BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

[vctenderness]

Originally Posted by Litebulbs

As somebody from the Amicus side, I would like for that to be completely true, but as the sections name suggests, they could have only started to influence BA from 1989.

Errr...No! The original founders of CC89 were the Longhaul BASSA reps who had been responsible for many good agreements before the breakaway in 1989.

[Betty girl]

Vctenderness,

You are completely right. CC89 and the reps that started CC89, who were longhaul Bassa reps before, are the ones that negotiated everything.

Sad thing is that most of them are now retired.

[JUAN TRIPP]

VCtenderness and Bettygirl. I can confirm what you have said is true.

Here is the latest from Bassa

You can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time.





Yesterday, the possibility of further industrial a_ction came a step closer
as Unite announced an intention to shortly ballot cabin crew.
The controversial last offer is now a thing of the past, its time has been
and gone. A fresh perspective is needed. However, a solution still needs
to be found and one that will be acceptable to you, and one that we feel
positive in recommending and that you will feel positive in accepting.
This will be Lenny McCluskey's first challenge and one that we intend to
fully support him in achieving a successful conclusion.

We understand how easy it is to become disillusioned with things; our
struggle has been going on for a long time - a year to be exact - we are
all human after all and your reps are only human too. It does require
patience, strength, determination, but above all "sticking together".
This can sometimes be easier said than done!
It is only natural that there are a wide range of opinions on what should
have happened and when, or what should be done next.
When we were considering putting the last offer to you for ballot and
asking for your input, we received emails from members threatening to resign "if we dared to send out such an insulting offer" yet also from members who "couldn't believe that we would dare to NOT ask their opinion in a ballot" - in other words we were damned if we did and damned if we didn't!
However, that is now in the past, the challenge now is in what lies ahead.
There is still a willingness from this union to resolve matters but this
will not be on our knees. The time available must now be spent in agreeing an offer that could prevent further disruption to British Airways staff and customers; they must spend the time doing exactly that, not preparing for a strike. Any future offer must also be one that a trade union can, in good faith, put forward with our whole-hearted recommendation. If it isn't then the outcome will be strike action.

Everybody is an expert and everybody would do this or that differently; in the end we must keep it simple and do what we feel is the right thing to do. It is also only right to give you the opportunity to make up your own mind on whether you wish to take industrial action.
The bottom line is what this means for you; we now have a culture of
rampant fear within IFCE, people are genuinely frightened when they come to work, scared if they say the wrong thing they will be suspended. All pretence of management honouring our agreements is gone, mixed fleet is already here; it's sink or swim time now for the remaining years of your career. We urge, not for the first time, British Airways leadership team to come to their senses and to also do the right thing. Recognise that bullying and intimidation do not work; we are a strong and determined community and we will never give up this fight until we have won our respect back, no matter how long it takes.

Existing cabin crew are in a "fight for our own survival" we have no
alternative but to carry on with this fight until our future is secure,
otherwise we simply do not have one.
This is not a time for ill thought out sensationalism or opportunist
"politicking", but for clear heads and clearer thought. What is important is what can be achieved, what it will mean, and to not lose sight of what is still important; this is NOT just about staff travel, it is ALL about safeguarding your future - it's where it began and it will end when, and only when this has been achieved.

We need to be concise and clear. The areas of concern that must be
addressed in any future offer are listed below and MUST be the foundationfor any future settlement.

1. Pay offers are normally across the whole company; we want
confirmation that the increase for cabin crew will not be LESS than in any other area - so far this has been refused.


2. Mixed fleet is here, it will grow, routes will transfer into it -
this is your working life-blood. NO routes = NO work. There has to be an agreement on how this would happen. British Airways want to move routes to mixed fleet purely based on their "commercial needs". No consideration of the type of work being moved or its impact on current crew (length of trips, type of trips, days off, earnings) would be factored into this.


These things must be taken into consideration; so far this has been
refused.


3. Top up payment - we asked all along this to be classed as "lifetime" and/or "contractual", again thus far this has been refused.


4. Proposed changes to the employment policy must not simply be to allow British Airways to introduce changes that will be worse for you and make it easier for people to be sacked, a harsher sickness policy, a reduction to only one appeal (currently two) if subject to a disciplinary.


These will only be the tip of the iceberg; there is also a whole raft of
other proposed changes that could adversely affect you. No trade union should accept this.


5. Redeployment agreement - British Airways is trying to remove this cornerstone of security; if your area is closed or has no work, your historic pay protections and right to redeploy on protected conditions must be maintained.


