call100:

An interesting statement regarding the function of a Board of Directors:

I would suggest that concerns regarding confidentiality at the Board level are not "misguided" or "irrelevent". In fact, I found myself recently bringing on an individual to a Board, however it was on the basis of the gentlemen's personal attributes, and was quite separate from the group who he belonged to (who wanted Board representation). The line was drawn that this individual would operate under the same rules of confidentiality of other Board members and any breach would be cause for dismissal. For reasons that you so lightly dismiss (financial disclosures, business planning, etc.) the idea of an individual coming on the Board as a "representative" of another entity who he would report proceedings to, was simply unacceptable.

Anyone who thinks that a serious entity would allow a "free agent" into their proceedings is simply naive in the extreme.

Do I take it that you regard Lufthansa as a 'non serious' entity?

Lufthansa -Supervisory Board

I was not making light of confidentiality. That was your interpretation. I made no comment on the function of a Board of Directors. However, thank you for your thoughts....

I would have thought the Board having direct input from the 'shop floor' as it were, would be a bonus in a large company, where normally they would have to rely on info 'trickling up' via middle management. Terminal 5 springs to mind, many on the ground had doubts about the opening which were not taken as seriously as it eventually proved they should have been further up the chain.

A direct route to the Board from the floor would keep middle management on it's toes.

I daresay there would have to be a confidentiality agreement as to what areas can be reported back on and what not, but not insurmountable if the will was there.

Interesting looking at Lufthansa's Board, there is a conventional 'Executive Board' plus the 'Supervisory Board' made up of shareholders and employee representatives. This link is to the Lufthansa page detailing the areas of responsibility, which also makes it clear this is normal in German companies.

JDS:

Interesting Board structure, but you will note that even they split duties...and that set up is not the norm in the U.K..

A liason to the Board from the floor makes sense, but actually Board membership would make most businessmen cringe...for good reason.

An interesting article on the issue:

"German rethinks board structure after corruption scandals"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/bu...4.5163074.html

Lufthansa
 

The German trade union system was set up after the war on a much more sensible basis than the UK multiplicity of unions (with consequent suicidal demarcation disputes).
Since then German unions have generally understood that it is in their interest for the company to be successful. The presence of union members on the board would therefore be likely to be constructive rather than destructive.
Most British unions have now grasped the principle. Except BASSA of course.

Not really interesting, just pretty standard practice.

Scotbill explains it nicely.

Of course, I forgot that the UK is different. Ah, bless.

Standard practice in Germany, certainly. Sarcastic comments about the UK being different (bless) ignores the reality that it's not the case in the US either, or indeed lots of other countries.

Something which more or less works in Germany doesn't necessarily work elsewhere, whether in union relations or economics - as you're doubtless finding out in Portugal right now.

The union/board relationship model they use has been looked at in the UK over many years, but whilst there are advantages to it, there are also many, many disadvantages.

Papillon

The map you can access by the link below will show you that employee representation at board level is by no means a limited concept, with 12/6/12 countries having widespread/limited/no representation rights.

Map: Board-level representation in the EU-27+3 / Board-level Representation / Across Europe / National Industrial Relations / Home - WORKER PARTICIPATION.eu

Whatever the challenges of Portugal (and there are many) at least employees are represented at board level.

If you look at Federation of European Employers numbers (2004-2006, latest available), one will see an average of 23 days lost per 1,000 workers, per year, in the UK versus 4 in Germany.

I would not draw a firm conclusion about correlation, since only an unwise person would attribute cause and effect on the basis of one set of numbers.

But in the period 2004-2006, the UK lost an aggregate of 69 days per thousand workers, versus 12 in Germany.

I would not even compare the US to Europe (for this subject), as the "employment at will" based legislation in many states means that the environment is completely different to Europe.

Maybe we could all club together and have the UK towed across the Atlantic? Might make a lot of people happy. ;)

Worker Representation at Board Level
 

And, in the words of President Lyndon Baines Johnson, "wouldn't you prefer to have them inside the tent pi$$ing out, rather than outside the tent pi$$ing in?"

Any union can get representation at board level, simply buy enough shares to get a place with the added advantage that the union then has the same fiscal responsibility.

