British Airways vs. BASSA (current Airline Staff Only)
 

100% scheduled now assured
 

Email sent to groundstaff yesterday... Preparing for 100% schedule

Over the last strike period, colleagues from across the airline came forward to back British Airways. Without their sterling effort, it would not have been possible to keep our customers flying. You have continually gone over and above, truly demonstrating fantastic teamwork and a sprit that makes this airline truly special.

Unfortunately, we continue to face uncertainty, and possible disruption throughout the summer. Unite has already expressed its intention to ballot for further action - we have to be ready. During the next phase of industrial action, it is our intention to fly 100 per cent of our longhaul operations. This is our commitment to our customers, shareholders, investors and colleagues. We cannot and will not let them down. We can only do this with your help.

To ensure we keep this promise, we need more colleagues to train as volunteer cabin crew. Many colleagues have come forward already, but if you have not as yet expressed an interest in being trained as volunteer cabin crew and would like to do so, please register on the Backing BA pages on the intranet.

We are currently running training courses, which are begining in the next few weeks.

Let do all we can to keep our customer promise - thank you for your continued support

.................................

So call it a days guys ..... All BA non crewstaff are backing their company not BASSA

PC767 said:

Something to do with a massive global financial crisis, methinks.

He also presided over BA's biggest ever profit in 2008.

So is there some kind of point you are attempting to make here? If so, could we please hear it?

From 17th May 2008:

PC767 from previous thread
 

PC767,

What you've posted from the BASSA forum isn't, sadly, what they've sent out in the letter dated the 9th Jun to all Unite cabin crew members. Their third point of issue for ballot is as follows and doesn't mention the word unwarranted

And that's their official pre-ballot communications.

MrB

So is anyone willing to wager a bet on when we're likely to see the next ballot papers sent out?

It seems quite clear that talking is as useless today as it was 12 months ago.

The only way this is all going to come to an end is when one side buckles completely under the pressure and has to take whatever the other side is willing to offer at that moment (which is why I think Bassa should seriously considering ending this dispute NOW, accepting the last deal on the table - or even asking for the previous one to be returned.... Call me crazy but I think Walsh would oblige).

Then in 6 months time Bassa should go back to the company and say that things have been working well under the new agreements, there have been no further industrial problems, and ask for staff travel to be returned to strikers.

I don't think Walsh will return it as part of any deal. He is not going to want to appear either weak or that he's been held to ransom. I do think staff travel will be given back, but not as part of any strike-ending agreement.

So it's time that Bassa drops it from the list of demands but offers members an assurance that they will return to the issue in 6 months time.

If it was me, which it is not, I would have raised a grievance with regard to the removal of staff travel, as a punishment for taking part in protected industrial action. I would have asked for one of the Unite GS's as my rep. What have you got to loose? They can't take it away again and you can then show due process before a tribunal.

Mr Bunker.

I await an official letter then, but your copy is disappointing. Although it doesn't represent all the outstanding issues I believed that at least one area could have been dealt with equably and fairly.

Riga101.

What disappoints me about the email you reproduce is that it shows Walsh has no intention of seeking a solution. No dates for a ballot have been announced, and there is no indication of what the result of a ballot may be. Instead of using the time to find a solution, Walsh rattles his sabre.

Litebulbs.

I believe individual grievances are being encouraged and supported on the BASSA forum.

Eddy.

Walsh not wanting to appear weak or held to randsom is part of the problem, as much as the BASSA leadership. Somebody is going to have to swallow their ego and as the senior partner I believe Walsh should make the first move.

I agree entirely that someone is going to have to swallow their ego. Sadly, the two sides of this dispute also happen to be two of the strongest egos any of us will ever have encountered.

However, I don't agree that Walsh should be the one to give in. He may be the senior party, but he's also the strongest and enjoying the most support. He has the support of his pilots, ground staff, engineers, office workers... Bassa appears to be able to boast the support of the unwashed hoodlums of the Socialist Worker Party.

Isn't that normally the person who emerges the victor?

I find it incredibly difficult to talk so negatively about Bassa, for I maintain enormous respect for the reps and for the work they do to secure favourable terms and conditions for us, the cabin crew. But this time around it's all gone too far and I wish they could see that.

Eddy.

Victory. That is the crunch.

Why need there be a victory for either side. This is an industrial dispute, not a war or world cup. The only victor should be the company and the passengers.

Both sides claim that is what they are working for! Every side should be backing ACAS to bring this to an end.

A quest for victory is a quest to satisfy an ego. There should be no place for such quests within a company.

Transpose the adage 'In war there is no winner when both sides have God on their side.'

PC767,

Ordinarily I'd agree but when you're dealing with two branches of a union which variously refer to the situation with nods to Iwo Jima, Tiananmen Square, 1930's Germany et al and still, on one branch's side at least, has a picture of the CEO with red eyes, I think it's debatable as to which side has the biggest ego problem.

MrB

It's difficult to disagree with much of what you say, PC.

You're right that there shouldn't, under normal circumstances, be a 'winner'. But this industrial dispute isn't like many others. It's messier, nastier, dirtier and more public. And because it's so public, because the public feel they deserve the right to be involved in this dispute, I think both sides see a need for someone to come out on top.

