BA know exactly how many went on strike - they have withdrawn their staff travel, remember?

So it really doesn't matter what number BASSA fabricate (and I don't believe them for a minute, as they have been proven to be liars on so many occasions).

What matters is that BA can survive the strike now, and they've also managed to railroad New Fleet through and are therefore guaranteed the eventual cost savings that will generate.

All that BASSA should really be doing is negotiating to keep existing crew on their current earnings until they leave.

Any further disruption and I'm sure that will be the next thing under threat.

The trouble is that the BASSAmentalists still think that striking will actually achieve something.

"It will force BA back to the table!", or some other such nonsense on to which those living in La La Land probably still desperately cling.

I can only sigh at Duggie Fashion, the latest BASSA troll who has nothing constructive to offer and has decided that p*ssing off the ground engineering staff will achieve something.

if he is actually speaking the truth (which I also doubt), it would be a simple task to identify him if he continues his childish behaviour.

What a complete saddo, like the rest of them.

No matter what the strength of support for IA was earlier this year, it appears BASSA's membership is still ebbing away. It was 9757 on 20 July and today the website admits to only 9736.

Going down!

There is a real and rather blatant problem with Mr. Holley's latest message.

Apart from BASSA's repeated difficulties with being honest in their representations (i.e. 20 planes parked at Cardiff, only 6 Cabin Crew members crossed the picket line, etc., etc.) there is the obvious fact that the Union itself stated that the strike had poor support.

From a May 16th message:

Quote:

---

If the same number that broke the strike before do so again, then it's over; your union has been destroyed, not by Mr. Walsh - he could never achieve that - but by you from within, by deserting us when the going got tough.

---

The full text of that message can be found at this link.
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ve#post5696463

We know that the numbers supporting the strike did not increase from later messages and information received from Bedfont, and from the increased flight performance by BA.

The most obvious evidence of poor support is the simple fact that the strike failed, the imposition remains and Mixed Fleet is a soon to be reality.

BASSA can attempt to rewrite history but Mr. Holley's message is a rather crude attempt at deflection.

His opening line is:

He then goes on to cite non-verifiable internal numbers, dismisses entire sections of BASSA's membership (Gatwick), none of which have to do with the initial point of concern, all because he cannot dispute the third-party verified low turnout for the last ballot.

Mr. Holley might as well have been speaking of his tomatoes.

How to lose the NRT etc trips............
 

I'm sure that various BA staff are looking for more deterrents to further action.

I would suggest that for each day of Industrial Action, two of the lucrative trips for the long haul staff should be passed to the new mixed fleet.

As with the loss of ST, each member of BA CC should be told personally by their manager that each day of IA will lead to the loss of these trips.

Day 1, lose NRT and HKG, Day 2 lose Sin, and so on. Maybe even add some of the least attractive trips in exchange?

These trips are certainly not contractural, so there is no chance of any legal action, and BA have only offered to discuss the move of routes from the heritage staff to the New mixed fleet.

A great way to strike and lose even more money!!

BA could make this work either on an "all-crew" basis, or possibly on an individual basis, just for strikers. (Although the latter might leave them open for the lawyers to earn yet more money.)

The downside, of course, would be the possible impact on non-strikers.

Diplome
Yup. It just goes to show that for Mr H., it has never been about the members. It is just about his personal love for power.

Please no, non striking crew have already lost enough as a result of this dispute and the foolish actions of the union.

Further legal action by Unite
 

The BBC has just announced that Unite is taking legal action against BA over the removal of ST. They are using 'uman rites' legislation.:ugh::ugh::ugh:
More easy money for BA's legal team.

I will withhold my amusement at Unite/BASSA, who constantly issue critical comments regarding BA using the judiciary system to obtain relief, taking this action and actually view this as a possible positive development.

It seems a bit of a creative approach but should make for interesting reading. Can't wait to read the case history the Union uses in support of its argument.

No doubt the "key witness" will be a crew member who commutes from Staines and hasn't used ST since 1987 :}

From our SA friend in the other thread
If BA are found to be in breach of whatever legislation because they singled out strikers couldn't they just get rid of staff travel for all?

IIRC didn't the government do something similar when they were found to be in breach of some human rights legislation because they had differing free prescription ages?

Also how long would this kind of case take to get heard?

