Staff travel has not been removed.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this? The documents covering Staff Travel are pertinent to the staff member reading them as they are written in such a manner.

Thus, stating that staff travel may be removed for any reason pertains to the staff member individually. Not 'may be removed in its entirity'.

Semantics I'm afraid Litebulbs.

That is your interpretation, but not mine. In my time at BA, it did not happen for IA. I would test it.

Semantics I'm afraid Wirbelsturm.

VCC offer has made its way to the USA
 

To: All Americas teams (BA mainline)


------------------------------------------------------------------------

A week ago I wrote to let you know that holders of EU passports can now volunteer as cabin crew.

I am very pleased to say that this has now been extended to mainline BA colleagues who are holders of US passports.

We urgently need more colleagues to sign up as volunteer cabin crew as we do not know what Unite's next actions will be and we must be ready to support our customers.

By volunteering, you will become a member of the on board team – delivering service to our customers, carrying out duties similar to existing cabin crew and being responsible for the safety of our customers. You will be fully trained to meet all safety and legal requirements.

Please note that you must satisfy the following requirements to volunteer:

* You must be between 5' 2" and 6' 2" tall
* You must have a reach of 6' 7"
* You must be able to swim 25 metres (about 85 feet) confidently
* You must have a valid UK/EU/US passport with more than 6 months validity


Note that we still need to run the business and your participation will be subject to manager approval. Your senior manager will be asked to review and approve your volunteer request.

To sign up, click here. You will be contacted with further details, with training beginning as early as the first week in July.

Thanks again for backing BA and keeping our flag flying.

Regards,

US VCC
 

ndbluemoon,

Thanks for your post, it hadn't occurred to a Heathrow-centric :O person like myself that VCC may come from overseas.

Do you know how many people BA employs in the US? I think that the main bases are at JFK, Bulova and Jacksonville (Flytele reservations). I'm guessing that not too many will be allowed to volunteer as most of their jobs are operational.

Following on from the previous threads examples of intimidation from the BASSA forum, I found this nugget on there today in response to the news that BA have accepted a 62 year old employee as a volunter cabin crew member:

Now I thought that new depths were indeed being plumbed - by the BASSA mentalists, who'll kick up an orchestrated stink about alleged homophobia but don't see any problem with ageism. Then I saw the reply to that post:

Truly astonishing! Time to sack these nut jobs.

Stelton

It must have been somebody else. On my last trip, 9 of 14 went on strike.

I think I'm behaving in a good manner at work. It's becoming easier to spot strikers and non-strikers. I don't talk to strikers more than necessary and I definitely don't socialise with them downroute. Regarding our pilots, I'm always senior enough so I can always choose a position which means that I don't have to look after them.

Eddy

ST should be reinstated when an agreement is reached. Not 6 months later.

You're missing the point though, MissM. Walsh is, I would hazard a guess, NEVER going to give staff travel back as part of a negotiated settlement to bring to an end these strikes. Too many other people in the company would be up in arms if he did.

A manager friend of mine said that she and "all the other crew managers would go mental if he gave it back" because of all the extra effort they had put in to keep the company flying.

Like it or not, and rightly or wrongly, a lot of people in this company are THRILLED that strikers have been punished for participating in the strikes by having their travel perks removed. Walsh would face uproar if he returned it as part of a strike-ending agreement.

What both parties need to do is drop the staff travel issue here and now. Find an agreement without the inclusion of staff travel. It's the only way this will be brought to a swift conclusion.

And in six months, after operating normally, Bassa should go back to the company and put a case forward to have staff travel given back. I think they'd succeed.

Walsh won't give it back as part of a negotiated settlement because his ego won't allow it. But he'll give it back to be 'nice' in six months time, I have little doubt.

Sadly, just as Walsh's mammoth ego won't allow him to give staff travel back, Bassa's equally hefty ego won't allow a deal to be done without its return.

