British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: England
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueUpGood
Possibly the most succinct and well balanced post on this subject to date, IMHO.
MissM - for what it is worth, i disagreed with the withdrawal of ST as i knew that it would prove to be incredibly divisive even in the aftermath, and so it has proven (and its not over yet it would seem..).However, it is my understanding that ST was made non-contractual at the request of the unions themselves, for good financial reason. It is naive in the extreme to expect that the company would not use this as leverage in this dispute - there is no action without consequence and WW was hardly likely to give BASSA a red carpet ride all the way to Bedfont. Added to that, ALL employees were e-mailed and warned of the consequences of industrial action and in the face of this, the IA went ahead. To now hold this matter up as reason for prolonging the dispute is utterly ridiculous given the warnings that were given. Either the issues surrounding the IA are worth going on strike and losing ST for, or they are not and you turn up for work and try to negotiate a settlement. BASSA cannot stamp their feet and have it all their own way in every sense. Personally I was amazed that WW has offered to reinstate ST in any form at all (a fact that seems to have been lost on the media) and BASSA may live to regret not accepting it. Or may not.
Possibly the most succinct and well balanced post on this subject to date, IMHO.
MissM - for what it is worth, i disagreed with the withdrawal of ST as i knew that it would prove to be incredibly divisive even in the aftermath, and so it has proven (and its not over yet it would seem..).However, it is my understanding that ST was made non-contractual at the request of the unions themselves, for good financial reason. It is naive in the extreme to expect that the company would not use this as leverage in this dispute - there is no action without consequence and WW was hardly likely to give BASSA a red carpet ride all the way to Bedfont. Added to that, ALL employees were e-mailed and warned of the consequences of industrial action and in the face of this, the IA went ahead. To now hold this matter up as reason for prolonging the dispute is utterly ridiculous given the warnings that were given. Either the issues surrounding the IA are worth going on strike and losing ST for, or they are not and you turn up for work and try to negotiate a settlement. BASSA cannot stamp their feet and have it all their own way in every sense. Personally I was amazed that WW has offered to reinstate ST in any form at all (a fact that seems to have been lost on the media) and BASSA may live to regret not accepting it. Or may not.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: london
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also thought WW agreed to reinstate ST albeit with no existing length of service benefits. IMHO I thought this was a fair offer meeting BASSA half way - why can't BASSA move the other half - or is that too much to expect?
Please someone answer the question, why should striking CC get back their ST when they were told quite categorically they would loose it if they went on strike. Did they think this was all talk. With a child you have to carry through the threats of punishment, no sweets, no playstation etc etc otherwise they will take no notice of you the next time. It is the same scenerio here.
I really don't understand what the strike is now all about - the goalposts seem to change every day if not every hour.
Please please - enough is enough - agree a deal and lets get back to building BA into the airline it once was. This is unfortunately going to take years the reputation of BA is really at rock bottom. It is not a brand that is synonymous with service, good value and reliability any more. It has lost huge brand share to other airlines who must be rubbing their hands in glee - if those customers that defected to other airlines had a good experience then why would they come back to BA.
Please someone answer the question, why should striking CC get back their ST when they were told quite categorically they would loose it if they went on strike. Did they think this was all talk. With a child you have to carry through the threats of punishment, no sweets, no playstation etc etc otherwise they will take no notice of you the next time. It is the same scenerio here.
I really don't understand what the strike is now all about - the goalposts seem to change every day if not every hour.
Please please - enough is enough - agree a deal and lets get back to building BA into the airline it once was. This is unfortunately going to take years the reputation of BA is really at rock bottom. It is not a brand that is synonymous with service, good value and reliability any more. It has lost huge brand share to other airlines who must be rubbing their hands in glee - if those customers that defected to other airlines had a good experience then why would they come back to BA.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..price, melc, it will be the price of the ticket that will bring 'em back. BA run a fabulous network, from a not-so-fabulous location, from a fabulous terminal. The T'internet makes it easy to compare the meerkat - simples. The Brand, IMHO, can be recovered fairly quickly; however, potentially, there is going to be about 2-2500 fairly compromised cc that will need to make some serous judgement calls if they are to continue on the BA payroll, and thereby be part of the Brand restoration.
