British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When i talked about VRs i was talking about the 1000-2000 VRs around Christmas time. They were allowed to go so that 'imposition' could be, erm, imposed.
So that will save 1000-2000 crew member costs per annum as from this year so not done and dusted and will come out of the original figure BA was looking for. AND they weren't from LGW (although some may have been).
P.S.
You are right about the confusing bit though.
So that will save 1000-2000 crew member costs per annum as from this year so not done and dusted and will come out of the original figure BA was looking for. AND they weren't from LGW (although some may have been).
P.S.
You are right about the confusing bit though.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
OK, I think.
There were 1000 VRs, and then there were another 1000-2000 VRs. I missed that being mentioned, probably.
So across the board some 3000 CC were happy to leave [under favourable conditions, one assumes].
Isn't that something like 20% of the BA CC workforce? Or is that just the BASSA CC membership?
There are so many numbers flying around it's hard to keep up.
There were 1000 VRs, and then there were another 1000-2000 VRs. I missed that being mentioned, probably.
So across the board some 3000 CC were happy to leave [under favourable conditions, one assumes].
Isn't that something like 20% of the BA CC workforce? Or is that just the BASSA CC membership?
There are so many numbers flying around it's hard to keep up.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe we're talking about the same VRs then. I don't recall another big release.
The point i was trying to make is that over 1000 VR left just before Christmas (not from LGW specifically). The cost savings of this will come off the original figure BA was looking at.
The point i was trying to make is that over 1000 VR left just before Christmas (not from LGW specifically). The cost savings of this will come off the original figure BA was looking at.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Arthur, that seems to be part of 'fog' surrounding the entire tragedy.
Thanks for the [possible] clarification.
Thanks for the [possible] clarification.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least everyone must be pleased that these negotiations are ongoing and a mutually satisfactory result may be gained for the benefit of British Airways as a whole? I would hope so anyway.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were 1000 VRs, and then there were another 1000-2000 VRs
There were about 1000 VR's and in addition to that, another number took advantage of reduced part time contracts, equating to about another 700 full time heads, making 1700 in total.
The monies saved from that went towards the IFCE budget reduction targets.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by litebulb
At least everyone must be pleased that these negotiations are ongoing and a mutually satisfactory result may be gained for the benefit of British Airways as a whole? I would hope so anyway.
That a 'satisfactory' result will be the outcome for BA is in not much doubt - I doubt however that it will be satisfactory for BA cabin crew.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary, Litebulbs, none of this is good news for the cabin crew community.
This will go one of either two ways:
1. No deal - so industrial action and a choice of either striking or crossing a picket line.
2. Unite do exactly what they did in the last almost-strike and give us a right royal shafting.
So whereas now we just have crew complement reductions, by cob tomorrow we could have crew complement reductions PLUS a pay cut PLUS changes to existing agreements PLUS any other thing on the list.
The satisfaction will most definitely not be mutual. The losers here are us cabin crew, by virtue of Unite. I will put money on it.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
This will go one of either two ways:
1. No deal - so industrial action and a choice of either striking or crossing a picket line.
2. Unite do exactly what they did in the last almost-strike and give us a right royal shafting.
So whereas now we just have crew complement reductions, by cob tomorrow we could have crew complement reductions PLUS a pay cut PLUS changes to existing agreements PLUS any other thing on the list.
The satisfaction will most definitely not be mutual. The losers here are us cabin crew, by virtue of Unite. I will put money on it.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who was it reconfigured Aer Lingus as a low cost airline again?
To suggest that the job losses and struggles of this carrier would not have happened otherwise is simply wrong. They would in all probability have collapsed.
Apologies mods, but various people keep saying this.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Thank you, Top Bunk. Part of the fog is, of course, how many CC are part-time [and at what %ge?] and how many are full-time. I suspect any realistic calculation is actually impossible. That also seems to be a major complicating factor.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Litebulbs, I understand the emotion involved here. But what percentage of overall CC will choose? And what percentage of those are full-time?
There could to be a perception that some are not exactly 'fully committed' to the job anyway. Is that completely wrong?
I can understand that personal circumstances can dictate how big a %ge of time can be committed to BA [I wish I'd had a job like that]. However, in the overall scheme of things, shouldn't the ballot vote also reflect the %ge of time committed to the company in the first place? In other words, you work on a 50% contract, you get 50% of a vote. Or is that an unreal perspective? I'm only asking.
There could to be a perception that some are not exactly 'fully committed' to the job anyway. Is that completely wrong?
I can understand that personal circumstances can dictate how big a %ge of time can be committed to BA [I wish I'd had a job like that]. However, in the overall scheme of things, shouldn't the ballot vote also reflect the %ge of time committed to the company in the first place? In other words, you work on a 50% contract, you get 50% of a vote. Or is that an unreal perspective? I'm only asking.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs,
We have been balloted about striking over imposition, and the result was yes.
Unless the imposition is removed, how can they re-ballot?
I am BA Cabin Crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
We have been balloted about striking over imposition, and the result was yes.
Unless the imposition is removed, how can they re-ballot?
I am BA Cabin Crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any ballot to accept or reject whatever offer is put forward should surely be put to all crew, not just members of UNITE, as it affects all CC in my opinion. Is this likely to happen though?
Regards
Regards
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HiFlyer,
Valid point. I suppose that all it would take is one crew member to be reinstated on one route, then it would be a negotiated settlement, rather than imposition.
Binsleepen,
Collective bargaining gives you the legal right to vote. If you are not in, you have no voice, with regard to a vote. That is the difference between negotiation and effective consultation.
Valid point. I suppose that all it would take is one crew member to be reinstated on one route, then it would be a negotiated settlement, rather than imposition.
Binsleepen,
Collective bargaining gives you the legal right to vote. If you are not in, you have no voice, with regard to a vote. That is the difference between negotiation and effective consultation.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightbulbs
Thats a bit rich considering BASSA has proven unable to either negotiate or carry out effective consultation. If you are unable to vote it still seems that the union should negotiate on behalf of all personnel in that work unit. A government governs for the whole country not just the 35% who voted for it.
If I were BA I would run a parallel vote for all CC. They seem to have a better idea of the concerns of CC than BASSA and they certainly have a vested interest in the opinions of all.
Regards
Collective bargaining gives you the legal right to vote. If you are not in, you have no voice, with regard to a vote. That is the difference between negotiation and effective consultation.
If I were BA I would run a parallel vote for all CC. They seem to have a better idea of the concerns of CC than BASSA and they certainly have a vested interest in the opinions of all.
Regards