British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk V
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: brighton
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vote yes but not strike??
TIRAMASU
``Many of our crew are telling me that they'll vote Yes but they will not Strike,``
What the heck is the point of that? Cowardly and lacking conviction!! But I know many crew will do just that and /or hope they are not rostered or away from base on the day of the strike or take the easy option and go sick as many did in 1987. Totally spineless and perhaps shows the calibre of the person.
How about BA withdraws hotel accomodation and allowances if crew go on strike? It wouldnt surprise me if they did!
The message must be if you are going to vote to ruin the airline at least have the courage of your misguided convictions.
``Many of our crew are telling me that they'll vote Yes but they will not Strike,``
What the heck is the point of that? Cowardly and lacking conviction!! But I know many crew will do just that and /or hope they are not rostered or away from base on the day of the strike or take the easy option and go sick as many did in 1987. Totally spineless and perhaps shows the calibre of the person.
How about BA withdraws hotel accomodation and allowances if crew go on strike? It wouldnt surprise me if they did!
The message must be if you are going to vote to ruin the airline at least have the courage of your misguided convictions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You used the S word which is used by militant Trade Unionists to describe Strike Breakers. Its other definition is the solid flaky stuff that blood turns into when you cut yourself.
As stated by the Moderator, Tight Slot, that word is banned on this forum.
As stated by the Moderator, Tight Slot, that word is banned on this forum.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tax issue...
Here's bassa's response to the tax hike:
As I predicted, it's not bassa's fault, as nothing is ever bassa's fault. Blame everyone else.
Gg
Edited to add:
Reading the last sentence in the quote, it seems to me that bassa were hoping each crew member wouldn't get a letter, and therefore wouldn't know their new tax rates. Or am I being far too cynical??
BASSA reps were just as astonished to receive the letter from HMRC this
weekend as crew were. At our last meeting with BA on this issue a few
months ago, we all agreed there would be further meetings.
BA had not indicated that taxable amounts had been finalised.
In our last discussion the revenue had eventually agreed that back to back
meal allowances on WW could be included - whereas for the previous 12
months they had refused to include them.
A brief history lesson - in June 2008 a percentage of crew, both pilots
and cabin crew were asked by HMRC to take part in an audit.
This was to determine on what percentage of our meal allowances - whether
hourly rate or meal allowances - should we pay tax and national insurance.
HMRC were not saying we shouldn't earn them, they were saying if we
weren't spending them, then tax and NI should be levied.
This was when BASSA urged all crew selected to fully use their allowances
and keep receipts.
HMRC were never interested in the morals of low basics and crew needing to
live on their allowances. Their sole concern was these allowances are tax
free because they are for spending overseas, so if crew could not prove
they had spent all of them, then they would be taxed on the rest.
Some crew still aren't clear exactly what this means in terms of cost.
If the amount of your meal allowances you pay tax on is increased by 10%
then for every GBP100 spent you will pay tax and NI on 10% which for most
of us is GBP3.
To stress this is only meal allowances (and hourly pay for LGW) , all
other variables are taxed anyway.
The result of this audit which we received in August 2008 were shall we
say disappointing for EF, very disappointing for WW and catastrophic for
Gatwick.
To put it plainly.....there were some crew that didn't heed the warning we
sent out regarding the tax man's hunger at raising revenue at our expense
and it's sad to say, the fleets that returned the most audit forms had the
least increase, and the ones that returned the least audit forms had the
largest increase.
The returns were certainly not what we hoped for and many crew had either
not spent their allowances or kept their receipts. Since then we have had
various meetings with BA corporate tax dept who liaises with HMRC.
They have been clear they will only discuss the whole issue with the
employer so our arguments and representations about the whole audit have
been with BA.
Let us be clear though. If BASSA hadn't been involved from the outset the
taxable levels would have been far higher and would have been imposed 18
months ago.
Instead over this period we have continued meetings, passed suggestions
along, and insisted certain items such as B to B receipts had to be
included.
