British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Albert Salmon,
As BA crew myself, can I just on behalf of the rest of us say sorry! VV can apologise his/herself. I sincerely hope he does not speak like that to our customers on the aircraft. Mind you, even if he doesn't he still obviously has a poor attitude to customer service. VV you should be ashamed of that post! BASSA bang on about having the ''best crew ever'' and how we are better because we pay more, ''pay peanuts get monkeys'' - oh dear VV, are you being paid peanuts as, using BASSA logic you must be. By the way I hate that saying, as I have flown many airlines VS charter etc and they all have good and bad like BA and paid less. I agree we DO have some of the most professional crew who do make BA what they are, please do not be put off Albert Salmon. Just the vocal minority of militants are abit toxic that is all! Even many of the crew who voted Yes are very good.... let's hope we can rid BA of this evil attitude to the employer, work ethic and even worse as shown by VV towards the customer!!
Anyway MissM, VV, et al.... please please think before you vote Yes again. Where will BA be after a strike??? What do you hope to achieve. Oh yes I forgot you are willing to strike 'til BA shuts. Anyone that says that really, really needs to leave or get the sack!! Truly, truly disgusting attitude to say the least! Wake up please!
The company are asking us to work harder, and introduce a New Fleet.... that could be avoided by changing our scheduling agreement in addition to our new crew complements. Don't want that? Oh well New Fleet will have to be brought in then. Sorry that is the simple reality. Air travel has changed dramatically, it is not the 1970s anymore I'm afraid. We are lucky really T&Cs were not changed years ago! Good we managed to go this far on these terms but change comes.... With NF we will still be a good employer. Current crew will not be effected. OK the starvation of work is an issue but negotiate to protect that.... Or if you still are worried negotiate ways of us working harder, Fixed Links et al, things have to change and that includes you Liza N Malone yes you will have to go on a trolley.... the red lev erbrakes the trolley, the green releases the brake
Get real.... times are a changing. Like I have said before I don't advocate everyone being forced on NF whether eventual or immediate, but guess what? Because of the unions stubborness and resistance to change and accept BAs reasonable proposals, just negotiate them properly, we may have to with 90 days notice!! It might be the only way for BA to survive! There are many new recruits ready to take your place on NF which probably still will have some better T&Cs than some airlines! BA only wanted New Fleet to be for new crew and voluntarily for current crew if we found it attractive like for promotion etc. Quite a few Main crew whether you like it or not would be willing to go for promotion on NF... I would if it didn't disadvantage me financially. I am young and have 40 yrs left so what would I do.... never get promotion because I may be regarded a scab otherwise. NF may be my only avenue for promotion which as I am passionate about BA, customer service, standards and safety I would really like. I know BASSA keep on about the ''no promotion ever again'' mantra which does worry me - but as some sensible crew have pointed out they will either a) need SCCMs on NF and if NF was negotiated away, on current fleets do you HONESTLY think they will never need new psrs/csds?? They may have a surplus now, but when we return to growth, the a380/787 and 777-300 comes in and there is attrition there is bound to be promotion. Anyway as I have said, New Fleet could be pushed away if only the union could realise things on current fleets can be changed.... Now ALL of us including us dedicated staff could have to be FORCED on NF terms, it may be the only way the company survives, as nearly a year has gone by since the talks and the company has lost more money! BA is a business not some untouchable, unsinkable entity, so to play around and f around with the company like BASSA are doing is wrong so wrong!
Oh, and anyone willing to strike 'til BA shuts/goes bust and you see mean little WW out of work - get in the real world sharpish! It's selfish, stupid and blinkered! If you don't want to work harder leave! You have not so far been asked to take a pay cut! As for NF starving us of work it is a worry but one BF has said he will be willing to negotiate ways to protect us current crew. To say you will strike 'til BA shuts is selfish, pure selfishness and I hope you guys will be the worst off on the dole and will be forever unemployable IF the worst came! Harsh but sometimes you need to be harsh to get people to WAKE UP!
