BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how reissuing contracts will help - BA have a proportion of cabin crew who are disgruntled, embittered (not sure about what) and deluded. Reissuning new contracts will hardly help any of those matters. It would appear that the dispute is too far gone for rational thought as even the more moderate cabin crew who are for strike action seem to be living in a world of their own.
Posted by PC767 on the Cabin Crew thread - "And of course removing my little responsibility and authority is a consequence of reducing my t&cs and pay. The entire thread creep is a consequence of BA dispute and encouragement of war with it's cabin crew."
Sorry - but if this is representative of BA Cabin Crew then it is a sad state of ignorance ... can anyone explain to me when PC767 had their pay reduced? What terms and conditions have been affected? And wasn't it PC767s union leader (DH) who declared a "guerilla war" on BA after boasting of "No Negotiation"?
If the strike ballot is for strike action and it is deemed unprotected, then I can't see any other option other than sacking the strikers. It is the only way for the company to move forward in the face of a significant number of cabin crew who seem to be living in their own world ... as PC767 states in a later post:
"to my mind it highlighted the loss of CRM that is occurring at BA as a result of the dispute and the intensifying of the power battle between managers and crew"
That seems to sum up the problem with a percentage of BA cabin crew - they think they run the airline .. and they think they should be allowed to manage it. Just how big that percentage is will become apparent with the next strike ballot results.
Posted by PC767 on the Cabin Crew thread - "And of course removing my little responsibility and authority is a consequence of reducing my t&cs and pay. The entire thread creep is a consequence of BA dispute and encouragement of war with it's cabin crew."
Sorry - but if this is representative of BA Cabin Crew then it is a sad state of ignorance ... can anyone explain to me when PC767 had their pay reduced? What terms and conditions have been affected? And wasn't it PC767s union leader (DH) who declared a "guerilla war" on BA after boasting of "No Negotiation"?
If the strike ballot is for strike action and it is deemed unprotected, then I can't see any other option other than sacking the strikers. It is the only way for the company to move forward in the face of a significant number of cabin crew who seem to be living in their own world ... as PC767 states in a later post:
"to my mind it highlighted the loss of CRM that is occurring at BA as a result of the dispute and the intensifying of the power battle between managers and crew"
That seems to sum up the problem with a percentage of BA cabin crew - they think they run the airline .. and they think they should be allowed to manage it. Just how big that percentage is will become apparent with the next strike ballot results.
Last edited by BetterByBoat; 12th Jan 2011 at 08:49.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duffus:
I'm sure what you say is true for you personally.
There are many who would quite strongly disagree with that rather dismissive approach to individuals who both perform operations critical to an airline's success.
Kudo's to someone who has managed to shock me with his lack of respect for others' work. It must be rather pleasant to live in a world where all is black and white and gray never enters to confuse the picture.
I'm sure what you say is true for you personally.
There are many who would quite strongly disagree with that rather dismissive approach to individuals who both perform operations critical to an airline's success.
Kudo's to someone who has managed to shock me with his lack of respect for others' work. It must be rather pleasant to live in a world where all is black and white and gray never enters to confuse the picture.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do think PC767's indignation at some of the pilots' comments illustrates their state of mind though. All that was said was that the flight deck should be informed of a medical emergency in case they need to divert the aircraft.
PC767 immediately bristles and says that they shouldn't have to contact the captain to dish out a paracetamol.
I don't think anyone said that, and it's indicative of the straw-clutching BASSA mentality that they will distort a perfectly fair comment to try and illustrate that they are hard done by.
I'm sure most reasonable cabin crew are more than aware of the difference between a minor medical issue (needing a plaster or an analgesic) and a bloody serious medical problem, and can decide what needs to be reported upwards and what doesn't. I doubt this has ever changed.
I wish they'd stop acting like spoilt, whiny schoolkids.
PC767 immediately bristles and says that they shouldn't have to contact the captain to dish out a paracetamol.
I don't think anyone said that, and it's indicative of the straw-clutching BASSA mentality that they will distort a perfectly fair comment to try and illustrate that they are hard done by.
I'm sure most reasonable cabin crew are more than aware of the difference between a minor medical issue (needing a plaster or an analgesic) and a bloody serious medical problem, and can decide what needs to be reported upwards and what doesn't. I doubt this has ever changed.
I wish they'd stop acting like spoilt, whiny schoolkids.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
transfers.....
