BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A (possibly silly) question from an observer, are the Hong Kong staff employed in Hong Kong on local contracts? if so why would UK law be relevent? or, are they on UK contracts?
If this went against BA what would the implications be for, as an example, someone who is employed by BA who lives/works in France working at CDG as local managers? Could BA then say to that person you are now on a UK contract with the following xyz reductions in T&Cs? and if you don't like it you can blame the unions as they won a case to say that overseas employees should be treated as though they were in the UK?
If this went against BA what would the implications be for, as an example, someone who is employed by BA who lives/works in France working at CDG as local managers? Could BA then say to that person you are now on a UK contract with the following xyz reductions in T&Cs? and if you don't like it you can blame the unions as they won a case to say that overseas employees should be treated as though they were in the UK?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Under the Long Grey Cloud
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Ms Mak retired at 45.....in accordance with her employment contract.
Perhaps Unite would like all overseas employees of UK companies to be subject to UK terms and conditions............
Maybe all BA HKG staff would like UK Taxation rates too..........
Perhaps Unite would like all overseas employees of UK companies to be subject to UK terms and conditions............
Maybe all BA HKG staff would like UK Taxation rates too..........
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will be interesting to see what the High Court makes of the case. I'm not aware of the details so can't comment on the specifics.
What I will say is that it is not unusual for the High Court to throw cases back to the Tribunals with the words "SEE ME" scrawled over their decisions.
What I will say is that it is not unusual for the High Court to throw cases back to the Tribunals with the words "SEE ME" scrawled over their decisions.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overseas employees
Think this is a very dangerous game for Unite to play. This could blow up rather spectacularly on them. If the precedent is set that overseas staff should have UK T's and C's applied to their contracts then an awful lot of employers may just turn around and do just that - to the detriment of the workers concerned. Take the situation with employees in France. The immediate impact would be that their normal retirement age would be pushed out to 65 instead of the current 60. Then see the ripple around the rest of Europe. Add on that UK T's and C's are affected by UK statute and all of a sudden you start to find a load of variations occur, like limits on hours worked etc. Whilst this may be beneficial to the employee in some aspects, it may also be limiting in others. And it won't only be BA who will have to take this route, all other UK companies who employ staff overseas are similarly caught. Net result is that the number of non UK staff employed by these outfits may decline substantially.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: England
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the court find in favour of Unite would foreign companies with UK based workers not be able to employ those same workers on the T&Cs based on the laws of the nation of domicile of the company. i.e. Man City footballers employed on Thai T&Cs or workers at a Citron dealership insisting on a 35 hr week etc. In my opinion it would end in chaos.
Regards
Regards
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If BA lose the appeal and the law recognise that HK based cabin crew should have the same T&C’s as the UK ones, could the court insist that the effectivity of this law be retroactive (i.e should Ms. Mak and others be compensated)? After all, Ms. Mak and others have already signed their contracts agreeing to the set terms and conditions with respect to retirement age at the time, which is in line with the regulation in their home country.
Some will undoubtedly argue that the T & C that the HK cabin crew have signed was unfair in the first place so it makes it void. But I disagree with this. I think that at the time when BA introduced this separate contract for HK cc’s, it was acting in good faith that it was not breaking any regulation. At the time, there was no specific law recognised that says the T&C’s of all employee groups of a UK company should be the same regardless of where they are based.
Therefore, wouldn’t it be likely that this new regulation on T&C should only affect some existing HK CC’s and future ones, but definitely not those who have already retired? Much like when UK law was changed with regards to retirement age in UK, there is always a cut-off point where the change is enforced.
Some will undoubtedly argue that the T & C that the HK cabin crew have signed was unfair in the first place so it makes it void. But I disagree with this. I think that at the time when BA introduced this separate contract for HK cc’s, it was acting in good faith that it was not breaking any regulation. At the time, there was no specific law recognised that says the T&C’s of all employee groups of a UK company should be the same regardless of where they are based.
Therefore, wouldn’t it be likely that this new regulation on T&C should only affect some existing HK CC’s and future ones, but definitely not those who have already retired? Much like when UK law was changed with regards to retirement age in UK, there is always a cut-off point where the change is enforced.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are all blowing this HK crew thing out of all proportion.
These crew are members of Unite (like a lot of other crew) and that is the reason why unite have been representing them. I believe this issue has been around for a long time and started before the IA.
The reason it is being looked at by a UK court is because the HK crew WORK on a UK registered aircraft. I doubt any verdict will affect people that work on the ground overseas as they work in another country.
Some of our overseas crew earn more than UK based crew because of the cost of living in their country and local competition but this action is not about their pay it is about their forced retirement at 45.
