British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi SB
I don't think it can go indefinitely. After 12 weeks the strike is no longer "protected". This means refusing to work is breach of contract and striker can be dismissed.
12 weeks expire in the middle of June.
I don't think it can go indefinitely. After 12 weeks the strike is no longer "protected". This means refusing to work is breach of contract and striker can be dismissed.
12 weeks expire in the middle of June.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Negotiation on staff travel
ottergirl said:
Willie Walsh has offered to reinstate staff travel for commuters if Unite accepts the current offer. Tony Woodley dismissed this in his message to crew as "concessions ... for the relatively small number of you who use such concessions to travel to work".
However Unite, in their press release dated 25 March 2010 said: "Nearly one third of crew depend on the travel assistance just to get to work. Crew who commute to Heathrow from former BA bases in places such as Glasgow and Manchester which the company closed - and at the time promised financial help for those now required to travel to their new place of work - are hit hardest by this latest attack from their employer."
I think that Willie Walsh has backed down quite a bit on ST and it would be churlish for Unite not to recognise this.
It appears to me that neither side has any interest in negotiation or compromise. If no-one is prepared to move their position then no progress can ever be made.
However Unite, in their press release dated 25 March 2010 said: "Nearly one third of crew depend on the travel assistance just to get to work. Crew who commute to Heathrow from former BA bases in places such as Glasgow and Manchester which the company closed - and at the time promised financial help for those now required to travel to their new place of work - are hit hardest by this latest attack from their employer."
I think that Willie Walsh has backed down quite a bit on ST and it would be churlish for Unite not to recognise this.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Middy, I agree with you! Whilst I think the proposal has it's flaws and has many elements worse than previous offers, that was bound to happen if the strike went ahead. Any further strikers and we will NOT get a better offer, contrary to what UNITE and BASSA think! Or want!
I am just saying that most strikers do not agree with me or you, and WILL vote NO to this proposal.... What will that mean? What will UNITE do? What will BA do to bring this dispute to an end? This dispute CANNOT go on forever! And similarly BA needs to get back to profitability and us crew need to be able to get our stability of our jobs back!
I am just saying that most strikers do not agree with me or you, and WILL vote NO to this proposal.... What will that mean? What will UNITE do? What will BA do to bring this dispute to an end? This dispute CANNOT go on forever! And similarly BA needs to get back to profitability and us crew need to be able to get our stability of our jobs back!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slidebustle is spot on.
How can the strikers accept this knowing that the strike, and all that went with it, has achieved nothing? Lost pay, lost jobs, lost staff travel, lost CRM! They will be in a worse position than if they never started this IA and, if that happens, the recriminations will be interesting.
Who to blame?
How can the strikers accept this knowing that the strike, and all that went with it, has achieved nothing? Lost pay, lost jobs, lost staff travel, lost CRM! They will be in a worse position than if they never started this IA and, if that happens, the recriminations will be interesting.
Who to blame?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl, I can't find your alleged quote in the webchat; but I have found these 2 direct quotes made by BF:
Neither seem "intentionally provactive" to me; just genuine questions, and ones which we should all be asking of the strikers.
Actually, we (the entire cabin crew community) are already in a worse position than if the IA had never happened.
We have lost a lot. Extra free ticket. Bonus option. Share scheme incentive. And now we can add: language pay, telephone allowance, etc to the list. Oh, and of course, the immediate implementation of New Fleet due to 184 crew going back on.
And don't forget, the company has lost £43m.
Whoever heard of a Union, one of the biggest and wealthiest in the country, literally turning down benefits and incentives and good deals from the employer without consultation of the membership? The crimes they have committed are now bordering on criminal. Who are they accountable to?
Many of us have tried to warn the strikers of the consequences. We have been proved right, but still they fail to listen. Quite frankly, if they can't see the writing on the wall now, then they never will.
