BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA know exactly how many went on strike - they have withdrawn their staff travel, remember?
So it really doesn't matter what number BASSA fabricate (and I don't believe them for a minute, as they have been proven to be liars on so many occasions).
What matters is that BA can survive the strike now, and they've also managed to railroad New Fleet through and are therefore guaranteed the eventual cost savings that will generate.
All that BASSA should really be doing is negotiating to keep existing crew on their current earnings until they leave.
Any further disruption and I'm sure that will be the next thing under threat.
The trouble is that the BASSAmentalists still think that striking will actually achieve something.
"It will force BA back to the table!", or some other such nonsense on to which those living in La La Land probably still desperately cling.
I can only sigh at Duggie Fashion, the latest BASSA troll who has nothing constructive to offer and has decided that p*ssing off the ground engineering staff will achieve something.
if he is actually speaking the truth (which I also doubt), it would be a simple task to identify him if he continues his childish behaviour.
What a complete saddo, like the rest of them.
So it really doesn't matter what number BASSA fabricate (and I don't believe them for a minute, as they have been proven to be liars on so many occasions).
What matters is that BA can survive the strike now, and they've also managed to railroad New Fleet through and are therefore guaranteed the eventual cost savings that will generate.
All that BASSA should really be doing is negotiating to keep existing crew on their current earnings until they leave.
Any further disruption and I'm sure that will be the next thing under threat.
The trouble is that the BASSAmentalists still think that striking will actually achieve something.
"It will force BA back to the table!", or some other such nonsense on to which those living in La La Land probably still desperately cling.
I can only sigh at Duggie Fashion, the latest BASSA troll who has nothing constructive to offer and has decided that p*ssing off the ground engineering staff will achieve something.
if he is actually speaking the truth (which I also doubt), it would be a simple task to identify him if he continues his childish behaviour.
What a complete saddo, like the rest of them.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No matter what the strength of support for IA was earlier this year, it appears BASSA's membership is still ebbing away. It was 9757 on 20 July and today the website admits to only 9736.
Going down!
Going down!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a real and rather blatant problem with Mr. Holley's latest message.
Apart from BASSA's repeated difficulties with being honest in their representations (i.e. 20 planes parked at Cardiff, only 6 Cabin Crew members crossed the picket line, etc., etc.) there is the obvious fact that the Union itself stated that the strike had poor support.
From a May 16th message:
The full text of that message can be found at this link.
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ve#post5696463
We know that the numbers supporting the strike did not increase from later messages and information received from Bedfont, and from the increased flight performance by BA.
The most obvious evidence of poor support is the simple fact that the strike failed, the imposition remains and Mixed Fleet is a soon to be reality.
BASSA can attempt to rewrite history but Mr. Holley's message is a rather crude attempt at deflection.
His opening line is:
He then goes on to cite non-verifiable internal numbers, dismisses entire sections of BASSA's membership (Gatwick), none of which have to do with the initial point of concern, all because he cannot dispute the third-party verified low turnout for the last ballot.
Mr. Holley might as well have been speaking of his tomatoes.
Apart from BASSA's repeated difficulties with being honest in their representations (i.e. 20 planes parked at Cardiff, only 6 Cabin Crew members crossed the picket line, etc., etc.) there is the obvious fact that the Union itself stated that the strike had poor support.
From a May 16th message:
If the same number that broke the strike before do so again, then it's over; your union has been destroyed, not by Mr. Walsh - he could never achieve that - but by you from within, by deserting us when the going got tough.
The full text of that message can be found at this link.
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ve#post5696463
We know that the numbers supporting the strike did not increase from later messages and information received from Bedfont, and from the increased flight performance by BA.
The most obvious evidence of poor support is the simple fact that the strike failed, the imposition remains and Mixed Fleet is a soon to be reality.
BASSA can attempt to rewrite history but Mr. Holley's message is a rather crude attempt at deflection.
His opening line is:
Some of you have expressed disappointment at the low turnout for the recent ballot
Mr. Holley might as well have been speaking of his tomatoes.
Last edited by Diplome; 26th Jul 2010 at 11:34.
How to lose the NRT etc trips............
I'm sure that various BA staff are looking for more deterrents to further action.
I would suggest that for each day of Industrial Action, two of the lucrative trips for the long haul staff should be passed to the new mixed fleet.
As with the loss of ST, each member of BA CC should be told personally by their manager that each day of IA will lead to the loss of these trips.
Day 1, lose NRT and HKG, Day 2 lose Sin, and so on. Maybe even add some of the least attractive trips in exchange?
These trips are certainly not contractural, so there is no chance of any legal action, and BA have only offered to discuss the move of routes from the heritage staff to the New mixed fleet.
A great way to strike and lose even more money!!
BA could make this work either on an "all-crew" basis, or possibly on an individual basis, just for strikers. (Although the latter might leave them open for the lawyers to earn yet more money.)
