British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)

[strikemaster82]

This week Lizanne has been on leave

On leave? From what, exactly?

This posting is typical, they personalise the whole thing to Walsh, conveniently ignoring that he is just carrying out the board's wishes.

Do they honestly think things will be any better when the current CFO takes over the reins?

[deefer dog]

Duncan,

I have been following most of the threads on the forum etc

and now realise that I fu@@ed up

Although it has been quiet this last week since the consultative ballot rejected the latest BA offer

Quiet! You said you had read the forums, and you call that quiet? Maybe for you and Lizanne, but for those who have not yet decided to relinquish their membership of BASSA there has been an extremely LOUD cry of "where is Duncan, and what has he got to say."

that doesn’t mean to say, the reps have not been watching things closely and pondering our next moves and the best tactics.

So your ponderings have resulted in, err what exactly? An email to say that you are still "pondering" but now you wish to do it in secret?

This week Lizanne has been on leave

Fantastic, and I'm sure everyone hopes she had a great time escaping the crisis Perfect timing. What drugs do you guys use bye the way?

and several others are "unavailable" for various reasons I don’t want to make public

. Will you tell us later, when its all over? Obviously we don't doubt that you were working hard to find a resolution or compromise for all of your fee paying members, but it would be nice to know at a later date exactly what the secret mission was, and the reason for no word from you.

but the Branch Committee is convening next Monday and we will then decide whether to call a branch meeting, depending on several things

Could you please tell us who exactly will be at the meeting on Monday, and why on earth you would decide NOT to call a branch meeting. Does the current crisis NOT deserve a branch meeting in your opinion?

"talks" scheduled to take place between Woodley and Walsh next week.

Oh yeah? So what dates exactly would they be scheduled for then? And will you be brave enough to actually sit in the same room as those you are supposed to be negotiating with?

We are very aware of the need - following the ballot - to get together

A "get together?" You mean you haven't bothered to do this already? What, pray have you been doing apart from drowning your sorrows, taking vacations and "pondering?"

and re-focus everone’s minds

or get to grips with reality befotre its too late.

but also the fact that branch meetings need to be called for a specific purpose

.

Yeah, but do you have a clue as to what this purpose might be....or are you still "pondering" while Lizanne sun bathes?

Timing is of the utmost importance

And like your are an expert on timing - calling a strike when the company is making record losses, and when the economy is in dire straights.

so please bear with us on this as there may well be a reason for "selecting" a date for us all to get together. At the moment - if there is to be a meeting - we are looking at the 10/11/12 of August but please only pencil that in for now.

IF there is to be a meeting? What do you mean by IF. Surely all those that followed your strike call deserve some kind of explanation of what your intentions are. Your emails give nothing away, so surely a meeting must be planned...as soon as you have all completed your vacations and pontifications of course.

While everyone wants this dispute settled quickly you must remember the person who gains most by a quick resolution is Walsh;

Like you said at the beginning of the sentence....everyone wants this dispute settled quickly! Just like you promised it would be.

he would love nothing better to ride off into his Spanish sunset on his trusty white donkey, bounuses intact and able to boast that he had seen off BASSA.

He will do that for sure dude....you can count on that

We always said this was not a sprint but a marathon

No you didn't - you PROMISED ST back in 5 minutes.

Justice Cox permitting

In your wildest and wettest dreams.

With all due respect Duncan, I am of the opinion that you are not fit for purpose. I suspect that like BA, the BASSA membership will soon let you go. Please take my advise when that day comes, and do not enter into any profession that requires a talent for negotiation or communication, and whatever you do - don't take BASSA to a tribunal for dismissing you!!!

[LD12986]

I think Duncan's note sums up quite brilliantly part of the problem for BASSA in this dispute. BASSA just doesn't know what it is fighting for (imposition/protecting the brand/macho management bullying etc).

All that can be said for certain is that BASSA has a pathological obsession with Willie Walsh.

[Hot Wings]

Whilst the BASSA leadership enjoy their leave, BA's recruitment of New Fleet crew continues at a fair pace. What's exciting about the new recruits is the level of enthusiasm and passion for BA. Sadly some of the temps have had their attitudes poisoned by the BASSAmentalists and will only ever be temps.

Game over.

[demomonkey]

The eternal question is still; How do you take the people who have been drinking the BASSA Kool-Aid for too long and lost their ST and make them see that a strategy of continued confrontation will not do any party any favours.

Answers on a postcard to: Waterside, c/o Mr Walsh.

If only those BASSA fundamentalists stopped and read the label on the side of their Kool-Aid, they'd realise how much sugar and E numbers it really contains.

[gcal]

Er excuse me this is all going around and around but hey ho! the world moves on.
A very small percentage of the employees of the company are going to have to decide very soon exactly what they need to do.
Put up or ship out!

