Lack of trust?
 

The thing is Litebulbs is that if the 5,000-odd who voted yes (and perhaps some who couldn't be bothered with having a say in their own futures) dont believe or trust anything their employer says then no agreement BA propose would ever be satisfactory. Even reinstatement of the sacked, return of ST, and allowing CSD's to put their feet up again on their current agreement will not be satisfactory if they don't trust BA not to change things in future.

If this lack of trust is genuine at CC level rather than just posturing by the union, then the only solution is for the CC concerned to go and find an employer elsewhere that they do trust. Or be booted out (with assistance from BASSA if they do go ahead with what BA will say is an illegal strike) if they won't take the initiative and leave

Tough maybe when they've got a mortgage to pay, but what is the alternative?

The working rights of the the MF CC are the same as they are for the heritage CC.

The rest of what you say has some truth, those that need to connect into LHR are more likely to be affected by the strike than those starting a LH journey from LHR. I think that BA is looking to a longer term game than just the days of the strike. BA must ensure that they run and manage the business rather than one group of employees determining how the business should be run for the benefit of them alone.

JT,

Mixed Fleet crew are working to very different agreements to current crew, so their working rights are different. They can achieve less time off after trips and trips where current cabin crew and PILOTS would trigger 2 nights down route, like Las Vegus and Hanenda, they only get one night. So they can go into a destination with one set of pilots and leave with a different set because their first set of pilots is having a second night's rest, while they are not.

Come off it Juan!

Isn't it true that this new fleet can be binned if they're off sick for a few months? Can't they be binned if the company decides they have no use for them? All this for a paltry 11 grand a year and two pounds forty pence an hour.

Off sick once (in an area of work where you're at high risk of contacting all sorts of bugs, viruses) and you'll miss out on pay (call it a bonus if you want).

I was under the impression that this was written into their contracts? Dunno about you but I'd say that they were pretty crap conditions myself.

Wouldn't it be simpler if pilots and cabin crew worked to similar agreements as was the case in B.Cal. I remember moving up to Heathrow after the merger and operating 6 consecutive sectors with 5 different sets of cabin crew.:confused:

Betty Girl
 

I always thought they upmanned the flight crew, to share the flying, if they're flying to destinations like Singapore, Narita and so on? Why would they need extra time off?

Moses - you are asking the question the wrong way round.

Mixed Fleet currently get less time off between flights than both pilots and "heritage" cabin crew however the rest time must comply with legal minimums. It does.

Whether that (and the other terms and conditions you describe as "pretty crap") is sustainable in the long term remains to be seen, but commercial reality says will largely depend upon market forces. If enough people of sufficient quality are prepared to work on such contracts there will likely be little change.

Mariner - I'm not doubting that BA are meeting the bare minimum legal requirements for the new cheap fleet.

"....commercial reality says will largely depend upon market forces". I think it's you who has it the wrong way round.

Market forces, particularly labour markets, can be and often are exploited and manipulated by business. BA set the heights in terms or previous T&C's. They've now set the lows.

Moses
They don't need extra time off, in the pilots and current cabin crew agreements some trips trigger a two night stop, because of time change and length of duty.

All I was saying was that Mixed Fleet crew are different. I only mentioned the fact that pilots at the moment get the same days down route to current cabin crew on these flights, so that you could see that it was not just current cabin crew that have this time off.

Yes Fly380, we are often on different itineraries to the flight crew because different departments roster itineraries differently but in general our downroute rest is similar, sometimes longer, sometimes less but on these long range flights we both get two nights whereas Mixed fleet will not.

Just pointing out that they are working to different agreements. Don't really want to get into a detailed discussion about rostering rules because it is a long and complicated subject and you really need the relavant book in front of you to hope to understand the subject.

You won't get anywhere here with that, although I agree entirely, a majority of the posters think that workforces are there to be exploited. This is regardless of the BA dispute.
Nothing changes the fact that people in their thousands are unhappy. The popular train of thought here is that they have been bamboozled. I don't believe that to be the case.
BASSA may have gone about things in entirely the wrong way, but, it would seem that a large amount of people have experienced the down side of the company.
There is also the assumption that those who moved are happy and satisfied rather than scared or financially forced.

