British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave3
if you "backBA" then why try and bankrupt the company with a series of unjustifiable strikes with no identifiable aims.
And if you back the majority of your colleagues - then go to work, and do your job.
if you "backBA" then why try and bankrupt the company with a series of unjustifiable strikes with no identifiable aims.
And if you back the majority of your colleagues - then go to work, and do your job.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Post Seems To Have Been Cleared.. Funny That..
It Was When I Responded To Hotels Comment That "Volunteers Worked For Free" And "You Cant Beleive All You Read On The Bassa Forum"...
So Please Let Me Ask You Again I Presume You Are A Member Of Bassa In Order To Read Its Forum And What Post Did You Mean From The Bassa Forum???....
When You State Volunteers Worked For free You Mean free
It Was When I Responded To Hotels Comment That "Volunteers Worked For Free" And "You Cant Beleive All You Read On The Bassa Forum"...
So Please Let Me Ask You Again I Presume You Are A Member Of Bassa In Order To Read Its Forum And What Post Did You Mean From The Bassa Forum???....
When You State Volunteers Worked For free You Mean free
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a view.. I do my job I have taken part in IA that is my belief... I also believe that this would have been over long ago if BA employees had stuck to doing their own jobs and not volunteering to do others....
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrey
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
The Bassa membership have been continually misled unfortunately; some people have been quicker to understand this than others and have resigned from the union. During the last strike, there were monumental inaccuracies communicated to Bassa members (and worse, the press) –eg: messages to say that planes were circling LHR empty (laughable) and that only 6 crew had shown for work in CRC!: In my briefing (at the time of such texts), there was the full complement for 777 – of regular crew, all backing BA. At work, not because they were ‘scared’ or ‘not wanting to lose staff travel’ but out of a moral duty and a desire to do the right thing
I’m sorry Dave, I understand you may be backing your union, but in no one’s books could the behaviour of the aforementioned union be said to be backing BA. When a group of employees sets out to destroy the very hand that feeds them, to possibly destroy the careers of their colleagues – both immediate and wider – it is most definitely NOT an act of support, in fact it is an act of sabotage. This is the very reason why there are so many passionate comments on here from people who want to see our company shine again. We all, cc included, need to contribute to that end.
The Bassa membership have been continually misled unfortunately; some people have been quicker to understand this than others and have resigned from the union. During the last strike, there were monumental inaccuracies communicated to Bassa members (and worse, the press) –eg: messages to say that planes were circling LHR empty (laughable) and that only 6 crew had shown for work in CRC!: In my briefing (at the time of such texts), there was the full complement for 777 – of regular crew, all backing BA. At work, not because they were ‘scared’ or ‘not wanting to lose staff travel’ but out of a moral duty and a desire to do the right thing
I’m sorry Dave, I understand you may be backing your union, but in no one’s books could the behaviour of the aforementioned union be said to be backing BA. When a group of employees sets out to destroy the very hand that feeds them, to possibly destroy the careers of their colleagues – both immediate and wider – it is most definitely NOT an act of support, in fact it is an act of sabotage. This is the very reason why there are so many passionate comments on here from people who want to see our company shine again. We all, cc included, need to contribute to that end.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the strike about
Wirbelsturm wrote:
Willie Walsh said in an article in The Times yesterday:
I do believe that this is correct: the dispute is about whether WW or BASSA runs BA. Any other reasons given such as imposition, staff travel or disciplinaries are just fabrication.
So, what exactly is the strike about now?
... the obstacle to the resolution of this dispute is the refusal of this small group of Bassa hardliners to accept that the world has changed.
To Bassa, we are still in the 1970s: British Airways is nationalised, facing little competition and ever ready to do a cosy deal with the unions knowing the taxpayer will pick up the tab.
Nearly everything harmful about that culture has now disappeared at BA — apart from the legacy of a hard core of union activists who think they have a right to control day-to-day cabin crew operations.
To Bassa, we are still in the 1970s: British Airways is nationalised, facing little competition and ever ready to do a cosy deal with the unions knowing the taxpayer will pick up the tab.
Nearly everything harmful about that culture has now disappeared at BA — apart from the legacy of a hard core of union activists who think they have a right to control day-to-day cabin crew operations.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in between
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Missyminx!! 
Here's a few quote's from the above mentioned article from the Times Online:
"The remarkable lack of public sympathy for striking crew is not the result of slick corporate propaganda. It is the result of them being so clearly and palpably in the wrong."
" It is time for BA’s workforce to stop thinking only of themselves, and start thinking of their company, the economy, and most of all, their passengers."
