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.

As previously posted there is an offer for the partial return of ST on the table with Unite.
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
 

But you may have misunderstood the conversation. IMHO cabin crew in BA are very aware of industrial agreements but not necessarily as aware of scheme (legal) limits.
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.

You are not being paid because you are not working, on a day off or on leave/sick. It is not a punishment.

west lakes
Just to clarify ST a little
It has far less affect on those commuters with little service as onloading from standby is in simple terms, after commercial standbys are accommodated, the longest serving are on first subject to seat availability.

As a long serving CC she would go to the very back of the standby queue thus significantly reducing the chance of getting a seat. That in turn would mean either trying BA day(s) earlier or another carrier direct to London - Virgin or SAA ( very low priority ) or another carrier via Europe / the Gulf with yet another standby or at a last resort, financially, some form of commercial fare.

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.

If you are right that withdrawal of contractual salary is not a punishment, why is the withdrawal of non-contractual staff travel because you are not working, on a day off or on leave/sick deemed a punishment then?

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 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.