British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me...
Excuse me Sir...how can a CEO of such a large Company as BA directly penalise employees who have gone on a perfectly legal strike by suspending permanently their precious staff travel?
Is this strong act lawful? Probably it is not.
On one side Willie Walsh said that he genuinely believes BA Cabin Crew are excellent dedicated workers who have the legal right to go on a legitimate and perfectly legal strike, and on the other side he punishes them by removing the most essential travel perk they have, do not forget that ID travel also allows many Europeans to commute and work for BA in London even if they are still resident abroad.
Is this in truth a CEO who genuinely respects the completely legal right to strike?
It would probably be easier to just admit that strike in his mind is not an option. It is very simple.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: england
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for those answers.
WW didn't really wake up one day and say tomorrow I will have 14 crew on a 747.He did discuss it with Bassa.
He did say that if an agreement wasn't reached then the crewing levels would be imposed.But this was after months of talks and warning.
Wouldn't it have been better for the offer of last week to have been put to the members then?That way everyone could have voted.
That would have saved a strike.Now striking crew have lost pay and staff travel.For what? To get to vote on the same offer.
WW said that as soon as strike dates were announced the offer would go.
I still really don't see why now Unite would want their members to vote when last week they didn't think the deal was worth it.
WW didn't really wake up one day and say tomorrow I will have 14 crew on a 747.He did discuss it with Bassa.
He did say that if an agreement wasn't reached then the crewing levels would be imposed.But this was after months of talks and warning.
Wouldn't it have been better for the offer of last week to have been put to the members then?That way everyone could have voted.
That would have saved a strike.Now striking crew have lost pay and staff travel.For what? To get to vote on the same offer.
WW said that as soon as strike dates were announced the offer would go.
I still really don't see why now Unite would want their members to vote when last week they didn't think the deal was worth it.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bacabincrew,
You may think that but BASSA haven't made it especially clear and of the crew I've spoken to, this hasn't been the reason given by some. There has been mention of New Fleet, crew complements, pay cuts, etc and no-one seems quite clear.
Why were they not permitted to make that decision last week? Why is the situation different now?
In that case, let me rephrase the question. Walsh took the offer off the table because it was conditional on the union delaying the call for strike action. The union chose to announce strike dates anyway, hence the offer was withdrawn as the announcement breached it's conditions. This is not disputed.
The offer must not have been good enough, otherwise why did Len McCluskey state at the press conference (before WW pulled the deal) that they were not minded to recommend the BA offer to the members?
Are they now going to recommend it? If so, why is it better now? If not, what is the point putting it to the membership?
Why are you on strike? Because of the imposition without negotiation of Mr Walsh
Why they are asking WW to put last week's offer back on the table? So the members can themselves decide
If the offer was so awful last week it was rejected what has changed? I don't understand your question - the Union asked for Walsh's offer to be put back on the table and he refused
The offer must not have been good enough, otherwise why did Len McCluskey state at the press conference (before WW pulled the deal) that they were not minded to recommend the BA offer to the members?
Are they now going to recommend it? If so, why is it better now? If not, what is the point putting it to the membership?
Last edited by Human Factor; 26th Mar 2010 at 15:41. Reason: Ok, so it was four questions.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The offer must not have been good enough, otherwise why did Len McCluskey state at the press conference (before WW pulled the deal) that they were not minded to recommend the BA offer to the members?
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But we've already established that the membership will do as they're told, which is why we had the "yes" vote in the first place. The union would have to recommend the deal to the membership to guarantee a positive result but they have already said they would not do this. Therefore what is the point in putting the same offer back on the table?
