WDTBD

You say that anyones Ts and Cs could be changed by imposition at any time. This may be true, but with regards to crewing levels, the courts have already landed on side with BA....they are not contractual.

The other point is that any forward thinking union would have negotiated change rather than stonewalling the company that pays its members. Your union is solely responsible for the position that you find yourself in now.

the flying nunn

Are you still a member of BASSA? I get the feeling you went to work during the strike. You should have resigned from the union on the same day you crossed the picket line. Why are you still a member? To have a vote in the next ballot? It sounds like a waste of money to me if that's your only reason.

Maybe you would be better off supporting the PCCC who don't even have the courage to reveal their identities. I would never be able to trust a union who are afraid of something like that. All they are doing is hiding behind a computer screen. Who is supporting their website by the way? BA?

Mr Bunker.

If I may pick up a couple of points.

BA do, unfortunately compare our SH product with EZ and RYR, when searching for cost savings. Despite the acknowledgement that BA SH feeds BA LH and because of that can be seen as inefficient in comparisson.

The outright cheek of BA. So, BA cabin crew were warned about not upgrading friends of friends and those on staff travel. Bill Francis wrote quite clearly that upgrades were not acceptable and contrary to company policy if not paid for or not for commercial reasons. The tax implication was pointed out to use, ie the APD on business travel is more than economy. And finally the email reminder relating to the fraud policy and that BA would consider unofficial upgrades as fraud, and would pursue legal action.

Despite this many crew looked after one another, (flight and cabin), onboard. Recent events have changed matters. Some crew have felt it inappropriate for pilots to be working as crew, intruding and prolonging our dispute. Based on evidence provided by BA, and listed above, they have declined cooperation on requested unofficial upgrades. Further, those crew who have lost staff travel consider it bad form to be serving a friend of friend upgrade when they nolonger have the option of even a jump seat.

How have BA responded. Re-written the fraud policy which will now clearly states that the Captain can upgrade who he/she desires. The policy will exempt Captains. This is the result of edgy crew refusing to move people onboard - and can you honestly blame them. The general feeling is that BA is on a witch hunt and should one place a foot wrong, your out. Part of the feeling of intimidation. That includes upgrading our own family and selves, it just doesn't happen anymore. Whether there was a firm insistance that upgrades took place, ICCM were noting the upgrade to cover their backs.

And I would never be able to trust a union that when asked by my employer to discuss changes to my working conditions that it considers important for the company's long-term sustainability refuses to turn up for several months.
I would consider such a failure to represent my interests unforgivable.

Given how cheap it is to get a web-site hosted, I can't imagine the PCCC needs any outside support from anyone.
Why do you seem to struggle with the possibility that a number of your colleagues are unhappy with the way they've been represented by Unite and have, unprompted by BA. decided to come together to form another body which they feel will serve their interests better?

PC767,

That's not quite what's happening at all. BA haven't re-written the policy to suit Captains. They've acknowledged that the example used in BASI13 did not meet the definition of deception or fraud (as there was no pecuniary advantage involved) and, as such, is being re-written to amend that. It just happens to have coincided with crew trying to make a stand over the issue after losing their staff travel. Like it or not, the reference to captain's authority has never changed in the JPM and is the master document with regard to behaviour and authority on board. I think all that's now happening is that BA are firmly making clear what has always been the case - the captain is in charge, of everyone and everything, on board the aircraft once the doors are closed. Now I know some crew will balk at that but it's the case both corporately and legally.

Basically, at the risk of sounding glib, it was a nice try by the offended strikers but BA aren't weathering it. Indeed, of the reports made so far, none have come to anything. That's not because there's one law for one group and one for another. It's because BA have never regarded those incidents as fraud - sadly BASI13 wasn't well worded, a fact BA have acknowledged. I think it's important to note here that it's not whether a crew manager, or indeed the head of IFCE, says it's against the rules. It's whether Asset Protection (who's job it is to, funnily enough, protect BA's assets and define what constitutes a loss to the company) deem it to be deception and fraud and it seems at the moment, they don't. If CSDs want to note it that's fine. Equally they'll have to accept that our department has told us it's inappropriate for those CSDs to ask for our signature on the onboard form or otherwise in those cases. It's not a witch hunt. That's the basic emotional error made by many cabin crew in this dispute. No one in the higher levels of BA either loves or hates you. There's a business dispute and that's that. At least from BA's point of view.

So report away if the mood takes you. It'll likely come to nothing and may even bite you on the proverbial.

MrB

We'll come back when ...
 

Not a problem. Just add another condition to the
"we'll come back when ... " list:ugh:

PC767,

To add to my point I note that some crew still feel that it's fraud even if the company don't think so. I'd point out that as no deception of the company is taking place (they know it's going on) and there's no pecuniary advantage for the individual that this meets no definition of fraud other than that cooked up in the brains of strikers desperate to have a scalp or two.

