Illegal? BA are proposing to dismiss 2000 staff. At the moment voluntary, but if there is not the uptake? 2000 staff will be selected by whatever method is chosen, then sacked.

Redundant. Not sacked. Last time I looked, redundancy was legal?

No, they'll be made redundant, which is entirely legal.

Does anyone know how BA will treat the ICC in all this, or will they be kept on?

At last the cards are on the table.2000 crew to go,the union do not think so.I feel a battle is just around the corner.12000 cabin crew against the waterside mob.not an easy one to call.if it comes to a battle,then the statements made by both sides will be found proven or false.i feel the management are treading a very fine line.the costs to the company could be enormous,if the legitimacy of the risk is shown to be false,then heads will roll and fast.

Have a little look at redundancy and the law. You are dismissed by means of redundancy. Dismissed means sacked, just a nice way of putting it. Most sackings are legal, but not all. It will just take one person to lodge an unfair dismissal claim, which is supported by Unite, then all hell breaks loose. Collective support and industrial action.

That is why you have unions, to stop businesses destroying peoples lives.

bermudashape: there will be no battle, there cannot be. If BASSA don't agree, this will be IMPOSED, can you not see that?

litebulbs: fantasy, that's all I can say. :ugh:

Hard to impose a change in working practices on a workforce who are sat at home.12000 people failing to report for duty means absolute disaster for BA.the operation ceases,utter chaos ensues,costs to the company are incalculable.do not underestimate the power of the employees to influence outcomes.just look at past cabin crew disputes,without exception the company has been damaged,financially and have a go managers have paid the price.ok,so impose the threats and just see what happens,i dread to think of the consequences.

A workforce at home is not being paid; employees these days have less leverage, as the trained-up 11-month crew are all able to fly in your place, operating the "smaller" BA fleet that exists in the short time the fleet is grounded. Not to mention the Gatwick crew who don't support you.

If you think the consequences of a strike are to bring down the airline entirely, then logically some crew really are at the point of utter stupidity - why would anyone logically strike if that is the outcome!!!

The outcome is negotiations, which BASSA have singularly failed to engage in for some time.

I am sure that if you are one of the 2000 about to be discarded, then I don't think you would care too much, if BA were to disappear!

Why is the law fantasy?

Future recruitment and transfers into LHR won't be on the EXCISTING contracts. At least that is how I interpreted the email which was sent out tonight. So, they want to get rid of the present T&C and eventually get rid of them. Future aircraft coming to LHR would also most likely be crewed by those crews. Sooner or later present crew would need to transfer because of lack of work.

I don't like the idea of going on a strike at all! I think it will really place us in an awful situation.

How do you think that will affect us?

It will cost BA a huge amount of money and that has to come from somewhere! It could, at worse case scenario, mean that more than 2000 crew has to go.

I think BA know that a strike is in reality very unlikley given the economic climate. It would take a very brave , perhaps stupid, union to call workers out during this downturn as it may just sound the death knell for BA as we know it.

Time for tact and diplomacy as BA management will know that they are under pressure too - they need the make the business profitable and have very little room to negotiate.

There is absolutely nothing illegal in making staff redundant if there is no work for them. With 16 aircraft not flying in the winter one would assume there would be surplus crew. It is unlikely 2000 c/c will decide to leave through normal retirement or for voluntary reasons other than VR. Hopefully 2000 will want to take the v/redundancy offer. I am not so sure this will happen because I have seen that only a few c/c have left in the past few years according to the retirements etc section in the BA news.

I know so many people outside the aircraft industry who have been made redundant recently, few have found alternative employment and are unlikely to do so for a long time.

There are rules to be followed when making dismissing people by redundancy. Rules about recruitment and how and when you are allowed to recruit into a position of the dismissed person. I am sure the BA and Unite legal teams are drawing up battle plans to fight each other on this issue.

Well, a straw poll home saw 4 older members of my crew yelp with delight when I told them the news, they can't afford to take the company up on the offer of VR, but all had been waiting for 50%, so thats 2 of the 2000 out the way.

Another PSR who had 30 years service had been waiting for severance since she was 55, I'm guessing she was 57, but I never ask a women her age, so she wanted to go.

Litbulb, any company can make anyone redundant, true with a large company like BA and a union like Unite, the selection criteria need to be transparent, BA served the legally required 90 days notice yesterday, along with a selection criteria should it come to CR, I am sure Unites solicitors are looking at it now, but if the numbers don't add up expect to see some CR. Expect to see some challenges also, however these will take place a long time after the dust has settled.

