British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collective Bargaining:
As an individual, you are free to enter a employment contract mutually acceptable between you and you're employer. If you accept better/worse terms than your colleagues it is your decision in the eyes of the law.
If your employer chooses to manage employee remuneration through collective bargaining with a recognised representative of the employees (eg union) so be it but this is subject to the contract YOU personally entered into with your employer. Now given companies employ professional law teams and most people don't seek legal advice (or are in a position to dictate their own T&Cs) your contract WILL be legal but slanted in favour of the employER.
So to answer your question, no.
As an individual, you are free to enter a employment contract mutually acceptable between you and you're employer. If you accept better/worse terms than your colleagues it is your decision in the eyes of the law.
If your employer chooses to manage employee remuneration through collective bargaining with a recognised representative of the employees (eg union) so be it but this is subject to the contract YOU personally entered into with your employer. Now given companies employ professional law teams and most people don't seek legal advice (or are in a position to dictate their own T&Cs) your contract WILL be legal but slanted in favour of the employER.
So to answer your question, no.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I caveat everything with saying "I am not a legal expert" but, I seriously doubt;
Its OK for pilots to say 'We're alright Jack because you can't train CC to be Vol.Pilots in 3 days". That's somewhat missing the point because as we saw in the last dispute BA's Legal people are choosing the battleground and they'll challenge any Industrial Action via the courts so it better be water-tight.
Welcome to the brave new world!
As for SOME CC who currently seem to assume that ALL Pilots are 'VCC' and need to be treated with the utmost contempt just because of the uniform they wear - you people really really need to give yourselves a sanity check and question your reality.
- The Law would prevent an employer/employee entering into independent contractual negotiations (i.e. hiring temps on NF contracts)
- That BA's Legal people haven't already been through existing contracts to check that the scope exists to achieve what they wish. Based on their track record they seem pretty ahead of the game.
- That current agreements between BA and the CC (and Pilots and probably a few other groups) exist outside of our employment contracts in non-contractual agreements (e.g. BA vs BASSA and BA vs BALPA)
Its OK for pilots to say 'We're alright Jack because you can't train CC to be Vol.Pilots in 3 days". That's somewhat missing the point because as we saw in the last dispute BA's Legal people are choosing the battleground and they'll challenge any Industrial Action via the courts so it better be water-tight.
Welcome to the brave new world!
As for SOME CC who currently seem to assume that ALL Pilots are 'VCC' and need to be treated with the utmost contempt just because of the uniform they wear - you people really really need to give yourselves a sanity check and question your reality.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First offer withdrawal
Clarified wrote:
The answer is in this post.
http://www.pprune.org/5573537-post3043.html
Why was the original offer removed?
http://www.pprune.org/5573537-post3043.html
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Response to peterlike
Your responses are somewhat equivocal, peterlike.
(1) Nowhere in my 'solution' did I imply, in any way, that blame was being or should be ascribed to any person or group, and nor did I mention "the Union". Passengers and the public at large are more concerned about getting the transport services they have planned and paid for.
(2) Nowhere in your original message is it suggested that the passengers making up the notional 2.25 plane loads are bound for different destinations. You are now wriggling and trying to manoeuvre yourself out of a difficulty you have made for yourself by making your original assertion.
(3) British Airways management is definitely "bothered about what the customers think". That is why it had contingency plans for being able to function during this industrial dispute. BA management's public responses to the unions' activities have been seen by the public at large as honest, measured and straightforward. BA was not seen to have resorted to hysterical and patently dishonest or untrue rhetoric - unlike the unions.
(4) Your diversionary issue of "the baggage situation" is completely irrelevant in the current discussion. There has not been a single report, in any press, radio or television medium, of "suitcases getting soaking wet on the open tarmac".
Why drag in apocryphal and unreferenced stories from years back in your attempts to wriggle out of defending your original hypothesis - which was on dealing with optimal aircraft occupancy, in case you had forgotten - in the current dispute?
(5) Let us now move to your contention that "if WW put the first offer back on the table - the strike would be over and everyone would be happy."
If Len McLoosekey had stuck by the terms of his gentlemen's agreement not to bring the cabin crew out on strike during the "cease fire", and if that person had permitted cabin crew members to vote on Mr Walsh's proposals, there would not have been the slightest need for strike action.
As it was McLoosekey, no sooner than he had left the room in which he had promised to pass WW's offer to his constituents for their consideration, immediately went back on his word and called cabin crew out on strike!
But you know all about that, don't you, peterlike?
(6) It matters not one little bit to me personally whether or not you (or anyone else) are "not strongly in one camp or the other".
