SC
 

With respect, IMO you have contributed some slightly pompous nuggets regarding what you think your fellow commenters need to do:

...and a sprinkling of ‘you miss the points’:

Plus more than a few ‘strawmen’:

Obviously I don’t speak for the forum but I dare say ‘we’ do actually get the point you are making; it is fundamentally wrong to discriminate against a group of employees who have done nothing wrong except go on a strike. You have explained why you think BA have violated the above principle.

You also said this:

So please stop repeating it and feel free to move on to something new.

[penned with a nod to Papillon post #949]

Safety Concerns:

I have no personal problem with staff travel being withdrawn from striking workers. If it had been a contractual benefit my opinion would be different, but it is not contractual.

If BA loses any legal engagement and must return and/or compensate those individuals who have had their staff travel withdrawn then so be it.

However, at the moment, and I don't see this changing, BA is capable of and has withdrawn this perk.

As for "Unite has filed..." to be the best of my knowledge and belief Unite hasn't filed anything anywhere. The basis of your argument seems to be "It isn't fair, going on strike is legal...so it isn't fair".

Until such time as a governing body says "No" I would submit to you that it is fair, its just a result that a few individuals don't like.

'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. '

It's here already and there is no presumption to the effect that European S&T taxation, which is not standard throughout the zone anyway, would be better or worse than that of the UK. The point is surely that if HMRC start taxing even an economy ticket, say LAX/LHR/LAX or JNB/LHR/JNB as a benefit, the amounts involved, perhaps 40% of the ticket value, are going to be enormous. The cost to the employee is likely to be significant as he/she may well be issued an erstwhile free ticket to and from work but will then have to end up paying the tax on that ticket as though its real street cost were part of that employees salary packet.

oggers, you know as well as I know that without this strike had someone started a discussion on arbitrary removal of ST there would be an uproar.

But I agree with you, this subject has run its course.

Perhaps in utopia the situation would have gone something like this:

"Willie, I absolutely support your stance against Bassa 100%. I do however feel your stance on ST is questionable. Please re-instate and defeat Bassa by other more appropriate means".

Actually, I would think it fairly unlikely that EU membership would affect taxation in the slightest, outside of the very narrow band of VAT. It's a red line from both this and the last government that taxation is a matter for the UK, and EU partners are not relevant in that debate.

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe:
 

Airline: "If you go on strike I will withdraw your travel concessions"
Union: "You can't do that, it would be discrimination against people taking legitimate industrial action"
Airline: "Oh, sorry, I hadn't thought of that. Please ignore that last statement"

If BASSA were to win its impending court case against BA and succeed in its estimable attempt to have such travel determined as contractual, won't that unleash a really squiggly can of worms for the poor crews which have used such travel benefits.
Surely HMRC would be tempted to tax previous staff travel retroactively in the hands of the employee in whose contractual employment the benefit had legally been deemed to have fallen. The potential rewards for the nation's coffers would be huge, the issue too profitable to be ignored and the case work largely done. No doubt some negotiations could be entered into individually or collectively on the part of the crew union and HMRC but travel records are by law required to be kept for six years in order to facilitate retrospective tax assessment debts by the employer and employees and any UK tax case determined by law usually tends to the unequivocal.

Safety Concerns
 

Why are you on here - you have stated that you are not part of aviation - your only stance is endlessly repeating that BASSA members are being badly treated by having the withdrawal of ST as a result of taking IA - that their actions are being treated far too seriously in the responses that have resulted, despite in some cases resulting in criminal investigations - effectively that they are misunderstood and we should all back off and stop using such emotive words and responses as it is unfair!!

I suggest that you either start discussing and responding in an adult fashion or go and post on the BASSA sites, where no doubt all will be in total agreement with you.

Highlight one of my posts that supports the above.

Ulterior Motive
 

I restarted reading this forum following a conversation with a friend who knows someone who knows someone.....

I was challenged by my friend to find the flaw in Unite/Bassa's case that would be the eventual undoing of Bassa and huge embarrassment to Unite - a major flaw not necessarily obvious. I took me a while. I got there though and my friend has confirmed I am right.