I'm with other people here, exactly what are current crew going to go on strike over??

I'm based at LHR and very confused with why BASSA wants ut to strike.

It seems to be a mixture over WW and his management "telling lies" about the financial problems and that costs must come down, the new fleet which is being introduced, a two year pay freeze, reduction of crew (harder work for less money) and obviously what impact it will have on crew rest.

I looked into this a couple of years ago, and much to my surprise (as I too thought this was the case), I found no evidence whatsoever that there is any such law on the UK statute books.

Happy to be proven wrong, but I do not believe there is any restriction on re-recruitment into the same position from which someone has just been made redundant; the rules cover instead re-recruitment of the same person, and tax avoidance by both company and individual of the tax-free "severance".

2 of the 5 crew on our flight last night said they will be taking the VR offer. I suspect many more will follow.

Good luck to all involved.

If that really is the case, as opposed to just the usual galley FM suspects spouting hot air, then stand by for the most succesful bit of strike-breaking the UK has seen since Grunwick.

Willy will crucify BASSA.

What is it that you will legally strike over?

What question can you put on the ballot paper that will stand up to BA's inevitable legal challenge?

How do you expect all those on the new LH fleet at LGW, or on new contract pay scales at LHR, to react when asked to strike?

What do you think will be the response from all those who've just finished an 11 month contract when asked by BA if they'd like to return?

None of them, IMHO, give a toss about the T & Cs of LH CSD's at Fortress Heathrow. In fact, few of them give a toss about BASSA and who can blame them!

What will be the reaction from those who have realised that, this time, "going sick" isn't an option?

A large part of the operation will be up and running within a few days of any strike, and as the pickets watch BA aircraft taking off and landing as usual, it will finally start to sink in to even the most militant cabin crew that they have no chance of winning any confrontation in the present economic climate.

At that point, watch the trickle of those returning to work turn into a flood and then a stampede as everyone rushes to reclaim their job.

BASSA attracted Willy's attention at the start of the year when they refused an alleviation and insisted on two local nights rest when BKK was closed, and then again later, during the mass UK diversions.

Even by BASSA standards, a blunder of monumental proportions.

Read the signs and take the hint, Willy is serious, start negotiating for the best severance and T&C package you can get, now!!

Oh I forgot, this is BASSA, so not a chance, they'll just say NO.

So many good, long term Cabin Crew, along with lots of excellent new ones, who all deserve better, being let down by a dinosaur of a union.

Lions represented by donkeys.

you do know that the 2,000 redundancies will also be achieved via the part time route, offering crew 75% and 50% contracts, which ALOT of people are waiting for.
I have already moved 10 places on the part time list today, and an adhoc list will be opened as well, so i suspect they think a lot of people will be taking part time as well.
I think we are a long way from compulsary redundancies at the moment.

Still, there are some very suspicious crew who have actually turned down their part-time offer...

For those of you a little hard of thinking. This concerns Flight Crew as much as Cabin Crew - we will all be out of a job if BA hits the skids. Your constant refrain of "butt out this does not concern you" shows a lack of understanding of the realities of the economic situation facing BA.

Can't see many taking the VR deal as the base pay (and pensions) for cabin crew is so low.


Its not only the pay for some of the older crew but the lifestyle that comes with it. It will take more than a years pay to move some of these on.

Norman, you are correct.

I had to retire at 55, it would have taken more than a years salary to have made me go if I had that option to stay.

The life style and the people is what is missed most.

nuigini
 

You said :"there are some very suspicious crew who have actually turned down their part-time offer"...


Can you clarify what are they suspicious of?

Wiggy
 

Suspicious of the company all of the sudden offering part-time to all crew of all grades.

I have heard crew say it will help to introduce the new fleet because temporary crew will be working up those percentages. The most costly routes will also be given to the new fleet and it will have an impact on the main crew as they will be doing the less valuable routes, which means less money especially on part-time. Some crew also say it's a carrot to get crew excited about both part-time and redundancy and in the end threat crew to either accept the deal or all of this (part-time and redundancy will be withdrawn).

nuigini
 

Ah, so if I understand you correctly they are suspicious of it being a "vote sweetner", thank's for that.

Rgds..

Eric Hammond
 

Slight thread drift, but totally relevant to the discussion


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6417545.ece


"Eric Hammond played a key role in tilting Britain towards the 21st Century"


There is more to it than that, but relevant!

Part time..
 

