BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Staff travel and a legal right to industrial action are not the same thing. The fact that the company chose to take staff travel away from strikers is entirely within the company's remit, as has clearly been explained here dozens of times. I hope the staff travel situation remains as it is - the strikers should not get the seniority back. 
It's not a case of black-mailing anyone. The right to strike is still there. Remember that staff travel is refered to as either a perk or a privilege - defined as an employee benefit. Why should anyone receive benefits for causing the company harm? (whatever the situation).
It is also defined as an incentive, this is given if you do something. That something could be "do not damage your company by striking". You have therefore not achieved the conditions required for the incentive, therefore you don't receive it.
It is not contractual so the removal of it is in no-way black-mail.
It is also defined as an incentive, this is given if you do something. That something could be "do not damage your company by striking". You have therefore not achieved the conditions required for the incentive, therefore you don't receive it.
It is not contractual so the removal of it is in no-way black-mail.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Storminorman and upperdeckpsr, I agree. It's historic with BA that staff travel has been reinstated when a period of time has passed after industrial action. I didn't go on strike, but I don't see any point in the endless punishment of half a group of employees. The commuters are finding it very difficult to get in to work, and there's no point in saying, "But they knew what would happen!" They did know, and it happened. But our cabin crew community needs to get back to normal, and and it never will while half of us are treated differently. There will be a permanent rift that's underlined everytime someone sees staff J42, or similar, on the passenger list. Everyone in the bar last night said they were just sick of this, and half of us were strikers and half not. The strikers know now that, in the main part, the union totally messed up. We have to move on from here.
The other problem, of course, is what do they do about Duncan Holley and Lizanne Malone? No one wants this situation arising again because of reps who can't negotiate properly. Does DH even have to be re-voted in anymore, or is he a permanent boil on BASSA's backside now? I don't want to remain de-unionised, but I'll never rejoin while he's holding the reigns. I'm not sure about the effectiveness of CC89 and no disrespect, but crew council are totally untested and inexperienced in industrial negotiation.
The other problem, of course, is what do they do about Duncan Holley and Lizanne Malone? No one wants this situation arising again because of reps who can't negotiate properly. Does DH even have to be re-voted in anymore, or is he a permanent boil on BASSA's backside now? I don't want to remain de-unionised, but I'll never rejoin while he's holding the reigns. I'm not sure about the effectiveness of CC89 and no disrespect, but crew council are totally untested and inexperienced in industrial negotiation.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not contractual so the removal of it is in no-way black-mail.
In effect then BA are saying that if you disagree with us and enter into a dispute, we will punish you (even though the dispute is lawful) - if you comply with us and do whatever we say we will not punish you.
Hey that works in this modern age doesn't it?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ST is a PERK....
As the title says, it's a perk (and as such can be withdrawn at liberty if the situation warrants it, eg being sick) - if it were contractual then BASSA would have had it back in the famous "5 minutes"....
If a retailer were to remove an employees discount due to industrial action that damaged the shop, would that be wrong?
BA grant ST as a privaledge, perk - call it what yhou like. They warned on numerous occassions that it would be removed if you took part in IA that damaged the company - YOU WERE WARNED..... I would think twice about striking (and, yes, I do work for BA) if the threat of ST removal was on the table.
I think the whole issue of ST has been blown up by BASSA, they recklessly claimed that WW wouldn't do it, or if he did then it would be returned in a jiffy. Since we are now 6 months down the road with ST still being witheld the BASSA leadership are trying to heap the blame on WW, the High Court or anyone else who they think they can in order to deflect the blame away from themselves.
There are lots of folks on here who feel that ST should be returned either in its original form or the new zero seniority version. I personally think that it should be withdrawn permanently -warnings were given. We are all aware that actions have consequences, why should this situation be treated any differently?
If a retailer were to remove an employees discount due to industrial action that damaged the shop, would that be wrong?
BA grant ST as a privaledge, perk - call it what yhou like. They warned on numerous occassions that it would be removed if you took part in IA that damaged the company - YOU WERE WARNED..... I would think twice about striking (and, yes, I do work for BA) if the threat of ST removal was on the table.
