British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this is anything approaching a representative snapshot of public view of the latest ballot were in trouble..!
BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | What will be the impact of BA strike vote?
BBC NEWS | Have Your Say | What will be the impact of BA strike vote?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so... place your bets.... New Fleet will start?
a) on day 1 of the strike with the former temp crew? OR
b) 90 days from day 1 when the 90 day notice period of a change of contract is over?
a) on day 1 of the strike with the former temp crew? OR
b) 90 days from day 1 when the 90 day notice period of a change of contract is over?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
essessdeedee
IMHO these are the options:
1. Call of the strike - New Fleet will still need to go ahead but can be done under the influence and observation of BASSA. There's no other option because BASSA with their narrow minds simply cannot present cost savings worth £140 million.
2. Go on a strike - BA will start sacking the first hundreds of crew who are not turning up for duty to send out a message. The militant crew - including BASSA - keep saying this cannot happen as it's unfair dismissal if it takes place within 12 weeks of IA. Most likely this will break the strike. BA will dismiss crew using SOSR and place a lockout until they have signed their new contract - which would be on New Fleet and there would be no need to recruit temporary crew. Their options would be to either sign the dotted line or hand in their uniform.
IMHO these are the options:
1. Call of the strike - New Fleet will still need to go ahead but can be done under the influence and observation of BASSA. There's no other option because BASSA with their narrow minds simply cannot present cost savings worth £140 million.
2. Go on a strike - BA will start sacking the first hundreds of crew who are not turning up for duty to send out a message. The militant crew - including BASSA - keep saying this cannot happen as it's unfair dismissal if it takes place within 12 weeks of IA. Most likely this will break the strike. BA will dismiss crew using SOSR and place a lockout until they have signed their new contract - which would be on New Fleet and there would be no need to recruit temporary crew. Their options would be to either sign the dotted line or hand in their uniform.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Basque Country
Age: 75
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compare and contrast this reasoning for the LH strike with BASSA's.
BBC NEWS | Business | 'If we crash, the whole company goes down'
BASSA doesn't seem to be prepared to accept any change to their conditions to keep their jobs.
BBC NEWS | Business | 'If we crash, the whole company goes down'
Our jobs are under threat from the Austrian, Swiss and British pilots.
Because their loss-making companies - Austrian Airlines, Swiss Air and British Midlands - were bought by Lufthansa, they will accept any conditions from Lufthansa to keep their jobs.
Because their loss-making companies - Austrian Airlines, Swiss Air and British Midlands - were bought by Lufthansa, they will accept any conditions from Lufthansa to keep their jobs.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: dublin
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
figures from a previous post
1789 No votes
2420 Non returns/spoilt papers
1200 Non union cabin crew
1000 Volunteers
300 Temporary crew
6700 Crew potentially available to crew the a/c!
------------------
If 12,500 CC are required to provide 100% service
Cancelling leave should reduce this demand by at least 5%
Using 3rd party airlines could reduce demand by a further 5%
Reducing crew numbers to a minimum another 5%
Reducing frequency on certain high frequency flights and taking into account a lot of passencers cancelling could reduce demand for CC by another 5%
I accept there is no way of confirming the figures but it is still reasonable to believe that 6,700 CC would pretty much keep virtually all flights airborne in the shortterm, as an outsider looking in I would put my money on BA operating at least 3/4 of their flights for the first few days of the strike and possibly a lot more.
What would happen if WW decided to have all non rostered staff for the first 2 days of the strike out on airport standby.... that would force every single member of CC to show their true colours.
I sympathise with the CC who want to work but have no sympathy for the turkeys who have just voted for Christmas, mark my words WW will not back down.
