Originally Posted by Ghengis Cant
the booting out of the then general secretary Chris Darke. For what reason? One of his greatest sins was that he was a reformer and was trying to move Balpa in a more grass roots direction away from the cosy association that was there to advise on tax breaks, second homes and lifestyle choices on retirement at 55.............
Were you a member of the same BALPA I was in? This is the 'reformer' Chris Darke who tried to avoid a re-election campaign and secure himself in his post with a hefty pay rise? The Chris Darke who was at the helm when BALPA was invisible from the media? The Chris Darke who was overseeing a spiral decline in our working lives with barely a murmur? That reforming Chris Darke. Well I'm sorry for you that you didn't like the fact that he was replaced by a stalking horse candidate who happened to be a BA pilot, who happened to be the only person with sufficient balls to stand against Darke. And I'm sorry if it doesn't please you that he stuck
exactly to the manifesto on which all BALPA members had the opportunity to vote on - to seek a capable replacement for Chris Darke - despite the oft aired views on here that it was all a BA conspiracy and the stalking horse would install himself permanently. I'm sorry if you don't like the fact that BALPA recruited an experienced trade unionist who knows his business inside and out to replace Darke. Perhaps it's not to your liking that BALPA know gets more media coverage in a month than the during the entire duration of Darkes reign; that JM is asked to speak on national TV and radio to represent us; that BALPA is fighting back in the environmental debate on our behalf with informed, and scientifically backed comment, to counter the green hysteria; that BALPA has got tax breaks on it's subscriptions, and impoved tax free allowances, for
all full members; that BALPA has overseen significant pay deals at Virgin, Easy and BA, and lobbied hard for bmi members to the extent of balloting for industrial action. If you preferred the silence, inaction and BOHICA attitude of Chris Darkes leadership then all of the above must be a grave dissappointment to you.
Tinytim - if your post was about the lack of resources and not the politics of envy then why choose those examples. The pensions lobby did not come from the legal defence budget. We pay JM a full time salary and he moves around the corridors of power lobbying contacts for that. Do you really think it cost so mcuh more for him to bend a few more ears while he was there? Do you really think the campaign material they printed was any more expensive than producing a copy of The Log, or those annual filofax pages they send us that everybody throws in the bin? Bang for buck I'd hazard a guess that the pensions cap campaign was something of a bargain.
You state that you have 20 years law experience and that it's right that BALPA should vet which legal cases it pursues. On the other hand you question the
JS case. I'm going to make an assumption here, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I guess that you have never discussed the case with either of the Starmers, the BALPA reps involved, BALPAs lawyers or the BA managers involved. If that is the case then you are completely uninformed about the details of this case. Do you not think that perhaps it is unwise to quote it as an example. Do you think that if a case passes the legal means test of BALPAs legal advises and represents an almost watertight case for a member (as demonstrated by the victories at tribunal and subsequent appeal) that it shouldn't be pursued if it is deemed by the vox populi to be politically correct? Should all BALPA legal support be subject to popular support by a membership ignorant of the facts of any case? Which grass roots trade union issues did BALPA fail to support because of this case? Incidentally did you win your case at tribunal/court or did the other party settle before a decison was reached?
Sid the sexist:
If BALPA is purely for airline pilots, why allow non-airline pilots membership? And if you are going to allow non-airline pilots membership (admittedly at a reduced associate rate) surely the parent organisation has a moral if not legal obligation to look out for their interests too?! Or are you suggesting a sliding scale of benefits based on annual subscriptions?
For the same reason that the professional engineering associations allow associate membership to those who are not practicing engineers. It allows those who intend to pursue the career to remain up to date on developments in the industry. It allows them to benefit from career development advice. Associate membership does not confer full membership status on the member. BALPAs moral obligation to associate members is to assist them gaining a career within BALPAs remit and to defend the terms and conditions of that career as best they can for the associates arrival there and thats what they do. There is no need for a sliding scale of contributions. Full members pay their 1% and every full member is as entitled to BALPAs representation and any other. If you want to extend full represenation to flying instructors then why not extend it to airline cadets, or PPLs who are hours building, or air cadets. Where will it end?
As far as
JS is concerned - you are quite correct in suggesting that I don't know every last detail of the case. Does that disqualify me and others from expressing an opinion? I'm certainly not alone in my opinion as many of my flightdeck colleagues expressed similar views at the time of the case.
Every last detail? I doubt you even know the first details! By all means you can express an opinion, but maybe you should caveat it by mentioning that you really don't actually know anything about the case and your opinion is uninformed. I too have heard many of my/your flightdeck colleagues express negative opinions on the case. Strangely enough when I press them on their views they, to a man (and woman) don't actually know any of the details of the case either. Funny how we condemn the journalists for espousing writing uninformed pap about flying yet we're quite happy to pontificate about a colleague with only the most meagre understanding of the issues.
As far as SSTRs go, there are few people who support the idea. I realise that market forces and the desperation of wannabees means that they will continue for the forseeable future. But that does not mean that BALPA should sit idly by - surely it can at least publically condemn the practice of employers passing training costs on to the employee? It could show some leadership, take the moral high ground and do some serious lobbying
I agree, although I think you'll find rather less public sympathy for your cause outside the industry. You might also find that publically condeming an airline could be somewhat disadvantageous to existing BALPA members in that airline, if not in terms of lost revenue then in the damage to a working relationship with the management. Megaphone diplomacy rarely yields results and BALPA have to ask who their priority should be; existing members or potential future members.
Sheikh - if an average of 0.5 posts per day of membership represents a requirement to get a life then there's probably a lot of people on this forum who fall into that category.