BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What serious manpower shortage at LHR are you talking about? BA was overmanned due to its reduced flying programme over a two-year period which led to 16 planes grounded last winter - though two of the eight 747-400s have been brought back from the Mojave desert, one for DFW and the other for LAS on 01JUN11.
Also, the only permanent recruitment in recent times before MF has been at LGW. If BA needed more cabin crew at LHR, it would have been quite easy to recruit cheaply at LGW, thus enabling some of those waiting impatiently on the transfer list to move to LHR.
Also, the only permanent recruitment in recent times before MF has been at LGW. If BA needed more cabin crew at LHR, it would have been quite easy to recruit cheaply at LGW, thus enabling some of those waiting impatiently on the transfer list to move to LHR.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carabian boy.
BA has taken on hundreds of temps over the last two years instead of recruiting main crew at LHR. These crew have either left or shortly due to or have moved over to Mixed Fleet.
BA would have never recruited people at LGW so that some of you could transfer over because they don't want more crew on the current LHR terms, full stop.
I hope in the future some will be transferred over because Bill Francis has promised to do so for some of you and I like to think he keeps his promises.
Take it from me that BA never manages to get the crewing levels exactly right. We are always either under crewed or over crewed. We have recently been over crewed with Pursers and CSDs and under crewed with main crew. At the moment we are over with everybody but that is probably because he is at the moment in the process of handing out part time. He is also going to give out lots of part time because that's how he expands Mixed Fleet.
If someone tells you that they had a friend that did not get VR, why don't you believe them. I do.
BA has taken on hundreds of temps over the last two years instead of recruiting main crew at LHR. These crew have either left or shortly due to or have moved over to Mixed Fleet.
BA would have never recruited people at LGW so that some of you could transfer over because they don't want more crew on the current LHR terms, full stop.
I hope in the future some will be transferred over because Bill Francis has promised to do so for some of you and I like to think he keeps his promises.
Take it from me that BA never manages to get the crewing levels exactly right. We are always either under crewed or over crewed. We have recently been over crewed with Pursers and CSDs and under crewed with main crew. At the moment we are over with everybody but that is probably because he is at the moment in the process of handing out part time. He is also going to give out lots of part time because that's how he expands Mixed Fleet.
If someone tells you that they had a friend that did not get VR, why don't you believe them. I do.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I managed to find Betty Girl's link on the other bit of the forum "Passengers and Self Loading Frieght Forum" and there was a post copied from Bassa on Jan 10th; after the last Meeting of Unite/Bassa.
At exactly the same time there was a meeting of Amicus/89/Unite members and Reps so no Unity there.
The usual dross from Bassa and Mr McLuskey only state their intentions of putting up another fight and starting another dispute, there was absolutley nothing about resolving anything; just lots of "keep the faith" and maintaing loyalty to the Bassa branch. In addition, some rallying of votes for the GEC (whatever that is; jobs for the boys if you ask me) for the Bassa Chairwoman and another Longhaul Rep.
According to the CC89/Amicus lot there are less than 9000 members left in Bassa;according to Bassa it is "over 10000". I wonder how many were incorrectly sent ballot papers again.
I predict that it will be deemed an illegal ballot again as they have clearly balloted non-members again and all 5 points are directly related to the last dispute; will they never learn ?
Don't forget, Unite have already reached a full agreement with the company TWICE. Bassa balloted against it the first time and didn't even bother to ballot (against Unite's wishes) the second time.
So who's prolonging this dispute now?
At exactly the same time there was a meeting of Amicus/89/Unite members and Reps so no Unity there.
The usual dross from Bassa and Mr McLuskey only state their intentions of putting up another fight and starting another dispute, there was absolutley nothing about resolving anything; just lots of "keep the faith" and maintaing loyalty to the Bassa branch. In addition, some rallying of votes for the GEC (whatever that is; jobs for the boys if you ask me) for the Bassa Chairwoman and another Longhaul Rep.
According to the CC89/Amicus lot there are less than 9000 members left in Bassa;according to Bassa it is "over 10000". I wonder how many were incorrectly sent ballot papers again.
I predict that it will be deemed an illegal ballot again as they have clearly balloted non-members again and all 5 points are directly related to the last dispute; will they never learn ?
Don't forget, Unite have already reached a full agreement with the company TWICE. Bassa balloted against it the first time and didn't even bother to ballot (against Unite's wishes) the second time.
So who's prolonging this dispute now?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possible outcome?
Here's my prediction....
