Thinking further on the Ms Mak case, if at the time that her contract was put into place, Hong Kong was still a crown colony, then very likely UK law would have applied to HK legal matters, and would be the governing law for the contract. With regard to the term of retirement at 45, this could well have been a normal period of employment in HK for that particular activity at the time of contract - in any case this ruling would then only have an effect limited to similar employment contracts commencing prior to the Chinese takeover.
With regard to "union bashing"; in the present political climate of the unions rising up en masse against the government and calling for multiple industrial action, and the current state of the union/branches involved in the BA dispute who seem to be following this lead, I find it very hard, if not impossible to find any trace of any element involved who appear to be actively looking after their members interests, other than trying to claim that all those dismissed were playing harmless jokes and nobody should suffer any loss for going on strike.
However the Bassa members subs still appear to be losing 5% on the way through the branch, nobody appears to have any accounts or published rules & regulations and of course a ballot of the membership would seem to be the last resort for deciding to do anything in either branch or union.
And This is a democratic union setup, run by the members and for the benefit of the members ??? - and no disparaging word should be said ?
