British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS27L - come on!
Quote:
I was reading all posts of this thread and I have noticed that a very large number of contributors (on both sides of the disputes) have recently joined PPRuNe.
Knowing pretty well Willie Walsh's tactics and his professional past and management style I would not be surprised to find out that many "new" members (those who joined in the last few months, check under nickname) are actually active part of a cynical strategy, a suicidal mystification of reality done by both the CEO and the Board.
I actually typed a rather long response to the above, but my P.C crashed IE and I lost the lot: quite glad actually as I really shouldn't have bothered.
I am BA, I am not new in PPRUNE (check) and I am NOT CEO, Mgt or whatever else you imagine.
Do you really believe that a) someone MUST be management to disagree with you or b) that BA mgt could really be bothered or need to when they are clearing steps ahead in this whole nasty situation.
The pro BASSA/Unite stikers are really losing it, all I see are lies, misinformation, accusations, misleading quotes, aggression and paranoia. What is don't see is any substance or justification.
There is a real world out there and it might suprise you that many of the rank and file at BA live in it too.
I was reading all posts of this thread and I have noticed that a very large number of contributors (on both sides of the disputes) have recently joined PPRuNe.
Knowing pretty well Willie Walsh's tactics and his professional past and management style I would not be surprised to find out that many "new" members (those who joined in the last few months, check under nickname) are actually active part of a cynical strategy, a suicidal mystification of reality done by both the CEO and the Board.
I actually typed a rather long response to the above, but my P.C crashed IE and I lost the lot: quite glad actually as I really shouldn't have bothered.
I am BA, I am not new in PPRUNE (check) and I am NOT CEO, Mgt or whatever else you imagine.
Do you really believe that a) someone MUST be management to disagree with you or b) that BA mgt could really be bothered or need to when they are clearing steps ahead in this whole nasty situation.
The pro BASSA/Unite stikers are really losing it, all I see are lies, misinformation, accusations, misleading quotes, aggression and paranoia. What is don't see is any substance or justification.
There is a real world out there and it might suprise you that many of the rank and file at BA live in it too.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS27L
Quote:
This is why Unions exist: to simply negotiate
Agree with you 100%
BALPA do
TGWU do
APEX do
UNITE/BASSA DON'T.
That is why they are calling for the offer to be put back on the table as they did not even 'put it to', let alone 'negotiate it'
when it was put there for their members. They chose to play hard ball and strike, expecting BA to capitulate like they have always done in the past to the bully-boy union of the airline. This time they didn't, it looks like they won't and I really hope they don't.
I don't want to see anyone lose their jobs but I also don't want to see the airline I love die because of those unable to see they had a party in the 70's and 80's have a good thing going in the 90's, and not a bad thing on offer for the future. Unlike many in the country and around the world.
All the other BA unions DID negotiate. Their members voted. They showed their wish to keep the airline flying and keep their jobs and I have not heard of anyone being made to enter the 'work-house' yet.
This is why Unions exist: to simply negotiate
Agree with you 100%
BALPA do
TGWU do
APEX do
UNITE/BASSA DON'T.
That is why they are calling for the offer to be put back on the table as they did not even 'put it to', let alone 'negotiate it'
when it was put there for their members. They chose to play hard ball and strike, expecting BA to capitulate like they have always done in the past to the bully-boy union of the airline. This time they didn't, it looks like they won't and I really hope they don't.
I don't want to see anyone lose their jobs but I also don't want to see the airline I love die because of those unable to see they had a party in the 70's and 80's have a good thing going in the 90's, and not a bad thing on offer for the future. Unlike many in the country and around the world.
All the other BA unions DID negotiate. Their members voted. They showed their wish to keep the airline flying and keep their jobs and I have not heard of anyone being made to enter the 'work-house' yet.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sussex
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS27Left
Appreciate your comments on low salaries. But there are many jobs out there where salaries are low. My wife is a working mum. She works in a secondary school covering lessons on her own for a classroom of up to 30 children. She gets paid around £6 per hour. She doesn't even get paid for her lunch break. I think we have to put all this into perspective. Not sure if it's the airlines responsibility if people choose to have children.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Surrey
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was reading all posts of this thread and I have noticed that a very large number of contributors (on both sides of the disputes) have recently joined PPRuNe.
