you could not make this up....!

re-arrange the words

piss-up BASSA arrange couldn't a brewery in a

For how long has it been clear to all and sundry who care to look into the detail of this that it would be unprotected... and only now, 3 days before the time limit expires does the union care to tell its members.

shameful representation.

Baggersup
 

..................................& that cunning plan is?

Having read Len's missive on the CC thread it looks as thought the next ballot will also ultimately be declared illegal. It's like watching mice on a treadmill.

What next
 

Whatever next - so this time its the fault of the ERS not BASSA, not Unite. tum tee tum. If Unite/Bassa were so confident that it is just British Airways interpretation that the ballot was invalid and that the strikers wouldnt be protected why not trip along to the High Court and contest it....Or perhaps the legal coffers are so empty after last year..........One wonders what can be balloted on for industrial action next....could it be "MF have hats and we dont" - thats discrimination.!!!!!! All out.......I wonder if the delaying tactics are that it is not Tomato Growing season yet and DH would have little to post about until such time that it is......

Two words
 

Shameful, Desperate.

Unite statement
 

Truly and completely unbelievable spin and tosh from Len.

What are the Bassa faithful going to do now? I really can't believe that 5700 people will still be willing to vote on the advice and with the leadership of DuncLen. I've read all the groupthink theories and mob mindset hypotheses and the only thing left by way of explanation to myself is that they are just too stupid to see the truth.

Has anyone got a better explanation?

baggersup

It's a sad situation. By this time I expect pride has become the biggest fly in the ointment. Whilst it would be clearly be impossible for DuncLen to back down perhaps this latest balls-up will convince enough of the remaining Bassa membership to leave and make the dysfunctional 'rump' that's left small enough to be ineffectual, and ultimately derecognised. It would only take a few thousand more to up sticks and Bassa would be a memory.

The long duration of this dispute is informing that trust has broken down between the company and a large section of the workforce.

Until that is fixed, this industrial saga will run and run.

The union can keep the pressure on with the uncertainty of strikes and the company can use legal interventions to try to prevent them.

What we do not know is the impact of this on IAG's financial objectives.

But one thing is for sure, I won't be booking flights on BA whilst there is a risk of a strike, as I cannot really justify taking any risks (e.g. the short haul connections, which are more vulnerable to disruption than the long haul flights), when other airlines are running normally.

I wonder how many other people are taking the same view?

Honestly not bothered, Joao ... although I do recognise that some SH sectors may be affected.

Personally, we flew for leisure through "Strike 3" and "Strike 4" last Spring with minimum inconvenience and, apart from a skip-load of rescheduling, our SH and LH sectors all happened as planned. I have long since reinstated Company travel with BA.

I have forward bookings with BA [LH and connecting SH] up to late Oct, and I'm not in the least bit concerned. However, I will accept that some routes may be more vulnerable than others.

McCluskey's missive is just like a Hippopotamus with diorrhea! When they bring forth they use their tail to splash it all over the place just to mark their place in the water and its surrounds. McCluskey is clearing a fool who spouts like a winner but is a loser. We know it and he knows it.

He must be seething that BA have made him look like a total twit, which is why he has written such BS rubbish - in a tone trying to set out his legless stall. How does he see DH now? Because that poor excuse for a Bassa general must give him the creeps - if it doesn't it should.

His absolute twaddle only goes to prove what everyone knows, but IF Andrew Neil did accede to a McCluskey's condition not to mention BA or BASSA I would be surprised. AN does not usually fall in with that kind of tosh ......but you never do know!!

Joao de Silva
 

Sorry old chap but I totally disagree. Like MPN11, I have flights booked up until October & will be booking LHR-CPT when I return from Grenada next month.

Bassa/ Unite are thrashing around in a very smelly cess pit of their own making. I don't think that BA/ IAG will be too worried about the result of any future ballots.

I'm impressed with the delay.

Would you bassa types please delay until mid August, when I've booked a return to the USA with some friends.

I would really like to fly on a plane with VCC, "strike breakers", and no bassa-types.

(er, thinking of some of the regulars on here) I'm afraid that I live near lhr, so lgw is not a good option)

I don't know why people have to disagree with my decision, since I don't disagree with anyone elses.

We all make decisions in the context of our personal circumstances.

If I was flying long haul point to point, I would be much less worried, but BA's record in supporting short haul is nowhere near as good as long haul.

My boss would simply ask why take any risk with an important business trip, when there are other options; and he would have good reason to ask, as his responsibility is to run the business and deliver results, not worry about an(y) airline.

Joao de Silva
 

I hope I haven't confused you with my choice of words. We all have differing opinions & the beauty of this forum is that we have the chance to express them.

As well as LH I will also be using SH to fly to Lisbon in July to visit my daughter & family. I will be confidently & happily flying BA.

@ Joao ... Excuse the snip of your post, but you're quite right. It depends on which sectors you're flying, and whether there are alternatives available. In that case, your boss might well have a different opinion, and there's nothing wrong with that.

