I don't agree that legal action would necessarily take years. An injunction against the removal of ST could have been arranged in weeks. All Unite/BASSA would have to show to obtain an injunction is that they had a reasonable chance of getting the removal of ST overturned in a full Court hearing. That was the approach they tried (ultimately unsuccessfully) over the removal of the crewmember.
In my view, the fact that no application has been made to Court speaks volumes. If I was a striking commuter I would be both extremely worried and absolutely furious with my union for the misrepresentations made regarding the return of ST. |
If I was a striking commuter I would be both extremely worried and absolutely furious with my union for the misrepresentations made regarding the return of ST. An offer that Unite seems not to have communicated to it's members. Any that pay attention to BA communicatins would know this! |
Mariner9
I mostly agree with you, but I also feel that this is traditional union style negotiation. Give it back and the deal is done, without including a third party.
|
west lakes
You are right, but the partial return is still punitive reduction.
|
Robert F jones
I did say "a while ago", yes there was a Gatwick flight to Atlanta and by listening to the crew talking, they were way out hours having diverted to Stansted and returned to their Gatwick by road and believe me "Hotel mode" I didn't make it up. They probably exceeded their industrial agreement but were within scheme rules. Had they exceeded scheme they wouldn't have been onboard. A standby crew would have been used. If no standby crew was available the flight would have been delayed until either a fresh crew was available or the original crew had achieved the required rest period. |
Litebulbs
The (civil) legallity of the action will, I think, be debated for a long time and as you say will not be settled until a court rules on the issue. It is likely that whilst there is a valid offer on the table that it could prove difficult to raise any court action. Admittedly one of the conditions attached is the ceasation of strike action (if permanantly of just surrounding this dispute, I don't know). What seems odd is that the "give ST back" school do not seem to recognise or be aware of the offer as there has been no sense of any comment along the lines of "we want full ST returned as the BA offer is not enough" I can see the concern of the commuters which this offer does seem to cover, is Unite deliberately saying nothing as it reduces their case for further IA? What, further, seems odd is that no-one on the CC thread seems to have pointed this out to Ava, the very issue which seems to be making her vote to turn the offer down! |
Personally, I dont see why a company cannot punish strikers. Strikers after all are "punishing" the company.
Nobody seems surprised when basic salary is withheld from the strikers. What is that if not punishment? Why is the withdrawal of a non-contractual perk seen by some to be punishment and discrimination but withdrawal of contractual salary seemingly accepted? |
77
As a Bcal GM I was one of the AOC holders and totally conversant with FTL rules. This cc were talking total duty hours (scheme ?) and obviously had insufficient rest for their rostered flight. However, the main reason for my post was not to be vindictive about this one off experience but to urge the moderator on the BA/Bassa site that constant reference to crew positioning prior to a flying duty (especially flight crew) will inevitably attract the attention of the CAA FIO. Having said that, it is probably long overdue, both here in the UK and (as previously mentioned) in the US.
No offence intended to cc in general. |
Originally Posted by Mariner9
(Post 5790345)
Personally, I dont see why a company cannot punish strikers. Strikers after all are "punishing" the company.
Nobody seems surprised when basic salary is withheld from the strikers. What is that if not punishment? Why is the withdrawal of a non-contractual perk seen by some to be punishment and discrimination but withdrawal of contractual salary seemingly accepted? |
west lakes
Just to clarify ST a little I can see the concern of the commuters which this offer does seem to cover, What, further, seems odd is that no-one on the CC thread seems to have pointed this out to Ava, the very issue which seems to be making her vote to turn the offer down! |
LITEBULBS Yes, of course, should have been 'they' although I think I had made that point earlier. Apologies.
|
Beamender
As it was read to me from the forum with BF, commuters would retain their present seniority on one chosen route (the commuter route) The only time reduced seniority would apply would be on routes other than this, which in the main could possibly be leisure |
west lakes
Thanks for that clarification, something I missed. Things do make a bit more sense to the rest of the world but still not to certain CC. |
You are not being paid because you are not working, on a day off or on leave/sick. It is not a punishment |
Because when you return to work, you return to being paid.
|
If I owned a family business and some of my employees deliberately tried to destroy it by striking I would do my best to ensure that they suffered the consequences.This would include the lowest assessment for their annual reports to ensure they never got promoted and removal of all discretionary bonuses or benefits. What goes around comes around, and everybody has a choice in life.
