BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns
"This unfortunately remains in the most part an anti bassa, anti union thread.
are unions not actually run by the members?"
Duncan - why do you continue to hide behind this meaningless label - "Safety Concerns" you are not - unless you're talking about window blinds of course.
You have got BASSA under your and LA's control and the idea of members actually being able to run the union is laughable, you have no intention of taking any action other than calling now for a strike over Christmas - forget the ballot and any form of democracy - presumably this will be on a show of hands at Bedfont.
So why don't you go away and tend to your tomatos.
are unions not actually run by the members?"
Duncan - why do you continue to hide behind this meaningless label - "Safety Concerns" you are not - unless you're talking about window blinds of course.
You have got BASSA under your and LA's control and the idea of members actually being able to run the union is laughable, you have no intention of taking any action other than calling now for a strike over Christmas - forget the ballot and any form of democracy - presumably this will be on a show of hands at Bedfont.
So why don't you go away and tend to your tomatos.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I would like to tend to my tomatoes but I am too busy preparing for a xmas strike.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holley has demonstrated time and time again that he AND BASSA will not allow the members of BASSA the rights they have to be consulted on any matter they do not WANT them to be involved in. It is unconstitutional, unethical and downright outraqeous that they should be denied of the basic rights of a union. It is, therefore, beholding on UNITE that they instruct BASSA on the matter and bring them to heel.
If it does not happen then UNITE should demand that they resign forthwith.
If it does not happen then UNITE should demand that they resign forthwith.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTR
Interesting points, but I struggle with the union instructing the membership. You have to remember, they are a service supplier which is paid for by the membership. Much has been made of the bad old 70's on both threads, but when it suits, posters want to empower centralised control.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
Your point about some people wanting to empower centralised control could easily be negated by Unite allowing a ballot on the deal, or indeed holding a ballot themselves over the heads of the BASSA and CC89 committees. What could be more democratic than allowing the members themselves to decide whether to accept the deal or reject it?
The members would then be responsible for the result, and their union officers for dealing with that result. What are Unite afraid of? Clearly they want rid of this dispute, but if the members as a whole are committed to carrying on, so be it.
Much like any professional advisor that you may employ, the union officials can only advise what the ramifications are of any course of action and deal with the outcome.
If your Doctor advises you not to skateboard on the motorway, but you insist on doing it, the Doctor is morally obliged to treat your injuries. Likewise, whilst taking union dues off workers the union are obliged to represent their members whether they believe in the action or not.
The members would then be responsible for the result, and their union officers for dealing with that result. What are Unite afraid of? Clearly they want rid of this dispute, but if the members as a whole are committed to carrying on, so be it.
Much like any professional advisor that you may employ, the union officials can only advise what the ramifications are of any course of action and deal with the outcome.
If your Doctor advises you not to skateboard on the motorway, but you insist on doing it, the Doctor is morally obliged to treat your injuries. Likewise, whilst taking union dues off workers the union are obliged to represent their members whether they believe in the action or not.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncan (Safety Concerns)
"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."
Hi Duncan - what does it feel like to emerge into the light after hiding away for so long. I must admit that your above message does encapsulate very nicely the conundrum that faces the Bassa members - their chance of being able to get a concerted call for a vote of no confidence in you is zero - given the scattered and roving nature of their occupation - and with the few reps left, it is unlikely that any rep or number of them, would be allowed to canvas for a vote - plus of course some members still believe that you are actually looking after their interests!!. You could always alter the rules of course.
You obviously feel that you have a hand of aces, and as you say, "EVERYTHING IS FINE AND DANDY".
So the only way that things are going to change, is to convince your members to leave - hopefully that process will have now started as they read your response. Unless of course Unite despose of you!.
Hi Duncan - what does it feel like to emerge into the light after hiding away for so long. I must admit that your above message does encapsulate very nicely the conundrum that faces the Bassa members - their chance of being able to get a concerted call for a vote of no confidence in you is zero - given the scattered and roving nature of their occupation - and with the few reps left, it is unlikely that any rep or number of them, would be allowed to canvas for a vote - plus of course some members still believe that you are actually looking after their interests!!. You could always alter the rules of course.
You obviously feel that you have a hand of aces, and as you say, "EVERYTHING IS FINE AND DANDY".
So the only way that things are going to change, is to convince your members to leave - hopefully that process will have now started as they read your response. Unless of course Unite despose of you!.
