BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions V
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Litebulbs
Re SWP and political influence, this only appears to be from the time of the meeting at ACAS when SWP appeared at the meeting, possibly in response to DH texting.
But after that, when there was the bun fight of electing the replacement for Woodly, suddenly there appeared to be a candidate for the CC89 group election called Jerry ?, who was supposedly staunch SWP. Given that CC89 were a quiet branch, suddenly they were listing reasons for the dispute and possible IA, having branch and reps meetings, publically agreeing with DH on reasons for dispute etc. and also sometimes declaring their own list of demands - in other words, stirring the situation, since then they have popped now and again on the CC thread, but have been quiet of late. But are in theory at least, a potential rogue element waiting to strike (in the nicest possible way).
I have just edited my previous post, after checking, LenMc at beginning of March stated that 18 reps had been sacked and 70 suspended, so there can't be many left, as again DH stated some time back that new reps could not be appointed outside a Branch meeting, and one could not be held while a dispute was on. He then asked for unpaid volunteers!, who I presume would not be able to vote in anything anyway, even if anyone applied.
mrpony
Sorry - The hour is, I fear, getting too late and I no longer know what I'm looking for, I'll try again when daylight appears.
But after that, when there was the bun fight of electing the replacement for Woodly, suddenly there appeared to be a candidate for the CC89 group election called Jerry ?, who was supposedly staunch SWP. Given that CC89 were a quiet branch, suddenly they were listing reasons for the dispute and possible IA, having branch and reps meetings, publically agreeing with DH on reasons for dispute etc. and also sometimes declaring their own list of demands - in other words, stirring the situation, since then they have popped now and again on the CC thread, but have been quiet of late. But are in theory at least, a potential rogue element waiting to strike (in the nicest possible way).
I have just edited my previous post, after checking, LenMc at beginning of March stated that 18 reps had been sacked and 70 suspended, so there can't be many left, as again DH stated some time back that new reps could not be appointed outside a Branch meeting, and one could not be held while a dispute was on. He then asked for unpaid volunteers!, who I presume would not be able to vote in anything anyway, even if anyone applied.
mrpony
Sorry - The hour is, I fear, getting too late and I no longer know what I'm looking for, I'll try again when daylight appears.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Thailand
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoth Litebulbs: "These new employees are fully in the hands of the management team and they are on minimum wage (approx). So if Bassa are not involved, then its minimum wage (approx). Why can't people accept that. That is the value that the employer puts on its new staff. "
Litebulbs,
I think the phrase is "That is the value that the airline industry puts on its new staff".
Wasn't the much bandied phrase "Market Rate + 10%"?
Litebulbs,
I think the phrase is "That is the value that the airline industry puts on its new staff".
Wasn't the much bandied phrase "Market Rate + 10%"?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sussex
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't understand is why the 7500+ crew who did not vote strike do not join the PCCC.
They do not have to give up there membership to BASSA or any other union branch and it will not cost them anything at this stage.
By joining the PCCC and thus giving the PCCC enough members to be recognised by BA they would at least get themselves an fresh and untainted alternative to BASSA.
They do not have to give up there membership to BASSA or any other union branch and it will not cost them anything at this stage.
By joining the PCCC and thus giving the PCCC enough members to be recognised by BA they would at least get themselves an fresh and untainted alternative to BASSA.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a major point being missed here.
If BASSA is anything other than humiliated in the final deal, BA are effectively giving themselves years of industrial strife. That being the main point of dispute (ie BA pay your wages, deal with it) I cant see BA moving that far. They do not want the GMB BALPA and other bits of Unite coming back saying BASSA got what they wanted by striking.
If BASSA is anything other than humiliated in the final deal, BA are effectively giving themselves years of industrial strife. That being the main point of dispute (ie BA pay your wages, deal with it) I cant see BA moving that far. They do not want the GMB BALPA and other bits of Unite coming back saying BASSA got what they wanted by striking.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel Mode
Do you think BA is unaware of the fact that it could deal BASSA an utterly humiliating defeat? I don't.
