British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sort of like the proposal to go on strike for 12 days over Christmas then, eh
We were told at a branch meeting that this time we were not going out on strike for one or three days...
When you vote to support industrial action you do not vote for the lenght of the strike but you vote because you will support the union in an industrial action. It is as simple as that.
Surely you must know that.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sort of like the proposal to go on strike for 12 days over Christmas then, eh?
Oh. Hang on.
Oh. Hang on.
That makes the vote totally pointless. The vote is about whether to strike or not. You then hope(!) that your union is not stupid enough to choose such an emotive time such as they did.
As a union member you have to accept that not every single thing will be put to the vote - otherwise nothing would ever be achieved. By paying your subs, you are agreeing that the union executive has some autonomy over certain things.
You are putting your trust (and your money) in the union. The fact of the matter is, had BASSA conducted a legal ballot, the resulting decision to strike over the 12 days of Christmas was extremely short sighted.
Throughout this farce BASSA have shown themselves not only to be incompetent (illegal ballot), but also short sighted (proposed date of strike), and arrogant/unremorseful (bleatings about the judgement in court etc). If members of BASSA have not realised by now that the union has abused the trust on so many levels, then there really is no hope.
Cabin Crew need to stop and think - you are paying these people money!! Is BASSA providing you, the Cabin Crew, with the leadership and support you deserve?
Some Cabin Crew are bleating on about BA screwing them over, yet they are happy to contribute to screwing each other over by accepting BASSA at face value. FFS think!!! The least you can do is call for an extraordinary AGM to vote on a no confidence motion wrt your executive!
A union is only as strong as its membership. Unfortunately often the union executive seem to think that they are what matters. What matters is the members - you have the power, don't be led like donkeys by people who haven't done an honest days work in years!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you vote to support industrial action you do not vote for the lenght of the strike but you vote because you will support the union in an industrial action. It is as simple as that.
Without having the right to say "Hold on a minute, have you thought this through?".
I have to say I would vote NO if it meant letting former members of the communist party (fact), other left wing individuals with their own political and personal agendas (fact), and a bunch of amateurs who have demonstrated their complete lack of understanding of both trade union and employment law, as well as public support (arguable, but you'd better have a good argument), make decisions without my approval which could very well cost me my job.
But that's just me. The criteria in the previous paragraph can all be substantiated again, but the relevant facts are all to be found on the previous thread, so I won't clutter this thread up with reposts of information available in the public domain.
One of the things I've noticed in this dispute is that the Cabin Crew community seem determined that everyone else in the company should make sacrifices before they do.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Hi runway vacated,
in one word, YES it is...
Bassa's proposal would have been put to the membership and voted on by us the members.
If we the members did not like it, we would;ve had a chance to turn it down.
Tha's how democracy works"
However, that is not how democracy works in business. One share, one vote at AGMs and EGMs.
in one word, YES it is...
Bassa's proposal would have been put to the membership and voted on by us the members.
If we the members did not like it, we would;ve had a chance to turn it down.
Tha's how democracy works"
However, that is not how democracy works in business. One share, one vote at AGMs and EGMs.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, because again I don't know enough about BASSA's constitution.
Are BASSA members permitted to request that the membership vote on such things at AGMs or EGMs?
Does this have to be in writing before the event, or can it be brought up at the meeting by any member?
Would the Sandown meeting be considered an EGM, or is there nothing to stop BASSA convening a meeting and not only deciding what is on the agenda, but what can be voted on?
Was there an "Any Other Business" item on the agenda for Sandown, and would anyone have been able to ask for a show of hands on who agreed with the 12 Days of Christmas strike plan? (I only ask if you would be able, willing to do so with the hardcore around is a separate issue).
Because if none of these recourses were available, it doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Are BASSA members permitted to request that the membership vote on such things at AGMs or EGMs?
Does this have to be in writing before the event, or can it be brought up at the meeting by any member?
Would the Sandown meeting be considered an EGM, or is there nothing to stop BASSA convening a meeting and not only deciding what is on the agenda, but what can be voted on?
Was there an "Any Other Business" item on the agenda for Sandown, and would anyone have been able to ask for a show of hands on who agreed with the 12 Days of Christmas strike plan? (I only ask if you would be able, willing to do so with the hardcore around is a separate issue).
