When I was a boy he was called Attlee or Clement Attlee - never Atlee.
Clement Attlee appeared to us after the 1950 election as a tired and exhausted man - and that was the most important factor in the 1951 elections._ The Labour government had run out of steam and the alternative was the Conservatives.
I have no connections with airlines except as passenger._ This is why I read this thread becaue I expect that those airline people who know what they are talking about can answer the questions of PAX like me.

Never underestimate the power of apathy. Most crew are just not "engaged" in this dispute. Many cannot even be bothered to vote in the ballots on IA. Taking a positive act like leaving the union is just too much hassle for many crew. This is a modern British malaise - how many could not be bothered to vote at the last general election? Yes they will pick up their mobiles and vote for the X-Factor, but to get involved in stuff that actually affects them is beyond the interest level of many in society.

This is untrue and incorrect.

BASSA have already reneged by not assisting non-striking crew who have needed representation in, for example, attendance meetings, etc. The reps are "too busy" to assist. BASSA are, it appears, only now supporting those who went on strike. There is no benefit whatsoever for non-striking crew still remaining in BASSA, they are wasting their money and are now simply funding this dispute. The sooner the finances are cut from BASSA, the better for all of us.

By contrast the PCCC are willing and able, to attend meetings with colleagues, and will do so in our own time, if necessary. Any colleague can attend with another, so BA could not refuse. Additionally, we can now refer crew who have suffered an accident or injury at work to a solicitors for free legal assistance. We have our first case ongoing so we are assisting materially.:ok:

We are doing everything we can, in our own time, and at our own expense, to assist our fellow colleagues in finding a better way forward out of this cesspit that BASSA have plunged us all into, so it is frustrating to see sweeping generalisations such as:

The law states that when we have 40% of the membership, we can apply to BA for recognition. It is only when people leave BASSA, and cut off the funding to this utterly ineffectual organisation and join the PCCC that we will be able to move forward. Everything has to start somewhere, this is the beginning for the PCCC and like most organisations, we will grow as people realise the benefits.

Knocking those of us that are trying to do something about this dire situation serves no purpose in this dispute. The statement about apathy is more correct. Thank goodness we are not all apathetic to what is happening.:)

I am BA cabin crew and this is my own view and not that of BA.

Actually the GMB do have a recognition agreement with BA for cabin crew. However it has not been implemented for many, many years there used to be an Air Hostesses Association which was a branch of the GMB and had a seat at the ACC NSP.

Whether they would want to enter the boiler room at the moment is, of course, understandable. I can see a new force emerging at some point in the future be it GMB or PCCC as cabin crew will still need reprentation.

BASSA is a spent force and totally discredited it only needs a little more time for this to sink in.

I think the engagement is there, however it is one sided and it is only with BASSA who they see as God. BASSA can do no wrong, why would they, they are crew themselves and why wouldn't they care about fellow crew or have their interests at heart as it affects them all.

I've been away all week and on observation, you need just one rotten egg to spoil the rest in the basket. One miserable militant who will rile things and try to influence others.
Crew are scared, too scared still, to say that they came to work so what hope is there that they'll stand up against the BASSA leadership, we've all seen what happens to those who dare. They are bullied, harassed and being on a nightstop on your own can be lonely for the younger crew if not included.
Some crew who came to work even, CSDs and Pursers don't have the guts to say they came to work, they all want to have a quiet life which is sad. As I myself and many others have said said, it is a cult and they cult will be stay strong until either BASSA is broken or the militants leave the company.

The non-cult bassa members
 

In response to the question about why the other bassa members - the ones who are not a part of the cult, appear to do nothing, posters need to "think themselves into" the position of those non-cult members.

Firstly, CC jobs are not like other jobs. There is no 9 - 5, and the cameraderie, such as it is at present, is different. It's not the same workgroup every week. Each "job" involves a different workgroup. Compare it to lots of very short term projects, with different project leaders, not many of whom appear to support the company.
Also, the "managers", (other than the Heritage CSDs, who appear to be a very mixed bag of folk from the very good to the other end of that spectrum), are invisible to many crew.
So, you turn up, you do your job, you may or may not socialise if away from home.
What's there to bind you together? Well, as with many employers, moaning about the boss/employer is a good start. Having fun with colleagues is another. "Belonging" to the TU (was) a more or less mandatory part of belonging. So even if you have no intention whatsoever of striking, you are unlikely to resign from the TU.

