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

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III

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 III

Old 29th Oct 2010, 21:24
  #401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Betty Girl
you mentioned
Both BA's and Unite's legal teams are reviewing the wording of the section of the agreement, which refers to ACAS involvement and that is causing a delay, in case the offer wording has to be amended, prior to putting it to the vote among Unite members.
That's not the spin that Unite are putting on it - at least the postings on the UniteBA site don't tally. They say
We were hoping that the ballot on the offer would have been posted to you by now. However it is being delayed by legal issues. One of these is the litigation mentioned in Walsh's side letter. What exactly would have to given up by both sides in the claims going through courts is supposedly still not finalised. This is a very important part of any deal, and you need to know exactly what claims we would both have to concede.
Now I concede that they say that the litigation is one of the issues, not the only issue, but your post tends to refute this, suggesting an altogether different reason. Does this mean that the issues around the current and any potential future cases have been resolved ?
Colonel White is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2010, 21:54
  #402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 942
Angel

Col white.
I was quoting the words of Bill Francis. Manager of IFCS at BA from a webchat on Friday.

I have been told off by another SLF on a different thread for actually posting an extract from his webchat, even though,all he said is public knowledge already, so I will not post it and as I am not a member of BASSA, I have NO knowlege of what BASSA are saying.
Betty girl is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2010, 23:13
  #403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Betty girl
thanks for the clarification. Once again it appears that the 'information' published on the UniteBA site is a load of tosh. I'm actually slightly bemused as it is the old Amicus web pages. I thought that Amicus, or rather CC89, were the more mderate bunch, but they seem to have been swamped with BASSA sourced rhetoric - even going as far as having that ridiculous yellow X thingy still visible (if you happen to hit the wrong page).

I did note that on said pages there was a comment that the branches may cut short the consultative ballot. This might be tricky if BA Legal and O.H. Parsons string this out for another week. If BASSA reduce the time to less than two weeks they may face a challenge on the outcome. They did state that they wished to consult all members. By my reckoning that means allowing a good three weeks, which then neatly scuppers a strike
Colonel White is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2010, 10:16
  #404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 76
Posts: 1,309
Short article in the telegraph. Seems to be praising WW whilst using Bassa style nickname?

Willie Walsh is no Dud now he's at the helm of a leaner BA flying machine - Telegraph
Shack37 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 13:50
  #405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
The reason that BASSA's leadership (and more militant members) no longer appear to know what they want is because this dispute was never about specific changes to CC's working Ts & Cs rather it was everything about power and control over BA's IFCE service operations.

As such, it was not the details of BA's proposed (and subsequently imposed) Ts & Cs changes that were ever even considered by BASSA rather it was the fact that BA had the audacity to propose making changes in the first place that triggered the dispute (aka "hissy fit").

Now that BASSA has lost the power struggle it is floundering in having to fall back on actually considering the detailed Ts & Cs changes which it simply cannot bring itself to do. Hence the comments by MissM and other BASSA entrenched posters along the lines of:

"All Ts & Cs in the current offer, whatever they are but have been discussed at length in various places that I'll list but have never actually stopped to read and understand myself, are completely unacceptable so I will reject this insulting and derisory offer out of hand......."

The sad thing is that in adopting this position the BASSA die-hards are still not thinking any further than "a strike at Xmas followed by a win over BA on Imposition & ST in the courts will bring Willie Walsh to his knees" when they should now be pausing to comprehend their loss of power forever (including the fact that it was a mistake by prior weak BA management that they gained it in the first place) and considering a sensible way forward.

I'll say it again, this is war and, as such, and very unfortunately for BASSA's leadership and more militant members, the only possible outcome is that one side has to be crushed.
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 15:20
  #406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Given that BASSA has lost the power struggle, but, even though it is supposed to have agreed to recommend BA's current offer to its members is clearly showing it is not prepared to concede defeat, it appears that there can only be three possible outcomes:

That BASSA's non-militant members rise-up and vote to accept BA's offer thus embarrassing its leaders and militants into capitualtion.

or, should its non-militant's apathy continue and its militants prevail,

either,

Unite agrees to a strike ballot and BA holds its legal fire during what is likely to be an even more flawed strike ballot than before (e.g. BASSA/Unite having no idea who is and who isn't a member for the correct issuance of ballot papers, finding different reasons to last time for a protected strike, etc.), as prolonging the ballot through legal action(s) would not be in BA's interests, then God forbid (but BA really has exhausted all reasonable due diligence here), dismissing militant strikers for breach of contract while claiming unprotected action and taking the consequences of this decision.

or, finally,

Unite refuses permission for BASSA's strike ballot call and, should BASSA wish to proceed with the ballot, separate from Unite allowing it to tackle BA directly and call a strike ballot on its own leading to the same consequences as predicted above.

Can anyone think of any other possibilities?

