With all due respect, she should have felt betrayed by her union leaders the minute they said they were going to refuse to negotiate and cling on to power until the dispute was settled.

There's another senile, unpopular leader doing the same thing all over the news right now.

:E

Baggersup - I really do like your prophecy._ It has a good ring about it.

My line of speculation involves the revised-final-offer._ We have not heard anything recently about the revised-final-offer.
All that follows is guesswork and I apologise for all errors and misunderstandings that I am about to make.

Those wishing to accept the final offer would have to prove that they had left Unite the Union._ CC89 members pay by direct debit, BASSA members pay by deduction by BA from the salary._ I guess that those who want the contract would be required to submit a copy of their bank statement that showed that no direct debit had been paid and that therefore they were not a member of CC89._ I further suppose that they would agree that copies of this bank statement could be passed onto BA’s solicitors and could be shown to other legal officers who "had a legitimate interest" (my layman’s words - showing my complete ignorance of legal matters)._ As proof that they were not a member of BASSA the member would also agree that a copy of his/her salary statement (showing no deduction for union membership) could be passed with a degree of professional confidence through this chain of legal officers._ Surely what we have here is a portfolio._ In some cases ex-union members receive ballot papers._ My guess is that members who wish to accept the revised-final-offer were told by BA to pass these ballot papers to BA’s legal team together with a signed (and witnessed?) note to say that they "Joe Bloggs" had received this ballot paper.

What a portfolio this has now become._ We can now extract from the portfolio a pretty-well-complete dossier of members who had incorrectly received ballot papers._ If it is just one or two, the solicitors will say "forget it, no organisation is expected to be perfect"._ But what if it is 200?_ How many members have applied for the revised-final-offer._ Notlangley doesn’t know, it could be 500, it could be 1500._ BASSA might well have made the mistake of keeping a couple of hundred ex-union members on their books.

It is no problem - a strike may be possible - just wait until 2013 to allow time for this to go through all the courts of the land - "what an interesting case" my imaginary lawyers say.

Wow! fantasy world...Bank statements? Proof?
Anyway back to reality....One of the major reasons numbers don't tally (In any other TU branch) is that many people cancel their membership with the company by stopping deductions but don't tell the Union as they don't think they have to.
Because the deductions go to a central collection of the main Union it can take some time before things are sorted out and those who have not resigned in writing are spotted....

If they have not written saying that they resign, how can the union reasonably be expected to know this?

I would say that a reasonable person would accept that they are still considered a member in the union's eyes, until the non payment is spotted and communications establish the underlying intent.

Direct debits may be unpaid for a number of different reasons.

As to the revised final offer, I imagine that the person accepting it had to sign a short declaration that they were not a union member on the date it was issued.

It seems all is not well in the BASSA camp.

Radio 5 Live at 10:00am.

Apparently there are some discrepancies with the ballot (all conjecture at the moment) and some question over unprotected IA and the cost liability to Unite. Questions are also being asked about the state of the BASSA branch book keeping which, to quote a business advisor, appear 'murky' at best.

As stated above, all conjecture but it might explain a little about the reticence to announce strike dates after their 'landslide' victory in ballot.

Mc Clunky
 

He's really on the ball on R5L. He's just been complaining about Mr Walsh being the macho CE of BA. I thought he left last month in order to run IAG!

The PCCC rep was made to lack credibility by McLuskey, due to the non transparency.

"John" was not his real name, didn't give more than an order of magnitude answer to membership.

They really need to come out and declare who they are.

McLuskey won that encounter 5-0, in my opinion, when he should have been beaten, as he is defending the indefensible at BA. :ugh:

JdS
 

I would not be brave enough to say a 5-0 result. Half time at best. LM has made some strong statements. All the PCCC have to do is show who it is, with its committee, its member numbers and show due process in independence. If they cannot show this, he is 100% right. If they can.......

McCluskey made an absolute fool of himself by continually referring to the PCCC being a management tool. I thought that John spoke very well & obviously they will not reveal their identities because of the intimidation.

Well played John, you spoke very well.

McCluskey is floundering about calling a strike. He really is a total plonker. I'd use a stronger word but I don't also want to be banned from this thread.

He's now threatening to ban Balpa from the TUC. I'm glad that Joao supports him, I guess he's the only one.

Listening to this on Radio5. Loved how BA are bully's yet when John points out some union reps are bully's Len laughs it off.

Also when John points out staff travel has been returned all be it with sanction's Len says no staff travel hasn't been returned.

fincastle84

I do not support him at all and he is arguing a fragile case, but he is being given a very easy ride.

So easy to swat the PCCC with allegations of being management stooges, because they cannot disprove this allegation.

Now you have alleged that I support McLuskey, so please read the last sentence of post #88, please withdraw this allegation, as it is untrue.

PCCC missed opportunity.......They really must stop hiding behind the curtains.
I wouldn't join any organisation where the spokespeople stayed hidden using false names.....
If you are afraid of intimidation maybe you should review being a rep!!