6. This dispute has led to many injustices, if these are allowed to
remain, BritishAirways - and indeed any other UK employer that followed their example -could set a dangerous precedent, allowing employers the right to punishpeople for taking lawful industrial action. To concede that staff travel may be removed at any time that management wish or that it is acceptable to lose basis pay for days when people were sick during industrial action and even for days when no industrial action even occurred is plainly wrong. These go against all the principles of trade unionism, let alone basic human rights.


7. This dispute started because long-standing agreements were broken. We need assurances that this would not carry on into the future.
Agreements need to be worth the paper they are written on, otherwise what "agreement" would be next? Without trust and respect you have nothing, and at the moment cabin crew has neither.


8. We all want a better way of working together, but the planned
changes to the facilities agreement - the very foundation of how your union represents you - must not be a thinly disguised mechanism for management to dismantle every right that your union has, a charter for management to do what they want, when they want. Our offices have been closed down and our reps refused access to meetings for nearly a year: it's time this wrong was put right.


9. ACAS involvement in dispute related cases is positive but there are no guarantees as to the outcome. Good people have been sacked for trivia; this is not right, these are our friends and colleagues, they deserve better. We will not leave them behind, as you wouldn't wish to be if it was you. Honour is priceless but fragile.


10. Last but by no means least - we must bring about a "true peace". Any "deal" must not simply be a means to dismantle and disarm cabin crew resistance, resulting in everybody being fair game to the bullying and fear that pervades too many flights; where people can no longer speak their mind, laugh or joke, let alone be the diverse and colourful community that we once were, so somehow we need to find a lasting and sincere ceasefire, or our fight will go on...

At the end of the day, we are a trade union and we make no apologies forthat; we are not a branch of management and never will be, nor are we trying to portray ourselves to be what we are not. We are here to try andmake your life better, not worse; we have been clear with our message ofwhat will bring peace to the cabin crew community, it's time for British Airways leadership to do the same.


What planet are they on - not this one for sure. Still think THEY are in charge.

As an aside, my wife received a letter from Unite today to ask if her address and other details were correct for the upcoming ballot. She left Unite 6 months ago I'm sure I'll get mine on monday.


Also a friend of mine did SEP recently and when the CS trainer went through the uniform regs with the crew, the toys were thrown out of the pram by a number of crew. My friend said it was all done in an unassuming and professional way, yet these crew thought it was ALL pathetic


What I find very interesting in all of this is how lots of crew love to play the 'victim' card. I flew with a lovely young girl a couple of years ago who had worked for a LoCo for a time. She couldn't believe this culture in BA where some crew tried their utmost to get out of anything that THEY perceived as hard work or something that was unjust in THEIR eyes. She said they would last no more than a week at Ryanair or EasyJet. When I asked her why she thought this was, she replied that in BA there was NO FEAR. No fear of a manager, SCCM, scheduling etc. She made it VERY clear that she didn't mean 'managing' by fear like eg. a lot of charter and Middle East airlines do. She just said these people felt they could do anything on their agenda as if any problems arose, then Bassa would sort it. She was so right.

With the bad weather this week, it reminds us all of the watershed moment when a couple of years ago Bassa demanded that all the crew who had diverted on longhaul have their 48hrs off, throwing everything into chaos. Now i fully realise that this was the 'negotiated' agreement from MANY years ago. The simple fact was that NOW neither BA nor the crew wanted it, yet Bassa INSISTED that it remain in place. It would no doubt have remained so to this day any beyond if things hadn't changed. So, thanks Bassa for ruining it for ALL of us. If only they had got real, who knows where we could be now

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by vctenderness

Errr...No! The original founders of CC89 were the Longhaul BASSA reps who had been responsible for many good agreements before the breakaway in 1989.

OK, so it wasn't true, it was Bassa then.

[JUAN TRIPP]

Litebulbs - whether it was Bassa in name, who cares? The less militant Bassa reps as we know moved on to form CC89. All I know, is if CC89 in their old guise had been 'negotiating' all of this present stuff, I know 100% it will have been sorted out months ago, and NOT to the detriment of us 'legacy' crew

[Beagle9]

Litebulbs

The reason that the pay and conditions for crew like me of 30 years seniority are what they are, is that in the era they were negociated, they were MARKET RATE. There were no low cost operators to speak of, just traditional, national carriers, many government owned. BASSA at the time weren't asking for the world, so they negociating these deals were relatively easy.

