BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mohito...
Are you saying that you replaced a de-icing expert?
That's one hell of a skill set you have.
And - what is a "de-icing" expert anyway? Or is this just a rumour doing the rounds.
Perhaps "a chap who works on the de-icing rigs sometimes (its not a year round function I'm sure you'll appreciate) is stuck down-route"
has morphed into
"A VCC that is an EXPERT on de-icing is stuck down-route".
Might I suggest that you would have been policing the terminals as were hundreds of other volunteers for the past three days and that you were NOT doing someone elses job for free - you were doing a job to help passengers stranded in unfortunate and extraordinary circumstances.
I find it ironic also that you say you would normally volunteer.
Volunteer for what?
To help passengers stranded for no fault of their own?
Wonder when that last happened to our passengers?
Why also, are you speaking -out against the imposition of "Columbus" when it was off the table at the outset.
That possibly was the battle for you to fight - perhaps with sympathy from elsewhere - but that battle wasn't on the table and you have all shot your bolt over relatively meaningless issues, now impotent for the real battles that have already been fought and won while you were all arguing over who should be carrying the flag and blowing the bugle.
I even heard a rumour that one of our main De-icing experts is actually working as voluntary crew, and is stuck down route. So whilst hundreds of non crew are being paid to do my job,(ultimately making my job untenable ) I'm now being forced to do theirs for free.
That's one hell of a skill set you have.
And - what is a "de-icing" expert anyway? Or is this just a rumour doing the rounds.
Perhaps "a chap who works on the de-icing rigs sometimes (its not a year round function I'm sure you'll appreciate) is stuck down-route"
has morphed into
"A VCC that is an EXPERT on de-icing is stuck down-route".
Might I suggest that you would have been policing the terminals as were hundreds of other volunteers for the past three days and that you were NOT doing someone elses job for free - you were doing a job to help passengers stranded in unfortunate and extraordinary circumstances.
I find it ironic also that you say you would normally volunteer.
Volunteer for what?
To help passengers stranded for no fault of their own?
Wonder when that last happened to our passengers?
Why also, are you speaking -out against the imposition of "Columbus" when it was off the table at the outset.
That possibly was the battle for you to fight - perhaps with sympathy from elsewhere - but that battle wasn't on the table and you have all shot your bolt over relatively meaningless issues, now impotent for the real battles that have already been fought and won while you were all arguing over who should be carrying the flag and blowing the bugle.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really are such a cad xx
However I shall once again ask the question...
Quote: Talks were scheduled by ACAS this past week, to try and prevent additional strike days to the 22 already carried out. Our current CEO declined to release all but a handful of reps to attend, he also insisted that if they were to attend they should be unpaid, not only their flying pay but their basic salary must also be deducted. Hardly the actions of a man seeking a solution. The few reps able to attend were still prepared to do so nonetheless, in the end this was irrelevant as British Airways declined to attend the ACAS talks and have cancelled all future meetings .
Any comment on who wants to end this dispute now?
However I shall once again ask the question...
Quote: Talks were scheduled by ACAS this past week, to try and prevent additional strike days to the 22 already carried out. Our current CEO declined to release all but a handful of reps to attend, he also insisted that if they were to attend they should be unpaid, not only their flying pay but their basic salary must also be deducted. Hardly the actions of a man seeking a solution. The few reps able to attend were still prepared to do so nonetheless, in the end this was irrelevant as British Airways declined to attend the ACAS talks and have cancelled all future meetings .
Any comment on who wants to end this dispute now?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: london
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mohitomaster and others,
You are undoubtedly angry, but your anger is completely misdirected. Yes, BA were out to make massive cost reductions with cabin crew, but Duncan, Lizanne and others have served your cause extremely badly with their appalling mismanagement of the situation. They have done the rest of us no favours as their stupidity has empowered the company to attack all our agreements now.
Many of us had much sympathy with your cause but it's long gone now. We're all thoroughly sick of your determination to do as much damage as possible. Outside of the more militant of BASSA members, there is bewilderment at your refusal to do a deal, and I haven't spoken to any BA worker who believes BASSA has a point.
So we've all had enough. I'm very sorry to say that I now wish you'd all go away and leave the rest of us to get on with making this company a success.
We don't want you anymore. Take your destructive attitudes elsewhere.
You are undoubtedly angry, but your anger is completely misdirected. Yes, BA were out to make massive cost reductions with cabin crew, but Duncan, Lizanne and others have served your cause extremely badly with their appalling mismanagement of the situation. They have done the rest of us no favours as their stupidity has empowered the company to attack all our agreements now.
