British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl
Willie Walsh cannot be seen to be giving into demands from (commercial) terrorists. He said it would happen, why the surprise?
Previous strikers were not warned that they would lose staff travel, so retrospective removal would be unfair....something that BA takes great pride in, and quite rightly so.
Also, no other employee group refuses to change with the times and support British Airways in these dire times.
Most other employee groups can see that if BA fails, they fail, so as such aren't selfishly trying to get away without paying for their share of the bill.
So, why do you believe that CC should be singled out to lose their staff travel when no other employee group has
Previous strikers were not warned that they would lose staff travel, so retrospective removal would be unfair....something that BA takes great pride in, and quite rightly so.
Also, no other employee group refuses to change with the times and support British Airways in these dire times.
Most other employee groups can see that if BA fails, they fail, so as such aren't selfishly trying to get away without paying for their share of the bill.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on....
Ottergirl,
It's not like there wasn't fair warning about ST being removed.
And as so many were crowing about ST being rubbish, being worthless and chanting "You can stick your ID90's up your a**e" on the picket lines, all of which was televised, in print etc. don't you think that's something of a mixed message the CC who stood to lose it are sending out?
What's changed since being offered a "year zero" reinstatement? What's now making staff travel the issue of choice this week?
Moreover, why should any other employee of any other department stand by and watch it be given back? I'm genuinely interested as to what you think about that.
It's not like there wasn't fair warning about ST being removed.
And as so many were crowing about ST being rubbish, being worthless and chanting "You can stick your ID90's up your a**e" on the picket lines, all of which was televised, in print etc. don't you think that's something of a mixed message the CC who stood to lose it are sending out?
What's changed since being offered a "year zero" reinstatement? What's now making staff travel the issue of choice this week?
Moreover, why should any other employee of any other department stand by and watch it be given back? I'm genuinely interested as to what you think about that.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Striking cabin crew have a fundemental right to strike, I agree. So using the same logic, British Airways have a fundemental right to look after it's business and do whatever it deems fit to protect it.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think anyone disagrees with the fundamental right to strike. Just like we all have the fundamental right to live. What we do have to do is abide by the law when we're doing it. Whether or not you agree with the law is not relelvant. If the Act says that for a strike to be lawful that the BASSA chair must present the ballot by hopping around the perimeter road in a pink tutu, then whatever we may think of the law, that is what they must do.
The right to strike comes with the responsibility to comply with the law. Something that BASSA (and this AGAIN was BASSAs mistake not Unites) keeps failing to achieve.
The right to strike comes with the responsibility to comply with the law. Something that BASSA (and this AGAIN was BASSAs mistake not Unites) keeps failing to achieve.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: southampton
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you oppress me!!
Don't bring logic into this Swalesboy!
Logic has no place in the hijackers' demands. This is about something much more important - we don't know for sure what that is, but rest assured that the union are ON IT!!
Logic has no place in the hijackers' demands. This is about something much more important - we don't know for sure what that is, but rest assured that the union are ON IT!!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs (#3060)
It has more impact if you say illigal, rather than a dismissal may not be automatically unfair.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I make this statement because no other group in BA who have taken strike action i.e T1 ground staff, have ever suffered a loss of Staff Travel even when it was an unlawful strike.
He gave fair warning.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl
I admire your willingness to give staff travel seniority back. No doubt many crew have been misled, and when they look at what they were offered last June, will wonder how they ended up with an inferior deal AND loss of their staff travel.
We all need BA to get back on track, and the cabin crew are the face of BA on our aeroplanes.
However. How do you give people their staff travel seniority back without re-inforcing the view that they were justified in striking and damaging our company?
There are many crew who will wonder how it all came to this.
Equally there are many crew who's contempt for both BA and their colleagues will never cease - some post/bait people on this forum occasionally.
Why should BA give them their seniority back?
The problem is that you can never make a distinction between the two groups, although their contrasting attitudes will no doubt be visible in your galley over the next few years!
I admire your willingness to give staff travel seniority back. No doubt many crew have been misled, and when they look at what they were offered last June, will wonder how they ended up with an inferior deal AND loss of their staff travel.
