BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: England
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PC767 on the other thread
Quote: BASSA reps were happy to accept that each case should be viewed individually by ACAS, neutral, and an assessment made. From what I've heard, heresay I give you, some people deserved their suspension or dismissal but many others didn't. Case by case by a neutral party seems appropriate to me.
It appears to me when you look at previous historical input from PC767 that PC767s colours are nailed firmly to the BASSA mast, and current responses should be viewed in that light.
Therefore I ask... Why, bearing in mind Unite agreed the current disciplinary procedures with BA, and that there are laid down procedures to appeal against decisions made within these agreements, should Unite wish these procedures to be disregarded? Aren't there already sufficient safeguards within their agreed system?
Edit
It appears it took me so long to write that this is now superfluous to the arguments on the other thread.....
It appears to me when you look at previous historical input from PC767 that PC767s colours are nailed firmly to the BASSA mast, and current responses should be viewed in that light.
Therefore I ask... Why, bearing in mind Unite agreed the current disciplinary procedures with BA, and that there are laid down procedures to appeal against decisions made within these agreements, should Unite wish these procedures to be disregarded? Aren't there already sufficient safeguards within their agreed system?
Edit
It appears it took me so long to write that this is now superfluous to the arguments on the other thread.....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So here we go again.
Soundings are that Tuesday's Budget is likely to result in very deep cuts to the public sector and tax increases for all.
This should illustrate just how severe the state of the economy is and how irrelevant this dispute is.
Soundings are that Tuesday's Budget is likely to result in very deep cuts to the public sector and tax increases for all.
This should illustrate just how severe the state of the economy is and how irrelevant this dispute is.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: middle earth
Age: 60
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R Knee
I found there request rather puzzling as i believe that they allready have independant review available to them as part of the disciplinary procedure appeal.
Another comment I was astounded at was from MissM. that she would accept a previous proposal put forward by BA. But her union didnt even put it to the members to accept or refuse..they ( give us names for public derision) just decided it wasnt good enough.
Any Union member whining regarding imposition should have those facts tatoo'd (sp) on their foreheads so they can see it every morning in the mirror.
So, The union doesn't doesn't like imposition, but when BA negotiated and tabled a proposal that could have been accepted it was dismissed out of hand.
They dont trust BA regarding disciplinaries and want an independant body to review them..errr you allready have that at appeal.
This leaves us with staff travel?
I found there request rather puzzling as i believe that they allready have independant review available to them as part of the disciplinary procedure appeal.
Another comment I was astounded at was from MissM. that she would accept a previous proposal put forward by BA. But her union didnt even put it to the members to accept or refuse..they ( give us names for public derision) just decided it wasnt good enough.
Any Union member whining regarding imposition should have those facts tatoo'd (sp) on their foreheads so they can see it every morning in the mirror.
So, The union doesn't doesn't like imposition, but when BA negotiated and tabled a proposal that could have been accepted it was dismissed out of hand.
They dont trust BA regarding disciplinaries and want an independant body to review them..errr you allready have that at appeal.
This leaves us with staff travel?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, The union doesn't doesn't like imposition, but when BA negotiated and tabled a proposal that could have been accepted it was dismissed out of hand
Unions are necessary to protect poor downtrodden employees. In this case did the cabin crew really need defending against a malevolent employer whose original offer they would now love to accept.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VCC Training
I see that BA are advertising for more employees to volunteer for CC training to provide cover in the event of further IA to help maintain a 100% long haul service.
This offer has been extended to include US employees. The noose is tightening around Bassa's collective necks.
This offer has been extended to include US employees. The noose is tightening around Bassa's collective necks.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baggersup
We've always found BA's US employees to be most friendly & professional. I suppose that it helps that they suffer very little exposure to the Bassamentalists!
Mrs Fin returned yesterday NCE-LHR & she & her boss both remarked on the extremely friendly CC on both flights. Thanks BA.
