Juan Tripp

Should we be offered a proposal which is better than what was offered to non-union members this summer I do think that they should not be offered it. Why? Because the proposal would be the result of our industrial action, which many of us participated in. They didn't and should therefore not benefit from it. You can't have the cake and eat it too. It's not up to me of course but that's my opinion and I can assure you that many happen to agree with me.

Diplome

I happen to disagree with you. Our issues within IFCE are no business of our pilots and ground staff.

An interesting proposition. So presumably Miss M you would wish to dismantle the NSP agreements as well as they cover union and non-union members alike. Beware, this could lead to a very dangerous situation for cabin crew. It sounds like you wish to abandon the notion of collective bargaining altogether. This enables BA management to play one group of cabin crew off against another. You would have no visibility of what pay offers BA management might make to the non-union workforce. By fragmenting the pay bargaining in this way you are undoing over 40 years of hard one union effort. BA management would love to have what you propose. Talk about divide and rule. And I thought you BASSA folk were supposed to be pretty clued up on negotiating with management.:)

I guess the problem for this view is that by being part of a union you accept collective bargaining - so does the company. The breakdown of this collective bargaining is the reason that the company has offered deals to the non-unionised portion of the cabin crew.

Complexity of agreements and contracts builds in an admin burden and associated costs. Unless there is a good reason to operate in a different fashion the company will attempt to reduce any unnecessary cost.

Bottom line, if a better deal is struck with UNITE than has been signed with the non-unionised crew (as unlikely as that is) then expect all crew to be put on the same deal. If UNITE cannot get an agreement as good as the one agreed with the non-unionised crew do not expect them to be forced onto a worse deal.

Perhaps more effort should be put into securing a deal than trying to find ways of punishing those who have a different view on the current IA. Concentrating on feuding is a tradition in the CC unions (BASSA and CC89 reps fighting in the car park), maybe it is time to step away from these outmoded and self-harming practices.

So as earlier posters have suggested in the other thread, if it is true that CC89 actually negotiated a lot of improvements in T & Cs. Should BASSA members be entitled to them?

Colonel and Juan
 

Two good posts, but we are probably looking at them from different directions. You can't switch collective bargaining on and off; some will benefit for free, but most will pay in more than one way. I think its worth the cost, however.

The thing you really have to look at is the ERA1996 and and TULcRA 1992, have been around an awfully long time. We have now had all sides of politics in the UK in power, with no substantial change back in favour of employees/unions. What does that say? There is probably a small percentage of businesses that will buckle to strike action. The small employers would probably go bust and companies the size of BA, will plead poverty, but will rustle up huge pots of cash to fight off action, as has been proved.

A new approach is needed, but god knows what it is.

Litebulbs

It's not a new approach, but it needs both sides in any dispute to be prepared to sit down, talk, see the other side's viewpoints but above all come to a structured agreement without recourse to either side taking precipitive action.

As has been stated in the various thread IA should be seen as the last resort and strike action only when all other avenues have been exhausted.

I agree, They don't have to invent one...That doesn't mean they haven't or wouldn't...
Thanks for the lecture. I have been reading public forums and I am quite aware of some public feeling....Although I would suggest that the vast majority of the 'Public' couldn't give a tinkers cuss about any of it. Unlike those of us on here they have lives to live....:)
I do not support BASSA's conduct throughout this dispute any more than I support BA's. My hope for all is that an amicable solution be found and those affected can get some peace in the workplace until the next disagreement...
I agree with Litebulbs that new approaches to IR need to be looked at....Kick out all the old TU dinosaurs and the ancient HR/IR advisor's to companies (they are as bad as each other) and find a new way of making improvements in the workplace...
I doubt it will happen, but, hey! We can hope...:)

west lakes
 

I agree, but do you think business would enter into that sort of agreement process, when the balance of law is in its favour?

I think yes they would.
It appears in this case that negotiation has led to acceptable agreement in other parts of BA. This, to me, suggests the company is open to sensible negotiation even with branches of Unite.
So where did it go wrong in this case??

