BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: waad
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Profit chasing is what it comes down to.BA posted profits before the gfc.What changed? Some got richer and some got poorer nothing else.
The pension deficit was caused by? Thats right painting tails and lavish projects. investing in areas where there are no apparent returns or appreciation of assets at the cost of service. Like most things in the UK service is absent and due to what I ask you laureates?
Lower wages, lower staff morale lower profits. Its simple but since we live in an era run by neo managers, the business cycle will occur with even greater regularity.
BA will not reclaim its former glory.
When one employs people who are just passing by instead of making a career just like the strikers then the ensuing service will be similar to a Macdonalds type of service and the premium traffic will go where the premium service is offered and maintained. See what happens to brands such as LuieV, Chanel, Burbery or any other premium brand that decide to take a page out of Willie's book of tricks.
Try telling that fact to a fund manger and see the ensuing reaction........an immediate downgrade....... because one cannot quantify morale on a balance sheet........and thats how most of today's companies are run. Where people go to work because they have to not because they want to and hence the crappy service that we have. But you go Willie go and show us how its done!
Service what service, who wants a cuppa tea instead?
spelling of brands intentional to adhere to forum rules
The pension deficit was caused by? Thats right painting tails and lavish projects. investing in areas where there are no apparent returns or appreciation of assets at the cost of service. Like most things in the UK service is absent and due to what I ask you laureates?
Lower wages, lower staff morale lower profits. Its simple but since we live in an era run by neo managers, the business cycle will occur with even greater regularity.
BA will not reclaim its former glory.
When one employs people who are just passing by instead of making a career just like the strikers then the ensuing service will be similar to a Macdonalds type of service and the premium traffic will go where the premium service is offered and maintained. See what happens to brands such as LuieV, Chanel, Burbery or any other premium brand that decide to take a page out of Willie's book of tricks.
Try telling that fact to a fund manger and see the ensuing reaction........an immediate downgrade....... because one cannot quantify morale on a balance sheet........and thats how most of today's companies are run. Where people go to work because they have to not because they want to and hence the crappy service that we have. But you go Willie go and show us how its done!
Service what service, who wants a cuppa tea instead?
spelling of brands intentional to adhere to forum rules
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wet vee too:
Your post would make sense if the initial offer required a pay cut..it didn't, if BASSA Cabin Crew actually worked to maximize service, I remind you of the few minute hot towel run, and if these incredibly well paid LHR Cabin Crew had the reputation as being the best in the business. They don't.
As I observe the messages that will be coming out of Unite/BASSA over the next few days I'll be reading with an amused smile.
I'm sure they would like that first offer back now. They haven't actually served their members well in this instance.
Your post would make sense if the initial offer required a pay cut..it didn't, if BASSA Cabin Crew actually worked to maximize service, I remind you of the few minute hot towel run, and if these incredibly well paid LHR Cabin Crew had the reputation as being the best in the business. They don't.
As I observe the messages that will be coming out of Unite/BASSA over the next few days I'll be reading with an amused smile.
I'm sure they would like that first offer back now. They haven't actually served their members well in this instance.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Differences
Papillion
Your link seems to be at variance with the link to the Independant being posted on the other thread.
Which is likely to be correct ? (Ref restoration of ST)
Your link seems to be at variance with the link to the Independant being posted on the other thread.
Which is likely to be correct ? (Ref restoration of ST)
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Hill's is being quoted here - thats how I read it.
So, this is what Mr Hills has said, not what BA have said to, err, anyone.
It is not however what Unite are saying on their own press release: -
BA cabin crew dispute to continue
So, this is what Mr Hills has said, not what BA have said to, err, anyone.
It is not however what Unite are saying on their own press release: -
“Despite important progress made in a number of respects, management has refused to budge on victimising cabin crew who had their travel concessions withdrawn as a result of the strike. It is also taking vindictive and disproportionate disciplinary action against union members in defiance of the words in the agreement they are asking us to endorse.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Bags, it is messy.
Still, early days. Over the next 48 hours I guess it will become clear, we may even get to see the details that people are expected to actually vote on. - As yet my partner hasnt had sight.
Still, early days. Over the next 48 hours I guess it will become clear, we may even get to see the details that people are expected to actually vote on. - As yet my partner hasnt had sight.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I’m happy to be told that I’m wrong, but, I don't think this vote is a legal process that they can get wrong, as it were.
This is a simple gathering of views by the union who already have a legal mandate to accept or reject, strike or not, as they see fit.
This is a simple gathering of views by the union who already have a legal mandate to accept or reject, strike or not, as they see fit.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snas:
I think you have it right. The Union is looking at this as "advisory" which may explain some of the lax procedures. Procedures I'm a little surprised about given the seriousness of the issue.
