British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V

[romans44]

romans44
BB has had a habit of being uncannily accurate with his postings. Might be worth considering his claim as a little more than speculation. Otherwise, the Feb court ruling and BA's next legal challenge to BASSA's balloting may come as a bit of a surprise.

Interesting few weeks ahead

Hi nutjob, without being dragged into a speculation talk and with all due respect to BB, that scenario is totally unlikely to happen.
BASSA has only the names of people who pay their membership dues, the names are passed on to the union by the company. Therefore if you are not a member of BASSA your name is not on their records.
It sounds to me like another Daily Mail story.
Also as I mentioned before, regardless of the outcome of the February court, Bassa will still go ahead with the ballot.
Looking forward to next few weeks too

[52049er]

BASSA's muddled thinking strikes again.

They take BA to court over agreements that they believe are contractual.

They then refuse to implement the Disruption Agreement.

So are agreements (A) a legally binding contract (in which case they win the court case but get sued for breaking a legally binding DA contract) or (B) just agreements in which case they can get away with not agreeing to the DA but lose the court case?

Or are some agreements just agreements (ie the nice ones to have) and others (ie the not so nice ones) not? Lunacy.

[wobble2plank]

Romans44

BASSA has only the names of people who pay their membership dues, the names are passed on to the union by the company. Therefore if you are not a member of BASSA your name is not on their records.

Can you prove that? Do you have it in writing? If, perhaps, you did then surely the fiasco of the last ballot could not have happened?

I would suggest that the database maintenance of BASSA is not as 'leak proof' as you would like to speculate.

Odd as well that the company took the time and effort to inform BASSA that there were irregularities with their balloting procedure but BASSA politely (or possibly not in Lizanne Maloneys case) refused to listen. Where have we seen that before?

[StoneyBridge Radar]

Romans opined:

BASSA has only the names of people who pay their membership dues, the names are passed on to the union by the company. Therefore if you are not a member of BASSA your name is not on their records.

She who must be obeyed ( the future Mrs Stoney, not Loopy La La ), left BA in 2005 and has not paid anything to BASSA since then.

Perhaps you could explain how she managed to receive a ballot paper through the post for the first drubbing, and perhaps you could explain why, when she contacted them, their response was that they obviously couldn't ask her to do anything illegal, but that her vote would be counted if she chose to support her ex-colleagues by filling it in and returning it.

If your wonderful BASSA lack the ability to maintain even the most basic of data bases, and are so morally bankrupt as to make such a request of her, I wonder how you can place any faith in anything else they do.

These people are leading you to the slaughter house and will gladly be the ones who lock the door behind you in the pursuit of their own selfish goal of self-preservation and maintaining their own cushy T&Cs.

Regards.

SBR

[saintjoseph]

romans 44 , fwiw, bassa subs do come out of salary. amicus subs not necessarily so. small point, but bassa members note that ba know who you are.

[romans44]

Hi romans

You are right about that Haiti stuff, have taken it out, not too different to BASSA WW2 comparisons though......

You are right, addressing the underlying BA cost base was almost certainly in plan before current recession. Recession or no recession, if your costs are out of kilter with the prevailing market rates in a highly competitive trading environment, they MUST be addressed. Airlines need to make c10% margin in order to reinvest in their equipment/products and pay an acceptable dividend to shareholders (would you loan someone huge amounts of money for nothing, when you could get a decent return placing your money elsewhere ??). Post 9/11 BA didn't pay a dividend for years. Those 747-400's were introduced in 1988 ! They are fuel inefficient and becoming maintenance hungry.....

On many routes, they have to match VS/SQ/U2/TG/CX etc on price (and with threat of IA probably have to undercut them) and yet operate with significantly higher costs and a more unproductive workforce - it is not sustainable.

Recession or no recession, BA has to tackle this for long term viability. Simples. The recession has just made addressing it even more urgent.....the aviation market is very different from just 10 years ago. EZY were formed in '96 with a couple of a/c - now look!

BA has offered to negotiate, but there has to be some acceptance on BASSA's part that savings and productivity efficiencies need to be permanent and real. Taking an entrenched position (BASSA) to "not negotiate" and refuse to have an open book approach (view the accounts with confidentiality agreement etc) isn't really a helpful or progressive approach. Still can't fathom the rationale around this ???

BASSA's response has been totally predictable, hence my assertion that they are playing out WW's strategy without him having to do anything much at all. If they took a different route, or turned their negotiating position on its head, they might just catch BA off guards. Yet they seem to just wheel out the same approach they have (admittidely successfully - sp ?) done for the last 30 odd years. I just think they have underestimated the gravity of the financial situ of the company/structural changes in the market and the resolve of WW. Look at the evidence, WW said, we must reach agreed changes by June 30 or we will impose. He has imposed. BASSA said they would not negotiate unless imposition was removed, UNITE are currently back in negotiations........