Judging by MissM's latest oeuvre it is clearly time for BASSA to put up a new duty spokesman.

Or is MissM's suggestion BASSA's fiendishly clever new master plan: to allow its major foe (BA) to divide, conquer and then to rule its cabin crew as the BA leadership team wishes?

Lu:mad:cy.:, unadulterated lu:mad:cy!

Could be (no, perish the thought!) that MissM and her BASSA comrades have been out-manoeuvred?

west lakes
 

Well, it would be interesting to see if BA would stick to the market rate +10% mantra for my old grade. It would be a sensible negotiation and easily bench markable. But BA did the job on that department years ago. The structure is now in place would make effective strike action almost impossible. Binding arbitration; I doubt it.

What is the point of the post? Do you want to see an end to the dispute, or are you just enjoying the battle?

Both. The sheer farce and black comedy that are BASSA's "negotiating abilities" are the greatest free show on earth.

Lizanne Malone, Duncan Holley and the rest of the BASSA reps have been exposed for what they are: bumbling, inept and self-serving manipulators of the dues-paying membership. That is why BA was able to take advantage and to sign up non unionised cabin crew staff to the fairly lucrative settlement they now enjoy.

Those far-sighted men and women still enjoy staff travel and have retained seniority when flying as passengers. Can anyone say the same about the BASSA stalwarts, who are still baying for Willy Walsh's scalp to be nailed to the doors of Cranebank? What is BASSA doing to alleviate the problems of that woman who purports to commute from Johannesburg?

BASSA has painted itself into a corner from which it now has no escape. It is neutered, emasculated. Difficult for MIssM to comprehend, but those are the facts.

Which reminds me: why have we not been regaled by a florid and over-weaning account of BASSA's barristers' triumphs in Court 74 today? DH certainly found time to do that back in the winter.

And incidentally, Litebulbs, my question is quite a valid one - even if it is too unpleasant for trade unionists to contemplate

Churchinchow
 

Fair enough. I just look back to Project Columbus and getting a particular group back to hands on, there were two parties to blame. There appeared to be a healthy list of volunteers for VR (a) and if the new deal is as lucrative (b) as you say, then a+b should have equaled happiness.

I am an employee first, if that comment was directed at me. Unions hardly ever win, it is just a watering down exercise.

Quite possibly,Litebulbs,

However, as the title of this section of PPRuNe implies I am just that: a passenger.

As such, I have no concrete information available to me on "Columbus" in the context you mention.

Nevertheless, the sooner this tragic, pus-laden abscess of a labour dispute is lanced and drained the better it will be for everyone: passengers, management, cabin crew - even (and especially) MissM, who has loyally toed the BASSA line throughout.

The only ones who will derive no benefit from the dispute will be LM and DH.

Litebulbs, please re-read the penultimate paragraph of my last message.

Litebulbs:

"...Unions hardly ever win."

I would have to respectfully disagree with this comment. My personal opinion is that progressive and reasonable unions win victories every day. Victories that not only provide benefits to their members but also prove their value to their employers.

This dispute is an oddity in part due to the extreme actions and statements of BASSA leadership...and MissM is, in my opinion, an almost perfect representation of why BASSA's losses have been so significant.

I understand the motivation behind many comments of "Its nice to hear the other side"...and "thank you for coming on offering your opinion and I must respect that"...personally I feel if the other side is deluded its okay to state the obvious and I don't have to respect sheer denial of fact or history. Sometimes the Emperor has no clothes and in this case BASSA is stark naked.