How BASSA reacts should be fun to watch. Mr. Holley has lost his Staff Travel and from what I hear is up in front of the disciplinary board.
Will the BASSA membership truly put their wellbeing at risk for the likes of Mr. Holley...Mr. "Its been so long since I've done this can someone remind me what a trolley is?".
I think you have it right. The Union is looking at this as "advisory" which may explain some of the lax procedures. Procedures I'm a little surprised about given the seriousness of the issue.
How BASSA reacts should be fun to watch. Mr. Holley has lost his Staff Travel and from what I hear is up in front of the disciplinary board.
Will the BASSA membership truly put their wellbeing at risk for the likes of Mr. Holley...Mr. "Its been so long since I've done this can someone remind me what a trolley is?".
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A message from Unite that is revealing from the CC forum with a thank you to Caribbean Boy:
First, this position has its dangers:
Cabin Crew members of BASSA should be thoughtful before taking this approach. If it is argued successfully that Staff Travel is a "contractual" benefit (something Unite and BASSA have recognized is not good for their members in the past) there are tax complications that could become absolutely brutal.
Secondly, is this a signal that Unite will agree to a contract that does not contain the reinstatement of staff travel and leave their membership with the hopes that they will regain it in the Courts?
No Staff Travel? Europe may come to you!
As you may be aware, BA tried everything they could legally to prevent our strike and mitigate its effects. One of the most significant of these measures was to carry out their threat to remove staff travel from strikers.
Can BA legally do this? Many of you have asked questions about the legal position.
Firstly, there are some basic fundamentals with procedure with which BA have not complied.
Secondly, there are issues around the potentially contractual nature of staff travel itself.
And thirdly, some interesting points arise in relation to European law.
Under UK law the starting point is that an employee generally has no rights against an employer who has treated him less well than others because he took part in industrial action. The position is different though if the detrimental treatment by the employer is sufficiently serious to amount to a fundamental breach of an important contractual term (such as the implied term of "trust and confidence"). In some circumstances, this particular breach is so serious that the employee would be entitled to resign and claim constructive dismissal. In that situation British law gives the employee very clear rights, but no doubt BA will be boldly taking that risk and seeking to ensure that any removal of what it calls “non contractual benefits” falls short of that hurdle.
However that is not the end of the story. Recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights may lead to changes in UK law. As noted above, detrimental action against strikers must be of a fundamentally serious nature if it is going to provide strikers with legally enforceable rights. The European Court of Human Rights has recently suggested that this is too tough a test. In a series of cases involving Turkey and Russia it has recently indicated that it thinks the law should move on and has ruled that if an employee is treated less well than others because he or she has taken, or intends to take, part in a strike or other industrial action he or she will have a legal right to sue their employer under the Convention.
British courts must interpret UK law in a way which will give effect to the Convention and if that is impossible can issue a "declaration of incompatibility" which is likely to lead to Parliament making appropriate changes to UK law. In some circumstances it is even possible for direct applications to be made to the European Court of Human Rights.
On the face of it, this could pose a problem for BA. Currently, the UK Human Rights Act 1998 allows direct application of the Convention only in respect of the activities of public authorities and persons carrying out functions of a public nature, and it does not give private citizens or companies directly enforceable rights against each other. So while the judgments of the Court of Human Rights noted above may lead to future changes in UK law which might then strictly prevent BA taking the sort of action they are taking against strikers, BA may feel that they are currently immune from legal action with their "benefit removing" plans. However, what they need to bear in mind is that the UK Courts and tribunals have a higher calling – and often shown that they are prepared to go to great lengths, even inserting words into Acts of Parliament, to ensure that they fulfill their duty to interpret UK law in a way which will give effect to the Convention. Beware BA.
So, assuming Unite explore every avenue open to us, BA may find they are on treading on thin ice if they go ahead with permanently removing, or in any way reducing the provision of benefits for strikers.
We shall keep you informed of our progress with this matter.
As you may be aware, BA tried everything they could legally to prevent our strike and mitigate its effects. One of the most significant of these measures was to carry out their threat to remove staff travel from strikers.
Can BA legally do this? Many of you have asked questions about the legal position.
Firstly, there are some basic fundamentals with procedure with which BA have not complied.
Secondly, there are issues around the potentially contractual nature of staff travel itself.
And thirdly, some interesting points arise in relation to European law.
