PDA

View Full Version : Union Shafts its employees - yes its BALPA


Southernboy
8th Jun 2008, 10:55
If the union behaves like this then you get an insight into why your FS pension didn't get defended. Double standards or what?

Morning Star

3, 2008 Tuesday

Britain - GMB to ballot BALPA workers for strike
action

LENGTH: 269 words

General union GMB announced plans to ballot members
working at BALPA headquarters yesterday after the
pilots' union imposed a pay rise and "detrimental
changes" to staff pensions.

BALPA has given notice to its staff that it intends to
close the staff pension scheme to new entrants and to
make dramatic changes to the future benefits afforded
by the scheme. It has also given notice that it
intends to impose a pay rise.

The pilots' union HQ is in West Drayton, just outside
Heathrow airport.

Some 33 GMB members are being balloted for action, the
first time in the history of BALPA that it faces
industrial action by its own staff.

GMB organiser Dave Kent angrily accused his union's
fellow TUC affiliate of "disgraceful hypocrisy," as
BALPA has itself been campaigning to defend the
final-salary pensions of pilots working for British
Airways and other airlines.

Mr Kent said that the call for strike action had been
made after intensive negotiations failed to persuade
BALPA either to modify sufficiently its position on
the pension scheme or to agree a two-year
inflation-proofed pay deal.

The Morning Star published this on Tuesday. Double standards or what?

Now you know why your FA pension scheme went down the tubes, they're behaving like big business too.

"There is no economic justification for these changes
because BALPA is one of the most successful and
financially robust trade unions in the UK," he
insisted.

"No employer, let alone a trade union, should impose
changes to terms and conditions of employment without
the agreement of its own staff. BALPA would not
tolerate such behaviour from an employer that it was
dealing with and the GMB will not tolerate this from
BALPA," said the GMB organiser.

BALPA was unavailable for comment.

The ballot result will be known on June 24.

Notso Fantastic
8th Jun 2008, 11:05
What employer these days can afford to give its employees a final salary/defined benefits pension....apart from local authorities and civil servants who appear to be immune from the same anti-pension forces that the rest of us have to put up with? I see one quarter of our excessive local authority charges now are dedicated to local authority pensions, of whom the refuse collectors now refuse to pick up the bins if they can't move them with 2 fingers? I, along with every other homeowner, am paying nearly 500 Pounds to local authority pension funds for their index linked pensions that those very homeowners can no longer get for themselves? I see!

And neither can pilots get them for themselves....so how can they pay into a union where the union employees DO get them for themselves? Will we end up with one quarter of union subs going to union employee pension funds for their index linked pensions? What will that do to membership?

I'm afraid the world has moved on.

Bit brutal to just 'impose a pay rise'.....without a 'by your leave'! There's no end to how cruel employers can be these days! Wish mine was as nasty!

Magplug
8th Jun 2008, 11:35
In the UK 21% of my Council Tax goes directly towards financing the final salary pension schemes of local council employees. Most of these employees will not be working to the national retirement age of 65.

The world has indeed moved on. Just as a corporation has first duty to the shareholders, BALPA has a first duty to it's members.

I would be surprised to read any different slant on this in the 'Morning Star'

stormin norman
8th Jun 2008, 14:13
May i question just what exactly these 33 full time staff all do ?

Southernboy
8th Jun 2008, 14:20
Work to protect members interests like pension schemes I imagine.

Also to be accurate about the cost of FS schemes you'd need to compare the cost of money purchase. Your council pension costs may not be less tha a MP pension. I remember someone demonstrating rather eloquently that the FS scheme was actually cheaper than the MP scheme. The difference was at the end when you come to collect, its the pensioner who takes the risk on the financial markets, not the scheme.

rubik101
8th Jun 2008, 16:03
Norman, does your airline, assuming you are a pilot, function without any office staff?
No, I thought not.
Stupid question really.

M.Mouse
8th Jun 2008, 17:35
I remember someone demonstrating rather eloquently that the FS scheme was actually cheaper than the MP scheme.

