This is in fact how most reps work. There is far too much generalising by the unknowing on this thread. There are many companies out there, especially in Engineering, that are still existing because of close cooperation between union and employer.
Unite has become a vast Union representing millions across thousands of companies in hundreds of sectors. In the dark days ahead many are going to be glad they are around.
The BA situation has been largely manufactured by both sides as a test of strength. So much testosterone about that it had little chance of being settled amicably with a win win result.
Many reps looking on know that it could have been sorted long ago.......I've said it before and I'll say it again, both sides should grow up and have genuine talks....

I did not say that at all. However, employees do get dismissed unfairly, but as has been pointed out in a few comments after yours, the employer is under no obligation to accept a reinstatement order. They would have to compensate however.

This is when a union would act, by possibly balloting for industrial action, where the cost of the action would be disproportionate to the cost of the dismissal and a business decision would be made. There would be no guarantees that a business would back down however. Then the individual members would base whether they would be prepared to loose money in support of the action, based on the evidence of the case in question.

This is different to what has happened at BA and the industrial action that has taken place, in my opinion. The business decision is that the short term cost is worth the long term saving.

3 points,
Dismissals
Diplome and snas are correct about dismissals. Like snas, I've held that sort of accountability. As an individual, I don't "enjoy" firing folk, but when you've got to, you just do it. ( it is commonly known as jfdi). BA appear far more tolerant of bad behaviour than other private sector Co.s. They should have behaved this way years ago - for example when dealing (or not in BA's case) with BA CC absence levels.
TU co-operation.
Unite and its constituent parts are perfectly capable of co-operating with employers. Go ask the majors in the Pharms sector, who have "lost" thousands of jobs represented by Unite in the last 3 years. Yup, thousands. All with complete TU co-operation.

The next strike - if there is one.

I have a vested interest here - I'm flying l/h with BA in late September. Would the strikers please ensure that they are on strike in late September? I have no desire to be on the same plane as the bassamentalists. Thank you.

Ancient Observer

I agree with you completely. I am booked ATL-EDI on 11 August.

Sorry, but I need the BASSA "leaders" to be on strike when I fly BA at the end of August.

Come to think of it: that's probably wishful thinking. They seem to have avoided any such risk in the past and left it to the BASSA rabbits to take the action and the can.

Sorry to have to disagree with you on this one. Unite represent over half the BA workforce. Oddly enough the only unionised group of workers who have failed to reach an agreement with BA management over headcount reductions andcost cutting have been cabin crew. GMB and Unite members covering the ground staff have been able to come to arrangements. BALPA have, Heavens Unite actually circumvented the BASSA and Amicus folk when they struck the deal on the pension proposals last year. That says to me that whilst it is a battle of wills, it is about who manages the cabin crew community, the union or BA management. The union people have been so used to BA management backing down that they can't work out what to do when the company says 'no'. This disoute ws never going to have a win/win conclusion because the union side couldn't agree amongst themselves what they wanted and gave a flat refusal to any suggestions. Negotiation requires dialogue, something BASSA seem incapable of.

We will have to agree to disagree on your point...Both sides have behaved badly at the negotiating table. Once it moved from the negotiating table to the front pages of the daily rags it was doomed. The discussions became polarised with nothing on common ground to move with. Both sides have been incapable of dialogue. I do not consider BA's statements to be akin to dialogue any more than the statements of BASSA.

Call100
 

Great post.

One question to the guests and investors of BA. What is more offensive, scab or bassamentalist? I ask the question because, just say, an employee said BAmentalist on facebook. Would that be bringing the company's into disrepute and therefore seen as a gross misconduct issue worthy of dismissal?

Litebulbs: not so much the devils advocate, more his entire legal team! :ok:

I don't believe BA would dismiss anyone for such a remark. A verbal warning maybe. The dismissed have all done far far worse that that. Bringing your employer into disrepute isn't exactly the same offence as bringing someone elses union into disrepute. BASSA could expel a member who used that terminology couldn't they?

I think BA have made every effort to engage in meaningful discussions, but they could not sit around and wait for BASSA to "grow up" as you put it. They were haemorrhaging cash and needed to make cost cuts.

If BASSA had played ball to start with, the current situation would not exist.

They want to return things to the way they were. BA do not want to, and they are correct.

The only people that need to group up here are the BASSA reps that have lead their staff so poorly.

If, as you say, there are reps who feel this could have been sorted out a long time ago, they should communicate that fact to their fellow members and try and oust the idiots that have made so many pathetic mistakes in their desperate attempts at clinging on to power (and, lest we forget, their share of the members' subscriptions).

