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)

TightSlot 30th Jan 2011 07:46

BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions IV
 
The story continues..........................

Landroger 30th Jan 2011 10:52

May I just ensure that my recollection of matters discussed in this thread is more or less clear?

To date - in something like two years - no BASSA supporter has posted a clear, well argued, fact based explanation of their case?

Mr. Holley - or some doppleganger of his - has posted on this thread, although largely rhetoric and unsubstantiated gobbledegook aimed at the emotions of his flock, rather than to support what is virtually unsupportable?

BA have, on the whole, said very little on the grounds that rationalising with BASSA tends to be an oxymoron. They have mostly stated their intention and then done what they said on the tin.

Because of the nature of a transient and remote work force, coupled with an almost cast iron strangle hold on communications with them by one party, the 'normal' implications of Union ballots has been distorted to the point of irrelevance? A big vote in favour of a strike does not actually imply a big turnout at the picket lines, indeed almost the opposite?

The majority - by a very large margin - of bullying and harassment has been of non strikers by strikers - no fact based evidence to the contrary has every been seen by this thread?

The people who set up and expanded the PCCC have, thus far, remained largely unknown for very obvious and understandable reasons. They have though achieved a great deal with very little, although with the remarkable support of many passengers?

The only reasoned support of any union view has been by Litebulbs - not directly involved with the BASSA dispute - and even he expresses some disbelief in the way BASSA act and have acted. He and 'Eddy' have been left to at least clarify possible points of view and moderate any Daily Mail tendencies in this thread - for which thanks.

It is difficult for anybody, let alone we SLF, to see where BASSA can or will go next?

Roger.

rethymnon 30th Jan 2011 12:48

where next for Bassa?
 
'it is difficult to see where BASSA can go next' - or words to that effect.

remind me, what did the oozlum bird do?

however, a brilliant and pithy summary of two years progress.

Litebulbs 30th Jan 2011 13:45


Originally Posted by Landroger (Post 6212401)

1. To date - in something like two years - no BASSA supporter has posted a clear, well argued, fact based explanation of their case?

2. It is difficult for anybody, let alone we SLF, to see where BASSA can or will go next?

Roger.

1. I think there has been some debate on this. The biggest fact is that BA is still here and does that fact change the fight for survival to an opportunity to remove staff cost? Now I know it is a balance and it is in no way as simple as that, but to me, it is for the employer to take the staff along the road and the first job is to convince rather than dismiss the reps. But as a rep, I would say that. Have the savings so far been more or less than the cost of lost business (200000) and contingency?

2. I know the rhetoric by some on pprune likes to dismiss any action as ineffectual, but 6000 no's after two years is still a huge number and so is the cost of past and future disruption.

I wish more Bassa members posted, but I doubt that from my experience,the battering that you sometimes get, will make some of the less thick skinned think why bother.

Hotel Mode 30th Jan 2011 13:56


I wish more Bassa members posted, but I doubt that from my experience,the battering that you sometimes get, will make some of the less thick skinned think why bother.
They're pretty thick skinned. A quick look at the BA section of Cabincrew.com will show them at their best. Bullying mixed fleeters and claiming anyone who disagrees is a pilot or a manager.

The reason they dont come here is because they cant peddle their lies and exagerration with impunity. If somebody came on here and actually presented a cogent, well thought through and sensible argument without blaming everyone else then I'm sure their views would be listened to if not liked. It comes to something when their best spokesman is a rep from another part of Unite.

Litebulbs 30th Jan 2011 14:48

Just for the record, I am not a spokesperson for Unite or Bassa, just an interested party, who happens to be a workplace rep and as such, my views are my own and in now way represent the views of Unite/Bassa/Amicus etc. etc.

Hopefully you are still allowed to have a view that you can express in a public discussion forum. :mad: :confused:

Betty girl 30th Jan 2011 16:54

There is a poster on the site that Hotel Mode mentions called 'ally' and I would happily put a bet on that it is DH or another union rep. He says that he does not work for BA but knows every detail, even the details of DH's next hearing!!!