BASSA/Unite apparently called off an emanate ballot for Industrial Action Sunday 10/10/10. Does anybody know what the basis of this IA was to be? Have the BASSA leadership shared with the masses what injustice they will strike for? Will it be the requirement to lower window blinds without consultation with BASSA regarding the health and safety issues associated with this duty?
My opinion is there was not to be and will not be any ballot for IA. BASSA leadership are grasping at straws. How does Tony Woodley expect to negotiate with BA when this group of clowns exercising a veto over whatever he achieves? This will not end until Unite cut BASSA loose, an unlikely event given the amount of dues involved, or a sufficient number of Cabin Crew tire of paying BASSA dues.

pcat160 - I think the disciplinary cases were to be the subject of the new ballot.

presumably then Miss M would be voting no in a new ballot as she has repeatedly stated the issue is imposition ?

Ok, fair point and a poor choice of words on my behalf.

Thank you MissM for your response but I still think you are deliberately being obstinate about the whole thing, although you know deep inside that you are backing a lost cause.

I also think that you are directing too much hatred towards your non-striker colleagues and vcc's regardless of their reasons for not joining the strike, i.e. they are not Bassa members, or if they are, they realised early on that the strike was not necessary. I understand that you are not happy with the way some of your colleagues voted "yes" in the previous IA ballot but when it came to the actual strike, they buckled. However, (correct me if I am wrong) didn't Bassa at the time advised everyone to just vote yes to "send a strong message to management (WW)" and that they (Bassa) didn't think it will come to an actual strike?

You seem to be an intelligent person judging from your posts so I do not believe that you do not understand the real reason why there are so many of your colleagues who disagree with you and Bassa. Don't you think enough is enough, and that there's no use throwing good money after bad?

It is now time to cut losses and be grateful that at least you are still able to do the job you like and that's more important. Let go of the hatred MissM and you will find that everything will fall into its proper place.

Lastly, I wish the whole CC community peace and contemplate on the SERENITY PRAYER to guide you.

SERENITY PRAYER
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I could not change, the courage to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference...

Litebulbs
 

Posted on the other thread...
So you would advocate an agreement that "punishes" future strikers then?

Mariner9
 

I am suggesting a full return of staff travel, but obviously BA will not want to give it. It would be a compromise agreement, where both parties look at the potential cost of legal action on the issue, along with a resolution to the dispute.

Litebulbs
 

This, I think, is spot on the money. It will be a compromise - what yet remains to be seen is what UNITE/BASSA are willing to give up in order to "buy" full return of ST.

There has been an impasse for many months with both sides having an entrenched position. Both sides will have to give up something in order to gain a solution. It is clear what UNITE/BASSA want BA to give up - full ST, what remains shrouded in mystery is what more BA wants from the union and what the union is prepared to give way on.

The details of any proposed settlement will be fascinating. I suspect that there will not be a full return of ST - at least not at first, a phased return wrapped in guarantees may happen, but, I suspect, BA will be very wary of giving away anything that could be spun as a big victory for BASSA.

The ST issue is too big an issue, too much a cause celebre to be given away lightly. BASSA will have to buy full ST back at great cost if they want full return and I suspect the cost would be too great foe BASSA to stomach - UNITE may feel differently. As I said the deal will be fascinating.

Compromise or not, you are advocating a "permanent loss of ST agreement" that you have repeatedly said in the past is punishment of lawful strikers.

Do you think it is OK to punish future strikers but not the current crop? And do you think BASSA will heed a written agreement over loss of ST having ignored written warnings from BA over this issue in the current dispute?

Mariner9
 

I still stand by my previous comments, as I am not in the negotiations. As I have also said that there is no clear legal precedent on the issue. Maybe Unite legal have had some advice. I have said nothing about future strikes, as if the deal was agreed, the issue would go.

This whole ST issue is indeed a complex one. On the one had I really don’t like the principle of strikers being punished, any, in any company, it potentially sets a rather nasty president. On the other however this particular group of individuals (BASSA) have done exactly nothing to help themselves or more importantly the members they were elected to represent and I can’t manage to generate any sympathy for them at all.

It was all downhill from the decision not to negotiate and then the 12 days announcement located the final nail. Somewhat foolish tactics at the very least.

I certainly know some members of cabin crew that are VERY opposed to the idea of ST being reinstated in any way. It’s going to be a great struggle on all sides to resolve a gulf of that scale.