Sorry Moses30u - it is BASSAs refusal to negotiate on existing T&Cs that has caused the rapid growth in Mixed Fleet. Yes, it would have come over time but mature discussion rather than "NO NEGOTIATION" would have achieved a lot more.

Lets face it, why has not other department at BA got the same problem?

Why does no other department mistrust WW so much?

Why is there such a queue of VCC from every other department out to break this strike?

And if Mixed Fleet is so poorly paid in relation to the competition, why are there thousands going through the application process at the moment?

Every other department at BA worked with the Senior Mangement (WW if we want to personalise it) to achieve a consensus. God forbid - even Unite have worked with WW to achieve agreement over pensions. Sadly much of this dispute is BASSA and Cabin Crew wanting control over the company. The right to tell everyone else how they will work. And that is why EVERY other department in BA is lined up against them. Just take a look at PC767 on the cabin crew thread talking about a power struggle as to who runs the company ... and PC767 is cabin crew who seems to think it is their job.

"And the stupid thing is? Walsh and BA have their permanent and structural changes to cabin crew working terms and conditions. He's brought in a cheap labour resource, paying minimal wages with crap working rights."

As I mention, thousands are going through the application process so I guess it isn't quite as bad as you make out. But you also ignore the fact that BASSA refused to negotiate so BA went ahead without them. You ignore (conveniently forget?) that every other department talked and achieved agreement in a mature adult way. BASSA and their cabin crew supporters took the childish decision to hold on to their toys and not talk maturely. And like a 3 year old, they have now lost those toys and are screaming how unfair everything is and they want their toys back and everything to back as it used to be ... with BASSA running the show. It isn't going to happen. One of the reasons that BASSA held the controls for so long is that previous CEOs didn't want this type of dispute and as such pandered to the BASSA brigade. WW hasn't come this far to hand back to BASSA everything that they have thrown out of their own pram.

The ins and out of the dispute between BASSA and British Airways have kept PPRuNe readers amused/appalled/annoyed/incensed/educated/informed (you choose whichever word applies best) for the last couple of years, at least.

But has anyone noticed that there have been an infinitesimal number of complaints against British Airways by any other sector of the airline's work force - on PPRuNe, at least? Are they all happy and satisfied with their lot?

As BA are perfectly entitled to do.

The strategy will work if quality staff can be attracted/retained.
It will have to be changed if they can't.

“BASSAs refusal to negotiate on existing T&Cs that has caused the rapid growth in Mixed Fleet”. Errmm, I don’t think so! Nobody except BA are responsible for setting up the new cheap fleet. They also set the pace. Unless you’re saying that BA are punishing the strikers for daring go against them, in which case, I’d question any business strategy based on rash decisions, which seek to punish a group of employees.

“Lets face it, why has not other department at BA got the same problem?”. Weren’t BALPA calling for a strike a few years ago, due to a cheap fleet of pilots arriving? BA staff going on wild cat strikes during the Gate Gourmet dispute? There are probably others, I can’t be bothered to Google.

“Why does no other department mistrust WW so much?” Does any other staff employee group in BA have a condition of employment written into their contract, which states they can be binned for commercial reasons or sickness? Has any other department been told they must work alongside a cheap labour resource?

Why is there such a queue of VCC from every other department out to break this strike? Greed, management pressure and a jolly. Do the VCC’s get £2.40 an hour for being away BetterbyBoat?

Tell me BetterbyBoat - what else do you want from the cabin crew? A further pound of flesh?

There is always a temptation on here for people to simplify things too much.

This dispute is very complicated and there have been faults on BOTH sides.

There are many many different reasons why the vote went the way it did.

Here are a few:-

Some crew don't trust BA to be fair in the future with route allocation.

Some crew have read the agreement are ARE happy with it and do trust BA.

Some have not even read it but have relied on misinformation from Bassa.

Some are happy with the agreement but upset about losing staff travel.

Some are unhappy about the suspensions and sackings.

Some have been persuaded by the union that they will be redeployed if they sign the agreement.

Some are just putting their heads in the sand and hoping it will just go away because they can't cope with all this anymore.

You only have to read what DH said to those crew he wants to leave the union to understand why they are all confused.

As I said the only thing that is certain is that both sides have handled it wrongly at times and that this strike will have hardly any impact on BA because in the end the majority of crew will come to work.