Based on the received letter this is now a fait accompli.
Compared to where we could have ended up in 2008, certainly the final
figures are not as bad as first feared. But any loss of earnings, however
small is detrimental to our community.
As a matter of urgency we need to find out the situation and where BA and
HMRC are. We also have to check that BALPA, as rumours are suggesting,
have achieved a lower increase than crew, but because they are on an
hourly rate this complicates things.
Our understanding is that it should be a corporate deal, the only
difference being base.
Once we have clarified the complete situation we will communicate again.
Rest assured, despite any rumours, BASSA have been involved since day one
on this issue. Our criticism will be levelled at BA, assuming they knew,
for not informing us that HMRC were writing to every crew member.
weekend as crew were. At our last meeting with BA on this issue a few
months ago, we all agreed there would be further meetings.
BA had not indicated that taxable amounts had been finalised.
In our last discussion the revenue had eventually agreed that back to back
meal allowances on WW could be included - whereas for the previous 12
months they had refused to include them.
A brief history lesson - in June 2008 a percentage of crew, both pilots
and cabin crew were asked by HMRC to take part in an audit.
This was to determine on what percentage of our meal allowances - whether
hourly rate or meal allowances - should we pay tax and national insurance.
HMRC were not saying we shouldn't earn them, they were saying if we
weren't spending them, then tax and NI should be levied.
This was when BASSA urged all crew selected to fully use their allowances
and keep receipts.
HMRC were never interested in the morals of low basics and crew needing to
live on their allowances. Their sole concern was these allowances are tax
free because they are for spending overseas, so if crew could not prove
they had spent all of them, then they would be taxed on the rest.
Some crew still aren't clear exactly what this means in terms of cost.
If the amount of your meal allowances you pay tax on is increased by 10%
then for every GBP100 spent you will pay tax and NI on 10% which for most
of us is GBP3.
To stress this is only meal allowances (and hourly pay for LGW) , all
other variables are taxed anyway.
The result of this audit which we received in August 2008 were shall we
say disappointing for EF, very disappointing for WW and catastrophic for
Gatwick.
To put it plainly.....there were some crew that didn't heed the warning we
sent out regarding the tax man's hunger at raising revenue at our expense
and it's sad to say, the fleets that returned the most audit forms had the
least increase, and the ones that returned the least audit forms had the
largest increase.
The returns were certainly not what we hoped for and many crew had either
not spent their allowances or kept their receipts. Since then we have had
various meetings with BA corporate tax dept who liaises with HMRC.
They have been clear they will only discuss the whole issue with the
employer so our arguments and representations about the whole audit have
been with BA.
Let us be clear though. If BASSA hadn't been involved from the outset the
taxable levels would have been far higher and would have been imposed 18
months ago.
Instead over this period we have continued meetings, passed suggestions
along, and insisted certain items such as B to B receipts had to be
included.
Based on the received letter this is now a fait accompli.
Compared to where we could have ended up in 2008, certainly the final
figures are not as bad as first feared. But any loss of earnings, however
small is detrimental to our community.
As a matter of urgency we need to find out the situation and where BA and
HMRC are. We also have to check that BALPA, as rumours are suggesting,
have achieved a lower increase than crew, but because they are on an
hourly rate this complicates things.
Our understanding is that it should be a corporate deal, the only
difference being base.
Once we have clarified the complete situation we will communicate again.
Rest assured, despite any rumours, BASSA have been involved since day one
on this issue. Our criticism will be levelled at BA, assuming they knew,
for not informing us that HMRC were writing to every crew member.
As I predicted, it's not bassa's fault, as nothing is ever bassa's fault. Blame everyone else.
Gg
Edited to add:
Reading the last sentence in the quote, it seems to me that bassa were hoping each crew member wouldn't get a letter, and therefore wouldn't know their new tax rates. Or am I being far too cynical??