The CC forum has waxed indignant that BA is (apparently) showing preference to the cabin crew who are not backing militant action.
at first sight, this may appear to have some justification. however, if it is 'fair' that BASSA and Unite can apply pressure to the employer (Strikes, working to rule, hot towels, window blinds etc), surely the employer has some justification for putting employees in place where they have shown responsibility and support for the employer.
it is easy to dismiss this as putting toadies and yes-men forward. that is not in the interests of the long term future of the business and BA have shown they are grown-up enough to avoid that. it would be up to the critics to show that the preferred candidates are unqualified in some respect before that suggestion could stick.
can someone remind me when we are likely to hear the outcome of the ballot please?
at first sight, this may appear to have some justification. however, if it is 'fair' that BASSA and Unite can apply pressure to the employer (Strikes, working to rule, hot towels, window blinds etc), surely the employer has some justification for putting employees in place where they have shown responsibility and support for the employer.
it is easy to dismiss this as putting toadies and yes-men forward. that is not in the interests of the long term future of the business and BA have shown they are grown-up enough to avoid that. it would be up to the critics to show that the preferred candidates are unqualified in some respect before that suggestion could stick.
can someone remind me when we are likely to hear the outcome of the ballot please?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to BA:
Unite has informed us of its decision to ballot BA cabin crew members for further strike action.
The ballot will run between 21 December and 21 January. If the ballot result is in favour of industrial action, the earliest the
crew could go on strike would be 28 January.
The ballot will run between 21 December and 21 January. If the ballot result is in favour of industrial action, the earliest the
crew could go on strike would be 28 January.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: US
Age: 77
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other union
Has anyone seen anything in the way of a statement from CC89 as to how their meeting went? With all they had to say recently they seem to have gone to ground.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry ChicoG but I disagree with this - "straw-clutching BASSA mentality" ... I think it is indicative of the numbers of "straw clutching British Airways cabin crew". It is British Airways cabin crew that called for this strike action and British Airways cabin crew who can end it. They can't hide behind BASSA for everything.
The fact that PC767 seems to think there is a power struggle between cabin crew and management as to who runs the company speaks volumes of just how deluded significant numbers of British Airways cabin crew seem to be. Have they not realised that cabin crew work in the cabin (the name of the role sort of gives it away). Pilots sit at the front and, well, pilot the plane. And managers manage.
Just how long will it take for BA cabin crew to realise this?
The fact that PC767 seems to think there is a power struggle between cabin crew and management as to who runs the company speaks volumes of just how deluded significant numbers of British Airways cabin crew seem to be. Have they not realised that cabin crew work in the cabin (the name of the role sort of gives it away). Pilots sit at the front and, well, pilot the plane. And managers manage.
Just how long will it take for BA cabin crew to realise this?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I only wish BA Press Office would publish a rebuttal in the same vain.
This is the rebuttal
However, in a statement responding to the survey, BA said it "utterly refutes Unite's claims".
"As a responsible company we do not tolerate the bullying or harassment of any of our 40,000 colleagues. The company has an established disciplinary process that is consistent across the airline, has been in place for many years and has been agreed with all of the airline's recognised trade unions, including Unite."
"As a responsible company we do not tolerate the bullying or harassment of any of our 40,000 colleagues. The company has an established disciplinary process that is consistent across the airline, has been in place for many years and has been agreed with all of the airline's recognised trade unions, including Unite."
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest from CC89/Amicus branch of Unite following their small huddle on 10th January:
10th January 2011 - Unite CC89 Member Meeting Report Back
The following is an abbreviated account of what happened at the Unite Cabin Crew 89 Members meeting on 10th Jan 2010. All details are not included as this is published on an open website. Full details can be obtained directly from the committee.
The day started with a quick meeting for the reps.
The meeting then began with an update of recent events and the current situation.
We know from Unite office that 250 of our 1200 members claimed strike pay, rather than the 35 or 40 that has been rumoured, which is over 20% of our membership.
It included a statement that we have seismically moved the debate during the last few weeks, especially when we rejected the offer which received support many people across the community.
National Officer Brian Boyd then addressed the meeting. He gave an update on the current legal situation which was welcomed by all. He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.
A discussion was had about the website and our future communications. An undertaking was given that we would continue to improve the service and a discussion was had about the cost of introducing a text service.
A discussion was had on the best way to handle the upcoming industrial action, whether it should be similar to past periods or not. A decision was taken.
A series of votes was then taken:
- any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.
- the dispute cannot be solely about staff travel or binding arbitration.