As BA crew myself, can I just on behalf of the rest of us say sorry! VV can apologise his/herself. I sincerely hope he does not speak like that to our customers on the aircraft. Mind you, even if he doesn't he still obviously has a poor attitude to customer service. VV you should be ashamed of that post! BASSA bang on about having the ''best crew ever'' and how we are better because we pay more, ''pay peanuts get monkeys'' - oh dear VV, are you being paid peanuts as, using BASSA logic you must be. By the way I hate that saying, as I have flown many airlines VS charter etc and they all have good and bad like BA and paid less. I agree we DO have some of the most professional crew who do make BA what they are, please do not be put off Albert Salmon. Just the vocal minority of militants are abit toxic that is all! Even many of the crew who voted Yes are very good.... let's hope we can rid BA of this evil attitude to the employer, work ethic and even worse as shown by VV towards the customer!!
Anyway MissM, VV, et al.... please please think before you vote Yes again. Where will BA be after a strike??? What do you hope to achieve. Oh yes I forgot you are willing to strike 'til BA shuts. Anyone that says that really, really needs to leave or get the sack!! Truly, truly disgusting attitude to say the least! Wake up please!
The company are asking us to work harder, and introduce a New Fleet.... that could be avoided by changing our scheduling agreement in addition to our new crew complements. Don't want that? Oh well New Fleet will have to be brought in then. Sorry that is the simple reality. Air travel has changed dramatically, it is not the 1970s anymore I'm afraid. We are lucky really T&Cs were not changed years ago! Good we managed to go this far on these terms but change comes.... With NF we will still be a good employer. Current crew will not be effected. OK the starvation of work is an issue but negotiate to protect that.... Or if you still are worried negotiate ways of us working harder, Fixed Links et al, things have to change and that includes you Liza N Malone yes you will have to go on a trolley.... the red lev erbrakes the trolley, the green releases the brake
Get real.... times are a changing. Like I have said before I don't advocate everyone being forced on NF whether eventual or immediate, but guess what? Because of the unions stubborness and resistance to change and accept BAs reasonable proposals, just negotiate them properly, we may have to with 90 days notice!! It might be the only way for BA to survive! There are many new recruits ready to take your place on NF which probably still will have some better T&Cs than some airlines! BA only wanted New Fleet to be for new crew and voluntarily for current crew if we found it attractive like for promotion etc. Quite a few Main crew whether you like it or not would be willing to go for promotion on NF... I would if it didn't disadvantage me financially. I am young and have 40 yrs left so what would I do.... never get promotion because I may be regarded a scab otherwise. NF may be my only avenue for promotion which as I am passionate about BA, customer service, standards and safety I would really like. I know BASSA keep on about the ''no promotion ever again'' mantra which does worry me - but as some sensible crew have pointed out they will either a) need SCCMs on NF and if NF was negotiated away, on current fleets do you HONESTLY think they will never need new psrs/csds?? They may have a surplus now, but when we return to growth, the a380/787 and 777-300 comes in and there is attrition there is bound to be promotion. Anyway as I have said, New Fleet could be pushed away if only the union could realise things on current fleets can be changed.... Now ALL of us including us dedicated staff could have to be FORCED on NF terms, it may be the only way the company survives, as nearly a year has gone by since the talks and the company has lost more money! BA is a business not some untouchable, unsinkable entity, so to play around and f around with the company like BASSA are doing is wrong so wrong!
Oh, and anyone willing to strike 'til BA shuts/goes bust and you see mean little WW out of work - get in the real world sharpish! It's selfish, stupid and blinkered! If you don't want to work harder leave! You have not so far been asked to take a pay cut! As for NF starving us of work it is a worry but one BF has said he will be willing to negotiate ways to protect us current crew. To say you will strike 'til BA shuts is selfish, pure selfishness and I hope you guys will be the worst off on the dole and will be forever unemployable IF the worst came! Harsh but sometimes you need to be harsh to get people to WAKE UP!
henkybaby
BASSA can object to anything it doesn’t like! If BASSA wishes to ballot its members for industrial action in pursuit of that objection, then BASSA members balloted must be involved in a legitimate Trade Dispute with BA.