Many people use their jobs to give "meaning" to a part of their life. If for 40 years that "meaning" has meant being in the TU, then you don't change it just due to this little dispute.
Also, as others have said - many folk still belong to TUs due to the notion of "Insurance" or "Just in Case".

As any half decent academic* will tell you, NO TU can live up to the "Insurance" promise. They are simply not resourced enough. Even Balpa, which is the most expensive TU, cannot resource all the claims on its time. Unite stands no chance of ever resourcing all the potential claims on its time. However, they neglect to tell you that when you join, and once you are in, they do not tell you that.

*"Half-decent academic" does not include the twits from places such as Middlesex Poly who wrote in to newspapers to bemoan BAs approach to ER. Other than the usual list of Trots and TU sponsored Pinkoes, the others were remarkably dumb to add their name to a letter without getting some information first. And the UK allows these dimwits to educate our children???

AO
 

Some interesting points which I generally disagree with, but that will be of no shock to you.

I would suggest that the insurance policy, however poor, would be better than none. In my company we have union and non unionised groups. Which do you think have the greater influence?

Still, if you like to include terms like trots and pinko's in your point, then I doubt if you would reach out to the non engaged. Still, I am sure it serves a purpose somewhere.

Exactly Litebulbs.....Too many think that using silly language of that sort gives them some kudos with others of the 'Flog em' brigade.
I think too many years trying to justify the doing down of various workforces may have taken it's toll.....:)
Many people stay members for many reasons. Most of them because they are happy with the local representation they get. I think too many on here are using BASSA ignorantly to justify general gripes about the TU movement borne of their political incline.;)

Trying to be fair and moderate, I think the general readership are not trying "to justify general gripes about the TU movement borne of their political incline."

I think many people are actually really very tired of having their lives severely disrupted by Trades Unions. The ability to take IA may well be a part of the 'power of the Union', but the reality is that millions of people are adversely affected by it [wherein, of course, lies the power].

Whether it's Post, Refuse, Rail, Underground, Cabin Crew, Miners, Firemen or any other sector of the major 'service industries' ... the rest of the population gets a bit pi55ed off having their lives massively disrupted. There is anger out there. Not necessarily because the strikers or disrupters may not have a good cause [or not] ... just simply that the rest of society is getting a bit tired of small groups messing their lives about.

Despite being a Right-winger, I can accept there are good causes where the Union should rightly [ooops, did i say that?] take some form of action. However, any expectation of Public sympathy should be carefully considered. Sadly, that hasn't been the case. The Public [i.e. some poor innocent victim like me] is expected to accept a battle between Management and Union ... with the Public as the victim, and management as the Villain, and the Union as the Hero in the White Hat. Guess what? I don't want to be a pawn in the power-struggle about who runs the Company, or whether a 15 minute tea-break is acceptable.

@ call100 ... That's why people are pi55ed off, and it has nothing whatever to do with political inclinations.

From the CC thread
 

Bloomberg are reporting that Unite are going to the Court of Appeal Oct 11,12.

British Airways Union to Appeal 2009 Cabin-Crew Contract Ruling Next Month - Bloomberg

Doesn't the Unite action mean that everything relating to the IA is on Hold until the appeals court rules?

Seems to me this is another step for TW to draw out the drama at the expense of BASSA and DH.



http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...er_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ons/report.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...eply_small.gif

I was referring to those who use McCarthy type language when discussing the subject of TU's and IA..
TU members are often not considered members of the Public when it comes to discussions about the way IA affects.:confused:
I don't disagree that people get racked off with it all. Society has grown a very me, me, me outlook and people rarely, if ever, consider what the IA is about.
I have been in the position where strike action was voted for. The meeting to discuss the timing of the action took two days. Whatever we did was going to affect someone. We didn't want to strike in the school holidays (even though this had most impact) as many hard working families would be affected on their main holidays.
Business flyers would be affected if we had any prolonged strikes.
Struggling airlines may be tipped over the edge. Etc. Etc.
Whatever the decision, someone somewhere was going to feel as you do. We eventually came up with a strategy that impacted on the employer more than the travelling public. However, it would have still upset some people. Luckily we negotiated a settlement before we had to test it (Much the preferred option).
Using IA irresponsibly is a big problem, but, irresponsibility is subjective and the people involved in the decision are often as blinkered to the effects on others as others are to the reasons for the IA.
Most disputes are resolved amicably, the nature of the beast means that no one reports any of these. It's not enough to get Daily Mail readers wound up any more than they already are.;)
I don't agree with the methods used in the BASSA dispute and I don't agree with fighting your dispute in the press or on forums like this. Unfortunately 'Society' has moved in that direction and people are emboldened by the anonymity of media like this.
As for IA in general. I believe that it must always remain a possibility otherwise there would be not negotiation of anything. The notion that all employers are reasonable, altruistic entities is far far from reality.
But it has been proven that the successful companies are those that work hand in hand with their workforce to reach amicable and beneficial (to both sides) agreements.
Sorry this went on longer than I intended......:)

