BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III

[AV Flyer]

After reading again BASSA's latest missive on the CC thread, I'm seriously wondering if "the Union" collectively has sufficient internal organisational skills and control (or even will-power at the Unite level) left to provide the discipline required to implement a properly and legally orchestrated negotiation at ACAS followed by a membership strike ballot and then an effective strike action - even assuming BA do nothing to derail them along the way?

I could be completely wrong but the entire situation appears close already to self-imploding and descending into a farce with BA looking-on bemused.

For just how long, exactly, have we been hearing about the latest strike ballot call which has failed to materialise?

[MPN11]

IMO, it is now a one-man campaign of "pure socialism/self-interest" in which a diminishing number of CC follow The Leader without much sense of where they're going.

A tragic indictment on the Trades Union movement as a whole in the 21st C. ... and neither BASSA, CC98 nor Unite emerge from this with any credit or credibility. Foolishness and rhetoric just pile up against the barriers of reality, just like the troops in WWI or the indigenous people in the film "Zulu".

However, "As you butter your bread, so must you lie on it" ... or something like that.

[Ancient Observer]

De-recognition

If great companies such as Shell, BP, Astra Zeneca and ICI can successfully manage de-recognition of the T & G, how come the monumentally incompetent BA managers cannot manage de-recognition of the over-paid bassa junta??

"4 points?? ..............yup, now 14, (see other thread) and about to be 24.

Woodley has personally worked through de-recognition, as has the scouser docker, so other than a bit of moral high ground, what exactly are BA waiting for????

If my personal safety is in the hand of the fools who allow the bassa junta to survive, then, sorry, JSL, Betty, et al, I'm going back to Virgin. Even sabena's latest incarnation (run by an ex- BA pilot, I'm told) is better than this.

[nononsense frank]

Lightbulbs,

As was mentioned earlier by one of the posters here, It is completely ridiculous to think that these crew who got genuinely sick during the strike period will not expect BA to require sicknote from them. BA is not unique in asking for proof of genuine sickness during industrial action, and work unions including UNITE , UNISON, RMT, etc. expect this to be the case.
Furthermore, BA issued a warning not only to those crew who will call in sick during the industrial action period itself, but also to those crew who were off sick during the WEEK PRIOR to the start of the first period of strike in March, that if they do not return to work before the industrial action commence, they will be considered as strikers. With this warning in mind, surely it would have been a lot simpler and easier to get a sick note, than take BA to court afterwards for docking wages during the supposed genuine sick period. After all, if they have to resort to court/tribunal as “thousands”(according to the strikers' claim) have done, they will then have to provide this same proof that they were genuinely ill and if they couldn’t provide this proof, couldn’t then BA charge them for abusing the sickness policy in the first place?
Lastly, I find it completely laughable that BASSA demand BA to treat the sickness during the strike period as genuine while at the same time, they themselves, talk about wildcat strike action in the form of social sickness during the Christmas period. See link below
Quote:
However, cabin crew militants and officials have also repeatedly warned of "mass sikcies" and unofficial wildcat over the Christmas period.
So can they, in all honesty, blame BA to demand proof of genuine sickness?

[notlangley]

Baggersup said

They will know how many have their union dues deducted from their checks.

I would have thought that it was an offence under the Data Protection Act for the "wages department" (a computer) to pass this information to management.

[notlangley]

Baggersup said

They will know how many have their union dues deducted from their checks.

I say old boy the correct word is "cheques".

[Litebulbs]

nononsense frank

BA can say and do what they want, at any time including stopping pay and making asumptions on who is and who is not on strike. It will be for the individual to then seek damages for unlawful deduction from wages, which is a breach of contract through the court system, which will no doubt lead to binding legal opinion.

It is not for BA to make the law, just defend its actions as a proportionate means to meet a legitimate aim. Obivously, if there is common law out there already, then it will be applied.

[notlangley]

With sincere apologies to USA readers

Actually this illustrates how powerful is the concept of money._ In the UK we do not use the phrase "checking account"._ UK usage is "chequebook account" - but this is uncommon, "current account" is customary._ And in the context

may do direct payment from their checking accounts

the phrase that would be used is almost always "bank accounts"._ Another UK paradox is that many so-called bank accounts are not bank accounts, but are "building society accounts".

Please excuse my pedanticism.

[Neptunus Rex]

The word is pedantry.

You are excused.

[Juan Tugoh]

Pedant's Corner

As we have strayed into Pedant's Corner, there is no letter C in the word "negotiate."

[TightSlot]

Sum ov thee spelink on heer is apawling and the grammarr iz sumtymz worser

However - please let's not get bogged down in pedantry - back on topic please. Many thanks

[notlangley]

Sorry Tightslot -will this do?

1) Is the total number of Unite members unknown to BA management?_ (Because of Chinese Walls within BA)
2) Does the authenticated numbers of Unite members only become known when there is a vote to strike?
3) Is BASSA/Unite uncomfortable for its membership shrinkage to be authenticated?_ (i.e. authenticated by a vote to strike)

[Entaxei]

Given that the numbers of CC union members in Bassa/Amicus/Unite seems to be an unknown/flexible quantity - I wonder what the effect would be if BA announced a payroll system enhancement, due to take place on the 1st April for the new tax year, which had as an unfortunate side effect, an inability to continue paying members fees to unions.

The announcement being made on the 1st January, to allow the unions time to make other arrangements. Any estimates as to how many members would drop out by default? and how could any union or branch then make any calls for IA without months of preparation - no more instant strikes.

With apologies Tightslot - but I always thought that Pedants hung around ladies necks and Pedantry was something to do with Sexual Devients - but memory is a fragile entity at the best of times and I never could spell!

