British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

[Litebulbs]

Snas

I don't know which side I blame more for the reduction of cabin crew jobs and how it was handled. I blame the union for not realising that 1000 people would happily leave their employment. You are then left with trying to defend the position of the crew (well one position) working harder during an economic downturn.

But I also blame BA for fanning the situation by trying to get a whole raft of changes through on the back of what should have been a simple redundancy process.

It is my opinion that a new contract or new fleet is the end game and I am sure that most crew agree, the 2 issues could have been discussed separately.

[Diplome]

birdspeed:

Thank you for the "heads up" regarding the interview.

I couldn't get your link to work for me though I did find this one:

BBC News - Today - Today: Monday 15th March

What was of interest, and I do wish that interviewers would do a bit of research, was that Derek Simpson, joint General Secretary of Unite, mentions the "delayed" offer by BA with no mention of BASSA/Unite's delay in getting their offer to BA to consider (the "lost weekend"), nor does he mention that Unite had recommended to its members that the offer be refused.

Additionally, in his hedging about rules regarding the calling of the strike dates he does not state that BA provided an extension with their offer so long as strike dates were not called.

All in all it could have been a worse interview for BASSA, though stumbling responses regarding Gordon Brown's opinion did not play well.

[Mariner9]

BA Husband, I fear you (and it would appear many of the pro-strike CC's) are misguided:

My point in that post is that we're now down to a couple of options for crew -regardless of how we got here.


1/ Strike and remain in a position of influence. As a result keep much of the pay and working conditions that actually matter....

I would say that option 1 would be more like "Strike and attempt to put BA under such severe financial pressure that they are forced to reinstate crewing levels. Then hope that BA don't go bankrupt as a result of reverting back to a cost base twice that of its rivals.

2/ Don't strike and have your job as you know it swept away from under you. See Cabin Crew transformed into a position only suitable for those who are young and single - living with their parents or in shared accommodation.

Option 2 should be "Don't strike and continue to work just as hard as your colleagues at Gatwick, whilst maintaining current excellent Terms and Conditions.

[JayPee28bpr]

ba husband #2924

explain to me why 2009, this disastrous year, was the first in at least 5 when a dividend was declared?

Not sure where you're getting your infor from, but BA did not declare a dividend in 2009. They did pay a divi for y/e 3/08, ie the year they made nearly Ł900m in pre-tax profit. Of 15 analysts I am aware of, none are forecasting a dividend for y/e 3/10, and only one (Deutsche Bank) forecasts a divi for y/e 3/11. I doubt most shareholders care anyway. They're more bothered at seeing the share price rise from its Friday close of 235p back to something close to its early-2007 peak of 578p.

[Snas]

Litebulbs

It is my opinion that a new contract or new fleet is the end game and I am sure that most crew agree, the 2 issues could have been discussed separately.

That may well be true, but my view is that the way in which the union has gone about all this has only served to make new contracts all the more likley. On reflection simply dropping one CC from some flights may turn out to have been not such a bad deal if compared to what may happen. (Stressed may to counter the usual BASSA "will" happen war cry.)

It would also seem that the PM has driven the final nail in this morning anyway. Perhaps Unite will be looking for a goat today as a result, Len may be the Billy they find, maybe?

[deeceethree]

Litebulbs,

It is my opinion that a new contract or new fleet is the end game and I am sure that most crew agree, the 2 issues could have been discussed separately.

Why should they have been discussed separately? Cabin crew in BA are the last group with a cost base that is severly in need of reduction. Thanks to the intransigent, dishonest actions of BASSA and it's militant adherents, BA cabin crew are now pretty much guaranteed both new contracts and fleets. Whose fault is that? It isn't the company's!

Other BA workers, who negotiated (as opposed to hissy-fitted), in time, and had the good grace to get on with reducing costs in a time of need, are now fed up with BASSA and it's 'stirrers' so they won't get sympathy from anyone else. In fact, it is well beyond the point of where other BA workers feel it is time for BASSA sympathisers to get the 'trouble' they have so long been spoiling for! Serve them right!

[Litebulbs]

Snas,

He has certainly done that. Bl00dy left wing Government!

[Litebulbs]

Deeceethree

My old department has not got a two tier pay scale and if this article is correct, the pilot community were balloted for strike action over Easter because of the threat of the same -

British Airways pilots vote to strike | Business | guardian.co.uk

As to blaming the Government, I was trying a funny, but it obviously failed.