The downside, of course, would be the possible impact on non-strikers.
Diplome
Yup. It just goes to show that for Mr H., it has never been about the members. It is just about his personal love for power.
I would suggest that for each day of Industrial Action, two of the lucrative trips for the long haul staff should be passed to the new mixed fleet.
As with the loss of ST, each member of BA CC should be told personally by their manager that each day of IA will lead to the loss of these trips.
Day 1, lose NRT and HKG, Day 2 lose Sin, and so on. Maybe even add some of the least attractive trips in exchange?
These trips are certainly not contractural, so there is no chance of any legal action, and BA have only offered to discuss the move of routes from the heritage staff to the New mixed fleet.
A great way to strike and lose even more money!!
BA could make this work either on an "all-crew" basis, or possibly on an individual basis, just for strikers. (Although the latter might leave them open for the lawyers to earn yet more money.)
The downside, of course, would be the possible impact on non-strikers.
Diplome
Yup. It just goes to show that for Mr H., it has never been about the members. It is just about his personal love for power.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA could make this work either on an "all-crew" basis, or possibly on an individual basis, just for strikers. (Although the latter might leave them open for the lawyers to earn yet more money.)
The downside, of course, would be the possible impact on non-strikers.
The downside, of course, would be the possible impact on non-strikers.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further legal action by Unite
The BBC has just announced that Unite is taking legal action against BA over the removal of ST. They are using 'uman rites' legislation.
More easy money for BA's legal team.
More easy money for BA's legal team.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will withhold my amusement at Unite/BASSA, who constantly issue critical comments regarding BA using the judiciary system to obtain relief, taking this action and actually view this as a possible positive development.
It seems a bit of a creative approach but should make for interesting reading. Can't wait to read the case history the Union uses in support of its argument.
It seems a bit of a creative approach but should make for interesting reading. Can't wait to read the case history the Union uses in support of its argument.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: uk
Age: 54
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From our SA friend in the other thread
If BA are found to be in breach of whatever legislation because they singled out strikers couldn't they just get rid of staff travel for all?
IIRC didn't the government do something similar when they were found to be in breach of some human rights legislation because they had differing free prescription ages?
Also how long would this kind of case take to get heard?
Finally!
Let's hope WW makes a fool of himself and has to return staff travel fully without any sanctions. If this happens, maybe management should be forced to reimburse all the money we have had to spend on regular tickets because they removed our concessions for taking a lawful industrial action. I bet BA would be more than thrilled to receive my claim of somewhere around two and three thousand pounds that I have spent on tickets!
Let's hope WW makes a fool of himself and has to return staff travel fully without any sanctions. If this happens, maybe management should be forced to reimburse all the money we have had to spend on regular tickets because they removed our concessions for taking a lawful industrial action. I bet BA would be more than thrilled to receive my claim of somewhere around two and three thousand pounds that I have spent on tickets!
IIRC didn't the government do something similar when they were found to be in breach of some human rights legislation because they had differing free prescription ages?
Also how long would this kind of case take to get heard?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North London and occasionally Dullstroom
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is ST part of the BA staff contract? In my 35 years in the industry with a number of companies ST was always a privilege and not a right. Yes we often managed to get away with an ID90 on stand by but nothing was written into our contracts. Maybe I worked for the wrong companies! I should add that I refer to off duty travel of course.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 65
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further legal action by Unite
The pro-BASSA lobby seem to be taking this as a positive development, but I'm not so sure myself. It rather suggests an acceptance by the Union that staff travel will not be returned either by negotiation or industrial action. It must be remembered that Unite/BASSA said that they would get staff travel back "in 5 minutes" something over three months ago, and that no resolution of the wider dispute would be acceptable without full reinstatement of the perk. Commencing legal proceedings looks like an acceptance that Unite cannot deliver on these assurances.
I somehow doubt Unite feels confident of victory. If they were confident, I think a more attractive approach to the problem (for the staff affected) would be to get one person to resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis that removal of staff travel precluded them from getting to work which was tantamount to dismissal. They could take this to a Tribunal: cheaper and faster to hear the case. The fact they're not taking this approach suggests that they believe they will have to argue a much higher principle of law, in a higher Court, meaning much more time-consuming. As a result, I suspect those relying on staff travel will be starved out well before BA potentially loses any case. Any victory, if it really has to be litigated in this way, will be pyhrric in the extreme for the people affected.
Ava on the other thread has already mentally collected £2,000-3,000 she says she's had to spend on full fare tickets since losing staff travel on the basis of Unite's impending legal challenge. Let's assume her costs are genuine, and are replicated across the staff who commute and have lost the perk. How long can they endure such costs? What level is just too painful to continue? Intuition suggests £10k would be a very prudent average upper limit to set on this. 2,000 is also a prudent number of staff to assume are commuters and have lost the perk. That gives BA a maximum exposure of about £20 million in compensation even if they lose. Lost in the roundings in the great scheme of things, and a price worth risking if they starve out their most militant staff in the meantime. Put another way, my assumptions will have to be hopeless underestimates before BA is better off backing down on this one. Consequently, it is hard to see how today's development is in anyway positive for the staff involved.