Many of us had much sympathy with your cause but it's long gone now. We're all thoroughly sick of your determination to do as much damage as possible. Outside of the more militant of BASSA members, there is bewilderment at your refusal to do a deal, and I haven't spoken to any BA worker who believes BASSA has a point.
So we've all had enough. I'm very sorry to say that I now wish you'd all go away and leave the rest of us to get on with making this company a success.
We don't want you anymore. Take your destructive attitudes elsewhere.
A little Bicarbonate of Soda dissolved in a glass of water works wonders. Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from the BBC website on the 10th November:
Among the stumbling blocks, Bassa says, are a demand the union gives up all outstanding legal claims arising from the dispute, and an acknowledgement that BA has the right to withdraw travel concessions from staff in future
In reality, this means that BA is asking a union to sign an agreement that includes giving the right to the company to threaten and bully staff into not exercising their legal right to strike. Even if travel perks are not contractual, BA wants to be able to use them as a device to punish future strikers, ie curtailing one of the citizen´s constitutional rights by means of coercion.
Even if I don´t agree with CC strikes, if I was a rep I wouldn´t accept this proposal. Effectively it means that BA has the right to threat its employees into not exercising their rights with freedom, ie going on strike. Other departments in BA shouldn´t be happy about Unite accepting this agreement, as BA will then have the right to punish anyone on future industrial action. And let´s face it, this strike may not be justified, but others in the future may well be entirely legitimate, by any department.
A strike is a protected breach of contract. BA has the right to suspend contractual agreements, such as pay, sick pay, pension, etc, DURING THE DURATION OF THE BREACH, ie the strike. After that, they have to reinstate them, as the right of IA is protected by law. Staff travel, being not contractual, can also be suspended, but then again, to mantain it after the preotected strike period has ended, if staff are back to work, could be understood by a court as discrimination against employees on the basis of their exercise of a lawful right. It may be understood by a court as if BA decides to withdraw travel perks to people who vote, or to people who get married, or to women. They couldn´t argue "but it´s not contractual, so we can do as we please". Being non contractual doesn´t mean you can use it to discriminate at will.
That´s my opinion, only, of course, but I get the feeling that it may also be BA´s opinion, as they are very insistent on that point: not taking BA to court and giving them freedom to withdraw staff travel as they please. They wouldn´t be so worried about the unions accepting that point if they knew for sure they have acted rightly.
And I wouldn´t like a union rep signing something that will affect me in the future, just to strike a nice deal for another department. They would be selling everyone in BA´s rights for their own fight.
My tuppence worth.
Among the stumbling blocks, Bassa says, are a demand the union gives up all outstanding legal claims arising from the dispute, and an acknowledgement that BA has the right to withdraw travel concessions from staff in future
In reality, this means that BA is asking a union to sign an agreement that includes giving the right to the company to threaten and bully staff into not exercising their legal right to strike. Even if travel perks are not contractual, BA wants to be able to use them as a device to punish future strikers, ie curtailing one of the citizen´s constitutional rights by means of coercion.
Even if I don´t agree with CC strikes, if I was a rep I wouldn´t accept this proposal. Effectively it means that BA has the right to threat its employees into not exercising their rights with freedom, ie going on strike. Other departments in BA shouldn´t be happy about Unite accepting this agreement, as BA will then have the right to punish anyone on future industrial action. And let´s face it, this strike may not be justified, but others in the future may well be entirely legitimate, by any department.
A strike is a protected breach of contract. BA has the right to suspend contractual agreements, such as pay, sick pay, pension, etc, DURING THE DURATION OF THE BREACH, ie the strike. After that, they have to reinstate them, as the right of IA is protected by law. Staff travel, being not contractual, can also be suspended, but then again, to mantain it after the preotected strike period has ended, if staff are back to work, could be understood by a court as discrimination against employees on the basis of their exercise of a lawful right. It may be understood by a court as if BA decides to withdraw travel perks to people who vote, or to people who get married, or to women. They couldn´t argue "but it´s not contractual, so we can do as we please". Being non contractual doesn´t mean you can use it to discriminate at will.
That´s my opinion, only, of course, but I get the feeling that it may also be BA´s opinion, as they are very insistent on that point: not taking BA to court and giving them freedom to withdraw staff travel as they please. They wouldn´t be so worried about the unions accepting that point if they knew for sure they have acted rightly.
And I wouldn´t like a union rep signing something that will affect me in the future, just to strike a nice deal for another department. They would be selling everyone in BA´s rights for their own fight.
