British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Overseas
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the interests of fairness, whoever produced this obviously fake and tasteless parody of a Union information leaflet should face the same consequences as the maker of the equally ridiculous Scabbin Crew News.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the interests of fairness, whoever produced this obviously fake and tasteless parody of a Union information leaflet should face the same consequences as the maker of the equally ridiculous Scabbin Crew News.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a good idea of what is going on right now with in UNITE, I'm told by a friend who works on the periphery of UNITE that this piece is mostly accurate.
UNITE – A Crucial Election | Left Futures
I particularly like the bit
BASSA were too short sighted perhaps to realise that their dispute was being hijacked for "other" reasons, you have to ask, where is Lenny now?
UNITE – A Crucial Election | Left Futures
I particularly like the bit
Quite so, but equally Len McCluskey’s involvement in the dispute, which is not in a sector for which he has previously held responsibility, also smacks of electioneering. Simpson was definitely out of order criticising the length of the proposed pre-Christmas strike; but quietly and behind closed doors, many in the movement did think that there was an element of hubris behind the 12 day strike call.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the same source-
Is it not strange that in 12 years of government, the Labour (Trades Union) Party did nothing to change those laws?
Undoubtedly, the anti-trade union laws have encumbered UNITE’s prosecution of the dispute.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strikemaster82
Why are you so convinced that VCC are not replacable? If there's enough time for them to complete training as well flying duties surely their original tasks can't be that important or too time consuming. We have not been replaced. There's not a chance that BA could get rid of 5000 crew members and rely solely on VCC as our substitutes. The airline would collaps.
WW said in October last year that the company was no longer in fight for its survival as the immediate crisis had receded.
There's no doubt that some of the dismissals are unfair. We are faced with a nasty piece of management and apparently you can get suspended for pretty much everything.
LD12986
There's never a good time for cabin crew to strike as people rely to fly with us around the clock every day of the year. I could not care less if I, and my striking colleagues, are despised by our colleagues. Sometimes in a fight you have to ignore such feelings.
The Independent released figures about two weeks ago on corporate pay. WW salary was included there. See my answer above about BA's fight for survival. WW said the company no longer was in October last year.
beesflyer
I thought I replied to your question earlier?
Caribbean Boy
Did you actually beat us? You managed to depart some flights but according to BA and their letter they sent out earlier this year informing loss of staff travel indicated otherwise. I believe "severely impacted upon our operation" was even used.
Hand Solo
How am I to know? My name badge and language allowances indicate otherwise and not that I'm trying to "big myself up". Thank you for patronising our role also.
123breath
I believe it when I see it. You say that you had a conversation with someone in senior management in March. It means nothing and has as much credibility as if I were to say that I had Bill Clinton for dinner last night.
We went on strike over the principle of imposition. BA chose imposition over negotiation. It has nothing to do with the CSD actually participating in the service, which doesn't seem to work anyway as BA is thinking of changing the routines again. Am I a CSD? No, I'm main crew.
MrBunker
We also know as a fact that BALPA got away with an agreement which would save the company around 3%. We offered 15% savings which were turned down by the company.
My reference source is that I have been with BA for 15 years and never heard of any dismissals in any of our previous disputes. This has also been discussed at other forums.
Nutjob
Let's sort this out once and for all again. I am not LM. Forward your questions to BASSA if you want answers either from herself or DH.
The Flying Nunn
BASSA have put forward several proposals to BA that would have saved the company a huge amount of money. That itself indicates that they are willing to negotiate and reach an agreement with BA. The reason for strike has always been imposition.
Why are you so convinced that VCC are not replacable? If there's enough time for them to complete training as well flying duties surely their original tasks can't be that important or too time consuming. We have not been replaced. There's not a chance that BA could get rid of 5000 crew members and rely solely on VCC as our substitutes. The airline would collaps.
WW said in October last year that the company was no longer in fight for its survival as the immediate crisis had receded.
There's no doubt that some of the dismissals are unfair. We are faced with a nasty piece of management and apparently you can get suspended for pretty much everything.
LD12986
There's never a good time for cabin crew to strike as people rely to fly with us around the clock every day of the year. I could not care less if I, and my striking colleagues, are despised by our colleagues. Sometimes in a fight you have to ignore such feelings.