To anyone who chooses to reject this offer and strike, good luck. You will most definitely need it.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
As this is based entirely on the agreement put to Unite on the 19th March 2010 before any strikes, why is it now acceptable apart from the loss of Staff Travel?
What I don't understand is that the latest agreement is based entirely on the same proposal given to Unite on the 19th March 2010. If the proposal is now acceptable to you, why did some crew go on strike and put their Staff Travel at risk?
What I don't understand is that the latest agreement is based entirely on the same proposal given to Unite on the 19th March 2010. If the proposal is now acceptable to you, why did some crew go on strike and put their Staff Travel at risk?
They will be in a worse position than if they never started this IA and, if that happens, the recriminations will be interesting.
We have lost a lot. Extra free ticket. Bonus option. Share scheme incentive. And now we can add: language pay, telephone allowance, etc to the list. Oh, and of course, the immediate implementation of New Fleet due to 184 crew going back on.
And don't forget, the company has lost £43m.
Whoever heard of a Union, one of the biggest and wealthiest in the country, literally turning down benefits and incentives and good deals from the employer without consultation of the membership? The crimes they have committed are now bordering on criminal. Who are they accountable to?
Many of us have tried to warn the strikers of the consequences. We have been proved right, but still they fail to listen. Quite frankly, if they can't see the writing on the wall now, then they never will.
To anyone who chooses to reject this offer and strike, good luck. You will most definitely need it.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl asks "Who to blame?"
Simple. Anyone but the leadership of the union, BASSA.
Anyone but those who thought that they could simply ignore what the rest of the company was doing and somehow tough it out.
Anyone but those who were merely fighting for what THEY were set to lose, and not their membership.
Anyone but those who could not engage with the company and find mutually acceptable terms, but just had to say no.
Anyone but those who have refused to share ANY details of the offers made by the company as it would not suit their own agenda.
Anyone but those who had so much disdain for their membership, and possessed such arrogance that they would refuse to poll their membership on what THE MEMBERSHIP were prepared to move on, and use that to influence their negotiating position.
Therefore, it is all the fault of the pilots. Oh yes, and the ground-staff volunteers. Oh, and the s-words, and the management. Quite obvious, really.
I still have access to the BASSA forum, until they get round to processing my partners resignation. It is one fundamentally sad place; there is no analysis, no contrary opinion is allowed, there is no serious questioning of the actions of the union hierarchy, since any post that appears to stray from the groupthink is shouted straight down, with such phrases as "Bye, bye, have a nice life" to quote the most recent one I read.
The sad thing is that no-one on there realises how it suits the agenda of the union to have created such a place. There is even a thread there thanking the person who has single-handedly lied and obfuscated his way through the dispute for all his "great work" and wanting him to be given a permanent role as secretary. They can't even see through his own posts; when someone challenged him about his claim that "pilots" had said they would "refuse" to support Willie Walsh if he gave back staff travel only one person dared to tiptoe a query against him, and was shouted down, even though he was forced to admit it was merely hearsay. No further debate on his lies, and yes, they are lies have been brooked, even though this gentleman is leading people into a scenario where they could lose their jobs.
The word is lied, by the way. NOT "been economical with the truth" or "was merely reporting from a trusted source." Lied. Deliberately lied to paint one staff group against another. And the thing is, he know it too, but still accepts all the praise and plaudits. Special kind of a person, that is. And that is the type of person leading the BASSA branch of UNITE.
It is truly sad. Reargunner, who posts on here and has earned respect by engaging articulately and directly is actually one of the more balanced voices on the BASSA site, but still follows the group-think over there, as to do otherwise will lead to a feeding-frenzy. Suppose it is adapt and survive, but fair play to Reargunner.
Simple. Anyone but the leadership of the union, BASSA.
Anyone but those who thought that they could simply ignore what the rest of the company was doing and somehow tough it out.
Anyone but those who were merely fighting for what THEY were set to lose, and not their membership.
Anyone but those who could not engage with the company and find mutually acceptable terms, but just had to say no.
