BA CC industrial relations (current airline staff only)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: pluto
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA will need charismatic leaders
For Abbey Road below:
dull personality, bright intellect
Last edited by blimey; 26th Mar 2011 at 20:13.
What they need is dull but able. There are stacks of very bright crew with professional backgrounds who would make ideal candidates.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ottergirl, Hiflyer and Bettygirl, I hope you are proud of yourselves for backing BA. Where did it leave you? Not only did BA give you a bonus but also a new fleet which is putting an end to your career. Some in this company are even rubbing their hands over it saying that our time has come and repeatedly mentioning how easily we have been replaced by VCC's.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M.
The reason that I, like Ottergirl, Tiramasu etc. "backed BA" is that they were ultimately the far more credible party. Most of BASSA's take on the situation was, with only a little thought, clearly just a load of wild speculation, scaremongering and deliberate misinformation.
Don't forget, MissM if you are pre 1997, you are not supposed to be here now. Remember what BASSA said about the new entrant starter rates then? I'll remind you. "In ten years time, they'll be in the majority and the company will be able to do what they want with you, because those on the new pay won't support you." The same doom mongering as they used for Mid Fleet and what happened to that.
It would take breathtaking ignorance, or denial, to think that there was NOT a serious problem, long term, with our overall package of pay and terms and conditions (though BASSA of course tried to say otherwise). The only issue was how to deal with it. Make the savings from SIGNIFICANT changes to legacy fleets, or employ NEW people, not only on lower pay, but also with far less restricted rostering.
After the complete intransigence of BASSA in the dispute of 2007, BA had no confidence in acheiving it through the former, so Operation Columbus was born.
We probably could have avoided New Fleet, if we'd had an honest, intelligent, business minded, sane union, but we didn't, so people like me, who understood the problem MY company faced (the company that still needs to be around in ten years to pay MY pension) had to make a decision whether to back BA, or back a union that was filling peoples heads with silly nonsense like "you'll all be sat at home with no work."
Even you, MissM regurgitated that the other day. Don't you get it? It would be financial madness for BA to do that. They want MORE work out of you , not less. Being sat at home with no work is not going to force the likes of me onto Mixed Fleet OR to leave the company. Frankly, if I could sit at home on my basic (and with my pension paid) and not do anything for it, great, where can I sign up for that deal? Little bit of paintaing and decorating 3 days a week to top up the loss of allowances. Fantastic, part time working for full time pay! Not many people wouldn't sign up for that.
Not going to happen though is it? WE will, as the years go on, go to fewer destinations, but we'll just go to them more often. Less variety, not less work.
THAT's the issue MissM, we backed BA, because we thought BASSA was talking a lot of clap trap and has done for many years. We have long memories. It's a shame you don't.
The reason that I, like Ottergirl, Tiramasu etc. "backed BA" is that they were ultimately the far more credible party. Most of BASSA's take on the situation was, with only a little thought, clearly just a load of wild speculation, scaremongering and deliberate misinformation.
Don't forget, MissM if you are pre 1997, you are not supposed to be here now. Remember what BASSA said about the new entrant starter rates then? I'll remind you. "In ten years time, they'll be in the majority and the company will be able to do what they want with you, because those on the new pay won't support you." The same doom mongering as they used for Mid Fleet and what happened to that.
It would take breathtaking ignorance, or denial, to think that there was NOT a serious problem, long term, with our overall package of pay and terms and conditions (though BASSA of course tried to say otherwise). The only issue was how to deal with it. Make the savings from SIGNIFICANT changes to legacy fleets, or employ NEW people, not only on lower pay, but also with far less restricted rostering.
After the complete intransigence of BASSA in the dispute of 2007, BA had no confidence in acheiving it through the former, so Operation Columbus was born.
We probably could have avoided New Fleet, if we'd had an honest, intelligent, business minded, sane union, but we didn't, so people like me, who understood the problem MY company faced (the company that still needs to be around in ten years to pay MY pension) had to make a decision whether to back BA, or back a union that was filling peoples heads with silly nonsense like "you'll all be sat at home with no work."
