Mmmday38,

Sorry to hear you're possibly on your way. It would be nice to think that it's not due to a lack of support from above but I suspect it could be.

ATB

Willie Walsh's plan is to ASK staff to VOLUNTEER for UP TO 1 months unpaid work, or take unpaid leave.

And you have the nerve to accuse BA of scaremongering......

Bassa Supporter
 

I have to be polite here Andy, otherwise I will get moderated off. You cannot work for free under Minimum Wage legislation.

You can take unpaid leave. You can do charity work and not get paid. A company cannot ask, coerce, threaten, scaremonger.....its staff to work for free. That is why there is the legislation.

Who gives me authority? It's a forum where you don't need any authority whatsoever to write. Feel free to respond. Do I appear to be a supporter of BASSA?

Bassa Supporter
 

Sorry Nuigini. Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum. You must play by the rules.

I was pointing out that the tone of your post seems to assert that you had inside information, when in fact you don't.

Feel free to interpret!

This is also your second post saying that you either have to be polite or no personal attacks. If you are on that level perhaps you should find another forum to discuss.

You got a reference for that? Minimum wage legislation allows pay to be aggregated over a period, so unless the unpaid section takes that total pay below national minimum wage it does not apply.

So in the case of 1 week in a 28 day pay period, unless the remaining 3 weeks came out below min wage for 4 weeks, its irrelevent. I'd be suprised if any BA staff were affected.

That's not what I said though, is it. I said it wasn't illegal for WW to ask for volunteers........

Bassa Supporter
 

You cannot volunteer to work for free alongside colleagues who are being paid. Just to remind you before this discussion goes on, Yvette Cooper is a Minister. She does not make mistakes. However much some of you admire Willie Walsh, he is acting "illegally" asking for volunteers to work for free. I hope this clears the matter up.


British Airways Employee Says Willie Walsh Should Be Sacked As Staff Are Asked To Work For Fre | Business | Sky News

I don't want to go too far off topic, but....
You are kidding, right?

She's a politician. She'll say the first thing that comes into her head if she thinks it will gain her a bit of favourable PR. 'Court of Public Opinion' anyone?

Bassa Supporter
 

Under the provision of the Act, voluntary work can ony be undertaken by a registered charity. Here is the appropriate part of the act:


Voluntary workers

(1) A worker employed by a charity, a voluntary organisation, an associated fund-raising body or a statutory body does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of that employment if he receives, and under the terms of his employment (apart from this Act) is entitled to,—
(a) no monetary payments of any description, or no monetary payments except in respect of expenses—
(i) actually incurred in the performance of his duties; or
(ii) reasonably estimated as likely to be or to have been so incurred; and
(b) no benefits in kind of any description, or no benefits in kind other than the provision of some or all of his subsistence or of such accommodation as is reasonable in the circumstances of the employment.
(2) A person who would satisfy the conditions in subsection (1) above but for receiving monetary payments made solely for the purpose of providing him with means of subsistence shall be taken to satisfy those conditions if—
(a) he is employed to do the work in question as a result of arrangements made between a charity acting in pursuance of its charitable purposes and the body for which the work is done; and
(b) the work is done for a charity, a voluntary organisation, an associated fund-raising body or a statutory body.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above—
(a) any training (other than that which a person necessarily acquires in the course of doing his work) shall be taken to be a benefit in kind; but
(b) there shall be left out of account any training provided for the sole or main purpose of improving the worker’s ability to perform the work which he has agreed to do.
(4) In this section—

• “associated fund-raising body” means a body of persons the profits of which are applied wholly for the purposes of a charity or voluntary organisation;
• “charity” means a body of persons, or the trustees of a trust, established for charitable purposes only;
• “receive”, in relation to a monetary payment or a benefit in kind, means receive in respect of, or otherwise in connection with, the employment in question (whether or not under the terms of the employment);
• “statutory body” means a body established by or under an enactment (including an enactment comprised in Northern Ireland legislation);
• “subsistence” means such subsistence as is reasonable in the circumstances of the employment in question, and does not include accommodation;
• “voluntary organisation” means a body of persons, or the trustees of a trust, which is established only for charitable purposes (whether or not those purposes are charitable within the meaning of any rule of law), benevolent purposes or philanthropic purposes, but which is not a charity.

the LGW ground staff who left before 1st April were offered 3 weeks for every full year served up to a maximum of 25 years. In other word 75 weeks pay.

