LB - Yes, I agree. The constitution is clearly excellent in stopping the company from dictating who are the workers' representatives. However, does it not appear that this very constitutional excellence is back-firing rather badly when the incumbent representatives are not being very effective?

Litebulbs
 

How can it be excellent when the (only?) let down is the money side. The current leaders have a distinct financial advantage in keeping the members in a dispute which to all reasonable people, should not have started in the first place?

To add that the accounts appear to remain "unavailable" in contravention of the regulations, seem also to tarnish the "excellence" a little.

AV/LB

I don't understand where this is going. BA has got b*gger all to do with it.

1. Unite need Bassa's money and furthermore can't make it change its ways.

2. Bassa needs to maintain its direction of travel and the 'character' of its leadership and noone, not even the members unless they mount an uprecedented democratic assault at a biennial meeting, can stop them doing so.

All BA can do is insist that it doesn't deal with some ex-employees with whom it has a clearly tarnished relationship. I feel I've communicated badly, either that that or you're not understanding properly! Probably the former.

I'm not sure that the constitution of BASSA is excellent as it has allowed a show of hands ballot to decide that the democratic process can be suspended allowing reps to remain in their posts without having to stand for re-election until this dispute is over. This dispute is being, and has been, prolonged by those same reps, one of whom at least is allegedly skimming c £50K a year out of union funds. Hardly a shining beacon of excellence.

mrpony - No, you have communicated very well. I got side-tracked into discussing with LB how the constitution could be considered excellent for the members in their present situation.

If neither Unite nor BA nor CC89 nor BASSA's rank-and-file can change BASSA's leadership then the sooner that BA backs-away and lets BASSA have an all-out fight with Unite over giving it a strike the better for BA.

As with WW and TW before them, KW is completely and utterly wasting his time in talking with LM and can only be doing it to continue to appear the reasonable party in any future legal action while knowing no resoultion could ever be at hand.

He could be hoping to appear to the BASSA faithful to be listenting and caring in the hope that more of them walk away from BASSA sooner rather than later but this seems to be a very long game to be playing.

Finally, as mentioned earlier in the thread, he could just be deflecting any disruption until after Easter and the Wedding while beefing-up the VCCs and any other necessary defences in readiness for the next round.

As I said, the membership decide who represents them, not BA, Unite or pprune. I would not want to change my reps if I was in dispute. Nearly 6000 members supported the current direction of the rep team in a secret ballot.

If a deal is brokered, will BA want it to be recommended?

What, not even if they caused the dispute?

But I agree about the 6000. That's democracy for yer.

I think a deal will be done but that Bassa will only cave in after it has 'persuaded' Unite to bend to the will of its current leadership. The members will have no say in this whatsoever. And if they do it'll be by paying them lip service.

Litebulbs - I'm not all that sure that the membership is able to decide who represents them given the constitution as described but I accept that 5811 members of BASSA believe that DH et. al. are Gods and doing a fantastic job in safeguarding their future jobs and livelihooods at BA however misguided those beliefs appear when viewed by any rational outsider examining BASSA's past and future possible achievements throughout this dispute.

Not if, as in this case the democratic process has been circumvented by the current incumbents. If there was a need for continuity then ALL the members should have been balloted, not just a few on a show of hands at a racecourse. Either unions are democratic, or they are not, BASSA is quite clearly not. They have had be forced by the courts to run a legal ballot, something it has taken them quite a while to manage. There is clearly no desire in the leadership of BASSA to follow democratic principles, and the constitution of BASSA has let them get away with this. For BASSA members, at the moment, the only people who are deciding who represents them are the current incumbents.

They maybe could have done more to prevent the dispute, but BA instigated change. No change, no dispute.

The more I experience, read and learn, the more I think that the union style of democracy, bound by legislation, needs to be addressed. How, I do not know.

We will see, but a vote will still be taken for acceptance or rejection.

AV/Litebulbs and others

I've seen where I perhaps could have been clearer:

I was initially referring to the written constitution, or rulebook. Elections are a separate though not unrelated subject.

Hope that makes more sense with apologies if I misled you. I didn't mean to.

Well, if after this all members pay more attention to rulebooks and recognition agreements, then that can only be a good thing.

I can't help but feel that this all now hangs around the status of the Facilities Agreement. BASSA and CC89 were the ones who withdrew. Without a facilities agreement in place, they and Unite are a busted flush in any future BA-Union CC relationship. Unite will know that very clearly, and looking long term will want something in place, even if it means a re-write and a few other concessions "unrelated to the dispute" such as for eg "Any reps will have to be full time employees of BA, and have been elected as a result of a new open ballot, etc."

