BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV

[MPN11]

Post Stats ....

"BA v. BASSA" = 5361
Current CC Thread = 3571
TOTAL = 8932


SLF Part 1 = 2260
SLF Part 2 = 2277
SLF Part 3 = 1878
SLF Part 4 = 1061
TOTAL = 7476

Overall = 16,408

[call100]

Originally Posted by jetset lady

Coming from someone that lacks the emotional intelligence to concur that they may have been incorrect on certain points despite being told by someone with direct knowledge of the situation, I find that quite hard to take. (The lack of manners in refusing to even acknowledge the poster/s, I put down to good old ignorance.)

I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing more than a bumph specialist, VintageKrug. Lots of pretty words that, when analysed, turn out to have very little substance and generally say the same thing over and over again. Ancient Observer has been involved in this thread from the very start and while we don't always agree, I have far more respect for what he has to say on the subject than someone who appears to have fallen into the trap of believing in their own publicity. Looking at the number of regular posters that have drifted away, I'd guess I'm not the only one. (Then again, that could also be because there is very little left to say that hasn't already been said...)

Thank goodness. I was beginning to think it was only me that thought that!!

[Mr Optimistic]

16408

Top marks that man. Now at 1 minute to write a post and say 30 reads at 30 seconds each......16 minutes of human existence extinguished with each post. It is surely a humanitarian disaster.

[MPN11]

Revised figures!!

I found more! Indeed, there are even more than this, but the sun's shining and I have other things to do

BA CC Strike Threat = 1074
BA CC Industrial Relations IV = 3713
BA CC Industrial Relations V =3882
BA v. BASSA = 5361
Current CC Thread = 3571
TOTAL = 14,101
..................
BA CC Strike Threats = 370
SLF Part 1 = 2260
SLF Part 2 = 2277
SLF Part 3 = 1878
SLF Part 4 = 1061
TOTAL = 7,846

Overall = 21,947

I think the Moderators deserve a round of applause for handling all this, especially given the heat generated by the subject.

[VintageKrug]

Does anyone have the youtube link with the BASSA "no to negotiation" show of hands?

I hear mention of it, esp. from Wibelsturm (apols if spelled incorrectly, will correct at som stage!) but haven't been able to find it.

[Ancient Observer]

JSL. Thank you for those kind words.

Let's hope that Litebulbs keeps contributing. I wouldn't want our temp. wind-up merchant to put off LB.

It is interesting that posting on sites such as this can reveal an individual's lack of emotional (and other) intelligence. Whether it is arrogance (e.g. BAE) or reveals a real problem with a 15 year old moving towards Autism cannot be diagnosed from here. A very good friend of mine works with Autistic children. They really do need a great deal of help.

[Neptunus Rex]

Utter boredom

Mods,

As this thread has become so utterly tiresome, but I know that you have to monitor it, could you please give the rest of us a "Heads Up" when anything of consequence is posted?

Perhaps start a new tread: "BA - Action at last," or something apposite.

[mrpony]

Boring......

Humbug.
This thread was far better in the old days!
People just don't know how to behave on this thread nowadays!

What is the end game?
Surely BASSA (as currently led) will never be able to agree anything and as it appears to have the veto over anything Unite agrees it will take BASSA's leadership, and perhaps some elements of its constitution, to change before this dispute can be considered truly over.

On the CC thread there is an interesting exchange about what might end the dispute. With respect to all posting, shouldn't it be obvious that before the end, BASSA needs a new beginning?

[GrahamO]

How do you negotiate with any opposing party when this is what the opposite side of the table have to deal with ....

I have no issue with Unite handling initial negotiations provided that the negotiator is correctly and fully briefed of cabin crew expectations, and does not commit to any decisions without refering back to bassa in the first instance.

In other words, you give your negotiator, no authority, no power and just a set of ears. No acceptance of any change without a vote of the 'bruvvers' on every issue, so its pointless meeting to 'agree' anything. May as well just post a list of demands and demand that the company to give in to everything ...... hang on a minute , where have I seen that ?

No wonder BA don't want to waste their time dealing with either part of the union, as anyone they are going to talk to cannot agree to anything. Just like before .

[mrpony]

Graham O

A bit harsh that. I've done some quite high level negotiations in my time and some have involved recourse after recourse to a controlling authority.

The problem identified by PC767 is that the BASSA leadership can't be trusted in a negotiation whether sat at the table or not. This reinforces my point above.

Can this whole thing end with LM, DH et al in place or do they have to 'cleansed' from their position? I am sure it's the latter. If so how to get them out?

[Manchikeri]

MissM has enlightened us thus:

I think you, and many others, are not actually understanding what the strike was all about. It was about the principle of imposition, not the actual fact that a crew member was removed and the CSD role became a service role. Many of you seem to think that's it all about the CSD having to do a bit of work onboard.

That, of all the thousands of messages posted over the last two years, sums up this benighted and miserable dispute.

[Manchikeri]

More from the pen of MissM:

If BASSA withdrew the facilities agreement, why is almost nobody talking about it?

Perhaps, MissM, because if any rank and file member of BASSA has the temerity to question the branch secretary with elemental questions such as that, he/she runs the risk of being told to Foxtrot Oscar?

Why don't you ask that very pertinent question, MissM, and report back here on DH's response?

If you dare, that is.

[Capot]

Overall = 21,947

It was about the principle of imposition, not the actual fact that a crew member was removed and the CSD role became a service role. Many of you seem to think that's it all about the CSD having to do a bit of work onboard.