Is ST part of the BA staff contract? In my 35 years in the industry with a number of companies ST was always a privilege and not a right. Yes we often managed to get away with an ID90 on stand by but nothing was written into our contracts. Maybe I worked for the wrong companies! I should add that I refer to off duty travel of course.

Further legal action by Unite
 

The pro-BASSA lobby seem to be taking this as a positive development, but I'm not so sure myself. It rather suggests an acceptance by the Union that staff travel will not be returned either by negotiation or industrial action. It must be remembered that Unite/BASSA said that they would get staff travel back "in 5 minutes" something over three months ago, and that no resolution of the wider dispute would be acceptable without full reinstatement of the perk. Commencing legal proceedings looks like an acceptance that Unite cannot deliver on these assurances.

I somehow doubt Unite feels confident of victory. If they were confident, I think a more attractive approach to the problem (for the staff affected) would be to get one person to resign and claim constructive dismissal on the basis that removal of staff travel precluded them from getting to work which was tantamount to dismissal. They could take this to a Tribunal: cheaper and faster to hear the case. The fact they're not taking this approach suggests that they believe they will have to argue a much higher principle of law, in a higher Court, meaning much more time-consuming. As a result, I suspect those relying on staff travel will be starved out well before BA potentially loses any case. Any victory, if it really has to be litigated in this way, will be pyhrric in the extreme for the people affected.

Ava on the other thread has already mentally collected £2,000-3,000 she says she's had to spend on full fare tickets since losing staff travel on the basis of Unite's impending legal challenge. Let's assume her costs are genuine, and are replicated across the staff who commute and have lost the perk. How long can they endure such costs? What level is just too painful to continue? Intuition suggests £10k would be a very prudent average upper limit to set on this. 2,000 is also a prudent number of staff to assume are commuters and have lost the perk. That gives BA a maximum exposure of about £20 million in compensation even if they lose. Lost in the roundings in the great scheme of things, and a price worth risking if they starve out their most militant staff in the meantime. Put another way, my assumptions will have to be hopeless underestimates before BA is better off backing down on this one. Consequently, it is hard to see how today's development is in anyway positive for the staff involved.

Derecognition of a trade union owing to falling union membrshp in the bargaining unit
 

the threshold is 50% of the bargaining unit

Statutory derecognition of a trade union - an introduction | Business Link

It's non contractual but UNITE have to be seen to be doing something to justify their subscriptions.

Clearly Ava Hannah isn't exactly on the poverty line just yet shelling out several grand to cross the world to come to work for an employer she detests. Perhaps she knows a good thing when she sees it(!)

Grab the popcorn, folks, it's getting interesting :}

Er I'm sure I saw a discussion last week that a group of staff were taking BA to court over ST. Is the latest Unite stance driven by embarrassment that CC are doing their own thing?


(popcorn & pink stuff on stock)

Fancy a giggle?
 

Have been avoiding the CC thread for a while as I find the postings to be somewhat depressing.

Have a look at the words of wisdom of new poster bacabincrewmember

Giggle for Sure
 

Well Cym having just picked myself up off the floor having caught up on the latest posting on the other forum I find it all highly amusing.

One does have to wonder as is stated on there - 3500 lose staff travel and nearly 7000 claims for strike pay..........So glad I dont have the same sort of calculator as am sure the tax man wouldnt accept such variance on figures......Almost sounds like double entry booking keeping!!!!

You could almost believe that numerous posts are by the same person with a different log on.....funny how they never seem to comment at the same time wonder why that is?

Guess it will be worth coming back in a few days time jsut to have another "laugh" at the end of the week :-)

That would take extreme loyalty to the cause. All that would happen for the affected party would, at best, be a compensatory payment as I doubt BA would abide by a re engagement order.

We all know that staff travel is not contractual, but being punished for participating in protected IA may be unlawful. In my opinion, the reason for the delay in action on this, will be that a precedent could be set and that punitive action against workers who take part in IA may be judged to be lawful.

A hard place for Unite? For how many members given BASSA's falling membership?

Big risk me thinks

For customers, all this debate about who struck /when is a large dose of whatever.
All we customers want is re-assurance that those nasty strikers will not be on our plane.

PLEASE strike, bacrewmember et al, on late September out, mid October back, USA.

Please strike.

The I'll meet the better sort of folk, like Tira, Otter, GG and JSL. (As i'm booked from lhr I won't meet the nice lgw folk)

My goodness at times the lack of knowledge of basic settlement procedure is appalling.

bacabincrewmember posts on CC board:

http://www.pprune.org/cabin-crew/418...f-only-74.html

The answer is simply that almost all settlement offers and final documents drafted by competent counsel will have this clause.