So again, unfortunately, it comes back to who can sustain the strikes for longer..... And if the company is operating a 100% schedule, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out who that is likely to be.

UNITE vt
 

Eddy,

I don't think the non-return of ST depends on Willie Walsh's ego. Why? You gave the answer yourself. Those of us who helped to keep BA flying want consideration for our efforts. We see it as an issue of fairness. It is certainly not fair that those who damaged BA and its customers' travel plans should get away scot-free as far as ST is concerned.

But why not? When the coal miners went on strike they didn't suffer in any other way than to lose money (and, of course, lost friendships/broken families etc, but I'm talking about company inflicted penalties).

When posties go on strike, they lose the same.

Nobody else (from businesses of another nature) who goes on strike loses anything other than the cash they'd have earned had they been at work.

Walsh has honed in on this benefit we all enjoy and is using it as a bargaining tool when, to be honest, a lot of people aren't sure he should be. A lot of people would argue that staff travel should never have become involved in this whole dispute.

Those who've lost staff travel will certainly argue it shouldn't have become involved! Others might say that BASSA have been far to quick to call for strike action in the past and this time they need to understand that actions have consequences. BA have a right to defend themselves against industrial action, why should the BASSAmentalists get away scot free? Perhaps strikers in other industries don't have the benefit of non-contractual perks which their employers could choose to revoke.

Litebulbs,

By your (former Amicus rep) interpretation, if anyone loses a benefit within the company for any reason then it should be removed for all?

Why does the removal of a benefit/perk for those taking part in damaging IA which allows only protection from dismissal mean that said perk should be removed from all or not at all?

You can't cry under discrimination as it is at the wish and will of the management as to whether any member of staff 'deserves' said perk and there are no laid down rules or regulation for removal.

This dispute is NOT about ST, that is just a red herring, it allows Unite to continue to bluster whilst they try and get their incalcitrant child under control.

ST has become an issue since Unite have been running out of reasons to prolong the dispute.

They said it was about imposition - but Judge Sir Christopher Holland disagreed with them.

They said it was about Willie Walsh being untrustworthy - a dubious line of argument.

They said it was about disciplinaries - an even more dubious (and deplorable) line of argument.

If ST had never been taken away, some other reason would no doubt have been found to strike. How about:

• New Fleet
• Future promotion prospects
• Harsher sickness policy
• Ending of the redeployment agreement

I could no doubt find other examples, but these are sufficient for my case.

Some interesting points and I agree to an extent, with your first point.

Those that went on strike have not got away scot free, as you put it, they have lost money. That is a consequence of IA. As I said in previous posts on the old thread, I have not found any case law that has set a precedent, for a business to remove a benefit from a group of employees who have taken part in IA, but are only part of a bigger group, who did not. I am not saying that it hasn't happened. If it has and you can find it, my argument fails.

Because there has been no process followed. As of yet, or until I or anybody else can find an example of where a benefit has been removed as a punishment for industrial action, then yes, in my opinion, it should be all of a bargaining group, or none. Remember that Unite/BASSA has collective bargaining rights with BA.

The problem with that philosophy is that it would give the Union the right to bring any form of benefit/perk into a dispute without the requirement to incorporate it into a legal ballot process.

Thus, I feel, it is unjustifiable to use it as a reason to prolong a dispute where the initial ballot was, in a court of law, judged to be flawed as the imposed change was legal.

If a singular person or a minority group cause financial disruption to a company through their actions, legally protected or not, then there is no reason why singularly granted perks can't be with held.

I guess we will have to wait until due process is invented. Who knows what the result could be, as we all know, the law is an Ass.

Agreed and it makes all involved with making and managing it very rich. I just hope if it comes to it, your first point that you make, which is reasonable, is balanced fairly with the rights of the employee.

I've still got my staff travel and I don't think it should have become involved.

As previously posted, BA has removed staff travel temporarily in past disputes, I lost mine in the early 90's, if you are the same Litebulbs that posts on the air mech site I'm sure this can be confirmed on there.