BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect I would suggest that there is a deal of difference between the stereotypical Victorian mill owner and modern management.
BBC News | EUROPE | IKEA accused of exploiting child workers
Nike admits to mistakes over child labour - Americas, World - The Independent
Wal-Mart settles child labor cases - Business - U.S. business - msnbc.com
Paxing All Over The World
JackMcHammocklashing
Because he's 45 years old. This country is soooo age-ist that I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned.
I am now self employed and doing a rewarding job but at less than 50% of what I used to earn.
Welcome to Britain.
COLONEL WHITE "THERE REALLY IS NO WORK OUT THERE"
HOT WINGS REPLIES
Why hasn't he managed to get a job as a paramedic, firefighter, or midwife Surely he's Qualified
Why hasn't he managed to get a job as a paramedic, firefighter, or midwife Surely he's Qualified
- Yes - he could do lots of jobs
- Yes - he would work hard and not take 'sickies'
- Yes - he would be better than the youngsters due to life experience
- Yes - he would probably work for lower money than he is used to
- BUT - he's 45.
I am now self employed and doing a rewarding job but at less than 50% of what I used to earn.
Welcome to Britain.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What can be accomplished with another strike?
I know this question has been asked ad infinitum, however I can not help myself.
Without question another strike will;
1. Inflict additional financial pain on BA, and
2. Inflict additional pain on strikers.
Is this in the interest of anybody, particularly striking Cabin Crew?
Does anybody believe that additional strikes will hasten the return of Staff Travel or cause BA to reemploy Duncan?
I do not expect the usual BASSA Noms de Plume to provide a succinct answer, but possibly some of the nonaligned Cabin Crew could express their thoughts as to why additional strikes are appropriate.
Without question another strike will;
1. Inflict additional financial pain on BA, and
2. Inflict additional pain on strikers.
Is this in the interest of anybody, particularly striking Cabin Crew?
Does anybody believe that additional strikes will hasten the return of Staff Travel or cause BA to reemploy Duncan?
I do not expect the usual BASSA Noms de Plume to provide a succinct answer, but possibly some of the nonaligned Cabin Crew could express their thoughts as to why additional strikes are appropriate.
Paxing All Over The World
pcat160 You are asking such sensible questions but, unfortunately, 1970s Unions do not read questions the way that you ask them!
Any organisation/group of people gets bogged down with "We've always done it this way" and that is why:
Any organisation/group of people gets bogged down with "We've always done it this way" and that is why:
- Companies start to fail and get bought up
- Governments fall apart and lose elections
- Laws made 200 years ago are no longer applicable and must be remade
- Churches start infighting and then have a schism
- People who have been married for 25 years and appear to be happy get a divorce.
- Employment practices that were great 50 years ago are not great now
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pcat - you asked
As you point out, there is nothing to gain by more strike action. The trouble is that the union went about this entirely the wrong way. The strike card is the last resort. You can only play it once and when you do, you have to have exhausted all other possible avenues. Unite played it way to soon. A sensible union approach would have been to negotiate, put any management offers to the membership and if they get rejected the union then has a mandate to either continue negotiating at a tougher level, or to ask whether members are prepared to action short of strikes. A work to rule can be very effective as it not only protects members incomes, it also makes life hard on the company. Ratcheting up the pressure bit by bit gives you a next level to go to should you need it.
Unite went straight from A to Z in one bound. This can work if you are damned certain that a walkout will grind the business to an earth shuddering halt. Trouble is that Unite had no way of guaranteeing that.
The problem Unite now face is that there are only two courses of action open. One is to admit defeat and sign the deal, any deal and try and put some kind of positive spin on it. This is why the Unite leadership have made such noises about the BA offer being rejected by two thirds of members and only 15% supporting the offer. The alternative is to find a suitable new cause for strike action and pray that a) they can get greater support from members this time around and b) BA is not able to field enough VCC, non-striking crew and others to cover the operation. In reality the second option is now a non-starter. BA have volunteers in place and have made it plain that the New Fleet issue will not impact current crew - it was spelled out in the offer they put forward that the union membership turned down. If Unite go for a further strike ballot, they face the prospect of damaging their position not only within cabin crew, but also within BA generally. A failure to 'win' this dispute will also have knock on effects on their position nationally. I suspect that the Unite leadership will endeavour to quietly settle this.
What can be accomplished with another strike?
