British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

[west lakes]

I mentioned this a while back

http://www.pprune.org/5553117-post1982.html

Note the 2nd sentence in the 2nd paragraph

[saintjoseph]

this is exactly what the ballot paper said

question
are you prepared to take part in strike action?
please mark a cross (x) in one box only


nothing about imposition!
resigned in december, and yet was sent a ballot paper for the most recent ballot. nuff said!

[wiggy]

Just a thought, perhaps an added complication?

Having witnessed BASSA's tactics and having seen the damage done to the business by the threat of IA surely the City ( BA's backers) are not just interested in seeing the issue of costsavings addressed, they'll want some form of very long term settlement and/or some form of no strike clause written into any deal.

[Litebulbs]

saintjoseph

Even more valid and correct point.

[TorC]

So, just as back in '07, the people whos' jobs and lives are actually affected by all this are pushed out of the way by the bigheads in bassa/cc89 and unite who go off to do what suits their private agendas. Unite members: you have become an inconvenience.

The latest statement from bassa/cc89/unite says it all "Although the current dispute is over imposition, a potential solution has had to encompass a broader number of issues and thus the talks have also covered these other areas."

Unon members were balloted on imposition. IMPOSITION ALONE. And that therefore, is what bassa/cc89/unite should be "negotiating" about. It is the only "mandate" they have from their members. Or is it now that bassa/cc89/unite simply pick things out of thin air as they wish, with no regards to their members thoughts or wishes? Getting a little bit to big for their boots I think. How arrogant.

Ah, but they know that they'd lose the imposition debate, so instead they conveniently broaden things so as to allow themselves at least a chance of a face-saving deal. A face-saving deal that will do BA Cabin Crew no favours. A face-saving deal that will do the heirarchy at bassa/cc89/unite many.

Sorry, but that is just plainly and simply WRONG. As a union, if you ballot on 1 reason, you negotiate on 1 reason. This just once again shows that bassa/cc89 have no idea what they are doing and that unite is playing a bigger game than they will admit to.

[MrBernoulli]

If the required savings, originally, were £62 million a year, for 2 years, that is one thing. BA still require to recoup the money that has been 'lost' from the threatened strikes since December. The dip in forward bookings has been noticeable, and BA has stated it will recover all costs from the group responsible - cabin crew!

So there is a lot more to be paid back here. It may even have to include all the training undertaken to cover the potential strike coming, as well as any down-payments on the lease aircraft. And BA still have the opportunity to recover the court costs too, which were only held by the judge until the legal efforts are well and truly complete. I'm not surprised BA is seeing nothing useful in Unite's approaches!

[Litebulbs]

Why would there be any costs for training, didn't everyone do it for free? I a suppose you could reclaim gen fam flight expense however.

[Papillon]

You have to take into account all the costs of taking them off their day to day jobs for a start. Effectively they've been paid for doing nothing - in business terms.

[LD12986]

Having witnessed BASSA's tactics and having seen the damage done to the business by the threat of IA surely the City ( BA's backers) are not just interested in seeing the issue of costsavings addressed, they'll want some form of very long term settlement and/or some form of no strike clause written into any deal.

Agreed. A settlement on cost-savings alone would be a failure for management. The behaviour of the BASSA reps and their hard-line followers has been so disgraceful that there are a lot of people that need to fall on their swords. The events of the past 12 months must never be repeated.

[Slickster]

Why would there be any costs for training, didn't everyone do it for free? I a suppose you could reclaim gen fam flight expense however.

Err, I didn't do it for free; they paid me three days' overtime. Similarly, other people will have been taken off trips, requiring other people to replace them, possibly on overtime.

In addition, the staff, and facilities of Cranebank will have been tied up training volunteers, perhaps on overtime themselves, or alternatively, not doing the work they normally do, such as third party work, generating revenue for BA.

All in all, probably a pretty hefty bill, which I'm hoping WW presents to BASSA/UNITE, for their intransigence.

[MrBernoulli]

Slickster,

It is shocking that you had to explain that. But it does point to the blinkered view that the 'opposition' holds.

[Litebulbs]

Will that be all 7000+ members being punished?

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Slickster

Err, I didn't do it for free; they paid me three days' overtime. Similarly, other people will have been taken off trips, requiring other people to replace them, possibly on overtime.

I stand corrected, I didn't realise people were making money out of this, sorry.

[Slickster]

Will that be all 7000+ members being punished?

No, sadly, the non-members will be punished as well, in whatever deal comes around. All in all, it would have been a lot easier for BASSA to settle on the £82 million requested of them over a year ago. Due their childish behaviour the bill has undoubtedly increased (and does so on a daily basis), and BA are a laughing stock, with pretty grim prospects. Muppets.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by MrBernoulli

Slickster,

It is shocking that you had to explain that. But it does point to the blinkered view that the 'opposition' holds.

As I am shocked that overtime was on offer and my blinkers caused me to miss that fact.

[Slickster]

I stand corrected, I didn't realise people were making money out of this, sorry.

Not everyone, and I certainly didn't realise it to be the case at the time, but it was, nonetheless a welcome surprise.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Slickster

Not everyone, and I certainly didn't realise it to be the case at the time, but it was, nonetheless a welcome surprise.

Thanks for the honest answer however.

[Slickster]

As I am shocked that overtime was on offer and my blinkers caused me to miss that fact.

Nothing is "on offer", as you term it. The reality of the situation is, that either a volunteer does their course on days off, in which case, overtime is paid, or else, they are taken off a trip, and someone else flies in their stead, very possibly on overtime. Either way, it's costing BA a lot of money, because they don't have an army of pilots sitting around, doing nothing, just waiting to do CC courses.

[BAAlltheway]

Slightly disingenuous

I stand corrected, I didn't realise people were making money out of this, sorry.

The inferral here is that the vols are "in it for the money", and that it is wrong for them to be paid.

As has been said already, pretty much noone knew about any payment when they signed up, so that was not the motivation.

Please however also realise that some staff members have been taken off shifts to train, and therefore lose their usual shift pay. Some such staff are therefore receiving pay to replace this. Are you suggesting they be expected to lose money to protect the company?
I dont consider making up lost pay, to be "making money from it".

Also, the training has been including weekends and out of normal hours, The company pays shift premiums for early shifts and late shifts and weekend shifts for jobs across the company, so not sure why it should be different for the vols.

Incidentally, there are also many people doing the training, and then coming in to work to do their "day jobs", particularly the office based staff, including guys in my team. The team member who has been training and then working has NOT received any additional pay for doing 2 jobs, over and above any shift pay for the earlies.

Just thought in the interests of fairness, more info was needed.

[TheOtherGuy]

Quote:
The inferral here is that
Implication


Inference