People keep saying the company is "begging" staff to work for free. I didn't read the email that way. It was one sentence at the end of an email, saying that if anyone's interested, it may be considered.

What's the difference now and previous occasions where we've been asked to volunteer to work in the terminals during disruption?

I don't think it was necessarily a clever thing to put it in the email in the first place, but this has been blown out of all proportion.

PiB, I had a read of that link you posted, and the article has some statements in there that aren't true.

Gg

Bassa Supporter
 

What link is that GG?

Now that this issue over 'Working For Free' has been aired, perhaps volunteering to work in the Terminals alongside people who are being paid, is actually illegal?

If staff feel intimidated into offering their services for free in the hope they may receive some sort of 'favour' in return from a company, like an advantage in promotion prospects over someone who did not volunteer, then I would say that it was not fair and illegal.

This area of the Minimum Wage legislation needs to be tightened up, as BA have abused this in the past, like when volunteers worked through the night on the changeover to T5. Why should someone with no committments have advantage over someone with a family?

PiB,

The link I referred to is one you posted earlier today. Sky news article written by a staff member (allegedly) ring any bells?

Gg

"Working for free" versus simply "Working"
 

For all those of you agonising over this, please see the note below from Barclays Stockbrokers today re Ryanair:

"Irish no-frills airliner Ryanair announced more cuts in jobs and aircraft, citing the Irish government's €10 per passenger travel tax for the move. The group said it will cut its base aircraft by one at both Dublin (from 17 to 16) and Shannon (from 4 to 3) this winter. The move will result in the loss 350 jobs at Dublin Airport and a further 300 jobs in Shannon Airport."

The more you agonise over the "fairness" or "legality" of "working for free". the more likely you are, like the 650 Ryanair staff in Ireland, to be released from all work voluntary or otherwise at BA. Remember Ryanair is profitable, and still cutting aircraft/routes/jobs. BA is not in such a luxurious position.

The "work for free" argument can be put to bed very easily. Very many of us are contracted to work 35 or 40 hours/week. Many of us work in excess of this without any overtime payments. We may be said to be "working for free". Yvette Cooper does not spout off about this any time.

Maybe BA should just describe what they're asking for as "unpaid overtime", then we'll all understand it.

The whole "legality" argument is a nonsense. If BA want to cut their payroll bill, they will. You have a choice: "unpaid overtime"; pay cut for everyone; maintain pay for most and make enough others redundant to achieve the necessary cost reduction.

Could anyone clarify if anyone who volunteers (flying wise) would still achieve allowances, just forego their basic? I've heard this flung about Galley FM, and can't seem to get the answer anywhere.

For the record, I've no plans whatsoever to work unpaid, I just wanted to know in case I get the question from another crew member.

Gg

Gg

Yes, allowances will still be paid.

As per info from the intranet VUW Key Facts page: "This is a deduction from basic pay, all other payments or benefits continue to be paid"

Thanks for that TorC.

So, basically, this whole song and dance about unpaid work being illegal is null and void, as crew would still get paid allowances.

So much drama....:rolleyes:

Gg

Bassa Supporter
 

No it is still not legal, as allowances are paid as 'subsistence allowances'. You are not meant to save them. It is like giving a charity worker free food.

If a minimum wage basic is not paid under the terms of the Act, working for free is illegal.

Regarding RyanAir, at least the are parking aircraft in anticipation of a downturn. This move by them shows that they will go out of business as well if there are no passengers. There is still the rise in the UK's APD to come!!