The Independent released figures about two weeks ago on corporate pay. WW salary was included there. See my answer above about BA's fight for survival. WW said the company no longer was in October last year.
beesflyer
I thought I replied to your question earlier?
Caribbean Boy
Did you actually beat us? You managed to depart some flights but according to BA and their letter they sent out earlier this year informing loss of staff travel indicated otherwise. I believe "severely impacted upon our operation" was even used.
Hand Solo
How am I to know? My name badge and language allowances indicate otherwise and not that I'm trying to "big myself up". Thank you for patronising our role also.
123breath
I believe it when I see it. You say that you had a conversation with someone in senior management in March. It means nothing and has as much credibility as if I were to say that I had Bill Clinton for dinner last night.
We went on strike over the principle of imposition. BA chose imposition over negotiation. It has nothing to do with the CSD actually participating in the service, which doesn't seem to work anyway as BA is thinking of changing the routines again. Am I a CSD? No, I'm main crew.
MrBunker
We also know as a fact that BALPA got away with an agreement which would save the company around 3%. We offered 15% savings which were turned down by the company.
My reference source is that I have been with BA for 15 years and never heard of any dismissals in any of our previous disputes. This has also been discussed at other forums.
Nutjob
Let's sort this out once and for all again. I am not LM. Forward your questions to BASSA if you want answers either from herself or DH.
The Flying Nunn
BASSA have put forward several proposals to BA that would have saved the company a huge amount of money. That itself indicates that they are willing to negotiate and reach an agreement with BA. The reason for strike has always been imposition.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: on boeings finest
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
Its a little late for that!! unfortunately the verbose UNITE/BASSA officials, you know the ones, Lenny (used to be Len) Derek(what was it he said about BASSA a socialist worker meeting in EDI?) Tony and Brian, are all on record (SKY,BBC news etc) that the strike was about staff travel, bullying, pay, the list goes on!
Tell me what will BASSA be balloting on next?
The reason for strike has always been imposition.
Tell me what will BASSA be balloting on next?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
Ok, no problem. Maybe YOU can answer the questions then. What have your actions achieved, other than what I wrote? Come on, you can do it. Answer the question. WHAT POSITIVES HAS YOUR STRIKE ACHIEVED AND WHY ARE MY NEGATIVE POINTS WRONG? Please, produce a decent argument against my POV.
Let's sort this out once and for all again. I am not LM. Forward your questions to BASSA if you want answers either from herself or DH.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA chose imposition over negotiation
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MissM
BASSA have put forward several proposals to BA that would have saved the company a huge amount of money.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
We have not been replaced. There's not a chance that BA could get rid of 5000 crew members and rely solely on VCC as our substitutes. The airline would collaps.
It may surprise you to learn that my friends who have VCC's in their teams on the ground have been advised that they could be gone indefinately not just to cover any future strikes. Or at least until BA can find suitable replacements I guess?
The VCC's did a fantastic job during the strike period and would cope admirably if they were to take the role on for a little longer. The fact that that the company would cease without the loyal, committed strikers is just the kind of egotistical comment I have come to expect from the BASSA supporters.
We proved how dispensible they were before and we'll do it again. I think some people are going to have a shock in store!
P.S. Glad even you've started to accept that 5000 crew went on strike too!
It may surprise you to learn that my friends who have VCC's in their teams on the ground have been advised that they could be gone indefinately not just to cover any future strikes. Or at least until BA can find suitable replacements I guess?
The VCC's did a fantastic job during the strike period and would cope admirably if they were to take the role on for a little longer. The fact that that the company would cease without the loyal, committed strikers is just the kind of egotistical comment I have come to expect from the BASSA supporters.
We proved how dispensible they were before and we'll do it again. I think some people are going to have a shock in store!
P.S. Glad even you've started to accept that 5000 crew went on strike too!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Pogles Wood
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
Why are you so convinced that VCC are not replacable? If there's enough time for them to complete training as well flying duties surely their original tasks can't be that important or too time consuming
As far as my department is concerned, the VCC's are covered by overtime/lieu days. That's to say, their job needs to be covered and continues so. We require their continued employment within the department. Period!
It costs, I'll grant you. But no where near the costs that would be attributed in not doing so.
