BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed and if ST was removed for all, because of the cost of IA, then there would be no argument, but, well we know the rest.
It will be interesting if the ST policy changes to reflect that if IA is carried out in the future by any department, then the benefit will be removed.
@fincastle84 - this is a thread about the BA dispute, if you are getting bored, the you are under no obligation to read.
It will be interesting if the ST policy changes to reflect that if IA is carried out in the future by any department, then the benefit will be removed.
@fincastle84 - this is a thread about the BA dispute, if you are getting bored, the you are under no obligation to read.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and reinstatement has been offered with loss of seniority, which was turned down by Unite. Seems to me the loss of that is a very dodgy basis for thier proposed legal action.
Also, they need to beware, if ST is considered to be more than a perk then it could well become a benefit in kind and HMRC may want to take another look at its taxable status. This would impact on all airline staff, not just BA CC. How would that go down with the non CC Unite members across the airline sector?
Bottom line? BASSA is out of control in terms of the best interests of all Unite's airline members. Unite need to sort that issue out and maybe we have a solution?
Also, they need to beware, if ST is considered to be more than a perk then it could well become a benefit in kind and HMRC may want to take another look at its taxable status. This would impact on all airline staff, not just BA CC. How would that go down with the non CC Unite members across the airline sector?
Bottom line? BASSA is out of control in terms of the best interests of all Unite's airline members. Unite need to sort that issue out and maybe we have a solution?
Last edited by cym; 29th Jul 2010 at 19:20. Reason: typo
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it could well become a benefit in kind and HMRC may want to take another look at its taxable status
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disciplinary Action of the Top Table
Do any of you on here feel that it is highly unlikely that a senior reps committee would have 5 of the 7 members (taken from the other thread) up for gross misconduct? Do you think it was reasonable for BA to refuse ACAS as a mediator at the panels (well, if you believe BASSA's statements)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
@fincastle84 - this is a thread about the BA dispute, if you are getting bored, the you are under no obligation to read.
Moving on myself I'm off to NBO tomorrow on BA65 so I'll catch up after some quality time in the Mara. Hope to have a couple of great flights there & back.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do any of you on here feel that it is highly unlikely that a senior reps committee would have 5 of the 7 members (taken from the other thread) up for gross misconduct? Do you think it was reasonable for BA to refuse ACAS as a mediator at the panels (well, if you believe BASSA's statements)]
The fact that the action taken from disciplinaries varies from no further action, to written warnings, to demotions and sackings suggests that the company is not just looking to sack troublemakers. And the company did suggest that ACAS could be an observer to confirm normal procedures were being followed.
BASSA claim Duncan Holley's sacking was entirely unjustified. Yet the Employment Tribunal had little difficulty throwing out his demand for immediate reinstatement pointing out that he did not have the option to choose when he worked.
Last edited by LD12986; 29th Jul 2010 at 21:05.
Staff travel and other "perks" (such as groundstaff being allowed to finish early etc) are non-contractural.... don't think there's anyone who essentially disagrees with that ??
The company allows them as an expression of it's appreciation that the staff show their goodwill towards the company in how they work.
That is, the staff demonstrate their goodwill by acting in a way which enhaces the company .. perhaps by not insisting on breaks when it might disrupt customers, not claiming overtime for sake of five minutes extra work, using discretionary time when duty hours are under pressure .. etc, etc...
I believe any company is free to withdraw any of these at any time for any individual or group who have shown their goodwill has been withdrawn.
Equally the staff are entitled at any time to decide that they no longer want the companies goodwill and as long as they work within the terms of their contract that should be OK...
It's an open and freely entered "bargain" on both sides, which can cease at any time on the whim of either side.... without penalty to either side.
As for HMRC - at the moment I believe staff travel is one of those things where the employer pays a "notional" tax .. based on the fact that it is a "casual/inconsistent" perk.