Because if none of these recourses were available, it doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been following this story for months and made one post, my first, a few days ago. I am SLF, I fly BA, but have no connection with BA or travel industry in any way. Just two points I would like to make:
1. I cannot believe the attitude that some CC have towards pax.
2 To those CC who support the idea of industrial action, think on this. In this modern world that we live in, competition has never been at the level it is now. If BA cannot compete with all the other airlines out there economically, then there will be no BA. That is fact, no matter what way you try to look at it. So the CC community either realise that things have to change, or accept that you are driving BA to the wall and you are going out of a job. It is not BA's fault that competition is the way it is, that's the way of the world. All other industries have to cope with this and change, why are BA CC exempt from this?
True Blue
1. I cannot believe the attitude that some CC have towards pax.
2 To those CC who support the idea of industrial action, think on this. In this modern world that we live in, competition has never been at the level it is now. If BA cannot compete with all the other airlines out there economically, then there will be no BA. That is fact, no matter what way you try to look at it. So the CC community either realise that things have to change, or accept that you are driving BA to the wall and you are going out of a job. It is not BA's fault that competition is the way it is, that's the way of the world. All other industries have to cope with this and change, why are BA CC exempt from this?
True Blue
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really can't leave you children alone for one minute...
...now can I?
I am sitting at the AMS BA Lounge reading this while waiting for my flight and I am amazed at how quickly things are becoming nasty again. Is there nobody out there who can rise above him/herself?
All this:
"I am right because xxxx"
"You are wrong, let me prove it by yyyy"
is so boring.
Let me go Dr. Phil on your @sses and ask:
Play nice. There is no point - I repeat: NO POINT! - in trying to convince the other side arguing positions this way and it is even worse to argue them into a corner and gloat. If any of you think that approach is the resolution, let me tell you that I am happy you are not negotiating for either side. We are not in kindergarten here...
The problem happens to be that all parties are stuck in this blame game and unless someone manages to break with tradition we be here till hell freezes over (if it not already has, that is... brrr, it's cold!).
If we - on this forum - cannot even reach some kind of understanding towards each other (and understanding comes before resolution!) than how do BASSA and BA Management stand a chance?
Here is an exercise for you! Try and politely give a voice to the other's side argument for a while. Don't be clever and make ridiculous statements because then you are making your own argument again, just in a different manner. Sincerely try to reason the other position (or preferably interests).
So ALurker is now very much against BASSA and IA to reach a solution and Desertia is now pro union and pro strike.
Let me conclude that I find it utterly uncivilized to make fun of people's point of view like is being done to ALurker and Romans44. I commend them since without them there would not even be a debate and most of you would simply be preaching to the choir.
Regarding the heated posts that may appear on crew forums: who hasn't let off steam in his life? These are emotional times and closed forums should not be seen as an indication how people will behave while on duty. Respect their right to privacy I would say.
I am sitting at the AMS BA Lounge reading this while waiting for my flight and I am amazed at how quickly things are becoming nasty again. Is there nobody out there who can rise above him/herself?
All this:
"I am right because xxxx"
"You are wrong, let me prove it by yyyy"
is so boring.
Let me go Dr. Phil on your @sses and ask:
How has this been working for you so far?
The problem happens to be that all parties are stuck in this blame game and unless someone manages to break with tradition we be here till hell freezes over (if it not already has, that is... brrr, it's cold!).
If we - on this forum - cannot even reach some kind of understanding towards each other (and understanding comes before resolution!) than how do BASSA and BA Management stand a chance?
Here is an exercise for you! Try and politely give a voice to the other's side argument for a while. Don't be clever and make ridiculous statements because then you are making your own argument again, just in a different manner. Sincerely try to reason the other position (or preferably interests).
So ALurker is now very much against BASSA and IA to reach a solution and Desertia is now pro union and pro strike.
Let me conclude that I find it utterly uncivilized to make fun of people's point of view like is being done to ALurker and Romans44. I commend them since without them there would not even be a debate and most of you would simply be preaching to the choir.
Regarding the heated posts that may appear on crew forums: who hasn't let off steam in his life? These are emotional times and closed forums should not be seen as an indication how people will behave while on duty. Respect their right to privacy I would say.
