BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why there are a lot of people talking about "the thin end of the wedge" (ie if we let BA impose changes now, what will they do in the future? etc).
If it was that much of a "thin end of the wedge", why didn't they threaten a strike when it was "imposed" on Gatwick then?
ANS: BASSA REPS ONLY CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES.
Which is precisely why UNITE are trying to take control of negotiations out of the hands of these selfish, intransigent dinosaurs, and properly represent the membership as a whole.
They probably have a chance of success if they can keep McThickwit and "Bangkok Babes" Simpson out of it.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strike Rationale
As I now read it, given the events so far this year, this IA is now purely a power struggle.
Last year BASSA did not attempt to negotiate, as always, all the controls were in their hands, they had total contempt for management of BA - as they had always won over the years and their main preoccupation was with internal arguements with Unite, CC89 and within themselves - but they failed to recognise the frustration and sea change in BA's management philosophy.
They were dumbfounded by the two legal strikes against them, that the change by BA was legal and, the union ballot was illegal. They had suddenly lost their dictatorial power over the management of BA and the company operation. Regardless of all else they had to regain control, hence their total focus on IA and ignoring any offers put forward by BA. They are now totally desperate, the CC and their concerns are completely irrelevant. Egos and lifestyles are on the line.
Last year BASSA did not attempt to negotiate, as always, all the controls were in their hands, they had total contempt for management of BA - as they had always won over the years and their main preoccupation was with internal arguements with Unite, CC89 and within themselves - but they failed to recognise the frustration and sea change in BA's management philosophy.
They were dumbfounded by the two legal strikes against them, that the change by BA was legal and, the union ballot was illegal. They had suddenly lost their dictatorial power over the management of BA and the company operation. Regardless of all else they had to regain control, hence their total focus on IA and ignoring any offers put forward by BA. They are now totally desperate, the CC and their concerns are completely irrelevant. Egos and lifestyles are on the line.
The fact that BA's imposition was legal doesn't prevent BASSA / Unite taking industrial action. If the unions are unhappy about something BA has done then they're still entitled to ballot their membership.
As regards the reasons for the strike, then officially it is about the imposition of a pay freeze and new crewing levels. However, the reality is that the strike was actually a convenient proxy for a wider and more complex variety of (perceived) issues and grievances amongst the cabin crew community. If you spoke to two different CC about why they were in dispute with BA you’d probably get two different answers.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept that these CC have to report for duty rested. So, my observation is:
If it's worth using up 14hrs flying from HKG, then a day rest - in order to get to to work? Then they are being paid way over the odds. To be able to use up two days to do a sequence of sectors? (that is, HKG-LHR, rest, work + rest,work rtn LHR to HKG) They MUST realise that that is a pattern of work that no employer can support through the worst recession since the depression. Yes, living near EGLL is expensive but that is a very funny solution.
If it's worth using up 14hrs flying from HKG, then a day rest - in order to get to to work? Then they are being paid way over the odds. To be able to use up two days to do a sequence of sectors? (that is, HKG-LHR, rest, work + rest,work rtn LHR to HKG) They MUST realise that that is a pattern of work that no employer can support through the worst recession since the depression. Yes, living near EGLL is expensive but that is a very funny solution.
To many it's worth to commute as they have their families and homes somewhere else. It's every commuter's own responsibility to get to and from work and BA has little tolerance if they get late to work because their commuting flight is either late or they didn't get on it because it's full.
BA has also occassionally used "commuting" as part of their recruitment drives, especially when they were recruiting for language speakers all over Europe.
Hi Miss M, welcome to the "unofficial" thread.
Your recent posts on the "official" thread have made interesting reading - there's been hardly any pro-strike posters clearly explaining the reasons for the strike so well done for being perhaps the only one to provide a lucid explanation of the reasons at least
To summarise your posts, it seems you are striking (or supporting the strike)because of the imposed reduction in crewmembers and fear of further impositions if this one is not resisted. You lack trust in BA in this regard.
So what did you expect from the strike? What could BA have done to make you trust them again? And given that everything that WW said about the strike has happended, has the "failure" to ground the airline perversely persuaded you to trust BA more?
