British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)

[TightSlot]

This thread is intended for use by people presently employed as airline staff.

If you do not fall into this category - please do not post here: Please visit the Pax/SLF Forum where there is an active thread running HERE that welcomes your thoughts.

[riga101]

100% scheduled now assured

Email sent to groundstaff yesterday... Preparing for 100% schedule

Over the last strike period, colleagues from across the airline came forward to back British Airways. Without their sterling effort, it would not have been possible to keep our customers flying. You have continually gone over and above, truly demonstrating fantastic teamwork and a sprit that makes this airline truly special.

Unfortunately, we continue to face uncertainty, and possible disruption throughout the summer. Unite has already expressed its intention to ballot for further action - we have to be ready. During the next phase of industrial action, it is our intention to fly 100 per cent of our longhaul operations. This is our commitment to our customers, shareholders, investors and colleagues. We cannot and will not let them down. We can only do this with your help.

To ensure we keep this promise, we need more colleagues to train as volunteer cabin crew. Many colleagues have come forward already, but if you have not as yet expressed an interest in being trained as volunteer cabin crew and would like to do so, please register on the Backing BA pages on the intranet.

We are currently running training courses, which are begining in the next few weeks.

Let do all we can to keep our customer promise - thank you for your continued support

.................................

So call it a days guys ..... All BA non crewstaff are backing their company not BASSA

[ChicoG]

PC767 said:

Even though BA's only loss has occurred under Walsh's tenure.

Something to do with a massive global financial crisis, methinks.

He also presided over BA's biggest ever profit in 2008.

So is there some kind of point you are attempting to make here? If so, could we please hear it?

From 17th May 2008:

BA staff secured a £35m windfall yesterday after the airline hit its 10% profit margin target for 2008 but analysts warned that the coming years may be bonus-free as a high oil price and a weak global economy pose a fundamental threat to the industry.

Willie Walsh, BA's chief executive, reiterated his determination to guide BA through the storm as he atoned for the Terminal 5 fiasco by waiving the £700,000 bonus he should have received for overseeing pre-tax profits of £883m.

[MrBunker]

PC767 from previous thread

PC767,

What you've posted from the BASSA forum isn't, sadly, what they've sent out in the letter dated the 9th Jun to all Unite cabin crew members. Their third point of issue for ballot is as follows and doesn't mention the word unwarranted

3. We consider the disciplinary action taken against Unite members for various misdemeanors (sic) related to the current industrial dispute as vindictive, disproportionate and unnecessary. Unite is therefore seeking the withdrawal of all disciplinary measures administered to Unite members under those circumstances discussed during the recent negotiations.

And that's their official pre-ballot communications.

MrB

[Eddy]

So is anyone willing to wager a bet on when we're likely to see the next ballot papers sent out?

It seems quite clear that talking is as useless today as it was 12 months ago.

The only way this is all going to come to an end is when one side buckles completely under the pressure and has to take whatever the other side is willing to offer at that moment (which is why I think Bassa should seriously considering ending this dispute NOW, accepting the last deal on the table - or even asking for the previous one to be returned.... Call me crazy but I think Walsh would oblige).

Then in 6 months time Bassa should go back to the company and say that things have been working well under the new agreements, there have been no further industrial problems, and ask for staff travel to be returned to strikers.

I don't think Walsh will return it as part of any deal. He is not going to want to appear either weak or that he's been held to ransom. I do think staff travel will be given back, but not as part of any strike-ending agreement.

So it's time that Bassa drops it from the list of demands but offers members an assurance that they will return to the issue in 6 months time.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Eddy

I don't think Walsh will return it as part of any deal. He is not going to want to appear either weak or that he's been held to ransom. I do think staff travel will be given back, but not as part of any strike-ending agreement.

If it was me, which it is not, I would have raised a grievance with regard to the removal of staff travel, as a punishment for taking part in protected industrial action. I would have asked for one of the Unite GS's as my rep. What have you got to loose? They can't take it away again and you can then show due process before a tribunal.

[PC767]

Mr Bunker.

I await an official letter then, but your copy is disappointing. Although it doesn't represent all the outstanding issues I believed that at least one area could have been dealt with equably and fairly.

Riga101.

