BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions V
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVF
The meeting can't be avoided because the rules don't allow a strike mandate to be changed without endorsement by the members. The rules can't be changed without a members' meeting either.
The meeting was always going to happen. It's just a question of timing, attendance, and emphasis.
The meeting was always going to happen. It's just a question of timing, attendance, and emphasis.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: -)
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VintageKrug said on 9 May 2011 in another place
Please VK would you set out your calculations that produces the figure of £1.5m per annum.
Last month I did a simple calculation that indicated that the lower limit was not much more than £0.5m per annum: -___link
Although I did not say so, I imagined that the actual figure was be less than £1m per annum._ Therefore I was quite unprepared for the £1.5m per annum figure._ I am sceptical of this figure - but am ready to see your calculation set out for all to see.
Let BASSA put its not inconsiderable £1.5m per annum income where its mouth is.
Last month I did a simple calculation that indicated that the lower limit was not much more than £0.5m per annum: -___link
Although I did not say so, I imagined that the actual figure was be less than £1m per annum._ Therefore I was quite unprepared for the £1.5m per annum figure._ I am sceptical of this figure - but am ready to see your calculation set out for all to see.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrpony
But surely endorsement by the members means a secret postal ballot for which (as they have done before) BA would be pleased to extend the strike deadline to accommodate? In which case no meeting would be required.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVF
No it doesn't mean that unfortunately. This is how it reads:
They've already voted to strike, so a change requires a meeting in any event.
It's a bummer.
(a) Where a ballot on an industrial matter has taken place, then any proposed change will only be agreed, in principle, by the unanimous decision of the full committee.
(b) Any such proposals should also be referred to a Branch Meeting and subject to ratification by the membership
(c) Where unanimous agreement is not reached, then the matter must be referred back to an emergency meeting of the full Branch, for acceptance prior to ratification by the membership. As best practise the committee will ensure that there is a communicator responsible for reporting back to all reps and membership during negotiations. The communicator will not take part in negotiations.
(b) Any such proposals should also be referred to a Branch Meeting and subject to ratification by the membership
(c) Where unanimous agreement is not reached, then the matter must be referred back to an emergency meeting of the full Branch, for acceptance prior to ratification by the membership. As best practise the committee will ensure that there is a communicator responsible for reporting back to all reps and membership during negotiations. The communicator will not take part in negotiations.
It's a bummer.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GB
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The £1.5m is indeed based on a figure of TOTAL receipts, some of which are remitted to Unite who (I believe to be the case, though may be wrong) then passes a considerable proportion to The Labour Party.
I do not have any reference point to know for certain what actually goes to Unite and what is retained by BASSA. Hence the need to publish accounts.
I am in total agreement with your lower estimate being around £500,000, though given some people do seem to pay more than others, and BASSA membership is down some 5,000 people on its historic high water mark, BASSA seems to have been in receipt of between £500,000-£1m per annum for many years, even after its Unite contributions are accounted for.
The point is that BASSA has control of £1.5m income, and when such large sums are involved, even holding the monthly Unite portion on 30 day deposit yields significant interest.
£500k-£1m is still a considerable sum to have at anyone organisations disposal annually, and especially so as there is no way should be spending £500k on its members or administration.
If you'll forgive me, we have had chapter and verse on the BASSA accounts and while that was indeed food for thought during leaner times, I think there are more pressing and relevant matters to be debated this week.
Will BA move to make a slew of Pursers redundant, or is it prohibited from offering redundancy while Industrial Dispute is underway?
Is it true another BASSA rep has been suspended?
I think the Offer put to unite will not be materially different from the October 2010 submission:
http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/151010_...llectivev6.doc
I do not have any reference point to know for certain what actually goes to Unite and what is retained by BASSA. Hence the need to publish accounts.
I am in total agreement with your lower estimate being around £500,000, though given some people do seem to pay more than others, and BASSA membership is down some 5,000 people on its historic high water mark, BASSA seems to have been in receipt of between £500,000-£1m per annum for many years, even after its Unite contributions are accounted for.
The point is that BASSA has control of £1.5m income, and when such large sums are involved, even holding the monthly Unite portion on 30 day deposit yields significant interest.
£500k-£1m is still a considerable sum to have at anyone organisations disposal annually, and especially so as there is no way should be spending £500k on its members or administration.
If you'll forgive me, we have had chapter and verse on the BASSA accounts and while that was indeed food for thought during leaner times, I think there are more pressing and relevant matters to be debated this week.
Will BA move to make a slew of Pursers redundant, or is it prohibited from offering redundancy while Industrial Dispute is underway?
Is it true another BASSA rep has been suspended?