Here's a few quote's from the above mentioned article from the Times Online:
"The remarkable lack of public sympathy for striking crew is not the result of slick corporate propaganda. It is the result of them being so clearly and palpably in the wrong."
" It is time for BA’s workforce to stop thinking only of themselves, and start thinking of their company, the economy, and most of all, their passengers."
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Age: 60
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Staff Travel? Not a contractural perk I'm afraid, if it was you would have to pay tax on the benefit thus it is a management perk that can be removed if wished. Do you really want to pay tax on your staff travel tickets? You can lose your perks by upsetting those that give you the benefit. Fair? Possibly not, legal? Yep.'
We did pay tax on staff travel tickets - it changed some years ago to being taxed... Does that therefore mean it is contractual - following your argument?
We did pay tax on staff travel tickets - it changed some years ago to being taxed... Does that therefore mean it is contractual - following your argument?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"their passengers."
That says it all really because without the passengers there is no airline.
So lets get back to the business of having the best CC in the industry - because patently we are definitely not the best anymore. That's clear from passengers views who have changed airlines because of the strikes and will never come back to BA - they have found something better!!
Its going to take years to repair the damage and I plead to you that the strike will not get you anywhere - or maybe it will without jobs to go to.
The airline HAS TO reduce costs to survive and the majority of BA staff across the airline accept this and have acted accordingly so why can't CC - I DONT GET IT!!!
BA is the only company that has not made one compulsory redundancy only voluntary - do you really think this will remain the case - I doubt it THE AIRLINE HAS TO SAVE MONEY TO SURVIVE - it is losing without the strikes and ash cloud millions each day.
When the banks foreclose as losses get higher and there is no end in sight I wonder if you will think of all your other (out-of-work) colleagues across the airline or just feel sorry for yourselves.
That says it all really because without the passengers there is no airline.
So lets get back to the business of having the best CC in the industry - because patently we are definitely not the best anymore. That's clear from passengers views who have changed airlines because of the strikes and will never come back to BA - they have found something better!!
Its going to take years to repair the damage and I plead to you that the strike will not get you anywhere - or maybe it will without jobs to go to.
The airline HAS TO reduce costs to survive and the majority of BA staff across the airline accept this and have acted accordingly so why can't CC - I DONT GET IT!!!
BA is the only company that has not made one compulsory redundancy only voluntary - do you really think this will remain the case - I doubt it THE AIRLINE HAS TO SAVE MONEY TO SURVIVE - it is losing without the strikes and ash cloud millions each day.
When the banks foreclose as losses get higher and there is no end in sight I wonder if you will think of all your other (out-of-work) colleagues across the airline or just feel sorry for yourselves.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is the dispute is now only about perks and reinstating staff.
1) Crew knew BEFORE STRIKING that if they did they would loose their travel perks for life - however from what I understand WW has agreed to give these back - correct me if I am wrong.
2) Re-instating staff without going through the correct disciplinary procedures opens up the flood-gates for the future - if you have procedures (as agreed with the unions) then these should be followed.
The unions can't set out rules and then want them disregarded.
They are calling strikes for no reason now - CC have been given what they want - or is it that UNITE and BASSA can't agree!!!
1) Crew knew BEFORE STRIKING that if they did they would loose their travel perks for life - however from what I understand WW has agreed to give these back - correct me if I am wrong.
2) Re-instating staff without going through the correct disciplinary procedures opens up the flood-gates for the future - if you have procedures (as agreed with the unions) then these should be followed.
The unions can't set out rules and then want them disregarded.
They are calling strikes for no reason now - CC have been given what they want - or is it that UNITE and BASSA can't agree!!!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OzzieO
What have they been doing for the past 14 months then?
Every time a solution comes close BASSA move the goal posts and start raving on about something totally tangental.
If BA and Willie Walsh were so poor at negotiation and so obstinate how have they managed to get ALL other departments of BA onto new, negotiated contracts? Including the loaders and baggage handlers who have traditionally been some of the most difficult to handle?
Why is it that the rest of the company are not backing BASSA? Not because of the 'cabin crew bashing' that BASSA continue to publicise but purely and simply that BASSA have misrepresented their membership, spun lies, deceit and misinformation directed at keeping the LH CSD's that BASSA represents in their cushy position and protecting the interests of the part time BASSA board. Even Tony Woodley was overheard to say that BASSA were a loose cannon! (printed in the Express I believe but I have not read the article so cannot comment on the factual authenticity)
BASSA do not want a resolution. They want Willie Walsh to be sacked so they can continue to hold BA to ransom whenever they feel like it. The board of BASSA deserve no respect. They are holding the jobs, futures and livelihoods of their members in their grubby little fist and using them to protect their own somewhat overfunded lifestyles.
