Interesting to see DH's spin on events at . FRONT PAGE HOME PAGE where he reiterates the laundry list of 10 issues (whereas the joint statement distiller them into three issues) and suggests that the 28 day extension is a goodwill gesture for BA returning staff travel and "justice" for disciplined crew, when nothing has been agreed.

I think he's just sidelined now. Time to look to the future.

Where are those accounts? And when's the next Branch election.....if there will be a Branch to elect to....

VG
 

If there is a palatable result, then the Bassa Branch will grow......

Ah, the rhetoric that we spout!

I just wonder how Unite and BASSA are planning to allocate the power (jobs and money) after this agonising, badly-choreographed climb-down.

Well, if any member money was going to any lay rep, other than for reasonable expenses, then that should be stamped out straight away. Then it is down to the members, not Unite, BA or even pprune!

LB
 

Right On !

28 more days for Len to let the air out of the balloon, good luck!

Litebulbs
 

That's the problem. It hasn't been down to the members who have been systematically duped and are still being. The plan will be to hang on to as much of the dosh as possible and I'd like to bet that the carve up has already happened. This is now a news management exercise. Not that this is anything new. You're right though, it's up to them. But only if they can get their hands on the levers of power. The way that BASSA is set up makes this virtually impossible.

UNITE and BASSA have delivered to BA a once in a lifetime opportunity to reset or redefine the relationship they have with the union. It is fairly clear to most impartial observers that this relationship has been disfunctional for years and needs to be changed. If BA now fail to act and let BASSA off the hook then it will be another management failing of monumental proportions. (BA's relationship with UNITE is a normal one, it is the relationship with BASSA where the problem lies.) The days when BA essentially let BASSA be the middle management for the CC need to be assigned to history books that look at how not to run an airline. I hope that this extension is merely indicative of real negotiations taking place and not signs of KW deciding to end the dispute by caving in - the historic way that BA dealt with BASSA and why we are in the position we are in now.

Juan,
yup. Maybe BA need to increase the number of "managers" as a section of CSDs do not want to do the real "management" job. They also need to get those managers out and about, pro-actively engaging with CC, to "replace" the management role that bassa seemed to be carrying out.

BA will need to relate to some sort of union - whether it is a re-formed bassa or PC3.

I wonder how PC3 is getting along?

JT & AO

For me, the key words in the joint statement were:

Whilst I agree that there needs to be more acceptance of change, research in many Companies shows that the Climate - (a way of measuring culture) is created by the local manager.........and NOT by the CEO. (Google Glowinkowski for a recent, and UK based approach to the research)

If there is no local manager it is not surprising that over time the Union rep takes over that role. The simple fact that they are there and available, often senior, gives them that managerial role.

So if the manager is absent (at their desks, for instance, or without enough time to meet their very mobile staff), BA should not be surprised that there is no change orientation........ The Rep is effectively managing the place.

This is not bassa's fault. it is BAs, and they need to act on it NOW.

Whilst KW obviously would prefer his time as CEO is not blighted by industrial action, he is no fool and he has not just walked in at BA off the street. Have been close to WW he has seen first hand the tactics of "Lenny" and BASSA.

BA has always made clear that Unite needs to change the way BASSA operates and I can't see BA agreeing a settlement without a robust overhaul of relations rather than simple promises to restart relations which is what happened when Tony Woodley and Willie Walsh shook hands on a deal in 2007.

KW and WW
 

I cannot believe how naive some cc posting on the other thread seem to be. KW was promoted to his present position by WW. KW reports to WW. KW is carrying out decisions that have been make by WW. Nothing will be done without the concurrence of WW. KW may put on a different face, but the policy will be that of WW. As another poster pointed out, a perfect opportunity for the “good cop, bad cop” strategy.

Pcat,
No one is being naive. Obviously WW and KW have the same aim and that is to implement cost savings and curb Bassa and of course KW is accountable to WW, but he is no more a puppet to WW than WW was a puppet to Broughton.

The point being made, was that the way he is going about dealing with Bassa is totally different to the way WW went about it, and in my own obviously naive, in your eyes, opinion, he is doing a much better job.

