British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Hyatt
unfortunately Bassa have not been entirely ( at all) truthful about this ruling.
Bassa had the information req'd and simply had to inform the retirees not to vote.
They failed to do that; in fact they encouraged these crew to vote.
The law is the law. There was no grey area here.
The only real decision the judge had to make was whether to award BA damages.
She decided not to - possibly saving the union from financial ruin.
If there was any doubt at all then Bassa would appeal, they have not, which says it all.
unfortunately Bassa have not been entirely ( at all) truthful about this ruling.
Bassa had the information req'd and simply had to inform the retirees not to vote.
They failed to do that; in fact they encouraged these crew to vote.
The law is the law. There was no grey area here.
The only real decision the judge had to make was whether to award BA damages.
She decided not to - possibly saving the union from financial ruin.
If there was any doubt at all then Bassa would appeal, they have not, which says it all.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hyatt,
Welcome to the fray. The technical failings of BASSA's ballot have been fairly well documented and discussed. The issue of using Xmas or any other wider interest has been widely misinterpreted as prejudice. I believe the legal requirement for the judge to consider is known as "balance of convenience" - Google it for a fuller explanation and you might see why the judge ruled in the fashion she did.
MrB
Welcome to the fray. The technical failings of BASSA's ballot have been fairly well documented and discussed. The issue of using Xmas or any other wider interest has been widely misinterpreted as prejudice. I believe the legal requirement for the judge to consider is known as "balance of convenience" - Google it for a fuller explanation and you might see why the judge ruled in the fashion she did.
MrB
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hear what you're saying, but that's not where BA are going to find the cost savings they need. . You could cut Willie Walsh's salary in half and would be a drop in the ocean.
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.
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.
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.
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.
this is what I don't get about this forum.
If we pro union people don't answer your questions, people start saying all sort of things. Yet you did not answer my question, which required only a simple yes or not.
So I am going to ask the same question again in the hope you will answer.
Would you say that not being paid for one month is a temporary or permanent change?
You could cut Willie Walsh's salary in half and would be a drop in the ocean
We have been asked for 170 milions in savings, which accidentelly is by far more than any other departments, If our CEO would take a permanent pay cut of 50% it would be almost 400 milions in savings.
If that is a drop in the ocean, what would you say 170 milions is?
.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romans,
I'm struggling with your maths here. A 50% paycut by the CEO would not be £400 million saved it would be £400,000 p/a. So, yes, surely a drop in the ocean in comparison to the requested savings of the CC.
If I've got the wrong end of your point, I apologise!
MrB
I'm struggling with your maths here. A 50% paycut by the CEO would not be £400 million saved it would be £400,000 p/a. So, yes, surely a drop in the ocean in comparison to the requested savings of the CC.
If I've got the wrong end of your point, I apologise!
MrB
See And S,
this is what I don't get about this forum.
If we pro union people don't answer your questions, people start saying all sort of things. Yet you did not answer my question, which required only a simple yes or not.
So I am going to ask the same question again in the hope you will answer.
Would you say that not being paid for one month is a temporary or permanent change?.
this is what I don't get about this forum.
If we pro union people don't answer your questions, people start saying all sort of things. Yet you did not answer my question, which required only a simple yes or not.
So I am going to ask the same question again in the hope you will answer.
Would you say that not being paid for one month is a temporary or permanent change?.
.
Are you sure Willie Walsh is paid £ 800 million?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
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??
I happen to think that it isn't only because I can't believe she would be so naive.
If it is true, I believe that there would be serious questions about her integrity to be answered here.
Would BASSA appeal?
I don't know, But if it is true I hope they will.
Merry Xmas all, from an old troll 
Can we have a little go at the negotiation process.
Imposition has happened and the workplace headcount has been reduced, like it or not and as far as I understand, it has all been voluntary so far. A ballot has happened and has been deemed illegal. So, as of now, the new service is being worked and there is no industrial action. Draw a line under that, that is where you are and publicly throwing mud at each other, is not solving anything.
The management team keep saying that nobody will loose money, but they are expecting people to work harder, because that is what is required when times are hard. But, the crew are saying that the service standard has lowered because of this. This is a thing for the future, not now. If BA is prepared to reduce its service level, in a bid to save money, then that is a management decision, which it may or may not, pay for in the future.