Litebulbs #649
 

I think you're missing the point. Nobody in the investment community cares. The point of making an investment is primarily to make money. Any activity by the company has to be viewed simply in terms of whether it adds to sustainable (ie long term) profitability. Name calling amongst the staff is irrelevant. It isn't going to have a material impact on profits long term. Those that insist on doing it will get managed out of the business one way or another eventually, though if it really is just one person calling someone a scab and another calling someone a BASSAmentalist, I suspect most outsiders would just tell both to grow up.

In terms of the current dispute, the real issue from an investment perspective is, and always has been, is BA a good enough long term risk to warrant financing their fleet renewal needs? What has been lost in all the minutiae of the last 12 months is that there is more to BA than the cabin crew bubble. BA has an old, gas guzzling fleet which, with oil now at $75-ish and rising, versus sub-$30 and steady a few years ago, is now a very painful problem that needs addressing. However, nobody is going to finance resolving that problem if BA has more expensive and less flexible crew (flight and cabin) than its competitors. Investors want comfort that sufficient cash flow will be derived in order to pay them back. Cutting flight operating costs via reductions in cabin crew staff numbers and more flexible use thereof is key to delivering better cash flow.

What your fellow reps in Unite/BASSA simply fail to comprehend is that there are many other stakeholders in BA's business who all believe they have a legitimate claim on the business. BA does not exist to meet the needs of just its staff. Staff are a key stakeholder (or holders if you want to break down by function). They are not the reason the business exists though. At some point the bulk of BASSA's members will realise this fact. Unfortunately it appears many will have unnecessarily paid a considerable price to be taught this lesson.

Hardly a ringing endorsement
 

67% of those who voted have rejected the pay offer but it looks as though the turn out was extremely low. 3,419 in favour of rejection, 1686 against. Hardly massive support for a strike ballot! I thought that they had nearly 10,000 members.

What now?

Hopefully, 100% flight operation in any potential strike action as quoted by Mr Walsh recently, I took him at his word, and booked LH flights in October, please let him be right, couldnt stand the will we fly or won't we fly again!!

As reported on the Cabin Crew thread:

Lots of different messages can be read into those results. Interesting.

BBC says 3419 voted no
BBC says 11,000 of cabin crew are members of Unite

Not being a labour lawyer, my assumption is that given only about 5200 of 12000 known CC are accounted for in the Unite vote, the remainder, or at least a majority of the remainder will have accepted the offer made to them as self-declared non-unionised employees by BA.

If this is the case, then surely they are contracted under the new terms and conditions and unlikely to support any strike action. Or... in this shifting sandbox, am I missing something?

So bassa spin will say 67% rejected the offer so will go ahead with strike ballot.

Jarvy:

I'm not so sure that Unite will immediately go for a strike vote.

Those numbers (their weakest so far) will not sustain an effective industrial action. Observing BA's growing ability to increase operations during each of the previous IA's and their expectation to fly 100% of their long haul operation during any subsequent action I am not so sure that Unite is going to be anxious to ballot.

BASSA of course could very well be an example of "Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread".

As of today, BASSA's declared membership was 9757. So the vote suggests 65% of its members either voted for the offer or tacitly accepted it by abstaining.

Given there is something like 12000+ cabin crew, some 3000 of so were free to take BA's offer on an individual basis. Whereas I doubt BA will declare the numbers of non union crew accepting the offer, it's apparent some 9342 cabin crew are on the other end of the balance leaving only 3419 in BASSA's corner.

It says something for a Union that so many of its own members have failed to support it. I guess those who abstained can truthfully say to their militant colleagues "I didn't vote for the offer".

Oh, I've just seen the post from BASSA's duty apologist on the crew forum. It appears the reason for the low turnout was because members got their ballot papers to late to submit them. Oh, so that's another BASSA admin fiasco then.

I understand that BA couldn't be seen to be inducing union members to leave the union hence telling crew that only non-members were eligible. But could a union member sign and accept the offer anyway? In other words do BA only need to be seen to not to be offering an inducement or can union members not accept it at all (possibly because they've handed that responsibility to the union on their behalf)?

As I understand it, crew wishing to accept BA's latest offer had to provide a certificate to the effect they were not union members at the date the offer was declared. As BA have played this whole thing with a straight bat, I'm convinced they would not want to be seen enciting union members to accept the offer outside the collective bargaining unit.

Now, I have little doubt some will have done so and perhaps been a little economic with the accualite. Even so, their certificate will enable the company to keep its hands clean if they did.

A Sky News reporter outside Unite HQ says she has spoken to a senior official of the union. When asked why so few had voted they stated that, those that didn't vote were not affected by the staff travel dispute so stepped aside to let their colleagues express their opinion. So the spin goes on.