What disappoints me about the email you reproduce is that it shows Walsh has no intention of seeking a solution. No dates for a ballot have been announced, and there is no indication of what the result of a ballot may be. Instead of using the time to find a solution, Walsh rattles his sabre.

Litebulbs.

I believe individual grievances are being encouraged and supported on the BASSA forum.

[PC767]

Eddy.

Walsh not wanting to appear weak or held to randsom is part of the problem, as much as the BASSA leadership. Somebody is going to have to swallow their ego and as the senior partner I believe Walsh should make the first move.

[Eddy]

I agree entirely that someone is going to have to swallow their ego. Sadly, the two sides of this dispute also happen to be two of the strongest egos any of us will ever have encountered.

However, I don't agree that Walsh should be the one to give in. He may be the senior party, but he's also the strongest and enjoying the most support. He has the support of his pilots, ground staff, engineers, office workers... Bassa appears to be able to boast the support of the unwashed hoodlums of the Socialist Worker Party.

Isn't that normally the person who emerges the victor?

I find it incredibly difficult to talk so negatively about Bassa, for I maintain enormous respect for the reps and for the work they do to secure favourable terms and conditions for us, the cabin crew. But this time around it's all gone too far and I wish they could see that.

[PC767]

Eddy.

Victory. That is the crunch.

Why need there be a victory for either side. This is an industrial dispute, not a war or world cup. The only victor should be the company and the passengers.

Both sides claim that is what they are working for! Every side should be backing ACAS to bring this to an end.

A quest for victory is a quest to satisfy an ego. There should be no place for such quests within a company.

Transpose the adage 'In war there is no winner when both sides have God on their side.'

[MrBunker]

PC767,

Ordinarily I'd agree but when you're dealing with two branches of a union which variously refer to the situation with nods to Iwo Jima, Tiananmen Square, 1930's Germany et al and still, on one branch's side at least, has a picture of the CEO with red eyes, I think it's debatable as to which side has the biggest ego problem.

MrB

[Eddy]

It's difficult to disagree with much of what you say, PC.

You're right that there shouldn't, under normal circumstances, be a 'winner'. But this industrial dispute isn't like many others. It's messier, nastier, dirtier and more public. And because it's so public, because the public feel they deserve the right to be involved in this dispute, I think both sides see a need for someone to come out on top.

Again, I agree that there shouldn't normally be a winner in this dispute, but I fear that in this one, someone winning is the only way it'll ever come to an end.

[mastafreighter]

Who to Give in

Miss M
Haven't really appreciated many of your posts but the fact you have responded to most questions and in particular, questioned why you weren't offered the chance to vote on a BA proposal proves you weigh up the evidence.


PC767
What disappoints me about the email you reproduce is that it shows Walsh has no intention of seeking a solution. No dates for a ballot have been announced, and there is no indication of what the result of a ballot may be. Instead of using the time to find a solution, Walsh rattles his sabre.

W Walsh is doing what he and his board are paid to do - strategic planning. If there is a threat of action, as a feduciary duty of a Director to plan around it. If they left it until a positive vote (if it was) had been taken, then shareholders could sue them personally.

Why is always BA/Walsh that should give in or change. Your suggestion that all dicips should be heard by an independent third party is against the agreement already in place and agreed to by both parties. If BASSA doesn't trust BA or wants these hearings, would BASSA be willing to fund them?

I haven't seen W Walsh requesting a certain "lady" to be dicip'd because she called him a ---- perhaps you find that acceptable?

MF

[LD12986]

I haven't seen W Walsh requesting a certain "lady" to be dicip'd because she called him a ---- perhaps you find that acceptable?

Lizanne claims to have called WW a ---- to his face.

Duncan said in one of his daily updates from Bedfont that WW, until very recently, had never met any of other BASSA reps and had only dealt with the Unite leadership.

One of them isn't telling the truth.

[Eddy]

Lizanne isn't a rep; she's the chairperson of the branch.

Neither of them need to be telling lies for both statements to be true.

[PC767]

Eddy.

On a seperate issue, your last post rather proves my point about independent discipline resolution.

Mastafreighter.

Because somebody has to make a move. Should press reports be believed, Woodley stated that the sticking point was staff travel. That being the case Walsh would still benefit if he magnanimously returned the perk. He would have his imposition settled, new fleet unopposed, monthly travel payments etc.