I think the whole issue of ST has been blown up by BASSA, they recklessly claimed that WW wouldn't do it, or if he did then it would be returned in a jiffy. Since we are now 6 months down the road with ST still being witheld the BASSA leadership are trying to heap the blame on WW, the High Court or anyone else who they think they can in order to deflect the blame away from themselves.
There are lots of folks on here who feel that ST should be returned either in its original form or the new zero seniority version. I personally think that it should be withdrawn permanently -warnings were given. We are all aware that actions have consequences, why should this situation be treated any differently?
upperdecker
BA are not blackmailing anyone over ST. Strikers chose to loose it by accepting the BA statement that 'striking would loose it.'
ST is a 'perk' and if you damage your company to the tune of many millions of pounds, you deserve a sanction.
ST is a 'perk' and if you damage your company to the tune of many millions of pounds, you deserve a sanction.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally disagree that those who chose to strike should lose their Staff Travel either permanently or in any way with less seniority - why should people be punished for taking part in a lawful dispute, in part brought on by BA?
Lets be totally up front here - this has been a calculated dispute on the part of British Airways and has been months if not years in the planning.
When the latest round of CM's where recruited - they where told that there would be a bitter dispute coming up and that they had be "strong" enough to take on the role.
BA have helped to manufacture this dispute - £150m in costs is a drop in the ocean when you consider what they make by pushing through MF - we all know that.
Lets be totally up front here - this has been a calculated dispute on the part of British Airways and has been months if not years in the planning.
When the latest round of CM's where recruited - they where told that there would be a bitter dispute coming up and that they had be "strong" enough to take on the role.
BA have helped to manufacture this dispute - £150m in costs is a drop in the ocean when you consider what they make by pushing through MF - we all know that.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: N51°20. W000°35
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally disagree that those who chose to strike should lose their Staff Travel either permanently or in any way with less seniority - why should people be punished for taking part in a lawful dispute, in part brought on by BA?
Lets be totally up front here - this has been a calculated dispute on the part of British Airways and has been months if not years in the planning.
When the latest round of CM's where recruited - they where told that there would be a bitter dispute coming up and that they had be "strong" enough to take on the role.
BA have helped to manufacture this dispute - £150m in costs is a drop in the ocean when you consider what they make by pushing through MF - we all know that.
Lets be totally up front here - this has been a calculated dispute on the part of British Airways and has been months if not years in the planning.
When the latest round of CM's where recruited - they where told that there would be a bitter dispute coming up and that they had be "strong" enough to take on the role.
BA have helped to manufacture this dispute - £150m in costs is a drop in the ocean when you consider what they make by pushing through MF - we all know that.
Nothing to do with the intransigence of BASSA, and maybe, just maybe a CEO who for once, decides to stand up to them in an economic downturn, with the backing of the MAJORITY of staff to keep us solvent???? The staff, who too have 'had enough', more so after accepting many changes prior to the downtown to their working practises!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have an issue that you really feel strongly about, the loss of staff travel is going to be the least of your worries and is therefore not a deterrent. It is however, a deterrent to anyone going on strike over something stupid such as was the case here. Practically everyone I have spoken to says that they went on strike because BA imposed. Well I am sorry, but if you refuse to negotiate, that is what is going to happen! What else could any business do? The other option was SOSR and 90 days notice. Would you really have preferred that?
If the removal of staff travel was hindering your freedom to strike, you will get it back through the courts. So you don't have anything to worry about do you?
I stand by what I said, and I hope Mr. Walsh does too.
If the removal of staff travel was hindering your freedom to strike, you will get it back through the courts. So you don't have anything to worry about do you?
I stand by what I said, and I hope Mr. Walsh does too.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps 33, negotiation is exactly that. To reach a resolution, which one way or another, will come soon, both parties will re-negotiate their position to a certain degree. The successful settlement of any industrial dispute doens't take personal feelings into account. I'm sure WW isn't thinking "I'll get those bastards!" He wants a solution too, but in the age old tradition of having won more than he's lost. He's a businessman, and if he achieves what he wants in the main part, he'll give back staff travel with bells on if he chooses. Or maybe he'll choose not to. We'll have to wait and see. One thing's for sure - he won't be taking the personal opinions of you and me into account. He'll do what he believes is in his and the company's long term best interest. I'm not sure if nurturing bad feeling in large groups of permanently disgruntled employees will be high on his agenda. 6 months has been a prolonged punishment financially and mentally. It could well be over a year until it's returned if it is returned.
