Litebulbs
Ah, "my Union right or wrong". The thing that amuses me most about the traditional Left is the way it slags off everyone else for unquestioning loyalty to its particular tribe, but elevates the same behaviour amongst its own to quasi-religious status. I say that as a member (yes, fully paid up and everything before I moved to Ireland) of what is now itself the defunct New Labour project (Blairite Wing - until he committed the UK back to imperial expansion in Iraq).
WW is doing your Union a favour by getting rid of the BASSA reps. Without wishing to be provacative, I think Walsh comes out of this whole episode as the biggest supporter for responsible Trade Unionism. He could have acted far tougher, but still clearly remains committed to Union involvement. Where he deals with normal human beings, eg resolving the pension issue, he strongly supports a collectivist approach (I don't incidentally). In BASSA he has a group of self perpetuating reps. See the seniority requirements for progression in their ranks to see what I mean. And don't forget the show of hands at some London racecourse agreeing not to bother with elections whilst "the war was on". So he's set about doing what the members cannot do and, disgracefully, your Union's paid officers will not do, namely remove them. I say Unite is a disgrace for several reasons. Firstly, it's obvious that the reps are hugely conflicted. Why is suspension of the disciplinaries such a big issue, other than the fact a high proportion of them involve BASSA reps, to give but one example. Secondly, during the election campaign, one of Woodley or Simpson spoke at a Unite4Labour rally and said that BASSA had no chance of winning its dispute with BA and that the branch leadership was deluded. So what have they actually done to provide proper leadership to their several thousand members affected? Nothing is the short answer. |
Now there's something we can agree upon.
|
JayPee28bpr
Some interesting points. I suppose it revolves around where your loyalty lies. You are an employee first and it appears some have lost sight of that. But there is two sides to this. Business uses reps on a regular basis, to be the delivery mechanism of their ideas, but when it goes wrong, you are the brunt of all problems from all directions.
When you get it right, the collective approach works, but the law has moved away from this over the last 30 years, but individual rights has not been kept in alignment. That is why we still have unions, so business and the state has to take some responsibly for this too. |
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 A long time ago, 25 years at least, OH and I and two friends ( one of whom was also staff) plus 1 child each were actually sat on the plane, when 4 passengers turned up. As we were actually on board, the adults were offered jumpseats, 2 crew seats, 2 in the flight deck (and we were told, specifically, the Captain had given permission). Obviously the crew seats were stowed during the flight, so the guys spent the flight on their feet. I daresay had there been a seat in a higher class they would have got it, under those circumstances, but in 40 years of OH working for BA, that's the only time. As for upgrades, the rule as I understand it is that you can be upgraded 1 step from your entitlement in order to get on, and again that would normally be done pre boarding. Whether that has changed in the new ST rules since April 09, not sure. The '1 up rule' may not apply at all anymore. We have made it into First on 3 occasions I think, when Club has been full. Each time done either at check in or at the gate, not on board, and the last time was a good few years ago, about 2000 I think. Besides, not sure of your point, even if staff are upgraded, there's still an empty seat for them to be upgraded into, so still no extra cost to the airline. They don't offload fare paying passengers and keep staff on, that's for sure. |
Results out £164M Loss for Q1 this year.
|
Results out £164M Loss for Q1 this year. If BASSA weren't such a bunch of useless, retarded :mad: they would have been in the black. Thankfully BASSA don't matter any more. Fine job, Mr. Walsh. :ok: |
Simpson
Quote (Sky News) from Derek Simpson:
"These losses bring no pleasure to Unite. It is never our intention to see BA struggle." Presumably he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said it :) |
Certainly not great news...but not all bad:
“The yields are really positive,” said John Strickland, an analyst at JLS Consulting Ltd. in London. “If they can do that against a backdrop of the ash cloud and strikes then it’s positive news in a difficult context.” British Airways was trading up 1.5 percent at 219.3 pence as of 8:02 a.m. in London. The stock has gained 17 percent this year, valuing the company at 2.53 billion pounds. Interesting that the press is picking up on BASSA's threat to give BA and their customers another "12 Days of Xmas". BA needs to continue to minimize the impact of the militant faction in BASSA. There can be no gaining of customer confidence while they are perceived to have influence. |
LB
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?