Under UK law the starting point is that an employee generally has no rights against an employer who has treated him less well than others because he took part in industrial action. The position is different though if the detrimental treatment by the employer is sufficiently serious to amount to a fundamental breach of an important contractual term (such as the implied term of "trust and confidence"). In some circumstances, this particular breach is so serious that the employee would be entitled to resign and claim constructive dismissal. In that situation British law gives the employee very clear rights, but no doubt BA will be boldly taking that risk and seeking to ensure that any removal of what it calls “non contractual benefits” falls short of that hurdle.
However that is not the end of the story. Recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights may lead to changes in UK law. As noted above, detrimental action against strikers must be of a fundamentally serious nature if it is going to provide strikers with legally enforceable rights. The European Court of Human Rights has recently suggested that this is too tough a test. In a series of cases involving Turkey and Russia it has recently indicated that it thinks the law should move on and has ruled that if an employee is treated less well than others because he or she has taken, or intends to take, part in a strike or other industrial action he or she will have a legal right to sue their employer under the Convention.
British courts must interpret UK law in a way which will give effect to the Convention and if that is impossible can issue a "declaration of incompatibility" which is likely to lead to Parliament making appropriate changes to UK law. In some circumstances it is even possible for direct applications to be made to the European Court of Human Rights.
On the face of it, this could pose a problem for BA. Currently, the UK Human Rights Act 1998 allows direct application of the Convention only in respect of the activities of public authorities and persons carrying out functions of a public nature, and it does not give private citizens or companies directly enforceable rights against each other. So while the judgments of the Court of Human Rights noted above may lead to future changes in UK law which might then strictly prevent BA taking the sort of action they are taking against strikers, BA may feel that they are currently immune from legal action with their "benefit removing" plans. However, what they need to bear in mind is that the UK Courts and tribunals have a higher calling – and often shown that they are prepared to go to great lengths, even inserting words into Acts of Parliament, to ensure that they fulfill their duty to interpret UK law in a way which will give effect to the Convention. Beware BA.
So, assuming Unite explore every avenue open to us, BA may find they are on treading on thin ice if they go ahead with permanently removing, or in any way reducing the provision of benefits for strikers.
We shall keep you informed of our progress with this matter.
Secondly, there are issues regarding the potentially contractual nature of staff travel itself
Secondly, is this a signal that Unite will agree to a contract that does not contain the reinstatement of staff travel and leave their membership with the hopes that they will regain it in the Courts?
Paxing All Over The World
wet vee two Well said. Your assesment is one to be agreed with.
True. Whether they win every step from now, nor none, the glory days are behind them and NOT just due the current locally difficulty. Rather, just the natural affect of human beings over an extended period of time.
BA will not reclaim its former glory.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baggersup.
If the reports are true that a couple of hundred BASSA members have resigned since the last vote, with resignations perhaps still happening daily, it would probably be very hard to get a perfect list of members together for a legal vote.
The last message I put up on this subject was deleted for some reason but it contained only Bassa issued figures.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 74
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staff Travel as a Contractural Benefit
We’ve had this discussion before. If it is a contractual benefit, then it will be taxed as a ‘benefit in kind’. This is the norm for HMRC, so, for example, many years ago when I worked in London, and my employer kindly gave me a loan so that I could buy an annual season ticket to get to work, the Revenue taxed me on an amount reckoned from the value of the interest that I would have had to pay if I had borrowed that money at a commercial rate from the Bank.
And on another occasion, when the Company graciously invited our respective Mehmsahibs to join us when we were at a meeting in one of the more attractive European cities, their airfares and a contribution to ‘their’ hotel costs were grossed up and we were taxed on this gross amount.
Any action by BASSA to claim Staff Travel is contractual is likely to have this unintended consequence: an unintended consequence, moreover, that is likely to affect all BA staff, as I cannot see HMRC allowing the existing rules to stay in place for any other categories of staff if the rules are changed for Cabin Crew.
And on another occasion, when the Company graciously invited our respective Mehmsahibs to join us when we were at a meeting in one of the more attractive European cities, their airfares and a contribution to ‘their’ hotel costs were grossed up and we were taxed on this gross amount.
Any action by BASSA to claim Staff Travel is contractual is likely to have this unintended consequence: an unintended consequence, moreover, that is likely to affect all BA staff, as I cannot see HMRC allowing the existing rules to stay in place for any other categories of staff if the rules are changed for Cabin Crew.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would the likely dates be then?
Using my very last BA miles for a trip to DXB on 12 May, returning on the 24th, and are curious to what the dates could be, or likely to be.
In the event the answer is no it appears that they won't announce new strike dates until after the 6 May election. So this likely would not be earlier than the 7th. Do they have any notice period this time around?
Is there a Bank Holiday in the UK, or school break that they will 'want' to avoid during May?