Even you, MissM regurgitated that the other day. Don't you get it? It would be financial madness for BA to do that. They want MORE work out of you , not less. Being sat at home with no work is not going to force the likes of me onto Mixed Fleet OR to leave the company. Frankly, if I could sit at home on my basic (and with my pension paid) and not do anything for it, great, where can I sign up for that deal? Little bit of paintaing and decorating 3 days a week to top up the loss of allowances. Fantastic, part time working for full time pay! Not many people wouldn't sign up for that.
Not going to happen though is it? WE will, as the years go on, go to fewer destinations, but we'll just go to them more often. Less variety, not less work.
THAT's the issue MissM, we backed BA, because we thought BASSA was talking a lot of clap trap and has done for many years. We have long memories. It's a shame you don't.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M,
I totally agree with what Beagle9 has just said and I couldn't have put it in words better myself.
In my opinion it is Bassa that have caused Mixed Fleet and no one else. Had they negotiated instead of arguing with Amicus we could have had a different outcome but their inability to negotiate and offer any sensible solution and the calling of a completely pointless strike has actually caused Mixed Fleet to be started with the worst possible terms for these new crew. It is you lot that supported Bassa that have caused this mess not those of us that could see it was a total waste of time.
Well done Miss M, you and Bassa have done a really gone job! You have wasted two years striking or threatening to strike and you have got absolutely nothing for it!! You should be really proud of yourself! Not!
Unfortunately it was very predictable that it wouldn't take long for the Bassa camp to inevitably try and blame people like us for their own mistakes!
These are my own personal views and I do not speak for BA
I totally agree with what Beagle9 has just said and I couldn't have put it in words better myself.
In my opinion it is Bassa that have caused Mixed Fleet and no one else. Had they negotiated instead of arguing with Amicus we could have had a different outcome but their inability to negotiate and offer any sensible solution and the calling of a completely pointless strike has actually caused Mixed Fleet to be started with the worst possible terms for these new crew. It is you lot that supported Bassa that have caused this mess not those of us that could see it was a total waste of time.
Well done Miss M, you and Bassa have done a really gone job! You have wasted two years striking or threatening to strike and you have got absolutely nothing for it!! You should be really proud of yourself! Not!
Unfortunately it was very predictable that it wouldn't take long for the Bassa camp to inevitably try and blame people like us for their own mistakes!
These are my own personal views and I do not speak for BA
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An excellent Post Beagle9. Throughout my over 3 decades within BA. The company has always handled cost savings re staffing in the same way. You will get the same pay but you will have to work harder and/or your work lifestyle will change. I have friends who are top managers who given that very option.
So as a CSD I am on a trolley again, no problem, Maybe I won't go to Singapore for 2 nights (like I go there often...NOT). No problem.
What matters is I get paid as before, my income is supported by the supplement should it go below the annual sum (a figure much reduced after BASSA let that offer slip). My pension is hopefully ok.
We all just have to get on with it.
So as a CSD I am on a trolley again, no problem, Maybe I won't go to Singapore for 2 nights (like I go there often...NOT). No problem.
What matters is I get paid as before, my income is supported by the supplement should it go below the annual sum (a figure much reduced after BASSA let that offer slip). My pension is hopefully ok.
We all just have to get on with it.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keith Williams turned up on one of the days of a course I was attending recently. His view seemed to be that it would be extremely unfair to expect people to take such a large cut to their current earnings as most people live to their income. That was why he was looking at the long game. The impression I got was that BA are happy to wait another 10, 15 or 20 years for the full savings from New Fleet to manifest itself completely. Just as they have been prepared to wait for such a long time for the savings from the 1997 contracts. I don't think there will be forced moves to New Fleet pay for anyone. Rather, there will be less variety of trips and possibly fuller rosters but a similar level of income.
My opinions not those of BA
Regards Barbosa
My opinions not those of BA
Regards Barbosa
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AROUND AND ABOUT
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miss M
I'm very proud of supporting BA in this dispute, so please add me to your list! Beagle 9 summed it all up perfectly. I'm afraid Bassa have tried to bluff one too many times, and BA have called that bluff. Bassa always have been a one trick pony and all of this in the last two years has proved that
Last edited by JUAN TRIPP; 27th Mar 2011 at 21:34.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When companies (or governments, come to that) announce the need for change and how they intend to deal with it, unions point out the potential threat of their proposals.