Paxing All Over The World
When the Union (or those that speak loudest) said:
One can only surmise that they were deliberately making it easy for BA, who shall doubtless drive the cart and horses through the open gate.
The question I have is: does the postponement of this ballot allow those reps dismissed by BA to continue in their union post? When do those elections come up? Do tell me if I've missed something.
Any sense that this offer is being presented to cabin crew over the heads of unwilling representatives would be deeply damaging to the union
The question I have is: does the postponement of this ballot allow those reps dismissed by BA to continue in their union post? When do those elections come up? Do tell me if I've missed something.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A contrary view on the reasons the ballot on the offer has been "suspended"
Baggersup, there is an opposite take from yours (post 642) on this situation set forth on the CC forum above in posts 1218 and 1219:
There is additional reasoning in these two posts which I believe is more accurate interpretation than yours in which Unite has predicted a 'Yes' vote on the BA proposal. And I recall the wording used by Woodley about the ballot was “suspended”, pending talks between Unite and the two branches.
It is Unite that have withdrawn the ballot not Bassa and Amicus. Unite don't want it to go ahead because Bassa and Amicus have both recently said they will encourage a NO vote. Unite don't want a NO vote for the offer because that would make it hard for them to deny Bassa and Amicus another strike vote.
Paxing All Over The World
kappa, that would indicate you think that BASSA will only call the ballot when they think they'll get a No. If Unite think it's going be Yes and Woodley is now working behind the barricades (again) then this will indeed run on and BA can just get on with business. So, that's a win-win. No final showdown, and BASSA can claim they never lost! 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Animal Farm?
Tony Woodley of Unite said:
or to put it another way....
everyone in the union is equal, but reps are more equal than others.
Any sense that this offer is being presented to cabin crew over the heads of unwilling representatives would be deeply damaging to the union
everyone in the union is equal, but reps are more equal than others.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard228
everyone in the union is equal, but reps are more equal than others
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Hamptonne
Posts: 384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A serious breach of in-flight safety?
Tray Surfer, over on the crew thread, has blithely informed her readers, colleagues (and her managers, come to that) that
If this cabin crew operative is happily joyriding in the cockpit for take off and for landing then 'ipso facto' her door position has been left unmanned.
Just what does this say for the safety of all on board Tray Surfer's flights during the most critical stages? Does the CAA know about this wanton violation? Surely flight safety is more important than Tray Surfer getting her jollies?
More to the point, does British Airways' leadership team condone this practice?
I have no hesitation going in and out of the flight deck and feel that some Pursers are quite happy for me to do flight deck service. I still ask, crew permitting, if I can go in the flight deck for take off and landing, much to the dislike of some, but it is always welcomed by the flight crew.
Just what does this say for the safety of all on board Tray Surfer's flights during the most critical stages? Does the CAA know about this wanton violation? Surely flight safety is more important than Tray Surfer getting her jollies?
More to the point, does British Airways' leadership team condone this practice?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK. East Mids.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuchinchow
I think I need to correct some of what you may have thought...
When I stated "crew permitting", it meant the number of crew. i.e. if we are above the legal minimum required to be in the cabin, say for example 5 on an A320, or 6 on an A321, then there is no reason what so ever that I am able to go in the flight deck for take off and landing and it is positively encourage by our flight crew, which I can assure you would not happen if they thought it was not legal.
I really think you have completely over-reacted to my post without having any understanding of how we operate onboard. Maybe a better approach would have been to ask how I am able to do this instead of immediately accusing me and the airline of risking passenger safety.
Oh, and by the way, no need to be stereotypical to presume that because I am Cabin Crew (no need for the word "operative" on the end) that I am a woman... I am male.
When I stated "crew permitting", it meant the number of crew. i.e. if we are above the legal minimum required to be in the cabin, say for example 5 on an A320, or 6 on an A321, then there is no reason what so ever that I am able to go in the flight deck for take off and landing and it is positively encourage by our flight crew, which I can assure you would not happen if they thought it was not legal.
I really think you have completely over-reacted to my post without having any understanding of how we operate onboard. Maybe a better approach would have been to ask how I am able to do this instead of immediately accusing me and the airline of risking passenger safety.
