BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the odds of a major UK airline being in a fight for survival and in dispute with a major section of its workforce for over two years, which has cost more than the required savings from that section, still being here today?
Is the penny finally dropping that the rhetoric is not the sole property of one camp?
But the rhetoric will not solve anything from either camp and it is pointless for interested parties and managers alike to carry it on. Flap62 is correct to a point.
You have to look at the demands made by both branches and discuss them. Is there opportunity to return to the pre dispute crew complements? Yes, but you pull the part timers back onto full time and use new contract staff.
Make the MTP contractual and negotiable.
Say ok, agree to binding arbitration, but anyone that is found against on an item that could be deemed criminal, will be pursued through the criminal system.
Staff travel: reinstate it with length of service set but with the dispute length taken away and rounded up to the nearest year, pending any ECoHR decision on the legality of punitive measures for protected industrial action.
Then have a serious look at the CSD/Purser grades based on how much and the way they are paid and I am not talking about cuts in the levels.
BA need the current crew and each new employee acts as a duplicated cost, until the equivalent existing crew member leaves, unless the average existing crew member earns over £15000 in allowances per year, so the negotiations being over are not true, in my opinion.
There will be a tipping point when the new are larger than the old, but the financial state of the business may be more buoyant then, which adds weight to any future discussions.
I believe that Bassa will deliver another vote with convincing numbers and 6000 is a convincing number. It will be interesting if the 3000 invisible voters turn up in the yes or no camp, or that 3000 reduces along with union membership and therefore the number of ballot papers issued.
Is the penny finally dropping that the rhetoric is not the sole property of one camp?
But the rhetoric will not solve anything from either camp and it is pointless for interested parties and managers alike to carry it on. Flap62 is correct to a point.
You have to look at the demands made by both branches and discuss them. Is there opportunity to return to the pre dispute crew complements? Yes, but you pull the part timers back onto full time and use new contract staff.
Make the MTP contractual and negotiable.
Say ok, agree to binding arbitration, but anyone that is found against on an item that could be deemed criminal, will be pursued through the criminal system.
Staff travel: reinstate it with length of service set but with the dispute length taken away and rounded up to the nearest year, pending any ECoHR decision on the legality of punitive measures for protected industrial action.
Then have a serious look at the CSD/Purser grades based on how much and the way they are paid and I am not talking about cuts in the levels.
BA need the current crew and each new employee acts as a duplicated cost, until the equivalent existing crew member leaves, unless the average existing crew member earns over £15000 in allowances per year, so the negotiations being over are not true, in my opinion.
There will be a tipping point when the new are larger than the old, but the financial state of the business may be more buoyant then, which adds weight to any future discussions.
I believe that Bassa will deliver another vote with convincing numbers and 6000 is a convincing number. It will be interesting if the 3000 invisible voters turn up in the yes or no camp, or that 3000 reduces along with union membership and therefore the number of ballot papers issued.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that Bassa will deliver another vote with convincing numbers and 6000 is a convincing number.
Any further ballots will tell me nothing from now on. Large votes can be explained by the fact that anyone would vote yes as it was not going to result in anything. Low results can be explained by the fact that as the ballot wasn’t going to result in anything why bother voting.
He has ruined ballots in my view to the point where they, and their numbers generated, will be as irrelevant as the strikes they are not going to generate.
The ballot question may as well be “are you a little bit unhappy with something at work, but not enough to do more than post this back with an X?” What company wouldn’t get a majority yes vote in such circumstances.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the odds of a major UK airline being in a fight for survival and in dispute with a major section of its workforce for over two years, which has cost more than the required savings from that section, still being here today?
Is the penny finally dropping that the rhetoric is not the sole property of one camp?
Is the penny finally dropping that the rhetoric is not the sole property of one camp?
Independent accountants inspected the Company accounts and agreed with BA's belief that we were in financial trouble, (the accounts BASSA didn't bother looking at).
Also, the cost of the strike has been added onto the savings requirement of the Cabin Crew.
So, for me, NO! the penny is not finally dropping, but I dearly hope that a few pound coins are beginning to drop with the militant part of BASSA.
