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.