BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

[Litebulbs]

Snas and Baggers

You are both probably right, but just, if that makes sense.

[Diplome]

BA's offer to non-union members is quite specific as to membership status and QUITE specific that no members of BASSA would be asked or allowed to sign the agreement outside of their union's agreement.

No coercion involved.

[jetset lady]

You do not say if you are cc or flight deck, but the rules applies to ALL, not most ! Get yourself a copy of Flight Crew Orders, or better still the CAA ANO's, and then see if your colleagues are aware of the requirements. I sat in Club a while ago whilst taxying out on an ATL flight listening to a cc dscribe how they had diverted to Stansted yesterday on a back to back, got transport back to LGW by late pm but still checked in for 9 am check in. By my calculation they were way out of duty hours, but their topic was the extra money involved made it all worth while. With the BA system I doubt the Captain was aware of his cc hours.

If you are retired BCal/BA crew as you state, you will know that the crew can not and do not operate from base without a minimum legal rest period between flights. The flight is automatically recrewed. We don't even get a say in it and you can be sure ops would have known pretty much exactly what time the crew made it back to LGW as we have to sign out on the computer system. Even without the computer, they'd have the times from the transport company. But like I said, you don't need me to tell you that as you'll already know.

Apologies for the thread drift as this isn't even related to commuting, let alone the dispute, but I will not sit back while someone implies that we are flying illegally.

[kappa]

Recently on the PPRuNe Cabin Crew forum I read that the following had been posted on the BASSA website:

“Unite have also instructed our legal Counsel to progress and submit our application to The European Court of Human Rights for the removal of staff travel as a result of taking part in lawful industrial action. Together with our lawyers we are working through the paperwork and other details you have assisted in providing in response to our recent email, and in respect to the other claims this issue raises. We hope to be able to provide you with a further update very soon.”

Reading that it appears that BASSA is NOT pursuing legal action in the UK courts. And the posts by many BASSA supporters (a.o., Ava Hannah) indicates that in the absence of relevant UK law on the subject matter, they are relying on the ECHR to regain ST.

But on another forum on BA matters, the following comment was posted:

"There are, of course, all sorts of problems in the way of the argument. Not least is the requirement that before you go to the ECtHR (where the respondent is the government, not the employer), you must have exhausted all your domestic remedies. Here, BASSA hasn't even started to invoke domestic legal procedures on this issue. That will take some explaining.”

If BASSA were to be honest (an oxymoron), that “further update very soon” will not be a positive one.

[Neptunus Rex]

How long is it likely to take for the ECHR to hear this application?

[ChicoG]

Do cultish people get the chance to vote in secret postal ballots?

I prefer to liken BASSA to Iranian democracy. You can vote how you like, and many of the brainwashed will vote for those in power. But if you vote against, your life will be made a misery.

[Mr Optimistic]

Litebulbs

OK. No offense intended, but don't you think it's odd ? A few moments reading these threads would serve notice as to the likely response to a posting describing a comfortable lifestyle whilst trying to cause harm to a company and its customers by your self-serving actions.

[ChicoG]

A few moments reading these threads would serve notice as to the likely response to a posting describing a comfortable lifestyle whilst trying to cause harm to a company and its customers by your self-serving actions.

And also trying to cause harm to your colleagues, as evidenced by the company-wide support offered to BA to limit the damage BASSA has tried to inflict.

What amuses me is how any criticism of their actions will automatically be described as an "insult", when insulted is the perfect word to describe the rest of BA's employees who have made sacrifices to aid the company, yet get called "scabs" - and much worse - for doing so.

Forgive me Litebulbs if I can't take your position seriously.

I simply find that the BASSA diehards are quick to blame everyone for ruining their strike, and point blank refuse to accept that not only was industrial action unnecessary, but that their actions have threatened the jobs of thousands of other employees who don't think it is unreasonable to ask a senior member of staff to get off their arses and do a bit more work.