That's what unions do. It's not in their interests to have their members feel too secure in their jobs, because otherwise the members may decide it's not really worth spending money they might prefer to spend on something else, to the union.
THAT'S what people forget about modern unions. They are BUSINESSES they want to make money and the big ones like Unite have many officials with earnings that put them into the 40% tax bracket. (Much though they crow about "fat cat bosses", when critisising the companies their members work for.)
Factor in politics (and what we are seeing now, is a move back to the more extreme left in many of the main UK unions) and you have a mix for potentially unreasonable union behaviour. And I say that as someone who believes in the principle of unionsism.
Pointing out the potential threat of change is fine. It's the job of a union to do this. The reponsible unions will tackle proposals for change responsibly and NOT overdo the scaremongering and misinforation. They will negociate from the basis that any settlement needs to be for the benefit of the members AND the company.
As crew, OUR problem has been that OUR union has acted in a manner completely opposite to this.
You have to ask yourself why.
Self interest? Pathalogical hatred of one man and/or what he stands for? Because that's all they know and it's worked before? All of the above? That's for history to show, perhaps.
The trouble is, that people with strong ideological or emotional attachments to one side or the other, just WON'T now make a choice based on the facts, because "keeping the faith" is more important than anything else.
So yes, MissM, I AM proud to have backed BA, but only because I'm proud that I stood up for what I believe to be right and didn't give in pressure from colleagues to be loyal to an organisation and point of view I see as totally and fundamentally wrong.
That's what unions do. It's not in their interests to have their members feel too secure in their jobs, because otherwise the members may decide it's not really worth spending money they might prefer to spend on something else, to the union.
THAT'S what people forget about modern unions. They are BUSINESSES they want to make money and the big ones like Unite have many officials with earnings that put them into the 40% tax bracket. (Much though they crow about "fat cat bosses", when critisising the companies their members work for.)
Factor in politics (and what we are seeing now, is a move back to the more extreme left in many of the main UK unions) and you have a mix for potentially unreasonable union behaviour. And I say that as someone who believes in the principle of unionsism.
Pointing out the potential threat of change is fine. It's the job of a union to do this. The reponsible unions will tackle proposals for change responsibly and NOT overdo the scaremongering and misinforation. They will negociate from the basis that any settlement needs to be for the benefit of the members AND the company.
As crew, OUR problem has been that OUR union has acted in a manner completely opposite to this.
You have to ask yourself why.
Self interest? Pathalogical hatred of one man and/or what he stands for? Because that's all they know and it's worked before? All of the above? That's for history to show, perhaps.
The trouble is, that people with strong ideological or emotional attachments to one side or the other, just WON'T now make a choice based on the facts, because "keeping the faith" is more important than anything else.
So yes, MissM, I AM proud to have backed BA, but only because I'm proud that I stood up for what I believe to be right and didn't give in pressure from colleagues to be loyal to an organisation and point of view I see as totally and fundamentally wrong.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again spot on.
For me the saddest thing about all this is how badly Bassa and Amicus have handled all this.
I believe in union membership and it was hard for me to leave my union but like Beagle I cannot back a union that is being led in the way these two have, bringing crew out over something that the majority of us were not unhappy with and making things up just in order to get support for their useless cause!
For me the saddest thing about all this is how badly Bassa and Amicus have handled all this.
I believe in union membership and it was hard for me to leave my union but like Beagle I cannot back a union that is being led in the way these two have, bringing crew out over something that the majority of us were not unhappy with and making things up just in order to get support for their useless cause!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Miss M,
I am very proud of backing BA and I intend to do so again if the ballot calls for a strike; moreover I make sure that all my colleagues know that I came to work because I would be embarrassed for them to think I was not able to make the right decision. It wasn't even a difficult decision. I left BASSA in 1997 because they demonstrated that they had not a clue how to conduct themselves in negotiations and I joined CC89/Amicus when they got on and negotiated the long-range agreement and showed they did have the necessary acumen to represent their members. Sadly the current Amicus regime has not lived up to this trust and I could not remain with them either.