A Lurker
I have just received a 'round robin' text message advising me that the Judge who heard the Injunction last week is flying BA in the future and a specific date was given. The texter asked me to pass it on as ''something is terribly wrong here''
I find this a mildly threatening to the Judge and could effect the care of her in the cabin the said flight, and I have passed this info to an approptiate BA dept.
I am not CC but retired BA FC, and the text was sent to me by one of my CC friends in error.
The subject of possible conflict of interest was covered in previous postings. In Chambers before the case was heard all the Judges available to take this case at short notice, had travelled or were travelling on BA in the future,lots of people do, or did before this proposed IA!
A conflict of interest was not therefore deemed to be present.
I find this a mildly threatening to the Judge and could effect the care of her in the cabin the said flight, and I have passed this info to an approptiate BA dept.
I am not CC but retired BA FC, and the text was sent to me by one of my CC friends in error.
The subject of possible conflict of interest was covered in previous postings. In Chambers before the case was heard all the Judges available to take this case at short notice, had travelled or were travelling on BA in the future,lots of people do, or did before this proposed IA!
A conflict of interest was not therefore deemed to be present.
henkybaby for sainthood
Henkybaby.
If you are Netherlands based and CHOOSE to fly BA you must have the patience of a saint. I would choose not to fly BA. But on the whole I would like the choice of BA or not BA to remain open to us in the future. I fear it may not.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
English
AL,
English is a language rich in imagery, with many words having more than one meaning or shade of meaning. 'Sanction,' for example, has two completely disparate meanings.
In the dictionary, following the medical definition of the word cancer, another definition is shown:
• figurative: a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil or destructive and hard to contain or eradicate
By the way, I lost both my parents to cancer.
Aye,
Neppie
English is a language rich in imagery, with many words having more than one meaning or shade of meaning. 'Sanction,' for example, has two completely disparate meanings.
In the dictionary, following the medical definition of the word cancer, another definition is shown:
• figurative: a practice or phenomenon perceived to be evil or destructive and hard to contain or eradicate
By the way, I lost both my parents to cancer.
Aye,
Neppie
LHR27C,
In post #94 you stated:
I'd like to expand on that. The quote used by A Lurker, whom you addressed your post to, was apparently taken from the BBC. The trouble is, it was truncated, changing its meaning somewhat (whether that truncation was by the BBC or A Lurker, I can't say). The full sentence is (missing text in italics):
The judge could have allowed BA to claim for damages, had the illegal strike occurred, but the financial damage to BA would have been immense, but a damages claim against Unite and BASSA would have utterly bankrupted both those unions. The judge saved the union's sorry arses, averted illegal disruption to the travelling public, and allowed BA to keep its schedules on fairly reasonable track (even though some damage was done). BASSA and Unite should be grateful they were given an opportunity to reflect on their incompetence.
And who knows, BA might have sued named individuals as being central to the whole fiasco. Nothing to say they won't still do that.
In post #94 you stated:
You can read exactly that passage in the High Court documentation released after the hearing, and posted by flapsforty at the beginning of this thread
Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and to the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.
And who knows, BA might have sued named individuals as being central to the whole fiasco. Nothing to say they won't still do that.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, in fact the judge is flying BA in the near future and only found in BAs favour to keep her flight flying, then why dosen't BASSA/UNITE appeal??
If she found for BA due to a conflict of interest and then failed to disqualify herself, or failed to get agreement from BOTH parties that she was fit to hear the case BASSA/UNITE have a valid reason to get the ruling overturned.
Why the whisper campaign, text messages and conspiracy theories. Facts are Facts, test them in a court of law. Stop spreading rumours like a bunch of 7 year olds in the play ground.
It could also be fact that BASSA/UNITE are casting libelous and unfounded rumours for thier own purpose. No doubt if the judge does feel she had been wronged by these comments, the not very anoymous members of CF will find themselves are the wrong end of a lawsuit.
BA won an an injuction and the strike is off.. Deal with it.. Move on. You have another chance to ballot and BASSA/UNITE and BA have a chance to negotiate.
If BOTH sides are reasonable and have adult discussions, there is no reason this cannot be resolved. No preconditions.
