.

Also with regards to the disruption agreement. If 60 million has been quoted before due to lost revenue and changes have been made to prevent double night stays on inbound diversions then the figure can not be a million miles away.

Also why were Unites accountants not involved in the audit??

[Carnage Matey!]

The argument here is not really the amount of savings give or take a few million its how the savings are to be achieved. So logic would tell me that SOSR would be extremely difficult to apply in this case.

Give or take £100 million! BASSAs savings are nothing like the money BA wants or needs. SOSR would not be an issue when such a gulf exists.

Also with regards to the disruption agreement. If 60 million has been quoted before due to lost revenue and changes have been made to prevent double night stays on inbound diversions then the figure can not be a million miles away.

As has been said before, £60M is the total cost of the disruption. Not the cabin crew costs of disruption. You can only claim back your own costs. 2 nights HOTAC and a diversion payment doesn't add up to £60M.

Also why were Unites accountants not involved in the audit??

I'd heard they wouldn't sign the confidentiality agreement.