British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, 11,000 pounds a year salary, living in London and 2.40 a flight hour with no real hopes of promotion or salary increase seems fair then?
That's just a fact of life - we all strive to earn as much as we can, sometimes we need to move on if we can't in our chosen role. If BA salaries were too low, there would be an exodus of crew.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, I believe the argument for this strike is very weak: the number of crew operating a flight. I couldn't give a damn about it if the level of service is not compromised, the company doesn't loose customers, and the staff levels are regulated by voluntary means (ie part time and voluntary severance), win win situation which the union should have explored (I used to be a trade union rep and I think that BASSA has no public support because they are fighting a small threat using its whole artillery). But I think that Yaletown is spot on, and is focusing on the scariest BA proposal: Newfleet. BA has made very clear that new contracts would only affect new entrants and newly promoted crew, so every promotion would imply a reduction in terms and conditions. When the numbers add up, they will change the job description stating that the role has changed, and all CC will end up with new contracts, as it´s happened historically in most of the companies that introduced new contracts.
I have experienced personally the introduction of new contracts. The unions managed to reach an agreement with the company so new contracts would only be held by new entrants for x amount of years (which made sense in principle, given the high turnover of staff, and the fact that a high proportion of them stayed there only for a short period as a gap year job or first step in their employment) and after that period of time, those staff on the new contract would be given the regular contract with its original terms and conditions. Would BA management even look at this?
Protecting terms and conditions is important, and the strike is not exactly about newfleet because (I am not sure) it hasn't been imposed yet, so there is no basis for protest. I mean, the Lufthansa pilots are fighting exactly for that, because of the outsourcing of the jobs, as those "new contracts" will become their future contracts, as it was feared more or less would happen with Openskies. New entrant contracts are ALWAYS a reduction, albeit not inmediate, of pay for current staff.
Not all departments have negotiated successfully, and the next ones to be attacked, I believe, will be ground staff. The pilots faced a reduction of pay, but I have heard they will get shares as a compensation and some other deals. Also, the salary of a pilot is not as affected by a reduction as a low paid worker´s is.
Obviously pilots, and other BA departments, won't go downmarket just because other companies have lower standards of terms and conditions, why should CC? Incidentally, all BA staff have to do their bit, but I am told that directors and managers don't even want to hear of sacrificing their company cars, perks, salaries and bonuses. The privilege of helping the company is reserved for the people who can less afford it.
I hope common sense prevails.
I have experienced personally the introduction of new contracts. The unions managed to reach an agreement with the company so new contracts would only be held by new entrants for x amount of years (which made sense in principle, given the high turnover of staff, and the fact that a high proportion of them stayed there only for a short period as a gap year job or first step in their employment) and after that period of time, those staff on the new contract would be given the regular contract with its original terms and conditions. Would BA management even look at this?
Protecting terms and conditions is important, and the strike is not exactly about newfleet because (I am not sure) it hasn't been imposed yet, so there is no basis for protest. I mean, the Lufthansa pilots are fighting exactly for that, because of the outsourcing of the jobs, as those "new contracts" will become their future contracts, as it was feared more or less would happen with Openskies. New entrant contracts are ALWAYS a reduction, albeit not inmediate, of pay for current staff.
Not all departments have negotiated successfully, and the next ones to be attacked, I believe, will be ground staff. The pilots faced a reduction of pay, but I have heard they will get shares as a compensation and some other deals. Also, the salary of a pilot is not as affected by a reduction as a low paid worker´s is.
Obviously pilots, and other BA departments, won't go downmarket just because other companies have lower standards of terms and conditions, why should CC? Incidentally, all BA staff have to do their bit, but I am told that directors and managers don't even want to hear of sacrificing their company cars, perks, salaries and bonuses. The privilege of helping the company is reserved for the people who can less afford it.
I hope common sense prevails.
Last edited by Vld1977; 24th Feb 2010 at 02:30.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs:
I have to agree, despite my longstanding positions against this particular union, whose conduct I think we all agree upon. Management has not done the best job of presenting itself as a trusted defender of people's established current positions.
I also think it is fair that this is about the only place that issues can be reasonably debated and some kind of educated middle ground can be established. If that instigates some sort of diplomacy, all for the better.
There have been two ballots, one of which, it has been known the possible outcome, could be a long stoppage and still the majority have voted in favour. It was a secret ballot, not a show of hands in a field. 7000+ cabin crew do not believe the management team now, or they fear for their future position/income. BA have not won hearts and minds, neither has this thread.
