AT*Q
 

Once again you prevaricate LB.

To use the same analogy:

I choose annually to tip my paper delivery boy/milkman/dustman etc. (my staff)

If I choose not tip the dustmen (part of my staff) one year because they dropped some rubbish I am not punishing them, merely removing a perk. The tip wasn't contractual!

Litebulbs
 

Sorry but if you truly believe this then I want some of whatever you're smoking. It won't get anywhere near a Court, or at least not one that's going to set a precedent. BA can settle the problem within months, ie as soon as large numbers of the awkward squad who rely on staff travel have left.

I think you should be more worried about how many individual contracts BA now has saying "we'd like to accept the deal". It it's a lot, and with the prospect of upto 1,300 awkward squad members resigning soon, then there's not a lot to stop BA calling a derecognition ballot is there? Do you think one reason BA sent the same package of documents to every member of staff, even those it knew were in the Union, was to gather precisely this information, ie to ascertain the possibility of winning such a ballot? How do you interpret Walsh and Broughton's comments at the AGM about being "sick and tired" of BASSA?

To not agree is not prevarication. Dropping rubbish is not a protected right. What will be tested is whether going on strike is. If it is, taking action to prevent or punish will be unlawful.

JayPee28bpr
 

For the record, I am not smoking anything and to suggest as much is insulting (well it isn't really, but some like to think things like that are)

I am not worried in the slightest about how many contracts BA have. If 50%+1 have signed, then that is democracy. If a de recognition ballot is the outcome, then so be it. If it happens and the cabin crew would prefer not to have recognition, then that is their choice. The best thing to come out of the Thatcher years is secret ballots. Have your mass meetings, but vote on your own.

I can imagine that the top table is sick and tired, just as probably every other employee is too. The line has been drawn and the button will be pushed if nothing comes out of the ACAS meeting.

If you are correct Litebulbs that this dispute will have far-reaching negative implications for future Union action, it is even more depressing that this dispute arose over a few hundred CSD's (many of whom were BASSA reps) being told to push a trolley.

[quote]The line has been drawn and the button will be pushed if nothing comes out of the ACAS meeting. [quote]

The button was pushed before last Christmas when the initial strike ballot took place. Since then we have had several strikes with ever decreasing numbers involved & a rapidly decreasing effect on BA's operations. We have also had various additional ballots again resulting in ever decreasing support from the Bassa members of a rapidly decreasing union membership.

The attempt to sue BA using 'uman rites' legislation is Unite's final attempt to gain some mileage out of this dreadful situation. If they were confident of their position then they would have ballotted for further IA ages ago. The fact that they haven't is a tacit admission that they & Bassa have screwed up big time.

I for one am very pleased that they have & Mr Walsh can now continue running BA the way he wants, free of interference from the union numpties.

Tamazi,
Thank you, and not a problem. I shouldn't have been so sensitive myself, however cabin crew in BA have now been tainted by the disgraceful actions of some of the BASSA militants. Sadly, mud sticks and the half decent reputation of BA cabin crew has been destroyed for many years to come.

Tiramisu
 

T, don't beat yourself up, there are millions of loyal BA pax like myself who are only too well aware of what's been happening & who love you all to bits. You've probably noticed that there aren't too many complaints on this forum, well only about the Bassa numpties.

Chin up girl!:ok:

Thank-You
 

As SLF who tries to fly BA when possible I would just like to add my comments on my recent experiences. I have just completed 4 sectors in 4 days (GVA-LHR-MAN-LHR-GVA) which were actually my first flights with BA this year. Normally have done around 12 sectors by now but neither I or my company could take a risk with me not getting to where I needed to be.

I have to say I received some of the best service I have ever had on a BA.

The GVA-LHR-GVA in particular were excellent (club) with happy smiley crew. One of the crew had a BASSA lanyard on and possibly that means he went on strike - but I won't speculate any more than that - but he also seemed happy - at least certainly not grumpy. Even before the strikes there were many crew who seemed dissinterested in what they were doing, something has changed and for the better.

I was very surprised that club on both sectors was completely full (20 pax and it has been a long time since I've seen that) and in Y it also looked pretty much full as well. Surprised seeing as BMI/Swiss also now do GVA/LHR and would have thought they may have 'stolen' a lot of pax, and in fact I used them on my last LHR visit.

All in all it reminded me just why I prefer to fly BA, the outstanding service, the excellent lounges and the main reason: the excellent crew. So to people like Tiramisu - KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK YOU DO :ok:

I will end just by saying to BASSA - please don't try to ruin my holiday later this year - I really need my 2 weeks away.

Thanks for 'listening'..

PleasureFlyer - Backing BA.

Restoring BA's reputation will be easily enhanced by two factors, viz the continued enthusiasm and dedication of Tiramisu and all the other good guys and gals, plus the sacking of a significant number of malcontents.
That shouldn't be too difficult.