MrB

PS Whilst I'm lying on the sofa waiting for my back to heal, I'm watching a South Park (yup, that's my mental level) episode where Canada goes on strike. It's surprisingly prescient.......

Miss M


I did not vote for the strike action, my views and the views of other members that did not believe the propoganda were not even acknowledged as existing let alone heard. I realised long before christmas that the bassa leadership had an agenda quite seperate to the proclaimed one of looking after our futures so why wouldn't I have crossed the picket line?

I feel that your demand for me to leave the union now perfectly illustrates the arrogance that started this madness and has led us to the point where you have lost earnings and staff travel only to reflect that in hindsight the deal on offer before the strikes started wasn't that bad after all.

My belief is that at the next ballot the voters will actually seriously consider where to put their X. In the past the membership have simply followed the views and positions imposed upon them from the bassa leadership, this time I think we will see a more considered result.

After almost two decades of paying my membership fees I feel that the money
I pay between now and the ballot will be the best money I have spent in all the time since I joined.

Miss M I am not asking you to tell us here how you will vote but I do hope that when you open the envelope, you take a minute or two to consider what you are voting for.

MissM the FlyingNun does have a fair point and is certainly not in a minority I might even go as far to say a majority. Along with all those hard working people down at LGW BASSA has largely disenfranchised itself from a significant percentage of it's members.

Any union should be 'Of the members, by the members and for the members'.

Mr Bunker.

I'm aware of the legal definition of fraud, and so it appears are you. However, a vast group of staff are not aware, what they are aware of is the definition emailed by BA management.

Now, I'll happily accept they are technically wrong, but they believe they are correct because of what they are told by BA. Ironic perhaps, but those in the know do so because a cabin crew member wrote to the head of asset protection for a definative answer. The rest is history, the policy is flawed and will be re-written. In the meantime the company has made no official announcement, it seems BA is happy to see continuing deterioration of the relationship between IFCE and the rest of BA.

My view is different to the majority, but I accept the majority view because they have been told no different. I believe the situation is likely to turn around and bite cabin crew on their backsides, (in particular when staff travel is returned!), and I will do my best to re-educate. But its not my job and I'm not a red notice, so I'm having little effect.

It does seem to me to be another company mess which just happens to be a useful tool for alienation and barrier building.

Fraud
 

PC767 wrote:
You previously wrote:
A free upgrade is fraud. Why is that not clear to everyone?

The BASI13 anti-fraud policy can be found here:
https://planetba.baplc.com/general/a...9?OpenDocument

The debate centres around the criminal definintion and the company definition.

During the middle of the dispute the company email senior cabin crew that upgrades were not acceptable and would be liable to a charge of fraud. There was some degree of contradiction with the JPMs regarding a Captains authority.

This situation was deliberate and has not been clarified even though asset protection accept the wording of the policy if flawed.

PC767,

Indeed they did. Certain IFCE managers took it upon themselves to issue SCCMs with a copy of BASI13. This had recently reared its head due to ground staff selling upgrades on, I believe, a bespoke website for the purpose. As there was pecuniary advantage, fraud had taken place. The whole point about this is that in neither a legal, nor a company sense does the other upgrading issue constitute fraud, hence Asset Protection saying the example used in BASI13 was inappropriate. As there's no financial gain and no intent to deceive there's no fraud however it's cut. I grant you though, that until the document is re-issued, it serves to add nothing but confusion!

ATB

MrB

PC767

The situation was probably caused by a meddling manager with not enough to do, sending an email which grasped the wrong end of the stick.

Disaffected cabin crew have capitalised on this to 'get back' at people. As pointed out, if they do get their staff travel back at some point, then this could blow up in their faces. What goes around, etc.

JPMs cannot be contradicted re Capts authority, the latter always over-rides.

Cabin crew have always been able to move passengers around the cabins for all sorts of reasons, they have always done this under the Captain's authority, although, crucially, they may not have realised this was so :ok:

Several Capts are now briefing their crews to inform them before moving anyone, re-emphasising the correct state of affairs.

Carribean boy, you are misinformed.

DeThirdEffect

I don't have a problem with that people have different opinions. I just can't understand why PCCC are insisting on not stepping forward. It's a crucial time for everyone. When are they going to do it? After the dispute is over? As they are backing BA, surely they would get support from the company. BA have made it clear that they do not tolerate any bullying or harassment. I think the founders of PCCC should feel safe.

MissM wrote:
How can they feel safe when your union disgracefully keeps calling on Willie Walsh to rescind the penalties handed out to pro-strike cabin crew who were found guilty of bullying and harassment.

AH
 

That would be OH Parsons, then.