Last edited by Glamgirl; 19th Jan 2010 at 13:25.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our criticism will be levelled at BA, assuming they knew,
for not informing us that HMRC were writing to every crew member.
for not informing us that HMRC were writing to every crew member.
I have to say, as SLF, I have turned from mild anger about this whole fiasco to feeling sorry for you guys because you are represented by these muppets.
If I was a member I would be asking questions about where the monthly subs were actually being used for.....
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been lurking for a while and thought I'd post a comment on this.
My company used to spend about $35m p/a with BA, mainly on CW and F bookings, but that was 2-3 years ago when everything was rosy and you could choose BA over the other carriers when you were booking travel and no-one minded that they were a bit more expensive.
Last year we spent about $17m and it'll probably be less this year and the year after. I don't see us ever returning to the 'good old days' - we are now forced to use other, cheaper carriers; telepresence and actually getting travel signed off in the first place are all other factors in the reducing numbers above.
In my opinion, some BA CC are living in the past. Those good old days are long gone and everyone has had to adapt to survive - we fired hundreds of people and those that remain are doing much more work than before. Take your collective heads out of the sand and wise up, striking will get you nowhere.
My company used to spend about $35m p/a with BA, mainly on CW and F bookings, but that was 2-3 years ago when everything was rosy and you could choose BA over the other carriers when you were booking travel and no-one minded that they were a bit more expensive.
Last year we spent about $17m and it'll probably be less this year and the year after. I don't see us ever returning to the 'good old days' - we are now forced to use other, cheaper carriers; telepresence and actually getting travel signed off in the first place are all other factors in the reducing numbers above.
In my opinion, some BA CC are living in the past. Those good old days are long gone and everyone has had to adapt to survive - we fired hundreds of people and those that remain are doing much more work than before. Take your collective heads out of the sand and wise up, striking will get you nowhere.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: sussex
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Bassa are incensed by HMG polices to increase tax on their allowances while at the same time keeping the same government in power by financing them with the union contributions they pay to UNITE.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God help the poor souls who trust theese peolpe to protect them, they are lost beyond belief! In a few cases, miss m/Romans/ etc, it will be ciao without a second look but for most I feel nothing but pity. There are going to be some very shocked ex-crew who will have lost eveything in a power struggle they can not be allowed to win and didn't even understand was happening.
Where to start with bassa's latest drivel!
Corporate deal? WTF?
Rumours of balpa deal! Que
anger at HMRC writing directly to you, how dare they!
It's BA's fault, off course it is love.
You guys can hate WW all you want but your biggest worry should be the brain pigmys running your union. Can't you see what's coming? (hint- it's not a free hotline or 1 down payments
)
You have 48hrs to guess cause I hear ww going to let you know in advance what you WILL forgoe if you choose to withdraw your labour!
Where to start with bassa's latest drivel!
Corporate deal? WTF?
Rumours of balpa deal! Que
anger at HMRC writing directly to you, how dare they!
It's BA's fault, off course it is love.
You guys can hate WW all you want but your biggest worry should be the brain pigmys running your union. Can't you see what's coming? (hint- it's not a free hotline or 1 down payments
)You have 48hrs to guess cause I hear ww going to let you know in advance what you WILL forgoe if you choose to withdraw your labour!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely every BASSA member is aware that a percentage of their subs go to the Labour Party?
You can opt out of yours being donated, but it is an opt out scheme, by default Gordon Brown will get ya’ pennies.
You can opt out of yours being donated, but it is an opt out scheme, by default Gordon Brown will get ya’ pennies.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snas, very few members actually know about the labour party donations, unfortunately. I'm not sure as to whether that's due to ignorance on members' half or unions' half.
Here's part of BF's response to the call for ballot (I've only included the very interesting bit)
Read into that what you want, but I see the whole artillery coming out very very soon.