[Door6Left]

BCCM wrote

I absolutely do reckon that it's totally unlawful

From 2 March 2010, you have the right not to be 'blacklisted' by any individual, business or other organisation because of your trade union membership or activity.

'Blacklisting' is where an organisation collects information on trade union members to enable that organisation or others to treat workers or job applicants less favourably because of their trade union membership or activities.

From 2 March 2010, it became unlawful for any individual, business or other organisation to compile (draw up), supply, sell or use a blacklist.

It also became unlawful for an employer to:
refuse you employment for a reason related to a blacklist
dismiss you for a reason related to a blacklist
subject you to any other detriment for a reason related to a blacklist (eg refused you a promotion or pay rise)

I'm totally in favour of the blacklisting law. Individuals should be allowed to be members of TUs and should not suffer detriment in terms of employment, promotion or other benefit.

However it seems to me to be totally irrelevant in this case. BA aren't holding a list of TU members, they're holding a list of employees. The list includes details on whether or not an individual was on strike. This seems reasonable - after all, you'd probably say it was reasonable for BA to hold a list of duties individuals did to enable them to pay the right allowances. ST has been removed on the basis of whether an individual broke their contract and withdrew their labour - not on whether an individual is a member of a TU. The fact that, as far as we know, everyone who had ST removed is a member of a TU is irrelevant (though remembering Juan O's comments from months ago, we can't be sure of that!). Many TU members haven't had their ST removed, for the simple reason they didn't go on strike.

If BA refused promotion to an individual on the grounds that they are on a list of TU members, that would, in my opinion, break the law on blacklist. I think it's 99.9% certain that BA wouldn't do that. I wouldn't be surprised though if they refused promotion on the grounds that an individual has in the past broken their contract and gone on strike. That's a completely different matter.

DF wrote

UNITE have stated that the "substantive" issues have been agreed. It is only Walsh's refusal to fully reinstate Staff Travel that is holding up a deal.

If there is any "red herring", it is Walsh saying that "something else" would be dreamed up by UNITE to prevent a deal. Walsh just cannot give way on anything, he has to score every point as Marc Meryon, of Bircham Dyson Bell stated in an interview on R4's Today. Meryon said that: "he (Walsh) has not left the union any room to manoeuvre".

Have you ever stopped to wonder why WW appears to be refusing to give way on anything, or is not giving the union any room to manoeuvre? Think back to 2007. WW gave way on quite a lot then, and CC got a new pay deal, including extra increments on the post-97 scale. As part of the deal, BASSA agreed to discuss a number of items w.r.t. to efficiency, for example the double nights in disruption. After the pay deal was implemented, BASSA then refused to enter into any meaningful substantive discussions on any of the issues. As a result, WW doesn't trust BASSA, and won't consider giving back ST - even in it's reduced form - until BASSA have kept their side of the bargain. You reap what you sow.

Note I refer to BASSA, not Unite. As I understand it, Unite have agreed the substantive issues, but BASSA haven't. Unite are in a really difficult position, having to be seen to support a branch of their union that they really don't agree with.

As a VCC, it's been interesting talking to CC. Most of them have obviously been non-strikers at LHR or LGW crew, so probably representative of somewhat over a half of CC. The majority of them think that the strikers shouldn't get ST back with seniority, and a substantial number think they shouldn't get ST back at all. I wonder if those who have lost ST realise the feelings amongst the rest of the CC.

Ava Hannah wrote

I try to avoid BA as the plague too.

In my ideal world, no-one would've lost their job at BA as a result of this dispute; there would have been an outcome in which everyone other than a handful would have returned to work committed to BA and their colleagues. However it appears to me increasingly unlikely that this is possible, with some attitudes to BA and fellow workers too polarised to ever be changed. I reluctantly conclude that this will only end with a substantial number of CC having to leave as they will never be an asset to BA. It may be nasty, but so be it.

[Sporran]

Door6Left,

Another excellent post!

Your points regarding the bassa post-97 failure to negotiate are very interesting - and shed a lot of light as to why WW is playing hard-ball. I for one am very glad of this firm stance and I hope it continues TO THE VERY END!

I am still hopeful that WW and the LT will still be magnanimous to those bassa members that voted to accept the offer, but who were out-voted by the militants/those who have already lost ST!

Giving those people the chance to sign up would appear to be a positive gesture, but then NO MORE!!.

Allow the militants to stike again - and then issue P45s immediately!!

[License to Fly]

Originally Posted by Sporran

Allow the militants to stike again - and then issue P45s immediately!!

I think you may have had a view into the future here .... this is how i think things will pan out in Sept/Oct

[RadarIdent]

Allow the militants to stike again - and then issue P45s immediately!!

