I've personally had a few pleasant evenings here with a glass of wine and lively conversation :ok:

True for all

Litebulbs, I'll bite.

Perhaps they should have exchanges with German and American unions, who seem to work much better with employers at times of difficulty.

Instead of going to visit the Thai motor industry unions and stopping off in whore bars for bit of fun.

BASSA, and by implication UNITE, have dragged the Union movement back to the 1970's, because you have socialist dinosaurs leading the latter and immature cretins leading the former.

Where's the basis for that statement? Northwest, United, both disasters from the workers/union perspective.

Germans strike too you know. What was it last time, train drivers I believe.

The root cause goes far deeper. Unions are democratic, leaders are elected. If you vote for someone then one should assume you support their policies. If however you are not interested and the union is only there for when you need them (me,me,me) then you get what you deserve should a radical bunch take over.

It is like anything including marriage; it takes 2 to tango or make something work. If members interact with their union this shouldn't happen.

But we also need to accept that BA isn't the first dispute of this type. Most of the others however found a compromise. Could it possibly be in this case that the rhetoric has gone on for too long and each leader is now unable to compromise?

If and I say if that is the case, then changes need to be made at the top as far as the negotiations are concerned.

@litebulbs works council nice idea but works councils will always have limitations until they become a union. There will always be a need at some point for complete independent intervention on an issue. It may work though if management would also move a little further away from the master/slave attitude.

Even then you need the mother organisation to campaign and lobby on the bigger issues. Imagine no BALPA and then having to bring all works councils together to fight for less working hours for pilots for example, very unlikely.

You are not biting, just discussing

Workers Uniting - the world's first global union

You probably will find that a cream tea is not that high up the list of most union members, but if you are in a position of power and will have the pap's following you around, then just go and sit where the right wing business men are eating. Oh, probably in the same bar, but at seat's out back?

And by BA's punitive actions, industrial relations have gone back to the mill house.

I suppose I have just bitten here!

Unions face a problem these days, in that their raison d'etre is no longer self evident. In the early days of union power, it was plain what the union role was - fighting to protect the welfare of their members; ensuring that their members worked in a safe working environment and should they suffer a work related injury they were protected. This evolved over the years as the major battles were won and the union took on the role of fighting for a better standard of living.

Something went wrong with British Trade Unionism in the postwar era, they started to try to dictate to management who could work on what job and what equipment could be bought by management and how it would be operated. By the seventies we had the ridiculous situation where a union was dictating to the government. They had made British manufacturing uneconomic and uncompetitive, believing that somehow the competition from abroad could be ignored and that it was irrelevant.

The union reform acts of the 1980's were inevitable to curb this nonsense. The period of structural change within the UK employment market was unavoidable.

So, after a period of unparalleled growth, economic stability and relatively low unemployment during the 1990s and 2000's the youngsters who grew up in the era of union power, see an opportunity to grasp the reins of power again. UNITE fund the Labour Party heavily and use that financial muscle to attempt to bend policy to their will. We are seeing the re-emergence of the left wing union militants - Len McLusky et al.

Arthur Scargill was a passionate and effective union man when he was looking after the welfare of the miners, dealing with industrial injuries and their aftermath. He excelled in fighting for measures to ease the suffering of miners affected by illness due to the hazardous nature of mining. He was also the man who effectively destroyed the mining industry through his political naivety. He was good at doing what unions should be doing, he was a disaster in the political arena and effectively destroyed the NUM and union power for 25 years.

Given the background of all of this UNITE are now once again allowing themselves to pick the wrong fight. CC do not need their "welfare" protecting, they are not in a job that is potentially life threatening in the same way that ship yard workers did in the 1930's. Fighting to protect priviliged cheap travel perks of of a few relatively well paid employees is the wrong fight for a union and as such will never garner public support.

Juan, great post until the final sentence when you allowed your bias to creep in.

You know as well as I know that he strike wasn't and isn't about ST

Sactety Concerns
 

Well, that is not entirely true, it certainly was not about ST at the start. It is now though, as this seems to be the issue that is preventing a resolution.

As to my bias, that has been clearly displayed through many posts - as has your own.

