Ber2dca

In comparison to most of the rest of the service industry, cabin crew are in an enviable position. There's plenty of service jobs advertised out there with salaries around 14-16k and a lot less opportunities to top it up via bonuses. These jobs also tend to be a lot less stable and without long-term prospects.

We don't live in a society where all careers have comparable outcomes, comparable perks and so forth. Not even communism offered that. It matters if you went to university, it matters what you did at university, it matters what job you chose out of university and so forth.

Leeski

BA could go bust; TfL you're right, not so much. I'd like to see an employer fire half their workforce for going on legal strikes and not have a huge set of lawsuits.

I'd argue that a lot of people in lower level jobs (hospitality springs to mind) don't have a union because there is a high turnover, but they still have legitimate complaints - I know this from experience. BA CC are lucky that despite their poor pay they have a union willing to represent them and that takes action on their behalf.

Agent69

That's probably a fair assumption given that we appear to live in different worlds.

orbitmic

'Safe in the knowledge that there will always be a job to go back to'? Seriously? BA employees losing their job in the past two years?:

- The LGW crew issue last year?
- The airport staff laid off across the network?
- The IT job cuts? The call centres?
- The maintenance facilities job cuts?
- The Christmas letter to several staff categories warning them to expect the worst and prepare for staff cuts as per the other forum?

JAXBA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent69

You can go on strike as often as you like with complete impunity.

Bear in mind that those who strike do not get paid for the time that they withhold their labour, so there is a cost to taking industrial action. Personally I feel striking should be a very last resort, but if an employer just won't listen, what else can an employee do, besides 'move on' which doesn't solve anything but passes the problem to the employees (and customers) who remain. Some people want to actually fix things and go back to doing the job they would otherwise enjoy, and protect the seniority and benefits that they've already earned.

I dislike unions myself, especially greedy/militant ones, but they are a balance system to industry barons who push things too far in the wrong direction.

However I too would like to know what Unite's expectations/requests/demands are. We know BA have offered ~6p - what is MF asking for that BA won't give?

Lite

I'm not sure why you need to be so personal, nor so aggressive throughout this thread. You disagree with industrial action, which is absolutely fine as everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but you don't need to be unpleasant and condescending. It actually ruins the quality of the debate. I don't think at any point, neither myself nor any of my colleagues have said that we are hell bent on bringing the airline to its knees but instead after a year of trying to bargain for our 2016 pay deal, have been unable to agree to a sufficient pay rise. As part of a collective bargaining agreement, when every avenue has been explored and you can't negotiate any longer, we have a legal right to strike and take part in a legal ballot. 93% of our colleagues turned down this pay deal, the pay deal that would have given us a 6p an hour pay rise. It isn't unsurprising, nor have I ever said it was by the way, that BA would retaliate by removing bonuses (which make up their £21k a year figure by the way) or that they would remove incentives. The issue as I see it is that they are trying to say that these are "incentives to come to work" rather than "a stick to beat you with if you choose to strike." Sadly, BA would rather throw money at chartering in Titan and Vueling, paying EU compensation to passengers, paying out for strikers to come to work and bribing those who do come to work rather than just negotiate with the union. Such is their prerogative, meanwhile customers and colleagues alike are sadly caught in the middle.

strichener

I really wish you would stop being so reasonable. ^

Worcester

The vast majority of the UK workforce, work for companies who value them and are willing to engage with staff before minor issues become larger ones. I am not a fan of the unions while I do acknowledge they have a place.

Walsh did well to cut back costs and get BA/IAG into a profitable position, but there is too much of a good thing and the relentless pursuit of cost savings can also destroy BA. Top executives are replaced often, mostly due to the fact they run out of ideas and become less effective as time passes. Walsh appears determined to carry on, but it's increasingly clear to me at least his judgement is not what it was.

Silver Fox

Lite, the clear majority are behind you here and are very appreciative of the calm and professional way you have approached this thread. Even taking the time to answer what are trolling posts, you have represented not only yourself but the company well. 100% behind you and your colleagues.

Waterhorse

I too support my MF colleagues in their efforts to improve their lot. I am however, struggling to see what the union believes they will achieve with further strikes. BA is bent on not bowing to this pressure and has gone to some lengthy measures to achieve that aim. Indeed MF can arguably be said to be a result of the determination of BA not to give in to industrial action.

The problem is not an isolated one as any pay deal awarded to MF will be the benchmark minimum percent that the next workgroup demands. So while MFare asking for more than 6p an hour more BA will view this in different terms.

No no one should be surprised at the loss of ST as this was and has long been a tactic that BA has used against strikers. Those who are unaware if this really should have done their homework. I'm not sure of the bonus situation maybe Lite can help, but these often have a no IA clause linked to them - again IF this is the case then those moaning about it are being disingenuous.

I hope you get a decent pay rise I really do, but I wonder who is winning with this IA, MF or Len McLusky who seems to be trying to, once again, make political hay and reestablish his credentials as a union hardliner.

Flexible preferences

Yes, that's my take too. I also support MF and wish them well, but I am left with a lingering doubt that the offer made to them recently (and now withdrawn) was perhaps 'good enough' (although not enough as they deserve) and maybe, in practical terms, it would have been wiser to accept it. Time will tell of course, and that horse has bolted now.

Can I help you

Well seeing that BASSA has managed to get EF and WW the following offer I would say that MF have every right to feel angry.


· Year 1 (February 1, 2016 – January 31, 2017): 2 per cent uplift on basic pay and associated payments.

· Year 2 (February 1, 2017 – January 31, 2018): RPI Increase underpinned at 2.5 per cent on basic pay and associated payments.

FlyingGirl79

Definitely seems that BA have got room to offer MF more, you have no doubt been through a few of these before, do you foresee BA increasing their offer or are they hoping MF will eventually back down?

Globaliser

Every time Lite posts about the dispute, we can all see what a loss it would be both to the company and to us passengers if one result of the dispute is that Lite leaves the company.

Flexible preferences

To quote Lite from post #1015 the offer that BA made seemed better than this though:

"It is a significant improvement to move Mixed Fleet closer to market rate. There is a 4.6% on all main crew basics and a 10% increase on the CSM basic. Although it is a significant improvement on what was previously being offered, there are a few sticking points. BA will be conducting a benchmarking exercise for Mixed Fleet Cabin Crew in 2017 as the pay increase is an increase but still isn't as competitive as other UK operators. There will be no back dated pay considering this paydeal should've been ready for the beginning of this financial year in the spring. The Elapsed Hourly Rate which pays for all of our food and drink downroute has been increased to £3.29 but the union was pushing for £3.40 which is the rate paid to the Flight Crew for their sustenance downroute. All that said, it is real movement. The elapsed hourly rate and the lack of back pay will be their undoing though, I think."


Not saying it was enough, and Lite clearly highlights some concerns, but on the face of it, it compares fairly favourably to the offers you highlight.