In which case, I'd be grateful if you could answer my last set of questions please:
In which case, I'd be grateful if you could answer my last set of questions please:
Are they now going to recommend it? If so, why is it better now? If not, what is the point putting it to the membership?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez BAcabincrew, it was withdrawn because the union refused to stop the strikes they offered to suspend which is not the same thing. WW allowed them 23 extra days to put the offer to their membership which they failed to do. Unite tried to appease the membership by saying they wouldn't recommend it anyway. So what. Just because they couldn't recommend it doesn't mean the membership shouldn't be allowed to vote on it. The problem is too many people are allowing themselves to be led by the nose. The sooner this union starts asking members their opinion (properly in a ballot) on something other than when and if you want to strike the sooner it's resolved.
Last edited by Golden Ticket; 26th Mar 2010 at 15:48. Reason: spelling...it's important
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But we've already established that the membership will do as they're told
Are they now going to recommend it? No idea
If so, why is it better now? Cant answer as I don't know the answer to the above
If not, what is the point putting it to the membership? Because it's a democracy and let the majority decide
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: london
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The offer was conditional on strike dates not being announced as Mr Walsh and Mr Simpson had negotiated a 3 week extension to the strike deadline. The second the strikes were announced it cost BA a fortune. Why should BA put the offer back on the table? UNITE were given every chance to put the offer (which they said they would never accept) to their members and now want that very offer back?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: cheltenham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bacabincrew
bacabincrew,
thanks for posting, I'm genuinely interested to hear the view point from someone who is clearly a supporter of the action that is taking place at the minute.
May i ask a few questions?
"Why are you on strike? Because of the imposition without negotiation of Mr Walsh"
Do you find it at all strange that the other sections of BA agreed changed, within the time scale requested through negotiation? Do you accept that other sections of BA have made sacrifices and if so, perhaps you can just explain why you feel that cabin crew shouldn't? Finally, and this is the question I'm really intrigued about; The other trade unions and professional bodies took BA's unprecedented offer to have the company "books" examined to check the savings being requested were just and honest. All of the various bodies, independently and without reference to each other came to the conclusion that the company was correct and savings needed to be made. BASSA refused to look at the books. Do you think that not even looking at the figures was in the best interests of the members they represent? Genuine question and I'm interested to hear your take on it.
"Why they are asking WW to put last week's offer back on the table? So the members can themselves decide"
The offer that BA made to BASSA was refused with a 14 page document explaining that it was totally unacceptable. Never the less, it was suggested, and agreed, that the offer be made available to crew to vote if they felt it was acceptable. The condition agreed with this offer was that the strike was delayed until the union balloted the members. The strike dates were immediately then announced with the obvious massive financial loss due to forward bookings lost thus removing the offer from the table as these costs had to be recovered. Again I suppose the question I am interested in is, do you think this was in your/the members best interests?
If the offer was so awful last week it was rejected what has changed? I don't understand your question - the Union asked for Walsh's offer to be put back on the table and he refused
I suppose this point is probably covered in the point above. If the question isn't clear just post back and I'll try to reword it.
bacrew, and others, please take this post in the manner it is intended. Not combative or intended to rile, but a genuine interest in hearing justification for what is happening.
thanks for posting, I'm genuinely interested to hear the view point from someone who is clearly a supporter of the action that is taking place at the minute.
May i ask a few questions?
"Why are you on strike? Because of the imposition without negotiation of Mr Walsh"
Do you find it at all strange that the other sections of BA agreed changed, within the time scale requested through negotiation? Do you accept that other sections of BA have made sacrifices and if so, perhaps you can just explain why you feel that cabin crew shouldn't? Finally, and this is the question I'm really intrigued about; The other trade unions and professional bodies took BA's unprecedented offer to have the company "books" examined to check the savings being requested were just and honest. All of the various bodies, independently and without reference to each other came to the conclusion that the company was correct and savings needed to be made. BASSA refused to look at the books. Do you think that not even looking at the figures was in the best interests of the members they represent? Genuine question and I'm interested to hear your take on it.