That is all.
There is no requirement for that Trade Dispute to be a contractual dispute. It could be a dispute about something very trivial. Provided it is a legitimate Trade Dispute, BASSA may ballot its members for Industrial Action over it.
BASSA, presumably, are hoping for a ruling in their favour and a quick legal victory over BA, but the court ruling will only be on the narrow point of contractual v non-contractual change.
If the Judge should rule in favour of BASSA, that the imposed changes were contractual and that therefore there was a legal obligation on BA to negotiate the changes with BASSA, then BASSA will have won, as BA will then be obliged to negotiate with BASSA.
If the Judge should rule in favour of BA, that the imposed changes were non-contractual and that therefore there was no legal obligation on BA to negotiate the changes with BASSA, then BASSA will have lost and will receive no help from the court. As you put it, “Off you go BASSA”.
However, whilst BASSA, will have lost the legal argument, on this narrow point, they will still be free to pursue their aims by industrial action, and the court decision will not prevent them from doing so. Whether BASSA would be wise to do so, I don't feel the need to comment on, as other posters have already done so in abundance.
I suspect BASSA will be much more careful about what questions it asks, and which members it ballots, in its next ballot than it was in the last one!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
...BASSA can only object to BA imposing changes unilaterally if they should legally be the bilateral party...
That is all.
There is no requirement for that Trade Dispute to be a contractual dispute. It could be a dispute about something very trivial. Provided it is a legitimate Trade Dispute, BASSA may ballot its members for Industrial Action over it.
...By making this about due process (e.g. objecting to BA imposing changes they should have been involved in) they shot themselves in the foot if the judge says "but dear BASSA, you don't need to agree to these changes! Off you go!"...
...How can they still strike if the judge deems them outside of their influence?...
If the Judge should rule in favour of BASSA, that the imposed changes were contractual and that therefore there was a legal obligation on BA to negotiate the changes with BASSA, then BASSA will have won, as BA will then be obliged to negotiate with BASSA.
If the Judge should rule in favour of BA, that the imposed changes were non-contractual and that therefore there was no legal obligation on BA to negotiate the changes with BASSA, then BASSA will have lost and will receive no help from the court. As you put it, “Off you go BASSA”.
However, whilst BASSA, will have lost the legal argument, on this narrow point, they will still be free to pursue their aims by industrial action, and the court decision will not prevent them from doing so. Whether BASSA would be wise to do so, I don't feel the need to comment on, as other posters have already done so in abundance.
I suspect BASSA will be much more careful about what questions it asks, and which members it ballots, in its next ballot than it was in the last one!
Best Regards
Bellerophon
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks
MissM,
Amazingly, you have yet to comment on the simple facts I posted in #981. Perhaps you missed that post; there is a fair amount of traffic on this thread.
Perhaps I can reiterate so that you don't have to scroll back.
In answer to your question, BASSA have consistently lied (and are still lying) to their members (See #981 for details).
Would you like to ask any more questions?
Honestly, I'll do my best to answer each and every one.
Regards,
D
Amazingly, you have yet to comment on the simple facts I posted in #981. Perhaps you missed that post; there is a fair amount of traffic on this thread.
Perhaps I can reiterate so that you don't have to scroll back.
In answer to your question, BASSA have consistently lied (and are still lying) to their members (See #981 for details).
Would you like to ask any more questions?
Honestly, I'll do my best to answer each and every one.
Regards,
D
Last edited by Desertia; 3rd Jan 2010 at 07:59. Reason: Posts renumbered
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Union Derognition?
Another possibility?
Derecognition owing to lack of support - worker application
A worker (or workers) from the bargaining unit can apply to the CAC for derecognition - but only where no such similar application has been made in the past three years.
If the CAC accepts the application as valid, it will try to help the workers, union and employer reach an agreement on derecognition.
If an agreement is not reached, the CAC will arrange a secret ballot to test worker support for derecognition.
However, it will do this only if it believes that:
A worker (or workers) from the bargaining unit can apply to the CAC for derecognition - but only where no such similar application has been made in the past three years.