Enough. The BASSA board have a duty to ensure that the interests of their members are put above all else. If, as Tony Woodley stated on 5 Live, an agreement can be reached then that agreement should and must be taken. BASSA cannot continue to bleed money from BA for the reinstatement of perks and sacked Union buddies when their mandate for strike has been resolved. Accept the deal and then, if you are still standing BASSA, negotiate on reinstatement. Don't use your members jobs, the jobs of all BA staff and the misery of our customers as a bargaining chip and then cry on You-Tube that you are hard done by.
Enjoy!
melc a very passionate post and in parts so very true. But I'm sorry part of the problem is now Walsh.
He needs to sit down and negotiate sensibly if this dispute is to get resolved and we all need to pull together to repair the damage done to this once great company.
Have to say though with WW as CEO I can't see this happening anytime soon.
He needs to sit down and negotiate sensibly if this dispute is to get resolved and we all need to pull together to repair the damage done to this once great company.
Have to say though with WW as CEO I can't see this happening anytime soon.
Every time a solution comes close BASSA move the goal posts and start raving on about something totally tangental.
If BA and Willie Walsh were so poor at negotiation and so obstinate how have they managed to get ALL other departments of BA onto new, negotiated contracts? Including the loaders and baggage handlers who have traditionally been some of the most difficult to handle?
Why is it that the rest of the company are not backing BASSA? Not because of the 'cabin crew bashing' that BASSA continue to publicise but purely and simply that BASSA have misrepresented their membership, spun lies, deceit and misinformation directed at keeping the LH CSD's that BASSA represents in their cushy position and protecting the interests of the part time BASSA board. Even Tony Woodley was overheard to say that BASSA were a loose cannon! (printed in the Express I believe but I have not read the article so cannot comment on the factual authenticity)
BASSA do not want a resolution. They want Willie Walsh to be sacked so they can continue to hold BA to ransom whenever they feel like it. The board of BASSA deserve no respect. They are holding the jobs, futures and livelihoods of their members in their grubby little fist and using them to protect their own somewhat overfunded lifestyles.
Enough. The BASSA board have a duty to ensure that the interests of their members are put above all else. If, as Tony Woodley stated on 5 Live, an agreement can be reached then that agreement should and must be taken. BASSA cannot continue to bleed money from BA for the reinstatement of perks and sacked Union buddies when their mandate for strike has been resolved. Accept the deal and then, if you are still standing BASSA, negotiate on reinstatement. Don't use your members jobs, the jobs of all BA staff and the misery of our customers as a bargaining chip and then cry on You-Tube that you are hard done by.
Enjoy!
Last edited by Wirbelsturm; 19th May 2010 at 11:06. Reason: Perhaps a little too personal. Sorry!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OzzieO
so.... what is it that the crew want?
Willie Walsh has already stated that he has achieved the cost savings with the changes already made. He has offered staff travel back (provided agreement reached and no further action).
EG901 is a clear process with a variety of outcomes. surely the union don't believe themselves to be above company/union agreed processes.
Can you share with the rest of BA what it is that you really want?
Willie Walsh has already stated that he has achieved the cost savings with the changes already made. He has offered staff travel back (provided agreement reached and no further action).
EG901 is a clear process with a variety of outcomes. surely the union don't believe themselves to be above company/union agreed processes.
Can you share with the rest of BA what it is that you really want?
BASSA do not want a resolution. They want Willie Walsh to be sacked so they can continue to hold BA to ransom whenever they feel like it. Lizanne Maloney deserves no respect. She is holding the jobs, futures and livelihoods of her members in her grubby little fist and using them to protect her own somewhat privilidged lifestyle.
Last edited by essessdeedee; 19th May 2010 at 10:55. Reason: edited to agree with Wirbelsturm
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is the dispute is now only about perks and reinstating staff.
1) Crew knew BEFORE STRIKING that if they did they would loose their travel perks for life - however from what I understand WW has agreed to give these back - correct me if I am wrong.
1) Crew knew BEFORE STRIKING that if they did they would loose their travel perks for life - however from what I understand WW has agreed to give these back - correct me if I am wrong.
I am not a Union member and my opinions are my own.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozzie, you wrote....
But I'm sorry part of the problem is now Walsh.
He needs to sit down and negotiate sensibly if this dispute is to get resolved and we all need to pull together to repair the damage done to this once great company.
Have to say though with WW as CEO I can't see this happening anytime soon.
He needs to sit down and negotiate sensibly if this dispute is to get resolved and we all need to pull together to repair the damage done to this once great company.
