Originally Posted by Tinytim
We were absolutely disgusted when one of thefirst major actions taken under the new stewardship was a high profile and expensive campaign to raise the threshold of pension pots to closer to two million than one million. This caused enormous offence to many of us particularly those working for scabby shorthaul operations where retirment with pensions of £10K a year was not unheard of. Nothing has been done on a similar level to address the very real issue of poverty in retirment of a lot of members and would be members.
Sorry but if any comment on this thread reeked of envy then that was it. Why shouldn't BALPA lobby to raise pension limits if it affects BALPA members? At what, if any, detriment to other members is this? Why should BALPA be addressing the issue of poverty in retirement? That is a social concern and the place for the government. BALPAs concern is the retirement status of
pilots and is tackled, correctly in my opinion, by pushing for better pay deals and better pension schemes for pilots. Thats what they have been done. Opposing a cap on pension limits is no different to imposing a cap on pay. Would you expect people to meekly accept a cap on pilots salaries of, say, £50K, just because there are people in scabby shorthaul operations who aren't earning £50K?
There was then of course the Harmer case!!.....Need I say more except to wonder at why such resources and prioritisation were afforded (clearly at the expense of less glamorous grass roots needs)? High profile, attention grabbing, politically correct.......yes. But why was such attention given to a single member when this case has single handedly done more to destroy the careers of would be women pilots than anything else recently?
An intersting mix of misinformation and personal opinion there. First, you are referring to the
Starmer case. Politically correct? Perhaps in your opinion, but this case was just the first that came to bat in an employers refusal to offer adequate right-to-request part time working to an employee. It had significant positive benefits for any pilot in that company, both male and female, and exposed the managements many safety and experienced reasons for opposing the part time working as bare-faced lies attempting to disguise the fact that they simply didn't want to pay to comply with the RTR legislation.
All employees are required to comply with RTR legislation and it's now clear from this case that for a large company to say "We simply don't want to pay for it" simply won't wash at a tribunal. That benefits, Starmer, you, me or any other pilot, of either sex, who wished to request part time working.
As for single-handedly destroying the careers of female pilots, well I think compulsory maternity leave probably had a far bigger effect than that. If an employer is the kind who would be deterred from hiring females because of the possibility they might request part time working in the future then they are probably already deterred by the prospect of maternity leave.
The use of the indirect sexual discrimination claim was controversial, but there's more than one way to skin a cat and sometimes it's the end result that counts more than the means. Al Capone went to jail for life for tax evasion rather than the countless murders he sanctioned, but what's more important? That he's convicted of murder or that he goes way for ever? It is clear from your post that you really don't know the first thing about the Starmer case, not the build up, not the course of the tribunal, not the lies, double-speak, deceptions and political manoueverings of the management involved. Perhaps if you held off your Daily Mail style rants until you did know something about it you'd see the highly significant subtleties of the case. In ten years time you might even think that BALPA were actually ahead of the game on this one.
Originally Posted by sidthesexist
I would like to echo many of TT's well made points.......... I'll make no apologies for again mentioning the 'plight' of many BALPA members who are currently serving their 'apprenticeships' in poorly paid instructor posts!
That'll be BALPA the British
Airline Pilots Association, not the British Flying Instructors Association? Flying a C152 around with a student is not airline flying and is beyond BALPAs remit. Is it not the case that instructors are only associate, not full members anyway?
As for the proliferation of SSTRs, I quite agree GAWZK - the union has been remarkably mouselike on this issue - any connection with the fact that BA are one of the few employers who don't bond/expect a TR as a condition of employment???
And what connection would that be do you think? Why shouldn't an employee bond? A type rating can be an expensive thing, why should smaller operators not be allowed some surety that the people they are training will stay with them? In the world outside flying fixed term contracts are quite common with penalties for early termination. SSTRs only exist because people will pay for them. If nobody was willing to stump up the cash then the whole idea would die, but there's always somebody out there willing to work for less.
And I quite agree that the significant expenditure on Ms
JS could and should have been much better spent - a complete misappropriation of funds IMHO.
Sadly you don't know the first thing about the case either, so jump off the bandwagon.