I am amazed that any of you think a practice of making HK crew retire at 45 could be a good thing or that you feel that HK based crew don't deserve to have union recognition.
I am unhappy with a lot of what Bassa and Amicus have been doing but in this case I think they are actually representing their members as they should be.
These crew are members of Unite (like a lot of other crew) and that is the reason why unite have been representing them. I believe this issue has been around for a long time and started before the IA.
The reason it is being looked at by a UK court is because the HK crew WORK on a UK registered aircraft. I doubt any verdict will affect people that work on the ground overseas as they work in another country.
Some of our overseas crew earn more than UK based crew because of the cost of living in their country and local competition but this action is not about their pay it is about their forced retirement at 45.
I am amazed that any of you think a practice of making HK crew retire at 45 could be a good thing or that you feel that HK based crew don't deserve to have union recognition.
I am unhappy with a lot of what Bassa and Amicus have been doing but in this case I think they are actually representing their members as they should be.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HKG Crews
Some of you appear to have been to close to this for too long: If you can only see everything as being within the context of the existing IR, then possibly you need to step back for a moment.
UNITE & BASSA, like almost everything and everybody else on the planet, are neither wholly good, nor wholly bad. They make some misguided and irrational decisions, certainly, but are also capable, on occasion, of doing things that are valid, and fairly within their remit.
This thread continues its slow degeneration into an anti-Union Hamster Wheel - matched in tone only by the Daily Mail leader and letters pages. A good indicator of a thread feeding on itself and becoming self-internalised is the number of "quotes" both of external sources and others postings, matched by the ever-decreasing number of contributors.
Please try and raise your game a little. If there is nothing to say, or if you have nothing to say, then don't say it. This thread will remain open, and if/when trouble flares up again, you'll all be able to return to it and debate the wright/wrongs of the situation.
UNITE & BASSA, like almost everything and everybody else on the planet, are neither wholly good, nor wholly bad. They make some misguided and irrational decisions, certainly, but are also capable, on occasion, of doing things that are valid, and fairly within their remit.
This thread continues its slow degeneration into an anti-Union Hamster Wheel - matched in tone only by the Daily Mail leader and letters pages. A good indicator of a thread feeding on itself and becoming self-internalised is the number of "quotes" both of external sources and others postings, matched by the ever-decreasing number of contributors.
Please try and raise your game a little. If there is nothing to say, or if you have nothing to say, then don't say it. This thread will remain open, and if/when trouble flares up again, you'll all be able to return to it and debate the wright/wrongs of the situation.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is well known, by many of you, that I have been very unhappy about how the union has handled this dispute and that I felt I had to resign because I felt the race to strike was a mistake.
However, having said all that, I have to say that Amicus years ago took BA to court about the then SUPPORT contract. This contract, was at that time, the only way to be part time. You had to make yourself available to work for at least 10 days a month but BA would only give you work if they needed you. You only got paid if you worked and got no pension or holiday entitlement. So when BA was over crewed you would earn nothing but you still had to be available on the days you had registered your willingness to work, which was a least 10 days a month.
Amicus took BA to court, to say this effectively discriminated against women and won their case. This led to BA offering proper part time jobs with the same benefits as full time crew.
This has, actually, been good for BA too because in times of being over crewed BA are able to offer people to move to part time and thus adjust their crewing levels easily, instead of having to pay full time crew to sit a home, which used to happen in the past.
The point I am trying to make is that, big companies always try to work to the lowest denominator unless they are forced to change. Sometimes the activities of unions are good for employees and mankind as a whole. In the case of the HK crew, I believe this will be the case.
However, having said all that, I have to say that Amicus years ago took BA to court about the then SUPPORT contract. This contract, was at that time, the only way to be part time. You had to make yourself available to work for at least 10 days a month but BA would only give you work if they needed you. You only got paid if you worked and got no pension or holiday entitlement. So when BA was over crewed you would earn nothing but you still had to be available on the days you had registered your willingness to work, which was a least 10 days a month.
Amicus took BA to court, to say this effectively discriminated against women and won their case. This led to BA offering proper part time jobs with the same benefits as full time crew.
This has, actually, been good for BA too because in times of being over crewed BA are able to offer people to move to part time and thus adjust their crewing levels easily, instead of having to pay full time crew to sit a home, which used to happen in the past.
The point I am trying to make is that, big companies always try to work to the lowest denominator unless they are forced to change. Sometimes the activities of unions are good for employees and mankind as a whole. In the case of the HK crew, I believe this will be the case.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure I can agree with your logic Betty Girl as limiting it to just people who work on UK registered aircraft seems a very artificial boundary. Where do you realisticaly draw the line?
