AOif that is the case, it sounds as if someone knew what 'fun' it was going to be and offloaded them. :p

On a practical point, it MAY have been the case that their scheduling etc. is from Ops but that their work on board was from marketing. It is often the case that Marketing is given priority over service and the two are not the same thing. Marketing can think up a service to offer the client but delivering it is another matter.

However, that is all in the past as the accountants took over pretty much everything from 1990 onwards and the pendulum, has yet to swing back.

So the non-union members can get a different contract.

And those in the union can get the same one if the ballot rejects a strike.

Then perhaps, finally, BA will SOSR the remaining CC who are left on the old T&Cs. (And perhaps most the reps?)

That way all the crew would have been able to accept, and if most do, leaving only the militant, perhaps they will SOSR them to Mixed Fleet, hoping they reject the contract and hence quit....

What BA will do if there is a strike, I don't know. But they must be getting closer to the "nuclear" option.

And I wonder if BA now regret holding up the Xmas strike ballot? Snow delays mean they aren't flying anyway....

Remind me never to play chess with Willie Walsh for dosh.

It seems, SwissR, that BA don't have to go nuclear. They are playing a long game (very well too) that slowly brings things forward incrementally without nukes needed.

In one handy swoop they stole BASSA's thunder and handily changed a strike ballot into a ballot on the offer. SNAP!

BA has now essentially managed to have a ballot on the offer that the union itself denied the members--by using the strike ballot as the mechanism!

This restores some power to the moderate BASSA group and may get some of the uninvolved BASSA/CC89 members back to the voting booth.

Nobody could make this up. It's genius.

And the ultimate result may be that the malcontents and militants end up ring fencing themselves if a majority of union members vote "no" so they can then have an opportunity to sign up for the offer.

If Willie shows up at my door with a chess game in hand, I'm running for the hills!!

It's not hard to win a game of chess when playing the village idiot and certainly doesn't take genius. ;)

If the strike ballot result is a "no" is the dispute officially then at an end as Unite/Bassa members are, in effect, accepting the BA offer?

Does it then follow that Bassa must hold elections to replace the reps who are no longer BA employees and therefore not able to continue in their union posts?

Or is this too simplistic a view?

Straight to the point there call. Surely you could have fluffed it up a bit, being Christmas and all??!!

Shack37
 

A simple view, but the correct one in my opinion.

Different claims have been made regarding the election of the reps. Some have claimed that the last elections were delayed because of the "war" between BA and BASSA. Others (including DH himself, I believe) have claimed they were properly re-elected last year.

DH has said that he and Lizanne are stepping down at the end of 2011 in any event.

The ballot result will obviously be interesting, but unless there has been a dramatic shift in sentiment, I expect there will be another yes vote for industrial action, but with a lower turnout and lower majority. It really does depend on whether previous unreturned votes are converted into active no votes.

If there is a no vote then, technically, the dispute should be cover. But whether some would ever accept that is another matter.

LD12986:

I have to agree with the above.

Ancient Observer:

I believe you may have misinterpreted my previous post. Mr. de Silva is the marketing director.

Your post was surprising. Was CC truly under "marketing"?

CC89's obsession with the MF offer
 

On the Unite BA website however, CC89 are continuing to bleat about the MF contract, and how this could soon be everybody's contract.

One of the aspects of the contract they are so concerned about (as have BASSA in other communications) is BA's requirements that employees will do other work according to the needs of the business (ie in the terminal etc.).

Can anybody explain why the Union believes that BA should continue to pay CC if they cannot undertake their normal duties for whatever reason, but there are other jobs that they could be doing ? (nb, I have successfully fought as an employer, ET unfair dismissals where this point has been contested - ie employees sacked for refusing to do other work).

Marketing or commercial, they certainly weren't under Operations.

I left BA in 2000 and up till that time Mike Street was Director of Customer Service and Operations that included all cabin crew world wide.
I believe he retired in 2005.

My mistake, I meant Flight Operations, Rgds

Mike Street did not retire. He was retired by Willie.