Extraordinary! Every single major FS pension that has been closed in the past few years, thanks in part to robber Brown's hatred of the middle classes, was shut under the mistaken assumption that a MP scheme was cheaper.

As I said, how extraordinary.

spinnaker
8th Jun 2008, 20:52
I'm amazed how a union can treat its own staff. Surely, the conditions of its own employees sets a standard by which the union will act on when representing its members. BALPA weakens its bargaining position by imposing these detrimental changes.

Notso Fantastic
8th Jun 2008, 21:58
So the subscription paying members should pay for the union employees to have an index linked pension far better than any of the subscription paying members? Er....why so? The 'union' is actually working pilots paying 1% of their salary to the association. I do sympathise with the employees of BALPA, but every other pilot in the UK has lost the gold standard pension and cannot now afford special treatment for their employees. The pain must be spread around equally.

spinnaker
8th Jun 2008, 22:08
So, because your pension is pants, everyone else's should be the same.

Rather than riding rough shod over the BALPA staff, would it not be better to take up your issues with your local BALPA reps and get the airlines to pay their way?

I personally think you should have a good pension, I have one, and I see no reason why all professionals should not enjoy the same or similar. As you said, share the pain, that includes employers as well.

Phantom Driver
8th Jun 2008, 22:09
What employer these days can afford to give its employees a final salary/defined benefits pension....apart from local authorities and civil servants who appear to be immune from the same anti-pension forces that the rest of us have to put up with? I see one quarter of our excessive local authority charges now are dedicated to local authority pensions, of whom the refuse collectors now refuse to pick up the bins if they can't move them with 2 fingers?

Notso F- You have my vote when/if you decide to run for office!

Notso Fantastic
8th Jun 2008, 22:16
spinnaker- but the airlines cannot afford index linked pensions any longer- heck several now can barely afford to stay afloat! So all their pilots have now lost or never had the gold plated pension. Should the pilots pay into an association that provides this to their employees? Wishfully yes, realistically impossible. The truth must be faced that the members will not have it, just as I am outraged the useless local authorities are providing us with fewer useful services and paying themselves gold plated pensions (out of my money)- and I wish I could stop it! I do sympathise with the BALPA staff, but surely they must understand the time has come to share the pain with the members. Nobody is going to win the index linked pension back these days- hanging onto it is becoming an anachronism. I would not continue funding it for BALPA employees out of my income given the reduced Pension benefits available to me these days. I'm sorry, it's time for a reality pill.

XT668
8th Jun 2008, 22:32
The BA pilots have more or less forced themselves to take that reality pill, so understandable why they feel BALPA staff should do the same. I'm tempted to shout " HYPOCRISY" but one should remember this is what BACC decreed for new entrants to BA.
What goes around, comes around. Welcome to Nu Labours Brave New World - don't blame me, I didn't vote for either Blair or BALPA!

Jonny-no-stars
9th Jun 2008, 02:45
The BALPA package/pension can only really be viewed in the context of the other trade unions, rather than a completely different and incomparable industry, such as the airlines. We should ensure that we are towards the top end, with the likes of the BMA, in order to attract and retain the best in the industry.

Let us not forget that the NEC (who we elect via our CC's) are custodians of our finances and the BALPA staff want the best package/pension that they can get, as is human nature. The BALPA staff are on the whole experienced union professionals, who spend all day applying industrial pressure on our behalf, so we can expect them to use all available means in this dispute with us, their employers (by proxy).

Southernboy
9th Jun 2008, 10:46
2 points re the pension issue. I may have jumped to the conclusion that the BALPA pension is indeed FS. The article doesn't say so only that the benefits are being attacked.

Secondly, to the doubters. I saw the presentation demonstrating VERY clearly that the monthly/annual contributary costs for an FS pension was indeed lower than the MP version. Annual cost is not the reason companies have leaped at the chance to close them. It is the risk/unknown factor. The day before 9/11 many pension funders were in surplus. The day after they were in serious poo. Companies prefer that you the pensioner carry that risk, not them.

