BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HM - The union have participated in the process but have to keep the details secret both by duty to their member, and likely a confidentiality agreement with BA.
*
*
In fact BASSA have many times during this dispute released confidential (but selective) details about disciplinaries that were not even concluded! They would be shouting these cases from the rooftops.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why wouldn't they? You take a case to the union. If you don't want to, you are not legally compelled to do so. The reasonable person knows if they have wronged.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why wouldn't they? You take a case to the union. If you don't want to, you are not legally compelled to do so. The reasonable person knows if they have wronged.
What possible harm could there be if this really was a big conspiracy against BASSA members? Surely it would strengthen public support. The silence says more than one of Duncans 800 word missives ever could.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HM - fair points and I agree that the suspensions/dismissals are being used as a tool, but in my observations (no basis in fact as I am not party to any of it), a tool by both sides.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's fair to say BA are using it as a tool unless or until they are found to have acted unreasonably, whether by employment tribunal or (if it went ahead) arbitration. BA aren't exactly known for capriciously sacking people, there's little reason to believe they haven't scrupulously followed procedure here.
We only know of one that got as far as a tribunal. It upheld the decision. BA's disciplinary procedure has not been an issue for any union before, just the opposite in fact. There is no reason at all to suggest that it is different here.
We only know of one that got as far as a tribunal. It upheld the decision. BA's disciplinary procedure has not been an issue for any union before, just the opposite in fact. There is no reason at all to suggest that it is different here.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody seriously believe that BASSA could be trusted to ensure accurate information is released to members on disciplinaries?
This is the union that, 12 months ago, was telling its members that it had sought to negotiate in good faith with BA and a strong strike mandate was needed to "send a message" to bring WW back to the negotiating table. This has been thoroughly debunked not once, but twice, before the courts.
This is the union that, 12 months ago, was telling its members that it had sought to negotiate in good faith with BA and a strong strike mandate was needed to "send a message" to bring WW back to the negotiating table. This has been thoroughly debunked not once, but twice, before the courts.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IA
The problem here for BASSA though, is that, during the course of the last year the disciplinaries have been one of the conditions to end the current course of industrial action, and I have no doubt that BA have minuted meetings as such.
So how will BASSA now claim that this is a new reason to strike, when it has been pat of previous negotations is puzzling...
As far as whether BASSA would truthfully and fully articulate to its members the reasons for their sacking, for them to make up there minds is, I think fanciful.
One just has to think back to BASSA's spin on planes flying circuits at LHR to make it look busy, and fleets of planes secretly parked in other airports as just two examples of how BASSA have, with evidence, lied to their membership to beef up their side of the story.
litebulbs:
If BASSA want to use this as a tool to get members re-sinstated through industrial Action, it will never get to court though, and BA would not release confidential employee information.. so not sure how BASSA's story would ever get visibility in the courts?
So how will BASSA now claim that this is a new reason to strike, when it has been pat of previous negotations is puzzling...
As far as whether BASSA would truthfully and fully articulate to its members the reasons for their sacking, for them to make up there minds is, I think fanciful.
One just has to think back to BASSA's spin on planes flying circuits at LHR to make it look busy, and fleets of planes secretly parked in other airports as just two examples of how BASSA have, with evidence, lied to their membership to beef up their side of the story.
litebulbs:
They may spin it, but lies will be explored in court.
Last edited by Richard228; 15th Nov 2010 at 11:33. Reason: typo
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that BASSA will move towards a strike with no regard for the potential consequences for those taking what may well be unprotected strike action.
I further have no doubt whatsoever that BASSA will fail to warn its members of these potential consequences and will indeed continue to repeat the outright lie that is “you can’t be sacked for striking”.
...Of these things I am certain; it is simply a bad union branch after all which shames the whole movement as does Unites apparent inability to control it or at least get it to tell the truth now and again.