I still can't understand what on earth persuaded BASSA to withdraw in the first place.

Hipennine
 

I understand what you say, but it does mean that the employer could control who the reps were and 5(?) reps have been dismissed though this dispute.

However, it is the employer who employs the rep!

What Bassa should look at is full time Unite officers paid for and exclusive to Bassa. Now that would be effective.

In the past.....

Some years ago, a very successful and TU oriented multi-national that I used to work for had an AUEW District Cttee. in the North that hated the Employers guts. Mainly because the employer had not employed members of the District cttee.

Sounds a bit like DH utterly failing to become a pilot........- he likes utterly failing, doesn't he? He's utterly failed to be a pilot, he's utterly failed to be an employee, and he's utterly failed to be a decent TU person..........He has also utterly failed as a Southampton fan, and as someone who once upon a time might have been able to influence the Southampton Board, but that is another story.

Anyway, because that District Cttee was devoted to the failure of that employer, the local HRD set out to break the District Cttee. He was an ex-Boilermaker, so he knew how to fight low and dirty.

he succeeded. Well done Tony. Three years later the employer closed down that site. Well done the AUEW. Lose the battle, and then lose 2,000 jobs.

So - BA have their new fleet, and have their VCC. If bassa, as guided by their mates in the SWP "win" , what exactly have they won?? Answers on a post card.

Elements
 

Whilst it appears on the surface that things could be coming to a reasonable negotiated close, the elements of this whole situation need to be considered .....

BASSA - about 10 months ago, (seems longer), I challenged DH on this thread under his troll identity of 'Safety Affairs' regarding his sitting back and taking the money without caring about BA or the CC. His response was as long as some of the membership fees carried on coming in, nothing else mattered and nothing else would or could be changed and he was happy with this situation. I can't help feeling that this basic attitude has'nt changed.

If this is so, granted that nobody appears to have any form of a copy of BASSA regulations and that post 1997, when the last financial kerfuffle blew up with the previous GS, the regulations were formally changed, presumably during an AGM, such that more power appears to have been given to the committee and GS and, subsequent AGM's changed still more, such that now DH probably has sole capability of agreeing a dispute, regardless of any reps. (probably cannot have new ones voted in as committe meetings cannot now be held during a dispute, LenMc beginning March, stated 18 had been sacked and 70 suspended - so can't be many left!). I won't even go near the potential implications of lack of accounts/records and the new company BASSA Limited.

Then BASSA became a 'Branch' of Unite, but in view of the powers that BASSA appear to hold over and above a normal branch, refusing agreed offers, calling for a strike and listing dates, this argues that the agreement entered into with Unite was a 'special' edition, but again it seems unlikely that a copy is/will be available for members to view. However as BASSA still have ten points outstanding, there is room for DH to refuse once more to agree any solution that LenMc agrees and again demand/issue a strike call.

In the meantime 'long live the New King' so LenMc is busy changing his organisation/committee to reflect his current and future strategies, he still wants to try and settle this, it would be a 'Win', but against the overall union position against the UK govt., probably has limited resource available, but Malone has appeared.

CC89/Amicus appears to be a different setup again, now backed by the SWP, they will go along with DH in muddying the waters to ensure that no agreement is reached, but note that the reasons are never identical with BASSA, this allows them to still hold out if BASSA ever agree. However maybe LenMc could squash them reasonably easy, but has anyone ever seen their agreement with Unite?, SWP rational appears as usual to be political control.

Enough already!! - Apologies for the length, when I started typing it all seemed so straight forward - but then the corkscrew got in the way!! - does anyone agree with the above? :cool:

Entaxei
 

Seek and you shall find.

Entaxei
 

It would be interesting to see who politicised the dispute first. There is one ongoing contradiction through most of the rhetoric presented on pprune. Are we saying that the SWP has infiltrated the Bassa executive, or is it just the Mailers having a froth.

In my time, I have had dealings with comrades, but the two Bassa reps that I have spoken to, were poles apart from Wolfie. It just doesn't sit right, having left wing activists serving gold card chalk stripes in First. The few current BA old contract crew that I know are about as close to revolutionaries as Maggie was to Mother Teresa. They know they earn a very good wage and they want to keep it and do not want it distributed into somebody elses' pocket. Neither would I.

Litebulbs
 

If they had bothered to read the first offer, their T&C's were left intact. New fleet was off the table. They and many others would have been soooooo much better off.

But...........