As for the BALPA situation I only know what's in the article, so it's more about the principle of a Union imposing Ts& Cs rather than via negotiation & that union has a BA chairman & a BA majority on its Nat Exec committee. However you look at it, one can't help feeling some double standards are present here.

Jonny-no-stars
9th Jun 2008, 11:59
Southernboy

I shouldn't expect any business conducted by the current NEC chairman to receive any moral consideration. His actions, and alleged actions thus far, show him to be a moral vacuum.

But as stated in my last post he was elected by us, in as much as the current system allows the members to express their wishes on the matter.

deep_south_gb
9th Jun 2008, 13:49
We all know of "strange" rules that local councils seem to shoot themselves with, but the local government pension scheme is part of the overall package, as it is for all of us.

When I was 18, and intended to become an accountant, I was interviewed by Durham County Council, and their view was pretty straightforward; you won't make as much money here as you will in commerce, but you will retire early on a good pension, and be a pillar of the community in the meantime.... and I know a couple of chaps who took this route, over 30 years ago.

And they did fine until a few years ago, when they were "re-organised" out of a job, albeit with a good pension provision.

So it isn't as clear cut as some people think.... the pension is part of the overall package, and you can choose whether you want it, but if the employer changes the package then they need agreement from the employee, one way or another.

Notso Fantastic
9th Jun 2008, 15:17
It may have been acceptable to provide local authority staff with index linked pensions when their pay was demonstrably lower than in the private sector, but now this is not the case and local authority pay is comparable to the private sector, so the main plank of justification for better pensions than workers in the private sector has now vanished. Instead, homeowners and council charge payers are paying a quarter of their council charge to provide far better pensions to local authority staff than they can provide for themselves. It has to stop. What has Brown done to this country?

Southernboy
9th Jun 2008, 17:21
Exactly DS, it's about agreement. None of us would accept our Ts & cs changed arbitrarily, nor should we & nor should anyone else. Negotiation is the required route.

slip and turn
9th Jun 2008, 23:29
Notso Fantastic, Peter Sellers in I'm Alright, Jack had nothing on you, did he?:rolleyes:

I don't think Brown did anything directly to ruin our pensions, but he did introduce 'light touch regulation' that let the City boys get their greedy mits on our funds at one end and find excuses for not putting any more in at the other when members at large took eyes off balls...

Now if you like being a City boy in the sky thesedays i.e. enjoy living from one hunk of dosh to the next, for as long as it lasts, then I can see how you so easily dismiss FS pensions as something left behind when the world moved on and maybe even spawned you with it. However, none of that changes the fact that it just ain't a reasonable state of affairs for us reasonably minded types surveying their personal heap of busted promises. And in the UK aviation domain at least, how do you square that the world has moved on for so many pilots, but that the ATCOs still have one FS scheme for all?

M.Mouse
9th Jun 2008, 23:39
I don't think Brown did anything directly to ruin our pensions,

Excuse me? Robber Brown, in his first budget in 1997, removed ACT (Advance Corporation Tax) relief. This has cost the UK pension funds circa 5 billion per annum since. Coupled with changes to the accounting requirements for pension deficits i.e. having to account for the long term pension fund deficit in a current financial year has screwed FS pension schemes.

With a few notable exceptions the only employent that currently has a FS pension is government employment. Those pensions are not even funded by investment but by current tax receipts.

Brown screwed us.

Southernboy
10th Jun 2008, 14:41
If you read up on your economics Mouse, you'll learn that the reasoning behind the changes made over pension fund tax relief was to stabilise investment.

In the bad old days fund managers chased shareholder dividends thus constantly moving their money into the companies that were going to make the biggest short term gain. GB wanted to follow the German (& Japanese) Model where pension funds & other investors invested for long term growth in value. This was all part of the strategy to leave decades of Boom & Bust & produce slow but long term growth.

Fund managers have had over 10 years to catch up with this & if your pension fund is poor it's them you should shoot not GB. Companies (like BA) took lengthy pension holidays when times were good & immediately screamed "Crisis" when they spotted an opportunity to attack all the things they'd been forced to leave alone before. So look at fund managers & company managers if you want to hit the right target, otherwise you're falling for the well honed spin that the vested interests are so good at dishing out.