All the best

JT

Emotive,ridiculous nonsense. If you think that BA's attempts to get the crew working a little harder by removing one crew member equates to the Mill Workers of the 19th Century you need to get a reality check.

Its about on the same absurdity level as BASSA claiming they are equivalent to the fight for Iwo Jima.

pvmw
 

I suppose it is about as emotive and ridiculous as drawing comparison to the miners strikes, where people died.

out of interest Juan what is my bias?

Yours is clear, Bassa are wrong, BA are right.

Er,....... Yes! And the relevance to this dispute is???????

pvmw
 

But you are not compelled to make a comment about that, when posters contribute?

Bias is an interesting word and is defined as:

So by introducing this word you accuse me of prejudice, prejudice is defined as:

My opinion, has not been formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. It is based on all the above plus personal experience.

Your bias is that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong and stupid.

oh Juan really.

My posts have had one theme and one theme only. In my opinion Bassa are wrong but equally BA are wrong by removing ST.

I personally believe that BA would have won this and finished this earlier by not removing ST. But then again just look at the response to the ST comments and the trouser wetting by anti Bassa posters over it.

some posters here have admitted that removing ST is wrong by PM

Therefore if we have a difference in public and private opinions, one can only conclude that the ST issue has suffered from prejudice. Otherwise the opinions would be the same.

The old chestnut when someone doesn't agree with your own opinion.
Even an excellent post about unionism today you couldn't resist allowing your bias to creep in. Is it any wonder that pro Bassa supporters are reluctant to post.

Why would BA allow strikers take seats on aircraft in order to join their friends on the picket line and drink pimms at Bedfont. They were warned they would lose ST and they sang that they didn't care....or rather more emotive words to that effect, so cause and effect. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...y_dog_eyes.gif

Willie Walsh is adamant that staff travel is not the reason why no settlement has been reached. He thinks it is a side issue and the problem is BASSA not being willing to agree to permanent structural change.

Update from Dorkan
 

Hi there everyone.

It's been a few days I know - we've been too busy updating our membership database to cast our eyes up into the forumosphere. Before we could start that huge task there was the little matter of cleaning all the jam and spilled tea off the thing not to mention the bread crumbs and butter welded to its dog-eared pages. The database has served as our toaster stand at home for several months. Anyway after I was reminded that the database also existed in virtual form on our computer I stopped all that but then remembered that I had inadvertently wiped the computer's hard disk clean last week after a few sherbets. My waistline continues to expand! Never mind though as it had been stored on a floppy that I thoughtfully sellotaped to the fridge door at union HQ and a quick phone call later it was winging its way to me via messenger. Having reloaded the information I was gratified to note that as of the last update 99% of memberships at that time were valid. Since then nothing much has changed although there is a huge pile of inbox-related membership retraction administrative input work outstanding. If we ever find the time following BA's unfair decimation and plundering of our Union infrastructure. Wee Willie and his bunch of diddy henchmen will not win this war and if they do then we will make sure that all the people sitting on this side of the fence have a forlorn hope of Xmas strikes because that is far enough away to be truly meaningless. Remember we have fought for you all and never let the facts divert us from the one true path of Bassa righteousness. In that you can trust. Don't believe those saying that it can't be right that only 3500 have lost Staff Travel whilst over 7000 have applied for strike pay. BA will say and do anything to distort the figures and it is not for them to reason why or how or who did and didn't strike. It is up to us to tell them and everyone else what we think is right. I think you'll agree. We'll be back to you as soon as Lizanne has returned from her holidays. Off to feed the tomatoes now.

Dorkan

Well isn't that jolly.....fiddling whilst Rome burns. I suppose it doesn't impact on Dorkans lifestyle so not to bother to be serious about it all! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/sowee.gif

buttons44:

I believe that was sarcasm, not a true post from Mr. Holley.

Safety Concern:

Many individuals here that have no objection to, or actually support, the removal of Staff Travel from some members of Cabin Crew are no more biased than yourself.

Until such time as a legal authority says otherwise I expect the situation to stay much as it is at the moment.