Gg
Here's part of BF's response to the call for ballot (I've only included the very interesting bit)
I will be writing to you before the ballot opens with information that I believe will help you make your decision. Please look out for this, and take the time to read it because it will contain important information about your vote and how it will affect you.
In this ballot, I feel I must urge you to vote no, for the sake of our customers, our colleagues, our company and your future
In this ballot, I feel I must urge you to vote no, for the sake of our customers, our colleagues, our company and your future
Gg
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello wascrew
``Many of our crew are telling me that they'll vote Yes but they will not Strike,``
What the heck is the point of that? Cowardly and lacking conviction!! But I know many crew will do just that and /or hope they are not rostered or away from base on the day of the strike or take the easy option and go sick as many did in 1987. Totally spineless and perhaps shows the calibre of the person.
What the heck is the point of that? Cowardly and lacking conviction!! But I know many crew will do just that and /or hope they are not rostered or away from base on the day of the strike or take the easy option and go sick as many did in 1987. Totally spineless and perhaps shows the calibre of the person.
I don't think the company will allow that to happen, they need certainty, hence the volunteer list.
I think this time it's put up or shut up.
Maybe the company will introduce a revised sickness policy, anyone going sick deemed to be taking part in IA until proven otherwise etc.
Oh, and don't forget lock outs.
Do unions cover lock out days when paying strike pay?
Anyone any thoughts?
(My thoughts not representative of my employer or anyone else.)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG,
I am intrigued about the change in communications in BA since I left over 6 years ago.
Do all crew members have to have their own email account that can be accessed at home or is the only compulsorary one the @ba.com one
Interested to see how BA are coing to comminicate to all the crew members - by email or by snail mail
Cheers
I am intrigued about the change in communications in BA since I left over 6 years ago.
Do all crew members have to have their own email account that can be accessed at home or is the only compulsorary one the @ba.com one
Interested to see how BA are coing to comminicate to all the crew members - by email or by snail mail
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beerdrinker,
Every employee have a ba email address. Some use it, some don't.
Some comms go via email, some via another message facility (all crew get this when they check in for duty) and some via regular mail (post).
Hope this clarifies.
Gg
617, I'm not sure whether you mean if the statement from bassa actually came from bassa (it did) or whether you mean something else?
Every employee have a ba email address. Some use it, some don't.
Some comms go via email, some via another message facility (all crew get this when they check in for duty) and some via regular mail (post).
Hope this clarifies.
Gg
617, I'm not sure whether you mean if the statement from bassa actually came from bassa (it did) or whether you mean something else?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see the latest crackpot idea is for crew to write to their MPs protesting against BAs plans. Unfortunately one seems to have included the small fib that BASSA offered savings over and above that which BA wanted and were turned down. That could turn out to be embarrasing when BA publicise the results of the PWC audit in the national press, as they surely will if Unite attempt to appeal to the recession-hit public.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do I sign up to man a door?
SEP and Medical cannot not be taught whithin the timescale put forward, true. Volunteers can work alongside those who are trained sufficiently, BA would not jeopardise the safety of those travelling.
However, I think the passengers would sacrifice a premium cabin service during the flight to actually get them to the destination, thoughts customers?
Some people realise these are difficult times, I will answer the call to save my company from bankrupcy! Good on you WW
SEP and Medical cannot not be taught whithin the timescale put forward, true. Volunteers can work alongside those who are trained sufficiently, BA would not jeopardise the safety of those travelling.
However, I think the passengers would sacrifice a premium cabin service during the flight to actually get them to the destination, thoughts customers?
Some people realise these are difficult times, I will answer the call to save my company from bankrupcy! Good on you WW
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BASSA should tread carefully
If BA's flights are operating with a mix of experienced Cabin Crew and volunteers who have received training meeting all rules and regulations, then I'm not sure how many MPs are going to be interested in stepping into the middle of this situation.
Give 99% of the flying public their usual well-trained, experienced competent Captain saying "We're good to go" and they are going to feel quite safe.