Mrs Fin returned yesterday NCE-LHR & she & her boss both remarked on the extremely friendly CC on both flights. Thanks BA.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: london
Age: 63
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am inclined to think that this dispute will feature in future Unite union rep training seminars for many years to come as an example of how absolutely not to conduct a dispute with an employer
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am inclined to think that this dispute will feature in future Unite union rep training seminars for many years to come as an example of how absolutely not to conduct a dispute with an employer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the down sides of the 'Super Unions' (I'm no fan) is that one Union gets the blame, no matter what sector they are representing. BASSA fell in from the old T&G camp. They were always known to be militant in their make up. More noticeable now that militancy is so yesterday. Unions should work in partnership, not conflict with employers.
That does not mean disputes won't occur. It just means there will not be any confusion as to what the issues are and that you will probably have your membership with you.....
As I've said before...Both sides have little to be proud of in this particular dispute...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DFW, Tx - USA
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been reading the "CC only" thread since back last Oct-09. I am just amazed about this "so very British" concept of "IMPOSITION" - the idea that Company Management can NOT BE ALLOWED to manage the Company without the approval of the employees. "Imposition" - the British concept that Unions are the ONLY ALLOWABLE Managers in a British company.
I am also amazed that BASSA supporters are still going on about "imposition" being illegal - this after a Court ruling that THIS imposition was LEGAL. What is it about the British mentality that denies the FACT of the Courts ruling making THIS imposition legal?
I am also amazed that BASSA supporters are still going on about "imposition" being illegal - this after a Court ruling that THIS imposition was LEGAL. What is it about the British mentality that denies the FACT of the Courts ruling making THIS imposition legal?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Belfast
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imposition
AA_SLF
Yes and well might you wonder about a union that appears to believe that it can with-hold the right to manage a company.
But no the "i" word is now being bandied around by a number of weak-minded individuals who are trying, desperately, to make sense of the mess that they have gotten themselves into.
Individuals that -
1. Ignored important briefings from their employer.
2. Trusted BASSA to look after the best interests of the union rank and file.
3. Believed that they could hold out indefinitely against change.
Painted themselves into a corner. Now, they try to rationalise the situation they find themselves in. Try to find someone else to blame for their own lack of foresight. (or Stupidity as we know it in the real world)
Yes and well might you wonder about a union that appears to believe that it can with-hold the right to manage a company.
But no the "i" word is now being bandied around by a number of weak-minded individuals who are trying, desperately, to make sense of the mess that they have gotten themselves into.
Individuals that -
1. Ignored important briefings from their employer.
2. Trusted BASSA to look after the best interests of the union rank and file.
3. Believed that they could hold out indefinitely against change.
Painted themselves into a corner. Now, they try to rationalise the situation they find themselves in. Try to find someone else to blame for their own lack of foresight. (or Stupidity as we know it in the real world)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cork
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been reading the "CC only" thread since back last Oct-09. I am just amazed about this "so very British" concept of "IMPOSITION" - the idea that Company Management can NOT BE ALLOWED to manage the Company without the approval of the employees. "Imposition" - the British concept that Unions are the ONLY ALLOWABLE Managers in a British company.
I am also amazed that BASSA supporters are still going on about "imposition" being illegal - this after a Court ruling that THIS imposition was LEGAL. What is it about the British mentality that denies the FACT of the Courts ruling making THIS imposition legal?
I am also amazed that BASSA supporters are still going on about "imposition" being illegal - this after a Court ruling that THIS imposition was LEGAL. What is it about the British mentality that denies the FACT of the Courts ruling making THIS imposition legal?
You couldn't imagine the same court saying the removal of a perk was vindictive and wrong, given the reasons for the strike were against the courts ruling.
Upgrading
I am not allowed on the BA crew forum [quite rightly as I am only SLF] but there have been a number of threads about cc upgrades on staff travel, although I admit to being a little bewildered as to how this impacts on the current industrial unrest [although on reflection, does anyone still know why some cc are still wanting to strike?]
Anyway, my point is this -when Mrs Wowzz and I flew back from TPA earlier this year, we were checking in at the same time as a gentleman and his wife on the adjoining desk. He stated that he was BA staff, flying on staff travel, and was wanting to know if he could be 'upgraded' from economy.
I have no idea if he got his request, but my point is this - Mrs Wowzz and I paid extra to fly WTP - why should this gent and his wife ask for an upgrade purely because he works for BA. In my travels I have always believed in the adage that you get what you pay for - if you want to fly Club, pay for it! If you want cheap staff travel, you sit at the back!