M.Mouse
11th Jun 2008, 16:37
Companies (like BA) took lengthy pension holidays when times were good & immediately screamed "Crisis" when they spotted an opportunity to attack all the things they'd been forced to leave alone before. So look at fund managers & company managers if you want to hit the right target, otherwise you're falling for the well honed spin that the vested interests are so good at dishing out.

Before accusing me of falling for spin perhaps you would care to examine the rules regarding over funding of pension schemes. In brief it (overfunding) is illegal and a 'pension holiday' becomes compulsory. In the old BA scheme (APS) a pension holiday was a legal requirement and in the new scheme (NAPS) BA never took a 'pension holiday'.

Whatever robber Brown's alleged motives he screwed the entire pensions industry, not just my part of it.

Pax Vobiscum
11th Jun 2008, 16:54
I have no detailed knowledge of either BALPA or BA pension schemes, but I've no doubt that both GB's (not so) stealth taxes and over-optimistic contribution 'holidays' have contributed to the decline of Final Salary arrangements. A well-funded FS scheme is truly the 'gold standard' of pensions arrangements if you work for the same employer for at least 20 (preferably 30) years. In today's world, how many employees or employers have that expectation? Not very many!

If you've put your time (and contributions) into a FS scheme, then congratulate yourself and guard your assets carefully. But for a youngster entering employment for the first time, I wouldn't normally recommend joining a FS scheme.

chrisbl
11th Jun 2008, 17:52
But for a youngster entering employment for the first time, I wouldn't normally recommend joining a FS scheme.

1. You are unlikely to be offered one anyway

2. You are also unlikely to be one employer that long either.

The mobility of the workforce has been an issue for FS pension funds as they dont work well for people who switch employers.

For some a good FS pension scheme has become like set of handcuffs, ensuring a miserable working life all for the sake of financial security when retired.

Notso Fantastic
11th Jun 2008, 19:22
Southernboy, you cannot believe this:
If you read up on your economics Mouse, you'll learn that the reasoning behind the changes made over pension fund tax relief was to stabilise investment.

In the bad old days fund managers chased shareholder dividends thus constantly moving their money into the companies that were going to make the biggest short term gain. GB wanted to follow the German (& Japanese) Model where pension funds & other investors invested for long term growth in value.

Did you notice in acting so 'altruistically' and 'trying to improve the pension industry (for its own good)', Brown removed about 5 Billion (I know a billion isn't what it was, but let's write it as it is....5,000,000,000.....Five thousand millions!) OUT of the pension industry into Revenue coffers in the first year, making it uneconomic for private companies to continue providing the best pension.....which is what local authorities and government employees retain, and maybe a tiny number of private companies in the UK. There are no airlines that can dream of providing FS pensions for their members. How then, can BALPA employees claim a right to it?

rubik101
11th Jun 2008, 19:37
Whatever the motives of Gordon 'Robber' Brown, my pension fund was worth just under 200.000.00 in 1997.
By 2000 it was worth 166.000.00
On my 50th birthday, just as soon as I was allowed, I bought an annuity before it was reduced any further.
The same fund today would be worth around 145.000.00
However he did it and for whatever reasons, he ruined many peoples future, apart, of course, for the 'Public Sector', including MPs.
Sympathy for Gordon ephing Brown is ridiculous and misplaced.

Wet Start
11th Jun 2008, 21:22
Absolutely correct! Further, by his continued extraction of conservatively 5 to 6 BILLION per year from the pensions industry, the secondary effect has been the slowdown of the Stock Market because the investment by pension funds has been reduced, and hence, due to slower growth, what investment remains has slowed in turn. Remember the market level is currently lower than it was in 1997 when the Scottish liars came into Government!!! I note that newsreaders are beginnning to talk about the balance of payments deficit again - anyone remember 1978/9?

