British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Reading
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XT668,
As suggested its best to educate yourself in a little more detail on this whole subject before critising others for voicing their opinion. Opinions that you wrongly believe to be anti crew and none supportive.
You blame BA management but surely its totally understandable that a company with an uncompetative cost base and losing £1.5 million a day has no choice but to act responsibly and cut costs. In order to survive long term and be competative changes must be made
BA told every workgroup within BA that they would have to make savings and gave them a deadline to do this. Most work groups accepted changes but the Cabin Crew did not. This in effect has put BA in a vulnerable position. As the recent court case pointed out, BA managment could no longer negotiate effectively with the union due to Union rep infighting between BASSA and Amicus. Therefore BA acted ''reasonably'' by imposing changes in the face of financial failure.
As mentioned in earlier threads BASSA has constantly used imflamatory spin, mis information and lies in order to get Crew in the mood for a fight and have done a very good job of making the vast majoirity of crew believe BA is the enemy.
The rest of the workforce may now seem non supportive to you but when the rest of us have taken pay cuts and are working harder to hear Cabin Crew moaning about a pay freeze, working one down and being willing to strike till BA is shut down its a bitter pill to swallow. As mentioned I blame BASSA not the crew themselves but why support the crew on what I beleive to be the wrong fight.
As you said 7,400 crew think there is in issue, just 60% of the work force and that is mainly due to the fact BASSA has TOLD them there is an issue!! BASSA a union that as i highlighted in earlier threads has lied and twisted the facts many times before.
The openskies fight was fought when profits were at a record high for different reasons, to strike in a recession when a company is fighting to survive is just plain crazy. A strike would affect all employees in BA hence the lack of support.
As suggested its best to educate yourself in a little more detail on this whole subject before critising others for voicing their opinion. Opinions that you wrongly believe to be anti crew and none supportive.
You blame BA management but surely its totally understandable that a company with an uncompetative cost base and losing £1.5 million a day has no choice but to act responsibly and cut costs. In order to survive long term and be competative changes must be made
BA told every workgroup within BA that they would have to make savings and gave them a deadline to do this. Most work groups accepted changes but the Cabin Crew did not. This in effect has put BA in a vulnerable position. As the recent court case pointed out, BA managment could no longer negotiate effectively with the union due to Union rep infighting between BASSA and Amicus. Therefore BA acted ''reasonably'' by imposing changes in the face of financial failure.
As mentioned in earlier threads BASSA has constantly used imflamatory spin, mis information and lies in order to get Crew in the mood for a fight and have done a very good job of making the vast majoirity of crew believe BA is the enemy.
The rest of the workforce may now seem non supportive to you but when the rest of us have taken pay cuts and are working harder to hear Cabin Crew moaning about a pay freeze, working one down and being willing to strike till BA is shut down its a bitter pill to swallow. As mentioned I blame BASSA not the crew themselves but why support the crew on what I beleive to be the wrong fight.
As you said 7,400 crew think there is in issue, just 60% of the work force and that is mainly due to the fact BASSA has TOLD them there is an issue!! BASSA a union that as i highlighted in earlier threads has lied and twisted the facts many times before.
The openskies fight was fought when profits were at a record high for different reasons, to strike in a recession when a company is fighting to survive is just plain crazy. A strike would affect all employees in BA hence the lack of support.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might get burnt here!
Be gentle
Using the words of the Judge in a very simplistic manner, if BA were making loads of money, then there would not be a reason to change the on board complements. Did not BASSA offer a temporary solution to the situation at the start of this? OK, the figures were disputed, but there may have been room to negotiate along those lines. BA said no to this, it would have to be permanent change. It appears that the business is climbing out of its financial hole, albeit slowly, so the temporary change would have help this?
Discuss?!
Using the words of the Judge in a very simplistic manner, if BA were making loads of money, then there would not be a reason to change the on board complements. Did not BASSA offer a temporary solution to the situation at the start of this? OK, the figures were disputed, but there may have been room to negotiate along those lines. BA said no to this, it would have to be permanent change. It appears that the business is climbing out of its financial hole, albeit slowly, so the temporary change would have help this?
