BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The words that ChicoG put in his quote are
The actual works used by Glamgirl were
which was in support of jetset lady who said
"...As we all can see, you are rather good at some research, however, when crew tell you what the real story is, please accept it."
VK, as we all can see, you are rather good at some research, however, when crew tell you what the real story is, please accept it.
So not only do you completely ignore my explanation of, as you so quaintly call it, "ClubWorldLondonCityGate" VintageKrug, but you then go on to post the same incorrect information on another thread. Re-posting it here won't make it any closer to the truth than it was on the passenger thread.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And in case one wishes to know what jetset lady stands for, she says
It is a real kick in the teeth knowing that some of the most militant strikers will probably get more of a bonus, even pro rata, than my £400 I'll get despite being a full time purser of five years and operating the LCY-JFK route.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
. LGW - 27/07/09 - Fisher - Failure to Agree
Which doesn't change the fact that BASSA has had a far wider reaching influence on the operation, tends to start from the standpoint of saying "no" rather than "yes" and rarely proposes smarter ways of working which actually help crew make the service better for passengers, and, indirectly, better for those delivering it.
Hopefully Mixed Fleet, and indeed the advent of management actually flying as crew in the VCC programme, will ensure such issues are fed back properly and changes made for the benefit of all, and without BASSA interference.
It still doesn't change the fact that BASSA is leading its membership into an unprotected strike and specifically exposing strikers to being fired, without recourse to unfair dismissal.
Which doesn't change the fact that BASSA has had a far wider reaching influence on the operation, tends to start from the standpoint of saying "no" rather than "yes" and rarely proposes smarter ways of working which actually help crew make the service better for passengers, and, indirectly, better for those delivering it.
Hopefully Mixed Fleet, and indeed the advent of management actually flying as crew in the VCC programme, will ensure such issues are fed back properly and changes made for the benefit of all, and without BASSA interference.
It still doesn't change the fact that BASSA is leading its membership into an unprotected strike and specifically exposing strikers to being fired, without recourse to unfair dismissal.
Last edited by VintageKrug; 6th Mar 2011 at 14:44.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sussex,UK
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which doesn't change the fact that BASSA has had a far wider reaching influence on the operation, tends to start from the standpoint of saying "no" rather than "yes" and rarely proposes smarter ways of working which actually help crew make the service better for passengers, and, indirectly, better for those delivering it.
But regardless of all that, once again, it was BA that dropped the a la carte dining idea. Unite had nothing to do with it and merely reported the results of the trials to it's members. Why can you not accept that VintageKrug? Is it so hard to admit that maybe you shouldn't have included that link? I'm no BASSA supporter as I think most know but at the same time, I refuse to try to make the facts fit my theories when, in this case, they plainly don't!
Last edited by jetset lady; 6th Mar 2011 at 14:07. Reason: Thought the better of it....
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In another place MissM poses the question:
Not the P45 rumour again, please. Even before the first strike in March last year there were rumours that anyone going on strike would be issued their P45.
If BA would have any intention of actually going ahead with it surely they would have issued them earlier when they had the chance? Why have they gone to court on several occassions for an injuction when they instead could have allowed us to go on strike and issue our P45?
I think the answers may be:
1. BA has to act to minimise IA-related losses for shareholders' benefit.
2. BA owes a duty of care to all its employees - something it wouldn't have been doing if it had ignored the ballots' shortcomings.
Unless anyone has any other or better ideas?
Not the P45 rumour again, please. Even before the first strike in March last year there were rumours that anyone going on strike would be issued their P45.
If BA would have any intention of actually going ahead with it surely they would have issued them earlier when they had the chance? Why have they gone to court on several occassions for an injuction when they instead could have allowed us to go on strike and issue our P45?
I think the answers may be:
1. BA has to act to minimise IA-related losses for shareholders' benefit.
2. BA owes a duty of care to all its employees - something it wouldn't have been doing if it had ignored the ballots' shortcomings.
Unless anyone has any other or better ideas?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrpony
Quote .......... If you read the relevant clauses highlighted by VK in an earlier post as follows........the matter of the legal requirement to hold regular Branch Elections, every five years, contained within section 46-53 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1992.......Etc.....
I agree with what you and VK say - but - I have never said that what BASSA appears to have done and are doing, was in any sense legal or illegal, but it is a matter of some curiosity.
As we all know, you cannot make accusations without proof of such possible malpractices and, without copies of BASSA'a own Rules & Regulations and minutes prior to and after the linkup with Unite, and ideally a copy of the Agreement when they "joined" Unite it would seem that any evidence either way would be difficult to find.
However, thinking as an aside, figures for any income/disbursements by BASSA as a standalone entity prior to becoming part of Unite and, any such for BASSA following their becoming a "Branch" or whatever with Unite would be useful, including any political payments to the Labour party, SWP, etc., or Unite, or within BASSA, in determining the amounts of possible income/surplus - that might make interesting reading, if anybody can find any information!!.