On another point it looks like the union laws might get tougher with a majority of the entire work force required to vote in favour of a strike not just a majority of those voting. ABOUT TIME, It means that people have to put up or shut up and implies that a non vote is a vote in favour of not striking. regards |
robert f jones
As a Bcal GM I was one of the AOC holders and totally conversant with FTL rules. This cc were talking total duty hours (scheme ?) and obviously had insufficient rest for their rostered flight. However, the main reason for my post was not to be vindictive about this one off experience but to urge the moderator on the BA/Bassa site that constant reference to crew positioning prior to a flying duty (especially flight crew) will inevitably attract the attention of the CAA FIO. Having said that, it is probably long overdue, both here in the UK and (as previously mentioned) in the US. No offence intended to cc in general As regards scheme we will have to agree to differ. I am also conversant with the rules and don't believe with the current systems that it would be possible to depart ex main base without complying with the necessary rules. After all one of the main problems BA has had with CC is lack of flexibility and subsequent costs incurred. Perhaps the computerised rostering systems today are better than in Bcal days. I don't think the positioning question is the same in the UK as in the US. The US congress has highlighted the problem of low pilot wages in the feeder airline business in the states and the consequent safety problems. In the main I think most commuters in BA arrive at work adequately rested. The fatigue level of those who arrive by car can be quite high. So far I believe most long distance commuters have been quite responsible. |
We'll have to agree to disagree Litebulbs. My view is that if you can legally withdraw pay to strikers, you can certainly withdraw perks. Indeed, it seems BA can even sack strikers (though they might have to pay compensation if the sackings occurred during the 12 week protected period of a lawful IA).
Doesn't really matter what you and I think though. The important thing is what do the striking CC think when faced with this next ballot. If they believe BASSA's advice that ST will easily be returned, they could vote to accept the deal. If they don't have faith in BASSA's promises re ST, they'll have to vote to strike in an attempt to get it back! Seems converse but things often seem to be in BASSAland. I guess the answer will only be forthcoming if BASSA/Unite pursue the matter through the Courts. |
Litebulbs #399
I think you also need to keep in mind that HRA/ECoHR does not deal solely with workers rights. There are also some very powerful provisions in support of private property rights. Indeed, these rights tend to be supported more rigourously than all others, as they provide protection against unwarranted interference in citizens' lives by the State.
In this particular case, what Unite/BASSA is apparently arguing is that workers have a right to require BA to allow its members onto planes when BA chooses not to do so. Your argument seems to be that BA's preference to bar staff for no reason other than the fact they indulged in lawful industrial action is unfair, and a de facto breach of the protections offered in support of industrial action/workers rights. Against that, however, is BA's right to use, and make available to others, its property, in this case its planes. BA is pretty much free to offer its services however it wants, subject only to specific legal restraints on discrimination etc. Flying on BAs planes is very much a contractual arrangement. There is no automatic right for anyone to be granted carriage. I think the problem Unite/BASSA faces in claiming that its members' human rights have been violated is twofold. Firstly, there simply is no fundamental human right allowing persons to use the property of others. The rights of users to force owners to allow use of their property is very limited. Secondly, even if the Court accepts that withholding staff travel from strikers is a breach of workers' rights, it does not immediately follow that they will require BA to give back access to staff travel. What would be required is consideration is whether the breach of workers rights is suffiiciently serious to require moderation of private property rights. I think it's highly unlikely they would, as the moderation of those rights could potentially extend way beyond the rights of 2,000-3,000 striking cabin crew to enjoy discounted travel. In other words, the remedy of requiring BA to allow use of its property by a group of persons it prefers not to carry is possibly disproportionate to the damage suffered by the workers. You need to keep in mind that BA and its owners have rights as well as its workers. |
As someone just said, it is important to recognize that the CAA know about, and monitor, these forums and will if required act within their powers. The FTL scheme is THE rules they follow and therein is their yardstick. If any part of operations is found to be questionable they WILL act.
