British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)

[Juan Tugoh]

This vote was a huge waste of time as we knew the proposal would never be accepted. We have done nothing but given BA additional time to recruit and train further VCC. Instead of voting on this proposal, we should have balloted for industrial action and forced BA to negotiate seriously.

So have you not learned yet that this strategy of voting for a strike does not lead to BA doing what you want, rather it leads to a loss of earnings, staff travel, respect and future job security.

[DeThirdDefect]

Poor Duncan

My expectations (having revised my opinion of the judiciary over the last 12 months) are not high.

Now that it's finally dawned on you that by signing a contract of employment you took on certain responsibilities to perform work for your employer?

[bizdev]

Poor Duncan

A week or so ago, I was watching my local news on TV when a story came on about Southampton Football Club. Being a brummie 'blue nose' fan I was only mildly interested but I perked up when a Southampton Football Club 'historian' was interviewed. As I was reading my newspaper at the time I did not see the chaps name but I am almost 100% sure it was DH.

Maybe a new career beckons?

[DeThirdDefect]

bizdev
If you have a look on Amazon you'll find there's a Duncan Holley who's written several books about Southampton's history.
Apparently, Rupert Lowe once called him something that rhymes with 'grass-whole'.
SingaSaints

[report call sign]

WRITTEN BY "DE THIRD DEFECT"

bizdev
If you have a look on Amazon you'll find there's a Duncan Holley who's written several books about Southampton's history.
Apparently, Rupert Lowe once called him something that rhymes with 'grass-whole'.
SingaSaints

YES, QUITE CORRECT
That is the Mr Holley
It is ashame that he couldn't write the BASSA books correctly last novemeber before the ballot.
maybe he was spending too much time on/at Southampton Football Club!

[Hotel Mode]

Yes- let's get rid of all the "troublemakers" - there is a small problem though! The "troublemakers" run into thousands. I think a re-think is in order otherwise who will serve our Customers.

So todays question to the BASSA fans (no chance of an answer) is: If BA cannot sack the strikers and continue to operate, why is it that BASSA have not called further strikes with the current totally valid ballot just because its outside the protected period? Surely there is no risk in taking unprotected action because BA cannot survive without you. Could it?

[essessdeedee]

. I think Rupert Lowe to be a first class bully

Isn't there a saying 'it takes one to know one'?

[Ava Hannah]

Interesting, you changed your post in the time it took me to refresh the page? Odd that you claimed, originally that people didn't have time, which would imply poor time management from the Union, no mention of it in your current post?

Wonder why?

It's still in my post!

Simple maths tells you that a minority (Approx 27%) are 'for' this action and the rest either aren't members of BASSA, can't be bothered or didn't receive the ballot in time.

Even a smaller minority than 27% has accepted this proposal. That also tells you something. 67% of a give or take 50% turnout is a good figure.

Sadly, I am sure, you will come up with some BASSA spin which blames the rest of us for the poor turn out for yet another BASSA failure. Surely if BASSA are keen on representing their World Wide crew community with such gusto they would ensure that all members had adequate time to get their votes in on such an important issue.

BASSA were probably convinced that this proposal would also be rejected but instead of balloting for industrial action straight away, my guess is that they wanted to show some good faith to everyone else by allowing a vote to be conducted.

Anyway, you haven't answered my query as to why BASSA should force BA to the negotiating table when BASSA don't want to negotiate?

Personally, I think BA and BASSA should negotiate so that this dispute can be solved once and for all. I have never been against negotiations.

So having had 22 days of strikes during which time Willy made your situation much worse you now think that what will definitely make it better is more strikes? That's quite some gamble, especially when BA have warned that they don't believe the cause is new leaving you all unprotected. It's the perfect opportunity for WW to rid BA of 3000 odd trouble makers.

You should at least try and gamble. Otherwise you would never be able to win anything. You have to bet to gain. Nothing comes for free in life. Do you think our terms and conditions have been given to us out of kindness by management or because our unions have fought for them?

As for this "perfect opportunity" for BA to get rid of us, when is this opportunity? We have been hearing about it for months, if not over a year, that we are going to get sacked. The last round of this particular rumour said we would be getting our P45s in June.

[Hotel Mode]

The last round of this particular rumour said we would be getting our P45s in June.

That would have been unlawful dismissal and I dont think many thought it was anything other than a possibility as BA didnt have enough VCC and New fleeters to cover the short fall, now they do. This time it also wont be unlawful, or rather it will be for the striker to prove it was at a tribunal. Big big difference in outcome at tribunal.

