BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Litebulbs, your honesty is appreciated.
I was wondering if there had been talk about it within Unite, as my understanding is that Unite were furious with the BASSA reps? Is it permitted for union reps to simply give notice on the facilities agreement, without consultation of the members?
I hope you can appreciate our frustation - all unions given carte blanche to come up with savings, yet BASSA simply looked this gift horse in the mouth.
Where might we have been today, had they had the intelligence, competence and professionalism to come up with some effective, realistic savings?
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
I was wondering if there had been talk about it within Unite, as my understanding is that Unite were furious with the BASSA reps? Is it permitted for union reps to simply give notice on the facilities agreement, without consultation of the members?
I hope you can appreciate our frustation - all unions given carte blanche to come up with savings, yet BASSA simply looked this gift horse in the mouth.
Where might we have been today, had they had the intelligence, competence and professionalism to come up with some effective, realistic savings?
I am BA cabin crew and this is my own viewpoint and not that of BA.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
Hiflyer.
I did not indicate that I could not be bothered to find out who pulled out of the facilities agreement. It is now irrelevant, the solution to the problem is that it is restored.
I continue to pay my union subs because I believe that bassa is more than the current views of it's leadership. I believe it can still be an effective organisation. I believe that a change at the top should be considered. In fairness I would say that the intentions of the leadership were not misplaced but the implementation was wrong. A hole was dug.
Betty, I have made my thoughts known directly to reps and in writting on the bassa forum. I think I received 20 pages of comment about why I was wrong and where to go, but a significant number of ICMs in support of either my stance or courage.
I did not indicate that I could not be bothered to find out who pulled out of the facilities agreement. It is now irrelevant, the solution to the problem is that it is restored.
I continue to pay my union subs because I believe that bassa is more than the current views of it's leadership. I believe it can still be an effective organisation. I believe that a change at the top should be considered. In fairness I would say that the intentions of the leadership were not misplaced but the implementation was wrong. A hole was dug.
Betty, I have made my thoughts known directly to reps and in writting on the bassa forum. I think I received 20 pages of comment about why I was wrong and where to go, but a significant number of ICMs in support of either my stance or courage.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM and PC767 have made excellent posts with merit in some suggestions.
For me the whole problem is that ten item wish list. I'm struggling to think of any strike which had such a wide remit. Given that a strike is the last and nuclear option then they always have a single clear issue which if resolved would solve things. One of many problems is when would BASSA ever stop? Points x, y, z? a & b but not c? Let's assume that BA will never concede all 10 points then BASSA have a no win strategy.
Personal view: I can't see BA conceding any 'control' over NF, that's what this is all about, who runs the company. The rest could be discussed but I can't see BASSA settling as anything now is worse than when all this started.
BA aren't an altruistic charity, they are a business and the unions have to negotiate accordingly.
For me the whole problem is that ten item wish list. I'm struggling to think of any strike which had such a wide remit. Given that a strike is the last and nuclear option then they always have a single clear issue which if resolved would solve things. One of many problems is when would BASSA ever stop? Points x, y, z? a & b but not c? Let's assume that BA will never concede all 10 points then BASSA have a no win strategy.
Personal view: I can't see BA conceding any 'control' over NF, that's what this is all about, who runs the company. The rest could be discussed but I can't see BASSA settling as anything now is worse than when all this started.
BA aren't an altruistic charity, they are a business and the unions have to negotiate accordingly.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Between a rock & a hard place.
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
Another reason, I failed to mention, why I continue to pay my subs. With near 10,000 members what ever bassa do has an effect upon cabin crew. I choose to remain part of that process and have my voted registered. Perhaps, as Litebulb states, if all the resigned bassa members had remained to have their votes counted, then matters could be different now.
I reiterate, bassa is more than the two people at the top - at any given time.
I reiterate, bassa is more than the two people at the top - at any given time.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would I continue to pay £15 per month to a union that has served notice on the facilities agreement (and therefore cannot put forward any view in a meeting)? Why would I pay to a union which has provided its members with a list of strikers and by default non-strikers? Why would I pay a union which allows the naming and shaming of non-conforming members on its forum? Which has an ex-BA employee with an axe to grind and nothing to lose as Branch Secretary? Which has lied to its members over numerous issues? Which would not represent me now as I am a non-striker? Which has caused the instigation of Mixed Fleet, that might never have happened? Which has caused a division between crew that history has never known?
And most importantly, as stated earlier, why would I pay money to a union which was given carte blanche to provide savings, and could have done so at minimal damage to its members, yet walked away from the opportunity to do so?