Have to say though with WW as CEO I can't see this happening anytime soon.
If, by some freak occurrence, Willie Walsh were to stand down, do you think the next CEO would just say, "OK CC, you work FAIRLY hard (although less then in any other airline in the world), and you don't earn MASSIVE amounts of cash (although you do earn double what our competitors pay) but your terms & conditions are the best in the industry and we ARE losing almost a £BILLION each and every year, and all other staff groups HAVE cut their costs to keep us afloat, and it IS just you cabin crew who selfishly refuse to contribute for the better good of the company.......but I'll tell you what....why don't we cave in to your outrageous hostage situation, let's forget about the £140 million that you were asked to save, let's foget about the Volcano catastrophe and the crippling World Recession, they don't REALLY affect our ability to stay solvent, let's forget about the £100 million+ you have caused to us DIRECTLY AND MALICIOUSLY by your unjustified and unpopular campaign of terror. Let's forget about how you have dragged BAs good name through the courts, the papers and the mud. How about we just forget all that and put that one crew member back on, and no, of course we won't recruit them on New Fleet Ts&Cs, we'll let them have your incredibly high pay structures and incredibly restrictive work practices, all nicely tied up in a ribbon-bowed contract."
you also said....
He needs to sit down and negotiate sensibly
...good one
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl,
Be careful what you wish for!
If the 'perk' of staff travel becomes a legal, contractural right, as many are saying it is or it should be, then it becomes a taxable asset. As a concession it doesn't have to be declared thus doesn't attract a benefit tax.
Consider the taxation levied on a company car that is offered as a contractural addition. It forms part of your tax return as it is considered a 'slice' of your income not required to be spent on running your own vehicle.
If a similar HMRC view were to be taken with staff travel you would continue to be offered the ID90/ID100 tickets however they would be declareable at their full face value. Thus you would be required to pay 20-40% tax on the total ticket sum at the end of the financial year.
Quite alot if you have a family of four travelling club to Sydney for example.
BASSA could be holding a very big gun to their heads with this one.
Many feel that this takes away their rights to legal redress in respect of whether the removal of staff travel constitutes penalising staff for taking part in a legal strike; the case for which is already in progress.
If the 'perk' of staff travel becomes a legal, contractural right, as many are saying it is or it should be, then it becomes a taxable asset. As a concession it doesn't have to be declared thus doesn't attract a benefit tax.
Consider the taxation levied on a company car that is offered as a contractural addition. It forms part of your tax return as it is considered a 'slice' of your income not required to be spent on running your own vehicle.
If a similar HMRC view were to be taken with staff travel you would continue to be offered the ID90/ID100 tickets however they would be declareable at their full face value. Thus you would be required to pay 20-40% tax on the total ticket sum at the end of the financial year.
Quite alot if you have a family of four travelling club to Sydney for example.
BASSA could be holding a very big gun to their heads with this one.
Many feel that this takes away their rights to legal redress in respect of whether the removal of staff travel constitutes penalising staff for taking part in a legal strike; the case for which is already in progress.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl:
What you say maybe correct BUT and a BIG BUT staff travel is a PERK and can be withdrawn at any time regardless of any reason - so how that can stand up in a court of law beats me.
If you read your contract of employment there will be a clause in their stating exactly that.
Your staff travel can be withdrawn for a variety of reasons, for example if you continually arrive back late from a holiday on a staff ticket without back-up tickets you can be warned that staff travel will be withdrawn - this has happened to me. If you are off sick you are not allowed to travel on staff tickets either 'APPARENTLY'.
The point is CC knew BEFORE they went on strike that staff travel would be rescinded but they went ahead anyway with full knowledge. If it had been taken away AFTER the strike then yes I would certainly think they had a case but in a court of law a 'PERK' is at the discretion of the company and is not contractual.
What you say maybe correct BUT and a BIG BUT staff travel is a PERK and can be withdrawn at any time regardless of any reason - so how that can stand up in a court of law beats me.
If you read your contract of employment there will be a clause in their stating exactly that.
Your staff travel can be withdrawn for a variety of reasons, for example if you continually arrive back late from a holiday on a staff ticket without back-up tickets you can be warned that staff travel will be withdrawn - this has happened to me. If you are off sick you are not allowed to travel on staff tickets either 'APPARENTLY'.
The point is CC knew BEFORE they went on strike that staff travel would be rescinded but they went ahead anyway with full knowledge. If it had been taken away AFTER the strike then yes I would certainly think they had a case but in a court of law a 'PERK' is at the discretion of the company and is not contractual.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I'm sorry part of the problem is now Walsh.