If it's decided that staff travel is a right/contractural benefit then I think it would indeed carry implication not only for all BA staff but for all staff in this industry.
I suggest it would move from a notional tax rate paid by the employer to a firmly taxed benefit in kind which would have to appear on the payslip and be taxed directly to the employee (perhaps along similar lines to company cars with private use allowed).
So then the commuters will be even more unhappy .. maybe faced with getting staff travel back but have to pay tax on it as it's used
That would also increase the cost of the perk to the company. Right now with the state of the industry I suspect that any attempt to get the employer to absorb any extra cost itself would surely fall on deaf ears.....
Whatever way you look at it and whatever you believe the outcome would be .... it's a can of worms waiting to bite
The company allows them as an expression of it's appreciation that the staff show their goodwill towards the company in how they work.
That is, the staff demonstrate their goodwill by acting in a way which enhaces the company .. perhaps by not insisting on breaks when it might disrupt customers, not claiming overtime for sake of five minutes extra work, using discretionary time when duty hours are under pressure .. etc, etc...
I believe any company is free to withdraw any of these at any time for any individual or group who have shown their goodwill has been withdrawn.
Equally the staff are entitled at any time to decide that they no longer want the companies goodwill and as long as they work within the terms of their contract that should be OK...
It's an open and freely entered "bargain" on both sides, which can cease at any time on the whim of either side.... without penalty to either side.
As for HMRC - at the moment I believe staff travel is one of those things where the employer pays a "notional" tax .. based on the fact that it is a "casual/inconsistent" perk.
If it's decided that staff travel is a right/contractural benefit then I think it would indeed carry implication not only for all BA staff but for all staff in this industry.
I suggest it would move from a notional tax rate paid by the employer to a firmly taxed benefit in kind which would have to appear on the payslip and be taxed directly to the employee (perhaps along similar lines to company cars with private use allowed).
So then the commuters will be even more unhappy .. maybe faced with getting staff travel back but have to pay tax on it as it's used
That would also increase the cost of the perk to the company. Right now with the state of the industry I suspect that any attempt to get the employer to absorb any extra cost itself would surely fall on deaf ears.....
Whatever way you look at it and whatever you believe the outcome would be .... it's a can of worms waiting to bite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cym
JT answered the part on tax. As to your last paragraph, I agree with some of it. I have spent most of my working life at BA (although it has been a while since I left), so I am only too aware of how BASSA operate, but in my old department, "I wish we stuck together like the cabin crew" (although I am sure we used a more industrial term for our flying colleagues on both sides of the door), was said many times.
I am a firm believer in people power (members) and it should be a bottom up arrangement. The ideas come from the floor and the reps put flesh onto those ideas and present them. It does appear that the relationship is the wrong way round. But that is only my opinion from afar.
I am a firm believer in people power (members) and it should be a bottom up arrangement. The ideas come from the floor and the reps put flesh onto those ideas and present them. It does appear that the relationship is the wrong way round. But that is only my opinion from afar.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It already is and BA picks up the liability on behalf of it's staff.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 65
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs
Do any of you on here feel that it is highly unlikely that a senior reps committee would have 5 of the 7 members (taken from the other thread) up for gross misconduct?
I have no doubt that BA's actions in respect of the BASSA leadership has the full tacit support of Unite's full time officials who either cannot or dare not remove them from office. As a rep yourself I'd be a bit surprised if you have any support for Everard, ie the one creating the porn website. I'd be rather shocked if that wasn't regarded as being somewhat offensive to your Union's female members and contrary to your Union's equality and diversity policies. What do you think is a suitable punishment for creating pornographic websites and then using keywords etc to link them to that person's employer? For me, I'd have sacked him, just a lot quicker than it took BA.