The myth that Brown was ever some sort of prudent financial guru has finally been shattered - he piggybacked onto a global period of low inflation and relatively stable growth - (not to mention a hard fought and won Tory fight against their own economic excesses which was just bearing solid fruit when they were ditched at the polls) - and claimed it as his own work. Of course now the inevitable Labour 'bust' is someone else's fault.
I recommend a book called "Squandered" which tells it as it is.
Fortunately the 42 days thing has been passed, (Not because it is good legislation, it is technically unworkable) but because it will keep Brown in No 10 a little longer and hence remove any chance that a replacement leader might manage to restore NuLiars place in the polls.

Wet Start
11th Jun 2008, 21:35
What Gordon needs is another year in power.
The ongoing sight of his miserable face, the evidence of his charisma bypass, and the continuing and rapidly worsening economic slump will then make it clear to even more of the UK electorate that the sooner he is sent back to his manse in Kircaldy-on-Sea the better!

Southernboy
13th Jun 2008, 09:23
I can believe it as I got it straight from the person who was advising him at the time.

Yes of course the treasury benefited too but don't forget that it's the whole stock market based nature of things that causes pension fund to be worth X one day & Y the next. Markets fluctuate.

Long term growth does help damp out those fluctuations. Remember that if you had an FS scheme you would still get the pension irrespective of market fluctuations, so the 200k quoted that fell to 145k would be irrelevant. As I said earlier, companies have handed you that risk rather than carry it themselves.

Either way we've moved off the real issue, which is - that we see a well funded union, of which many of us are members, behaving like a corporate bully.

Carnage Matey!
13th Jun 2008, 11:07
It's a shame then that the person who was advising Brown at the time did not listen to the Treasury advice that his actions would screw the UK pensions industry. The Freedom of Information Act tends to turn over some embarassing stones for the government.

Luke SkyToddler
13th Jun 2008, 12:30
Well nice one then lads, I think we are all in general agreement that pensions were much better back in the golden days, public sector pensions are much better than private ones, council tax is a rip off, and Gordon Brown and his cronies are a bunch of whores to big business. Big pats on the back all round for figuring that one out.

However, why don't you all turn your collective intellects to dwelling on the very near future rather than the past. Any fool can see that the industry is standing on the brink of its next huge downturn, and that there will very shortly be a large number of savage management assaults on what little remaining terms and conditions we collectively have left. BALPA will shortly be needed by its members like never before, and it better not be distracted by not having its own house in order!

BALPA's very reason for existence surely requires it to be whiter than white when it comes to its own in-house industrial relations, and to my mind it does have to lead by example when it comes to providing the terms and conditions for its own staff that we all wish we enjoyed. Hell it's only 33 office staff and I bet not many of them earn as much as even a turboprop F/O. I'd happily pay for them all to have gold plated pensions, 48 weeks holiday a year and Rolexes all round, if it means that a few airline managers will think twice about how far they can try it on with their pilots in the next pay review.

By behaving in this fashion, have BALPA not just given the opposition lawyers a great big whacking stick when it comes to the next round of defending ourselves against an airline that has unilaterally imposed changes on its employees?

Southernboy
13th Jun 2008, 12:46
Well said Luke, that's hit the nail exactly on the head. I can just hear the management negotiating team now, "Oh excuse me, didn't you just trash your employees Ts&Cs & you don't have fuel costs to worry about...."

spinnaker
13th Jun 2008, 14:06
Well said.

I would find it hard to ask someone to represent me, protect my butt and get me a pay rise, when those same people have just got screwed, and I stood back and did nothing.

Management must be enjoying this current round of 'divide and rule'

