BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hindhead
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bizarre thing is that until there is actually a strike, he won't know if the ones who voted no accepted the majority viewpoint and still went on strike. What he was confirming is that no dissenting voices are allowed in his Union.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have any integrity you should accept Bill Francis's offer straight away because your actions and votes are a tacit acceptance of what BA propose.
Is this union rep giving permission to current union members to accept the deal that could not be offered to them legally as it would have been encouraging them to leave the union?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love Duncans maths. Did he read the same primer as the former shadow Chancellor?
2 out of 3 is a 66% Majority and 2 out of 4 is 50% whilst 2 out of 5 is 40%! If you whittle out the non militants, the questioners and the descenters and achieve a 'core' which is smaller than the previous then assuredly your percentages will go up. Brilliant. Also wasn't Tony Blair for the 'red' camp anyway as the leader of New Labor
.
So, come on all those who have not voted or voted no, now you see just how much your Union gives a damn about you. They don't. In BASSA world the dictatorship that is run by DH demands that you toe the line or get out. How nice. Time to resign and look at alternatives. BA doesn't want to destroy the Union, it never has wanted to that has always been a BASSA 'crumour' to instill vitriol, all BA want is a Union that is prepared to negotiate like adults and not try to run the company.
The option of dialogue that BASSA tacitly refused to consider.
You reap what you sow.
Thankfully Duncan will be history after this flash in the pan dies down.
2 out of 3 is a 66% Majority and 2 out of 4 is 50% whilst 2 out of 5 is 40%! If you whittle out the non militants, the questioners and the descenters and achieve a 'core' which is smaller than the previous then assuredly your percentages will go up. Brilliant. Also wasn't Tony Blair for the 'red' camp anyway as the leader of New Labor
.So, come on all those who have not voted or voted no, now you see just how much your Union gives a damn about you. They don't. In BASSA world the dictatorship that is run by DH demands that you toe the line or get out. How nice. Time to resign and look at alternatives. BA doesn't want to destroy the Union, it never has wanted to that has always been a BASSA 'crumour' to instill vitriol, all BA want is a Union that is prepared to negotiate like adults and not try to run the company.
let's take up Len's offer of starting sensible dialogue?
You reap what you sow.
Thankfully Duncan will be history after this flash in the pan dies down.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be interested to hear Mildly Militant's take on Duncan's latest missive, as, although I disagree with his take on the dispute in general, he does speak eloquently in his support for the union position.
My take on BASSA and this dispute is this.
BASSA have failed, because they have been lead but someone who has no interest in economics, or business, just in living the Walter Mitty - like dream inside his head of revolution, resulting in some sort of Socialist utopia where the workers rule the world and there are no fat cat bosses. That he can only do it in a small way at BA, rather than in the country at large, must be a very great dissapointment to him.
This has meant that BASSA have acted totally unprofessionally and illogically, relying on pure emotion to rally the troops, as evidenced by this latest outpouring of his.
Witness BASSA's reponse to the offer by BA at the beginning of the recession, to look at the Company accounts. They declined, stating "we're not accountants".
Unbelievable! How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously, or more importantly have your counter proposals taken seriously, when you have no accountancy skills. (Or you are unwilling to employ an accountant).
That might explain why BASSA's £172m of savings plan was actually only worth £54m, of course. (Or was that just a cunning plan to appear to be reasonable, while allowing you to yell, "See, they're only interested in union busting!" when it's rejected.
BASSA can't, or won't see that BA needed/needs to significantly cut costs to survive. Claiming that this years tiny profit after 2 years of losses is proof that there was never any "Fight for Survival", or that there was never any need for IFCE to significantly cut costs, is laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Company's financial commitments over the next few years.
I am sure that BA saw some time ago (probably during the 2007 dispute) that BASSA couldn't or wouldn't grasp the financial realities of BA in the 21 century and started planning to neuter them.
I am convinced that Operation Columbus was hatched the day after the 2007 dispute was "settled" and BA walked away with very little.
I have no doubt, that BA Board has played hardball during this dispute, (removal of staff travel, using VCCs, sticking to it's guns over the final offer), because they knew that this was a fight that HAD to be won, if the airline were to survive more than another 5-10 years. Having about one third of your total workforce on terms and conditions that are vastly out of step with most of the industry would have eventually made it very difficult for BA to compete. Now, with Mixed fleet, that cost will gradually, but significantly reduce year on year.