I further have no doubt whatsoever that BASSA will fail to warn its members of these potential consequences and will indeed continue to repeat the outright lie that is “you can’t be sacked for striking”.
...Of these things I am certain; it is simply a bad union branch after all which shames the whole movement as does Unites apparent inability to control it or at least get it to tell the truth now and again.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My view is that whether an individual case goes to court or not is the decision of the individual concerned. Nothing to do with BASSA other than as a conduit to a legal team or FTO who will give advice on the merits of the claim.
By the same token the individual would have to agree to the case being used for IA. You cannot call a ballot to fight a dismissal if that individual does not want it.
Those individuals will know, whether it be conscience or advice, if their case has any chance of support.
These days asking someone to vote yes in a ballot to protect an individual is taking a large risk. The days of any solidarity have long gone. Anyone who has been through that sort of ballot will tell you how divisive it can be.
The ballot, as far as I know would have to go ahead before an ET as once the decision has been made there then the ballot would be pointless. Should the strike action not result in reinstatement then the individual(s) would still then be free to go to ET.
Of course I, like everyone else on here, don't know the details or defence of the outstanding cases.
@Snas
I agree with your last paragraph....
By the same token the individual would have to agree to the case being used for IA. You cannot call a ballot to fight a dismissal if that individual does not want it.
Those individuals will know, whether it be conscience or advice, if their case has any chance of support.
These days asking someone to vote yes in a ballot to protect an individual is taking a large risk. The days of any solidarity have long gone. Anyone who has been through that sort of ballot will tell you how divisive it can be.
The ballot, as far as I know would have to go ahead before an ET as once the decision has been made there then the ballot would be pointless. Should the strike action not result in reinstatement then the individual(s) would still then be free to go to ET.
Of course I, like everyone else on here, don't know the details or defence of the outstanding cases.
@Snas
I agree with your last paragraph....
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard228
Just a typo I'm sure (my bold)
liebulbs:
Quote:
They may spin it, but lies will be explored in court.
If BASSA want to use this as a tool to get members re-sinstated through industrial Action, it will never get to court though, and BA would not release confidential employee information.. so not sure how BASSA's story would ever get visibility in the courts?
Quote:
They may spin it, but lies will be explored in court.
If BASSA want to use this as a tool to get members re-sinstated through industrial Action, it will never get to court though, and BA would not release confidential employee information.. so not sure how BASSA's story would ever get visibility in the courts?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be surprised if the dismissals were used as a reason for additional IA.
To use the excuse that "they were punished for supporting their Union" will not be enough for the Press or the public.
Using that logic the gentleman who is arrested for rioting after a football match could be said to be "punished for supporting his team".
Questions will be asked regarding specifics, what exactly was said on Facebook, etc., etc.. and I don't believe that BASSA wishes to expose some of the specific conduct to the light of day.
Though BASSA could surprise me. Wouldn't be the first time.
...and Safety Concerns, you may have better luck being taken seriously if you would debate the issues rather than engaging in the tiresome "You must be management" deflection.
I have the same status as you, or Duncan Holley for that matter, with BA. SLF.
To use the excuse that "they were punished for supporting their Union" will not be enough for the Press or the public.
Using that logic the gentleman who is arrested for rioting after a football match could be said to be "punished for supporting his team".
Questions will be asked regarding specifics, what exactly was said on Facebook, etc., etc.. and I don't believe that BASSA wishes to expose some of the specific conduct to the light of day.
Though BASSA could surprise me. Wouldn't be the first time.
...and Safety Concerns, you may have better luck being taken seriously if you would debate the issues rather than engaging in the tiresome "You must be management" deflection.
I have the same status as you, or Duncan Holley for that matter, with BA. SLF.
Last edited by Diplome; 15th Nov 2010 at 13:35.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and speaking of paranoia and overwrought rhetoric, from the Cabin Crew thread a posting from the BASSA forum.
This statement is a perfect example of "When you can't discuss the issues go for the drama!!"