Chuchinchow 30th Jan 2011 19:49


He says that he does not work for BA but knows every detail, even the details of DH's next hearing!!!
If it is DH, then he is telling the absolute truth for once.

Sporran 30th Jan 2011 20:16

Betty Girl,

Just had a quick look - and it is so good to get back to 'the university of adults' from the 'kindergarten' over there.

This thing called 'ally' is rude, obnoxious and totally deluded. he is not on his own though cos there is also some REALLY sad and hateful thing called huw on wings.

Landroger 30th Jan 2011 21:59

Litebulbs
 
My initial remark was to the effect that no BASSA supporter had posted a fact based outline of the CC case, LB.


The biggest fact is that BA is still here and does that fact change the fight for survival to an opportunity to remove staff cost? Now I know it is a balance and it is in no way as simple as that, but to me, it is for the employer to take the staff along the road and the first job is to convince rather than dismiss the reps.
As I read this and the other thread over the years, it seemed to me that the fight for survival was exactly that and was the entire reason for negotiating with all the other departments and Unite branches. Having successfully negotiated with all the other sections, it remained for the Cabin Crew to ante up. Week after week BASSA were constipated and BA issued what amounted to an ultimatum - crap or get off the pot. Now we know how it played out.

It seemed to me that BA were trying to convince rather than punish, but, as time went on BASSA became more defensive and cornered by their own attitude. With direct contact with their own employees virtually impossible and the provocation becoming too much to ignore, BA began to take steps. Legal and, in the minds of many, very restrained steps.


2. I know the rhetoric by some on PPRuNe likes to dismiss any action as ineffectual, but 6000 no's after two years is still a huge number and so is the cost of past and future disruption.
But as I said LB, if a contrary organisation has hijacked the communications link between employer and employee, simply by using utter rubbish to blind those employees to reason and then telling them to completely ignore their employer because everything they say is a lie, what is that employer supposed to do? The huge vote in favour of Industrial Action was, I'll admit, quite impressive, but when the reality of walking out came round, the vote looked a bit 'overstated'. And so it has gone on.


Just for the record, I am not a spokesperson for Unite or Bassa, just an interested party, who happens to be a workplace rep and as such, my views are my own and in now way represent the views of Unite/Bassa/Amicus etc. etc.
I knew that LB and I'll admit it has been rather amusing to see other forumeers accuse you of supporting BASSA. :ugh: You may not, as you say, be the official Unite spokesperson, but you are however, by default, the voice of reason from the the union side, so to speak. Given that that they are unable or unwilling to make their own case for themselves.

Roger.

LD12986 30th Jan 2011 22:26


Holley should win his tribunal.

It was clearly a case of constructive dismissal
Regarding this post on the crew thread, for DH's sake, I hope his lawyers know the difference between constructive and unfair dismisal. DH was sacked rather than forced to resign.

Litebulbs 30th Jan 2011 22:42

Roger
 
My point about the fight for survival is that BA has survived. Has BA actually made any saving within the crew community today? It will have saved, but there has been a cost too.

Long term viability is obviously very important, but what happens if the profits are even further up this year?

Weak, I know, but it is late.

yotty 30th Jan 2011 22:52

I thought that if you were sacked from BA you would not get a pension, you would just received what you had paid in?

notlangley 31st Jan 2011 04:07

No decision is a Decision.
 
In the Soviet Union it was said "no answer is an answer".
I wonder if, next week, we will discover that no decision to set dates for the strike is the decision by Unite the Union._ There will be several consequences of this - one is that the new contract will not have been removed from the table._ Quite soon (next month?) there will be a pay differential between those on the new contract and those who are not._ The pay differential is a tiny amount - not likely to influence anyone - but there is some quite primitive sadness about being left out of a pay rise.

hula 31st Jan 2011 05:41


what happens if the profits are even further up this year?

We can finally start investing in our aircraft. airport experience and on-board product again! And all have some sort of profit share!!:eek:

Joao da Silva 31st Jan 2011 08:05


But as I said LB, if a contrary organisation has hijacked the communications link between employer and employee, simply by using utter rubbish to blind those employees to reason and then telling them to completely ignore their employer because everything they say is a lie, what is that employer supposed to do?
Sort it out, very quickly!

