BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions

[west lakes]

Staff Travel and discliplinary action

As an alternate view I see it as a matter of timing

BA warned cabin crew what would happen to ST if they went on strike, and carried out it's warning.
CC had a choice (catch 22 perhaps) go on strike and lose ST or stay at work and keep it.
If staff chose to be on strike the loss of ST could be seen as their choice

If, however, BA had removed ST without warning after the strike it would be a totally different matter and could be seen as discriminatory.

As regards other staff groups they threatened to go on strike, but didn't, so why should BA remove a consession?

So BA is taking discliplinary action against CC who, in some cases, were perceived as making threats to other staff.
If these actions were stopped it could be seen as BA and the union condoning such action.
If in the future a member of staff was perceived to issue threats against another the accused could use the fact of that "condoning of action" as a defence
So, Miss M, that could mean that if someone threatened you at work BA could take no action, nor could the union do anything about it. Is that what union members want?

[Hipennine]

A few observations:

1/ ST is a concession, not a benefit. Making an issue of it will only attract the attention of HMRC. Following a legal route to prove it is contractual only opens the door to retrospective tax assessment. Even making HMRC aware of it may cause more investigation of its tax status. Outside of the airline industry, within the UK, HMRC seeks to ensure that any subsidy for commuting is a taxable BIK.

2/ To suggest that any case within a disciplinary procedure should be set aside (assuming that such a disciplinary procedure complies with the ACAS code of practice) as part of any IA settlement is nonsense. justice must be seen to be done - if there is no case to answer, or unprovable, the "accused" walk free. If there is a case and the accused aren't satisfied with the result, there is a statutory framework to deal with it.

3/ The nominal reason for the IA is imposition. I understand that any further IA based on the above two issues would require a new ballot to be instigated (not an online poll as suggested by BASSA)

[Mariner9]

I note from the recent Unite communication that the latest BA offer, which has no compromise on either ST or disciplinaries, will be put to the vote of their members.

Given the percentages that went to work during the strike, it appears likely to me that the vote will be to accept the deal.

If the vote does go that way, then the mandate to the Union from their members will be to accept the loss of ST and the continuance of disciplinary action. They could then choose to either abandon attempts to return ST/cancel disciplinaries, or ignore their members wishes. Not an easy choice.

Unite/BASSA seem to be digging their way ever deeper into their hole.

[Snas]

Given the percentages that went to work during the strike, it appears likely to me that the vote will be to accept the deal.

Perhaps, but bear in mind only Union members will be voting (I understand) and I know personally of a fair few that have resigned their membership and if I believe other sources this number may be significant.

A vote to reject would not surprise me at all.

[Mariner9]

We can probably take it as read that those who did strike will vote against*.

I accept there's likely been a reduction in Unite's non-striking membership, but I suspect that they still are the significant majority. I can't see them voting for futher strikes.

No doubt, all will be revealed in due course.


*Perhaps MissM could confirm her views?

[Ancient Observer]

The psychology of "Loss"

Just a quick point about the "loss" of ST.

Whilst I'm not convinced that psychology has added a lot to the sum of human knowledge, one thing it has made very clear. We in the West are VERY averse to the perceived loss of something. That is why many adverts are couched in a "do not miss out" sort of way. That is why many salesmen use the "only available to-day" sort of phrases. "Don't miss out" type of sales pitches are an example of this psychology.
We hate to lose something. We hate the perception of loss. (Even if the loss is minor/not real)

The strength of feeling about the loss of ST - which only becomes real when the letter is in your hand - will be much higher than some commentators think. Not because striking crew are belligerent, etc., but simply due to (Western) "human nature".

[MissM]

Final 3 Greens

I don't need to educate myself to see that removal of staff travel is a punishment because that's what it is, like it or not. WW might have informed us before the strike took place that this would happen. Directly, or indirectly, it was a threat to make people come into work, especially our commuters.

Nothing bad has been added but something good has been lost to people who chose to strike? That's a statement you can twist to your own benefit.

Snas

The point is that BA has suspended a huge amount of crew and some allegations are nothing but ridiculous. One particular pilot is also responsible for many of them. He should be proud of himself.

Mariner9

I don't know if I will vote for or against the proposal but be rest assured that many won't bother reading it if ST and the issue of our suspended crew are included. Unfortunately many crew, myself included, are tired of this dispute and will probably vote for it to get this over with.

