Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

Old 18th Jul 2010, 13:31
  #621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
The way BASSA described his actions were those of "offending a few of his fellow employees" or suchlike.

I would suggest that posting pornographic images with the deliberate intention of demeaning the PCCC, which clearly identified itself as being the website of responsible BA cabin crew, can at least be considered disgusting, rather than being "offensive".

And in doing so, I would argue that he is surely bringing the company's name into disrepute, which I assume is in breach of his contract.

No sympathy whatsoever. In fact I think he's a five star, fur-lined, ocean going idiot.
ChicoG is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2010, 13:34
  #622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 455
Further, on the AGM votes, every single vote was over 90% in favour, including 99.73% voting to approve the report and the accounts.

I'm sure if they'd done one of loudmouthed, uncouth heckling, BASSA would have won hands down.
ChicoG is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2010, 18:00
  #623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chedburgh, Bury St.Edmunds
Age: 77
Posts: 1,112
MONTGOLFIER.Of course. Too used to seeing C17s and C5's in heavy crosswinds in this neck of the woods. Wing down is very common . Didn't think re low wings.
JEM60 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 00:50
  #624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by Sonorguy View Post
As someone who deals with a lot of disciplinaries, you can sack anyone for anything at any time quite legally.
I agree until you get to the quite legally part. Could an employer dismiss somebody legally for being an English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled, Catholic, because she took time off of work whilst pregnant to look after a dependant, just because she was English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled and Catholic?

Unfair or wrongful dismissal is not legal. You can be wrongfully fairly dismissed and visa versa. One breaches common law, the other statute. Both are unlawful, in my opinion. However, I am only too willing to learn, so please explain where I may be wrong.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 09:00
  #625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Litebulbs, you are correctly picking him up on the use of the word legally, poor choice of words on his part. The message is however correct, in that an employer can sack however they like, just like a thief can steal from whom ever he likes, a price may need to be paid for both actions however, or not!

In the case of Mr Everard however and as someone who also has to (unfortunately) deal with a lot of disciplinary processes this would have been an easy one. The facts that we are aware of alone (there could well be other transgressions) would have certainly been enough. This chap linked both himself and his employer (and less importantly in my view the PCCC) to a web site presenting pornography. His continued employment was certainly in jeopardy from that point in.

As a Union rep yourself Iím sure that you wouldnít consider his actions as being wise or productive to say the least. Indeed Iím surprised that a professional union hadnít sacked him as a representative themselves long before BA were required to take action.
Snas is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 09:54
  #626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 306
From the other forum: DUGGIE FASHION

Apologies, still don't know how to link posts...

In recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ( and many before that), when a General's strategy has failed he is replaced with someone who has new ideas. You do not continue with a failed policy, waste more materials or expend more lives, because a leader is unable to admit personal failure. All Walsh can do now is prepare for war once again with his VCC foot soldiers pressed into action under the propaganda banner of "Backing BA". It is a strategy bogged down in another Somme like era.
I find this highly offensive to our troops, ground and air, that are serving in the Afghan and Iraq theatres. Not to mention all those that fell at the Somme!

BA CC are not in the same class as the basic soldier on the ground or Airman in the air in any theatre.
Winch-control is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 10:13
  #627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Winch-control:

It's just more of the "same old same old" rhetoric that we have seen from the more militant members of BASSA used to deflect the fact that their arguments are rather empty of facts and very high in hyperbole.

I note that many members of the CC thread are trying to reason with this individual and will give them kudos for their efforts however its an exercise in futility.

Duggie Fashion is just another, in a long line of "new posters" on the Cabin Crew thread, there to repeat memorized lines and knee-jerk responses.

It would be nice if all of the references to BALPA could be eliminated as it just muddies the waters and has no more relevance to Cabin Crew and BASSA than the actions taken by the AFL-CIO.

BASSA and their supporters should debate regarding their issues rather than try to deflect from substantive responses by squealing "BALPA" at every opportunity.
Diplome is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 10:21
  #628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 61
Posts: 158
Van Horck #619

Mr Everard cannot have been dismissed for starting a website with the name pccc and posting porn on it.