Knowing pretty well Willie Walsh's tactics and his professional past and management style I would not be surprised to find out that many "new" members (those who joined in the last few months, check under nickname) are actually active part of a cynical strategy, a suicidal mystification of reality done by both the CEO and the Board.
Knowing pretty well Willie Walsh's tactics and his professional past and management style I would not be surprised to find out that many "new" members (those who joined in the last few months, check under nickname) are actually active part of a cynical strategy, a suicidal mystification of reality done by both the CEO and the Board.
Most of us have had no pay rise in two years. No bonus, unpaid leave, unpaid work in some cases and now many of us are volunteering to help BA through this. In short - most of us are pig sick that at a time when the Airline industry is showing signs of "green shoots", our company is in the middle of turmoil.
It doesn't take a cynical campaign by the board to orchestrate folk into posting the stuff you refer to in this thread - we have our own minds and we are pi***d off - make no mistake.
To give you some idea - I worked in the Terminals last weekend as a volunteer. I tried to book a shift this weekend too. Guess what? No vacancies.....all booked up. Does that not tell you something?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kirkcaldy
Age: 77
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I wonder how those mums working for BA on those new post-97 contracts on ridiculously low salaries can afford for example a full-time nursery for just one kid around the LHR area: the minimum monthly nursery fees in Greater London and beyond are in the region of £1300-1500 net per month just for one child???...in fact EasyJet and RyanAir Cabin Crew cannot have children with their ultra low salaries and crazy rosters.
"
HMRC Pay for child care costs for anyone with an income below £30k
They also pay child tax credit of £53pw for each child in addition to the child benefit of £20
IF your income is below £13k then they top up your wages too Working Tax Credit of £86 per week
HM Revenue & Customs: Check if you qualify for tax credits - quick questionnaire
NOT crew but do not let the truth spoil a good dit
Jack McH
"
HMRC Pay for child care costs for anyone with an income below £30k
They also pay child tax credit of £53pw for each child in addition to the child benefit of £20
IF your income is below £13k then they top up your wages too Working Tax Credit of £86 per week
HM Revenue & Customs: Check if you qualify for tax credits - quick questionnaire
NOT crew but do not let the truth spoil a good dit
Jack McH
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The strike coverage today slipped down the running order in the news bulletins.I know the election is getting more coverage but i think people are bored with it all now. WW seems to be coping with it no probs.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to cover a few misinterpretations:
As far as I am informed, it´s not true that all other departmentes have made sacrifices. Lots of them are still "negotiating", ie LHR ground staff, and haven't reached an agreement despite being in negotiations since early last year, missing the company's deadline, going to ACAS, negotiating again...
The BA concept of negotiating has been "these are the changes that we are going to implement, no matter what, so be a good boy and sign it and we'll see what can we do for you in terms of not going for more impositions, if we can". That is not "months of negotiations", that is "months trying to force you to accept. You didn't, ergo negotiations failed"
And as for staff travel... it is a veeery thin legal line, and AFAIK, will be a first in our country's work law's history, so all we can say about that is just speculation. Just for info, non-contractual doesn't exactly mean that the company can USE them as they please. They are not entitled to break other laws by removing them selectively. The courts will have to rule if the removal of benefits is breaking other laws, not if they are contractual. It is very clear that they are not. UNITE may have a point in the sense that, effectively, a mesage has been sent to ALL staff: "Strikes in this company are severely punished". That may restrict the legal rights of employees and it may be a case of using intimidation as to influence someone´s freedom of exercising a constitutional right. That will probably be what will be argued in court... not! Because (if the news are true), again, and incredibly, BASSA leaders show again their ineptitude (in my opinion) by taking to court... whether ST is contractual or not!!
. For god's sake, we know that it is not!
Even if it is ruled that ST is contractual, hypothetically, it doesn´t prevent the companies from using other non-contractual benefits or practices in order to influence employees in their decision of taking legal strike action, which is the core problem here, again in my own opinion.
I think BASSA urgently needs a change in its strategy, what am I saying? Basing in what I see, what they need is to deal with its total lack of strategy, and start working seriously for their members without improvising along the way.
As far as I am informed, it´s not true that all other departmentes have made sacrifices. Lots of them are still "negotiating", ie LHR ground staff, and haven't reached an agreement despite being in negotiations since early last year, missing the company's deadline, going to ACAS, negotiating again...