Also, whoever is advising BASSA on their PR strategy in terms of public support must be nuts.....they're just not playing a very intelligent/clever game. In fact, again imho, they are just adding nails to their coffin.

With a General Election in the middle of all this, UNITE need to consider carefully their position. I do think this time it is terminal for BASSA, whatever way this goes I just can't see an upside for them, win or lose court case/ballot result.

Hopefully a new progressive group will form after this is all over (as I said I think such a union of people have an important role to play) but will take a more enlightened approach. BA (IMO) have gone past the point of no return with this relationship, they can't take all this pain, forward booking pain etc and not see the job thru to completion. They have a right and were appointed to manage a business and shareholders demand a decent return on their investment. They will try to push thru 'regime change' - they have little choice. Willie may well be (and he probably knows and agrees) the sacrificial lamb at the end to put workforce relations on an improved level post all this. However, he would have put BA on a more solid financial footing, and addressed a real issue where successive leaders before him have failed

Hi Tom100,
I partly agree with you on everything you say, however you still seem to think that this is mainly BASSA's fault, I don't agree with that and I certainly don't think this is the end of BASSA. I guess only time will tell.

I think you're also right in saying that the relashionship between the company and the union have reached an all time low, and yes I also think that someone will be held responsible for this though I don't think it will be someone from BASSA.

May I ask you what do you think about the T5 opening fiasco, the huge fines in the United States and now the fines we are facing in Australia?
How about the money we lost when the pilots balloted for industrial action over Openskies?

Would you agree with me that maybe, only maybe, we would probably be in a stronger financial situation if the above errors were not made?
I am all for changes but again, changes should come via means of negotiation not imposition.
You say that BASSA is not willing to negotiate, I disagee with that.
I say that BASSA has been put in a position where it is impossible to negotiate.

Also if you are a BASSA member and have access to our forum you will see that both BASSA and Amicus reps are present in the new talks, you will also see that concessions by the company have been made.
I am just too glad that both parties have returned to the table, lets hope in a positive outcome.
By the way I would like to thank you for your mature approach in this debate

[Juan Tugoh]

Getting the ballot right

BASSA maybe many things but I do not believe that having been humiliated in court that they will be stupid enough to screw up a second ballot due to database errors. They will simply misjudge the public reaction, and BA's reaction to this strike.

The real issue will be how they can sustain a strike if they lose the court case in Feb, the vilification heaped upon them in Dec over the failed strike will return. This would allow WW to impose a lot more upon the CC community than they are seeing at the moment.

BASSA missed a massive PR coup when they refused to implement the DA - put simply they looked petulant and it achieved nothing as BA imposed it anyway. This will be brought up again in the press when BASSA try to say that they have the interests of the traveling public at heart. Even being correct now may not be enough, strikes do need public support - or at least no public antipathy to succeed, being hated by the British public can persuade many weak people to break a strike.

[Desertia]

Would you agree with me that maybe, only maybe, we would probably be in a stronger financial situation if the above errors were not made?

Put simply Romans, NO. All of the above were accounted for long before the current downturn, and in the case of the fines, they were probably eclipsed by the excess profits that led to them in the first place.

This is an old BASSA line and it was refuted a long time ago.

I think you're also right in saying that the relashionship (sic) between the company and the union have reached an all time low

I'm afraid that was always going to happen as soon as this sorry bunch of Union reps decided that working a service was below them and basically hindered every attempt by BA to stem the massive losses they have been incurring.

And if the relationship is poor, it is because BASSA have essentially poisoned the minds of many of their members with a continual stream of lies which has led us to where we are now.

It is cringeworthy to read poorly-educated cabin crew spewing badly spelt BASSA bile (such as their favourite word "twunt") about their employer. They should be replaced with people who actually want the job.

[romans44]

There are dozens of ex staff that were sent ballot papers last time round. Not just those that took VR recently, but ones that retired/left YEARS ago-Stony above refers.

BA have the names, the ex staff are cooperating by sending in their (unused) ballot papers. The trick is BASSA have to be able to find these "needles in the haystack" and ensure they are not sent papers again. That's why your esteemed Branch Secretary has been on a disciplinary for trying to filter the database when he should have been at work flying.

This is a MASSIVE car crash. When will BASSA members snap out of this trance?

Hi BB, if you were at the hight court, and I was, you would know that all BASSA has to do is to show they have done everything in their power to send the ballots to active members only.
You will probably find that the high court did us a huge favour by outlining all the possible things that could go wrong in a ballot.
Lets wait and see , shall we?

[MrBunker]

Originally Posted by romans44

Hi BB, if you were at the hight court, and I was, you would know that all BASSA has to do is to show they have done everything in their power to send the ballots to active members only.
You will probably find that the high court did us a huge favour by outlining all the possible things that could go wrong in a ballot.
Lets wait and see , shall we?

