BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions V
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB - Yes, I agree. The constitution is clearly excellent in stopping the company from dictating who are the workers' representatives. However, does it not appear that this very constitutional excellence is back-firing rather badly when the incumbent representatives are not being very effective?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
I think that the Bassa constitution as you portray it is excellent, I repeat excellent.
Every union branch should be lay member driven and lead. Its the alleged money side that potentially lets it down. The only incentive should be to act for the benefit of the membership.
Every union branch should be lay member driven and lead. Its the alleged money side that potentially lets it down. The only incentive should be to act for the benefit of the membership.
To add that the accounts appear to remain "unavailable" in contravention of the regulations, seem also to tarnish the "excellence" a little.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV/LB
I don't understand where this is going. BA has got b*gger all to do with it.
1. Unite need Bassa's money and furthermore can't make it change its ways.
2. Bassa needs to maintain its direction of travel and the 'character' of its leadership and noone, not even the members unless they mount an uprecedented democratic assault at a biennial meeting, can stop them doing so.
All BA can do is insist that it doesn't deal with some ex-employees with whom it has a clearly tarnished relationship. I feel I've communicated badly, either that that or you're not understanding properly! Probably the former.
I don't understand where this is going. BA has got b*gger all to do with it.
1. Unite need Bassa's money and furthermore can't make it change its ways.
2. Bassa needs to maintain its direction of travel and the 'character' of its leadership and noone, not even the members unless they mount an uprecedented democratic assault at a biennial meeting, can stop them doing so.
All BA can do is insist that it doesn't deal with some ex-employees with whom it has a clearly tarnished relationship. I feel I've communicated badly, either that that or you're not understanding properly! Probably the former.
Last edited by mrpony; 16th Apr 2011 at 16:00.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure that the constitution of BASSA is excellent as it has allowed a show of hands ballot to decide that the democratic process can be suspended allowing reps to remain in their posts without having to stand for re-election until this dispute is over. This dispute is being, and has been, prolonged by those same reps, one of whom at least is allegedly skimming c £50K a year out of union funds. Hardly a shining beacon of excellence.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrpony - No, you have communicated very well. I got side-tracked into discussing with LB how the constitution could be considered excellent for the members in their present situation.
If neither Unite nor BA nor CC89 nor BASSA's rank-and-file can change BASSA's leadership then the sooner that BA backs-away and lets BASSA have an all-out fight with Unite over giving it a strike the better for BA.
As with WW and TW before them, KW is completely and utterly wasting his time in talking with LM and can only be doing it to continue to appear the reasonable party in any future legal action while knowing no resoultion could ever be at hand.
He could be hoping to appear to the BASSA faithful to be listenting and caring in the hope that more of them walk away from BASSA sooner rather than later but this seems to be a very long game to be playing.
Finally, as mentioned earlier in the thread, he could just be deflecting any disruption until after Easter and the Wedding while beefing-up the VCCs and any other necessary defences in readiness for the next round.
If neither Unite nor BA nor CC89 nor BASSA's rank-and-file can change BASSA's leadership then the sooner that BA backs-away and lets BASSA have an all-out fight with Unite over giving it a strike the better for BA.
As with WW and TW before them, KW is completely and utterly wasting his time in talking with LM and can only be doing it to continue to appear the reasonable party in any future legal action while knowing no resoultion could ever be at hand.
He could be hoping to appear to the BASSA faithful to be listenting and caring in the hope that more of them walk away from BASSA sooner rather than later but this seems to be a very long game to be playing.
Finally, as mentioned earlier in the thread, he could just be deflecting any disruption until after Easter and the Wedding while beefing-up the VCCs and any other necessary defences in readiness for the next round.
Last edited by AV Flyer; 16th Apr 2011 at 16:37.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, the membership decide who represents them, not BA, Unite or pprune. I would not want to change my reps if I was in dispute. Nearly 6000 members supported the current direction of the rep team in a secret ballot.
If a deal is brokered, will BA want it to be recommended?
If a deal is brokered, will BA want it to be recommended?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What, not even if they caused the dispute?
But I agree about the 6000. That's democracy for yer.
I think a deal will be done but that Bassa will only cave in after it has 'persuaded' Unite to bend to the will of its current leadership. The members will have no say in this whatsoever. And if they do it'll be by paying them lip service.
But I agree about the 6000. That's democracy for yer.
I think a deal will be done but that Bassa will only cave in after it has 'persuaded' Unite to bend to the will of its current leadership. The members will have no say in this whatsoever. And if they do it'll be by paying them lip service.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs - I'm not all that sure that the membership is able to decide who represents them given the constitution as described but I accept that 5811 members of BASSA believe that DH et. al. are Gods and doing a fantastic job in safeguarding their future jobs and livelihooods at BA however misguided those beliefs appear when viewed by any rational outsider examining BASSA's past and future possible achievements throughout this dispute.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said, the membership decide who represents them
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They maybe could have done more to prevent the dispute, but BA instigated change. No change, no dispute.