While doing Backing BA Cabin Crew support during the strike I met a member of cabin crew who'd had their car 'keyed' and who believed it had been done because of their working during the strike.
Despite BA's intolerance of bullying and harassment they did not feel able to report the damage to management.

Why is that, do BA support the strike?

PC767
 

UK Opt Out -

" To give effect to the UK’s opt-out, a protocol to be added to the future reform treaty will state that:

The charter does not extend the ability of the [European] Court of Justice, or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.

In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom, except in so far as the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

The effect of this protocol will essentially be that the charter cannot be used to challenge current UK legislation in the courts or to introduce new rights in UK law. The outgoing UK prime minister, Tony Blair, attending his last EU summit in June, said that the outcome of the talks made it ‘absolutely clear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not going to be justiciable in British courts or alter British law’. "

The Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights are not the same thing. The 1998 Human Rights Act gives effect to the ECoHR in the UK courts and remedy to claimants without the need to go dircetly to the ECHR, (European Court of Human Rights.)

There is no legislation offering protection for discrimination against strikers in the UK, there has been no other case challenge of discrimination in the UK. If Unite feel it to be appropriate they can take a case to the UK courts under the HRA stating that the wider view of Article 11 has been breached. If in agreement a UK Judge cannot change the law, at the most they can issue a 'declaration of incompatibility'. The requirement then is for Parliament to remove the incompatibility.

I am suprised that BASSA felt the staff travel issue could be so easily handled. But the situation isn't lost, although it would be a long winded process, (which also leaves BA in the clear as it has acted legally in accordance with UK law).

The best hope is that Walsh returns the perk.

I think I get your position, (old and a slow learner) but my point a while back was for no detriment for union activities, which is a UK civil law, not a discrimination right within the UK. That is why I would test it through tribunal. But their is probably a reason why Unite are not doing this, which probably means that their legal advice which is vastly superior to what I understand of the law, is saying don't do it.

Litebulbs, what you and everyone else droning on about staff travel are missing is that you are NOT being discriminated against because you went on strike. You are suffering the CONSEQUENCES of going on strike.

You were informed quite clearly what would happen if you withdrew your labour. Not one single striker can claim that they were unaware of the consequences. Yet you still chose to go on strike.

Now whether you chose not to believe your employer, or you chose to continue believing the BASSA propaganda, is something neither I nor I suspect most other BA employees give a damn about. The fact is you were warned, and it has happened. Stop whingeing and get your union to actually do something to make your lives better, not worse.

They don't seem to have managed to do much of that recently.

Commenting, rather than droning. Again, can you show me where it says you can punish somebody for taking protected industrial action?

I would like to ask where it is written that despite countless warnings about staff travel bassa had the authority to decree that it would not be removed?

An equally valid point.

Miss M

As you are fairly adept at making frank (sometimes curt) statements, I hope that you are able to accept some frank talking in return.

You make statements that quite frankly have little bearing on reality, and are nothing more than BASSA soundbites: "imposition" "WW is out to get the unions" "attack on our T&Cs" "staff travel".

To clarify, here are the FACTS:

No-one has ever been told that they could use ST to get to work. It is part of our T&C's that we must be able to get to work within 1 and half hours. If you do commute, it is expected that you would stay within the airport area prior to operating.

You are happy to blame non-union members for coming to work, people who voted yes for coming to work, VCC and anyone else who backs BA. You then claim that you "were not told about the October offer" and appear now to be blaming your beloved BASSA about this. Well, you were told MissM. We were all sent an email from BF on the 23 Oct 2009 entitled: "Message from Bill Francis to all crew: important news on our package of changes in IFCE". If you chose not to read your BA emails, which I would assume is a requirement of our job, then you only have yourself to blame.

You also like to criticise the Professional Cabin Crew Council, yet it is thanks to the PCCC that cabin crew have been made aware of what this community has lost. Not many people were aware of the shares/bonus/free ticket option and the PCCC has highlighted that fact. Many cabin crew are very grateful for it - and it seems that you yourself would have taken it, had you been aware of it. Perhaps if the PCCC had been in existence last October, we would have all been better off.

You criticise the PCCC for staying anonymous. Yet it was a BASSA rep who set up a porn site with the same name as ours. BASSA militants, who you support, have sent hate mail to people. Cabin crew have had their cars marked with S in the car park, and some militants are choosing to ignore non-strikers on trips (as reported on here). Cabin crew who have spoken out on other forums have been banned and ostracised. If it weren't for the despicable behaviour of BASSA, we would not have to remain anonymous. Do you feel proud that your Union behave like that?

You now state that IF Staff Travel were to be returned, you would accept the offer. You are therefore saying that you would now be willing to accept an offer that is WORSE than the one you went on strike for, knowing full well that you would lose your staff travel if you did strike.