This short sentence reveals how far wrong these "leaders" can be.
This dispute is not with Mr. Walsh. It is with BA and includes their Board members, stockholders, employees and a significant portion of the Cabin Crew.
And sadly, through that entire wordy communication there is nothing for BA members to see as a possible resolution. Simply a demand to "fight to the end" with nothing about negotiations, proposals, or how this "revolt" is going to make car payments, pay for groceries or keep their members jobs any more secure.
This statement is a perfect example of "When you can't discuss the issues go for the drama!!"
It is clear that Willie Walsh and the Board members of BA who appointed him, are out of control. They represent the worst excesses of Capitalism not seen since the banking disaster. Where the banks got involved in a crooked exploitation of the financial system, BA has sought to profit through rigging fuel surcharges and cargo pricing. In both cases, British Airways has been heavily fined on either sides of the Atlantic, and as far away as Australia. Yet apart from one fall-guy, a hapless BA senior manager by the name of Keith Packer, who was jailed in the USA for 8 months over cargo price fixing, no other senior members of British Airways have taken responsibility for their illegal actions and activity. There is absolutely no doubt that the Board of British Airways and the Leadership Team, have made some disastrous decisions and the company has suffered through fines and huge losses, plus over £1bn lost in inappropriate fuel hedging positions. The negative publicity for British Airways and the damage sustained to the brand and the companies image, is unimaginable
A "dictatorship in a democracy", why? Because Willie Walsh has been recruited by the Board of British Airways, not because of his business acumen or previous success as a CEO, he was hired because he is willing and able to say and do absurd things.
He started in this vein as a union rep for IALPA, where he was quoted as saying: "in negotiations, you get nowhere by being reasonable". He has tried to orchestrate a'coup d'etat' on the unions in BA and BASSA in particular, using the recent recession as an excuse to drive down wages and conditions of ordinary employees in the airline, whilst his own pay and that of his co-directors soars.
Willie Walsh represents as the CEO of British Airways, greed, exploitation and failure. He failed at Aer Lingus in his attempt to organise a Management Buy Out, he failed the airline by putting it in the low cost model and he failed to leave Aer Lingus in a viable state. He has also failed at British Airways. Industrial relations are the worst in the companies history, the share price is depressed because of his actions, and rather than riding high out of the recession, there is a sense of doom amongst employees at the airline. You hear it from the engineers who haven't got the spares or manpower to fix the planes, you hear it from the ground staff who struggle to deal with the volumes of customers as their own numbers are reduced and you hear it from the cabin crew.
It appears that the Board and LT of British Airways have great instincts for personal profit, but have no values or concern for the majority of staff that generate those profits, and who now work harder for the same money, or less in some cases. Where are the profit sharing schemes for ordinary employees in BA? When was the last Share Save scheme?
BA's cabin crew are being victimised solely for the profit motive. And we tacitly accept this "dictatorship" every time we turn up for work. What is worse, is that we have seen in our own dispute Capitalism trumping democracy. Democratic ballots for industrial action, have been overturned by the friends of Capitalism in the High Court. Judges who are supposed to use common sense and intellect in their deliberations, have cast aside legitimate and lawful democratic ballots because of flimsy technicalities. That is where we are as a democracy in the United Kingdom and it stinks. Unscrupulous employers use this avenue to fight a dispute that they have deliberately created though imposition, using High Court judges to bust unions.
And in this warped void of a capititalistic society that people like Willie Walsh congregate, it is perfectly acceptable to make people poor. Witness the Mid Fleet. No agreement there to work to, only a "framework". No decent wages or conditions, just exploitation of unemployed people or others, who thought that BA is an honourable employer and things 'will get better'. But the fact is that MF should be a glaring example of what life would be like in BA, without union representation. For all those crew who went to work during the dispute, this ultimately will be your reward.
Our dispute with Willie Walsh has now evolved. This is not about imposition and the false premise for that reduction in crew complements that BA was in a "fight for survival", this dispute is now a revolt against management greed, incompetence, bullying and harassment. It is a defining moment.