From what I can gather from the other thread I believe a "no" vote would mean that the offer was still available for union members. However a "yes" vote would mean that the offer was withdrawn i.e. whatever settlement was eventually reached for union members would be worse. However my interpretation may well be wrong. :)

That is exactly my reading of the offer too. The offer would no longer be available if there is a yes vote as this would mean a strike. The strike would cost BA money which would mean that BA could no longer afford to fund the same offer to the union members.

This effectively has become not just a vote as to whether to strike or not, but also a vote as to whether to accept the current deal as offered. A clever move by BA as BASSA effectively stopped it's members from voting on the offer. It also provides some motivation for the apathetic amongst the CC community to vote - a no vote becomes a positive act rather than just swimming against the tide. Either way it is again clear that BA have, once again, attached a consequence to a strike vote.

Yes, and as a less desirable act, rather than a no vote and alot of folks moving forward with a new contract, BA could probably go back to court, if there is a yes vote.

There have been quite a few messages elsewhere already about ex-union members having received their ballots, which they say they are taking to their managers for their information.

Not sure if receiving a ballot is a violation, if the ex member does not vote. But courts decide that, it seems. But if the ex members all decide to vote, when they are not entitled to, and the vote is "yes" surely BA will return to court for a groundhog day visit.

Reviewing the 5 strike ballot issues from the Unite memo, it's hard to see how all of these are "new." But perhaps Unite's lawyers have assured the union they are covered by law.

Except for Mixed Fleet, it's all related to the last strike tangentially isn't it?

After reading some of the culty messages from the other thread, it's like seeing the ghost of Union Future. Why do I see some of these folks in a few years, confused, unemployed but still thinking they need to find the CRC, shuffling around T5 in their bathrobes and slippers, unkempt and muttering "keep the faith keep the faith, holocaust, iwo jima, where's the tomatoes? where's my Pimms....no hot towels no hot towels" as they are led away by a sympathetic customer service person.

I think it is a stroke of genius by BA, even better than those already played.

This time they are in effect offering cabin crew the ballot denied them by BASSA, going over the heads of those with a vested interest in continuing the dispute as they are either sacked or suspended or motivated by a political agenda or a desire for control of the business.

BA are not breaking any laws but are clearly stating that any strike vote will have serious financial consequences for the whole cabin community if there is a yes vote (and not just those voting yes), thus making a strike call based on a small turnout unlikely in the sense that is will result in a much higher ballot turnout. imho it makes the likelyhood of a strike vote substantially less likely, and hence totally disenfranchise any control BASSA still have.

BA are effectively giving democracy back to the BASSA majority, the question is whether or not they will step up to the plate. BASSA high command must be bricking it:ok:

Crewfiend (sic)
 

The arriviste crewfriend, poster on that other thread, has been spoken of as a reincarnation of DH. I don't think so.

This is pure Len McClunky, he who led so many Liverpool workers to the dole queue, but managed to avoid it hisself.

I think we can all see that a NO vote to the strike call means that BA, the Company, wins and so do the staff. However the malcontents remain.
So what about a YES vote to the strike call. It only needs a majority of voters not a majority of CC. There may not be many voters so perhaps only 3000-3500 possible strikers.
I suggest that BA might ignore the strike call. The Company might say that it has taken legal advice and believes that this proposed strike is a continuation of the previous strike and the strikers are not protected in the same way from dismissal.
BA does not instigate any Court action.
BA advises the strikers that it contemplates dismissing them.
BA now has sufficient trained staff to crew the cabins on a very large number, perhaps as much as 90%, of its flights and 100% of the higher revenue earning flights.
The strike goes ahead, probably poorly supported. BA dismisses the strikers. The strikers have to take action against the Company.
The company refuses to re-employ the strikers. BA offers a modest sum to each striker. This will hardly matter to the Company as expensive Legacy CC have been replaced by cheaper MF CC. Will Unite fund the striker's legal action? I doubt it.
The malcontents are gone . The cabin is a nicer place.
If someone who is allowed to post on the 'BA CC Industrial relations forum' would like to copy this post or part of it across to that Forum please so do.