I've stated it above but couched it in a different way leaving me feeling rather like a dirty troll, so I'll come clean:

Fact: BASSA membership numbers are much less than they are stating. A monitored ballot on strike action would reveal this and you can therefore not expect anything of the sort, ever!

Fact: Preparations have been made for a challenge to BASSA's legitimacy linked to membership numbers.

Fact: BASSA are totally and utterly at sea partly as a consequence of their obvious other failings but more particularly because it has been made known to them that the number of its members is under serious scrutiny. Unite will play dumb on this one, without too much effort.

That's all.

Mr Pony, I hate to be the one to tell you this but it looks as though you have been sold a donkey.

Let me guess, the someone who knows someone who knows someone is against the industrial action.

If Bassa and Unite were so stupid they deserve everything they get and I would start agreeing with Entaxei

mrpony..
 

Interesting hypothesis, and seems so bleedin obvious once it's been pointed out :eek:

I read in the Guardian that the union are claiming 67% of their members rejected the 'final offer'. Now, it was clearly 67% of the 5000ish who voted but that is different. Or is it?! Freudian slip by UNITE, predictable spin or sloppy journalism? Who knows - but it's fun to speculate sometimes. :E

It would not surprise me if BASSA have no idea what their true membership numbers are.

Of interest also was hearing McCluskey (I believe) state that they had received 7,000 and some odd number of "claims" this morning.

As BA knows exactly how many have lost staff travel and the representation is being made that they will fly 100% of long haul in the event of another strike its reasonable to believe that each "claim" does not represent a unique individual.

Unite/BASSA do like getting creative with numbers.

Safety Concerns - Donkey and Bassa numbers
 

The donkey seller has asked me not to participate in this or any other forum on this or any other subject from hereon in.

My information is robust and sourced very close to the centre.

And that really is all. Bye.

baggersup
 

The source of my information asked me to desist so I did. I was only supposed to be guessing what the big flaw was, not publicising it. I have to say, however, that I agree with you and seeing as you have already put it 'out there', and at the risk of wearing my friendship with the source a bit thin, the numbers you quote are about the same as has been indicated to me.

I can well imagine the sort of chaos this is causing Bassa - I wonder of they have found out how to delete a hard drive yet?

Re the alleged 7,000 claims, maybe they relate to separate claims for each strike period and therefore , each striker who was out all the time had to make several submissions?

Safety Concerns
 

Interesting that all your posts prior to the 28th July (3 days ago) - have vanished - so rebuttal is now impossible as are your origins - but you have been profilic in those three days.

On the question of membership, as the majority will probably pay by salary deduction I'm sure BA know a fairly good ballpark figure.
(was it not BASSA's inability to decipher the salary deduction list last year that was part of the problem they had with the Christmas strike?)

Speculation
 

Time for some harmless speculation.

On this forum and the other one I suspect we have:

• genuine cabin crew from both sides of the divide
• genuine airline personnel from both sides of the divide
• genuine SLF
• anonymous Bassa and Unite reps
• anonymous BA managers
• anonymous legally trained individuals
• back room lawyers
• and others

For what its worth I think Safety Concerns could be employed by O. H. Parsons and Col White could well be a BA manager

Westlakes:

I'm not sure what the percentage is of those who pay by salary deduction and those that make automatic payments out of their checking accounts.

Its obvious that BASSA has seen a reduction in membership, but given their own confusion regarding mailing out ballots to non-members, etc., just how quickly the numbers are adjusted after someone has departed is of interest.

Is BASSA required to present accurate numbers on its website? Is prompt reporting required or can it try to paint a rosier picture by delaying?

