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:

Not even the fictitious figure they first came out with was close - because it was only temporary and they wanted it back.

This ridiculous old fool should just retire.

In your opinion.

Yes it is. Obviously, since there's no legal case going on, and if there were, it would then be about the opinion of the judges concerning the law.

And? Who says they have to? You?

In your opinion this is a) indiscriminate and b) a punishment. And only in your opinion.


It seems we do. It seems the problem is that you think that anyone disagreeing with you has no right to think so.

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
 

But it is about opinions. Opinions are all we have until a court has decided whether BA have acted illegally.

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.

and that is the point. You are using your opinion on the strike to justify any behaviour at all, even bad behaviour. That is wrong and that is my point.

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.