Not so. The ballot process has proved, on several occassions, to be less than accurate so it is, by definition, unreliable.
However, if all the non-strikers had resigned from BASSA, there would be few funds left to support this abhorent organisation, and perhaps pressure from the Unite top-table would prevail.
The only way for non-strikers to make their voice heard is to vote with their feet: Walk away from the union that walked away from our right to have effective negotiation.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my viewpoint and not that of BA.
And most importantly, as stated earlier, why would I pay money to a union which was given carte blanche to provide savings, and could have done so at minimal damage to its members, yet walked away from the opportunity to do so?
if all the resigned bassa members had remained to have their votes counted, then matters could be different now.
However, if all the non-strikers had resigned from BASSA, there would be few funds left to support this abhorent organisation, and perhaps pressure from the Unite top-table would prevail.
The only way for non-strikers to make their voice heard is to vote with their feet: Walk away from the union that walked away from our right to have effective negotiation.
I am BA cabin crew and this is my viewpoint and not that of BA.
Last edited by HiFlyer14; 20th Mar 2011 at 22:57.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HiFlyer is lost to Unite and Unite should learn from that. Another forming union will no doubt benefit however.
If Campaign Krug and BASSAwitch gets success on the threads, we will see where Bassa monies go. If any rep is paid a wage, then we will know soon enough and we all draw our own conclusions. I am completely against it and can only lead to corruption.
If Campaign Krug and BASSAwitch gets success on the threads, we will see where Bassa monies go. If any rep is paid a wage, then we will know soon enough and we all draw our own conclusions. I am completely against it and can only lead to corruption.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, if a branch the size of Bassa's wanted to fund the employment of its own full time officer who is an employee of Unite, not BA, then that could be money well spent.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
Hi.
MissM, you said:
I respect you for coming on here, against the flow, and giving us your opinions; however I am quite insulted by your comment that you think I am not understanding what the strike was all about. I spent months and months investigating the issues and figures and challenging both sides to try to get to the truth - right up to shortly before the first strike - so I think I have an idea what it was about.
So we should ignore what was imposed and strike just because it was imposed? What if they imposed a pay rise on us (they did impose a bonus, the cads, but I let that one pass!)? What if they decided to make club seats bigger, resulting in there being fewer of them and therefore less work for us - should we strike over that imposition?
My point is that BASSA's proposals were worse for us than what BA imposed. You are saying people should have gone on strike simply because it was imposed, ignoring what or why, thereby cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
I have some more questions if you don't mind:
Bearing in mind the false figure of £173M BASSA claimed their proposal would save, followed by the "no negotiation" vote at a meeting; refusing to look at the accounts when those that did look concluded that savings needed to be made; then the refusal to sit in the same room as Amicus for the entire period set aside for negotiations: Do you think that BASSA were negotiating effectively or sensibly? If BASSA were not negotiating, and if savings needed to be made, is it still right to strike simply because the savings were imposed, ignoring what was imposed?
You didn't answer my query about a reduction in basic pay and overtime which you said we had suffered. Can you please tell us when this happened as I don't remember it.
Cheers,
M
MissM, you said:
I think you, and many others, are not actually understanding what the strike was all about. It was about the principle of imposition
So we should ignore what was imposed and strike just because it was imposed? What if they imposed a pay rise on us (they did impose a bonus, the cads, but I let that one pass!)? What if they decided to make club seats bigger, resulting in there being fewer of them and therefore less work for us - should we strike over that imposition?
My point is that BASSA's proposals were worse for us than what BA imposed. You are saying people should have gone on strike simply because it was imposed, ignoring what or why, thereby cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
I have some more questions if you don't mind:
Bearing in mind the false figure of £173M BASSA claimed their proposal would save, followed by the "no negotiation" vote at a meeting; refusing to look at the accounts when those that did look concluded that savings needed to be made; then the refusal to sit in the same room as Amicus for the entire period set aside for negotiations: Do you think that BASSA were negotiating effectively or sensibly? If BASSA were not negotiating, and if savings needed to be made, is it still right to strike simply because the savings were imposed, ignoring what was imposed?
You didn't answer my query about a reduction in basic pay and overtime which you said we had suffered. Can you please tell us when this happened as I don't remember it.
Cheers,
M
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC767
Hi,
You said, regarding the MTP:
I don't recall this, which may be due to my missing it at the time or due to my forgetting it in the meantime. Would you happen to have a link to that proposal so I can see the wording?
Thanks,
M
You said, regarding the MTP:
However, at the end of the proposal it was written that the payment would be permanently withdrawn at the will of Mr Walsh (or the incumbrent CEO).