Discuss?!
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: brighton
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
disputed?
Litebulbs
quote you
`` OK, the figures were disputed, but there may have been room to negotiate along those lines. BA said no to this, it would have to be permanent change. It appears that the business is climbing out of its financial hole, albeit slowly, so the temporary change would have help this?``
The figures weren`t disputed they were shown to be incorrect by an independant auditor PCW to the tune of £100m.
WW and BA are after permament changes as all `legacy` carriers will have to incorporate to survive in the `new` airline industry.
quote you
`` OK, the figures were disputed, but there may have been room to negotiate along those lines. BA said no to this, it would have to be permanent change. It appears that the business is climbing out of its financial hole, albeit slowly, so the temporary change would have help this?``
The figures weren`t disputed they were shown to be incorrect by an independant auditor PCW to the tune of £100m.
WW and BA are after permament changes as all `legacy` carriers will have to incorporate to survive in the `new` airline industry.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the words of the Judge in a very simplistic manner, if BA were making loads of money, then there would not be a reason to change the on board complements.
TTB,
Thanks for the hint!
Mr MOD zapped me anyway!
Been discussing the situation down route. Quite a bit of sighing and clenching of teeth. Still so many that say they voted yes because they thought it would improve the bassa negotiating position. What negotiating!!!
Here's hoping that the bassa reps causing all the aggro will be at work on day one. Goodbye and good riddance!
When all the real vicious and aggrssive individuals get the bullet I am certain the company will be a much better place to work.
Thanks for the hint!
Mr MOD zapped me anyway!
Been discussing the situation down route. Quite a bit of sighing and clenching of teeth. Still so many that say they voted yes because they thought it would improve the bassa negotiating position. What negotiating!!!
Here's hoping that the bassa reps causing all the aggro will be at work on day one. Goodbye and good riddance!
When all the real vicious and aggrssive individuals get the bullet I am certain the company will be a much better place to work.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did not BASSA offer a temporary solution to the situation at the start of this?
The figures weren`t disputed they were shown to be incorrect by an independant auditor PCW to the tune of £100m.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XT866
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
There is absolutely no backing for the strike i'm afraid. We've all took our hits in variosu forms - for example i haven't had a pay-rise (increment - call it what you like) for 2 years now. I had 2 months of 4 day weeks over the summer. I was happy cos i still had a job - many of my friends in other companies took far worse hits. So i'm sorry to be blunt, but don't expect co-worker backing when you're being asked to work a little harder.
[EDIT - just to add we've also improved our productivity and a team of 10 are now doing what 12 were doing this time last year. Yes, its hard work but IMO i get paid a decent salary and probably had it too easy for too long - ringing any bells ??? at the end of the day, i have a choice, if i don't like it i can try and fid another job - something i might be forced into thanks to the selfish act of this out-of-touch union].
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Papillon
"Let me test this finding: had BA sought to do the same thing in earlier years when there was no serious financial imperative and Miss Cumming's interests were the subject of effective representation, then my first limb consideration would have been against BA"
Maybe I read this the wrong way?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
You're missing the context. Paragraph 39 begins...
"As to the first limb...."
It is referring purely to the reasonableness of BA acting unilaterally and imposing on the cabin crew because of the failure of BASSA/Unite to negotiate - it is not referring to the wider aspect of the changes themselves, which indeed he goes on to talk about in paragraph 40, which begins "I turn to the second limb: the changes themselves...."
See what I mean?
"As to the first limb...."
It is referring purely to the reasonableness of BA acting unilaterally and imposing on the cabin crew because of the failure of BASSA/Unite to negotiate - it is not referring to the wider aspect of the changes themselves, which indeed he goes on to talk about in paragraph 40, which begins "I turn to the second limb: the changes themselves...."
See what I mean?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely agree with paragraph 40 and the lack of an organised negotation from Unite. However, IF everything was on the table from the start, then negotiation could have happened. It may not have been a repayment of savings, that could have been a concession, if a return to all previous T&C's had been agreed, when a trigger point of profitability had been reached.
