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: