|
Edit:
Originally in response to a post that has now been deleted. Both quotes, by a striker, originate from here. Willie is bugging the room phones at the Aurora!! (That's my favorite.) Duncan is a wally. I mean, have you read his updates? |
Yet another ballot!
Here we go again, Unite will ballot the CC for yet more Industrial Action. I imagine that BA's legal team are rubbing there hands together in anticipation of yet more legal action!
|
Can any of you sensible cc help me.
We are booked on a long haul flight on 3rd Sept. but have a connecting flight on the morning from Newcastle. Whilst I would feel comfortable enough once in Heathrow does anyone know what would happen if this was a strike day and I was stuck in Newcastle airport (or what previously happened) on the friday morning. Can I also take this opportunity to thank the cc and vcc who attempted to keep the service going as normally as possible.I think the majority of passengers are grateful for your efforts. I wish you luck and hope that the neanderthal thinking of the minority of your colleagues will soon be a thing of the past.I am an ex union rep (retired NHS) and cannot for the life of me understand what they are thinking of in these hard times when many people are facing the loss of their job and there are many greater injustices to contend with. Good luck for the future and long live BA :D |
she's had more than enough and just wants to go to work and do a decent job, the sooner BASSA allow her the better, is her view. Has BASSA got her locked up? |
Teesider,
From what I could see when travelling on previous strike days to/from Newcastle, they kept the early and late flights and it was the middle ones that suffered. As soon as the schedule was announced, you could swap onto the flights that were planned to operate without penalty. And in my experience, those flights operated perfectly (better than usual actually!!) If you really wanted to play safe, you could swap to the day before and nightstop perhaps? Though from what I understand, WW says that there will be even more shorthaul flights if they are mad enough to strike again. Are they?? Who knows?? I cannot understand their thinking at all!! I would really take heart from the fact that there now seems to be only the 'duty' BASSA poster on the other forum whereas in the early days there were some who were more obviously just cabin crew who did not know which way to turn. I think most of those have decided and have turned away from BASSA judging by the lack of BASSA sympathisers expressing views now. Good luck! And try not to worry about it. I'm also going on holiday in September and am still planning to fly BA because I don't want to let these few wreck the lives of so many!! I have great admiration for the VCC who have stepped in and kept the company going.::D |
Good for her. Why doesn't she go back to work and do a decent job, then? Has BASSA got her locked up? I'll give you a silly example if you like: How about the debate she has with some crew each flight when she is spotted reaching for the hot towles..! ..or how about the atmosphere when she requests that crew dont sit in the gally filling in forms claiming strike pay during a flight, or the grilling that follows being spotted taking refreshments to flight crew, I could go on with more serious examples, I really could. Regardless of who you believe is at fault all is not usual at work and hasnt been for some time. Some will state it's down to BA's management I know, she holds the view that it's BASSA, you have your own position I'm sure - which view is correct is the subject of this forum debate is it not. |
That other thread is so much 'same old, same old.'
Would someone in the know please start a new thread when something actually happens? Probably on or after 1st August. Possible title: "'The Bill' - BA vs BASSA." http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/flaguk.gif |
Snas..
I follow; I read your post as BASSA not allowing her to go back to work, rather than BASSA (or rather those acting in its name) not allowing her to do a decent job when she is at work. So, apologies and I understand. |
At the same time that Trade Union history is being made in the UK. the future is being manufactured in the US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLGqrsjILo4 |
Teesider,
I would not trust BA to protect your short-haul connection. During the last strike BA cancelled our connecting flight out of Heathrow and, despite promises in the media to reroute us on other airlines, other flights, other ... , they didn't. We were given an option of returning a day earlier or a refund. So we agreed to travel the day earlier, a non-strike day. They then cancelled the day earlier connecting flight out of Heathrow, and told us we could 'stand-by' for a later flight that day. No guarantees, no compensation, nothing. After sweating for 24 hours or so, not knowing if we could get home, we did. Expect the worst. (and I'm ex-gold, currently silver, and soon to be blue). You can't trust these bar-stewards. |
CC Really should visit here
From the other place