1789 No votes
2420 Non returns/spoilt papers
1200 Non union cabin crew
1000 Volunteers
300 Temporary crew
6700 Crew potentially available to crew the a/c!
------------------
If 12,500 CC are required to provide 100% service
Cancelling leave should reduce this demand by at least 5%
Using 3rd party airlines could reduce demand by a further 5%
Reducing crew numbers to a minimum another 5%
Reducing frequency on certain high frequency flights and taking into account a lot of passencers cancelling could reduce demand for CC by another 5%
I accept there is no way of confirming the figures but it is still reasonable to believe that 6,700 CC would pretty much keep virtually all flights airborne in the shortterm, as an outsider looking in I would put my money on BA operating at least 3/4 of their flights for the first few days of the strike and possibly a lot more.
What would happen if WW decided to have all non rostered staff for the first 2 days of the strike out on airport standby.... that would force every single member of CC to show their true colours.
I sympathise with the CC who want to work but have no sympathy for the turkeys who have just voted for Christmas, mark my words WW will not back down.
Last edited by newirishbabe; 22nd Feb 2010 at 17:52. Reason: changing 9,000 to 6,700
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSDD
SOSR = Some Other Substantial Reason. Try Googling it for the legalese.
As I read the situation, the cards are very much stacked in Willie's favour.
BASSA have a fairly weak mandate for strike action at 60% of the workforce. Whilst some may baulk at crossing the picket line, should BASSA announce strike dates, then the company will flesh out the precautions and the picketing limitations that will apply in order to reassure those wishing to work.
Further more, whilst it is very easy to submit a YES vote via an anonymous beige envelope, it becomes a totally different reality to not turn up to work, especially when you (i) have a family and a mortgage to pay, (ii) you are not being asked to give up any money, (iii) your partner's may be in danger of losing their job, (iv) you use staff travel to get to work, (v) you have Xmas credit card bills to pay, (vi) you have a nice little earner of a trip coming up. etc etc.
Willie has already said that sickness = striking, so no easy get out this time round.
I'm sorry, but if BASSA call a strike action on 25/2 they almost certainly hasten their end. All I can say is that I hope they do, and that then all reasonable crew defy the strike call and report normally, and then look forwards to establishing a reasonable partnership with BA through an organisation such as the fledgling PCCC.
SOSR = Some Other Substantial Reason. Try Googling it for the legalese.
As I read the situation, the cards are very much stacked in Willie's favour.
BASSA have a fairly weak mandate for strike action at 60% of the workforce. Whilst some may baulk at crossing the picket line, should BASSA announce strike dates, then the company will flesh out the precautions and the picketing limitations that will apply in order to reassure those wishing to work.
Further more, whilst it is very easy to submit a YES vote via an anonymous beige envelope, it becomes a totally different reality to not turn up to work, especially when you (i) have a family and a mortgage to pay, (ii) you are not being asked to give up any money, (iii) your partner's may be in danger of losing their job, (iv) you use staff travel to get to work, (v) you have Xmas credit card bills to pay, (vi) you have a nice little earner of a trip coming up. etc etc.
Willie has already said that sickness = striking, so no easy get out this time round.
I'm sorry, but if BASSA call a strike action on 25/2 they almost certainly hasten their end. All I can say is that I hope they do, and that then all reasonable crew defy the strike call and report normally, and then look forwards to establishing a reasonable partnership with BA through an organisation such as the fledgling PCCC.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on minute!
If they claim membership of 10513, (Bassa website today)
How come they sent out more than 10513 ballot papers - If this:
Is true? 
How come they sent out more than 10513 ballot papers - If this:
They sent out around 12.000 ballot papers - return was 80% - that's 9.600.
Out of 12.000 votes 7.482 has voted in favour - which is around 60%.
They received around 1.000 more NO votes this time which is very good + the rest who couldn't be bothered to vote. That's around 4.200 crew in total who won't be going on a striking.
Out of 12.000 votes 7.482 has voted in favour - which is around 60%.
They received around 1.000 more NO votes this time which is very good + the rest who couldn't be bothered to vote. That's around 4.200 crew in total who won't be going on a striking.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Basque Country
Age: 75
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...........then all reasonable crew defy the strike call and report normally.........