I assume that if there was no dispute then he wouldn't have done what he did anyway. But if he had done that even when there was no dispute I'm sure the company's position would still have been dismissal for gross misconduct. My company (a large private health company) would certainly take that view and we're not that well known publically. BA, as a worldwide brand, would have had little choice, even if it had wanted one. |
@Safety Control
On the other thread you have said numerous times that it is not unlawful to strike. It has also been written oft, that it is not unlawful for a company to remove a perk, so we obviously have two conflicting laws: a situation that can only be resolved by a judge. I think it very unlikely that UNITE will go to court because: 1) WW has offered to re-instate ST (without seniority) and I don't believe that the courts will descend to ruling on the minutiae of whether an ST user is likely to get a seat or not. 2) The union doesn't want to risk its funds on a long-shot. 3) They might fear that the ruling could go against them and create new, explicit case-law that would allow this action in other disputes. No 3) strikes me as being a similar situation to The War Powers Act in the US where Congress disputes the circumstances under which the President can declare war, but won't take it to court because they fear losing and broadening his powers. On another point, can any one say if BA sought costs for the cases they won and if they didn't, are there any BA insiders, who would care to specualte why not ? |
The point you are missing about perks is that you cannot just decide today that anyone called John is no longer entitled to them.
Of course perks can be removed but only a blanket removal (all employees) or because of some form of discipline issue or similar (you have done something wrong) To select victims on the basis of red/blue, tory/labour, city/united, striker/non striker is fundamentally wrong and could well be classed as a human rights issue. |
Safety Concerns
The point you are missing is that they just have, and that currently, under our legal system, they are allowed to do so, because you are allowed to do anything that is not explicitly unlawful. Unless that's taken to court and the union win - which is anything but certain given the highly debatable nature of the law in this area - then you can't simply wander on here and say that they can't do it. Just because you want something to be so doesn't mean that it is.
Right now, the airline can. If the union want to take the massive risk of going to court, then it's possible in the future that BA can't. |
Safety Concerns - ST removal
ST has been removed - fact. What danger does this pose to anyone?
The legallity of BA's actions are the subject of discussion only; note that no legal action has been started regarding ST by Unite, Bassa or any other body. Your concern needs to be explained to be understood. |
The "victims" selected themselves....after due warning :ugh:
|
You are quite amazing and I am genuinely shocked that this attitude prevails in 21st century Britain.
Today staff travel, what will it be tomorrow? You are allowing your glee at someone else's predicament to cloud your judgement. You are advocating discriminate punishment. I don't like the name John. From next week unless you change your name I am removing staff travel. Fair? Unite have started legal proceedings over staff travel and should it go the full course (which I doubt) I fully expect them to win. |
Safety Concerns
Unite have started legal proceedings........
What does this mean? Has Unite given formal notice to BA regarding these proceedings? Er NO, didn't think so. It is just a bargaining chip to be played in the ever-slimming hope of redeeming something from what looks like a lost cause. Again the question, without glee, is: Why should the fact that a few thousand people have had a work perk removed present the rest of us with any problem at all? |
Today staff travel, what will it be tomorrow? |
Safety Concerns, if it amazes you that a significant number of people hold an opinion which differs from yours, then I think you have a problem ...
|
Safety Concerns
Unite have started legal proceedings over staff travel and should it go the full course (which I doubt) I fully expect them to win. |
How many?
I've seen so many different numbers regarding this thing and having listened to D Simpson on 5live this morning am even more confused. Can anyone help me with the following:
How many are still BASSA members, and how are the numbers substantiated? If Unite have received 6000+ strike pay applications why are only approx. 3500 being deprived of ST? Just curious. |
Derek Simpson "we have processed over 7000 claims for strike pay" quote from unite website
Our membership currently stands at 9562 - BASSA website |
it isn't about the perk You need to remove yourself from the perk hang up.
It is about how we have arrived at a situation where some individuals have been punished without following due process. They haven't offered staff travel to go back to pre strike situation at all. SSK, it isn't about opinions. Somethings are wrong. Discriminate punishments are wrong. If there is anybody here who doesn't agree with that, we have a far more serious problem than I thought. |
leihard
So, 7000 strike pay claims but only 3500 ST withdrawals. How does that work?
BASSA numbers of members - how are these supported/audited? |
You can disregard anything Simpson says, he is an habitual liar.
