British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just wanted to point out that, while I don't entirely support this IA, I am a bit surprised that volunteers are being described as "supporting BA against this selfish attack from CC". I cannot speak for all volunteers, but most of the ones I have talked to don't seem to be very interested in what's going on, and they merely say that it's a great opportunity to work as CC for a few days, a nice adventure and something to add to their CVs. Don't get me wrong, I know many of them are genuinely supporting BA and have principles, but I wonder if so many people would have volunteered if it wasn't CC going on strike, but ramp drivers or check-in staff.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the only place the Bassa supporters receive any credence? - on their own forums. When exposed to the opinions of the real world they are in a tiny minority.
QED
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA's "European" Crew
Snowbound,
I can assure you, those hailing from Europe rather than the British Isles come across as for more attentive, industrious and productive. Happier too.
You can laugh as much as you. You'll need something to cheer you up in the Employment Exchange queue.
I can assure you, those hailing from Europe rather than the British Isles come across as for more attentive, industrious and productive. Happier too.
You can laugh as much as you. You'll need something to cheer you up in the Employment Exchange queue.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies and gents,
There are positions and there are interests. Staffing levels are a position, not a real interest. The interest (and therefore the real issue) is that BA is getting the authority to unilaterally impose changes to working conditions. There is no point discussing the actual working conditions that are changing this time, it is about principle. I agree with the cc that it is wrong for an employer to be able to unilaterally change this. That should be done in cooperation with lawful representatives of the workers, be it a union or a works council.
However, those representative must be able to represent the interests of their 'clients' and that is where it all goes horribly wrong. For the most part Unite (BASSA) was too busy fighting over power internally so they were not there to represent the interests of the cc. Also they failed to present proper alternatives to the proposed (and much needed) cutbacks. That has now been established in a court of law too.
So, what seems to be the case is that both sides have failed to cooperate in establishing an acceptable scenario for cutbacks so BA imposed them. The judge clearly puts the blame for that unwanted action with Unite. That is a problem because Unite now has no more reasonable arguments left. They are to blame for the impositions, not BA. Ouch.
That still leaves a lot of good willing BA employees who (maybe rightfully) fear that BA can now do with their jobs/perks/etc what it wants. That maybe true but the cabin crew should have a good hard look at who is responsible for that. It is now well established that it is their own union who put them in this regrettable position.
Since the union can never admit to these facts (even though established in a court of law) this now leaves the workers without acceptable representation since all the unions can do is fight to draw attention away from themselves. A strategy (to use their own beloved comparisons) also used by Hitler and Stalin to draw attention away from a failing economy.
There are positions and there are interests. Staffing levels are a position, not a real interest. The interest (and therefore the real issue) is that BA is getting the authority to unilaterally impose changes to working conditions. There is no point discussing the actual working conditions that are changing this time, it is about principle. I agree with the cc that it is wrong for an employer to be able to unilaterally change this. That should be done in cooperation with lawful representatives of the workers, be it a union or a works council.
However, those representative must be able to represent the interests of their 'clients' and that is where it all goes horribly wrong. For the most part Unite (BASSA) was too busy fighting over power internally so they were not there to represent the interests of the cc. Also they failed to present proper alternatives to the proposed (and much needed) cutbacks. That has now been established in a court of law too.
So, what seems to be the case is that both sides have failed to cooperate in establishing an acceptable scenario for cutbacks so BA imposed them. The judge clearly puts the blame for that unwanted action with Unite. That is a problem because Unite now has no more reasonable arguments left. They are to blame for the impositions, not BA. Ouch.
That still leaves a lot of good willing BA employees who (maybe rightfully) fear that BA can now do with their jobs/perks/etc what it wants. That maybe true but the cabin crew should have a good hard look at who is responsible for that. It is now well established that it is their own union who put them in this regrettable position.
Since the union can never admit to these facts (even though established in a court of law) this now leaves the workers without acceptable representation since all the unions can do is fight to draw attention away from themselves. A strategy (to use their own beloved comparisons) also used by Hitler and Stalin to draw attention away from a failing economy.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who'll blink first?
The ballot result was much in line with previous. Suggests that the resolve of CC to take action is undiminished. I find it perplexing that such a large number of normally sensible people would be swayed in this way. Surely they are not proposing to strike for the high minded reason of the "imposition" of working one down! I believe it is the company's wider agenda that has them stirred up. If so why not negotiate a package of changes acceptable to both parties.
Jamie Bowden (ex BA manager) on Sky News articulated the situation well yesterday evening. He stated that the past 4 CEO's when attempting to introduce changes to CC were always confronted by strong resistance from the rank and file. This time they need to wake up and take a reality check, big time!
Jamie Bowden (ex BA manager) on Sky News articulated the situation well yesterday evening. He stated that the past 4 CEO's when attempting to introduce changes to CC were always confronted by strong resistance from the rank and file. This time they need to wake up and take a reality check, big time!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still bothered by the figures.