From moses30u, 11 January 2011:

And your point is Churchinchow?

Ahhhh, I see. Because I don't buy the BA spin, toe the line on here and slag off the cabin crew, I must be a union member or cabin crew?

I cant speak for BbB, but what I would want for cabin crew is:

A rise in basic pay
A promise that route transfers to cheaper fleets will be done fairly.
As a further safeguard to the route transfer, a system that guarantees allowances at current levels if change of routes means allowance earning is reduced from current levels.

BA have offered all the above and it has been rejected by the union without even putting the offer to their members.

Can I ask you Moses what you would want for the cabin crew? (PS Personal insults will get you banned from here pretty quickly so you may like to edit your last post)

Thanks for the headsup Mariner, duly edited.

You’ve lost me a bit about the transfers.

However, from what you’ve stated, there’s a lot of management promises in that offer. Given the bitterness of this dispute, I’m not so sure I’d trust these promises right now.

This basic pay rise has got to be a management gimmick right?! Certainly is a headline grabber.

A bit of balance..............
 

I would like to restore a little bit of balance here.

Whilst DH is behaving just like the Popes during the counter-reformation, and the believers are doing what they are told, as they did back then, there is a fact that thousands of staff voted to strike, and thousands of staff will go on strike. (Two thirds of those that voted to strike will strike).

This remains a very serious management issue.

The "pope" cannot "lead" without followers. There are thousands of followers, and thousands of strikers. It's not just DH and a bunch of cardinals, it is thousands of people.

What the hell are the BA managers doing? In any other industry, the managers would be out there talking to the staff and finding and fixing the problems.

The longer this goes on the worse the line managers appear to be.

One promise - fairness in route transfers.

Even if one would trust BA to act so unfairly in this process as to reduce their heritage CC's allowances to zero, they still have the new system that pays them the equivalent of current rates, so they are no worse off*

As for the payrise, I'm sure BA would happily drop that part of the offer if Union members feel its only a gimmick.

*As an average group, they would be no worse off. However we are told on the other thread that BASSA members manipulate routes so that "favoured" senior BASSA members get the lions share of high earning routes. Thus these senior BASSA members would lose some money, while the less senior CC would gain. The cynics on here (and I admit to being one of them) would say the prolonging of this dispute is a clear example of the BASSA reps/senior members attempting to continue the feathering of their own nests at the expense of their junior members.

Ancient Observer,

You have hit upon the big problem for BA, it is not like most companies because the workforce are spread all over the world and report at different times of the day.

The managers do try and phone crew at home ( but I have to say that many crew will not take their call) and walk-in sessions are open for crew to chat to managers, in fact at this moment, but hardly any will go in and talk.

Most main crew and a large proportions of WW pursers do not even know who their manager is because our working life is predominantly on an aircraft. Crew arrive just before their flight briefing starts and then on their return go straight home, particularily the WW crew.

Moses30u ... I think pilots fly without the need to go as VCC ... and I think they are better paid at the front of the plane than in the cabin. Other VCC fly because they want to end the BASSA control of the company. If you need further examples of BASSAs negotiating skills, take a look at DH discussing the way forward with his own union members .... negotiation is not an option even here with people who pay his wages. It is DHs way or the highway.

You say about "Weren’t BALPA calling for a strike a few years ago, due to a cheap fleet of pilots arriving?" Why didn't it happen. Negotiation occured. Notice the difference.

Gate Gourmet? Get real - Gate Gourment sacked their own employees 5 and a half years ago - it was nothing to do with issues with BA management. It was BA empoloyees "supporting" their friends \ family at Gate Gourmet at Union insistence.

Cheap labour - well, we can agree to disagree on that. It is certainly cheaper labour than current T & C s but that is the same throughout the airline and country. New employees almost everywhere are on new T & Cs including the removal of final salary pension schemes. Mixed Fleet will only work if cabin crew stay and can live on the wage. That is the same with any job. From bus driver to pilot. From banker to bank clerk. But are you seriously suggesting that current crew are so thoughtful and considerate that they were voting to strike over someone elses wages and not their own. How noble ;-)

Even Betty Girl - which of the points you mention were the original cause of this dispute? I accept things have moved on ... but the actual causes of this dispute ... can you confirm that Unite and BA had agreed in principal an agreement as far back as Dec 2009 which BASSA scuppered?

