British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)

[ChicoG]

Just as an aside, the BA/Iberia merger has passed the litmus test of shareholder approval including the absorption of the pension fund debt:

Under a new agreement made in June, BA said it would set aside around US$500 million every year until 2026 in order to reduce the deficit and Iberia’s shareholders have been considering the proposal.

Consider they did, and nod they did, too.

The target of November is still on track apparently.

[Hand Solo]

It's often alleged that BA engaged in union-busting activities against BASSA, but that conveniently overlooks the reality which is that BASSA was afforded every opportunity to negotiate that every other union had, and more. When others settled before the deadline, BA kept on talking with BASSA. Is it BAs fault that BASSA couldn't, then wouldn't negotiate? If BA were union busting how can this perseverance be explained? How can BAs continuing success in negotiating with every other union be explained?

[biteme]

WeLieInTheShadows
I was at LGW WW at the time and you are correct, a yes vote was recommended.
Can you expand and give the reasons for such a recommendation?
My understanding was that the majority of the membership wanted mixed flying. Should the union have recommended a rejection? Why would the union go against the membership?
I will agree it was not the best move in union history but what were they to do? Is the membership not the union?
The union would have been slated for going against the membership.
This is a difficult one, if the union had made a stance and attempted to educate the members to the pitfalls of SF, how would this have been seen? I would bet that many would have called this act, union incitement.

[biteme]

Juan tugoh,


You miss the point!!!!!


I am in no way taking a moral high ground or indeed liking our struggle to that of Gandhi.


Just using a wise mans words to state my thoughts on this subject.


Because I am one of the few attempting to share my feelings with this forum does not make me wrong.


I would suggest that most of the posts in opposition to my stance are coming from a place of moral high ground.


I am not trying to convert, just let people understand where I am in all this, if this is wrong then as my name states “BITEME”

[malcolmf]

My understanding was that the majority of the membership wanted mixed flying. Should the union have recommended a rejection? Why would the union go against the membership?
I will agree it was not the best move in union history but what were they to do? Is the membership not the union?
The union would have been slated for going against the membership.

But they should have made it crystal clear that they did not recommend mixed flying, what the membership then vote for is up to them and the union reps have to live with it.
Many members (I include myself) generally vote with the reps recommendations as it is assumed that they are probably more knowledgeable on certain subjects (pensions being an example).

[the flying nunn]

"Why would the union go against the membership?"

Now that is a good one. When I was a BASSA member I never felt that the "union" was ever interested in what its membership wanted. The thought police dictate to the membership what they should be thinking and what they will want. Who can forget the comments from "Admin" on the BASSA site even before the last online ballot had finished. "Amazingly some people have voted yes" as if it was beyond belief that the members might actually make their own minds up!

[Syndicate9]

the general public perception of your "struggle"

As stated above I am not cabin crew. Why do you always assume that anyone that speaks out in their defense in even the mildest form is a unite militant?
As for the bouncy castles once more, the only place I've ever seen reference to them is on this forum, which would hardly count as a 'general public perception' of anything. This argument is trite and demeaning.

As for the cost savings asked of the cabin crew unions; were these proportionately the same as those for other departments? No, they were higher but still their union did try to negotiate. I believe they also offered exactly the same deal accepted by BALPA but this was rejected.
I agree that Unite may not have handled their side of negotiations wel but if we had been treated in the same way at which point would our representatives have walked out of the negotiations.
What worries me most about this is its effect on the rest of us. When BA decides it wishes to reduce costs again as it most surely must, there will never be any defense left through Industrial Action nor even the threat of it. BA, by taking away staff travel, has probably created a majority who can never dare take action amongst us, especially in departments where there are a substantial number of commuters. Are you really certain that you want BA to have the massive victory you talk about?

[Juan Tugoh]

I believe they also offered exactly the same deal accepted by BALPA

This is factually incorrect as has been detailed many times on this and other forums. I am sorry this does not fit in with your world view. Furthermore, not only did they not offer fall short of the deal the pilots accepted but BASSA only offered a temporary offer which was to be repaid later.

[midman]

Originally Posted by Syndicate9

As for the cost savings asked of the cabin crew unions; were these proportionately the same as those for other departments? No, they were higher but still their union did try to negotiate.

Of course they tried to negotiate, as did BA. And they should have kept on negotiating - not taken the emotive stance of getting a 'no negotiation' resolution passed at a union meeting, and then walking away! No other union has done this in their negotiations.

Originally Posted by Syndicate9

I believe they also offered exactly the same deal accepted by BALPA but this was rejected.

BA never offered the same deal as Balpa accepted, nor did Bassa offer to accept the same deal as Balpa accepted.

Originally Posted by Syndicate9

I agree that Unite may not have handled their side of negotiations wel but if we had been treated in the same way at which point would our representatives have walked out of the negotiations.

By 'we', who are you describing? What way were Unite mistreated? And I would NEVER expect my reps to walk out of negotiations.

Originally Posted by Syndicate9

If BA decides it wishes to reduce costs again as it most surely must, there will never be any defense left through Industrial Action nor even the threat of it.

Of course there is, if it's well thought through, properly balloted, and with an overwhelming level of support. All that Bassa have failed to achieve.

Originally Posted by Syndicate9

BA, by taking away staff travel, has probably created a majority who can never dare take action amongst us, especially in departments where there are a substantial number of commuters.