You said you "just want honest answers". Good: there they are: "honest answers".
(1) Nowhere in my 'solution' did I imply, in any way, that blame was being or should be ascribed to any person or group, and nor did I mention "the Union". Passengers and the public at large are more concerned about getting the transport services they have planned and paid for.
(2) Nowhere in your original message is it suggested that the passengers making up the notional 2.25 plane loads are bound for different destinations. You are now wriggling and trying to manoeuvre yourself out of a difficulty you have made for yourself by making your original assertion.
(3) British Airways management is definitely "bothered about what the customers think". That is why it had contingency plans for being able to function during this industrial dispute. BA management's public responses to the unions' activities have been seen by the public at large as honest, measured and straightforward. BA was not seen to have resorted to hysterical and patently dishonest or untrue rhetoric - unlike the unions.
(4) Your diversionary issue of "the baggage situation" is completely irrelevant in the current discussion. There has not been a single report, in any press, radio or television medium, of "suitcases getting soaking wet on the open tarmac".
Why drag in apocryphal and unreferenced stories from years back in your attempts to wriggle out of defending your original hypothesis - which was on dealing with optimal aircraft occupancy, in case you had forgotten - in the current dispute?
(5) Let us now move to your contention that "if WW put the first offer back on the table - the strike would be over and everyone would be happy."
If Len McLoosekey had stuck by the terms of his gentlemen's agreement not to bring the cabin crew out on strike during the "cease fire", and if that person had permitted cabin crew members to vote on Mr Walsh's proposals, there would not have been the slightest need for strike action.
As it was McLoosekey, no sooner than he had left the room in which he had promised to pass WW's offer to his constituents for their consideration, immediately went back on his word and called cabin crew out on strike!
But you know all about that, don't you, peterlike?
(6) It matters not one little bit to me personally whether or not you (or anyone else) are "not strongly in one camp or the other".
You said you "just want honest answers". Good: there they are: "honest answers".
Last edited by Chuchinchow; 5th Apr 2010 at 18:50.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- The Law would prevent an employer/employee entering into independent contractual negotiations (i.e. hiring temps on NF contracts)
That is my understanding of the situation, but only if they sat outside of the bargaining group and current recognition arrangements, unless agreed. That is the whole point of collective bargaining.
- That BA's Legal people haven't already been through existing contracts to check that the scope exists to achieve what they wish. Based on their track record they seem pretty ahead of the game.
Agreed. This is where Unite have to seriously raise their game
- That current agreements between BA and the CC (and Pilots and probably a few other groups) exist outside of our employment contracts in non-contractual agreements (e.g. BA vs BASSA and BA vs BALPA)
I am not sure if we are on the same page here. My point is that, if you look at your contract, then unless you have had a major restructuring, then you will not be on the terms set out in it. They will be held in a separate collective document, or a letter of amendment. Legally, the reduction in the crew establishment figures has been proved to be non contractual. Pay, hours of work and holidays will be, as a minimum.
I think the current dispute very clearly demonstrates that the old way of IR in BA is now a thing of the past and we live in a new IR world. The recent BA vs BASSA case has shown us all that we have fewer protections than we previously thought. As a result, future IR relations are going to have to be alot more mutually co-operative if we are likely to retain the benefits we need and compromise on other issues.
Total agreement with you there
Its OK for pilots to say 'We're alright Jack because you can't train CC to be Vol.Pilots in 3 days". That's somewhat missing the point because as we saw in the last dispute BA's Legal people are choosing the battleground and they'll challenge any Industrial Action via the courts so it better be water-tight.
Unite will have to adapt, that is certain
Welcome to the brave new world!
As for SOME CC who currently seem to assume that ALL Pilots are 'VCC' and need to be treated with the utmost contempt just because of the uniform they wear - you people really really need to give yourselves a sanity check and question your reality.
Small minorities on both sides are at fault for this
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LGW
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few FACTS about Gatwick
BA and EasyJet are Gatwick's two dominant resident airlines. EasyJet was formed in 1995 at Luton and started operations at LGW in 2001. EasyJet is the second largest UK low cost airline behind Ryanair.
In late 2007, BA and Easyjet accounted for 25% and 17% of Gatwick's slots. EasyJet's share of slots subsequently rose to 24% as a result of its takeover of BA franchise carrier GB Airways which accounted for 7% of slots.
The acquisition of GB Airways in March 2008 resulted in EasyJet becoming Gatwick's biggest short-haul operator accounting for 29% of short-haul passengers (ahead of BA's 23%) and Gatwick's largest airline overall, with flights to 62 domestic and european destinations (at April 2008).