[Diplome]

Litebulb:

Regardings your comment:

But I also blame BA for fanning the situation by trying to get a whole raft of changes through on the back of what should have been a simple redundancy process.

It is my opinion that a new contract or new fleet is the end game and I am sure that most crew agree, the 2 issues could have been discussed separately.

Settlement negotiations are an arena I'm relatively comfortable with and I believe you may have made some assumptions based upon offers and not what occurred across the table.

Its important to remember that in response to BA's move to cut costs by a voluntary reduction in work force BASSA/Unite, in their counter-proposal brought up the change in TC's in other arenas, including the New Fleet issue, to the table.

BA has responded to BASSA's introduction of these issues.

When at the table either side can bring up ancillary issues outside of the originating reason for their being there in the first place. BASSA could have asked for a better quality of butter to be served in first, or that Mr. Walsh grow a mustache. Nothing is off limits as to what you can throw out...the other party can dismiss or address each issue.

BA responded to issues that BASSA had put on the table as BASSA had expanded the discussion past just the reduction in cabin crew numbers.

Unite/BASSA may not care for BA's response, but BA can hardly be criticized for addressing issues that Unite/BASSA wished to be addressed.

Understand, that barring an agreement, the strike reverts back to being solely about the imposition regarding staffing levels.

(add: Yes, I did get your funny, and it made me smile)

[Snas]

Litebulbs, I get the impression that politically there wouldn’t be much more than a ciggy paper between you and I were we to meet in a pub old bean. No doubt we could both cite numerous examples where a strong trade union has been needed to prevent the out and out exploitation of a work force that some corporate bodies regularly try to do.


But, you would have needed to have been a BASSA watcher for some time (well in excess of this single IA instance) to understand how far divorced they are from what I, and I would humbly suspect you, would consider to be a decent trade union determined to effectively represent all its members.
It really and truly has failed.

I don't believe that the anonymous beginning of the PCCC is the right way to present a challenge either. Even if I do understand why they have done so I’m afraid that if they can’t stand up to their colleagues perhaps they can’t stand up to management when required either. That being said, they have done more than many, so perhaps I’m being a bit unfair on reflection.


Short version, I’m very much in favour of unions, but only good ones and it looks like (and I dont believe I would ever have had to say this) that it may take BA management to weed out the bad bits of BASSA and leave something behind to serve the members better...!

Edit - Note that Litebulbs, a non BASSA rep, is left to speak for the union movement alone on this thread, this says a lot about a lot in my view. He also deserves due respect for doing so I would suggest. Aint easy being a lone voice after all.

[Max Tow]

More on Gordon Brown's comments here...

Gordon Brown condemns BA strikes as 'deplorable and unjustified' | Mail Online

Seems fairly clear that he is now desperately trying to broker a deal on the basis of twisting BA's arm to put the rejected deal back on the table because Unite might belatedly have decided do a flipflop and realise it was the best they're going to get. That would be unfortunate because of the damage since announcing strike dates - the concessions made by other areas of the BA workforce will in effect have done nothing but finance a small portion of the months of union disruption and the appalling diversion of management time when it was most needed to handle the recession. The Rubicon has been crossed, and anything now perceived as a drawn contest would augur badly for the future. The time for government arm twisting and a fudged outcome was long ago, and embarrassing as it might be for Mr Brown, in my view BA must win and be seen to have won if confidence is to be restored, and clarity established once and for all over who runs the company.

[iwalkedaway]

I hope this falls within the Moderator's tolerance zone for this thread, in contributing a slightly different view. I have just flown back from the US on BA, Club Class - nine hour flight - rather tired and down-at-heel 747, with decidedly tense, edgy and defensive CC...unless my senses deceive me. The smiles were there, the service - what's left of it these days - was also there, but the eyes told a different story, and there was plainly friction between some crew members. Average age of this crew appeared to be high-30s - which itself tells one unfortunate (and increasingly significant) BA LHR CC story - and after what appeared to be as rapid and requirement-filling service as possible they all vanished for the duration - well, at least until brekky was served, in a somewhat perfunctory manner.

I was sitting adjacent to the galley and a couple of times heard raised voices there, with 'the reps' being a frequently mentioned phrase. In other words there was palpable tension in the air, and the cause seemed pretty unmistakeable. The strike - threat of it - or imposition of it from the union faction - seems uppermost in their minds. The LHR CC - I understand - cut the Gatwick CC adrift some years ago to protect their own terms and conditions. Today they seem willing - if we believe the union mouthpieces - to risk every other employee group's futures, again to protect their own.