Its simply "housework". By effecting settlement you get rid of as many ancillary issues as possible.

What seems to be lost in all the ongoing "We was robbed" statements is that the strike was lost. Period. If BASSA wishes to ballot for another action they have that right...but this strike is lost. Imposition remains and they only Cabin Crew that have gained are those non-union members who accepted BA's offer.

Well, in this case they were, if what has been explained to me is true. Unlawful deduction from wages and a letter inviting the individuals to raise a grievance to pursue reimbursement of lost monies. Not really standard, that, well in the UK anyway.

Will posters here please take a customer perspective?
 

Will posters here please take a customer perspective?

Litebulbs,

We are beyond caring whether or not BA did anything to striking staff wrongly or not. If you look back over my posts - I used to be sympathetic. The strikers could not care a jot about me. _ You want me to care about them? .......................

When the strikers see something..................anything from a customer's perspective - just once - maybe we'll listen.

AO
 

You are a customer, so you have a choice. Fly somebody else. It is along the same line as, if you don't like it, leave.

Litebulb:

Some of us may take a differing view. We will continue to support BA during this fight for control of the airline, and we wish to see the more militant of BASSA's members "Fly somebody else".

At this point I view any legal action by BA that squeezes BASSA into a settlement or makes it impossible for its most hardcore members to continue employment to be a pro-passenger result.

As for your comment above regarding recommendation of filing a grievance as "not being standard". I don't believe that "being standard" is the issue. Is it legal? If the answer is yes, no problem. If not, does the benefit outweigh the cost and any fine, etc.? Its a business.

Diplome
 

I understand that you wish to protect and enhance your stock and no doubt there are many like you. I am more interested in protecting and improving the rights of workers. That is what leads to the debate.

Litebulbs #782
 

Ava Hannah on the other thread is posting that she's already told her manager that she'll have to resign soon if staff travel isn't reinstated. So there's your test case. Except it won't be, because we all know Unite/BASSA has no case.

But let's assume there is a case, and it duly goes through the High/Appeal/Supreme Court. Then on to ECoHR if Unite loses. Where the case will be versus the UK government not BA. If they win that, they have to wait for the government to amend UK legislation. Then hope BA don't contest whether the change actually applies to them. And where in the 30,000 cases ECoHR gets this year do you think this will rank in importance and hence prioritising? How long do you think it will take? Won't all affected staff have "done an Ava" by then?

How much will this cost Unite's members, and how will you justify the spending of your members' subs to fight such a pointless case? At what point are you, personally, going to tell the full time leadership that you're not prepared to sanction further subs from members you represent being spent this way?

As I said before, worst case this costs BA £20m if they lose, and keep in mind they'll have got rid of a lot of expensive staff at zero redundancy cost, so the net cost to them is a lot less than £20m. I doubt they care whether Unite takes this case, other than it's diverting internal resource from real work like the Iberia merger, pension scheme changes, etc.

BA's share price is outperforming the market very handily over 12 months (by 35%). Consensus profit forecast isn't moving despite all the hot air from Unite. BA promised cost reductions, they've delivered them, the market likes it. If Unite/BASSA doesn't, well that's just tough I'm afraid. Cabin crew really aren't the only stakeholders in BA. The Iberia/AA deals are likely to be a much bigger contributor to profits/share price than anything Unite might do, well at least at BA. A strike at BAA Heathrow could hit the BA share price, I guess. In short, the investment community has moved on from the BA dispute. If BA has to chuck a bit of money at it because they're deemed to have breached human rights law, so be it. Far cheaper than backing down. I suspect they won't even end up doing that, though.

JayPee28bpr
 

Really good post. You are correct with regard to the Unite membership and how much more of their subs they want to be directed to this dispute, if it was not for the action in punishing workers for taking IA.

My concern, as being a slightly left of centre chap(ess as it is anonymous), is that legislation may be introduced way before the state has to abide by any EU directive, if our right of centre coalition decides to push through laws to allow the austerity measures in the public sector.

Absolutely correct. And let's also hope ACAS demand that all mobile communications devices are turned off, so we don't have to read any more of Derek Simpson's appalling drivel, or have another invasion of Socialist Worker's Party dole scrounging lefty layabouts.