Example from today: Derek Simpson, co-leader of Unite, again accused the airline of imposing changes on cabin crew without their agreement. He said his union negotiators had come within £10 million of the savings sought by BA - a "drop in the ocean" compared with today's losses. This ridiculous old fool should just retire. |
where some individuals have been punished without following due process. SSK, it isn't about opinions They haven't offered staff travel to go back to pre strike situation at all. Indiscriminate punishments are wrong If there is anybody here who doesn't agree with that, we have a far more serious problem than I thought. |
Safety Concerns
It is about how we have arrived at a situation where some individuals have been punished without following due process.
You seem to imply that there is a due process for the removal of ST, or punishment as you wrongly call it. Which process and why is it due? |
mrpony
who knows where BASSA and Unite get all their numbers from?. The last round of industrial action involved 4 separate strike dates - does that mean if someone went on strike for all 4 they would have to submit 4 claims? |
leiard
Thanks for replying. One more thing:
Can anyone account for the number of non-voters in the most recent ballot? |
Saftey Concerns
SSK, it isn't about opinions. Somethings are wrong. Indiscriminate punishments are wrong. If there is anybody here who doesn't agree with that, we have a far more serious problem than I thought. Here is a hypothetical situation for you to ponder, BASSA members go on strike, the strike is protected, but within that period the strikers are fired. They are illegally dismissed and take BA to a tribunal where they are automatically deemed to have been unfairly dismissed and are awarded compensation within the law up to the legal maximum of £66,200 but in most cases significantly less, the median award for this is £3,800. They are not re-instated as the tribunal cannot force BA to do that only order compensation for lost earnings. So BA have clearly acted illegally in my hypothetical case and get punished but how does that significantly help the strikers? They have lost their jobs and are likely to get a small amount of compensation which is limited by their earnings and by an absolute limit. My point is simple, just being right is not enough, there is no moral justice - only the law, which is blind and has no memory, it acts in accordance with its own logic and it can produce crazy outcomes. You have to know what you want out of the system, often the court will not order the system to restore itself to it's initial conditions but will order compensation, even then what the "victim" has done to mitigate their losses is important. So consider this, those who chose to reside abroad and rely on ST to get to work, yet have refused the return of ST have done nothing to mitigate their losses. The court may order that any costs incurred after the offer of ST reinstatement was made are self-inflicted and therefore will attract no compensation. Or it may decide that as you are required to be within 2 hours of your base to cover your duties that failing to arrange to be within this time frame has also placed you outside any mitigation of costs and therefore your compensation is reduced. Bottom line, even if ST has been removed illegally, by winning the case, which will take years as BA will appeal to the highest court in the land, does not mean ST will be returned but rather that some, limited, compensation will be awarded. If the Human Right line is followed this could take much longer and again only end up with some compensation - see Danilenkov vs Russia. Being "right" is not enough, you need to act to protect yourself before you lose perks like ST, once gone, even though you have won in court all you may get back is a paltry amount of cash. You "win" but still effectively lose. |
Safety Concerns - I can assure you there is no "glee" at how things have ended up with cabin crew. It never had to come to this and it is unfortunate that CC have led to the end of a cliff by a bunch of self-serving militant reps and didn't heed the many warnings that BASSA was playing with fire.
CC were told they would lose staff travel and it was for them to make an individual decision as to whether that was a price worth paying for whatever reason they went on strike. It is unfortunate that some CC have had to learn the hard way to think for themselves and not blindly follow their union reps. It's a tough lesson but one that they need to learn. |
Numbers again - latest ballot
"Only 15% voted in favour with 85% finding no appeal in it at all" D Simpson Unite website
Statistics being used for support rather than illumination as a drunken man uses a lamp post. The more I delve the worse it gets. Something like 50% of membership did not vote on the basis of BASSA's own membership numbers. This doesn't suggest 'no appeal at all' especially when previously anywhere between 70 and 90% voted 'against' BA. My guess is that BASSA's numbers are wildly overstated and have been for longer than they may care to admit, even to themselves. Can anyone enlighten me? |
leiard/mrpony
No matter where the figures come from, BASSA's declining membership must be a cause for concern for the Branch officials. On 26th July the BASSA website claimed 9736, today it shows 9562 a loss of 174 in 4 days. I wonder whether anyone from the PCCC can tell us if their membership is increasing in relation to BASSA's losses. |
I would take the latest ballot result with a pinch of salt. It is rather like a mid term by election.