Mariner9 31st Jan 2011 08:33


Long term viability is obviously very important, but what happens if the profits are even further up this year?
In the ideal world BASSA would ask to see the accounts (having signed a confidentiality agreement) and use them to negotiate a realistic, affordable improvement to their members' T&C's in their role as a progressive, engaging union.

In the current (un)real world, BASSA will refuse to negotiate with BA, then refuse to put BA's offer to their members. They will then convince their membership to vote for further IA which will be carried by the majority of their remaining, ever shrinking, membership.

Do I have a career as a fortune teller? :ok:

Entaxei 31st Jan 2011 09:09

There is a very good case for BA to say to BASSA, you show me yours and I'll show you mine - talking accounts of course!! :E

Mariner9 31st Jan 2011 12:39

I see we have a new BASSA mouthpiece on the other thread.

He/she seems very interested in the funding of the PCCC. Wonder what his/her reaction would be upon seeing some earlier comments from some of our regular SLF correspondents on here that they would happily contribute to the PCCC :ok:

Ancient Observer 31st Jan 2011 13:19

I see that the junta have nominated one of their "helpers" to be a new troll over on the CC only thread. As their knowledge of BA CC is limited, they would seem to be one of the SWP members that have hijacked this dispute for their own strange ends, (or rather, the strange ends of the multi-millionaires that control SWP).

Anyway, rather than answering where bassa have spent their net income of nearly 1 million pounds per annum over the last 5 years, they appear to be fixated about who paid £150 for the pccc's registration as a TU. £5 million versus £150!!!

As a matter of fact, I did not pay that £150. I was not asked to. Had I been asked to, as I'm unemployed, finding a spare £150 would not have been easy, but I would certainly have tried!

Now for the £4,000 for full certification.

I believe that the T & G/Unite do and have done a great job in many circumstances, but that their spoilt teenager in bassa is making a mess of the T & G's reputation.

fincastle84 31st Jan 2011 15:05

I think that CCCP is probably related to A Lurker!

Moving on, time seems to be running out for any strike to be called. At the same time, Bassa/ Unite don't appear to be attempting to either put any pressure on BA or to win the hearts & minds of the travelling public.

We live in interesting times.

Chuchinchow 31st Jan 2011 15:29

Ancient Observer, on 16 November 2010, opined thus:

the SWP and their friends do not give a fig for the BA CC, and are not interested in solving the problem - they just want the fight and the publicity. They are run by millionaires, so the fate of a few BA CC is way down on their list of priorities
.

Ancient Observer related, on 23 December 2010, that:

I wish that BA CC in bassa would do some half-intelligent investigations of SWP. Owned and run by millionaires, they have a completely destructive perspective, and don't let boring things like real workers and real people stand in their way
Ancient Observer, again on the alleged backers of the SWP, has told us today:

As their knowledge of BA CC is limited, they would seem to be one of the SWP members that have hijacked this dispute for their own strange ends, (or rather, the strange ends of the multi-millionaires that control SWP).
Would Ancient Observer care to elaborate on those assertions, please? Who are these alleged "multi-millionaires that control SWP"?

I ask only because there seems to be a great degree of dissimulation happening on "the other thread", and we would never descend to such stratagems here - or would we?

Joao da Silva 31st Jan 2011 16:03


Anyway, rather than answering where bassa have spent their net income of nearly 1 million pounds per annum over the last 5 years, they appear to be fixated about who paid £150 for the pccc's registration as a TU. £5 million versus £150!!!
I do think that funding for the PCCC is a legitimate question, just as it is for BASSA andother unions/branches.

Ancient Observer 31st Jan 2011 17:36

Chuchinchow

I'm pleased that someone has an interest in the facts. The Redgrave family run the SWP. Have done for about 40 years. Look up the Redgraves and the various branches of the family on Wiki. Then Google "Redgrave family and SWP".

Look for the Socialist Worker Online.