I dread to think what Tony Woodley looks like after a few weeks dossing around in a luxury Cyprus villa. He must be glowing orange!

:}

Litebulbs
 

Somehow I just don't see the 2 million Unite members who do not work in the airline industry seeing the BA dispute quite this way. I have yet to meet anyone who sees cheap fares for airline staff as a fundamental human right, and certainly not one they'd want their money spending to defend.

You are in the bizarre position of defending a dispute that is now all about getting back a perk, actually about getting the queuing order for that perk (the perk itself was offered to be returned). The perk would not have been threatened if staff had accepted an earlier (better) offer than the one many of them now claim they would have accepted if only BA had included full reinstatement of their travel perk.

Quite so JP. It is also worth adding that BASSA members claim that ST will be returned by legal action in any event, and thus if they believe their own propoganda there is no need for further IA.

JP
:D:D

If a writer had described that in a fiction book, he/she would not have had many sales. What a case study of monumental incompetence.

Litebulbs
Go read something that is really about Socialism and employee rights. This dispute has nothing to do with either Socialism or employee rights.

The bile continues I see.....Unite will not take any legal action unless their Lawyers consider they have a case. Woodley and Simpson don't make these decisions.
I doubt they would know if it had any chance in court or not any more than most of the posters on here...:hmm:
As for the dispute, it's time to conclude it one way or the other now. It's the wrong dispute at the wrong time.
Have you all considered what you will do for a pastime when the dispute is over? Oh yes! We have the BAA dispute looming....That's bound to be wrong!!! Sharpen the pencils.....;)....

BA Strike - Your thoughts & questions
 

I have only skimmed through this thread and never posted on it. The CC thread I have and do read on a daily basis.
Drew3325 on #778 is spot on.
I have frequently been left wondering just exactly who is a genuine poster (cc) and who isn't. I doubt I'll ever know. I do sometimes think that, if they are real cabin crew, had I known what numpties they were - serving me my meals etc., over the years - I might never have flown with our national carrier. I alternate between total despair and peels of laughter.
Roll on the end and more power to Walsh and his successor.

Does any one remember any more what the IA was all about ?

Unite cabin crew members at British Airways recognise the pressures facing the company in the midst of the current economic crisis. Negotiations have been going on for over a year, but despite cabin crew being asked to make the heftiest sacrifices of all, British Airways continues to provoke cabin crew by imposing changes and refusing to negotiate openly and fairly. [from the unite website]

BASSA have gained nothing for their members - apart from the loss of the perk of staff travel !

A report from the press
 

It has been used by Greek-Cypriot refugees displaced by an invading Turkish army, Irish women asserting their right to abortions and burka-clad upholders of religious freedoms.
But now the Unite union is planning a fresh test for European human rights legislation: it plans to use it against British Airways to force the carrier to reinstate ultra-cheap Caribbean flights for striking cabin crew.
Unite said on Monday that it planned a legal challenge over the decision by BA chief executive Willie Walsh to strip striking crew of their travel privileges allowing them flights anywhere on the BA network for just a tenth of the usual fare.
"After careful consideration, Unite believes that management's action breaches European human rights legislation," said the union, claiming 6,000 crew were affected.
BA hit back saying: "Staff travel is a non-contractual perk. Cabin crew knew if they took part in strike action they would lose their travel perks. We will defend our position vigorously."
It is yet to receive formal notice of any action.

Litebulbs
 

"You are a customer, so you have a choice. Fly somebody else. It is along the same line as, if you don't like it, leave."

Oh, the screaming irony. From reading this thread, it seems pretty clear to me that the majority of SLF who post would very much like to understand why it is that your advice isn't taken by the militant CC who so very clearly hate the company they work for.

Such as your own employer? You have stated often enough that you work for another airline.
You're not exactly impartial in this matter, are you?

Yes I am and I if you explained this to any union member, they would agree. There is a fundamental right to strike in the EU. The UK is bound to the EU legislative process. How bound to human rights legislation could be tested with this case however. If you have a right, it goes that you should not be punished for it.

Litebulbs
 

An interesting, and carefully worded comment there. I note that you do not claim a fundamental right to strike in the UK, and equally, the UK is not bound to all parts of European law, or indeed all parts of the legislative process - something that may become even more interesting should the coalition go ahead with its idea to re-assert the primacy of Parliament within the constitution.

This is another area where lawyers suck their teeth, call it a fascinating case and mentally start riffing through which Lamborghini they want next.