When all this started, I blocked Company travel with BA because of the uncertainty. Like so many other people, there was at times a NEED to ensure people got from A to B. Experience has shown that for our sectors, and my needs, there's no problem. And I honestly think that now applies to SH as well ... the only serious victim is likely to be UK Domestic, where there are surface transport options available.

You may have a different problem, and I completely understand that.

@ Baggers and RTR ... political? Surely not?

Have there ever been any neatly and expensively printed SWP placards seen on these parades and demonstrations? ;)

LM has written to BA CC Unite members
 

Their challenge to our ballot via the Electoral Reform Society carries with it a veiled threat that any action taken by our members would be unprotected, and although we do not accept their assertions we are conscious that we are dealing with an erratic management who are capable of doing anything.

Having consulted with your representatives we are not prepared to put any of you at risk and have therefore decided not to proceed with action based upon this ballot result. As your General Secretary I share your obvious frustrations.

The company of course are hoping that their latest tactic will debilitate your resolve and make you want to

So Len, it had nothing to do with the risk of Unite being sued then?

McCluskey spouts forth again and again from the wrong end!

He says:
Oh really! What damage has been done? I think its the other way round. This dispute has got no-where - not even for a short while at Bedfont among the tomatoes, pina coladas and the simosas. And just like the oozlam bird they will disappear up their own 'office.'

A new ballot will be hard to effect since they keep getting wrong, and BA know full well it will happen again and again because Unite haven't got their records right and neither has BASSA. AND...........of course, the members will have a massive problem in trying to rally to this incompetent lot again.

Censored
 

I see that the letter confirming the result of the ballot that ended 20 July 2010 was in the form of a letter from the Electoral Reform Ballot Service to Mr Brian Boyd & Mr Brendan Gold of Unite

Whereas the letter confirming the result of the ballot that ended 21 January 2010 was from Mr Brian Boyd & Mr Brendan Gold of Unite

I wonder what it was about the 21 January 2010 letter from the Electoral Reform Ballot Service to Mr Brian Boyd & Mr Brendan Gold of Unite?
Why have Unite suppressed this letter?
Was there something in it?
What are we being protected from seeing?

Good Evening All.

I would like to ask a question, if I may? Do you thing an employee rep (branch official), should lead or facilitate?

Many have posted that the leadership of the branch in question is...........

But are you calling for a change of leadership, or a change in approach? I am sure many of you would like to see a leadership change, but that does not change the view of thousands.

My personal view is that if you take this site as the popular opinion, it is as confused as many cabin crew. BA going bust is as much of a bum steer as the numerous rallying cries of the branch in question. Employment law is designed about finding a solution; is either party looking for that?

Did Len really right this? He didn't use the word "macho" once.

:}

I thought I would add this to the thread. (copied from the CC thread)

Litebulbs
 

I think (also in this case) a rep should be someone who understands and agrees (or at least is able to live - )with the principal view of the members.

The Rep should facilitate the execution of the opinion of the majority of the members

In this case however, having led rather than facilitated, the union has lost a lot of members which, had they still been members- might have wanted:

1. a different rep
2. a different goal and therefore method

As soon as rep starts deciding himself what the direction should be irrespective of the members, he becomes a dictator and who likes dictators?

Litebulbs
 

We don't really know the true state of BA's finances two years ago. What we do know is that those unions that signed the confidentiality clause and looked at the books (BA) were convinced enough to agree to cost saving measures in their departments.
BASSA buried their heads in the sand and wouldn't face facts. The rest of the employees in BA made a contribution.

Jan ERS letter missing - notlamgley
 

I suspect nothing concrete by way of an explanation will be forthcoming unless someone makes a FOI request. Unite/Bassa are so bad at what they do it is indeed laughable. I echo Eddy's (cc thread) sentiments in that regard.

Bassa rumour-mill is of course blaming the 'other' union - the one they wouldn't sit in the same room as.

You really couldn't make this stuff up.

It appears to have been assumed by contributors to this and the other threads that the flaw in the ballot process relates only to membership numbers.

But does it? We havent seen the BA letter to the ERS or Unite, nor have we seen the ERS "qualification" letter to Unite.

It seems to me that a major flaw in the last ballot was that the points of dispute were so clearly linked to the previous dispute (and thus, would not be protected)

If so, how are Unite going to address this? The next (if there is in fact another) ballot question will be interesting.

I wouldn't have thought the ERS would have a view on the legality of the ballot if it were potentially illegal because of the actual questions asked being linked to a previous strike vote. They (ERS) would presumably only be involved if the actual people being balloted was incorrect.

However, if the questions change next time around, either I'm wrong, or UNITE were advised re 'continuation' separately by BA. I seem to remember BA making some comment re continuation fairly recently, but I think that was before this ballot was issued, if so UNITE ignored that then, maybe they will again.

If the reasons for a strike are the same next time, and BA do consider it a continuation, maybe they are keeping that objection for future use.