Oh, and by the way, no need to be stereotypical to presume that because I am Cabin Crew (no need for the word "operative" on the end) that I am a woman... I am male.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Churchinchow
Don't be silly. Tray Surfer said "crew permitting". This means that he/she would only request this if there are surplus crew to requirements. Nobody, including the captain, would allow it if this were not the case.
The 747 has 12 doors and 14 cabin crew. Are you saying that if a crew member went sick immediately before departure then they would be in "wanton violation" of CAA regulations if they were to depart with 13 crew?
Dave
Edit; Sorry, crossed with Tray Surfer
Don't be silly. Tray Surfer said "crew permitting". This means that he/she would only request this if there are surplus crew to requirements. Nobody, including the captain, would allow it if this were not the case.
The 747 has 12 doors and 14 cabin crew. Are you saying that if a crew member went sick immediately before departure then they would be in "wanton violation" of CAA regulations if they were to depart with 13 crew?
Dave
Edit; Sorry, crossed with Tray Surfer
Last edited by Airclues; 12th Nov 2010 at 10:23. Reason: Door numbers...sorry, fading memory.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT
Agree with your view re the reps self interest, however I would go a step further.
I don't believe the reps had anything other then their own narrow interests in mind at ANY time. This has been the most dysfunctional group of reps imaginable and the main reason they have been able to get away with it is the mobile nature of the membership.
I was a senior ground staff rep for a number of years and we were always around for our colleagues to take us to task if they were unhappy with any decisions. We were given very limited time away from our day jobs, so had a good understanding of the mood. We never took a penny from subs and probably spent more of our own resources than we claimed on expenses. I will always be proud of the way we represented our colleagues best interests honestly without politics or personal agendas. Years from now will the BASSA reps be able to say the same thing.
This bunch of BASSA reps seem to run the branch as their own personal fiefdom (Did I spell that correctly??? ).
Agree with your view re the reps self interest, however I would go a step further.
I don't believe the reps had anything other then their own narrow interests in mind at ANY time. This has been the most dysfunctional group of reps imaginable and the main reason they have been able to get away with it is the mobile nature of the membership.
I was a senior ground staff rep for a number of years and we were always around for our colleagues to take us to task if they were unhappy with any decisions. We were given very limited time away from our day jobs, so had a good understanding of the mood. We never took a penny from subs and probably spent more of our own resources than we claimed on expenses. I will always be proud of the way we represented our colleagues best interests honestly without politics or personal agendas. Years from now will the BASSA reps be able to say the same thing.
This bunch of BASSA reps seem to run the branch as their own personal fiefdom (Did I spell that correctly??? ).
Paxing All Over The World
That is the correct word!
fief
· n.
1 historical another term for fee (in sense 2).
2 a person’s sphere of operation or control.
– DERIVATIVES fiefdom n.
– ORIGIN C17: from Fr. (see fee).
Oxford Pocket v.10
I am looking forward to their final reckoning for IRRESPECTIVE of any genuine grievances and concerns they may have - to hobble your employer for over a year is totally short sighted. We are in the midst of a dire recession with much more hardship to come, and they are arguing in such a manner.
fief
· n.
1 historical another term for fee (in sense 2).
2 a person’s sphere of operation or control.
– DERIVATIVES fiefdom n.
– ORIGIN C17: from Fr. (see fee).
Oxford Pocket v.10
I am looking forward to their final reckoning for IRRESPECTIVE of any genuine grievances and concerns they may have - to hobble your employer for over a year is totally short sighted. We are in the midst of a dire recession with much more hardship to come, and they are arguing in such a manner.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the other forum
....just when you thought you'd seen it all! DH is holding court on BASSA forum and this is his latest posting (you may want to sit down incase you collapse laughing)
I tell you what this dispute has done, more than anything else and this is more important than anything tangible - it has told BA that they can't bully the membership without strong resistance. It has told BA they can't smash the union without strong resistance. It has told BA they can't just do what they please without strong resistance. This dispute has empowered you the membership to stand up and be heard. It has given you all a common purpose and it has given you pride and faith in the majority of your colleagues. It has proved that the little man in the street can oppose big corporate bullies. It has stopped BA in their tracks and quite possible helped this job from being completely worthless in 10 years time. Are you still on your old terms and conditions and has anyone forced you to new fleet? No they haven't dared. You are still earning the same money and allowances. This dispute is all about having a voice and the power to shape your destiny. I could go on all night but will finish up by saying No, Hatty, you have gained nothing you can touch and you are right those 4 things are a product of this dispute but my God how you have achieved more than you will ever know. Years from now you will fully realise what you have done. Rgds Duncan
Not quite Duncan...
