AV Flyer
 

Negotiations between all parties?

So far as I know from reading the various recent posts on the two threads, the position was/is that BA were talking directly to Unite (Mclusky), but were refusing to talk to any branches, including BASSA and CC89.

This position is understandable, given the history of Tony Woodley a few months ago, prior to retiring, agreeing to recommend an offer negotiated with BA, only to find BASSA and CC89 refusing to agree and BASSA declaring strike dates to negate the offer.

Although McLusky puts out the odd statement backing the branches, it is normally in the context of the overall pattern of the Unions achieving multiple strikes in a variety of industries over the next 9 months or so, to 'reduce the cuts' and presumably force another general election. Based on this mixture of emotions and desires, it is difficult to see where anything new will emerge. There does not even appear to be an agreed list of reasons for any action, including strikes. :cool:

@ Litebulbs

Did your glasses slip ?

I wrote "revisionist"

Surely an old "Leftie " knows what I am talking about ;)

Not saying you are the era of Stalin, Kruschev, Gromykin et al

AlpineSkier
 

Absolute apologies for that. Talk about looking and finding something that is not there.

Self imposed naughty step for a day for me :O

West Lakes
 

I think it was perfectly clear to anyone who regularly reads this thread, who MPN11 was writing about in his post. Anyone who thought he was refering to CC members in general must have had one eye off the ball.

There was no doubt in my mind and I suspect the the vast majority of other readers that BASSA members were the ones in his cross hairs.

Really?
One in four nurses would strike as job fears increase
3,000 council staff poised to strike against cuts
Academics go on strike
More Tube train strikes
Private jail go ahead sparks strike threat

etc. etc. It would seem that many working people are prepared to strike to protect their jobs and working conditions.
We may or may not agree with them, but, that does not alter the fact that they believe they should.

The sad fact is that striking doesn't work.

A flexible, adaptable workforce can share BOTH the successes and the pain during trying economic times.

Having flexible remuneration, such as bonuses and share schemes aligns the workforce much more closely with management, which is why BASSA did not accept such proposals in the past.

Calling a strike is more likely to result in increased demands for cost reductions (to pay for the costs incurred during unrest), lower salaries in the long term and more polarisation.

These negative outcomes actually play into the hands of Unions, as somewhat counter-intuitively, the worse your working conditions/pay/Industrial relations are, the more likely you are to think you need a strong Union, and empower your union to deliver more extreme activities.

In fact, if you add up the element of salary union members pay to unions (is it about £150/year?) and the huge cost employers bear for supporting Unions (Facilities Agreements/time off for meetings and other duties/the costs of other consultations) such numbers could often make the required efficiencies to ensure a pay rise or maintenance of current conditions without further disquiet. In some cases, as is happening with BASSA, unions can become saprophytic, and ultimately kill off the company which supports its members.

I believe those in lower paid, cyclical industries do need progressive, business focussed representation, but BASSA is not the right entity to support BA and its people. I am not certain there is enough evidence that PCCC is the right alternative, but it does seem to me that Unite needs to take its troublesome branch in hand and rid itself of this cancerous entity.

All irrelevant examples - my point had you read it fully was that BASSA demands guarantees and insulation from the future irrespective of what happens to BA, its competitors, the markets etc.

Alll the above examples are simple industrial disputes to protect current conditions with none of them trying to protect current terms in perpetuity.

And the bleeding obvious point that NONE of the above are private company disputes and their jobs are never going to be affected by a competitor company.

So nice try, but 0/10 so please sit at the front of the class this time so you can pay more attention and understand better.:*

I think you will find their view different. You obviously only consider private sector workers to be 'the rest of the working population'.
It would seem that you don't consider that private companies taking Public sector jobs to be 'affected by a competitor company.
We are never going to agree and that is fine. No doubt you will get away with the insults and feel smug about it. It's sad however that you feel the need to proceed in that way.

I am sure we can agree that your examples were bad ones for the reasons stated and that while you may believe what you say, you have not addressed the principal points, namely that the BASSA dispute is about protecting something in perpetuity from all external factors and the examples are all from public sector disputes with no such demands.

Nor are they subject to the laws of competition being in the public sector.

Methinks your initial response was poorly thought out and while my response may have been a little robust, possibly unnecessarily, I interpreted your response not to be poorly thought out in innocence, but to be an attempt to deflect a well thought out proposition by quoting irrelevant examples, rather than accepting the proposition was correct.

The effect on the public sector jobs has never been as as result of competition from commercial companies - they have all been caused by the public sector cost base plundering the commercial sector taxes for so long that they have eaten the cupboard dry (to mix metaphors I suspect).

Competition did not cause this. Commercial companies did not cause this. Had the public sector organisations quoted run an efficient organisation, and not gorged on the public exchequer, then there would never have been a reason to consider outsourcing.

So, without any animosity, I find your examples to be inappropriate as they are neither asking for the same level of assurances that BASSA seek, nor are the complainants subject to the commercial pressures of competition. In those two points alone, your counter argument is entirely flawed - in my opinion.

Unights laitest messidge
 

Is here:

http://www.unitetheunion.org/pdf/009...II-2011-04.pdf

I did a double take when I read Len calling for:

Keith Williams to reign

until I realised that the sentence carried on:

....in the aggressors.

An understandable mistake. He meant:

......Keith Williams to rain on the aggressors

Anyway, by the tone of it, it seems that Unite are in the driving seat?

Len's message is very interesting in that it seems to be laying out possibly new reasons for the the taking of IA & moving away from removal of staff travel, reduction of crew manning etc.

It's certainly obvious that Unite are, for the present, running the show.

Your prerogative to disagree no matter how wrong you are....Have a nice day.:)

fincastle84:

The only new issue I can see them bringing into a new ballot would be the overseas Cabin Crew issue. The maternity issue is resolved.

Unless they are going to strike because the strikes are doing damage to the company?? :)

All in all its a rather meager message in substance and certainly does not place Cabin Crew in a positive light.

One could argue that when "good service" comes in third there are reasons for BA to resolve the issue of BASSA wishing to control service issues.

Unite's latest message is probably no more than a smokescreen to cover the negotiations with BA.

The militants must be getting concerned as the days tick by with no declaration of strike dates. The issues raised are good for a bit of rabble-rousing, but completely irrelevant to the dispute.

Quite, Haymaker. I hid my sarcasm too well. It's a load of guff, and the only driving seat Len is in is the one with a toy plastic wheel. Beep Beep.

Vaguely interesting to see the CC thread discussing the relative customer ratings on MF, LGW and LHR [World-Wide].

Do we SLF remember where all the trouble seems to lie?

Good luck, LGW and MF. At least your part of BA works properly, and has never failed to deliver me very good service :ok:

So it would seem that customer satisfaction is in inverse proportion to both pay and militancy. Hmmm ...

Now what was it the long-serving crew were saying about the importance of their experience and professionalism? And what message does it send to BA management as they plan their future strategy? Or am I missing something?

Haymaker
 

Interesting, innit!! :cool:

I have never had anything other than average on LH out of LHR.
I have always had excellent on European Services [short and medium] out of LGW.

I won't get personal, in public, about why I think that might be.

I think Len McC meant that KW should rein in the aggressors as in to 'stop' or 'control' them. But we got his meaning I think.