CB
PS is anyone else totally flabergasted at BASSA/UNITES demand for £400,000 per week, rather than re-instating the crewing levels?!?! I though a crew off was a saftey issue?!?!? Obviously one that can be resolved with a supply of cold hard cash. Also what part of BAs requirement to save £140m does an extra payment of £400k per week satisfy... What planet are these guys from?
If she found for BA due to a conflict of interest and then failed to disqualify herself, or failed to get agreement from BOTH parties that she was fit to hear the case BASSA/UNITE have a valid reason to get the ruling overturned.
Why the whisper campaign, text messages and conspiracy theories. Facts are Facts, test them in a court of law. Stop spreading rumours like a bunch of 7 year olds in the play ground.
It could also be fact that BASSA/UNITE are casting libelous and unfounded rumours for thier own purpose. No doubt if the judge does feel she had been wronged by these comments, the not very anoymous members of CF will find themselves are the wrong end of a lawsuit.
BA won an an injuction and the strike is off.. Deal with it.. Move on. You have another chance to ballot and BASSA/UNITE and BA have a chance to negotiate.
If BOTH sides are reasonable and have adult discussions, there is no reason this cannot be resolved. No preconditions.
CB
PS is anyone else totally flabergasted at BASSA/UNITES demand for £400,000 per week, rather than re-instating the crewing levels?!?! I though a crew off was a saftey issue?!?!? Obviously one that can be resolved with a supply of cold hard cash. Also what part of BAs requirement to save £140m does an extra payment of £400k per week satisfy... What planet are these guys from?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: AT the bottom of your garden
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the judge commented on the timing of the strike and the effect it would have over Christmas is irrefutable evidence of prejudice.
The matter concerned technical issues surrounding the ballot. The fact that BA had refused Unite's request to inform them as to who was leaving the airline and should not be balloted, the fact that the result was overwhelming even exluding those who were "wrongly" balloted and the fact that she made these comments on the timing of the strike all point to a massive and glaring bias.
The other possibility, that nobody had even questioned is that she herself or her family or friends may have had travel arrangements with BA over Christmas in which case she had a conflict of interest and should be struck off for not declaring it!
Two grounds, then, for an appeal.
As for the £140m savings being sought after, from CC, Ryanair has 7,000 total employees for 210 aircraft, BA has 39,000 for 231 (of which 23,000 are not CC or pilots). Walsh just doesn't get it, does he. It's high time investors booted him out, as this is someone whose penchance for dust ups instead of doing good businesss is risking the survival of BA.
The matter concerned technical issues surrounding the ballot. The fact that BA had refused Unite's request to inform them as to who was leaving the airline and should not be balloted, the fact that the result was overwhelming even exluding those who were "wrongly" balloted and the fact that she made these comments on the timing of the strike all point to a massive and glaring bias.
The other possibility, that nobody had even questioned is that she herself or her family or friends may have had travel arrangements with BA over Christmas in which case she had a conflict of interest and should be struck off for not declaring it!
Two grounds, then, for an appeal.
As for the £140m savings being sought after, from CC, Ryanair has 7,000 total employees for 210 aircraft, BA has 39,000 for 231 (of which 23,000 are not CC or pilots). Walsh just doesn't get it, does he. It's high time investors booted him out, as this is someone whose penchance for dust ups instead of doing good businesss is risking the survival of BA.
Last edited by hyatt_1_alpha; 21st Dec 2009 at 15:01.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hyatt,
Unless you have some cold hard facts I'd be very careful.. and use the word alleged.
If I was in her situation and people were spreading malicious rumours about me, I'd be sharpening my pencil and writing up a few lawsuits.
As I said, BA won the injunction, the strike is OFF. Deal with it; Move on.... you can't change what has happened in time to have the "12 days of Christmas" strike.
What do you want BASSA/UNITE to do for the next 6 weeks to resolve this situation? What are your suggestions for CC to save £140m per year going forward?
CB
Unless you have some cold hard facts I'd be very careful.. and use the word alleged.
If I was in her situation and people were spreading malicious rumours about me, I'd be sharpening my pencil and writing up a few lawsuits.
As I said, BA won the injunction, the strike is OFF. Deal with it; Move on.... you can't change what has happened in time to have the "12 days of Christmas" strike.