Last edited by Bridchen; 13th Oct 2010 at 16:53. Reason: spelling and wording
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the latest from the BASSA front page (public domain). Looks like BASSA members may not even get a chance to vote on the proposal with the militant leadership reserving the right to go straight to a strike ballot. Who said it looked like the leadership wanted a strike?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: LHR
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "clue" is in the name
Upperdeckpsr....
A casualty of the cost-savings in 2008?
Your view of staff travel and it's removal is quite definately the work of the BASSA propaganda machine.....
Allow me another analogy...if my 4 year old is naughty we threaten the use of the naughty step... If she continues in the same manner then she is sent to the naughty step (we chose to carry through with the threatened punishment).
Can you see any similarities?
As was previously said, until now the BA CEO (there have been a few) have never actually gone through with taking on the union, they've always caved in. this time it's different.
A casualty of the cost-savings in 2008?
Your view of staff travel and it's removal is quite definately the work of the BASSA propaganda machine.....
Allow me another analogy...if my 4 year old is naughty we threaten the use of the naughty step... If she continues in the same manner then she is sent to the naughty step (we chose to carry through with the threatened punishment).
Can you see any similarities?
As was previously said, until now the BA CEO (there have been a few) have never actually gone through with taking on the union, they've always caved in. this time it's different.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you'd go in to any negotiation with the attitude that you're dealing with a 4 year old and will threaten it with the naughty step? I have a 6 yr old, and the naughty step had its place and and time. I won't be using it on my friends and family, and certainly not when dealing with non-compliant strangers.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, and don't get me started on that BASSA statement. That attitude is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. When I was paying my subs, it was my right to know what was going on. Easter was a farce and got them precisely nowhere. Will they ever learn? This has DH and LM written all over it.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incredulous!
Nothing to do with the intransigence of BASSA, and maybe, just maybe a CEO who for once, decides to stand up to them in an economic downturn, with the backing of the MAJORITY of staff to keep us solvent???? The staff, who too have 'had enough', more so after accepting many changes prior to the downtown to their working practises!
Nothing to do with the intransigence of BASSA, and maybe, just maybe a CEO who for once, decides to stand up to them in an economic downturn, with the backing of the MAJORITY of staff to keep us solvent???? The staff, who too have 'had enough', more so after accepting many changes prior to the downtown to their working practises!
That somebody actually genuinely believed that BA was actually in a "fight for survival" - pure smoke and mirrors
Upperdeckpsr....
A casualty of the cost-savings in 2008?
A casualty of the cost-savings in 2008?
Allow me another analogy...if my 4 year old is naughty we threaten the use of the naughty step... If she continues in the same manner then she is sent to the naughty step (we chose to carry through with the threatened punishment).
Can you see any similarities?
Can you see any similarities?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: N51°20. W000°35
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incredulous!
That somebody actually genuinely believed that BA was actually in a "fight for survival" - pure smoke and mirrors
That somebody actually genuinely believed that BA was actually in a "fight for survival" - pure smoke and mirrors
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
TW had to take the initative to meet with ACAS and our management. So much for WW wanting to reach a settlement.
TW had to take the initative to meet with ACAS and our management. So much for WW wanting to reach a settlement.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: oxford
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
misscanada
Miss M
"I went on strike because of imposition". You have never answered the question, what else was management meant to do with a union leadership which refused to negotiate, indeed, made it their mantra?
Incidentally, have you ever met DH, or more importantly heard his views on how he viewed industrial relations with BA management?
PS. Please, whilst addressed to Miss M I'd be delighted to hear any other views.
"I went on strike because of imposition". You have never answered the question, what else was management meant to do with a union leadership which refused to negotiate, indeed, made it their mantra?
Incidentally, have you ever met DH, or more importantly heard his views on how he viewed industrial relations with BA management?
PS. Please, whilst addressed to Miss M I'd be delighted to hear any other views.