By late 2008, EasyJet's share of Gatwick slots had grown to about 26%, while Flybe (15% owned by British Airways as a consequence of the Flybe acquisition of BA Connect) had become Gatwick's third-largest slot-holder accounting for 9% of the airport's slots, as well as its fastest-growing airline.
EasyJet has now further reinforced its position as Gatwick's leading airline by increasing the number of destinations served from the airport to 82. Gatwick is the airline's largest base, where its 10 million passengers per annum account for almost 30% of the airport's yearly total.
From a peak of 40% in 2001, BA's share of Gatwick slots declined by 50% to 20% in summer 2009.
SFG (Single Fleet Gatwick) cabin crew and indeed all BA staff at LGW are on a package close to the market rate. Trading conditions at LGW are tough and the company operation there must remain competitive or BA will surely walk away.
To some of my cabin crew colleagues at LHR, welcome to the world of aviation in 2010, the golden days have certainly gone but you were asked to give up so little in the current climate. Standing still is actually moving backwards and this episode means that we are not even standing still at Heathrow so the longer this goes on the worse the end result will be for us all.
In late 2007, BA and Easyjet accounted for 25% and 17% of Gatwick's slots. EasyJet's share of slots subsequently rose to 24% as a result of its takeover of BA franchise carrier GB Airways which accounted for 7% of slots.
The acquisition of GB Airways in March 2008 resulted in EasyJet becoming Gatwick's biggest short-haul operator accounting for 29% of short-haul passengers (ahead of BA's 23%) and Gatwick's largest airline overall, with flights to 62 domestic and european destinations (at April 2008).
By late 2008, EasyJet's share of Gatwick slots had grown to about 26%, while Flybe (15% owned by British Airways as a consequence of the Flybe acquisition of BA Connect) had become Gatwick's third-largest slot-holder accounting for 9% of the airport's slots, as well as its fastest-growing airline.
EasyJet has now further reinforced its position as Gatwick's leading airline by increasing the number of destinations served from the airport to 82. Gatwick is the airline's largest base, where its 10 million passengers per annum account for almost 30% of the airport's yearly total.
From a peak of 40% in 2001, BA's share of Gatwick slots declined by 50% to 20% in summer 2009.
SFG (Single Fleet Gatwick) cabin crew and indeed all BA staff at LGW are on a package close to the market rate. Trading conditions at LGW are tough and the company operation there must remain competitive or BA will surely walk away.
To some of my cabin crew colleagues at LHR, welcome to the world of aviation in 2010, the golden days have certainly gone but you were asked to give up so little in the current climate. Standing still is actually moving backwards and this episode means that we are not even standing still at Heathrow so the longer this goes on the worse the end result will be for us all.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: West of Heathrow
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan Tuogh wrote:
Who can call off the strike? Quote:
UNITE cannot due to the BASSA constitution which was changed after UNITE reined in BASSA three years ago. So the problem really is one of egos - Lizanne Malone's and WW's.
I have it on VERY good authority that Unite and BA agreed on the deal on the table before strike number one and wanted to ballot cc which WW agreed to by agreeing to an extension of the 7 day strike notice to 6th April to strike on 13th April. However, BASSA turned it down flat.
Who can call off the strike? Quote:
UNITE cannot due to the BASSA constitution which was changed after UNITE reined in BASSA three years ago. So the problem really is one of egos - Lizanne Malone's and WW's.
I have it on VERY good authority that Unite and BA agreed on the deal on the table before strike number one and wanted to ballot cc which WW agreed to by agreeing to an extension of the 7 day strike notice to 6th April to strike on 13th April. However, BASSA turned it down flat.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Length of strikes
With the usual caveat of not being a lawyer ...
There is a strike protection period of 12 weeks during which a union cannot be sued and strikers cannot be legally dismissed. As the first strike occurred on 20 March, this would suggest that the protection period would last until 12 June.
There is a strike protection period of 12 weeks during which a union cannot be sued and strikers cannot be legally dismissed. As the first strike occurred on 20 March, this would suggest that the protection period would last until 12 June.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan,
I would certainly like to see BASSA either removed or modified to the point where the future organisation bears little resemblance to what we've had to endure for the last twenty years. That's why CC89 was first set up 21 years ago!
It's a well known fact there is significant tension between Unite and BASSA thanks to the hotheads in BASSA. I'm just wondering how this will play out over the next two weeks. How much longer can Woodley keep pushing the BASSA line in the full knowledge its's just making matters worse and seriously damaging Unite's reputation in the process. I'll bet he's wishing the election of the new General Secretary was happening a bit sooner!
