How many members to BASSA actually have?
 

On reading the other thread you wonder if BASSA have any idea how many members they have.

Surely for any ballot they should have an audited membership list.

You only have to read Juan Tripp's message #844 on the other thread to realise what disarray the membership details are in! It is fine getting an independent organisation to carry out the ballot, but if they are given duff information what credence does it give the result?

Another injunction coming do you think? Or will the company responsible for running the ballot express doubts of the accuracy?

@ leiard ... a nice thought, but from past evidence the list will have fully certified "Emmental" status, as noted on the CC thread :rolleyes:

As a completely unconcerned BA pax these days, I'm content to let BASSA rumble contentedly over the cliff. They have done "Stupid for Britain" often enough, and I suspect there will be more of the same. I just share some many other poster's views ... deep sympathy for the BA staff who have noticed the reality of life in UK these days, and still have to live and work in this awful Union-created mess.

Call100
 

Closed shops were abolished because they are fundamentally undemocratic, and within living memory were one element of unions abusing their power. You've made no good argument for why an individual should be forced to join a union at their own expense. That might be your point of view, as you put it, but don't expect everyone else to simply regard it as reasonable.

Papillon
 

It is an interesting debate. In my opinion, the current system does not work effectively. One of the unfortunate results of collective bargaining, is that those that do not pay, benefit from the generally improved conditions that unionised groups achieve.

It works well when you have a large workforce, but only a handful of roles. It does need both parties to talk though. Most people accept when they sign up to work for a unionised employee, that their T&C's will be union negotiated and that fact will appear in the contract of employment. If that arrangement is not acceptable, then they should not accept the employment offer. It is only one more step to make the requirement to pay for that contractually agreed position and therefore be able to vote on any variation.

Litebulbs, the reverse of that is that the non-unionised staff suffer when a union over-reaches itself, or acts unreasonably. I'm quite sure you'd be less than happy if a company that made much of its staff redundant following a strike solely chose union members. You really can't point out the benefits of freeloading a good union without equally pointing out the misery of suffering the consequences of a bad one - both without union membership.

Papillon, luckily then the legislation that allows for protection of choice not to belong to a union, also protects those that are.

I am also sure that Unites biggest branch believes that it is a good union and that is because they at LHR, are often reminded that they have the best T&C's in the UK industry.

Quite so. But to advocate a closed shop on that basis is to wilfully ignore the other side of that debate. You can't have that protection for union members without recognising that aspect.

But you are talking about a 1970's closed shop. Who knows what one would be like in 2010?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that to complain that people can freeload is to ignore the reality that non-union members suffer alongside union members too, even if they disagree with them. Unions still get it wrong even now. Factories still close because the unions push the management too hard. Why should the non-union members suffer for that? Yet they do. You can't have it both ways.

I goes back to my point that until this dispute, if you joined the company in the name of this thread, you were signing up to collective bargaining as a contractual position.

Correct. The point being that you signed up to the good stuff AND the bad stuff. That's a double edged sword, so you can't complain about non-union members getting the good stuff.

Put it this way, had BA responded to the dispute with 90 day notice, as they could have done, that would have affected non-union members too. And very angry they'd have been as well. Why should they then have to pay union dues to be badly represented?

As a point of order on myself, I am guessing that the collective arrangements are an express provision in the current contracts. I do not know if I am factually correct.

Hard to argue that one, apart from SOSR (in my opinion) weighs very heavily on the side of the employer and as I said previously, how do you know that the majority of LHR BASSA members think that they have been poorly represented?

Ah, now you're in the realms of philosophy - if they think they've been represented wonderfully but neutral observers see a dog's breakfast, who is right?;)

But the point about such an action on the part of the employer is that if falls on all staff members, even the "innocent" (you know what I mean) ones.

But the closed shop 2010+ would prevent that in as much as everyone is in it together?

Of course the present situation could suggest that unions need to work harder to recruit and keep members.

Given the suggestions that Unite has lost members in more than one branch over this dispute suggests they got it wrong. (voting with feet)

West Lakes
 

I was going to start with...

"you will always loose members when"

but I am not a politician. You are right of course and I am sure many lessons will be taken from this dispute, if and when it ends.

Litebulbs
 

It wouldn't prevent a thing. It would merely mean that the democratic right not to be in a union has been over-ridden, and that the unions grab a lot more revenue. Why should an individual be forced to contribute?

What if the union (bad word) was basically free from compulsory fees and had no political affiliation?