Mariner 9 - I agree totally. And perhaps strikers could post back what they want to end this dispute.

Ancient Observer (and this is where I would agree with Moses). I don't believe BA have gone through 14 months of this to hand back everything now (and I think that is what the strikers want). Other departments felt WW went quite far enough even handing back ST (even with loss of seniority) after it was withdrawn. It is a now (I believe) a dispute about who runs the airline and it isn't one that BASSA can win.

Sadly BASSA have backed themselves into a corner. And BA don't need them anymore. Ultimately it is the cabin crew that will suffer.

Mariner,
I personally think it is the sackings and suspensions and BA's requirement that the arrangements between the union and BA are modernised, that drives the reps on.

They are just using misinformation to the cabin crew as a way of getting them all on side. I am sure that the reps know that this deal is actually quite good. They are just totally embittered because some of their colleagues, in their eyes, have been unfairly and harshly treated plus the removal of staff travel seniority.

That's what drives this strike on.

Whilst generally correct my partner, WW PSR, knows her manager very well and enjoyes regular contact and communication with her. She [partner] made the effort to do so and there is nothing preventing any other cabin crew member from doing the same thing.

After being invoved in a serious incident on a flight recently she recieved a call from her manager checking that she was ok and offering various services and support. I know some crew would accuse that manager of harressing them at home by phoning..!

Bottom line, staff / management relations is a two way street.

Any CC member that doesnt know their managers name must have applied zero effort in finding it out, it's all published after all. So manager AND CC fail equally in that example.

Well I totally agree with you Snas.

I like your partner have a great and wonderful relationship with mine. I have a chat with her whenever I see her sitting at her desk but that is not the case for most main crew and WW Pursers. I also notice that only a few WW managers work in the CRC with most opting to work at Waterside. However on E/F the majority choose to work at the CRC which is great for me because I enjoy having the ear of my manager.

Our managers come and go but I like your partner always seek out mine when she/he changes but I don't think I and your partner are the norm I am afraid.

I was really just trying to show AC how difficult it is for BA because each manager has about 300 crew I believe.

It does seem to be true that for most crew, the crewing levels, the original strike reason, have been accepted.

As mariner9 said, what they would want is

All this was offered 8 or 9 days before the original strike, and was obviously acceptable to Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson. They asked BA for more time before the 7 day 'strike dates' deadline to ballot members on it and BA agreed provided no dates were announced, as that would cost BA cancellations etc. So what happened? BASSA and mouthpiece Len McLuskey go ahead and announce strike dates! Thus scuppering the deal and costing their members pay and staff travel etc. To me that is a huge act of betrayal by a union of its members. If CC had rejected it, so be it, but they should have had the chance to vote, with a fair appraisal of what it offered, not the rhetoric/maybe this and maybe that scaremongering that BASSA subsequently justified themselves with.

Following on from that, I can't believe the strike, for BASSA leadership, is anything other than a power play within BA for control of IFCE and BA have to win or they may as well forget any bank backing for new aircraft etc.

Edit to add, I agree with BG above, this is also a likely reason

Quote:

---

the sackings and suspensions and BA's requirement that the arrangements between the union and BA are modernised, that drives the reps on.

---

However I do believe BA should have offered back staff travel with seniority immediately on coming to an agreement, or perhaps in April 2011. It would have been a goodwill gesture that cost nothing. Perhaps that is one thing the new CEO could do without losing face, as it was Mr Walsh that was so specific about it.

I guess there are really 2 disputes going on here:

1) With Cabin Crew which I suspect would never have started, or at least been resolved by now, if they were represented by TW \ Unite without BASSA involvement. I hate to say it but Cabin Crew are, I think, now irrelevant to this dispute.

2) With BASSA - and this is now the key dispute. Sadly the cabin crew strikers caught in the middle are cannon fodder and saddest of all, their Union (at least in the guise of DH) has no interest in their views or futures. Hopefully Cabin Crew will see his latest rant as proof that he is only interested in those that agree with him. And you can't live life like that, no matter who you are. BA can't, and after 14 months, won't let BASSA "win" - that should be obvious no matter what your views. Just an oberver - surely you can see that the unconditional return of staff travel is a corner stone to that.