Dawdler
 

You are probably correct, but I doubt that any on here were party to the initial negotiations. BA crew are now where they are. They have a new contract on minimum wage (approx) plus allowances (+10% not there). That clearly lays down the intent of the employer. You cannot dress that up any further. These new employees are fully in the hands of the management team and they are on minimum wage (approx). So if Bassa are not involved, then its minimum wage (approx). Why can't people accept that. That is the value that the employer puts on its new staff.

Hi Litebulbs
 

Re SWP and political influence, this only appears to be from the time of the meeting at ACAS when SWP appeared at the meeting, possibly in response to DH texting.

But after that, when there was the bun fight of electing the replacement for Woodly, suddenly there appeared to be a candidate for the CC89 group election called Jerry ?, who was supposedly staunch SWP. Given that CC89 were a quiet branch, suddenly they were listing reasons for the dispute and possible IA, having branch and reps meetings, publically agreeing with DH on reasons for dispute etc. and also sometimes declaring their own list of demands - in other words, stirring the situation, since then they have popped now and again on the CC thread, but have been quiet of late. But are in theory at least, a potential rogue element waiting to strike (in the nicest possible way).

I have just edited my previous post, after checking, LenMc at beginning of March stated that 18 reps had been sacked and 70 suspended, so there can't be many left, as again DH stated some time back that new reps could not be appointed outside a Branch meeting, and one could not be held while a dispute was on. He then asked for unpaid volunteers!, who I presume would not be able to vote in anything anyway, even if anyone applied.

mrpony

Sorry - The hour is, I fear, getting too late and I no longer know what I'm looking for, I'll try again when daylight appears.

Hi Entaxei
 

Wasn't that staff, rather than reps sacked and suspended?

It is late now, so self imposed curfew before the mods step in. Good debate today however.

Quoth Litebulbs: "These new employees are fully in the hands of the management team and they are on minimum wage (approx). So if Bassa are not involved, then its minimum wage (approx). Why can't people accept that. That is the value that the employer puts on its new staff. "

Litebulbs,

I think the phrase is "That is the value that the airline industry puts on its new staff".

Wasn't the much bandied phrase "Market Rate + 10%"?

What I don't understand is why the 7500+ crew who did not vote strike do not join the PCCC.

They do not have to give up there membership to BASSA or any other union branch and it will not cost them anything at this stage.

By joining the PCCC and thus giving the PCCC enough members to be recognised by BA they would at least get themselves an fresh and untainted alternative to BASSA.

I think there is a major point being missed here.

If BASSA is anything other than humiliated in the final deal, BA are effectively giving themselves years of industrial strife. That being the main point of dispute (ie BA pay your wages, deal with it) I cant see BA moving that far. They do not want the GMB BALPA and other bits of Unite coming back saying BASSA got what they wanted by striking.

Hotel Mode
Do you think BA is unaware of the fact that it could deal BASSA an utterly humiliating defeat? I don't.

It is far more likely that it is carefully calibrating the nature of the defeat such that nearly 6000 of its employees aren't carrying around great big sulky monkeys on their backs for the next x years.

More than a decade in BA and my experience is that 6000 employees have been sulky monkeys for that whole time. Only difference is that now they have an excuse. Sometimes you have to stop protecting people from themselves.

It was much bandied, but as far as I can see, the main crew are at or nearly at the bottom of the pile and this is my point. The employer has been given free hand in setting the terms and conditions of its new staff and that is how it has acted.

You also have a very hard roster with new varieties of combining long and short haul flights and promotion into one position, rather than one or two grades above junior.

Now I understand that the sole reason for this whole process was to make a substantial saving, but it appears on the face of it that they have wrung every last £ of saving that is possible and within the law.

Still, I do like the hat.

Absolutely right. BA have taken the opportunity they were given. Why Unite as the largest uk union didnt see it is beyond my comprehension. This is an example of idiotic union behaviour and opportunism by a company that cant believe their luck. Thanks Unite, none of this would have happened if you had controlled your branch.

A demoralised sulk is worse than a sulk.

BA still have the option of acting out a 'no negotiation' stance. It's on the table where Len can clearly see it. Personally I think they'd be better off in the long run if they played hard ball now and called the bluff of the grumps. Maybe that's what'll happen. Still a long way to go.

BA were not given a chance, they followed through with their plan. There was no luck involved in this at all.

What only the negotiators on both sides will know and we will wait to find out is how an integrated fleet would have worked. Would it have been on the same rostering rules that the existing crew were on, but savings in salary, or the existing crew keep their new salary but new rostering rules?

It would then be down to whether you stay as you are and wither on the vine, or race to the bottom with regard to rostering.

It has been brutal, harsh and ugly, but lawful.

