Give in and give them what they want!

Good evening Litebulbs.

Although no company does guarantee anyone's T&C's, BA actually did originally. In the initial negotiations (term used loosely) we were offered a Monthly Travel Payment MTP to replace existing allowances. It was even calculated on the year 2008/9 (high profit) allowances.

BASSA said no and walked out the room.

Had we had the MTP last year, with ash cloud, snow disruption and now this year with all the flight disruption due to political unrest/natural disasters we would have undoubtedly been quids in.

To see Miss M demanding a guarantee now, whilst still funding the union that threw it away, makes me weep.:{

But what is your understanding of what they actually want?

Hi HiFlyer,

I'm glad you popped in, as I was struggling with my own question!

What can I say, that hasn't already been said in a court decision explaining the whole union divide.

Agree with this.

Looking at the way BA has allowed this to drift on with long periods of inactivity (as regards negotiations) whilst building up VCC and Mixed Fleet, I think BA will just try and see it out. BA has had a year to plan for further strikes.

I really do wonder how much appetite there really is for further strikes. There will be a lot of empty promises in those yes votes. Also add that since last year we have 20% VAT, higher fuel prices, inflation, weak consumer confidence...

AV Flyer
 

OK, visible figures on the growth of MF.

LitebulbsIt has been said before, whilst the printing unions DID get thrown out completely, BASSA are being offered a continuation of their lovely terms for their working lives - I think that's the case?

I've been working for 33 years since I left college (in more than one field) and I have seen so many ivory towers pulled down that when I saw them advancing on the one in which I was standing, my main thought was, "Well I've had a good run" But, it looks as if these folks keep their Ts&Cs and have to work a bit harder? In the middle of the worst recession since the Depression, that is a job that thousands want. To jeopardise all that they have worked for?

That is what I don't understand. YES, I can understand that it's not nice to see new generations coming in on less but that's the case in ALL lines of work, because we in the UK have increasingly overpaid ourselves - now it's time for a market correction.

PAXboy
 

The print unions went because of technology (simplistic I know), but crew will be here to stay. The demise of the rates of pay for crew at BA is inevitable as the new contract is is place.

I doubt if there will be any more redundancies, unless there is a downsize, or the senior grades go to be replaced by something like a non union management flying grade, so SOSR will be the only way to remove current terms. By all accounts, this would have already have happened when the fight was on. So to me, all it needs is to explain this in an honest manner, which should remove the fear.

But, and this a big but, before that can have the slightest chance of working far more cabin crew need to be convinced that BA is telling the truth, or BASSA needs to be telling the same thing.

The mis-trust of management is, I think, far deeper than a lot realise and is not confined to LHR

Hi Litebulbs,

I watched the whole of that series 'The British at Work' that you mentioned and posted a link to in your post 250. It was a really interesting.

As you know I was not in favour of the strike and agree with Hi Flyer about how badly this was handled by the Union and in some ways by BA too. One of my biggest concerns, as well as wanting to maintain my own income due to my commitments ( which I believe will be maintained), was the terms and conditions of Mixed Fleet which unfortunately have been set very low, definitely not market rate plus 10%.

What I found very interesting in that documentary was the statistic that in 1995, chief executives earned on average 44 times more that the average uk wage; I thought that was high until they went on to say that TODAY chief executives now earn 88 times more than the average wage!!That has happened over just a 15 years period, the same period that the general wages are been pushed down!


Many of us are unhappy with what the union has done and were not happy to go out on strike but even people like me are starting to worry about this general trend for companies, not just BA, to offer the lowest wage possible and this general attitude, particularly found on this thread, that people no longer deserve to earn a good wage anymore and should be thankful they have a job.
Meanwhile, the city and fat cats get richer!! Maybe I am turning into a lefty too. Well a little more left than I used to be!!!

Take care.

west lakes
 

This does not necessarily have to come from BA. BA could write a legal document and send it to Unite prior to releasing it to the crew community. Unite would have to respond if its view varied.

I remember getting flamed for saying that even if a redundancy was voluntary, it was will a dismissal, much like retirement.

Litebulbs
 

I don't disagree, but both sides would still have to tell the same words. If the reports that a lot of CC just bin BA letters & delete emails without reading them are correct

Given the report I was given of the response of a fairly new crew member, in a crew room near you, to the suggestion she might like to meet the duty managers!

Hi Betty,

The minimum wage was a success as long as you were below it. The problem comes if your job is affected by its gravity and its slow, weak but relentless pull towards it. BA is no different to any other business but it is frustrating.

As for the show, I enjoyed it but felt it was right leaning. No doubt as it was a BBC show, many on this thread will think it was the other way. Maybe that was its intention.

west lakes
 

My point (badly made) is that Unite and BA came to an agreement on a deal, so Unite and BA could agree a set of words that will lay out the law on what can and cannot be done, which could remove fear.