Your recent posts on the "official" thread have made interesting reading - there's been hardly any pro-strike posters clearly explaining the reasons for the strike so well done for being perhaps the only one to provide a lucid explanation of the reasons at least
To summarise your posts, it seems you are striking (or supporting the strike)because of the imposed reduction in crewmembers and fear of further impositions if this one is not resisted. You lack trust in BA in this regard.
So what did you expect from the strike? What could BA have done to make you trust them again? And given that everything that WW said about the strike has happended, has the "failure" to ground the airline perversely persuaded you to trust BA more?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Mariner9!
I was on strike during the first round and out of the country during the second round.
What was I expecting from a strike? We did make a stand about how we feel about this and that we are serious. I think all of us were expecting serious negotiations and hopefully a settled agreement. There has been some talk since the strike but I think one of the issues is that BA and UNITE are really far away from each other which makes it even more difficult to come to an agreement.
By bringing in strikebreakers has not really increased my trust in BA. People say WW, himself included, he has no intention of destroying our union. This is exactly what he has done. WW and all the strikebreakers have undermined exactly everything what a union is all about. Exactly what a strike is all about. I'm very disappointed in them and I know that many of my striking colleagues feel the same way.
I was on strike during the first round and out of the country during the second round.
What was I expecting from a strike? We did make a stand about how we feel about this and that we are serious. I think all of us were expecting serious negotiations and hopefully a settled agreement. There has been some talk since the strike but I think one of the issues is that BA and UNITE are really far away from each other which makes it even more difficult to come to an agreement.
By bringing in strikebreakers has not really increased my trust in BA. People say WW, himself included, he has no intention of destroying our union. This is exactly what he has done. WW and all the strikebreakers have undermined exactly everything what a union is all about. Exactly what a strike is all about. I'm very disappointed in them and I know that many of my striking colleagues feel the same way.
WW could not of course have broken the strike had one not been called. So even if he had intended to break the Union, BASSA/UNITE gave him the ammunition to do just that. How would he have managed it otherwise?
I can understand your disappointment with your colleagues, but do you not feel that they are equally entitled to feel disappointment with BASSA/UNITE should they disagree with the aims of this strike? Further, surely you consider that while you are entitled to strike in an attempt to put pressure on a company, the company and its staff are also entitled to resist that pressure?
I can understand your disappointment with your colleagues, but do you not feel that they are equally entitled to feel disappointment with BASSA/UNITE should they disagree with the aims of this strike? Further, surely you consider that while you are entitled to strike in an attempt to put pressure on a company, the company and its staff are also entitled to resist that pressure?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe through proper negotiations. BASSA is as guilty as BA. I don't think it's easy to negotiate with either side because they are simply too far strong-minded. BA has one agenda. BASSA has a completely different one.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If crew have voted against a strike or are not part of a union it would make perfect sense for if they don't strike. We had an almost 80% turnout for a strike in our latest ballot and I'm very disappointed with all those who voted for a strike but didn't go through with it for whatever reason. There were crew who came down to Bedfont and showed their "genuine" support and then headed off to work. If you don't intend to strike, don't vote for it. It's not rocket science.
It's a saddening behavior. It's the same with all strikebreakers from behind the flight deck door, Waterside, other departments within BA and ex-temporary cabin crew who have returned to the company.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If crew have voted against a strike or are not part of a union it would make perfect sense for if they don't strike. We had an almost 80% turnout for a strike in our latest ballot and I'm very disappointed with all those who voted for a strike but didn't go through with it for whatever reason. There were crew who came down to Bedfont and showed their "genuine" support and then headed off to work. If you don't intend to strike, don't vote for it. It's not rocket science.
It's a saddening behavior. It's the same with all strikebreakers from behind the flight deck door, Waterside, other departments within BA and ex-temporary cabin crew who have returned to the company.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: England
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a saddening behavior. It's the same with all strikebreakers from behind the flight deck door, Waterside, other departments within BA and ex-temporary cabin crew who have returned to the company.
