[CallMeIshmael]

“Holley has absolutely no interest – financial, ethical or otherwise – in engineering an end to this dispute on behalf of his members; in fact from his perspective the longer he continues in his cushy union role, the better.”

Krug – please evidence your posted statement above. Or are you continuing to post personal opinion as fact?

[VintageKrug]

Ouch. Does a comment by CC89

“- any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.”

(which I thought was part of Amicus) lay Unite open to being sued for an illegal strike?

Certainly looks like there is evidence the strike is now unprotected.

There is a clear need for competent Union leadership to take over and represent the real interests of cabin crew.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

CC89 can say the sky is made of purple custard, but they are not calling the dispute, as a branch, Unite the union, is.

I don’t see how this changes the situation, apart from as a piece of anecdotal evidence to show how unreasonable the branch is.

[CallMeIshmael]

WW’s assertion that Unite was dysfunctional was either cynical or naive of BA’s previous manipulation, as two key reasons for its current dysfunctional nature lay firmly at the door of BA themselves.

Firstly, BA was key in helping establish and bankrolling CC89 as a compliant alternative body, maybe to marginalise BASSA in the longer term. In 1989 Cabin Crew 89 was formed, they were provided with preferential access to new recruits, helped with communication, given a higher profile and readily accessible facilities within the company.

Thus BA having 2 unions representing a single workforce is down to their own manipulations.

(For history – CC89 subsequently affiliated to Amicus, BASSA to T&G, laterly Amicus and T&G coalesced to form Unite but with main components, in the spirit of diversity and a broad church, maintaining a degree of individual identity)

Secondly, BASSA reps/leaders appear to have been targeted with many suspended, some fired by BA. When one loses a significant number of officers on the ground it becomes harder to function, communication is fractured, the remaining officers feeling bullied and victimised. The reps becoming more restricted by BA, fewer in number become far less able to fulfil their duties thus preventing the union from functioning correctly.

It is interesting that the hitherto amenable, compliant CC89 were the first to reject Walsh’s final offer – what has changed?

I certainly hope IA is avoided, though not by cynically exploiting legal technicalities but by genuine, fair negotiation whereby grievances are addressed and a sense of harmony and morale can be re-established.

One step maybe using a similar successful strategy employed with the pilots whereby the pain was ameliorated by potential gain by providing share options.

[Hippocampus]

“I certainly hope IA is avoided, though not by cynically exploiting legal technicalities but by genuine, fair negotiation whereby grievances are addressed and a sense of harmony and morale can be re-established.”

No-one could argue with that. But there has to be a genuine intent on the part of BASSA and CC89 to settle and there is absolutely no evidence of that.

Genuine moves by BA to reach a settlement have been thrown back in its face.

Before the first set of strikes, BA allowed an extension to the time limit for strikes to be called for a ballot on the current offer. This gesture was returned by Unite calling strikes anyway. The tragedy of this is that many of the current issues (staff travel, cabin crew being sacked for pouring milk over the crew rest bunks at BKK before the aircraft was to operate to LHR with non-strikers etc, bullying of non-strikers etc) would never have arisen had there been no strike.

Although they will never ever admit it BASSA and CC89 have dug themselves into a massive hole and they need to make a move to settle instead of continuing to add to their ever increasing list of demands.

And there was nothing to stop BASSA negotiating share options for cabin crew. Sadly, they were too busy arguing with CC89 and refusing to sit in the same room as them.

[Hippocampus]

“CC89 can say the sky is made of purple custard, but they are not calling the dispute, as a branch, Unite the union, is.”

Though, when BA got an injunction against the first ballot, it was a posting by BASSA Chair Lizanne Malone on the BASSA forum giving incorrect advice on who was eligible to ballot that was used as evidence in court against Unite.

[VintageKrug]

Indeed, I think BA Management have shown admirable restraint in dealing with the milk incident, where criminal damage and a more significant legal action would have been the preferred route for most employers:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3091625/British-Airways-cabin-crew-in-vandalised-a-plane-on-Sydney-to-London-flight-it-has-been-claimed.html

These are the sort of activities the “holier than thou” BASSA leadership advocate, and these are the people BASSA want re-instated. I think not.