It is far more likely that it is carefully calibrating the nature of the defeat such that nearly 6000 of its employees aren't carrying around great big sulky monkeys on their backs for the next x years.
Do you think BA is unaware of the fact that it could deal BASSA an utterly humiliating defeat? I don't.
It is far more likely that it is carefully calibrating the nature of the defeat such that nearly 6000 of its employees aren't carrying around great big sulky monkeys on their backs for the next x years.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is far more likely that it is carefully calibrating the nature of the defeat such that nearly 6000 of its employees aren't carrying around great big sulky monkeys on their backs for the next x years.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You also have a very hard roster with new varieties of combining long and short haul flights and promotion into one position, rather than one or two grades above junior.
Now I understand that the sole reason for this whole process was to make a substantial saving, but it appears on the face of it that they have wrung every last £ of saving that is possible and within the law.
Still, I do like the hat.
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was much bandied, but as far as I can see, the main crew are at or nearly at the bottom of the pile and this is my point. The employer has been given free hand in setting the terms and conditions of its new staff and that is how it has acted.
You also have a very hard roster with new varieties of combining long and short haul flights and promotion into one position, rather than one or two grades above junior.
Now I understand that the sole reason for this whole process was to make a substantial saving, but it appears on the face of it that they have wrung every last £ of saving that is possible and within the law.
You also have a very hard roster with new varieties of combining long and short haul flights and promotion into one position, rather than one or two grades above junior.
Now I understand that the sole reason for this whole process was to make a substantial saving, but it appears on the face of it that they have wrung every last £ of saving that is possible and within the law.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More than a decade in BA and my experience is that 6000 employees have been sulky monkeys for that whole time. Only difference is that now they have an excuse. Sometimes you have to stop protecting people from themselves.
BA still have the option of acting out a 'no negotiation' stance. It's on the table where Len can clearly see it. Personally I think they'd be better off in the long run if they played hard ball now and called the bluff of the grumps. Maybe that's what'll happen. Still a long way to go.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely right. BA have taken the opportunity they were given. Why Unite as the largest uk union didnt see it is beyond my comprehension. This is an example of idiotic union behaviour and opportunism by a company that cant believe their luck. Thanks Unite, none of this would have happened if you had controlled your branch.
What only the negotiators on both sides will know and we will wait to find out is how an integrated fleet would have worked. Would it have been on the same rostering rules that the existing crew were on, but savings in salary, or the existing crew keep their new salary but new rostering rules?
It would then be down to whether you stay as you are and wither on the vine, or race to the bottom with regard to rostering.
It has been brutal, harsh and ugly, but lawful.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points:
Firstly, as a PoO, my understanding is that LizMalone has been on the Unite Exec committee for some time, not just recently - hence record of her expenses for Exec duties been shown in Unite's accounts.
Secondly, BA is required by law to recognise a "Union" not a "branch" where the appropriate numbers are achieved. Is there sufficient evidence around to possibly demonstrate that the "branch" is not a proper legally constituted organisation for recognition, because it is in breach of its own constitution and Unite's rules ? Could this be LenM's get out of jail card - Unite want to maintain recognition, but unfortunately the capitalist laws mean that the evil employer will use the law to force de-recognition, because the branch is in breach, therefore regrettably Unite has to take appropriate action to ensure that the branch becomes fully compliant, even though it doesn't want to, and bla, bla, bla ?
Firstly, as a PoO, my understanding is that LizMalone has been on the Unite Exec committee for some time, not just recently - hence record of her expenses for Exec duties been shown in Unite's accounts.
Secondly, BA is required by law to recognise a "Union" not a "branch" where the appropriate numbers are achieved. Is there sufficient evidence around to possibly demonstrate that the "branch" is not a proper legally constituted organisation for recognition, because it is in breach of its own constitution and Unite's rules ? Could this be LenM's get out of jail card - Unite want to maintain recognition, but unfortunately the capitalist laws mean that the evil employer will use the law to force de-recognition, because the branch is in breach, therefore regrettably Unite has to take appropriate action to ensure that the branch becomes fully compliant, even though it doesn't want to, and bla, bla, bla ?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,803
Received 134 Likes
on
63 Posts
@ Hipennine
I share your thought about whether Unite will "do something" about BASSA.