I've been following this over the last week or so, only because some time ago I booked a BA flight for Mrs C 'n me next Thursday, rather against my better judgement but the price and timings were right.

What the statistics demonstrate, yet again, is that with the British there is a direct correlation between the utter, futile triviality of a cause and the amount of time your assembled barrack-room lawyers, observers, simpletons, participants, stirrers and others will devote to pointless disection of its most unimportant details, together with snide abuse of anyone who disagrees with them.

Remind me of when this nonsense started. Was it in 2009? Or was it 5 decades earlier? It seems to have been going on for ever.

If a hard core of BA CC want to strike, no matter how ineffectual that might be, for God's sake just do it and get it out of your systems. You never know, someone may notice.

The rest of the country just doesn't give a toss about your grievances, such as they may be. We are worried about swingeing cuts in public expenditure, loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, keeping our businesses solvent, our reducing incomes, launching into yet another bloody war, horrific loss of life and runaway nuclear accidents in Japan, and so on.

Guess what; we are NOT worried about the self-esteem, loss of staff travel, incomes, or even the jobs, of a number of BA's cabin staff.

I'm now reasonably certain that my BA flight will operate as planned this week, probably with pleasant and competent cabin staff working normally, so I'll stop reading this thread before I go into meltdown.

[mrpony]

Capot

Have a lie down. Perhaps consider taking up meditation, or painting.

[MPN11]

Originally Posted by Capot

I'm now reasonably certain that my BA flight will operate as planned this week ...

Well, they have done over the last 12 months, including when there were strikes actually taking place. I know, I've flown through a couple of them without any significant problems. There is no strike, nor announcement of strike, nor anything ... except normal BA operations. I'm still making forward bookings, as I have been since this whole thing started.

As you've only been following this subject for the last week or so, I suppose your uncertainty is understandable. Perhaps your "rather against my better judgement but the price and timings were right" comment implies you really weren't really bothered?

PS ... please skip the ad hominem tactic. There's enough of that already from folks who understand the story.

[GrahamO]

@mrpony

A bit harsh that. I've done some quite high level negotiations in my time and some have involved recourse after recourse to a controlling authority.

My point was not about how you felt about the approach, but how the other party feels. I suspect they were frustrated to be speaking to a monkey with whom they could not reach agreement, rather than the organ grinder. My appraoch in such matters when confronted with 'I am sorry but I have to go back and speak to my members' is to adjourn and ask them to send someone with the authority to negotiate after due consideration, and not to send a note taker.

One will always have to refer to subject matter experts in details technical areas but it sounds like they sent you in to agree to very little and to report back. Professional negotiators are given limits and work within them without reference back as long as they stay within those limits. This is why professionals will often refuse to go in on behalf of one party for example, who might say 'no negotiation' as they know its pointless.

[mrpony]

Graham O

You're entitled to an opinion.
To my mind it depends very much on what the negotiation is about. I've done some money-only deals worth tens of millions with a preset negotiating range of several million quid - easy and I usually do alright in this gunslinger's game. POW!
When it comes to negotiating deals about the meaning of words, it becomes trickier involving as it inevitably does the attention of other specialists and referencing back to clients/customers/colleagues/directors who all seem to have a view about what words mean.
I think you oversimplify.

P.S. Back to thread - it's the softer and wordier type of deal that this IA involves. There has never been a time when it was a bish bash bosh poker-hand type deal.

[VintageKrug]

Can this whole thing end with LM, DH et al in place or do they have to 'cleansed' from their position? I am sure it's the latter. If so how to get them out?

And this is the point indeed.

The first step on this road is for BASSA members to take an interest in the running of their own £1.5m++ per annum Union Branch; not with the expectation of finding fraud, for which there is no evidence, but to ensure that when the reins do get passed on (likely in October 2011, not unrelated to pensionable ages of DH/LM if "events" do not conspire for earlier elections to be held) that there is "new blood" unconnected with the disastrous decisions of the existing rep team which understands what has gone on in the past.

THAT is why the issue of transparency of the BASSA accounts is so important.

The law relating to transparency of TU accounts is here:

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992

The refusal to make accounts available to a former BASSA member is here:

BASSA wrote:

Dear XXXXXX,

Your request for the audited accounts of the BASSA branch of Unite have been forwarded to me by XXXXX XXXXX.
...
We have been told by the branch secretary that the accounts you are seeking are not available at this time. If at any time in the future they do become available for members and ex members to view, we will endeavour to make that known to you. As is common practice we will always insist that you view such accounts unaccompanied on Unite premises and in the strictest confidence......

In solidarity,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The link for BASSA members to do something about it is here:

Certification Officer - Complaints

And the link to the Samaritans (and a rather sweaty man...) for those who have lost the will to live after so many pages, is here:

Samaritans Home Page-->

[Chuchinchow]

This is the third (or possibly even the fourth) time you have cut and pasted the now stale BASSA response letter, not to mention the links to the Certifying Officer and to the Samaritans and to the TULR(C) Act, Vintage Krug.

Do not underestimate us: I assure you that we did read it all the first time you trotted it out - notwithstanding your downright rude and boorish

I am sorry if such discussion exceeds your intellectual capabilities.

We also read it on its second outing.

And the third.

So please: either take your cutting and pasting techniques elsewhere or add something new and substantive to the discussion.

[mrpony]

I wonder why an intelligent person would repeatedly post up information of the sort being complained about above, despite complaints previously? Think about it.