So it's not fair that BA use their equivalent of IA (removal of staff travel) against employees who themselves are using THEIR methods of IA, simply because those employees have left themselves dependent on staff travel? Perhaps those employees shouldn't have voted for 'no negotiation'?

Originally Posted by Syndicate9

you really certain that you want BA to have the massive victory you talk about?

Damn right I am in this instance.

[Slickster]

I believe they also offered exactly the same deal accepted by BALPA but this was rejected.

You betray your ignorance here; I suggest you do a bit of background reading. BASSA offered the headline 2.6% pay cut that the pilots took, amongst many other things, and ironically, which the BASSA membership did not want (not that they bothered to ask them, of course). It would be a physical impossibility for BASSA to "get the same deal as the pilots", because CC pay, allowances, and work patterns are totally different to that of pilots, therefore any pay and productivity deals would have to be different.

Ironically enough, there was so much fat (and still is) in many of the CC agreements that their targets could have been met easily, and actually improved the lives of most BASSA members in many cases, with relatively little pain. But that would require the reps to be looking out for their members, rather than ensuring their own snouts stayed in the trough.

[TightSlot]

Reminder - Thread is not about BALPA.

Further posts referring to BALPA will be deleted

[Tiramisu]

biteme said,
This is about more than who went to work and who didn’t.
I really don’t care who did what, I have my reasons and others have theirs.
I would like to see this sorry mess rectified and get back to what I do best.

biteme,
My sentiments exactly, from someone who's the same grade as your goodself, but on the opposite side of the fence. Sadly, it's going to be a long time before things are rectified, if they ever will be.

It's certainly refreshing and a breath of fresh air to read your side of the argument which is intelligently and articulately put. Uncanny as it may be to posters who may have read my posts in the past, I find myself agreeing with more things you have posted than I could ever have imagined.
However, BASSA in doing what they did and going for strike action have threatened our jobs and our wonderful T's and C's forever, and I hold them totally responsible. It is sad it's come to this, crew who claim to be clever with all the degrees and qualifications that they have, were not so clever after all.

PS:My post in response to yours was deleted yesterday as I mentioned the 'L' word not having read flapsforty's warning. My apologies, flaps.

[sudden twang]

Syndicate9

You state that you are not cabin crew yet in reference to BASSA ,cabin crew and Unite you use the pronouns "Us" and "We".
Please explain.

[misscanada]

misscanada

Please, if you bother to respond to this message, do so without meaningless platitudes or quotations from historical figures.
Biteme


1. Do the original 92/93% of voters still think it was a wise thing to support "no negotiation" ?

2. Would those still in the BASSA union honestly accept that intimidation, in whatever form has, and continues to occur, both at LHR and downroute?

3. Would those same people feel safe/confident to stand up in front of fellow BASSA members and say: " I think we may have got this wrong, any chance of getting back around the table?

4. What was ever the point of refusing to sit in the same room as CC89 reps? (For over 20 years).

5. When this is finally over, and you have come out far worse off than could have been the case, will you finally admit your union leaders, and one in particular has catastrophically let you down?

misscanada

[biteme]

Misscanada,
Thanks for the offer to respond, but I find your conditions unacceptable.

[biteme]

Joking aside Misscanada, I can’t answer your questions, I am not in position to speak for the whole of the BASSA membership. You are asking me to understand the minds of thousands of people.
I know I quoted Gandhi, but even he would be pushed by your expectations.

[Slickster]

Misscanada,
Thanks for the offer to respond, but I find your conditions unacceptable.

Is anyone else scratching their heads, rereading misscanada's post, and trying to see where she put in any conditions? I can't see any, least of all anything "unacceptable".

She merely asked some questions. Why can you (Biteme) not answer them?

[biteme]

Please, if you bother to respond to this message, do so without meaningless platitudes or quotations from historical figures.
Biteme

The conditions I was trying to make a joke about.

Sorry obviously not appreciated here.

[HiFlyer14]

Biteme

Thanks for coming on here and putting your view. This is the only place that non-striking and striking cabin crew can actually discuss the issues in relative safety. I appreciate the opportunity to do so and hope that articulate and genuine strikers like yourself continue to do so. (I also appreciated your Gandhi quote - and didn't see it as liking the struggle to that of Gandhi!)

I am on the opposite side of the table from you, although I fully respect your view. I didn't strike because I didn't agree with what UNITE were doing, and I resigned from the Union last year after the first ballot. Going on strike for one crew member less simply wasn't worth it. Most crew agreed that working harder, without effecting our pay/days off/etc. was worth it.

We have been working those new crewing levels for almost a year now. I fail to see what, if anything, has been achieved through all the IA. What do you feel has been achieved? Should/could anything have been done differently?

[Bridchen]

biteme, I'm glad that there is an opposing voice on this forum, who's willing to try to explain some of the things that are confusing many non-strikers. It's usually a one-way discussion.

I came into work because of BASSA's early refusal to negotiate, and then the announcement of strike dates, despite the leadership knowing that it would make the last minute BA proposal invalid. What are your thoughts on that? The only answer I've ever got before, was that the UNITE leaders and BASSA reps must have had very good reasons that were never made public. The problem was that I paid my subs for them to negotiate on my behalf, and consider offers before rejecting them. I resigned. Why did so many union members ignore this outrageous behaviour from people in a very elevated position of trust?

Please don't leave this forum. You won't find anyone being abusive or shouting you down. We're all interested in honest answers and debate.