How could a branch reject that?

Weeeeellllllllllll ..................... in a sensible world it would work (we often get joint union/employer statements.

But I, very sadly, don't think this dispute is in a sensible world. Nor as we know are the full time officials in a position to dictate to a branch! Unless they decide to rigidly enforce the rules of the union which could see the branch dissolved (Somehow I can't see that occurring)

Well Litebulbs I think the program veered from right to left!

Sometimes it showed the inefficiency of union regulations but other times it highlighted the good unions did for the ordinary worker. Then on the other hand it highlighted what the free market did but it also showed the excesses of that too, so for me I felt it was quite balanced.

Anyway we digress from the thread topic, well only a little, it is sort of linked.

What happened with the deal that was brokered in my opinion, was that there was not enough supporting information. Unite is the union and if Unite wants to inform its members of a legal position then that is what Unite should do.

You cannot dress up a legal view and in my opinion it is only going to outline a minimum position. The courts did this with the manning levels, but the perceived growth of MF and how it can legally happen is something that could be clearly stated.

Litebulbs
 

True enough, I'm still part convinced that somewhere is an agreement with the Unions that if the branch (in whichever department) is proving difficult, the union can take over negotiations (we have this).
In which case the branch should step back. Somehow, if this exists, I can't see the branch complying.


Oh touching back to the R5 discussion, I noticed the name Nikki mentioned as one of the BASSA contributors. I wonder if this was the same one seen in the video on the Bath Rd wearing a "striking" pair of white boxers? If so she is no longer employed by BA as far as I know.

Litebulbs - "How could a branch reject that?"

Under normal circumstances I agree and don't think a branch would turn-down an agreement negotiated by a union on those terms.

However, you do realise that - BASSA's (read DH's and senior Rep's) problem is not MF fleet size, nor suspensions, nor working on-down, nor any other specific matter, BASSA's problem is that unless an idea originates from THEM it will be automatically rejected and if push comes to shove they will go on strike to get their way thus giving BASSA complete control over IFCE operations - don't you?

This is quite simply one monumental power struggle for who is in control and under these circumstances BASSA will never, never, never, accept anything that it doesn't propose and will strike if anything it proposes is not accepted by BA.

This is a fight to the death and neither BA or BASSA can or will back down until one or the other is overthrown - and I think we all know who that will be.

Even now BASSA's leadership have no concept of BA having any control over IFCE operations and think that the entire success of BA is directly attributable to their running the most and probably only important part of the company. They also believe, even now, that BA is going to back-down and they will 'win'. They believe they have a hot-line to the CEO of the company and are still confused how the CEO has been able to ignore them for the past few months given BASSA's vital importance to the running of BA.

They have no understanding or perception even of the intellectual differences and abilities between themselves and those on the BA Board and believe their understanding of what is good for BA should stand.

Such is the deception that accompanies megalomania.

AV Flyer
 

It is a trade dispute, no more no less. What the reps should fear is if they become to disconnected from the mother union, then if BA were to target them and use SOSR, then they would be on their own.

However, I am talking from a moderate union position and doubt if I will be having tea and biscuits with the top table any time soon, solidarity or no solidarity comrade!

west lakes
 

I believe that Bassa have a constitution that does not allow this.

Litebulbs
 

And that is the central bit of confusion, when the Unite rules state at the beginning that they are the only rules applicable to Unite members. How then can a branch have it's own constitution?

Now I am trying to recall from here and nowhere else, so I could be completely wrong, but wasn't there an adjustment after the 97 dispute? Oh, and Unite are a lay representative driven union. The biggest branch does bring in the buck;)

I think the change occurred when Unite called off a strike

My thoughts to regarding the bucks.

I wonder if any other branches are allowed their own constitution and what would be the reaction if a branch decided it wanted one

Litebulbs - "It is a trade dispute, no more no less."

I completely disagree.

It is a power struggle as to who controls BA's IFCE operations.

Did you honestly believe BASSA was ever going to accept the BA/Woodley brokered deal? BA knew they were safe in offering that deal that BASSA would reject it. If BA thought for one moment it would have been accepted they would never have come to an agreement with Woodley in the first place.

BA knew BASSA would reject it which would then let them off the hook on not having to negotiate any further. BA needed something to reasonably justify not negotiating otherwise they would have been seen to not be wearing the white hat in attempting to resolve the dispute.

BA cannot come to any agreement that leaves the current leadership of BASSA intact otherwise BASSA will simply kick-up again and again and again within a matter of months. If it's not hot towels it will be not closing window blinds. If it is not extra payments for non-functional lights in the crew rest areas it will be some other unhelpful matter and every time it will be "we'll strike and strike and strike until we're sick"!