Tony Woodley
 

According to Tony Woodley 85% of CC have voted no to the BA offer. I've always suspected that he isn't the brightest but he has now confirmed that he is totally stupid!

Moving on, as Mr Walsh obviously isn't going to change his mind as to what is on offer, then presumably there will be yet another ballot for IA. Will the Bassa lemmings finally realise that the game is over or is that just wishful thinking?

Abstention
 

It's interesting how people can put slants on votes like this. If the vote was No - 3,449, Accept - 1,686, Abstain - 4,622 (based on a quoted membership of 9,757 from above) then possibilities are:

"Only 17% of members voted to accept"
"83% of members did not accept the offer"
"65% of members did not vote to reject the offer"
"Only 35% of members voted against the offer"
"67% of votes cast were to reject the offer"
"Only 33% of votes were to accept the offer"

Pick whatever suits your agenda and run with it :ok:

FWIW (and I have no brief for BASSA whatsoever) I've very little time for abstentions and am generally of the view that if you abstain then you are implicitly accepting the decision of those who bother to vote.

This ballot says to me that 67% of those with an opinion they can be bothered to register don't accept the offer. Quite why they don't, and quite why nearly half of the membership of a union branch involved in an acrimonious dispute can't be bothered to vote are both beyond me.

Own goal from the abstainers IMHO.

Regarding the branch secretary, why didn't he just go on strike? Then he would have had all the time in the world to fulfill his union duties AND show his support for his "comrades".

What's that I hear you say?

:O

As I said many reps...I did not say many BASSA reps. As we are not directly involved with the dispute we cannot influence it. That said, I can assure you that many have let their feelings be known.
If BA had played ball the dispute would not have happened, easy statements to make. Your one sided view is just as appalling as BASSA's.
Both sides had some very valid points. Had two different sets of people been around the table the dispute would not have escalated.
You will never accept this as your attitude is entrenched as those you condemn. You will never understand the moderate argument any more than a BASSA rep. Equally you will never accept that BA have not been the shining light you think they are. Which is why I said we should agree to disagree....

In this report: BBC News - BA cabin crew reject latest pay offer

Tony Woodley: "This is now a wake-up call for Willie Walsh"
May I politely suggest to Mr Woodley that Mr Walsh woke up some time ago ... :hmm:

The Union still seems to be of the view that it is only WW that is against them, yet the Board of mgmt have hired him and declared their support. All the other working groups have renegotiated. I ran out of words several 'astonisheds' and 'gobsmackeds' ago. Luckily, I am not going to be using BA for the rest of this year.

Is there any way of finding out what is the true (audited) membership figure for BASSA?
We hear that 12500+ were sent ballot papers – BASSA’s site state they have 9750+ members, one presumes the other 2750 were AMICUS members.

Duggie Fashion on the other thread “This was merely a consultative ballot and the reason for the low return was probably due to many people not receiving or returning their ballot papers in time.
I live in Germany and only received my ballot 5 days ago.”

Surely the idea of any ballot is that all members can participate!
3419 voted no to reject the offer
1686 voted to accept
12600 cabin crew in total – 7459 did not vote.

I find it very strange that in a dispute such as this so many people would abstain from voting – your jobs are on the line – I cannot believe you would not cast your vote.
How many cabin crew do not belong to the union – add that to the total who voted to accept.

A new "front"?
 

Can't see this has been reported here: Racism claim opens new front in BA dispute | Business | The Guardian another variant British Airways (LON:BAY) Ballot Out Today

To summarise "CrewDefense" have filed a discrimination suit because they've had to give up living in Scotland, USA etc and move nearer to Heathrow.

Of the 3419 that voted to reject the offer how many will be willing to go on strike? The question is not how many will vote to strike but how many will actually be willing to strike. 50% ? Add to the normal loss of pay striking this time may result in the loss of your employment.

100 Academics
 

On that other forum, the current Bassa troll is claiming the "support of 100 academics," railing about Union busting.
Academics? Many young folk espouse Socialist ideals, then, as life experience grows, become more practical. The cloistered academic, with no real experience of life outside academe, does not mature in quite the same way.
One wonders how many of these Dons with unsaleable degrees will soon be be forced out into the real world for the first time in their lives?

Duggie:
Strange that: He gives his location as UK. I wonder if this is another of the many inaccuracies in his posts.

compared with:......
Didn't the offer made in June LAST YEAR match that of other departments? including a share offer? If it was good enough to be a "much sweeter" offer to the other departments, how come Bassa rejected it without even consulting their members?