I also think it is fair that this is about the only place that issues can be reasonably debated and some kind of educated middle ground can be established. If that instigates some sort of diplomacy, all for the better.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a. The "imposition" is a new reality in world economy and implications on air travel.
b. Workforce individuals with marketable skills offer their competency to potential employers. If an individual doesn't like remuneration or workplace conditions, he should migrate elsewhere without destroying the company and its clients' life.
c. There are enough trained cabin crew without jobs who would gladly join BA.
d. Bringing a quality company down will not help anyone.
e. The damage to BA (and Lufthansa) by striking could and should be returned, through legal proceedings if necessary, to the airlines and its shareholders.
f. Finally, don't play with fire, or you might get burned.
b. Workforce individuals with marketable skills offer their competency to potential employers. If an individual doesn't like remuneration or workplace conditions, he should migrate elsewhere without destroying the company and its clients' life.
c. There are enough trained cabin crew without jobs who would gladly join BA.
d. Bringing a quality company down will not help anyone.
e. The damage to BA (and Lufthansa) by striking could and should be returned, through legal proceedings if necessary, to the airlines and its shareholders.
f. Finally, don't play with fire, or you might get burned.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stupid question to all Unite members (Yes voters, obviously)...
Keeping in mind that the strike is about imposition, what would YOU deem acceptable as a proposal from BA to put the strike on ice ?
I mean, what should they come up with (again, keeping in mind the strike is about imposition...) to make you happy again and reconsider striking ?
Keeping in mind that the strike is about imposition, what would YOU deem acceptable as a proposal from BA to put the strike on ice ?
I mean, what should they come up with (again, keeping in mind the strike is about imposition...) to make you happy again and reconsider striking ?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a. The "imposition" is a new reality in world economy and implications on air travel. the industry is recovering and employment rights need to be respected
b. Workforce individuals with marketable skills offer their competency to potential employers. If an individual doesn't like remuneration or workplace conditions, he should migrate elsewhere without destroying the company and its clients' life.employees are the company
c. There are enough trained cabin crew without jobs who would gladly join BA.maybe not for long on the proposed new deal
d. Bringing a quality company down will not help anyone.I can't say everyone, but that is not on the agenda of the majority, whether they are in dispute or not
e. The damage to BA (and Lufthansa) by striking could and should be returned, through legal proceedings if necessary, to the airlines and its shareholders.the right to strike should be fundamental for any employee
f. Finally, don't play with fire, or you might get burned.that can go both ways
b. Workforce individuals with marketable skills offer their competency to potential employers. If an individual doesn't like remuneration or workplace conditions, he should migrate elsewhere without destroying the company and its clients' life.employees are the company
c. There are enough trained cabin crew without jobs who would gladly join BA.maybe not for long on the proposed new deal
d. Bringing a quality company down will not help anyone.I can't say everyone, but that is not on the agenda of the majority, whether they are in dispute or not
e. The damage to BA (and Lufthansa) by striking could and should be returned, through legal proceedings if necessary, to the airlines and its shareholders.the right to strike should be fundamental for any employee
f. Finally, don't play with fire, or you might get burned.that can go both ways
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think for yourseleves...
Have the union misled their membership?? Even to an outsider with a modicum of common sense the answer is an emphatic 'YES'.
However, There is enough information out there to allow adults to form their own opinion without being brainwashed. It's unbelievable that some BASSA members still believe that BASSA offered a £100M+ in savings when it has been proved totally false.
What worries me as a passenger in all of this is the fact that 30 or 40 pages ago, when the posts were discussing the training of other BA staff to be temporary CC, some of the militant CC were procaliming that flying would not be safe under such circumstanses.
Well, hellooo there... I'm survival trained to a higher standard than CC, but I'd still want CC on any flight I was on to have/display the ability to think for themselves, because it's very seldom that in a real emergency situation things go to plan, or as they did in the sterile training environment.
The way that people are so easily led by such obvious lies from BASSA does not fill me with confidence about the ability to think on ones feet when needed.
However, There is enough information out there to allow adults to form their own opinion without being brainwashed. It's unbelievable that some BASSA members still believe that BASSA offered a £100M+ in savings when it has been proved totally false.
What worries me as a passenger in all of this is the fact that 30 or 40 pages ago, when the posts were discussing the training of other BA staff to be temporary CC, some of the militant CC were procaliming that flying would not be safe under such circumstanses.