I used to be a member of cc89 because they were lead by clever, balanced people, who were much more business focussed. They understood the needs of the Company and were able to negociate deals that benefitted BOTH parties. Unfortunately in it's current Amicus guise and leadership, it is trying to out BASSA BASSA, so I had to leave.
I long for a time when there is a new cc89 (cc11?) to join.
My take on BASSA and this dispute is this.
BASSA have failed, because they have been lead but someone who has no interest in economics, or business, just in living the Walter Mitty - like dream inside his head of revolution, resulting in some sort of Socialist utopia where the workers rule the world and there are no fat cat bosses. That he can only do it in a small way at BA, rather than in the country at large, must be a very great dissapointment to him.
This has meant that BASSA have acted totally unprofessionally and illogically, relying on pure emotion to rally the troops, as evidenced by this latest outpouring of his.
Witness BASSA's reponse to the offer by BA at the beginning of the recession, to look at the Company accounts. They declined, stating "we're not accountants".
Unbelievable! How on earth do you expect to be taken seriously, or more importantly have your counter proposals taken seriously, when you have no accountancy skills. (Or you are unwilling to employ an accountant).
That might explain why BASSA's £172m of savings plan was actually only worth £54m, of course. (Or was that just a cunning plan to appear to be reasonable, while allowing you to yell, "See, they're only interested in union busting!" when it's rejected.
BASSA can't, or won't see that BA needed/needs to significantly cut costs to survive. Claiming that this years tiny profit after 2 years of losses is proof that there was never any "Fight for Survival", or that there was never any need for IFCE to significantly cut costs, is laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Company's financial commitments over the next few years.
I am sure that BA saw some time ago (probably during the 2007 dispute) that BASSA couldn't or wouldn't grasp the financial realities of BA in the 21 century and started planning to neuter them.
I am convinced that Operation Columbus was hatched the day after the 2007 dispute was "settled" and BA walked away with very little.
I have no doubt, that BA Board has played hardball during this dispute, (removal of staff travel, using VCCs, sticking to it's guns over the final offer), because they knew that this was a fight that HAD to be won, if the airline were to survive more than another 5-10 years. Having about one third of your total workforce on terms and conditions that are vastly out of step with most of the industry would have eventually made it very difficult for BA to compete. Now, with Mixed fleet, that cost will gradually, but significantly reduce year on year.
I used to be a member of cc89 because they were lead by clever, balanced people, who were much more business focussed. They understood the needs of the Company and were able to negociate deals that benefitted BOTH parties. Unfortunately in it's current Amicus guise and leadership, it is trying to out BASSA BASSA, so I had to leave.
I long for a time when there is a new cc89 (cc11?) to join.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking of the PCCC. Tiramisu hasn't posted for a while. I hope he/she is well, happy in life and hasn't been bullied. Same goes for Glamgirl whose posts I always enjoyed.
While on the subject of bullying, one of the cabin crew I flew with a while ago had a large letter S scratched into her car door in the crew car park while away on a trip last year. Interestingly the perpetrator was caught in the act and has been suspended.
Doubtless DH will say that suspending this brave person, who was merely expressing an opinion about a non-striking crew member, is an act of bullying by BA and grossly unfair?
While on the subject of bullying, one of the cabin crew I flew with a while ago had a large letter S scratched into her car door in the crew car park while away on a trip last year. Interestingly the perpetrator was caught in the act and has been suspended.
Doubtless DH will say that suspending this brave person, who was merely expressing an opinion about a non-striking crew member, is an act of bullying by BA and grossly unfair?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mildly Militant
In post 2542 you say BA should be comparing the T & Cs of it's crew to those of other flag carriers such as AF/LH/CO/UA. Fair point, apart from the following:
Their home base isn't London, one of the, if not the, most competetive markets for international air travel. To say that Easyjet, and the like, are not a fair comparison, misses a very important point.
Easyjet is only irrelevant if our customers don't see them as a competetor. Unfortunately, in Europe, where I operate as crew, they very much do. Many people may prefer to travel BA, but they will only do so if the difference in fare is relatively small. I am constantly shocked to see how little some of our customers have paid - fares you would have dreamed about paying 10, even 15 years ago.
The case is less clear cut on WW admittedly, but have you seen the TV ads for Emirates? - flights to Australia from SIX different cities across the UK. The same airline with orders for 90, yes 90 A380s.
I don't know where you get your information on AF, LH etc. Are you sure they still have T & Cs superior to ours?
