Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions V

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions V

Old 2nd Apr 2011, 23:18
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
west lakes

I believe that Bassa have a constitution that does not allow this.
Litebulbs is online now  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 23:21
  #302 (permalink)  
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Litebulbs

And that is the central bit of confusion, when the Unite rules state at the beginning that they are the only rules applicable to Unite members. How then can a branch have it's own constitution?
west lakes is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 23:26
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now I am trying to recall from here and nowhere else, so I could be completely wrong, but wasn't there an adjustment after the 97 dispute? Oh, and Unite are a lay representative driven union. The biggest branch does bring in the buck
Litebulbs is online now  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 23:31
  #304 (permalink)  
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the change occurred when Unite called off a strike

My thoughts to regarding the bucks.

I wonder if any other branches are allowed their own constitution and what would be the reaction if a branch decided it wanted one
west lakes is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 23:38
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Litebulbs - "It is a trade dispute, no more no less."

I completely disagree.

It is a power struggle as to who controls BA's IFCE operations.

Did you honestly believe BASSA was ever going to accept the BA/Woodley brokered deal? BA knew they were safe in offering that deal that BASSA would reject it. If BA thought for one moment it would have been accepted they would never have come to an agreement with Woodley in the first place.

BA knew BASSA would reject it which would then let them off the hook on not having to negotiate any further. BA needed something to reasonably justify not negotiating otherwise they would have been seen to not be wearing the white hat in attempting to resolve the dispute.

BA cannot come to any agreement that leaves the current leadership of BASSA intact otherwise BASSA will simply kick-up again and again and again within a matter of months. If it's not hot towels it will be not closing window blinds. If it is not extra payments for non-functional lights in the crew rest areas it will be some other unhelpful matter and every time it will be "we'll strike and strike and strike until we're sick"!

Don't you see that this is all about power but no-one can admit that is what it is about? BA cannot say openly "we do not like your choice in Union branch leadership and until you change it we will not settle". Rather all they can do is appear to be negotiating reasonably while continually finding plausible reasons not to settle and hoping all the time that BASSA's leadership will self combust.

Am I the only one who sees this?

Last edited by AV Flyer; 2nd Apr 2011 at 23:49.
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 23:41
  #306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Personally speaking, I would not want one. I work for my employer, but my union give me the facility to collectively negotiate with them and this is because of the law.

Until I see employers move out from the umbrella of legislation, then a union member I will remain.

Just take DH for example. This was such a high profile case in this dispute, if what BA and pprune says is true, then it was a cut and dry case. Just think if BA had offered binding arbitration as its first option.
Litebulbs is online now  
Old 2nd Apr 2011, 23:46
  #307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AV Flyer

Forgive me if you are a current Bassa crew member, but if you are not, it doesn't matter what you see. If you believe this thread, then we have got an "Im Spartacus" situation and the next 50 reps will step in.

BASSAwitch could be key in this, with the information that may be forthcoming. If it turns out that any rep is being paid anything above reasonable expenses and reimbursement of loss of flight allowances etc, then I am sure that it will be a tipping point.
Litebulbs is online now  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 00:11
  #308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Litebulbs

I agree with you entirely that it matters not one jot what I see.

However, BA will not settle, nor has it any reason to be forced to settle, with the current BASSA leadership with its "We decide what goes on here or we'll strike" approach to working with BA management in implementing BA's IFCE operations.

The sooner that Unite and the rank-and-file CC realise this and do something to change it's WW CC branch's postion to understand that "BA's management make the operational decisions while listening carefully to CC's valuable input" then the sooner their negotiating position will improve.

I would go as far as suggesting if Unite bring BASSA under control in this way, BA would not only hand back staff travel, agree terms to protect WW fleet against MF fleet erosion (they've already offered this God knows how many times) as you have suggested and maybe, just maybe even, if the Union has good intelligent and skillful negotiators, manage to have all suspended employees reinstated or something close to this.

In order to reach the best settlement a good negotiator needs to understand the true concerns of his adversary (not always stated or obvious) and stopping thinking of this as "just a simple trade dispute" while understanding the reality that it is a "monumental power struggle that no-one is allowed to mention" will bring about the desired favourable settlement in the shortest possible time.

But then again maybe I am the only one that sees it this way!

Last edited by AV Flyer; 3rd Apr 2011 at 00:37.
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 00:21
  #309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would have read better if I had said what we see, so apologies for that.
Litebulbs is online now  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 00:29
  #310 (permalink)  
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AV

I can't help but think that some of your suggestions might be a step to far for "on-side" crew.
From one point of view if BA concede too much it will be grabbed by the more militant members and seen as a victory for them taking/threatening IA.
It will also disillusion some of the less militant who will see that their support has been futile if the militant crew get their own way!
west lakes is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 07:42
  #311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Litebulbs
The print unions went because of technology (simplistic I know), but crew will be here to stay.
But there's an element of technological change for crew too.