[StoneyBridge Radar]

I have today spent the day with a striker. It was staggering to see how diametrically different their (and BASSA's) viewpoint is to that of the rest of the company, the city and the flying public.

Some of the one-liners from today:

• This is all about imposition
• Willie Walsh had no intention of negotiating. It was all about imposition. We knew because the changes started appearing in our SEPs even before BASSA had been invited to negotiations
• Willie has constantly refused to negotiate with BASSA and won't even sit at the same table as them
• BASSA were so frustrated at WW's refusal to negotiate, they asked UNITE to mediate in negotiations
• The imposition was a smokescreen to introduce New Fleet through the back door
• BA wants to take every lucrative route and box payments away from CC who have served the company loyally for years
• Most of us are on income support or family credits, yet we and BASSA offered to accept a pay cut which WW rejected
• If I don't get a HKG, SIN or NRT every month, my salary doesn't cover my outgoiongs
• I avoid DXB, Africa and India by going sick because it costs me more in diesel driving to LHR than I make on the trip
• We have been bullied and harassed by BA management since the first strike
• Management have harassed us with phone calls at all hours of the day and night. Their tone has reduced me to tears
• We have been bullied into a corner by a union busting management
• This is not about one person down on a flight. This is about busting the union
• None of us are strong unionists, but Willie's bullying has forced us into a corner
• We are now striking about the removal of Staff Travel. BASSA have told us it protects us if we go on strike again
• I don't care that they've taken ST away from us
• BASSA have documentary proof that staff recruited abroad had ST entitlement written into their contracts, so BA are going to lose on that, and it's racial discrimination
• BASSA have been so intimidated by WW that they asked ACAS to mediate and to have all meetings videoed, but WW refused
• 89 people have been suspended or sacked when some have done things as minor and trivial as putting a smiley after someone else's comment on Facebook or CF
• BASSA might take legal action against BA for hacking into the BASSA website. It's meant to be a private and confidential forum for cabin crew, but management have infiltrated it and we can't talk on there anymore incase they sack us
• It wouldn't surprise me if management are setting maintenance up to make things look like BASSA sabotage on board
• You can't blame BASSA for sending out ballot papers to retirees or people who have left the union. They don't know who has left, so it was down to BA to provide BASSA with an up to date list of which union members were still on the payroll ! BASSA requested such a list but BA refused.
• The mood downline is intimidatory and scarey. I'm too scared to go to any room parties because drunk tongues get reported back to management. They have spies in the VCC
• No BASSA members can use the phones in the Aurora because WW has the lines bugged
• Mark's dismissal was a framed set-up. Duncan is a wally. I mean, have you read his updates? They're hardly "State of the Nation" status
• BASSA have told us we've got the support of the majority of Gold Exec holders because BA have been inundated with complaints about the drop in service levels since we went one down. Club is now no better than posh economy and things like IFE faults just get ignored inflight. We can't do everything
• We are the face of BA. Without us, BA would be nothing. We deserve respect and a salary which reflects our loyalty

You really couldn't make it up. They wouldn't accept a single word which suggested an alternative view or opinion.

[Caribbean Boy]

StoneyBridge Radar,

Thanks a lot for your posting. Of course, there are some inconsistencies.

I avoid DXB, Africa and India by going sick because it costs me more in diesel driving to LHR than I make on the trip
...
We are the face of BA. Without us, BA would be nothing. We deserve respect and a salary which reflects our loyalty

We are now striking about the removal of Staff Travel. BASSA have told us it protects us if we go on strike again
...
I don't care that they've taken ST away from us

[Chigley]

Ava Hannah:

You said "Even a smaller minority than 27% has accepted this proposal. That also tells you something. 67% of a give or take 50% turnout is a good figure."


The smaller minority you refer to are current BASSA members, this doesn't include the non-BASSA members who have all signed and sent back our acceptance of the offer from BA.

[LD12986]

Regarding some of the more ludicrous and demonstrably false claims that have been circulating, I'm not au fait with industrial relations law, but if any of the BASSA reps have been behind the circulation of these rumours, I wonder why the company hasn't sought an injunction against the strikes if the reps can be shown to have made materially misleading statements to their members as to the actions of BA and WW?

[Ava Hannah]

Had BASSA negotiated on par with all other departments, it would never have come to this. And for sure, you would have had a better offer, with your staff travel intact. It's now got to a point where our patience is running out. Time to get onboard like everyone else, appreciate that you still have a job, and look after the passengers that pay YOUR wages. Your frustrations should be towards BASSA..Not a company that tried negotiating for two years with them, encountering the same old mantra. Welcome back, btw.