I was on one German nightstop where a Lufthansa crew was at pick up and I asked them what they were doing that day. They were just about to start a 6 sector day!
Qantas have, I believe, had for some time their version of Mixed fleet and a variety of different contracts as well as their legacy crew.
A number of the US carriers pilots and, I think cabin crew took a pay cut when the recession hit.
I was a passenger on an Air France 2 years ago and I asked the SCCM if they'd had any changes to their T & Cs and she confirmed there had.
Sometimes we might WANT something to be so, because it allows us the luxury of staying as we are; that's what BASSA plays on, but it's only by being realistic about what the situation actually IS, that we can work to make sure our long term future is assured.
In post 2542 you say BA should be comparing the T & Cs of it's crew to those of other flag carriers such as AF/LH/CO/UA. Fair point, apart from the following:
Their home base isn't London, one of the, if not the, most competetive markets for international air travel. To say that Easyjet, and the like, are not a fair comparison, misses a very important point.
Easyjet is only irrelevant if our customers don't see them as a competetor. Unfortunately, in Europe, where I operate as crew, they very much do. Many people may prefer to travel BA, but they will only do so if the difference in fare is relatively small. I am constantly shocked to see how little some of our customers have paid - fares you would have dreamed about paying 10, even 15 years ago.
The case is less clear cut on WW admittedly, but have you seen the TV ads for Emirates? - flights to Australia from SIX different cities across the UK. The same airline with orders for 90, yes 90 A380s.
I don't know where you get your information on AF, LH etc. Are you sure they still have T & Cs superior to ours?
I was on one German nightstop where a Lufthansa crew was at pick up and I asked them what they were doing that day. They were just about to start a 6 sector day!
Qantas have, I believe, had for some time their version of Mixed fleet and a variety of different contracts as well as their legacy crew.
A number of the US carriers pilots and, I think cabin crew took a pay cut when the recession hit.
I was a passenger on an Air France 2 years ago and I asked the SCCM if they'd had any changes to their T & Cs and she confirmed there had.
Sometimes we might WANT something to be so, because it allows us the luxury of staying as we are; that's what BASSA plays on, but it's only by being realistic about what the situation actually IS, that we can work to make sure our long term future is assured.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AROUND AND ABOUT
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have printed off DH's latest missive, and will be showing it to those crew out there who did not or will not be striking in the future. IF they are still members of Bassa after reading that threat, then there is no hope for us ALL in the future. I feel that actually a lot of crew who didn't vote had actually received a ballot paper, despite leaving either Bassa or Amicus. I encourage others on here to print it off and do the same. There are a lot out there who do not read any of the forums or stuff from Bassa despite being members.
PS. Beagle9 - great post
PS. Beagle9 - great post
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tunbridge Wells
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From DH
Might want to add ".......despite having no job, no pension, not being able to afford the bus fare to meet my comrades at Bedfont"
I now turn to those magnificent 78.5%. You have made BASSA what it is; on
behalf of the reps I say it is an honour to continue to represent you in
this on-going struggle. One day when this is over, you will look at
yourself in the mirror and say "you know what, I am proud of myself, I
stood up to bullying, intimidation and treachery and I fought for what is
right. I fought for my colleagues, my family and for my dignity. I did the
right thing"
behalf of the reps I say it is an honour to continue to represent you in
this on-going struggle. One day when this is over, you will look at
yourself in the mirror and say "you know what, I am proud of myself, I
stood up to bullying, intimidation and treachery and I fought for what is
right. I fought for my colleagues, my family and for my dignity. I did the
right thing"
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave if you look at post 2475, on 21 Jan, you can see the exact figures without Bassa mis-spin.
Also BA quote that there are 13,500 cabin crew altogether if you include Mixed Fleet.
Also BA quote that there are 13,500 cabin crew altogether if you include Mixed Fleet.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Barking
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers, Betty. I was just looking at BASSA members.
If DH wants to kick out anyone who didn't vote yes, he's going to have to kick out 4469 people out of 10200. If that's the case, he can't claim 78% support.
No surprise there then.
If DH wants to kick out anyone who didn't vote yes, he's going to have to kick out 4469 people out of 10200. If that's the case, he can't claim 78% support.