Private jet
14th Jun 2008, 00:01
i agree with NF's sentiments, i too pay more and more council tax (over 2k a year now) for less and less in return, the difference funding council pensions for not badly paid and not overworked public employees (ever tried contacting someone of any importance in the local authority on a Friday afternoon? They are usually, and mysteriously "out of the office")
Unfortunately the first rule of life is that what people consider the "right" thing to be done is usually whatever benefits them directly. There is no answer to this debate. Over the last decade we have had a government sympathetic to the demands of the public sector, their pay has gone up, pensions protected, billions of extra 's pumped in and for precious little extra return in terms of services. Go back 20 years, to the Thatcher era it was quite the opposite, the then higher earning private sector people were the winners back then, mainly through tax and NI reductions. The old adage "you can't please everyone" is so true. As a slight aside, it also amuses me that traditionally pilots have compared themselves renumeration wise to "comparable" professions such as medicine and law. Yes we all must attain professional qualifications blah blah blah but we are not comparing like with like. Lawyers especially are basically verbal mercenaries, and are paid for their "knowledge" of the legal system. Nobody likes the way they earn their money, until the time comes when they need a good one arguing their corner! GP's on 100+k a year? Are they worth this? i don't know. Like i say nothing is comparable. They secured the deal by negotiating with inept civil servants, but this was no doubt easier than our scenario in aviation because medicine is not a competative industry, and they were dealing with the bottomless pit of taxpayers cash, not hard, shrewd airline managements who in turn are only doing what they are being paid to do, to the best of their ability. Hopefully you can see the point i'm trying to make.

clicker
15th Jun 2008, 01:21
demands of the public sector, their pay has gone up, pensions protected, billions of extra 's pumped in and for precious little extra return in terms of services

I have worked in the public sector for 21 years now. For the last 17 years my wage increases have been at, or more often lower, than the rate of inflation which of course excludes a number of factors. This year my monthly net amount went up by a whole 130 pounds while my rent went up by 80, my council tax by 15, let alone the petrol and food prices. Overall I've lost out.

As for pensions projected on my current wage I will get a grand 11k per year after 30 years service having paid around 50k into the scheme by then.

For this I have been taking emergency calls or manning police radio systems thoughout my career and has included some stressful moments (Shoreham airshow last year being one of them) so you can only guess what I think about petrol tanker drivers complaining of their 34k per year. Oh nearly forgot if I didnt work shifts my wages would go down by 25 percent. So I think I would have earned by 11k when I get there in 9 years time.

stringbender
15th Jun 2008, 20:30
Until the Air Transport Pilots stand up, that is world wide stoppage we will never get respect from our passengers, neighbors and surely our Companys.
In America I watched my Union, ALPO MEC give up my fully funded pension in stead of freezing it where future and present day federal funding exsist. I did not get to vote. The MEC had the ability to change pay and benefits without membership ratifaction. It exsist now after we changed our rules but its lost. Probably 25 cents on a dollar and with rising prices of energy who can retire on that. We are infact enslaved to this job. It is no longer a profession. Had the unions require only a certain number of pilot licenses we would retire differently. The AMA has just that with Doctors. US Airways pilots voted out ALPO because of the above, also the Niclau award did not follow ALPO merger language. "fair and equitable for both partys"-"can be no winfall to anyone party".

fmgc
15th Jun 2008, 23:06
I think that a lot of this is to do with the incompetency of the new Chairman, Vice-chairman and General Secretary.

The last ADC was a travesty, BA conned easyJet into joining them to overthrow the Chair and Vice-chair, who were excellent, so that BA could then run a complete failure of a campaign, the outgoing BACC Chair's swan song!

The management of BALPA is now in disarray, there needs to be some big changes at the top.

(BTW the CCs don't choose the NEC the whole membership ballot for them, the Chair and Vice-chair are voted for by the delegates at the ADC).

411A
16th Jun 2008, 00:20
Why not face facts.
BALPA...and yes, even the US ALPA, are effectively finished as an organized body, their (collective) usefullness having long gone past the 'use by' date.

As in, dead as a doornail.

Prove me wrong.

bmimainline
16th Jun 2008, 09:22
I think that a lot of this is to do with the incompetency of the new Chairman, Vice-chairman and General Secretary.


I don't agree with your sentiments regarding the General Secretary but I do agree with the rest of your post. So far the new Chairman and Vice Chairman have done nothing other than make a whole load of promises about how they are going to change BALPA to make it more accountable to the membership. I have been a member for 20 years and I am as close as I have ever been to leaving. The only thing that stops me is the tireless efforts of my own CC to try and make things better. If there are no results at HQ I'll leave at the end of this year.