The BA CC are contractually banned from commenting about BA in any pulic forum, that's why they don't give their real names. This has applied to both sides in the dispute throughout. It doesn't apply to DH because he is no longer a BA employee.

Litebulbs

On the other thread you said "Now what has been greater so far, the cost of the action, or the saving from the headcount reduction?" I would think that in the short term the cost of the action was greater, however with new MF crew coming in, the reduction of headcount on legacy etc the long term savings will certainly be worth a lot more.

CC have delivered (although not without a fight) the savings that were being asked for and that is certainly now helping the bottom line as far as profits go - in conjunction with the savings that the rest of the business have made. Profits still need to be a lot higher though if BA are to invest in the overall product, new aircraft etc. The profit figures that were issued are not high enough to allow that to happen to any great degree.

I love Lennys idea for the future! We need more manufacturing, we need more people employed, we need people off of the dole and we need investment in local services and the local economy. All good, worthwhile aims. So, how do we pay for it?

We tax the ar$e off corporations and thus drive them, like Pfizer, overseas and out of the UK. We tax the ar$e off the bankers, who are an easy target as long as you forget that they, through the tax system, bankrolled the Labour Government, and force them to Singapore,Geneva and Franfurt etc. In fact we tax the ar$e off every revenue generating company that sets foot in the UK. I wonder what Len thinks of the Irish move to maintain Corporate tax at 12.5%, one of the lowest in the EU, even after a catastrophic bail out? Odd that, could it be to entice investment to promote growth????? Surely not. The bloke is a stuck 1970's record, good to see he managed to get his old nemesis Thatcher in there, ever predictable.

Great plan Lenny, bring it on, then we can all live in the aftermath.

That does not preclude them from talking about the PCCC and certainly doesn't give a reason to hide...

PleasureFlyer
 

I do not disagree with you, but much as been said about Unite and Bassa rhetoric and the fight for survival is no different in my humble speculation.

The speculation being BA is still here, the cost of the action to date may have been more than any bottom line benefit seen so far for redundancy/part time and the new contracts. Long term profitability to become more cost effective against competitors is a standard business process.

As the rise (for want of a better word) of the PCCC is a direct result of the BA cabin crew dispute I do not think that your argument is valid.

So, are you saying that an official of a recognised union cannot speak about that union?

baggers
 

He is my leader and I was listening. I am a believer too. It takes two sentences to say it though.

Who do you count as his audience?

No, not for you Baggers.

I agree about McLuskey being rattled and he did clearly call 'John' a liar, but unfortunately he carried that one off.

As professional as 'john' was in approach, though, he was speaking under an assumed name and was not convincing on membership numbers - I found his 'thousands' response weak.

McLuskey was able to land some very hard hits, e.g. the management stooges attack, as the PCCC is still in the shadows.

Cheap points? Yes, but 5-0 or not, a clear victory in influencing general public opinion in my opinion and a regrettable one.

LB

I have always respected your integrity. Hopefully your new GS is worthy of it.

Rats ... had to go out this morning, and missed the whole thing. Now waiting for BBC iPlayer to put the programme up, which is apparently "coming soon".

Interesting summaries above; that gives me a idea what to listen to carefully!

baggers
 

As I said, some strong words were used, which will be widely reported to anyone who is interested in this dispute and the marker has been laid to the PCCC. We shall see.

MPN 11
 

The fun starts about 10.12. & it's a real classic. McCluskey really is a throw back to the 70s, only without the clout.

It's very obvious that at present the dispute has neither leadership nor direction.

Happy listening.:)

baggersup:

While I agree that keeping the troops motivated is important, I do believe it is also important that Unite be able to communicate with the middle..those who are neither far left or right. Up to this point they have failed miserably in this task as far as the BASSA dispute is concerned.

In fact, if anything, they have raised the anger of the general public, damaged Cabin Crew's reputation, all of which does have a negative impact on their chances of success in this dispute.

As for the PCCC my opinion hasn't changed. Its time to come forth as true leaders to an alternative. Leadership isn't easy, that's why we have so many followers.

Hammer, nail, head Diplome.

Good afternoon Litebulbs:

While you are here I have a question. There has been talk of a "work to rule" effort by BASSA.

If the rumours that I have heard regarding the opinion of counsel are true this may be viewed by a central core of their membership as one of the few outlets left to have impact on BA.

Have you ever observed one these actions? Do you have an opinion of its chances for success.

What I have read leads me to believe that the Cabin Crew who took part leave themselves exposed to disciplinary action if they are not extremely careful...and with the smaller numbers now involved I see this as a potential danger to Cabin Crew taking part but its also an unknown area for me personally.

Any observations???

Working "to rule"
 

If BASSA members decide to "work to rule" it could be to British Airways' advantage.