The ballot results are announced, BA challenge the probable resulting mandate for strike action as being illegal for any number of reasons (previously discussed), warning BASSA that they consider that any strike action will be unprotected. It probably won't go to court, as BA are fed up with going over the same old thing, it's time to finish this dispute. BASSA either hesitate and drag things out, or go for it. The first person who doesn't turn up for a rostered duty is sacked, and then the second, and so on. As the industrial action is probably unprotected, the dismissals are probably not unfair in the eyes of the law. In any case it's goodbye BASSA in it's current form.
Be very careful if the above turns out to be true but BASSA tell you you'll be okay, because they've been wrong before and it's your job at stake. BA have nothing to lose using the above strategy, and everything to gain.
The ballot results are announced, BA challenge the probable resulting mandate for strike action as being illegal for any number of reasons (previously discussed), warning BASSA that they consider that any strike action will be unprotected. It probably won't go to court, as BA are fed up with going over the same old thing, it's time to finish this dispute. BASSA either hesitate and drag things out, or go for it. The first person who doesn't turn up for a rostered duty is sacked, and then the second, and so on. As the industrial action is probably unprotected, the dismissals are probably not unfair in the eyes of the law. In any case it's goodbye BASSA in it's current form.
Be very careful if the above turns out to be true but BASSA tell you you'll be okay, because they've been wrong before and it's your job at stake. BA have nothing to lose using the above strategy, and everything to gain.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty Girl
I actually have to agree with you.
BA never get the numbers right. On a recent flight there were three PSR's working down whilst one crew member was working up as a PSR called out from QRS. Maybe if they had a bit of organisation they would have sorted everything out as well saving money.
Part-time offers are to allow MF to grow. They don't care about crew actually wanting a better lifestyle. It's all about reducing numbers and allowing them to replace us with cheaper labour.
However, Bill Francis' promises means absolutely nothing. If he had been serious and actually meant what he's saying he would allowed guarantees and legally binding proposals. His refusals means the opposite as he has no intention of actually keeping anything he promises.
I actually have to agree with you.
BA never get the numbers right. On a recent flight there were three PSR's working down whilst one crew member was working up as a PSR called out from QRS. Maybe if they had a bit of organisation they would have sorted everything out as well saving money.
Part-time offers are to allow MF to grow. They don't care about crew actually wanting a better lifestyle. It's all about reducing numbers and allowing them to replace us with cheaper labour.
However, Bill Francis' promises means absolutely nothing. If he had been serious and actually meant what he's saying he would allowed guarantees and legally binding proposals. His refusals means the opposite as he has no intention of actually keeping anything he promises.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part-time offers are to allow MF to grow. They don't care about crew actually wanting a better lifestyle. It's all about reducing numbers and allowing them to replace us with cheaper labour.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM,
So you are going to risk the consequences of more industrial action now because of a fear of what might happen in the future? This is the same mistake as BALPA made with the Openskies dispute, and as it turned out Openskies has not proved to be threat. Luckily BALPA were forced to back down on that one, and no one got hurt.
If Openskies becomes a threat, you will see BALPA resist again, and maybe BASSA should learn that lesson.
If BA don't honour the new contracts that they are trying to get you to sign, you might find that you will have broad support for industrial action, because you will have made concessions like the rest of us, but still BA come for more. You will earn the sympathy of other groups if that happens.
As things stand, BASSA are proving to be a thorn in the side of progress, and have no sympathy from those outside of it's diminishing ranks.
So you are going to risk the consequences of more industrial action now because of a fear of what might happen in the future? This is the same mistake as BALPA made with the Openskies dispute, and as it turned out Openskies has not proved to be threat. Luckily BALPA were forced to back down on that one, and no one got hurt.
If Openskies becomes a threat, you will see BALPA resist again, and maybe BASSA should learn that lesson.
If BA don't honour the new contracts that they are trying to get you to sign, you might find that you will have broad support for industrial action, because you will have made concessions like the rest of us, but still BA come for more. You will earn the sympathy of other groups if that happens.
As things stand, BASSA are proving to be a thorn in the side of progress, and have no sympathy from those outside of it's diminishing ranks.
Last edited by 123breath; 15th Jan 2011 at 21:55. Reason: slight edit
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the edge of reason
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, Bill Francis' promises means absolutely nothing. If he had been serious and actually meant what he's saying he would allowed guarantees and legally binding proposals. His refusals means the opposite as he has no intention of actually keeping anything he promises.
Can you tell us why cabin crew should benefit from these when no other work group in the airline has them?
Is it, perhaps, because you ARE BA?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why wouldn't anyone want a legally binding agreement? Surely that is what you strive for as an employee?
