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!!