Whatever happens one group or another are not going to be happy. Will BA chose to make the strikers or the non-strikers happy I wonder?

I suspect BA will try to disregard such considerations and will opt for the path that’s commercially the most sensible, whatever that may be – which could of course be argued is also be best for its employees and their long term employment and remuneration.

I know I’ve failed to sell ST return to the CC I know in any shape, I trust (and suspect) that Mr Walsh has a better argument at the ready if it does get returned.

This whole ST issue is indeed a complex one. On the one had I really don’t like the principle of strikers being punished, any, in any company, it potentially sets a rather nasty president. On the other however this particular group of individuals (BASSA) have done exactly nothing to help themselves or more importantly the members they were elected to represent and I can’t manage to generate any sympathy for them at all.

That is a very succint and excellent summary, Snas :ok:

In which case I'm afraid I don't follow your argument at all Litebulbs. What exactly will BASSA be "conceding" in your suggested compromise? It would appear from your later post to be the loss of ST only in circumstances that will not arise.

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing with your view that concessions are likely required from both sides to end this dispute - I'm just interested in what a union supporter feels would be acceptable to offer in the way of compromise in order to get ST returned.

Don't overlook that removing ST from 4500 (or however many) strikers also benefitted everyone else who is eligible for BA ST (me included) by moving them up the standby pecking order.

They could be conceding a staged return. Its a negotiation. Who knows what BA, Unite and ACAS will come up with. Unite might set up a new branch containing those that accept the new contract. It might have an accelerated seniority from 0 years, who knows?

The goal will be having everyone on a new contract as soon as possible. There has been no legal challenge as yet to the removal of the benefit, so it could still be seen as a future punishment (of which I do not agree).

From Uniteba website, I quote (can't copy text as it is part of an image):

talking about the reported significant developments alluded to last week by Tony Woodley ....

"....None of your negotiating committee was either aware or present. We still do not know the contents of these talks or what 'significant progress' means.

We shall be meeting with Tony shortly to discuss the details. IF and ONLY IF your negotiating committee assess this 'progress' as 'significant' enough to meet your needs and requirements, the document will be put to a consultative ballot of you, the members.

If we DO NOT these talks to have produced a suitable deal, we shall be asking Unite to issue a strike ballot in line with your recent mandate"

This to me typifies the control and manipulation demonstrated throughout this dispute by the BASSA top table. They continually refuse to let their electorate decide, but insist on deciding for themselves what is good for them.

Now, just let's think ...... that's right, the negotiating committee that comprises of what, 3 sacked reps and several more suspended; all of which would be unable to put themselves up for re-election if there was a deal.

Hmmm, let's think, now what is in it for them if they agree to Tony Woodleys' latest deliberations?

1. They won't get their jobs back
2. They will lose their control of BASSA (and their attempts at controlling BA) as fresh elections are already about a year overdue in BASSA
3. They lose their significant skimming off of the branch union dues each month

Just a thought.:(

Thats the killer line, as if Unite say no thats it all finished right there... No where else to run for BASSA.

BASSA leadership has now publicly undercut any ability or chance of TW negotiating a settlement. Further talks are fruitless as BASSA leadership will approve the settlement not BASSA membership and we know what the leadership have said they will insist on. BASSA leadership has a problem though. Unite must call for the vote and Unite do not want a strike vote. BASSA leadership again overplays their hand. I would assume TW will soon be depicted with horns or a mustache.

I would assume Tony Woodley will insist that whatever offer he and Willie Walsh put together is offered to CC directly, or Unite will not allow any further strike ballot.

Not that this is likely to be made public by either Unite or BASSA.

According to the update on uniteba.com BA is refusing to deroster Lizanne Malone for the meeting:

. XX

Now if that is true, is that a reasonable response from BA?

As they don't appear to have a date set to meet Tony Woodley why don't they just arrange the meeting for a day when Miss Malone isn't rostered?