What about non UK nationals working on other UK registered "bases" - be it shipping or haulage?
Or local employees on UK military bases (ie British soil)? Gurkhas? Different rules apply to those based in HK before 1997 and after ... on the basis that they were based in HK prior to 1997 - Court of Appeal emphasises where they are based and where they are expected to retire to is the important criteria.
Or turn the logic around - could a UK based airline register their aircraft elsewhere and retrospectively apply local terms and conditions to UK based employees who work on the aircraft?
What about non UK nationals working on other UK registered "bases" - be it shipping or haulage?
Or local employees on UK military bases (ie British soil)? Gurkhas? Different rules apply to those based in HK before 1997 and after ... on the basis that they were based in HK prior to 1997 - Court of Appeal emphasises where they are based and where they are expected to retire to is the important criteria.
Or turn the logic around - could a UK based airline register their aircraft elsewhere and retrospectively apply local terms and conditions to UK based employees who work on the aircraft?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overseas Operations
On the very thin base of argument being presented here, you could equally say that aviation pay and T&C's could be that of the country of manufacture of the aircraft - that then leads to saying that shipping companies should give their staff the wages and T&C's of the country that built the ships.
Neither of these work as a proposition any more than paying local staff around the world the same as HQ based or paid staff get. The wages and T&C's of any people around the world, employed in vitually any industry, is that of the local rate for the skills involved. This is linked to the need that anyone in a given country has, in terms of income to live in accordance with their needs and status for a given job. If you don't pay enough, you don't get either the quantity or quality of worker desired and your product suffers accordingly, as does your operation. What you get has no relevence to them or their lives.
The airline industry grew alongside and in competition with the shipping industry. Whilst in the early years of the 1920's, the great shipping lines were the flag carriers of the nations and the vast majority of employees were on the vessels, hired and paid by Head Office, they employed a large network of local arms length employees around the world in the form of agents, which was and still is to the benefit of both parties and the economy of the countries in all forms of international trading.
Now in the twentyfirst century, through various competitive and financial pressures the shipping industry has evolved into establishing its operating bases and costs around the 'flags of convenience', to achieve the greatest base profit and possibly the most easiest judicial setup - so Lufthansa could decide that its flag and HQ address, should be that of the Congo, with all staff being paid a fair congolese wage, other than those elsewhere in the world, who are of course under their local law, who would also be paid an 'overseas' living allowance, to bring them up to the normal levels of pay for the country in which they were working. Anyone care to join Aer Lingus and get the increased levels of taxation and other reduced 'benefits' about to be applied?
It has to be said that this whole publicity puffball dreamt up by Unite, is a personal ego trip by Len Mc, for the glory of the cause of bringing another UK industry to a standstill and bringing down the Government, assisted by two minor squeakers, Amicus/CC89, who are now looking for trouble and being driven by a marxist group and, of course our old manic depressive Bassa, who have found that they don't rule the world after all, but will do anything to hurt BA and WW.
Whew - Apologies, that was longer than I thought!! E&OE
Neither of these work as a proposition any more than paying local staff around the world the same as HQ based or paid staff get. The wages and T&C's of any people around the world, employed in vitually any industry, is that of the local rate for the skills involved. This is linked to the need that anyone in a given country has, in terms of income to live in accordance with their needs and status for a given job. If you don't pay enough, you don't get either the quantity or quality of worker desired and your product suffers accordingly, as does your operation. What you get has no relevence to them or their lives.
The airline industry grew alongside and in competition with the shipping industry. Whilst in the early years of the 1920's, the great shipping lines were the flag carriers of the nations and the vast majority of employees were on the vessels, hired and paid by Head Office, they employed a large network of local arms length employees around the world in the form of agents, which was and still is to the benefit of both parties and the economy of the countries in all forms of international trading.
Now in the twentyfirst century, through various competitive and financial pressures the shipping industry has evolved into establishing its operating bases and costs around the 'flags of convenience', to achieve the greatest base profit and possibly the most easiest judicial setup - so Lufthansa could decide that its flag and HQ address, should be that of the Congo, with all staff being paid a fair congolese wage, other than those elsewhere in the world, who are of course under their local law, who would also be paid an 'overseas' living allowance, to bring them up to the normal levels of pay for the country in which they were working. Anyone care to join Aer Lingus and get the increased levels of taxation and other reduced 'benefits' about to be applied?