A thought, I wonder if Reps were ever given a standard income/payment by BASSA at any time in the last 5 years - does anybody know (for certain, not as an 'I think' or rumour) and I know that it would be unusual, but curiosity calls, in fact is there any form of up to date Reps list?, as in theory Bassa cannot elect any reps at present, and they are supposed to have lost a fair few in the past 18 months for various reasons.
At least it beats Sunday TV and Ice Dancing!!.
I agree with what you and VK say - but - I have never said that what BASSA appears to have done and are doing, was in any sense legal or illegal, but it is a matter of some curiosity.
As we all know, you cannot make accusations without proof of such possible malpractices and, without copies of BASSA'a own Rules & Regulations and minutes prior to and after the linkup with Unite, and ideally a copy of the Agreement when they "joined" Unite it would seem that any evidence either way would be difficult to find.
However, thinking as an aside, figures for any income/disbursements by BASSA as a standalone entity prior to becoming part of Unite and, any such for BASSA following their becoming a "Branch" or whatever with Unite would be useful, including any political payments to the Labour party, SWP, etc., or Unite, or within BASSA, in determining the amounts of possible income/surplus - that might make interesting reading, if anybody can find any information!!.
A thought, I wonder if Reps were ever given a standard income/payment by BASSA at any time in the last 5 years - does anybody know (for certain, not as an 'I think' or rumour) and I know that it would be unusual, but curiosity calls, in fact is there any form of up to date Reps list?, as in theory Bassa cannot elect any reps at present, and they are supposed to have lost a fair few in the past 18 months for various reasons.
At least it beats Sunday TV and Ice Dancing!!.
Interesting that Miss M has faith that her evil employer that sacks BASSA members for trivial reasons, and is out to union bust, will not sack her or her fellow BASSA members on the next, unprotected strike.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
@ Mariner9
Agree completely.
MissM has supreme confidence in the rights of her cause, which is fine.
The downside is her slight failure to grasp the realities as seen from different perspectives.
If MissM really exists as BA CC, I suspect the future holds a few pitfalls for her and some of her colleagues.
There will inevitably come a point when BA will take whatever legal action is necessary to end this farrago. The "P45 Option" is certainly one of those, especially as BASSA seems determined to lead CC into unprotected IA.
MissM has supreme confidence in the rights of her cause, which is fine.
The downside is her slight failure to grasp the realities as seen from different perspectives.
If MissM really exists as BA CC, I suspect the future holds a few pitfalls for her and some of her colleagues.
There will inevitably come a point when BA will take whatever legal action is necessary to end this farrago. The "P45 Option" is certainly one of those, especially as BASSA seems determined to lead CC into unprotected IA.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree this latest strike would be the first launched in this country, let alone for UNite, without "protection" for some considerable time.
All employers have the right to sack strikers, without any recourse to be re-instated, even under a "protected" strike; it's only the amount of compensation for "unfair dismissal" which might vary.
Under unprotected action, no compensation for unfair dismissal is due.
More likely than issuing P45 will be a SOSR compulsion to sign, individually and within 90 days, the deal agreed by Unite last year (including protecting their current T&Cs and a pay rise) or be dismissed, without recourse to unfair dismissal compensation.
Hopefully by that time Unite will have its troublesome branch in order, or have formed another "branch" to develop a more productive framework for future industrial relations within BA, or it will have left its members sorely unrepresented.
Now, where are those accounts! 9 days to go!
All employers have the right to sack strikers, without any recourse to be re-instated, even under a "protected" strike; it's only the amount of compensation for "unfair dismissal" which might vary.
Under unprotected action, no compensation for unfair dismissal is due.
More likely than issuing P45 will be a SOSR compulsion to sign, individually and within 90 days, the deal agreed by Unite last year (including protecting their current T&Cs and a pay rise) or be dismissed, without recourse to unfair dismissal compensation.
Hopefully by that time Unite will have its troublesome branch in order, or have formed another "branch" to develop a more productive framework for future industrial relations within BA, or it will have left its members sorely unrepresented.
Now, where are those accounts! 9 days to go!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
... a SOSR compulsion to sign, within 90 days, the deal agreed by Unite last year (including protecting their current T&Cs and a pay rise) or be dismissed, without recourse to unfair dismissal compensation.
There is a mind-set amongst some of the CC that signing up to an agreement that preserves their existing T&C represents capitulation. They should really consider the options, instead of simply posturing.
However, "You can lead a horse to water ..."
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan Tripp
Juan, with apologies for the delay in responding to your question, out & about ..........
"what do you mean by ' A Union Pension'. Surely they don't get one of those, as they are only running the branch. Happy to be put right".
