British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR maintenance base strike. (over threat of 12hr shifts in central area)
All staff travel privileges removed for a period of 1 or 2 years from all strikers.
Returned with full seniority.
All staff travel privileges removed for a period of 1 or 2 years from all strikers.
Returned with full seniority.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember the action and I was still there then. It was my understanding that the particular fleet stream, or part of, had ST privileges embargoed, not individual strikers. It appears that I was wrong. But, that is not mean that it was right and it still should have been challenged, but then that would be relying on the top table of stewards at the time!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lalaland
Age: 55
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more I think about it, it may not be a valid comparison.
Wasn't it an unofficial strike by the maintenance base engineers in sympathy for the central area guys (who didn't strike) over 12 hr shifts?
I seem to remember it only lasting a few days before it died a death!!
Wasn't it an unofficial strike by the maintenance base engineers in sympathy for the central area guys (who didn't strike) over 12 hr shifts?
I seem to remember it only lasting a few days before it died a death!!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Another point about staff travel.
If the challenge ultimately fails and striking cabin crew are denied staff travel perks for ever, then where does that leave other members of the work force.
You see, all may be well now, deals have been accepted and a sense of stability within individuals departments may have returned. But, should the day come that the leadership team want more, and the threat hangs should anyone consider taking action against the company. This is another new and dangerous precedent.
Who would have believed our pilots would have fallen into a dispute leading to the threat of industrial action in 2007. And now they are held aloft by the LT as shining examples of how to conform. Two or three years down the line there may be further dispute. Cruise pilots perhaps.
And now, for any group, a collective grievance against the company will result in a permanent loss of staff travel. If Walsh succeeds this time, there will forever be a loaded gun at the table when new change is required.
If the challenge ultimately fails and striking cabin crew are denied staff travel perks for ever, then where does that leave other members of the work force.
You see, all may be well now, deals have been accepted and a sense of stability within individuals departments may have returned. But, should the day come that the leadership team want more, and the threat hangs should anyone consider taking action against the company. This is another new and dangerous precedent.
Who would have believed our pilots would have fallen into a dispute leading to the threat of industrial action in 2007. And now they are held aloft by the LT as shining examples of how to conform. Two or three years down the line there may be further dispute. Cruise pilots perhaps.
And now, for any group, a collective grievance against the company will result in a permanent loss of staff travel. If Walsh succeeds this time, there will forever be a loaded gun at the table when new change is required.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
I do believe that staff travel will ultimately be returned.
But BA will not be culpable. HM Goverment will be.
There is no law against discriminating against workers who undertake legal industrial action in the UK. However Article 11 of the ECoHR, when considered with a wider view, as is now the norm, does make such discrimination illegal.
The British Goverment has failed in its obligations to legislate compliance with Article 11. If Walsh does not relent, then the challenge will be to force the Goverment to change the law in line with EU law. A long winded process I know.
For now I do believe that Walsh can state that he has not broken UK law by removing the perks. He has however broken EU law as a result of the Goverment.
But BA will not be culpable. HM Goverment will be.
There is no law against discriminating against workers who undertake legal industrial action in the UK. However Article 11 of the ECoHR, when considered with a wider view, as is now the norm, does make such discrimination illegal.
The British Goverment has failed in its obligations to legislate compliance with Article 11. If Walsh does not relent, then the challenge will be to force the Goverment to change the law in line with EU law. A long winded process I know.
For now I do believe that Walsh can state that he has not broken UK law by removing the perks. He has however broken EU law as a result of the Goverment.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC767
The major problem with that, is the UK opted out of the ECoHR being binding in UK law and that was under a Labour Government. I don't think the current arrangement will be too quick in opting in.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddy
ST never should have been withdrawn in the first place because it was nothing but a punishment for going on strike. BASSA are clear on this issue and they will never recommend a proposal, or even put it forward for voting I hope, which does not include reinstatement of full ST.
I have made up my mind and I will never vote for a proposal which does not include full reinstatement of my perks.
I know many in this company are thrilled that some of us have lost ST. I can only hope that it will be reinstated fully so that that they will get to taste theiw own medicine. The one who laughs the longest. It's a dangerous wish because as suggested it could be used as a bargain tool in the future. If it goes that far, they won't get any of my sympathy.