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad
What I find sad is the overall disunity.
I'll admit to neither knowing nor understanding the issues involved other than in broad brush terms - management, led by WW want to hack away at one employee group's terms and conditions. That group don't want to accept such actions.
Surely that's understandable?
There are a number of legacy airlines whose different components have achieved good Ts and Cs over the years by patient negotiation. Now times are hard and the management want to cut back. Management objectives are ALWAYS counter the best interests of the employees, and the argument always uses company profitability and survival as justification. Moreover, management bonuses are always directly related to profitability and hence the cutting of Ts and Cs.
Not for one minute do I support Scargillism, but neIther would I trust WW or any BA management. I find it truly sad that the other side of the flight deck door is so critical of this - I don't recall cabin crew doing the same during the Open Skies debacle, which had far far less justification for action - that wasn't even part of BA!!
To overtly sympathise with the customer, the passenger, is asinine. It should be obvious that the whole point of industrial action is to exert pressure on the management, and unfortunately the passenger is affected. WW didn't get where he is by being nice - I'd love to know the views of some of the Aer Lingus fraternity over this schemozzle.
One thing is for sure. 7,400 cabin crew think there is an issue. Therefore there is an issue, and the more highly paid individuals with reasonable motor functions in the front two seats should be able to understand that. Just because they threw away their future colleagues' pensions to be able to secure their own package doesn't mean they are entitled to oppose ethically held views of a similar nature from a different employee group.
Divide and conquer - it's a management ploy that WW is very very good at, it's a shame that the pilots have fallen for it yet again.
I'll admit to neither knowing nor understanding the issues involved other than in broad brush terms - management, led by WW want to hack away at one employee group's terms and conditions. That group don't want to accept such actions.
Surely that's understandable?
There are a number of legacy airlines whose different components have achieved good Ts and Cs over the years by patient negotiation. Now times are hard and the management want to cut back. Management objectives are ALWAYS counter the best interests of the employees, and the argument always uses company profitability and survival as justification. Moreover, management bonuses are always directly related to profitability and hence the cutting of Ts and Cs.
Not for one minute do I support Scargillism, but neIther would I trust WW or any BA management. I find it truly sad that the other side of the flight deck door is so critical of this - I don't recall cabin crew doing the same during the Open Skies debacle, which had far far less justification for action - that wasn't even part of BA!!
To overtly sympathise with the customer, the passenger, is asinine. It should be obvious that the whole point of industrial action is to exert pressure on the management, and unfortunately the passenger is affected. WW didn't get where he is by being nice - I'd love to know the views of some of the Aer Lingus fraternity over this schemozzle.
One thing is for sure. 7,400 cabin crew think there is an issue. Therefore there is an issue, and the more highly paid individuals with reasonable motor functions in the front two seats should be able to understand that. Just because they threw away their future colleagues' pensions to be able to secure their own package doesn't mean they are entitled to oppose ethically held views of a similar nature from a different employee group.
Divide and conquer - it's a management ploy that WW is very very good at, it's a shame that the pilots have fallen for it yet again.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll admit to neither knowing nor understanding the issues involved other than in broad brush terms - management, led by WW want to hack away at one employee group's terms and conditions. That group don't want to accept such actions.
Surely that's understandable?
Surely that's understandable?
This issue is wholly about the power struggle of the union v management, and who runs the airline. At the end of the day, the union are about to find out that it is not them.
The cost structure was to be addressed without impacting on those who have built a livelihood around their take-home pay; it is unlikely now to be so straightforward. BA management were the ones to trust at the start of the process!
Last edited by Re-Heat; 22nd Feb 2010 at 18:24.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xt668
I would have to say it would be of benefit have a better 'than broad brush' understanding of this topic before making assenine posts like yours.