- support was given to the stand the committee had made and the publications we put out.
- the committee is required by the members to pursue a more vigorous approach to the dispute, and requested immediate dates for action when the ballot closed.
- the action should maximise the protected period
- reps must be allowed to attend the meetings.
A discussion was had and an explanation given about the significance of the Redeployment Agreement and Career-link, and the Employment Regs 2010 document, and the implications they have for us.
The members also asked that the close relationship with Bassa is furthered and continued for the good of the community as a whole. Recognition was given to the fact that Unite require a formal agreement for amalgamation and that is acceptable to the members, but every effort to retain a good deal of independence should be made. A vote and a positive result would be required under the CC89 constitution for this to go ahead.
Finally a reminder that . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE is the primary point for information. There is a new and improved email alert service and you can register for this on the website on the top right hand corner of the home page.
Once again a reminder that the emergency phone status has been downgraded and can be used to contact the reps for any and all enquiries from 09:00 - 18:00 for non emergency enquiries and 24 hours coverage for emergency operational calls.
The following is an abbreviated account of what happened at the Unite Cabin Crew 89 Members meeting on 10th Jan 2010. All details are not included as this is published on an open website. Full details can be obtained directly from the committee.
The day started with a quick meeting for the reps.
The meeting then began with an update of recent events and the current situation.
We know from Unite office that 250 of our 1200 members claimed strike pay, rather than the 35 or 40 that has been rumoured, which is over 20% of our membership.
It included a statement that we have seismically moved the debate during the last few weeks, especially when we rejected the offer which received support many people across the community.
National Officer Brian Boyd then addressed the meeting. He gave an update on the current legal situation which was welcomed by all. He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.
A discussion was had about the website and our future communications. An undertaking was given that we would continue to improve the service and a discussion was had about the cost of introducing a text service.
A discussion was had on the best way to handle the upcoming industrial action, whether it should be similar to past periods or not. A decision was taken.
A series of votes was then taken:
- any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.
- the dispute cannot be solely about staff travel or binding arbitration.
- support was given to the stand the committee had made and the publications we put out.
- the committee is required by the members to pursue a more vigorous approach to the dispute, and requested immediate dates for action when the ballot closed.
- the action should maximise the protected period
- reps must be allowed to attend the meetings.
A discussion was had and an explanation given about the significance of the Redeployment Agreement and Career-link, and the Employment Regs 2010 document, and the implications they have for us.
The members also asked that the close relationship with Bassa is furthered and continued for the good of the community as a whole. Recognition was given to the fact that Unite require a formal agreement for amalgamation and that is acceptable to the members, but every effort to retain a good deal of independence should be made. A vote and a positive result would be required under the CC89 constitution for this to go ahead.
Finally a reminder that . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE is the primary point for information. There is a new and improved email alert service and you can register for this on the website on the top right hand corner of the home page.
Once again a reminder that the emergency phone status has been downgraded and can be used to contact the reps for any and all enquiries from 09:00 - 18:00 for non emergency enquiries and 24 hours coverage for emergency operational calls.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 49
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baggers, you've competely missed my point. I was stating that I find the arguements on this thread a little tedious and you've replied with "he said, she said" arguement, about someone wearing pants! I'd say to you to try and rise above it, but it obviously bothers you.
I had every sympathy towards BA at the start of this strike when they were posting record losses.
However, I now think there's more to this than meets the eye. Look beyond the media coverage and there's some questions I find baffling.
BA have their much sought permanent and structural changes to cabin crew working conditions, with the introduction of a cheap labour resource with minimal employment rights. They appear to be back on the road to profit.
What, I can't get my head round is the continual bashing of cabin crew on here. Having worked off on the oil rigs, I understand the pressures involved with being away from family and believe me, it's no picnic (though the money softened the blow!).
What more do you people and your company want from the cabin crew? I reckon the majority of them are honest, decent and hard working people who take pride in their jobs. They're understandably concerned for their futures.
Protect the current crew from suffering too much future financial loss, big up the new crews hats, move on and enjoy the profits and dividends.
I had every sympathy towards BA at the start of this strike when they were posting record losses.
However, I now think there's more to this than meets the eye. Look beyond the media coverage and there's some questions I find baffling.
BA have their much sought permanent and structural changes to cabin crew working conditions, with the introduction of a cheap labour resource with minimal employment rights. They appear to be back on the road to profit.