Through this dispute, many have been made aware of what is and isn't lawful as workplace agreements may not have been in the past. Its a new world now.
Through this dispute, many have been made aware of what is and isn't lawful as workplace agreements may not have been in the past. Its a new world now.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs,
That would be perfectly fine if that was actually what they were asking for, indeed it's what most of us have with our negotiated agreements. The problem, I think, arises in the insinuation that these agreements should be cast iron, irreducible and unchangeable regardless of future circumstances. In other words, today's terms and conditions guaranteed forever. Much as I'd love that kind of certainty in my work it just isn't on offer in the UK from any company or certainly none that I know of, and especially one the size of BA).
MrB
That would be perfectly fine if that was actually what they were asking for, indeed it's what most of us have with our negotiated agreements. The problem, I think, arises in the insinuation that these agreements should be cast iron, irreducible and unchangeable regardless of future circumstances. In other words, today's terms and conditions guaranteed forever. Much as I'd love that kind of certainty in my work it just isn't on offer in the UK from any company or certainly none that I know of, and especially one the size of BA).
MrB
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mildly Militant
What are these allowances that were absorbed into my basic in 1997, but then subsequently removed? I certainly have no memory of this, as, if true, it would mean that my basic salary was at once time REDUCED and that has never happened.
I think your BASSA advisor is being deliberately devious in his /her spin.
There was a "Money back guarantee scheme" implemented in conjunction with the 1997 reconstruction of pay, that guaranteed that if anyone was worse off by the new way of paying us, they would be topped up to what they would have been paid under the old pre 1997 method. This was to run for 3 years and only extended if significant numbers of crew were still earning less under the new method. By year 3 (actually by year 1) very few people were worse off, most roughly the same or better. I was slightly better off for ALL 3 YEARS so I got no money back payment. Because most were better off, the Money Back Guarantee wasn't extended beyond the 3 years. IT'S THIS THAT WAS "REMOVED", NOT ANY ALLOWANCES.
Of course, with the benefit of it being so long ago that most people can't remember what happened, BASSA are now spinning this as an example of BA reneging on deals. I have a long memory, so I know it's nonsense.
123 Breath
Absolutely.
What are these allowances that were absorbed into my basic in 1997, but then subsequently removed? I certainly have no memory of this, as, if true, it would mean that my basic salary was at once time REDUCED and that has never happened.
I think your BASSA advisor is being deliberately devious in his /her spin.
There was a "Money back guarantee scheme" implemented in conjunction with the 1997 reconstruction of pay, that guaranteed that if anyone was worse off by the new way of paying us, they would be topped up to what they would have been paid under the old pre 1997 method. This was to run for 3 years and only extended if significant numbers of crew were still earning less under the new method. By year 3 (actually by year 1) very few people were worse off, most roughly the same or better. I was slightly better off for ALL 3 YEARS so I got no money back payment. Because most were better off, the Money Back Guarantee wasn't extended beyond the 3 years. IT'S THIS THAT WAS "REMOVED", NOT ANY ALLOWANCES.
Of course, with the benefit of it being so long ago that most people can't remember what happened, BASSA are now spinning this as an example of BA reneging on deals. I have a long memory, so I know it's nonsense.
123 Breath
Absolutely.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I imagine if BA let employees who have not signed across to the offer on the table for non union members (and that in itself is toying with unlawfulness) stay on their original T&C's, the whole package would be "red ringed" for any future growth.
Another area I hope all employee groups are looking into, is the term "apt for incorporation" regarding workplace collective agreements.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB,
Indeed they can, and do, as you rightly point out. My point, which I obviously didn't make too well, was that BASSA et al are crying for a contract which can never be changed regardless of circumstance. Of course, when they say that, they mean negatively. Clearly they'd offer no resistance to a positive change. It's a cake and eat it fantasy that isn't really on offer in modern employ.
MrB
Indeed they can, and do, as you rightly point out. My point, which I obviously didn't make too well, was that BASSA et al are crying for a contract which can never be changed regardless of circumstance. Of course, when they say that, they mean negatively. Clearly they'd offer no resistance to a positive change. It's a cake and eat it fantasy that isn't really on offer in modern employ.
MrB
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot comment from the position of being a BASSA member, but generally speaking and from what I have read, your position appears to be correct.
But it cannot be denied that there is a pre 97 contract position (even post 97) and NF. There is a massive difference between them and the end game for BA will be NF. How long the ever reducing numbers of non NF will be able to maintain employment is anybodies guess.
