British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

[wascrew]

30%

Radio 5 live

One crew member said his wages will drop by 30%.
Where has he got this from?

[ottergirl]

I suspect he is referring to the anticipated transfer of the 'best' routes to new fleet. Without a matrix for transferral, the Union are forecasting that all the long-range routes will be the first to go, leaving the cheaper routes with the old fleet. That would give the maximum savings for new-fleet given that there is still the cost of recruitment and training to absorb as well as setting up a separate scheduling system.

I don't fly world-wide but even I know that there is a substantial difference between a NRT and a BOM.

[ChicoG]

ChicoG - may I suggest that you equip yourself with some figures before saying that someone is lying. Rude certainly, slanderous maybe!

Apologies, Ottergirl, I should not have phrased it that way.

What I should have said is that in the absence of *any* evidence to support his assertion, it lacks credibility. You cannot come up with a factual statement about losing 30% of your pay based on hypotheses..

The news that an "accountant" came up with such a precise fraction implies that there are figures in existence to show how this fraction was reached.

But without these, how can it be taken seriously?

Could someone please post the link to 5Live broadcast that can be downloaded after transmission?

Thanks.

[wascrew]

matrix

Ottergirl

There was a matrix in the BA proposal as well as a guarantee on earnings through the attendance allowance.
So, I don`t know where the guy was getting his figures from, certainly not an accountant Imho. Is it another example of misinformation/spin from BASSA? I think the same person has been on a few radio phone-ins singing the same song.
As for the comment from him
``I won`t be able to feed my family`` I am speechless over that.

However in the real world we are now left again with the `next move` which surely has to come from WW.
Personally I can`t see a return to the negotiating table. It has to be the 90 day SOSR based on the last proposal presented to the unions by BA.

[Low Flier]

[TruBlu123]

Nicky Campbell & 5 Live

As ever with 'phone -in programmes like these there is a lot of nonsense spoken. I listened with incredulity to the CSD from Twickenham justfying one component of the Disruption Agreement. He claimed that it was driven by the "more restictive CAA rules" and not the industrial agreement. He is either being economic with the truth or just plain does not know. If the latter is says a lot about the competence of some who are working in senior positions on board the aircraft.

[ChicoG]

The caller in question said he'd spoken to "his accountant" and "with Mr. Walsh's proposal I will in fact be taking a 30% cut". Where is the fact, I ask?

He intimated that Mr. Walsh's proposal doesn't touch his basic pay "which is contractual" but goes on to say how complex other payments are, and finishes by saying "all <sic> our allowances and extra pay will be gone".

When pressed to clarify the numbers, he said "I don't really want to discuss figures."

I don't recall seeing anything in the last BA proposal that does this.

So I can understand why he was unable to provide figures.

From the other callers, there's just a load more willie bashing.

[Discorde]

From today's 'Independent', copyright Mark Steel:

HERE WE go. It's time to blame everything on the unions again. So Gordon Brown calls the planned cabin crews' strike "deplorable", but the Tories and most newspapers scream this isn't enough. Presumably David Cameron will make a statement that starts, "This is much worse than deplorable, Gordon Brown, it's sh*t. Absolute sh*t. And I don't mean like a cow pat, that can be quite endearing in a rural setting, I mean a great squashy dollop left by an untrained Alsatian. So why doesn't the Prime Minister go ahead and say so."

Every news report seems to start with someone explaining their distress about the possible cancellation of their journey, and you expect the reporter to finish by turning to the camera and saying "See what you've done, you unions? I covered the war in Bosnia but this beats anything that happened there. I hope you're pleased with yourselves you bastards. And with that, back to the studio."

The strange part is that BA cabin crews don't generally come across as the selfish wrecking thugs they're now portrayed as. They mostly smile and bring you stuff, so why would 80 per cent of them vote twice for a strike? Perhaps it's because the company wants to bring in new staff on inferior terms to those offered to current employees, with less security and lower wages than the current basic rate of £18,000.

The most common response to this complaint is the current terms can't go on, because Easyjet and Ryanair pay their staff much less. And it's not fair if some people are being treated horribly, so the answer is to treat everyone horribly and then no one feels bad. Maybe charities should work like this. Oxfam could go to Mozambique and say, "So you're living on a bowl of rice a day are you? Well in Somalia they're living on half a bowl of rice a day, so we're taking half your rice away you greedy pigs."

