Play the ball, not the player!
 

SC,
I, for one, am pleased that you contribute to this thread.
However, please comment on the issue, not the contributors.

Litebulbs contributes, but in my memory s/he has not slagged off the individuals that s/he disagrees with. Read their record to learn how it is done!

Disagreeing with Juan, Diplome and Richard is great, it gets the discussion going. Telling them to "grow up" and calling them "pathetic" is not great.

Please keep contributing.

I can see parts of both sides to this issue ... I work for a Non-Profit charitable outfit [no, we're not yet a Registered Charity] and that work is full of pitfalls.

All we can do is convince those we deal with that we are a proper organisation, that the money donated goes to a properly administered cause and all that sort of thing. If people don't feel comfortable about what we're doing, they are free to walk away and say "No thanks".

However, I will draw a distinction between our 'begging' in cyber-space [and on the the ground] with collecting at the workplace when there is a distinct and pre-existing conflict between those who supported strike action and those who didn't. Regardless of the wrongs and rights of the IA, and those who have suffered in consequence [on both sides of the wire], it does seem to me a rather insensitive/inappropriate way of doing collections for one side of the dispute. I won't draw any direct religious parallels, but I guess you can imagine what I'm not typing.

Not a very good move, IMO.

Well, I think it is a fantastic idea in principle, which I support.

Giving money to help children at Christmas who may not be in as fortunate a position as others.

But everything you then add on to the initial principle, politicises it as others have mentioned. It would be reasonable to presume, from my position as a working union member, that the person collecting the donations, would be thoroughly aware, not to knowingly rub anybodies nose in it. I mean, the collection is for sacked and suspended crews families, which would mean you would be lighting up all the anti BASSA radar's. I imagine the employee in question acted in good faith and the intention was in line with the general principle, but unfortunately the employer will be the judge, jury and executioner of the situation.

As to the complaint, that is the world we live in when you have two sides to a dispute. If anything more happens to the employee (if it turns out that they were just walking though the workplace with cap in hand, a happy smile and kind words), other than ask permission next time, then the reasonable person might just turn against the employer, for the first time in a while.

I doubt if the breach of policy for unauthorised collections would fall foul of B&H though.

And I doubt if you would be suspended pending investigation for misconduct.

The problem with 'collectiongate' is manyfold. To kick off with, The Harrassment act came into play a few months back This puts the onus on employers to investigate each and every allegation of bullying and harassment. If the company fails to do so, the employee can sue. So once a complaint was made, BA was duty bound to suspend the individual pending investigations.
Second point. Anyone here ever collected money in public for charity ? Then you'll know that you are not supposed to rattle your tin at passers by - that is tantamount to beggng and could be deemed to be harassment too. So rattling a hat around CRC would fall under the same catch-all.
Ah but you say. We always used to have whip rounds for staff. Yes, but that was usually amongst immediate coworkers. In a community as diffuse as cabin crew, the nature of the job means that you may only work with someone for one or two trips and that is it. Hardly buddy stuff and very different to the office situation where people may work cheek by jowl for several years. The equivalent would be running a collection within all of say Finance or Rev Man for an individual - it just doesn't happen.
Next up. The line being played is that this collection was for the children of sacked or suspended BA cabin crew. Tosh! Look at the Santas Crew website. It plainly states that the money is for sacked and suspended cabin crew. Now I don't know any of the individuals concerned, but I would bet that there are one or two single folk with no kids amongst them. So not for kids. Moreover, the last time I looked BA don't suspend staff without pay. OK so the suspended ones are only getting their basic, but that is what happens when you are suspended. I actually resent an organisation that uses children as emotional blackmail in this was to extract cash from me. It suggests that they have a pretty weak basis.
Then there's the bit about getting company permission which others have covered admirably.
The list goes on. I'm actually slightly perplexed as to why the lady in question felt it necessary to go round with a hat in the first place. She could have simply given people flyers with the website details and thereby avoided this unseemly situation.

I just wonder if "Santa's Crew" is genuine charity. I say this because I have experience of an organisation which applied for charitable status. Knowing the hoops that the Charities Commission made us jump through to obtain said status. Things like having to amend/approve our constituion, our in-house rules etc. The difficulties placed in our path because we were a "trading organisation", (We leased some land and sublet it to members). In the end we decided that it was just too much trouble.