Perhaps it dismays you that so many people are against Unite's actions, but in reality many of the people who disagree are members of the trade union movement and are not against Unite, but purely against the amateurs that run BASSA so badly.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Diplome

BA's offer to non-union members is quite specific as to membership status and QUITE specific that no members of BASSA would be asked or allowed to sign the agreement outside of their union's agreement.

No coercion involved.

So what would a BASSA member have to do, if they wanted to sign the contract on offer?

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic

OK. No offense intended, but don't you think it's odd ? A few moments reading these threads would serve notice as to the likely response to a posting describing a comfortable lifestyle whilst trying to cause harm to a company and its customers by your self-serving actions.

And a few more moments reading these threads will show you that I am not involved, so I am unable to be blamed for self serving actions.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by ChicoG

I prefer to liken BASSA to Iranian democracy. You can vote how you like, and many of the brainwashed will vote for those in power. But if you vote against, your life will be made a misery.

Why don't you write to Mr Woodley and Simpson and share your view?

[Litebulbs]

Kappa,

I agree that it is strange that it appears that the issue of ST, will be taken to the ECHR in the first instance.

[Colonel White]

Litebulbs

You asked

So what would a BASSA member have to do, if they wanted to sign the contract on offer?

The answer is that an existing BASSA member is not able to sign the contract on offer. This is because you have delegated all power relating to negotiating your terms and conditions of employment to the union you joined. If the majority vote is for accepting the offer, then you can sign it, however, if your colleagues reject the offer, the only way you might be able to sign the contract would be to leave the union and gamble that BA would extend the period in which the offer is open. It might be something worth asking Bill Francis about. BA cannot induce you to leave the union

[Snas]

So what would a BASSA member have to do, if they wanted to sign the contract on offer?

They need only tell their reps, in suffecient numbers, by ballot or other means.

BASSA reps could do with being remined what "rep" is short for after all.

[Litebulbs]

Colonel White

I imagine that the collective bargaining rights of Unite/BASSA is an express term in current contracts. I would imagine that this would not be so in any new contract offered. So why would you need to leave BASSA to sign a new contract?

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by Snas

They need only tell their reps, in suffecient numbers, by ballot or other means.

BASSA reps could do with being remined what "rep" is short for after all.

It would be very interesting, if elections were due before the next round of balloting. But then others would have to step up.

[Snas]

It would be very interesting, if elections were due before the next round of balloting. But then others would have to step up.

Interesting indeed. I believe that’s part of the issue actually. CC tend to be the most apathetic of militants (an odd concept I know) and therefore they are easily lead, or mislead depending on your point of view. It is hard to imagine the style of BASSA changing easily.

From the comments on this site and my own conversations I haven’t before encountered people who’s strength of views are only matched by their ignorance of the facts. It’s this that leads people to start using unfortunate and unhelpful comparisons with cults perhaps?
The repeated statements of facts that we all know have been disproved time and again is a little weird to say the least?

There seems to be very little desire to make an informed decision using information more than one source, one seems to be enough for some apparently!

I have no confidence that BASSA is going to improve anytime soon, and neither did my partner, which is why she left a while back, and very happy about that choice she is too.

[Litebulbs]

Snas

How do you think that BASSA managed to convince the workforce that your suggested facts are not what they seem? Is it the SCCM doing this on flights? A couple of mass meetings that you have to drive to, is not a realistic delivery mechanism for the pro BASSA position.

As to your partners choice to leave, do you accept that that makes the pro strikers position stronger?

[ChicoG]

Why don't you write to Mr Woodley and Simpson and share your view?

Perhaps I could tw*tter them while they're in the next bout of the negotations they take so seriously. That's if they aren't in Cyprus or a Bangkok Whore bar.

[TrakBall]

Litebulbs

How do you reconcile the views of BASSA militants like MissM, Ava and WWW that it was BA that did not negotiate in good faith despite the ruling of a court case and the video of the meeting where the rank and file voted to not negotiate? I would prefer a direct answer rather than the usual tactic of responding to a question with another question. I ask because of your last response to Snas where you referred to "suggested facts".

Thanks
TB