"Why they are asking WW to put last week's offer back on the table? So the members can themselves decide"
The offer that BA made to BASSA was refused with a 14 page document explaining that it was totally unacceptable. Never the less, it was suggested, and agreed, that the offer be made available to crew to vote if they felt it was acceptable. The condition agreed with this offer was that the strike was delayed until the union balloted the members. The strike dates were immediately then announced with the obvious massive financial loss due to forward bookings lost thus removing the offer from the table as these costs had to be recovered. Again I suppose the question I am interested in is, do you think this was in your/the members best interests?
If the offer was so awful last week it was rejected what has changed? I don't understand your question - the Union asked for Walsh's offer to be put back on the table and he refused
I suppose this point is probably covered in the point above. If the question isn't clear just post back and I'll try to reword it.
bacrew, and others, please take this post in the manner it is intended. Not combative or intended to rile, but a genuine interest in hearing justification for what is happening.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just looked in FICO, the schedule is so much more comprehensive than last week. All operating tomorrow with PAX.
Both the Cape Towns, the SIN, the BKK, one JNB, two LAX's, 3 JFK's, the NRT..... the list goes on....
This strike is a joke, it's only getting weaker by the day.
All the strikers are doing is self-selecting themselves as the militant minority and hence will be the first to receive their P45's. How very sad...
Both the Cape Towns, the SIN, the BKK, one JNB, two LAX's, 3 JFK's, the NRT..... the list goes on....
This strike is a joke, it's only getting weaker by the day.
All the strikers are doing is self-selecting themselves as the militant minority and hence will be the first to receive their P45's. How very sad...
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't a democracy because the offer which was withdrawn was not put to the membership to vote on. If they vote NO then maybe this would have put the union on a better footing to negotiate. If YES we probably wouldn't have this thread right now.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because it's a democracy and let the majority decide
In which case, why did Len McCluskey et al not consider this to be the fundamental principle of the union (which in theory it is) and postpone (note: postpone not give up) announcing strike action until he had given the membership the opportunity to make a democratic decision? A "no" vote then would have strengthened his hand.
Moreover, why did he prejudge any outcome by saying that the union were not minded to approve the offer?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: england
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have unite been open and shown their members a copy of the offer?
Have they said which part is unacceptable or was it just a blanket no?
If I had been on strike last week and lost pay and staff travel to now be told that was a waste of time as Unite has now changed its mind and the offer was Ok I would not be happy.
That is not acting in its members best interests.
Bacabincrew
Please stay on here.It is interesting to hear your understanding of this serious issue.Please read some posts on here and you may find different info to what Bassa feeds you.It will be in your best interest to read both sides.
Have they said which part is unacceptable or was it just a blanket no?
If I had been on strike last week and lost pay and staff travel to now be told that was a waste of time as Unite has now changed its mind and the offer was Ok I would not be happy.
That is not acting in its members best interests.
Bacabincrew
Please stay on here.It is interesting to hear your understanding of this serious issue.Please read some posts on here and you may find different info to what Bassa feeds you.It will be in your best interest to read both sides.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BACabinCrew,
Don't take the cross-examination as a personal attack - we need more of the pro-strike viewpoint on here to enable a full debate to take place.
However,
Your answer to the first question doesn't really hold much water if my recollection of events is correct. Please do tell me if I'm recalling things incorrectly.
BA set a deadline of the end of June 2009 for all staff groups to implement across the board permanent (not temporary as Unite are currently offering) savings.
BASSA, notably, and therefore IFCE, did not meet this deadline.
At one of the racecourse meetings (I don't recall if it were Sandown or Kempton) a show of hands established that the membership did not wish BASSA to negotiate any further with BA.
Despite this, some time elapsed during which small attempts were made by both sides to redeem the situation.
This being unsuccessful, in Nov, non-contractual terms (now legally verified unless subsequent, and yet to be announced appeal, deems otherwise) were introduced for the cabin crew.
A number of failed injunctions and court hearings later we find ourselves here.
Would you agree that's a reasonable summation of the chronology of events thus far? If so, can I suggest that your answer that you're striking about imposition and a lack of negotiation by WW was brought on by that very sub-branch of Unite with the show of hands insisting on no more negotiation?
