BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)

[Flap33]

What's this dispute about?

A simple question, originally it was about IMPOSITION - about the way in which BA reduced crew complements in the name of saving money. BASSA only ever offered "loans" to the company, vastly over-valued ones at that.

The newsletter at the weekend from BASSA (or it may have been Unite) confirmed that crew complements were no longer an issue. So if it isn't crew complements is it staff travel?

IMPOSITION was threatened by BA in February 2009 when the cost savings targets were set, WW said that if the 30th June deadline was not met he would have no choice but to impose changes. In October he did, your union got 4 months grace....

During your "negotiations" you had spats within BASSA with the two merged factions refusing to sit together let alone negotiate - then of course there was the car park incident.

Previously, BASSA has always thrown the toys out of the preverbial pram whenever change was asked of them, we've had 3 strike ballots since 1997 which have resulted in action being called off at the eleventh hour.

BASSA only knows how to stir up the troops, and in the past it's worked but now that you face a new adversary with a different attitude you are like fish out of water. What's really worrying is that this whole dispute has become very personal, DH is on a mission to land a fatal blow to BA for the way he's been dismissed - the crew are merely the foot soldiers in all of this.

UNITE appear to want to settle this dispute, BASSA don't.

WW threatened Imposition and he did it, he threatened removal of staff travel and he did it - I hope that next time he threatens something you take him a little more seriously, next time it could be P45s and a tribunal next year.

[Flap62]

Upperdeckpsr,

There are issues that I would be prepared to strike over, but these issues and the knowledge of the consequence of IA are so huge that the issue of ST pales into insignificance.

The problem here was that many CC took the issue of IA way too lightly. This is shown by the "send Willie a message" crowd who voted for IA. This was not a militant minority, let's all remember the 80 and 90% votes for IA among the vast majority of CC. The bulk of CC did not realise the huge step that striking is, some thought it would never come to it, some thought it was a bit of a lark and some had no intention of carryimg out their mandate.

Striking is the nuclear option. If it gets to that stage then it's no use whining afterwards at something so relatively trivial as the removal of a perk.

[MrBernoulli]

....... why should people be punished for taking part in a lawful dispute, in part brought on by BA?

The dispute, lawful or otherwise, was not brought on by BA - that was entirely BASSA and Unite. BA requested that all workgroups enter in to meaningful discussions about permanent savings - the only lot not to do so were the cabin crew, hopelessly led by BASSA.

Result? A hissy fit and refusal to entertain anything that interfered with the cushy life of those at the top of the heap. Dispute was entirely BASSA.

[upperdeckpsr]

Mr Benouli

Result? A hissy fit and refusal to entertain anything that interfered with the cushy life of those at the top of the heap. Dispute was entirely BASSA.

I disagree - this dispute was brought on by BA - you have your opinion, I have mine

[upperdeckpsr]

RadarIndent

Maybe you were on long term leave when we announced our RECORD losses. However, MOST staff have done their bit, who knows how much WE have saved, despite BASSA costing us!

Just a year or so after after record profits!! Net net etc

RadarIndent, there is a small group of employees - less than 10% of the workforce who bleed this company dry year after year, all in my opinion of course

[Yellow Pen]

Well you're entitled to your prejudices, but if said employees are paid the market rate then you really have no grounds for complaint. Some skills are just expensive.

[HiFlyer14]

The warning in the staff travel issue is, in my view, neither here nor there. I can't imagine any judge saying 'well you warned them that you were going to "kill them" "steal their wallet" "remove staff travel" therefore, you had the right to do it.'

However, BASSA are claiming that ST is "contractual". By doing so, they are dismissing their own case. Pay, which most definitely is contractual, is stopped when someone strikes. The only relevant point to consider therefore is: do BA have to provide anything (pay, perks, union offices, etc) to people/unions conducting IA? Due to precedent, it seems it is legal to stop pay during IA, therefore it must be equally legal to stop ST, regardless of whether it is contractual or not. For example, if a striker had private medical benefits, would a company be expected to pay that? If they had a company mobile phone, would the company be expected to pay that? The answer must surely be no. Staff travel was offered to be returned very quickly after the strike, albeit without seniority. BASSA should have taken it, and then fought for the seniority back. If commuters are struggling financially to get to work, it is BASSA's fault for not accepting it back when it was offered. An ID90 with no seniority is still an awful lot cheaper than a full fare ticket.

That the BASSA leadership STILL feel that they have the right to decide on behalf of the members what action to take summarises quite succintly why we are in this mess. Ask any cabin crew member what a new strike ballot will be about, and they will be unable to tell you. I can't tell you, and believe me I follow this closer than most! You have asked Miss M - she can't state it either. Surely, if a community is to be led down the strike path, it should be because they are "outraged" "disgusted" "have no other option" etc due to the way a company is behaving. If we can't even state what it is about, how could the company be behaving in any way that would justify a strike?

