British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just when you thought this archaic, self-obsessed, money-grabbing union couldn't possibly wreck any more havoc, they do. In the first answer to BF's webchat today, on a question about introducing a bidding system for WW this is the reply:
What on earth gives them the right to act so unilaterally without an ounce of consideration for what the members want? I'm afraid if this doesn't make you see the wood for the trees, then nothing will. Unbelievable. Get out of the union now!
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
We have looked at this and offered a new bidding system to Unite, but again this is not something they were interested in us pursuing on your behalf
What on earth gives them the right to act so unilaterally without an ounce of consideration for what the members want? I'm afraid if this doesn't make you see the wood for the trees, then nothing will. Unbelievable. Get out of the union now!
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have looked at this and offered a new bidding system to Unite, but again this is not something they were interested in us pursuing on your behalf
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRT to the Emirates purchase of A380s. Emirates is a fearsome competitor.
But, remember the call from the diehards - "we don't care if the company goes bust, so long as we fight, fight, fight the bully Walsh. We are loyal, upstanding...", blah, blah, blah. on and on.
Emirates, ShmEmirates as far as they are concerned...., bring it on, let's watch BA squirm, because WE know best. WE know how to run an airline. WE are the airline. WE are the brand. WE are in control.
But, remember the call from the diehards - "we don't care if the company goes bust, so long as we fight, fight, fight the bully Walsh. We are loyal, upstanding...", blah, blah, blah. on and on.
Emirates, ShmEmirates as far as they are concerned...., bring it on, let's watch BA squirm, because WE know best. WE know how to run an airline. WE are the airline. WE are the brand. WE are in control.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't yet signed my form and sent it back because there is something on it that is worrying me. Am I right in thinking that I will forever be barred from taking part in industrial action or will forfeit the monthly cap? While I have never taken part in industrial action for the 23 years I have been here, I still think it should be an absolute right. Also, if this monthly cap is to be contractual, how can it be removed in the event of indutsrial action?
Any thoughts?
Any thoughts?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't yet signed my form and sent it back because there is something on it that is worrying me. Am I right in thinking that I will forever be barred from taking part in industrial action or will forfeit the monthly cap? While I have never taken part in industrial action for the 23 years I have been here, I still think it should be an absolute right. Also, if this monthly cap is to be contractual, how can it be removed in the event of indutsrial action?
I think the reality is we are unlikely to ever see this Top Up Pay as we will invariably earn more than that in variable pay.
It would depend on the circumstances at the time. Just as people weighed up the odds this time about striking, they will have to do so in future. It does not take away your "right to industrial action". However, it is pretty much like the current strike situation - strike and you lose it (just like they lost staff travel). Therefore it would be for us to weigh up the odds in the future - is it better to go on strike, or is it better to hang on to our Top Up Pay?
Of course, if you have a Professional Cabin Crew Council collaborating with BA rather than a "Just say NO" union, the likelihood of future strikes probably diminishes anyway as industrial relations take on a more mature and professional approach.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Betty Girl
I am pretty sure that you could sign the BA contract if you were still in the union because it would only be your word against theirs about when you left.
Originally Posted by Betty Girl
Highflyer. Moraly you are right people really should only either vote or sign the offer not both.
However, I don't think you need to worry about the figures not adding up because in all the previous votes so many crew have not even bothered to vote. The turnout has been so low and basically it seems that apart from people like you and me, and all the other passionate posters, mostly only NO voters vote, which is why they got such a large % vote in favour of a strike.
However, I don't think you need to worry about the figures not adding up because in all the previous votes so many crew have not even bothered to vote. The turnout has been so low and basically it seems that apart from people like you and me, and all the other passionate posters, mostly only NO voters vote, which is why they got such a large % vote in favour of a strike.
Originally Posted by Diplome
There is a statement on the main CC board that gives me shivers as being too close to what Ms. Malone was advocating in a recent vote (which caused a reballoting). BA does not need or, I hope, want to play this game.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns asked,
does this vote become null and void if persons outside the bargaining unit receive the papers?
does this vote become null and void if persons outside the bargaining unit receive the papers?