Whilst I know we are all working from limited 'facts', which is why this is a Rumour Forum, it does seem in Unite's, and the wider membership's, interest to try to achieve some form of control over BASSA. I would like to think that some of the questions discussed here are raised during discussions with BA.
However, various 'constitutional aspects' might make that very difficult to achieve. I guess it depends on what's written in some obscure part of Unite's Rule Book.
Whilst I know we are all working from limited 'facts', which is why this is a Rumour Forum, it does seem in Unite's, and the wider membership's, interest to try to achieve some form of control over BASSA. I would like to think that some of the questions discussed here are raised during discussions with BA.
However, various 'constitutional aspects' might make that very difficult to achieve. I guess it depends on what's written in some obscure part of Unite's Rule Book.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the alternative?
Somewherene this is an alternative Universe._ Just like ours except that the Big Bang was on a Wednesday._ And outherene the Japanese tell U.S.A. that they have declared war and will attack within a defined number of weeks._ A few days before the Japanese launches its fleet the U.S.A. says would you like an extra four weeks before you attack us._ "Yes please" say the Japanese and announce that the extra four weeks was a Japanese idea._ At the end of the four weeks' extension nothing happens.
A great military victory
A great military victory
Last edited by notlangley; 17th Apr 2011 at 19:42.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
War of Attrition
Given that BA cannot do anything to actively change BASSA's current leadership (neither can Unite, nor CC89/Amicus, nor BASSA's members, nor anyone else on this planet) then it is becoming clearer to me why BA is playing the waiting and defensive game for now.
BA has the travelling public, the VCCs, the Board, the Shareholders and IA Law all on its side and has neutralised BASSA's only weapon the strike. All BA can do is to appear to be negotiating reasonably (with Unite) for now while BASSA's membership and support ever so slowly bleed away.
BA has no need to give pay rises, no need to return ST in full, no need to enter into any new facilities agreements, every reason to continue suspending appropriately misbehaving employees (from both camps), every reason to keep expanding MF, etc., all designed to grind down BASSA's membership which is now its one and only power base.
What BA most certainly will NOT do is to agree to improve its current offer otherwise it will be negotiating against itself. BA knows the only acceptable offer to BASSA is to appoint DH as BA's new CEO so there is no reason to keep offering further concessions whatsoever. Indeed, seeing as Unite reneged last time, BA has every justification to take back the WW & TW agreed ST and other consessions and return the situation to that prior to the start of the negotiations of last October.
Having said all that I still feel that letting Unite/BASSA meet their strike deadline and make the call could only help BA to weaken BASSA's support further and sooner. If they don't strike (yet again) they look like blustering fools, if they do then BA, while knowing less members will take IA with BA's defences stonger than ever before, will be able to take the numbers (and names) of CC walking-out giving it a very clear calibration of the true size of the 'hard-core' problem. This will permit BA to shape its strategy moving forwards from here.
PS. Any weakening of BASSA will also help Unite, PCCC and maybe some further bickering with CC89/Amicus to speed the process further. After all, if Unite can sort things there are a potential 13,500 monthly subs to be collected out there and, contrary to some opinions, a willing employer in BA crying-out for a union with whom to negotiate future collective agreements in a mature manner - maybe BA might increase MF's pay to cover a reasonable union subscription even!
BA has the travelling public, the VCCs, the Board, the Shareholders and IA Law all on its side and has neutralised BASSA's only weapon the strike. All BA can do is to appear to be negotiating reasonably (with Unite) for now while BASSA's membership and support ever so slowly bleed away.
BA has no need to give pay rises, no need to return ST in full, no need to enter into any new facilities agreements, every reason to continue suspending appropriately misbehaving employees (from both camps), every reason to keep expanding MF, etc., all designed to grind down BASSA's membership which is now its one and only power base.