Bridchen - you are right that the Professional Cabin Crew Council have not yet experienced negotiations with BA. But people don't vote for future Presidents or Prime Ministers on what they HAVE done, but rather what they say they WILL do. That's the nature of electioneering. The PCCC say that we will collaborate with BA, and we will conduct business with them in a productive, sensible way that benefits not only the crew, but the company and the customer as well. Many, many, many cabin crew colleagues agree - and have left BASSA and joined the PCCC to help us regain a voice for our community. I hope that you will too.

[stormin norman]

The fact that DH and LM speak of Tony Woodley as just Woodley speaks volumes as far as their relationship is concerned.

I fear whatever he comes up with, DH and LM will give it no consideration.

[HAHAHAHAHAH]

A mountain to climb

Seems to me HF14 you have a mountain to climb. Last time I checked your membership figure it stood at a pretty paltry 300 give or take. Interestingly, there’s no commitment required from supposed members than the ability to draw breath and complete an online application form. So hardly representative of a community close to 11,500. By my reckoning (and it is quite elementary) in order to achieve the 40% necessary to achieve a shot at being recognised it will take the better part of 15 years at your current rate of recruitment. But then again, maybe that reflects how well you are actually aligned to the views of the community you claim to represent. Time will tell, as with all predictions that have been made on this professional (and I use that term loosely) rumour network, many increasingly fail to materialise.

[Bridchen]

HAHAHAHAHAH I should imagine most people, like me, who've left BASSA are hesitant to commit themselves to a union in financial terms, as we all got so ripped off by our last one. If I wasn't paying for them to negotiate, which they successfully refused to do, then what for? The only thing I ever required them to do was negotiate or tell me about proposals. Instead they just lost them for us. Genius! If BASSA doesn't sort itself out and continues to employ skill-free negotiators like DH and LM, the PCCCs membership will increase proportionally with the loss of faith in BASSA. If the PCCC is effective, subs will be paid. Do I get a refund for BASSA's job not done, by the way? I'm not so wealthy I can afford to chuck away the hundred odd quid I paid in subs, while BASSA reps were refusing to sit at the table that they were paid to sit at. Did these same reps still take the time off that they were derostered for when they didn't turn up for meetings? Did they take their money from the BASSA coffers for their missed trips? These and other sticky questions to be sidestepped by your BASSA reps shortly.

[HAHAHAHAHAH]

Birdshed

As far as I was aware the BASSA committee acted upon the wants and wishes of the community as represented by the crew members who attended the many branch meetings and duly voted by show of hands. I don’t recall any abstentions, or no votes at any branch meeting. If you can’t be inclined to attend to cast your vote, can you really reasonably complain that your, seemingly isolated opinion, be representative. This is of course not to mention the rejection of both an online and postal consultation regarding two documents. After all, we are all members of the union, we all enjoy the freedom to attend branch meetings, listen and vote according to our personal views. Secondly, I reject your assertion that BASSA did not negotiate. I clearly remember many concessions made on my behalf. Indeed many documents produced in way of concession. If I’m honest, I feel that BASSA actually gave to much away. It’s clear as the crystal to me whom was the party refusing to be reasonable in my view. I suggest you review the settlement documents released by BASSA in order to resolve this dispute, concession after concession were made, none of which were acceptable to company. In €€my view, my reps offered more than I would have been prepared to offer, however I recognise they did this in good faith. If you don’t believe this, please explain why BASSA offered the company Mixed Fleet contracts, as they requested, only integrated with current crew in order to ensure career protection for current crew.


Can I suggest, the next time you fly to ask your flight crew colleagues one question. If they were to be denied the right to transfer between fleet and base, would they accept that imposition. Of all my flight crew colleagues I’ve asked, the answer has always been no. Therein lies the answer to why I decided to stand up for my rights and why I will continue to support the individuals increasingly victimised, to represent me.

As for the remainder of your post, can I suggest an element of considered caution. Allegations that you imply are incredibly serious and would be considered slander/libellous. I imagine you have actual proof of what you intimate, otherwise you wouldn’t be as confident as you seemingly are to identify individual reps.

All the above doesn’t negate the fact, which you have failed to address and the point I was clearly making in my original post, that your council only has 300 members as per the councils website. Therefore I submit that your views are wholly held in a minority view vis-à-vis our community.

[Bridchen]

HAHAHAHAHAH I ask questions of them. That isn't slander. Check your dictionary. They are free to answer, but don't. So you have to go to a branch meeting to be represented? Then thousands aren't represented, are they? I lived 5 hrs from LHR and work full time. That didn't leave me much time to doss around waiting for a meeting. And I'm not alone, so maybe it's you who should be doing some asking around.


The proposal put forward by BA at Easter (I can't believe I'm having to repeat this again) was rejected because of the announcement of strike dates when the union KNEW that was part of the deal. So they tossed it away without consulting us. It's in court papers that BASSA had to admit to, that the reps refused to turn up for meeting after meeting. Were you not aware of this? (Question, not slanderous statement!)

[HAHAHAHAHAH]

Yes, and that Easter deal was later put to the membership for consultative review. And guess what.....

