British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

[cynicalmoose]

City view not so rosy

Various commentators have suggested that in the wake of the US anti-trust approval the city now has a more benign view of BA, and then use this to support any number of propositions.

Their attention is drawn to the screenshot at the bottom of this post: FT Alphaville Barclays, reconsidered (and updated). Fully 30% of BA's stock has been loaned out, to be used by short-sellers. That's a lot of money betting on BA's share price falling.

[Timothy Claypole]

Sadly I have to concur that BA cabin crew are generally unwilling to think independently during disruption. The entire operation is at the mercy of a phone call to the union in the first instance and the DOMs in the second. I have personally witnessed incidences of members of the cabin crew on the phone to BASSA after pushback instead of doing what they should be doing. I don't know who was more surprised, I that I had seen it, or they, because they hadn't expected Nigel to be out of the flight deck after pushback and catch them at it. To give credit where it's due, many of our crews are excellent at improvising with the passengers during long delays on stands, with juice rounds and meals served, but to suggest that anything occurs regarding duty hours without first getting the say so of the union would be innaccurate.

[AlpineSkier]

@FlapsForty

You were absolutely correct, this is the sweet spot ( or maybe just perhaps the calm before the storm )

[midman]

Wascrew

No I don't think the Disruption plan looks one-sided - it looks like any company's plans in the event of major disruption to their operation. You've fallen for the Bassa propaganda of trying to portray any change to the way cabin crew work as a full frontal assault which will result in the abuse of its members.

There was the suggestion recently from IFCE that some cabin crew might have occasional additional duties on the ground, the intention being that CSDs might carry out some part time role in the office, Bassa allowed cabin crew to believe that it meant they'll be loading bags, doing check in, then reporting for duty to fly. Similarly, Bassa interpret BA's attempt to to maximise flexibility in its workforce in the rare event of disruption, as an attempt to turn the cabin crew into dogsbodies, doing general jobs anywhere, anytime. All nonsense.

What they want you to do is to work as cabin crew, but when things go haywire out on the runways, to be flexible, accommodating, and focussed on doing what's best for the operation, not necessarily what's best for you or your union at that time. To change the disruption agreement means putting things down on paper, and the words used to try to achieve that flexibility are what you see in the proposal.

Nearly all contracts, including mine, have a clause stating words to the effect that the company can expect me to carry out duties at any time that it sees fit to give me. I don't interpret that as me working in the baggage hall if I don't have a plane to fly.

Of course if the Bassa reps had been round the table, they could have agreed a more mutually acceptable wording of the agreement.

Perhaps the PCC would have done a better job of doing just that.

[Vld1977]

Nearly all contracts, including mine, have a clause stating words to the effect that the company can expect me to carry out duties at any time that it sees fit to give me

Now, I believe that this clause refers to the 24 hour operation, and that you have to work shifts that may include any hours of the day, any day of the year. But it doesn't give the employer the right to tell you "you are staying on" after you finish your shift, or telling you "tomorrow you come in the morning instead of the afternoon". Not all employees are free 19 year olds without a care in the world. I have my life outside my job, kids to look after and the need of an agreed shift time in advance. I would fight any attempt to get from me this kind of flexibility. I work to live, I don't live to work.

[Meal Chucker]

Originally Posted by midman

There was the suggestion recently from IFCE that some cabin crew might have occasional additional duties on the ground, the intention being that CSDs might carry out some part time role in the office, Bassa allowed cabin crew to believe that it meant they'll be loading bags, doing check in, then reporting for duty to fly. Similarly, Bassa interpret BA's attempt to to maximise flexibility in its workforce in the rare event of disruption, as an attempt to turn the cabin crew into dogsbodies, doing general jobs anywhere, anytime. All nonsense.

Completely agree, as ex-ground staff this looks fairly similar to what most of us had in our contracts, that in times of disruption or industrial unrest you will be expected to work in other areas, and to be fair to Bassa when it was added we were told exactly the same thing, that we could be loading bags or checking pax's in.

In over 10 years this of course never happened, in fact whenever there was any disruption the engineers were offered overtime to load bags, as I understand it the TMG grade engineers also have this clause in their contracts, but the extra duties were purely voluntary and even attracted an overtime payment.