Unite claim a 78.7% turnout which would make ballot papers issued to be around 11,795. However on Bassa's website they state their membership is 10,513, so where did the additional 1,192 ballot papers go?
By the way Snowbound, do you not consider calling someone "a moron" agressive? Most reasonable people, I think, would.
By the way Snowbound, do you not consider calling someone "a moron" agressive? Most reasonable people, I think, would.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snowbound, there are some rules at the top of the forum.
First one being:
You have now, in post after post, broken that rule.
Attacked people on a personal level rather than addressed their arguments.
Called people deluded and called them morons.
That is entirely unacceptable.
This is your first and last warning; drop the personal stuff from your future posts and argue your points instead.
If you are unable or unwilling to argue without employing gutter tactics, you will lose your access here.
First one being:
Personal attacks on others are not allowed. To be mortally insulting without getting personal is a artform. Acquire the skill. If you can not counter an argument without attacking the person, then do not post here. Play the ball, not the player!
Attacked people on a personal level rather than addressed their arguments.
Called people deluded and called them morons.
That is entirely unacceptable.
This is your first and last warning; drop the personal stuff from your future posts and argue your points instead.
If you are unable or unwilling to argue without employing gutter tactics, you will lose your access here.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: brighton
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cost
BA have already stated that the cost of any strike will come out of the cabin services budget.
As forward bookings are now decimated and costing the company millions do you think WW will now play hardball?
BA are not giving refunds on forward bookings suggesting plans are well under way to operate some form of schedule with no voters, volunteers etc,.
Not much doubt in my mind that BA/WW will announce the 90 day SOSR as soon as strike dates are announced. The only way they can recoup the cost of the strike.
My only question is will the non strikers be immune from this?
As forward bookings are now decimated and costing the company millions do you think WW will now play hardball?
BA are not giving refunds on forward bookings suggesting plans are well under way to operate some form of schedule with no voters, volunteers etc,.
Not much doubt in my mind that BA/WW will announce the 90 day SOSR as soon as strike dates are announced. The only way they can recoup the cost of the strike.
My only question is will the non strikers be immune from this?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snowbound,
Herein lies the problem:
I have been reading this thread for some time now. I am NOT BA cabin crew but I am interested in the debate as I am due to fly out to the states in April! 
From reading the Judges summing up to the Court Case I believe that BA would have grounds for injunction against the latest BASSA vote due to the legal position of the company being ratified in the eyes of the law and the failure of Unite to gain 2 court case rulings. The basis for IA was imposition and the law has decided that BA was left with no choice but to implement corporate rescue plans due to the infighting of the Unions.
Secondly the judiciary felt that no hardship was felt by the Union members especially when taken in context of the current economic environment.
This is where the majority of people have an issue with the communications of Unite. This action is supposed to be over the 'legal' imposition of crewing levels. Not over the potential loss of earnings attributed to the possible implementation of 'New Fleet'.
The Unite Unions willingness to hold back information and make access to truths, statistics and facts difficult if not impossible leads many on the outside to consider that Unite are waging a campaign of mis-information with their own members.
Hardly the stance of a modern proactive Union.
My question to those in the know is:
How many of the Cabin Crew voted on their ballot papers believing that this strike is over New Fleet and how many voted knowing the truth?
A rhetorical question as I know we will never get a true answer but one that all striking staff need to ask themselves.
Hopefully a strike will be averted and I can take the kids to America in April. I have never really liked the VA product!
Thanks.
Herein lies the problem:
Winston Smith! I have realised that in around 4-5 years time I will probably be struggling to pay my mortgage with the way things are inevitably going so to be honest, I don't expect anything from a strike!! I honestly think Willie will win this this but that doesn't mean to say that I am going to lie face down on the bed and part my butt cheeks. I am now forced to look for other employment because I know what is coming.... I just don't care anymore to be honest.
From reading the Judges summing up to the Court Case I believe that BA would have grounds for injunction against the latest BASSA vote due to the legal position of the company being ratified in the eyes of the law and the failure of Unite to gain 2 court case rulings. The basis for IA was imposition and the law has decided that BA was left with no choice but to implement corporate rescue plans due to the infighting of the Unions.
Secondly the judiciary felt that no hardship was felt by the Union members especially when taken in context of the current economic environment.
I have realised that in around 4-5 years time I will probably be struggling to pay my mortgage with the way things are inevitably going
The Unite Unions willingness to hold back information and make access to truths, statistics and facts difficult if not impossible leads many on the outside to consider that Unite are waging a campaign of mis-information with their own members.
Hardly the stance of a modern proactive Union.
My question to those in the know is:
How many of the Cabin Crew voted on their ballot papers believing that this strike is over New Fleet and how many voted knowing the truth?
A rhetorical question as I know we will never get a true answer but one that all striking staff need to ask themselves.
