Request For Help From BA Crew Member Re: Strike Vote
Dec 14, 2009, 4:53 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,775
Request For Help From BA Crew Member Re: Strike Vote
As a Customer Service colleague, I have always been very supportive and proud of all my BA working partners - whether they are pilots, cabin crew, engineers, office staff or ramp guys!
Back in the summer, when our own union/management talks were breaking down over attacking our Terms and Conditions, we pledged loyalty and support to the cabin crew and vowed that we would not allow Terms and Conditions to be changed, whether yours or ours.
However, as far as I am aware, the company has pledged that existing Heathrow Cabin Crew will not lose any part of existing salary or allowances and that T&C's will only be changed for new joiners.
Please, my dear friends and colleagues, can you explain what are the reasons why you have voted so strongly in favour of a strike? 91% tells me that there is either a serious problem within BA crew / management relations or a serious communication breakdown in the company!
I really would appreciate your taking the time to inform your colleagues and our customers! You see, the summer was so long ago, and so many thinhs have been talked about since, that we have all lost track of the issues!
.............and please, Flyertalkers, if I have managed to persuade a colleague to break silence, be nice and be civil and courteous! I know many of you have headaches in trying to change plans etc (even though this topic has been debated for months!) but we really would like to find out what this is all about!
Please encourage two-way communication, even if you don't like what we're hearing! Thank You!
Back in the summer, when our own union/management talks were breaking down over attacking our Terms and Conditions, we pledged loyalty and support to the cabin crew and vowed that we would not allow Terms and Conditions to be changed, whether yours or ours.
However, as far as I am aware, the company has pledged that existing Heathrow Cabin Crew will not lose any part of existing salary or allowances and that T&C's will only be changed for new joiners.
Please, my dear friends and colleagues, can you explain what are the reasons why you have voted so strongly in favour of a strike? 91% tells me that there is either a serious problem within BA crew / management relations or a serious communication breakdown in the company!
I really would appreciate your taking the time to inform your colleagues and our customers! You see, the summer was so long ago, and so many thinhs have been talked about since, that we have all lost track of the issues!
.............and please, Flyertalkers, if I have managed to persuade a colleague to break silence, be nice and be civil and courteous! I know many of you have headaches in trying to change plans etc (even though this topic has been debated for months!) but we really would like to find out what this is all about!
Please encourage two-way communication, even if you don't like what we're hearing! Thank You!
Dec 14, 2009, 5:05 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
Great initiative Bealine! I for one can understand crew voting for a strike (although I don't agree) but I can't believe they expected this '12 days of x-mass' ploy by the union either. However, if I must believe the cc on pprune than a lot of cc think they have now won the fight and are very happy with the outcome. I would be interested to hear from a pro-this-strike supporter how (s)he relates the impact of the strike to the impact of the proposed plans by BA.
Dec 15, 2009, 3:32 am
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,775
Response from another forum..............
Having asked the question on another forum, I would like to share the reply. I don't like what I heard, but it is a sensible unemotional response - the first I have heard - and I understand their position more clearly. What is evident is that there is a deep, cancerous mistrust of management and in a modern company comning to the end of the "noughties" decade THIS SHOULD NOT BE!
for BEAline
I think you deserve a reply but I can't give you a BASSA one. As a crewmember I can only tell you what we discuss amongst ourselves at work.
What you have been told is close to the reality. The changes do apply to the number of crew on the aircraft and the working roles of the remaining crew. On Eurofleet there are up to 3 less crew on some flights and I believe on longhaul its the same. Had these changes been part of a negotiated deal, I don't think we'd be in this position, in fact it is better than some of the other proposals from BA! What is the sticking point then?
The changes have been imposed which in effect negates the whole system we have had for negotiating changes. If these changes are accepted then tomorrow BA could take something else and next week another thing and next month yet another. What price a trade union then and at what point do you stand up and say NO MORE? Add to this the spectre of 'new fleet' where BA could build a fleet of cheap labour working to 'legal minimum' like many charter airlines and then transfer the work to them (its happened in Australia). What has prompted this YES vote in such an overwhelming majority is fear that this is the thin end of the wedge and the beginning of the end for a career which many have invested their lives in.