GF
Edited to add my praise for BUG's piece earlier. Crafted so that even the most business non-minds amongst us get the drift of BASSA's stance. To sum up from my viewpoint, a case of a council with power way above their business awareness/accumen, attempting to wield that power over an £8bn turnover institution and failing spectacularly. Other than causing Brand damage/financial loss and exposing cruelly their members to the forces of nature, ie, other employees refusing to allow the destructionl of BA, what positive has BASSA achieved beyond their fold?
GF
GF
Edited to add my praise for BUG's piece earlier. Crafted so that even the most business non-minds amongst us get the drift of BASSA's stance. To sum up from my viewpoint, a case of a council with power way above their business awareness/accumen, attempting to wield that power over an £8bn turnover institution and failing spectacularly. Other than causing Brand damage/financial loss and exposing cruelly their members to the forces of nature, ie, other employees refusing to allow the destructionl of BA, what positive has BASSA achieved beyond their fold?
GF
Last edited by IYCSWICSWICW; 11th Jun 2010 at 14:44.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lhr
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blueupgood
Blueupgood,
you raise many valid points but I think it was a bit harsh assuming that we are misled by our union and do not listen to anything else except the BASSA mantra.
Well I can tell you that I try to read every single newspaper (on those long nights on the jumpseat, between a juice round and a toilet check), gather as much information as I can and then I make up my own opinion.
Regarding the suspensions etc. I think there was an over reaction by BA (due to the current dispute and the poisoned atmosphere). I think a sensible approach was to have a third party (ACAS) involved in some the disciplinary hearings
I do not think that escorting out a cabin crew member from the CRC before a briefing and in front of the whole crew community was a very sensible and respectful approach by BA, especially if the outcome was nothing!
We might be a minority, as you say, but we still have the right of express our opinion and fight for our beliefs. And yes strike is a human right!
We all knew WW would have removed ST to all the strikers, we know his "style" of management. The warning does not make it right or fair and, as I said before, we will fight it at the European Court of Justice: it was a serious discriminatory act. It is also discriminatory giving ST without seniority.
Unite agreed with BA about single fleet, single payment etc. I really find hard to believe that the only thing stopping WW to sign a deal is ST.... maybe it is an excuse because he has a different and bigger plan for us!
TIRAMISU: If I may I think it is a bit naive believing that commuting cabin crew did come to work to keep the flag flying and not to lose Staff Travel...?? I am sure that being a EF CSD you perfectly know the numbers of commuters in BA.
you raise many valid points but I think it was a bit harsh assuming that we are misled by our union and do not listen to anything else except the BASSA mantra.
Well I can tell you that I try to read every single newspaper (on those long nights on the jumpseat, between a juice round and a toilet check), gather as much information as I can and then I make up my own opinion.
Regarding the suspensions etc. I think there was an over reaction by BA (due to the current dispute and the poisoned atmosphere). I think a sensible approach was to have a third party (ACAS) involved in some the disciplinary hearings
I do not think that escorting out a cabin crew member from the CRC before a briefing and in front of the whole crew community was a very sensible and respectful approach by BA, especially if the outcome was nothing!
We might be a minority, as you say, but we still have the right of express our opinion and fight for our beliefs. And yes strike is a human right!
We all knew WW would have removed ST to all the strikers, we know his "style" of management. The warning does not make it right or fair and, as I said before, we will fight it at the European Court of Justice: it was a serious discriminatory act. It is also discriminatory giving ST without seniority.
Unite agreed with BA about single fleet, single payment etc. I really find hard to believe that the only thing stopping WW to sign a deal is ST.... maybe it is an excuse because he has a different and bigger plan for us!
TIRAMISU: If I may I think it is a bit naive believing that commuting cabin crew did come to work to keep the flag flying and not to lose Staff Travel...?? I am sure that being a EF CSD you perfectly know the numbers of commuters in BA.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite agreed with BA about single fleet, single payment etc. I really find hard to believe that the only thing stopping WW to sign a deal is ST
There is no deal to sign, Unite have agreed nothing, just agreed to talk about it. Its not WW not signing its Unite.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lhr
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLDVR,
I NEVER said ST is a right, I KNOW it is NOT contractual, you keep missing my point. Removing ST only from striking cabin crew it is a DISCRIMINATORY act. Nothing more nothing less.
I NEVER said ST is a right, I KNOW it is NOT contractual, you keep missing my point. Removing ST only from striking cabin crew it is a DISCRIMINATORY act. Nothing more nothing less.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: LHR
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fabio,
no it's definitely not discrimination, it's a sanction against the strikers. The rights and wrongs about it can and will be argued for a long time.