Unite went straight from A to Z in one bound. This can work if you are damned certain that a walkout will grind the business to an earth shuddering halt. Trouble is that Unite had no way of guaranteeing that.
The problem Unite now face is that there are only two courses of action open. One is to admit defeat and sign the deal, any deal and try and put some kind of positive spin on it. This is why the Unite leadership have made such noises about the BA offer being rejected by two thirds of members and only 15% supporting the offer. The alternative is to find a suitable new cause for strike action and pray that a) they can get greater support from members this time around and b) BA is not able to field enough VCC, non-striking crew and others to cover the operation. In reality the second option is now a non-starter. BA have volunteers in place and have made it plain that the New Fleet issue will not impact current crew - it was spelled out in the offer they put forward that the union membership turned down. If Unite go for a further strike ballot, they face the prospect of damaging their position not only within cabin crew, but also within BA generally. A failure to 'win' this dispute will also have knock on effects on their position nationally. I suspect that the Unite leadership will endeavour to quietly settle this.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Optimistic,
Seriously? Have you been hiding somewhere?
Mixed Fleet is the new name for New Fleet. Crew on current LHR fleets feel threatened that MF will get all the "good" routes leaving them with no income. Never mind the fact that BA has offered the top up payment
Seriously? Have you been hiding somewhere?
Mixed Fleet is the new name for New Fleet. Crew on current LHR fleets feel threatened that MF will get all the "good" routes leaving them with no income. Never mind the fact that BA has offered the top up payment
a bit slow on the uptake perhaps !
Thanks, but in terms of the crew how does it differ - not actually seen it spelt out anywhere - why can't the lucrative routes be reassigned without generating a new 'fleet', whatever that may really be.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Fleet will work on short-haul and long-haul and will have radically different working practices to the current LHR fleets. They will basically work to the CAA guidelines and that's it. No payments for working one-down. No restrictive disruption agreement. No seniority. And so it goes on. Pay and promotion will be linked to performance.
To get the full efficiency from the new T&Cs for crew, they have to work separately from the existing fleets.
New Fleet is a threat, partly because the current routes are divided between "money" (HKG, SIN, NRT etc) and "charity" trips (India, Africa). The former destinations pay absurdly high allowances. On the latter, some crew think they are doing the company and pax a favour by turning up to work.
If CC were paid an hourly rate for the work they did, New Fleet wouldn't be such a threat. This was actually proposed by the company a couple of years ago, but BASSA wouldn't entertain the idea.
Personally, I don't think that New Fleet will be mean that current crew will be starved of work.
What it will mean is that the days when BASSA was able to call the shots at LHR and dictate the operation are over. Over time, the current LHR fleets will have to accept gradual changes to working practices, because their inefficiency will be laid bare when New Fleet is up and running.
To get the full efficiency from the new T&Cs for crew, they have to work separately from the existing fleets.
New Fleet is a threat, partly because the current routes are divided between "money" (HKG, SIN, NRT etc) and "charity" trips (India, Africa). The former destinations pay absurdly high allowances. On the latter, some crew think they are doing the company and pax a favour by turning up to work.
If CC were paid an hourly rate for the work they did, New Fleet wouldn't be such a threat. This was actually proposed by the company a couple of years ago, but BASSA wouldn't entertain the idea.
Personally, I don't think that New Fleet will be mean that current crew will be starved of work.
What it will mean is that the days when BASSA was able to call the shots at LHR and dictate the operation are over. Over time, the current LHR fleets will have to accept gradual changes to working practices, because their inefficiency will be laid bare when New Fleet is up and running.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll try to narrow it down for you, Mr Optimistic.
"Old" Fleet (both long and short haul) have a complex and expensive allowance system. New fleet (MF) has hourly pay (like LGW) on top of basic, so much simpler structure.
Last year, MF was offered to come off the table, but union decided it wasn't good enough and called strike. Due to financial impact, MF was brought back in.
Current crew at LHR are paid varying allowances for varying destinations. Long range such as Narita and Singapore attract great allowances, as does the Swiss destinations on Short haul. The current crew are convinced they'll be left with low earning destinations (Africa and India) whilst MF take over Long Range routes. BA have offered a "top up" payment for current LHR crew, to ensure they won't lose out, regardless of routes "lost" to MF. The figures are based on financial year of 09/10.
MF cannot fly with current crew as union will not allow it (they didn't allow it anyway, who knows, they might have changed their minds now).