If a number of staff already have this clause in their contract why does the BA news regularly carry requests for volunteers whenever it threatens to snow etc. BA could just force these staff to work regardless. To me this just proves it's no more than blatant scaremongering by Bassa.

[BAAlltheway]

Mine too..

Speaking as some one not in the air, my contract has the statement that i am "expected to work additional hours as necessary, for the good of the company".

Fair enough. That has been there for at least 9 years, and yes, i have worked more than my mandatory hours, but i've never been forced to work in another area, nor forced to stay on or to come in on my days off.

Yes, i've been asked to volunteer for other duties, extra hours, but never forced, and if i HAVE stayed on after time, or come in on off days, then i've been able to have that time back another day.

I don't think it is a macheavallian plot to make crew into all round dogsbodies. Just trying to align agreements company wide, with the fact that aviation is, sometimes unfortunately, an unpredictable beast susceptable to many factors outside an airlines control.

[Re-Heat]

Now, I believe that this clause refers to the 24 hour operation, and that you have to work shifts that may include any hours of the day, any day of the year. But it doesn't give the employer the right to tell you "you are staying on" after you finish your shift, or telling you "tomorrow you come in the morning instead of the afternoon". Not all employees are free 19 year olds without a care in the world. I have my life outside my job, kids to look after and the need of an agreed shift time in advance. I would fight any attempt to get from me this kind of flexibility. I work to live, I don't live to work.

Scaremongering. Every company I have ever worked for has this clause, and it simply enables the worker to go above and beyond in rare events by working in another area.

It doesn't mean that the firm would ask you to tear up your schedule (have you worked for an airline other than BA - clearly not recently...) - what it means in practice is that you instead of flying that afternoon, you might be operating checkin.

Boo hoo - big deal.

As I've said before, you are no longer in the world of 1x weekly cargo operation on the other side of the world, where lone 19-y/o stewardesses would be abandoned on their own awaiting the next crew to pass through.

[Golden Ticket]

I think the check in process is a bit more involved than we're giving it credit. There are specific computer systems to learn and to train all cabin crew to be able to swop to checkin duties at a moments notice would be pointless and expensive. Cabin crew would be used for queue walking and general direction of customers, that's all, freeing up the ground staff for check in duties. You don't need training or a contract change as that sort of work can be done now by volunteers.

Also, cynicalmoose, I hope the short sellers get there @@@@s kicked.

[Papillon]

Correct GT - there would be no advantage whatsoever in putting cabin crew in roles such as check-in, they would require training. As is the case with most jobs. It's very much a scare story, almost all contracts in any job will say something similar.

By the way, short-sellers are holding that position because they will expect a yes vote to the strike, and a drop in the share price as a result. It's simply a bet.

[PC767]

The biggest problem with the ORP is just what causes its implementation. The other details are expected and willingly understood, however, should it be extreme winter weather or poor rostering which brings ORP into play? As I read the proposal only BA can decide that and no-one can object. This was without doubt an area in cabin crew t&cs which was overdue a change. My objection; the lack of consultation or agreement at what exactly constitutes disruption. Alot of the time BA requires flexibilty from it's staff because of poor planning and a (deliberate) lack of resources, ORP is the perfect tool to smother such issues.

[PC767]

Papillon & GT.

Why is there no point. Ground staff, check on or otherwise are undergoing 21 days training to cover cabin crew roles, and only the basic legal requirments - not premium training etc.

Is it impossible that cabin crew could be given 21 days of training to cover a strike by check in staff?

Your suggestion is akin to the average Daily Mail readers view that all cabin crew, (in any airline), do is serve tea and coffee.

[Papillon]

PC767

There's no point because the circumstances are completely different, and that contractual clause is talking about disruption not a strike. The very example you use has involved volunteers not compulsion - how is it remotely an issue?

Cabin crew - or you and me for that matter - cannot simply work on check in, it has to be learned.

As for your last point, I'm really struggling to see how you manage to make the logical leap to suggesting that I think all they do is serve tea and coffee.

[midman]

Originally Posted by PC767

The biggest problem with the ORP is just what causes its implementation. The other details are expected and willingly understood, however, should it be extreme winter weather or poor rostering which brings ORP into play? As I read the proposal only BA can decide that and no-one can object.