If you honestly believe that someone would take on the job of being CEO of BA and not be making his own mind up, how to deal with a union problem, it is you that is naive. KW has been tasked with the job of running BA and that is what he is doing and he is answerable to WW but WW is not running BA anymore in the way he used to.

KW has brought in lots of new people and a totally new customer focused ethos has been brought in, similar to when Marshal was CEO. It is a total breath of fresh air. I do think WW did a good job as CEO and he was extremely talented at curbing costs but as a CEO he has never been very popular and I feel he lacked the customer and product focus, that also needs to be part of a CEOs vision, in an industry like ours.

Anyway enough from this naive crew member.

Betty girl
 

I don't think any of us can assume we know the relationship between WW and KW, or how he/they will continue to play this match.

I would draw a different analogy ...
WW opened the batting for BA, and played a fine defensive game whilst putting up a creditable score against the opposition.
KW came in as Number 3 to score the runs and win the match.
[I have no idea who was Number 2 ;)]

The scenario has changed constantly over the last 2 years. BASSA's apparent strength overturned by VCC, the ludicrous legal scenarios on balloting ... and indeed overall legality, which still continues.

The fact that there has been a change of CEO should not, IMO, be seen as a different scenario for CC. There is just a different CEO, with exactly the same objectives as WW, but with a significantly different game to play.

Unite now needs BASSA like a boil on the bum. Their antics could cost the Union £Ms if they don't get it right, and the entire legality of the 'continuation dispute' is as yet un-tested in the Court. DH's credibility/sanity has been exposed too often [and I have every belief that both sides of the dispute have staff reading this and other Forums]. The entire probity of BASSA's operations is questioned.

That is the situation KW now faces - a completely different one to that originally facing WW, when keeping BA flying was the prime concern. Now, thanks to WW's initiatives, KW can look towards keeping BA flying as an economic entity in the long term.

Where the CC fit into all that is, of course, entirely down to their personal circumstances, political persuasion and long [or short] term aspirations. Or, of course, they could leave ... and let the SLF and BA fly in peace. :cool:

Exactly MPN, None of us knows the relationship, you and pcat included, but some of us work for BA and therefore have a better understanding than some others.

Have you personally met or corresponded with KW?

Didn't think so, well some of us have and that helps us make our, own naive, minds up about how we personally feel about him.

I am getting a sinking feeling that KW is going to allow BASSA to still exist after all this.

There is no doubt that any large worker group deserves and should enjoy union representation. I believe that Unite or the PCCC would be the natural successors to the current rabble. For the things they have done and the way they have conducted themselves for the last two years, I have no doubt that BASSA as a unit and the careers of the individuals who have driven it should be crushed, pulvervised out of existence.

Only then can true peace be achieved. The attitude of BASSA up to now of "The answer is NO! What is the question" and "WE are the airline" has brought about all the troubles of the recent times.

Weak BA management in the past allowed BASSA too much say in how the airline was run. WW was correct in his view that this was unacceptable and he HAD to wrest control back from the union.

BASSA were not bright enough to see by refusing to look at the books, they played right into his hands (thank the lord). But their antics, scratching cars, sabotaging certain functions in aircraft, setting up porn websites, threats to co-workers who went into work, and many other behaviours documented here and in the press, have negated any claim they might harbour to represent anything ever again.

As I said in my opening sentence I fear that KW is about to give them a window of opportunity to remain and to crow "victory" at the end. I sincerely hope not.

Dawdler,
All right minded people would like it to be closed down but unfortunately it has too many members.
Just like London Transport would like to get rid of Bob Crow and the RMT, but they can't, it is just not an option!

There are no easy options for finishing this dispute and BA will (as it is evidently doing) have to choose from the least worst option.

BA forcing a settlement (through SOSR for example, or sacking strikers because action is deemed to be unprotected) would leave a clear victory for BA and BASSA crushed but you have to consider the demoralising impact of that on a very large contingent of crew who support BASSA. Plus there is the wider PR impact of giving legs to a dispute where the media has largely lost interest.