Posting porn on the internet is not illegal in itself and BA does not own PCCC (I hope) so why did he get dismissed?
He apparently included BA-related keywords in the search parameters, such that searching for BA would lead to the porn site. Also, whilst PCCC may not be a BA entity, it clearly belongs to BA staff. Therefore his actions caused offence and injury to BA employees.

Also worth keeping in mind that there does not have to be any direct link between the employer and its employee in the specifics of any disrepute allegation. There is at least one decided case where an employer sacked workers for their behaviour completely independent of their work relationships. The case in question involved a number of Post Office workers who were caught on camera engaged in football hooliganism at the 2004 Euro Championships. They were sacked and their dismissals were upheld as fair.
JayPee28bpr is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 10:41
  #629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by Snas View Post
As a Union rep yourself Iím sure that you wouldnít consider his actions as being wise or productive to say the least. Indeed Iím surprised that a professional union hadnít sacked him as a representative themselves long before BA were required to take action.
I agree it was not an action covered in glory, for which he has paid a heavy price. In my opinion too heavy, because I am sure in different circumstances he would still be employed.

However, in the current climate at the world's favourite, I imagine that if any cabin crew employee crosses that imaginary line (that is always moving) and especially a union rep, then the full force of the disciplinary process will be actioned. So why give the employer reason?
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 10:57
  #630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 88

I agree it was not an action covered in glory, for which he has paid a heavy price. In my opinion too heavy, because I am sure in different circumstances he would still be employed.
That's where we will disagree, and it demonstrates how far removed from reality BASSAWorld is. Out in the real world of private industry, after behaviour like that he would have been out the door so fast he'd have to have his coat posted along later.

Behavior like that is not, and should not, be tolerated. The only depressing thing is that he will now be parachuted into a cosy BASSA sinecure where he can continue to sponge of the people who pay union subs.
pvmw is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 11:16
  #631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
LB

So why give the employer reason?
You make a good point.
I donít know anything about Mr Everards abilities as a representative but Iím forced to conclude based on what I do know that he canít be that shrewd to have thought that his web site was a good idea Ė this does have to ask questions regarding the control of the reps also, was this a unilateral decision on his part or was it a sanctioned action by BASSA command and control?

I bloody hope not but donít imagine that Iíll ever know.

No doubt that he feels foolish now and probably regrets his actions. As do most people that transgress in all walks of life. The best of us learn from it and try move on I guess. I hope he does.

Ignoring BA I have to suggest that the crew are better off without this representative as he has to possess questionable judgement at best, and this is the issue that causes me concern about unions behaviour on occasions, especially BASSA.

He is now being presented as some sort of martyr, unions should defend those in need and deserving of defence of course, but they should not defend those not deserving and should do so for the benefit of all the crew.

In my professional career I have been an employer of thousands, literally. I have in that role had to unfortunately dismiss probably hundreds over the years. I can describe all such dismissals, regardless of their specific details, with a single sentence ďprotecting the employment of those that behave appropriately, for those that donít jeopardise the employment and prosperity of allĒ.

Alas I suspect Mr Everards disciplinary falls into that category. Just another sad chapter in this wholly sad dispute that has been so badly managed.

If as some suggest, Mr Walsh is an evil megalomaniac hell bent on reducing the Tís&Cís of all staff in all departments to Dickensian levels then BASSAís management of the IA has only served to facilitate and accelerate same.

Fortunately I donít believe he is, personally. Time will tell I guess.
Snas is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 11:18
  #632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by pvmw View Post
That's where we will disagree, and it demonstrates how far removed from reality BASSAWorld is. Out in the real world of private industry, after behaviour like that he would have been out the door so fast he'd have to have his coat posted along later.
That is why you have unions and collective strength; unless you have already played the trump card at the start of the game.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 11:25
  #633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
pmvw:

Out in the real world of private industry, after behaviour like that he would have been out the door so fast he'd have to have his coat posted along later
I must wholeheartedly agree. The attempts by some to excuse or minimize the actions of some of these individuals who have been dismissed (and there have been few dismissals) shows a great disconnect from the reality of business.

Mr. Everard created a pornographic website for the sole and singular purpose of disparaging BA Cabin Crew and BA itself.