PC767, this post, and many others from the pro Bassa stance, suggest that any decision that BA decides it can take unilaterally is a potential opportunity to screw the cabin crew over. You suggest that BA shouldn't be able to decide when the ORP comes into force, but that Bassa should have a veto.

We, the company as a whole, have to get beyond this mind-set, and accept that it is BA's train set, they run the operation, they PAY for it, and are best placed to decide when the operation is so disrupted that we need to change our way of working for a short time. It's all about attitude.

As a pilot, we are expected to be flexible in the event of disruption, to go beyond industrial limits, and can, according to our agreement, be required to come to work on a day off. Taking your reasoning, that would mean that BA will decide on any flight on any day for any reason that I will be called into work and forced to work to maximum legal limits.

It doesn't happen.

BA have rewritten the ORP for two reasons:
1. Bassa at the moment have a veto over the current disruption plan. That means if Bassa are in a period of poor industrial relations they can on a whim decide to play hard ball, costing the company huge sums. (See this and last winter.) That cannot continue in the 21st century.

2. Bassa have refused to agree on the issue, forcing BA to introduce the new plan without cabin crew input. You can't keep agreeing to disagree for months, possibly years on end, the company MUST be able to run its own operation.

Bassa need to stop interpreting every 'What If' as an open door to take advantage its members, leaving the union as the only obstacle stopping BA from wholesale abuse of them. Show me any example where this has occurred to cabin crew in the past.

Working WITH the company to achieve mutually acceptable agreements is the only way ahead, since prosperity for BA means prosperity for us all.

[ChicoG]

prosperity for BA means prosperity for us all.

Midman,

I'd hazard a guess that Cabin Crew don't see this as the case, because they are not told by their union that it is possible. The leaders of BASSA have personally benefited from the years of BA success, hence the packages they are on now, which are completely out of touch with their value to the company at present. They don't really need to improve them.

From my conversations with the PCC, they are not just out to keep their jobs, but want to negotiate with the company as to how to move forward in a changing industry and global trading environment. Things like share options (which I believe may have been on the BASSA table but were ignored) and bonuses for Cabin Crew when results merit them would and should be part of those discussions.

I am sure the shareholders would like to see an integrated, enthusiastic workforce who want to work together to achieve success for BA, and then get their share of the proceeds. But it does need to be negotiated to the satisfaction of both parties.

Socialists such as the UNITE leaders don't think in this way. They don't believe shareholders should have profits, therefore they just want their share whether they've earned it or not. They loathe management, they loathe rich people; for them it's the workers vs. the robber barons.

A few years ago my own company negotiated with its newly-formed employee union an annual bonus. This was negotiated to be dependent on a number of factors, including profitability obviously, but also required a reduction in the number of self-certified sick days and industrial accidents and injuries. Employees know that hard work is rewarded, and skiving and lack of attention to safety procedures could cost them, and as a result both have changed as they were intended. We have received 100% of the agreed bonus in every year since and the employees work with management on all fronts on a daily basis to achieve it.

I would love to see BASSA propose something like this. But their leaders have their heads where the sun doesn't shine, and they are looking after themselves, not the many thousands of cabin crew on significantly smaller packages who need much better, more proactive and more positive representation.

But we already know this. All we can do now is wait and see what the judge says, and how BASSA on the one hand, and the rest of the stakeholders in BA on the other, respond.

Good luck to all who wish the best for the airline and their fellow employees.

And to the ones that are only looking after themselves, well let's hope they get fired, because they are dragging everyone else down.

[ba085]

Judgment due Friday

Court Hearings - Queen's Bench Division

NOTICE

Judgment in the following case will be given at 10.30am on Friday 19th February 2010 by Sir Christopher Holland
TLQ/09/1107 Malone & ors v British Airways Plc

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Like many others, I shall be glued to the 'puter on Friday morning.

Once the situation becomes clear I will, perhaps, be able to continue pre-paying for my remaining travel arrangements.

Good luck to you all; may your wishes come true. Whichever they are.

[ChicoG]

The following article appeared on the CapitalFM website:

A suspended member of British Airways' cabin crew has told Sky News she and her colleagues have been bullied and harassed by the airline in their increasingly bitter dispute.