Militants refuse to read, hear and/or believe anything BA says.
Hope this brings you up to speed on a few things
"Old" Fleet (both long and short haul) have a complex and expensive allowance system. New fleet (MF) has hourly pay (like LGW) on top of basic, so much simpler structure.
Last year, MF was offered to come off the table, but union decided it wasn't good enough and called strike. Due to financial impact, MF was brought back in.
Current crew at LHR are paid varying allowances for varying destinations. Long range such as Narita and Singapore attract great allowances, as does the Swiss destinations on Short haul. The current crew are convinced they'll be left with low earning destinations (Africa and India) whilst MF take over Long Range routes. BA have offered a "top up" payment for current LHR crew, to ensure they won't lose out, regardless of routes "lost" to MF. The figures are based on financial year of 09/10.
MF cannot fly with current crew as union will not allow it (they didn't allow it anyway, who knows, they might have changed their minds now).
Militants refuse to read, hear and/or believe anything BA says.
Hope this brings you up to speed on a few things
The two threads running have been a fascinating insight into the industry and from the perspective of a member of the SLF community for many years, it certainly is fascinating to understand how organisations operate, for good or for ill.I have been reading these threads and feel ill equipped to comment on much of the content, being a relatively infrequent flier these days but one area where I have something to add, hence this post, is that I am what is politely known as a 'headhunter' and so have some inkling into how organisations actually recruit in practice.
As an earlier poster pointed out, they were aware of a member of cabin crew who hat left their employer and was having difficulty securing employment. A suggestion was made that age 45, this was a major issue. I beg to differ.
The undue emphasis on 'what I had before' can certainly be a factor but it rarely affects the ability to get an interview - but it certainly allows an individual to blow an interview spectacularly well.
The issue is of skills and transferability between business sectors. Without knowing the full background of the individuals concerned it is possible to definitive regarding their case, however in my opinion, the real reason is that the individual has very little to offer that discriminates he/she from the other candidates.
To join another business sector, the sort of skills that employers will look for a demonstrable track record in;
Now the following bit is entirely subjective and I apologise if I oversimplify the job that cabin crew undertake, and underestimate the abilities of certain staff who have chosen a cabin crew career after working in another business sector.
IMO, there are virtually no business related skills that cabin crew possess which differentiates them from a new starter in the role.
Doing the role is hard and tiring and means you have to put up with a lot of hassle - but it gets you no qualifications, no transferable skills (except maybe patience for which business does not pay), and nothing more than this 'seniority' of which you talk.
It is in essence, not a career - it is a job. Much like brick carrying - skills wise, you are at the end of your career as you went into it, from the perspective of outside employers.
Yes, there are things like improved life saving skills, but it does not automatically make you a doctor/nurse/midwife/paramedic. You would start off as a day 1 Intern.
You would never be a firefighter - you would never have the stamina to pass the entrance exam unless you actually trained for it.
Just doing a cabin crew job is not enough. So, to address another persons point, it is risky leaving any job without skills. A 40 year old with no desirable skills is probably worse of than an 18 year old in the same situation. It does not mean that doing it is wrong, but it is risky. This is why so many people are gaining degrees, MBA, MA's etc while working in their jobs, and this is wherein the problem lies for well established cabin crew.
The employment world has moved on and having certain qualifications is regarded as minimum and many mature staff simply do not have them. If you are going to leave, get some relevant qualifications first, as being a member of the hard working cabin crew is practically irrelevant in most professions - particularly if you are used to what some regard as 'over- generous' benefits. I make to comment on the veracity of these.
Something to think about folks when you are at work - next time you need an accountant, an engineer, a mechanic, a shop worker, a medical professional, a gardener - ask yourself what skills a long standing member of a cabin crew has which qualifies them for these roles.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
As an earlier poster pointed out, they were aware of a member of cabin crew who hat left their employer and was having difficulty securing employment. A suggestion was made that age 45, this was a major issue. I beg to differ.
The undue emphasis on 'what I had before' can certainly be a factor but it rarely affects the ability to get an interview - but it certainly allows an individual to blow an interview spectacularly well.
The issue is of skills and transferability between business sectors. Without knowing the full background of the individuals concerned it is possible to definitive regarding their case, however in my opinion, the real reason is that the individual has very little to offer that discriminates he/she from the other candidates.