Vanessa used to take the lead, especially in demonstrations in London. Less so outside London.
Corin was a bit of a naughty boy when he was around. He left the SWP to join the WRP. That reminds me of the "What have the Romans ever done for us sketch", and the radical difference between the Judea Liberation front and the Front for the Liberation of Judea - who didn't speak to each other.
Of course, Corin being both the child of multi-millionaires, and one in his own right, went to Westminster school and Cambridge.
As both are smallish organisations, the SWP and the WRP often work together.
Lenin had a great phrase for those seduced by revolutionary violence. Lenin called those like the Redgraves "Useful idiots"

Back to the BA CC dispute?

Diplome 31st Jan 2011 20:12

Funding for the PCCC at £150 is an issue...seriously???

Can we please keep ourselves grounded in reality. You can spend that on a dinner for two or four on sushi...and all of the sudden its an issue????

You have a Union that has been collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds from its membership...and then collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds from other divisions for their cause...and we are questioning £150.00?

Oh the drama. That a group of like-minded Cabin Crew outside of BASSA could come up with £150.00. Would that even pay for the Bouncy Castle at Bedfont???

Wirbelsturm 31st Jan 2011 20:37

I do like that other forum. They use words on there that I had to look up in Wikipedia, unfortunately they were all blacklisted! :\

I especially liked the HUW strap line of the pilots being paid 40% more than market rate. I wonder where he got that one from as LH/AF/KLM etc are running far better pay than BA have. Oddly enough I have a feeling that quite a chunk of the wage bill goes to the pilots in most airlines!

BALPA ended up in an impasse over Openskies however it was then generally accepted by the membership that BALPA didn't have the power to stop BA operating another AOC in a seperate country. However, by negotiation, BALPA have placed protections against undermining UK operations. Sadly BASSA haven't had such foresight. Neither did BALPA condone or deny any member their wish to operate as VCC. Oddly enough, as consenting adults, we were all left to make that decision ourselves based upon our own overview of the situation. Couple that with exhaustive briefings by BALPA on their take on the companies position and accurate financial briefings I think we can now see why some pilots and many, many groundstaff took up the mantle.

Makes for a fun, unmoderated read though! :E

ManfredvonRichthofen 31st Jan 2011 20:40

perhaps slightly off the thread but....

My thoughts:

I no longer book flights with BA just in case. I used to travel on BA about 10-15 times a year.

I have my views on the strike(s) but really I am not particularly interested in what BA CC's gripes are. I am interested in getting from A to B.

I am sure I am not alone.

A shame really.

Chuchinchow 31st Jan 2011 21:01

Thank you for your prompt response, Ancient Observer. The scales have now fallen from my eyes!

Back to the BA CC dispute?
Yes, why not? It is far, far better than any television soap opera.

ManfredvonRichthofen:

You, me and thousands of other discomfited BA passengers.

pencisely 31st Jan 2011 22:26

Which dispute?
 
Isn't the fact that BASSA have sanctioned that DH & Co will stay in office until "this dispute is over" a fundamental admission that "this" dispute i.e. the recent ballot is a continuance of "that" dispute i.e. that which resulted in IA in 2010.

How can the BASSA officers then possibly take a position that the current dispute is not related to the previous one when they have sanctioned their own extensions to office on the basis that it is the same disppute.

Should make an easy target for the BA legal team.

Have I missed something?

RTR 31st Jan 2011 22:35

Bassa's Funds and accounts.
 
This does need addressing. If mis-use of funds has occured an extraordinary meeting should have been called. There are serious issues to answer and perhaps Unite should be questioned.

Litebulbs 31st Jan 2011 23:09


Originally Posted by Wirbelsturm (Post 6215442)
BALPA ended up in an impasse over Openskies however it was then generally accepted by the membership that BALPA didn't have the power to stop BA operating another AOC in a seperate country. However, by negotiation, BALPA have placed protections against undermining UK operations

We have disagreed on many occasions, but that underlines where you are as an employee.

Damage limitation and well done for it.

notlangley 1st Feb 2011 06:02

10,478 or 12,982 or 13,549, or 14,706 or 15,132
 
On 10 January 2010 Brian Boyd, the National Officer of Unite the Union said that the membership of Bassa was 8975._ However on the cabin crew thread at least one poster still talks of this membership as being 10,000.
Can any BA CC give me the correct figure for the total number within the working group that these 8975 come from._ The most common figure bandied about is 13,000, but I always suspect round figures like 10 inches in a foot, they are can be as much as 20% in error._

Please tell me - what is the figure that PCCC is looking at with a view to obtaining 40% thereof?_ I discount Mixed Crew because they are a different working group.