When staff travel was fairly radically altered to increase the benefits to shorter serving staff in April 2009 and reduce/remove some benefits from others, I don't recall many cries of discrimination then.
no it's definitely not discrimination, it's a sanction against the strikers. The rights and wrongs about it can and will be argued for a long time.
When staff travel was fairly radically altered to increase the benefits to shorter serving staff in April 2009 and reduce/remove some benefits from others, I don't recall many cries of discrimination then.
Last edited by BikerMark; 11th Jun 2010 at 19:03.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on Fabio, you can't call the removal of ST as discriminatory, it is plain economics. Look at the other T&C's, pre 1997 crew is on a different pay scale, LGW has different conditions, longhaul vs EF is different, are you now saying that any discrepancy between different bases, different seniority and different hiring dates is also discriminatory? Or are you just focusing on ST as it affects you and is an item brought up by BASSA?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueUpGood/Fox3maddog
I'll second that.
Fabio
Perhaps you should have looked at the what the company was sending you instead!
Possibly the most succinct and well balanced post on this subject to date, IMHO.
Fabio
Well I can tell you that I try to read every single newspaper
Last edited by screwdriver; 11th Jun 2010 at 17:34.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fabio747
As I understand it, there is no right to strike in the UK. We opted out of that bit. You have the right not to be fairly dismissed for taking part in protected industrial action.
As to ST, I agree with you. There is a discrimination case as, I believe. To remove ST from some but not from others, when they have not breached a policy or have been disciplined, appears to be discriminatory. It will be a case for a tribunal to decide, no doubt.
As to ST, I agree with you. There is a discrimination case as, I believe. To remove ST from some but not from others, when they have not breached a policy or have been disciplined, appears to be discriminatory. It will be a case for a tribunal to decide, no doubt.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pogles Wood
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ST
Even if it is does come under 'discrimination', the fact that the strikers were very clearly told that they would lose this perk if they did strike would, IMHO, work in BA's favour, if it went to the courts.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fabio/Ranger, you may want to read the Trade Union Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992, which does not include strike action as a precursor for removal of benefits that are not contractual. It gives employees the protection “not to be subjected to any detriment” by an employer’s action, or lack of action, taken “for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring him taking part in the activities of an independent trade union at an appropriate time or penalising him for doing so. However strike action itself is not covered, so BA removing a discretionairy benefit of Staff Travel is not covered by the act and is also not a contractual obligation by BA. They had every right to remove it, especially as you were warned that they would.
So you may want to ask your rep what they base their demand for reinstating ST on, it is not the law, so not sure what they do base it on.
You may not like it, and I can understand that, but that is not grounds for taking legal action. Liking or not liking is irrelevant, you need the law to support you or have precedent and in your case for reinstating ST, you have neither.
So you may want to ask your rep what they base their demand for reinstating ST on, it is not the law, so not sure what they do base it on.
You may not like it, and I can understand that, but that is not grounds for taking legal action. Liking or not liking is irrelevant, you need the law to support you or have precedent and in your case for reinstating ST, you have neither.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that it is discretionairy, not contractual they don't have to follow any policy. It is their right to do so, you never got it in writing from them in the first place as part of your contract so it is outside the scope of the Act.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry litebulbs, it was not a whim, you were clearly warned. And yes non contractual benefits are discretionairy. You should not be upset with BA for removing them you should be upset with BASSA for not protecting them by making them contractual. You are clearly barking up the wrong tree. BASSA made a mistake in not representing you to your wishes and with your interest in mind and now you are angry with BA.
Last edited by cldrvr; 11th Jun 2010 at 18:38. Reason: Grammar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said earlier, Industrial Action in the UK is not protected under the Labour Relations Act, and the UK opted out of the EU labour laws. A good example is the working week where we do not have the same restrictions as they do on the continent. WW clearly stated that if you guys took industrial action he would remove discretionairy benefits as they are not protected, don't you think that if they were BASSA would have gotten a High Court injunction preventing the removal by now? You can be in front of the Court in a matter of days.
The removal of discretionairy benefits happens in all industries, removal of company cars and various perks such as gym benefits have been removed all over during this recession in order to cut cost. Even the PM removed first class travel for all his Ministers as a discretionairy perk.
The removal of discretionairy benefits happens in all industries, removal of company cars and various perks such as gym benefits have been removed all over during this recession in order to cut cost. Even the PM removed first class travel for all his Ministers as a discretionairy perk.