No surprise there then.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have read on another forum a reproduction of a long post by a Bassa member on the Bassa Forum, saying how disappointed they are with Duncan Holey's latest post and how he is the problem. He voted NO to all the strikes and does not understand how Duncan Holey can post a post like he has in a democratic union and risk the union being derecognised
Wonder if it will be allowed to stay on the Bassa site or will the dictator remove it!!!!. It is very uncomplimentary to Duncan.
Wonder if it will be allowed to stay on the Bassa site or will the dictator remove it!!!!. It is very uncomplimentary to Duncan.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet WW can't believe his luck, he has just sat back and watched BASSA destroy itself. I can't even remember the last communication from our CEO regarding the dispute they have been few and far between throughout. All he has had to do is sit back and watch them implode!! How sad that it one man and his ego has brought it to this (I mean DH by the way).
The post was eloquently written and truly heartfelt and I would have to agree probably the view of the 'silent' majority within the union. Very brave to write it, but something must be done to stop this lunacy.
I have been in work all over this weekend and the feeling I am getting is that people really can't grasp how only 5700 members are still up for the fight when they have lost ST, pay etc. Maybe some are suddenly realising that BA was telling the truth all along that only 5,000 went on strike and this figure reflects that with some additional support? The thing is most of us knew that 7000 never went out on strike only DH felt the need to embellish the figures to hold onto support.
Now these 1500 or so no voters and the 2000 or so abstainers have had the call to 'foxtrot oscar' from their dear leader, will they follow through with it?
The post was eloquently written and truly heartfelt and I would have to agree probably the view of the 'silent' majority within the union. Very brave to write it, but something must be done to stop this lunacy.
I have been in work all over this weekend and the feeling I am getting is that people really can't grasp how only 5700 members are still up for the fight when they have lost ST, pay etc. Maybe some are suddenly realising that BA was telling the truth all along that only 5,000 went on strike and this figure reflects that with some additional support? The thing is most of us knew that 7000 never went out on strike only DH felt the need to embellish the figures to hold onto support.
Now these 1500 or so no voters and the 2000 or so abstainers have had the call to 'foxtrot oscar' from their dear leader, will they follow through with it?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: france
Age: 62
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go. Someone with the sense to stop this freight train before it falls over the cliff;
And then the usual from Dear Leader;
Nice touch that Dunc, sending a shout out to all single mothers. What next cancer sufferers and the disabled? And this is the leader of this dispute. Got to feel sorry for BA management really.
Originally Posted by Wallie Wilsh
I believe Mr Holley is part of our problem. I have no doubt that he was a good representative of cabin crew, when he was cabin crew. But he is now playing politics and playing fast and loose with my/our future.
I equally believe that Mt Walsh is a manipulative and dangerous man, who is hell bent on destroying bassa as the main collective bargaining group for cabin crew.
And here is the nub, Mr Holley, in his rage, is doing the same thing. BA state that there are c13500 cabin crew employed by the company. Bassa state that 5751 cabin crew voted for industrial action, and Mr Holley states that those 5751 cabin crew are the only ones he wants in 'his' union. Bear in mind that collective representation is only a legal requirement when an employee group’s representation reaches 40% of employees; Mr Holley’s ideal is to have a collective mandate reduced to a mere 43%. And also bear in mind that only a non-unionised new fleet is growing. The so called ’legacy’ fleet is in decline from now on.
Instead of berating and disowning the 1579 cabin crew who voted no, or the 2885 who did not vote at all, Mr Holley and the leadership of bassa should be looking to re-engage those crew. Despite the pro strike vote, the actual event will be less supported that it should. Within the 5751 votes are an amount of empty promises. BA know that. It was evident during the last strikes, and if it wasn’t it would not be talked about by bassa. There is a very strong vocal contingent who are very pro strike, but I would hazard a guess that there is an even greater majority of crew who are not so militant. I would hazard a guess that a majority of crew do not support Mr Walsh and his imposed reforms but neither do they support the concept of striking.
I’m one of those majority. I believe we must fight for our cause but I have so far voted no in all ballots. Striking does not achieve results other than a worsening of the situation. Striking has its use, but it is a final nuclear option. Bassa pushed the red button far too early, and the company survived and importantly won the support of both the press and the public. Compare our plight to that of Aer Lingus cabin crew. I live in Ireland, their press are at the least understanding, their pilots association, Ialpa, has donated 100,000 euros towards a hardship fund.