A few months ago my husband's IT department came to him with a troubling report that one of his senior individuals had bypassed their filter (rather simply but creatively done I must say) and had been viewing pornography from his business owned computer. He was gone in two days. Done.

With leadership comes responsibility, not only to those you work for, but those you lead. BASSA treats their responsibility as some sort of silly child's game..Refuse to report for duty, texting during confidential negotiations, porn sites, inaccurate representations, etc., etc..

....and people still make excuses for them.

As for this comment:
That is why you have unions and collective strength; unless you have already played the trump card at the start of the game.
No, Unions are for protecting workers and staff against REAL wrongs, for negotiating for the best possible position that allows both the workforce and the business to survive and thrive.

The Unions that my husband negotiates with would not have defended or excused a pornographic website set up to defame their co-workers and not one of his Reps would have participated in such conduct.

Not all Unions behave like BASSA.
Diplome is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 11:27
  #634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 50
Posts: 43
I agree until you get to the quite legally part. Could an employer dismiss somebody legally for being an English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled, Catholic, because she took time off of work whilst pregnant to look after a dependant, just because she was English, Black, Lesbian, Disabled and Catholic?

Unfair or wrongful dismissal is not legal. You can be wrongfully fairly dismissed and visa versa. One breaches common law, the other statute. Both are unlawful, in my opinion. However, I am only too willing to learn, so please explain where I may be wron

Apologies, I should have added the caveat of unless it's for reasons of race/colour/sexuality etc that are covered by separate legislation and which you can't sack for. However it would have to be proved that this were the case and it wasn't just for the fact that the staff member was completely useless.

Unfair dismissal is just that, it's unfair. There are no legal consequences for the employer other than to pay recompense as determined by an ET if found against the employer (or settle pre-tribunal which is what tends to happen more often). They don't get their job back. Our legal advisers are clear that in theory, whilst being unethical, we could if needed get rid of someone by firing them though we'd probably be tribunalled for it, but it isn't against the law, it just may be seen as unfair by a tribunal. There's really no such thing as common law when it comes down to it.

Whilst this does happen it clearly isn't anywhere you'd want to go unless there was a really big problem and it hasn't happened since I've been with the company.

Anyway, I digress, back to the thread!

Sonorguy is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 11:31
  #635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 61
Posts: 158
Out in the real world of private industry, after behaviour like that he would have been out the door so fast he'd have to have his coat posted along later
Very true. And perhaps worth adding why this is the case. The main reason why employers are so anti-porn is that somewhere around 90% of all malicious computer code/viruses etc is imported into commercial applications via porn-related access (either sites or links carried in emails). Staff sensitivity, and the potential costs therefrom, is actually less of the issue, though can have significant adverse reputational impact if not handled sensitively.

The use of porn, and the known impact it can have as noted above, is what moves this case from being "a bit silly" to "gross misconduct/bringing BA into disrepute". If all he'd done was put together a spoof site without the porn, I doubt he'd have been sacked.

I doubt BA are complaining though. They've now got rid of 2 senior reps, apparently 4 more are on "gross misconduct" disciplinaries, which means they are certainly in danger of dismissal, leaving just 3 senior reps. I'll bet that any of those on long term sick will soon be leaving too. In that case, BA will have achieved what Unite has been unwilling or unable to do, namely rein in its dysfunctional branch leadership.

I find it informative that "BASSA Admin" extrapolates the loss of such people with the demise of the Union. There are quotes elsewhere about "if this goes on then there will be no Union left" or some such wording, the clear implication being that the senior reps are the Union. In fact, even with a degree of leakage, BASSA still appears to have almost 10,000 members in BA, and will continue to exist in some form as and when most or all of the senior reps have been removed. The challenge for the 10,000, as well as for Unite I would suggest, is to find new reps who actually see Union representation as a bottom up process, ie research the members' views, collate, develop a consensual position for presentation to management, report back etc. The current crop see it as top down, with the membership there simply to provide "muscle" on behalf of the leadership. Not a very modern approach to representation I would suggest.
JayPee28bpr is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 11:31
  #636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Litebulbs,
are you saying that unions are there to protect employees that don't behave in a professional manner, deliberately tries to ruin the reputation of their employer, thieving, bullying and/or a variety of other behaviours?
MIDLGW is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 16:35
  #637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Originally Posted by JayPee28bpr View Post
Very true. And perhaps worth adding why this is the case. The main reason why employers are so anti-porn is that somewhere around 90% of all malicious computer code/viruses etc is imported into commercial applications via porn-related access (either sites or links carried in emails). Staff sensitivity, and the potential costs therefrom, is actually less of the issue, though can have significant adverse reputational impact if not handled sensitively.