Anyone but those who have refused to share ANY details of the offers made by the company as it would not suit their own agenda.
Anyone but those who had so much disdain for their membership, and possessed such arrogance that they would refuse to poll their membership on what THE MEMBERSHIP were prepared to move on, and use that to influence their negotiating position.
Therefore, it is all the fault of the pilots. Oh yes, and the ground-staff volunteers. Oh, and the s-words, and the management. Quite obvious, really.
I still have access to the BASSA forum, until they get round to processing my partners resignation. It is one fundamentally sad place; there is no analysis, no contrary opinion is allowed, there is no serious questioning of the actions of the union hierarchy, since any post that appears to stray from the groupthink is shouted straight down, with such phrases as "Bye, bye, have a nice life" to quote the most recent one I read.
The sad thing is that no-one on there realises how it suits the agenda of the union to have created such a place. There is even a thread there thanking the person who has single-handedly lied and obfuscated his way through the dispute for all his "great work" and wanting him to be given a permanent role as secretary. They can't even see through his own posts; when someone challenged him about his claim that "pilots" had said they would "refuse" to support Willie Walsh if he gave back staff travel only one person dared to tiptoe a query against him, and was shouted down, even though he was forced to admit it was merely hearsay. No further debate on his lies, and yes, they are lies have been brooked, even though this gentleman is leading people into a scenario where they could lose their jobs.
The word is lied, by the way. NOT "been economical with the truth" or "was merely reporting from a trusted source." Lied. Deliberately lied to paint one staff group against another. And the thing is, he know it too, but still accepts all the praise and plaudits. Special kind of a person, that is. And that is the type of person leading the BASSA branch of UNITE.
It is truly sad. Reargunner, who posts on here and has earned respect by engaging articulately and directly is actually one of the more balanced voices on the BASSA site, but still follows the group-think over there, as to do otherwise will lead to a feeding-frenzy. Suppose it is adapt and survive, but fair play to Reargunner.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Metropolis
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Chief baffled
FT.com / UK / Business - BA chief baffled by union line on pay
and some light relief
Unite Union Suspected Behind Iceland Volcano Eruption
and some light relief
Unite Union Suspected Behind Iceland Volcano Eruption
Last edited by giza; 2nd May 2010 at 22:35.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: nowhere near here
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be interesting to see if WW does start trying to sack strikers after 12 weeks. My hunch is that he won't, for two reasons.
First of all, I think BA wants to keep the moral high ground in the minds of the travelling public. Whatever side of the fence you are on there is no doubt that, currently, the world outside thinks strikers are mad and that BA is right to take them on. I think WW will want to keep it that way and won't want to be seen to act unfairly.
Second, the law is not 100% clear on the 12 weeks issue. I guess this perhaps isn't a surprise but it was a law designed in the days of all out walk outs. The question of whether it means 12 weeks from the date of the first strike or 12 weeks of strike action has never been answered and, so far as I understand it, is not clear in law. Of course, lawyers will all have a view and I don't know what BA's lawyers have been telling WW.
How will he deal with the strikers then? We know how because we know what he is doing now: ramping up the volunteer programme and perhaps recruiting more temps. Eventually strikers will be sat at home, on basic pay, doing nothing, prevented by their BA contract from getting other paid work (if they do, there'll be an excuse to sack them), unable to afford the mortgage or the finance payments on the SLK. WW might eventually offer them new fleet contracts to sign and 90 days notice. Or say their jobs are now redundant and they can take a redeployment opportunity elsewhere - perhaps cleaning the loos (I know it'd be a lot to pay a loo cleaner but think of the poetic justice). Who knows. Eventually they'll become irrelevant. WW might even say after a while, "We have this great new one team approach on our flights, all the cabin crew who are coming to work are fully participating and being very professional, they're all having a great time at work outside the shadow of the union militants; sadly, we think there might be serious safety issues around all these miserable strikers coming back to work so with great regret we've got to let them go. The CAA are fully behind this move." All very sad and, like many have said, all very unnecessary.