What would be interesting to know is how many people signed and returned the individual offers that BA sent to all cabin crew. Only BA knows the answer to this, and I suspect they're not going to share with the rest of us. However, given the large number of non-voters in the Union ballot, I'd have a small bet that large numbers of actual Union members have accepted the deal as individuals, signed the "I wasn't in the Union, honest" declaration, and sent back to BA. If this is the case, then why would they bother voting in the Union ballot? Indeed, if they did they'd be at greater risk of losing the deal if Unite could show they'd done this when they're really subject to the collective agreement. I guess the accuracy of my theory will become apparent if and when Unite ballots for more strikes.

An alternative explanation
 

It could be that the poor response was due to the number of cabin crew who were
a) on leave
b) live overseas and did not recieve their ballot papers in sufficient time to be able to return them in the time available
c) did not return their votes in sufficient time to make the deadline.

or the fact that they were incapable of putting an x in a box :E
I'm not sure who was charged with sending out the ballot papers, the union or the body charged with counting the results. One thing that is certain is that Unite sent out more ballot papers than they have members.

Compulsory reply to ballots or VOID
 

Once again I post this annomaly

I left the Union when I changed from engineer to clerk About ten years ago

It was TGWU, then I belive Amicus, which changed to Unite

The last BA IA I was asked to renew my fees ?

Last week I wa again asked to renew my fees

Now for ten years I have not had a peep out of them, Yet now they are asking for money
They must be needing mugs cash I think

At the moment I am stuck between a rock and a hard place
My employer HMRC is going beyond the pale, with T&C constructive dismissals to meet reduced staffing levels
The Union are beyond the pale with their demands in the current climate

I am in the Union because I am seriously afraid of dismissal, when absent through illness (rule abscent more than twice a year either one day or five each time or OR absent more than ten working days at once)

Or UNION wanting more than any normal person would request in current climes

I do vote, but it is lost amongst the abstainers 3000 yes IA 2500 no IA 20000 did not bother

Then you have the ones who do not join the Union pay nothing but get all the benefits others have forfeited income for

Sheesh what a world

I have only done three Long distance (to me! Dubai) return BA flights this year ECONOMY and the best was on a strike day, even after the aprehension of not getting to my destination on time

All were good, just the strike day, was more pleasant, staff doing that little bit extra than tea coffee You For COFFEE

Jack McH

Call100:

Had ONE different set of people been one side of the table, the dispute would not have escalated.

Bear in mind the crux of this was the issue of working one down, something Gatwick have managed to do without any problem.

This dispute is a result of (a) BA having to make cost cuts, which IMHO they tried to do without pay cuts, compulsory redundancies, etc. and (b) the LHR BASSA reps who basically had no intention of giving an inch.

But yes, we should agree to disagree.

Or you could consider an alternative interpretation – that the non-union members lost out on a good offer that was wrecked because of the intransigence of a union to which they do not belong.

Theory
 

Regarding the very high numbers of none voters for the very important consultative ballot on the offer.

If i was a BASSA member who did not believe in the stance being taken, it is concievable that I may have signed the individual offer sent to my from BA (stating i was not a union member) And when the ballot papers arrived simply threw them away, allowing me to hand on heart say i did not vote (true) because i had resigned form the union <pick a date>.

When questioned regarding continued payments to the union i would look astonished and outraged." I never noticed, im gonna ring them immediately and put a flea in their ear". If questioned regarding the apparent lack of communication indicating a desire to remove myself from the union. I would firmly explain the phone call, email, letter of such and such date was sufficient and if they couldn't find it or didn't act on it, well, it sort of reinforces my reasons for leaving such a shambolic union. Of course if not questioned I would find it prudent to "discover my continued membership" and inform the union toot sweet .

Now who would BA believe? the person wanting to sign a new contract and work for them or the rabble intent on damaging the company?
Oh and I would be joining PCCC if for nothing else to be kept upto date on whats happening.

Travelling on BA
 

Dear Duncan / Duggie

I'm travelling LHR - SIN on 22 August. Please call a strike for that date so that I can travel with CC who actually want to be there.

Cheers!

Julia :ok:

Brand new to this thread but I have read the other thread from the very start and as someone on the outside of this dispute I am rather disheartened with what I read.

It would seem that the BA CC fall into 3 distinct groups, BASSA hardliners, BASSA sheep and the BASSA timid. I know that is an gross over simplification of a very complex situation but sat on the outside it's what appears to be the case.

Based on the latest figures it would seem the BASSA timid are, and probably always have been, in the majority so for the life of me I cannot understand why those at the helm of the PCCC are not jumping up and down identifying themselves. This would give all those BASSA timid and other non union CC members a beacon to head for and send a real message to the minority of hardliners that there is a real alternative.

No offence was intended for the use of the word timid and I apologise in advance but I could not really think of another suitable descriptor