At least there would be no quibbling by the employees taking such action over which passengers get hot towels, or whether or not the blinds should be up or down, or whether crews report for duty at the correct time, or deciding on how much rest time they are entitled to . . .

et cetera

et cetera

et cetera

Yes, I am looking forward to this no end. Bring it on! At least passengers, pilots, turnaround managers, crew scheduling could depend on things getting done.

If they do go down that route, then their IA seems to be:

1) Strike
2) Work to rule
3) ? negotiate perhaps?

Seems a bit backwards to me. Would have thought that a sensible route would be:
1) Negotiate
2) Work to rule
3) Strike

But that is just me....

len mccluskey = (innocent) smoothie?

Diplome
 

I have never worked to rule (I have been told it is too hard!). I know in one particular dispute a while back, the call was to work with lack of enthusiasm.

There is no point thinking of old ways; legislation has been in place for many years to curtail the effectiveness of industrial unrest. New thinking is required, in my opinion.

Hmmm?? I wonder if that explains the negative reports regarding Cabin Crew on one particular route that we keep hearing about? Perhaps what others observed as rather poor and lackluster service by Cabin Crew was actually IA and no one got the word out to the SLF ;)

Work to rule would never be allowed and would probably be forbidden by the CAA anyway. There is a line between aircraft operations the CAA, the ANO (Air Navigation Order)and the airline's aircraft Operations Manual. ALL are 'bibles' and cannot be bought into any kind of IA or changed one iota. The crew must abide by every word written therein. No room for unions involvement in any of them.

Working to rule
 

I remember working in a very large factory when the maintenance engineers and their various helpers were working to rule.

The effect of the work to rule was that the managers, senior engineers and supervisors worked especially hard to make sure that the work was done, to rule, and to plan.

The maintenance organisation had never worked so efficiently and effectively. When the HR bloke got the work to rule ended, the Factory Director was very pissed off with the HR bloke.

The key point for Aviation is that if the managers et al want to make a work to rule work for the organisation, rather than the TU, it can be done, but takes a bit of work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00y2098/Victoria_Derbyshire_02_02_2011/

An interesting point made by Len:

Making accusations about the PCCC being set up my BA managers. No proof offered of this but he contradicts this claim by saying "we've been trying to find out who they are" and "we don't know who they are".

Presumably the reason for Unite/Bassa trying to find out who are involved with the PCCC is either;

a) Idle curiosity.
b) To offer congratulations on joining the Union faternity.
c) Complain to the world at large that its unfair that they should do this.
d) Advertise their names and details, which could lead to intimidation - for
which of course BASSA would not in any way be responsible for.

I do believe that they are being very sensible in the manner in which they have commenced to set up the PCCC, despite calls by a number of posters, some of which are clearly BASSA trolls on the other thread and who display a very aggressive motivation against them.

They have done extremely well, as the frustration exhibited by BASSA etc. show. There is no legal requirement yet for them to provide any personal details, and they are no doubt setting into place the security needed for their personal protection as normal working CC.

It is of course, alway possible for those demanding that the PCCC come forward, to offer to be the public face of the PCCC as the main contact point, (subject to checking and suitability), with the attendant publicity, personal details, and office open to all comers.

The position may need a car protection officer/driver though and personal ex Marine or two as helpers, plus of course family and home protection squad. If anyone feels that this would be a bit dramatic, consider the rhetoric of BASSA at the Bedfont meetings, never mind some of the statements made on the BASSA forum!

Once again, they're doing very well, leave them alone to get on with it.:D

Agreed completely ... those creating PCCC from the ashes have, it appears, something to worry about as far as some of their co-workers [I nearly typed colleagues] are concerned.

I have no difficulty whatsoever about them being 'on the dark side' until that day - oh! frabjous day! - when BA CC get something resembling a proper Trades Union to represent them.

My donation sits awaiting the appropriate moment.

Entaxei:

I'm not sure what "leave them alone" applies to. I don't believe that anyone on this forum is bothering them.

They are part of the picture in this dispute and are open to the same discussion regarding actions as any other entity.

My personal feeling is that they should have someone come forth...its time.

...and as I've stated previously I would gladly write them a check to help their start up cause...or a cheque...:)

Working to rule could be considered as IA and could be challenged in the courts as much as strike or any other action could be.
The accusations that the PCCC should stay hidden obviously comes from like minded timid creatures......I stick by what I said. If you want to be a rep you have to be out there. Being threatened and intimidated (attempted) comes with the territory. If they are genuine there is no reason for them to continue hiding.
If genuine, good luck to them. However, they must convince people of their commitment and direction.
As for all the other Politic rubbish talked on here, No one is going to change anyone else's mind on their political beliefs so it's all a bit pointless..

Interesting to read BA's responses to Unite on staff travel, pay deductions and sickness on the CC thread.

The responses do appear to be a very comprehensive rebuttal of Unite's complaints and, contrary to the way BA management has sometimes been portrayed by Unite, it does seem that BA has sought to do everything by the book and be reasonable in the circumstances.