Don't you see that this is all about power but no-one can admit that is what it is about? BA cannot say openly "we do not like your choice in Union branch leadership and until you change it we will not settle". Rather all they can do is appear to be negotiating reasonably while continually finding plausible reasons not to settle and hoping all the time that BASSA's leadership will self combust.

Am I the only one who sees this?

Personally speaking, I would not want one. I work for my employer, but my union give me the facility to collectively negotiate with them and this is because of the law.

Until I see employers move out from the umbrella of legislation, then a union member I will remain.

Just take DH for example. This was such a high profile case in this dispute, if what BA and pprune says is true, then it was a cut and dry case. Just think if BA had offered binding arbitration as its first option.

AV Flyer
 

Forgive me if you are a current Bassa crew member, but if you are not, it doesn't matter what you see. If you believe this thread, then we have got an "Im Spartacus" situation and the next 50 reps will step in.

BASSAwitch could be key in this, with the information that may be forthcoming. If it turns out that any rep is being paid anything above reasonable expenses and reimbursement of loss of flight allowances etc, then I am sure that it will be a tipping point.

Litebulbs
 

I agree with you entirely that it matters not one jot what I see.

However, BA will not settle, nor has it any reason to be forced to settle, with the current BASSA leadership with its "We decide what goes on here or we'll strike" approach to working with BA management in implementing BA's IFCE operations.

The sooner that Unite and the rank-and-file CC realise this and do something to change it's WW CC branch's postion to understand that "BA's management make the operational decisions while listening carefully to CC's valuable input" then the sooner their negotiating position will improve.

I would go as far as suggesting if Unite bring BASSA under control in this way, BA would not only hand back staff travel, agree terms to protect WW fleet against MF fleet erosion (they've already offered this God knows how many times) as you have suggested and maybe, just maybe even, if the Union has good intelligent and skillful negotiators, manage to have all suspended employees reinstated or something close to this.

In order to reach the best settlement a good negotiator needs to understand the true concerns of his adversary (not always stated or obvious) and stopping thinking of this as "just a simple trade dispute" while understanding the reality that it is a "monumental power struggle that no-one is allowed to mention" will bring about the desired favourable settlement in the shortest possible time.

But then again maybe I am the only one that sees it this way!

It would have read better if I had said what we see, so apologies for that.

AV
 

I can't help but think that some of your suggestions might be a step to far for "on-side" crew.
From one point of view if BA concede too much it will be grabbed by the more militant members and seen as a victory for them taking/threatening IA.
It will also disillusion some of the less militant who will see that their support has been futile if the militant crew get their own way!

But there's an element of technological change for crew too.

In the past there was an element of "danger money" as aircraft were more likely to be involved in incidents, the on board environment was less pleasant to work in (noisier, unpressurised, turbulent), fewer crew facilities on board (e.g. dedicated crew rest), more en route stops (with all the related extra work), and the focus on food presentation as the "in flight entertainment" requiring crew to put extra effort into this aspect of the service.

Passengers now have great IFE, flat beds to promote sleeping, pre-prepared food, and although still important, passengers are less focussed on crew to ensure they have an enjoyable flight. That's not to say they're not important, they are, especially from a safety perspective, but crew are less critical to a successful experience than might have been the case a generation ago.

Virgin America now uses its IFE system to order drinks and food, and if it's not already happening, there are plenty of ways technology can be deployed to lessen the cabin crews' workload.

AV - you asked "What do they want?"

So, here goes:

They want part-time - but rejected it when it was offered November 09.
They want staff-travel back - but, with clever negotiating, didn't have to lose it in the first place.
They want the disciplinaries to be heard by ACAS - already offered by BA, but rejected by not balloting members previously.
They want security against Mixed Fleet - which was offered through the MTP in Nov 09, and again rejected. MF was also off the table at one point, but that offer was also rejected.
They want to be involved in Mixed Fleet - yet didn't take the chance when it was there.
They resent the VCC - yet continue to disrupt normal business by balloting/striking.
They want the Union facilities agreement back - yet they were the ones who walked out on this agreement.
They want to "negotiate" - yet they voted at Kempton Park in 09 not to negotiate.
They want sick pay for sick crew during the strike - yet we were all warned sickness would be classified as striking.
They want the reps to be treated with Diplomatic immunity!
They want full say on the Disruption Agreement - yet there is now virtually no need for one, due to the VCC's.
And they want those of us who have had the foresight to abandon this Union and accept an individual offer to be denied our individual freedom of choice and suffer in the BASSA mire.



In a nutshell, BASSA had a golden, unique, once-in-a-lifetime, not offered by all companies opportunity to rewrite our agreements, to their hearts' content, as long as it added up to the savings of £127m. They walked out on that golden opportunity and now they are crying in their milk!

Hope that clears it up for you!!:)

Possible Way to Resolution
 

It strikes me that both BA's and the Union's most important wishes are not incompatible, indeed they may even be complementary, such that with a modicum of maturity this matter could be resolved.