You can personally believe that Staff Travel would have brought this issue to a close. I disagree, and the statements of Mr. Holley and others support my opinion.

Note that the return of staff travel was demanded as a "goodwill gesture" towards continuing negotiations. Agreement has been described as "close", but BASSA and Unite have both said they have issues remaining.

Strikes are serious business. I'm rather surprised that the militant members of Cabin Crew thought this was going to be some sort of painless procedure. Naive in the extreme.

A puzzle....
 

I'm still puzzled by the dynamics around ST.

BA have offered to re-instate ST, but with "seniority" removed. The offer to re-instate ST has been rejected by the negotiating process that BA and the "junta from the bunker" use. So bassajunta have rejected ST.

The difference would appear to be seniority. Seniority is based on age. It starts with "service", but it grows as you get older, so it is based on age.

Now, Courts have to balance competing human rights. Which "human right" is more important -
1. to get rid of ageism,
2. to be able to strike without having non-contractural perks removed?

I have to declare an interest here - I'm over 50, and unemployed................so obviously, removing ageism is the most important.

Ancient Observer:

An interesting perspective.

I happened to just re-read Unite's message to its members regarding the offer that was taken off the table when strikes were called.

There was quite a bit of commentary regarding seniority issues. I'm going to have to go back and take another look.

(..as an aside it was incredible to be reminded what was on the table and Unite/BASSA's commentary regarding each point.)

@ AO

Seniority is directly related to length of service not age, so it is the fact that you have served 30 years rather than are aged 50 that is the (sole ?) criterion.

This is therefore not ageism.

The absolute "Seniority is the end all and be all" position of BASSA is simply outmoded and Mixed Fleet is specifically designed to cure that problem.

I recall quite well 20 years ago sitting across the table from counsel for the opposing side, asked for, and giving my position, and this gentleman saying "I've been doing this for 30 years and I'm not ready to listen to the likes of you".

My response was "I could care less if you have been doing it for 1 year, 5 years, or 500 years, if you've been doing it wrong you don't get a cookie for term of service".

Mixed Fleet, as a customer, is rather interesting. From a SLF point of view imagining a Fleet totally committed to its promotion and renumeration based upon customer satisfaction is a rather engaging ideal.

I'll be looking for the hats.

Partially agree, however, a lawyer might argue that if BA offers increased benefits for those with more than say, 20 years service, this would imply that to achieve said benefits one would need to be over 37 and hence since it was not available to anyone younger, age was a factor.Probably do it on a no win no fee basis :)

Ageism
 

Alpine,

Seniority starts when one is first employed. Thereafter, it increases with age. "Service" is an irrelevancy - seniority is based on age from th date that one joins.

Thus, it is ageism. It is probably unlawful

This has not been tested in the courts, yet. I hope that it will be tested very soon. It impacts rather a lot of things in BA...............

BA are also running the risk of having young, low paid crew in mixed fleet, and old, very highly paid crew on old contracts.

That is ageism. Not yet tested in the courts.

Hang on a minute. You could be 40 and have 5 years service, or 35 and have 15 years service.

Tell me about ageism again?

On the subject of German and American unions, I'll just throw a couple of things in the pot. This rather sensible quote about the German union movement:

And as for America, well let's just say if BASSA ran the US motor industry, America would no longer have one.

I'd type more but busy day at work today (No union for me here!). Look forward to reading more later.

Before the formation of 'Unite' Amicus was at the forefront of partnership agreements in the UK. It was the reason that T&G were haemorrhaging members to Amicus. People moving away from the old style T&G were and still are stuck in.
Although the name Unite is there, Unification has not been entirely completed because of the power struggles at the top. If the T&G attitudes prevail then the majority of members will suffer and eventually leave. BASSA being a prime example of the old style of conflict.
When working in partnership strikes were almost non existent because both sides had good reason to negotiate properly. Companies with partnership agreements tended to have the edge for contracts and Terms and Conditions were very good. Harmony is good for everyone.
I know many 'Unite' Amicus members who are watching carefully and looking around for another Union to bring in should the T&G prevail.

Arguments such as 'Seniority increases with age it is therefore based on age' while tempting to make, are circular logic and I suspect made up to fit the occasion.