Thanks! A better offer including a couple of shares and a yearly free ticket? I really don't find that the proposals have deterioated. Mixed Fleet has always been an issue and even if last year's proposal meant that it would have been intergrated with existing fleets, why had BA planning Columbus for such a long time if they were prepared to throw it out the window? Most of us appreciate what we have and we do look after and care for our customers. Perhaps your statement should be forwarded towards our LT and everyone who crossed the picket line, which has done no good cause except prolonged our dispute.

So have you not learned yet that this strategy of voting for a strike does not lead to BA doing what you want, rather it leads to a loss of earnings, staff travel, respect and future job security.

Who is really responsible for it? This dispute would have been over months ago if everyone who voted for industrial action had gone on a strike and VCC and ex-temporary cabin crew minded their own business.

That would have been unlawful dismissal and I dont think many thought it was anything other than a possibility as BA didnt have enough VCC and New fleeters to cover the short fall, now they do. This time it also wont be unlawful, or rather it will be for the striker to prove it was at a tribunal. Big big difference in outcome at tribunal.

My point is that we have been hearing for a very long time that we will be issued with our P45s.

The smaller minority you refer to are current BASSA members, this doesn't include the non-BASSA members who have all signed and sent back our acceptance of the offer from BA.

How can you be so certain? On the day of the release of the proposal, BASSA had around 9800 members. Crew are not allowed to resign from the union since and accept the offer on an individual basis.

[Juan Tugoh]

Who is really responsible for it? This dispute would have been over months ago if everyone who voted for industrial action had gone on a strike and VCC and ex-temporary cabin crew minded their own business.

This is exactly my point. BASSA members have been voting for a strike while actually meaning 'I don't want to strike and wont strike, but I will vote for one anyway so that BASSA can force BA to do what we want them to.' This is quite clear from the previous ballots. It is a strategy that has quite clearly failed to yield the desired results, yet you (and by extension many others, as you seem to voice the views of your peers) still call for this exact strategy to be re-used, when you say

Instead of voting on this proposal, we should have balloted for industrial action and forced BA to negotiate seriously.

With all due respect you have to vote for a strike believing that you will strike and not just to give BASSA a mythical power to force BA to "negotiate seriously", it seems pretty obvious that BA have been negotiating seriously from the start, and that BASSA have failed to negotiate seriously at all.

[LD12986]

Sigh. The same old tired arguments.

Now, who wouldn't negotiate seriously?

Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWHC 302 (QB) (19 February 2010)

15th June BASSA had a heated argument with Amicus and refused to cooperate together

25th June – Unite put forward a written Pay and Productivity Proposal, claiming that it would save BA £173m. It proposed some alterations in the cabin crew complements but no significant reduction. Thereafter BA tried to understand and analyse the cost saving as anticipated by Unite, bringing in accountants, Price Waterhouse Cooper. The latter's assessment was that the saving would be about £53m. Unite refused to have further discussions over this issue, whether with BA or the accountants.

21st, 30th September and 1st and 2nd October – Following an agreement reached between BA's CEO and the Joint General Secretaries of Unite, there was a further sustained resort to ACAS for conciliation. I heard evidence as to the course of events at ACAS and the following emerged. The BASSA and Amicus factions were separately represented and sat in separate rooms. Despite the efforts of ACAS they could not be persuaded to join forces for a meeting with BA. The latter raised the possibility of separate agreements with the respective factions but, understandably, that did not appeal. In the overall result there was no meeting between the Union and BA.

[Litebulbs]

LD12986

Most know my position on 'ere, but the same old arguments are what they are. If you want a war, you do not start out how Unite did, as shown in your post. There is no hiding from it.

[Litebulbs]

And notlangley (post 713) in the other thread -

I am a customer of BA._ I have never worked for any airline._ I own a few shares in BA but not enough to warp my judgement._ We are seeing history being made._ Some years ago the current industrial relations laws were altered by those who sat in the House of Commons and discussed this, presumably in committee._ The result of their efforts are the current laws._ The elected members of Parliament had as their guide the history and record of industrial disputes._ But it would not help their discussions that there would be conflicting histories and mismatched records of each of the past industrial disputes._ The MPs then framed the present laws.