What place dues the legal process and review of the cause of the ballot have in your thinking? (in case you're unaware the High Court found in favour of BA last Friday and found their actions reasonable and proportional given their current trading difficulties)
Further, what about the rights of non CC staff to continued employment given the fiscal standing of BA currently?
What place dues the legal process and review of the cause of the ballot have in your thinking? (in case you're unaware the High Court found in favour of BA last Friday and found their actions reasonable and proportional given their current trading difficulties)
Further, what about the rights of non CC staff to continued employment given the fiscal standing of BA currently?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paddy
I think I know the animal having worked for BA for 20 years. They will vote one way to try to support the union, hoping that the size of the vote will convince BA to change tack, then when they see that that has failed (it will in this case), they will cave in wholescale to protect their ST concessions etc, that's what I mean by the reasonable majority, ie those who can see the truth but feel an allegiance to BASSA until it will hurt.
I actually and truly believe that WW wants BASSA to announce strike dates, for that will enable him to drive through the real radical reforms that are needed - all on New Fleet T&C. In the last few months he has won over public opinion and certainly has the backing of the city, the board and the shareholders to defeat BASSA, BASSA will merely be playing into his hands now by calling a strike.
Sorry, TopBunk but over 7,400 have voted IN FAVOUR. Somebody has already posted something about not being able to rationalise someone out of a situation they haven't rationalised themselves into. That surely makes the YES voters unreasonable. Does BA want to continue to employ them and the remaining loyal BA employees still want to work alongside these unreasonable people?
I actually and truly believe that WW wants BASSA to announce strike dates, for that will enable him to drive through the real radical reforms that are needed - all on New Fleet T&C. In the last few months he has won over public opinion and certainly has the backing of the city, the board and the shareholders to defeat BASSA, BASSA will merely be playing into his hands now by calling a strike.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who believe the Media ... just seen on Fox News:
BA crew vote massively in favour of strike over pay and conditions ...
If Carslberg made Media outlets?
BA crew vote massively in favour of strike over pay and conditions ...
If Carslberg made Media outlets?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7482 cabin crew put an X against YES on a ballot paper. The "thinking" that took place prior to that, remains something of a mystery to most of us .... including a sizeable number of the YES voters themselves.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XT668:
No, in this case, it may not be understandable. BASSA is looking to strike over an implementation that they refused to honorably negotiate with BA about, and a condition that they have already found reasonable in other locations.
It is hardly a "hack away", more of a reasonable bringing in one location into the safe and acceptable operational standards already in place and working at others.
Of course there will be disagreement over such a stance, and its not just Pilots, its other divisions within BA as well. Divisions that have negotiated to try to enable their company's survival.
"You'll all stand together...". Please, history tells us BASSA had no problem with other groups negotiating compromises in order to help bring costs under control. It was only when Cabin Crew was asked to contribute that the need for unity became so important to them.
Management is not always a dirty word, and neither is negotiation. It is unfortunate that BASSA's history of negotiation through this issue (as outlined in the Court's Decision) has been so petty and juvenile.
"What I find sad is the overall disunity.
I'll admit to neither knowing nor understanding the issues involved other than in broad brush terms - management, led by WW want to hack away at one employee group's terms and conditions. That group don't want to accept such actions.
Surely that's understandable?"
I'll admit to neither knowing nor understanding the issues involved other than in broad brush terms - management, led by WW want to hack away at one employee group's terms and conditions. That group don't want to accept such actions.
Surely that's understandable?"
It is hardly a "hack away", more of a reasonable bringing in one location into the safe and acceptable operational standards already in place and working at others.
Of course there will be disagreement over such a stance, and its not just Pilots, its other divisions within BA as well. Divisions that have negotiated to try to enable their company's survival.
"You'll all stand together...". Please, history tells us BASSA had no problem with other groups negotiating compromises in order to help bring costs under control. It was only when Cabin Crew was asked to contribute that the need for unity became so important to them.