Are you prepared as decent people to allow this dictatorship in a democracy to continue? Is it right that you are coerced and bullied into accepting inferior pay and conditions, AFTER the company has turned the corner and is once again, as predicted, making substantial profits? Is it right that your democratically elected union representatives and your union, are trampled over by the mantra, ego and dogmatism of one person? Is it right that colleagues have been suspended and sacked just for supporting the dispute?
Then it is your duty to vote NO at the next ballot.
A "dictatorship in a democracy", why? Because Willie Walsh has been recruited by the Board of British Airways, not because of his business acumen or previous success as a CEO, he was hired because he is willing and able to say and do absurd things.
He started in this vein as a union rep for IALPA, where he was quoted as saying: "in negotiations, you get nowhere by being reasonable". He has tried to orchestrate a'coup d'etat' on the unions in BA and BASSA in particular, using the recent recession as an excuse to drive down wages and conditions of ordinary employees in the airline, whilst his own pay and that of his co-directors soars.
Willie Walsh represents as the CEO of British Airways, greed, exploitation and failure. He failed at Aer Lingus in his attempt to organise a Management Buy Out, he failed the airline by putting it in the low cost model and he failed to leave Aer Lingus in a viable state. He has also failed at British Airways. Industrial relations are the worst in the companies history, the share price is depressed because of his actions, and rather than riding high out of the recession, there is a sense of doom amongst employees at the airline. You hear it from the engineers who haven't got the spares or manpower to fix the planes, you hear it from the ground staff who struggle to deal with the volumes of customers as their own numbers are reduced and you hear it from the cabin crew.
It appears that the Board and LT of British Airways have great instincts for personal profit, but have no values or concern for the majority of staff that generate those profits, and who now work harder for the same money, or less in some cases. Where are the profit sharing schemes for ordinary employees in BA? When was the last Share Save scheme?
BA's cabin crew are being victimised solely for the profit motive. And we tacitly accept this "dictatorship" every time we turn up for work. What is worse, is that we have seen in our own dispute Capitalism trumping democracy. Democratic ballots for industrial action, have been overturned by the friends of Capitalism in the High Court. Judges who are supposed to use common sense and intellect in their deliberations, have cast aside legitimate and lawful democratic ballots because of flimsy technicalities. That is where we are as a democracy in the United Kingdom and it stinks. Unscrupulous employers use this avenue to fight a dispute that they have deliberately created though imposition, using High Court judges to bust unions.
And in this warped void of a capititalistic society that people like Willie Walsh congregate, it is perfectly acceptable to make people poor. Witness the Mid Fleet. No agreement there to work to, only a "framework". No decent wages or conditions, just exploitation of unemployed people or others, who thought that BA is an honourable employer and things 'will get better'. But the fact is that MF should be a glaring example of what life would be like in BA, without union representation. For all those crew who went to work during the dispute, this ultimately will be your reward.
Our dispute with Willie Walsh has now evolved. This is not about imposition and the false premise for that reduction in crew complements that BA was in a "fight for survival", this dispute is now a revolt against management greed, incompetence, bullying and harassment. It is a defining moment.
Are you prepared as decent people to allow this dictatorship in a democracy to continue? Is it right that you are coerced and bullied into accepting inferior pay and conditions, AFTER the company has turned the corner and is once again, as predicted, making substantial profits? Is it right that your democratically elected union representatives and your union, are trampled over by the mantra, ego and dogmatism of one person? Is it right that colleagues have been suspended and sacked just for supporting the dispute?
Then it is your duty to vote NO at the next ballot.
Our dispute with Willie Walsh has now evolved
And sadly, through that entire wordy communication there is nothing for BA members to see as a possible resolution. Simply a demand to "fight to the end" with nothing about negotiations, proposals, or how this "revolt" is going to make car payments, pay for groceries or keep their members jobs any more secure.