I think the Offer put to unite will not be materially different from the October 2010 submission:
http://uniteba.com/ESW/Files/151010_...llectivev6.doc
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Stevenage
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But surely endorsement by the members means a secret postal ballot for which (as they have done before) BA would be pleased to extend the strike deadline to accommodate?
So the barrier of needing to make a decision this week shouldnt really exist in my opionion.
If the Union wants to be democractic and counsult all its members, then it can do so, and get a new mandate, if that is what they decide.
To have a decission this week, by a select BASSA few, with a show of hands is a rushed measure, to achieve a desired outcome, and (again) fails any democratic scrutiny.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrpony
What are the BASSA executive voting rules for carrying a motion in an emergency meeting?
Assuming Dawdler's rumour to be correct, that BASSA's GS is on his own while the rest of the BASSA committee are in favour of acceptance, then as you have pointed out the lack of unanimity would trigger an emergency meeting of the committee.
If the emergency meeting only requires, say, a 2/3rds majority then assuming the committee is three or greater, including the GS, the motion to accept BA's offer would pass.
With the support of the majority of the committee then the Branch meeting for ratification would become a bun fight between how many of the GS's supporters can be crammed into the tent versus supporters of the rest of the committee and for once there would most certainly be a dissenting show of hands which would need to be managed on the floor.
This whole performance would need scrutinising and counting very carefully by an independent auditor to make sure of fair play among people who have shown a distinct lack of integrity on many prior occasions.
Ludicrous to be thinking that this is what BASSA interprets as 'democracy' but it does seem very plausible under the current circumstances!
All conjecture, of course.
Assuming Dawdler's rumour to be correct, that BASSA's GS is on his own while the rest of the BASSA committee are in favour of acceptance, then as you have pointed out the lack of unanimity would trigger an emergency meeting of the committee.
If the emergency meeting only requires, say, a 2/3rds majority then assuming the committee is three or greater, including the GS, the motion to accept BA's offer would pass.
With the support of the majority of the committee then the Branch meeting for ratification would become a bun fight between how many of the GS's supporters can be crammed into the tent versus supporters of the rest of the committee and for once there would most certainly be a dissenting show of hands which would need to be managed on the floor.
This whole performance would need scrutinising and counting very carefully by an independent auditor to make sure of fair play among people who have shown a distinct lack of integrity on many prior occasions.
Ludicrous to be thinking that this is what BASSA interprets as 'democracy' but it does seem very plausible under the current circumstances!
All conjecture, of course.
Last edited by AV Flyer; 10th May 2011 at 10:37.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVF
The rules on voting are quite simple:
It looks like a simple majority by show of hands. You may find a closer textual analysis informs you differently. I think the second part of this clause is a clumsy addition and it has been pointed out elsewhere that as such it may be unconstitutional because it subverts the original meaning instead of qualifying or moderating it.
Voting on general matters as determined by the Committee, may be put to the Branch meeting and decided by a show of hands. On all issues of a substantial nature voting shall be by means of a postal ballot of the relevant section of the Branch Community directly affected.
Where an issue is deemed by at least a two-thirds majority vote of the Branch Committee to be of such an extreme importance and urgent nature and where a postal vote would be impractical or inappropriate decision could be placed before a BASSA 1/2000 Branch meeting for an immediate decision.
Where an issue is deemed by at least a two-thirds majority vote of the Branch Committee to be of such an extreme importance and urgent nature and where a postal vote would be impractical or inappropriate decision could be placed before a BASSA 1/2000 Branch meeting for an immediate decision.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrpony
These rules are all very loosely drafted, for example:
"On all issues of a substantial nature voting shall be by means of a postal ballot...."
Could be interpreted to mean that as this issue is of a substantial nature then a Branch meeting is not required in favour of a postal ballot for which I am sure BA would grant a further extension to the strike date call deadline?
Further, what is the difference between a "meeting of the full Branch" and "prior to ratification by the membership" as alluded to in fall back condition (c) of failure to achieve committee unanimity in your earlier post? Does this mean that two Branch meetings with respective shows of hands are required the first being the emergency meeting and, assuming a decision in favour to put the offer to the members, the second being the ratification by the members themselves?
One can only conclude the language is deliberately vague or has not been drafted by very skilled persons.
"On all issues of a substantial nature voting shall be by means of a postal ballot...."
Could be interpreted to mean that as this issue is of a substantial nature then a Branch meeting is not required in favour of a postal ballot for which I am sure BA would grant a further extension to the strike date call deadline?
Further, what is the difference between a "meeting of the full Branch" and "prior to ratification by the membership" as alluded to in fall back condition (c) of failure to achieve committee unanimity in your earlier post? Does this mean that two Branch meetings with respective shows of hands are required the first being the emergency meeting and, assuming a decision in favour to put the offer to the members, the second being the ratification by the members themselves?