What BA most certainly will NOT do is to agree to improve its current offer otherwise it will be negotiating against itself. BA knows the only acceptable offer to BASSA is to appoint DH as BA's new CEO so there is no reason to keep offering further concessions whatsoever. Indeed, seeing as Unite reneged last time, BA has every justification to take back the WW & TW agreed ST and other consessions and return the situation to that prior to the start of the negotiations of last October.
Having said all that I still feel that letting Unite/BASSA meet their strike deadline and make the call could only help BA to weaken BASSA's support further and sooner. If they don't strike (yet again) they look like blustering fools, if they do then BA, while knowing less members will take IA with BA's defences stonger than ever before, will be able to take the numbers (and names) of CC walking-out giving it a very clear calibration of the true size of the 'hard-core' problem. This will permit BA to shape its strategy moving forwards from here.
PS. Any weakening of BASSA will also help Unite, PCCC and maybe some further bickering with CC89/Amicus to speed the process further. After all, if Unite can sort things there are a potential 13,500 monthly subs to be collected out there and, contrary to some opinions, a willing employer in BA crying-out for a union with whom to negotiate future collective agreements in a mature manner - maybe BA might increase MF's pay to cover a reasonable union subscription even!
Last edited by AV Flyer; 17th Apr 2011 at 16:42.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really feel in these times of austerity, we should substitute negotiate to mitigate. It would probably focus people to where they really are in the employer/employee relationship.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs - I don't think the general management/union negotiation picture is as bad as it seems.
Remember the BA/BASSA debacle is a very extreme example where through poor managment/union communications over many years the two sides developed such a rift and a disproportionate balance of power in favour of the union that a major correction had to be taken by management to restore that balance otherwise the company was sunk.
Look instead to any other more balanced example today where, as we all know, the real power of the strike weapon is in the threat and not in the action. In any reasonable management/union negotiation the balance is better set at the start and management 'hears' the union's message and more often than not a settlement is reached where both sides move forwards still respecting each other before any action is taken.
The BA/BASSA situation is nothing short of bad blood going back decades for which there will be no short-term fix as we can see from some of the old timers' comments on the CC thread - viz. shaking-up/icing FC's beers and general hatred of pilots, disrespect of management's operational change requests, believing to be the most important part of the company, pictures of CEO with red-eyes, "CEO is pants" and "greedy piggy" chants, loutish parties at strike headquarters showing-up in BMWs and thumbing noses at everyone, mob chanting of abusive slogans at crew rest hotels, trashing aircraft crew rest areas, redirecting passengers to porn websites, etc., etc.
If anything, the above highlights perfectly why people generally feel some kind of punishment is in order and why the granting of a bonus and partial restoration of staff travel and disciplinary reviews all really grate. It's also why, when KW granted Unite a 28-day extension, the BASSA mob have interpreted it as a complete and utter capitulation by BA with a 25% pay rise coming their way - they have experienced no other way or lifestyle.
No, this situation has to be brought under control and does not reflect the general management/union negotiation situation in any way shape or form which is alive and working well anywhere else.
Remember the BA/BASSA debacle is a very extreme example where through poor managment/union communications over many years the two sides developed such a rift and a disproportionate balance of power in favour of the union that a major correction had to be taken by management to restore that balance otherwise the company was sunk.
Look instead to any other more balanced example today where, as we all know, the real power of the strike weapon is in the threat and not in the action. In any reasonable management/union negotiation the balance is better set at the start and management 'hears' the union's message and more often than not a settlement is reached where both sides move forwards still respecting each other before any action is taken.
The BA/BASSA situation is nothing short of bad blood going back decades for which there will be no short-term fix as we can see from some of the old timers' comments on the CC thread - viz. shaking-up/icing FC's beers and general hatred of pilots, disrespect of management's operational change requests, believing to be the most important part of the company, pictures of CEO with red-eyes, "CEO is pants" and "greedy piggy" chants, loutish parties at strike headquarters showing-up in BMWs and thumbing noses at everyone, mob chanting of abusive slogans at crew rest hotels, trashing aircraft crew rest areas, redirecting passengers to porn websites, etc., etc.