I guess the non-militants could show apathy by choosing not to vote on the current offer then suddenly waking-up and voting against the strike but somehow I don't see a non-militant change of heart this late in the game.
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 16:16
  #407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
The latest posting from BASSA, whilst still full of insular self-pitying drivel, is much less gung-ho about going for another strike and reading between the lines they seem to have accepted they have absolutely nowhere to turn:

http://www.pprune.org/6029442-post952.html
LD12986 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 17:29
  #408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,887
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
I tried the reasonable person test on the BA dispute down the pub the other week. My trade union, protect the weak against big business views, definitely came off second best in that discussion. Still, thats my fault for having Sun reading white van owning self employed entrepreneurs as mates.
Thank you, Litebulbs ... that put yet another smile on what has been a lovely birthday, which started with a nice email from PPRuNe wishing me a happy one!

With so much grief and misery in the World, it's nice to get two really nice smiles in one day!
MPN11 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 17:38
  #409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
From that other site:
Could BA survive and operate a full schedule if they did go to the extreme and dismiss future strikers. Would a threat of possible dismissal put off a few more hundred people from striking, leaving 2-3000 CC being shown the door. I think I am right when I say that BA cannot replace dismissed strikers for a period of 3 months.
Not only could BA operate a full schedule for three months, I think that showing militants the door would result in a substantial increase in bookings.
Potential strikers should be afraid - very afraid. The only positive result of another strike would be increased revenue for the vendors at Bedfont.
Neptunus Rex is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 18:25
  #410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
An update from Unite on staff travel:

. LATEST NEWS UPDATES

30th October 2010 - Legal Advice - Staff Travel


We have received many requests for clarity surrounding the return of staff travel to strikers from 26th October 2010.

Specifically, those questions centred upon the appearance of some word which appear during the login process to the staff travel system. We have therefore sought legal advice and this is provided in summary as follows:

We understand that BA require members to signify agreement to the following terms before being able to use their staff travel entitlement :

"Staff travel is a non-contractual and discretionary benefit granted at the sole discretion of BA and as such can be withdrawn or varied at the sole discretion of the company at any time."

We do not definitively know whether or not this wording was put forward by BA prior to or following the current dispute. As such, at this time the issue is not clear cut.

Members are concerned at the implications of agreeing to this statement. We understand that there is concern that, by consenting to this statement, members will weaken their ability to claim that staff travel is a contractual right and/or preclude themselves from joining the High Court action against BA, or even the case being brought against the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights.

The Union's legal team has already advised that it would be difficult to establish that every members' staff travel entitlements amounted to a contractual right. However, the statement appears to claim that BA have the right to vary and withdraw these entitlements at their sole discretion. This is potentially harmful to the membership's ability to participate in legal proceedings in the High Court. It should not affect the European Court of Human Rights case.

Members who want to pursue claims for past staff entitlements lost due to the dispute should not be prevented from supporting the High Court action by signing the statement now or in the future. Those members who do sign, may be prevented from pursuing claims for future loss of staff travel if they accept BA's wording.[/font]
LD12986 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 18:34
  #411 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,887
@ Neptunus Rex ... do you honestly think the majority of the travelling public actually care any more? I personally think most people have realised that 'forward bookings' are perfectly safe, especially the 'front end' community where the BA revenue mainly comes from.

There might be an occasional Media input in the "Daily Troublemaker" but for the majority of people with money to fly BA ... they will. BASSA has become 'last week's story' and they, IMO, really don't care any more. The LCC travellers can mutter about O'Leary's latest £££ gathering exercise, and 'Orange Thing's' whatever, but the reality is that the UK's premium, proper carrier is in business, making a profit and ... there are apparently some CC causing a bit of a rumble in the background. Businesses and leisure pax are booking regardless [apart from the occasional headless hen].

IMO, the tedious on-going dispute is now being conducted by a toothless gerbil with arthritis. Irrelevance doesn't really come into the equation ... BASSA has become background noise, largely because of the stupidity of its supposed 'leadership'.

"I'm really scared of arthritic toothless gerbils, Mum. Can we fly with AA instead?"
"Don't be silly, dear ... it's "The World's Favourite Airline". I'll bring your own breakfast, though."
MPN11 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 19:03
  #412 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
MPN11
You are no doubt correct. I live in the tropics, a bit of a 'Lotus Eater' these days really, so I can't pop down to my local for a pint and sample opinion. I just thought that some people might be holding back until the nastiness is seen to be finished.
Neptunus Rex is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 19:06
  #413 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 75
Posts: 5,887
From my 'lotus eating' location [offshore] I haven't heard anyone giving a sh8t for ages