As for BASSA's spin coming to the fore in the other thread I am astounded by some of the tales being told about what they can do and will do for their members and how simple it is. Clearly, they have lost the plot. The simple fact is that BASSA has fired all its guns and all the ammunition has run out. They cannot, for example, re-run a dispute and they obviously do not have another bullet to fire. It now seems that reps are saying anything to persuade the members that they are in 'control' and you can trust them. Mutton dressed up as lamb has been the trademark of unions since the war - that is a long time. Reps are clearly telling lies, believing they can keep spinning the same old stuff. Unite, Woodley, Simpson and McCluskey, are keeping quiet. I wonder why? Their world is also falling about their ears as far as this dispute is concerned. IMHO I think they wish that BASSA would just lie down and die. The final nail in their coffin is that BA hold all the cards and know how to play them. It is just sad that too many cc staff still hold candles for BASSA. That's fine, but do remember people's that candles have limited life. |
Mariner9
We don't have to agree, but I do understand your posts and it is an excellent point about whether the voters believe their reps, on the return of ST and what that may mean to an individual and how they vote.
|
Originally Posted by JayPee28bpr
(Post 5791133)
I think you also need to keep in mind that HRA/ECoHR does not deal solely with workers rights..............................You need to keep in mind that BA and its owners have rights as well as its workers.
|
I really don't see how the hate campaigns of BASSA [their little marches, funny masks, 'willie bullied me' slogans, chants, war cries, 'merchandise' and that odd man with the Willie as Hitler t-shirt - there is nothing like 'mob warfare...'] have achieved anything - except perhaps making their aims look ridiculous against their very sloppy approach to a expression of disagreement with a policy. Plus.. that grave divide between Walsh & Woodley seems very childish.
One cannot generalise all of the strikers' conditions, I am sure many would be in a hugely uncomfortable position and at least they have a sense of 'belonging' amongst their fellow pickets. But have they not generalised the BA management? Are they not bullying the crew who refuse to strike, or step in? What happens to the rest of the BA employment force, seemingly in the 'middle' of this? Why so much name calling? |
Litebulbs #426
But what have the people who have lost staff travel got to loose? The serious answer is that this isn't just about the BA staff affected. The cost of such a case would add another million or so to Unite's legal bills in support of BA cabin crew. Why should the 2 million members who aren't affected be paying for all this? If BASSA wants a degree of autonomy within Unite, then shouldn't BASSA's costs be similarly ringfenced from the rest of the Union? From the outside looking in, BASSA appears to wield a lot of power within the Union, but with very limited responsibility. Unite and BA's interests with respect to BASSA look remarkably well aligned to me! Also, Unite is now one of several Unions looking at very significant job losses in the public sector. Personally I think the 600k estimate of such losses is probably excessive, at least within the next 4-5 years. 300-400k looks very possible though. I don't know what proportion of affected workers will be Unite members, but even if it's only 10%, that suggests 30,000-40,000 members at risk, which puts the 2,000-3,000 BA staff at risk of nothing more than losing staff travel into some kind of perspective, even if such a loss results in some of them having to leave BA's employ. Unite needs to get a grip on BASSA even more than BA does. I rather suspect that, given the choice, most Unite members will want to reserve £1 million to fight job losses/pension losses etc in the public sector, rather than campaiging to establish the fundamental human right to cheap fares for airline staff. What influence do the 2 million plus non-BASSA members of Unite have in determining how the Union's overall income is allocated and spent? How are you justifying the ongoing transfer of value from your members to BASSA via strike pay subsidies and legal fees etc? And are your members supportive of this transfer of wealth. |
The union has let its members down very badly indeed on the whole ST issue.
Not only should they have not promised that it would be returned “within 5 minutes” they should have actively advised those members who rely on ST to maintain their jobs (homes, marriages etc) to break the strike. As odd as that may seem it would have been the responsible thing for them to have done. By all means they could have shouted to anyone that would listen about how members were being prevented from striking as a result, a position which I would have had to agree with to a point. I still don’t support the principle of removing perks from strikers, it just seems wrong on many levels. I worry about more callus employers following the lead and converting all sorts of contractual rights into perks so as to allow their selective removal at the drop of a hat. This is also the reason that I don’t think Unite would be wise to challenge it in court, a loss would legitimise the tactic. |
JayPee28bpr
You are correct about what other Unite members must be thinking. It is OK pushing the moral argument about the rights and wrongs of BA's actions to attempt to stop a strike, but as you say, there are millions of other Unite members and a finite pot of cash.