[Final 3 Greens]

MissM

You are demonstrating your own lack of education in arguing that the removal of staff travel was a punishment.

It was a positive subtraction designed to induce behavioural change in a completely lawful way.

It was not a threat, but a pre-announced policy, which was implemented.

You can argue that black is white, if you wish, but it does not make it the case.

[MissM]

A pre-announced policy?

Let's put it this way. If you decide to go on a strike and your manager says, before the strike, that if you do it they will remove your vending machine. You go on strike and they they remove it. Is it still a pre-announced policy because they keep their word?

Firstly, they are threatening you to remove something dearly to you with the purpose of hopefully making you come into work. Secondly, they are punishing you for being naughty.

Never ever in the history of this company has a particular group ever been punished in this manner for withdrawing their labour. Pilots were never exposed to such threats. Neither were ground staff. I remember they were being awarded for coming into work by being given further staff travel benefits. Why cabin crew?

It makes me look rather dim? Spare me such personal comments.

[Snas]

Snas
The point is that BA has suspended a huge amount of crew and some allegations are nothing but ridiculous. One particular pilot is also responsible for many of them. He should be proud of himself.

MissM - that may well be correct, I dont know, and with respect I would suggest that the majority of CC dont know the details either.

I just think that being asked to vote (to accept a proposal that includes, or not, these matters) is very far from ideal.

To insist disciplinary matters are included makes it designed to fail I suggest. There are processes for such matters and they will be followed, with reps ensuring this is so I would hope.

MissM, whilst I disagree with your position, generally, you do at least seem to be informed to a degree that most CC are not. BASSA will perhaps paint the members in the discp process as some type of freedom fighter, perhaps some are, but in with the 50+ are there not some, or one even, that deserves to be exactly where he/she is - voting that process away is not right.

Edit - for clarity, I'm not discussing ST, that is something that I think can and is reasonable to vote on being included in a new offer. The discp hearings are the part that I think will stall an end to this IA.

[Final 3 Greens]

MissM

The CEO of a public company made a policy announcement about the withdrawal of staff travel.

Can you seriously equate that to a manager taking away a vending machine? I would say that you lack judgement if the answer is yes.

Companies can and do remove concessions at their discretion. It does not matter if it is dear to you or not.

In this instance, the CEO explained the policy and gave everyone the opportunity to retain staff travel.

No-one was punished, some decided to self apply the policy and now they do not have staff travel.

That was their free choice, as it was to strike.

Never ever in the history of this company has a particular group ever been punished in this manner for withdrawing their labour. Pilots were never exposed to such threats. Neither were ground staff. I remember they were being awarded for coming into work by being given further staff travel benefits. Why cabin crew?

And your point is?

Your community was told the way to was going to be and you all made your own decisions, now the policy has been applied.

You may feel that this is unfair, in which case you are at liberty to change your employer.

[just an observer]

To be fair to MissM and the average cabin crew, withdrawal of Staff Travel for IA has been BA standard procedure for years, decades even. It has so far always been restored when the IA was over. So one can see why cabin crew would assume the same would happen this time, even though WW was far more public, positive and specific about it being permanent than any CEO I can recall. Especially as BASSA no doubt convinced themselves they would ground BA, as again they always have been able to in the past.

From something WW was quoted as saying by a non striking CC during the strike, over on the other thread, WW feels the loss should remain, as the non strikers, non union members and 'no' voters, are all going to get lumbered with whatever the final lesser deal is that BASSA have caused by not negotiating etc. So it seemed to WW fair that the strikers should lose something extra, given that they have caused the non militants to lose something, ie a better deal.

[MissM]

Snas

For WW to say that there is a process for disciplinary matters and will be dealt with accordingly is nothing but taking a distance from it. No doubt there are crew who deserve to be suspended for their behavior but BA has been very harsh on this matter.

I don't doubt for a second either that the sole reason as to why BASSA insists everyone is reinstated is because many of them are representatives, including the Branch Secretary.

Final 3 Greens

Glad to see you have removed your personal comment about me.

We can argue for a lifetime about punishment versus policy. WW informed us of what would happen if we went on strike. There would be consequences for being naughty. That's nothing but a punishment.

My point is? Management has taken a very harsh stand on cabin crew. That's my point. Why didn't they threaten our pilots in this manner not too long when they were going on a strike?