But it cannot be denied that there is a pre 97 contract position (even post 97) and NF. There is a massive difference between them and the end game for BA will be NF. How long the ever reducing numbers of non NF will be able to maintain employment is anybodies guess.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB,
Absolutely, BA would love, regardless of the loyalty of any crew who went to work, to have all their crew as "white goods" in essence. 5 years, disposable and on to the next one. It's the hardest truth for many of the crew who went to work that, despite their choice to side with the airline (or whichever particular reason and motivation they exercised) that there's no loyalty in business particularly. On that ground, I still support the concept of collective representation if only to keep the corporate wolf from the door for as long as is possible. In fact, as I think about it, that's probably one of the issues at the very heart of all this. Do you keep that wolf at bay by saying no and threatening IA or do you do it through concerted negotiation? I'm not advocating one position or another, merely observing the relative success or otherwise of the two approaches.
MrB
Absolutely, BA would love, regardless of the loyalty of any crew who went to work, to have all their crew as "white goods" in essence. 5 years, disposable and on to the next one. It's the hardest truth for many of the crew who went to work that, despite their choice to side with the airline (or whichever particular reason and motivation they exercised) that there's no loyalty in business particularly. On that ground, I still support the concept of collective representation if only to keep the corporate wolf from the door for as long as is possible. In fact, as I think about it, that's probably one of the issues at the very heart of all this. Do you keep that wolf at bay by saying no and threatening IA or do you do it through concerted negotiation? I'm not advocating one position or another, merely observing the relative success or otherwise of the two approaches.
MrB
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Playing the strike joker card first, over other forms of industrial protest gives you no avenue to protect workers, if a business gets aggressive. Industrial action cost against future contract savings is just maths. Industrial action to protect against individuals who may be targeted for being obstructive to the business plan, is another formula altogether.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Windsor
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
Totally agree with your comment re strike joker. Which makes me wonder why the Unite leadership went along with the idea in the first place. Standing on the sidelines of this dispute, it seems sheer folly to leap straight in to strike action based on BA reducing the manning levels for cabin crew ex LHR. I could see slightly more sense in it if it was a reduction across the total operation, but given that LGW crews had been working to this level for a number of years, surely the basis was shaky from the outset.
I think that what happened was a serious miscalculation by the Unite leadership, who would have been persuaded to some degree by the branch executives. I believe they fully expected BA to roll over and capitulate. Messrs Woodley and Simpson were seriously embarrassed by the 12 days of Christmas announcement with Derek Simpson on record as being dismayed by it. It was probably a slight relief when BA got the injunction that halted any action, although it did then give Unite the opportunity to appear indignant. The trouble is that from that point onward it became a game of chicken. Unite couldn't back down in the run up to an election as it would have undermined Labour. BA management weren't going to back down as they needed to establish their ability to manage the business.
The problem the union now faces is that have not achieved anything to date and show no sign of being able to do so in the near future. The basis for the current ballot looks very linked to the previous dispute. The branches have been making noises that would be very hard to say were not linking the two. Consequently Unite find themselves in a bit of a bind. I think the recent comments from Len McCluskey regarding no strike action around the Royal wedding and Easter weekend, coupled with his comment about the media being obsessed with strike action may be an indication that he wants to see a different tack taken.
Totally agree with your comment re strike joker. Which makes me wonder why the Unite leadership went along with the idea in the first place. Standing on the sidelines of this dispute, it seems sheer folly to leap straight in to strike action based on BA reducing the manning levels for cabin crew ex LHR. I could see slightly more sense in it if it was a reduction across the total operation, but given that LGW crews had been working to this level for a number of years, surely the basis was shaky from the outset.
I think that what happened was a serious miscalculation by the Unite leadership, who would have been persuaded to some degree by the branch executives. I believe they fully expected BA to roll over and capitulate. Messrs Woodley and Simpson were seriously embarrassed by the 12 days of Christmas announcement with Derek Simpson on record as being dismayed by it. It was probably a slight relief when BA got the injunction that halted any action, although it did then give Unite the opportunity to appear indignant. The trouble is that from that point onward it became a game of chicken. Unite couldn't back down in the run up to an election as it would have undermined Labour. BA management weren't going to back down as they needed to establish their ability to manage the business.
The problem the union now faces is that have not achieved anything to date and show no sign of being able to do so in the near future. The basis for the current ballot looks very linked to the previous dispute. The branches have been making noises that would be very hard to say were not linking the two. Consequently Unite find themselves in a bit of a bind. I think the recent comments from Len McCluskey regarding no strike action around the Royal wedding and Easter weekend, coupled with his comment about the media being obsessed with strike action may be an indication that he wants to see a different tack taken.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fender
I am glad that the Unite leadership acted as it did. There were huge numbers of members who wanted industrial action and any action by the executive to stop it would have been wrong in my mind. The union should be member driven. If that is what they want, then it is for Unite to deliver. I just can't see what it will achieve though and I am glad that it isn't me.