Virtually every other department of what I still - as SLF for forty years or more - regard as a great national carrier, seem to have taken a financial and Ts&Cs hit "for the team", yet here one of the most pampered, most praised and yet most simply-qualified groups of employees are encouraged not just to defend a favoured status quo, but to risk caving-in the entire company to do so. If the militants so detest BA why compromise their rapidly-passing life by working for it (we all know the answer to this one). Having once sold out, they refuse to contemplate any change to those terms. When that creates the in-flight atmosphere I have just encountered, it makes flying by BA less congenial than it most certainly has been, and should still be. That in itself compromises BA's ticket saleability. If 'SLF disturbance' is another sackable offence, I'm all for it being added to the list...

iwalkedaway

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by deeceethree

In a similar vein to as posted by someone else further up this thread today, it isn't easy to justify an unjustifiable position.

I would disagree that it is an unjustifiable position. If you are on one package (the whole thing and not just the contractual obligations) and any part of that package changes, then their will be discussions that may lead to conflict.

Whether Unite have successfully justified their actions, is another matter entirely.

[ChicoG]

BA.Husband said:

WW's remit has been to break the unions in order to allow an across-the-board reduction in costs from every department. That might be in the shareholders' interests, but it's not in the interests of the employees.

That is one opinion. I tend to take the view that WW's remit is to make an across-the-board reduction in costs from every department, but BASSA, with its leadership of reps who think working the service is below them, and UNITE, who are nothing more than combative 70s socialists, are opposing this much needed cost-cutting for their own ends, certainly not to the benefit of their membership.

Contrary to your view, survival of the company in a crisis is very much in the interests of the employees, as evidenced by the large number volunteering to stop these kamikaze union dinosaurs from sabotaging BA.

Please remind yourself of what BA asked of the union at the start of this dispute, which was a little extra work by the cabin crew in return for a guarantee of protection of their T & C's.

BASSA and UNITE's aggression, intransigence and selfishness have cost the company a fortune, and WW is entitled, on behalf of all the other stakeholders, employees and shareholders alike, to neuter them.

The sooner, the better, for the sake of all BA employees.

[fruitbat]

Asked 6 mates, who are all BA WW maincrew, what they were going to do over the strike.

5 said they were going to go into work as normal, and one said she was going to 'try' and go sick!

This strike is well and truly doomed already.....

[Litebulbs]

Snas

Do you think that the Government comments will do to this process?

[Snas]

As it happens LB I don't think Brown’s comments will do a lot to either Unite or BA as entities in themselves.
Yes no doubt Willie is happy about it and equally Len will be unhappy in equal measure, but so what.

Were I Len I would try not to comment on it at all in fact, anything he says won’t serve him well that's certain, he can only agree or disagree after all, neither will be a good position.

Internally within Unite, this is the day Len lost. If a priest attracts the scorn of the pope he’s buggered (excuse the topicality of that one..!) – so it must be with a Union leader and a Labour Prime Minister, surely?

However, I think that it will serve to further marginalise staff so that more of those that were going to support the strike will now not do so.

I think this is going to be a master class for future trade union study, how to turn a significant majority in favour of a strike into such limited support for the actual strike itself.

I know that the trade union movement generally has not been well served by this whole affair, and so far neither have the cabin crew or the company.

What a bloody waste eh

[Litebulbs]

Snas,

No doubt this sorry affair will make up the content of future training programmes for both business and unions in the future.

The unfortunate thing, is that if nothing changes this week, then we will all have to wait to see if the strike is supported or not. If 7000+ crew do not turn up, then that will give some protection to the Unite officers in the middle of this. What the tipping point for support is, who knows and we won't find out until the weekend.

[fruitbat]

I will lay down a wager now that the number of crew who actually go 'on strike' will be less than 500.

A far higher number will attempt to call in sick, but with a much more robust system for dealing with this now, will probably fail to convince BA and either come in or be deemed to be on strike.

Either way, there are thousands of crew who won't risk their jobs and/or staff travel and will turn up.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ Fruitbat ... presumably, however many do/do not strike, BA will still have to run to the emergency schedules? ISTR those are being published later today.

That would still mean ongoing losses to BA.