We have all made sacrifices which strenghten OUR resolve in backing the company. That MissM, will never change, as long as BA remains solvent and a viable business. And the likes of a militant minority who offer no more than a 'loan', will not change that!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Reading
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM,
You say '''BA chose impostion over negotiation''
As LD12986 pointed out, there is a very good reason why BA imposed the changes and that is stated in the result of the court hearing where all the ''evidence'' of months of ''negotiation'' were laid bare. It is clear that BASSA was to blame for end of negotiation and the resultant imposition.
here is an extract from the court:
I acknowledge the warning and it suffices to record that I have taken into account, first, the dire financial situation of BA as at the 6th October. As to this, I see nothing material in how that situation came to arise, the now undisputed fact is that BA was then in a very serious financial state, such that management reasonably had urgently to do something (and had to be seen to do something) in the interests of the Company, its employees and its financial backers. I have further taken into account the now undisputed fact that as at the 6th October negotiations with the Union had come to a halt, notwithstanding the efforts of ACAS, and were unlikely to restart unless and until the internal factions of Unite had resolved their differences so as to form a negotiating team. It is thus, that I find that it was objectively reasonable in the prevailing circumstances to act unilaterally and to make the first change to Miss Cumming's predicated contract, that is, to impose a cabin crew complement other than by way of a collective agreement. (my Bold)
So there it is, blame laid on BASSA from evidence and facts not spin or lies.
The fact is that the ''imposed'' changed were seen as fair and reasonable:
I cannot regard the 6th October changes as drastic or extreme and outwith the parameters of "reasonable". The crew complements remain significantly above the FAA minimum, the flights demonstrably can continue and to the extent that there is an aligning of LGW and LHR levels it is difficult to raise substantial objections. But, more importantly all such has to be judged not in a vacuum but in the light of the financial situation: if the new complements materially and fairly contribute to the preservation of BA and more importantly for present purposes job security and pay, how can I condemn the less than extreme changes as unreasonable?
So not only was the union to blame for the end of negotiation, leading to neccessary imposition but the changed were also fair and reasonable.
Hardly a cause to strike for 12 days over christmas and want to bring BA down for being such a ''bully''.
Please only bring facts to the debate as anything else holds no real value in this debate no matter how many times it is repeated.
You say '''BA chose impostion over negotiation''
As LD12986 pointed out, there is a very good reason why BA imposed the changes and that is stated in the result of the court hearing where all the ''evidence'' of months of ''negotiation'' were laid bare. It is clear that BASSA was to blame for end of negotiation and the resultant imposition.
here is an extract from the court:
I acknowledge the warning and it suffices to record that I have taken into account, first, the dire financial situation of BA as at the 6th October. As to this, I see nothing material in how that situation came to arise, the now undisputed fact is that BA was then in a very serious financial state, such that management reasonably had urgently to do something (and had to be seen to do something) in the interests of the Company, its employees and its financial backers. I have further taken into account the now undisputed fact that as at the 6th October negotiations with the Union had come to a halt, notwithstanding the efforts of ACAS, and were unlikely to restart unless and until the internal factions of Unite had resolved their differences so as to form a negotiating team. It is thus, that I find that it was objectively reasonable in the prevailing circumstances to act unilaterally and to make the first change to Miss Cumming's predicated contract, that is, to impose a cabin crew complement other than by way of a collective agreement. (my Bold)
So there it is, blame laid on BASSA from evidence and facts not spin or lies.
The fact is that the ''imposed'' changed were seen as fair and reasonable:
I cannot regard the 6th October changes as drastic or extreme and outwith the parameters of "reasonable". The crew complements remain significantly above the FAA minimum, the flights demonstrably can continue and to the extent that there is an aligning of LGW and LHR levels it is difficult to raise substantial objections. But, more importantly all such has to be judged not in a vacuum but in the light of the financial situation: if the new complements materially and fairly contribute to the preservation of BA and more importantly for present purposes job security and pay, how can I condemn the less than extreme changes as unreasonable?
So not only was the union to blame for the end of negotiation, leading to neccessary imposition but the changed were also fair and reasonable.
Hardly a cause to strike for 12 days over christmas and want to bring BA down for being such a ''bully''.