Forget the party political bit.
 

This underlines what Call100 has suggested -

welcome

This isn't the place to debate ageism. All I'm pointing out is that there is a risk that the Courts will find all forms of Seniority to be unlawful.

Courts balance different "human rights". Is defeating ageism more or less important than some other claim.?

It has not yet been tested in the Courts.

I'll shut up about it now.

In the event of testing in court, expect to wait years for results. Judges are quite sensitive to the fact that there are always judges who are more senior and that such seniority, because it is based on the accumulation of knowledge, tends to be a bi-product of ageism..

why use seniority for anything?
 

"Courts could find all sorts of seniority unlawful"......... Generalisations about seniority systems can be fraught with problems but there is a point which needs to be recognised about why seniority systems became particularly important in airline flight operations.

In general (and certainly in most other businesses) it is better when selecting individuals e.g. for promotion, to base it on merit rather than seniority, but seniority is a valid determinant in the specific case of pilots. When looking at a number of current employees to select for a particular purpose, the organisation needs to eliminate the unsuitable (i.e. those without the necessary qualification to do the job), then select the MOST suitable from those that are. However for routine selections such as filling flying positions where the day to day work is dominated by standard procedures (SOPs), the desired outcome of each operation is the same (e.g. the flight is carried out to a planned schedule) and one individual should be able to be routinely substituted by another without affecting the outcome of the operation (e.g. when the actual individual to do a specific job can be nominated in a rostering process), it’s hard to find a basis for deciding which is the MOST suitable based on past outcome or successful performance.

This doesn’t apply to management type positions or small business units where the tasks are not generally standardised, but is more true for pilots than any other profession that I am aware of. This is because ALL members of the candidate group are required to demonstrate their ability to perform the core function, to the satisfaction of an independent authority (specifically, a check pilot acting on behalf of the CAA) every 6 months, and are removed from the pool if they fail to meet the required standard.

That means that selecting on merit at performing the function is very difficult - every candidate has demonstrated a consistently high level of skill and it's very hard to show that one has been more successful than another. Other than by personal bias and preferences of the manager making the selection (which is highly undesirable in modern businesses) the only remaining way to judge whether pilot A is likely to be better than pilot B at performing the required function is then that a more experienced pilot is likely to better than a less experienced one. More experience, especially experience relevant to that company is generally marked by length of service with that company – i.e. seniority. Hence airlines found they generally get best results when filling pilot vacancies by stating a qualification to be met (suitability) and then appointing the most senior suitable person – everyone can see and understand the basis of selection. Doesn’t necessarily apply to other aspects of employment though!

BA - Unite talks adjourned until next week without agreement

Wonder how this will go down with Duncan et al? Who decides when a strike ballot is called - Unite or BASSA? Am interested because it appears that Unite seem happy for things to drag on - during which time more new crew come online and the number of VCC also increase which in the end reduces further any impact should they decide to ballot

cym

A quote from the other thread:

From that, it would appear that some annoucement should be expected tomorrow.

I would imagine this morning's meeting between Walsh and Woodley was brief, with Woodley asking Walsh if his position had changed and Walsh tellin him to foxtrot oscar back to BASSA and tell them to do their worst and prepare for annihilation.

I imagine that this afternoon's meeting with BASSA was similarly brief with Woodley telling BASSA to get their act together and take one for Unite as they are on a hiding to nothing.

I would like to have been a fly on the wall at todays meetings and again at tomorrows BASSA meeting when accusations will be flying left right and centre. Happy days.

Be an interesting day - will they start the beginning of their own end?

I do hope so as this situation needs to be brought to a conclusion - and my money in terms of the outcome most certainly isn't on BASSA

A strange case of reincarnation?
 

Duggie Fashion is a latter-day Lord Haw Haw.

Discuss.

Nothing is new !:}

http://www.pprune.org/5718616-post1910.html

And just when you thought matters couldn't become any more absurd BASSA has issued an edict that cabin crew must not follow any instruction to close the window blinds at the end of each flight!

BASSA Looney Tunes
 

Here it is: