BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does industrial action by some, mean that the existing sickness policy is suspended?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well rustle, we might have to disagree on that.
I will concede that by the union talking and coming up with alternatives and costs savings Mixed Fleet could have, maybe, been avoided but of course, no one except the union reps and BA actually know the real detail of what BA were wanting in return for having new crew on existing fleets.
I did want the union to talk more and negotiate and I have been very upset by them not doing so and I did not strike and also left the union. But having said all that the 'Operation Columbus' document that BA produced well over two and a half years ago was all about the introduction of a low cost fleet that was going to do long haul and short haul work, so you can hardly say it is something new thought up as a result of Bassa's actions.
It is however a concern for all crew, even those on it and as such is about 'industrial relations' and is therefore a very valid topic for the CC thread but maybe not for this one as it is called 'BA strike your thoughts' !!!
I will concede that by the union talking and coming up with alternatives and costs savings Mixed Fleet could have, maybe, been avoided but of course, no one except the union reps and BA actually know the real detail of what BA were wanting in return for having new crew on existing fleets.
I did want the union to talk more and negotiate and I have been very upset by them not doing so and I did not strike and also left the union. But having said all that the 'Operation Columbus' document that BA produced well over two and a half years ago was all about the introduction of a low cost fleet that was going to do long haul and short haul work, so you can hardly say it is something new thought up as a result of Bassa's actions.
It is however a concern for all crew, even those on it and as such is about 'industrial relations' and is therefore a very valid topic for the CC thread but maybe not for this one as it is called 'BA strike your thoughts' !!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Uk
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although of course Mixed Fleet was brought to the table by BASSA amongst their package of savings.
To try and claim the strike was about MF terms and conditions is a nonsense. MF came about, when it did, because of the strike, not the other way round.
Guess that makes me a dick head too!
To try and claim the strike was about MF terms and conditions is a nonsense. MF came about, when it did, because of the strike, not the other way round.
Guess that makes me a dick head too!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
But as west lakes has just said, you will need a fit note, which may be hard to come by.
How does your reply (where you quoted my question) answer this? Why, for the love of God, would I need a "fit note" if I was sick/ill??
...and another thing, I feel bullied and harrassed by Joao da Silva
BG, am pondering your last reply...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does industrial action by some, mean that the existing sickness policy is suspended?
Although of course Mixed Fleet was brought to the table by BASSA amongst their package of savings.
To try and claim the strike was about MF terms and conditions is a nonsense. MF came about, when it did, because of the strike, not the other way round.
Guess that makes me a dick head too!
To try and claim the strike was about MF terms and conditions is a nonsense. MF came about, when it did, because of the strike, not the other way round.
Guess that makes me a dick head too!
Mixed Fleet was certainly a consequence of BASSA's unwillingess to change, but it was formally confirmed that new crew would join on a separate fleet at the same time that the company changed crewing levels.
The reason why Mixed Fleet was not on the ballot paper was because it hadn't actually started at the time so the union might have been on (even more) shaky ground legally.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has that been tested at tribunal? If you were a non union member, you cannot strike, but you will be penalised for being sick. Reasonable? No.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LD12986,
Thanks for confirming that.
The reason that Mixed Fleet (and back then it was being called the New Fleet) was not on a ballot paper was because if BA wanted to start a new fleet, they had every right to do so. The only thing that the union could legally strike over was a breach in their agreement. So that is the reason why imposition of crewing levels was used but this dispute has always been far more complicated than that and has been about the New Fleet as well as imposition.
The perverse thing is that by the union taking the stance it did over crewing levels and racing to strike, it has actually meant that Mixed Fleet has been brought in faster and bigger than it ever would have been and without any union representation and discussion at all, about their agreements, which has made it worse than ever for both current crew and the new crew.
So although many of us did not strike and I believe that was the right decision, we are still very nervous and concerned about Mixed Fleet.
Thanks for confirming that.
The reason that Mixed Fleet (and back then it was being called the New Fleet) was not on a ballot paper was because if BA wanted to start a new fleet, they had every right to do so. The only thing that the union could legally strike over was a breach in their agreement. So that is the reason why imposition of crewing levels was used but this dispute has always been far more complicated than that and has been about the New Fleet as well as imposition.
The perverse thing is that by the union taking the stance it did over crewing levels and racing to strike, it has actually meant that Mixed Fleet has been brought in faster and bigger than it ever would have been and without any union representation and discussion at all, about their agreements, which has made it worse than ever for both current crew and the new crew.
So although many of us did not strike and I believe that was the right decision, we are still very nervous and concerned about Mixed Fleet.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
Maybe legislation?
I originally said "if you're genuinely ill and unfortunately that illness affects you on a strike day otherwise you would have been at work, you won't have a problem."
and I stand by that, "fit note" notwithstanding.
I then qualified the statement by pointing out that if this was a pattern (i.e. everytime a strike was called you were "ill") that could be a problem that required a doctor's note.