My thoughts exactly Gg

While I DO see it as a drastic step, it is also very clear that it is entirely voluntary and sits alongside the other BRP options. For those unable to consider PT or VUL, but who do wish to do something, as allowances will still be paid, it's another (slightly less painful) option to at least consider.

Just to quickly remind people:

1) it's voluntary
2) can be 1 to 4 weeks
3) only basic salary is affected, allowances etc ARE paid
4) deduction can be spread over 3 or 6 months

It's amazing where people get all this incorrect information from about working for free being illegal due to the minimum wage act.

It is NOT illegal to work for no pay providing it is totally voluntary.

People work free for charities and they are not acting illegally nor is the charity in accepting their offers to work for no pay.

The minimum wage act only applies to paid work.

Anyone has the right to work for no pay if they choose to.

Bassa Supporter
 

Just to remind people:

1. It is not charity work

2. It is illegal under the 1998 Minimum Wage Act


Jean Lil. The Employment Minister today said it was illegal. Do you disagree? Is she wrong?

I see where you are coming from on that. But surely, the giving of food to a charity worker is done at the time (ie lunch at lunchtime, to be eaten there and then). Our allowances are paid in arrears at the same time as our salary, and we have (presumeably) therefore already spent them in advance.

Your theory would apply more if our allowances were paid to us directly at the time each one was triggered.

Pib

Not to doubt you, but I've been trying to find the EMs statement on the www, but can't see anything anywhere I have looked. Do you have a link for anything that's been reported, as would like to hear her exact words.

thanks

PiB #861
 

"Regarding RyanAir, at least the are parking aircraft in anticipation of a downturn. This move by them shows that they will go out of business as well if there are no passengers."

I assume you meant "upturn" not "downturn" in your post?

In respect of Ryanair going out of business as well, I actually think you misunderstand the dynamics here. Ryanair has more cash/near-cash than any other airline in Europe. They can withstand a downturn longer than anyone, they can cut fares more and for longer than anyone. The latter has been their strategy in recent years. They learned it in their formative years from Aer Lingus actually, who did pretty much the same to them when they were small and Aer Lingus had a near-100% share of the lucrative London-Dublin route.

Anyway, the point is this. Ryanair will mothball their fleet to preserve cash just like anyone else. However, at some point weaker airlines will go broke, as has already happened to a couple of the charters and all those "business class only" shops that collapsed last year. As the weakest die, so the stronger players (of which Ryanair is now the proverbial 800# gorilla) pick up the routes/passengers. The total market may be smaller, but they have a bigger share.

The problem BA has is that it will go under well before Ryanair. Ryanair will be the last one standing. For it to fail, or even shrink in size, ALL air travel will have to cease, and we're nowhere near that happening. The weakest link in this is probably Aer Lingus, which started with less cash than most and is burning it fastest. Net-net that's good for Ryanair, even though it would hit the value of their shareholding in Aer Lingus.

BA is not in a strong cash position either. I'm not of the "BA will disappear" brigade. Its routes and LHR slots are worth a fortune long-term. However, BA could be so badly weakened that it has to seek further defensive mergers on unattractive terms (are you going to be rebranded as Iberia soon?), or is actually the subject of a hostile bid from an aggressive new airline keen to increase its route network (ring any bells?). Both those options are likely to be worse for BA staff than anything proposed by a currently independent BA right now.

No its not. Its a voluntary pay deduction spread over 3-6 months, Unless that takes the subject below 5.78 per hour its entirely legal.

Now back to the actual topic please.

PiB

I have never read such misinformed information written with such authority. You're not in management are you?

Ministers do not judge the law. The law courts do that. Anything said by ministers is irrelevant in determining legal outcomes except intent expressed when forumulating the original laws. In simple terms, working for free is not legal if it is always for free under the period of contract. She is not wrong, but she has no idea of the structure, and as such is irrelevant in judging BA's offer.

You display a rigid and uneducated view of the law - as HM states above, structuring through a spread of wages is possible, and furthermore the legal minimum would apply only to the period of your contract. Taking any tax year as an example, remuneration still considerably exceeds minimum wages.