Last edited by oh-oh; 17th Feb 2011 at 09:18.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB,
It's exceedingly rare that I disagree with you but on this occasion I must. The company hasn't claimed it is still in a fight for survival for, indeed, some time now. None of us will ever know (despite our own personal theories) how close we came as, I'd wager, that information is profoundly commercially sensitive but the fact remains that barring one group of staff, everyone else deemed that it was serious enough at the time to warrant the concessions that were made. To allow BASSA et al to return to pre-dispute crewing levels because we're no longer in a fight is to allow the same festering IR problem to submerge and await the next time that BA need their employees behind them. In essence it endorses the say no long enough and they'll go away policy that seems to be at the heart of any IR strategy employed by BASSA/Amicus. BA has a long and painful history of effectively rewarding recalcitrance and militancy - it appears to have changed and, I'm afraid, having been on the back of a hefty paycut myself (regardless of the ill-informed spin from elsewhere) that I simply cannot countenance that allowing the union to effectively retire to the sidelines without being fully and wholeheartedly aware that such behaviour in the future will not be tolerated merely leaves us open for the next hissy fit. And I use those last words deliberately.
As ever,
MrB
It's exceedingly rare that I disagree with you but on this occasion I must. The company hasn't claimed it is still in a fight for survival for, indeed, some time now. None of us will ever know (despite our own personal theories) how close we came as, I'd wager, that information is profoundly commercially sensitive but the fact remains that barring one group of staff, everyone else deemed that it was serious enough at the time to warrant the concessions that were made. To allow BASSA et al to return to pre-dispute crewing levels because we're no longer in a fight is to allow the same festering IR problem to submerge and await the next time that BA need their employees behind them. In essence it endorses the say no long enough and they'll go away policy that seems to be at the heart of any IR strategy employed by BASSA/Amicus. BA has a long and painful history of effectively rewarding recalcitrance and militancy - it appears to have changed and, I'm afraid, having been on the back of a hefty paycut myself (regardless of the ill-informed spin from elsewhere) that I simply cannot countenance that allowing the union to effectively retire to the sidelines without being fully and wholeheartedly aware that such behaviour in the future will not be tolerated merely leaves us open for the next hissy fit. And I use those last words deliberately.
As ever,
MrB
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh-oh
I am not and never have questioned the fact that BA were in financial trouble at a point in time. My point is that rhetoric is not unique to one side of this dispute.
If the line was, the fight to maintain as much as you are generally on, rather than serving notice on you all or enter into administration, rising from the other side as London Airways or BA2, then that would be fine. That hasn't got the same snappy ring to it though.
If the line was, the fight to maintain as much as you are generally on, rather than serving notice on you all or enter into administration, rising from the other side as London Airways or BA2, then that would be fine. That hasn't got the same snappy ring to it though.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrBunker
Your points are well made and I would not say we are disagreeing, just debating. There are things you can fix today and things that will take time. At the moment, there is no fixing going on. Somebody has to try to move it forward. Maybe that is the PCCC, who knows.
I just want my friends to go back to working normally and not worry about their future.
I just want my friends to go back to working normally and not worry about their future.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: LAM/BIG/BNN hold
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been said many times before; the Company may well have gone bust had every other department not played its part in reducing costs.
Independent accountants inspected the Company accounts and agreed with BA's belief that we were in financial trouble, (the accounts BASSA didn't bother looking at).
Independent accountants inspected the Company accounts and agreed with BA's belief that we were in financial trouble, (the accounts BASSA didn't bother looking at).
Why is it these 6000 yes voters believe their union (who they have to pay each month) and not their company (who pays their wages each month) ?
Why can the BASSA few just come to work, enjoy themselves, provide good customer service and not moan about everything that is going on - at the end of they dispute, I think these 6000 will realise what they have actually lost in this dispute and it won't be just monetary. very sad
LTF
Litebulbs,
Your 'lengthy' post above just does not make any sense to me.
1. The dispute has cost more than the required savings!
I dont think so! Dus to the non-existent negotiating from bassa, BA have made the initial required savings through the reduction of crew. The introduction of MF will save tens of millions of pounds per year - but I consider that as payback for causing the airline to lose money through needless strike action!!
2. Return to pre dispute crew complements!!!!!!
You are kidding surely. Why would BA allow CSDs to distort cushions in their offices? The remotest thought that BA would ever return to the previous 'over-manning' levels is rediculous!