If the CAC accepts the application as valid, it will try to help the workers, union and employer reach an agreement on derecognition.
If an agreement is not reached, the CAC will arrange a secret ballot to test worker support for derecognition.
However, it will do this only if it believes that:
- at least 10 per cent of the workers in the bargaining unit favour derecognition, and
- a majority of the workers in the bargaining unit are likely to favour derecognition
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly! Although, like all things, never quite as simple as it may appear.
As far as I can tell, the full info is here:
CAC - Schedule A1 (Part 4 & 5)
then click on Guide to Parties (309kb) and scroll down to page 21;
Section 3 – Part IV of the Schedule
Worker (or workers) wants to end the bargaining arrangements on the grounds that the arrangements no longer have the support of the bargaining unit.
As far as I can tell, the full info is here:
CAC - Schedule A1 (Part 4 & 5)
then click on Guide to Parties (309kb) and scroll down to page 21;
Section 3 – Part IV of the Schedule
Worker (or workers) wants to end the bargaining arrangements on the grounds that the arrangements no longer have the support of the bargaining unit.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on Derecognition:
It seems from here: Statutory derecognition of a trade union | Business Link that we'd first have to establish how it was that unite/bassa/cc89 came to be "recognised" in the first place. Was it "Voluntary Recognition" or "Statutory Recognition" by BA of unite/bassa/cc89?
It seems from here: Statutory derecognition of a trade union | Business Link that we'd first have to establish how it was that unite/bassa/cc89 came to be "recognised" in the first place. Was it "Voluntary Recognition" or "Statutory Recognition" by BA of unite/bassa/cc89?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe it's the new year for me, I don't truly know but I rather believe now that a hardcore of belligerent, unwilling, ungrateful individuals may well spell the demise of our company in order to prove a point that they, and only they, believe in.
My bold I must add.
Oh no, I copied from CrewForum again. Best send my name to Lizanne so she can excoriate me with her spittle-laden rhetoric.
Oh, and apparently, a no vote, or not voting is a wasted vote. Nothing like a democracy is there? Quite literally.
I genuinely fear we're buggered, and I make no apology for the language.
MrB
I'm not quite sure why a tiny number of posters are regurgitating the same old negative spin. Dropping the odd phrase of militants & the miners & Arthur Scargill, is a bit below the belt. All crew are working class mothers, fathers, partners, single, dedicated to doing a fine job, & wanting to fight to retain their jobs. shock, horror, how very dare they stand up for what is theirs.
No point in getting your knickers in a twist. It's quite simple. Vote Yes. All crew have to worry about is picking up a pen, putting a cross in the YES box, & hey presto, the rest will sort itself out beautifully.
KEEP CALM, CARRY ON. Just vote YES.
No point in getting your knickers in a twist. It's quite simple. Vote Yes. All crew have to worry about is picking up a pen, putting a cross in the YES box, & hey presto, the rest will sort itself out beautifully.
KEEP CALM, CARRY ON. Just vote YES.
Oh no, I copied from CrewForum again. Best send my name to Lizanne so she can excoriate me with her spittle-laden rhetoric.
Oh, and apparently, a no vote, or not voting is a wasted vote. Nothing like a democracy is there? Quite literally.
I genuinely fear we're buggered, and I make no apology for the language.
MrB
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrBunker
Strange why you highlighted this individuals post.
I had the pleasure of flying with this poster just after the first ballot was issued, on this particular flight there were a few very active CF members (funny old thing!). They terrorised two of the other crew to such an extent that the Captain thought it necessary to contact London.
Lovely person when alone, but nasty and vile when with fellow CF members.
I'm not quite sure why a tiny number of posters are regurgitating the same old negative spin. Dropping the odd phrase of militants & the miners & Arthur Scargill, is a bit below the belt. All crew are working class mothers, fathers, partners, single, dedicated to doing a fine job, & wanting to fight to retain their jobs. shock, horror, how very dare they stand up for what is theirs.
No point in getting your knickers in a twist. It's quite simple. Vote Yes. All crew have to worry about is picking up a pen, putting a cross in the YES box, & hey presto, the rest will sort itself out beautifully.