I know that the forum contributors are going to start shouting at me now about the Unions not negotiating so its their fault but actually, neither side negotiated. BA turned up at the meetings but refused to budge on their position and that is not negotiation. To effectively negotiate, each side needs to compromise and shift slightly towards the other and NEITHER side has done so. Even ACAS could not believe that no-one would concede their position. I am not a Union militant and I don't believe that we have ever gained any advantage from striking but I do defend the right to do so. The strike (as I see it then) is about the future of trade unions in BA.
PS The rest of you can shout as much as you like, this is just MY view!
I think you deserve a reply but I can't give you a BASSA one. As a crewmember I can only tell you what we discuss amongst ourselves at work.
What you have been told is close to the reality. The changes do apply to the number of crew on the aircraft and the working roles of the remaining crew. On Eurofleet there are up to 3 less crew on some flights and I believe on longhaul its the same. Had these changes been part of a negotiated deal, I don't think we'd be in this position, in fact it is better than some of the other proposals from BA! What is the sticking point then?
The changes have been imposed which in effect negates the whole system we have had for negotiating changes. If these changes are accepted then tomorrow BA could take something else and next week another thing and next month yet another. What price a trade union then and at what point do you stand up and say NO MORE? Add to this the spectre of 'new fleet' where BA could build a fleet of cheap labour working to 'legal minimum' like many charter airlines and then transfer the work to them (its happened in Australia). What has prompted this YES vote in such an overwhelming majority is fear that this is the thin end of the wedge and the beginning of the end for a career which many have invested their lives in.
I know that the forum contributors are going to start shouting at me now about the Unions not negotiating so its their fault but actually, neither side negotiated. BA turned up at the meetings but refused to budge on their position and that is not negotiation. To effectively negotiate, each side needs to compromise and shift slightly towards the other and NEITHER side has done so. Even ACAS could not believe that no-one would concede their position. I am not a Union militant and I don't believe that we have ever gained any advantage from striking but I do defend the right to do so. The strike (as I see it then) is about the future of trade unions in BA.
PS The rest of you can shout as much as you like, this is just MY view!
Dec 15, 2009, 3:40 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Home: East Mids UK - Work (Base): Accra, Ghana.
Programs: BAEC: Silver - Marriott: Titanium
Posts: 12,086
bealine,
A very well written and polite request for information to assist in your understanding of the vote.
I, personally will not be commenting on any strike related threads on this forum, well, apart from this post here. Sorry.
Regards,
A very well written and polite request for information to assist in your understanding of the vote.
I, personally will not be commenting on any strike related threads on this forum, well, apart from this post here. Sorry.
Regards,
Dec 15, 2009, 3:48 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Hague, NL
Programs: GMLFL, Life 2.0 - Mucci Premiere Classe & des Chevaliers Toulousiens
Posts: 22,911
Interesting that the main reason for the strike appears to be what a judge is to rule on in February. It is not up to unions to decide what is legal, that is up to judges.
Ah well, too late now.
Ah well, too late now.
Dec 15, 2009, 3:55 am
#7
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Programs: Mucci, BA Gold, TK Elite, HHonors Lifetime Diamond
Posts: 7,691
I wonder to what extent employees are protected by their union? If, say, BA does go into administration because of the strike and most cabin crew are terminated, will the union support CC financially for some time?
Why is the union fighting for its survival if there could be no airline and no union?
Why is the union fighting for its survival if there could be no airline and no union?
Dec 15, 2009, 3:59 am
#8
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Good initiative bealine as I for one thought I understood it but what I understood didn't make sense to me. Have I now understood the reply correctly? The issue isn't "what has been imposed" but "how it was imposed"?
It seems from what I understood, the unions thought that if they didn't participate in the discussions then status quo would be maintained and that management wouldn't be able to "impose" the changes they felt were essential. So from what I could see the unions did everything not to "negotiate" or "participate" - the longer the better - holding the threat of the strike essentially as blackmail therefore blocking management from managing the changes in any circumstances.