I do not consider any of us who backed BA as responsible for the birth of mixed-fleet. The responsibility lies firmly with that bunch of cowboys who were so focused on playground "we're not sitting at the same table as him cos we don't like him" that they forgot that they were being paid by their members to get the best deal for them. Every single proposal from BASSA has included mixed-fleet because it is easier to sell-out new crew (the same way they did with LGW) than it is to negotiate a responsible compromise that will allow us all to keep our livelihoods. Let's face it, our union is led by the crew equivalent of Colonel Gaddafi with about as much credibility!
I hope, one day, that there will be a union we can be proud of, with reps we can trust, with accounts that can bear scrutiny and who will negotiate on our behalf with no regard for their personal issues. Until that time I will be backing the company who has paid my wages, who has given me a wonderful career and who has shown that it can be trusted!
Thanks for asking though!
Ottergirl
ps. You may feel you can be easily replaced by VCCs but I make sure I'm too good at what I do to be replaced by a volunteer!
I am very proud of backing BA and I intend to do so again if the ballot calls for a strike; moreover I make sure that all my colleagues know that I came to work because I would be embarrassed for them to think I was not able to make the right decision. It wasn't even a difficult decision. I left BASSA in 1997 because they demonstrated that they had not a clue how to conduct themselves in negotiations and I joined CC89/Amicus when they got on and negotiated the long-range agreement and showed they did have the necessary acumen to represent their members. Sadly the current Amicus regime has not lived up to this trust and I could not remain with them either.
I do not consider any of us who backed BA as responsible for the birth of mixed-fleet. The responsibility lies firmly with that bunch of cowboys who were so focused on playground "we're not sitting at the same table as him cos we don't like him" that they forgot that they were being paid by their members to get the best deal for them. Every single proposal from BASSA has included mixed-fleet because it is easier to sell-out new crew (the same way they did with LGW) than it is to negotiate a responsible compromise that will allow us all to keep our livelihoods. Let's face it, our union is led by the crew equivalent of Colonel Gaddafi with about as much credibility!
I hope, one day, that there will be a union we can be proud of, with reps we can trust, with accounts that can bear scrutiny and who will negotiate on our behalf with no regard for their personal issues. Until that time I will be backing the company who has paid my wages, who has given me a wonderful career and who has shown that it can be trusted!
Thanks for asking though!
Ottergirl
ps. You may feel you can be easily replaced by VCCs but I make sure I'm too good at what I do to be replaced by a volunteer!
Last edited by ottergirl; 27th Mar 2011 at 19:36.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: birmingham
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great points made by Beagle9, Bigby and Ottergirl!!
I left the CC99 when they merged with Bassa and became non existant. Backing Bassa seems as redundant as putting a months salary on Shergar!!............... A waste of time!
LOUD and PROUD about backing BA
I left the CC99 when they merged with Bassa and became non existant. Backing Bassa seems as redundant as putting a months salary on Shergar!!............... A waste of time!
LOUD and PROUD about backing BA
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Miss M again,
Just a thought I had. Since we have all told you why we are happy and proud to have backed our employer, why not take this opportunity to tell us why you are happy and proud that you backed BASSA. (Not rhetoric lifted from DH's ramblings please but why you genuinely feel you were right.) If this dispute has taught me anything, it's that everyone's feelings have value in trying to understand the other's position.
Ottergirl
Just a thought I had. Since we have all told you why we are happy and proud to have backed our employer, why not take this opportunity to tell us why you are happy and proud that you backed BASSA. (Not rhetoric lifted from DH's ramblings please but why you genuinely feel you were right.) If this dispute has taught me anything, it's that everyone's feelings have value in trying to understand the other's position.
Ottergirl
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes CaptB but also within the IFCE dept they have now inbuilt a cost saving process that they can revisit as and when BA want. All they now have to do is to offer part-time or a redundancy package to us old contracts whenever another cost saving round comes about (and we all know that will happen again).
I've been through enough changes in my working time to know that the priority is preservation of salary.
Who was it said that the perfect equation for productivity was to halve the workforce, pay them a third more and get them to work harder! I think thats the numbers. The times they are a changing!
I've been through enough changes in my working time to know that the priority is preservation of salary.
Who was it said that the perfect equation for productivity was to halve the workforce, pay them a third more and get them to work harder! I think thats the numbers. The times they are a changing!