A couple of points:

Firstly, as a PoO, my understanding is that LizMalone has been on the Unite Exec committee for some time, not just recently - hence record of her expenses for Exec duties been shown in Unite's accounts.

Secondly, BA is required by law to recognise a "Union" not a "branch" where the appropriate numbers are achieved. Is there sufficient evidence around to possibly demonstrate that the "branch" is not a proper legally constituted organisation for recognition, because it is in breach of its own constitution and Unite's rules ? Could this be LenM's get out of jail card - Unite want to maintain recognition, but unfortunately the capitalist laws mean that the evil employer will use the law to force de-recognition, because the branch is in breach, therefore regrettably Unite has to take appropriate action to ensure that the branch becomes fully compliant, even though it doesn't want to, and bla, bla, bla ?

@ Hipennine
 

I share your thought about whether Unite will "do something" about BASSA.

Whilst I know we are all working from limited 'facts', which is why this is a Rumour Forum, it does seem in Unite's, and the wider membership's, interest to try to achieve some form of control over BASSA. I would like to think that some of the questions discussed here are raised during discussions with BA.

However, various 'constitutional aspects' might make that very difficult to achieve. I guess it depends on what's written in some obscure part of Unite's Rule Book.

What is the alternative?
 

Somewherene this is an alternative Universe._ Just like ours except that the Big Bang was on a Wednesday._ And outherene the Japanese tell U.S.A. that they have declared war and will attack within a defined number of weeks._ A few days before the Japanese launches its fleet the U.S.A. says would you like an extra four weeks before you attack us._ "Yes please" say the Japanese and announce that the extra four weeks was a Japanese idea._ At the end of the four weeks' extension nothing happens.

A great military victory

War of Attrition
 

Given that BA cannot do anything to actively change BASSA's current leadership (neither can Unite, nor CC89/Amicus, nor BASSA's members, nor anyone else on this planet) then it is becoming clearer to me why BA is playing the waiting and defensive game for now.

BA has the travelling public, the VCCs, the Board, the Shareholders and IA Law all on its side and has neutralised BASSA's only weapon the strike. All BA can do is to appear to be negotiating reasonably (with Unite) for now while BASSA's membership and support ever so slowly bleed away.

BA has no need to give pay rises, no need to return ST in full, no need to enter into any new facilities agreements, every reason to continue suspending appropriately misbehaving employees (from both camps), every reason to keep expanding MF, etc., all designed to grind down BASSA's membership which is now its one and only power base.

What BA most certainly will NOT do is to agree to improve its current offer otherwise it will be negotiating against itself. BA knows the only acceptable offer to BASSA is to appoint DH as BA's new CEO so there is no reason to keep offering further concessions whatsoever. Indeed, seeing as Unite reneged last time, BA has every justification to take back the WW & TW agreed ST and other consessions and return the situation to that prior to the start of the negotiations of last October.

Having said all that I still feel that letting Unite/BASSA meet their strike deadline and make the call could only help BA to weaken BASSA's support further and sooner. If they don't strike (yet again) they look like blustering fools, if they do then BA, while knowing less members will take IA with BA's defences stonger than ever before, will be able to take the numbers (and names) of CC walking-out giving it a very clear calibration of the true size of the 'hard-core' problem. This will permit BA to shape its strategy moving forwards from here.

PS. Any weakening of BASSA will also help Unite, PCCC and maybe some further bickering with CC89/Amicus to speed the process further. After all, if Unite can sort things there are a potential 13,500 monthly subs to be collected out there and, contrary to some opinions, a willing employer in BA crying-out for a union with whom to negotiate future collective agreements in a mature manner - maybe BA might increase MF's pay to cover a reasonable union subscription even!

I really feel in these times of austerity, we should substitute negotiate to mitigate. It would probably focus people to where they really are in the employer/employee relationship.

Litebulbs - I don't think the general management/union negotiation picture is as bad as it seems.

Remember the BA/BASSA debacle is a very extreme example where through poor managment/union communications over many years the two sides developed such a rift and a disproportionate balance of power in favour of the union that a major correction had to be taken by management to restore that balance otherwise the company was sunk.

Look instead to any other more balanced example today where, as we all know, the real power of the strike weapon is in the threat and not in the action. In any reasonable management/union negotiation the balance is better set at the start and management 'hears' the union's message and more often than not a settlement is reached where both sides move forwards still respecting each other before any action is taken.