I must say that I ambivalent about Santa's Crew's apparent objectives and have no reason to suspect anything untoward in either their collection or distribution methods. Indeed their stated aims could, perhaps should be lauded. It is just a pity that the children have parents that put them it their difficult position in the first place.

There is nothing inherently wrong about having an unofficial "whip round" but it can put the "whippers" in an awkward position whether or not they have broken any laws or conventions. It is all very sad.

Can you please stop the prevaricating regarding motivation just because someone decided to use children as a political tool?

The latest posting from "Santa's Crew".:

The same anti-Walsh rhetoric...its simply a game.

If this group really cared about involving all in BA it would have been a fund for the children of ALL BA Cabin Crew going through difficulty at this time of the year...but it wasn't. No accountability, no specifics, its just another BASSA game...those "guerilla tactics" Mr. Holley spoke of, they are just willing to involve children in the serious business of this dispute.

I can find no information regarding individuals responsible for making sure funds are disbursed appropriately...only a "positions filled" statement.

I'm sure there are individuals that have been suspended and/or dismissed that are having hard times financially. It is unfortunate that their children may suffer the effects of their parent's conduct. But surely, if you were really caring about BA children it would be a company-wide plea, and not just for those select few (and they are very few).

Issues such as this only make me more thankful for the honorable and hard working Union representatives I know that truly do work for the benefit of their members.

...and I will add that if this had been a plea for all children of BA employees going through hardships at this time of the year, if those accountable for the distribution of the funds had been named and there was some sort of accountability in place, I would probably have contributed, and I'm not "BA".

This is just sad.

I'm flying BA tomorrow.

I hope you're spoiled Litebulbs.

I'm at home for a bit..settling in for the holidays. There is a shopping trip to London scheduled but it will be by train.

According to their website
So no, it is not a registered charity. The organisation does not publish names of any committee members. There is that rather dodgy phrase 'or the benefit of selected former British Airways Cabin Crew or current suspended British Airways Cabin crew...' (my bold) so anyone donating would not know which staff members or ex staff members were due to benefit from their generosity. It could be that the whole lot was going to be divvied up between three or four people. You just don't know.

Moreover, the statement that it was 'set up by British Airways Cabin Crew' is at best misleading. It has absolutely nothing to do with British Airways - a point that they mak a little further on. What it should say is that it has been set up by a number of BA cabin crew staff to raise cash for colleagues who have been suspended or sacked this year.

The other point that is slightly worrying is the fact that there is no indication of how much of any donations will end up in th ehands of the recipients. OK so maybe I have a nasty suspicious mind, but I have seen scams in the past where people have willing coughed up cash to fund raisers only to find that the fund raiser then skims off 25% for 'admin' costs and that the amount that eventually winds up with the intended recipients is pitifully small. There isno indication of accounts, audits, accountability or governance. Even a school fundraiser will provide details of what was raised and what expenses were incurred.

I'm also ambivalent about the whole deal.Yes, it is a pity when kids get a lousy Xmas because their parents are out of work or on severely reduced means. That's where there are a host of charities around to provide support. I think the point I most object to is the emototianl blackmail by saying ' oh the kids will have a lousy Xmas because nasty BA sacked mummy or daddy or has suspended them, so lets all club together so the kiddies have something'. That is patently not what this organisation is about. It is all about raising cash for those who were sacked or suspended. I don't know if they have kids. If they do I have no idea whether the kids are 8 or 18. For all I know the money could be going to someone who got sacked, is still pulling some cash from a job on the side and has no dependant kids.

I also think that anyone who acted in a manner that resulted in them getting sacked maybe should have considered the possible consequences on their family before they acted in the way that they did. There are time when, although it may seem odious, it is better to knuckle under and grit one's teeth. It's the old proverb about the reed and the oak tree and a high wind. It is better to bend with the wind at times.

It may be interesting to see how far BASSA and Unite are prepared to push this. I doubt that they will make it grounds for strike action unless BA dismiss the lady in question. I can't quite see BA doing that. I reckon she'll get a reprimand.