I somehow doubt Unite feels confident of victory. If they were confident, I think a more attractive approach to the problem (for the staff affected) would be to get one person to resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis that removal of staff travel precluded them from getting to work which was tantamount to dismissal. They could take this to a Tribunal: cheaper and faster to hear the case. The fact they're not taking this approach suggests that they believe they will have to argue a much higher principle of law, in a higher Court, meaning much more time-consuming. As a result, I suspect those relying on staff travel will be starved out well before BA potentially loses any case. Any victory, if it really has to be litigated in this way, will be pyhrric in the extreme for the people affected.
Ava on the other thread has already mentally collected £2,000-3,000 she says she's had to spend on full fare tickets since losing staff travel on the basis of Unite's impending legal challenge. Let's assume her costs are genuine, and are replicated across the staff who commute and have lost the perk. How long can they endure such costs? What level is just too painful to continue? Intuition suggests £10k would be a very prudent average upper limit to set on this. 2,000 is also a prudent number of staff to assume are commuters and have lost the perk. That gives BA a maximum exposure of about £20 million in compensation even if they lose. Lost in the roundings in the great scheme of things, and a price worth risking if they starve out their most militant staff in the meantime. Put another way, my assumptions will have to be hopeless underestimates before BA is better off backing down on this one. Consequently, it is hard to see how today's development is in anyway positive for the staff involved.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derecognition of a trade union owing to falling union membrshp in the bargaining unit
the threshold is 50% of the bargaining unit
Statutory derecognition of a trade union - an introduction | Business Link
Statutory derecognition of a trade union - an introduction | Business Link
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's non contractual but UNITE have to be seen to be doing something to justify their subscriptions.
Clearly Ava Hannah isn't exactly on the poverty line just yet shelling out several grand to cross the world to come to work for an employer she detests. Perhaps she knows a good thing when she sees it(!)
Clearly Ava Hannah isn't exactly on the poverty line just yet shelling out several grand to cross the world to come to work for an employer she detests. Perhaps she knows a good thing when she sees it(!)
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er I'm sure I saw a discussion last week that a group of staff were taking BA to court over ST. Is the latest Unite stance driven by embarrassment that CC are doing their own thing?
(popcorn & pink stuff on stock)
(popcorn & pink stuff on stock)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giggle for Sure
Well Cym having just picked myself up off the floor having caught up on the latest posting on the other forum I find it all highly amusing.
One does have to wonder as is stated on there - 3500 lose staff travel and nearly 7000 claims for strike pay..........So glad I dont have the same sort of calculator as am sure the tax man wouldnt accept such variance on figures......Almost sounds like double entry booking keeping!!!!
You could almost believe that numerous posts are by the same person with a different log on.....funny how they never seem to comment at the same time wonder why that is?
Guess it will be worth coming back in a few days time jsut to have another "laugh" at the end of the week :-)
One does have to wonder as is stated on there - 3500 lose staff travel and nearly 7000 claims for strike pay..........So glad I dont have the same sort of calculator as am sure the tax man wouldnt accept such variance on figures......Almost sounds like double entry booking keeping!!!!
You could almost believe that numerous posts are by the same person with a different log on.....funny how they never seem to comment at the same time wonder why that is?
Guess it will be worth coming back in a few days time jsut to have another "laugh" at the end of the week :-)
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they were confident, I think a more attractive approach to the problem (for the staff affected) would be to get one person to resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis that removal of staff travel precluded them from getting to work which was tantamount to dismissal. They could take this to a Tribunal: cheaper and faster to hear the case. The fact they're not taking this approach suggests that they believe they will have to argue a much higher principle of law, in a higher Court
We all know that staff travel is not contractual, but being punished for participating in protected IA may be unlawful. In my opinion, the reason for the delay in action on this, will be that a precedent could be set and that punitive action against workers who take part in IA may be judged to be lawful.
For customers, all this debate about who struck /when is a large dose of whatever.
All we customers want is re-assurance that those nasty strikers will not be on our plane.
PLEASE strike, bacrewmember et al, on late September out, mid October back, USA.
Please strike.
The I'll meet the better sort of folk, like Tira, Otter, GG and JSL. (As i'm booked from lhr I won't meet the nice lgw folk)
All we customers want is re-assurance that those nasty strikers will not be on our plane.
PLEASE strike, bacrewmember et al, on late September out, mid October back, USA.
Please strike.
The I'll meet the better sort of folk, like Tira, Otter, GG and JSL. (As i'm booked from lhr I won't meet the nice lgw folk)