3. Re-instate ST!!
Why should the company do this? I am sure it will be used as a bargaining chip, but I hope it is not 'just' returned per se.
4. bassa delivering convincing numbers after another ballot!
Does it really matter now? Forward bookings are looking healthy, many more vccs being trained, numerous bassa members realising what a bunch of chumps their 'leaders' are!!
As much as I would love to see a negotiated settlement, I cannot see it having a chance while the present bassa shower are holding onto power. They look more and more like a middle eastern dictatorship all the time.
Litebulbs, you are normally so very sensible and balanced in your posts, but I do not think that your post above made much sense. However, as ever you still come across as the voice of reason. I am certain that if you had been negotiating on behalf of bassa members, then this dispute would not be where it is!!
Your 'lengthy' post above just does not make any sense to me.
1. The dispute has cost more than the required savings!
I dont think so! Dus to the non-existent negotiating from bassa, BA have made the initial required savings through the reduction of crew. The introduction of MF will save tens of millions of pounds per year - but I consider that as payback for causing the airline to lose money through needless strike action!!
2. Return to pre dispute crew complements!!!!!!
You are kidding surely. Why would BA allow CSDs to distort cushions in their offices? The remotest thought that BA would ever return to the previous 'over-manning' levels is rediculous!
3. Re-instate ST!!
Why should the company do this? I am sure it will be used as a bargaining chip, but I hope it is not 'just' returned per se.
4. bassa delivering convincing numbers after another ballot!
Does it really matter now? Forward bookings are looking healthy, many more vccs being trained, numerous bassa members realising what a bunch of chumps their 'leaders' are!!
As much as I would love to see a negotiated settlement, I cannot see it having a chance while the present bassa shower are holding onto power. They look more and more like a middle eastern dictatorship all the time.
Litebulbs, you are normally so very sensible and balanced in your posts, but I do not think that your post above made much sense. However, as ever you still come across as the voice of reason. I am certain that if you had been negotiating on behalf of bassa members, then this dispute would not be where it is!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sporran
When you scan back at what you stick on 'ere, you do sometimes think that the beer must have been good!
I do post tosh, but I know what I mean. I bet if we sat in a pub and talked about this, we would be polarised, BUT it would be healthy .
My comrades at Bassa (I do love saying that!) are doing what they believe is best. I believe that some choices have been wrong, but I will stand by my fellow representatives in the challenge they have been set.
I know many will not agree with me, but speaking from a position of pressure, that I am so impressed how the top table have held it together.
I am sure most will not understand this, but if a few do, then good.
I do post tosh, but I know what I mean. I bet if we sat in a pub and talked about this, we would be polarised, BUT it would be healthy .
My comrades at Bassa (I do love saying that!) are doing what they believe is best. I believe that some choices have been wrong, but I will stand by my fellow representatives in the challenge they have been set.
I know many will not agree with me, but speaking from a position of pressure, that I am so impressed how the top table have held it together.
I am sure most will not understand this, but if a few do, then good.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is easy to respect a principled stand even when one strongly disagrees with the reasons for such a stand. It is nearly always possible to respect that someone can look at the same situation and reach a different view point. One can admire Gordon Brown for doing what he believed was the right thing to do even if in one's heart you know he was wrong. The same can be said of David Cameron at the moment. Acting respectably out of a genuine belief is entirely admirable.
However, this has not been a reasonable and principled stand based upon examination of the data. Resolutions such as no negotiation, an outright refusal to examine the books in order to judge the financial situation and make a judgement, the use of tactics like trying to smear any dissent with the use of porn sites, the democratic approach of having a ballot and then deciding that anyone who made a democratic decision to vote against IA (NB - not to strike break or even to fail to respect a democratic ballot but merely to have the temerity to not be dictated to by DH), the leadership suspending the democratic process on a show of hands by a tiny proportion of the union, thereby illicitly maintaining their grip on power all lead to a simple conclusion - this IS NOT a principled stand. There is nothing admirable or principled in the BASSA leadership and how they have behaved.
I would be wary of calling the leadership of BASSA comrades, the rank and file are worthy of that name, but the leadership have behaved like the leaders of some tinpot government ensuring their power and wealth remain unsullied by the screaming masses. They do not merit our detached admiration for fighting the good fight, the conduct of this dispute by BASSA has been truly appalling. Having a dispute with an employer even including IA does not warrant such behaviour.