I haven't bothered posting on here for ages because this dispute seems to be heading absolutely nowhere & is gradually fizzling out. Or am I missing something?

If I'm wrong then when are Bassa actually going to do something positive to further their cause?

Very unlikely, as they never have in the past.

The Blu Riband
 

They haven't in the past and will be less likely in the future. They are, by nature, self destructive. :8

fincastle84 - Yes, I agree. BA currently holds all the cards and thus has all of the Union's possible significant moves covered. BA does not wish to "bust" the Union as it requires a representative body with which it can negotiate future collective agreements, hopefully, in a mature fashion.

The Union is reduced to making sporadic petulant moves and statements which BA continues to field in a professional manner. The Union leadership believes the fight is still on and it can still "win" and, like all power obsessed people, will never step down or surrender until they are deposed which, as BA will not do it, can only be by the Union's own members.

BA's management and Board, the other non CC BA employees, the shareholders, its suppliers, passengers and the rest of the world as a whole are waiting for the apathetic majority of CC members to do what they have to do and depose their almost comically dysfunctional, ineffective and bickering leadership or establish an alternative representative body so everyone can move forwards.

But surprisingly, as it is to their increasing detriment, CC seem to be taking their sweet time in getting the message.

If reports of the increasingly unpleasant and vitriolic environment between fellow CC are correct then BA may have to precipitate something before long as it could be deemed culpable in allowing this environment to continue. Further, there is no doubt continuing damage to forward bookings and the costs of carrying surplus CC/VCC which it can't tolerate forever.

So, how does BA precipitate something without looking like the bad guy? I'm sure it would be only too pleased for the Union to have a ballot about something, anything even, if for no other reason than the Union's leadership would get a message from its members' apathy, as indicated by their diminishing turn-outs. But as we have seen, as long as two members vote in favour from a turn-out of three the Union's leadership, in its never ceasing delusion, will continue to claim a "67% monumental victory with resounding support".

Fascinating (but also frustrating) isn't it?

further strike threat
 

today's 'times' reports that len mccluskey has warned of 'further industrial unrest ...that... once again threatens to ground British Airways jets'. it goes on '... several cabin crew members..... said they were prepared to strike again'.

the sub heading to this article read 'Don't go on holiday....Unite will support any members that wish to take industrial action' per LM.

i'm not sure when he officially takes over but it looks as if big len is anxious to export a few more jobs - assuming of course, he can find a valid, new reason for IA.

just as i thought this thread was winding down ('tho not as quickly as the CC one - they do seem to have lost interest), another cuckoo lands in the nest.

The BA Cabin Crew thread is discussing cabin crew being unable to take their family with them at Christmas if they were one of the strikers who 'lost' staff travel, and one post contains this statement ............

The bit I've underlined applies to the longest retired pensioners i.e. was the case for years, that are soon about to be kicked out of staff travel concessions totally, but that makes no difference to BA's unreasonable treatment of them - and they didn't even go on strike !!!

Tony Woodley will still be in situ for another year so Len will not be the sole Gen Sec yet, so regardless of the sabre rattling I would not assume a change in strategy at the top because of Len's election.

Xmas sickness
 

I can't believe all the talk over on the other thread about the numbers apparently planning to be sick over Christmas. There just seems to be a complete other-worldliness in IFCE about what an employer : employee relationship means, and that with rights and entitlements, there go responsibilities. The last time I experienced some of these attitudes was working in a local authority in the 70's.

Surely they can't have forgotten from the strike period that BA is now a different beastie when it comes to tolerating non sick sickness ?

From the other thread.

Another sign of an otherwordly attitude if people believe that being paid 25 - 55 K is a sign of being unwanted, especially when you know that this is an unskilled job.

When will such crew understand that very few of them could earn comparable wages outside BA and that the quid pro quo ought to be that they do their current job to the very best of their ability and be deeply grateful that they have such a plum position.

I have to say that in spite of her protestations, Betty girl seems to be accepting of this ( sickness fraud), although when she sees that she is drawing some criticism, she changes from "..huge numbers of crew " to " a very few crew.... " go sick