I didn't say it was a limited concept. I said it wasn't the case in lots of other countries. Just because it's something that happens in Germany successfully, and in other countries with mixed results doesn't mean anything at all. Ignoring the United States (as many Europeans are wont to do for some reason) is pretty daft, given that they're the world's biggest economy.

Nor should you simply look at the days lost to strikes as an arbiter of the success or otherwise of the concept - it's more complex than that. Germany itself has had a very difficult 30 years economically, and been outperformed by the UK for most of that period. The Germans themselves have wondered whether their system is indeed a good one, as wages have increased and competitiveness declined. You could make a pretty good argument that their structural difficulties have been assuaged by the way they've managed the Euro - it's just caused devastation elsewhere.

Like anything, I never trust any idea that purports to be a solution to all ills.

We have different cultures, different laws and ever different thinking so what works in one place isn't the answer every where.
Is some one seriously suggesting that a union who couldn't or wouldn't look at the finances of BA be on the board?

Papillon

I don't suggest anything as a panacea for all ills.

Also, I put a very clear caveat on the risks of drawing conlusions form one sets of figures.

Neither did I ignore the USA, I stated clearly that I would not compare for this matter as the HR laws in the US and Europe render comparisons of very limited value. Have you worked in the USA? (I have.)

Workers need strong representation in the US and the union model across there has developed to create a counter balance to the 'at will' employment situation.

By comparison to the USA (in general, as federal and local laws different from state to state), the UK labour laws are very protective of workers rights.

Out of those 30 years, 20 years has involved taking on the tremendous burden of reunification - the UK should have out performed Germany by a substantial margin.

As to managing the Euro, in 2002, 64 pence bought a euro, today it is 86p.

Did the euro strengthen or did the pound fall?

The German approach is forcing the 'club med' countries (of which Portugal is one) to realise that they have a decision to make, if they wish to have improved standards of livingon a sustainable basis. Stay and learn fiscal disipline or leave.

But then again, the UK is also learning this lesson, if one reads Mr King's recent analysis.

No, they should not be allowed to run a sweet shop.

Very true, I am sure that you will confirm what I write about the US.

I did not suggest that we should all have the sameway of doing things, if you read back it was Diplome who said and I used Lufthansa to challenge that thinking.

Quite an interesting discussion about board level representation, thank you to all that have contributed, it has been genuinely enlightening as my own experience is wholly UK based so it’s good to learn about the experiences of others.

Unfortunately this thread is about BA and BASSA specifically, and in that context would I invite them onto the board?

Not a chance.

Quote JdaS
 

if one reads Mr King's recent analysis.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/img/cartoon...1/27012011.jpg
:sad:

Joao, the working culture in the UK is more similar to the US than it is continental Europe. The fact that there are more protections here doesn't alter that. Hence why using Europe as an example but ignoring the US is rather silly.

Your point on the euro is largely missing the point about forced low interest rates, but that's one for another day and a different board.

Only if you were a 'sleeper' for the main competition :E

This episode has probably done a lot of damage to the trade unionists in the UK, like Litebulbs, who are reasonable and decent people and whose aim in life is to look after their members and not run the corporation.

Having worked in all three (and the middle east, though that is not relevant here), I would have to disagree with the above.

I have found the vast majority of UK colleagues to have a different perspective on the workplace, compared to US colleagues. NB: I am not judging them against each other as being superior/inferior.

Equally whilst corporate governance in the UK is nearer to the US, than in some European states, I often found US senior management to have a more ruthless approach than their UK equivalents.

In terms of social values, which underpin the workplace, I would see also significant differences.

So, at least based on my experiences, it is completely logical not to compare the US and Europe.

However, this is my opinion and I respect differing views, too.

I see that according to DH, Bassa are now seeking advice from "Queen's Council" (sic) as to the way to proceed. So that's where all the subs go, apart from those which go into the Reps' pockets.

It begs the question as to why they didn't have a plan in the first place.

I seem to recall a lot earlier in the dispute them doing that and getting incorrect advice.
Sorry can't remember when though.

I don't think we should read too much into Unite taking professional legal advice on the matter. Their members jobs are on the line if a further strike is called, and they must be aware of it.

If Unite's QC advises that in his/her view, BA's responses to the points covered in the letter could be sucessfully challenged in Court, then perhaps that will be the route Unite takes rather than risking their members jobs in another (what will almost certainly be) fruitless strike.

Such a cautious approach may well upset the more rabid pro-strikers though.