Here is a fact we should all understand, you cannot fight fire with fire. Mr Walsh is a poacher turned gamekeeper, he knows the rules, he knows the game. And he knows how to light the flame of rage amongst our union leadership and then sit back and watch the implosion, the unmeasured response. In the same manor that he has created rival camps within BA, he has engineered rival camps within bassa. Mr Holley keeps taking the bait. We have not collectively acted with intelligence, we have been lead with sound bites, and those of a differing view have been silenced or ridiculed, even by Mr Holley himself. Just what Mr Walsh wanted and needed.
Percentage support is one thing, real support is another. Mr Holley’s latest missive may be the last straw for me. I’ll take my time to decide. If he wants to play politics I suggest he goes away and plays them, if he wants to build a sturdy opposition to Mr Walsh I suggest he stops playing to the vocal minority and starts reconsidering how to play this battle and how to re-engage an ever depleting membership. My initial view is that I will stay with bassa, because bassa is bigger than Mr Holley et al and will, hopefully, still be around when Mr Holley et al have moved onto other things. To ensure that though I suggest a change of tone at the very least.
Another change I would suggest is that we stop allowing decisions to be made by a vocal minority who attend union meetings in place of those who cannot or fear going along. The no negotiation vote registered by a show of hands has no served us well, indeed it has played directly against us and is often thrown back at us without a challenge. But this is a matter for another day.
I equally believe that Mt Walsh is a manipulative and dangerous man, who is hell bent on destroying bassa as the main collective bargaining group for cabin crew.
And here is the nub, Mr Holley, in his rage, is doing the same thing. BA state that there are c13500 cabin crew employed by the company. Bassa state that 5751 cabin crew voted for industrial action, and Mr Holley states that those 5751 cabin crew are the only ones he wants in 'his' union. Bear in mind that collective representation is only a legal requirement when an employee group’s representation reaches 40% of employees; Mr Holley’s ideal is to have a collective mandate reduced to a mere 43%. And also bear in mind that only a non-unionised new fleet is growing. The so called ’legacy’ fleet is in decline from now on.
Instead of berating and disowning the 1579 cabin crew who voted no, or the 2885 who did not vote at all, Mr Holley and the leadership of bassa should be looking to re-engage those crew. Despite the pro strike vote, the actual event will be less supported that it should. Within the 5751 votes are an amount of empty promises. BA know that. It was evident during the last strikes, and if it wasn’t it would not be talked about by bassa. There is a very strong vocal contingent who are very pro strike, but I would hazard a guess that there is an even greater majority of crew who are not so militant. I would hazard a guess that a majority of crew do not support Mr Walsh and his imposed reforms but neither do they support the concept of striking.
I’m one of those majority. I believe we must fight for our cause but I have so far voted no in all ballots. Striking does not achieve results other than a worsening of the situation. Striking has its use, but it is a final nuclear option. Bassa pushed the red button far too early, and the company survived and importantly won the support of both the press and the public. Compare our plight to that of Aer Lingus cabin crew. I live in Ireland, their press are at the least understanding, their pilots association, Ialpa, has donated 100,000 euros towards a hardship fund.
Here is a fact we should all understand, you cannot fight fire with fire. Mr Walsh is a poacher turned gamekeeper, he knows the rules, he knows the game. And he knows how to light the flame of rage amongst our union leadership and then sit back and watch the implosion, the unmeasured response. In the same manor that he has created rival camps within BA, he has engineered rival camps within bassa. Mr Holley keeps taking the bait. We have not collectively acted with intelligence, we have been lead with sound bites, and those of a differing view have been silenced or ridiculed, even by Mr Holley himself. Just what Mr Walsh wanted and needed.
Percentage support is one thing, real support is another. Mr Holley’s latest missive may be the last straw for me. I’ll take my time to decide. If he wants to play politics I suggest he goes away and plays them, if he wants to build a sturdy opposition to Mr Walsh I suggest he stops playing to the vocal minority and starts reconsidering how to play this battle and how to re-engage an ever depleting membership. My initial view is that I will stay with bassa, because bassa is bigger than Mr Holley et al and will, hopefully, still be around when Mr Holley et al have moved onto other things. To ensure that though I suggest a change of tone at the very least.
Another change I would suggest is that we stop allowing decisions to be made by a vocal minority who attend union meetings in place of those who cannot or fear going along. The no negotiation vote registered by a show of hands has no served us well, indeed it has played directly against us and is often thrown back at us without a challenge. But this is a matter for another day.
I regret that 5751 cabin crew will not stike should it come to it.