As I understand it, the union pensions for the BASSA officers, were probably agreed to, by a change in the BASSA rules prior to joining Unite, possibly proposed/voted into being by the BASSA officers of the time. Of course, at that time they were running a complete union rather than just a 'Branch', with of course the resulting responsibilities and, working for BA. I presume that Malone was already living in LA then, so must have been very busy on Atlantic crossings.
Could I ask that if you can add anything to this or my earlier post today, please PM me. Many thanks and again, apologies for delay in response.
Cheers
"what do you mean by ' A Union Pension'. Surely they don't get one of those, as they are only running the branch. Happy to be put right".
As I understand it, the union pensions for the BASSA officers, were probably agreed to, by a change in the BASSA rules prior to joining Unite, possibly proposed/voted into being by the BASSA officers of the time. Of course, at that time they were running a complete union rather than just a 'Branch', with of course the resulting responsibilities and, working for BA. I presume that Malone was already living in LA then, so must have been very busy on Atlantic crossings.
Could I ask that if you can add anything to this or my earlier post today, please PM me. Many thanks and again, apologies for delay in response.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I genuinely do not believe BA will sack strikers (not least because I don't think there will be any more strikes). Everything BA has done has followed a clear warning as to its intentions and sacking strikers would deny BA any claim to the moral high ground.
If Unite was sufficiently concerned to call off the last strike ballot, then I doubt it will call an unprotected strike.
I imagine if BA does threaten to sue Unite and Unite then calls off the strike, then I'm sure it will claim that this was a complete surprise by BA, even though BA first intimated that any future strike would be a contiuation of the first strike 9 months ago!
As for the ballot result, I don't think anyone is expecting anything else than a yes vote, but it will be interesting to see how the Yes vote moves from the last amount of ~5,700 and whether we get below the 4,000 mark.
If Unite was sufficiently concerned to call off the last strike ballot, then I doubt it will call an unprotected strike.
I imagine if BA does threaten to sue Unite and Unite then calls off the strike, then I'm sure it will claim that this was a complete surprise by BA, even though BA first intimated that any future strike would be a contiuation of the first strike 9 months ago!
As for the ballot result, I don't think anyone is expecting anything else than a yes vote, but it will be interesting to see how the Yes vote moves from the last amount of ~5,700 and whether we get below the 4,000 mark.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question
According to Wikipedia BASSA were part of The Transport and General Workers' Union which in 2007 merged with Amicus to form Unite.____link1
It a constant cause of confusion in my mind that the other aircrew branch of Unite - cc89 uses the name Amicus (instead of cc89) - and even the Courts refer to the two branches as BASSA & Amicus.
Wikipedia lists the dates and names of Unions that merged into The Transport and General Workers' Union during the years 1922 to 2006._ However BASSA is not on this list.____link2
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that BALPA is an independent Trade Union (i.e. not a branch) and therefore has more rights and more legal obligations than BASSA or cc89.
My question is - when did BASSA cease to be an independent Trade Union and become instead a branch of T&GWU?
It a constant cause of confusion in my mind that the other aircrew branch of Unite - cc89 uses the name Amicus (instead of cc89) - and even the Courts refer to the two branches as BASSA & Amicus.
Wikipedia lists the dates and names of Unions that merged into The Transport and General Workers' Union during the years 1922 to 2006._ However BASSA is not on this list.____link2
Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that BALPA is an independent Trade Union (i.e. not a branch) and therefore has more rights and more legal obligations than BASSA or cc89.
My question is - when did BASSA cease to be an independent Trade Union and become instead a branch of T&GWU?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I genuinely do not believe BA will sack strikers (not least because I don't think there will be any more strikes). Everything BA has done has followed a clear warning as to its intentions and sacking strikers would deny BA any claim to the moral high ground.
If Unite was sufficiently concerned to call off the last strike ballot, then I doubt it will call an unprotected strike.
I imagine if BA does threaten to sue Unite and Unite then calls off the strike, then I'm sure it will claim that this was a complete surprise by BA, even though BA first intimated that any future strike would be a contiuation of the first strike 9 months ago!
As for the ballot result, I don't think anyone is expecting anything else than a yes vote, but it will be interesting to see how the Yes vote moves from the last amount of ~5,700 and whether we get below the 4,000 mark.
If Unite was sufficiently concerned to call off the last strike ballot, then I doubt it will call an unprotected strike.
I imagine if BA does threaten to sue Unite and Unite then calls off the strike, then I'm sure it will claim that this was a complete surprise by BA, even though BA first intimated that any future strike would be a contiuation of the first strike 9 months ago!
As for the ballot result, I don't think anyone is expecting anything else than a yes vote, but it will be interesting to see how the Yes vote moves from the last amount of ~5,700 and whether we get below the 4,000 mark.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VK
I have a basic understanding of the law and I cannot find any legislation that states that the potential action will be unprotected. It may, but that will be a matter for the courts.
