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 16th Nov 2010, 14:20
  #761 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Richard228 - You also need to add 7 days notice to BA of intention to ballot. Unite could cut short the ballot process, but as many crew commute from all over the world and some trips are 10+ days, 4 weeks is needed.
LD12986 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 14:45
  #762 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Latest is that TW is to contact BA to restart discussions on a new offer, so no strike ballot for now.
LD12986 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 15:12
  #763 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Originally Posted by Ancient Observer View Post
the SWP fascists

Either or.....
call100 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 15:21
  #764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 35
LD12986

Latest is that TW is to contact BA to restart discussions on a new offer, so no strike ballot for now.
Are BA likely to back down from their "Final" offer? I doubt it.

At present they have all (and more) than they want:
Crew Complements reduced - initial savings made
New fleet implemented - more savings made
No pay rises for most CC, and no share offer - more savings made
Group of VCC - strike busters, reduces future losses due to CC strikes.

Where is the incentive for BA to settle? They just need to repeat their last offer (which TW said was the best they could get). It isn't even in TWs interest to get a better deal, as he would look a fool if he did - given what he said about the last one.

The people who need to settle are the CC - gain their pay rises, full restoration of seniority, etc.

BA will happily accept Unite to discussions, but very much doubt there will be any significant improvement to the offer.
SwissRef is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 16:19
  #765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Near EGKK
Age: 47
Posts: 108
As I've not had anything relevant to on this topic I have refrained from opening my mouth so far. However, Yellowdog posted on the CC thread earlier today asking people not to forget Gatwick crews....

Well, as SLF who travels from LGW wherever possible I have a big for them, thanks very much for the consistent and excellent service. Consider yourselves very much remembered!

Paul.
paulthornton is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 17:08
  #766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,669
Woodley will already have told BA NOT to increase their offer. When a National Official says that's all I can get, if the Company later shifts one inch they will lose credibility for 10 years. Whilst Woodley won't care, he'll be well and truly "retired" - probably with a few NEDs from North West based Companies.

call 100 - fascist behaviour patterns are common with far left groups. Both Militant on Merseyside and SWP use fascist behaviour patterns.

LG W - I've seldom used BA from lgw, but when I have I've had good service.

When do Unite take a Vote of ALL BA staff?? I imagine that the Engineers must be fed up with the Heritage CSDs on £80k per annum.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 17:24
  #767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,669
The Sunday Times, no less

Betty Girl's concerns about the hats and jackets made it to the Business section of the Sunday Times.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 17:36
  #768 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Ah...those pesky little hats.

As I've had a vodka tonic and think I "know who I am" at the moment ( for Safety Concerns sake) am I the only SLF that feels the fuss over a hat is a bit much.

If I was Legacy Crew I'd be worrying about Mixed Fleets service feedback. If they compete or exceed Legacy you will have a lot more to worry about than a hat.
Diplome is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 18:48
  #769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sweden
Age: 52
Posts: 103
Betty Girl's concerns about the hats and jackets made it to the Business section of the Sunday Times.
Whilst I as an outsider cannot see why this issue should cause such a fuss, I think it's only fair to point out that apparently many crew have concerns about it. Betty Girl mentioned it on the other thread and I mentioned her post here. Subsequently, she got dragged into rather an unpleasant exchange of views on this thread, which resulted in one poster getting a temporary ban.

Personally I think it's unfair to associate this issue of uniform standards with any one individual.

I am rather surprised it made the Sunday Times I must say.
Dual ground is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 18:54
  #770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Press coverage

Pesky hats indeed. Unfortunately, whilst I am sure the original intention was to make a much more serious point than simple hat envy, in the cruel glare of press publicity perception is all.

