Not unlike the recent pension changes then.

UNITE balloted all staff groups except the cabin crew.

It speaks volumes about UNITE's true support of BASSA and CC89.

call100:

I'm not sure what you would consider "interesting".

There is an offer on the table. It will be accepted or rejected. BA will continue to prepare for possible strike action and each and every act of obstruction put up by BASSA/Amicus/Unite that prevents BA from planning for the future will only accelerate Mixed Fleet.

As for Mr. Holley being the Secretary of BASSA, no one is arguing that he holds that post. What is up for discussion is some of rather bizarre actions that have placed BASSA cabin crew in their present situation.

I must agree with Ancient Observer. Any representation by the BASSA leadership that they "know what they are doing" is rather incredible, but there's always a first time for everything.

It may not be interesting for yourself but please don't assume that others don't find the internal wrangling so.

[quote=Joao da Silva;6038255]Please may we stop the character assassinations of Duncan Holley.

Until the next elections, he is the legitimate secretary of BASSA.

No he is not! To be a member of BASSA in BA and to be a Rep and indeed the Branch Secretary you need to be employed as British Airways Cabin crew at LHR or LGW - DH is not.

If he had not been dismissed but decided to retire before the elections were due he would now not be able to be BASSA branch Secretary.

He wants to continue to draw is very inflated commissions from the members subs so will hang on as long as he can.

[quote=vctenderness;6038966]I thought we had laid this myth to rest.

call 100.
No we have not. When a full and detailed audit of the sources and uses of all cash by bassa from 2007 to end 2010 is published and signed by a reputable firm, then the end of that part of the saga might be in sight.

A full copy of the BASSA constitution should also provide an answer. Surely in the interests of transparency this is already freely available to any current and potential member of BASSA?

I wonder if any member has ever tried to query the accounts. If I were a BASSA member I would be seriously concerned where the money was going. If the powers that be within BASSA cannot complete a simple admin task like a membership list, what chance is there of managing a budget of circa £1.7 million?

Baggersup
 

The subs are £131.52 per year. Bassa members pay an extra £5 I believe. I also think that a branch can claim 5% of the subs for admin etc. So that is £60k from the normal subs and £45K based on 9000 members.

Now where that £100k goes, who knows?!

OK.....but it's all pure speculation and fantasy at the moment....If it makes you happy then it's all fine....:)

BASSA finances
 

the question of where the money goes raises interesting issues. perhaps a devout BASSA member (MissM?) knows or can find out and let us in on the nuts and bolts.

presumably there is a branch treasurer (and auditor?) who will publish an annual report for members. he would also keep the committee informed on a meeting by meeting basis.

members should have this info somewhere and should be able to enlighten us. if for no other reason, just to show us what a biassed, bigotted lot we are!

al capone was eventually done for tax evasion i believe - there are many ways to skin a cat if one is creative!

Bassa Finances
 

I have for years been asking where Bassa'a money goes. ( They have had circa 12000 members at approx £17/month for years now - Thats nearly £2m/year!!! ) One of the reasons I left them years ago was that despite asking and writing to Bassa/TGWU on MANY occasions, I was met with anything from Shrugs of the shoulders, to 'why would you ever want to know that' and even 'stop asking such stupid questions - nobody else has EVER asked this' Eventually I was told ' why dont you just leave this union, we dont want people like you here. ( That was the nice edited version!! )

Even though I know and have known many things about Bassa which are now much better reported - DH collecting £1000's/month in membership contributions into his back pocket being one, I've only just found out that a well known CSD on Eurofleet is apparently an 'auditor' of Bassa's money. He kept that quiet I can tell you. What I find amazing, is that for an 'organisation' that takes £2m/year, how is it that hell any member cannot easily get to see the yearly audit. As far as I can see it doesn't exist.

Questions I have asked, and a few friends too, include, what is the reps daily rate, what expenses are they entitled to, how much really goes to Unite, and the old one - how much does DH get as the GS.