Why is it the same? They didn't vote for a strike
Why is it the same? They didn't vote for a strike
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: uk
Age: 54
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW is not in BA for life but many of us can see ourselves in the company for many more years to come.
We had an almost 80% turnout for a strike in our latest ballot and I'm very disappointed with all those who voted for a strike but didn't go through with it for whatever reason
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad Behaviour? I don't think so!
Miss M,
You say it is sad behaviour of those who elected to work, including temporary crew and volunteers, but is it not really the case that those folk care about their futures, whatever department they come from, and are determined that the narrow minded approach of BASSA to the current financial situation will not prevail, as it may actually destroy the Company?
This is a time of much change in BA, most of the rest of those who work in the Company have already made a lot of changes to their T & C's in order to help BA survive, and many see the recent cabin crew action as bringing a real threat to their future.
Until I retired 3 years ago I was cabin crew for BA for 39 years, and in that long time I was both a Performance Manager and in the 1970's a BASSA rep, and I am genuinely saddened that so many crew follow the BASSA line without question. I have been told by friends who still fly that some do not bother to even read what the Company position is, in the internal communications they are sent.
It is time to be a realist. I believe Mr Walsh is not out to break BASSA, but what he does want is a trades union he can engage with for the sake of both crew and the Company. To do that BASSA have to change tack, though frankly I don't think this will happen. Mr Walsh has been given the task of making BA fit for purpose in a rapidly changing business environment at a time of extreme financial uncertainty. Change has to come to IFCE, and BASSA have to change to have any chance of influencing it.
And oh yes, I offered to return to flying to help BA during the strike period, but sadly as a retiree my offer was very politely refused. I would have been a Happy person, not a sad one to have done it!
Finally keep posting, it is nice to see some balance on both threads, and Safe Flying.
Oldflyboy.
You say it is sad behaviour of those who elected to work, including temporary crew and volunteers, but is it not really the case that those folk care about their futures, whatever department they come from, and are determined that the narrow minded approach of BASSA to the current financial situation will not prevail, as it may actually destroy the Company?
This is a time of much change in BA, most of the rest of those who work in the Company have already made a lot of changes to their T & C's in order to help BA survive, and many see the recent cabin crew action as bringing a real threat to their future.
Until I retired 3 years ago I was cabin crew for BA for 39 years, and in that long time I was both a Performance Manager and in the 1970's a BASSA rep, and I am genuinely saddened that so many crew follow the BASSA line without question. I have been told by friends who still fly that some do not bother to even read what the Company position is, in the internal communications they are sent.
It is time to be a realist. I believe Mr Walsh is not out to break BASSA, but what he does want is a trades union he can engage with for the sake of both crew and the Company. To do that BASSA have to change tack, though frankly I don't think this will happen. Mr Walsh has been given the task of making BA fit for purpose in a rapidly changing business environment at a time of extreme financial uncertainty. Change has to come to IFCE, and BASSA have to change to have any chance of influencing it.
And oh yes, I offered to return to flying to help BA during the strike period, but sadly as a retiree my offer was very politely refused. I would have been a Happy person, not a sad one to have done it!
Finally keep posting, it is nice to see some balance on both threads, and Safe Flying.
Oldflyboy.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello MissM
You say "I think all of us were expecting serious negotiations and hopefully a settled agreement."
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Am I right in saying at one of the racecourse meetings last year, the rank and file CC voted overwhelmingly for a motion specifically barring the Union from negotiating with BA over the planned changes. Having taking strike action and inflicted some damage on your employer, you now expect serious negotiations to resume. Why? Has the Union proposed a motion to countermand the original rank and file requirement? Or is it just planning to take action without its membership's democratic consent?
Another thing troubling me is, if you don't trust your employer, why are you still working (except when on strike) for the company? Surely it would be in your interest to find a more agreeable occupation with management you do trust.
You say "I think all of us were expecting serious negotiations and hopefully a settled agreement."