The anti-union rage takes some splendidly imaginative forms. The Conservatives are demanding that Gordon Brown refuses to take funding from Unite. This seems reasonable, as Unite have never shuffled their assets to Belize, never lied about bringing them back, have open votes about political donations and represent the interests of one-and-a-half-million people instead of one person, so they clearly know nothing about how to run a modern business.

And The Daily Telegraph informed us the strike is part of a plot for the unions to run the country, and as part of the evidence one of the Unite offices is "a few doors down from the old Communist Party HQ". Even McCarthy, as far as I know, didn't bellow, "Have you or have you ever been or have you ever lived a few doors down from a communist?"

But that's because he was too soft. Everyone knows the old trick of living a few doors down from the old headquarters, then you only have to nip back in time and you're only a few doors from the current headquarters, with a short walk to ask advice on how to turn the country communist in the future by calling a strike of cabin crews. As it's only a few doors away this means there must be other places, a Boots the chemist perhaps, that are even nearer. Buy a tube of toothpaste from the place and you're as good as selling the old Soviet Union our nuclear missiles.

The people who foam with rage about the union say, "Now is not the time for a strike" as if they want to offer it strategic advice. But if a management imposes a new set of substantially worse conditions, what is a union supposed to do? Does it wait 20 years for a quiet moment, or maybe only bring out the retired and dead members on strike, so no one will notice, in the hope this will win over public opinion?

The anti-union lobby claim they don't mind unions as long as they're responsible, but it's more accurate to say they don't mind unions as long as they're ineffective. They'd be happy if a union was like a church group, and told its members "We've all been given a 40 per cent wage cut, so in response we're going to have some lovely Madeira cake and a game of whist."

So now we should prepare for the next phase, once the strike's begun, in which every news report begins by telling us "Heroic passengers on one plane beat the strike by dishing out their own chicken and unidentifiable pudding, and pointing to the emergency exits while no one took any notice themselves. 'We beat Hitler so we can trounce this lot,' said one woman, who has now been recommended for the Victoria Cross".

[Re-Heat]

In the Economist last week - a pertinent analysis of European austerity that echoes the resistance to change in many employee groups:

Even in the worst-hit countries, protests rarely come from the main victims of the crisis: the young, immigrants and temporary workers. Unemployment in Spain is close to 20%, but the loudest squeals have come from full-time workers arguing against raising the pension age to 67. Greek civil servants are mobilising to defend generous pensions that most of their countrymen will never enjoy. Other strikers include Greek tax collectors (whose bribe-taking is one reason why the country is broke) and taxi drivers furious over plans to make them issue receipts, keep accounts and pay taxes on their full incomes. Elsewhere, strikers have included French air-traffic controllers, said in a recent study by French state auditors to work fewer than 100 days a year—though nobody knows for sure, as their perks include shift patterns kept secret from senior management.

It is perhaps no surprise to find that organised workers in positions of privilege, including many in the public sector, fight the hardest and squeal the most in defence of their benefits.

I'm afraid the Independent's analysis misses the point entirely - a responsible union negotiates the best for its members knowing the external financial position of the company. An irresponsible one fails to negotiate and ignores economic reality.

[henkybaby]

In the Netherlands the VNC (also a cabin crew union) has protested against the services provided by ArkeFly and Transavia to BA. They feel that no other airlines should help BA break the strike. This in anticipation of a strike at AF where they hope to prevent KLM taking over flights.

All in all this strike becomes less and less damaging for the reputation of BA. IB, LH have gone before them, AA and AF will go after them and no doubt more will follow as the aviation industry has to cleanse itself from a long history of being publicly owned.

Former national carriers have a different cost base than more modern airlines. All (not just BA) of these airlines will have to go through painful changes. I don't think BA will be anymore hurt (commercially) than AF or LH. The crew and the unions of all these airlines will have a hard time accepting these changes but without it these carriers cannot survive.

[Right Engine]

M Mouse

Right Engine

It is a highly contentious point as to whether pilots volunteering to work as volunteer CC would make or break WW's plan or indeed BA itself. So your last sentence, while making you appear a martyr to the cause, is at best, questionable.

If we at least agree on it being 'contentious', that's a start. What you are failing to appreciate is (forgive the repetition) that if you asked the average volunteer why they were volunteering, they would have probably answered like me, that if they didn't muck in, they would be rueing their decision in a years time when BA in their pessimistic opinion, went to the wall.