First of all, I think BA wants to keep the moral high ground in the minds of the travelling public. Whatever side of the fence you are on there is no doubt that, currently, the world outside thinks strikers are mad and that BA is right to take them on. I think WW will want to keep it that way and won't want to be seen to act unfairly.
Second, the law is not 100% clear on the 12 weeks issue. I guess this perhaps isn't a surprise but it was a law designed in the days of all out walk outs. The question of whether it means 12 weeks from the date of the first strike or 12 weeks of strike action has never been answered and, so far as I understand it, is not clear in law. Of course, lawyers will all have a view and I don't know what BA's lawyers have been telling WW.
How will he deal with the strikers then? We know how because we know what he is doing now: ramping up the volunteer programme and perhaps recruiting more temps. Eventually strikers will be sat at home, on basic pay, doing nothing, prevented by their BA contract from getting other paid work (if they do, there'll be an excuse to sack them), unable to afford the mortgage or the finance payments on the SLK. WW might eventually offer them new fleet contracts to sign and 90 days notice. Or say their jobs are now redundant and they can take a redeployment opportunity elsewhere - perhaps cleaning the loos (I know it'd be a lot to pay a loo cleaner but think of the poetic justice). Who knows. Eventually they'll become irrelevant. WW might even say after a while, "We have this great new one team approach on our flights, all the cabin crew who are coming to work are fully participating and being very professional, they're all having a great time at work outside the shadow of the union militants; sadly, we think there might be serious safety issues around all these miserable strikers coming back to work so with great regret we've got to let them go. The CAA are fully behind this move." All very sad and, like many have said, all very unnecessary.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reargunner
After a bit of digging around it appears that the 1948 clause may only be applicable if you are in APS. As I said earlier I don't feel as though I have anything to fear from any re-deployment agreement.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't trust some crew for a second that they even understand the proposal - how are they suppose to make a rational and adult decision?
Take the Monthly Travel Payment - which BASSA happens to be supporting.
Turn to page 2 - it says A new fixed monthly payment will be introduced which will be increased in line with future pay awards.
BA will not decrease the rate next year - it will be contractual - they cannot decrease the rate from one day to another because management comes to work one day in the mood for some screwing about.
Take the Monthly Travel Payment - which BASSA happens to be supporting.
Turn to page 2 - it says A new fixed monthly payment will be introduced which will be increased in line with future pay awards.
BA will not decrease the rate next year - it will be contractual - they cannot decrease the rate from one day to another because management comes to work one day in the mood for some screwing about.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Help to get a decision
Hi all,
In order to get a decision, I would appreciate your help:
I'm a BA WW cabin crew. I got the proposal, and in order to get a decision, can anyone help to calculate what would be the average monthly salary ? Is it going to be the 8085 pounds divided by 12 months, and added to the basic ? Is it going to be gross or net ? Do you think it's a good deal or not ?
Thanks.
In order to get a decision, I would appreciate your help:
I'm a BA WW cabin crew. I got the proposal, and in order to get a decision, can anyone help to calculate what would be the average monthly salary ? Is it going to be the 8085 pounds divided by 12 months, and added to the basic ? Is it going to be gross or net ? Do you think it's a good deal or not ?
Thanks.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi www traveller, It's all about the money right? I agree, i's a shame BASSA don't get it.
Your basic will be unchanged, the MTP is gross of tax I'm sure and it looks to me as if dividing by 12 is how to get its monthly value. (£673.75).
Remember this is paid even when on leave/SEP/sick. I suggest you look back through your pay slips and see how this compares to your earnings over say 24 months to get a good average.
Also thanks to the tax mans recent grab on allowances getting this included as a fixed payment does not increase your tax liability.
Finally the MTP does not cover all your payments. The following list of payments will still be paid as before, so don't forget to leave them out of your average payment calculation.