Colonel White posts what I have posted for a long time "THERE REALLY IS NO WORK OUT THERE" SNIP COLONEL WHITE Came across the following article which may be of interest to those cabin crew thinking of taking further industrial action 'Pier Walker, 45, has been unemployed for over a year after a long and successful career working for British Airways in its first class cabin crew. Pier says: “I would like a job in customer services. Initially I was quite selective in what I applied for, but now I’m so desperate that I’m looking in any sector. On average I’m making two job applications a day but I have only been able to secure one interview for a permanent role and that has taken months to arrange. I have received no job offers to date.”' Full article here =>Online Recruitment - Today?s jobseeker: over-qualified and undervalued Article is dated 23/7/10, so very recent. Does make you think about the value of hanging on to your job as opposed to throwing it away defending BASSA's principles HOT WINGS REPLIES Why hasn't he managed to get a job as a paramedic, firefighter, or midwife Surely he's Qualified" " END SNIP I obviously can not reply on the other place If you can, then tell HotWings and the rest of them Because there are thousands of the above fully qualified in the profession already unemployed looking for the work They are not going to take someone who has a knowledge of the job when there are people who have done the job waiting for another one to pop up What used to be school girl leavers doing office work for peanuts, have been replaced by UNI Gradutates doing office work for peanuts OTHER AIRLINES have staff turnover, because they are UNI Graduates gap yearing and earning a lot more than burger flipping LOSE YOUR JOB and you are destitute for at least five years, until your home and family have gone, all your savings, and by then your knowledge of the job is five years out of date and NO CHANCE My employment, I now have ex proud well off men (and Ladies) with the BMW big house inc £90k they are now on £120 per fortnight Job Seekers Allowance for six months, then nothing until all the above have GONE then £120 a fortnight Income support, this has been for over eighteen months now You can not keep a big house, nice car, and model wife on that, They ALL go 2010 is not the year to risk losing what you have Jack McHammocklashing |
Jack
I might be wrong, but i think the "why doesnt he get a job as a paramedic, midwife etc" comment was a touch of sarcasm from the poster, rather than serious question, based on the long thread conversations where we hear about all the hundreds of highly qualified BA CC who are lawyers, doctors, teachers, dentists, midwives, who decided to give it up and be CC instead.
(Not that i doubt that there are indeed some former professionals amongst the crew...) |
Yeah thanks for the heads up
My post still stands If you lose your employment now you are ruined Regards Jack McH |
Duncans Alter Ego
Looks like DH has time on his hand and has wheeled out one of his female personas for an Anonymous article in todays Guardian.
He has a nice little dig at the Pilots and generally tries to stir up trouble - again Quote "And it's not just the passengers you have to look out for. I once saw a fist-fight break out when two of the cabin crew discovered they were sleeping with the same captain. The straight crew probably have the best job of all – they work with all the female staff, rather than being confined to the cockpit, so they get off with more girls than anyone else. It can be a great social life – wild parties in hotels; skinny-dipping, smoking dope and getting drunk. There have been moments where I've thought, thank God the passengers can't see us now, like the time I was sitting by a swimming pool in Cyprus at 5am, drinking martinis and watching our drunken flight captain flirting with a girl, and thinking, "He's got to fly a plane in less than four hours' time." Still, he was flying Airbus, which means they hardly have to do a thing – the computer almost lands it for them." Maybe he is playing Miss M or Ava in this one. I wonder how he gets into character? But typical how the CC job is implied to be more dificult than Pilots, who "hardly have to do a thing". How can a national newspaper print such utter tosh - well it is the Guardian I suppose |
Lanyards
A few posts have mentioned militant CC wearing BASSA lanyards while on duty. Are additional items of this nature, allowed to be worn with/on their uniform, (bearing in mind all the previous fuss about a member of the checkin staff wearing a crucifix), as it appears on the surface that the wearing of this lanyard is possibly being used to cause dissension/possible intimidation amongst crews. It can't give too good an impression to passengers who are aware of the BA/BASSA problems.
Or is this a molehill looking to be a mountain? :confused: |
Not sure how BA could let something like that stand unchallenged |
@baggersup It's a whole other category to allege staff were using drugs and a captain was abusing the alcohol policy, inferring he was an unsafe pilot as a result. That's actionable. I'm sure the paper will be receiving a phone call from BA's lawyers forthwith. Not sure how BA could let something like that stand unchallenged in a major daily. Hope the paper's publishers have very deep pockets. Note that nowhere within this article is British Airways, or indeed the name of any Airline mentioned. It is a touch unfortunate however that BA is the subject of all of the articles in the Related section. This might lead some readers to conclude that British Airways was the target of the article. I would have thought the related articles are selected by some type of algorithm rather than by a human? |
Jack
You are right. People need to know when they’ve got it good and to put their livelihood at risk at a time when there are no viable alternatives is a folly.