BA is now negotiating from a position of considerable strength. It has, and will continue to have, everything it originally sought in cost savings proposals. The growth of Mixed Fleet and maintenance of the VCC programme has permanently restricted the effectiveness of any future threat of industrial action and that is important. No-one would have predicted three years ago that BA would have introduced Mixed Fleet entirely on its own terms and built up a substantial volunteer cabin crew workforice. Some obvious troublemakers have been sacked and will not be returning to BA.

The complete destruction of BASSA has never been an option. If BA and Unite agree on a deal that is palatable to the branches (frankly, I think this is unlikley in any event) the BASSA hardcore may crow victory but they have been so indoctrinated into believing everything BASSA tells them and nothing will change that. BASSA will claim victory because they claim this dispute was always about union busting. However, at least when this is over, there will be a elections for new reps (possibly for merged branches) and some troublemakers will hopefully be soon forgotten.

Good post LD.

The BASSA victory claim mentioned on the other thread reminds me of the Monty Python duel scene were the (by then) armless and legless knight asks "can we call it a draw?" :p

After reading the latest DH rambling, I don't think it will be long before

the fat lady's singing
 

i think the 28 day extension says it all. unite have been granted extra time to dig their own grave.

we know that, barring something unforeseen, unite will not agree further strike action: the cause is too inextricably linked to the earlier action.

they have been given a further period of time to accept what must look very much like the settlement tony woodley thought he had achieved. that extra time also moves the threat of a strike further in time from the ballot that authorised it - extra time for tempers to cool and interest to wane. even if a strike were then called, the response is likely to be so small as to be derisory.

BA do not need to do any more to 'destroy' BASSA as some have wanted. The key players in this dispute are now ancient history and will be replaced. Those who replace them in BASSA or Amicus will be starting from a totally different point and perspective and will be aware that power has shifted elsewhere. If BASSA regains credibility it will have been earned by reps who have accepted that fact and truly represent the community of members.

time for the academics to start competing for the book (and film?) rights-serialisation in the Daily Mail perhaps?

Sadly one of them certainly is not; DH is still in a position to "poison the well" and continues to do so. Until he is denied his position and the soapbox that goes with it the unrest will not end.

gobfa :ok:

Key Players
 

Don't forget the quiet one (now) - I seem to recollect seeing a few times in the past 3 - 6 months that Malone is now on the executive committee of Unite.

Now if true - will/is that enough to buy her away from BASSA and DH - and have they left her coming into a BASSA pension later this year?

From posters I see at work they seem to be re-electing this committee at present

It is only after reading DH's latest missive, and the continuing comments directed by striking to non-striking CC at work, that I have to keep reminding myself of the extreme heights that DH and his followers' collective delusions have reached.

These people really still do believe that they are going to 'win' and really are discussing 25% pay rises and DH being appointed CEO of BA, etc., etc. BA's granting Unite a reprieve has been read as nothing short of "we have won and BA have completely capitulated thus the current talks are now between DH and KW to discuss the terms of BA's surrender".

"Oh and, by the way, ya-boo to the pilots!"

KW, in choosing to grant Unite/BASSA a reprieve from embarrassing themselves, has inadvertently allowed the misguided to pump themselves to even greater heights. With hindsight it may have been better to have allowed Unite/BASSA to reach the legal strike-announcement deadline and squirm if for no other reason than to make it abundantly clear to all BA-backing staff that BA has won.

It is going to be fascinating to watch the disillusionment experienced as the air comes out of the balloon and the truth emerges. Most will probably never accept it but one thing is for certain that DH won't be around in any official capacity to feed their delusional minds any more.

If there is to be any hope of of moving forward with a cooperative legacy CC then this has to be foremost on KW's list.

But think how much further they're going to fall now.:E

Deluded or not, BA has to deal with someone to represent the 5,800 "yes" voters.......
Whilst one would prefer it to be PC3 or a re-formed bassa, no Employee Relations situation that I have seen has enabled the employer to walk away from such a large yes vote, and their representatives.

Neither can BA recognise PC3 just because they are not bassa. BA have to live in and deal with the real world.

AO - I agree. Which is why I see the very mimimum acceptable to BA being that DH is no longer involved in an official capacity when combined with LM's move to Unite central and several of the other key BASSA reps' dismissals may be all that BA can hope for in a revitalised Unite/BASSA combination.