Enough from me .... hopefully cabin crew will see that they are only of interest to DH while they support him in his quest.

BG and everyone else at BA that help keep the airline flying - keep up the good work.

JanO and BBB,

I think you both sum it up.

Unfortunately Willie Walsh has specifically put it on notice, that he will continue to be dealing with this issue. So no change there. DH continues at Bassa and he is in fact the main culprit. So no change there either.

So for people like me, it feels like a never ending circle and apart from hoping that I can persuade others with my opinions, I am powerless to do anything!!

moses30u
 

You saidThis I strongly disagreed with as all workers in the UK have the same RIGHTS, their individual terms are different and whether they are c**p or not is a matter for debate. They are certainly different but no-one is forcing people to sign the new contract.

If the conditions are so poor (can we use poor rather than the unnecessary scatalogical reference?) then people will not stay very long. That perhaps is the point of this contract, that people will not stay forever but leave after a few years.

Your reply of:
focused on the terms (the conditions in which they work are the same as the heritage crew) to which I made no reference or comment.

I just wish people would use the words they mean and understand those words, it makes the debate so much more reasoned and less emotional. Please try to read what people write and respond to that rather than getting angry about what you think they have written.

profession, job or career?
 

can't help thinking that if BA CC were to truly merit the description 'professional' we would have seen much more positive interaction over this issue.

can you imagine for example, doctors or barristers, sitting back and lapping up everything from their 'union' whilst ignoring everything that the employer has to say? that's not to say they wouldn't apply their critical faculties to both sets of information.

or, would said professionals fail to vote at all in such numbers?

I do not agree with recent post ,referring to grey haired grumpy stewardesses ( you don't have to be grey haired to be grumpy for a start), but i remain of the view that this is a job where only a cadre can expect to stay and progress. for the rest it needs to be a short service option.

I second the comments about the posts by JanO and BbB ... a neat reminder of the facts within all the rhetoric.

@ rethymnon ... Indeed, why should being CC be a lifetime career? The Armed Forces offer short-service commissions to officers [up to 8 years?] who may choose to compete for a 'Permanent Commission" later on. Regular soldiers are engaged for a maximum of 22 years [depending on progress through the ranks]. In all the Services, retention is based on rank/promotion ... not on simply serving time.

I remember vividly the tension when applying for a "Permanent Commission", and so does the OH. If we hadn't both achieved that, we'd have been out of a job at 38.

In the last 18 months there have been three strike ballot: one invalid plus two valid
 

As various posters have pointed out, a vote in the most recent ballot of 56.3% of all ballot papers issued is a substantial and clear vote for a strike.
However the strength of the YES vote is diminishing.

The high tide was the invalid 2009 ballot._ When two months later a valid ballot was conducted, the YES vote was approximately 2,000 less - but in the period between the two votes the membership of Unite had shrunk by about 1,100._ So approximately 900 YES voters had changed their opinion.

Comparing the two valid strike ballots, the YES vote decreased by 1,731 - but the Unite membership shrunk by 1,471.

I would be the first to agree that the disappearance of 260 YES votes is a drop in the ocean._ Nevertheless a professionally verified ballot brings real numbers into decision making._ Unite must be now be looking at falling membership, a thinning of the ranks of hard-liners, plus a viable Mixed Fleet which as yet has no union representation._ Certainly Unite must represent the views of its members - but a ballot enables the members to respond directly._ Unite will have some interest in the situation beyond the short-term.
Reference:-___link

BbB re your comment

I didn't suggest an unconditional return, I said on agreement or on 1 April 2011 (which is the start of a new annual leave year) by which I meant if agreement happens before that date. Sorry if that was not clear. Certainly there's no reason to return it while the dispute is in progress. Historically staff travel has been lost between strike and agreement.

In fact BA has returned it without seniority unconditionally, although it will presumably go again if they strike again.

I don't approve of removing staff travel as an anti strike tactic in general, and in this case I'm sure it's now hampering a settlement. Whether any who crossed the picket lines did so merely to keep staff travel we'll probably never know, but if it did gain any strike breakers at the start, it's losing the back to work votes now.

Unfortunately, even if BA were to make that offer, it's doubtful CC would be given the chance to vote on it without movement on anything else prior to the next walkout.