Meal Allowances Daily Overseas Allowance (DOA)
Nightly Incidental Allowance (NIA) Time Away Allowance (TAA)
Line Trainer Payments Willing to work
Rest Day Working
Exceptional Payments from WW Disruption Agreement (One-Down and Zone
Closure).
HTH
Your basic will be unchanged, the MTP is gross of tax I'm sure and it looks to me as if dividing by 12 is how to get its monthly value. (£673.75).
Remember this is paid even when on leave/SEP/sick. I suggest you look back through your pay slips and see how this compares to your earnings over say 24 months to get a good average.
Also thanks to the tax mans recent grab on allowances getting this included as a fixed payment does not increase your tax liability.
Finally the MTP does not cover all your payments. The following list of payments will still be paid as before, so don't forget to leave them out of your average payment calculation.
Meal Allowances Daily Overseas Allowance (DOA)
Nightly Incidental Allowance (NIA) Time Away Allowance (TAA)
Line Trainer Payments Willing to work
Rest Day Working
Exceptional Payments from WW Disruption Agreement (One-Down and Zone
Closure).
HTH
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wwwtraveller
I am not knocking anyone who gives you some advice, but surely your questions would be answered by management as they would want you to make a properly informed decision. Why not send them an e mail with your concerns ? They really do not bite !
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sickness is the first item on the list of deductions!
SB i suppose the last 11 months is the minimum required to get a representative monthly average.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: south east
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
184 extra crew at what cost?
This is a problem for me. Recruitment into new fleet, allocation decided by the company (without any mention of consultation). New fleet kicks off and we lose work. Without these extra heads new fleet is delayed until recruitment is needed. That could be sometime as we seem to be overcrewed most months even allowing for those still on part time lists.
Then there is the financial cost, all the rhetoric about protecting earnings but removal of and freezing allowances is cutting our pay. There is also the removal of early report days which impacts on time off and what you can or can't do on your last MBT(and probably leave day, as this was brought into line with MBT previously)
Additionally, there is the alignment of crew meals to WT standard. What does this mean? We haven't been given any detail. What happens to the pilot's meals as we use what is left after they make their choice?
I know that the reduced complements are not great and must be a nightmare on some flights but we have coped for six months and the world has moved on from the imposition issue. We shouldn't have to pay to put extra crew on. It is the company's problem and if they have issues with the service they should invest in it, just as they do with the product eg new first.
Then there is the financial cost, all the rhetoric about protecting earnings but removal of and freezing allowances is cutting our pay. There is also the removal of early report days which impacts on time off and what you can or can't do on your last MBT(and probably leave day, as this was brought into line with MBT previously)
Additionally, there is the alignment of crew meals to WT standard. What does this mean? We haven't been given any detail. What happens to the pilot's meals as we use what is left after they make their choice?
I know that the reduced complements are not great and must be a nightmare on some flights but we have coped for six months and the world has moved on from the imposition issue. We shouldn't have to pay to put extra crew on. It is the company's problem and if they have issues with the service they should invest in it, just as they do with the product eg new first.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sussex
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points Jock.
And of course the one area not discussed much by the experts on this thread - the pax.
I've just returned from a destination that has lost 2 crew since imposition - what a mess. As I note regularly now, many pax just lose interest in the meal svc in CW due to the extended time it takes to deliver...and not even mentioning the absolutely terrible product we have to offer. Seats are remaining empty on a more regular basis now as our competitors are offering a far superior service with more crew at usually less cost to the pax.
Reality.
And of course the one area not discussed much by the experts on this thread - the pax.
I've just returned from a destination that has lost 2 crew since imposition - what a mess. As I note regularly now, many pax just lose interest in the meal svc in CW due to the extended time it takes to deliver...and not even mentioning the absolutely terrible product we have to offer. Seats are remaining empty on a more regular basis now as our competitors are offering a far superior service with more crew at usually less cost to the pax.
Reality.