If the management team is true to its pubic comments, then nobody currently employed will be loosing money. There appears to be a fear of a new fleet or at least a new contract, with new terms and conditions, but that should not be a problem, if they are prepared to stand by there word.
What you should be looking into, is a way to protect and guarantee total future payments and employment (the employment part meaning not being selected for any future redundancy, just because of your level of pay), to at least maintain what you take home today and why would the management team not allow this? Put the ball back in the managements court. Use their public words as a bargaining tool. If they won't then there is an obvious ulterior motive.
No matter what happens, BA as a whole will have to sort out its industrial relations. A 10000+ vote against the management teams actions is a strong mandate, whether legal or not.
Can we have a little go at the negotiation process.
Imposition has happened and the workplace headcount has been reduced, like it or not and as far as I understand, it has all been voluntary so far. A ballot has happened and has been deemed illegal. So, as of now, the new service is being worked and there is no industrial action. Draw a line under that, that is where you are and publicly throwing mud at each other, is not solving anything.
The management team keep saying that nobody will loose money, but they are expecting people to work harder, because that is what is required when times are hard. But, the crew are saying that the service standard has lowered because of this. This is a thing for the future, not now. If BA is prepared to reduce its service level, in a bid to save money, then that is a management decision, which it may or may not, pay for in the future.
If the management team is true to its pubic comments, then nobody currently employed will be loosing money. There appears to be a fear of a new fleet or at least a new contract, with new terms and conditions, but that should not be a problem, if they are prepared to stand by there word.
What you should be looking into, is a way to protect and guarantee total future payments and employment (the employment part meaning not being selected for any future redundancy, just because of your level of pay), to at least maintain what you take home today and why would the management team not allow this? Put the ball back in the managements court. Use their public words as a bargaining tool. If they won't then there is an obvious ulterior motive.
No matter what happens, BA as a whole will have to sort out its industrial relations. A 10000+ vote against the management teams actions is a strong mandate, whether legal or not.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy S,
my apology did not mean to say milions.
Still 400 thousands pounds of saving can hardly be seen as a drop in the ocean.
This all mess is about saving money, is it not?
Would it matter how the money was saved?
I never suggested people should not being paid..
The sugestion, to save the airline money in that way, came from up above.
Yes, we are the largest department but our are cost is not the highest.
I am not going to put any numbers though, lesson learnt
my apology did not mean to say milions.
Still 400 thousands pounds of saving can hardly be seen as a drop in the ocean.
Not being paid isn't really a change, and since it's not being proposed it's hardly applicable to this dispute..... But OK, I'll bite. I guess if you agreed not to be paid for one month on the understanding that your pay would revert to normal for one month then it's temporary.
Would it matter how the money was saved?
I never suggested people should not being paid..
The sugestion, to save the airline money in that way, came from up above.
Aren't CC the biggest department in BA? It stands to reason that you would be asked to make the biggest contribution.
I am not going to put any numbers though, lesson learnt
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SWAPS Inner
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lalalalala! The judge is flying BA so made a decision that could lose her her job if she was 'found out'!!!!
How much does a judge earn?
How much does A Lurker earn?
Who can afford a taxi to Geneva while someone else s standing on a picket line?
Lalalalala! Go and join the Ostriches!
How much does a judge earn?
How much does A Lurker earn?
Who can afford a taxi to Geneva while someone else s standing on a picket line?
Lalalalala! Go and join the Ostriches!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got me there romans44! Spell checker says 'No!
Sorry English is not my first language. My apologies for any spelling mistakes I have made. Will try and be more careful next time
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romans44
Which ever, Willie will never see that salary repaid. I don't recall any time in the last year BASSA ever making any concession that was not to be repaid after a period of time.
You are displaying all the traditional BASSA denial symptoms - blame everyone but themselves by trying to distract attention from the basic facts.
The facts are well documented:
1. BASSA knowingly and in full possession of all the relevant necessary data, conducted an illegal ballot, despite being warned on several occasions,and then Bugsy worsened the situation by actively encouraging VR staff to vote!
2. Any judge would likely have made the same pronouncement on the case - maybe her pension fund invests in BA shares, should that preclude her for sitting on the case?