To be fair, in my view the person receiving a ballot paper would be just as guilty of foul play should they deliberately return the completed ballot paper.
Bill Francis(Head of IFCE) in his latest web chat this morning, has said he will do everything he can to support all crew who came to work normally whether they are member of the Union or not.
Did BF say what this support would be? No doubt many strike-breaking crew want support due to intimidation suffered downroute and in the CRC.
Bill Francis said he would do everything to support crew who came to work normally, in relation to the offer which many crew who are still in the Union, would like to accept. That is my understanding of his statement.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As this is a consultative ballot on the BA offer and not a strike ballot the rules are different. If BASSA inadvertently ballot people not in the union it is an irrelevance in terms of ballot invalidation, as this ballot will not lead to IA. Even if it were for IA, BASSA only need to prove that to the best of their knowledge all people balloted were union members. If you remember the previous case, it was Miss Malone's stupidity in telling people who would not be in the company when any IA happened that they were still eligible to vote that led to the ballot being illegal. Essentially this ballot is a different thing entirely.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think like Tiramisu has said if anyone does recieve an inadverdant paper from BASSA/UNITE then they should not return it if in the Union. Especially if they have signed the individual offer.
Ottergirl,
I understand your concerns aswell - this offer has created so many mixed feelings for me. I do think striking should absolutely be a right - sometimes strikes are unjustified but sometimes they absolutely are. Also I don't particularly like the fact they want to ''reduce our rights to be represented, and have less rights in polcies in sickness, attendance, redeployment and grievance policies'' - so does this mean that our job will be less secure (redeployment policy - especially with Mixed Fleet) or they will even be stricter with EG300 (which remember in our job we are more restricted with how fit we have got to be to fly - also flying is not the healthiest job in the world! So I do think the EG300 system is flawed as it is - to be stricter would be an insult and yes, I do know some people take the mick and don't turn up ''cos they can't be bovvered'' - but most people do try to maintain good attendance!
Also, the way the proposal has been worded is IMO very clever with the use of ''we INTEND to...'' when it comes to route distribution etc etc... Rather than a binding contractual agreement is all statements of intent... I know we can't have absolute GUARANTEES as people will say on here, but I think it is only fair we have agreements to protect what we have otherwise we might aswell just give it up now!
However there is plenty of good in it aswell - like the pay rise which is a good thing, no CR also a good thing, many areas make us better off and luckier than other workgroups with the recession. But I can't help think the Mixed Fleet is not about saving the company but getting rid of us in the long term... not fair really... and other workgroups wouldn't like it.
Of course I could be (hopefully!) wrong, and yes I do recognise we are lucky (at the moment!) We are just stuck between a rock and a hard place IMO!
Ottergirl,
I understand your concerns aswell - this offer has created so many mixed feelings for me. I do think striking should absolutely be a right - sometimes strikes are unjustified but sometimes they absolutely are. Also I don't particularly like the fact they want to ''reduce our rights to be represented, and have less rights in polcies in sickness, attendance, redeployment and grievance policies'' - so does this mean that our job will be less secure (redeployment policy - especially with Mixed Fleet) or they will even be stricter with EG300 (which remember in our job we are more restricted with how fit we have got to be to fly - also flying is not the healthiest job in the world! So I do think the EG300 system is flawed as it is - to be stricter would be an insult and yes, I do know some people take the mick and don't turn up ''cos they can't be bovvered'' - but most people do try to maintain good attendance!
Also, the way the proposal has been worded is IMO very clever with the use of ''we INTEND to...'' when it comes to route distribution etc etc... Rather than a binding contractual agreement is all statements of intent... I know we can't have absolute GUARANTEES as people will say on here, but I think it is only fair we have agreements to protect what we have otherwise we might aswell just give it up now!