One can only conclude the language is deliberately vague or has not been drafted by very skilled persons.
Last edited by AV Flyer; 10th May 2011 at 11:08.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVF
The drafting isn't skillful and is deliberately vague is my conclusion.
I'd be interested to see what you made of the of the clauses regarding rule changes, or the appointment of auditors from within.
The document that I have was leaked to me from the most unlikely source so I can't vouch for it. Private Messages can turn up from anywhere, anytime!
I'd be interested to see what you made of the of the clauses regarding rule changes, or the appointment of auditors from within.
The document that I have was leaked to me from the most unlikely source so I can't vouch for it. Private Messages can turn up from anywhere, anytime!
and the SWP's conclusion about these negotiations is....
It is even more complicated than the above posts have inferred.
Once the new "deal" is available in the bassa/CC89 semi-public domain, the SWP in CC89 will again produce a public statement rejecting the deal, as they did last time. It was NOT the deal that was rejected last time - it was the shame felt by the lowly bassa branch sec that CC89 had rejected the deal before bassa had rejected the deal.
There was no meaningful discussion of the deal by folk in bassa - they just had to get their rejection in to the public domain to show that they had as many balls as the SWP in CC 89.
If I were a gambler, (which I'm not) I would predict exactly the same outcome this time. Whether it is this week or next week, CC89 will be briefed (say) tomorrow morning, they will reject the deal tomorrow afternoon, which gives bassa no time at all on Thursday to decide that they also have to reject the deal.
AND....by the way, Untie have already said that the last "deal" was the best that could be achieved by negotiation. TU officials have pride and standards and egos. (oh, well, egos, if not standards). The last thing that Untie want is any material improvement in the deal by BA.
Once the new "deal" is available in the bassa/CC89 semi-public domain, the SWP in CC89 will again produce a public statement rejecting the deal, as they did last time. It was NOT the deal that was rejected last time - it was the shame felt by the lowly bassa branch sec that CC89 had rejected the deal before bassa had rejected the deal.
There was no meaningful discussion of the deal by folk in bassa - they just had to get their rejection in to the public domain to show that they had as many balls as the SWP in CC 89.
If I were a gambler, (which I'm not) I would predict exactly the same outcome this time. Whether it is this week or next week, CC89 will be briefed (say) tomorrow morning, they will reject the deal tomorrow afternoon, which gives bassa no time at all on Thursday to decide that they also have to reject the deal.
AND....by the way, Untie have already said that the last "deal" was the best that could be achieved by negotiation. TU officials have pride and standards and egos. (oh, well, egos, if not standards). The last thing that Untie want is any material improvement in the deal by BA.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps someone with greater legal knowledge would correct me, but my reading of the legislation is that 28 days is the maximum extension of the strike mandate, even if agreed by both parties. After that a new strike ballot must be held. A ballot on a new deal would not act as a strike ballot under the act.
Dave
234 Period after which ballot ceases to be effective.
(1)Subject to the following provisions, a ballot ceases to be effective for the purposes of section 233(3)(b) in relation to industrial action by members of a trade union at the end of the period, beginning with the date of the ballot—
(a)of four weeks, or
(b)of such longer duration not exceeding eight weeks as is agreed between the union and the members’ employer
(1)Subject to the following provisions, a ballot ceases to be effective for the purposes of section 233(3)(b) in relation to industrial action by members of a trade union at the end of the period, beginning with the date of the ballot—
(a)of four weeks, or
(b)of such longer duration not exceeding eight weeks as is agreed between the union and the members’ employer
Dave
Join Date: May 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rep suspension xxxx tags
...this is more than likely a self-sacrifice for the purposes of providing a new martyr to parade for political reasons in time for Thursday's vote.
I just hope he/she gets the 72 virgins promised!
I just hope he/she gets the 72 virgins promised!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to cabincrew.com, the CC concerned refused to remove the tags after being told by the aircraft captain to do so, so it is likely the suspension is for questioning/refusing the captain's authority rather than for wearing the tags in the first place.
Would this be a sacking offense? If it is, really stupid, volunteering to be a sacked martyr, but if it warrants merely a warning, makes a self sacrifice scenario seem even more likely, and if so, those behind it, even if no longer a majority of the BASSA committee, are determined to stir up feelings at the branch meeting.
Or are we just looking for melodrama where none exists?
Would this be a sacking offense? If it is, really stupid, volunteering to be a sacked martyr, but if it warrants merely a warning, makes a self sacrifice scenario seem even more likely, and if so, those behind it, even if no longer a majority of the BASSA committee, are determined to stir up feelings at the branch meeting.
Or are we just looking for melodrama where none exists?
I just hope he/she gets the 72 virgins promised
77 Virgins and a hat for MF (market rate plus 10%)