BALPA4life
16th Jun 2008, 11:59
I can't believe you lot! The General Secretary is the best public figure we have EVER had. The NEC has changed and needs to be given the time to formulate a programme that will change the way the NEC needs to change. This pension issue was coming regardless of the leadership.

Under the previuos administration, Ian Saunders was on the NEC running the finances fantastically well, and turning BALPA into an organisation that had cash to spend on campaigns.

To say BA conned easyJet is just plain wrong. I am an easyJet employee and we are now the second largest airline in terms of BALPA Membership. BA has over 3000 members easyJet around 1600. Therefore 4600 of our 10000 members in BALPA belong within 2 airlines. Hardly a surprise that those airlines wanted to make a change to the likes of Tfly and Monarch running the NEC.

The NEC is a sham. Half of the members on the NEC do absolutely no work whatsoever, and if you go to an ADC one day you will see what I mean! Lynne Clark (VC of NEC) is a real worker and will always have the support of easyJet pilots, she is incredible. easyJet now have 3 elected members on the NEC from this year, and we are there to make changes, and make the NEC more accountable to the CCs of the company which are the backbone of BALPA for the average pilot like myself.

Allow change to be made, but until some of the more disruptive members on the NEC are removed, we will unfortunately not get very far. Bring on the next ADC it should be fun!

Back to the thread - I am sorry to see the GMB make this announcement, I feel they are wrong to refue BALPA's improved offer to them, and the PNs are I'm afraid being quite short sited in going down this road - It helps no-one.
:mad:

fmgc
16th Jun 2008, 12:48
I HAVE been to ADCs, and can tell you the last one was a sham!

easyJet were conned, there is no doubt about it, it was embarrassing to see how the easyJet Chair was manipulated by the BACC with this ridiculous motion for a senate, that would have been completely unworkable.

The current NEC Chair may well have been good at the finances but is not a good Chair. Apparently he is never there. He lives in Baltimore for gods sake.

How can you have a Vice-chair of the NEC who has NEVER sat on the NEC before.

The Gen Secs personal attack on Willie was seriously ill advised and will be his downfall.

BALPA4life
16th Jun 2008, 13:23
Well FMGC - We must agree to differ. The Senate was in fact the easyJet Chair's idea so perhaps he conned BA? - The next ADC may well see it raised again. Ultimately making the NEC accountable to the CC Chairs is going to be the answer on taking BALPA forward. The reason why the NEC has been so disfunctional is because of the disruptive behaviour from some people from Tfly and Monarch. Wouldn't it be nice if they turned up to the NEC meetings!

Anyhow, the VC, was elected overwhelmingly, and I agree the same cannot be said of the Chair. I have been down to HQ several times since the ADC, and Ian has been there every time. Perhaps I have just been lucky! The 3 have my 110% support and they need the time to action change.

fmgc
16th Jun 2008, 19:47
Well the motion was proposed by easyJet but actually written by one of the BA guys.

The proof will be in the pudding! Time will tell.

I would be interested to hear more about this disruptive behaviour from Tfly & MON guys?

Southernboy
17th Jun 2008, 08:58
There are obviously many here who are more up to speed with BALPA politics than me & it is interesting to read. However, surely this is about principle isn't it?

Click Click made an impressive post & compared the tanker drivers to his own Ts&Cs & it is understandable. The values are probably skewed - like footballers earning 500,000 a week - but they were sold off by a wealthy company & haven't had a pay rise for 13 years, so there's always another side to the story.

In the BALPA case it seems to be the imposition of a deal rather a negotiated settlement that's the issue. If it were an airline being represented by BALPA in that situation there would be a standing conference, strike ballot & arbitration if need be, so how can a union justify playing the same bully boy card that they complain about when dealing with big companies?

Someone mentioned PNs, is it only them that's affected? Anyone know what they earn? I wouldn't be surprised if their pay per hour were calculated it would be pretty small if my experience of their efforts is anything to go by. It was many years ago admitted but I doubt it's a job people do for the money.