Ryanair operate with many FOs who receive expenses for "training", and little in the way of salary above minimum wage.

Perhaps if BA structures it as "retraining", they could get away with paying those crew with no customer services skills for periods in excess of a year...no there's a thought...!


PiB - you don't win the argument if you shout louder...

Nuigini offered what was quite clearly an opinion. If you can't understand his/her statement as such, that is not their problem.

Sorry to keep on this unpaid work side track...

What about work experience and internship? Is that illegal too?

I'm pretty sure that the BA legal team would have double checked the legalities of this whole thing.

The same goes for potential ballot from Bassa. What will they ballot for? New Fleet? No can do. It's legal to set it up, so union members can't legally strike over that issue. No change of contract has been mentioned, whence the union will find it very difficult to find something to ballot for.

I'm sure the legal team is working overtime (no doubt paid overtime..) at the moment to make sure management has the upper hand and an answer to everything. Contingency plans are being put into action as we speak, just in case someone in the union decides that a strike is a good thing, or a wild cat/walk out/everyone sick day happens.

Gg

Word GG! The management do many stupid things but I am convinced they would have looked this up in the book.

I love the way Poof in Boots is quoting the Employment Minister, but is listed as being in the US.

Do you have any idea just how much a joke our Government is right now and how many lies they've been discovered telling?

Question For Bassa Supporters
 

With unemployment at a 12 year high (source BBC Radio 4. 1038pm), when will BASSA release factual information on BA's finances that it has been given access to so that members have that information?

Why have the Reps not attended all the negotiation sessions with the company?

Thought I read somewhere that the head of the BASSA union lived in LA? Maybe he couldn't get a connecting flight in time for the meeting? :)

Cellstar,

The Chairman of BASSA is actually a she! :ok:

Bassa Supporter
 

Andy, why do you need the information from BASSA, Willie Walsh has told the world!! Don't you believe Willie when he says how bad things are?

The reps have attended all of the meetings. Where are you getting your misinformation from Andy?

Cellstar, the "Head" of BASSA is a woman, married to an American, hence the LA connection.

Re-Heat. Working for free is such a stupid idea, even Michael O'Leary didn't think of it!! He must be kicking himself now. MOL makes his staff pay for their training and uniforms, why not make them work for free as well!

Taking a look at the fixed term contract as CC that I had, my basic was an anual pay £12.000 (ish) pro rata.. so any request would just lower the (PR) pay and there for not working for free... just a reduced wage in a financial year and all other benefits in place! I think if crew were on hourly rate then things would be much more complex.. just a thought

P in Boots

To answer your question about the employment minister and voluntary work, it is unbelieveable the minster would say such voluntary work is illegal-for what reasons?

1000's of people work voluntarily for no pay because they do not want any pay, why have non of them been prosecuted for doing so illegally? Ask the employment minister that question. Additionally ask why none of the charities or hospitals have been prosecuted for accepting voluntary work.

I will repeat myself for your benefit, 1000's of people work for no pay in charities and hospitals, including my medic husband who does several hours a week medical research work completely without pay or expences-because he is dedicated in his profession.

Hospitals and charities have many people who are willing to work voluntarily, it is a well known fact and perfectly legal otherwise it would not be allowed to happen.

It has been in the media this week that BA are considering accepting VOLUNTARY work as a method to survive. BA's legal advisers would have not allowed this to happen if it was in any way illegal.

Poof in Boots, I would like BASSA to admit that it has been given access to the figures and give suitable honest information to it's members.

Several of your colleagues have posted here that nothing is wrong, that Willie is making it all up etc.

A union is meant to protect it's members, not protect them from the truth.

Generally best to ignore PiB's claims, it's a classic BASSA diversion tactic. When they can't win the debate they prefer to focus on one tiny aspect of the dispute and hammer home their point in the hope nobody will recognize the paucity of their arguments. Once BA start laying off cabin crew do you think anyone will be bothered whether or not working for free is legal?

Very sobering quote about the structural shift away from premium business travel.