I chat to a member of BA's cabin crew who has not gone on strike. This person is not prone to exaggerate or hyperbole, but just wants to go to work, pay the bills, enjoy a quiet life. The level of harrasment routinely experienced at work is truly shocking. My criticism of BA would be more that they appear to be too slow in dealing with the matter. Having said that, cabin crew do appear to be a bit of a sensitive lot. I've already offered my contact a spell working with me to toughen them up a bit.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tax on ST
I've answered this point much earlier in this thread, but as it has come up again - the law is that a benefit is taxable on the amount it costs the employer to supply it, not it's market value to the general public. (Company cars are a whole separate issue)
ID90s do not cost the company anything, as the 10% paid covers the cost of admin and meals, and of course the seat would have been unsold anyway.
ID100s do cost the company the cost of admin and food/drink etc, (but not the seat as even though 'firm', staff do still not get on if a passenger comes at the last minute) and BA pays tax on calculated amount on behalf of the employee. By the way, an employer paying an employee's tax bill is also taxable, and that is included in the 'settlement' the employer pays to HMR&C.
ID90s do not cost the company anything, as the 10% paid covers the cost of admin and meals, and of course the seat would have been unsold anyway.
ID100s do cost the company the cost of admin and food/drink etc, (but not the seat as even though 'firm', staff do still not get on if a passenger comes at the last minute) and BA pays tax on calculated amount on behalf of the employee. By the way, an employer paying an employee's tax bill is also taxable, and that is included in the 'settlement' the employer pays to HMR&C.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB
Thanks for your response, I fully appreicate the its not a happy place for you to be and would like to say thanks for your williness to debate on this subject which is hard for all concerned in terms of retaining their jobs, CC or non flying.
The way I read your last post is - 'well if all airline staff are taxed on ST so that (and this is what its all about IMHO) BASSA CSD's dont have to get behind a trolley and serve passengers' its a price worth paying by the majority (10,0000's) to maintain the staus quo by the minorities (100's). How fair is that?
The way I read your last post is - 'well if all airline staff are taxed on ST so that (and this is what its all about IMHO) BASSA CSD's dont have to get behind a trolley and serve passengers' its a price worth paying by the majority (10,0000's) to maintain the staus quo by the minorities (100's). How fair is that?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JayPee28bpr
Don't bring up the Everard incident. I wronged Tiramisu on that one. If there was no dispute, he might have got off, but why get yourself into that position?
As to removal of the reps, I do not agree with you that Unite would in any way support it, for whatever reason. I have never believed in FTO's getting involved at any level, unless asked. For me, any union is a service provider, no more. If businesses offered the same protections to their works councils, that union recognition provided and the state recognised those protections, then why have a union? But the law and big business require a balance, however bad it may be. As others have stated, this dispute will be text book stuff in years to come.
As to removal of the reps, I do not agree with you that Unite would in any way support it, for whatever reason. I have never believed in FTO's getting involved at any level, unless asked. For me, any union is a service provider, no more. If businesses offered the same protections to their works councils, that union recognition provided and the state recognised those protections, then why have a union? But the law and big business require a balance, however bad it may be. As others have stated, this dispute will be text book stuff in years to come.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I read your last post is - 'well if all airline staff are taxed on ST so that (and this is what its all about IMHO) BASSA CSD's dont have to get behind a trolley and serve passengers' its a price worth paying by the majority (10,0000's) to maintain the staus quo by the minorities (100's). How fair is that?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To Cym re St
What about confirmed seats?
BA have it to a fine art, they know their routes and the popularity/busy periods, they don't give out 'firms' unless they are pretty darn sure the seat will be unsold.
Last edited by just an observer; 29th Jul 2010 at 21:54.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB - top bloke - thanks for your candidness. Wish you could get involved and sort this mess out, your are pragmatic and I salute you!
jao - you airline staff? if so when did you last have an st pax offloaded? Am ex crew and I have never seen it, upgraded yes, offloaded no
jao - you airline staff? if so when did you last have an st pax offloaded? Am ex crew and I have never seen it, upgraded yes, offloaded no