However there is plenty of good in it aswell - like the pay rise which is a good thing, no CR also a good thing, many areas make us better off and luckier than other workgroups with the recession. But I can't help think the Mixed Fleet is not about saving the company but getting rid of us in the long term... not fair really... and other workgroups wouldn't like it.
Of course I could be (hopefully!) wrong, and yes I do recognise we are lucky (at the moment!) We are just stuck between a rock and a hard place IMO!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slidebustle,
It's good to hear the concerns in the proposals that some cabin crew have, so maybe they can be clarified and concerns allayed. And it's good that they are expressed reasonably and sensibly unlike the 'vile' (great cabin crew word!) contributions often offered on CF and occasionally on here by the hard of thinking.
Very true, and that right to strike isn't being removed, but that if you do strike there will be the removal of a concession by BA to provide a minimum level of allowances.
Are you sure that's what's being suggested? I can see that the company want to regain control of the operation on a day to day basis, not having union reps decide whether flights operate (when I tell non airline people that union reps veto operational decisions by captains and managers they look at me incredulously). But I don't think there's any less representation offered in personnel matters?
There seems to be a huge misconception about the redeployment agreement - we should consider ourselves lucky that we have a 52 day one, most people have none at all,just 90 days notice and a P45. 2 years guaranteed employment at current pay is not sustainable for a company in this financial position, and BA had to demonstrate to the City that its potential liabilities were being managed downwards.
I'm a bit confused, you say you realise there can't be guarantees in the way the airline allocates its work, but then you say in effect that's what you want. How would you like the wording to look? How can BA provide agreements which protect what you currently have? This is all about change which has to happen. (see everyone else's new arrangements). Bassa's over the years have always warned that acceptance of change will result in catastrophe for cabin crew - see the introduction of the Long range agreement, crew card for allowances, mid fleet, the post 97 contracts et al. - but the world carried on rotating and cabin crew weren't made redundant, or starved of allowances or made to work only on cheap routes or placed in Redeployment.
As I've said before, this dispute is all about the senior Bassa reps wanting to retain control over their department, as they have power, money and the ability to run their working lives as they see fit. They have done a great job of persuading many cabin crew that this is about the imminent demise of their jobs, which it simply isn't. BA have never acted like that and there's no reason to suggest they would have acted like Bassa suggest.
Only the costs incurred by IA from an incalcitrant Union could cause the very changes the membership fear most.
BA have never suggested that they want to get rid of you - they want new cabin crew to be on cheaper, more flexible contracts and that the industrial environment they operate in is one more representative of the 21st century, and not a 1970s socialist agenda.
It's good to hear the concerns in the proposals that some cabin crew have, so maybe they can be clarified and concerns allayed. And it's good that they are expressed reasonably and sensibly unlike the 'vile' (great cabin crew word!) contributions often offered on CF and occasionally on here by the hard of thinking.
I do think striking should absolutely be a right - sometimes strikes are unjustified but sometimes they absolutely are.
Also I don't particularly like the fact they want to ''reduce our rights to be represented, and have less rights in polcies in sickness, attendance, redeployment and grievance policies''
... so does this mean that our job will be less secure (redeployment policy - especially with Mixed Fleet)
Also, the way the proposal has been worded is IMO very clever with the use of ''we INTEND to...'' when it comes to route distribution etc etc... Rather than a binding contractual agreement is all statements of intent... I know we can't have absolute GUARANTEES as people will say on here, but I think it is only fair we have agreements to protect what we have otherwise we might aswell just give it up now!
As I've said before, this dispute is all about the senior Bassa reps wanting to retain control over their department, as they have power, money and the ability to run their working lives as they see fit. They have done a great job of persuading many cabin crew that this is about the imminent demise of their jobs, which it simply isn't. BA have never acted like that and there's no reason to suggest they would have acted like Bassa suggest.
Only the costs incurred by IA from an incalcitrant Union could cause the very changes the membership fear most.
But I can't help think the Mixed Fleet is not about saving the company but getting rid of us in the long term... not fair really... and other workgroups wouldn't like it.