The more I experience, read and learn, the more I think that the union style of democracy, bound by legislation, needs to be addressed. How, I do not know.
We will see, but a vote will still be taken for acceptance or rejection.
But I agree about the 6000. That's democracy for yer.
I think a deal will be done but that Bassa will only cave in after it has 'persuaded' Unite to bend to the will of its current leadership. The members will have no say in this whatsoever. And if they do it'll be by paying them lip service.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV/Litebulbs and others
I've seen where I perhaps could have been clearer:
I was initially referring to the written constitution, or rulebook. Elections are a separate though not unrelated subject.
Hope that makes more sense with apologies if I misled you. I didn't mean to.
I've seen where I perhaps could have been clearer:
I was initially referring to the written constitution, or rulebook. Elections are a separate though not unrelated subject.
Hope that makes more sense with apologies if I misled you. I didn't mean to.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help but feel that this all now hangs around the status of the Facilities Agreement. BASSA and CC89 were the ones who withdrew. Without a facilities agreement in place, they and Unite are a busted flush in any future BA-Union CC relationship. Unite will know that very clearly, and looking long term will want something in place, even if it means a re-write and a few other concessions "unrelated to the dispute" such as for eg "Any reps will have to be full time employees of BA, and have been elected as a result of a new open ballot, etc."
I still can't understand what on earth persuaded BASSA to withdraw in the first place.
I still can't understand what on earth persuaded BASSA to withdraw in the first place.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hipennine
I understand what you say, but it does mean that the employer could control who the reps were and 5(?) reps have been dismissed though this dispute.
However, it is the employer who employs the rep!
What Bassa should look at is full time Unite officers paid for and exclusive to Bassa. Now that would be effective.
However, it is the employer who employs the rep!
What Bassa should look at is full time Unite officers paid for and exclusive to Bassa. Now that would be effective.
In the past.....
Some years ago, a very successful and TU oriented multi-national that I used to work for had an AUEW District Cttee. in the North that hated the Employers guts. Mainly because the employer had not employed members of the District cttee.
Sounds a bit like DH utterly failing to become a pilot........- he likes utterly failing, doesn't he? He's utterly failed to be a pilot, he's utterly failed to be an employee, and he's utterly failed to be a decent TU person..........He has also utterly failed as a Southampton fan, and as someone who once upon a time might have been able to influence the Southampton Board, but that is another story.
Anyway, because that District Cttee was devoted to the failure of that employer, the local HRD set out to break the District Cttee. He was an ex-Boilermaker, so he knew how to fight low and dirty.
he succeeded. Well done Tony. Three years later the employer closed down that site. Well done the AUEW. Lose the battle, and then lose 2,000 jobs.
So - BA have their new fleet, and have their VCC. If bassa, as guided by their mates in the SWP "win" , what exactly have they won?? Answers on a post card.
Some years ago, a very successful and TU oriented multi-national that I used to work for had an AUEW District Cttee. in the North that hated the Employers guts. Mainly because the employer had not employed members of the District cttee.
Sounds a bit like DH utterly failing to become a pilot........- he likes utterly failing, doesn't he? He's utterly failed to be a pilot, he's utterly failed to be an employee, and he's utterly failed to be a decent TU person..........He has also utterly failed as a Southampton fan, and as someone who once upon a time might have been able to influence the Southampton Board, but that is another story.
Anyway, because that District Cttee was devoted to the failure of that employer, the local HRD set out to break the District Cttee. He was an ex-Boilermaker, so he knew how to fight low and dirty.
he succeeded. Well done Tony. Three years later the employer closed down that site. Well done the AUEW. Lose the battle, and then lose 2,000 jobs.
So - BA have their new fleet, and have their VCC. If bassa, as guided by their mates in the SWP "win" , what exactly have they won?? Answers on a post card.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elements
Whilst it appears on the surface that things could be coming to a reasonable negotiated close, the elements of this whole situation need to be considered .....
BASSA - about 10 months ago, (seems longer), I challenged DH on this thread under his troll identity of 'Safety Affairs' regarding his sitting back and taking the money without caring about BA or the CC. His response was as long as some of the membership fees carried on coming in, nothing else mattered and nothing else would or could be changed and he was happy with this situation. I can't help feeling that this basic attitude has'nt changed.
If this is so, granted that nobody appears to have any form of a copy of BASSA regulations and that post 1997, when the last financial kerfuffle blew up with the previous GS, the regulations were formally changed, presumably during an AGM, such that more power appears to have been given to the committee and GS and, subsequent AGM's changed still more, such that now DH probably has sole capability of agreeing a dispute, regardless of any reps. (probably cannot have new ones voted in as committe meetings cannot now be held during a dispute, LenMc beginning March, stated 18 had been sacked and 70 suspended - so can't be many left!). I won't even go near the potential implications of lack of accounts/records and the new company BASSA Limited.