We all need BA to get back on track, and the cabin crew are the face of BA on our aeroplanes.
However. How do you give people their staff travel seniority back without re-inforcing the view that they were justified in striking and damaging our company?
There are many crew who will wonder how it all came to this.
Equally there are many crew who's contempt for both BA and their colleagues will never cease - some post/bait people on this forum occasionally.
Why should BA give them their seniority back?
The problem is that you can never make a distinction between the two groups, although their contrasting attitudes will no doubt be visible in your galley over the next few years!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nevermind: The problem is that you can never make a distinction between the two groups, although their contrasting attitudes will no doubt be visible in your galley over the next few years!
That is the problem unfortunately the attitudes of some cabin crew on the passengers - no wonder they are staying away in their droves. What's it going to be like if they lose this court case - I shudder to think and the non-striking CC have my greatest sympathy in having to work with them.
That is the problem unfortunately the attitudes of some cabin crew on the passengers - no wonder they are staying away in their droves. What's it going to be like if they lose this court case - I shudder to think and the non-striking CC have my greatest sympathy in having to work with them.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuchinchow
Sorry but I completely disagree. Many are on this site to show how smart they are, bore the pants off us with lengthy diatribes and be very rude to people who disagree with them.
I'd have to put my hand up and say I've lost it on here a couple of times. You win neither arguments nor friends with that approach.
How do you convince someone to see your side of the argument by scaring them off?
No doubt there have been a few contributors who come on to bait people, but looking past their childish taunts, there is little substance.
Equally, in denying facts known to be true, they simply embarrass themselves. I'd rather they did that than me attempt to do it.
Sorry but I completely disagree. Many are on this site to show how smart they are, bore the pants off us with lengthy diatribes and be very rude to people who disagree with them.
I'd have to put my hand up and say I've lost it on here a couple of times. You win neither arguments nor friends with that approach.
How do you convince someone to see your side of the argument by scaring them off?
No doubt there have been a few contributors who come on to bait people, but looking past their childish taunts, there is little substance.
Equally, in denying facts known to be true, they simply embarrass themselves. I'd rather they did that than me attempt to do it.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just scrolling through other forums - see below what has happened to Air Lingus crew will most probably happen to BA crew sooner rather than later:
230 Aer Lingus cabin crew who rejected a €97m cost reduction programme will only receive the legal minimum redundancy payment when they lose their jobs in a month's time.
All cabin crew will be made redundant after a 30-day consultation period.
Most of them will be offered immediate re-employment, but on lower pay and conditions.
Redundant cabin crew will get two weeks' pay per year of service, compared with six weeks in total for 440 staff accepting voluntary redundancy among pilots, administration, ground staff and craft workers.
Yesterday, the airline announced that it would have to secure cost savings through compulsory redundancies rather than by the voluntary deal that the cabin crew turned down by a margin of two to one.
It also said that it would not do any 'sweetheart' deal for the cabin crew, which was the only one of five groups to reject the restructuring agreement.
It is understood that the airline intends to make all senior cabin crew members, known as cabin managers, compulsorily redundant in an attempt to 'de-layer' the cabin crew organisation system.
The IMPACT trade union has said that the compulsory redundancy programme announced by Aer Lingus is 'brutal, targeted and unfair'.
The union is requesting that the Labour Relations Commission reconvene in order to 'find a mutual solution'.
In a statement this afternoon, the union says that despite assurances by the CEO of the airline Christoph Mueller, the measures 'look very much like a form of retribution against cabin crew for voting against the proposals'.
IMPACT says that it believes that the measures, if fully implemented, 'will damage the long term sustainability of the airline'.
Aer Lingus has said that it has no mandate from the board to enter further negotiations with cabin crew.
A spokesperson for Aer Lingus said that after four months in the Labour Relations Commission, there was nothing left to negotiate.
230 Aer Lingus cabin crew who rejected a €97m cost reduction programme will only receive the legal minimum redundancy payment when they lose their jobs in a month's time.
All cabin crew will be made redundant after a 30-day consultation period.