My tuppence worth.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick word on the DA. It was activated when the first batch of snow hit very recently. Has it been "de-activated"? Has anyone any info in regards to how long the DA stays "live" before "permission" is sought from the union?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mohitomaster
are showing such contempt towards Bassa, that they refused to ask. I am also certain that permission would have been granted
Instead Bassa's chairperson insisted that BF contact her personally for an explanation of Bassa's perceived breaches of the DA during the last snow fall. Permission was given last time only on the condition that no Volunteer Cabin Crew or Mixed Fleet crew were to operate whilst legacy crew sat at home, this Bassa believes BA breached.
A quick word on the DA. It was activated when the first batch of snow hit very recently. Has it been "de-activated"? Has anyone any info in regards to how long the DA stays "live" before "permission" is sought from the union?
Last edited by Far-Ted; 21st Dec 2010 at 07:19.
Miss M
Do you really think every time there is disruption, that BA should go cap in hand to an individual who has been sacked from BA for Gross Misconduct (then lost two independant Employment Appeals), and seems hell bent on financially ruining the company, every time there is a need for flexibility in the operation.
Or to LM who may give limited permission as long as VCC or MF are not involved.
I think not, BA runs the operation not BASSA reps.
Or to LM who may give limited permission as long as VCC or MF are not involved.
I think not, BA runs the operation not BASSA reps.
Do you really think every time there is disruption, that BA should go cap in hand to an individual who has been sacked from BA for Gross Misconduct (then lost two independant Employment Appeals), and seems hell bent on financially ruining the company, every time there is a need for flexibility in the operation.
Or to LM who may give limited permission as long as VCC or MF are not involved.
I think not, BA runs the operation not BASSA reps.
Or to LM who may give limited permission as long as VCC or MF are not involved.
I think not, BA runs the operation not BASSA reps.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out and About
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Individual Offer to Non-Unionised AND Unionised CC
Ess mail has been sent this afternoon giving any crew not a member of Unite on 14/12/10 the chance to accept the very same offer previously made.
For Unite members, they'll be able to accept the offer ONLY if the ballot returns a NO result.
The email states that a further strike would make the current offer unaffordable, and that acceptance of the offer will pave the way for a full return of ST in 2013.
The Unite website states that ballot papers have been sent to over 10,000 crew.
And in the meantine, Amicus(CC89) are still trying to convince everyone that they'll be forced onto the MF contract: . LATEST NEWS UPDATES
For Unite members, they'll be able to accept the offer ONLY if the ballot returns a NO result.
The email states that a further strike would make the current offer unaffordable, and that acceptance of the offer will pave the way for a full return of ST in 2013.
The Unite website states that ballot papers have been sent to over 10,000 crew.
And in the meantine, Amicus(CC89) are still trying to convince everyone that they'll be forced onto the MF contract: . LATEST NEWS UPDATES
Last edited by TorC; 21st Dec 2010 at 17:39. Reason: clarity and added info re nunber of ballot papers & link
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone in bassa/cc89 please explain why the union refused to put the offer to the members. If that is too hard a question, why have the members not pushed the union to present the offer?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AROUND AND ABOUT
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA's offer to crew
Wow, this could now get interesting.
Dear colleague
In recent weeks, I have been hearing from many of you at the crew report centre, through the recent crew survey, by email and at the In Touch days.
The overwhelming feedback is a desire to end this dispute, and a sense that many parts of our offer are really important to you.
Yet if you are a member of Unite, you will soon be sent a ballot paper that could lead to more strikes: a strike that would prolong the dispute and make the offer unaffordable.
I have therefore made a decision based on your direct feedback to me.
I am going to move ahead with the offer, in two phases. Firstly for non-union members, and then for union members assuming there is no mandate for strike action.
Moving ahead with the offer – for non union members
If you were not a member of the union, you can sign up to the individual offer.
All you need to do is confirm that you were not a member of Unite on December 14, 2010 and you will secure the full individual offer, which includes:
Two years of contractual pay rises worth up to 5.9% from February 2011
A permanent, contractual, variable pay top up scheme for Heathrow crew on Worldwide and Eurofleet
Protection for your terms and conditions, now and in the future
I will write to you shortly with all the details you will need and a form for you to return to me by the end of January.
Once you have signed up, the deal is yours to keep and it is not dependent on the outcome of the strike ballot.
Moving ahead with the offer – for union members
If you are a Unite member, I also plan to make the deal available to you that we made to Unite.
For this to happen, you need to vote no for a strike. I will only be able to afford to move ahead with the offer on this basis.
I don’t want you to miss out on this deal and, from what you have said to me, you don’t either. So please vote and we can give you the chance to have the same protections and pay rises.
What happens now
Please vote, vote no, and encourage your colleagues to do the same.
If the majority of you reject the call for strike action, we can avoid the distress a strike causes to our customers and to you.