It has to be said that this whole publicity puffball dreamt up by Unite, is a personal ego trip by Len Mc, for the glory of the cause of bringing another UK industry to a standstill and bringing down the Government, assisted by two minor squeakers, Amicus/CC89, who are now looking for trouble and being driven by a marxist group and, of course our old manic depressive Bassa, who have found that they don't rule the world after all, but will do anything to hurt BA and WW.
Whew - Apologies, that was longer than I thought!! E&OE
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This issue about HK based crew and their retirement age, not their pay, has been going on a lot longer than this industrial dispute.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Len McClusky who has nothing to do with the day to day running of Bassa and is only involved now because of the strike.
Unite/Bassa/Amicus have a duty to represent all their members and that includes any international crew who are members and this is something that they felt was unfair to them. It is perfectly normal and right that their union represents their views too and tests this in the courts.
I just can't see why any of you have a problem with this.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Len McClusky who has nothing to do with the day to day running of Bassa and is only involved now because of the strike.
Unite/Bassa/Amicus have a duty to represent all their members and that includes any international crew who are members and this is something that they felt was unfair to them. It is perfectly normal and right that their union represents their views too and tests this in the courts.
I just can't see why any of you have a problem with this.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@TightSlot.....Spot on Sir...
This case has nothing to do with the strike in any shape or form. Seems many are forgetting this is the 3rd appeal so it will probably be won again. The ramifications will not be as life threatening as some are trying to make out.
Meanwhile it all seems quiet on the western front at the moment....I have been told that there have been 'informal' 'Unofficial' talks taking place between the top tables. Nothing surprising there, but, while people are talking at whatever level there is always hope....
This case has nothing to do with the strike in any shape or form. Seems many are forgetting this is the 3rd appeal so it will probably be won again. The ramifications will not be as life threatening as some are trying to make out.
Meanwhile it all seems quiet on the western front at the moment....I have been told that there have been 'informal' 'Unofficial' talks taking place between the top tables. Nothing surprising there, but, while people are talking at whatever level there is always hope....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the dispute. It is now over a month since the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case on crewing levels. Has Unite actually sought leave to appeal to The Supreme Court? Correct me if I'm wrong but the time limit for leave to appeal is 28 days?
Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225 (03 November 2010)
Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225 (03 November 2010)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hong Kong case
Hi Betty Girl,
Whilst appreciating that this is getting to be an ancient problem, non the less times have moved on since the original decision in 2008, in terms of the union makeup and activity. Unite were/are trying to ensure that both Bassa and Amicus are recognised solely as branches of Unite and not as negotiating or decision making units in their own right, hence keeping them out of negotiations with BA on the current CC dispute. In the meantime both appear to be fighting for political independance of action.
So its now Unite, in the form of Len Mc as the new and ongoing joint/ general secretary, who are looking to seek the limelight, nothing has been said AFAIK from either of the two branches.
That said, it does seem a ridiculous situation whereby a local contract of employment in HK should be the subject of an employment tribunal in the UK, but obviously there must be some connection for the UK legal involvement - I'm not going there, I rattled on enough in the previous post.
Yes, unions do have a role to play in the normal run of things and should be of assistance to their members, unfortunately with the politics and infighting that have arisen on the union side in the past two years, it appears that the members needs currently have no relevance or priority other than to be used to make political or financial gain.
The other problem of course, is the unique working and lifestyle structure of CC, which despite modern technology must be a nightmare for communication purposes for both BA and CC, especially where the union as the only cohesive force, succeeds in convincing its members not to even read the communications from the employer and, the members are encouraged not to discuss issues among themselves but simply believe as gospel any statements made by the union. This way lies the anarchy of the past 12 - 18 months.
Solutions? - not with the present bunfight going on and with due respect, Ms Mak's problem is actually irrelevant unless political points can be made by the union and become a cause celebre.
Whilst appreciating that this is getting to be an ancient problem, non the less times have moved on since the original decision in 2008, in terms of the union makeup and activity. Unite were/are trying to ensure that both Bassa and Amicus are recognised solely as branches of Unite and not as negotiating or decision making units in their own right, hence keeping them out of negotiations with BA on the current CC dispute. In the meantime both appear to be fighting for political independance of action.
So its now Unite, in the form of Len Mc as the new and ongoing joint/ general secretary, who are looking to seek the limelight, nothing has been said AFAIK from either of the two branches.
That said, it does seem a ridiculous situation whereby a local contract of employment in HK should be the subject of an employment tribunal in the UK, but obviously there must be some connection for the UK legal involvement - I'm not going there, I rattled on enough in the previous post.
Yes, unions do have a role to play in the normal run of things and should be of assistance to their members, unfortunately with the politics and infighting that have arisen on the union side in the past two years, it appears that the members needs currently have no relevance or priority other than to be used to make political or financial gain.