The BA concept of negotiating has been "these are the changes that we are going to implement, no matter what, so be a good boy and sign it and we'll see what can we do for you in terms of not going for more impositions, if we can". That is not "months of negotiations", that is "months trying to force you to accept. You didn't, ergo negotiations failed"
And as for staff travel... it is a veeery thin legal line, and AFAIK, will be a first in our country's work law's history, so all we can say about that is just speculation. Just for info, non-contractual doesn't exactly mean that the company can USE them as they please. They are not entitled to break other laws by removing them selectively. The courts will have to rule if the removal of benefits is breaking other laws, not if they are contractual. It is very clear that they are not. UNITE may have a point in the sense that, effectively, a mesage has been sent to ALL staff: "Strikes in this company are severely punished". That may restrict the legal rights of employees and it may be a case of using intimidation as to influence someone´s freedom of exercising a constitutional right. That will probably be what will be argued in court... not! Because (if the news are true), again, and incredibly, BASSA leaders show again their ineptitude (in my opinion) by taking to court... whether ST is contractual or not!!
. For god's sake, we know that it is not!Even if it is ruled that ST is contractual, hypothetically, it doesn´t prevent the companies from using other non-contractual benefits or practices in order to influence employees in their decision of taking legal strike action, which is the core problem here, again in my own opinion.
I think BASSA urgently needs a change in its strategy, what am I saying? Basing in what I see, what they need is to deal with its total lack of strategy, and start working seriously for their members without improvising along the way.
Last edited by Vld1977; 28th Mar 2010 at 02:27.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weather Map - your point ref news coverage is a significant one
those who (like me
) are of a certain vintage will have clear memories of the miners' strike
Despite his many other failings, even Arthur Scargill did at least realise that any success rested on maintaining the interest, support and sympathy of the wider public
Within a relatively short time any such support that had existed at the start of the miners' dispute soon began to ebb away, largely because the effect of the strike itself became progressively less & less rather than more & more. This in turn was directly reflected in the 'running order' in the news bulletins and general coverage. The whole Union strategy was doomed. When the miners finally went back to work management proceeded to do precisely what they had always planned and it was a dark time for all involved
And so it is - sadly - with BASSA. There are of course major differences with BA because for CC there was a fair offer on the table which BASSA chose to ignore. But the similarity is that BASSA, just like the NUM, have failed to understand that, like it or not, we all live in a changed world. Or perhaps they do understand , but still cynically choose to mainipulate and mislead their (reducing) membership for their own selfish ideological objectives
The success of the miners strike depended from day one on the ability of the Union to shut down the pits entirely, and to keep it that way until management 'gave in'. The success of this current IA depends on the ability to shut down the operations of the country's national carrier.
Go figure ........
those who (like me
) are of a certain vintage will have clear memories of the miners' strikeDespite his many other failings, even Arthur Scargill did at least realise that any success rested on maintaining the interest, support and sympathy of the wider public
Within a relatively short time any such support that had existed at the start of the miners' dispute soon began to ebb away, largely because the effect of the strike itself became progressively less & less rather than more & more. This in turn was directly reflected in the 'running order' in the news bulletins and general coverage. The whole Union strategy was doomed. When the miners finally went back to work management proceeded to do precisely what they had always planned and it was a dark time for all involved
And so it is - sadly - with BASSA. There are of course major differences with BA because for CC there was a fair offer on the table which BASSA chose to ignore. But the similarity is that BASSA, just like the NUM, have failed to understand that, like it or not, we all live in a changed world. Or perhaps they do understand , but still cynically choose to mainipulate and mislead their (reducing) membership for their own selfish ideological objectives
The success of the miners strike depended from day one on the ability of the Union to shut down the pits entirely, and to keep it that way until management 'gave in'. The success of this current IA depends on the ability to shut down the operations of the country's national carrier.
Go figure ........
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Subject to load:
we all live in a changed world
We all know that we live in a changed world, but... what is the point you are trying to make? That we all have to renounce to terms and conditions, job security and decent wages because the market and the ones who play with it must have total freedom to make profits, and total control of our conditions?
There has to be a balance, and the balance is in the organisation of workers to protect them against total market freedom.