My partner is an 'old boiler' purser who is looking forward to part-time work. It will give us the opportunity to do other business, outside the airlines, and spend more time together doing that. In fact it will force us to do so.
We have both been in the business for over thirty years each. We love the people but things have changed. Each time, passing through LGW as a pax I see people (generally can't remember the names) that I have known for years, but they keep changing uniforms.
If we can keep the good bits and give life more variety, then we see that as being good.
I have, along with many others I am sure, worked for eight different airlines, none of which survive in their original form today. If I had my way I'd bring back the Golden Pussy tomorrow but that isn't going to happen; can't see much hope of Dan Air being reformed either.
The years have been a roller coaster ride for the business and this one is a whopper.
The business has always been like that. My late fathers pilots licence is littered with the names of past airlines - nothing I hasten to add to do with him.
Perhaps to see this as an opportunity to add variety in life is the way forward.

:)a great post in the midst of some extreme. thanks

The sun always shines in catalunya, eh?

Columbus..
 

Quote Hunterboy 'The sun always shines in catalunya, eh'

Actually it was pissin*g down when I wrote that, but what I wrote was heartfelt.
It does rain, a lot, in Catalunya, and yes it gets cold and we have snow in the winter. We have damn good heating in our house; this ain't the 'costas'.
Seriously though we are genuinely looking forward to this opportunity. We've been dithering about for a year or two and this is supplying, if it comes off, the necessary size 45 in a smelly place.
If BA survives and we can keep the good things, staff travel etc, the banter and the esprit, then we will have done well.
The very best wishes and good luck to all.

British Airways pilots to take voluntary pay cut as air traffic falls - Times Online

I hope the link works, the article is very accurate in all aspects.

I understand that a team are working in Waterside today on plans post June 30th, particularly with putting any threat of strike action in the courts ASAP. They will try to convince a high court judge of the financial need of the business to restructure. Apparently I am told BA think they have a strong legal case:{:{:{

I am pleased that at least someone is looking at the current proposal in a positive light.

One thing that troubles me is the cost of accepting a part-time contract.

Any part-time contract taken via the latest proposal is ultimately going to cost every single crew member currently employed by BA their job as it stands today.
Along the way, each crew member will see a significant and steady decline in variable earnings which could see 30/40 % wiped off their income depending on whether they are Main Crew/Purser/CSD and also their length of service. In fact, the more 'junior' you are the harder it will hit.

So, for some, IMHO a minority, there is opportunity but for others potential misery.

If this proposal is accepted/implemented the personal cost will be more than financial.

I agree with QRS that the minority will benefit at the expense of the majority.

This is the definition of redundancy taken from the Government website Business support, information and advice | Business Link

Redundancy is when you dismiss someone because:
· their workplace closes
· there is no longer a need for them to do the type of work they were employed to do, eg due to the introduction of new technology

For a redundancy to be genuine, the job that the employee does must disappear, ie you can still take on new staff but not to do the work the redundant employee was doing.

However, on Monday the manager wrote:
The only reason we can offer Part Time Contracts and Voluntary Redundancy is because we are proposing crew complement reductions and a Mixed Fleet. The two are linked.

Therefore in accordance with the government (and legal) definition these are not “redundancies” at all. They are in fact simply getting rid of one lot of (“expensive”) staff to replace them with another (cheaper) lot.

Surely the situation therefore is that if people do NOT take the VR or PT to give them the figures they need, they will have to make compulsory redundancies (and would they want to do that?). If they made compulsory redundancies they would NOT be able to recruit new staff for the new fleet. The government wouldn’t allow it, and neither I suspect would the board.

They NEED the VR and PT to get their new fleet – but they are trying to convince everyone that they are doing crew a favour! I believe that if everyone sits tight and does not take up the VR and PT, they will then be backed into a corner.


Call their bluff ....or am I seeing it too simplistically??

I'm going to write a few things now that I have a suspicion that quite a few peeps won't like.

The pilots are now allegedly agreeing to a pay cut. Does that mean that the LHR ostriches will stop bleating on about how well pilots are paid and how it's their fault the company is down the swanny?

Regarding VR. In a business world, it makes complete sense to offer VR to high paid long serving staff. Purely because they cost more money than the younger-just-started lot. The thing is, these crew who've been in the company a looong time is caught in a catch-22: They're possibly fed up with the job, but couldn't find another job that pays the same with the same type of life style. (before you scream - I'm saying some, not all).

Looking at things from a business point of view, anyone with an ounce of intelligence would want to cut costs as much as possible. CEO's and share holders don't give a flying monkey about whether crew can pay their mortage or not. All they're interested in, is making a profit, and if that means making crew work for less than what they get paid now, then so be it. It doesn't mean I personally agree with it, I'm just looking at it from a business side of things.

