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 16th Apr 2011, 15:35
  #561 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
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.
How can it be excellent when the (only?) let down is the money side. The current leaders have a distinct financial advantage in keeping the members in a dispute which to all reasonable people, should not have started in the first place?

To add that the accounts appear to remain "unavailable" in contravention of the regulations, seem also to tarnish the "excellence" a little.
Dawdler is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 15:36
  #562 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
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.

Last edited by mrpony; 16th Apr 2011 at 16:00.
mrpony is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 15:44
  #563 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 859
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.
Juan Tugoh is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 15:51
  #564 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
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.

Last edited by AV Flyer; 16th Apr 2011 at 16:37.
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 16:05
  #565 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
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?
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 16:17
  #566 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
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.
mrpony is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 16:27
  #567 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
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.
AV Flyer is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 16:28
  #568 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 859
As I said, the membership decide who represents them
Not if, as in this case the democratic process has been circumvented by the current incumbents. If there was a need for continuity then ALL the members should have been balloted, not just a few on a show of hands at a racecourse. Either unions are democratic, or they are not, BASSA is quite clearly not. They have had be forced by the courts to run a legal ballot, something it has taken them quite a while to manage. There is clearly no desire in the leadership of BASSA to follow democratic principles, and the constitution of BASSA has let them get away with this. For BASSA members, at the moment, the only people who are deciding who represents them are the current incumbents.
Juan Tugoh is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 17:05
  #569 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by mrpony View Post
What, not even if they caused the dispute?
They maybe could have done more to prevent the dispute, but BA instigated change. No change, no dispute.

But I agree about the 6000. That's democracy for yer.
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.

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.
We will see, but a vote will still be taken for acceptance or rejection.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 17:19
  #570 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
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.
mrpony is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 17:25
  #571 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
Well, if after this all members pay more attention to rulebooks and recognition agreements, then that can only be a good thing.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 17:39
  #572 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 291
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.
Hipennine is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 17:50
  #573 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
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.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 18:53
  #574 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lemonia. Best Greek in the world
Posts: 1,665
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.
Ancient Observer is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 21:31
  #575 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 79
Posts: 184
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?

Last edited by Entaxei; 16th Apr 2011 at 22:06. Reason: Spell 'casting'
Entaxei is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 21:57
  #576 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Entaxei

Seek and you shall find.
mrpony is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 22:06
  #577 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
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.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 22:16
  #578 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
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.
If they had bothered to read the first offer, their T&C's were left intact. New fleet was off the table. They and many others would have been soooooo much better off.

But...........
Dawdler is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 22:31
  #579 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,964
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.
Litebulbs is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2011, 22:40
  #580 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 79
Posts: 184
Hi Litebulbs

Re SWP and political influence, this only appears to be from the time of the meeting at ACAS when SWP appeared at the meeting, possibly in response to DH texting.

But after that, when there was the bun fight of electing the replacement for Woodly, suddenly there appeared to be a candidate for the CC89 group election called Jerry ?, who was supposedly staunch SWP. Given that CC89 were a quiet branch, suddenly they were listing reasons for the dispute and possible IA, having branch and reps meetings, publically agreeing with DH on reasons for dispute etc. and also sometimes declaring their own list of demands - in other words, stirring the situation, since then they have popped now and again on the CC thread, but have been quiet of late. But are in theory at least, a potential rogue element waiting to strike (in the nicest possible way).

I have just edited my previous post, after checking, LenMc at beginning of March stated that 18 reps had been sacked and 70 suspended, so there can't be many left, as again DH stated some time back that new reps could not be appointed outside a Branch meeting, and one could not be held while a dispute was on. He then asked for unpaid volunteers!, who I presume would not be able to vote in anything anyway, even if anyone applied.

mrpony

Sorry - The hour is, I fear, getting too late and I no longer know what I'm looking for, I'll try again when daylight appears.
Entaxei is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.