Management is not always a dirty word, and neither is negotiation. It is unfortunate that BASSA's history of negotiation through this issue (as outlined in the Court's Decision) has been so petty and juvenile.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ cym
As you are well aware, just because the Hugh Court agree that the Company is not breaking the law with the proposals means nothing with reference as to whether the workforce involved necessarily need to accede to the demands.
@two tone blue
Yes indeed the Company is in the guano. Are you suggesting this is the fault of the pilots? The ground crew? The engineers? Carmen? Ops staff - how foolish of me, clearly it's all the fault of the cabin crew. The principle I am trying to uphold here is twofold:
1. Company problems are caused by three issues:
I'd stress for the mods that this post is not about pilots, it about the sad disunity in BA, the lack of co-worker support for a majority union vote (I bet Gordon would like an 80% vote in favour of him) and the quite amazing management sympathy given the example of both BA and Walsh over the last fifteen years.
As you are well aware, just because the Hugh Court agree that the Company is not breaking the law with the proposals means nothing with reference as to whether the workforce involved necessarily need to accede to the demands.
@two tone blue
Yes indeed the Company is in the guano. Are you suggesting this is the fault of the pilots? The ground crew? The engineers? Carmen? Ops staff - how foolish of me, clearly it's all the fault of the cabin crew. The principle I am trying to uphold here is twofold:
1. Company problems are caused by three issues:
- Bad Management
- Bad Management
- Bad Management
I'd stress for the mods that this post is not about pilots, it about the sad disunity in BA, the lack of co-worker support for a majority union vote (I bet Gordon would like an 80% vote in favour of him) and the quite amazing management sympathy given the example of both BA and Walsh over the last fifteen years.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xt668
so in summary, yes the sum total of your contribition is
Managament = Bad, Workers = Good (regardless of the potentail impact of BASSA's documented stupidity in failing to negotiate may have on their fellow union members in other areas of BA?)
...and all on a subject you have a 'broad brush' understanding of?
btw - am an ex BA CC and have a good understanding of the changes these alterations have to my ex colleages. Would you like to share your feelings on the impact on onboard workload for CC and justify why they are unreasonable?
Managament = Bad, Workers = Good (regardless of the potentail impact of BASSA's documented stupidity in failing to negotiate may have on their fellow union members in other areas of BA?)
...and all on a subject you have a 'broad brush' understanding of?
btw - am an ex BA CC and have a good understanding of the changes these alterations have to my ex colleages. Would you like to share your feelings on the impact on onboard workload for CC and justify why they are unreasonable?
Last edited by cym; 22nd Feb 2010 at 19:03.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ XT668 ... I'll reply, although our earlier exchange has been deleted.
This is not about whose fault it is. The fact remains, as I understand it, that the only element of BA that hasn't accepted the economic reality of the situation is CC. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, I've been reading the wrong threads.
Your comments.
1. Poor management? I can't comment, I have never worked for BA.
2. "There is no law requiring employees to accept any job changes they dislike." Of course there isn't. That's why I have changed jobs during my working life. If you don't like it, go somewhere where the sun shines endlessly and money drops from trees.
3. "the lack of co-worker support for a majority union vote". In case you hadn't noticed, co-workers have apparently already taken the hit. Do you honestly expect everyone employed by BA to support this specious action?
This is not about whose fault it is. The fact remains, as I understand it, that the only element of BA that hasn't accepted the economic reality of the situation is CC. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, I've been reading the wrong threads.
Your comments.
1. Poor management? I can't comment, I have never worked for BA.
2. "There is no law requiring employees to accept any job changes they dislike." Of course there isn't. That's why I have changed jobs during my working life. If you don't like it, go somewhere where the sun shines endlessly and money drops from trees.
3. "the lack of co-worker support for a majority union vote". In case you hadn't noticed, co-workers have apparently already taken the hit. Do you honestly expect everyone employed by BA to support this specious action?