Again, I agree that there shouldn't normally be a winner in this dispute, but I fear that in this one, someone winning is the only way it'll ever come to an end.

Who to Give in
 

Miss M
Haven't really appreciated many of your posts but the fact you have responded to most questions and in particular, questioned why you weren't offered the chance to vote on a BA proposal proves you weigh up the evidence.


PC767
What disappoints me about the email you reproduce is that it shows Walsh has no intention of seeking a solution. No dates for a ballot have been announced, and there is no indication of what the result of a ballot may be. Instead of using the time to find a solution, Walsh rattles his sabre.

W Walsh is doing what he and his board are paid to do - strategic planning. If there is a threat of action, as a feduciary duty of a Director to plan around it. If they left it until a positive vote (if it was) had been taken, then shareholders could sue them personally.

Why is always BA/Walsh that should give in or change. Your suggestion that all dicips should be heard by an independent third party is against the agreement already in place and agreed to by both parties. If BASSA doesn't trust BA or wants these hearings, would BASSA be willing to fund them?

I haven't seen W Walsh requesting a certain "lady" to be dicip'd because she called him a ---- perhaps you find that acceptable?

MF

Lizanne claims to have called WW a ---- to his face.

Duncan said in one of his daily updates from Bedfont that WW, until very recently, had never met any of other BASSA reps and had only dealt with the Unite leadership.

One of them isn't telling the truth.

Lizanne isn't a rep; she's the chairperson of the branch.

Neither of them need to be telling lies for both statements to be true.

Eddy.

On a seperate issue, your last post rather proves my point about independent discipline resolution.

Mastafreighter.

Because somebody has to make a move. Should press reports be believed, Woodley stated that the sticking point was staff travel. That being the case Walsh would still benefit if he magnanimously returned the perk. He would have his imposition settled, new fleet unopposed, monthly travel payments etc.

Eddy. This is what Duncan wrote:

PC767

"Because somebody has to make a move" Why not BASSA - they are supposed to represent the "majority"

How would getting ST back settle the dispute regarding imposition? He will have still imposed new crew compliments which is what (supposedly) this devacle was about. If he then caves in on that issue, what has been achieved - a short-term loan of £65m?

Woodley onle stated that the union would suspend action and not cancel it completely.

Protected industrial action only covers unfair dismissal, not the withdrawl of ST. Especially where, within the Staff Travel regulations, it clearly states that the perk maybe withdrawn at any time.

Raise your grievance if you wish but expect it to be given the same dismissal as Duncan Holleys employment tribunal got.

Senior partner? Has BA become a law firm?

Why should Willie Walsh 'give in'? What has his ego got to do with it? The implications of taking industrial action were patently clear. In order to recoup as much of the possible losses incurred by the company during IA the 'perk' of ST would be withdrawn.

If you took IA you lost company gifted perks.

BA have been dealing with and attempting to negotiate with BASSA far longer than any other Union. I assume in BASSA speak that all other Unions jumped into bed with BA and are enjoy cushy deals as BASSA was the only Union WW wants? Never forget that WW was himself a Union rep before joining management. He knows how the local boards run, he knows that the local branch of BASSA don't have the full support of the membership, he knows that the company have been more than flexible with BASSA and he knows that the rest of the company, the board and the investors will not accept any compromise after the damage the Union has done.

Nothing to do with egos, all to do with protecting the company from the ludicrous strike threats that have appeared year after year after year.

This IA has no support from either within or without the company except for a dying bunch of hotheads.

Edited:

Just to add that, personally, I don't think this has anything to do with Staff Travel or the re-insttatement of personnel. Myself? I really couldn't care less if, as an olive branch, Willie Wlash gave staff travel back. I don't think most people would care that much either.

The problem here is Unites inability to control BASSA. As BASSA are the only ones within the fragmented Union who can actually call off the dispute they are the ones who need to be brough under control. Sadly something that is unlikely to happen in the near future.

MissM - Earlier this week week, one of the crew on my trip was asked by a manager to remove her lanyard. Coincidentally, it seems to have been on the very same day you were asked to remove yours. Was it you? Were you on my trip?

She was the only crew on the trip who had been on strike. Maybe that explains her shocking behavior. Being a pilot, I did not witness it in-flight but other crew did. Over dinner at destination, one of the pursers said that this girl had been talkative to the rest of the crew until she learnt that they had not been on strike. From then, she only answered when she was addressed. Another member of the crew had asked if she wanted to do duty free together. The reply given had been a blatant no. After arrival at outstation, until we reached the hotel, she did not say one word to any of us. Not one word. Our CSD made a funny remark when we were waiting at customs, which the rest of us laughed at. Her face was like stone. We arrived at the hotel and were given our room keys. A girl of the crew asked her if she wanted to join the rest of us for dinner later that evening. She answered that she would rather eat dust. Those were her exact words. :ugh:

On the way back, the cold thermostat was back on. She did not speak unless addressed. I tried to open a conversation with her on the bus on our way to the airport but her facial expressions said it all that she was not interested. Back at LHR, she disappeared quickly but we met again on the crew bus to the car park. She looked very busy staring out the window pretending that she did not see me. :uhoh:

Is this how you strikers are intending to behave?

Are you really able to forget about who went on strike versus who did not and act professionally?

Out of curiosity, how are you behaving at work?

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.