Why has the world changed? I mean, what did we have before that made it justifiable to protect your conditions that we haven't got now? Why is it not "realistic" today to defend your quality of life, while it was realistic in years gone?
their own selfish ideological objectives
Ideological? Protecting your livehood and your security is a very material objective, nothing to do with ideals, but with real living conditions.
Thanks for your contribution
we all live in a changed world
We all know that we live in a changed world, but... what is the point you are trying to make? That we all have to renounce to terms and conditions, job security and decent wages because the market and the ones who play with it must have total freedom to make profits, and total control of our conditions?
There has to be a balance, and the balance is in the organisation of workers to protect them against total market freedom.
Why has the world changed? I mean, what did we have before that made it justifiable to protect your conditions that we haven't got now? Why is it not "realistic" today to defend your quality of life, while it was realistic in years gone?
their own selfish ideological objectives
Ideological? Protecting your livehood and your security is a very material objective, nothing to do with ideals, but with real living conditions.
Thanks for your contribution
Fly12345 - one wonders whether the grateful passengers would recognise your colleagues on the flight as the "ragbag of pilots,managers and strike-breakers masquerading as crew " accused by McCluskey in today's press as "trashing the BA brand". Quite the opposite, I suspect.
Note careful use by Mr McC of the word "managers" - clearly he cannot believe that "ordinary" workers would ever lift a finger to save BA. And just how can working BA cabin crew be "masquerading" as what they are anyway?
Note careful use by Mr McC of the word "managers" - clearly he cannot believe that "ordinary" workers would ever lift a finger to save BA. And just how can working BA cabin crew be "masquerading" as what they are anyway?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: LAM/BIG/BNN hold
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more money for the lawyers ...
from the bbc link:
Unite's Steve Turner said the union was "absolutely crystal clear" there would be no settlement without staff travel concessions being returned.
The union is seeking legal advice over the issue.
I hope Unite get a better legal advice than the December and February court cases! They could start by telling Unite they have no chance and not to waste their money in legal fees!
more bravado (hot air) union speak, grrrr
Unite's Steve Turner said the union was "absolutely crystal clear" there would be no settlement without staff travel concessions being returned.
The union is seeking legal advice over the issue.
I hope Unite get a better legal advice than the December and February court cases! They could start by telling Unite they have no chance and not to waste their money in legal fees!
more bravado (hot air) union speak, grrrr
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: LAM/BIG/BNN hold
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they are coming back to work ... Mr Simpson seems to enjoy Bangkok ...
we had cabin crew on our flights yesterday who had been on strike last weekend (and lost their staff travel) - they had returned to work as they need the money to support their families
we also had one lady who came in as normal (in uniform) and was determined not to be intimidated by anyone - good on her, BASSA should not be feared.
Anyway, much more interesting Mr Simpson has been using his members union fees in Bangkok .. i wonder what for :-
BA union boss and a Bangkok go-go bar: Two-day stopover paid for by Unite included visit to seedy joint | Mail Online
we also had one lady who came in as normal (in uniform) and was determined not to be intimidated by anyone - good on her, BASSA should not be feared.
Anyway, much more interesting Mr Simpson has been using his members union fees in Bangkok .. i wonder what for :-
BA union boss and a Bangkok go-go bar: Two-day stopover paid for by Unite included visit to seedy joint | Mail Online
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning everyone
A couple of posts have mentioned the BBC in particular.
In my opinion it's not just the BBC, but the general state of our quick
'snapshot' 'sensational' and 'sloppy' journalism here. All the S's.
What's a little thing like balance got do with a good news story?
The 20 aircraft at CWL/30 odd at SNN for example, or the 120+ planes parked, when we clearly and more importantly verifiable had a large number still flying (excluding the leased) - how many aircraft do we have?
Now I can understand perhaps this being reported a few times, but surely, surely any journo worth their salt would check and verify these statements....
I may be wrong here and apologise if I am, but I really feel that UNITE are desperate to put a stop to all this, that it's BASSA that are pulling their strings!!!
A couple of posts have mentioned the BBC in particular.
In my opinion it's not just the BBC, but the general state of our quick
'snapshot' 'sensational' and 'sloppy' journalism here. All the S's.
What's a little thing like balance got do with a good news story?