So let me summarise:
You and your fellow strikers have effectively been on strike for nothing. You and your fellow strikers have cost this company millions. You and your fellow strikers have cost our entire cabin crew community the opportunity of having a share scheme, bonuses, and an extra free ticket. And most despicable of all, you and your fellow strikers have cost our cabin crew community our good name which will take years to re-instate.

But with this in mind, you are still intent on going on strike. :ooh:

Isn't it about time that you stopped blaming everyone else MissM and started taking responsibility for the damaging part that BASSA and the strikers have played in this sorry affair? Do you not yet realise that if you do strike again, it will be you and only you that loses out? Or do you intend to simply keep your head in the sand, and carry on blaming everyone else?

"Commenting, rather than droning. Again, can you show me where it says you can punish somebody for taking protected industrial action?"

Again, Litebulb, you are missing the point. You are not being punished, you are simply suffering the consequences of taking a course of action of whose consequences you were well aware. Nothing underhand or discriminatory. You made a choice, this is what you were told would happen. Live with it.

I personally don't agree with the strike, and I hope ST isn't returned for a while at least, but to state that they were warned, and as such the company can carry out what they have threatened doesn't make it legal.

There is no doubt that strikers have been punished for taking IA, but until this is challenged in the courts no-one really knows whether this is legal action taken by the company or not.

Runway vacated

Would you be willing to bet your house on the fact the company are legally in the right? I know I wouldn't (even though I hope BA is).

Well said Gatbusdriver. If I were a striker (do,di,do,di,do,di,do) I would not be on here claiming it is unfair.

I would be banging on BASSA's door asking them why they sent me a text before the strike saying "Staff travel will be returned within 5 minutes" and yet, 3 months later, they still haven't pursued it through the courts. Why ever not?

HiFlyer
 

Does it really say that in BA Cabin crew contracts?

Doesn't it say that in JPMs? I'd imagine the contract would say people were required to comply with all BA regulations etc etc.

Gatbus:

"Would you be willing to bet your house on the fact the company are legally in the right? I know I wouldn't (even though I hope BA is)."

Luckily I don't have to as I am represented by a competent (and emotionally stable) union. I also read my contract when I was initially offered a job with BA and understood the scope of my own responsibilities and liabilities.

Whilst I would not like to swap places with those who have been so badly (mis)led by BASSA I am afraid that my sympathy for them is zero.

As pointed out by Hand Solo, JPMs refer:

Additionally during the cabin crew recruitment process, we are asked to sign a form confirming this, and other factors, such as adherence to uniform standards, no visible tattoos, etc.

It may not specifically be stated in our contracts, but it is something we have agreed to, albeit many will undoubtedly be unaware of it!!

Hand on heart, PC767, do you honestly think that Unite - with all the problems it will face after the publication of the austerity budget tomorrow - will have the time,resources or the will to pursue the demands of the return of a luxury perk?

The Labour Party is no longer in power and the new coalition government will not be receptive to Unite's demands in this respect; quite the contrary.

Public opinion, in the form of every other worker throughout the United Kingdom, is already against the BA cabin crew strike. The vast majority of British workers do not enjoy such a privilege, nor anything remotely similar. Their thinking is "why should they have such privileges when we are working harder than we did under Labour, paying more taxes and getting less in return from central government?"

BASSA's threats to strike over Christmas, and the recent actual strikes, have done absolutely nothing to endear BASSA to anybody other than itself. Even the Unite leadership has expressed its frustration in dealing with BASSA.

Publicly pursuing the return of staff travel privileges, especially after the CEO warned strikers on at least two occasions that they would be lost if employees went out on strike, would be sheer folly and a major loss of money taken straight from BASSA members' pockets that would line the pockets of BASSA's legal advisors.

And let's face it: those "advisors" have not given BASSA good counsel up to now.

I'm still confused as to what is is that we are supposed to be aware of.

JPMs do not specify that BA crew must live within 1 1/2 hours of base or that our homes must be within 1 1/2 hrs of base.

If such a caveat is genuinely in Cabin Crew contracts then an awful lot of crew at BA are at risk (and not just those who use Staff Travel ;) )......

I think the JPM extract quoted by HiFlyer would cover things wiggy. Claiming otherwise is to indulge in the kind of pointless semantics that BASSA and Litebulbs like to indulge in.

Wiggy,
I think the referece is that some crew are not aware that they have an hour and a half to get to work, regardless of commuting from abroad or in the UK. On Eurofleet, we are sometimes given what is known as a 'ring in' when no trips are available in the system. However, if and when you ring in say it's a 14:00 ring in, then you have two hours to get yourself to work if you are required to operate should BA require you to do so. Of course, this would equally be a problem for someone living in Durham or in Italy.
In balance, you make a fair and valid point.