The BA/BASSA situation is nothing short of bad blood going back decades for which there will be no short-term fix as we can see from some of the old timers' comments on the CC thread - viz. shaking-up/icing FC's beers and general hatred of pilots, disrespect of management's operational change requests, believing to be the most important part of the company, pictures of CEO with red-eyes, "CEO is pants" and "greedy piggy" chants, loutish parties at strike headquarters showing-up in BMWs and thumbing noses at everyone, mob chanting of abusive slogans at crew rest hotels, trashing aircraft crew rest areas, redirecting passengers to porn websites, etc., etc.

If anything, the above highlights perfectly why people generally feel some kind of punishment is in order and why the granting of a bonus and partial restoration of staff travel and disciplinary reviews all really grate. It's also why, when KW granted Unite a 28-day extension, the BASSA mob have interpreted it as a complete and utter capitulation by BA with a 25% pay rise coming their way - they have experienced no other way or lifestyle.

No, this situation has to be brought under control and does not reflect the general management/union negotiation situation in any way shape or form which is alive and working well anywhere else.

AV Flyer -
That was an excellent summation of the current situation.

Litebulbs -
We should not forget that Unite and BA have demonstrated the ability to work together for the benefit of the employee and the company. But we should not also defend the indefensible.

BASSA and CC89 chose not to negotiate, had new conditions imposed, and chose to respond by withdrawing from their Facilities Agreement and calling for IA. But instead of fighting their position - found untenable by a court - they chose to personalize the fight. That is why I cannot see this ending until the leadership of BASSA is replaced with a pragmatic, one may even say a business like group more interested in getting a good deal for cabin crew than personal gain or revenge.

Until then, one can only hope that true professionals like Betty Girl, Ottergirl, HiFlyer and Jetset Lady can hold out until their working environment improves.

TB

While those of you on the other side of the pond sleep some of us get to post. Last night I had many wonderful things to say, however cocktail hour caused me to defer. Today I read AV Fyer’s post and he\she said everything I could have said but much more eloquently. I would, however,like to make an observation that may be worthy of discussion.

If KW/BA make any significant concessions to Bassa there may be a hugh backlash from other BA employees as well as a potential backlash from BA’s most valued customers. While it can be said that customers do not care about this dispute and only care about the reliability of the service that may be changing. The reliability of the service has been established and the core business customer is probably sympathetic to BA. Many cc posters have said that they just would like it over so life can be good again. Other cc are not so sanguine. My observation is that the majority of BA’s 30,000 plus other employees will not be so happy if Bassa is able to claim, rightfully or wrong, a victory.

I indicated in an earlier post that an agreement was unlikely given that neither side was advantaged by a compromise that the other side was likely to accept. BA is doing just fine in the current situation and Bassa, at least Bassa leadership, is also content. LB pointed out that BA has an incentive to settle because of the financial damage the threat of IA is causing. While this is certainly correct the financial damage is decreasing day by day. BA must evaluate the damage caused by the current disagreement with the consequences of any settlement.

The next 28 days will be interesting. The recent “happy talk” may develop and provide some type of accommodation or it may be just “happy talk”.

Let's hope peace breaks out soon. If and when it does BASSA members may care to question some of the following fundamental principles about the way things work that are dictated by the rules under which it operates:

1. Key positions in the branch hierarchy can be filled by the same people indefinitely.

2. The Branch Secretary, though paid as a full-time employee of BA, is entitled to an honorarium (payment) defined only as 50% of the 'Branch Administration Allowance'. NOTE: This should not apply currently as DH is now not employed by BA.

3. The branch accounts are audited by two people appointed internally from the CC community. This is entirely irregular and is specifically prohibited by Unite in its rules, as well as in the relevant legislation.

4. The branch committee has wide-ranging emergency powers - it decides which circumstances allow these to be invoked - that permit it to do virtually anything it wants e.g. perpetuating the tenure of the Chair and Branch Sec despite the requirement for postal ballots every two years eslewhere.

5. Changes to the rules proposed by every-day members are only possible in the most unlikely circumstances. A change motion has to be submitted with the support of 100 members, 28 days before a meeting that takes place every 2 years. At that meeting the change has to receive a 2/3 majority vote before then being tested by postal ballot which, again, has to return a 2/3 majority. Change can be introduced by the Branch Committee far more easily and in emergencies without reference to the members.

6. The key meeting that is open to all members, and at which a lot of the 'business' is done, is the one that happens every two years mentioned above, The Biennial Meeting. This is how it is apparently defined in the branch rules:

There shall be a Biennial General Meeting of all the members of the Fund by means of a specific Branch item at the first meeting of the Branch in each Biennial period.

Is that clear??!! And how many members ( out of 8-9000 or even 10000) ever attend?


I wouldn't be happy if my tennis club were run like this. Particularly if the club committee could self-declare an emergency which removed the need for democracy.