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.