Most of us admit that some work practices at LHR is rather antiquated (sp?) and restrictive. The 2 local nights after a long range was shown in all its nasty glory earlier this year. Destination payment for State side trips - honestly, I don't get that. I've still to hear a reasonable explanation for that one. These are just two examples. I won't bother going into the rest of them, but I honestly can't really blame the LT of wanting to cut costs that can be avoided.

The thing that still baffles me, is that LHR crew will keep bleating on about how we all need to stand together and "fight" for "our" t&c's. Let me put it to you straight: I've been at LGW for near enough 11 years now and I've never experienced LHR fighting LGW's corner. However, when they're up the creek so to speak, there's much hoo haa about "we all need to stand together" and "united work force" etc etc. Another question I've not had answered from LHR crew is: when you left us to be thoroughly shafted in '06 (start of single fleet) - did you really not consider that if it worked at LGW the LT would come for you? Seriously? We've been expecting it for years (since SF started, tbh).

The current discussions on the crew forum (the ba one) is quite laughable, as so many ww crew are getting in a tizz about having to work a crew or two down, and how they could't possibly provide the "excellent" customer service like they do now. Nevermind that at LGW we've managed for nearly 3 years now, but that's besides the point I guess.

I'd better stop here, before I get myself into trouble. I'm sure there will be disagreements, but that's ok. That's a sign of healthy debate.

Gg

Ps. Apologies for coming over so, so, ehm, so, ehm, I don't know, but I just had to get it out of my system, sorry

Spot on, Glamgirl.

I have always been based at LHR but I'm actually furious with the differences and how crew regard each other.

It certainly does and it would probably also be beneficial for some crew to accept VR if offered. I also think that some crew will also accept it, especially those who might be close to retirement, instead of going on for another few years and only retire on pension. This is a good opportunity.

Destination Payment is for long duty trips that actually don't quality for Premium Payment. Think about when DFW came over to LHR. At LGW it had only given 2 MBT and no Destination Payment. The second it came to LHR it qualified for 3 MBT as well the payment. This is a typical example of how things, within the same company, are looked at. The time off also goes for both ATL and IAH.

The crew at LHR has NEVER cared about LGW. As previously pointed out when SF was introduced, the crew at LHR, and the union (BASSA) for that matter, couldn't care less about what was happening at LGW. When LHR is now, when it suits them, is asking for support from LGW, is pure hypocrisy. It really disgusts me, which is very harshly put but actually that's how I feel.

It's really sad how some of the crew at LHR feel. Saying that they won't be able to provide the present service, which HAS to change if they touch the number of crew, as well how much it will affect crew rest. On a serious note: do we really need crew rest on JFK or TLV? As much as I like it but sometimes crew are really pushy to finish the service as quickly as possible to get as much rest as possible. Many airlines all over the world, where crew actually do longer duties, don't allow crew rest and you see the crew sitting on canisters in the galleys. This is actually something that has to change.

I don't like the idea of having to change my T&C's but when you think about the situation and that the company, after all, has to save and make money. I still believe a strike will hit us really hard and we won't get any sympathy whatsoever.

Nuigini, thanks for your support.

When talking about destination payment, it's especially the ex-LGW routes that wind me up. Why on earth is destination payment necessary on these routes. Also, WWLGW (as it was then) got destination payment for KIN. No chance for us. I know someone will come on here and harp on about how we agreed to it, and it's our own fault, bla bla. What I've been trying to explain for a long time, is that when it came to the vote ('06) WWLGW as it was then voted a resounding YES to everything, as it was an easy way out of LGW for them. Most of us EFLGW who've been around for a long time voted NO, but there you go. Rubbish happens and we deal with it and get on with it. No use crying over spilled milk.

I do firmly believe that (most) crew at LHR doesn't care what happens at LGW. I've met some lovely people, but then again, I've been told to my face, and I quote: "I can't be bothered putting you in Club, coz you're LGW". No word of a lie. Excuse me? What's that got to do with the price of cheese? Also, I've had on good authority that several "seniors" at WWLHR have agreed amongst themselves to make life for the LGW secondees as difficult as possible. Nice and professional - not.

I just wish we could all get on and all work towards a common goal, whether it's better t&c's for Everyone or just making the company survive. But the recurring blatant discrimination will stop that, because people are ignorant.

For the record, I do love my job, I feel lucky to have the job I do have, and I can't imagine what else I would do for the forseeable future. I just don't agree with discrimination and preferential treatment.

Gg