BA operates ... simples. The rest of it has become background noise, which will IMO become ever quieter until oblivion ... apart from the vociferous former employees.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 19:10
  #414 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Surrey
Posts: 471
MPN11 said,
IMO, the tedious on-going dispute is now being conducted by a toothless gerbil with arthritis.
I'm really scared of arthritic toothless gerbils, Mum. Can we fly with AA instead?"
"Don't be silly, dear ... it's "The World's Favourite Airline". I'll bring your own breakfast, though."
I sincerely hope you don't get Arthritis one day, I find the remark offensive and a tasteless joke which is way below the belt.
Tiramisu is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 19:12
  #415 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 73
Posts: 706
Well I have to agree with the previous 2x old f*rts who proceed me. The dispute is history, let's move on & look forward to BA introducing new aircraft into service (& refurbishing the lounge at NBO)!
fincastle84 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 19:18
  #416 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
I don’t know if this is of any help - scroll down until you see the words "Staff travel is a non-contractual" in the last paragraph of the 18 December 2008 posting.
BA-be-fair - the website of the Staff Travel Watch: Welcome
notlangley is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 19:35
  #417 (permalink)  
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 63
Posts: 1,099
I somehow doubt that Unite or it's legal advisor's will admit on a document that the words are as they are now.
They will seek to get BA to prove it!
west lakes is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 19:40
  #418 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 73
BASSA’s latest news update regarding Staff Travel is quite a lot of double talk. However, one should note the last paragraph.

Members who want to pursue claims for past staff entitlements lost due to the dispute should not be prevented from supporting the High Court action by signing the statement now or in the future. Those members who do sign, may be prevented from pursuing claims for future loss of staff travel if they accept BA's wording.

My interpretation of this is that if one signs the ST conditions their ability to claim compensation subsequent to the date of signing may be jeopardized. BASSA, by claiming they do not know when the current language first appeared, is not telling members that their legal advisors have concluded they may have already compromised their ability to pursue claims. My conclusions may be incorrect and it would not be the first time, but given BASSA’s record for misrepresentation I find the excuse of not knowing when the language first appeared to be a smoke screen.
pcat160 is offline  
Old 31st Oct 2010, 19:56
  #419 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Plius ca change . . .

New posting on Unite website:

We have received many requests for clarity surrounding the return of staff travel to strikers from 26th October 2010.

Specifically, those questions centred upon the appearance of some word which appear during the login process to the staff travel system. We have therefore sought legal advice and this is provided in summary as follows:
We understand that BA require members to signify agreement to the following terms before being able to use their staff travel entitlement :

"Staff travel is a non-contractual and discretionary benefit granted at the sole discretion of BA and as such can be withdrawn or varied at the sole discretion of the company at any time."

We do not definitively know whether or not this wording was put forward by BA prior to or following the current dispute. As such, at this time the issue is not clear cut.
Members are concerned at the implications of agreeing to this statement. We understand that there is concern that, by consenting to this statement, members will weaken their ability to claim that staff travel is a contractual right and/or preclude themselves from joining the High Court action against BA, or even the case being brought against the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights.

The Union's legal team has already advised that it would be difficult to establish that every members' staff travel entitlements amounted to a contractual right. However, the statement appears to claim that BA have the right to vary and withdraw these entitlements at their sole discretion. This is potentially harmful to the membership's ability to participate in legal proceedings in the High Court. It should not affect the European Court of Human Rights case.

Members who want to pursue claims for past staff entitlements lost due to the dispute should not be prevented from supporting the High Court action by signing the statement now or in the future. Those members who do sign, may be prevented from pursuing claims for future loss of staff travel if they accept BA's wording.
Dear God!! When I was a student in the early 1970s, and working for BEA (of blessed memory) and subsequently for British Airways at LLBG, the clause that is now so "contentious" was printed on every form requesting authority for ST.

Why, after forty years, is this suddenly such a surprise for the union?
Chuchinchow is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2010, 10:38
  #420 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 700
the clause that is now so "contentious" was printed on every form requesting authority for ST.

Why, after forty years, is this suddenly such a surprise for the union?
It's incredible how bad they are. My first reaction was amazement on learning the union didn't have any idea about this condition of ST that has been clearly shown on the ST log-in page since way back when. Silly of me given how appallingly bad they've been throughout this dispute at getting the basics right.

It begs the question: what sort of lawyers do they have on their side who didn't scrutinize the conditions of ST before launching into litigation?

I had assumed the union and their lawyers knew about this condition but believed that ST had become a common law wife to the employment contract as well as a brazen workaround to the anti-disciplinary legislation covering the strikers. Some judges may yet find merit in that argument - stranger things have happened - but the union admission that they weren't aware of this condition hardly speaks of a legal team with their finger on the pulse.

And as a footnote, why am I not surprised that so many pro-strikers have got this far without having checked the terms and conditions of staff travel

Last edited by oggers; 1st Nov 2010 at 10:56.
oggers 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.