What, I can't get my head round is the continual bashing of cabin crew on here. Having worked off on the oil rigs, I understand the pressures involved with being away from family and believe me, it's no picnic (though the money softened the blow!).
What more do you people and your company want from the cabin crew? I reckon the majority of them are honest, decent and hard working people who take pride in their jobs. They're understandably concerned for their futures.
Protect the current crew from suffering too much future financial loss, big up the new crews hats, move on and enjoy the profits and dividends.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moses,
Bizarrely enough, right back when, at the start of this mess, the company wasn't going to cut wages at all, new fleet was up for discussion between BASSA and the company and the only detriment to the Cabin Crew was the removal of one member on the aircraft.
When BASSA refused, steadfastly, to negotiate, claimed ridiculous cost savings on a temporary basis and threw a hissy fit at having to share discussions with other CC Unions they refused to negotiate further, thus the company imposed changes that were required to implement an emergency business plan.
Throughout this it has been BASSA that have been intransigent, beligerent and childish, not the individual crew members, many of whom have been caught up in the cross fire.
BASSA are the problem, with their small minority of militant members with the loudest shout.
I remember the rigs well! Hated those landing pads in the night! Long live the bears.
Protect the current crew from suffering too much future financial loss
When BASSA refused, steadfastly, to negotiate, claimed ridiculous cost savings on a temporary basis and threw a hissy fit at having to share discussions with other CC Unions they refused to negotiate further, thus the company imposed changes that were required to implement an emergency business plan.
Throughout this it has been BASSA that have been intransigent, beligerent and childish, not the individual crew members, many of whom have been caught up in the cross fire.
BASSA are the problem, with their small minority of militant members with the loudest shout.
I remember the rigs well! Hated those landing pads in the night! Long live the bears.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.
I realize that the nature of Cabin Crew's employment makes tracking conduct more difficult than those in a static workplace but am truly surprised that CC89/Amicus have so little information regarding the number of their members that actually went on strike at this late date.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.
- BA have the right to impose changes to crewing levels as they do not form part of the contract of employment of cabin crew members
- the agreements themselves are in fact "Gentlemen's agreements" and are not enforceable in law.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lord Bracken:
I agree. The crewing level change is a done deal...yet its still being discussed. Rather disheartening regarding any prospect of progress.
It certainly looks like continued IA and the rhetoric coming out of Unite/BASSA doesn't seem to be promising for reasonable negotiations.
I agree. The crewing level change is a done deal...yet its still being discussed. Rather disheartening regarding any prospect of progress.
It certainly looks like continued IA and the rhetoric coming out of Unite/BASSA doesn't seem to be promising for reasonable negotiations.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'the only detriment to the Cabin Crew was the removal of one member on the aircraft.'
Wirbelstrum.
I am sorry but that was not all that was required by BA to integrate Mixed Fleet, even way back at the beginning.
Speaking as one who would have liked Bassa and Amicus to negotiate on our behalf at the time, instead of arguing between each other,I still feel I have to correct you because BA always wanted changes to our agreements as well as the crew changes.
You see the problem with everyone having their own take on all of this is that most of you lack the complete facts and tend to simplify a really complicated dispute.
There is NO good side and bad side in this dispute, mistakes have been made on both sides and continue to be made on both sides. Many cabin crew are stuck in the middle, like myself, and are completely powerless to do anything about it. I have left the union and did not strike. That's all I could do but even those that have built up a mistrust of BA and decided to strike, still feel trapped in between two sets of children and helpless to do anything to stop it all.
I understand full well why BA have felt the need to start Mixed Fleet but has it been brought in as promised with market rate plus 10% salaries? NO it has not. Has it been brought in in a non-confrontational way? No. So even people like me who have been loyal to BA are starting to question whether they actually want a settlement!!!!
Wirbelstrum.
I am sorry but that was not all that was required by BA to integrate Mixed Fleet, even way back at the beginning.
Speaking as one who would have liked Bassa and Amicus to negotiate on our behalf at the time, instead of arguing between each other,I still feel I have to correct you because BA always wanted changes to our agreements as well as the crew changes.
You see the problem with everyone having their own take on all of this is that most of you lack the complete facts and tend to simplify a really complicated dispute.
There is NO good side and bad side in this dispute, mistakes have been made on both sides and continue to be made on both sides. Many cabin crew are stuck in the middle, like myself, and are completely powerless to do anything about it. I have left the union and did not strike. That's all I could do but even those that have built up a mistrust of BA and decided to strike, still feel trapped in between two sets of children and helpless to do anything to stop it all.
