BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juann I left BASSA more than a year ago but I still get everything from them. I even got an email from the silver card holder that can't keep his nose out of it. Who knows where he got my private email from?
I am writing to congratulate you on becoming the new General Secretary of Unite the Union.
As you are aware, I have published open letters arguing that the quality of BA’s professional and experienced cabin crew is one of the few advantages left in flying with British Airways. Because of these letters and my subsequent involvements, I have witnessed first-hand the passion and enthusiasm of the cabin crew against a management that were trying to destroy the premium airline so loved by the crew.
However, I hope you would agree that Unite should and could have done better to help and represent the cabin crew in their dispute with BA’s management. It is undeniable that Unite’s badly organised campaign to convince the public that the cabin crew had no choice but to strike, has been most ineffective. Against a well managed and efficient BA publicity machine, Unite’s attempts looked amateurish.
Furthermore, Unite’s legal advisors have continuously failed to protect the cabin crew members against the brutal and most probably illegal behaviour of BA’s management. More importantly, Unite have lost important grounds to BA management during their negotiations probably because they lacked the benefit of competent professional and business advisors that BA had the support of.
I have read with interest your recent comments in the Financial Times. You stated that in your experience there is no such thing as an “irresponsible strike”. However, in modern day Britain there are many better ways than striking to protect the interest of your members . For example, in the case of British Airways, there was a golden opportunity for your Union to persuade BA’s large shareholders that contrary to what BA management were telling them, it made financial sense for BA to agree a fair settlement with the cabin crew long before there was a need to strike.
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I hope you do not mind me writing this open letter criticizing the performance of your Union and agree that it is good to receive constructive criticism from an outsider with no vested interest. [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Yours sincerely,[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Mamad Kashani Akhavan[/FONT]
From: Mamad Kashani <[email protected]>
Date: 29 November 2010 1:50:24 AEDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER FROM MAMAD KASHANI AKHAVAN TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF UNITE THE UNION
Dear Mr McCluskey,Date: 29 November 2010 1:50:24 AEDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: AN OPEN LETTER FROM MAMAD KASHANI AKHAVAN TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF UNITE THE UNION
I am writing to congratulate you on becoming the new General Secretary of Unite the Union.
As you are aware, I have published open letters arguing that the quality of BA’s professional and experienced cabin crew is one of the few advantages left in flying with British Airways. Because of these letters and my subsequent involvements, I have witnessed first-hand the passion and enthusiasm of the cabin crew against a management that were trying to destroy the premium airline so loved by the crew.
However, I hope you would agree that Unite should and could have done better to help and represent the cabin crew in their dispute with BA’s management. It is undeniable that Unite’s badly organised campaign to convince the public that the cabin crew had no choice but to strike, has been most ineffective. Against a well managed and efficient BA publicity machine, Unite’s attempts looked amateurish.
Furthermore, Unite’s legal advisors have continuously failed to protect the cabin crew members against the brutal and most probably illegal behaviour of BA’s management. More importantly, Unite have lost important grounds to BA management during their negotiations probably because they lacked the benefit of competent professional and business advisors that BA had the support of.
I have read with interest your recent comments in the Financial Times. You stated that in your experience there is no such thing as an “irresponsible strike”. However, in modern day Britain there are many better ways than striking to protect the interest of your members . For example, in the case of British Airways, there was a golden opportunity for your Union to persuade BA’s large shareholders that contrary to what BA management were telling them, it made financial sense for BA to agree a fair settlement with the cabin crew long before there was a need to strike.
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']I hope you do not mind me writing this open letter criticizing the performance of your Union and agree that it is good to receive constructive criticism from an outsider with no vested interest. [/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Yours sincerely,[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Mamad Kashani Akhavan[/FONT]
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Juan
Don't worry Juan, I still get all the gash through my letterbox, including the latest letter from Len McC, so I reckon I'll get a ballot paper too.
If so, I will vote NO to any form of IA.
I do not pass any money to them anymore but they still haven't updated all their membership details, should make interesting reading for the ERBS when BA make their next injubction ! Anything I can do to help.....
If so, I will vote NO to any form of IA.
I do not pass any money to them anymore but they still haven't updated all their membership details, should make interesting reading for the ERBS when BA make their next injubction ! Anything I can do to help.....