This seems self evident, it is also misleading. It implies a responsibility on the company while letting the workforce off the same responsibility. Both company and union have to be reasonable for this to hold true. In this case it is quite clear that the union local branch has not behaved reasonably. BA may not be angels in this, but BASSA and it's officials have behaved appallingly over the progress of this dispute. This is where a lot of anger comes from.

What is "society" when IA is considered?
 

I wonder what "society" is when IA is being considered? - (If it is considered at all, and I'm not convinced that the bassa cult care about society at all).

If only 16% of the private sector, and less than 60% of the public sector are in TUs, (and some of them are mandatory, such as BMA), then the majority of society are not in TUs.
What, then, is "society" to those contemplating engaging in IA?? I have no idea. In the past, when I was in a 100% pre and post entry closed shop, I might have known, but now??

Litebulbs
- on the inability of TUs to deliver the insurance, that was not my opinion, but the opinion of a bunch of Unite and GMB National officials at a dinner at last year's TUC.
On the trots and pinkos - it's a quote from Private Eye. Have you read some of Huw Benyon's stuff?? Not exactly "academic".

It implies nothing of the sort. If the two are working together for the good of both company and workforce obviously they have equal responsibility. Nothing else was implied. Nothing I said lets the workforce or the off anything.
I do not disagree with your summing up of the BA dispute. I would guess that BASSA had a lot of support in the beginning, but, lost it mainly down to the way they have conducted themselves.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to take people like Holley, Everard et al and refer to them as "workforce". This is what the dispute has always been about.

If you consider them hard workers, start considering for whom you think they are working hard.

I have to add: When he was posing as "Richard" and spouting all the crap about how hard BA were being on the crew - the word "macho" springs to mind - my immediate thought was "what an obnoxious, lying :mad: ". In retrospect, I haven't changed my opinion. And I don't think much of Victoria Derbyshire for not doing any homework and letting him preach such nonsense either.

But I suppose it is, after all, the BBC, who are mostly a waste of money these days anyway.

As usual you are mixing up the BASSA/BA dispute with the general point!

This isn't a general thread though. It's a very specific one.

On the wider point, If BASSA and other unions continue on the path they seem intent on then they may be making more anti union law inevitable. If we see mass disruption over the next 12 months we'll either see legislation in this parliament or if the Lib Dems baulk Cameron will call a snap election and no doubt win convincingly on an anti union platform.

I don't think we need better legislation just better unions. Theres too much representation of their political ends and not enough of their members.

An extremely pertinent point, but one that may not jump out to the average BASSA diehard if they decide to start quoting this article from the current Newsweek:

How Our Quest for Bargains Could Hurt the Economy

The main problem is greed. Shown at times by both sides but of late mainly by employers. The difficulty is, trying to sift out those employers jumping on the bandwagon and cutting for cuttings sake and those in trouble.
Many workforces are now being shafted because they have helped the company out with pay freezes and cuts to Terms and conditions. Some companies saw it as sign of weakness rather than strength and have come in with further cuts despite making more profit than forecast and paying CEO's record salaries.
It's no wonder some people are saying enough is enough.

Hotel Mode Stop referring to Union(s) then and stick with BASSA...
Agreed to a point. I think many Unions have excellent local representation and that is where most agreements are made.....As for the higher echelon....No argument.

The Guardian 19 September 2010
 

All quotations from 19 September 2010 The Guardian

　

Oh well, "The Winter of our Discontent" was expected!!

1. "Concessionary Travel" ... The travel concession was a concession, not a right, and employees were warned it would be withdrawn. I personally can't see that one going very far, if at all.

2. "Umin Rites" over the ballots? That's a giggle, surely? IIRC the problem was not 'a dozen spoiled ballots' but that ballot papers were being sent to all and sundry. Some other balloting practices, like not asking LGW CC, might be raised by the BA lawyers.

3. "Breach of Contract" ... now there's a trick BA missed. Does this mean that somewhere in the documentation is something that says hat the number of CC on a flight is 'contractual'. Or does this just refer to BASSA/Unite insisting that THEY manage the company, and manning levels on aircraft?