Well, hellooo there... I'm survival trained to a higher standard than CC, but I'd still want CC on any flight I was on to have/display the ability to think for themselves, because it's very seldom that in a real emergency situation things go to plan, or as they did in the sterile training environment.
The way that people are so easily led by such obvious lies from BASSA does not fill me with confidence about the ability to think on ones feet when needed.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you talk about militant cabin crew, can't they just be cabin crew who are reacting to ruthless, tyrannical, draconian, oppressive and all round bad egg management, or just management?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a. The "imposition" is a new reality in world economy and implications on air travel. the industry is recovering and employment rights need to be respected
It is clear the company needed to make stringent cost savings and take quite drastic measures to do so. Whilst each department within the company was negotiated on a seperate basis, the requirement to tighten the proverbial belt was collective.
Through internal union bickering, cabin crew were improperly represented and supported, with the result being it is the only department having not contributed to the turn-around of this great company.
To suggest the status quo could be maintained because good times are possibly around the corner is moot.
This is not just about the current record losses. This is about a company trying to make a seismic change to its working practices in order to compete with new carriers operating to lower cost bases. This has to happen for BA not only to compete, but to survive.
I remain convinced absolutely BA went into these negotiations very clear about their intention to retain the employment rights you hanker after (see how those rights were not in any way diminished in all other departments during negotiation), but when you come up against a truculent, arrogant, body of union representation who can't even co-operate amongst themselves, let alone with the company, I can not see any other option but to impose what is required to safeguard both the company and all those other thousands of staff who have made concessions and cuts.
Rgds
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs,
I use the word 'militant' in my post because the people that are saying it won't be safe to fly are the ones who will not listen to reason and are using any old excuse to try to sully the good name of BA.
That makes them militant.
I use the word 'militant' in my post because the people that are saying it won't be safe to fly are the ones who will not listen to reason and are using any old excuse to try to sully the good name of BA.
That makes them militant.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stoney
All companies seem to go straight to staff costs, when in trouble. That is because if you get it right, if has absolutely not affect on the product on offer. However, if everyone was on the legal minimum wage, then I would still see fundamental cock ups in the future for BA
I speak from experience and have enjoyed many a p!ss up on the company, when the latest fad for business efficiency was doing the rounds at whatever university the management team were sending their best to. Millions would be poured into it and for what result other than a hangover?!
BA are in a hugely beneficial postion as our flag carrier and with LHR as its main base. Industry recovered after 9/11, when the threat was not that you might not be able to afford premium travel, but the fear that you might not make it to your destination. It will recover again, I am sure of it.
I speak from experience and have enjoyed many a p!ss up on the company, when the latest fad for business efficiency was doing the rounds at whatever university the management team were sending their best to. Millions would be poured into it and for what result other than a hangover?!
BA are in a hugely beneficial postion as our flag carrier and with LHR as its main base. Industry recovered after 9/11, when the threat was not that you might not be able to afford premium travel, but the fear that you might not make it to your destination. It will recover again, I am sure of it.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vid1977 stated
Not all departments have negotiated successfully, and the next ones to be attacked, I believe, will be ground staff. The pilots faced a reduction of pay, but I have heard they will get shares as a compensation and some other deals. Also, the salary of a pilot is not as affected by a reduction as a low paid worker´s is.
Obviously pilots, and other BA departments, won't go downmarket just because other companies have lower standards of terms and conditions, why should CC? Incidentally, all BA staff have to do their bit, but I am told that directors and managers don't even want to hear of sacrificing their company cars, perks, salaries and bonuses. The privilege of helping the company is reserved for the people who can less afford it.
Vid, your post was well written until you moved over to the typical BASSA spin of "look at what the pilots get". As im sure your aware all BA groups have
been told they must save money and in the main have done so, without looking over the fence and what their neighbours have. In my opinion any work group/union should be focusing on what is best for its self and not worring about what others are doing or have. Pilots have a different job to cabin crew and therefore have a different pay package, as do directors, managers, engineers, ground staff etc none of these groups have said we want what the Cabin crew have. It is true that the pain of a company's/industry should be shared across all groups, unfortunatly Bassa have not been open to this either now or in the past which has seen the CC contract become more removed from that of the industry norm. I fail to see the logic of balloting for strike, when all of their members have been told they can keep their current T&C's, the unions efforts should be focused in now looking after their future members, the new fleet and improving their T&C's as the company recovers more towards the "old contracts" which were not touched..