Hopefully a strike will be averted and I can take the kids to America in April. I have never really liked the VA product!
Thanks.
BA have already stated that the cost of any strike will come out of the cabin services budget.
As forward bookings are now decimated and costing the company millions do you think WW will now play hardball?
As forward bookings are now decimated and costing the company millions do you think WW will now play hardball?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not much doubt in my mind that BA/WW will announce the 90 day SOSR as soon as strike dates are announced. The only way they can recoup the cost of the strike.
My only question is will the non strikers be immune from this?
My only question is will the non strikers be immune from this?
As to your question, I would suggest that they will not be immune. How could they be? The new contract on offer would be New Fleet in effect and certainly in terms of hotels/locations and standards, rest down route, EuroFleet trip integrations etc and as such the non-strikers would be part of the same crew. As far as basic salary etc, I'd imagine that they'd maybe keep them, but I'd imagine that the variable pay elements would probably change to be more like LGW.
In other words, I see no exceptions, that is what collective bargaining is all about. It further reinforces that now is the moment for cabin crew to retake control of their own destiny by standing up to the BASSA ringleaders if they want to protect what they still have, before Willie collects the jackpot (which I truly don't believe was ever in his sights before BASSA totally screwed up).
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: london
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question?
Given that the court case results given on Friday was more than likely after most of the potential crew had voted! Those that voted yes, can they change their mind about the vote now?
Are all the names of the potential strikers forwarded to BA to enable them to re rosta or whatever they need to do?
Are all the names of the potential strikers forwarded to BA to enable them to re rosta or whatever they need to do?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was Crew .
From what i heard from a friend some of the hardliners were exploring the possiblity of BA putting an extra crew member back on the CDG/AMS.That way (wait for it) BA could save face
and the membership would perhaps accept this .Also some of the others saying they hope a deal can be reached .I think it's starting to sink in that WW has got them exactly where he wants them and they'll try anything now to save face.
From what i heard from a friend some of the hardliners were exploring the possiblity of BA putting an extra crew member back on the CDG/AMS.That way (wait for it) BA could save face
and the membership would perhaps accept this .Also some of the others saying they hope a deal can be reached .I think it's starting to sink in that WW has got them exactly where he wants them and they'll try anything now to save face.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: here, there & everywhere
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
81% or 61% or ?%
Can someone clarify the percentage of votes for strike? I believe I read a few pages ago it was 61% of the cabin crew workforce that voted for strike (taking all numbers into account). Or did I read incorrectly on my part.
I ask, because if this is the case, why aren't the news and media showing this number. As all I am seeing at moment is 81% vote for strike which conveys to the general public an overwhelming support for the strike.
I ask, because if this is the case, why aren't the news and media showing this number. As all I am seeing at moment is 81% vote for strike which conveys to the general public an overwhelming support for the strike.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've watched this to and fro for ages. Whilst I strongly believe that there is a very important place for Unions within the employer/employee framework, IMHO BASSA have failed their membership badly.
I hope that BA management have the courage of conviction to maintain their stance... furthermore I hope that they are ready with their press releases.
I can see a point in the not too distant future when BASSA cave in, realising that to proceed further would damage the union leadership. McCluskey et al will not want to make their gold plated position untenable.
When BASSA do cave in, I can see their press releases now, claiming a 'moaral' victory
I honestly believe that for the good of BA and its future management cannot afford to back down over the issues currently at hand, even if that forces BASSA to call IA.
That is not to say they should not negotiate over other issues, but they need to stay strong on the current issues that this IA is about.
One question I have, over a point a colleague mentioned (who has a CC partner and is pro strike)... with IA, is there any provisions made for aircraft positioning? Asking in so much that at any time only about a third of the LHR fleet is actually at LHR. I assume that arrangements have been m,ade to put aircraft elsewhere considering lack of space at LHR? Or is this a non issue?
I think that now the court and ballot results are known, this is when things are going to get interesting.
I hope that BA management have the courage of conviction to maintain their stance... furthermore I hope that they are ready with their press releases.
I can see a point in the not too distant future when BASSA cave in, realising that to proceed further would damage the union leadership. McCluskey et al will not want to make their gold plated position untenable.
When BASSA do cave in, I can see their press releases now, claiming a 'moaral' victory
I honestly believe that for the good of BA and its future management cannot afford to back down over the issues currently at hand, even if that forces BASSA to call IA.
That is not to say they should not negotiate over other issues, but they need to stay strong on the current issues that this IA is about.
One question I have, over a point a colleague mentioned (who has a CC partner and is pro strike)... with IA, is there any provisions made for aircraft positioning? Asking in so much that at any time only about a third of the LHR fleet is actually at LHR. I assume that arrangements have been m,ade to put aircraft elsewhere considering lack of space at LHR? Or is this a non issue?
I think that now the court and ballot results are known, this is when things are going to get interesting.