PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight-61/)
-   -   BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/441165-ba-strike-your-thoughts-questions-iv.html)

ChicoG 2nd Feb 2011 04:39

She fervently believes in the BASSA cause, and has fought valiantly for her principles. In her heart of hearts, she is no doubt feeling very let down and betrayed by her union leaders.
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.


notlangley 2nd Feb 2011 07:18

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 BAís solicitors and could be shown to other legal officers who "had a legitimate interest" (my laymanís 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 BAís 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 doesnít 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.

call100 2nd Feb 2011 08:10

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....

Joao da Silva 2nd Feb 2011 08:26

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.

Wirbelsturm 2nd Feb 2011 08:49

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.

fincastle84 2nd Feb 2011 09:27

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!

Joao da Silva 2nd Feb 2011 09:34

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:

Litebulbs 2nd Feb 2011 09:40

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.......

fincastle84 2nd Feb 2011 09:43

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.

On Another Planet 2nd Feb 2011 09:43

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.

Joao da Silva 2nd Feb 2011 09:49


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.

call100 2nd Feb 2011 09:50

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!!

fincastle84 2nd Feb 2011 10:03

I wouldn't join any organisation where the spokespeople stayed hidden using false names.....
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.

PleasureFlyer 2nd Feb 2011 10:04


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.

Wirbelsturm 2nd Feb 2011 10:04

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.

call100 2nd Feb 2011 10:07

Originally Posted by fincastle84 (Post 6218737)
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.

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

Litebulbs 2nd Feb 2011 10:16

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.

Chuchinchow 2nd Feb 2011 10:23

That does not preclude them from talking about the PCCC
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.

Joao da Silva 2nd Feb 2011 10:45

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

Litebulbs 2nd Feb 2011 11:08

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?

All times are GMT. The time now is 15:20.

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.