The 20 aircraft at CWL/30 odd at SNN for example, or the 120+ planes parked, when we clearly and more importantly verifiable had a large number still flying (excluding the leased) - how many aircraft do we have?
Now I can understand perhaps this being reported a few times, but surely, surely any journo worth their salt would check and verify these statements....
I may be wrong here and apologise if I am, but I really feel that UNITE are desperate to put a stop to all this, that it's BASSA that are pulling their strings!!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a general perception that all people who do the same job must be treated the same in law. This is simply not the case. The word "discrimination" is often used in this context, but the law protects in terms of discrimination only in specific instances: where sex, age, and race are concerned.
It is not "illegal" to discriminate with respect to someone's height for example - it is generally pointless, which is why you don't see it, and it would cause accusations of the employer being "unfair" on taller or shorter individuals, but it would not be illegal to do so.
Similarly, with extra pay for "good performance". One manager might get a 2% rise whereas his colleague gets 5% because his appraisal is better. The one who gets the lower rise may insist it is because his boss has always favoured the other and that it has nothing to do with ability, but even if his suspicion is true he has no recourse in law because discrimination law does not cover this.
However, in the current situation it is my understanding that those who are likely to strike, and hence have their ST privileges removed are generally the more experienced and hence older CC. If this could be demonstrated, there may therefore be an indirect age discrimination case to make, whereby those who have had their ST removed are on average older than those who have not. For this to be lawful, the employer would have to argue that such discrimination was a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim". Whether preventing workers going on strike is a "legitimate aim" for an employer is highly questionable given the right to strike being enshrined in law, and so Unite may have more chance of succeeding here than some are assuming.
It is not "illegal" to discriminate with respect to someone's height for example - it is generally pointless, which is why you don't see it, and it would cause accusations of the employer being "unfair" on taller or shorter individuals, but it would not be illegal to do so.
Similarly, with extra pay for "good performance". One manager might get a 2% rise whereas his colleague gets 5% because his appraisal is better. The one who gets the lower rise may insist it is because his boss has always favoured the other and that it has nothing to do with ability, but even if his suspicion is true he has no recourse in law because discrimination law does not cover this.
However, in the current situation it is my understanding that those who are likely to strike, and hence have their ST privileges removed are generally the more experienced and hence older CC. If this could be demonstrated, there may therefore be an indirect age discrimination case to make, whereby those who have had their ST removed are on average older than those who have not. For this to be lawful, the employer would have to argue that such discrimination was a "proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim". Whether preventing workers going on strike is a "legitimate aim" for an employer is highly questionable given the right to strike being enshrined in law, and so Unite may have more chance of succeeding here than some are assuming.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rushed Approach.
I would say there are a good mix of senior and junior crew currently striking .The two crew members who were interviewed on the BBC News Channel yesterday were both post 97 contracts.
I would say there are a good mix of senior and junior crew currently striking .The two crew members who were interviewed on the BBC News Channel yesterday were both post 97 contracts.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One stewardess claimed to be on a basic of only £11,000 after 11 years in BA.
The general public would be shocked by these slave labour levels of pay. Perhaps she should have mentioned that she's a 50% purser.
This is typical BASSA spin and does cabin crew no favours.
FWIW the strikers have absolutely zero support from the groundstaff, engineers, loaders and tug drivers that I have spoken to. The engineers have also been deeply insulted by BASSA's claim about shoddily maintained aircraft. CC stating that "they are BA" is an insult to the rest of us in the airline.
The general public would be shocked by these slave labour levels of pay. Perhaps she should have mentioned that she's a 50% purser.
This is typical BASSA spin and does cabin crew no favours.
FWIW the strikers have absolutely zero support from the groundstaff, engineers, loaders and tug drivers that I have spoken to. The engineers have also been deeply insulted by BASSA's claim about shoddily maintained aircraft. CC stating that "they are BA" is an insult to the rest of us in the airline.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VLD:
And the company recognise that, which is why they did not plan to cut anyone's take-home, but instead make working practices more efficient. And also why they tried to negotiate.
Unite / BASSA have failed you on this point; not the company!
We all know that we live in a changed world, but... what is the point you are trying to make? That we all have to renounce to terms and conditions, job security and decent wages because the market and the ones who play with it must have total freedom to make profits, and total control of our conditions?
Unite / BASSA have failed you on this point; not the company!