I would be connecting over LHR so am more concerned about getting to and from Heathrow.
Thanks in advance!
In the event the answer is no it appears that they won't announce new strike dates until after the 6 May election. So this likely would not be earlier than the 7th. Do they have any notice period this time around?
Is there a Bank Holiday in the UK, or school break that they will 'want' to avoid during May?
I would be connecting over LHR so am more concerned about getting to and from Heathrow.
Thanks in advance!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NZ
Age: 55
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staff travel as a contractual benefit
It is my understanding from posts some time back on the CC thread that staff travel was specifically negotiated by the Union as a non-contractual benefit, in order to take advantage of the favourable tax treatment.
Just because the benefit is treated as non-contractual for tax purposes, it doesn't follow that it must be protected for employment law purposes - the tests are not the same. So it is, just, possible that a judge could find that staff travel is protected under employment law for strikers, but the tax-free status could remain.
However...there appear to be several legitimate legal arguments either way as to whether it is a protected benefit. So it could go either way. In weighing up those arguments, the tax status of the benefit is not strictly relevant to whether it is a protected benefit. Judges are only human, though. I think that a judge is likely to harbour a feeling of 'you can't have your cake and eat it' , which means that the union are going to face an uphill struggle to win the argument in court.
Just because the benefit is treated as non-contractual for tax purposes, it doesn't follow that it must be protected for employment law purposes - the tests are not the same. So it is, just, possible that a judge could find that staff travel is protected under employment law for strikers, but the tax-free status could remain.
However...there appear to be several legitimate legal arguments either way as to whether it is a protected benefit. So it could go either way. In weighing up those arguments, the tax status of the benefit is not strictly relevant to whether it is a protected benefit. Judges are only human, though. I think that a judge is likely to harbour a feeling of 'you can't have your cake and eat it' , which means that the union are going to face an uphill struggle to win the argument in court.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“So I am asking all British Airways cabin crew to stand up for their union and their own sense of dignity and self-respect and reject the offer in the forthcoming ballot. Should they do so, I hope management will at last come to its senses and negotiate a sensible agreement.”
If they had any dignity and self respect they would have kicked this shower of
into touch a long time ago.
If they had any dignity and self respect they would have kicked this shower of
into touch a long time ago.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As noted on Flyertalk, Unite's commentary on the loss of staff travel on the CC thread bears a remarkable similarity to much of the content of this blog:
CLB Employment Solutions Blog British Airways and the cabin crew strike
CLB Employment Solutions Blog British Airways and the cabin crew strike
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“So I am asking all British Airways cabin crew to stand up for their union"
This sums up exactly what is wrong with the union - it's meant to be standing up for the cabin crew. They are exactly like the current crop of politicians who have forgotten they are the servants of their constituents not the masters.
This sums up exactly what is wrong with the union - it's meant to be standing up for the cabin crew. They are exactly like the current crop of politicians who have forgotten they are the servants of their constituents not the masters.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for CC reflection
The Institute of Fiscal Studies has told us that all three parties in the election have not been as up front as they should have been! The truth, we are told, is that spending cuts aired by the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are woefully short of reality and that spending cuts will have to be much deeper. If that is true then it will cost each one of us loadsa dosh! Up to £700 a year.
This will mean that the money in our pockets will be more precious than it is now. Prices will rise everywhere: petrol, food, commodities, air fares, train fares and travel per se - everything!
On reflection, therefore, it must be a case for the CC to question the feasibility, or the common sense, of pursuing a strike again. As it says in the blog above BASSA want them to "support your union" - for what? Themselves that's what! They will lead the CC wherever they want - with no regard for them. They are typical union reps who like being on a high.
It has to be a no win situation - for anyone. Indeed, a strike by any union body at a time like this is going to be so counter productive it will surely damage those who go into another confrontation and with LESS chance of 'success' as the last one.
This country is in a mess, not as bad as Greece, but it ain't good. Reflection is definitely good though.
This will mean that the money in our pockets will be more precious than it is now. Prices will rise everywhere: petrol, food, commodities, air fares, train fares and travel per se - everything!
On reflection, therefore, it must be a case for the CC to question the feasibility, or the common sense, of pursuing a strike again. As it says in the blog above BASSA want them to "support your union" - for what? Themselves that's what! They will lead the CC wherever they want - with no regard for them. They are typical union reps who like being on a high.
It has to be a no win situation - for anyone. Indeed, a strike by any union body at a time like this is going to be so counter productive it will surely damage those who go into another confrontation and with LESS chance of 'success' as the last one.
This country is in a mess, not as bad as Greece, but it ain't good. Reflection is definitely good though.