Mariner9
 

My point is that they've had months in which to formulate a plan. Nothing has changed for 6 weeks so why wait until now.

As you say, some of the more miltant members will be getting very itchy butts!

Mariner9:

I agree. Seeking the advice of specialized counsel is a very reasonable move and should please BASSA's membership.

Hopefully, someone, somewhere, will be able to post a link to the entire contents of the two BA communications. I'm sure it makes for an insightful read into BA's thinking.

Two letters
 

The two letters relate to issues arising from the previous strikes: the deductions of pay, loss of ST and the treatment of the "sick". Although indicative of how BA thinks they have no direct bearing on the current dispute, except to say that those that strike should expect more of the same on these particular issues as BA feel that legally they do not any case to answer here. The letters detail exactly why they feel this way.

Although indicative of how BA thinks they have no direct bearing on the current dispute,

Except perhaps to subtly illustrate to union members that several of the 'current' issues are in fact the same 'old' issues, so that when the subject of non-protected action arises, union members may have access to a polite reminder that they are treading again on an old subject. Its also a not-so-subtle way of bypassing BASSA interpretation of what was said to them, and speaking directly to members.

Its easy to think you are protected in striking, should you not have been reminded of the issues previously raised by your union, but were (probably) never shown the response.

Unite has already instigated legal proceedings against BA over staff travel, so I would assume it has already taken advice on this and the publicised strategy has always been to pursue these issues through both litigation and industrial action.

Regardless of whether it is seeking advice about litigation issues or whether any industrial action under the latest ballot is connected to the previous dispute (BA told Unite it thought they were over six months ago) it seems very late in the day to be seeking advice not least when nothing much has changed over the past six months and Unite has two weeks in which to call a strike.

From Duncan himself:

Different Dispute but same old “Dirty tricks”

Firstly forgive the silence since our deeply satisfying ballot result was announced. As you would expect things have not been altogether quiet behind the scenes.

We can now need to update you on progress so far.

As far as British Airways being interested in reaching a solution, absolutely nothing to report. They have made no contact with Unite whatsoever, at any level. However, as you would probably also expect their energies would appear to have been expended elsewhere, in a typically negative fashion.

Once again British Airways leadership have tried to intimidate people to get their own way, this time it was not just cabin crew! It was the independent scrutineers that conducted our ballot. As always with a seemingly limitless appetite and budget for “union busting” they have used their considerable financial muscle and resources to try and bully the ERS into not publishing the result, by claiming for the third time, procedural errors within the ballot process, to this end they have failed and the result was published.

Though British airways did not write to `Unite directly, we were copied in on their letter. It appears they will go to any lengths to prevent the world knowing what their own staff really feel, anything apart from actually reaching a deal that would settle the dispute.

Why?

Because that does not give them what they are really after - settling the dispute would mean their worst case scenario, BASSA could survive if that was to happen and regroup and live to fight another day.

They would instead prefer to wipe BASSA off the face of the earth, that has always been their real aim since Day 1, and replace them with somebody a little more compliant, a little more “management friendly” that will share their aims and not put the rights of its members before the need for ever bigger profits and who better than their new “best friends” the good old PCCC to fulfill this role. It is no coincidence that only this week, they were sponsored for recognition as a “trade union” with the Government Certification Officer.

It is our responsibility to ensure that you as our members are given the best advice and so with this in mind Unite has sought written Queen’s Council advice on our next step, as soon as we have this Unite will update you. That could be as soon as later today.

There is no need for concern but we have a responsibility to be prudent.

Sorry, but is DH suggesting that BA have in some way persuaded the Government Certification Officer to grant the PCCC a licence? I would love to see their evidence of that.

Diplome
 

You've missed the point. Why wait until now, they've had weeks in which to decide on their next plan of action.

They are floundering around in the wilderness. BA will be fairly relaxed about the present situation. My forthcoming flights in J are all looking well filled, so the pax aren't worried either.

indeed ... I'm more worried about the 10yo kid who lives down the lane, and more inconvenienced by the local cat that 'sings' outside our bedroom window in the small hours of the morning.

DH/BASSA are welcome to bluster all they wish. They can spend members' Union subscriptions on the highest lawyers in the land. They can parade around Bedfont, and catterwaul along the Bath Road, for ever. The rest of the SLF are just flying, and booking, BA ... and, please Duncan, don't tell us how many people have switched to other airlines. They have not: they may have other reasons for not flying [have you heard of the global recession?] but it's not YOU.