I seem to recall, from whichever thread was running at the time, that it may be in excess of 90%

101917.
'Time for some harmless speculation.
On this forum and the other one I suspect we have:


* genuine airline personnel from both sides of the divide
* genuine SLF
* anonymous legally trained individuals
* back room lawyers'

This whole BA business is not of great significance any more. I think the matter has to some degree become a devilish if silently gleeful speculation as to the fire and brimstone awaiting members of BASSA and their leaders. I have a sneaky suspicion that more people wish them ill than applaud either their actions or their moralities. No doubt the same could be said by some of the BA board and Mr Walsh but no one much these days is speculating sensibly on his demise. One hopes he is in rather better shape than was secretly John Smith. Therefore I think it is reasonable to conclude that some read these pages in anticipatory delight of the sufferings to come and that others read the paper mill in some trepidation as to what others might suggest could come.
Anyway I'll confess to being or having been all four of the above strata of Illuminati at one time or another and of course I adore genuine cabin crew. But you'd have to ask my lawyer for my definition of genuine when it comes to cabin crew and I might just have to put a disclaimer on that anyway.

Unite have for several days now indicated that the offer on the table is acceptable, IF ST is returned.

This offer is worse than previous offers dismissed out of hand by UNITE/BASSA. This has caused BA to lose money and passenger confidence - who knows how much damage to the brand has been done and the resultant knock-on cost.

So if the offer is accepted, the strikes have been for nothing - in fact they will have cost CC some Ts and Cs.

If I was a member of the BA Board (the ones who are directing WW exactly how they want him to proceed) I would be doing my utmost to make sure that the CC, who caused the losses for absolutely no reason or gain, were hung out to dry.

If the Board and WW wanted to crush BASSA (as some CC claim), is it any real wonder to any sane thinking person out there?

Mr Pony
 

Your speculation as regard future BA action fits in with my own. I wondered at the time why BA was sending individual contracts and "I'm not in the Union, honest" forms to people it knew were in BASSA. Then it was suggested to me that it would provide very good intelligence for BA as to the possibility of winning a de-recognition ballot, ie if lots of remaining BASSA members tried to accept the offer.

It's at times like this that Unions really wish they hadn't agreed a check off deal with an employer. BA has a very good idea how many members BASSA has, just by looking at how many staff have subs deducted from their salary each month. They know how many stopped paying in time to make a honest declaration when signing their acceptance of the offer. They also know how many signed the offer but are still in the Union and so will be getting, or already have a "We regret, but..." letter saying they can't accept the deal as individuals.

All the above is very useful in giving BA an idea as to whether or not they'd win a derecognition ballot if they went for one. It's actually high risk as, if they lose, they're stuck with BASSA for another three years at least. However, if the numbers look good, they can at least threaten Unite with it. The key point here is that, whilst BA could not use the offer to induce staff to leave the Union, there is nothing as far as I know that stops them using the offer to induce staff to vote against maintenance of the collective bargaining agreement. If I'm correct on this, then BA could go for derecognition, and state that if they win then they'll retable the offer and thereby allow Union members to sign up to it.

The above is all speculation. However, I keep thinking back to the AGM where Walsh and Broughton apparently said they were "sick and tired" of BASSA, which is somewhat undiplomatic langauge to use about an organisation they expect to continue as a valued partner in the business. The fact is, though, that BA know exactly where they stand in terms of the numbers wishing to accept their offer, whther those numbers are good or bad. Unite/BASSA don't. All they know is that turnout in their ballot was poor, with roughly one quarter of crew rejecting the offer. A little over 10% signalled they wanted Unite to accept it, leaving Unite unaware of the true feelings of the other 65%. BA, on the other hand, does know what they want. It may be good news for BA or bad, but at least they know. So, BA has full information, Unite doesn't. Familiar story, I think.

There below us stands the tyrant known as Willie Walsh dressed as Caesar with a gold and red and blue crown upon his brow as he opens another season of games at the Circus Maximus. Down below, quivering in anticipation of a hot and steamy end to the afternoon's entertainment huddle the martyrs. Will the emperor hesitate for one solitary second before he signals for the opening of the gates to allow the entrance of the slavering lions and tigers? Will he for one moment in the space of time attempt to halt the frenzied stampede into the ring of the bulls and the bears eager for revenge upon those poor souls? Those members of the cult of Bassa who are about to pass united into the realms of anthropomorphic history. Can any parson save them from their dreadful plight so nobly inflicted, some say in the Forum of Rome, upon themselves for believe in their own unshakeable convictions?