I.e. The lack of negotiation as an industrial standpoint began with BASSA's vote (I believe their constitution allows for motions to be passed at branch meetings even if the attendance does not reflect a quorum of the membership).
Perhaps, may I suggest, it would do both sides some good to cast their minds back a little further than the last BA e-mail or BASSA newsletter and reflect on the belligerence in summer last year that, I suspect, was born solely of a belief that saying no would eventually force BA into a fudge compromise. That it hasn't and that Unite are now reduced to family fun days and open top bus rides, coupled with almost wretched pleadings for the offers to be put back on the table suggests that they fatally misjudged the opponent this time.
To me the seed of the potential problem in front of BASSA lies in that show of hands nearly a year ago demanding no more negotiation with BA and not realising the potential consequences of such a brave, but ill-considered move.
Don't take the cross-examination as a personal attack - we need more of the pro-strike viewpoint on here to enable a full debate to take place.
However,
Your answer to the first question doesn't really hold much water if my recollection of events is correct. Please do tell me if I'm recalling things incorrectly.
BA set a deadline of the end of June 2009 for all staff groups to implement across the board permanent (not temporary as Unite are currently offering) savings.
BASSA, notably, and therefore IFCE, did not meet this deadline.
At one of the racecourse meetings (I don't recall if it were Sandown or Kempton) a show of hands established that the membership did not wish BASSA to negotiate any further with BA.
Despite this, some time elapsed during which small attempts were made by both sides to redeem the situation.
This being unsuccessful, in Nov, non-contractual terms (now legally verified unless subsequent, and yet to be announced appeal, deems otherwise) were introduced for the cabin crew.
A number of failed injunctions and court hearings later we find ourselves here.
Would you agree that's a reasonable summation of the chronology of events thus far? If so, can I suggest that your answer that you're striking about imposition and a lack of negotiation by WW was brought on by that very sub-branch of Unite with the show of hands insisting on no more negotiation?
I.e. The lack of negotiation as an industrial standpoint began with BASSA's vote (I believe their constitution allows for motions to be passed at branch meetings even if the attendance does not reflect a quorum of the membership).
Perhaps, may I suggest, it would do both sides some good to cast their minds back a little further than the last BA e-mail or BASSA newsletter and reflect on the belligerence in summer last year that, I suspect, was born solely of a belief that saying no would eventually force BA into a fudge compromise. That it hasn't and that Unite are now reduced to family fun days and open top bus rides, coupled with almost wretched pleadings for the offers to be put back on the table suggests that they fatally misjudged the opponent this time.
To me the seed of the potential problem in front of BASSA lies in that show of hands nearly a year ago demanding no more negotiation with BA and not realising the potential consequences of such a brave, but ill-considered move.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you find it at all strange that the other sections of BA agreed changed, within the time scale requested through negotiation? Do you accept that other sections of BA have made sacrifices and if so, perhaps you can just explain why you feel that cabin crew shouldn't?
BASSA refused to look at the books. Do you think that not even looking at the figures was in the best interests of the members they represent? Genuine question and I'm interested to hear your take on it.
Again I suppose the question I am interested in is, do you think this was in your/the members best interests?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imposition
bacabincrew wrote:
At the risk of beating a dead horse, the BA proposal to work one down was put to Unite at least nine months ago and was planned to be put into action on 1 September 2009. However, Unite didn't agree and has said that it subsequently had "intensive negotiations" with BA.
So, is it not rather odd for Unite and some cabin crew to justify the strikes because of imposition?
Why are you on strike? Because of the imposition without negotiation of Mr Walsh
So, is it not rather odd for Unite and some cabin crew to justify the strikes because of imposition?