It is my understanding that any temporary measure was a no go from the start.
It is my understanding that any temporary measure was a no go from the start.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
litebulbs
A reasonable starting point and I totally agree with you.
Shame its an opportunity lost m8 thanks to Lady Lala and friends
In the past there was a deal to be done - thats long gone- Soz!
Shame its an opportunity lost m8 thanks to Lady Lala and friends
In the past there was a deal to be done - thats long gone- Soz!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to go back a bit in time.
Draglift, first of all, thank you for the compliment. To be honest, I haven't met anyone at LGW lately that are intending to strike. There are of course some out there, and I think the issue for them is the transfer issue, as in there won't be any transfers on current t&c. They have received an explanation that no matter how long they strike for, there won't be any more transfers on current t&c. This doesn't mean I agree with it, by the way. There will be opportunities for transfers onto NF t&cs. Whether this is acceptable for LGW crew is up to each person to decide. The union has also managed to scare some LGW into voting yes by claiming the 52 week redeployment issue, forgetting that this is company wide.
As of the news today, it's a sad day. The result wasn't a surprise, to be honest, but it's still sad. We will of course need to wait until Thursday to find out the dates for any strike.
I'd like to apologise to those customers who now have a great amount of uncertainty in regards to their flights. By the looks of things, we have a fair amount of no-voters, non-voters, volunteers and temp crew to be able to operate a schedule. I know that this doesn't make much of a difference when you don't know whether your flight will go ahead.
Gg
I'm BA crew and this is my own opinion and not that of my employer
Posted by Draglift:
I was surprised to hear a couple of LGW cabin crew saying yesterday they felt they ought to vote for a strike. I didn't want to rock the boat by asking them directly but can someone please explain why they feel they are entitled to vote for a strike?
Does anyone know what the LGW cabin crew hope to achieve by a strike vote? Are they showing support for LHR cabin crew who sold them down the river by allowing BASSA to agree the LGW crewing levels? Or is it the withdrawal of a purser or because LGW crew can no longer transfer to LHR, or just because they feel they are the poor cousins of LHR crew and need to show some protest in case their conditions deteriorate further in the future?
Glamgirl you have always been so practical and spot on with your comments and observations. Maybe you can explain why some of your LGW colleagues want to vote for a strike that has been instigated by BASSA due to imposition at LHR.
I was surprised to hear a couple of LGW cabin crew saying yesterday they felt they ought to vote for a strike. I didn't want to rock the boat by asking them directly but can someone please explain why they feel they are entitled to vote for a strike?
Does anyone know what the LGW cabin crew hope to achieve by a strike vote? Are they showing support for LHR cabin crew who sold them down the river by allowing BASSA to agree the LGW crewing levels? Or is it the withdrawal of a purser or because LGW crew can no longer transfer to LHR, or just because they feel they are the poor cousins of LHR crew and need to show some protest in case their conditions deteriorate further in the future?
Glamgirl you have always been so practical and spot on with your comments and observations. Maybe you can explain why some of your LGW colleagues want to vote for a strike that has been instigated by BASSA due to imposition at LHR.
As of the news today, it's a sad day. The result wasn't a surprise, to be honest, but it's still sad. We will of course need to wait until Thursday to find out the dates for any strike.
I'd like to apologise to those customers who now have a great amount of uncertainty in regards to their flights. By the looks of things, we have a fair amount of no-voters, non-voters, volunteers and temp crew to be able to operate a schedule. I know that this doesn't make much of a difference when you don't know whether your flight will go ahead.
Gg
I'm BA crew and this is my own opinion and not that of my employer
Last edited by Glamgirl; 22nd Feb 2010 at 21:23. Reason: add disclaimer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Reading
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lightbulbs, despite the meaning of the judges statement i think the one fact remains.
In my opinion BA has now seen that BASSA will never be willing to make reasonable change or compromise. I'm sure many will say that a unions rightful purpose should be to protect the members Ts and Cs. But this shouldnt be to the detrement of the company they work for and all the other employees.