ST never should have been withdrawn in the first place because it was nothing but a punishment for going on strike. BASSA are clear on this issue and they will never recommend a proposal, or even put it forward for voting I hope, which does not include reinstatement of full ST.
I have made up my mind and I will never vote for a proposal which does not include full reinstatement of my perks.
I know many in this company are thrilled that some of us have lost ST. I can only hope that it will be reinstated fully so that that they will get to taste theiw own medicine. The one who laughs the longest. It's a dangerous wish because as suggested it could be used as a bargain tool in the future. If it goes that far, they won't get any of my sympathy.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Miss M.
I concur with the view that staff travel will be used as a bargaining tool in the future.
There are many in BA who are glad at its withdrawl, indeed there a few on this thread who are happy with the current stance.
With the theory, what goes round comes round, to mind, I'd be careful in what I wished for.
I concur with the view that staff travel will be used as a bargaining tool in the future.
There are many in BA who are glad at its withdrawl, indeed there a few on this thread who are happy with the current stance.
With the theory, what goes round comes round, to mind, I'd be careful in what I wished for.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re : YouTube - BA's culture of industrial relations and people management.
Ahhh... one academic's viewpoint based on evidence garnered from only one side of the story. What I find totally gobsmacking is that if BA is such a terrible employer with appalling people management skills, dating back for years, how come there are so many folk who would give various parts of their anatomy to work for the company ? The good professor doesn't seem to have an answer for that.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Only Article 13 of the ECoHR was not incorporated into UK legislation, the belief being that the HRA gave UK citizens the rights which Article 13 would have provided, ie, the right to take proceedings in the British courts if they considered that their Convention rights had been breached.
Also the HRA states that all UK law must be read so far as it is possible to do so in a way which is compatible with convention rights.
There is no precedent set in the UK for the scenario BA cabin crew find themselves in. However the HRA provides the vehicle to challenge the UK Government, whereby they would consider the removal of perks of employment for taking lawful industrial action, a breach of the wider view of Article 11.
Also the HRA states that all UK law must be read so far as it is possible to do so in a way which is compatible with convention rights.
There is no precedent set in the UK for the scenario BA cabin crew find themselves in. However the HRA provides the vehicle to challenge the UK Government, whereby they would consider the removal of perks of employment for taking lawful industrial action, a breach of the wider view of Article 11.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as the threat of removing ST from other groups of staff who go on strike goes, that has and will always be a possibility. The action by cabin crew has not changed the position. ST, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, is non-contractual and can be removed at any time for any reason. Anyone who builds their lifestyle based on non-contractual or variable items is riding for a fall. One of the reasons I left my previous employer was because a proportion of my pay came in the form of on-call and overtime payments. Of the offers I had, BA was not the highest overall package, but it was the highest consolidated pay.
I woud suggest that ST is highly unlikely to become a bargaining tool. Why ? because from the staff perspective it is already something the company offers as a perk, so what could unions do about it ? Ask for an additional free flight ? But that is only valuable if the individual is able to take it up. Alter the onload priority ? That opens a can of worms if you have staff who move roles, so probably a non-starter. No, the only time that the unions would seek to negotiate over ST is when a situation like the current one occurs. In these circumstances it will be about seeking to get ST restored to staff who have had it removed. I don't believe that it is in anyone's interest to make ST a contractual item. To do so would mean that it would no longer be subload, hence it would be taxable. This would mean that any staff who rely on it as a mens of getting to work might find that the cost makes it uneconomic.
I woud suggest that ST is highly unlikely to become a bargaining tool. Why ? because from the staff perspective it is already something the company offers as a perk, so what could unions do about it ? Ask for an additional free flight ? But that is only valuable if the individual is able to take it up. Alter the onload priority ? That opens a can of worms if you have staff who move roles, so probably a non-starter. No, the only time that the unions would seek to negotiate over ST is when a situation like the current one occurs. In these circumstances it will be about seeking to get ST restored to staff who have had it removed. I don't believe that it is in anyone's interest to make ST a contractual item. To do so would mean that it would no longer be subload, hence it would be taxable. This would mean that any staff who rely on it as a mens of getting to work might find that the cost makes it uneconomic.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MissM
ST never should have been withdrawn in the first place because it was nothing but a punishment for going on strike.