The first major change to pay for new crew back in 1997, was due to this starting to change, with players like Virgin lowering the "market rate" for UK crew. (BASSA opposed these changes, CC89 negociated a deal that was accepted by their membership and the wolves were kept from the door for a few years)

Now, with shorthaul low cost operators, pushing fares in Europe down to levels of 10 years ago and carriers like Emirates, Singapore, Etiad etc doing the same to longhaul, the "market rate" makes the deal for even for post 1997 crews look too generous to continue.

The choice legacy airlines like BA face now is (as in 1997, but with a need to be more radical), do we reduce the pay and contitions to existing crew to nearer market rate, or do we employ all new crew at substancially closer to market rates. BA (as has, I believe Qantas ) chosen the latter, maybe because they thought it fairer, but also probably more likely, easier, both legally and industrially (!!!)

That BASSA has spun this whole thing out of all proportion, is not so much down to percieving a threat to is members, but a threat to it's future membership levels and income.

I note from BASSA's misive above that they are still spinning the old "you'll be sat at home with no work because all the work will be transfered to MF" mantra. When will people see that that is absurd from a financial perspective for the company. Maybe that's the intelligence BASSA/Amicus/Unite credits it's members and maybe why I left.

[Betty girl]

Well said Beagle9.

[Litebulbs]

Beagle9

Can't argue with any of your post. Very well put.

[vctenderness]

Originally Posted by Litebulbs

OK, so it wasn't true, it was Bassa then.

Litebulbs I think you are being a tad pedantic here!

The Longhaul BASSA committee of 1989 were responsible for a whole chunk of the current agreements. They broke away, as a committee, 100% to form CC89 who then went on to agree a whole range of deals now held as sacrosant by all, including the current BASSA.

The current BASSA militants refuse to negotiate on anything and have turned down more offers (prior to this dispute) than you could shake a stick at.

Just as a little aside to how poor they can represent crew. When the Arora was being built both unions were involved in the facilities. The BASSA rep on the team insisted on a large number of rooms having single beds. CC89 objected and said crew prefer to sleep in doubles and that we often refused rooms in hotels if they had singles. BASSA continued their line. When asked why, in private, they said that they often shared a room, for free, with a mate who was on B to B's and wouldn't want to sleep in a double!!!!! Self interest or what!

BA agreed with CC89 and the Arora only has doubles.

[Litebulbs]

vctenderness

The pedantic point that I am trying to make, badly, is that somebody or a body, negotiated to get to the current T&C's. Obviously this negotiation (sorry socialism/negative attitude), has worked for the majority of BA crew, as the majority of BA crew are at LHR.

If you want to talk about fairness, then that would be going even further down the socialist route; one deal for all brothers.

[Wirbelsturm]

Pay offers are normally across the whole company; we want
confirmation that the increase for cabin crew will not be LESS than in any other area - so far this has been refused.

Here is one reason for the death of this agreement before it starts. The only reason pay deals have been 'corporate' in the past was because all the Unions and the company agreed to it. The travesties seen in the past have led to a large proportion of various Union members to call for an end to the 'corporate one size fits all' negotiations.

If BASSA/Unite believe that their negotiating skills are so weak that they cannot achieve, alone, a fitting result for their members then why should the rest of the workforce be dragged down to their common denominator?

so far this has been refused

Quite rightly. I for one will strenously oppose my Unions negotiating team being hobbled in pay negotiations by something like this if agreed. Irrespective of your department this is, once again, BASSA showing that they have no concern about anything except for themselves. In that case BASSA can negotiate their own pay deals by themselves in the future.

[crew74]

WB I am bemused by your comment, maybe I am not intellectually equipped to deal with such sophisticated reasoning.In one sentence you say :

"If BASSA/Unite believe that their negotiating skills are so weak that they cannot achieve, alone, a fitting result for their members then why should the rest of the workforce be dragged down to their common denominator?"

Then you go on to say :
"Irrespective of your department this is, once again, BASSA showing that they have no concern about anything except for themselves."

With that last sentence in mind I can safely come to the conclusion that Bassa members and other union members are not that different ...After all isn't being concerned with one's T&C's and addressing these concerns collectively the very point of a union?

[donaldson]

For reference, is anybody able to post for me a copy of the contract that was offered to non union cabin crew last summer.

[MrBunker]

Crew74,

I don't presume to speak for the person to whom you address your question but in my mind, the answer to you would be no. A union cannot solely exist in a bubble. It has to be cognisant of the world around it, the market within which it operates and the company of which it represents a portion of the workforce.