Last edited by midman; 11th Jul 2010 at 21:51.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: south east
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
two ballots!
I am a current member of Amicus/Unite and have, correctly, been sent the latest consultative ballot. However I have also been sent the offer to sign by BA.
I did think about this before they arrived and as I pay by union subscriptions by direct debit from my bank account, wondered how the company could exclude me from the offer as they effectively had no way of knowing whether or not I was in a union.
I then thought that they might have been given a list of all crew being balloted for industrial action, as part of the legal framework, and might be able to exclude me using that. However, that hasn't happened.
It seems like the whole process is a bit of a shambles!
I did think about this before they arrived and as I pay by union subscriptions by direct debit from my bank account, wondered how the company could exclude me from the offer as they effectively had no way of knowing whether or not I was in a union.
I then thought that they might have been given a list of all crew being balloted for industrial action, as part of the legal framework, and might be able to exclude me using that. However, that hasn't happened.
It seems like the whole process is a bit of a shambles!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jockmctavish.
Every crew member got the offer. You are asked to sign a declaration that you were not in the union on 25 June if you want to sign it.
He is sending it to every one for two reasons:-
1) He does not know who is or is not in the union and could not rely on the union to know either.
2) He wants to make sure we all get a copy of the agreement whether we are entitled to sign it or not. If you can't sign it because you are a union member he want you to put pressure on the union to accept it by voting yes in their ballot.
Every crew member got the offer. You are asked to sign a declaration that you were not in the union on 25 June if you want to sign it.
He is sending it to every one for two reasons:-
1) He does not know who is or is not in the union and could not rely on the union to know either.
2) He wants to make sure we all get a copy of the agreement whether we are entitled to sign it or not. If you can't sign it because you are a union member he want you to put pressure on the union to accept it by voting yes in their ballot.
Whether Betty girl meant to or not, her reply to jockmctavish illustrates precisely one of the fundamental problems of this entire saga - the majority of Unite members have chosen to only read what (drivel) has been fed to them by Unite, resulting in them not knowing the specific detail of offers, past and present, by BA!
The current offer has been sent to all cabin crew in an attempt to circumvent the pathetic spin, filtering and outright untruths that BASSA and Unite wish to perpetuate. However, unfortunately, a large proportion of the BASSAmentalists will almost certainly still not read BA's offer in any detail because it differs so hugely from the fantasy world that they have 'built' around themselves. Nevertheless, there has been a noticeable reduction in the reactions of the noisy "no, no, no" group which appears to indicate that somewhere, somehow, the message may be getting through. And the message is that the water rising around them could actually mean that the 'Unite Cruise Lines' ship, 'HMSS BASSA', is sinking with all hands.
Man the lifeboats! Er ..... what lifeboats ......oh, thats right, they were sold off to keep BASSAmentalists in the posh cabins ........bugger.
The current offer has been sent to all cabin crew in an attempt to circumvent the pathetic spin, filtering and outright untruths that BASSA and Unite wish to perpetuate. However, unfortunately, a large proportion of the BASSAmentalists will almost certainly still not read BA's offer in any detail because it differs so hugely from the fantasy world that they have 'built' around themselves. Nevertheless, there has been a noticeable reduction in the reactions of the noisy "no, no, no" group which appears to indicate that somewhere, somehow, the message may be getting through. And the message is that the water rising around them could actually mean that the 'Unite Cruise Lines' ship, 'HMSS BASSA', is sinking with all hands.
Man the lifeboats! Er ..... what lifeboats ......oh, thats right, they were sold off to keep BASSAmentalists in the posh cabins ........bugger.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the problem ?
I'm puzzled by the hesitancy by some crew on the deal offered by BA.
Let me explain. As a fellow BA employee, I can see it offers a pay deal that I and my colleagues would fall over for. Now, accepting that management will want something in return, have a look at what it is. The top up on allowances to the average figure is dependant on the employee not going on strike. So in essence it's a bit like what they've done with staff travel.