ST-again
 

Postings on the other thread regarding ST have been going on ad nauseum for weeks, so I'll be brief. We know it's not contractual but a concession in the gift of the airline. In my humble opinion withdrawal of ST from strikers may or may not be in compliance with Staff Rules & Regs, but bringing the airline into disrepute is. To that end BASSA strikers, rather than conduct their campaign with a modicum of decorum chose to denigrate the CEO publicly, parade outside the Aurora Hotel with a makeshift band - of sorts - and with the display of anti-BA banners at Bedfont plus the screaming banshees outside the law courts they did their cause more harm than good. If they've lost their ST it's no-one's fault but their own.
As a tongue in cheek suggestion; give the commuters who've lost their travel concessions extra crew chits, LHR-XXX-LHR. If you live in JNB, work your passage as supernumerary crew. Simple!
Only joking!

Full Circle
 

CC135
Ironic! This whole debacle started when the CSDs decided that it was beneath them to work their (imposed) passage.

It is quite amazing how much "schadenfreude" is going on here. As far as staff travel is concerned you should be very careful what you wish for regardless of your view about the strike and strikers etc..

As far as I am aware, the threat to remove staff travel was made before strikes actually began, therefore also before the so called lack of decorum which apparently warrants some form of disciplinary action. Therefore this approach is irrelevant.

It is no longer about whether staff travel is a perk or not, it is about whether a company has the right to discriminate against those participating in a legal action. The action is legal regardless of support, non support. Therefore removal of staff travel as a form of punishment because you disagree with someone's opinion and not because they have done something wrong could well be considered as bullying and seriously backfire on BA.

Therefore any threat to remove something, anything because you choose to participate in legal strike action, is bullying. If this goes unchallenged, what will be next?

Shift change tomorrow, what no, you have just lost staff travel. Some of you are so quick to criticise those having a different opinion you can't smell the coffee. And that isn't a vote of support either way, its just recognising that the staff travel saga is far more significant than many seem to realise.

Whilst BA's reputation has undoubtedly taken a considerable knock, with the end of this saga in sight, there are reasons to be cheerful. Anti-trust immunity with American Airlines and the consequent lifting of restrictions of mutual earn and burn restrictions between AA and BA should bring a lot of traffic to BA. Capacity on BOS, DFW and JFK has already been increased in anticipation of this. Similarly the Iberia merger should bring a lot of feeder traffic from Spain. The LGW and LCY operations are doing well, with signs of long-haul expansion at both.

Hopefully with BASSA's strangehold over the operation diminished, we may see product and operational improvements that have been held back because of BASSA. And not just hot towels in WT+.

With the containment of BASSA being the last of BA's legacy problems, it can now focus on putting its best foot forward and getting out there and competing.

Safety Concerns wrote;
I don't see this as removal of the perk just because WW disagreed with CC's opinion.

There had been many months where it would appear that BA attempted to talk but BASSA stonewalled.

WW was quite clear that if no effective solution was in place by June he would have to impose a solution and that deadline was extended to allow BASSA to get their act together and have effective discussion.

WW responded to BASSA 's call for damaging industrial action against BA by telling them he could not continue to give a generous perk to anybody who took damaging action against the company.

The real surprise here was for striking CC that they could not bite the hand that feeds them without some retaliation.

you really need to learn to distinguish between your emotion and opinion and fact.

All strikes/industrial action are damaging. The fact is the strike/industrial action is legal and procedures/laws have been followed. The consequences as far as staff travel is concerned is totally irrelevant.

Therefore as i said, you really need to be careful what you wish for. Staff travel should never have come into the equation. You should be asking yourself, after removing all the emotion, all your own personal views on the strike, whether in all honesty, you would support staff travel being removed under any circumstances even when you have not done anything illegal or anything that would instigate a grievance or disciplinary action.

Most of you, if you were to be totally honest, do not support such behaviour. So why don't you jump off the bandwagon and consider what you are saying.

Neptunus Rex
 

Exactly, but is the lady in JNB a CSD? I believe she mentioned being 50% and graced LHR with her presence every 28 days.

Pot, kettle, black?

The Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, Section 229(4), states that the following statement must appear on every ballot paper;

Could BA argue that the granting of staff travel is done to reward loyal employees who have not breached their contract?

Dave

Basically no. That paragraph is there for a number of reasons but staff travel isn't one of them.

There has already been a similar court case although in reverse. The employer offered free flights to all those who continued to work and refused to take part in strike action.

The strike duly finished, the union waited until the first person took up this offer and then successfully went to court on the basis of discrimination to get strikers a free flight as well.

They won apparently because the strikers had done nothing wrong and so the offer of a free flight for some employees and not others was discrimination.

I have no axe to grind in this dispute mainly because I have no idea whats really going on between BASSA and BA. However the staff travel issue is below the belt, uncalled for and my money is on it biting BA back very hard.

Again you should be careful what you wish for. This tactic has serious implications for everyone if not very quickly beaten back down.