What do you want BASSA/UNITE to do for the next 6 weeks to resolve this situation? What are your suggestions for CC to save £140m per year going forward?
CB
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the judge commented on the timing of the strike and the effect it would have over Christmas is irrefutable evidence of prejudice.
The matter concerned technical issues surrounding the ballot. The fact that BA had refused Unite's request to inform them as to who was leaving the airline and should not be balloted
the fact that the result was overwhelming even exluding those who were "wrongly" balloted
and the fact that she made these comments on the timing of the strike all point to a massive and glaring bias.
The other possibility, that nobody had even questioned is that she herself or her family or friends may have had travel arrangements with BA over Christmas in which case she had a conflict of interest and should be struck off for not declaring it!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: AT the bottom of your garden
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carnage
If you are right on the "wider context" then no matter how perfect Unite or any union in any industry in the future conducts ballots, judges will be forced to ru;e in favour of the employer.
I might sound like CC to you, but you sound like a complete Nazi to me!
If you are right on the "wider context" then no matter how perfect Unite or any union in any industry in the future conducts ballots, judges will be forced to ru;e in favour of the employer.
I might sound like CC to you, but you sound like a complete Nazi to me!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hyatt_1_aplha
BASSA were warned by BA to the effect that they needed to be careful who they balloted, months ago.
They (BASSA) were also supplied with the information (by BA) that would have allowed them to ballot the correct people.
They chose to ignore the warning and the information.
Had they used the information supplied to them and then, after following every precaution, they still ended up balloting some ineligible people, BA would not have had a leg to stand on in any court case.
However, as pointed out in numerous posts and as mentioned in court proceedings (and actually proven in court through previous conversations), BASSA did not take adequate notice nor precaution. This is why your statement above
is complete rubbish. BASSA did not take adequate notice of information that had been given to them. In fact a senior union member encouraged ineligible people to vote on a forum. If BASSA had acted responsibly then the ruling would have been completely different. In fact I imagine BA would not even have gone to court. 
Instead of bleating about injustice or 'bent' judges, BASSA members need to look closer to home to see who has caused them injustice - after all it is BASSA members who are paying these people who have made a fool of them
BASSA were warned by BA to the effect that they needed to be careful who they balloted, months ago.
They (BASSA) were also supplied with the information (by BA) that would have allowed them to ballot the correct people.
They chose to ignore the warning and the information.
Had they used the information supplied to them and then, after following every precaution, they still ended up balloting some ineligible people, BA would not have had a leg to stand on in any court case.
However, as pointed out in numerous posts and as mentioned in court proceedings (and actually proven in court through previous conversations), BASSA did not take adequate notice nor precaution. This is why your statement above
If you are right on the "wider issues" then no matter how perfect Unite or any union in any industry in the future conducts ballots, judges will rule in favour of the employer.
Instead of bleating about injustice or 'bent' judges, BASSA members need to look closer to home to see who has caused them injustice - after all it is BASSA members who are paying these people who have made a fool of them
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Romans44
"Pretty much everybody on here agrees that both parties should go back to negotiation, do you? "
I have to say that this is wishful thinking or fantasy on your paet.
There have been a very large number of posts in the above vein but from only a handful of people over the last days.
My opinion is that , of people posting on here , a majority ( no proof, just gut-feel ) believe that BASSA is no different from a savage dog that has gone out of control more than omce in the past, attacking its own family.
I think these same people now believe that the only way to be safe from a mauling is to take the dog and give it the benefit of a twelve-bore cartridge.
Then bury the cadaver, a few people sob but most breathe a heartfelt sigh of relief that a rabid menace has been put down.
"Pretty much everybody on here agrees that both parties should go back to negotiation, do you? "
I have to say that this is wishful thinking or fantasy on your paet.
There have been a very large number of posts in the above vein but from only a handful of people over the last days.
My opinion is that , of people posting on here , a majority ( no proof, just gut-feel ) believe that BASSA is no different from a savage dog that has gone out of control more than omce in the past, attacking its own family.
I think these same people now believe that the only way to be safe from a mauling is to take the dog and give it the benefit of a twelve-bore cartridge.
Then bury the cadaver, a few people sob but most breathe a heartfelt sigh of relief that a rabid menace has been put down.