But we still hear of executive excesses (e.g. M&S) and management using the economic situation to exploit the workforce (e.g. unpaid internships). I’m afraid the Victorian mill owner instinct for exploitation is never far away! Unions still have a role in protecting workers in this environment. An eternal struggle in which the balance of power shifts with the prevailing economic and political environment. |
Unions still have a role in protecting workers in this environment. I completely agree but would suggest that in the case of BASSA/Unite and BA CC they have acted in such a fashion as to have jeopardised the continued employment of many and indeed already concluded the employment of a few. |
With respect I would suggest that there is a deal of difference between the stereotypical victorian mill owner and modern management. To kick off with, the mill owners were in the main deeply religious men with a strong work ethic who were not responsible to shareholders and who invariably did not have a senior management team running the enterprise. Any profits from the mill went into the owner's pocket, thus he had a vested interest in operating at the lowest cost threshold.
Contrast this with the management teams of companies like BA, where although the senior execs do get bonuses, they invariably come in the form of share options. The profits don't go into their pockets, they are shared by all the shareholders (assuming the company pays a dividend). It is utter tosh to suggest that the management team of any company is exploiting the current economic situation to undermine its staff. In any organisation employee costs invariably figure as one of if not the highest cost items. So in a time when revenues are down, the logical area to tackle is cost reduction and employee PPI costs are a prime target. Unions are in a difficult position. They should be aware of the economic realities but it runs counter to their position. They know that cutbacks are required, but the notion of losing a few in order to protect the many is opposed to the idea of protection for all. As far as executive pay goes, yes, the amount that Stuart Rose gets as part time chairman of M&S does seem ridiculous, but then so is the amount that football clubs pay for players. At least Stuart Rose has been able to help M&S make a profit. And on the subject of pay, why does nobody shout about the package that TU leaders enjoy ? |
With respect I would suggest that there is a deal of difference between the stereotypical Victorian mill owner and modern management. BBC News | EUROPE | IKEA accused of exploiting child workers Nike admits to mistakes over child labour - Americas, World - The Independent Wal-Mart settles child labor cases - Business - U.S. business - msnbc.com |
JackMcHammocklashing
COLONEL WHITE "THERE REALLY IS NO WORK OUT THERE" HOT WINGS REPLIES Why hasn't he managed to get a job as a paramedic, firefighter, or midwife Surely he's Qualified
I am now self employed and doing a rewarding job but at less than 50% of what I used to earn. Welcome to Britain. |
What can be accomplished with another strike?
I know this question has been asked ad infinitum, however I can not help myself.
Without question another strike will; 1. Inflict additional financial pain on BA, and 2. Inflict additional pain on strikers. Is this in the interest of anybody, particularly striking Cabin Crew? Does anybody believe that additional strikes will hasten the return of Staff Travel or cause BA to reemploy Duncan? I do not expect the usual BASSA Noms de Plume to provide a succinct answer, but possibly some of the nonaligned Cabin Crew could express their thoughts as to why additional strikes are appropriate. |
pcat160 You are asking such sensible questions but, unfortunately, 1970s Unions do not read questions the way that you ask them!
Any organisation/group of people gets bogged down with "We've always done it this way" and that is why:
|
Pcat - you asked
What can be accomplished with another strike? Unite went straight from A to Z in one bound. This can work if you are damned certain that a walkout will grind the business to an earth shuddering halt. Trouble is that Unite had no way of guaranteeing that. The problem Unite now face is that there are only two courses of action open. One is to admit defeat and sign the deal, any deal and try and put some kind of positive spin on it. This is why the Unite leadership have made such noises about the BA offer being rejected by two thirds of members and only 15% supporting the offer. The alternative is to find a suitable new cause for strike action and pray that a) they can get greater support from members this time around and b) BA is not able to field enough VCC, non-striking crew and others to cover the operation. In reality the second option is now a non-starter. BA have volunteers in place and have made it plain that the New Fleet issue will not impact current crew - it was spelled out in the offer they put forward that the union membership turned down. If Unite go for a further strike ballot, they face the prospect of damaging their position not only within cabin crew, but also within BA generally. A failure to 'win' this dispute will also have knock on effects on their position nationally. I suspect that the Unite leadership will endeavour to quietly settle this. |
can someone pls enlighten me...
what is 'Mixed Fleet' and why is it regarded with fear ?
|
Mr Optimistic,
Seriously? Have you been hiding somewhere? :p Mixed Fleet is the new name for New Fleet. Crew on current LHR fleets feel threatened that MF will get all the "good" routes leaving them with no income. Never mind the fact that BA has offered the top up payment :rolleyes: |
a bit slow on the uptake perhaps !
