In fact, if BA did offer the same contract under SOSR that the non union staff have signed, non striking but in the union CC would be pretty much as they are now, with most of their existing T&Cs, the top up payment, and in possession of their staff travel. Striking CC would have the same, but a large hole in their staff travel.

I seem to remember Walsh being quoted somewhere as saying one of the reasons he was against full return of staff travel was so that those who backed BA had something more than the strikers to show for it.

The only real losers would be those under disciplinaries - some of which remember are back at work with no, or minimal, punishment as the transgressions were decided to be minor. Those actually dismissed would be able to take the full court route if they wanted, as the union/BA deal would be off.

Without wanting to upset the apple cart too much.
If BA do go down that line (90 days and a new contract) they would not, legally, be able to discriminate between staff on different T&Cs. So if they were looking at the last offer that non union staff accepted LGW would be looking at a huge pay increase (and a huge cost base increase) as would post '97 staff and as MF is up and running so would they.

That's a pity :)

I did Google on that point but couldn't find anything in the short time I gave myself.

I could be, well probably wrong, but you serve notice on a particular contract, not the individual, under collective bargaining. Feel free to appeal this decision to higher authority.

LB - Theory V Practice ?
 

I seem to remember, but can't be certain, that when crunch got to punch, did'nt Aer Lingus just sack the lot and then took back only those individuals that they wanted, (cherry picking), leaving those left to bring individual claims for compensation - which were expected to be a long term exercise. Any ideas?

As I understand it, you all have to be dismissed from the current contracts, then you either accept or reject the r-engagement offer. Not getting an offer would no doubt lead to an unfair dismissal claim, as it would appear that some sort of selection process would have happened.

That would more likely mean the dismissal could have been because of capability or redundancy, but the defense for dismissal/re-engagement would be SOSR.

chuchinchow,

As requested, in future, I wont post again on this thread.

My original post about hats was just in response to a poster who had misrepresented what was being said about HATS on the CC forum.

As has been made very CLEAR, No one is actually bothered about wearing the actual HAT!!!It is about how it makes us feel as loyal employees.

I wont bore you or take up anymore of your valuable posting space.

True, but I welcome CC input and their views of passenger comments.

A bit strong and uncalled for in my opinion, given my first comment.

moleytt

If, for arguments sake, we accept that BA cannot SOSR certain contracts only, and have to do the same to the entire CC workforce, offering the same new contract to all, then I am pretty confident that BA would not do it.

For a start WW as the voice of the board has said he does not want to reduce existing staff contracts in terms of salary, secondly, WW/BA have also publically said that the cost saving required has been achieved by reduction in crew compliments and the new contracts for new staff.

To avoid losing at any Employment Tribunals, an employer has to show a substantial reason - as BA have publically said the cuts in place now are sufficient, how can they prove a substantial reason for the drastic reduction that offering MF contracts to existing staff would entail?

Apart from that, CC would strike, and under this hypothetical scenario, I bet the currently non striking union moderates would also join the strike.

In fact, in this hypothesis, I doubt the VCC would volunteer either. At the moment they do so on the basis that CC have only been asked to make the same sacrifices that other staff have already made, but if CC are asked to make considerably larger sacrifices than everyone else, staff sympathies may change.

So BA would be facing genuine loss of flying ability, and loss of the PR high ground. Not to mention absolutely appalling relations with their CC staff going forward, and creating huge distrust in all the other staff groups.

I think those that run the Union are probably aware of this, if they genuinely thought an SOSR to MF terms was a possibilty, they would have negotiated a lot harder. Ironically, in a way they are trading on BA's 'good nature' in that BA does not want to go down that route. At the same time, it seems the Union are allowing, even encouraging, ordinary CC to feel the fear that this may happen, as it strengthens the union members loyalty to the union.

Bettygirl, don't leave this thread, Chuchinchow is in a distinct minority almost all of us are pleased to have actual CC putting their point of view directly to us, and giving us the chance to ask our own questions of CC that we cannot do on the CC thread. He does not speak for me, and I object to him doing so in the terms that he has.

Betty Girl. Ignore him, there is always one!!

I view frequently and post rarely. I value your posts as intelligent and articulate explanations of how you and other cabin crew feel.

If Churchinchow is stuck so far up his own posterior that he needs to take it out on you, that is his problem and not yours.

Please continue to post as you feel the need. To suggest that this thread is just for fare paying passengers is a nonsense. Without input from such as yourself how are we to get a balanced view?

Betty Girl, please do not read the postings of Chuchinchow.

Betty Girl , your postings are appreciated._ Please continue to post on this thread.

Although I don't agree with some of what churchinchow has said, I do feel he makes a valid point which I think perhaps needs to be emphasised.

The World outside BA is rather different to that within in.

Other cabin crew, when asked if staff travel is a contractual right or a perk, would probably say "What the hell is staff travel?"

Other cabin crew, when asked to wear a hat, would say "How much is that going to cost me?"

Other cabin crew, when offered a contract, would say "Where do I sign?"

Fair enough, these other Cabin Crew might not be as good as BA Crew - the ones I know are Eastern European, beautiful, speak at least three languages, are polite, pay for their own uniforms, rely on longer flights to earn a bit of money off the trolley sales, are employed through an agency, if they hint at complaining are sacked and have absolutely no representation at all.

For the chance of earning £11K a year they would also probably do the service wearing nothing but a hat! (I wish!).

I wonder what would happen if MOL took over the running of BA for a couple of weeks?

What would be his response to: "I am a manager but my crew keep saying rude things and undermining my authority so I lock myself in my room and daren't come out."

Making WW out to be an incarnation of Beelzebub really does highlight how far removed from the real world some BA cabin crew are. (Please note - I didn't say all.)

Betty Girl

Every village has its idiot.

Chuchinchow is the SLF forum's.

Please keep posting, FWIW I understand perfectly the hats issue, as these are a symbol of the loyal existing cabin crew being unrewarded for their support.

I am very surprised that CCC post's have not been moderated, especially after some recent rants about not criticising airline staff.

I doubt there are any airline employees anywhere in the world who would not know what staff travel is. Workers employed via an agency may not get it, but they'd certainly be aware of it. Do you think BA staff are alone in getting staff travel?

I find it interesting that even a non striking, pro BA, crew member somehow blames BA for letting MF wear hats but not them. It really is a strange world in BA cabincrewland.

BA cannot discriminate against , or for, srtikers or non-strikers.

BA has a chance to start from scratch with a new set of crew. Betty is upset that there are apparently 3 MF csm's who were strikers. However, let's accept that anyone can make an error of judgement and they have passed what is a stringent application process and subsequent training course.

Why would current crew worry about hats? You have bigger issues to face!

Betty Girl
 

Ignore churchinchow’s rant.

Judging by the time of his post he was either pi**ed, had been refused getting his leg over, or possibly both.

It has been answered, by the very person you are having a go at. The fact that you don't agree with her, does not negate the fact that she replied.

No.

Do I think that some BA staff are alone in thinking they should be delivered to the aircraft in a sedan chair because BA are so fortunate to employ them. Then my answer would be yes.

Betty Girl
Although it is in the "Passengers & SLF" section, the title of this thread is: "BA Strike - Your Thoughts and Questions." It is here because non-current crew cannot post on that other thread. However, this one would not be so alive, nor so well-informed without the much appreciated inputs of yourself and other CC.

In the immortal words of Muddy Waters: "Baby Please Don't Go."