As the Unite union holds a second ballot of its 13,000 cabin crew members, the employee, who has asked to remain anonymous, says the atmosphere at the airline is "like the Gestapo".

She is one of more than 20 staff who've been disciplined for what the company says is intimidating behaviour against pilots and other staff who are training to work as cabin crew in the event of a strike.

One of the pieces of 'evidence' of intimidation obtained by BA appears to be a discussion that took place on the social network Facebook.

In it, workers talked of their anger at finding a list of the names of flight crew who had offered to train as stand-in cabin crew and in comments that have now been taken down, one worker wrote: "I am in two minds about what to do with the information."

Another worker wrote: "NAME & SHAME!", before the original worker admitted knowing one of the names on the list - who was a pilot - personally.

"I was gonna be godfather of his child!" he wrote, before the response came: "oh no poor you, you would have to kidnap the child and show it the real world!"

None of the names of the flight crew who had volunteered to work in the event of a strike were posted, and the dicussion was later removed - although Sky News has a copy.

Speaking to Sky News, one cabin steward told us the airline's behaviour is out of order.

"I would never ever want to be thought of as a bully, it's quite shocking to be accused of something like that. I'm actually fighting for my job now," she said.

"You go through minutes of feeling quite brave, thinking everything's going to be ok. The majority of time you sit at home, you don't move, you're completely devastated and you're a whimpering wreck.

"It's a horrible atmosphere, it's like Gestapo - we're always looking over our shoulder now at work.

"I think because there's an upcoming ballot the company is using it to intimidate every crew member into almost voting their way or to towing the line.

"In actual fact I think it's the bullying and the harassment that's taking place on us rather than by us that has led to this situation and I'm fearful I could lose my job."

Sky's business correspondent Joel Hills, who interviewed the cabin crew member, said she appeared frightened about the current situation.

"We know seven suspensions relate to the Facebook discussion and the point the union make is that this was nothing more than a private discussion on a forum between friends," he said.

"These are young women exchanging harmless views, it says, and it's a complete over-reaction by the company.

"BA says it is looking at a wide range of other evidence - text messages and email - and they're in the process of investigating for any threatening behaviour and this element of disclosure."

BA and Unite have both accused each other of underhand activity in an increasingly acrimonious dispute over changes that the company has introduced to cabin crew staff levels and working practices.

The results of the Unite ballot will be revealed next week, and may result in strikes from March 1 if cabin crew have chosen to back the move.

If it's a private discussion, which is entirely possible on Facebook, then how did BA find out about it?

Or is this yet more Union lies, and the material in hand was reported to BA by a worried member of a private forum?

[ottergirl]

Taking your reasoning, that would mean that BA will decide on any flight on any day for any reason that I will be called into work and forced to work to maximum legal limits.

It doesn't happen.

There was a time, not so long ago, that pilots were hiding on catering trucks and leaving the aircraft in civvies to avoid weekend draft. Many have separate mobile phones to avoid talking to Flight crew ops by mistake as well. So it can happen when BA have misjudged their manpower levels.

As regards crew manning check-in, the training required for check-in is about 12 weeks, twice the length of the cabin crew training course, due to the various systems involved. Some of our crew struggle with basic CBT packages so you wouldn't want to let us loose on the check-in computers!

TTB, don't pin your hopes on the court case making any difference. It will merely decide whether the strike is over imposed contractual changes or imposed agreement changes. The difference to Unite is negligible and the only impact will be a financial one if BA have lost and have to pay 'one-down' payments to all WW crew until they serve a 90 days notice. I can't see it having any other impact than that. The talks are, however, proceeding nicely at ACAS and both sides are up-beat about a possible solution. We live in hope!!!!!!

All thoughts my own and not that of my employer.

[Snas]

"It's a horrible atmosphere, it's like Gestapo

There they go with that war stuff again!
Some of these people should have spent a few hours talking to my grandad (Burma POW), they would think twice before making such insulting comparisons.

All their missives are peppered with the stuff..

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Suspended-BA-Cabin-Steward-Speaks-Up---Airline-Is-A-Bully-Says-Worker/Article/201002315551489?f=rss