This BA/Unite conflict has tested the limits._ It has probably tested the limits much more robustly than any of those MPs could have envisaged._ Several actions in this conflict have been controversial._ There are those who will say that this conflict demonstrates that the laws are biased against Unions, others will say the laws are biased in favour of Unions, others will say the laws are ok._ Nevertheless, history has been made and this historical episode is not over._ How terrible for those individuals who have had their finances or self-esteem bruised.

From an understanding of how industrial action can be allowed to happen in a democratic society - and what bounds and controls are fair or unfair, this conflict will go down in history as a text-book example.

Absolutely agree.

[Chigley]

Ava Hannah

You say that BASSA claimed to have 9800 members when the offer was made on 25th June. However, myself and ALL of my friends who left the union months ago received ballot papers. We are no longer members of BASSA but they still include us in their figures?

Everyone I know that was in a position to accept this offer has done so as we were no longer part of BASSA.......only BASSA don't seem to accept this. Lets hope they manage to get their house in order before the next ballot for IA or I fear another injunction could be on the cards?

[Door6Left]

I've been observing this thread for a while, and now I've finally decided to contribute. I'm VCC, so that should make it clear where my sympathy lies.

Good to see Ava Hannah back after a period away. I enjoy reading her opinions, as I previously enjoyed the opinions of Miss M, Juan O, WWW, Duggie Fashion, Asperge, etc, even though I broadly disagree with them.

What finally prompted me to join in was Ava's comment, which has been a consistent comment throughout

Who is really responsible for it? This dispute would have been over months ago if everyone who voted for industrial action had gone on a strike and VCC and ex-temporary cabin crew minded their own business.

I am minding my own business, which is why I decided to be VCC.

My summary of the situation:

• Over a period of years, BA Management have let CC costs drift. It was easier to cede a few small demands from the union than to risk a conflict, especially when the competition wasn't serious. Small demands add up to a significant gap with competitor's costs
• Competition hots up; as a result, BA's uncompetitive CC costs become a real issue. However, BA management don't seriously tackle the issue, until it's (nearly) too late.
• BA finds itself making massive losses due to economic downturn and structural change is essential. WW decides that CC costs, which are now seriously uncompetitive and a burden on BA's prospects, need to be finally addressed. However, he also recognises that it would be unreasonable to threaten individual CC lifestyles by significantly reducing their income
• Solution - put in place a strategy that will reduce CC costs over the long term, offer real ST savings, and preserve CC income
• Hence - Mixed Fleet proposal, one down ( a reasonable way for CC to contribute immediate savings), protect existing T&Cs. Also, some low cost 'gives' to CC - extra ticket, share options (admittedly small, but they do give CC greater stake in the company and links overall reward to company performance - surely a good thing?)
• WW also tells union that if they can come up with something that offers the same savings, he'll consider it
• Union (BASSA) refuses to look at books or to take situation seriously and recognise need for structural change - a position which is diametrically different to rest of unions in company.
• Union also puts forward proposal that (a) doesn't offer savings required [£10m short is a red herring - it's another small demand that, cumulatively, adds to uncompetitiveness] (b) is temporary ["we'll have it back in two years"] and (c) benefits one constituency in CC [LHR, particularly LH CSDs] at expense of another [LGW]
• Differences not resolved, strike and subsequent damage to company

This, as has been said many times before, affects EVERYONE in the company. BASSA and BA have taken extreme positions and as an employee of BA I am a stakeholder and it is my business. I feel I need to take one position or the other. In fact, I don't think BA are extreme at all - it 's BASSA who are extreme. Hence I decide to take BA's position, and support them by being VCC.

Sure, if I and the rest of VCC hadn't volunteered, then the dispute probably would have been over. But it would have been an unacceptable outcome for BA and all the non-militant BASSA staff, and would have threatened the future of the company. I find it ridiculous to say we shouldn't have been VCC because it's not our business - it really is our business.

The crew I've worked with (all non-strikers) have generally been fantastic. I've been really impressed by what they do and their commitment to BA. They deserve to be well represented by their union. I hope that out of this, these excellent employees will be well represented in negotiating fairly and reasonably with the company - and if the are, I am sure that the company will negotiate fairly and reasonably with them; I haven't seen anything to suggest they won't.

I'm generally a fan of Trade Unions - if they represent the members well. But BASSA don't, and I'm not a fan of them. If they did represent the members well, I wouldn't be VCC. If, in the future, the company for example reneged on promises to protect T&Cs, then also I wouldn't be VCC if a strike resulted - I'd probably be on the picket line! But throughout this dispute (and previously, but that's for another day) BASSA have been extemely unreasonable, to a position where most people I know in the company think they must be beaten.