However, this has not been a reasonable and principled stand based upon examination of the data. Resolutions such as no negotiation, an outright refusal to examine the books in order to judge the financial situation and make a judgement, the use of tactics like trying to smear any dissent with the use of porn sites, the democratic approach of having a ballot and then deciding that anyone who made a democratic decision to vote against IA (NB - not to strike break or even to fail to respect a democratic ballot but merely to have the temerity to not be dictated to by DH), the leadership suspending the democratic process on a show of hands by a tiny proportion of the union, thereby illicitly maintaining their grip on power all lead to a simple conclusion - this IS NOT a principled stand. There is nothing admirable or principled in the BASSA leadership and how they have behaved.
I would be wary of calling the leadership of BASSA comrades, the rank and file are worthy of that name, but the leadership have behaved like the leaders of some tinpot government ensuring their power and wealth remain unsullied by the screaming masses. They do not merit our detached admiration for fighting the good fight, the conduct of this dispute by BASSA has been truly appalling. Having a dispute with an employer even including IA does not warrant such behaviour.
Understatement!
... this has not been a reasonable and principled stand based upon examination of the data ...
... the leadership have behaved like the leaders of some tinpot government ensuring their power and wealth remain unsullied by the screaming masses.
, have been downright dishonest through the entire episode. Dishonest!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: france
Age: 62
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dishonest union
Just where are those accounts BASSA?
WHERE?
You have failed to conduct proper ballots two and a half times out of three.
You have NO idea how many members you have.
You have NO idea what you want to end this dispute.
So am I to believe that you can properly and honestly account for the circa £1.8 MILLION you get every year from hard working cabin crew? Crew that are trying to support families. Single mothers. Crew with elderly parents to support. Crew with debts and financial obligations.
Where has all the money gone?
WHERE?
You have failed to conduct proper ballots two and a half times out of three.
You have NO idea how many members you have.
You have NO idea what you want to end this dispute.
So am I to believe that you can properly and honestly account for the circa £1.8 MILLION you get every year from hard working cabin crew? Crew that are trying to support families. Single mothers. Crew with elderly parents to support. Crew with debts and financial obligations.
Where has all the money gone?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The race to organise the membership records is underway. I have had a letter from UNITE acknowledging that as they have had no subs from me since February that I am no longer a member and thus will not qualify for any representation. They did enclose an application form in case I changed my mind and wanted to rejoin!
Clearly the letter I sent to Amicus didn't make it to Unite or they would know that there was zero chance of that until they raise their game.
Clearly the letter I sent to Amicus didn't make it to Unite or they would know that there was zero chance of that until they raise their game.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LGW
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA Accounts
Just where are those accounts BASSA?
The BASSA section of Unite is the equivalent of a small company with an annual turnover in excess of £1.5million and has a duty to it's members to record income received and money spent. In accountancy terms this would consist, amongst other things, of a Profit and Loss Account and a Balance Sheet for each trading year.
The Profit and Loss Account for the year merely details all the income received and against that summarises the way in which the money was spent. That spending would be simply grouped in categories such as salaries to staff, political contributions, contributions to other bodies, office costs such as printing and postage etc, member expenses, travel costs, entertaining expenses etc.
The "bottom line" would then show a profit or loss.
The Balance Sheet simply shows the assets of the organisation such as property, office equipment, cash in hand, depreciation, debtors and creditors together with the aforementioned "profit or loss" from the current trading year.
So, a request should return two A4 sheets containing the above together with a note from the accountants to say that they believe it to be a true and accurate record. It is not common to include supporting documentation when making accounts available to members. Not a difficult request to fulfil and would take approximately the same time as responding that "we are busy at the moment"
If accounts have not been properly kept for preceding years then to complete the task retrospectively would be possible, however there would have to be supporting receipts/documentation in order to get an accountant to put his name to it.
It is a simple matter to dispel the suggestion that there are no valid accounts, simply send out a summarised copy to any request from a paid up BASSA member.
Silence or refusal merely confirms the suspicion.
Last edited by Rover90; 19th Feb 2011 at 18:53.