I am as right wing as they come but having observed BA management first hand for the past 20+ years I do realise why unions are a necessary evil. However, the act of using other unionised workers in the same company to break a dispute is one thing but the pilot's volunteering I think is a disaster.

I think I can agree on the fact that we have ruthless managers. I don't think as an organisation we have a monopoly on that style. I have quite a few friends in other industries who are victims to the harsh realities of corporations muddling through the most entrenched recession in our lifetime. Unemployment focusses the mind somewhat and having had the opportunity to sample that in my early 20's, I don't wish to do it again.

Firstly, relations between pilots and CC in BA have always been poor and BASSA have never missed an opportunity to cast aspersions about pilots with most allegations or references being almost entirely fictitious. I hardly think pilots volunteering will improve that situation.

I don't think it will improve the situation too! But when I look at the possibilities that face us, I'm more than happy to continue making my own tea in the forward galley. I would also say, that you are being rather pessimistic about how begrudging our colleagues will be. I have been treated with utter disdain by cabin crew in 'peacetime', by jumped-up militant pr*cks, so to be treated in that way after all this has been resolved will be no different.

Secondly, BALPA have claimed neutrality yet one of the BACC reps has caused unbelievable dissent and division within the BALPA hierachy by volunteering himself at the first opportunity. How will that help the pilot negotiators when next there is a joint negotiation between all flying staff representatives and BA?

The rep you refer to was told to stand down after he did his course. The course that suffered the threatening text to nearly all crew of their names. It became personal and he didn't withdraw as a volunteer. That shows an element of bravery that has been sorely lacked by the more left-leaning reps who sought his dismissal.

Thirdly, how will BALPA's declared neutral stance be seen when one of its volunteer officers has visibly sought to undermine another union's dispute?

He has been removed from office. Should we stone him too? On that point, if his removal was a peace offering by BALPA to consolidate that 'neutrality', why did we not hear from BASSA about it? Because they want us as their 'enemy'. We are the ones 'in the know' about how GOOD it is for crew and how BA's offer was just making their excellent package, slightly less excellent. BASSA fear the pilot community because we can recognise the heady smell of bullsh*t that eminates from their HQ.

Fourthly, it is my view that once WW wins this dispute, which he well and truly will, does anybody really believe he will not be emboldened to tackle the next group using similar tactics?

I don't expect anything else. But then again, if BA looks like the airline it once was in a year or two from now, I'm not sure he would want to tarnish the brand with the threat of IA.

Unite/BASSA 'leaders' are a bunch of short sighted idiots and their ridiculous behaviour has jeopardised the position of everybody in the company but looking further ahead they will have truly stuffed all employees negotiating strength for the foreseeable future once they are beaten.

Can't agree with you. You know as well as I do that their short sightedness and ridiculous behaviour played a part in their downfall. If Unions choose to avoid myopic tom-foolery in the future then their members will not suffer like CC.

BA's immediate viability is not much threatened by this strike. They have the funding and can allow it to continue for some months although my prediction is it will be over within 48 hours. BA's real problem is that its business model no longer works and its CAPEX funding requirements over the next few years are far from assured.

I think that is where we fundamentally agree to differ. I believe in a rather old fashioned business model that suggests that if as a going concern, you make your revenue exceed your costs by a healthy margin, then all is well. BA is hindering it's revenue because people will not book with us whilst we are associated with an annual ritual of Industrial action. If we solve that nut with Willie's sledgehammer, then we can make that simple equation work to all our advantage. So, yes, the immediate viability is not the issue, the long term viability is!

I have worked for numerous companies during my career but I have to say, with no sense of pleasure, that BA is the most dysfunctional organisation I have ever known. Interdepartmental envy, wilful obstructiveness (e.g. when using staff travel) and sheer unpleasantness often shown by individuals to colleagues in other departments coupled with appalling middle management makes it a very odd place to work.

I have been long term unemployed. It is not as nice.

The reason I stay is because it pays me very well indeed and is one of the best pilot jobs in the world. Being a pilot also means that for most of the time I am not immediately affected by the aforementioned issues and my working environment can be described as pleasant.

But to be brutally honest many thousands of BA employees don't deserve to have a job let alone a well rewarded one with BA and if BA went bust it would finally bring home a few home truths to those who have been blind to them for so long.