[LD12986]

Eddy. This is what Duncan wrote:

2. He is determined to have a regime change at BASSA. Well he's got rid of me (he thought) but I'm not going anywhere soon. Seriously why is he so anti-BASSA, he's never met me or Lizanne and yet he talks as if we introduced Arthur Scargill to the world of militancy. Willie, grow up - man. Don't believe what Alun Howells told you - we want what you want, what the crew want, a happy successful airline. Nothing more, nothing less - it is a shame that, since your arrival you have never ever bothered to meet us or even talk to us. Had you even attempted to have been approachable from the beginning we surely would not be where we are today.

[mastafreighter]

PC767

"Because somebody has to make a move" Why not BASSA - they are supposed to represent the "majority"

How would getting ST back settle the dispute regarding imposition? He will have still imposed new crew compliments which is what (supposedly) this devacle was about. If he then caves in on that issue, what has been achieved - a short-term loan of £65m?

Woodley onle stated that the union would suspend action and not cancel it completely.

[Wirbelsturm]

I would have raised a grievance with regard to the removal of staff travel, as a punishment for taking part in protected industrial action.

Protected industrial action only covers unfair dismissal, not the withdrawl of ST. Especially where, within the Staff Travel regulations, it clearly states that the perk maybe withdrawn at any time.

Raise your grievance if you wish but expect it to be given the same dismissal as Duncan Holleys employment tribunal got.

Somebody is going to have to swallow their ego and as the senior partner I believe Walsh should make the first move.

Senior partner? Has BA become a law firm?

Why should Willie Walsh 'give in'? What has his ego got to do with it? The implications of taking industrial action were patently clear. In order to recoup as much of the possible losses incurred by the company during IA the 'perk' of ST would be withdrawn.

If you took IA you lost company gifted perks.

BA have been dealing with and attempting to negotiate with BASSA far longer than any other Union. I assume in BASSA speak that all other Unions jumped into bed with BA and are enjoy cushy deals as BASSA was the only Union WW wants? Never forget that WW was himself a Union rep before joining management. He knows how the local boards run, he knows that the local branch of BASSA don't have the full support of the membership, he knows that the company have been more than flexible with BASSA and he knows that the rest of the company, the board and the investors will not accept any compromise after the damage the Union has done.

Nothing to do with egos, all to do with protecting the company from the ludicrous strike threats that have appeared year after year after year.

This IA has no support from either within or without the company except for a dying bunch of hotheads.

Edited:

Just to add that, personally, I don't think this has anything to do with Staff Travel or the re-insttatement of personnel. Myself? I really couldn't care less if, as an olive branch, Willie Wlash gave staff travel back. I don't think most people would care that much either.

The problem here is Unites inability to control BASSA. As BASSA are the only ones within the fragmented Union who can actually call off the dispute they are the ones who need to be brough under control. Sadly something that is unlikely to happen in the near future.

[Stelton]

MissM - Earlier this week week, one of the crew on my trip was asked by a manager to remove her lanyard. Coincidentally, it seems to have been on the very same day you were asked to remove yours. Was it you? Were you on my trip?

She was the only crew on the trip who had been on strike. Maybe that explains her shocking behavior. Being a pilot, I did not witness it in-flight but other crew did. Over dinner at destination, one of the pursers said that this girl had been talkative to the rest of the crew until she learnt that they had not been on strike. From then, she only answered when she was addressed. Another member of the crew had asked if she wanted to do duty free together. The reply given had been a blatant no. After arrival at outstation, until we reached the hotel, she did not say one word to any of us. Not one word. Our CSD made a funny remark when we were waiting at customs, which the rest of us laughed at. Her face was like stone. We arrived at the hotel and were given our room keys. A girl of the crew asked her if she wanted to join the rest of us for dinner later that evening. She answered that she would rather eat dust. Those were her exact words.

On the way back, the cold thermostat was back on. She did not speak unless addressed. I tried to open a conversation with her on the bus on our way to the airport but her facial expressions said it all that she was not interested. Back at LHR, she disappeared quickly but we met again on the crew bus to the car park. She looked very busy staring out the window pretending that she did not see me.

Is this how you strikers are intending to behave?

Are you really able to forget about who went on strike versus who did not and act professionally?

Out of curiosity, how are you behaving at work?