The use of porn, and the known impact it can have as noted above, is what moves this case from being "a bit silly" to "gross misconduct/bringing BA into disrepute". If all he'd done was put together a spoof site without the porn, I doubt he'd have been sacked.

I doubt BA are complaining though. They've now got rid of 2 senior reps, apparently 4 more are on "gross misconduct" disciplinaries, which means they are certainly in danger of dismissal, leaving just 3 senior reps. I'll bet that any of those on long term sick will soon be leaving too. In that case, BA will have achieved what Unite has been unwilling or unable to do, namely rein in its dysfunctional branch leadership.

I find it informative that "BASSA Admin" extrapolates the loss of such people with the demise of the Union. There are quotes elsewhere about "if this goes on then there will be no Union left" or some such wording, the clear implication being that the senior reps are the Union. In fact, even with a degree of leakage, BASSA still appears to have almost 10,000 members in BA, and will continue to exist in some form as and when most or all of the senior reps have been removed. The challenge for the 10,000, as well as for Unite I would suggest, is to find new reps who actually see Union representation as a bottom up process, ie research the members' views, collate, develop a consensual position for presentation to management, report back etc. The current crop see it as top down, with the membership there simply to provide "muscle" on behalf of the leadership. Not a very modern approach to representation I would suggest.
This is in fact how most reps work. There is far too much generalising by the unknowing on this thread. There are many companies out there, especially in Engineering, that are still existing because of close cooperation between union and employer.
Unite has become a vast Union representing millions across thousands of companies in hundreds of sectors. In the dark days ahead many are going to be glad they are around.
The BA situation has been largely manufactured by both sides as a test of strength. So much testosterone about that it had little chance of being settled amicably with a win win result.
Many reps looking on know that it could have been sorted long ago.......I've said it before and I'll say it again, both sides should grow up and have genuine talks....
call100 is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 16:59
  #638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by MIDLGW View Post
Litebulbs,
are you saying that unions are there to protect employees that don't behave in a professional manner, deliberately tries to ruin the reputation of their employer, thieving, bullying and/or a variety of other behaviours?
I did not say that at all. However, employees do get dismissed unfairly, but as has been pointed out in a few comments after yours, the employer is under no obligation to accept a reinstatement order. They would have to compensate however.

This is when a union would act, by possibly balloting for industrial action, where the cost of the action would be disproportionate to the cost of the dismissal and a business decision would be made. There would be no guarantees that a business would back down however. Then the individual members would base whether they would be prepared to loose money in support of the action, based on the evidence of the case in question.

This is different to what has happened at BA and the industrial action that has taken place, in my opinion. The business decision is that the short term cost is worth the long term saving.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 17:31
  #639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,669
3 points,
Dismissals
Diplome and snas are correct about dismissals. Like snas, I've held that sort of accountability. As an individual, I don't "enjoy" firing folk, but when you've got to, you just do it. ( it is commonly known as jfdi). BA appear far more tolerant of bad behaviour than other private sector Co.s. They should have behaved this way years ago - for example when dealing (or not in BA's case) with BA CC absence levels.
TU co-operation.
Unite and its constituent parts are perfectly capable of co-operating with employers. Go ask the majors in the Pharms sector, who have "lost" thousands of jobs represented by Unite in the last 3 years. Yup, thousands. All with complete TU co-operation.

The next strike - if there is one.

I have a vested interest here - I'm flying l/h with BA in late September. Would the strikers please ensure that they are on strike in late September? I have no desire to be on the same plane as the bassamentalists. Thank you.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2010, 17:51
  #640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: US
Age: 73
Posts: 35
Ancient Observer

I agree with you completely. I am booked ATL-EDI on 11 August.
MCOflyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.