More importantly
, has anyone seen any press coverage of some much bigger issues which have been discussed recently in these forums - BASSA accounts, officer remuneration and election by show of hands?
Haymaker is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 18:59
  #771 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Those negotiations

I can picture the scene now at ACAS

TW Members want a return to the collectively agreed crewing levels
No

TW Members want acknowledgement that collective agreements will not be broken by BA and will only be varied by further negotiation and collective agreement;
BA No

TW Members want reinstatement of all lost staff travel benefits to strikers (including accrued seniority/status tickets etc);
BA You can have that but it won't be until 2013
TW Wasn't that what you said last time
BA Yup - we like consistentcy

TW Members want no victimisation (including full reinstatement of all those dismissed, and restoration to their former positions of all those otherwise penalised in this dispute – (the foregoing are now identified in the current offer documentation as “relevant employees” and “processed employees”);
BA No reinstatement, they got caught with their pants down, unless Unite want the dirt split on this
TW No

TW In view of how the dispute came about and how negotiations since have been conducted, members want a recognition that the AMICUS/BASSA are the elected representatives of the cabin crew with whom all future negotiations will be conducted (save where existing collective agreements or AMICUS/BASSA otherwise expressly agree in advance).
BA Is that what you want Tony ?
TW No
BA Thats a pity but we'll agree to say No as well

TW Not a lot of change then
BA No. Tell you what though, Got a nice little offer for them
TW What's that ?
BA They can all have hats .....
Colonel White is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 19:18
  #772 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course
Posts: 2,116
TW Not a lot of change then
BA No. Tell you what though, Got a nice little offer for them
TW What's that ?
BA They can all have hats .....
TW They won't wear that
TopBunk is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 19:35
  #773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Col White,

Oh so very true!!!

It still beggars belief that the complete muppets/ bassa reps (delete as rqd) have the gall to even make their statement.

We all said that the 'turkeys voted for Christmas' last year!

This year it is much worse - the turkeys have voted for Christmas, put the oven on gas mark 8, climbed in and are just waiting for someone to close the door...........

If only.....
Sporran is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 20:49
  #774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
What a mess!

. LATEST NEWS UPDATES

16th November 2010 - AMICUS UPDATE - Report Back (Unite Meeting)


In a surprise turn of events today AMICUS have been branded terrorists by Unite and Tony Woodley in particular. The BASSA Branch Committee have now twice verbally ejected us from the negotiating committee because, apparently, our views are “too radical”, “too direct” and “not subtle enough”. They have “lost patience” with us.

The day started with a message from BASSA saying that our update of last evening (15th November 2010) was not helpful in its content. Despite a request for reconsideration, the day has ended in much the same way.
We have yet to establish why, though we accept that we have sought to address the matter of imposition, and that is where we differ from the various communications the BASSA Branch Secretary has posted.
It now appears that our friend's personal blog has somehow become the joint committee's final position – arrived at without discussion or debate. That in itself is not an issue, however, everybody and both branches are entitled to input and opinion - and in the face of that, without further debate or discussion, we, the AMICUS “branch of Unite” have, by personal communication from the BASSA Branch Secretary, been excommunicated from the BASSA negotiating team. In no uncertain terms, we have been told there will be no "joint" business from today.

So why?
We have no idea - but have the feeling this is about more than just words.
We offered to do a joint communication, but this too was declined. We hope that decision will be reconsidered by the committee as a whole, but we cannot condone a less than honest and truthful position.
We are deeply saddened and disappointed that this has happened. We have offered a line of further communication on the subject, but this has also been rejected.

The outgoing joint general secretary of Unite also today branded us as “terrorists”.
Why you ask? Because firstly we would not support the farcical ‘recommendation’. Having previously shared our intentions with our BASSA colleagues (who at that time disagreed with our position), we bit the bullet and were honest with you and Unite about this. In our humble opinion, a recommendation of the current BA offer and its Litigation appendix is morally indefensible. Unite chose to ignore our protestations about the offer, so we were left with no choice but to formally reject it.