If anything, the above highlights perfectly why people generally feel some kind of punishment is in order and why the granting of a bonus and partial restoration of staff travel and disciplinary reviews all really grate. It's also why, when KW granted Unite a 28-day extension, the BASSA mob have interpreted it as a complete and utter capitulation by BA with a 25% pay rise coming their way - they have experienced no other way or lifestyle.
No, this situation has to be brought under control and does not reflect the general management/union negotiation situation in any way shape or form which is alive and working well anywhere else.
Last edited by AV Flyer; 17th Apr 2011 at 21:35.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere Warm
Age: 71
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV Flyer -
That was an excellent summation of the current situation.
Litebulbs -
We should not forget that Unite and BA have demonstrated the ability to work together for the benefit of the employee and the company. But we should not also defend the indefensible.
BASSA and CC89 chose not to negotiate, had new conditions imposed, and chose to respond by withdrawing from their Facilities Agreement and calling for IA. But instead of fighting their position - found untenable by a court - they chose to personalize the fight. That is why I cannot see this ending until the leadership of BASSA is replaced with a pragmatic, one may even say a business like group more interested in getting a good deal for cabin crew than personal gain or revenge.
Until then, one can only hope that true professionals like Betty Girl, Ottergirl, HiFlyer and Jetset Lady can hold out until their working environment improves.
TB
That was an excellent summation of the current situation.
Litebulbs -
We should not forget that Unite and BA have demonstrated the ability to work together for the benefit of the employee and the company. But we should not also defend the indefensible.
BASSA and CC89 chose not to negotiate, had new conditions imposed, and chose to respond by withdrawing from their Facilities Agreement and calling for IA. But instead of fighting their position - found untenable by a court - they chose to personalize the fight. That is why I cannot see this ending until the leadership of BASSA is replaced with a pragmatic, one may even say a business like group more interested in getting a good deal for cabin crew than personal gain or revenge.
Until then, one can only hope that true professionals like Betty Girl, Ottergirl, HiFlyer and Jetset Lady can hold out until their working environment improves.
TB
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While those of you on the other side of the pond sleep some of us get to post. Last night I had many wonderful things to say, however cocktail hour caused me to defer. Today I read AV Fyer’s post and he\she said everything I could have said but much more eloquently. I would, however,like to make an observation that may be worthy of discussion.
If KW/BA make any significant concessions to Bassa there may be a hugh backlash from other BA employees as well as a potential backlash from BA’s most valued customers. While it can be said that customers do not care about this dispute and only care about the reliability of the service that may be changing. The reliability of the service has been established and the core business customer is probably sympathetic to BA. Many cc posters have said that they just would like it over so life can be good again. Other cc are not so sanguine. My observation is that the majority of BA’s 30,000 plus other employees will not be so happy if Bassa is able to claim, rightfully or wrong, a victory.
I indicated in an earlier post that an agreement was unlikely given that neither side was advantaged by a compromise that the other side was likely to accept. BA is doing just fine in the current situation and Bassa, at least Bassa leadership, is also content. LB pointed out that BA has an incentive to settle because of the financial damage the threat of IA is causing. While this is certainly correct the financial damage is decreasing day by day. BA must evaluate the damage caused by the current disagreement with the consequences of any settlement.
The next 28 days will be interesting. The recent “happy talk” may develop and provide some type of accommodation or it may be just “happy talk”.
If KW/BA make any significant concessions to Bassa there may be a hugh backlash from other BA employees as well as a potential backlash from BA’s most valued customers. While it can be said that customers do not care about this dispute and only care about the reliability of the service that may be changing. The reliability of the service has been established and the core business customer is probably sympathetic to BA. Many cc posters have said that they just would like it over so life can be good again. Other cc are not so sanguine. My observation is that the majority of BA’s 30,000 plus other employees will not be so happy if Bassa is able to claim, rightfully or wrong, a victory.
