BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a previous strike in 1997, the perks were removed by BA, only to be reinstated at the end of the dispute. This must have fuelled the hopes of some strikers that the same conciliatory* approach would be adopted by BA this time.
The reality, which some people still seem to have trouble grasping, is that WW has to turn BA around financially, and that means that the old ways of doing business have to be turned around as well. Sadly, there will be both winners and losers in the process.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 56
Posts: 798
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be easy for them to resume talks with ACAS based on putting the original offer on the table. They don't want to do that. Fine I have no problem with that, it's WW's choice. However, in doing that, it's no good whining that the other side are not playing ball.
You see, that's the bottom line. Decent offers regarding pay and conditions were made, but the union REFUSED to negotiate regarding these deals and rejected them without even offering THEIR OWN MEMBERS a chance to vote on the proposals that would directy affect them. Instead assorted lies and fog were thrown around to muddy the waters.. Now give one good reason why BA should now, effectively, beg the unions to come back to the table with an offer they rejected, with conditions attached by the union, etc after the idiotic performance of the union in all of this and the extra costs incurred due to this ridiculous action which seems to have been an attempt to protect the mollycoddled status of a minority of staff?
My guess is the the Company do cover the costs on a shorthaul flight,
Last edited by etrang; 26th Mar 2010 at 11:02.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And why should they now put the original offer back on the table after BASSA/UNITE REJECTED IT!!!
In any case, whilst one half of the Union corporate brain was saying that, the other half called the strike which guaranteed [WW keeps his promises] that the offer would be withdrawn. The Union therefore ensured that their membership never got the chance to read and consider what was on offer.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Benefit in kind - removal of ST
There's been a lot of discussion on here about the removal of Staff Travel and whether it is contractual. This seems to have centred around the tax implications. But I'm not sure that is really what's important. If Unite or CC have a case for changes to Ts & Cs it will surely be based on whether ST is part of their implied contract as a custom and practice.
This is a very complex area which I doubt many (if any) on this board have the experience to discuss. I know that I don't
.
However, what I do know is that BA is a large company with access to an experienced legal team. Based on what has gone before, I find it unlikely that WW has made his comments with regards to ST without being pretty sure he is on strong legal ground.
This is a very complex area which I doubt many (if any) on this board have the experience to discuss. I know that I don't
.However, what I do know is that BA is a large company with access to an experienced legal team. Based on what has gone before, I find it unlikely that WW has made his comments with regards to ST without being pretty sure he is on strong legal ground.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Totally agree on T&S
I can assure you after spending 40 years working in law that BA legal dept would have this well and truly sorted. I think I am right in saying that companies pay an agreed sum to the revenue and customs on behalf of their staff who receive these 'perks' - of course all of the staff may or may not use them for whatever reason, but the vast majority do, as I have observed with seat moving on the flights I have taken - Ive yet to be moved up a notch even though I consider myself a frequent flyer.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lawyers, solicitors are no less mercenary than any one else. Much of the the time a company moves on nothing more than a legal opinion and not legal fact. It all depends at the end of the day on what you are attempting to achieve.
As for staff travel we will see. I doubt very much that BA can enforce this. Not because its a privilege, not because of any othe reason than the action is punishing strikers who are striking legally whether you agree with them or not and because the removal of staff travel in this case is extremely discriminatory.
Don't allow schadenfreude to creep in here.
As for staff travel we will see. I doubt very much that BA can enforce this. Not because its a privilege, not because of any othe reason than the action is punishing strikers who are striking legally whether you agree with them or not and because the removal of staff travel in this case is extremely discriminatory.
Don't allow schadenfreude to creep in here.
You may be right, but despite their financial problems BA has much deeper pockets than the strikers. BA will be able to drag out legal actions for a long time, far longer than the strikers will be able to pay for full fare tickets to work.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Safety Concerns
Don't allow schadenfreude to creep in here.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't trust either side
WW wants to break the union. The union has lost its negotiating position. Both parties are purveyors of untruths which will result in continued hassle for passengers.
Unite had the upper hand with a threat of a strike but now only have the economic impact as a bargainaing chip and , according to WW only 7% of customers will not be able to travel. Significant numbers of pax but nt enough to bring BA to it's knees.
Until staff are willing to take a stance Unite are going nowhere. BA will continue to bumble along. One wonders if there isn't scope to break off the non unionised part, with WW at the helm, leaving the rest for those who won't accept the revised terms?
Unite had the upper hand with a threat of a strike but now only have the economic impact as a bargainaing chip and , according to WW only 7% of customers will not be able to travel. Significant numbers of pax but nt enough to bring BA to it's knees.
Until staff are willing to take a stance Unite are going nowhere. BA will continue to bumble along. One wonders if there isn't scope to break off the non unionised part, with WW at the helm, leaving the rest for those who won't accept the revised terms?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"WW wants to break the union."
I think you should add "in my opinion" because I've heard nothing from Mr Walsh that suggests he wishes to break the Union. From current performace, it seems Unite/Bassa are quite capable of doing that themselves.