To join another business sector, the sort of skills that employers will look for a demonstrable track record in;
- IT skills
- A good educational background (recent or distant plus higher qualifications)
- References from comparable levels of seniority in a different organisation
- Market relevant 'technical' skills demonstrating the ability to make a difference to the company
Now the following bit is entirely subjective and I apologise if I oversimplify the job that cabin crew undertake, and underestimate the abilities of certain staff who have chosen a cabin crew career after working in another business sector.
IMO, there are virtually no business related skills that cabin crew possess which differentiates them from a new starter in the role.
Doing the role is hard and tiring and means you have to put up with a lot of hassle - but it gets you no qualifications, no transferable skills (except maybe patience for which business does not pay), and nothing more than this 'seniority' of which you talk.
It is in essence, not a career - it is a job. Much like brick carrying - skills wise, you are at the end of your career as you went into it, from the perspective of outside employers.
Yes, there are things like improved life saving skills, but it does not automatically make you a doctor/nurse/midwife/paramedic. You would start off as a day 1 Intern.
You would never be a firefighter - you would never have the stamina to pass the entrance exam unless you actually trained for it.
Just doing a cabin crew job is not enough. So, to address another persons point, it is risky leaving any job without skills. A 40 year old with no desirable skills is probably worse of than an 18 year old in the same situation. It does not mean that doing it is wrong, but it is risky. This is why so many people are gaining degrees, MBA, MA's etc while working in their jobs, and this is wherein the problem lies for well established cabin crew.
The employment world has moved on and having certain qualifications is regarded as minimum and many mature staff simply do not have them. If you are going to leave, get some relevant qualifications first, as being a member of the hard working cabin crew is practically irrelevant in most professions - particularly if you are used to what some regard as 'over- generous' benefits. I make to comment on the veracity of these.
Something to think about folks when you are at work - next time you need an accountant, an engineer, a mechanic, a shop worker, a medical professional, a gardener - ask yourself what skills a long standing member of a cabin crew has which qualifies them for these roles.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Last edited by GrahamO; 26th Jul 2010 at 13:43. Reason: To reformat the text block
Thank you
what tangled webs we weave: only a nationalised outfit could give this legacy. Daft management in another era. Worked for one, Railtrack, with similar culture (just loved the free tickets for family & SERVANTS) ! And where is Railtrack now ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: England
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drogo H Troll ( no. 1376 - the other place)
I see someone states 6200 claims were made by strikers.
was this 6200 individuals, or was it 6200 claims
whoops,
someone else thinking similarly (MIDLGW). Suspect he's righter than drogo.
was this 6200 individuals, or was it 6200 claims
whoops,
someone else thinking similarly (MIDLGW). Suspect he's righter than drogo.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder whether everyone who is claiming strike pay actually went on strike? BA kept the crew lists confidential so as not to reveal the non-strikers names. How do BASSA check that someone making a claim was a striker?
Dave
Dave
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely. But there are unions and there are unions.
This whole affair makes me feel young again, because I grew up in the 70s and some of my earliest childhood memories are sitting at home reading by candle-light because the power workers were out on strike in support of the miners who were out on strike in support of the British Leyland workers who were striking because their daily tea-breaks had been reduced from eight hours to six. Since the 80s unions have been so tame, and now we have a no-holds-barred fight as BASSA have apparently not noticed that it's now the 21st century.
As others have pointed out many times, a 21st century union would have negotiated with the company to get the best deal for their members even if it meant giving up a few perks that they could live without; which would have been substantially better than what's now on offer. BASSA were foolish enough to call a strike over a minor issue which their members were not willing to support in large enough numbers to have any real impact on the company... and then continue even when that strategy has been clearly shown to be a complete failure.
That's what makes it all so interesting to an outsider; whereas most companies would have laid off the worst troublemakers by now regardless of cost BA have bent over backwards to be nice to BASSA strikers yet they still bite the hand that's held out to them. BA management can't do that forever and the longer the strikes continue the more they'll be able to lay off and replace with New Fleet when the time comes for the nuclear option.
This whole affair makes me feel young again, because I grew up in the 70s and some of my earliest childhood memories are sitting at home reading by candle-light because the power workers were out on strike in support of the miners who were out on strike in support of the British Leyland workers who were striking because their daily tea-breaks had been reduced from eight hours to six. Since the 80s unions have been so tame, and now we have a no-holds-barred fight as BASSA have apparently not noticed that it's now the 21st century.