I indicated in an earlier post that an agreement was unlikely given that neither side was advantaged by a compromise that the other side was likely to accept. BA is doing just fine in the current situation and Bassa, at least Bassa leadership, is also content. LB pointed out that BA has an incentive to settle because of the financial damage the threat of IA is causing. While this is certainly correct the financial damage is decreasing day by day. BA must evaluate the damage caused by the current disagreement with the consequences of any settlement.
The next 28 days will be interesting. The recent “happy talk” may develop and provide some type of accommodation or it may be just “happy talk”.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's hope peace breaks out soon. If and when it does BASSA members may care to question some of the following fundamental principles about the way things work that are dictated by the rules under which it operates:
1. Key positions in the branch hierarchy can be filled by the same people indefinitely.
2. The Branch Secretary, though paid as a full-time employee of BA, is entitled to an honorarium (payment) defined only as 50% of the 'Branch Administration Allowance'. NOTE: This should not apply currently as DH is now not employed by BA.
3. The branch accounts are audited by two people appointed internally from the CC community. This is entirely irregular and is specifically prohibited by Unite in its rules, as well as in the relevant legislation.
4. The branch committee has wide-ranging emergency powers - it decides which circumstances allow these to be invoked - that permit it to do virtually anything it wants e.g. perpetuating the tenure of the Chair and Branch Sec despite the requirement for postal ballots every two years eslewhere.
5. Changes to the rules proposed by every-day members are only possible in the most unlikely circumstances. A change motion has to be submitted with the support of 100 members, 28 days before a meeting that takes place every 2 years. At that meeting the change has to receive a 2/3 majority vote before then being tested by postal ballot which, again, has to return a 2/3 majority. Change can be introduced by the Branch Committee far more easily and in emergencies without reference to the members.
6. The key meeting that is open to all members, and at which a lot of the 'business' is done, is the one that happens every two years mentioned above, The Biennial Meeting. This is how it is apparently defined in the branch rules:
There shall be a Biennial General Meeting of all the members of the Fund by means of a specific Branch item at the first meeting of the Branch in each Biennial period.
Is that clear??!! And how many members ( out of 8-9000 or even 10000) ever attend?
I wouldn't be happy if my tennis club were run like this. Particularly if the club committee could self-declare an emergency which removed the need for democracy.
1. Key positions in the branch hierarchy can be filled by the same people indefinitely.
2. The Branch Secretary, though paid as a full-time employee of BA, is entitled to an honorarium (payment) defined only as 50% of the 'Branch Administration Allowance'. NOTE: This should not apply currently as DH is now not employed by BA.
3. The branch accounts are audited by two people appointed internally from the CC community. This is entirely irregular and is specifically prohibited by Unite in its rules, as well as in the relevant legislation.
4. The branch committee has wide-ranging emergency powers - it decides which circumstances allow these to be invoked - that permit it to do virtually anything it wants e.g. perpetuating the tenure of the Chair and Branch Sec despite the requirement for postal ballots every two years eslewhere.
5. Changes to the rules proposed by every-day members are only possible in the most unlikely circumstances. A change motion has to be submitted with the support of 100 members, 28 days before a meeting that takes place every 2 years. At that meeting the change has to receive a 2/3 majority vote before then being tested by postal ballot which, again, has to return a 2/3 majority. Change can be introduced by the Branch Committee far more easily and in emergencies without reference to the members.
6. The key meeting that is open to all members, and at which a lot of the 'business' is done, is the one that happens every two years mentioned above, The Biennial Meeting. This is how it is apparently defined in the branch rules:
There shall be a Biennial General Meeting of all the members of the Fund by means of a specific Branch item at the first meeting of the Branch in each Biennial period.
Is that clear??!! And how many members ( out of 8-9000 or even 10000) ever attend?
I wouldn't be happy if my tennis club were run like this. Particularly if the club committee could self-declare an emergency which removed the need for democracy.
Last edited by mrpony; 18th Apr 2011 at 16:12. Reason: principles not als