It still is and from I can work out always will be a TOTAL mystery

baggersup
 

How high up do you have to be, to fall into the prime driver?

1.75 million pounds. It will be interesting to see how that compares with BAs' legal costs for the latest High Court action. I doubt that BASSA is a net contributor to Unite's funds.

One of the Mods once said that postings on these threads is like listening to drunks in the kitchen when the actual party is upstairs._ The 509 posting of Juan Tripp is an honourable exception to this._ It would be wonderful if the seed that JT has planted can grow and enable British Airways cabin crew to reform and transform BASSA.

Litebulbs, the Unite website shows subs as £10.96 a month, hence your £131.52 above. However, CC on here have said they pay £16 a month, so it's £5 a month more, not £5 a year as your arithmetic above suggests. That totals £540,000 a year for BASSA, not £45000 (assuming 9000 members). I daresay BASSA may not claim the 5% admin expenses but it's still a pretty hefty budget.

Union Accounts
 

I'm sure that this has been posted before, but it's interesting, and answers many of the generic questions, and supports or rejects many of the posts above re access to Union accounts:

Unite - Transport and General Workers Union accounts - investigation by the TGW Union Certification Officer into a branch accounts

Just an Observer
 

I am glad you observed! Well done and apologies for my poor math.

Anyone else noticed how quiet the Cabin Crew thread has been since the announcement of the Appeal Court ruling?

Litebulbs, you have been the voice of reason from a union point of view, during this whole dispute. Mind if I ask what your view is, regards the Amicus/CC89 refusal to recommend the latest offer? More specifically do you think that BA will now withdraw the offer?

Err.. no its not I posted this back in September and I can assure you it is absolutely accurate so call100 please have a read!
With reference to the money earned by DH I have noticed some misleading statements on this thread.

A little history lesson. Way back in the mists of time TGWU shop stewards working in factories and the like used to collect the members subscription in cash, usually using a old tobacco tin. The Employer would 'take them off the clock' in other words they would not be paid for the time taken to collect the dues.
In order that the shop steward would not lose out financially they would be able to keep a percentage of the money to compensate. This used to be around 15% of the dues.

This was know as Branch Secretaries Honorarium. This system applied to the BASSA Branch Secretary even though the subs were collected by BA by Payroll deduction. BA deducts a sum from this for administration 2.5% ish.

The remainder would be kept by the BS and for many years was not treated as income by the Revenue although I am not sure of the tax position today. A number of years ago the TGWU reduced the % kept by the BS to, I believe 8% so today it could well be 5% as mentioned elsewhere.

When the merger between TGWU and Amicus first came to light BASSA made a big thing about having secured 'assurances' (written in blood no doubt) from TGWU GS Tony Woodley that their 'financial arrangements would remain the same 'no matter what happened to the merger'. You can assume from this that would include the continuation of the BS Commission. BASSA made big play about this in a Newsletter (without mention of BS Commission).

I believe that DH pays a sum of money into the Branch fund but, crucially I believe, not all of it.

No member of BASSA is brave enough to challenge them and ask to see the Branch books and the amount of Honorarium being paid. The Branch Auditors are a couple of well trusted members who, I am led to believe, never make a financial statement to the Branch members at their meetings.

I have heard people refer to the disclosure of money paid into and spent by the union which is required by law. This actually refers to the 'big union' ie Unite today. A notice to members is issued and all monies are detailed in this including GS earnings and Executive Council expenses however the branches are not required to declare this. Two BASSA reps are on the EC and their expenses for that role are declared in the statement. This bears no relationship to their earnings from BASSA as lay reps which is not declared.

The sums claimed from BASSA are quite considerable being in the region of £100 per day for attendance to meetings. The tax position of these monies is also favourable.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/yeees.gif
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ser_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ons/report.gif
15:40

Dual ground
 

My mostly uninformed view is that they just don't like the content of the offer, as it is mostly the same or worse than previous offers. It is more about reinstatement's; staff travel and employees. If none of their members went on strike and none have been dismissed, then it is just about the content and judging by the actions of the committee, it is not good enough.