I have no issue with this gent and his wife gettng a cheap flight, as a perk of the job, but in my opinion all full fare paying customers should be first in line for upgrades, not BA employees.
[And just to make this clear, this applies to all airline workers, not just BA]
Sorry Mods - thread drift!
Anyway, my point is this -when Mrs Wowzz and I flew back from TPA earlier this year, we were checking in at the same time as a gentleman and his wife on the adjoining desk. He stated that he was BA staff, flying on staff travel, and was wanting to know if he could be 'upgraded' from economy.
I have no idea if he got his request, but my point is this - Mrs Wowzz and I paid extra to fly WTP - why should this gent and his wife ask for an upgrade purely because he works for BA. In my travels I have always believed in the adage that you get what you pay for - if you want to fly Club, pay for it! If you want cheap staff travel, you sit at the back!
I have no issue with this gent and his wife gettng a cheap flight, as a perk of the job, but in my opinion all full fare paying customers should be first in line for upgrades, not BA employees.
[And just to make this clear, this applies to all airline workers, not just BA]
Sorry Mods - thread drift!
Wowzz, while I agree with you you only have to look around forums to find people asking how they can find a free upgrade - usually paying passengers.
As an aside, it was once suggested to me that WTP was created (at least in part) to provide an upgrade for economy passengers. The feeling apparently being that the enormous difference between economy and club was genrating demands for upgrade and that if the upgrade was "only" to WTP it might dampen demand.
I think it's also appropriate to point out that some staff travel is undertaken on the basis of an economy booking with upgrade on departure if available; is it possible that's what you heard?
As an aside, it was once suggested to me that WTP was created (at least in part) to provide an upgrade for economy passengers. The feeling apparently being that the enormous difference between economy and club was genrating demands for upgrade and that if the upgrade was "only" to WTP it might dampen demand.
I think it's also appropriate to point out that some staff travel is undertaken on the basis of an economy booking with upgrade on departure if available; is it possible that's what you heard?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere Warm
Age: 71
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staff Upgrades
As a former employee of a US airline, our tickets were always on a standby basis. It was not usual to be placed in a higher class cabin than we had originaly requested because of space availability. However, we always paid the higher service charge for that cabin.
Conversely, I was denied boarding on flights because they had not catered with enough meals - even though there were available seats.
Staff travel was a wonderful thing and it allowed me to see and experience people and places that I would not have had a chance to do otherwise but like life itself, there were no guarantee you'd get a seat on the plane.
Sorry mods if this is too off topic but with the discussion both here and the CC thread about staff travel, I thought people might be interested in some background.
TB
Conversely, I was denied boarding on flights because they had not catered with enough meals - even though there were available seats.
Staff travel was a wonderful thing and it allowed me to see and experience people and places that I would not have had a chance to do otherwise but like life itself, there were no guarantee you'd get a seat on the plane.
Sorry mods if this is too off topic but with the discussion both here and the CC thread about staff travel, I thought people might be interested in some background.
TB
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No need. Believe me, there are many within Unite that would not conduct themselves in the manner of BASSA. Many of us would have had this done and dusted moons ago and with a positive outcome for both sides.
One of the down sides of the 'Super Unions' (I'm no fan) is that one Union gets the blame, no matter what sector they are representing. BASSA fell in from the old T&G camp. They were always known to be militant in their make up. More noticeable now that militancy is so yesterday. Unions should work in partnership, not conflict with employers.
That does not mean disputes won't occur. It just means there will not be any confusion as to what the issues are and that you will probably have your membership with you.....
As I've said before...Both sides have little to be proud of in this particular dispute...
One of the down sides of the 'Super Unions' (I'm no fan) is that one Union gets the blame, no matter what sector they are representing. BASSA fell in from the old T&G camp. They were always known to be militant in their make up. More noticeable now that militancy is so yesterday. Unions should work in partnership, not conflict with employers.
That does not mean disputes won't occur. It just means there will not be any confusion as to what the issues are and that you will probably have your membership with you.....