The regular posters on pprune who support the action have not been persuaded that it is the wrong course, therefore it is the right course for them and I am sure that they know the possible consequences.
I do not believe that at face value, the new strike ballot is linked and by having the ballot, neither do those at the top of Unite. However, the courts will be the judge, not us on 'ere.
I believe that a strike mandate will come from the ballot, but I hope that the figures will be a majority of the total workforce, not the majority of those that have voted in this case, just for there to be a strong mandate.
We shall wait and see.
The regular posters on pprune who support the action have not been persuaded that it is the wrong course, therefore it is the right course for them and I am sure that they know the possible consequences.
I do not believe that at face value, the new strike ballot is linked and by having the ballot, neither do those at the top of Unite. However, the courts will be the judge, not us on 'ere.
I believe that a strike mandate will come from the ballot, but I hope that the figures will be a majority of the total workforce, not the majority of those that have voted in this case, just for there to be a strong mandate.
We shall wait and see.
Last edited by Litebulbs; 16th Jan 2011 at 21:56.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Windsor
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
I agree that a union should be member driven, which is why I believe that in this instance the missing pieces of the jigsaw are
a) there is very little debate about what possible courses of action should be taken. Members were givin the option of strike action or nothing. No talk about work to rule, no suggestion of alternative strategies. One choice and only one, dictated by the branch executive. Not exactly member driven.
b) the 'mass' meetings have been able at best to accommodate less than 10% of the branch membership. Now given the nature of these meetings, they are not exactly designed to encourage dissenting voices. Indeed, given the rhetoric reported from the last meeting - which actually broke the 10% barrier because the overall membership had declined - I suggest that a dissenter runs the risk of being ripped to shreds. So those attending are the vociferous minority, yet their views are held to be representative of the membership at large. What happens about the 90% who don't make it to the meetings How do their views get heard ?
I suspect that the ballot will once again result in a mandate for strike action. What will be interesting is the turnout and the degree of support for it. By all accounts, probably 55% of the BASSA membership are cabin crew who went on strike. I guess it depends on whether these same individuals wish to lose yet more pay and whether the other 45% wish to remain in the branch. I believe that the branch executives of BASSA and CC89 will wish to announce strike dates. Whether the Unite leadership will agree to that remains to be seen. Setting aside any of the possible legal aspects, will Unite want to call a strike that runs the risk of being poorly supported and/or rendered ineffectual by BA management deploying other staff to cover those on strike ? It would not do the union's credibility much good.
22 days of strike action achieved nothing. Tony Woodley himself admitted as much. What will the stakes be next time ? 40 days ? How many cabin crew will be prepared to lose two months pay ? When does the membership at large get a say in how long any industrial action should be ?
I agree that a union should be member driven, which is why I believe that in this instance the missing pieces of the jigsaw are
a) there is very little debate about what possible courses of action should be taken. Members were givin the option of strike action or nothing. No talk about work to rule, no suggestion of alternative strategies. One choice and only one, dictated by the branch executive. Not exactly member driven.
b) the 'mass' meetings have been able at best to accommodate less than 10% of the branch membership. Now given the nature of these meetings, they are not exactly designed to encourage dissenting voices. Indeed, given the rhetoric reported from the last meeting - which actually broke the 10% barrier because the overall membership had declined - I suggest that a dissenter runs the risk of being ripped to shreds. So those attending are the vociferous minority, yet their views are held to be representative of the membership at large. What happens about the 90% who don't make it to the meetings How do their views get heard ?
I suspect that the ballot will once again result in a mandate for strike action. What will be interesting is the turnout and the degree of support for it. By all accounts, probably 55% of the BASSA membership are cabin crew who went on strike. I guess it depends on whether these same individuals wish to lose yet more pay and whether the other 45% wish to remain in the branch. I believe that the branch executives of BASSA and CC89 will wish to announce strike dates. Whether the Unite leadership will agree to that remains to be seen. Setting aside any of the possible legal aspects, will Unite want to call a strike that runs the risk of being poorly supported and/or rendered ineffectual by BA management deploying other staff to cover those on strike ? It would not do the union's credibility much good.
22 days of strike action achieved nothing. Tony Woodley himself admitted as much. What will the stakes be next time ? 40 days ? How many cabin crew will be prepared to lose two months pay ? When does the membership at large get a say in how long any industrial action should be ?