This current dispute epitomises the culture within BA and the future will indeed be interesting.

So if you feel that way, and the process of volunteering was the only contribution you could make to averting BA's demise, then could you possibly be agreeing with me?

[L337]

I gather the aim in talking to these other trade unions is to seek to block BA flights from landing during the period of the dispute

Well the aeroplanes can stay up in the air, but eventually they will run out of fuel, and then they will come down.

Looks like Unite and the Teamsters are looking to endanger the lives of crew and passengers.

That might just also be illegal in the USA.

[ExecClubPax]

The price of International Solidarity

No the aim of any action by union members in USA, Australia and anyother overseas destination will be to incoveninece passengers who BA manage to carry during strike days. They will be seen as legitimate targets of this action because they have the temerity to try to complete travel plans many have made months prior to the strike being muted.

Baggage handling, aircraft cleaning, catering and aircraft maneuvering will be disrupted in an effort to put passengers off flying BA (and in the process losing the money they have paid for their tickets). There can be no mistake. Unite's attempts to incite what amounts to secondary action (illegal in the UK) are about bringing the most inconvenience as possible to the travelling public.

With the trouble brewing in the US airline industry, I guess we can look forward to Unite's members taking similar action against American carriers operating into the UK. That will be the price for US solidarity and an action that will almost certainly put the Union in conflict with the courts. I wonder whether the Teamsters have considered this aspect and realised Unite is not in a position to reciprocate?

[Timothy Claypole]

Fortunately the views of polax are irrelevant. Any company which subjects BA to secondary action in the US will see it's handling contract revoked pretty damn quickly. That'll be more teamsters on benefits.

[demomonkey]

Shock & Awe

Over the last few days I have been surprised by how many CC&FD seem genuinely shocked that trade union organisations contribute large sums of money to the Labour party. Hello, where have you been? The origin of the Labour Party stems from the idea of workers financing a socially progressive political movement to represent their views which were largely ignored by the Tory/Liberal establishment of old. You're financing the proletariat - get over it.

I was also shocked by many of my colleagues reactions to how BA intends to support those who do chose to work with reimbursement of travel costs. What did you expect? That the company would roll over and give in?

For WW this is war, not just war but THE war and he's determined to win. He's learned well from previous clashes and he seems to have thought way way ahead of BASSA's leadership and is ready to immediately respond. Regardless of what happens at the upcoming meeting, he will already have a response prepared. Two fundamental rules of negotiating have been broken here;

1. Know your opponent - BASSA have massively under-estimated WW's determination.
2. Never ask a question you don't know the answer too - BASSA has voluntarily walked itself into a place where WW has the undeniable advantage. This should be a case study for other unions.

I think it is absolutely shameful that BASSA have so naively got themselves into this position. CC deserve much much better!

So don't be so shocked, it only makes you [BASSA/Unite] look naive. As the saying goes "if you're going to swim with sharks, don't bleed".

[Papillon]

I can't help but think that UNITE's decision to raise the stakes by going to other unions around the world is going to be a terrible, terrible mistake. I can see why they find it an attractive option, but raising the stakes in this way can only force BA to do the same. And that is not good at all for those that actually matter in this dispute, the cabin crew. BA will not be held to ransom like this, and may well escalate things further to never be placed again in such a situation.

[nurjio]

demomonkey, you mention war..

The first principle of war is The selection and maintenance of the aim....I am now of the opinion that BASSA have no idea really what their aim is in all of this, particularly now Looney Leonard has hijacked their 'cause' for his own agenda, and now that parliament have taken the case on as a political football.

Mr Walsh knows his aim, 'I will not let this union destroy this company'...and that is perfectly understood by any 'informed' person.

nurj

[nurjio]

The 2nd principle of war is The maintenance of morale.

I would submit that a great many BASSA members morale is shot to bits by union befuddlement.


'phut'

nurj

[Dawdler]

According to the BBC, BA will be increasing the number of flights operating above the 60% already announced due to the number of volunteers available.

[VOG]

Seem to remember some years back CC had a chance to go for an hourly rate like the pilots. BASSA ruled it out. Pity really now wasn't it? Might have made the loss of "good trips" to WW's new contract crew fleet a little more palatable. If you ever get the chance again, do what the pilots do - I've never known them lose out.