That is not saying it will go one way or another its just different to voting for industrial action. |
On the matter of staff travel to and from place of work, you can read this:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/guidance/480.pdf And then you can read this: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/490.pdf After you've done that you'll be totally confused unless you are a serious tax accountant and even then this is probably what you will say. 'These guides are just that, they are guides with no force in law at the moment. However, you should not forget that courts and commissions have consistently tended to side with HMRC in their interpretation of the these rules and that the cash pockets of HMRC are actually almost inexhaustible' I think that HMRC who will have been well alerted to what is going on with the present employment convolutions will be letting another's lawyers do the spade work for them. If staff travel is returned on whatever basis, it will not be very long before HMRC will wish to pursue the matter of taxation on that financial commodity much further. Here's a little something from the Citizens Advice Bureau. 'If your employer reimburses you for the costs of travelling to and from work or pays these direct, for example, by buying a season ticket for you, the value of this benefit is generally taxable. However, you can claim tax relief on any travelling expenses paid by your employer to cover the cost of journeys made by you as a necessary part of your job, excluding journeys to and from work.' It strikes me that were staff travel taxed in the hands of the employee, with top marginal rates of 40% and 50% rising to 61% when NICs are taken into account, some may find their tax bills significantly increased. This could end up altogether being a less than savoury solution to a less than satisfactory struggle. Salivating tax men spring to mind and their union is Unison not Unite. |
Safety Concerns
Are you saying that BA's final offer was of sufficient disinterest for approx. 50% of BASSA members not to bother voting? If so what does that say about the membership. If true it really is amazing.
I think that BASSA membership numbers are way below those that they claim. In fact I'd bet they are currently below 7000. Seriously. I can see fraud claim looming. |
I think that's wishful thinking although there have certainly lost quite a few over this.
I also think that the recent final BA offer caused many of them to rethink why they got involved in this. Some may even have been left confused which is why I suspect many didn't vote. Taxation of ST is coming anyway completely independent to this industrial action. We are now in Europe. The Europeans have have had a different view on this for some time and many countries already heavily tax ST. It is only a question of when and not if. |
Safety Concerns.
said quote...You are quite amazing and I am genuinely shocked that this attitude prevails in 21st century Britain.
Today staff travel, what will it be tomorrow? You are allowing your glee at someone else's predicament to cloud your judgement. Hardly glee, more complete amazement that supposedly intelligent people blindly follow and believe all they are told by BASSA. First it was imposition now it seems to be ST and yet they sang that WW could stick it where the sun don't shine and that it didn't matter to them!! So why are they reportedly paying £100 each to go to court and threatening more strikes......a very curious way of backing BA, unless they mean backing it over a cliff and sending the rest of the staff,( who really have backed the company), on to the dole queue. So not glee, anger that a minority of self serving CC are putting others livelyhoods at risk in a tough ecomomic climate.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...icons/umph.gif |
TUs and reps.
Safety Concerns,
Clearly neither Papillon nor Juan are convinced by your case. I'm not convinced. We have acknowledged your point of view, but just do not agree. In what has been a great discussion over the last few days, should we not just agree to disagree on the point about "innocence" and "lack of due process" ? On the dismissal of "reps", FTOs have frequently advised managers how and when to dismiss them. For instance, one rep (a senior shop steward) I dealt with in a factory of 2500 people honestly believed that closing the factory and losing all those jobs, (and the company's investment) was a better thing to do than to allow further investment in the factory.......!!!! (Yup, it was that daft - even I could not get my Milliband/Dahrendorf on Marx mind around his logic, but it was all to do, of course, with the inevitable end of capitalism.............) The T & G National Official was, as you might understand, very helpful. The rep was fired for a different reason at a slightly different time. Of course, he was fully, 100% represented by the Union as his appeals and Tribunals all failed. The Company would have been content to pay the cost of losing a Tribunal. |
So not glee, anger that a minority of self serving CC are putting others livelyhoods at risk in a tough ecomomic climate. |
Safety Concerns
Wishful thinking......wistful maybe not wishful.
How are BASSA members counted, who counts them and how is verification done? This will become crucial sooner rather than later - I know someone who knows someone who knows. BASSA's membership numbers have never been tested properly and the latest ballot is mighty strange. Holley et al will be in court for fraud within the next two years. Take my word for it. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.