That's SWP twaddle. Maybe the SWP mafia are moving back in to work with the bassa Junta.
Now that we've been informed by Safety Concerns that Diplome isn't who she thinks she is, ,maybe Safety Concerns will let us know who they think they are for to-day, and whether or not they have any financial interest in this dispute?
It's normally after about 10.00pm before I realise that I am not who I think I am...............
Now that we've been informed by Safety Concerns that Diplome isn't who she thinks she is, ,maybe Safety Concerns will let us know who they think they are for to-day, and whether or not they have any financial interest in this dispute?
It's normally after about 10.00pm before I realise that I am not who I think I am...............
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
latest BASSA coms
Goodness me! what a load of political feet stamping!
there are many points one could discuss from this, just to isolate a few...
Hardly, employing child labour in third world countries with no health care is what I would classfiy as the "worst excess".
Employing staff with nice salaries, and pension plans, is hardly the "excess". Indeed does the fact they are striking over current T&C's show they want to retain this "worst excess"?!
He was hired as the best man to do the job. If they wanted someone to "say and do absurd things" they would have hired Russell Brand.
BASSA rejected the BA offer of a share scheme for employees, denying them the right to share in company profits.
Dont point the finger dear BASSA, merely look in the mirror.
Oh dear, No one likes a bad loser! Is this an accusation from BASSA that the high court justicies are biassed?
If only BASSA and its members read the courts rulings they would not find bias, but merely black and white evidence of how BASSA got things wrong.
oh dear, the high courts, dear BASSA, are used to uphold the law. If you fail through the courts it is because your case did not stand up to the scrutiny of law.
If you had a good case you would have won. You didnt, and you lost.
There is no dictatorship dear BASSA. Like all CEO's Mr Walsh can be held to account and fired at any time by the shareholders or the board.
The fact is that they actually like what he is doing, and have appointed a successor who will pursue the same maanegement course.
Oh, and the vast majority of other BA employees also agree with him.
So what do we have now?
A cry to continue the strike action to dismantle the capitalist empire? do BASSA members realise their careers are being linked to such rhetoric I wonder?
there are many points one could discuss from this, just to isolate a few...
They represent the worst excesses of Capitalism
Employing staff with nice salaries, and pension plans, is hardly the "excess". Indeed does the fact they are striking over current T&C's show they want to retain this "worst excess"?!
hired because he is willing and able to say and do absurd things
Where are the profit sharing schemes for ordinary employees in BA?
Dont point the finger dear BASSA, merely look in the mirror.
overturned by the friends of Capitalism in the High Court
If only BASSA and its members read the courts rulings they would not find bias, but merely black and white evidence of how BASSA got things wrong.
using High Court judges to bust unions
If you had a good case you would have won. You didnt, and you lost.
Are you prepared as decent people to allow this dictatorship in a democracy to continue?
The fact is that they actually like what he is doing, and have appointed a successor who will pursue the same maanegement course.
Oh, and the vast majority of other BA employees also agree with him.
So what do we have now?
A cry to continue the strike action to dismantle the capitalist empire? do BASSA members realise their careers are being linked to such rhetoric I wonder?
That BASSA missive is such utter nonsense it hardly seems worth commenting upon.
It would be interesting to have seen the responses on the BASSA forum to the message though. Do the BASSA members really buy this stuff?
M9 (Flying BA tomorrow)
It would be interesting to have seen the responses on the BASSA forum to the message though. Do the BASSA members really buy this stuff?
M9 (Flying BA tomorrow)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to have seen the responses on the BASSA forum to the message though. Do the BASSA members really buy this stuff?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That latest BASSA missive rants against Capitalism. It also seems to come from a different writer or writers than before. What is their alternative? Perhaps they would prefer to work for an airline in a Communist state. Let them try Mainland China, North Korea or Cuba. Let them see how far their Union activities would be allowed to criticise the management. What are they smoking?