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Unite at BA faces court hearing on policy of dismissing Hong Kong cabin crew at 45
BA faces court hearing on policy of dismissing Hong Kong cabin crew at 45
7 December 2010
British Airways is facing a crunch court of appeal hearing this week into its policy of dismissing its female Hong Kong cabin crew at 45 – and denying them a pension.
Unite, the largest union in the country, will be arguing that the airline must apply UK law to its Hong Kong-based female cabin crew.
The case, which affects 24 of the Hong Kong female workforce, will be held at the court of appeal in London later this week.
Unite will say that BA’s failure to reach an agreement is a shameful attempt to continue to discriminate against its employees on both age and race grounds.
In January this year, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) upheld an employment tribunal 2008 ruling that the airline was wrong to claim that the women's Hong Kong nationality excluded them from the jurisdiction of UK employment law.
Unite urged BA then to respect that judgement and move swiftly to end the discriminatory practices, however the airline said it would contest the EAT ruling at the court of appeal.
Unite national officer for Civil Aviation, Brendan Gold, said: "BA’s mistreatment of these women is a stain on the reputation of a leading and iconic British company which has allowed such discriminatory practices to continue into the 21st century.
"We will be asking the court of appeal to uphold the tribunal's wishes that these workers are covered by UK employment law and as such must not be discriminated against on any grounds, including their race or age.
"By continuing with its intransigence, BA is treating a group of its workers as second class employees. It should not be allowed to sack female workers at 45. BA’s position is further undermined by the anti-age discrimination introduced in the UK in 2006."
Unite took the case to the EAT on behalf of one stewardess, Eliza Mak, and 16 colleagues. Eliza received her dismissal letter from BA when she turned 45, despite having worked for the airline since 1988.
BA dismisses its female Hong Kong crew when they turn 45 and denies them a pension, claiming its UK employment provisions do not apply to this workforce.
Unlike their counterparts in the UK who retire with a pension at 60, the Hong Kong crew women are forced out of their jobs 15 years early and with only a one-off payment of a few thousand pounds on which to support themselves and their families.
Unite has been pushing for BA to accept that all its employees, wherever they may reside, should be covered by the company's employment agreements, including retirement age and pension rights. The January EAT ruling - if upheld by the court of appeal - would allow those crew dismissed at 45 by BA to have their claims for discrimination heard in the UK courts.
Regards
BA faces court hearing on policy of dismissing Hong Kong cabin crew at 45
7 December 2010
British Airways is facing a crunch court of appeal hearing this week into its policy of dismissing its female Hong Kong cabin crew at 45 – and denying them a pension.
Unite, the largest union in the country, will be arguing that the airline must apply UK law to its Hong Kong-based female cabin crew.
The case, which affects 24 of the Hong Kong female workforce, will be held at the court of appeal in London later this week.
Unite will say that BA’s failure to reach an agreement is a shameful attempt to continue to discriminate against its employees on both age and race grounds.
In January this year, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) upheld an employment tribunal 2008 ruling that the airline was wrong to claim that the women's Hong Kong nationality excluded them from the jurisdiction of UK employment law.
Unite urged BA then to respect that judgement and move swiftly to end the discriminatory practices, however the airline said it would contest the EAT ruling at the court of appeal.
Unite national officer for Civil Aviation, Brendan Gold, said: "BA’s mistreatment of these women is a stain on the reputation of a leading and iconic British company which has allowed such discriminatory practices to continue into the 21st century.
"We will be asking the court of appeal to uphold the tribunal's wishes that these workers are covered by UK employment law and as such must not be discriminated against on any grounds, including their race or age.
"By continuing with its intransigence, BA is treating a group of its workers as second class employees. It should not be allowed to sack female workers at 45. BA’s position is further undermined by the anti-age discrimination introduced in the UK in 2006."
Unite took the case to the EAT on behalf of one stewardess, Eliza Mak, and 16 colleagues. Eliza received her dismissal letter from BA when she turned 45, despite having worked for the airline since 1988.
BA dismisses its female Hong Kong crew when they turn 45 and denies them a pension, claiming its UK employment provisions do not apply to this workforce.
Unlike their counterparts in the UK who retire with a pension at 60, the Hong Kong crew women are forced out of their jobs 15 years early and with only a one-off payment of a few thousand pounds on which to support themselves and their families.