I think as ''negotiations'' have advanced over the 9 or so months BA have realised just how uncompromising and resistant to change the union is. Great from the Cabin Crews point of view but in the real world not sustainable.
A company will never be competative and successfull unless it adapts and I think BASSA will always undermine and hold back any change the company may need to make in the future.
The distruption agreement must be sorted and so must a new fleet if BA is to become a more successful business. While BASSA remains in such a strong position neither of these issues can be addressed as they are resistant to both. I think this is why tempory change wasnt going to address the power struggle BA needed to put to rest. BA cannot be in a postion where BASSA dictates what it does.
In my opinion BA has now seen that BASSA will never be willing to make reasonable change or compromise. I'm sure many will say that a unions rightful purpose should be to protect the members Ts and Cs. But this shouldnt be to the detrement of the company they work for and all the other employees.
I think as ''negotiations'' have advanced over the 9 or so months BA have realised just how uncompromising and resistant to change the union is. Great from the Cabin Crews point of view but in the real world not sustainable.
A company will never be competative and successfull unless it adapts and I think BASSA will always undermine and hold back any change the company may need to make in the future.
The distruption agreement must be sorted and so must a new fleet if BA is to become a more successful business. While BASSA remains in such a strong position neither of these issues can be addressed as they are resistant to both. I think this is why tempory change wasnt going to address the power struggle BA needed to put to rest. BA cannot be in a postion where BASSA dictates what it does.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: london
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
temporary measures..
It may not have been a repayment of savings, that could have been a concession, if a return to all previous T&C's had been agreed, when a trigger point of profitability had been reached.
If it happens for crew, in the interests of fairness, it would have to happen for all other BA departments.
That would be great. I would no longer have to do the work of 3 senior managers, as well as my own, i would get back pay for the extra hours i work on top opf my contracted ones and my 3 year pay freeze could be restrospectively corrected.
Multiply that up by every other BA staff member who has taken a hit, and the cost to the company would immediately plunge BA back into the red.
Will i also get my 5% salary sacrifice x 7 months back from post 9/11?
I'm afraid, as much as i would love to have things back the way they were, it is just not realistic. Permanent change means the companmy has cost certainty and can make solid long term plans, which in the long run should help the company to become a financially stable and profitable business. And that is the end game which will benefit all the most. Delayed gratification.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess is union will play with company in the next few days.
Result nil.
Union wil ask the company to extend IA action from 28 to 58days.
Company will not take offer.
The real poker game starts about this point.
I would not be surprised if all staff find new contracts on the mat !!!
Result nil.
Union wil ask the company to extend IA action from 28 to 58days.
Company will not take offer.
The real poker game starts about this point.
I would not be surprised if all staff find new contracts on the mat !!!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs:
With all due respect, and please understand that I have truly enjoyed reading your posts here, this is not a disagree for the sake of disagreement approach....but
BA has identified a source for savings in operational costs. A reasonable source. Even if one wishes to dismiss the Court's opinion the fact is that this change has been in operation at other sites and has been workable and successful. Meets all regulatory guidelines and provides a significant savings to the airline. There is no question regarding these representations.
BA implemented this change through a VOLUNTARY reduction in force...with no changes in wages, etc., to remaining staff.
Why would they agree to making these savings temporary, or agree to repay these savings at some point in the future? They are, at the end of the day, a business, looking for reasonable savings while still providing generous compensation to their Cabin Crew.
Given present day operating perimeters they provide a financial savings and are workable. Even if the business climate was what it was years ago this move would still be a logical decision.
I envision no reasonable scenario, considering today's marketplace, where the imposition will be reversed. It simply is what it is.
BASSA is pitching an incredible snitfit over something that they agree some of their members must operate under.
There is simply no logic to their stance, which is why the public and other unions are saying "No.".
With all due respect, and please understand that I have truly enjoyed reading your posts here, this is not a disagree for the sake of disagreement approach....but
BA has identified a source for savings in operational costs. A reasonable source. Even if one wishes to dismiss the Court's opinion the fact is that this change has been in operation at other sites and has been workable and successful. Meets all regulatory guidelines and provides a significant savings to the airline. There is no question regarding these representations.