[PAXboy]

MissM I do not ask this in a confrontational way - simply as a plain set of questions. Help me understand. Yes, I know that BA has been lowering the quality of it's product but IA ain't going to change that and if the mgmt decide to ruin their product - that is for their customers to vote on.

Never ever in the history of this company has a particular group ever been punished in this manner for withdrawing their labour. Pilots were never exposed to such threats. Neither were ground staff. I remember they were being awarded for coming into work by being given further staff travel benefits. Why cabin crew?

Because:

• You are going on strike in the depths of a recession
• You are well paid people when the unemployment trend is steadily up
• Your jobs are (we are told) safe with no enforced redundancies
• Your colleagues at Gatwick accepted these changes to protect their jobs - why not Heathrow staff?
• Other groups of staff in BA have(we are told) agreed revisions to Ts&Cs
• We know that all folks across the country have had to accept changes to their living and working conditions ever since the recession of 1989/92. (some earlier, some later than that)
• Why not cabin crew?

[jethrobee]

Miss M, I see your point about CC being treated differently, but surely that is because you are the only group in BA who have not yet negotiated a settlement.

IMHO Mr Walsh has backed himself into a corner by making the removal of ST permanent, he now cannot back down for the sake of the other CC who turned up and put customers first.

As an outside, I personally feel that Bassa are giving very little value to their members, and leading them down a route in which there are no winners in the long term. I wish someone would just bang both parties heads together to be honest, but then the labour government cant put pressure on their largest donor unite can they.........

[Final 3 Greens]

MissM

We can argue for a lifetime about punishment versus policy

No, we can't. With all due respect I am a management consultant specialising in organizational development and change management for 20 years, before that a line manager in industry and with several qualifications in the field of psychology and social science. This type of stuff is my day job.

You patently do not understand what you are talking about and are literally spouting irrational nonsense, apparently driven by emotion.

Why didn't they threaten our pilots in this manner not too long when they were going on a strike?

Have you considered that the pilots may be a more valuable resource to the company and therefore have more leverage with senior management?

jethrobee

IMHO Mr Walsh has backed himself into a corner by making the removal of ST permanent, he now cannot back down for the sake of the other CC who turned up and put customers first.

I don't think he has backed himself into a corner, he has implemented a policy using his legitimate authority as CEO and that policy is not up for negotiation.

BASSA have backed themselves into a corner and are now in deep trouble.

[Basil]

Management has taken a very harsh stand on cabin crew.

I worked for four years for a Persian Gulf company, five years for a SE Asian company and twenty four years for BA.
Trust me when I say 'If you work for BA you don't know harsh'

[Final 3 Greens]

Basil
You summarise this succintly.

Unfortunately, one sometimes wonders how connected to the outside world some of the BA cabin crew community are.

[button44]

Miss M.

Not to be too harsh, but it does seem that a lot of striking CC's have rather an inflated idea of their importance in the scheme of things! I would suggest Bassa should have realised that in a world where the ecomomy was rocky, that now was not the time to strike, especially as the reasons for said strike seemed to change from week to week. So it should have come as no surprise that BA would reward those who worked to keep the airline aloft.

[ExecClubPax]

MissM

I suspect those cabin crew that took strike action did so in the full knowledge their pay and allowances for strikes dates would be withheld. By going on strike, they effectively accepted this loss as the price for their militancy/moral stand what ever you choose to call it.

Similarly, they knew that staff travel concessions were in jeopardy if they withheld their labour. That was flagged up clearly both in writing and verbally well before the first strike date. In effect, cabin crew who went on strike voted for loss of their concessions. This is not punishment, it's a self inflicted loss.

Now, I suspect most thought that like on previous occasions, BA would reinstate them as part of a negotiated settlement. If Mr Walsh is to be believed, that won't happen this time around. Consequently, I can understand the shock the failed gamble has created among your striking colleagues.

Who knows whether BASSA membership will vote for or against the current proposals where there is no prospect of reinstatement of staff travel or cessation of disciplinary action. If they vote yes then the status quo remains. If they vote no, BA will continue training volunteer cabin crew, the militant BASSA membership will be allowed to wither on the vine and Mr Walsh is gifted a heaven sent opportunity to "clear out the Augean Stables" once and for all.

Who would have thought a man of his statue could take on the role of Heracles (Hercules). Funny old world, as someone once said.