Last edited by Caribbean Boy; 26th Mar 2010 at 16:07. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bacabincrew
Why did the union call strike dates when the offer was on the table? They said at the time that the offer was not very good and that they didn't think it was worth putting to a vote because it would have been rejected. Again I ask why call strike dates? As soon as this was done action had to be taken for the airline to protect itself. Unite really don't seem to know what they are doing. I am afraid that I think they are an utter disgrace. My wife who was cabin Crew for BA for 10 years as a Purser cringed at the pictures she witnessed at BFC. She just couldn't believe this was a representation of some cabin crew today. Why should our Airline be held to ransom by a Union. All the other negotiations went through for other departments.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bacabincrew
However the Union have still said put that offer back on the table and let the membership decide, Mr Walsh refused
He offered the initial deal to the Union, he reluctantly agreed with the Unite Gen Sec that he would extend the strike mandate for another 23 days, so that Unite could ballot the crew on the offer, and made it clear that if they did go on strike, the offer would be off the table, and any new offers would be worse, to recover the costs. I don't think you can say any fairer than that, can you "bacabincrew"?
Now, what happened next? Well, Len McClueless went and announced the strike dates anyway, and said they couldn't recommend the offer, despite his boss securing the 23 days to ballot the members!
There are several reasons why this happened.
1) If the offer had been sent out to the cabin crew, they would have probably voted overwhelmingly for it. This would make BASSA look like total idiots. Crew voting for a deal that was worse than the June offer, which at one point even included no New Fleet. Crew voting in favour of their employer and against the Union? It would have made the whole year of Bassa foot-stamping look as pointless as it actually turned out to be.
2) It made Len McClueless look like the hard-man of Unite, which helps with his election. After all, he does have to think of himself.
Were Len and Gen Sec even talking to each other?! I doubt it.
Why should Mr Walsh make them the same offer again, when they just threw it back in his face last time? It's not Mr Walsh's fault that the Gen Sec and Len McClueless are pulling in totally different directions. If you want someone to blame for the offer being off the table, its Red Len, not Mr Walsh.
When all the dirty washing is aired after this dispute is over, I hope crew take the time to learn how badly represented they were.
As has been pointed out, some people are already getting an idea of the lies coming out of BASSA. (as if they needed any more evidence!) Crew sitting in the CRC during the last strike, which was getting so busy at one point with the amount of EF crew on standby they were moving people for fire regs, were getting texts saying only 9 or 26 crew had reported. (depending on if you believe Unite or Bassa) This was a beautiful and clear illustration of the constant stream of lies and spin coming out of Basaa, and I hope those crew will now take the rest of it with more than a pinch of salt.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: cheltenham
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bacrew
Firstly thank you for your answers, some of the posts have been a little aggressive in their tone towards you (I suspect out of frustration rather than ill will)
I'm also very appreciative that you acknowledge that perhaps members best interests weren't served with the immediate announcement of strike dates before you guys and girls could look at the BA proposal. In a dispute that has become as bitter as this it takes a certain amount of maturity and willingness to listen to admit a point such as this.
Although I don't agree with some of your answers it has given me your viewpoint and Ill reflect on it for while.
Thanks again
I'm also very appreciative that you acknowledge that perhaps members best interests weren't served with the immediate announcement of strike dates before you guys and girls could look at the BA proposal. In a dispute that has become as bitter as this it takes a certain amount of maturity and willingness to listen to admit a point such as this.
Although I don't agree with some of your answers it has given me your viewpoint and Ill reflect on it for while.
Thanks again
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all on here
I have my viewpoint and you have yours, I am more than happy to 'debate' with you however it does nobody any good when people jump down my throat because I choose to do something that I believe in.
Aggressive and demeaning posts and comments drive Cabin Crew away from this forum and you end up just as a group of BA pilots/employees slagging off the Cabin Crew/BASSA/UNITE - thereby nullifying this forum as a debate as it becomes totally one-sided
Aggressive and demeaning posts and comments drive Cabin Crew away from this forum and you end up just as a group of BA pilots/employees slagging off the Cabin Crew/BASSA/UNITE - thereby nullifying this forum as a debate as it becomes totally one-sided