Vote no and we can:
End the dispute
Secure the deal and pave the way for the full return of staff travel in 2013
Look after our customers
Avoid divisions between colleagues at work and onboard
Unite has told us that it has appointed an independent company to run this strike ballot and you can be totally confident that your vote will be completely confidential.
Please use your vote, and vote no to further strike action. If you do have any questions please contact your crew team manager who will be happy to talk with you.
Link to the offer made to Unite or see the IFCE Intranet Homepage/Useful Links/ New offer to reach agreement
Thank you
Bill Francis
Head of Inflight Customer Experience
Dear colleague
In recent weeks, I have been hearing from many of you at the crew report centre, through the recent crew survey, by email and at the In Touch days.
The overwhelming feedback is a desire to end this dispute, and a sense that many parts of our offer are really important to you.
Yet if you are a member of Unite, you will soon be sent a ballot paper that could lead to more strikes: a strike that would prolong the dispute and make the offer unaffordable.
I have therefore made a decision based on your direct feedback to me.
I am going to move ahead with the offer, in two phases. Firstly for non-union members, and then for union members assuming there is no mandate for strike action.
Moving ahead with the offer – for non union members
If you were not a member of the union, you can sign up to the individual offer.
All you need to do is confirm that you were not a member of Unite on December 14, 2010 and you will secure the full individual offer, which includes:
Two years of contractual pay rises worth up to 5.9% from February 2011
A permanent, contractual, variable pay top up scheme for Heathrow crew on Worldwide and Eurofleet
Protection for your terms and conditions, now and in the future
I will write to you shortly with all the details you will need and a form for you to return to me by the end of January.
Once you have signed up, the deal is yours to keep and it is not dependent on the outcome of the strike ballot.
Moving ahead with the offer – for union members
If you are a Unite member, I also plan to make the deal available to you that we made to Unite.
For this to happen, you need to vote no for a strike. I will only be able to afford to move ahead with the offer on this basis.
I don’t want you to miss out on this deal and, from what you have said to me, you don’t either. So please vote and we can give you the chance to have the same protections and pay rises.
What happens now
Please vote, vote no, and encourage your colleagues to do the same.
If the majority of you reject the call for strike action, we can avoid the distress a strike causes to our customers and to you.
Vote no and we can:
End the dispute
Secure the deal and pave the way for the full return of staff travel in 2013
Look after our customers
Avoid divisions between colleagues at work and onboard
Unite has told us that it has appointed an independent company to run this strike ballot and you can be totally confident that your vote will be completely confidential.
Please use your vote, and vote no to further strike action. If you do have any questions please contact your crew team manager who will be happy to talk with you.
Link to the offer made to Unite or see the IFCE Intranet Homepage/Useful Links/ New offer to reach agreement
Thank you
Bill Francis
Head of Inflight Customer Experience
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note that Mr Francis links the offer details to Unite and its members, naturally as it immediatly and directly effects them.
The union's latest web post chooses to link the MF contract, which doesnt.
The union's latest web post chooses to link the MF contract, which doesnt.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sunny Berkshire
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite's press release on the ballot here New ballot of cabin crew begins at British Airways
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: motorway services
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From that press release:
That could be a problem, I thought that numbers were meant to be lower than that? Unite/BASSA wouldn't get that wrong again, would they? 
Voting papers are being sent to more than 10,000 cabin crew at BA
I have heard it suggested that BF's 'offer' here is a way of separating the 'willing' from the 'non-willing', such that the non-willing can be excised quickly and clinically from the company ...... finally. Anyone else think so?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far-Ted
How do you come to that conclusion? Surely BA is asking everyone to accept the offer and hence be on just one contract? Are you saying you think BA do not want the union members to vote against strike action?
It seems to me that the company simply wants to allow non-union members to avoid being carried along by the militants who might vote for strike action. BA have promised that any workgroup that costs the company money through strike action, will have that money recuperated through further savings from said group. So far they have achieved just that. They are just changing that statement slightly, and allowing non-union members to avoid having further savings taken from them due to the possible strike action of the militants. It sounds very fair to me. However you most definitely cannot conclude that BA wants union members and non-members on different contracts.
How do you come to that conclusion? Surely BA is asking everyone to accept the offer and hence be on just one contract? Are you saying you think BA do not want the union members to vote against strike action?
It seems to me that the company simply wants to allow non-union members to avoid being carried along by the militants who might vote for strike action. BA have promised that any workgroup that costs the company money through strike action, will have that money recuperated through further savings from said group. So far they have achieved just that. They are just changing that statement slightly, and allowing non-union members to avoid having further savings taken from them due to the possible strike action of the militants. It sounds very fair to me. However you most definitely cannot conclude that BA wants union members and non-members on different contracts.