Joao da Silva 1st Feb 2011 07:12

Diplome


Funding for the PCCC at £150 is an issue...seriously???

Can we please keep ourselves grounded in reality. You can spend that on a dinner for two or four on sushi...and all of the sudden its an issue????

You have a Union that has been collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds from its membership...and then collecting hundreds of thousands of pounds from other divisions for their cause...and we are questioning £150.00?

Oh the drama. That a group of like-minded Cabin Crew outside of BASSA could come up with £150.00. Would that even pay for the Bouncy Castle at Bedfont???
Of course it is important, it does not matter whether it is £150 or £150,000, a new union is in the process of emerging and funding should be transparent.

PCCC is an anonymous organization and it is time for it to step out into the light.

I really do think it is a shame that you have to post in a way that belittles someone with a different view.

Just because you do not seem to be able to agree with the the principle of equality, does not justify what is quite a spiteful rant.

The definition of spiteful from the Oxford Dictionary is "a desire to hurt, annoy or offend."

LD12986 1st Feb 2011 07:16

The total number of BA cabin crew given by the airline when the last ballot result was announced was 13,500. This will include international cabin crew at bases such as SIN, NRT etc.

hellsbrink 1st Feb 2011 07:22

Well, JdS, I think it's safe to assume that those involved in setting up the PCCC have actually ensured that those WHO NEED TO KNOW will have all the details regarding funding, the names of those involved/running the PCCC, etc. In other words, the "transparency" will be there as far as regulatory bodies goes.

Since they are not fully up and running YET, why should they tell the world and it's dog who is in charge, etc? They have satisfied the regulators and, going by the comments read elsewhere by BASSA acolytes, why should they face the prospect of some severe victimisation by these people for daring to do something that opposes their "view"?

The time will come when they, the PCCC, will tell everyone who is who (bearing in mind that they are still in the infancy stage) but, right now, they have satisfied the regulators in regard to all details regarding funding, who is who, etc, so that is, realistically, all they have to do right now.

ChicoG 1st Feb 2011 07:37

Yes the latest incarnation of "PiB" has gone to ground in the face of a very simple question about how a BASSA member goes about seeing where or on whom their money is being spent.

No surprise there then!

:rolleyes:

Litebulbs 1st Feb 2011 07:45

Why is it that it seems to be accepted by most the Bassa should declare all in a transparent way, but the PCCC should not?

Either they both should, or both should not.

notlangley 1st Feb 2011 07:55

900 from 2885 non-voters
 
It is of course possible for a CC member to belong to both BASSA and PCCC.

Total crew number 13500 (from LD12986)
40% of 13500 = 5400
This 5400 could come from non-union members, those who voted NO in the most recent election, and the third set would need to be some of those who were non-voting members.
1) Non-union are 13500 minus 10220 = 3280, but say 3000.
2) NO voters = 1579, but say 1500.
3) 900 are needed from the 2885 non-voters.

The 900 from the non-voters won’t be easy._ It will take some time - and probably needs a guarantee from PCCC that any member on the old contract can stay on that old contract for as long as he/she chooses.

Mariner9 1st Feb 2011 08:38


Why is it that it seems to be accepted by most the Bassa should declare all in a transparent way, but the PCCC should not?

Either they both should, or both should not.
I'm not sure it is accepted. I would imagine most on here would expect transparency from both.

I see Hiflyer has commented upon the PCCC funds in general (there aren't any yet) and the £150 in particular (no registration fee paid) on the other thread. I look forward to details of BASSA's millions in return :hmm:

Papillon 1st Feb 2011 08:39

Litebulbs
 

Why is it that it seems to be accepted by most the Bassa should declare all in a transparent way, but the PCCC should not?

Either they both should, or both should not.
Quite right.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable which of the two is currently a bigger question.


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:47.


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