[vctenderness]

Originally Posted by notlangley

1) Is the total number of Unite members unknown to BA management?_ (Because of Chinese Walls within BA)
2) Does the authenticated numbers of Unite members only become known when there is a vote to strike?
3) Is BASSA/Unite uncomfortable for its membership shrinkage to be authenticated?_ (i.e. authenticated by a vote to strike)

BA management know how many members BASSA have due to 'Payroll deduction'. The vast majority of BASSA members pay by this method and in the past BA has used this to 'Verify' the membership in order to allocate seats on BA committees.

CC89 members are the opposite virtually all being Direct Debit.

I am not a legal expert but would think that, as BA is registered to hold details of their cabin crew under the DPA, and they carry out the function of deducting subscriptions at the request of the union and the individual it is not a breach to pass the information on those numbers to other relevant departments in BA.

[call100]

Originally Posted by baggersup

Every company I've worked with in the UK in IR consulting knows who their union members are. No one has ever mentioned the data protection act in this regard.

I'd have to search the archives to be sure, but during the last ballot I think there was a procedure in which BA sends to the union every month their updated leavers and joiners or sumsuch, based on BA's records.

There was discussion last time about BASSA either not waiting for this or having the ballot delayed while awaiting the update from BA.

It's foggy, but there was definitely some union membership update that BA was providing BASSA from their files.

I've done audits of entire memberships of this type in my consulting work. It takes time and requires an outside accounting firm in most cases.

In the U.S. with my clients, I've seen three cases of court-ordered union membership audits when votes were in dispute.

My last company refused to give lists of Union members quoting the Data Protection Act. Even when the names were wanted as an up to date check for consultative local ballots.....No great problem but I think they enjoyed it!!
Many members (especially those in management) choose to pay by direct debit these days. which makes the whole process a bit more difficult when trying to get up to date lists.

[LD12986]

From The Telegraph at the weekend:

Unions should look on the bright side of life - Telegraph

Monty Python’s Life of Brian is the favourite film of BA chief executive Willie Walsh. So how appropriate that Unite, that misnomer of a trade union, is putting on a scene just for him.

Tony Woodley, who is this week leading 11,000 BA flight crew to another strike ballot, seems hell-bent on reproducing Scene 8: The Grumpy People’s Front of Judea.

You remember. John Cleese, in the Reg role, asked if he’s from the Judean People’s Front. His two-word response is memorably Anglo Saxon, before he explains: “The only people we hate more than the Romans are the ------- Judean People’s Front.” That’s excepting, of course, the Judean Popular People’s Front.

Over at Unite, it’s a familiar script, no doubt inspired by the line that “any anti-imperialist group like ours must reflect... a divergence of interests within its power base”. Unite is the product of coupling the Transport and General Workers Union with Amicus. Both wings have their own crew branch – the T&G’s militant British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association; and Cabin Crew 89 from Amicus.

Trying to control them is the T&G’s Woodley – and Amicus’s retiring Derek Simpson, the other joint-general secretary. Simpson, you may recall, is the Twitterer who sent “I am at Wembley for England match” – just as a BA strike began in May.

“Dysfunctional” is Walsh’s term for this lot, with whom he has been negotiating since February 2009. But don’t ask him, ask Sir Christopher Holland – the judge who ruled that BA did not break contracts when it cut cabin crew on long-haul flights from 15 to 14.

“Ostensibly, representation is by this single union,” Holland wrote in his judgment. “However – again at all material times – the old allegiances have held sway, engendering from time to time, mutual rivalry, hostility and mistrust”. He noted how “the Bassa and Amicus factions were separately represented and sat in separate rooms”. Once, they had a “heated argument”.

[LD12986]

BA management must know the numbers of non-union members and, ergo, union members. I do recall WW quoted the numbers of non-union crew that had accepted the previous offer on an individual basis and what percentage this was of non-union crew.

Can BA require Unite to conduct a full audit of its (cabin crew) memership databases?

[nononsense frank]

BA can say and do what they want, at any time including stopping pay and making asumptions on who is and who is not on strike. It will be for the individual to then seek damages for unlawful deduction from wages, which is a breach of contract through the court system, which will no doubt lead to binding legal opinion.

Exactly my point Litebulbs. When the affected individual has to seek damages through the court system, won't the court require the individual to provide proof that he/she was genuinely sick? Wouldn't it have been easier to just provide the same proof at the time when BA requested it? This way the individual concerned will avoid further unnecessary lost time and expenses that a court case would entail?

[Dairyground]

Baggersup asks:

Though if the reports that BA sends BASSA an update every month is true, I wonder why that's possible? Hm.

It has been common for many years for businesses to deduct union dues from payroll and transmit the deductions to the union. Employess who wish to manage union subscriptions in this way have obviously given the company permission to make the deductions and to have the union informed that they wish to subscribe in this way. so the company has a lower bound on the number of employees who are union members; the number may be swelled by other individuals who choose, for whatever reason, other payment methods.

[Litebulbs]

Originally Posted by nononsense frank

Exactly my point Litebulbs. When the affected individual has to seek damages through the court system, won't the court require the individual to provide proof that he/she was genuinely sick? Wouldn't it have been easier to just provide the same proof at the time when BA requested it? This way the individual concerned will avoid further unnecessary lost time and expenses that a court case would entail?

I do not believe that they would. They will have a contractual position on sickness, which will probably relate to a policy, which it appears on the face of it, has not been followed. The burden of proof should lay with the employer, as that who is making the accusation.

The point in question being made by the employer, is not that they are in breach of the sickness policy by not attending work when fit to do so, but that they were on strike. No investigation was carried out as far as I know; they were just found guilty by association.