BA: Wants the Union to accept that it should control its IFCE operations.

Unite: Wants protection against erosion of its hard-fought Ts&Cs in the face of the emergent MF.

BA has never said it won't, and has indeed currently offered to, protect all LHR WW CC's Ts&Cs for as long as CC choose to remain employed at BA. So this is not an issue.

Is the Union prepared to accept an agreement with language stating it recognises (and respects even!) BA's right to manage its own operations, while listening to mature and constructive Union recommendations, with the joint focus on improving the customer experience while minimising the costs (essentially the direction KW is trying to take)?

If the Union can see its way to the above mature and colloborative relationship then the cost savings achieved by BA being able to wind-down its defensive VCC program alone, when combined with skillful negotiation, could have BA mangement eating out of its hands! The VCC programme would likely wind itself down anyway as the number of employees prepared to volunteer to work against such a reasonably behaving CC workforce would fall to zero very quickly!

HiFlyer14
 

An excellent example of taking a snippet of someone's post entirely out of context, misquoting it, then using it as an opporutnity to say something unrelated (although I do share your frustration, understand and agree entirely with your points, and thus don't need anything clearing up for me - thanks!)

I did not ask:

AV - you asked "What do they want?"

at all and you have completely and utterly misquoted me.

What I did ask specifically of Litebulbs, and in an attempt to hear and understand the Union's view of what is really important to them, was:

"But what is your understanding of what they actually want?"

You will see by my listening to what Litebulbs replied as his/her understanding of what is most important to the Union I have attempted to propose a way forward in my later post above.

As a key player/protagonist in/of PCCC yourself I would hope that the PCCC's skills reflect those I am trying to use above if its is to become a serious competitor to BASSA in establishing an alternative way forward for CC ;)

Guarantees
 

Guarantees, and security of employment

Back in 1974, the Board of the UK's then biggest Company, in terms of market value, with well over 100,000 people, could see the need for vast changes in how the Company's operations worked.
They knew they would have massive TU resistance to what needed to be done. (Including openning many more plants outside the UK and closing UK plants - the broad equivalent of MF).
They had already introduced a UK-wide approach to annual salaries, consistent job grades across the UK and a highly respected procedure to deal with change - all negotiated with the TUs.

However, they had not fully dealt with MissM's problem.

How to provide "security of employment" when the business world made it obvious that providing such a thing was nearly impossible?

A rough-tough Scot, a Civil Engineer by background, persuaded the Board to work up a Board level "Security of Employment" statement.

I won't type it all in here, it is too long. (My copy is right by me).

In January 1975 that statement was published. All - TUs and managers, did their very, very best to live up to it for more than 30 years. I still had it quoted to me in 2008 when I worked temporarily for a Company from that group.

can Miss M's request for security be answered?

Yes, but only with a TU that can negotiate!!

Oops...

AV - I did deliberately use your question out of context, and I did it to show, Tongue-in-cheek, how utterly unreasonable the union have been. I apologise unreservedly if you took exception to this - it was in no way meant to detract from your conversation with Litebulbs but I was simply trying to outline to all our long suffering customers that many of us non-striking crew share their frustration and despair.

The point that I really wanted to highlight to BA staff, crew, and customers the world over is that everything BASSA are asking for has been offered...and rejected by them.

Apologies if that got lost in translation.:O

HiFlyer

Can you update us on PC3 progress?

thanks

AO

Ah, now, the direct question - with both questioner and questioned very probably on line concurrently.

I am sure many of us are very, very interested in an answer, particularly from HiFlyer14 who, as we have seen, has been erudite and, so far as can be ascertained, honest.

Roger.

Hi AO and Landroger

Thanks for your interest in PCCC.

We are beavering away and trying to get the message across to our community that there is a better way to do business with BA. As you know, we are a peaceful organisation and simply wish to conduct business with BA in a peaceful, rational manner.

There are huge mountains to climb, not least of all the backlash from BASSA who are deliberately trying to destroy everything we do - from ripping down our notices, sending hate mail, issuing fraudulent letters alleging to be from the PCCC, publishing false 'facts' ie. Only 200 members...the list goes on.

However, our numbers are steadily climbing and we now have in the region of 1000 members. We hope to soon have the required 40 per cent of the workforce to be able to approach BA for recognition. We do not intend to start charging members until we have the necessary figures, and when we do, rest assured we will have the accounts in immaculate order.;)

We have not been funded by anyone - everything has been donated by well-wishers and we are extremely grateful for their support. There is in fact no need for funds at the moment, and it has made us wonder exactly where the BASSA money is spent.

When we are in a position to ask for recognition, you pruners will be one of the first to know!

Hi HiFlyer14
I don't see you achieving 40% if you have the condition that cc must have resigned from BASSA.