I would certainly like to see BASSA either removed or modified to the point where the future organisation bears little resemblance to what we've had to endure for the last twenty years. That's why CC89 was first set up 21 years ago!
It's a well known fact there is significant tension between Unite and BASSA thanks to the hotheads in BASSA. I'm just wondering how this will play out over the next two weeks. How much longer can Woodley keep pushing the BASSA line in the full knowledge its's just making matters worse and seriously damaging Unite's reputation in the process. I'll bet he's wishing the election of the new General Secretary was happening a bit sooner!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: oxford
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
churchinghow
I asked for honest answers (I know that is asking a lot for a rumours (and gossip) site"). But for CC like me there are not a lot of options. BASSA site, BBC, Daily Mail). And I have to make important decisions in the next few days. To be insanely attacked by people such as Churchinghow (or whatever) for asking simple balanced questions is very alarming (and alarmingly devisive). Therefore I will not be rising to the bait. I am accussed of wriggling out of....... questions? How can you wriggle out of a question? Its a question!?!?!
Churchinghow is a typical example of someone who wants to create divides and waring factions. Why be so heated? I am only asking for answers. what is his agenda?
I will not address every point he made
1) I do not have time
2) Every reply will be answered with 100+ word reply and the escalation will clogg up the internet.
3) I had the very same email tennis match with an aquaintance once, every gentle lob was answered with a disproportionate forehand smash.
SO far I am very disspointed with both sides and I believe I am not alone.
...still waiting for answers
Churchinghow is a typical example of someone who wants to create divides and waring factions. Why be so heated? I am only asking for answers. what is his agenda?
I will not address every point he made
1) I do not have time
2) Every reply will be answered with 100+ word reply and the escalation will clogg up the internet.
3) I had the very same email tennis match with an aquaintance once, every gentle lob was answered with a disproportionate forehand smash.
SO far I am very disspointed with both sides and I believe I am not alone.
...still waiting for answers
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a point that has come across about BASSA being a spent force. Are they really, as if they were we would all be back at work, quite happy and united. BASSA still seem to be able to stir the emotions and direct a small but significant minority of Crew who seem to shout the loudest.
As has been pointed out on the site quite a few times, I and I think everyone else is yet to hear a valid point as to why crew are feeling so hard done by. Yet BASSA seem to be able to pull the strings behind the scenes for quite a few crew to dance the dance and walk the walk. No its not right but its still happening.
If this is the case and Im happy to hear that its not, what is the best way of dealing with this minority moving forward.
Someone asked if only the first offer was put back on the table a while back, I think WW aswered this when he was answering the staff travel question when he mentioned the cheering when the announcement was made at one of the meetings. I dont think it went down to well with BA management.
Some have also said that this is a apersonal thing, this is correct but as far as I can see only from BASSA. We have all seen the school yard mentality of a mainority at Bedfont and such. I dont think WW sees it this way, I just think he sees a company that he is in charge of that is losing money and needs change. BA needed to change 15 years ago not just now. There are still all over the company practices and things that go on that would not be tolerated within other companies. Slowly (to slowly) these are now being adressed and changed and most people see the need for this. Unfourtuantly BA crew are about 20years behind and due to a mixture of bad management by BA and also the complete misleading of BASSA have found themselves in a position that is a lose lose situation. If any member of crew honestly believes that WW will give them back thier staff travel they are in for a serious shock.
To me this strike has shown how BA has become a far better managed company since WW has taken over, yes there is still improvements needed within all departnments. But if you were to go back 5 years do you honestly think we would have managed to organise anything like this. I dont think so, what it also shows is that BA are an amazing comapny with some amazing employees. YEs that includes the crew..
Unfourtuantly for BASSA WW is not, Mike Street, Bob Ayling, Rod Eddington or Lord Marshall. Hes a man with a plan and this man is not for turning. The usual were going to throw our toys out of the pram and whip the crew into a martyed frenzy will just not work this time.
There is an offer on the table, Im not crew but it seems very fair and bloody good.If that was my department I would have snapped thier hands off at the first offering. That is why I feel that everyone gets so annoyed with BASSA is that they have watched all departments take larger cuts and yet from BASSA its a complete no as it has been for the past how ever many years. This is what frustrates me more than anythinbg else and at every point I will make sure Im available to help as much as possible to keep the airline running and afloat.
LGW get it..