Unite has been pushing for BA to accept that all its employees, wherever they may reside, should be covered by the company's employment agreements, including retirement age and pension rights. The January EAT ruling - if upheld by the court of appeal - would allow those crew dismissed at 45 by BA to have their claims for discrimination heard in the UK courts.
Regards
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm .... so would Unite also be arguing then that UK based employees of foreign airlines, and indeed ALL foreign companies, should be covered by the agreements, T&Cs and laws applicable in each carriers/companies homeland? I would certainly hope not!
Back in the 80's, I worked here in the UK for a foreign state airline. The Government owners of that airline, involved in a lengthy civil war, imposed a 10% War Levy on all employees in the home nation, and tried to also impose it on all employees of the airline, worldwide. It was very quickly pointed-out to them that UK employees worked under UK agreements, T&Cs and laws.
Back in the 80's, I worked here in the UK for a foreign state airline. The Government owners of that airline, involved in a lengthy civil war, imposed a 10% War Levy on all employees in the home nation, and tried to also impose it on all employees of the airline, worldwide. It was very quickly pointed-out to them that UK employees worked under UK agreements, T&Cs and laws.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eliza received her dismissal letter from BA when she turned 45, despite having worked for the airline since 1988.
Anyway, nice bit of distraction from the main event. I wonder what happened on the stage while people were looking at the sideshow?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about all those 21,000 workers working for Tesco in China? Are Unite demanding that Tesco employ them on UK Terms & Conditions? I think not. What about Tesco workers in markets with stronger Terms than what the UK gives?
The precedence of this case could bankrupt UK based global companies.
The precedence of this case could bankrupt UK based global companies.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sunny East Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget these crew members have already won an employment tribunal, so they appear to have the law on their side.
Anything that gives rights to overseas employees of airlines is good news AFAIAC, because it makes it harder for our jobs to be outsourced.
Anything that gives rights to overseas employees of airlines is good news AFAIAC, because it makes it harder for our jobs to be outsourced.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly we could all demand the Iberia Terms and Conditions?
That REALLY would throw the cat amongst the Staff Travel Pigeons. Date of joining based loading? I think not.
It seems very odd to me that Unite will pick headline grabbing causes without considering the further legal/financial ramifications.
That REALLY would throw the cat amongst the Staff Travel Pigeons. Date of joining based loading? I think not.
It seems very odd to me that Unite will pick headline grabbing causes without considering the further legal/financial ramifications.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As BASSA are so bent on using military analogies and likening themselves to Generals, the above is interesting considering how HMG treats the Gurkhas...
Like it or not, the Hong Kong Cabin Crew signed up knowing fully what they were entitled to. Companies all over the World employ people on different contracts even if they are doing the same job, depending where they live.
Like it or not, the Hong Kong Cabin Crew signed up knowing fully what they were entitled to. Companies all over the World employ people on different contracts even if they are doing the same job, depending where they live.
Anything that gives rights to overseas employees of airlines is good news AFAIAC, because it makes it harder for our jobs to be outsourced.
1. The UK company moving it's HQ to another country, as well as opening offices in other (several) countries such that those employees based in those countries are on 'local' Ts & Cs, more restrictive than those they currently have?
or:
2. The UK company just stops hiring foreign nationals?
There are losses, either way .
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: uk
Age: 53
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like Mr Kashani is a paid-up member of bassa.
What a load of tosh he spouts ...... sounds like some gobby branch sec!
What a load of tosh he spouts ...... sounds like some gobby branch sec!
Mohammad (Mamad) Kashani Akhavan - Google Profile
No other opinions welcome
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HKG Based Cabin Crew
I do understand the points that some of you have made about the HKG ICC crew. Yes, they signed the contract and yes, they are employed overseas.
However. They work on a British registered aircraft, spend time training in London and work albeit briefly in UK airspace. They also spend much if not all their downroute (ie "work") time in London.
Moreover, forget the laws and the contracts and everything else for the moment and ask yourself - is this fair?
For once, Unite are supporting an ethical issue, and I for one wish the HKG crew the best of luck.
Meanwhile, at LHR sadly, its a completely different story.
However. They work on a British registered aircraft, spend time training in London and work albeit briefly in UK airspace. They also spend much if not all their downroute (ie "work") time in London.
Moreover, forget the laws and the contracts and everything else for the moment and ask yourself - is this fair?
For once, Unite are supporting an ethical issue, and I for one wish the HKG crew the best of luck.