I would imagine that the first time legal help was refused, then their would be some very disgruntled members and some But, it is still is a major issue when you look at it as a principle, rather than an individual point. Well, I think it is, but what do I know. |
Originally Posted by Snas
(Post 5791548)
This is also the reason that I don’t think Unite would be wise to challenge it in court, a loss would legitimise the tactic.
|
Well said, Jaypee.
I couldn't agree more. This strike looks utterly RIDICULOUS compared to the problems the rest of the country are facing. I keep asking myself why I continue to look at this forum because it only winds me up - a group of people living in their own little bubble and seemingly oblivious to what is going on around them. I wonder how many even bother to read what the passengers are thinking. You certainly don't seem to see many on this forum putting forward their viewpoint. It might be good to see if there are any BASSA sympathisers out there that even care about the passengers or the rest of the world outside of theirs. Go on BASSA (Ava, Miss M et al) .....I dare you!! Let us know why any of us should have any sympathy at all!! |
Litebulbs
:bored:
But, it is still is a major issue when you look at it as a principle, rather than an individual point. Well, I think it is I'll give you an example of what I think is a fundamental matter of principle worth pursuing either via industrial or legal action (or both). It's being reported today that the UK government is planning to amend the compensation (ie redundancy) terms offered to public sector workers likely to lose their jobs in the next few months. These terms are clearly defined and have been the basis of previous redundancies. Public sector workers would be aware of them as an implicit safety net in case their job disappears. Now, with large numbers of jobs at risk and potentially very large payments under the scheme, the government naturally wants to limit the cost. It is argued that redundancy terms offered to public sector workers are generous versus private sector practice, and the government says it is merely intending to align public and private sector practice. That may very well be the case, but the fact still remains that the government is simply seeking to adjust public sector workers' terms and conditions and reduce the cost of eliminating jobs: a double whammy for affected workers who lose current income and receive a depleted "safety" payment. Compare that to the entire BA dispute, where BA imposed new conditions that averted the need for any compulsory redundancies but which engineered the cost saving they required merely by increasing productivity (whilst actually allowing many staff to get the lifestyle changes they wanted incidentally). The dispute now appears to centre solely on workers rights to discretionary perks. So I ask you, Litebulbs: you have a £1 million strike pay and/or legal fees pot. Fighting to maintain the redundancy entitlements of public sector workers who have done nothing to harm their employer, or fighting to force BA to continue to allow strikers who have harmed their business by striking to continue to access what is agreed to be a discretionary perk. The former impacts at least 10x the number of your members compared to the latter. Which is the better use of your pot? As I said before, Unite and BA's interests are actually totally aligned in respect of BASSA. Unite should now follow BA's lead and deal with the problem. Failure to do so simply disadvantages the wider Union membership. |
With regards to Ava Hannah on the other discussion thread, why do BA employ South Africans (I assume she is)? Surely BA would give preference to UK and EU nationals over other nationalities?
|
Ava may or may not be a UK national, who knows.
Ba do however employ a large number of international crew, as do many airlines. |
Interesting posts, JayPee28bpr.
It is possible that Unite's lack of action on pursuing the staff travel issue through Europe is a strategic decision on their part. The issue of removing perks from striking workers is a significant unresolved point of law, and one which potentially affects every single union member in the country. As a composite union, Unite has many members who would be affected by the outcome of the court case, not just members of BASSA. Very few people outside BASSA seem to view the current industrial action as objectively justified (i.e. whilst of course they have the right to strike, it seems a disproportionate reaction to the issues in dispute). As you have identified, the court would be required to balance the competing rights involved, and Unite may well therefore be waiting for a case where the balance is more in their favour before pursuing the point. If they then manage to get a favourable ruling in another case, it would put them in a stronger position to argue for the reinstatement of staff travel in the BASSA case. But, more importantly for Unite, it would mean that they had best served the interests of all of their membership rather than one small part. |
Originally Posted by JayPee28bpr
(Post 5791681)
The dispute now appears to centre solely on workers rights to discretionary perks.