I think you may have had a view into the future here .... this is how i think things will pan out in Sept/Oct

I really hope this is the case. As a ground staff member, LIKE MANY, we have really had enough of such intransigence.

Here's hoping for a better 'British Airways'. A BA minus the moaning militants, a better work place for the majority, not to mention of the benefits to our passengers.

[Door6Left]

I am still hopeful that WW and the LT will still be magnanimous to those bassa members that voted to accept the offer, but who were out-voted by the militants/those who have already lost ST!

Sporran, I completely agree with you. Even though there are complications due to what can be offered to union members as they can't be induced to leave the union, it shouldn't be too difficult to do. I'm sure WW has a plan for this, making it clear that the offer will remain available to anyone who doesn't go on strike. Not sure how he does this legally, but then WW wouldn't ask me for advice, he'd ask his very competent lawyers.

[Caribbean Boy]

I do not think that it will be easy to get rid of the BASSA militants. If they work outside strike periods and behave well, then BA can do nothing legally to dismiss them. And frankly, this is quite proper.

Nor will they leave BA no matter how much they hate management or the company as they won't get a better job outside.

So, what is Willie Walsh doing about them? He is making them less important. By external recruitment (both permanent and temporary), by internal recruitment and by training VCC he is - admittedly at some cost - adding numbers to cabin crew. So, if they strike again, the impact will less severe than any of the previous five strikes. There will come a point when even BASSA will know that they have lost and will never be able to hold a gun to BA's head.

[Colonel White]

This week Lizanne has been on leave and several others are "unavailable" for various reasons I don’t want to make public, but the Branch Committee is convening next Monday and we will then decide whether to call a branch meeting, depending on several things, one of which is "talks" scheduled to take place between Woodley and Walsh next week.

Umm.. Duncan, I seem to recall that around five of the seven Branch Committee members were being disciplined for gross misconduct. The lack of availability wasn't anything to do with this ? I can quite understand why BASSA might not wish to go public if it has just seen the bulk of its committee sacked by BA. I can also see why it would then be very difficult to call abranch meeting if that were the case.

[Tiramisu]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall and know exactly what Willie Walsh thinks of BASSA taking BA to court for loss of Staff Travel claiming it's a breach of human rights?

[Vortex what...ouch!]

After the QC's are finished quoting those French and Spanish precedents, not really on a trip to success are they.

[Hot Wings]

From what I've just heard, BA are more than happy to go down the industrial tribunal route. You may get ST back but how will that work if BA has given you your P45?!

Keep focusing on the little stuff like ST whilst BA removes the BASSAmentalists from it's ranks. We want people in the airline who are here for the passengers and the success of the company - not their own entitlement.

[cessnapete]

LD12986

I don't understand this discussion about C/C having a say in route allocation and aircraft type etc. between New fleet and the present situation

C/C are paid a salary to carry out their duties, allowances are incidental to salary. It is BA who decide which route and aircraft are allocated to which group of C/C. It is not part of BASSA's (or any other Union) remit to run the operational side of BA.( BASSA might not agree, but that was the old regime)

For example if BA wish to put a 777 on the Moscow route that is their decision not a Union's.
Some years ago I operated some football supporter charters on the 747 to Lisbon. The F/C did a double round trip, but we had a new C/C for each rotation who then had three local nights off as it was deemed a longhaul type with longhaul MBT, whatever the route ,crazy economics!!

If BASSA had not turned down the BA offer of a Bidline type roster for C/C some years ago, they would now have a much better lifestlyle rather than the imposed rosters now endured.

[Nevermind]

cessnapete

I'd call that a very naive posting. Most flying employees are very interested in their destinations as it hits their bottom line (ie take home pay) very hard.
Who wouldn't be interested in that?

[cessnapete]

Nevermind

Of course I understand that. After 30 odd years in BA I am fully aware of the importance of allowances to c/c total remuneration.
What I am saying, it is not up to BA to organise their routes/crews for the benefit of maximising allowances to crew, in fact quite the opposite!!
Water under the bridge now, but the present difficulties would be much less had hourly based allowances, and some sort of preferential/seniortity based roster system been negotiated by BASSA, rather than the no,no,no, stance taken in the last few years..

[malcolmf]

At the moment the proposal is that New Fleet will only be operating the 777 and the A320. Most crew hate the 777 anyway. The overriding decision on which aircraft to use on a route will be operating costs, of which crew costs are a relatively small amount. BA are bringing back a 744 from the desert, so the fleet is far from dead yet. In fact the economics of the 400 mean it gets better the longer the sector, which is why the 777 is doing so much East Coast work. As a 744 driver, I still don't think the time is right to go back to the 777.
Of course if an hourly rate for allowances and a change in the box system been negotiated, then it would be even less important to crew. (crossed)