———–

And to your question as “what changed within CC89?” I am not certain, not being close enough to know for sure. But something has, and it has been suggested that this might be connected with political infiltration by the Socialist Workers Party. I myself have no evidence for that, but such a marked about face by CC89 does seem to have happened abruptly, which would suggest it is connected with some sort of change at the top.

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

Hippo

I am sure you are right about the Lizanne Malone advice, presumably this was to rebutt any Unite claim that they took ‘reasonable’efforts to prevent ineligible people voting.

Note the Unite response to the BASSA windows blind advice, they learned.

But as Unite control the ballot wording and the negotiations (if any), I really don’t think this CC89 utterance is significant, other than showing the dinosaurial tendencies of some officers.

[HonestCrew]

Hippo (and others)

Please remember that even though you believe BA have made several generous offers of new contracts, it all comes back to the legal jargon in the small print that allows BA to change the ‘seemingly fair’ parts at anytime they wish.
Only crazy people would accept this and it shows a real lack of respect for crew.
If BA state in the contract the things they are offering are solid and contractual this dispute may have been finished a long time ago, but if they continue to offer wishy washy contracts to their loyal, long serving employees it will drag on.
I say again folks, what you see on paper, via the link posted by VK is not all it seems.
In me, you’re talking to, I like to think, balanced person who strives to see both sides of this debate, but PLEASE believe me when I say there is far more to it that meets the eye.

[Hippocampus]

Honestcrew – The “don’t give BA an inch as they’ll take a mile” approach of BASSA is what has caused this situation in the first place. BA is stuck with a double whammy of a workgroup with costs way above market rates and lower productivity and outdated and inflexible working practices. Anyone who thinks that BA could have continued like this is in denial.

BA has been very patient and made reasonable efforts to engage with the unions and as documented ad naseum, this has been thrown back in its face.

BA can never give any workgroup cast iron permanent contractual guarantees. No private sector company can. Other workgroups in BA have successfully managed to negotiate permanent (and necessary) structural changes to working practices.

If BA did at some point in the future try to slash crew wages / starve crew of work / transfer crew to Mixed Fleet as has been suggested amongst all the scaremongering you would have a valid basis for dispute and support from inside and outside the company. At the moment you don’t.

And in terms of reading between the lines, many do, and consider this dispute to be, in truth, about a power struggle between BA management and the BASSA leadership. There is absolutely nothing in Duncan Holley’s account of the last BASSA meeting that gives any hint of a willingness to settle.

The last set of strikes failed. The next set of strikes (if they happen) will fail. The dispute has failed. I’m afraid crew have had to learn a very very hard lesson a) not to put blind faith in BASSA and b) that stonewalling the company will not work. Replace the current BASSA leadership and modus operandi with a union that will engage and work constructively with the company, and hopefully this situation will never arise again.

As I say, if BA did at some point in the future try to carry out what some cabin crew would fear, you would then have support for your cause. At the moment, it is just scaremongering.

[CallMeIshmael]

This dispute will go one of two ways

Either the legacy cabin crew will be whipped into a corner, their industrial action coming to less than nought.

Cabin Crew morale will be lower than a snake’s underbelly, there will be zero motivation. Long term stress and sickness will cost BA dear. The toxic legacy will endure, disharmony, disaffection and division will reign throughout the organisation. Inflight service will be impacted – rather than going that extra mile to resolve issues, which are manifest in flight but originated elsewhere (meals, IFE, special requests, defective equipment etc) pax will be presented with a complaint form etc.
The service which BA once leveraged within their publicity will be “also ran”.

Or both sides act to restore mutual trust (2-way).

Binding arbitration by Acas can be sought by either party both to resolve this and future near term disputes.

BA leadership’s rallying call has been to demand leaders must be allowed to lead – so have refused to be bound by ACAS and indeed want to influence the selection of the arbitration panel. “In any such case British Airways will have the right to approve or reject the arbitrator proposed”.

Trust needs to be rebuilt and until BA’s employees trust their employer, the BA leadership will need to forego this demand.

BA will need to develop a track record of fair decisions, some adjudicated by ACAS, to help restore trust and their authority.

Neither trust nor respect can be demanded … only earned.