Sadly for the union members I feel their union has, through it 1970's negativity at the negotiation table, put at risk their T&C's that the company said they would keep. I feel for these crew who have put many years into their careers to see thier union fail them. As a point I doubt that any pilot welcomed a drop in pay, for the same reason cabin crew dont want to lose pay, ie mortgages, families, lifestyle and the big one that cabin crew dont have Licence traing costs.So contary to what you said everyones salaries are affected the same as most of us, in any job, do live to our means!!..
Not all departments have negotiated successfully, and the next ones to be attacked, I believe, will be ground staff. The pilots faced a reduction of pay, but I have heard they will get shares as a compensation and some other deals. Also, the salary of a pilot is not as affected by a reduction as a low paid worker´s is.
Obviously pilots, and other BA departments, won't go downmarket just because other companies have lower standards of terms and conditions, why should CC? Incidentally, all BA staff have to do their bit, but I am told that directors and managers don't even want to hear of sacrificing their company cars, perks, salaries and bonuses. The privilege of helping the company is reserved for the people who can less afford it.
Vid, your post was well written until you moved over to the typical BASSA spin of "look at what the pilots get". As im sure your aware all BA groups have
been told they must save money and in the main have done so, without looking over the fence and what their neighbours have. In my opinion any work group/union should be focusing on what is best for its self and not worring about what others are doing or have. Pilots have a different job to cabin crew and therefore have a different pay package, as do directors, managers, engineers, ground staff etc none of these groups have said we want what the Cabin crew have. It is true that the pain of a company's/industry should be shared across all groups, unfortunatly Bassa have not been open to this either now or in the past which has seen the CC contract become more removed from that of the industry norm. I fail to see the logic of balloting for strike, when all of their members have been told they can keep their current T&C's, the unions efforts should be focused in now looking after their future members, the new fleet and improving their T&C's as the company recovers more towards the "old contracts" which were not touched..
Sadly for the union members I feel their union has, through it 1970's negativity at the negotiation table, put at risk their T&C's that the company said they would keep. I feel for these crew who have put many years into their careers to see thier union fail them. As a point I doubt that any pilot welcomed a drop in pay, for the same reason cabin crew dont want to lose pay, ie mortgages, families, lifestyle and the big one that cabin crew dont have Licence traing costs.So contary to what you said everyones salaries are affected the same as most of us, in any job, do live to our means!!..
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to the reasons for the strike, every crew member I speak to on the subject is convinced that it is about New Fleet. I have no reason to doubt them. I think it's reasonable to suggest that Unite/BASSA have done nothing to discourage this idea and have deliberately muddied the waters with talk of imposition/crewing levels/too complicated.
This strike is about New Fleet. Plain and simple. Unite cannot say this as it would render the ballot illegal and they know they went nuclear far too soon. They know that they've blown it now which is why they chose to hold their membership meeting several days later while they attempt to come to a face saving deal. Unfortunately, the best they will get is what BA will demand with the possibility that they may save their union.
This strike is about New Fleet. Plain and simple. Unite cannot say this as it would render the ballot illegal and they know they went nuclear far too soon. They know that they've blown it now which is why they chose to hold their membership meeting several days later while they attempt to come to a face saving deal. Unfortunately, the best they will get is what BA will demand with the possibility that they may save their union.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Questions -
After following this thread, I am amazed by the intransigence of Cabin Crew.
If the other employees of BA have been restrained in their demands, I can't help wondering
1. How long does it take to train a pilot? who pays for the training?
2. How long does it take to train an engineer? who pays?
3. How long does it take to train cabin crew? and again, who pays?
Many an excellent airline with honorable history has gone down the pan for one reason or another: Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, etc.
And many an industry has moved elsewhere when the local unions were unwilling to be reasonable, how many coal fields in the UK were shut down after Arthur Scargill enjoyed his militant confrontations?
If the other employees of BA have been restrained in their demands, I can't help wondering
1. How long does it take to train a pilot? who pays for the training?
2. How long does it take to train an engineer? who pays?
3. How long does it take to train cabin crew? and again, who pays?
Many an excellent airline with honorable history has gone down the pan for one reason or another: Eastern Airlines, Pan Am, etc.