It has subsequently and reluctantly been agreed by all parties that the consultative ballot is now dead in the water. It is our understanding, as ALL parties had previously AGREED (and is indeed promised in Unites intended letter of recommendation) we would now go straight to an industrial action ballot. This is therefore what AMICUS proposed today. We did suggest one proviso - that being, we should use the ballot period to determine if British Airways were minded to engage your reps from both branches on our issues, including the primary reason we took industrial action in the first place: IMPOSITION AND A UNILATERAL DISREGARD FOR OUR AGREEMENTS.
It is clearly unacceptable for the same offer documentation to be rehashed and re-presented for acceptance, or rejection once again. As we have said in earlier updates, for a successful resolution to this dispute, the company would need to recommence discussions with the local representatives from both AMICUS and BASSA with headline items from both sides featuring equally and settled by mutual consent.
Needless to say our point of view was again ignored. It then became once again apparent that it is not about the logic of our argument, but the weight of the numbers we represent. On basis that only 40 AMICUS members claimed strike pay, versus 7000 BASSA members, our democratic right to an opinion and our ability to represent you is extinguished. We can’t help but feel that this sounds a little like life in British Airways. Long live democracy…?

It was stated that we, the AMICUS section committee do not represent the membership, even though in an unprecedented move we took a valid and necessary stand to protect your rights which ultimately reflected the mood of the joint membership. It was not comfortable for us to do this alone, especially as we have stood shoulder to shoulder with our BASSA colleagues thus far. But we wholeheartedly believe it was the right thing to do. We have supported industrial action for the first time in our history. With clear consciences, we took the brave step of rejecting the ridiculous offer that was being pushed on you.

So where do we stand?

Our BASSA colleagues would like Tony Woodley to go back to British Airways and propose that if the points in the BASSA Branch Secretary’s latest blog are met then the deal can be salvaged as it stands. 3 of the points relate to the full reinstatement of staff travel, binding ACAS arbitration for all disciplinaries arising out of the dispute (see our earlier update on this) , and the removal of threats if a new facilities (reps) is not agreed within 8 weeks. It is also means that all the toxic elements of the deal which ultimately benefit the company will remain in place, no doubt including the litigation section, bar the stipulations in the blog regarding those off sick during the dispute and those who had pay deducted. In short, all other aspects of litigation are surrendered, including our appeal to the Supreme Court on the contractual issues of our collective agreement – the original basis of our dispute, imposition. Unite declined to comment upon the progress or intention to support any such appeal.

We then suggested, at the very least, we should put a time scale on Unites “return to talks”, and the reason for that limitation as an undertaking is because British Airways have a notorious track record for delaying. We also pointed out that we believed it is unacceptable to be constantly running to British Airways trying to resolve the dispute that British Airways initiated in its unreasonable approach and behaviour. This is even more difficult to stomach as British Airways are now in profit in spite of our industrial action, the ash cloud and numerous hefty fines being imposed for malpractice and unlawful conduct. Needless to say were any of the required "permanent structural cost savings" actually necessary?

So where do we go now?

We believe it is appropriate to offer you, the membership, the opportunity to tell us if we are not representing your best interests. Call it a vote of confidence if you will. If you don't want us to maintain the position we have taken, or indeed if you wish us to adopt another approach please communicate with us via our website. The alternative is that we withdraw from the debate altogether to allow our BASSA colleagues to determine our collective futures should you wish it.

Our previous communications did not reveal this unfortunate, untimely and quite suprising dischord as we hope that it would resolve itself quickly. However, it seems we are not being heard, and the true reasons for this are still as yet unknown.

We will in the meantime continue to represent you with humility, integrity and above all naked honesty. We will continue give you our collective opinion; we feel you deserve the direction a lot of you have been asking for and require – in fact you pay for it, and we will strive to do this subject to being involved in the proceedings.