"Both parties are purveyors of untruths which will result in continued hassle for passengers."
Well again. On balance, most statements coming from BA appear to be factual which can't be said for the Unite/Bassa side. It also occures to me, it is only BA that is trying to minimise the impact on passengers. On the other hand, it would appear the strikers have another agenda which doesn't include customer service.
I think you should add "in my opinion" because I've heard nothing from Mr Walsh that suggests he wishes to break the Union. From current performace, it seems Unite/Bassa are quite capable of doing that themselves.
"Both parties are purveyors of untruths which will result in continued hassle for passengers."
Well again. On balance, most statements coming from BA appear to be factual which can't be said for the Unite/Bassa side. It also occures to me, it is only BA that is trying to minimise the impact on passengers. On the other hand, it would appear the strikers have another agenda which doesn't include customer service.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T-T-B
Was it "rejected"? Or did the Union say "they would not recommend it to their members"? A subtle distinction, perhaps, but surely significant.
1. Derek Simpson had requested & was granted by BA a 23 day extension of the strike deadline in order to ballot Bassa members on WW's INITIAL offer.
2. Unite were recommending a rejection of this offer.
3. The extension was granted by BA despite WW's grave doubts.
4. The offer was dependant on there being no strike.
5. Unbeknown to either party Mclunky was about to announce the strike dates.
QED Final proof of how Bassa is being used & abused in the power struggle as to who will become the leader of Unite.
The sooner that Bassa's members realise this the sooner the strike will be over.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trust or lack of
Munneyspinner - I doubt if WW has Unite in his sights. After all many thousands of non striking staff are members of that union. Furthermore he has already offered Unite bargaining rights for New Fleet. Hardly the actions of someone hellbent on breaking the union. That said I wonder what his and indeed Woodley's thoughts are on BASSA. Probably not worth repeating.....
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And why should they now put the original offer back on the table after BASSA/UNITE REJECTED IT!!!
You see, that's the bottom line. Decent offers regarding pay and conditions were made, but the union REFUSED to negotiate regarding these deals and rejected them without even offering THEIR OWN MEMBERS a chance to vote on the proposals that would directy affect them. Instead assorted lies and fog were thrown around to muddy the waters.. Now give one good reason why BA should now, effectively, beg the unions to come back to the table with an offer they rejected, with conditions attached by the union, etc after the idiotic performance of the union in all of this and the extra costs incurred due to this ridiculous action which seems to have been an attempt to protect the mollycoddled status of a minority of staff?
You see, that's the bottom line. Decent offers regarding pay and conditions were made, but the union REFUSED to negotiate regarding these deals and rejected them without even offering THEIR OWN MEMBERS a chance to vote on the proposals that would directy affect them. Instead assorted lies and fog were thrown around to muddy the waters.. Now give one good reason why BA should now, effectively, beg the unions to come back to the table with an offer they rejected, with conditions attached by the union, etc after the idiotic performance of the union in all of this and the extra costs incurred due to this ridiculous action which seems to have been an attempt to protect the mollycoddled status of a minority of staff?
I did inform you that the Union had agreed, with ACAS, to carry on negotiations and not strike if the original offer was placed on the table. You decided to believe different, fine.
You should also learn that not recommending something is not the same as rejecting.
Are we going to have any effect on here....Answer no, don't be so naive, To be honest the whole debate is now becoming very tedious due to the inaccuracies and falsehoods the majority have to work with....This is from both sides by the way, but that is the symptom of carrying out negotiations in the media. Something both sides should (but won't) ensure happens..
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Basque Country
Age: 75
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA vs UNITE
Munneyspinner - I doubt if WW has Unite in his sights. After all many thousands of non striking staff are members of that union. Furthermore he has already offered Unite bargaining rights for New Fleet. Hardly the actions of someone hellbent on breaking the union. That said I wonder what his and indeed Woodley's thoughts are on BASSA. Probably not worth repeating.....
The biggest savings for BA come in radical reform of the various scheduling agreements and allowances, the so-called Spanish practices. By crippling or sweeping BASSA away, WW and IFCE will have an opportunity to negotiate with reasonable CC reps a new agreement which will be both fair and workable. It may well be called New Fleet but the precedent of having crew on different pay scales working alongside each other has already been set.
Last edited by PaddyMiguel; 26th Mar 2010 at 14:29. Reason: Grammar, punctuation and spelling. See me afterwards
Paxing All Over The World
etrang
Oft is it said that, every organisation carries within it, the seeds of it's own destruction. This is often true of individuals, many presidents and prime ministers come to mind.
It seems fairly clear to me at Willie Walsh IS trying to break the union, and its also clear that BASSA's actions all along have helped him do it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Basque Country
Age: 75
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one Paxboy but
what Marx actually said was
It will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. The petty bourgeoisie will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive..... ... the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier..
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The petty bourgeoisie will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive....
That fits WW perfectly, eh? What's your Plan B? Do you have one?
[ooops, you're dead, sorry Karl ... does BASSA have a Plan B?]