I understand full well why BA have felt the need to start Mixed Fleet but has it been brought in as promised with market rate plus 10% salaries? NO it has not. Has it been brought in in a non-confrontational way? No. So even people like me who have been loyal to BA are starting to question whether they actually want a settlement!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for the CC89/Amicus above:
And so they very neatly put in the public domain a document linking the current ballot (and therefore any strike) to the original dispute. 
(Or have I mis-interpreted the document?)
Surely someone in the Unions must realise that, despite it being obvious this is a continuation of the dispute, that they need to ensure they don't actually connect the two, hence making it possible to claim it is not connected. And by publicly stating they are connected, they are doing their members no favours at all.
They can't organise consecutive strikes without having a strategy to ensure they aren't connected, but think they can manage an airline....
- any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.
(Or have I mis-interpreted the document?)Surely someone in the Unions must realise that, despite it being obvious this is a continuation of the dispute, that they need to ensure they don't actually connect the two, hence making it possible to claim it is not connected. And by publicly stating they are connected, they are doing their members no favours at all.
They can't organise consecutive strikes without having a strategy to ensure they aren't connected, but think they can manage an airline....
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Maidenhead
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diplome
Does anyone remember what the last report of BASSA membership was before they removed it from their website? Does the 8975 represent further movement down?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, to have had new joiners integrated with existing CC, existing CC would have had to accept a reduction in the payments made for trips/allowances etc, more realistic 'disruption', days off away and at base and so on. This BASSA etc refused to consider.
That would presumably have involved some kind of overall pay cut, (with shares as a sweetener as with the pilots?) but the terms for new joiners may have been better as the same cake would be shared more equally?
Certainly the union could perhaps have realistically negotiated in an attempt to find an integrated solution, it's a little rich now to say how bad mixed fleet terms are, when, effectively, those looking out for existing CC could be said to have left MF to suffer in order to preserve existing CC terms. Ie the totally selfish option. (btw, this comment is not aimed at BG and the like, who I am sure would have negotiated if in a position to do so, more BASSA and it's latest ballot reasons, and various comments from existing crew I have seen on the BA section of cabincrew.com). Plus if they had at least tried negotiation, even if it failed, BA would be much more the PR loser.
The savings from IFCE are in two parts, 1) from existing CC by working less crew to an aircraft, but basically getting the same money as before, and 2) the lower pay of new joiners. Certainly I can't see any reason why existing CC should be immune from any budget savings just because new crew are coming in at a lower rate of pay. The rest of BA staff have had to live with the results of budget savings - largely the same way, same work, less people doing it - so should existing CC.
Just out of interest, how many crew on MF aircraft? If existing crew are working harder for keeping their higher salary, and the new crew are earning less anyway, there is an argument that they, MF, should either not work so hard, or, preferably, provide a better service to passengers, by having more crew on board. BA does keep going about MF offering better service, more crew per passenger might help achieve it.
That would presumably have involved some kind of overall pay cut, (with shares as a sweetener as with the pilots?) but the terms for new joiners may have been better as the same cake would be shared more equally?
Certainly the union could perhaps have realistically negotiated in an attempt to find an integrated solution, it's a little rich now to say how bad mixed fleet terms are, when, effectively, those looking out for existing CC could be said to have left MF to suffer in order to preserve existing CC terms. Ie the totally selfish option. (btw, this comment is not aimed at BG and the like, who I am sure would have negotiated if in a position to do so, more BASSA and it's latest ballot reasons, and various comments from existing crew I have seen on the BA section of cabincrew.com). Plus if they had at least tried negotiation, even if it failed, BA would be much more the PR loser.
The savings from IFCE are in two parts, 1) from existing CC by working less crew to an aircraft, but basically getting the same money as before, and 2) the lower pay of new joiners. Certainly I can't see any reason why existing CC should be immune from any budget savings just because new crew are coming in at a lower rate of pay. The rest of BA staff have had to live with the results of budget savings - largely the same way, same work, less people doing it - so should existing CC.
Just out of interest, how many crew on MF aircraft? If existing crew are working harder for keeping their higher salary, and the new crew are earning less anyway, there is an argument that they, MF, should either not work so hard, or, preferably, provide a better service to passengers, by having more crew on board. BA does keep going about MF offering better service, more crew per passenger might help achieve it.
Last edited by just an observer; 14th Jan 2011 at 17:34.