At this time, there is a real dispute. What happens in the future is anyone's guess. Isn't the legal term in contemplation or furtherance of come to mind. I would really like to be an observer at a branch meeting however. |
Originally Posted by Pohutu
(Post 5791781)
Very few people outside BASSA seem to view the current industrial action as objectively justified (i.e. whilst of course they have the right to strike, it seems a disproportionate reaction to the issues in dispute).
|
Pohuto
I agree entirely. The problem, though, is that Unite/BASSA promised members that they'd get staff travel back "in 5 minutes". That's already stretched out to several months, and any legal challenge at the European level will take years. Given that there is an abundance of quotes in the public domain about how unimportant staff travel is to many strikers, then Unite/BASSA has virtually no chance of persuading a Court that a fundamental workers' right has been damaged to the extent that it should look to moderate BA's rights to utilise its assets as it sees fit.
I agree Unite may look for a better opportunity to fight a similar case. However, that then pushes out the legal fight to return staff travel indefinitely, which is even further away from the 5 minute timetable originally promised to their affected members. Again, it simply highlights to me the inability of Unite generally to control one dysfunctional branch. That would not matter if it were not for the fact that so much senior officer time and general Union income is being diverted to that one branch. It's difficult to see how this benefits the Union's membership generally. |
PHIONA. From reading AVA's previous posts, she has been employed by BA for 26 years, long before the job market in the industry became poor.
Personally, I have come to realise, through this and the cabin crew thread, that she [and many others] have simply been led down the garden path by their utterly useless union, and, therefore, I am beginning to have a little sympathy for the position she, and the others find themselves in. Although they are, ultimately responsible for their postion, very many questions must be asked of the Union about the lies that have been hoisted upon them by their representing body. I implore all the strikers to not take part in any more IA, and then you may well find that conditions improve for you. Many of us on this thread feel that BA is part of us. I always love travelling with you, love the smile that I get on boarding, the chats at the back on long haul. Please let's all appreciate what we both have, passengers, and crew, and put this nastiness behind us, and return to the old days as much and as soon as we can. John. |
Litebulbs
I would really like to be an observer at a branch meeting however. My feeling is that senior officials of Unite are probably being asked to justify why BASSA is not being cut loose. If this is a step too far for organisations that still present a facade of sibling solidarity, then I'd be amazed if the leadership is not having to give assurances that the BASSA problem will be dealt with post-dispute. I'd love to be in on the meetings discussing this. My bet is that BASSA will be dismantled and integrated more closely into Unite's overall BA relationship. The public facade will be that this makes Unite stronger by more closely aligning all staff that it represents. Privately it will be to ensure that one very small group of members never, ever again causes such a colossal waste of money and senior officer time. I think it is telling that BASSA members were somehow "forgotten" when it came to gauging support for the pension scheme changes at BA. All the other Unite-represented workgroups were consulted/balloted. BASSA members weren't apparently. |
Folks. Please take a look at the post #790 by Juan Tugoh over on the Cabin Crew forum. I think it expressly very well what we all think and should be compulsory reading for all BASSA members.
|
Interesting turn of events at BT where the CWU has withdrawn its strike ballot after legal warnings from BT. A case of a union heeding legal warnings or using this as a get-out in light of the current climate of hundreds of thousands of public sector job losses?
Union cancels BT strike ballot | Business | guardian.co.uk |
JayPee
Why did Unites leadership spend so much time on Bassa? Were they not made to look foolish,posturing with the mindless? Methinks, Woodley, McCluskey, Barber et al have hardly presented an endorsement of intellectual modern unionism. Frankly I think they have illuminated their bankrupt idealism by identification with such a palpably ill defined cause. The frustrating sad fact is the damage that can be inflicted by a misguided customer service minority that clearly has no conception nor willingness to comprehend their ultimate loyalties. Any company,so infected, are manifestly obliged to offload the disgruntled, sharpish, to ensure a future which is so dependent on qualities of service. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:01. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.