The other problem of course, is the unique working and lifestyle structure of CC, which despite modern technology must be a nightmare for communication purposes for both BA and CC, especially where the union as the only cohesive force, succeeds in convincing its members not to even read the communications from the employer and, the members are encouraged not to discuss issues among themselves but simply believe as gospel any statements made by the union. This way lies the anarchy of the past 12 - 18 months.
Solutions? - not with the present bunfight going on and with due respect, Ms Mak's problem is actually irrelevant unless political points can be made by the union and become a cause celebre.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I will have to disagree with you.
These court proceedings have been going on for many years and the HK crew member test case, supported by Unite's legal department, has won every time.
This is an example of a union doing good work for it's members.
Are you suggesting that foreign workers, working on the aircraft of a British Airline, don't deserve to have a union to represent them like all the other crew on that aircraft. Or maybe you think it is OK for BA treat foreign crew in a different way. These crew work alongside British BA cabin crew on the same aircraft. It is not about how much they earn, it's about when they retire.
Some International crew, like Japanese crew, earn more than British crew and I am pretty sure that they retire at a normal retirement age. So this case is about right and wrong not about the current industrial action.
Having said that it is hardly strange that the Union would want to highlight the way BA treat their International cabin crew. I would if I were in their situation.
I am not going to argue with you anymore about this side issue. We will have to agree to disagree.
These court proceedings have been going on for many years and the HK crew member test case, supported by Unite's legal department, has won every time.
This is an example of a union doing good work for it's members.
Are you suggesting that foreign workers, working on the aircraft of a British Airline, don't deserve to have a union to represent them like all the other crew on that aircraft. Or maybe you think it is OK for BA treat foreign crew in a different way. These crew work alongside British BA cabin crew on the same aircraft. It is not about how much they earn, it's about when they retire.
Some International crew, like Japanese crew, earn more than British crew and I am pretty sure that they retire at a normal retirement age. So this case is about right and wrong not about the current industrial action.
Having said that it is hardly strange that the Union would want to highlight the way BA treat their International cabin crew. I would if I were in their situation.
I am not going to argue with you anymore about this side issue. We will have to agree to disagree.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If UNITE win this and the HK crew and by extension all crew from overseas bases gain the right to UK terms and conditions, there will remain little benefit for BA to keep them on. The risk being run is that is that BA will simply close the base and employ more UK based CC. More MF cabin crew.
As has already been said the industrial relations landscape has moved on since this case was started and is not directly related to the current dispute. However, the same UNITE that has been at the heart of the current dispute and has shown a stunning lack of strategic thinking is behind this too. Winning this is likely to have for more consequences than just allowing HK based crew to stay on to 60. This cannot be viewed in isolation, the reality is that the current state of affairs will impact upon the result of this case and vice versa.
The question at the crux of this is whether overseas employees of UK based companies are entitled to work under UK industrial relations laws. If they are then this ruling will have massive repercussions for UK industry and will cost the UK economy dearly.
As has already been said the industrial relations landscape has moved on since this case was started and is not directly related to the current dispute. However, the same UNITE that has been at the heart of the current dispute and has shown a stunning lack of strategic thinking is behind this too. Winning this is likely to have for more consequences than just allowing HK based crew to stay on to 60. This cannot be viewed in isolation, the reality is that the current state of affairs will impact upon the result of this case and vice versa.
The question at the crux of this is whether overseas employees of UK based companies are entitled to work under UK industrial relations laws. If they are then this ruling will have massive repercussions for UK industry and will cost the UK economy dearly.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or is it? Would it not be similar to crews employed on British registered ships? (One of the reasons for 'Flags of convenience' is to avoid regulations and taxes and to employ cheap crew.
It seems to be upsetting some people who only want to bash whatever the Unions do. Usually the people who have no idea about the amount of good that they do.
Some posters really must stop looking at every contact BA and the TU have and connecting it with the current dispute.....Take a look in the mirror and realise how obsessed you have become!!
It seems to be upsetting some people who only want to bash whatever the Unions do. Usually the people who have no idea about the amount of good that they do.
Some posters really must stop looking at every contact BA and the TU have and connecting it with the current dispute.....Take a look in the mirror and realise how obsessed you have become!!
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question at the crux of this is whether overseas employees of UK based companies are entitled to work under UK industrial relations laws. If they are then this ruling will have massive repercussions for UK industry and will cost the UK economy dearly.
Dont know whether Australian law is better ot worse than the UK's, but you can't have it both ways, and select the jurisdiction that suits you best.. and we know that many many other countries do not afford their employees the protections that the UK and Europe do....