As others have pointed out many times, a 21st century union would have negotiated with the company to get the best deal for their members even if it meant giving up a few perks that they could live without; which would have been substantially better than what's now on offer. BASSA were foolish enough to call a strike over a minor issue which their members were not willing to support in large enough numbers to have any real impact on the company... and then continue even when that strategy has been clearly shown to be a complete failure.
That's what makes it all so interesting to an outsider; whereas most companies would have laid off the worst troublemakers by now regardless of cost BA have bent over backwards to be nice to BASSA strikers yet they still bite the hand that's held out to them. BA management can't do that forever and the longer the strikes continue the more they'll be able to lay off and replace with New Fleet when the time comes for the nuclear option.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points there.
I wouldn't count on it!
It is amazing how many times you can easily see what really lies behind the written word. Mostly, BA should listen and do what we tell them to do. BA's management is "nasty" - of course they are - doing what they MUST do to keep the airline flying. And the company is not what it used to be.
Each ignores that BA is a business that has been beaten, bashed and bruised by a union who milked it for their own ends for all these years. It has taken a man like WW to bring the reality of the 21st century into the equation that has no room or need of militant unions. Or, indeed, militant staff who make attempts to impede this process. BASSA has no place to run, they have been rumbled, and it is now their turn to be beaten bashed and bruised. Its over folks and there is no way back to the bad old days.
Make no mistake, WW is not a fool. But he is a business man with good business sense who has refused to be intimidated by a few BASSA militants who have no better way of performing union matters than to use any 'nasty' way they can. Their tactic, there has been only one it seems, is to say to BA - WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE.
From Ava
Let them sack me. I would return my uniform feeling proud of having completed a good fight against a nasty piece of management. I couldn't be less bothered as this company is not what it used to be. WW has done nothing but harm in a very short period of time. Some of us are pleased that he's leaving in a couple of months.
Let them sack me. I would return my uniform feeling proud of having completed a good fight against a nasty piece of management. I couldn't be less bothered as this company is not what it used to be. WW has done nothing but harm in a very short period of time. Some of us are pleased that he's leaving in a couple of months.
It is amazing how many times you can easily see what really lies behind the written word. Mostly, BA should listen and do what we tell them to do. BA's management is "nasty" - of course they are - doing what they MUST do to keep the airline flying. And the company is not what it used to be.
Each ignores that BA is a business that has been beaten, bashed and bruised by a union who milked it for their own ends for all these years. It has taken a man like WW to bring the reality of the 21st century into the equation that has no room or need of militant unions. Or, indeed, militant staff who make attempts to impede this process. BASSA has no place to run, they have been rumbled, and it is now their turn to be beaten bashed and bruised. Its over folks and there is no way back to the bad old days.
Make no mistake, WW is not a fool. But he is a business man with good business sense who has refused to be intimidated by a few BASSA militants who have no better way of performing union matters than to use any 'nasty' way they can. Their tactic, there has been only one it seems, is to say to BA - WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE.
BASSA mathematics and logic.
6250/13300 = "proof" that the majority of cabin crew did not work normally.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious for so many people. DH can no longer be personally affected by further strikes, yet he is apparently ready to sacrifice his members pay and possibly their career by whipping them up for more IA
Given that just over half of those 6250 voted no to the BA offer, this shows (if the figures are correct) that BASSA's support has dropped by about half since the last (ineffectual)strikes.
Does DH really think that further IA will have any chance of success whatsoever? I suspect he no longer cares.
Ifhe had any honour he should have resigned his post once dismissed by BA. Or at the very least taken an strictly neutral stance for his remaining tenure.
He should be ashamed of his continued role in this matter in my view
It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious for so many people. DH can no longer be personally affected by further strikes, yet he is apparently ready to sacrifice his members pay and possibly their career by whipping them up for more IA
Given that just over half of those 6250 voted no to the BA offer, this shows (if the figures are correct) that BASSA's support has dropped by about half since the last (ineffectual)strikes.
Does DH really think that further IA will have any chance of success whatsoever? I suspect he no longer cares.
Ifhe had any honour he should have resigned his post once dismissed by BA. Or at the very least taken an strictly neutral stance for his remaining tenure.
He should be ashamed of his continued role in this matter in my view
Last edited by Mariner9; 26th Jul 2010 at 07:51.