One cannot blindly continue down the road of the BASSA style representation where no due is given to the fluidity of the industry or the present day (take a look at the latest Unite stance which now purports to argue that no change is necessary as we are no longer in a fight for survival - neatly sidestepping their own intransigence over the last 24 plus months).

It puts me in mind of the latter stages of 1984. "Do it to Julia"

MrB

[Wirbelsturm]

Crew74,

BASSA have jumped on the negotiating bandwagon by riding the coat tails of other Unions who are more skilled at negotiation than they are. Then they cast disparaging comments about how 'ill suited' the deal was and how they 'fought' to represent the CC. The pensions dispute, the pay negotiations were all conducted under 'we'll have whatever the others got'. As long as other Unions achieved an 'acceptable deal' under the umbrella of the corporate pay deal BASSA were always grumblingly happy to tag along.

Now we have seen cost cutting based upon productivity and worth why should we accept the one fits all mantra again? Surely we should all be using the cost savings benchmark as a starting point for pay negotiation and thus the 'one fits all' system won't work.

BASSA want a backstop in trying to enforce a rule where, no matter how bad their representation, no matter how bad their negotiating skills and no matter how few times they actually turn up for meaningful discussion they are guaranteed to achieve at least whatever the most successful negotiations for whatever department have achieved.

BASSA are trying to force all the other Unions in BA to negotiate for their OWN Union and the BASSA members ONLY. If a corporate agreement is called for I would strenuously resist it. Let BASSA fight their own corner. They don't need the rest of us, as BASSA have stated THEY are BA and thus the rest of us are ancillary.

[MIDLGW]

I'm surprised nobody seems to have picked up on this: in the union "comms" (posted here by JT, post 1705), the author claims they've had threats from their members and go on about "damned if we do, damned if we don't".

However, they still refuse to believe that suspended/sacked crew have behaved in a bullying wayand intimidated anyone.

Considering some crew members are "happy" to threated their own union, to me that shows they could easily do this to colleagues as well.

[Lib Dem]

Bassa Top Table Want To Strike, Carry On Regardless

Mr Woodley and Mr Simpson came out of a long negotiation with ACAS and BA with a deal that was acceptable and "the best deal available in the curent climate".
The Bassa Branch Secretary rejects it because he wasn't allowed in the room this time and then tells people how to vote on it (this the same guy that forced a Bassa re-ballot when the last outgoing Branch Secretary told members not to vote for him but support the other candidate instead?)
Then the new boss of Untie, Mr McCLuskey, is elected with 17% of the vote, rejects the offer on four points of difference without consulting the membership as promised.
Then the Bassa Branch Secretariat, without consultation with members, now gives BA TEN points of dispute.
During this time BA have sat back and done absolutely nothing to antagonise them.
I'm still getting a ballot, by the looks of things, so I will vote NO to IA and see how they spin this one again.
Will Bassa's top table ever recognise that we have absolutely no faith in their bullyboy tactics and propoganda, especially after we found out in the high courts that Bassa had lied to us about BA's refusal to negotiate before our first ballot was sent.?
Whilst a small misled minority are enjoying samosas and tomatoes at Bedfont, the rest of us will be keeping this airline going !

[JUAN TRIPP]

LibDem

Can I ask you a simple question. I interpret by your post that you are still in Bassa. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you are, WHY? I don't personally understand anyone who is so against them still wanting to be a member. The forthcoming ballot IMO is for the 'idiots' who want another futile strike. Why vote NO? Its surely not 'our' business any more. Please understand this is a genuine question as I'm totally bemused by crew who state what you have said, yet are still a member of this (dis)organistion.

[GS-Alpha]

I find it incredible that the CC89 reps can claim to represent the views of their members when only 40 of their members actually went on strike. (I assume this figure is correct).

I also find it difficult to understand that union reps can say that the members do not want to accept the latest offer when they have not actually been given the chance to vote? "Damned if we do and damned if we don't" does not sound so clear cut to me.

Bring on the strike ballot. I'm very curious to see just how many people still want to fight this battle.

[Wirbelsturm]

hmm, now the engineering pay offer is out in the open, i feel bassa may start throwing their toys out of the pram again..

Why? Don't forget that one of DH's many new demands is that BASSA members get, automatically, at LEAST the same as the engineers if not more but never, ever less irrespective of the cuts, manpower losses and extra roles covered by the engineers and their department over the past financial mess. Doesn't the sheer audacity of the demand shine through now?

Defies belief doesn't it.