:ouch:Thanks, but in terms of the crew how does it differ - not actually seen it spelt out anywhere - why can't the lucrative routes be reassigned without generating a new 'fleet', whatever that may really be.
|
New Fleet will work on short-haul and long-haul and will have radically different working practices to the current LHR fleets. They will basically work to the CAA guidelines and that's it. No payments for working one-down. No restrictive disruption agreement. No seniority. And so it goes on. Pay and promotion will be linked to performance.
To get the full efficiency from the new T&Cs for crew, they have to work separately from the existing fleets. New Fleet is a threat, partly because the current routes are divided between "money" (HKG, SIN, NRT etc) and "charity" trips (India, Africa). The former destinations pay absurdly high allowances. On the latter, some crew think they are doing the company and pax a favour by turning up to work. If CC were paid an hourly rate for the work they did, New Fleet wouldn't be such a threat. This was actually proposed by the company a couple of years ago, but BASSA wouldn't entertain the idea. Personally, I don't think that New Fleet will be mean that current crew will be starved of work. What it will mean is that the days when BASSA was able to call the shots at LHR and dictate the operation are over. Over time, the current LHR fleets will have to accept gradual changes to working practices, because their inefficiency will be laid bare when New Fleet is up and running. |
I'll try to narrow it down for you, Mr Optimistic.
"Old" Fleet (both long and short haul) have a complex and expensive allowance system. New fleet (MF) has hourly pay (like LGW) on top of basic, so much simpler structure. Last year, MF was offered to come off the table, but union decided it wasn't good enough and called strike. Due to financial impact, MF was brought back in. Current crew at LHR are paid varying allowances for varying destinations. Long range such as Narita and Singapore attract great allowances, as does the Swiss destinations on Short haul. The current crew are convinced they'll be left with low earning destinations (Africa and India) whilst MF take over Long Range routes. BA have offered a "top up" payment for current LHR crew, to ensure they won't lose out, regardless of routes "lost" to MF. The figures are based on financial year of 09/10. MF cannot fly with current crew as union will not allow it (they didn't allow it anyway, who knows, they might have changed their minds now). Militants refuse to read, hear and/or believe anything BA says. Hope this brings you up to speed on a few things ;):p |
The two threads running have been a fascinating insight into the industry and from the perspective of a member of the SLF community for many years, it certainly is fascinating to understand how organisations operate, for good or for ill.I have been reading these threads and feel ill equipped to comment on much of the content, being a relatively infrequent flier these days but one area where I have something to add, hence this post, is that I am what is politely known as a 'headhunter' and so have some inkling into how organisations actually recruit in practice.
As an earlier poster pointed out, they were aware of a member of cabin crew who hat left their employer and was having difficulty securing employment. A suggestion was made that age 45, this was a major issue. I beg to differ. The undue emphasis on 'what I had before' can certainly be a factor but it rarely affects the ability to get an interview - but it certainly allows an individual to blow an interview spectacularly well. The issue is of skills and transferability between business sectors. Without knowing the full background of the individuals concerned it is possible to definitive regarding their case, however in my opinion, the real reason is that the individual has very little to offer that discriminates he/she from the other candidates. To join another business sector, the sort of skills that employers will look for a demonstrable track record in;
Now the following bit is entirely subjective and I apologise if I oversimplify the job that cabin crew undertake, and underestimate the abilities of certain staff who have chosen a cabin crew career after working in another business sector. IMO, there are virtually no business related skills that cabin crew possess which differentiates them from a new starter in the role. Doing the role is hard and tiring and means you have to put up with a lot of hassle - but it gets you no qualifications, no transferable skills (except maybe patience for which business does not pay), and nothing more than this 'seniority' of which you talk. It is in essence, not a career - it is a job. Much like brick carrying - skills wise, you are at the end of your career as you went into it, from the perspective of outside employers. Yes, there are things like improved life saving skills, but it does not automatically make you a doctor/nurse/midwife/paramedic. You would start off as a day 1 Intern. You would never be a firefighter - you would never have the stamina to pass the entrance exam unless you actually trained for it. Just doing a cabin crew job is not enough. So, to address another persons point, it is risky leaving any job without skills. A 40 year old with no desirable skills is probably worse of than an 18 year old in the same situation. It does not mean that doing it is wrong, but it is risky. This is why so many people are gaining degrees, MBA, MA's etc while working in their jobs, and this is wherein the problem lies for well established cabin crew. The employment world has moved on and having certain qualifications is regarded as minimum and many mature staff simply do not have them. If you are going to leave, get some relevant qualifications first, as being a member of the hard working cabin crew is practically irrelevant in most professions - particularly if you are used to what some regard as 'over- generous' benefits. I make to comment on the veracity of these. Something to think about folks when you are at work - next time you need an accountant, an engineer, a mechanic, a shop worker, a medical professional, a gardener - ask yourself what skills a long standing member of a cabin crew has which qualifies them for these roles. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. |
Thank you
:ok: what tangled webs we weave: only a nationalised outfit could give this legacy. Daft management in another era. Worked for one, Railtrack, with similar culture (just loved the free tickets for family & SERVANTS) ! And where is Railtrack now ?