Are you saying you believe a reasonable employer wouldn't look at strike -v- illness history of an employee?
...or that they shouldn't?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rustle
First things first, if you vote for a strike and you the go sick, rather than strike, you are a fool, in my mind. If you are not prepared to back up your vote, then don't vote or vote against the strike and go to work.
Back to actually being sick. If you have patterned sick around strike days, then no doubt it will be used against you, if you submit a grievance. However, what if you have a compliant GP how isn't busy and is happy to give you the relevant paperwork because you have stress? Then your friend who lives in a different area that has a GP who can't see them, is genuinely sick, but can't get the relevant note.
If your contractual provision gives sick pay and it is refused, then the employer has potentially made an unlawful deduction from wages, as the sickness policy will not have been adhered to.
Back to actually being sick. If you have patterned sick around strike days, then no doubt it will be used against you, if you submit a grievance. However, what if you have a compliant GP how isn't busy and is happy to give you the relevant paperwork because you have stress? Then your friend who lives in a different area that has a GP who can't see them, is genuinely sick, but can't get the relevant note.
If your contractual provision gives sick pay and it is refused, then the employer has potentially made an unlawful deduction from wages, as the sickness policy will not have been adhered to.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but that's the whole point I was [trying to] making 
If you "typically" pull sickies on strike days and you don't have a note, I *will* deduct from your wages and you can argue about it.
If you "typically" do NOT pull sickies on strike days and you don't have a note, I *will NOT* deduct from your wages.
It ain't difficult, unfair, "unreasonable", illegal, bullying, harrassment or anything else.
The whole red-herring about compliant local doctors never comes up.
Assume "my" records are better than their's anyway
...it was only a tiny point I was making, apols to other posters for the hijack
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
If you have patterned sick around strike days, then no doubt it will be used against you, if you submit a grievance.
If you "typically" do NOT pull sickies on strike days and you don't have a note, I *will NOT* deduct from your wages.
It ain't difficult, unfair, "unreasonable", illegal, bullying, harrassment or anything else.
The whole red-herring about compliant local doctors never comes up.
Assume "my" records are better than their's anyway
...it was only a tiny point I was making, apols to other posters for the hijack
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, one thing is for certain, it would be for the employee to fight to get the monies back. This will serve its purpose as any doubters will probably not risk it and go to work.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye. Just as it should be.
Work hard, play by the rules, if you are unfortunate I will assist.
Take the piss, you're on your own.
Glad we have an accord - we should do *all* the negotiating
Work hard, play by the rules, if you are unfortunate I will assist.
Take the piss, you're on your own.
Glad we have an accord - we should do *all* the negotiating
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of sickness, for your amusement, maybe: -
My brother works for a VERY large fast food company, he applied legislation that required any staff off sick to provide a stool sample for health check before they could return to work. Sickness rates crashed to an all time low as a result.
My brother works for a VERY large fast food company, he applied legislation that required any staff off sick to provide a stool sample for health check before they could return to work. Sickness rates crashed to an all time low as a result.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: throwing a sickie
The sicknote thing can be looked at in two ways. There is the view that this is BA management placing unreasonable demands on staff to prove that they were genuinely ill and not having a duvet day. There is also the point that BA has a duty of care to ensure staff are fit to work and will not endanger colleagues or themselves. By all means take time off if you are sick, but returning to work too early, particularly for flight and cabin crew can have some nasty repercussions. Last thing you want is to transmit a bug amongst fellow crew and customers. The air scrubbers on aircraft are good, but don't work on contacts. Then there's also the cost of medical aid downline if you have a relapse or pass it on to colleagues. Small wonder that there is a greater emphasis on fitess to work amongst crew than a lot of other parts of the airline. So in these circumstances, insisting on doctor's note is maybe not such an unreasonable request. Those who were genuinely ill should have had no problem in gettng a medic to issue one. OK so you might have had to shell out a few bob for it - GPs are known to see this as a useful earner. If the reason given to the GP is something vague like 'I had a funny tummy' or 'I felt sick' with nothing to provide a diagnosis, then in all probability you'll be out of luck GPs are not in the habit of providing dubious testimony - it's their reputation that is also on the line.
Claiming sick pay under false pretences is fraud isn't it ? So isn't a company entitled to ensure that its employees are not acting fraudulently ?
Claiming sick pay under false pretences is fraud isn't it ? So isn't a company entitled to ensure that its employees are not acting fraudulently ?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Surrey, UK.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What few quid?
I live in Surrey, England. If I see a doctor it costs me nothing AFAIK.
When did this dubious practise of handing over money for a sicknote start, and where?
...and if, as I suspect, sicknotes (or "fit notes") are issued FOC, what is the problem in requiring one?
I live in Surrey, England. If I see a doctor it costs me nothing AFAIK.
When did this dubious practise of handing over money for a sicknote start, and where?
...and if, as I suspect, sicknotes (or "fit notes") are issued FOC, what is the problem in requiring one?