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ser_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ons/report.gif

Indeed, we haven't seen any documented indication that BA have approached the ERS.

I don't think that Mr Mcluskey has said that BA have approached the ERS, although he wants us to believe BA have.

Perhaps a word between the QC's, or even just a word from the Unite QC, has indicated that, legally, Unite are on thin ground protecting their finances and members (yes in that order) and Unite are trying to escape from the position they find themselves in.

I imagine Mr Holley, and others, are privately seething as Unite have once again pulled the wool from under their feet.

Interestingly, I see that BASSA has taken moves to protect their own finances.

Is this Unite telling them that they do not want to put their money on the BASSA horse?

In DH's "there's nothing to worry about" Queen's Council post, he did say BA had approached the ERS and in newspaper reports it was said that the ERS qualified the result to protect their own position.

If Unite do proceed with another ballot, I expect that we won't hear a single word from either BASSA or CC89. It was suggested in The Guardian that a post over staffing level changes (this may have been by CC89) prompted the challenge on continuation.

This part of Unite's missive interests me:

I would venture the opinion....If any ballot was challenged because a few papers had gone out to members who had resigned from the TU by stopping their payments, then all ballots would potentially be illegal. I don't think anyone is claiming that the numbers are significant.
In this case I think the ballot will be re-run with a different question...

I'm impressed that BA's statement reproduced on t'other thread responds to Unite's ballotation without mentioning pissup or brewery once.

@ call100 ... your comment re the number of 'inappropriate ballot papers' is very pertinent.

Nobody has, indeed, mentioned how inaccurate the ballot may or may not have been. However, if ex-BASSA members [and indeed ex-BA employees] keep contacting BA with information that they have received [multiple?] ballot papers in any number, the entire 'house of cards' comes crashing down.

There is simply NO justification for BASSA, at the heart of an IA campaign against BA, not having a credible database of members. The occasional error is understandable, and "would not significantly affect the outcome". My reading between the lines is that the administration of the ballot papers is an utter shambles and has a very tenuous link with the reality of the BASSA membership.

And, as more BASSA members take note of DH's latest invective, it might be some time before BASSA actually catches up with the membership list [and more importantly who is left to ballot]. I can understand the difficulty they face, and even vaguely sympathise with the sub-contracted Membership Secretary or whatever he is called, in trying to keep the database up to date. The fact remains that they NEED to do things properly, or they will just keep being laughed out of Court [literally].

call100
 

Bill Francis made a very clear statement to a good friend of mine who stated they had received a ballot form despite leaving Unite months ago. He said that they are allowed to make a few mistakes as long as they aren't 'proactive'. So yes the next ballot must be run with another question.

MPN 11 - you beat me to it, and also agree with the rest

If it was merely a question of continuation, and nothing to do with the ballot itself, then I think it unlikely that the Electoral Reform Society would have been as involved as they clearly have been in terms of the question of the ballot's validity. Continuation is nothing to do with them - it doesn't form part of their role.

Juan Tripp
 

Cheers :ok:

So ... what is the "other question"?

After 2 years the Union keeps coming back to the same sad and sorry semi-arguments. Unless someone can think of a new reason, that the blathering hordes haven't used yet, it will end up being a 'continuation dispute' ... with all that entails.

Apart from BA achieving some degree of the profitability which it needs, given the massive order book for new aircraft], where does the future lie?

• Legacy Crew quietly fading into the sunset?
• Ongoing militancy?

I fear this will run for another few years, bubbling in the background and tainting not only the airline but also the great majority of Cabin Crew. i find it all very sad, and so completely un-necessary.

The details of the ballot seem to me to be a side-show to the real issue.

Thousands of staff have voted for a strike, and between half and two thirds of them will strike.

When will the responsible local BA management get out and about to talk to, to influence and to persuade staff to change their minds?.

Sitting in an office is a cop out. Waiting to be approached is a cop-out. Get on the planes, get on the phones, go and have conversations!!!
If each manager has 200 to 300 staff to oversee, 80 could easily be spoken to each and every week, 30 minutes each..

As for the CSDs that support the strike, they are supposed to be first line managers, not strike leaders. They must be performance managed out of the organisation.

Yes please - can we see the official report?
 

Ancient observer
 

Hate to tell you this, but thats exactly what the managers have been doing for a long time now. The 'Bassa' crew for whatever reason hate everything about BA except their pay and T/C's. Don't ask me why. Its been the same for 30 + years. As for the CSD's, on EF, 50 pursers were literally given CSD without an interview or anything 13 years ago. This was because BA were short of CSD's and nobody would apply, so Bassa did a 'deal' with the head of Cabin Services. ( This was just after the 97 strike, and the manager had been brought in to calm things down.) So 50 pursers were promoted on seniority. MOST of them are the worst CSD's we have. Manage them out. Yes please

Good information ... I think most people understand it's a 'legacy debate' without actually realising how it was created in the first place.

I could draw parallels with my former life, where similar things occurred. Staff just time-serving to pension, with absolutely no interest in pulling their weight.