British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI

[HiFlyer14]

Thank you for pointing out that a Unite rep would mention an 8% headcount reduction. I hope you would mention that too, if you attain negotiating rights with the PCCC at BA.

Litebulbs,

Correction - when not if.

The Professional Cabin Crew Council have absolutely no problem with the headcount reduction for two reasons:
A. It was done entirely voluntarily.
B. The cabin crew themselves have no problem with it whatsoever.

I don't remember Unite ever having had problems with previous severance offers in BA, of which there have been several. Can you explain what's different this time? Please don't say the imposition - Mr Justice Sir Christopher Holland has decreed in the High Court that the imposition was down to Unite's inability to negotiate - "undisputed fact".

So, I stand by my previous statement:
THE CREW COMPLEMENT AND THE HEADCOUNT REDUCTION IS ONLY DETRIMENTAL TO UNITE AND NOT TO THE CABIN CREW MEMBERS THEY PURPORT TO REPRESENT.


I am BA cabin crew and the above represents my own viewpoint and not that of BA.

[Tiramisu]

Litebulbs Quote:
To be fair to the cabin crew community, they did not reduce the headcount in their department by 1000, BA did. That is a 1000 (well whatever the real figure is, if you take into account part time etc,) people that for no fault of their own, no longer work for BA. It was by imposition, which may or may not turn out to be legal, but a 1000 equivalent jobs have been lost. Is that not an emotive issue? Because of that, the remaining employees are having to work harder (no doubt people will ask harder relative to what?) and their is a spectre of a two tier work force at LHR.
Litebulbs,
To be fair, the cabin crew community weren't forced to leave BA. It is through no fault of BA that the cabin crew who left, chose Voluntary Redundancy

The above was my response to Litebulbs, posted on the 8th of February.

Litebulbs
There was an imposed reduction in headcount of 1000 employees.

Meal Chucker
That was achieved and in fact over subscribed using voluntary methods.

HiFlyer14

There was an imposed reduction in headcount of 1000 employees. And Mealchucker you are absolutely right - it was all done voluntarily. So why are Unite so hung up about this?

Litebulbs,
I stated the same as the posters quoted here, previously. UNITE appear to have a fixation about the word 'Imposition.'

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by HiFlyer14

I don't remember Unite ever having had problems with previous severance offers in BA, of which there have been several. Can you explain what's different this time? Please don't say the imposition - Mr Justice Sir Christopher Holland has decreed in the High Court that the imposition was down to Unite's inability to negotiate - "undisputed fact".

It is a fact that Mr Justice Holland has decreed as much, but it might not be undisputed.

[4468]

Mr B

Let us not forget that the majority of BA cabin crew have continued, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, to vote for, and support, BASSA's mindless journey to oblivion. The "vast majority" are not blameless in this fiasco!

As far as I'm aware, you haven't yet seen the ballot result to be announced tomorrow?

I still maintain the overwhelming majority are extremely decent folk, concerned for their futures, and that isn't all the fault of BASSA!!

I wonder what proportion of the entire CC community will have voted yes this time round? I'm assuming anyone who hasn't voted yes, will be turning up for work. Along with the volunteers, that's going to be a sizeable workforce.

I reluctantly agree, you are correct. Anyone voting yes can't possibly be unaware by now, of the consequences of their actions! Yet many do seem to be!

[BKFI]

And the consensus is that, even with the obvious issues with the case, that the strike will go ahead and is likely in the coming weeks? Lovely...

[MrBernoulli]

Litebulbs - If you believe that to be 'undisputed' then you are clutching at straws? The details about the complete and utter lack of negotiation are public now, confirming the long-standing rumours about BASSA/Unite's juvenile behaviour.

BKFI - I don't know that the strike will go ahead, but if it does, whenever it is, then flights will be cut!

4268 - If members of BASSA had started exercising their grey matter a whole lot sooner (early last year!) then there wouldn't be the problems there are now. Of course I don't know what the current ballot result is yet, but all the yes voters, be they last year's voters or this year's, are responsible to a notable degree for this fiasco continuing.

[PaddyMiguel]

'Imposed' headcount reduction

This still doesn't answer Henkybaby's very pertinent question: What does BA have to do to get BASSA to call off the strike? Rehire 1000 crew who volunteered to leave BA?

[Hotel Mode]

It is a fact that Mr Justice Holland has decreed as much, but it might not be undisputed.

It was brought up as evidence by BA open court. Unite/BASSA did not dispute that evidence (despite the appaling light it shows them in), therefore they must accept it. It is therefore by definition undisputed.

[winstonsmith]

What does BA have to do to get BASSA to call off the strike? Rehire 1000 crew who volunteered to leave BA?

Remove the imposition!

[Hotel Mode]

Remove the imposition!

Why bother? The High court has already accepted that imposition was the only way forward.

Of course, there is one way to remove the imposition easily. Thats for Unite agree to it.

[henkybaby]

Originally Posted by winstonsmith

Remove the imposition!

Can't be done. The imposition was necessary because the factions within the unions could not get their act together so nobody showed up for the negotiations. That has been established in a court of law now. You can't keep pretending that the unions weren't at fault here.

So, is Unite striking against its own incompetence? We failed to show up so BA should pay?