The problem is that DH/they have no grasp of reality. And trying to re-start a strike on basically the same grounds as the last one is simply puerile. However, with luck the expensive Queen's Counsel/Council will tell DH it's a non-starter ... after about 3 hours of meetings, several days of deliberation and a few ££,£££ in fees.

MPN11: That is no way to talk about the Connétable.

:D :D

He's OK, actually, and he has smartened himself up considerably over the last few years. He actually polishes his shoes nowadays.

fincastle:

One would hope that Unite/BASSA have been using competent counsel throughout this dispute. I just don't see their speaking of its use now as a big issue.

They have to tell their membership something regarding their delay in communicating any action...."awaiting word from counsel" is as good as anything else. As mishandled as I believe this dispute has been from the Union side Unite is not a small operation and they take significant funds from the Cabin Crew members just so that they are ready for times such as this. I can't imagine they would have not used the advice of counsel constantly.

As for a battle plan...Unite/BASSA/Amicus/CC89 can't agree amongst themselves. How you can build a cohesive plan of action out of that list of characters is anyone's guess.

That's why I'm still wondering how Unite gets a win out of this...or even a draw. For the Union it has been an extremely damaging engagement.

Diplome
 

In the military, my professional background, there are 10 principles of war which were laid down in 1812 by a German military theorist, Von Clausewitz .

The 1st principle is "Selection & maintenance of the aim".
The 2nd principle is "Maintenance of morale".

May I postulate that Bassa/ Unite have totally failed in both?

Letter from PCC to CC
 

Copied from a post of Flyer Talk (I hope it is not a dupe posting here)

It has been pointed out that Unite seeking council may be appropriate; however this would seem the eleventh hour and what has changed? It has been my understanding from reading these threads that if a strike went ahead it may be a “legal” strike but still be “unprotected” if it were deemed to be a continuation of the previous strike. In this situation the strikers might not be protected from dismissal but Unite would not have liability to BA. On the other hand, if the strike were deemed illegal Unite could incur a financial liability to BA as well as the strikers being unprotected. In his latest missive to the faithful Duncan said ”they have used their considerable financial muscle and resources to try and bully the ERS into not publishing the result, by claiming for the third time, procedural errors within the ballot process, to this end they have failed and the result was published.” Could it be that after the ballot was closed BA raised certain objections such as nonunion members being balloted and requested that ERS not publish the results as they could be invalid. ERS is, of course, not in a position to decide this matter and published the results. Now there is a new issue for Unite to confront, one that could create a financial liability. This could explain the apparent delay in announcing plans and the need to again consult legal council. Certainly this must give any member who is paying attention (I know there are probably few) a less than secure feeling.

BASSA's possible spin on why BA contacted ERS in advance of the results being published is interesting.

Some posters on these threads said during the balloting process that there were crew who had left BASSA but still received ballots. And that they had forwarded them to BA to let them know.

If this is the case, and BA received a number of documented reports of former union members receiving ballots, then it sounds as though BA contacted the polling group to try to address this legally before they published results. Maybe they wrote to them to say "some ex-members may have voted and been included in your totals..."

Sounds more like BA's duty of care to the process, due to the fact that they had crew reporting ballots sent to non-members, than trying to surpress the results. But then that doesn't play as well to the peanut gallery, as the latter reason....;)

Sadly, guess we all will find out when it goes to court--again.

I've just been reading this

Trade union rules and membership register : Directgov - Employment

Two sections which are really pertinent are

Membership register
Trade unions must keep an accurate and up-to-date register of their members’ names and addresses. You are entitled, on request, to:
find out from the register, for free, whether there is an entry about you
be supplied, for free or for a reasonable charge, with a copy of any entry on the register about you
Disqualification from holding office
It is a criminal offence for a trade union to fail to supply copies of the trade union rules when asked.
If a trade union fails to do this, they must make sure the person responsible cannot hold any important elected positions in the trade union for five years (eg member of the executive).

Given that BASSA seem not to know who its members are then they surely must be breaking the rules.

The section on Union elections states that elections must be held every five years at least. There are no grounds given for delaying elections longer than 5 years.