Most of them will be offered immediate re-employment, but on lower pay and conditions.
Redundant cabin crew will get two weeks' pay per year of service, compared with six weeks in total for 440 staff accepting voluntary redundancy among pilots, administration, ground staff and craft workers.
Yesterday, the airline announced that it would have to secure cost savings through compulsory redundancies rather than by the voluntary deal that the cabin crew turned down by a margin of two to one.
It also said that it would not do any 'sweetheart' deal for the cabin crew, which was the only one of five groups to reject the restructuring agreement.
It is understood that the airline intends to make all senior cabin crew members, known as cabin managers, compulsorily redundant in an attempt to 'de-layer' the cabin crew organisation system.
The IMPACT trade union has said that the compulsory redundancy programme announced by Aer Lingus is 'brutal, targeted and unfair'.
The union is requesting that the Labour Relations Commission reconvene in order to 'find a mutual solution'.
In a statement this afternoon, the union says that despite assurances by the CEO of the airline Christoph Mueller, the measures 'look very much like a form of retribution against cabin crew for voting against the proposals'.
IMPACT says that it believes that the measures, if fully implemented, 'will damage the long term sustainability of the airline'.
Aer Lingus has said that it has no mandate from the board to enter further negotiations with cabin crew.
A spokesperson for Aer Lingus said that after four months in the Labour Relations Commission, there was nothing left to negotiate.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew have lost staff travel and money from their wages for daring to take IA... so WW got the crew to pay for their right to strike... staff travel may be reinstated but with loss of seniority...
All the crew comming on this forum joined an airline with a union in place...The union negotiated the terms and conditions that you came over on and that a few enjoyed when volunteering...
My oriiginal question on this form was if you were so passionate about"backing BA " why didnt you work for free.. Hotel in reply stated that the volunteers did work for free... (that reply deleted for some reason) I have given money back to the company.. have the volunteers????
All the crew comming on this forum joined an airline with a union in place...The union negotiated the terms and conditions that you came over on and that a few enjoyed when volunteering...
My oriiginal question on this form was if you were so passionate about"backing BA " why didnt you work for free.. Hotel in reply stated that the volunteers did work for free... (that reply deleted for some reason) I have given money back to the company.. have the volunteers????
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry but I am at a loss as to what you are trying to say. Are you saying that other parts of BA haven't made any changes - that is so untrue and why should volunteers work for free - have you
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
although our CEO asked us to work for free whilst he was on such wonderful wages.. no I have not worked for free.. I have had my wages taken off me tho.. Volunteers are just that volunteers and you do not get paid for it
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Dave 3 but some ground staff at T5 gave up a months salary to help the company and I'm sure other areas did as well. The volunteers VOLUNTEERED to help out non striking Cabin Crew to keep the airline flying so in that context it doesn't mean it was free they would have received their normal salaries as they would have been working anyway but in this instance in the air and not on the ground.
We are all meant to be in the same company - therefore why should other parts of the airline meet the requirements to help out an ailing BA and not others who just cost it more money. BA IS NOT JUST SICK ITS TERMINAL and soon working for free is not going to help either.
We are all meant to be in the same company - therefore why should other parts of the airline meet the requirements to help out an ailing BA and not others who just cost it more money. BA IS NOT JUST SICK ITS TERMINAL and soon working for free is not going to help either.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definition of a volunteer "a person who performs a service willingly and without pay" yes you are right we all do work for the same company so when ground staff went out on illegal IA why did they not loose pay and staff travel????
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave3 - you are missing the point - they 'volunteered' or if you like AGREED to help out cabin crew and be trained to do so - so as I said earlier its a different context.
As far as ground staff striking - how do you know they got paid and as I remember it was very short-lived. They didn't lose staff travel because agreements were made - they have a much more flexible union than BASSA. By the way ground crew would love to earn the same as CC.
As far as ground staff striking - how do you know they got paid and as I remember it was very short-lived. They didn't lose staff travel because agreements were made - they have a much more flexible union than BASSA. By the way ground crew would love to earn the same as CC.