As I understand it, the two changes are that BA are changing new employees Ts&Cs (they can choose to join or not) and are reducing staffing on flights to industry norms. This will mean more work for flight crew and different work for senior flight crew.
The core argument that has caused 91%+ staff to vote for strike action isn't about these substantive issues though, it's a reaction to having it imposed and what this may mean for negotiation prcoesses in the future and is also to support the unions belief that it's strength is being compromised?
Is this correct? If this is so then I must say I find it extraordinary.
It seems from what I understood, the unions thought that if they didn't participate in the discussions then status quo would be maintained and that management wouldn't be able to "impose" the changes they felt were essential. So from what I could see the unions did everything not to "negotiate" or "participate" - the longer the better - holding the threat of the strike essentially as blackmail therefore blocking management from managing the changes in any circumstances.
As I understand it, the two changes are that BA are changing new employees Ts&Cs (they can choose to join or not) and are reducing staffing on flights to industry norms. This will mean more work for flight crew and different work for senior flight crew.
The core argument that has caused 91%+ staff to vote for strike action isn't about these substantive issues though, it's a reaction to having it imposed and what this may mean for negotiation prcoesses in the future and is also to support the unions belief that it's strength is being compromised?
Is this correct? If this is so then I must say I find it extraordinary.
Dec 15, 2009, 4:06 am
#9
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: BA Gold, CX Gold
Posts: 151
Would be nice if the union would state what would be it's position were the court to rule in favour of management in February.
Dec 15, 2009, 4:07 am
#10
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Barbados
Programs: AA PLT 6MM
Posts: 633
What has prompted this YES vote in such an overwhelming majority is fear that this is the thin end of the wedge and the beginning of the end for a career which many have invested their lives in.
That, sadly, is what working for a large corporation in the 21st century is all about. There's no room for sentiment in today's business world. Striking won't change it but it will accelerate the process.
That, sadly, is what working for a large corporation in the 21st century is all about. There's no room for sentiment in today's business world. Striking won't change it but it will accelerate the process.
Dec 15, 2009, 4:18 am
#12
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: BA Gold, CX Gold
Posts: 151
Are they so dim as to realise that there is a global recession and that many people have already suffered and many will suffer in the future.
They should wake up each morning and praise their lord that they at least have a pension to look forward to (albeit a pension fund in huge deficit!!).
Many of us have seen our pensions decimated after many firms were forced to adopt money-purchase schemes after Gordon Brown ripped away the dividend exemption.
You will find little pity from me when I have been involved in making 10% of our firm redundant, uniformly across all levels from partner to secretary and also instituting a month's unpaid leave for all those that remained. And there are many people like me.
Dec 15, 2009, 4:20 am
#13
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Barbados
Programs: AA PLT 6MM
Posts: 633
This dispute is about who owns our lives
Then there's no dispute. The answer is obvious when one works these days for an international airline which is losing huge amounts of money and when much of one's spare time is spent in hotels near far away airports.
Then there's no dispute. The answer is obvious when one works these days for an international airline which is losing huge amounts of money and when much of one's spare time is spent in hotels near far away airports.
Dec 15, 2009, 4:42 am
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,775
The core argument that has caused 91%+ staff to vote for strike action isn't about these substantive issues though, it's a reaction to having it imposed and what this may mean for negotiation prcoesses in the future and is also to support the unions belief that it's strength is being compromised?
Is this correct? If this is so then I must say I find it extraordinary.
Is this correct? If this is so then I must say I find it extraordinary.
Sadly, many of the harmful and damaging industrial disputes of the past have destroyed good businesses and good people because people - unionists and managers both - stuck resolutely to their principles and refused to budge.
My only hope is that both sides will return to the tables and move slightly in each other's direction!
Dec 15, 2009, 4:49 am
#15
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CPT
Programs: BA BD SA
Posts: 4,467
Yet another appeal to sentiment when logic fails.