A principal culprit in the Staff Travel fiasco has been the supine Liaison Council which, among other things, I have accused of dancing to British Airways tune, of being British Airways acolytes and of being irrelevant as representatives of the pensioners because they are appointed by British Airways and not elected by the pensioner universe.
I have also offered to correct with an apology any inaccurate information I have published. No apology has been requested from me but the Liaison Council representatives (who despite claiming to represent all pensioners nevertheless refuse to communicate with those they don’t like) have chosen to meet with the ABAP committee to protest that they are not appointed by British Airways so I’m going to pretend they’ve accepted my offer of correction.
Reader, make up your own mind.
This is how the Liaison Council works. Firstly it advertises vacancies in Touchdown. For some arcane reason vacancies are dedicated to specific geographical regions of the UK and Northern Ireland, but for our purpose that is of no consequence. Pensioners living in the designated area are invited to propose themselves for membership of the Liaison Council.
Then they are interviewed to determine their suitability by the present Council members. If they are deemed suitable they become members of the Liaison Council.
However, if it isn’t enough that they are vetted by a coterie of existing, like-minded Council members, they are also interviewed by a serving member of British Airways management. The role of this person hasn’t been explained but if it is not to ensure that the candidate is a compliant pensioner willing to support British Airways’ contentious pleas for a third runway etc and not a rabid critic of British Airways or, Heaven forfend, a member of ABAP, then you may call me Philip van Howells of Amsterdam.
Thus the Liaison Committee claims that selection by closed door interview by the existing Star Chamber, overseen by a British Airways gauleiter, means they are not appointed by British Airways and that it is unfair for me and others to refer to them as British Airways’ poodles.
(I pause there whilst I am distracted by several pigs passing overhead.)
Call me old fashioned, but the ABAP system in which candidates from anywhere in the UK and Northern Ireland offer themselves for election to the Committee, and all paid-up members of ABAP vote secretly to determine which of the candidates has the most support seems to be to have a ring of fairness and transparency lacking in the Liaison Council’s procedures.
Nevertheless, I accept that we don’t all share the same views nor the same values, so if I’ve offended anyone on the Liaison Council by suggesting that the Council, appointed in the way I’ve described, is in thrall to British Airways then they have my fulsome and wholehearted apology – but that doesn’t mean I believe you. Whatever fantasy you want to believe Councillors, you are un-elected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Philip, Thank you for explaining why I am shortly to lose my Staff Travel 'Concession' without proper representation.
A reader provides information gleaned directly from the un-elected Liaison Council regarding the role of the BA overseer, actually an HR person, and in the spirit of absolute accuracy I'm pleased to publish it.
He was told that the reason a BA HR person sits on the interview is to "ensure that the process is run by proper and correct 'best practice' rules." The un-elected Liaison Council insist that it has the last word.
So in the context of my blog the BA person ensures that the Politburo runs according to Politburo rules.
Strange then how three years ago the un-elected Liaison Council included nobody with enough guts to stand up and say, "No I won't be censored by a Confidentiality Agreement".
You may be interested in my recent experience.My attention was drawn to the Liaison Council over its woeful handling of the 2009 staff travel proposals.When vacancies for the Council were advertised in Touchdown I decided to apply to join this obscure group.My interview was brief.The interview panel was made up of LC members,with one British Airways observer.That same evening I was telephoned and told that I had not been selected.One of reasons given was my criticism of the 2009 staff travel proposals.This was interesting because there was no mention of staff travel during my interview.Any views I did express about staff travel must have been passed on by a third person.
There were 5 people being interviewed for the vacant places.4 of the 5 were retiring members applying to be reselected,me being the only outsider.All the vacant positions were filled subsequently with the retiring members.
However the experience was informative.The most relevant part being the conversations I had with the other interviewees,before and after my interview.They addmitted they had signed away their right to discuss the 2009 staff travel proposals with retired staff and they were ,on the whole satisfied with the final arrangements.We know now that BA then used the LC`s compliance to claim retired staff had been consulted.
Another topic of conversation was private health care.Their preoccupation with private health companies and BUPA in particular was suprising and baffling.
I think some serious questions need to be asked about the Liaison Council.
What does it do that the Retired Staff Association could not do?
What benefit is it to retired staff?
Does it ever consult with RSA branches?
Who pays for the Council?
What budget does the money come from?
What is the overall cost for one year?
Who pays the members expenses?
What is their involment with private care companies?
Is there any private sponsorship?
This is very interesting first-hand account of the way that the Star Chamber (aka the unelected Liaison Council) conducts itself - and the members have the temerity to complain at my calling them "BA's acolytes"; I think I was being very reserved.
However in the interests of fairness and because the majority of the Retired Staff Association branches fully support our fight against the inequities of ST2009, I should point out that the Retired Staff Association is a very different organisation to the unelected Liaison Council.
Since my original posting I've been given more details of the meeting that the Star Chamber requested with ABAP. Apparently at the meeting the unctuous Robert James of the unelected Liaison Council tried to bullshit the ABAP committee by telling what Hilary Clinton would call a "mis-speak" in other words an obfuscation. When the ABAP committee raised the issue of there being no flight deck representation in the
"discussions" with BA over ST2009, Mr James protested that there was indeed a captain amongst their members.
Unfortunately for Robert James, one of the ABAP committee knows the captain in question personally and was able to point out that the captain had only recently joined the unelected Liaison Council and therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with the secret discussions the Star Chamber held with BA!
It was typical of the obsequious dissembler that, having been caught out twisting the truth to convey a dishonesty, he said nothing, not even the decency of "I'm sorry".
In the last Touchdown Mr James referred to this meeting event as "networking". It's not the word I'd have used.
Given the way its members play fast and loose with the truth, it's hardly surprising the unlected Liaison Council wants to keep its deliberations/conniving (take your pick) secret.
i want to get in direct touch with whoever is organising the legal proceedings. I have some very important information which could be of help. I can be contacted at carolinehalstead@hotmail.co.uk.
lesley
Post a Comment