BASSA/Unite/Militant Cabin Crew have made themselves rather unattractive as a cause for any potential advocates.
What I do like about Mr. Walsh's request for volunteers is that it gives the flying public an opportunity to see that BA is more than the extreme voices we see cheering after strike votes. There are many employees who are working to keep customers served and will go the extra mile to help BA survive.
A powerful message.
Give 99% of the flying public their usual well-trained, experienced competent Captain saying "We're good to go" and they are going to feel quite safe.
BASSA/Unite/Militant Cabin Crew have made themselves rather unattractive as a cause for any potential advocates.
What I do like about Mr. Walsh's request for volunteers is that it gives the flying public an opportunity to see that BA is more than the extreme voices we see cheering after strike votes. There are many employees who are working to keep customers served and will go the extra mile to help BA survive.
A powerful message.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if anyone will be writing to Theresa Villiers MP, who in December said this:
Ouch.
“The union needs to wake up to the realities of the 21st century aviation industry and the intense competitive pressure BA faces.”
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Europe
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are so many pages about this dispute I don't know where to start.
I travelled with BA in World Traveller to LHR yesterday and the crew who worked at my side was a really nice guy in his mid 20's. We talked for a while and I asked him how he felt about this dispute. He said that he has always been against it, working with less staff on the plane is not an issue because it is working, is extremely worried about his job and that their union has dealt with it in a very poorly manner but too afraid to say anything because it would probably result in, my own words, a witch hunt, and not only by their union but also colleagues. I asked him if he was serious and he gave an example of a previous trip when a colleague of his had said that their union should meet with BA and almost the whole crew raised their voices against her and after that didn't speak to her for the rest of the trip. He said that even if he wanted to strike, but has no intention of as he too has volunteered (?) to work over the strike, he wouldn't be able to afford it and especially not after their taxation raise from next month (?) which apparently is the union's fault (?). He also gave examples of not getting any good paying trips and that he most of the time does nightstops (?) in the US, Africa and the Middle East. He hadn't been to Australia for 5 years nor anywhere near Asia for almost 2 years, all in 5 or 6 years of flying long-haul trips.
To me it sounds extremely worrying that staff cannot raise their opinion in fear of being bullied by not only their colleagues but also their own union. It is very dangerous if the union is playing this game with the risk of many innocent people loosing their jobs. BA should be extremely glad to have a crew member as this guy as he seemed to love his job more than anything else and I would hate to see him loose it.
This makes me think, is this the atmosphere BA staff has to face?
I travelled with BA in World Traveller to LHR yesterday and the crew who worked at my side was a really nice guy in his mid 20's. We talked for a while and I asked him how he felt about this dispute. He said that he has always been against it, working with less staff on the plane is not an issue because it is working, is extremely worried about his job and that their union has dealt with it in a very poorly manner but too afraid to say anything because it would probably result in, my own words, a witch hunt, and not only by their union but also colleagues. I asked him if he was serious and he gave an example of a previous trip when a colleague of his had said that their union should meet with BA and almost the whole crew raised their voices against her and after that didn't speak to her for the rest of the trip. He said that even if he wanted to strike, but has no intention of as he too has volunteered (?) to work over the strike, he wouldn't be able to afford it and especially not after their taxation raise from next month (?) which apparently is the union's fault (?). He also gave examples of not getting any good paying trips and that he most of the time does nightstops (?) in the US, Africa and the Middle East. He hadn't been to Australia for 5 years nor anywhere near Asia for almost 2 years, all in 5 or 6 years of flying long-haul trips.
To me it sounds extremely worrying that staff cannot raise their opinion in fear of being bullied by not only their colleagues but also their own union. It is very dangerous if the union is playing this game with the risk of many innocent people loosing their jobs. BA should be extremely glad to have a crew member as this guy as he seemed to love his job more than anything else and I would hate to see him loose it.
This makes me think, is this the atmosphere BA staff has to face?