How do you remove impositions over something that is already a fait accompli by the way?

[Litebulbs]

OK, I will try and explain my opinion (and not that of BA, Unite or anyone else) on why Unite members may vote in favour of industrial action due to imposition.

If BA chose to retire the B744 fleet and did not replace it, then you would be left with an over established crew community. This would probably mean a standard redundancy situation.

This is not the situation within the crew community now. There was a change to the on board "agreed" establishment figures. This was imposed. The effective headcount was reduced by 1000 and it was voluntary. However, there are still 12000 crew left, who will be working extra on each flight to cover the reduction. Previously, there was a payment to compensate for that, but not post imposition.

Now, there will be a ballot result tomorrow to see if the cabin crew community wish to take industrial action because of this.

[henkybaby]

Originally Posted by Litebulbs

This is not the situation within the crew community now. There was a change to the on board "agreed" establishment figures. This was imposed. The effective headcount was reduced by 1000 and it was voluntary. However, there are still 12000 crew left, who will be working extra on each flight to cover the reduction. Previously, there was a payment to compensate for that, but not post imposition.

So, if I may put this in simple-speak:

We strike because BA is making us work harder without asking us.

Please tell your Unite colleagues to tell that to the press.

In other news: load factors on planes are down, meaning that the workload for a cabin crew is about the same now as it was before. If loads go up, BA will most likely increase crew levels again. Unfortunately this will be newfleet. That (and only that) is what up the CSDs and reps noses. They may be passed up for promotions and loose some of the more attractive routes to newfleet staff. At least be honest.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Hotel Mode

It was brought up as evidence by BA open court. Unite/BASSA did not dispute that evidence (despite the appaling light it shows them in), therefore they must accept it. It is therefore by definition undisputed.

Ok, point accepted.

[PaddyMiguel]

There was a change to the on board "agreed" establishment figures. This was imposed. The effective headcount was reduced by 1000 and it was voluntary. However, there are still 12000 crew left, who will be working extra on each flight to cover the reduction. Previously, there was a payment to compensate for that, but not post imposition.

Now, there will be a ballot result tomorrow to see if the cabin crew community wish to take industrial action because of this.

Had BASSA described the dispute as plainly as this to their membership they would never have got the same level of support for industrial action. "You are going to have to work harder because the company isn't making any money" is a message most reasonable people understand.

Sorry, Henkybaby, you said it much better than I did!

[MrBernoulli]

BKFI,

Who's to know if they will chose to run long-haul over short-haul or whatever.

It will be a mixture of both. There will be flight reductions across the entire route structure, beacuse of the hundreds of pilots involved in replacing cabin crew, and not all cabin crew working. Whose fault is that? You know the answer ....

PM,

"You are going to have to work harder because the company isn't making any money" is a message most reasonable people understand.

True, but given that precisely this message was available from dozens of other sources, then BASSA members have to take responsibilty for 'assisting' their union in bringing about their own demise. "I was only following orders" doesn't cut it in the real world.

[Litebulbs]

henkybaby

Thanks for the simple speak.

What is the be honest bit about? The promotion comment does not hold much water with the CSD's either.

[winstonsmith]

I answered Henkybaby's question - it's not my personal opinion.

BA would not be able to remove the imposition today and top up all of its aircraft tomorrow because there's not enough crew - even de facto there are many crew on 24 hour standby. BASSA could agree with BA to work down temporarily for some time and return as many crew members as possible - that might be sufficient enough for them to call off the strike.

Unless BASSA can present a serious saving plan which meets the saving demand - BA will not remove the imposition.

Is UNITE striking against its own incompetence?

UNITE is calling for a strike because BA made this imposition - whether UNITE is to be held responible is not relevant according to Miss Malone.

[Rover90]

Reduction in headcount by 1000 net crew

There are clearly two points of view, the fact and the way that this is being spun.

Fact.
We all know that the voluntary severance agreement suited a certain section of the crew community. The group could be described as fairly senior, original contract and have been thinking of retiring for a while but waiting for the next severance deal.

Bingo, due to the proposed planned future flying program one came along last year, just apply and if senior enough, back came an offer of VOLUNTARY redundancy in exchange for circa 20-35K. The offer was dependant on the cost reduction negotiations with BASSA being successful.

Come November 2009, no meaningful BASSA negotiation on cost saving, crew compliment reduction imposed and severance offers were actioned.

Any other interpretation is just misleading spin.

[henkybaby]

Originally Posted by Litebulbs

Thanks for the simple speak.

What is the be honest bit about? The promotion comment does not hold much water with the CSD's either.

That the strike is about the fear of losing benefits. As newfleet becomes larger BA will basically have two workforces to choose from. The warmongers within the current crew know this all to well and they will be passed over for promotions in favor of newfleet staff.

For the CSD the problem is that they may still keep their inflated wage but will now have to work for it just that little bit harder. I have spoken to some of them over the last months and a high proportion see that as losing face. What newfleet may cost them is the more financially attractive routes. They could be stuck on milk runs while new CSDs from Newfleet get the nice ones.

This is what the crews tell me the strike is about.

EDIT

As one CSD put it to me: if I have to work during the flights I am effectively just another purser.