I'm glad Unite has an enormous fighting fund for all these actions; it will show the BASSA membership that their subscriptions have not been completely wasted.

I regret I'll be out of the country when this happens [flying BA of course] so I shall be relying on PPRuNe to keep me informed ;)

The "hot towels" test
 

I'm flying BA L/H in a couple of days, in Econ plus.

I wonder whether I'll get hot towels, or whether the cult's stipulation of no hot towels for econ plus is how BA still manage the place.....................

Well I got hot towels in First yesterday :ok:

I would describe the attitude of the CC on board to be just as professional & courteous as ever (of course), but they seemed somewhat subdued. I didn't see many smiles amongst the crew on the flight. Having said that I had no real complaint, the service was excellent.

I flew the same route (London-Nairobi) last week with Virgin Upper Class - I have to say the attitude of the Virgin CC seemed so much better on those flights, they all appeared happy, plenty of smiles, and were friendly and willing to chat. Of the two, I have to say I preferred the Virgin experience.

I await my return leg with BA (in Club this time) with interest.

Who cares? The Members of the Union are paying for the Game, with their subscriptions.
Enjoy. :ok:

MPN11
 

If the case gets to explore punitive action to dissuade/persecute union members for taking protected industrial action, then it is money well spent, whatever the result.

@ Litebulbs
 

No problem, Litebulbs.

You clearly see it as persecution.
Others may see it as a reflection that BA runs BA, not BASSA.
We shall never agree on that basic point.

Peripherally, do I think it was a fair sanction?
I think it may have been a bit 'robust', but it was clearly stated what would happen. IMO, from that point onwards, the striking CC dug their own hole ... with fanfares of trumpets, the Bedfont Festival and parades along the Bath Road [not forgetting all the other aspects that BASSA introduced to the equation].

If a sensible, adult resolution had been sought, who knows what BA might have said or done? However, BASSA chose the ultra-militant path instead of negotiation [did that EVER happen?]. So BASSA is where it is, in a location of it own making. Militant to the last, using the Courts instead of reasoned debate, and apparently revelling in every moment. That's fine, that's their right.

Have you noticed that BA is still operating? Pax are flying? Aircraft are not parked at Cardiff and Shannon? Oh ... and the new Mixed Fleet arrangements have happened already.

Feel free to campaign, but perleeze have a good argument/case for damaging BA even further.

I had noticed, but the fight for survival seems to have been last years argument. But I am not campaigning for specifics, just discussing broader principles.

No problem, Litebulbs.

Happy to discuss the 'broader principles'.

Which are?

[BTW ... enough screen time for one day, what with my job and other things. Perhaps tomorrow, if you're free?]

Punitive action against workers, who carry out protected industrial action.

Perhaps that is because BA achieved the "survival savings" it needed by imposing what was needed on the cabin crew and negotiating savings with the other staff groups. The survival issue "going away: does not mean that it was some kind of opportunistic subterfuge. Nor does it mean that it has gone away, just that it is being managed.

Our economy is still in crisis, mortgages are hard to get, quantative easing may have been reduced but it is still going on. Business traffic may be recovering but it is still down on what it was 3 years ago. The market for the legacy carriers has changed, and the way that BA and the other carriers do business has changed.

The unions need to accept this basic premise and develop ways to work within this new structure, ways to work with business rather than against it. UNITE, and their client BASSA have completely failed to grasp this nettle and they are handling this whole dispute in a manner which is proving detrimental to their members. It is more about old fashioned union power and the political ambitions of the union leaders.

Let's put in another way shall we?

The global financial system has gone into near meltdown to the extent that one of our major retail banks was 30 minutes away from turning off its cash machines. The aviation industry enters the worst crisis in its history. Several airlines go out of business.

Cabin crew union refuses to negotiate permanent savings. All they offer a temporary savings that aren't even one third of what they claim to be and refuse to discuss any further.

After months and months of fruitless negotiations (all documented in a High Court judgment), BA makes non-contractual changes found by a court of law to be reasonable.

In spite of the fact that the company allowed an extension of the deadline to call industrial action to let members vote on the BA offer, Unite calls industrial action anyway. Industrial action that arose as a direct consequence of the failings of the union itself.

Litebulbs, tell us why staff who participated in this action and deprived the hand that feeds them of £150m should continue to receive a generous non-contractual benefit from the company.

Because, as it stands today, protected industrial action is not unlawful. What will be explored (well maybe), is if there is a right to strike. It may possibly be a human right within the EC, but whether that right is enforceable in the UK, is a discussion point. If it is a right, then I doubt very much if sanctions could be handed out for exercising the right.