Well, I think i'm four of those!

jaypee - crooked numbers
 

Yes it is the only thing that makes sense to me - links it all up so to speak.

Why have a show of hands ballot in this day and age?

Why constantly dissemble about numbers and percentages?

All stuff about majorities and overwhelming support is just huff and puff.

A no confidence vote would be an excellent way of finishing the thing.

Well I am sure we will know if 50%+1 of current cabin crew have signed the new deal soon, but silence could be deafening.

It’s really not about how many have signed the new deal. It is about how many are currently union members. Whatever that number is I am sure it is getting smaller every day.

Litebulbs
 

Actually I think we'll only know this if BA go down the derecognition route. Otherwise it's nobody's business, other than between BA and each of its employees individually. BA clearly don't think it's (share) price sensitive, otherwise they would have ensured they had the numbers before releasing their trading statement today. What matters is that BA knows the numbers and can formulate their position accordingly. Unite do not know the numbers and can only estimate the degree to which BA is bluffing when they meet again next week.

JayPee28bpr
 

Hmm, your points are normally very strong, but this last post is not one of your best. If BA had 6500 signed contracts, then we would have been told. That would be game set and match. I am not suggesting BASSA are not two sets and two breaks down, but Mr Walsh would have done what he felt needed to be done, if he had the signatures, in my opinion. What would be an interesting discussion, would be what figure would trigger an announcement?

For all of us speculating as to the number of union members the only number we know with any degree of certainty is that on July 20 there were at least 5105 Cabin Crew union members. I also think it is fair to say that as many as 1686 of those members have an incentive to leave the union. Yes Litebulbs there is a deafening silence from all sides.

Close, but no cigar. I do fall into at least three of your categories though. :O
The thing that people should not lose sight of is that we are talking about two union branches. A lot of emphasis has been made of BASSA, but the other wing of Unite - CC89 - has been remarkably silent. I do wonder whether the apparent friction between the leaders of Unite, Messrs Woodley and Simpson has a bearing on the matter as well. It is a matter of public record (well actually Executive Council minutes to be precise) that Tony Woodley stated that he was unhappy that Derek failed to turn up for an Executive Council meeting on June 4th - although he had been at the previous day's session. This was as the BA strike was in its final days. FWIW Simpson is Amicus and hence has CC89 under his wing, Woodley is TGWU and has the delight of handling BASSA. I do wonder whether Simpson's tweeting was because he knew how his members were likely to jump and was offering no support to Woodley in bringing BASSA to heel. Does anyone have a clue how many cabin crew are in CC89 ?

If you said 10 years ago, that the AEEU and the T&G would eventually be one happy family, I would have said there was more chance of the Toff's and Wig's joining up in a coalition Government. Shows how much I know.

900 Then
 

Not too impressive -

British Airways divides workers over pay and perks | Business | The Guardian

Litebulbs - It says "more than 900" crew have accepted the offer, not "only 900".

What Willie Walsh (according to other reports) said was that if Unite's claim that there were only 900 cabin crew that aren't in Unite was true, then all would have accepted the offer on an individual basis. This is where the claim of "more than 900" seems to have come from. That's not the actual number that have accepted. I suspect Willie will be keeping his cards close to his chest for now.

From the guardian article

"One analyst who asked not to be named said that Walsh was wrong to remove travel concessions from staff who had been on strike, which has become a point of principle over which neither side is prepared to compromise. "The company will have to backtrack on a lot of these kinds of threats in order to get some sort of deal."

I wonder who the analyst was ?

So would I, if the figures stated in the article are true.

If you take BASSA's claim to have 9,500 members plus the 1,000-1,500 odd members that are CC89, then even if it was just 900 non-members that have accepted that is a decent proportion of non-union members that have accepted the offer.

On the balance of probabilities and as a reasonable statement, 900 would be between 900 and 950, else another figure would probably have been used?