Just because some think that it will, does not mean it will be.
Just because some think that it will, does not mean it will be.
If I may, I am no lawyer but it clearly states the conditions for unprotected action here (perhaps you missed it);
Taking part in industrial action : Directgov - Employment
Approximately halfway down it states "If you continue to take part in protected industrial action for more than 12 weeks your rights are different. If you are dismissed for taking part after the end of the 12 weeks your dismissal will only be unfair if, at the time of your dismissal, your employer has not followed reasonable steps to settle the dispute with the trade union."
BA negotiated with UNITE and had an agreement with the union - this is not in doubt. The union members rejected that agreement (as is their right). BA have offered to have talks with UNITE and thus far nobody at UNITE has picked up the phone. BA do not have to pick up the phone, just to act reasonably. Note that BA have to show reasonable steps to settle the dispute with the UNION, not the members and not a branch.
BA has followed reasonable steps to settle the dispute and so any action would not be protected..... IMO. The law is very clear, but I concur that a court will decide, or as personally believe, confirm that BA have been reasonable, and that action is unprotected.
Taking part in industrial action : Directgov - Employment
Approximately halfway down it states "If you continue to take part in protected industrial action for more than 12 weeks your rights are different. If you are dismissed for taking part after the end of the 12 weeks your dismissal will only be unfair if, at the time of your dismissal, your employer has not followed reasonable steps to settle the dispute with the trade union."
BA negotiated with UNITE and had an agreement with the union - this is not in doubt. The union members rejected that agreement (as is their right). BA have offered to have talks with UNITE and thus far nobody at UNITE has picked up the phone. BA do not have to pick up the phone, just to act reasonably. Note that BA have to show reasonable steps to settle the dispute with the UNION, not the members and not a branch.
BA has followed reasonable steps to settle the dispute and so any action would not be protected..... IMO. The law is very clear, but I concur that a court will decide, or as personally believe, confirm that BA have been reasonable, and that action is unprotected.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GrahamO
That would be correct if this was a continuation of an existing dispute; in this case the crewing level issues.
Unite believe and I would hope have sought legal opinion, that the issues being balloted are new and not connected to the previous strikes. Many on here do not agree with that.
Unite believe and I would hope have sought legal opinion, that the issues being balloted are new and not connected to the previous strikes. Many on here do not agree with that.
Many people believe the world is flat despite evidence to the contrary. Even when presented wth photo's taken from space they deny it.
A cursory reading of the 10 points raised in the latest BASSA in common old plain English, reads to me like items 1 2 and 3 are clearly related to the first dispute, given away by use of the term "related to the original dispute" on one item. Item 1 refers to events which occurred as a result of the first strike, as does item 2.
FWIW, Item 4 is a general point, 5 is emotive and unspecific and cannot be addressed as it represents opinion of one party over another when there is no cardinal test in law, item 6 is laughable but probably unrelated to the first strike, item 7 to 10 - no idea if they are related to the first strike however ridiculous I may feel they are.
When one party is being unreasonable to the man on the Clapham Omnibus, in its demands (viz items 6 to 10), the effect is to lower the bar for the employer to show he has been reasonable, evidenced by the clear unreasonable demands of the union. Thats how judges and courts react - the law favours reasonableness in general and someone demanding the world be turned upside down before agreeing to anything else is likely to be harming their own case. IMO this is why UNITE are holding BASSA back - they know that the reasonableness test will fail.
I respect your views Litebulbs, but there a really are too many Flat earthers out there - and FWIW I wholeheartedly agree that the courts throwing out the recent BA case was the right result The union won because it was reasonable and BA were not.
A cursory reading of the 10 points raised in the latest BASSA in common old plain English, reads to me like items 1 2 and 3 are clearly related to the first dispute, given away by use of the term "related to the original dispute" on one item. Item 1 refers to events which occurred as a result of the first strike, as does item 2.
FWIW, Item 4 is a general point, 5 is emotive and unspecific and cannot be addressed as it represents opinion of one party over another when there is no cardinal test in law, item 6 is laughable but probably unrelated to the first strike, item 7 to 10 - no idea if they are related to the first strike however ridiculous I may feel they are.
When one party is being unreasonable to the man on the Clapham Omnibus, in its demands (viz items 6 to 10), the effect is to lower the bar for the employer to show he has been reasonable, evidenced by the clear unreasonable demands of the union. Thats how judges and courts react - the law favours reasonableness in general and someone demanding the world be turned upside down before agreeing to anything else is likely to be harming their own case. IMO this is why UNITE are holding BASSA back - they know that the reasonableness test will fail.
I respect your views Litebulbs, but there a really are too many Flat earthers out there - and FWIW I wholeheartedly agree that the courts throwing out the recent BA case was the right result The union won because it was reasonable and BA were not.