I also regret that I have made it to prune, (not an ambition), but I guess it shows how words and soundbites can be used against you.
I am annoyed with my bassa leadership. I believe that they have acted in good faith but we are getting no where at present, apart from increasing bitterness towards each other. And Mr Holley's latest missive merely furthers the divide. Divide and conquer - Walsh's strategy which we all understand anmd cannot abide. Yet here is our branch secretary doing exactly the same, inadvertently (I suggest) doing Walsh's dirty work.
May I ask what the unprededented attack against us actually is? I suggest that it is now about the casualties of a strike against what possible could have happened to us, which is why I voted against strike 1. This possible strike has much more legitimacy but should never have been necessary. What will it achieve, the restoration of staff travel a year earlier than Walsh proposes, the ceasing of mixed fleet.
I'm not against striking per se but I believe we haven't reached the point whereby it is the only remaining option. The issues must be lifechanging. You may argue that what may happen is without doubt lifechanging, but the key word is may. Legally we cannot strike about what may happen and a secure future is more important to me than the return of staff travel which I probably couldn't afford now anyway.
So, why do anything. BA is back in profit, Walsh has committed to a new renumeration package worth £4m, there is talk of bonuses to be paid to all staff and IFCE has made the required £127m savings. To say the least.
However, with such a backdrop of positive news what will Walsh/Williams do next. I suggest we wait and see, rather than take an aggresive stance towards the company. As matters stand the justification to impose a change of contract is rapidly disappearing. We are no longer in a fight for survival, we are looking to purchase 12 additional carriers.
I also regret that I have made it to prune, (not an ambition), but I guess it shows how words and soundbites can be used against you.
I am annoyed with my bassa leadership. I believe that they have acted in good faith but we are getting no where at present, apart from increasing bitterness towards each other. And Mr Holley's latest missive merely furthers the divide. Divide and conquer - Walsh's strategy which we all understand anmd cannot abide. Yet here is our branch secretary doing exactly the same, inadvertently (I suggest) doing Walsh's dirty work.
May I ask what the unprededented attack against us actually is? I suggest that it is now about the casualties of a strike against what possible could have happened to us, which is why I voted against strike 1. This possible strike has much more legitimacy but should never have been necessary. What will it achieve, the restoration of staff travel a year earlier than Walsh proposes, the ceasing of mixed fleet.
I'm not against striking per se but I believe we haven't reached the point whereby it is the only remaining option. The issues must be lifechanging. You may argue that what may happen is without doubt lifechanging, but the key word is may. Legally we cannot strike about what may happen and a secure future is more important to me than the return of staff travel which I probably couldn't afford now anyway.
So, why do anything. BA is back in profit, Walsh has committed to a new renumeration package worth £4m, there is talk of bonuses to be paid to all staff and IFCE has made the required £127m savings. To say the least.
However, with such a backdrop of positive news what will Walsh/Williams do next. I suggest we wait and see, rather than take an aggresive stance towards the company. As matters stand the justification to impose a change of contract is rapidly disappearing. We are no longer in a fight for survival, we are looking to purchase 12 additional carriers.
Moscow Man
Your post is very relevant and I am glad you made it.
With the greatest of respectI believe you to be in a massive minority.
i.e. you are someone who voted no, but who is prepared to follow the majority vote. I genuinely salute you I really do, that takes balls. My message is certainly not aimed at you and I sincerely wish - even though I don't agree with the way you voted - that you remain within BASSA, and the debate continues.
If there are others like you then my message could be deemed inappropriate and I would apologise, but unfortunately I do think sadly you are very much on your own. However I will apologise to you unreservedly.
I am sorry - my message was not aimed at people like you, in fact I just wish there were more like you among the No voters.
And Wallie Wilsh - I would have far more respect for you if you had the strike record of MM. He deserves respect, you my friend are just stirring the pot. My message was very much aimed at you. I would wager you haven't spent more than a nano second wondering whether to support your union or your colleagues.
Finally Benny Hill - to accuse me of splitting the union is very hurtful. There is a time for tough talking. That time has now arrived. I don't give a flying fig about getting sacked but when i see the likes of an innocent rep like NXXXX MXXXXX, single Mum and all that, getting dismissed for representing crew then sorry, I see no point in holding back. Sorry my gloves are off.
Your post is very relevant and I am glad you made it.