Originally Posted by MissM
BASSA are clear on this issue and they will never recommend a proposal, or even put it forward for voting I hope, which does not include reinstatement of full ST.
I have made up my mind and I will never vote for a proposal which does not include full reinstatement of my perks.
I have made up my mind and I will never vote for a proposal which does not include full reinstatement of my perks.
Huge respect to you, though, for standing up for it. But I have to wonder how you feel about having to do so given that you said in the old thread that you would accept the offer of June 2009 if it included the return of staff travel (and thus, why didn't everyone accept it back then and the whole staff travel removal would never have even been dreamed up!)
Originally Posted by PC767
Another point about staff travel.
If the challenge ultimately fails and striking cabin crew are denied staff travel perks for ever, then where does that leave other members of the work force.
You see, all may be well now, deals have been accepted and a sense of stability within individuals departments may have returned. But, should the day come that the leadership team want more, and the threat hangs should anyone consider taking action against the company. This is another new and dangerous precedent.
If the challenge ultimately fails and striking cabin crew are denied staff travel perks for ever, then where does that leave other members of the work force.
You see, all may be well now, deals have been accepted and a sense of stability within individuals departments may have returned. But, should the day come that the leadership team want more, and the threat hangs should anyone consider taking action against the company. This is another new and dangerous precedent.
The company couldn't really remove the ability for our ground staff to park at the airport so the staff travel removal threat wouldn't hold nearly the same power with them as it does/did with us.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contrary to popular belief, ST is regarded as taxable by HM Revenue & Customs. However, staff do not pay tax as BA pays it on our behalf.
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why ST is a money-loser for BA even though staff pay a booking fee in some cases.
Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why ST is a money-loser for BA even though staff pay a booking fee in some cases.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colonel White
ST could easily become a bargain tool for management. If a working group disagrees with certain changes to their terms and conditions, the company could say that they will remove ST. The same will happen if any future strikes should take place. Management will threaten to remove it permanently.
ST should not be contractual but I don't think it should be used as either a carrot or a threat to make people come to work during a strike. BA know the importance of ST to come. Some crew were recruited to BA and told they could still live in their home country and use ST. To threaten to remove something decisive as ST only to make them come to work is disgusting. BA are pushing some into the corner.
Eddy
I have lost almost £1400 in basic pay solely excluding allowances to some of the trips I have lost including HKG and LAX. I don't have a lot of money left but I can't afford not to strike.
A lot happened last year. I don't know why BASSA didn't let us vote on the proposal which was on the table. Did they think that BA would leave them alone if they didn't negotiate? Possibly. But, we can't turn back time and be bitter. All we can do now is to fight as much as we can.
ST could easily become a bargain tool for management. If a working group disagrees with certain changes to their terms and conditions, the company could say that they will remove ST. The same will happen if any future strikes should take place. Management will threaten to remove it permanently.
ST should not be contractual but I don't think it should be used as either a carrot or a threat to make people come to work during a strike. BA know the importance of ST to come. Some crew were recruited to BA and told they could still live in their home country and use ST. To threaten to remove something decisive as ST only to make them come to work is disgusting. BA are pushing some into the corner.
Eddy
I have lost almost £1400 in basic pay solely excluding allowances to some of the trips I have lost including HKG and LAX. I don't have a lot of money left but I can't afford not to strike.
A lot happened last year. I don't know why BASSA didn't let us vote on the proposal which was on the table. Did they think that BA would leave them alone if they didn't negotiate? Possibly. But, we can't turn back time and be bitter. All we can do now is to fight as much as we can.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have lost almost £1400 in basic pay solely excluding allowances to some of the trips I have lost including HKG and LAX. I don't have a lot of money left but I can't afford not to strike.
You must see something that I don't, then. I really don't see the proposals put forth by BA as likely to have the massive impact on my earnings that you do. Nor, it seems, do many of our mutual colleagues.