Litebulbs

I'm sure you were aware before it was posted here that "perks" can be withdrawn anytime, but for you to mention it now weakens ( or confuses ) your argument.

I absolutely agree that the withdrawal of ST was a punishment for the legal IA.

However since the law says that the IA is protected and also says that a perk can be withdrawn anytime, then there is a stalemate until this point is considered and a judgement given.

I don't see how it can be done, but I feel that some law of relativity is necessary and that if a union calls IA for something frviolous ( hot-towels or window-blinds for example ) then their action should be able to be declared unprotected )

I feel it morally correct that people lost ST for taking part in this farce ( see previous para for reasoning )

Whether the removal of staff travel was a punitive action depends on how you view the sequence of events.

The initial strike ballot took place in November 2009. BA was successful in getting a high court injunction that ruled the ballot as being void. In January 2010 Unite then announced that they intended to go forward with a new ballot, at a time yet to be determined. At that point BA stated that a direct consequence of going on strike would be the permanent removal of staff travel benefits. So before any ballot took place, the workforce had been advised that anyone who went on strike was kissing goodbye to this perk. Now it could be argued that BA were attempting to dissuade union memebrs from voting for strike action. The alternative view is that perks are there to reward the workforce and clearly, if a group of workers act in a way calculated to hit the profitability of the company, then they should have any perks removed.

What happened next is well established. The cabin crew members voted for strike action, a number of them did walk out and, surprise, surprise, did have their travel benefits removed. Howls of indignation. Did they think that it was an empty threat ? Did they not see that by walking out, they were going to cost the company money ? Of course they did. The trouble is that the cabin crew expected BA management to crumble at the eleventh hour and give in to the union demands. It didn't happen. In fact the more Unite and BASSA turned down offers made by BA, the poorer the offers became. Why ? Because it is manifestly unfair to penalise other sectors of the business simply because the cabin crew representatives were unwilling to countenance the changes in working practices being put forward.

If BA had not warned cabin crew up front what it intended to do if a strike took place,but had withdrawn staff travel after the industrial action had commenced, then it would be seen as punitive action, but the very fact that staff were warned well in advance meant that they acted in full knowledge of the consequences. Thus it was not punitive but consequential.

Perks can be removed at anytime, for all, or for under performance of some. But we are talking about industrial action. Now, clearly a business can do what it wants, when it wants and at any time. It is then for the courts to decide whether it was a lawful action.

But the question is whether BA have the right to do what they did. If it turns out that the right to strike, is a UK right, then it would be unlawful to take action to stop individuals exercising that right. It does not mean that BA would have to return ST, but they may have to compensate for a potential unlawful action.

Maybe this is hair-splitting, but it could (and probably will) be argued that just as an employee has a right to withdraw labour, an employer has an equal right to withdraw perks. The pinhead we are trying to balance an infinite number of angels on is whether BA in removing staff travel perks from those who went on strike were acting in a manner calculated to prevent staff from exercising the right to strike. Since the removal of the perk was after the individual had gone on strike, it could be argued that the act of removal did not prevent the individual from taking strike action but was consequential.

Unite will need to establish that the threat of removing staff travel was not only intended to prevent staff from going on strike but also was the sole reason that some staff chose not to go on strike. Going to be quite a tall order given the abuse heaped by BASSA on those who did work normally.

LB – you are beginning to sound like a stuck record and none of your arguments are convincing.

BA did not take any action to stop individuals exercising their right to strike.

4963 cult members chose to follow their leader and are now suffering the consequences. I suspect their judgement call was made partly on the advice that staff travel would be returned in “5 minutes”. It was their decision.

Quite frankly I will be amazed if the Courts deem any of BA’s actions to be unlawful.

BA simply warned them in advance they would be punished for striking. It's still a punishment.

In previous IA throughout the airline for at least 30 years, maybe 40 or more, staff travel has been routinely withdrawn at the start of IA, and always returned with full seniority on agreement. Why should CC have seen this time as any different?

Removal of ST evidently did not stop a strike and it did nothing to remove any such (as yet to be proven) right. It did place consequences upon such action, of which there are several others - you do not get paid while on strike, should this then also be lumped in with removal of ST as an illegal act?

There has been no erosion of any right to strike, BA placed a consequence upon an individuals actions, making them take some responsibility for the harm done to the company by their actions. The union does not like that as it diminshes their ability to force a company to it's will through the blackmail of a strike. It is therefore attempting to muddy the waters, to make this an issue of the right to strike, which it patently obviously is not.