BA implemented this change through a VOLUNTARY reduction in force...with no changes in wages, etc., to remaining staff.
Why would they agree to making these savings temporary, or agree to repay these savings at some point in the future? They are, at the end of the day, a business, looking for reasonable savings while still providing generous compensation to their Cabin Crew.
Given present day operating perimeters they provide a financial savings and are workable. Even if the business climate was what it was years ago this move would still be a logical decision.
I envision no reasonable scenario, considering today's marketplace, where the imposition will be reversed. It simply is what it is.
BASSA is pitching an incredible snitfit over something that they agree some of their members must operate under.
There is simply no logic to their stance, which is why the public and other unions are saying "No.".
Last edited by Diplome; 22nd Feb 2010 at 21:17. Reason: spelling..alas
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some crew don't care
My co-worker is office-based, his sister is WWF. He asked her why she voted to strike as it would be damaging to BA, not to mention the employment prospects of the other BA employees (including himself). Oh, and what about the £3.7bn pension deficit. She replied: "Don't care."
Now, this is a person who has on a number of occasions asked her brother to buy or repair her laptops as she can't afford to do it herself. She isn't thinking straight, and she isn't the only one.
What I find interesting is that hard line attitudes amongst crew will result in a backlash. Her brother was initially sympathetic to cabin crew, now he is against them. And their parents are also against the crew.
Speaking personally, my attitude has also hardened. If some cabin crew want to badly damage BA, then I will work seven days a weeks to help break the strike and break their union. Some cabin crew think that they are indispensable - they will soon find out otherwise.
Now, this is a person who has on a number of occasions asked her brother to buy or repair her laptops as she can't afford to do it herself. She isn't thinking straight, and she isn't the only one.
What I find interesting is that hard line attitudes amongst crew will result in a backlash. Her brother was initially sympathetic to cabin crew, now he is against them. And their parents are also against the crew.
Speaking personally, my attitude has also hardened. If some cabin crew want to badly damage BA, then I will work seven days a weeks to help break the strike and break their union. Some cabin crew think that they are indispensable - they will soon find out otherwise.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glamgirl
We knew of the outcome of the ballot but you shouldn't feel sad as almost another 1000 crew voted NO in this round - when you calculate you will notice that it's actually "only" 61% who voted YES.
The strike won't last very long - and unfortunately these YES voters won't realise what's on the line until they have lost it. They would have wished they had worked one down.
Stay strong!
We knew of the outcome of the ballot but you shouldn't feel sad as almost another 1000 crew voted NO in this round - when you calculate you will notice that it's actually "only" 61% who voted YES.
The strike won't last very long - and unfortunately these YES voters won't realise what's on the line until they have lost it. They would have wished they had worked one down.
Stay strong!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caribean Boy
Your attitude is replicated throughout the ground.
I just don't see why we should all make sacrifices (and i mean ALL), just for CC to maintain their unsustainable lifestyle. At the end of the day, to be quite blunt, its not a highly skilled job and doesn't warrant the sort of salaries many are drawing in that area. I can see why New Fleet scares many but the bottom line is CC are striking cos they have to work harder for no EXTRA money. Its called 'improved productivity' !! And its for that reason that no external support - coworkers, media, passengers or general public - is visible.
Good look to all those CC voting NO and i hope you are all recognised in some form at the end of this horrible mess.
I just don't see why we should all make sacrifices (and i mean ALL), just for CC to maintain their unsustainable lifestyle. At the end of the day, to be quite blunt, its not a highly skilled job and doesn't warrant the sort of salaries many are drawing in that area. I can see why New Fleet scares many but the bottom line is CC are striking cos they have to work harder for no EXTRA money. Its called 'improved productivity' !! And its for that reason that no external support - coworkers, media, passengers or general public - is visible.
Good look to all those CC voting NO and i hope you are all recognised in some form at the end of this horrible mess.