Then BASSA became a 'Branch' of Unite, but in view of the powers that BASSA appear to hold over and above a normal branch, refusing agreed offers, calling for a strike and listing dates, this argues that the agreement entered into with Unite was a 'special' edition, but again it seems unlikely that a copy is/will be available for members to view. However as BASSA still have ten points outstanding, there is room for DH to refuse once more to agree any solution that LenMc agrees and again demand/issue a strike call.
In the meantime 'long live the New King' so LenMc is busy changing his organisation/committee to reflect his current and future strategies, he still wants to try and settle this, it would be a 'Win', but against the overall union position against the UK govt., probably has limited resource available, but Malone has appeared.
CC89/Amicus appears to be a different setup again, now backed by the SWP, they will go along with DH in muddying the waters to ensure that no agreement is reached, but note that the reasons are never identical with BASSA, this allows them to still hold out if BASSA ever agree. However maybe LenMc could squash them reasonably easy, but has anyone ever seen their agreement with Unite?, SWP rational appears as usual to be political control.
Enough already!! - Apologies for the length, when I started typing it all seemed so straight forward - but then the corkscrew got in the way!! - does anyone agree with the above?
BASSA - about 10 months ago, (seems longer), I challenged DH on this thread under his troll identity of 'Safety Affairs' regarding his sitting back and taking the money without caring about BA or the CC. His response was as long as some of the membership fees carried on coming in, nothing else mattered and nothing else would or could be changed and he was happy with this situation. I can't help feeling that this basic attitude has'nt changed.
If this is so, granted that nobody appears to have any form of a copy of BASSA regulations and that post 1997, when the last financial kerfuffle blew up with the previous GS, the regulations were formally changed, presumably during an AGM, such that more power appears to have been given to the committee and GS and, subsequent AGM's changed still more, such that now DH probably has sole capability of agreeing a dispute, regardless of any reps. (probably cannot have new ones voted in as committe meetings cannot now be held during a dispute, LenMc beginning March, stated 18 had been sacked and 70 suspended - so can't be many left!). I won't even go near the potential implications of lack of accounts/records and the new company BASSA Limited.
Then BASSA became a 'Branch' of Unite, but in view of the powers that BASSA appear to hold over and above a normal branch, refusing agreed offers, calling for a strike and listing dates, this argues that the agreement entered into with Unite was a 'special' edition, but again it seems unlikely that a copy is/will be available for members to view. However as BASSA still have ten points outstanding, there is room for DH to refuse once more to agree any solution that LenMc agrees and again demand/issue a strike call.
In the meantime 'long live the New King' so LenMc is busy changing his organisation/committee to reflect his current and future strategies, he still wants to try and settle this, it would be a 'Win', but against the overall union position against the UK govt., probably has limited resource available, but Malone has appeared.
CC89/Amicus appears to be a different setup again, now backed by the SWP, they will go along with DH in muddying the waters to ensure that no agreement is reached, but note that the reasons are never identical with BASSA, this allows them to still hold out if BASSA ever agree. However maybe LenMc could squash them reasonably easy, but has anyone ever seen their agreement with Unite?, SWP rational appears as usual to be political control.
Enough already!! - Apologies for the length, when I started typing it all seemed so straight forward - but then the corkscrew got in the way!! - does anyone agree with the above?
Last edited by Entaxei; 16th Apr 2011 at 22:06. Reason: Spell 'casting'
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Entaxei
It would be interesting to see who politicised the dispute first. There is one ongoing contradiction through most of the rhetoric presented on pprune. Are we saying that the SWP has infiltrated the Bassa executive, or is it just the Mailers having a froth.
In my time, I have had dealings with comrades, but the two Bassa reps that I have spoken to, were poles apart from Wolfie. It just doesn't sit right, having left wing activists serving gold card chalk stripes in First. The few current BA old contract crew that I know are about as close to revolutionaries as Maggie was to Mother Teresa. They know they earn a very good wage and they want to keep it and do not want it distributed into somebody elses' pocket. Neither would I.
In my time, I have had dealings with comrades, but the two Bassa reps that I have spoken to, were poles apart from Wolfie. It just doesn't sit right, having left wing activists serving gold card chalk stripes in First. The few current BA old contract crew that I know are about as close to revolutionaries as Maggie was to Mother Teresa. They know they earn a very good wage and they want to keep it and do not want it distributed into somebody elses' pocket. Neither would I.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
They know they earn a very good wage and they want to keep it and do not want it distributed into somebody elses' pocket. Neither would I.
But...........
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dawdler
You are probably correct, but I doubt that any on here were party to the initial negotiations. BA crew are now where they are. They have a new contract on minimum wage (approx) plus allowances (+10% not there). That clearly lays down the intent of the employer. You cannot dress that up any further. These new employees are fully in the hands of the management team and they are on minimum wage (approx). So if Bassa are not involved, then its minimum wage (approx). Why can't people accept that. That is the value that the employer puts on its new staff.