Thanks,
M
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was about the principle of imposition
Miss M and others keep on about imposition as a reason for striking.
BA would say that they were "managing" their cabin crew.
I thought that in the subsequent court case the judge came down on the side of BA managing their staff.
Therefore there was no imposition as such, just a group of people not used to their " boss" telling them what they had to do whilst at work.
Isn't it really as simple as that??
BA would say that they were "managing" their cabin crew.
I thought that in the subsequent court case the judge came down on the side of BA managing their staff.
Therefore there was no imposition as such, just a group of people not used to their " boss" telling them what they had to do whilst at work.
Isn't it really as simple as that??
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mesmer
It was never my intention to insult and I apologise if you are. There seems to be a great misunderstanding amongst many who seem to believe that we went on strike because the CSD had to work on a trolley. We went on strike because of the principle of imposition.
Should we go on strike if they were to impose a pay rise of change the layout of the seats onboard? Maybe you should forward your queries to the union instead. Our dispute can't really be compared to such minor issues as it's not about a pay rise or different seats onboard which would mean having to work less. We are facing a management with a set agenda.
Reduction in basic pay and overtime happened somewhere around late 90's.
Have BASSA dealt with this in their best possible manner? No, they have many mistakes and could have dealt with it differently but there's no point looking back wishing things were different. This is where we are at the moment and we have to deal with it accordingly.
Will I continue to support the union? Unless our management provides guarantees that they have no intention of getting rid of me, nor starving me out of employment, and that I can continue with my job, without losing any earnings because of Mixed Fleet, the union will have my continued support.
It was never my intention to insult and I apologise if you are. There seems to be a great misunderstanding amongst many who seem to believe that we went on strike because the CSD had to work on a trolley. We went on strike because of the principle of imposition.
Should we go on strike if they were to impose a pay rise of change the layout of the seats onboard? Maybe you should forward your queries to the union instead. Our dispute can't really be compared to such minor issues as it's not about a pay rise or different seats onboard which would mean having to work less. We are facing a management with a set agenda.
Reduction in basic pay and overtime happened somewhere around late 90's.
Have BASSA dealt with this in their best possible manner? No, they have many mistakes and could have dealt with it differently but there's no point looking back wishing things were different. This is where we are at the moment and we have to deal with it accordingly.
Will I continue to support the union? Unless our management provides guarantees that they have no intention of getting rid of me, nor starving me out of employment, and that I can continue with my job, without losing any earnings because of Mixed Fleet, the union will have my continued support.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tunbridge Wells
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
Have BASSA dealt with this in their best possible manner? No, they have many mistakes and could have dealt with it differently but there's no point looking back wishing things were different. This is where we are at the moment and we have to deal with it accordingly.
Indeed we do have to deal with it. We accept that what's done is done, focus on the here and now and get on with the job
Edited to add - and crew tell the union what they want to happen, not the union telling crew
Last edited by From Tunbridge Wells; 21st Mar 2011 at 21:28. Reason: To add
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
Thank you for your apology. It is gratefully accepted.
I hope you don't mind me banging on about this: you said:
But in your very next paragraph, in response to my asking if we should strike if a pay rise was imposed, you said:
So which is it? Is the important thing the principle of the imposition (as in the first quote), or the scale of the imposition (as suggested by your mention of "such minor issues").
Surely if the principle is the issue which is important enough to strike over, then one should strike regardless of what is imposed - how minor the subject is is unimportant. However, if the scale and nature of the imposition is important, then it would seem strange to go on strike to try to get something worse.
Must go to work now. Have a good night everybody.
M
I hope you don't mind me banging on about this: you said:
We went on strike because of the principle of imposition.
Our dispute can't really be compared to such minor issues as it's not about a pay rise or different seats onboard which would mean having to work less.
Surely if the principle is the issue which is important enough to strike over, then one should strike regardless of what is imposed - how minor the subject is is unimportant. However, if the scale and nature of the imposition is important, then it would seem strange to go on strike to try to get something worse.
Must go to work now. Have a good night everybody.
M
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Windsor
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for BASSA members (and indeed ex BASSA members)
How come given in 1997
no-one in BASSA seems to have bothered to ensure that the situation did not reoccur. You see, being a bear of little brain I would have thought that knowing that questions had been raised in the past and taking on board the comments about bad administration, weak financial controls etc. I would have thought that the membership might just have wanted to see some kind of corrective action being taken. A bit of transparency. Or is it that having shelled out the cash, they no longer care what happens to it.