The Amicus cabin crew section/branch
Of Unite the Union.
LD12986 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 22:03
  #775 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AROUND AND ABOUT
Posts: 164
Amicus update

Wow, you seem surprised by all this. Bassa have trashed CC89/Amicus for 20 years, you then sit on the top table with them at Kempton Park and yet you still THINK? they are with you. Ummm! Remember that TW is ex TGWU and even in his last days in Unite still sides with Bassa. Bloody hell, even I'm starting to believe that Father Christmas might come down my chimney next month.
JUAN TRIPP is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 22:16
  #776 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
I was wrong. BASSA & AMICUS are at each others' throats as much as ever they were. Silly me.

BA must now be asking itself "Who am I negotiating with?" It has made successive concessions during its protracted negotiations with TW, all in good faith, and in the belief that he would then secure a consultative ballot which has not happended. Rather, the whole thing has been blown back in BA's face saying they were negotiating with the wrong people and must start over again!

It would be very foolish for BA to concede any further from its current offer. The Union's Branches are continuing to adopt their no, no, no, policy and BA is negotiating against itself by repeatedly offering more and more.

The Union's Branches do not want to settle. They want nothing short of full restoration of their original power and control over BA's ICFE operations.

As I suggested earlier, BA should have shut the door on the continuing negotiation option by taking the offer off the table on the grounds of "failure to recommend the consultative ballot" leaving the Union and its Branches the choice of call a strike ballot or capitualte.

BA simply now has no choice whatsoever other than to bring this matter to a close in short order otherwise it will begin to appear to its shareholders, loyal employees and customers as weak and unable to manage its business properly. These groups and others will rapidly start to loose confidence in BA's current management if they don't act quickly and decisively from this point forwards.

BA must now adopt a policy of "No more Mr. Nice Guy".

Last edited by AV Flyer; 16th Nov 2010 at 23:31.
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 22:25
  #777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
As I see it, one branch wants to pursue resolution industrially and the other legally. How the mother union resolves this will be interesting.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 22:31
  #778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: AROUND AND ABOUT
Posts: 164
BA must now adopt a policy of "No more Mr. Nice Guy".
Avflyer, I couldn't agree more. Time to end this once and for all
JUAN TRIPP is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 22:34
  #779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 79
Posts: 184
No Surprise

With that blast from the past from Amicus, the following is part of a posting on the 11th (634) - re the influences at work on the union side;

"Hammer & Sickle boys, in the form of Jerry Hicks - seems to be gaining quite a base in various branches of Unite and possibly elsewhere, including Amicus/CC89, on what seems to be a base of pure rhetoric and has no relevance to/or intention of relying on/or needing members votes for taking action. Wants a strike - political power.

BASSA Branch Secretary and Chairman - desperately hanging onto power in order to keep their income coming in, until they can retire with a union pension at the earliest possible moment, appear not to place any importance on the needs and wishes of their members/reps and have no intention of arriving at any form of agreement with BA. Started as normal power demand now appears to be personal gain, but hates WW - will sabotage any attempt."

Subsequently had a posting exchange with 'Safety Concerns' which I am certain is a troll cover for Duncan Holley (636-639), which ended with the response;

"You can all say what you want it makes no difference. Until bassa members either hand in their membership cards or call for a vote of no confidence in the leadership, everything is fine and dandy.

I would like to tend to my tomatoes but I am too busy preparing for a xmas strike."

Sound Familiar? - and we're all worried about hats?

With all the determination from the union side to wreak BA, I can't see any way forward, other than a wildcat strike taking place at Xmas, which will have no effect on BA's operation, and BA being forced into firing all striking CC, which is of course the cause celebre that the union forces are after - but that will probably have no other effect than ridding BA of all malign employees in one fell swoop - game over.
Entaxei is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2010, 22:46
  #780 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 64
Posts: 9,195
This provided me with the best laugh in months:
The BASSA Branch Committee have now twice verbally ejected us from the negotiating committee because, apparently, our views are “too radical”, “too direct” and “not subtle enough”. They have “lost patience” with us.
This means that BASSA are CAUTIOUS and SUBTLE and invites the idea that they might be losing patience??? Oh wow.
PAXboy 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.