Meanwhile, at LHR sadly, its a completely different story.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
Having spoken often to HK based BA cabin crew about thius issue, I can tell you it isn't about pension rights.
The main issue is the right to continue in employment, they make their own pension arrangements. Only BA continue the practice of sacking female crew because they turn fourty years old among our competitors out of HK.
I find the discrimination desperately outdated and shameful for a blue chip british company.
The main issue is the right to continue in employment, they make their own pension arrangements. Only BA continue the practice of sacking female crew because they turn fourty years old among our competitors out of HK.
I find the discrimination desperately outdated and shameful for a blue chip british company.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree with you.
It wasn't so long ago that British Airways made female uk based cabin crew retire at 35 or when they got married but male cabin crew were allowed to carry on until retirement.
This practice only stopped when the law was changed.
I am shocked that BA still think it is ok, in this day and age, to discriminate like this, even if these HK girls did know about it before they joined.
Doesn't make it right. They should be able to retire at the normal retirement age.
It wasn't so long ago that British Airways made female uk based cabin crew retire at 35 or when they got married but male cabin crew were allowed to carry on until retirement.
This practice only stopped when the law was changed.
I am shocked that BA still think it is ok, in this day and age, to discriminate like this, even if these HK girls did know about it before they joined.
Doesn't make it right. They should be able to retire at the normal retirement age.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HKG based crews
On the face of it, it seems unfair and discriminatory and I agree with others that it is morally wrong.
The question is, is it legally justified or not? Do other airlines with HKG based crew have the same policy?
The question is, is it legally justified or not? Do other airlines with HKG based crew have the same policy?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As wrong as the treatment of HKG CC may/may not be, surely this is an issue that should be taken-up with whatever body it is that oversees and governs employment issues in HKG, not a UK union via a UK Court?
Meanwhile, it seems CC89 have been left out in the cold ..... again:
8th December 2010 - AMICUS UPDATE: Meetings With BA
It is our understanding that a meeting was held yesterday between Unite and British Airways. However, we were only made aware of this late on Monday evening. In spite of the serious nature of these discussions, the company refused to offline anyone from AMICUS to attend.
We have yet to receive any feedback from anyone on the progress of these talks, and we believe that another meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, with a meeting of all reps to be organised at some point very soon.
In the meantime, we have no reason to believe that the imminent ballot of industrial action will not be underway as planned.
(uniteba.com)
Meanwhile, it seems CC89 have been left out in the cold ..... again:
8th December 2010 - AMICUS UPDATE: Meetings With BA
It is our understanding that a meeting was held yesterday between Unite and British Airways. However, we were only made aware of this late on Monday evening. In spite of the serious nature of these discussions, the company refused to offline anyone from AMICUS to attend.
We have yet to receive any feedback from anyone on the progress of these talks, and we believe that another meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, with a meeting of all reps to be organised at some point very soon.
In the meantime, we have no reason to believe that the imminent ballot of industrial action will not be underway as planned.
(uniteba.com)
Can someone please explain to the over-inflated egos of the buffoons in bassa and cc89 that they are 'branches'. Furthermore, as very explicitly explained by Judge Holland, the two branches behaved liked primary kids the first time round - so I do not believe for one second that their collective behaviour, petulence, idiocy etc etc will have changed.
While I feel rather sorry for the majority of bassa members, even although they voted these clowns into power, I hope that BA stick to their guns and do not give in to the bully-boy tactics of these union branches.
If they vote for strike action again - please let the 'new' people department (now run by a scheming lawyer) run matters. Hopefully they will deal with the bassamentals in the good old-fashioned way - gloves off, knuckledusters on and give them a right good kicking. After all, that used to be the way that militant union members behaved, so it is about time they got a taste of their own medicine.
After all the angst, nastiness and general misery that the militant clowns have put us all through I believe ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!
While I feel rather sorry for the majority of bassa members, even although they voted these clowns into power, I hope that BA stick to their guns and do not give in to the bully-boy tactics of these union branches.
If they vote for strike action again - please let the 'new' people department (now run by a scheming lawyer) run matters. Hopefully they will deal with the bassamentals in the good old-fashioned way - gloves off, knuckledusters on and give them a right good kicking. After all, that used to be the way that militant union members behaved, so it is about time they got a taste of their own medicine.
After all the angst, nastiness and general misery that the militant clowns have put us all through I believe ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!