With the greatest of respectI believe you to be in a massive minority.
i.e. you are someone who voted no, but who is prepared to follow the majority vote. I genuinely salute you I really do, that takes balls. My message is certainly not aimed at you and I sincerely wish - even though I don't agree with the way you voted - that you remain within BASSA, and the debate continues.
If there are others like you then my message could be deemed inappropriate and I would apologise, but unfortunately I do think sadly you are very much on your own. However I will apologise to you unreservedly.
I am sorry - my message was not aimed at people like you, in fact I just wish there were more like you among the No voters.
And Wallie Wilsh - I would have far more respect for you if you had the strike record of MM. He deserves respect, you my friend are just stirring the pot. My message was very much aimed at you. I would wager you haven't spent more than a nano second wondering whether to support your union or your colleagues.
Finally Benny Hill - to accuse me of splitting the union is very hurtful. There is a time for tough talking. That time has now arrived. I don't give a flying fig about getting sacked but when i see the likes of an innocent rep like NXXXX MXXXXX, single Mum and all that, getting dismissed for representing crew then sorry, I see no point in holding back. Sorry my gloves are off.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Swindon
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but when i see the likes of an innocent rep like NXXXX MXXXXX, single Mum and all that
Single Mum "and all that".
Disgrace. Still easy from your comfortable position of BA and BASSA funds.
I sense desperation with that pathetic ballot result.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, from what I have read, the NXXX MXXX dismissal hardly covers BA in glory. DH may or may not be of liking to PPrune, however that representative has lost her career.
Possibly poor words by DH, but they are an unvetted personal opinion, rather than a proof read legal statement.
Possibly poor words by DH, but they are an unvetted personal opinion, rather than a proof read legal statement.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: france
Age: 62
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs tell us more
So what have you heard Litebulbs cos I can GUARANTEE you it will be far from the truth?
Just like "merely expressing an opinion" & "just fulfilling union duties" & "representing members" & "just having a coffee at the Arora" & "mistaken identity" & "retaliated after anti seimetic remarks" etc etc etc
People don't get ejected from a big company like BA for nothing. As tribunals will very soon demonstrate I'm sure. I hear very few of those sacked have gained legal support from Unite so they must have less than 50% chance of winning at tribunal in Unite's opinion. That includes dismissed BASSA reps. What does that tell you?
The PR/spin department at BASSA would make Goebbels proud.
Just like "merely expressing an opinion" & "just fulfilling union duties" & "representing members" & "just having a coffee at the Arora" & "mistaken identity" & "retaliated after anti seimetic remarks" etc etc etc
People don't get ejected from a big company like BA for nothing. As tribunals will very soon demonstrate I'm sure. I hear very few of those sacked have gained legal support from Unite so they must have less than 50% chance of winning at tribunal in Unite's opinion. That includes dismissed BASSA reps. What does that tell you?
The PR/spin department at BASSA would make Goebbels proud.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSAwitch
As I said, it was what I have read. I am only too willing to be educated in opinion.
I hold no faith in tribunals in ever turning over a correctly reasoned dismissal by an employer, outside of protected rights. One of the many failings of employment law designed in the 90's and not massively changed since.
But I would say that.
I hold no faith in tribunals in ever turning over a correctly reasoned dismissal by an employer, outside of protected rights. One of the many failings of employment law designed in the 90's and not massively changed since.
But I would say that.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: france
Age: 62
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey? Why would a tribunal overturn a correctly reasoned dismissal by an employer? What BASSA and most of their followers fail to realise is that employers do not have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt just guilt based on the balance of probabilities. So if you were, by way of example, standing outside the crew car park on a strike day with a telephoto lens and a notepad and had been seen by several arriving crew members and managers taking pictures of crew would it be unreasonable to deduce that you were up to no good?
I'm not suggesting the above actually happened but you are not talking DNA evidence and a jury trial here. A manager must decide given the balance of probability what you were doing and whether that was in keeping with company rules.
My understanding is (thanks to Google!) a tribunal will only consider whether the company followed their own processes in dismissing you, not whether you are/were actually guilty or whether the punishment fits the crime. Is that what you understand ET consider?
I'm not suggesting the above actually happened but you are not talking DNA evidence and a jury trial here. A manager must decide given the balance of probability what you were doing and whether that was in keeping with company rules.
My understanding is (thanks to Google!) a tribunal will only consider whether the company followed their own processes in dismissing you, not whether you are/were actually guilty or whether the punishment fits the crime. Is that what you understand ET consider?