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Am I right in saying at one of the racecourse meetings last year, the rank and file CC voted overwhelmingly for a motion specifically barring the Union from negotiating with BA over the planned changes. Having taking strike action and inflicted some damage on your employer, you now expect serious negotiations to resume. Why? Has the Union proposed a motion to countermand the original rank and file requirement? Or is it just planning to take action without its membership's democratic consent?
Another thing troubling me is, if you don't trust your employer, why are you still working (except when on strike) for the company? Surely it would be in your interest to find a more agreeable occupation with management you do trust.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: london
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will CC have an opportunity to vote on the proposed new offer on the table, or will their reps make that decision for them? I truly hope that they are given the opportunity, in light of what the consequences could possibly be....I wish all of the CC the best of luck whatever side of the coin they maybe be on......the free world gives us the freedom of having our own choice.....making our own decisions ....our own truths
Guest
Posts: n/a
PAXboy I am totally befuddled by your post.
In a market where the focus has shifted from differentiated product to cost leadership, it is an apparent anomaly for a company to be able to pay staff enough to motivate them to commute for 13 hours and then self fund a rest day, as that implies a 3 day self funded period to go to work.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R Knee
No, but they were strikebreaking a fully legal and democratic strike.
slf22
Nobody can really know for sure but I don't really think he will stay in BA for another 20 years. Not even for another 10 years.
Why is it the same? They didn't vote for a strike
slf22
I'm curious - how are striking cc so sure that WW isn't at BA for life? Is there any fact to base this on? Is it just wishful thinking? He seems to have only had one other employer. Which is a bit unusual in this day and age, I would have thought.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Canterbury
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mariner9
In December we had a 90% turnout and in March it was 10% less than that. Do you think crew would have received some heart changing information in the very last second? It's way above majority and don't you think it's a sign that there's something wrong?
People can change their mind. If we are to believe the numbers presented by BA about over 60% crew reporting for duty, where did it go wrong? Did the majority suddenly get some last second important information which changed their mind? I can think of other reasons why some yes voters crossed the picket line.
1. They never thought in the first place it would go as far to an actual strike as previous CEO's have always given in at any sign of a possible fuss with the cabin crew.
2. Afraid of the possible consequences involved in going on a strike.
3. Not wanting to lose staff travel (many strikers were actually commuters).
4. Not thinking beyond their next trip which is a good trip i.e. NRT, HKG, CPT, LAX (most were fully crewed with regular crew).
5. Thinking that other crew can take the hit as everyone will still be on same terms and conditions after the strike.
6. Hoping for a promotion if reporting for duty. Back in 1997 they used this threat that if you went on strike you could say goodbye to any future promotion.
7. Not having the courage to go on a strike.
If there was a ballot today I am convinced the outcome would probably be even lower than before. Crew, including strikers, are tired and extremely fed up with the dispute. It has been going on for over a year and everyone wants a settled agreement.
In December we had a 90% turnout and in March it was 10% less than that. Do you think crew would have received some heart changing information in the very last second? It's way above majority and don't you think it's a sign that there's something wrong?
People can change their mind. If we are to believe the numbers presented by BA about over 60% crew reporting for duty, where did it go wrong? Did the majority suddenly get some last second important information which changed their mind? I can think of other reasons why some yes voters crossed the picket line.
1. They never thought in the first place it would go as far to an actual strike as previous CEO's have always given in at any sign of a possible fuss with the cabin crew.
2. Afraid of the possible consequences involved in going on a strike.
3. Not wanting to lose staff travel (many strikers were actually commuters).
4. Not thinking beyond their next trip which is a good trip i.e. NRT, HKG, CPT, LAX (most were fully crewed with regular crew).
5. Thinking that other crew can take the hit as everyone will still be on same terms and conditions after the strike.
6. Hoping for a promotion if reporting for duty. Back in 1997 they used this threat that if you went on strike you could say goodbye to any future promotion.
7. Not having the courage to go on a strike.
If there was a ballot today I am convinced the outcome would probably be even lower than before. Crew, including strikers, are tired and extremely fed up with the dispute. It has been going on for over a year and everyone wants a settled agreement.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MissM
No, but they were strikebreaking a fully legal and democratic strike.