KEEP CALM, CARRY ON. Just vote YES. .
No point in getting your knickers in a twist. It's quite simple. Vote Yes. All crew have to worry about is picking up a pen, putting a cross in the YES box, & hey presto, the rest will sort itself out beautifully.
KEEP CALM, CARRY ON. Just vote YES. .
I had the pleasure of flying with this poster just after the first ballot was issued, on this particular flight there were a few very active CF members (funny old thing!). They terrorised two of the other crew to such an extent that the Captain thought it necessary to contact London.
Lovely person when alone, but nasty and vile when with fellow CF members.
winstonsmith
If MissM is a long serving old contract cc( should be a Purser with her years of service) she is earning in excess of £40,000 pa pro rata for 75%.
Info from colleagues wife, her payslips over last 12 months ,BA purser WW Lhr.
Info from colleagues wife, her payslips over last 12 months ,BA purser WW Lhr.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomorrow or possibly tuesday for the announcement of 90 day termination of all CC contracts - at last!
Oops crossed with overstress!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jockster
Tomorrow or possibly tuesday for the announcement of 90 day termination of all CC contracts - at last!
Tomorrow or possibly tuesday for the announcement of 90 day termination of all CC contracts - at last!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wouldn't surprise me. Can't see any reason for BA to put-up with this union-led, destructive lunacy any longer. As much as it'd impact me personally, I'd rather deal with something concrete, and get on with my life, than have to deal with yet more uncertainty. I just hope that wheat and chaff would be sorted in the process.
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has VV gone quiet because he has discovered that BA's legal dept use archiving software to automatically save postings made to a forum? And even if postings are amended or deleted the original will still be kept?
And perhaps he has realised that using a pseudonym on a forum doesn't give an individual carte blanche to flout one's employment contract (bringing employer into disrepute)?
It would be obvious to anyone who studied the last BA v BASSA High Court report that BA have such access to forums...
And perhaps he has realised that using a pseudonym on a forum doesn't give an individual carte blanche to flout one's employment contract (bringing employer into disrepute)?
It would be obvious to anyone who studied the last BA v BASSA High Court report that BA have such access to forums...
PPRuNe Person
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: see roster
Posts: 1,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sww: welcome to PPRuNe, very brave/foolish of you to advise BA's customers to look elsewhere if you are in fact a BA employee...
From what you write I can see that you have swallowed the BASSA line very thoroughly..
From what you write I can see that you have swallowed the BASSA line very thoroughly..
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomorrow or possibly tuesday for the announcement of 90 day termination of all CC contracts - at last! It wouldn't surprise me. Can't see any reason for BA to put-up with this union-led, destructive lunacy any longer. As much as it'd impact me personally, I'd rather deal with something concrete, and get on with my life, than have to deal with yet more uncertainty. I just hope that wheat and chaff would be sorted in the process.
Same here TorC, and it would be what's needed to sort the reckless BASSA individuals once and for all. Yes, it would impact us, but we're prepared to accept that change is needed for BA to survive.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its remarkable - uncanny really, how certain types of posters on here display certain charateristics with unerring accuracy.
Those posters who regurgitate the BASSA rhetoric so clearly display their limited intelligence in so many ways. Their posts display their obvious inability to think for themselves, to reason what the outcome of damaging industrial action (or the threat of it) might be to BA and thus to themselves.
They tend to write in one long paragraph, devoid of any punctuation, frequently confusing "there" with "their" and "theyre", "your" and "you're" and usually not knowing the difference between "loosing" and "losing".
Quite an interesting study really.
Those posters who regurgitate the BASSA rhetoric so clearly display their limited intelligence in so many ways. Their posts display their obvious inability to think for themselves, to reason what the outcome of damaging industrial action (or the threat of it) might be to BA and thus to themselves.
They tend to write in one long paragraph, devoid of any punctuation, frequently confusing "there" with "their" and "theyre", "your" and "you're" and usually not knowing the difference between "loosing" and "losing".
Quite an interesting study really.