|
Drogo H Troll ( no. 1376 - the other place)
I see someone states 6200 claims were made by strikers.
was this 6200 individuals, or was it 6200 claims whoops, someone else thinking similarly (MIDLGW). Suspect he's righter than drogo. |
GrahamO
Thank you for the very interesting and well expressed thoughts.
|
6200 claims made by members
3 waves of strikes in last IA 6200/3 = 2100 members on strike |
I wonder whether everyone who is claiming strike pay actually went on strike? BA kept the crew lists confidential so as not to reveal the non-strikers names. How do BASSA check that someone making a claim was a striker?
Dave |
Airclues,
That would appeal to my sense of humour: "Apply here for refund of your union dues and political levy!":E |
Originally Posted by Cherwell
(Post 5826926)
Unions still have a role in protecting workers in this environment.
This whole affair makes me feel young again, because I grew up in the 70s and some of my earliest childhood memories are sitting at home reading by candle-light because the power workers were out on strike in support of the miners who were out on strike in support of the British Leyland workers who were striking because their daily tea-breaks had been reduced from eight hours to six. Since the 80s unions have been so tame, and now we have a no-holds-barred fight as BASSA have apparently not noticed that it's now the 21st century. As others have pointed out many times, a 21st century union would have negotiated with the company to get the best deal for their members even if it meant giving up a few perks that they could live without; which would have been substantially better than what's now on offer. BASSA were foolish enough to call a strike over a minor issue which their members were not willing to support in large enough numbers to have any real impact on the company... and then continue even when that strategy has been clearly shown to be a complete failure. That's what makes it all so interesting to an outsider; whereas most companies would have laid off the worst troublemakers by now regardless of cost BA have bent over backwards to be nice to BASSA strikers yet they still bite the hand that's held out to them. BA management can't do that forever and the longer the strikes continue the more they'll be able to lay off and replace with New Fleet when the time comes for the nuclear option. |
Good points there.
From Ava Let them sack me. I would return my uniform feeling proud of having completed a good fight against a nasty piece of management. I couldn't be less bothered as this company is not what it used to be. WW has done nothing but harm in a very short period of time. Some of us are pleased that he's leaving in a couple of months. It is amazing how many times you can easily see what really lies behind the written word. Mostly, BA should listen and do what we tell them to do. BA's management is "nasty" - of course they are - doing what they MUST do to keep the airline flying. And the company is not what it used to be. Each ignores that BA is a business that has been beaten, bashed and bruised by a union who milked it for their own ends for all these years. It has taken a man like WW to bring the reality of the 21st century into the equation that has no room or need of militant unions. Or, indeed, militant staff who make attempts to impede this process. BASSA has no place to run, they have been rumbled, and it is now their turn to be beaten bashed and bruised. Its over folks and there is no way back to the bad old days. Make no mistake, WW is not a fool. But he is a business man with good business sense who has refused to be intimidated by a few BASSA militants who have no better way of performing union matters than to use any 'nasty' way they can. Their tactic, there has been only one it seems, is to say to BA - WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE. |
BASSA mathematics and logic.
6250/13300 = "proof" that the majority of cabin crew did not work normally.
It would be laughable if it wasn't so serious for so many people. DH can no longer be personally affected by further strikes, yet he is apparently ready to sacrifice his members pay and possibly their career by whipping them up for more IA := Given that just over half of those 6250 voted no to the BA offer, this shows (if the figures are correct) that BASSA's support has dropped by about half since the last (ineffectual)strikes. Does DH really think that further IA will have any chance of success whatsoever? I suspect he no longer cares. Ifhe had any honour he should have resigned his post once dismissed by BA. Or at the very least taken an strictly neutral stance for his remaining tenure. He should be ashamed of his continued role in this matter in my view := |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:53. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.