In the past there was an element of "danger money" as aircraft were more likely to be involved in incidents, the on board environment was less pleasant to work in (noisier, unpressurised, turbulent), fewer crew facilities on board (e.g. dedicated crew rest), more en route stops (with all the related extra work), and the focus on food presentation as the "in flight entertainment" requiring crew to put extra effort into this aspect of the service.

Passengers now have great IFE, flat beds to promote sleeping, pre-prepared food, and although still important, passengers are less focussed on crew to ensure they have an enjoyable flight. That's not to say they're not important, they are, especially from a safety perspective, but crew are less critical to a successful experience than might have been the case a generation ago.

Virgin America now uses its IFE system to order drinks and food, and if it's not already happening, there are plenty of ways technology can be deployed to lessen the cabin crews' workload.

Last edited by VintageKrug; 3rd Apr 2011 at 08:02. Reason: its not it's
VintageKrug is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 09:19
  #312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The items of dispute are as follow.

1. The immediate restoration of staff travel concessions, in full, to the crew from whom they were taken.
2. Binding arbitration, through ACAS, of all cabin crew disciplinary cases related to the original dispute.
3. The restoration of all earnings docked from crew who were genuinely off sick during strike dates.
4. Full and proper discussion of the trade union facilities agreement at the company with the immediate removal of all threats and sanctions made by the company in relation to this.
5. The immediate cessation of actions taken against elected representatives of cabin crew, including; victimization; intimidation and exclusion.

6. The introduction of mixed fleet on different terms and conditions without agreement with the union.

7. The discrimination applied to union members in the allocation of part time contracts and transfers in breach of the Ops and Choice framework.

8. The company's continued and specific disregard for necessary union agreement in advance of any application of the disruption agreement.

9. The continued use of volunteer and/or temporary crew from outside the recognised NSP on both the Eurofleet and Worldwide fleets and their employment on terms and arrangements outside of existing agreements between BA and the union.

10. The company's offer of a separate pay settlement and variations to terms and conditions for those willing to accept non-negotiated changes to their contracts.
AV - you asked "What do they want?"

So, here goes:

They want part-time - but rejected it when it was offered November 09.
They want staff-travel back - but, with clever negotiating, didn't have to lose it in the first place.
They want the disciplinaries to be heard by ACAS - already offered by BA, but rejected by not balloting members previously.
They want security against Mixed Fleet - which was offered through the MTP in Nov 09, and again rejected. MF was also off the table at one point, but that offer was also rejected.
They want to be involved in Mixed Fleet - yet didn't take the chance when it was there.
They resent the VCC - yet continue to disrupt normal business by balloting/striking.
They want the Union facilities agreement back - yet they were the ones who walked out on this agreement.
They want to "negotiate" - yet they voted at Kempton Park in 09 not to negotiate.
They want sick pay for sick crew during the strike - yet we were all warned sickness would be classified as striking.
They want the reps to be treated with Diplomatic immunity!
They want full say on the Disruption Agreement - yet there is now virtually no need for one, due to the VCC's.
And they want those of us who have had the foresight to abandon this Union and accept an individual offer to be denied our individual freedom of choice and suffer in the BASSA mire.



In a nutshell, BASSA had a golden, unique, once-in-a-lifetime, not offered by all companies opportunity to rewrite our agreements, to their hearts' content, as long as it added up to the savings of £127m. They walked out on that golden opportunity and now they are crying in their milk!

Hope that clears it up for you!!
HiFlyer14 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 09:54
  #313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Possible Way to Resolution

It strikes me that both BA's and the Union's most important wishes are not incompatible, indeed they may even be complementary, such that with a modicum of maturity this matter could be resolved.

BA: Wants the Union to accept that it should control its IFCE operations.

Unite: Wants protection against erosion of its hard-fought Ts&Cs in the face of the emergent MF.

BA has never said it won't, and has indeed currently offered to, protect all LHR WW CC's Ts&Cs for as long as CC choose to remain employed at BA. So this is not an issue.

Is the Union prepared to accept an agreement with language stating it recognises (and respects even!) BA's right to manage its own operations, while listening to mature and constructive Union recommendations, with the joint focus on improving the customer experience while minimising the costs (essentially the direction KW is trying to take)?