What do BASSA members believe they are buying for their dues ? In a time when cash is tight and given the concerns about pay, allowances etc. I would have thought that people would want to make sure that every penny they are paying out was returning value for money. I certainly would. Heavens, if you think of it like car insurance, you wouldn't stay with the same insurer year in year out. If cash is tight you'd shop around a bit. Either that or seek some reassurance that the amount you are paying out is actually needed.
What I find incredible is that 14 years on we have a situation which seems awfully similar to that which pertained in 1997. A branch secretary sacked by BA and questions starting to be asked (albeit by ex members) about the branch finances. I will wager that if it results in an inquiry by the Certification Office, that they will be able to dust off the previous report, change the dates and names and reissue it. So much for learning lessons from the past.
Of course I might have it completely wrong. I'd welcome comment from any past or present BASSA members that can show that the membership did take steps following the 1997 report.
The government's Trade Union Certification Office confirmed yesterday that it had conducted a year-long investigation into allegations of financial irregularity at Bassa, which involved interviewing Mr Coleman.
The Certification Officer, Ted Whybrew, decided to take no further action, writing in a letter to Mr Morris last month: "From what I have seen there is no evidence of a significant issue of financial corruption in which members' funds were diverted to private gain.
"But there is evidence of extremely bad administration, weak financial controls and non-implementation of the union's own rules regarding the control of branch finances."
The Certification Officer, Ted Whybrew, decided to take no further action, writing in a letter to Mr Morris last month: "From what I have seen there is no evidence of a significant issue of financial corruption in which members' funds were diverted to private gain.
"But there is evidence of extremely bad administration, weak financial controls and non-implementation of the union's own rules regarding the control of branch finances."
What do BASSA members believe they are buying for their dues ? In a time when cash is tight and given the concerns about pay, allowances etc. I would have thought that people would want to make sure that every penny they are paying out was returning value for money. I certainly would. Heavens, if you think of it like car insurance, you wouldn't stay with the same insurer year in year out. If cash is tight you'd shop around a bit. Either that or seek some reassurance that the amount you are paying out is actually needed.
What I find incredible is that 14 years on we have a situation which seems awfully similar to that which pertained in 1997. A branch secretary sacked by BA and questions starting to be asked (albeit by ex members) about the branch finances. I will wager that if it results in an inquiry by the Certification Office, that they will be able to dust off the previous report, change the dates and names and reissue it. So much for learning lessons from the past.
Of course I might have it completely wrong. I'd welcome comment from any past or present BASSA members that can show that the membership did take steps following the 1997 report.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Windsor
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watersidewonker
as someone who obviously is a fervent BASSA supporter can you answer my posting about why the branch finances seem to be in the same sorry state that they were in 1997 ? Do you think you ae getting value for money from the subs you fork out every month ? Are you certain that the additional levy that BASSA extracts on top of the Unite subs is being used to best effect and if so, how do you know since there have been no published accounts for some time ?
as someone who obviously is a fervent BASSA supporter can you answer my posting about why the branch finances seem to be in the same sorry state that they were in 1997 ? Do you think you ae getting value for money from the subs you fork out every month ? Are you certain that the additional levy that BASSA extracts on top of the Unite subs is being used to best effect and if so, how do you know since there have been no published accounts for some time ?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Windsor
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I don't doubt that the outcome of the ballot will be yet another yes vote for industrial action, I think that any union members who believe that planes will be empty are living in a fool's paradise. Take a look at some of the frequent flier forums. Many of them suggest that BA customers tend to reckon that BA will be able to live up to the promise of 100% of longhaul services and a large slice of shorthaul. So strike action doesn't worry them. Which kind of renders any ballot for action pretty useless. I'm sure it will be cheery down at Bedfont. You can all sit around in your M3s and enjoy Pimms in the spring sunshine. Makes you look really hard done by. You'll successfully lose any last vestiges of public sympathy. In the meantime the airline will keep running smoothly and passengers will be complimenting the efforts of those who will cross the picket line. The big difference now is that there is a hard core of non-union labour who will work normally. This makes it a lot easier for those who might have wanted to 'send a message' in the vote but wouldn't want to go on strike, to come into work. And then there's the percentage who either vote against strike action or simply didn't vote. On top of that, there are now a reasonable number of Mixed fleet crew, plus volunteers who are now experienced in running the full service.
Of course what you don't know yet is what BA's response might be to a strike call. To borrow a phrase from Dirty Harry - do you feel lucky ?
Of course what you don't know yet is what BA's response might be to a strike call. To borrow a phrase from Dirty Harry - do you feel lucky ?