Just as BA did before the ballot result too, didn't they? They warned Unite of serious flaws in their ballot and Unite pressed on regardless. Yet when the high court tells you, they're doing you a favour. Interesting.

[Desertia]

You will probably find that the high court did us a huge favour by outlining all the possible things that could go wrong in a ballot.

I think you'll find BA tried to do you a huge favour by telling you that the ballot was flawed before you even went to court.

I think you will probably find that it doesn't matter what the ballot says now, anyway. Everything seems to hinge on the Feb 1st court case, and based on past record, I don't much fancy BASSA's chances to be honest.

Whether BASSA want to drag people into another futile attempt at IA will probably end being irrelevant.

[La Pouquelaye]

Romans44 has been on duty now for more than 24 hours; he must be tired.

Where is Watersidewonker or MissM when they are needed?

[Mabbs9]

BASSA must be a smart bunch. They need the High Court to tell them how to ballot. A quick internet search would have probably been a more painless and less embarrassing way of finding out.

The High Court was also able to point out to UNITE that a number something like this.. 071209 may in fact be a date! (In this context a leaving date).

Tragic. It would be funny if it wasn't threatening so many peoples' livelyhoods and travelling publics important plans.

[ottergirl]

They are called, in ascending order, First Officer, Senior First Officer and then Captain.

That should be enough levels of management above the CSD.

I think you'll find that that is the chain of command. The levels of management above a CSD are Crew Manager, Fleet Manager, Head of IFCE, Directors, Willie! Only one pilot in that lot!

Where is Watersidewonker or MissM when they are needed?

Given this is a Cabin Crew thread there's a better than average chance they are flying!

Wasn't this the role of a Fleet Director? - what happened to them then?

There are one or two still flying as WW CSD's but most have left. Their role has changed name three times since then! Currently the job is performed by Crew Managers but they don't fly.

[TheTiresome1]

The problem of who is where is likely to be solved in the near future, it seems. Some CC will be flying, and some will be job-seeking. And some passengers will be flying with carriers who are not threatened by disruption.

Miners and Railwaymen and Postmen and Bin-Men were/are able to [try to] hold the country to ransom. Somehow I don't think BA Cabin Crew have quite that level of impact. That is the tragedy of this entire dispute; it's just "Baying at the Moon", and the only losers can be Cabin Crew [on BOTH sides of the dispute] and the airline.

If there was ever a lose-lose dispute, this is the one.
If CC win, BA loses and goes bust as it cannot sustain £1m a day losses., so they're out of a job.
If BA wins, they save money - but they have lost passenger confidence, so revenue diminishes until BA implodes, and CC are out of a job.

It really is bizarre.

[ottergirl]

If there was ever a lose-lose dispute, this is the one.
If CC win, BA loses and goes bust as it cannot sustain £1m a day losses., so they're out of a job.
If BA wins, they save money - but they have lost passenger confidence, so revenue diminishes until BA implodes, and CC are out of a job.

Blimey, you're a cheerful soul. They could of course, thrash this out around the table, find a way for both sides to make a concession without losing face and then we all stroll off into the sunset and save JAL instead! Going by past industrial disputes in BA (a few of which I've lived through in 22 years) my scenario is the way it usually plays out, so lets hope you're wrong!

Taking cover now!!!

[TheTiresome1]

Ottergirl, I sincerely hope that your "Third Way" turns out to be the end result. For EVERYONE's benefit, even the Heathrow CC who will basically carry on as usual [apart from the CSD who may have to do a bit of/more work during service] which is not a life-changing scenario in the big picture..

So much old, negotiated benefit being [at last] called into question. We all resist change, but it seems that this one is long overdue [from what I have read here so far].

I just wonder [seriously] how much financial damage has already been caused too BA by this dispute.

[Dawdler]

They could of course, thrash this out around the table, find a way for both sides to make a concession without losing face and then we all stroll off into the sunset

I seem to recall that BA wanted to do that all along, but BASSA wouldn't avail themselves of the knowledge to so (look at the books) and then screamed "No negotiation"

[FlexSRS]

To complicate matters in terms of negotiation, in terms of pay and how it is divided up, HMRC have announced the new rax rates for BA pilots and CCrew today.

There is a big change coming for CC, have BASSA been upfront and told you about it yet? They know what your new tax rates are, and you will find them out via your pay slip if BASSA don't tell you.

It may well determine what sort of pay structure would be most beneficial for ccrew, in terms of getting the most tax efficient deal.

[midman]

Originally Posted by ottergirl

....find a way for both sides to make a concession without losing face ...

I think Bassa lost face a long time ago. The laughing stock of the airline and the industry.

Bassa will have to give up a lot to get away without a strike ballot being needed, there's no way BA will accept an easy compromise now.

On the subject of Bassa's ability to work for its members, what taxation rate has Bassa been able to negotiate for allowances? Any news?