New staffing levels
Loss of pay and allowances over strike period
Loss of staff travel
Cabin crew have become pariah figures in the media, amongst colleagues and the gneral public
Cost of union funds fighting unwinnable court cases
Dozens of sackings including your own due to bullyng and irresponsible behaviour
New Fleet up and running
Not allowing your members to have a voice
BA have got the savings they want and who knows what else is on the horizon
90 Day notice??
Congratulations Duncan...something to really be proud of.
I am sure in 10 years time you will be fondly remembered as the man who achieved all this.
....just when you thought you'd seen it all! DH is holding court on BASSA forum and this is his latest posting (you may want to sit down incase you collapse laughing)
I tell you what this dispute has done, more than anything else and this is more important than anything tangible - it has told BA that they can't bully the membership without strong resistance. It has told BA they can't smash the union without strong resistance. It has told BA they can't just do what they please without strong resistance. This dispute has empowered you the membership to stand up and be heard. It has given you all a common purpose and it has given you pride and faith in the majority of your colleagues. It has proved that the little man in the street can oppose big corporate bullies. It has stopped BA in their tracks and quite possible helped this job from being completely worthless in 10 years time. Are you still on your old terms and conditions and has anyone forced you to new fleet? No they haven't dared. You are still earning the same money and allowances. This dispute is all about having a voice and the power to shape your destiny. I could go on all night but will finish up by saying No, Hatty, you have gained nothing you can touch and you are right those 4 things are a product of this dispute but my God how you have achieved more than you will ever know. Years from now you will fully realise what you have done. Rgds Duncan
Not quite Duncan...
New staffing levels
Loss of pay and allowances over strike period
Loss of staff travel
Cabin crew have become pariah figures in the media, amongst colleagues and the gneral public
Cost of union funds fighting unwinnable court cases
Dozens of sackings including your own due to bullyng and irresponsible behaviour
New Fleet up and running
Not allowing your members to have a voice
BA have got the savings they want and who knows what else is on the horizon
90 Day notice??
Congratulations Duncan...something to really be proud of.
I am sure in 10 years time you will be fondly remembered as the man who achieved all this.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the point where informed SLF simply lose respect for Cabin Crew who remain supportive of BASSA.
Mr. Holley states:
Yes, Cabin Crew are...but that was never a question.
What BA did "dare" was to offer influence over Mixed Fleet, stock shares, wage increases, etc., etc.. and BASSA said "No".
What Cabin Crew member with the intellect to brush their teeth can read the above quote and not say "I've had enough of this"?
I am past the point of believing that this is simply a group of individuals being taken advantage of by bad leaders. There IS such a thing as willful ignorance.
Mr. Holley states:
Are you still on your old terms and conditions and has anyone forced you to new fleet? No they haven't dared. You are still earning the same money and allowances.
What BA did "dare" was to offer influence over Mixed Fleet, stock shares, wage increases, etc., etc.. and BASSA said "No".
What Cabin Crew member with the intellect to brush their teeth can read the above quote and not say "I've had enough of this"?
I am past the point of believing that this is simply a group of individuals being taken advantage of by bad leaders. There IS such a thing as willful ignorance.
Last edited by Diplome; 12th Nov 2010 at 13:00. Reason: bold run amok
Follow the Money...........
As baggersup posted some time ago, in any TU issue, "Follow the Money".
I did not agree with that post at the time, but this dispute is so different, so peculiar, and so "outside the rules" of TU actions and UK Employee Relations that I suspect he is right.
There are big financial issues for the key players involved - the reps, the Chair, the Branch Sec., and until the Financial issues are out in the public domain via a proper Independent audit, then this dispute will never end.
The members need to demand that the branch should be properly audited for the last 4 years.
(The current audit is by current/ex CSDs!!!!!!!!!)
I did not agree with that post at the time, but this dispute is so different, so peculiar, and so "outside the rules" of TU actions and UK Employee Relations that I suspect he is right.
There are big financial issues for the key players involved - the reps, the Chair, the Branch Sec., and until the Financial issues are out in the public domain via a proper Independent audit, then this dispute will never end.
The members need to demand that the branch should be properly audited for the last 4 years.
(The current audit is by current/ex CSDs!!!!!!!!!)