@VCtenderness......
With all due respect..."I believe..." "I have heard..." doesn't really prove anything. So still just speculation.
Don't get me wrong. If there is proof that DH or anyone else has been creaming off the top then I will be as angry as anyone else.
If you look at the amount of want, on this forum, for something more to shout about, then I would have thought that if the proof exists it would have been produced by now.

Oh yes, by the way, thanks for the history lesson.:rolleyes:

Can BASSA members not make a Freedom of Information request, or is this only for public bodies?
Apologies for being a little thick!

Please read again I only used 'I believe in relation to DH paying money back to the Branch! I used 'I have heard' in reference to comments made on this forum not to the issue of BS Commission.

Please let me assure you 100% I know what I am talking about. What I posted back in September was totally accurate.

History is also a very important thing if you ignore it it may well come back and bite you:rolleyes:

I have still to see any evidence that anyone is being given anything other than legitimate expenses.
Provide the proof and I'll join in the condemnation.

@call100 I believe that part of the complaint is the dearth of information from official BASSA sources about how money was used. As such it seems that there is no evidence either way which leaves the field open to speculation. :suspect: Presumably BASSA could answer these allegations one way or the other by publishing the required information.

Call100
 

Out of curiosity, which unions have you worked for or been involved with, maybe as a rep, and in which industries.

@Entaxei
Over 33 years, NUPE, UNISON, AEEU, AMICUS and Unite. Representing mainly Airport staff, both locally and nationally, but also, as Unions merged etc, Cabin crew and handling agent staff.
I don't believe this dispute has been handled at all well and should have been settled long ago. Many TU reps feel the same.
I don't, however think that making the accusations without any proof does anyone any credit. People have been calling for that proof long enough, Surely it would have been unearthed and published here!
I don't believe it is up to them to prove they have not, unless some evidence is produced. As I said, if that happens I will gladly join any deserved condemnation.
Yes, I have witnessed corruption, most of it in the late 70's and 80's. I fought then to get rid of those people. Over the years it became rarer and certainly in my experience, non existent in latter years. So please excuse my stance on this one.

Call100
 

It is entirely reasonable to assume that union officials are entirely pure in their motives and actions.There has to be trust or a union is a pointless waste of time. However, it is also reasonable that union accounts are open and available for public scrutiny, it is also reasonable to expect that the accounts are audited by professional accountants and the audit reports are freely available. Any attempt to hide accounts or any failure to have them audited by professionals leads people to a suspicion that there is something to hide.

I do not accuse any BASSA member of any financial mischief. The lack of freely available information and seemingly deliberate failure to publish accounts and audit reports compiled by a professional independent accountant could lead the cynical to think that someone in the BASSA leadership does have something to hide.

Perception is everything here, the perception that BASSA has something to hide, or has some shady financial arrangements is perpetuated by a failure to clarify their finances. The defence that they are innocent and don't have to prove their honesty will not wash, if they are innocent why hide the evidence? It is the perception of something hidden equalling misdeeds that is corrosive. This perception can be easily dispelled but BASSA must come clean to do this.

Juan Tugoh
Totally agree that it is a case of perceptions. One of the things I find depressing about this dispute is that the more that one digs, the dodgier the dealings of the people that members depend on to represent them appear to become.

Let's be honest. The bulk of the reps are CSDs. That's like asking your supervisor to understand your position, including the issues or otherwise with the chain of management that starts with him or her. So they can't really relate to the shop floor issues, because they are part of the chain of command. Any comment that threatens their position is hardly going to be escalated.

I don't want to be overly critical, but having a chairperson who has sadly been on long term sick does mean that they are out of touch with what is happening at the coal face. More so if they are domiciled overseas. In that situation, wouldn't it have been better for the chair to have stood down until their health returned and let someone else take up the reins. Apart from anything else, it might have helped with succession planning.