Sorry if this is ramble but just wanted to express a point or 2
As has been pointed out on the site quite a few times, I and I think everyone else is yet to hear a valid point as to why crew are feeling so hard done by. Yet BASSA seem to be able to pull the strings behind the scenes for quite a few crew to dance the dance and walk the walk. No its not right but its still happening.
If this is the case and Im happy to hear that its not, what is the best way of dealing with this minority moving forward.
Someone asked if only the first offer was put back on the table a while back, I think WW aswered this when he was answering the staff travel question when he mentioned the cheering when the announcement was made at one of the meetings. I dont think it went down to well with BA management.
Some have also said that this is a apersonal thing, this is correct but as far as I can see only from BASSA. We have all seen the school yard mentality of a mainority at Bedfont and such. I dont think WW sees it this way, I just think he sees a company that he is in charge of that is losing money and needs change. BA needed to change 15 years ago not just now. There are still all over the company practices and things that go on that would not be tolerated within other companies. Slowly (to slowly) these are now being adressed and changed and most people see the need for this. Unfourtuantly BA crew are about 20years behind and due to a mixture of bad management by BA and also the complete misleading of BASSA have found themselves in a position that is a lose lose situation. If any member of crew honestly believes that WW will give them back thier staff travel they are in for a serious shock.
To me this strike has shown how BA has become a far better managed company since WW has taken over, yes there is still improvements needed within all departnments. But if you were to go back 5 years do you honestly think we would have managed to organise anything like this. I dont think so, what it also shows is that BA are an amazing comapny with some amazing employees. YEs that includes the crew..
Unfourtuantly for BASSA WW is not, Mike Street, Bob Ayling, Rod Eddington or Lord Marshall. Hes a man with a plan and this man is not for turning. The usual were going to throw our toys out of the pram and whip the crew into a martyed frenzy will just not work this time.
There is an offer on the table, Im not crew but it seems very fair and bloody good.If that was my department I would have snapped thier hands off at the first offering. That is why I feel that everyone gets so annoyed with BASSA is that they have watched all departments take larger cuts and yet from BASSA its a complete no as it has been for the past how ever many years. This is what frustrates me more than anythinbg else and at every point I will make sure Im available to help as much as possible to keep the airline running and afloat.
LGW get it..
Sorry if this is ramble but just wanted to express a point or 2
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In view of peterlike´s post here, it does not seem that he/she is the correct person to be put on the spot as a BASSA spokesperson by some of you here.
Peterlike is asking many questions, and like others here, has received answers to some of the questions and not to others.
The aggressive tone employed by some towards peterlike is unacceptable, as are the insinuations about his/her intelligence and affiliations.
I say again, play the ball, not the player. That goes for everybody.
Peterlike is asking many questions, and like others here, has received answers to some of the questions and not to others.
The aggressive tone employed by some towards peterlike is unacceptable, as are the insinuations about his/her intelligence and affiliations.
I say again, play the ball, not the player. That goes for everybody.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: BrisVegas
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways chiefs given £3m shares handout
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Mostly here, but often there
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways chiefs given £3m shares handout
So your point is what exactly?
Peterlike,
OK, you're looking for information. I agree some of the replies to your postings have been a bit inconsiderate.
The above is truly interesting and, IMHO, sheds a lot of light over this dispute.
I'm sorry to answer a question with a question but it's important. If you're looking for "honest" answers, do you think you'll find them on the three sources you mention? Also, do you think you've left anyone significant off that list who might be able to provide you with factual information...?
OK, you're looking for information. I agree some of the replies to your postings have been a bit inconsiderate.
I asked for honest answers (I know that is asking a lot for a rumours (and gossip) site). But for CC like me there are not a lot of options. BASSA site, BBC, Daily Mail.
I'm sorry to answer a question with a question but it's important. If you're looking for "honest" answers, do you think you'll find them on the three sources you mention? Also, do you think you've left anyone significant off that list who might be able to provide you with factual information...?
peterlike
I think your Post shows the biggest problem in this dispute, Information. You work for British Airways, not BASSA, Daily Mail ,Crew Forum or BASSA Forum, or even WW alone!
In 30 years of employment with BA I was never lied to about my employment conditions and all my Aggreements were with the Employer. (My dept management might have been a bit noncommittal occaisonally but did not tell untruths.)
Read the information sent out by your Employer, as that is where your conditions of employment will be decided.
In 30 years of employment with BA I was never lied to about my employment conditions and all my Aggreements were with the Employer. (My dept management might have been a bit noncommittal occaisonally but did not tell untruths.)
Read the information sent out by your Employer, as that is where your conditions of employment will be decided.