It will be interesting to see where CC89 fits into all this. Something tells me we haven't finished hearing from them as they triggered the putting the spanner in the works with the BA/TW deal.

PCCC is always a possibility but they still don't appear to have the mettle to want to come out of the shadows even with BASSA's leadership at its most weakened right now. Somewhat surprising for a budding new CC Branch as its going to have to show some skin some time soon if it wants to stir-up sufficient support to be recognised as a legitimate Union/Branch.

AV - you make a good point about CC89. They appear to have a leadership that is even more controlled by the SWP than bassa, so the last thing they want is a settlement.

Maybe part on the behind closed doors deal is a forced branch merger, but the branch constitutions will have to be carefully examined to drive that through.

Recommendation
 

To have, or to have not!

AO - Yes, indeed.

In further agreement with LD12986 above, it is extremely difficult to see a BA/Unite brokered deal that will be palatable to the branches short of a total return of power over IFCE operations as before which will only be over BA's dead body.

It's rather difficult to see KW doing anything other than repeating the WW/TW deal (combined with a side requirement that BASSA holds new leadership elections and only appoint BA employees!).

Will BASSA (DH) & CC89 accept this - Hell No! - STRIKE! - Ooops!

Indeed, if BA are not recognising BASSA's presence at the negotiations then would KW even accept any Unite/BA brokered deal to be offered to BASSA with a non-employee as its GS making the call whether its members are balloted or not?

Why does this all sound like deja vu?

Betty Girl
 

From the other thread.
I think we do. Already BASSA are crowing and there is no deal yet! DH has issued a statement (on the other thread).

What will happen in the left wing press is BASSA will be portrayed as winners in " this long running dispute" Other papers which have long lost interest in the thing will follows a similar line, (we all know how lazy journalists are). The BBC with its left leanings will report the victory.

KW seems to be handing a face-saving win instead of the deserved trouncing for BASSA. KW should insist, As part of the deal Unite must agree to the disbandment of BASSA and take the members into the heart of the main union.

All of this was so unnecessary if only BASSA had been under control of reasonable people. As it is, the branch must not be allowed ANY semblance of victory in the deal to be revealed in 28 days time. If not, let 'em strike if they dare then sue the pants off them

AV/AO
As long as Bassa remains constituted as it is, Unite can force nothing on it.
DH and his coterie have effective control over the whole shebang, money and all. It is very difficult to change the constitution: only at biennial meetings; with 28 day's prior notice of the change; only with a 2/3 majority in favour at the meeting; only thereafter by a 2/3 majority at a postal ballot. It's a comprehensive stitch-up to maintain the status quo.

Members pay their subs to Bassa, not Unite.

That's why I said earlier that the carve-up has already been done. DH and friends will be doing all they can to ensure that their 'legacy' isn't tarnished by a new BA-friendly leadership, and Unite don't want any shiny young radicals thinking they can get away with spending the money on a professionally run independent union(much like Balpa) rather than propping up Unite.

Also there's the troubling matter of the branch finances - you don't want people turning over all the furniture looking for that fiver you can't find. More motivation for status quo maintenance.

Just a few thoughts.

mrpony
 

I think that the Bassa constitution as you portray it is excellent, I repeat excellent.

Every union branch should be lay member driven and lead. Its the alleged money side that potentially lets it down. The only incentive should be to act for the benefit of the membership.

mrpony - Understood - In which case this is not going to be settled any time soon.

At some point BA's management may have to accept its obligation to resolve the matter and thus by force if necessary. It simply cannot continue running the company much longer in this dysfunctional state without loosing support of the shareholders and even the Board.

What will finally drive it to stop playing Mr. Nice Guy?

LB - How can you say BASSA's constitution is excellent when it has allowed its current GS to remain in control when he is no longer an employee (thus contravening its own rules) while most certainly not acting to the benefit of its membership?

AVflyer
 

Because an employer should not dictate who are the representatives. If you take out how effective or not the current incumbents are, all the employer would need to do to purge an effective branch, would be to just suspend and dismiss, albeit unfairly.