It may encourage more who went on strike the first time to strike break this time though. Waning support for the Union position would give Unite a lever to force BASSA into the real world and settle for what was on offer before, with the staff travel carrot.

So ... we SLF all wait to see what happens.

"Am I bovvered?"
As SLF, I'm obviously not giving a d***. BA will deliver, as usual.

For the CC, I'm actually concerned. The good suffer for the acts of others, the activists will [inevitably] penalise the pax one way or another. The real tragedy in all this is that it will take years for me to be able to look at LHR CC on LH and smile at them whilst actually meaning it.

Good, innit? How incredibly sad. :ugh:

Well, I am afraid the offended crew are nothing but muppets. After a serious, distressing incident there has to be a robust chain of care that is initiated by the management and followed through to both the employer and employees satisfaction.

One analogy from the railway industry is this: I have had two suicides under my train in about 14 years. After both incidents the chain of care kicked in at once. Relieved from duty and med-screened ASAP. (Interestingly, a robust chain of custody is in place to protect your samples here as well). Taken to hospital if required, reports taken if fit enough to do so and driven home. If your car is at work it is returned to your home address the same day. Counselling is offered and encouraged and you are gently eased back into driving going over the same route accompanied until you feel able to return to full duties.

This, IMHO, the minimum standard for employers and what unions should demand and encourage employees to take up.

The reaction amongst pax to this latest strike threat is interesting and has been more of a collective yawn than anything else. In one sense, the strike (if it happens) has been a failure before it has even started. Passengers hate any uncertainty regarding their travel plans but BA seems to have, as BASSA supporters love to say "sent a message" that it can keep its operation running. Whatever happens next with Mixed Fleet, VCC, and an ever increasing number of non-union members has neuteured BASSA's ability to point a gun at BA's head.

Another SLF view .....

The world turns, times move on and those who try and hold back the march of progress (for good or for ill) ultimately fall under the wheels and will be crushed.

While it is completely understandable that people try to hold onto their 'rights' it is IMO hopefully unrealistic to expect a company to survive and thrive in a commercial marketplace, where part of it's workforce is unable to move on.

I found it quite sad to read Mildly Militant ask the question about at what time the concessions would stop after years of giving things up. I heaved a heavy sigh and immediately thought of the dinosaurs. Change is eternal, every dog has it's day and this particular dog is a dodo. Competition in the market will never stop and to think that other airlines will stop competing with BA is naive and to think that the CC can avoid being affected is doubly so.

The market no longer requires BA legacy salaries to achieve the levels of service achieved by BA legacy staff. These levels of service can be achieved more const effectively and simply paying legacy crew more still does not achieve the level of quality and satisfaction provided by other full service airlines.

So while I respect the rights of any union member to vote as such, I am saddened by the blind obedience to the cause displayed by rational individuals. As has been asked many times, it is still unclear what the union think can be achieved by a strike. The war is lost, the battle is over - all that is left is a pointless suicide charge by the the remnants of the losing side. If the union had been smart, they would have negotiated early on and achieved some slowing of the march of progress. Instead they handed the result to BA on a plate, with bows on.

I will continue to fly BA for short and medium haul.

I do this as BA are currently price competitive for where i fly, but apart from Ryanair whom I abhor, if BA lose this price edge, I will go elsewhere.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, LD12986. By its very nature, the people who contribute here are likely to be sufficiently interested to still be contributing a year later. A great many more switched off months ago. Those people may well be rolling their eyes and silently switching their bookings to another carrier. Chances are, people have gone beyond the "I'm NEVER booking with them again" point and have already chosen elsewhere.

It will damage BA, no doubt about it.

I cannot belief that this sorry mess is still going on after 2 years.

It is incredibly frustrating that so many of the cabin crew has lost touch with what the dispute is all about and some might say that they have also lost all touch with reality.

It is absolutely astonishing to meet so many cabin crew that still only take their information from one source - the totally discredited, power crazy DH. How so many supposedly intelligent people can listen the the mutterings of this person completely defiies logic.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

The only fitting analogy I can think of is that BA are like a person with an inoperable brain tumour. If the brain tumour is not cut out and destroyed it will cause the death of the person. So far it feels like the company have only been taking some aspirin to ease the pain.

It is time for the surgeon to use the scalpel, cut out the cancerous tumour, throw it away and start recovery treatment straight away.