I didn't for one moment suggest anything other than legitimate, in fact the opposite.

BASSA branch secretaries receive commission based on the number of members paying subscriptions as outlined in my previous post. The reps also claim daily expenses in the region of £100 per day for attendance at meetings.

What proof do you need?:ugh:

It is a fact that the books are never brought to the members for inspection and the committee never informs the membership of the amount of claims they have made either per month or per year.

I would be better for all if this transparency existed.

I would hope that they do receive this, as it would be a day off, or de-rostered from a trip, therefore costing them in allowances.

Can you explain the commission in more detail please? Does this go to the branch or into DH's actual personal pocket?

Colonel White
 

I was at a meeting with two BA reps, earlier on this year. One was a purser and one main crew.

As to the chairs sickness, for all we know, it may have been bad toe. I am sure that in this time, the chair would have been more than able to fulfill the role of overseeing and guiding the representatives, especially as the reps are struggling for release.

If you read my posting number 518 I explain in detail. The commission goes directly to the Branch Secretary DH. it is rumoured that he puts a percentage back into the Branch fund but this is not, as all things with BASSA, publicly shown in any accounts.

In the 'good' old days the whole sum ie members subscriptions, commission, branch fund was paid quarterly into the Branch Secretaries personal bank account!!! I would hope this does not happen today.

I have never said the reps should not be paid for their time but the CC89 reps do it for much less £60 per day.

VC
 

But you said believe, rather than actually know with regard to DH.

I would suggest that the CC89 reps should look up, rather than reduce another arrangement.

I DIDN'T!!! I said I BELIEVE that DH puts SOME of his commission back into the fund. I did not say that I only believe any of the rest of the explanation.:ugh:

As for CC89 looking up to BASSA's expenses Its the members money and they at least tried to be careful with it!:=

It might be an interesting situation if Unite were to threaten the prosperous BASSA with derecognition unless BASSA changed its accounting procedures - change it so that BASSA show absolutely all their accounts to a professional accountant from a particular date.
It would seem to be a reasonable request from Unite, because BASSA readily admits to a membership of 10,000._ It would most certainly be a reasonable request because of the vast sums of money going into the BASSA conduit.

Of course BASSA would be free to choose to go with a different Trade Union.

But that would be sad._ Unfortunately BASSA have become a pariah organisation because of the awful image they had given to cabin crew by the well publicised antics at Bedfont._ Also the ambitions of BASSA are irrelevant to the Nationwide employment challenges that Unions are currently facing._ If BAASA negotiated with, for example, NUM (who have been "proved absolutely right" in their 1985 predictions) then even NUM might be reluctant._ After all it would be a poor thing for NUM to call a strike of cabin crew and then suffer the humiliation of seeing workers from a different Union (Unite) come in to work as strike breakers._ Workers of Unite successfully strike-breaking an NUM strike - no absolutely not!

So probably BASSA would have no choice but to employ a professional accountant.

"proved absolutely right":-_______link

Litebulbs
I was very careful to say that the bulk of reps were CSDs, not all. The chair's sickness is documented as being osteoporosis (see press reports from last December). This prevents her from taking up her flying duties and BA would, quite rightly, not roster her for any duties as a consequence. Thus it is reasonable to assume she would not have any regular contact with the rank and file members, although I note in the Unite Executive council minutes it hasn't prevented her from attending their meetings. Whether she would be able to oversee and provide guidance for the representatives from her home in California is open to question.

TAX
 

Do we have a Chartered Accountant on here, who could explain why a union such as BASSA do not appear to be taxed - and - what would cause HMRC to decide to carry out an investigation.

This situation seems a total anomaly compared to the rigour with which HMRC carry out any investigations into possible tax losses. In this case where would they be able to find records? :confused:

Entaxei - I'm not an expert on corporate taxes, but I suspect a union would not be subject to tax because it is not deemed to be carrying out a trade. I think trade union dues are also VAT exempt.