3. Unite apparently tried to council BASSA against the disproportionate action
4. BASSA repeatedly refused to negotiate, refused to sit in the same room as their new best buddies from CC89, refused to sign a NDA to view the company books, refused to listen to presentations from BA
5. BASSA held a meeting at Sandown which they orchestrated to get a vote of 'no negotiation' through by whipping up everyone present into a frenzy
6. BASSA never consulted the membership at any stage and have repeatedly bullied and harrassed those who question anything
The faults for where BASSA fing themselves lies clearly and irrefutedly an only one door, that of Bugsy Malone and her inner council.
Is negotiation to be welcomed as a next step - very much so. To get there will require recognition by both sides that firstly there are issues that require addressing and that the way forward must be free of the threat of industrial action. Are both sides big enough to move this forward? That is the million dollar question. Let's hope that egos can be reined in during the season of goodwill.
Personally I think the egos within BASSA will have to dragged kicking and screaming to the table by Unite, and it is for Unite to make the first move.
Would you say that not being paid for one month is a temporary or permanent change?
You are displaying all the traditional BASSA denial symptoms - blame everyone but themselves by trying to distract attention from the basic facts.
The facts are well documented:
1. BASSA knowingly and in full possession of all the relevant necessary data, conducted an illegal ballot, despite being warned on several occasions,and then Bugsy worsened the situation by actively encouraging VR staff to vote!
2. Any judge would likely have made the same pronouncement on the case - maybe her pension fund invests in BA shares, should that preclude her for sitting on the case?
3. Unite apparently tried to council BASSA against the disproportionate action
4. BASSA repeatedly refused to negotiate, refused to sit in the same room as their new best buddies from CC89, refused to sign a NDA to view the company books, refused to listen to presentations from BA
5. BASSA held a meeting at Sandown which they orchestrated to get a vote of 'no negotiation' through by whipping up everyone present into a frenzy
6. BASSA never consulted the membership at any stage and have repeatedly bullied and harrassed those who question anything
The faults for where BASSA fing themselves lies clearly and irrefutedly an only one door, that of Bugsy Malone and her inner council.
Is negotiation to be welcomed as a next step - very much so. To get there will require recognition by both sides that firstly there are issues that require addressing and that the way forward must be free of the threat of industrial action. Are both sides big enough to move this forward? That is the million dollar question. Let's hope that egos can be reined in during the season of goodwill.
Personally I think the egos within BASSA will have to dragged kicking and screaming to the table by Unite, and it is for Unite to make the first move.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the sums romans44
.As I said earlier, yes we are the largest department but we are not the one who cost the most.
I am going to try and explain this but do not quote on this.
I believe that we as CC cost about 540 milions pounds per year.
Pilots cost about 440 milions per year.
Now, there are about 14000 of CC and about 3000 pilots.
You do the math and tell me who cost the most.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bahrain
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Romans. Please confirm these figures.
400,000 pounds is about 1/1000th of what BA have lost since June. Please review the numbers.
BA valued at 2.2 billion.
Pension deficit 3.7 billion.
BA losing 50 million a month.
400,000=0.4 million=0.0004 billion=drop in BA ocean.
400,000 pounds is about 1/1000th of what BA have lost since June. Please review the numbers.
BA valued at 2.2 billion.
Pension deficit 3.7 billion.
BA losing 50 million a month.
400,000=0.4 million=0.0004 billion=drop in BA ocean.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't both sides take a break.
There is a court case in February, the outcome of which will determine whether imposition is correct or not.
If it is not correct, BASSA will have their way and BA will have to back down and negotiate alternative cost savings.
If it is correct, then BA was right and BASSA will have to accept imposition and engage the company knowing BA have won the court case.
In the meantime, nobody loses any pay and the passengers can enjoy flying with the best British Airline.
What does concern me is that BASSA want, it was they that asked for the original injunction, to push the issue before the court case.
To what purpose?
There is a court case in February, the outcome of which will determine whether imposition is correct or not.
If it is not correct, BASSA will have their way and BA will have to back down and negotiate alternative cost savings.
If it is correct, then BA was right and BASSA will have to accept imposition and engage the company knowing BA have won the court case.
In the meantime, nobody loses any pay and the passengers can enjoy flying with the best British Airline.
What does concern me is that BASSA want, it was they that asked for the original injunction, to push the issue before the court case.
To what purpose?