It

Was

Rejected.



Accept it, as put simply, the majority of your colleagues do not share your view. As unfortunate as that news is to deliver. Its the truth. There is nothing personal intended in this message. Just a statement of facts.

For further clarification. The Easter Deal that you refer to has been worked and reworked. That doesn’t deny the fact that is was rejected by the membership. Therefore not acceptable to the majority.

[Bridchen]

PS I'm not in the Crew Council, so it's not my council. But you should be wary of thinking that because the PCCC only has 300 members, that the rest of the cabin crew community agree with you. You've edited your post to remove your statements about things being voted on at branch meetings, which was grossly unfair to the rest of us anyway.

[Bridchen]

It couldn't be rejected as it wan't on the table anymore. I was still with BASSA then and keeping a very close eye on things. That deal was not voted on. It was the next load of tripe we were offered after the strike. Were you actually paying attention???

[HAHAHAHAHAH]

I've edited my posts for spelling. Which parts do you refer to?

[Bridchen]

It must have been a reloading error, as it's all back up now.

[HAHAHAHAHAH]

Birdshed

I'm beginning to see why crew abandon this discussion as an alternative to sitting through it.

If you insist in continuing this line of argument, could I please ask you to examine the Easter document and past settlement documents and indeed the additional published documents and please explain the differences between them. What I'm asking for is a critical analyse of all the proposed Unite settlement documents and what you felt were lacking in them. But please be prescriptive and reference your submissions.

Seemingly you have a sound grasp, so please feel free to educate the remainder of the rumour community.

I await you submission for consideration.

[Bridchen]

It wasn't what I thought was lacking in them that mattered. Independent analysis found that the figures didn't add up for savings, if that's the UNITE proposal you mean. The sticking point as far as the union was concerned was mainly the reinstatement of ST after the strike with seniority. I couldn't see much wrong with the rest of the BA proposal, but it wasn't an option anyway. It became void after the strike dates were announced, so why any analysis was done at all beats me.

I've never understood why ST had to be part of the settlement. It wasn't in '97 and it was quietly reinstated. Such a hoo ha was made about it this time, that that option was impossible. I've seen the glee with which that's been noted by some of the non-crew staff on here, and it wasn't a pretty sight. Absolutely revelling in the ST being revoked. WW couldn't be seen to be publicly caving in. I'm not a fan of his by any means, so don't take it that way. It's an observation.

If this isn't relevant to what you want to know, please elaborate. I'm signing out now, so not avoiding the questioning, just working.

[Nutjob]

hahahahahaha

As far as I was aware the BASSA committee acted upon the wants and wishes of the community as represented by the crew members who attended the many branch meetings and duly voted by show of hands. I don’t recall any abstentions, or no votes at any branch meeting. If you can’t be inclined to attend to cast your vote, can you really reasonably complain that your, seemingly isolated opinion, be representative

Whilst accepting that the crew community as a whole STILL voted to strike in a secret ballot, the "show of hands" to which you refer was hardly a free vote was it? Would anyone really have dared raise a dissenting hand? We only need look to the public outing of a certain CSD by DH to see the fate that would have awaited them.

Secondly, I reject your assertion that BASSA did not negotiate.

Simply an opinion. The courts disagree with you. "Meaningful discussion" would be a more relevant phrase to use - and BASSA didn't do this either. I asked one of our Reps what the plan was at the start of all this. "Say 'No' until the recession is over. Wait it out" was his reply. Bluff was duly called by WW.

If I’m honest, I feel that BASSA actually gave to much away. It’s clear as the crystal to me whom was the party refusing to be reasonable in my view. I suggest you review the settlement documents released by BASSA in order to resolve this dispute, concession after concession were made, none of which were acceptable to company. In €€my view, my reps offered more than I would have been prepared to offer, however I recognise they did this in good faith.

Again, the problem was that the changes were temporary and simply a "loan" to get BA through the worst. NOT permanent and NOT meeting the cost-saving target. The "Ah but we were only £10m short and shhhh, but it's only temporary" argument was why BA said "No". Quite simple, if you strip it down.

Can I suggest, the next time you fly to ask your flight crew colleagues one question. If they were to be denied the right to transfer between fleet and base, would they accept that imposition. Of all my flight crew colleagues I’ve asked, the answer has always been no. Therein lies the answer to why I decided to stand up for my rights and why I will continue to support the individuals increasingly victimised, to represent me.

No rules regarding this were changed in the first proposals. BA wanted permanent cost-savings from us, that's all. Allegedly we were striking against the "imposition" of working with less crew, NOT against MF (which didn't exist!). As of now, the courts say that BA were legally entitled to impose such a crewing change. The introduction of MF and the barrier that prevents us transferring came later - as a direct consequence of failure to negotiate meaningfully. You were NOT striking over this and it's quite worrying (yet common) that you believe you were.

We are where we are due to BASSA leadership and the ill-advised voting by it's members. We'll all suffer for that though!