Please only bring facts to the debate as anything else holds no real value in this debate no matter how many times it is repeated.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaten
So, MissM, you can't accept that you have been beaten even though you failed to ground BA (with every strike being less successful than the previous one), you failed to bully BA into caving into your demands. Now BASSA is hesitant about calling another strike ballot. I wonder why.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating reading the 'newsletter' from Unite which mysteriously still appears on my doorstep. More military history to draw parallels with (who is their resident historian?), this time we have Vietnam and the obvious struggle against 'absolute power' and, if that were not enough, Argentina's period of military rule and the people who disappeared.
There was also a page devoted to the defence of the strange ABBA message which caused a backlash from the membership and basically stated that, if you didn't understand the obscure link between the song Waterloo and BASSA's struggle with Willy, then you must be a Daily Mail reader or worse!
Finally, it mentioned 3 times the recent suspension of a WW rep but in each different article, it gave a different reason for her suspension. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
How can 12 pages of glossy pamphlet contain not one single piece of valid information?
PS Forgot to mention I've been banned from CF for pointing out that their spinning of the numbers can be reworked in BA's favour. Oh well!
There was also a page devoted to the defence of the strange ABBA message which caused a backlash from the membership and basically stated that, if you didn't understand the obscure link between the song Waterloo and BASSA's struggle with Willy, then you must be a Daily Mail reader or worse!
Finally, it mentioned 3 times the recent suspension of a WW rep but in each different article, it gave a different reason for her suspension. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
How can 12 pages of glossy pamphlet contain not one single piece of valid information?
PS Forgot to mention I've been banned from CF for pointing out that their spinning of the numbers can be reworked in BA's favour. Oh well!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutjob
Your questions were directed to either LM or DH. I suggest you contact them directly. But, as they have said, this is a marathon and it takes time to get some results.
Meal Chucker
In accordance with the pilot's deal. We have still offered huge savings to the company which they have turned down. Management is not after an agreement.
Chigley
Until BA can find suitable replacements? Are you suggesting that the VCCs would be flying for over a year until BA finds replacements? BA would not be allowed to issue us 90 days notice and recruit again for some time as that would be against the law. How do you know that they did a fantastic job during the strike? I have heard stories claiming the opposite. For instance our devoted pilots refusing to take part in the service as it was not their job.
LD12986
Crew are being suspended for months before their actual hearing. Do you find that to be fair? I don't. This company is turning into a Big Brother environemt where everybody is watching you. I was told by a manger in the CRC to remove my BASSA lanyard whilst next to me where a couple of pilots wearing their BALPA lanyards. Neither any of them were told to remove theirs. A different set of regulations.
Sure, there were some difficulties between the two unions but undoubtedly BA could have reached an agreement with them if they had wanted to. They chose to impose changes to our working environment instead. Since, BASSA have offered proposals that have met BA's savings.
Your questions were directed to either LM or DH. I suggest you contact them directly. But, as they have said, this is a marathon and it takes time to get some results.
Meal Chucker
In accordance with the pilot's deal. We have still offered huge savings to the company which they have turned down. Management is not after an agreement.
Chigley
Until BA can find suitable replacements? Are you suggesting that the VCCs would be flying for over a year until BA finds replacements? BA would not be allowed to issue us 90 days notice and recruit again for some time as that would be against the law. How do you know that they did a fantastic job during the strike? I have heard stories claiming the opposite. For instance our devoted pilots refusing to take part in the service as it was not their job.
LD12986
Crew are being suspended for months before their actual hearing. Do you find that to be fair? I don't. This company is turning into a Big Brother environemt where everybody is watching you. I was told by a manger in the CRC to remove my BASSA lanyard whilst next to me where a couple of pilots wearing their BALPA lanyards. Neither any of them were told to remove theirs. A different set of regulations.
Sure, there were some difficulties between the two unions but undoubtedly BA could have reached an agreement with them if they had wanted to. They chose to impose changes to our working environment instead. Since, BASSA have offered proposals that have met BA's savings.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: leafy suburbs
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
I think you will find it is company policy (and most companies policy) to suspend someone under investigation until the hearing. Also I believe this is on full pay. (willing to be corrected if this is wrong)
Crew are being suspended for months before their actual hearing.