And many an industry has moved elsewhere when the local unions were unwilling to be reasonable, how many coal fields in the UK were shut down after Arthur Scargill enjoyed his militant confrontations?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see this being resolved in a day or two with something as wet as BA saying that they won’t impose anything else and we wont force existing crew onto new fleet (which was already on the table after all) and the union shouting hurrah we won and issuing buckets of their usual spin and half truths.
It is rather easy for BA to agree not to do something that they didnt intend to do anyway but the union has been scaremongering on for months, no?
- Edit - Looks like someone agrees with me: - O'Leary: BA should take on the strikers | This is Money
It is rather easy for BA to agree not to do something that they didnt intend to do anyway but the union has been scaremongering on for months, no?
- Edit - Looks like someone agrees with me: - O'Leary: BA should take on the strikers | This is Money
Last edited by Snas; 24th Feb 2010 at 09:26. Reason: Adding link to This is money
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: south east
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does anyone else think that the reason behind the delay in calling strike dates may have something to do with the BASSA leadership trying to ensure that none of them (those that are not sick or suspended) are not scheduled to be on duty on the first day of the strike.
it is easy for those on the suspenion list to be on a picket line, but how many of the leadership would want to be in the first group to have to put their neck on the line.
if i was CC i would want to know how many of the BASSA leadership. who were eligible for work, would actually be going on strike.
an interesting bit i read in the press is that if BASSA only call a 1 day strike they can continue striking ad nauseum without the need for a further ballot. this may be a way for the leadership to minimise any personal fallout, rather than calling a long strike. matbe tomorrow will tell.
i hope BASSA call a long strike tomorrow, as i believe that this will be the quickest and easiest way to get this whole situation resolved quickly. i think BA management have the funds (they arranged a line of credit ages ago specifically to win this battle) and are going to play very hard ball with anyone who goes on strike.i would expect them to call everyone of the CC in on the first day of the strike, or at least ask everyone to confirm that they will work if required,in order to ensure they can separate the strikers from those that wish to help the company.
i think any CC who does strike will be on new fleet or at the job centre within 3 months of day 1 of the strike.
i find it very hard to believe that the 7000+ staff who voted in favour of striking have not asked themselves the most important question in this whole dispute "how does this affect me?"
the only answer is that unless you are CSD at LHR having to work a bit harder. IT DOESN'T.
that may seem a selfish attitude, but in an age when having any job that pays reasonably well is a necessity, it is just stupidity to think any other way.
BASSA have picked the wrong fight at the wrong time, and now have to suffer the consequences.
it is easy for those on the suspenion list to be on a picket line, but how many of the leadership would want to be in the first group to have to put their neck on the line.
if i was CC i would want to know how many of the BASSA leadership. who were eligible for work, would actually be going on strike.
an interesting bit i read in the press is that if BASSA only call a 1 day strike they can continue striking ad nauseum without the need for a further ballot. this may be a way for the leadership to minimise any personal fallout, rather than calling a long strike. matbe tomorrow will tell.
i hope BASSA call a long strike tomorrow, as i believe that this will be the quickest and easiest way to get this whole situation resolved quickly. i think BA management have the funds (they arranged a line of credit ages ago specifically to win this battle) and are going to play very hard ball with anyone who goes on strike.i would expect them to call everyone of the CC in on the first day of the strike, or at least ask everyone to confirm that they will work if required,in order to ensure they can separate the strikers from those that wish to help the company.
i think any CC who does strike will be on new fleet or at the job centre within 3 months of day 1 of the strike.
i find it very hard to believe that the 7000+ staff who voted in favour of striking have not asked themselves the most important question in this whole dispute "how does this affect me?"
the only answer is that unless you are CSD at LHR having to work a bit harder. IT DOESN'T.
that may seem a selfish attitude, but in an age when having any job that pays reasonably well is a necessity, it is just stupidity to think any other way.
BASSA have picked the wrong fight at the wrong time, and now have to suffer the consequences.
snas
I can see this being resolved in a day or two ....... and the union shouting hurrah we won and issuing buckets of their usual spin and half truths.
WW has to do what no CEO in the last twenty years has done - stop this sequence.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All companies seem to go straight to staff costs, when in trouble.
Staff costs are simply the most visible cit one can make a change to.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d. Bringing a quality company down will not help anyone.I can't say everyone, but that is not on the agenda of the majority, whether they are in dispute or not
Whether it is on their agenda or not isn't the issue though. People are judged by their actions, and the threat of a strike is extremely damaging to British Airways and its reputation.