If BA leadership want a world class airline, then be world class leaders with a world class cabin crew.

[CallMeIshmael]

Hippo,

Get some mover & shakers within Waterside to meet with this guy.. he has helped Boeing amongst others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXgvVyVdYKs

… the sooner the better..

[Hippocampus]

It is unreasonable to expect BA to accept binding arbitration by ACAS. You cannot expect BA to allow its right to manage to be delegated to a third party. BA management are accountable to the owners of the company. ACAS isn’t.

If those that have been sacked consider their dismissal to be unfair the proper course of action to pursue an appeal at an Employment Tribunal.

[CallMeIshmael]

Hippo,

The object is to build trust – BA employees do not trust their employer. If BA is unable to persuade ACAS as to the merits of each cause then clearly something is wrong.

As to using courts, it is expensive and BA have a history in protracted legal machinations. Surely ACAS is preferrable.

I believe Sir Freddie Laker, who had the financial resource, took around 7 years to eventually settle and be fully compensated by BA through the courts – by that time his Airline was irrecoverable, destroyed, which in all likelihood was the desired, but not ethical outcome for BA.

As noted in previous postings, your employees are not your competition so treat them ethically with integrity, they are BA’s front line troops.

The recent agreement shows several cases where BA is attempting to stack the pack in its favour. STOP IT if you want to be trusted.

Start showing leadership, start building trust.

High morale, good motivation will lead to high performance and positively impact BAs bottom line …. the converse will have a detrimental impact on the bottom line.

If you want your, well educated, loyal, dedicated cabin crew to shed union allegiances, again BA leadership needs to demonstrate they can be trusted to act with integrity. Overtime, less CC will feel the need for protection.

I guess the video link failed to resonate…

… am off to Syd over the Gafa, I hope both parties start viewing the medium and long term and seek genuine reconciliation and abstain from the viagra.

[VintageKrug]

As a passenger, I am sad to say that while I initially had a great deal of sympathy for cabin crew, the leaders of BASSA have gone too far down the road of antagonising and frustrating BA’s operation through strikes and other nefarious activities to make any support justified.

I believe this perspective is shared by very many of the travelling public.

Against the backdrop of a global wave of redundancies, BA originally offered a pay rise and no Mixed Fleet; this offer was rejected by BASSA, and not put to a vote.

You stated BA cabin crew “are not [BA’s] competition”, but you could have fooled me; as it is BASSA’s own leadership which has provided the greatest frustration and cost to the airline, on top of all the hurdles which have been placed before BA during the past 18 months.

And I think it’s important to note that BA management (and me personally, for what it’s worth) has never wanted BA crew to shed Union allegiances. Employees in cyclical, lower paid industries benefit from Union representation, and BA needs a unified, collective bargaining organisation with which to engage effectively.

However, I think it’s important to note that BASSA *in its current incarnation* is not a “normal” Union, and does not have the best long term interests of the majority of cabin crew at heart.

BASSA is disproportionately represented by Heathrow, old contract, high earning CSDs, some of whom no longer – and will never again – work for BA (regardless of any ACAS arbitration). BASSA does not represent their Gatwick colleagues, BASSA has abandoned its London City based membership.

The simple solution for those who maintain this “lack of trust” so often bandied about is to leave the airline for pastures new, where this mythical land of guaranteed £40k++ jobs is legally and contractually guaranteed for life, with no regard for performance, either personal or corporate.

If they prefer not to leave, then they should get on board behind those that pay their wages, and focus on doing their small part to deliver the great service we expect from BA, and deliver the profits which accompany great service and contented passengers; if they choose not to, then the hard facts are that they are easily managed out or dismissed, to be replaced by those all too grateful for a job, and able to deliver an enthusiastic and professional level of front line service which with training and investment might approach that delivered by the Far Eastern carriers, and an aspiration to level of service which is simply not delivered by current legacy cabin crew at present.

All this is a great shame for the very many moderate but ill informed cabin crew who continue to believe the lies they are told by BASSA, and suffer under its culture of bullying, and the marginalisation of those who disagree with BASSA’s serially mendacious position. Those are the people who have most to lose in this dispute, and I fear BASSA is leading them down a very, very dangerous path.

[Author]

Posts