As I've said before...Both sides have little to be proud of in this particular dispute...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kirkcaldy
Age: 77
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Head in sand and misinformation
As SLF not allowed to comment in CC forum
They question the removal of ST and state no other company can do it
Miners strikes only lost pay etc (wrong they lost free coal every month)
My company, you get to use the company car for personal use, Yes you do have to pay tax on your P11D for it but it is still a perk, and often has been removed for many reasons,
The same with the company Vans pay tax on P11D but a perk that can be removed and again has
(of course the tax obligation stops on the date it is removed)
The good guys get the van home pay the tax and run a thriving lift and shift service
The car drivers get personal use of the car just pay fuel for private travel
(abused as taxi service at weekends) or just the joy of a car and just pay the fuel
The offenders lose the perk, they park the vehicles up in the work compound, and make their own way home, in some cases sixty miles, on top of having to return to the work after the shift, not just as before adjusting your trip to finish near home
The above perks are good, but worth nothing like ST with BA and even more significant when the average salary is £17k py
If SLF could only post over there and show them where their bread is well buttered
Fully qualified ARTISAN £17k pa working shifts over weekends and evenings use of company vehicle,which can be removed at companies discretion, the high light an evening in Methil Docks, and the annual holiday screwed by Militant CC
Jack McH
They question the removal of ST and state no other company can do it
Miners strikes only lost pay etc (wrong they lost free coal every month)
My company, you get to use the company car for personal use, Yes you do have to pay tax on your P11D for it but it is still a perk, and often has been removed for many reasons,
The same with the company Vans pay tax on P11D but a perk that can be removed and again has
(of course the tax obligation stops on the date it is removed)
The good guys get the van home pay the tax and run a thriving lift and shift service
The car drivers get personal use of the car just pay fuel for private travel
(abused as taxi service at weekends) or just the joy of a car and just pay the fuel
The offenders lose the perk, they park the vehicles up in the work compound, and make their own way home, in some cases sixty miles, on top of having to return to the work after the shift, not just as before adjusting your trip to finish near home
The above perks are good, but worth nothing like ST with BA and even more significant when the average salary is £17k py
If SLF could only post over there and show them where their bread is well buttered
Fully qualified ARTISAN £17k pa working shifts over weekends and evenings use of company vehicle,which can be removed at companies discretion, the high light an evening in Methil Docks, and the annual holiday screwed by Militant CC
Jack McH
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The 3 Valleys
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Litebulbs
You seem to be sliding into using a standard BASSA tactic here : namely continuing to repeat a claim after it has demonstrably been proven wrong ( BASSA's 63 million pnds offered cost-savings being pre-eminenent ).
The imposition being discussed has been judged by the High Court to be non-contractual, so why do you apparently seek to ignore this by raising the red-herring of contract law when responding to AA SLF ?
You seem to be sliding into using a standard BASSA tactic here : namely continuing to repeat a claim after it has demonstrably been proven wrong ( BASSA's 63 million pnds offered cost-savings being pre-eminenent ).
The imposition being discussed has been judged by the High Court to be non-contractual, so why do you apparently seek to ignore this by raising the red-herring of contract law when responding to AA SLF ?
Last edited by AlpineSkier; 21st Jun 2010 at 06:55.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: middle earth
Age: 60
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@JackMcHam..
Exactly, the strikers seem to be putting their fingers in ther ears going " lalalala" when their very cushy terms and pay are looked compared to real people.
The governments cuts on Public Service will make BASSA's crying seem even more ridiculous. Civil servants on free pensions and huge wages are not the same as public services, emptying your bins, fixing your roads.
Exactly, the strikers seem to be putting their fingers in ther ears going " lalalala" when their very cushy terms and pay are looked compared to real people.
The governments cuts on Public Service will make BASSA's crying seem even more ridiculous. Civil servants on free pensions and huge wages are not the same as public services, emptying your bins, fixing your roads.
Litebulbs
Contract law. Do you have contracts in the colonies?
Being patronising or even (as here) actually offensive is not a legitimate form of debate.
Basically this dispute has been about who runs the airline - the Board or BASSA.
BA shareholders (and apparently most of the staff) want it to be the Board.
Being patronising or even (as here) actually offensive is not a legitimate form of debate.
Basically this dispute has been about who runs the airline - the Board or BASSA.
BA shareholders (and apparently most of the staff) want it to be the Board.