If the Union can see its way to the above mature and colloborative relationship then the cost savings achieved by BA being able to wind-down its defensive VCC program alone, when combined with skillful negotiation, could have BA mangement eating out of its hands! The VCC programme would likely wind itself down anyway as the number of employees prepared to volunteer to work against such a reasonably behaving CC workforce would fall to zero very quickly!

Last edited by AV Flyer; 3rd Apr 2011 at 13:34.
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 10:04
  #314 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HiFlyer14

An excellent example of taking a snippet of someone's post entirely out of context, misquoting it, then using it as an opporutnity to say something unrelated (although I do share your frustration, understand and agree entirely with your points, and thus don't need anything clearing up for me - thanks!)

I did not ask:

AV - you asked "What do they want?"

at all and you have completely and utterly misquoted me.

What I did ask specifically of Litebulbs, and in an attempt to hear and understand the Union's view of what is really important to them, was:

"But what is your understanding of what they actually want?"

You will see by my listening to what Litebulbs replied as his/her understanding of what is most important to the Union I have attempted to propose a way forward in my later post above.

As a key player/protagonist in/of PCCC yourself I would hope that the PCCC's skills reflect those I am trying to use above if its is to become a serious competitor to BASSA in establishing an alternative way forward for CC

Last edited by AV Flyer; 3rd Apr 2011 at 11:01.
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 12:21
  #315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,759
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Guarantees

Guarantees, and security of employment

Back in 1974, the Board of the UK's then biggest Company, in terms of market value, with well over 100,000 people, could see the need for vast changes in how the Company's operations worked.
They knew they would have massive TU resistance to what needed to be done. (Including openning many more plants outside the UK and closing UK plants - the broad equivalent of MF).
They had already introduced a UK-wide approach to annual salaries, consistent job grades across the UK and a highly respected procedure to deal with change - all negotiated with the TUs.

However, they had not fully dealt with MissM's problem.

How to provide "security of employment" when the business world made it obvious that providing such a thing was nearly impossible?

A rough-tough Scot, a Civil Engineer by background, persuaded the Board to work up a Board level "Security of Employment" statement.

I won't type it all in here, it is too long. (My copy is right by me).

In January 1975 that statement was published. All - TUs and managers, did their very, very best to live up to it for more than 30 years. I still had it quoted to me in 2008 when I worked temporarily for a Company from that group.

can Miss M's request for security be answered?

Yes, but only with a TU that can negotiate!!
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 12:26
  #316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oops...

AV - I did deliberately use your question out of context, and I did it to show, Tongue-in-cheek, how utterly unreasonable the union have been. I apologise unreservedly if you took exception to this - it was in no way meant to detract from your conversation with Litebulbs but I was simply trying to outline to all our long suffering customers that many of us non-striking crew share their frustration and despair.

The point that I really wanted to highlight to BA staff, crew, and customers the world over is that everything BASSA are asking for has been offered...and rejected by them.

Apologies if that got lost in translation.

Last edited by HiFlyer14; 3rd Apr 2011 at 12:46.
HiFlyer14 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 12:59
  #317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,759
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
HiFlyer

Can you update us on PC3 progress?

thanks

AO
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 13:06
  #318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Jungles of SW London
Age: 77
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HiFlyer

Can you update us on PC3 progress?

thanks

AO
Ah, now, the direct question - with both questioner and questioned very probably on line concurrently.

I am sure many of us are very, very interested in an answer, particularly from HiFlyer14 who, as we have seen, has been erudite and, so far as can be ascertained, honest.

Roger.
Landroger is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 13:51
  #319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi AO and Landroger

Thanks for your interest in PCCC.

We are beavering away and trying to get the message across to our community that there is a better way to do business with BA. As you know, we are a peaceful organisation and simply wish to conduct business with BA in a peaceful, rational manner.

There are huge mountains to climb, not least of all the backlash from BASSA who are deliberately trying to destroy everything we do - from ripping down our notices, sending hate mail, issuing fraudulent letters alleging to be from the PCCC, publishing false 'facts' ie. Only 200 members...the list goes on.

However, our numbers are steadily climbing and we now have in the region of 1000 members. We hope to soon have the required 40 per cent of the workforce to be able to approach BA for recognition. We do not intend to start charging members until we have the necessary figures, and when we do, rest assured we will have the accounts in immaculate order.

We have not been funded by anyone - everything has been donated by well-wishers and we are extremely grateful for their support. There is in fact no need for funds at the moment, and it has made us wonder exactly where the BASSA money is spent.

When we are in a position to ask for recognition, you pruners will be one of the first to know!
HiFlyer14 is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2011, 14:10
  #320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi HiFlyer14
I don't see you achieving 40% if you have the condition that cc must have resigned from BASSA.
notlangley is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.