Now, is it such a lousy deal ? It doesn't remove the right to strike. It doesn't mean that staff won't get paid. In fact let's work the numbers a bit. Assume you've been doing some high value triips and it's now three quarters of the way through the year. The union calls a strike. You have earned more than the average in additional payments, so you wouldn't get the top up anyway, so you have nothing to lose (except the pay for the period you are not working) If you were on the average, you probably wouldn't get the top up either, so you have nothing to lose by striking (again, except for loss of pay). If you were below the average, then clearly you would be out of pocket if you walked out, however, I would suggest that you might be tempted to work normally in a bid to recoup the lack of additional payments.
Put the notion of guarantees of routes to one side. New Fleet is a reality, Unite had the opportunity to influence it but didn't take it. Rejecting this pay deal will not remove New Fleet, in fact any strike action now is more likely to hasten its expansion. Looking at the language coming from the management side, my reading is that BA won't put another offer on the table. It's this one or none at all. Track back on the previous offers. they've been getting successively poorer. Why ? Because the company has to recoup on the costs of the action by crew.
Time to take the deal, regroup and negotiate. Time also to get some decent union representation. According to BASSA, of the nine people on the BASSA council, two have been dismissed and four have been charged with gross misconduct - which usually means sackable. That should leave space for some new blood that better matches the members views.
Let me explain. As a fellow BA employee, I can see it offers a pay deal that I and my colleagues would fall over for. Now, accepting that management will want something in return, have a look at what it is. The top up on allowances to the average figure is dependant on the employee not going on strike. So in essence it's a bit like what they've done with staff travel.
Now, is it such a lousy deal ? It doesn't remove the right to strike. It doesn't mean that staff won't get paid. In fact let's work the numbers a bit. Assume you've been doing some high value triips and it's now three quarters of the way through the year. The union calls a strike. You have earned more than the average in additional payments, so you wouldn't get the top up anyway, so you have nothing to lose (except the pay for the period you are not working) If you were on the average, you probably wouldn't get the top up either, so you have nothing to lose by striking (again, except for loss of pay). If you were below the average, then clearly you would be out of pocket if you walked out, however, I would suggest that you might be tempted to work normally in a bid to recoup the lack of additional payments.
Put the notion of guarantees of routes to one side. New Fleet is a reality, Unite had the opportunity to influence it but didn't take it. Rejecting this pay deal will not remove New Fleet, in fact any strike action now is more likely to hasten its expansion. Looking at the language coming from the management side, my reading is that BA won't put another offer on the table. It's this one or none at all. Track back on the previous offers. they've been getting successively poorer. Why ? Because the company has to recoup on the costs of the action by crew.
Time to take the deal, regroup and negotiate. Time also to get some decent union representation. According to BASSA, of the nine people on the BASSA council, two have been dismissed and four have been charged with gross misconduct - which usually means sackable. That should leave space for some new blood that better matches the members views.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Abbey Road,
I did sort of mean that. I know BF realises that alot of crew have not been reading their ESS messages. I often fly with crew that seem to have no knowledge of the offer or the proposed routes etc. and I think that is why he has sent us all a copy, in the hope that people might actually read it!!!
I did sort of mean that. I know BF realises that alot of crew have not been reading their ESS messages. I often fly with crew that seem to have no knowledge of the offer or the proposed routes etc. and I think that is why he has sent us all a copy, in the hope that people might actually read it!!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: About to join the A1, UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..this thread is withering on the vine. I think the topic might just have been exhausted. What's been achieved other than we all have enjoyed speculating our buts off? Oh, and a lot of people have lost a lot of money. Thank you Unite - Brothers in Arms indeed.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The topic has not been exhausted.An element of common sense needs to prevail on both sides.The company has gained its changes it wanted in working agreements but without agreement on the travel issue will still have many thousands of cheesed off crew flying its aircraft for many years to come.
Perhaps a staged return of staff travel seniority would break the ice ?
Perhaps a staged return of staff travel seniority would break the ice ?