At the end of the day, whether or not the PCCC either publishes its' accounts or even comes to fruition as a major player, is of little importance during the next 2 weeks.

It's Bassa as the major player which has to reveal its' plans for their way forward.

As an aside, I can't believe that in law they would have been allowed to exist this long without proper accounting procedures..................................... would they.:confused:

I think it is the case that the Union (Unite) have to publish accounts, the branch (BASSA) do not.

It is worth remembering that BASSA are not a union.

Snas
 

Thanks for the clarification. Does Bassa have a written constitution?

Your statement is of course correct.

However, AFAIK the PCCC are not yet soliciting any subscriptions, so how exactly can they say what they are doing with their members money?

BASSA on the other hand ARE collecting a very large amount of money, yet refuse to say how much of it goes into reps pockets and what for.

So when a BASSAmentalist starts pointing the finger at the PCCC, one rather thinks it's a case of people in glass houses, etc.

A very valid point, Chico, methinks all of this is that Bassa are now feeling a bit scared of the PCCC before it has even gotten off the ground so are now trying any smear they can to try and discredit it before it even becomes a possible threat to their "empire".

Pencisly

Well spotted, great post.

I would imagine the following would pretty much cover it ;):

1. The BASSA leadership is always right.
2. No questioning of the BASSA leadership is allowed. Refer to rule 1 if clarification is required.
3. You can only be in BASSA if you are serving as CC with BA.*
4. You are entitled to take part in a democratic ballot.** However if you do not vote in accordance with the BASSA leadership's wishes you will be asked to leave.
4. It is mandatory to hate and mistrust Pilots, Willie Walsh, Pilots, Bill Francis, Pilots, anyone not in BASSA (especially CC89 and PCCC), and Pilots.

Notes:
* This rule does not apply to any member with the initials DH.
** This right exists even after you have left either BA, BASSA, or both.

Re the PCCC. I would have thought that anyone wanting to join them would also want to know where they were coming from.
I know it suits some of the more rabid on here that they are just different from BASSA so that's enough. However, surely a potential member would want to be sure that they are not just company stooges or political pawns. Knowing where their funding originates is just a fundamental question you would ask before joining any organisation.
If they are genuine and truly represent their membership then I wish them luck. To be different they must be more transparent. The leadership must stand up and be counted. If they are afraid of some sort of campaign against them then they shouldn't be in the positions they have put themselves.
I note on their site that they say you do not have to leave your current TU to be a member of PCCC. I'm not sure this is correct, however if it is that would be an opportunity for BASSA members (if they wished) to join and influence or destroy anything that PCCC want to achieve.
Whatever happens, division will be the way within BA for a long time to come.:(

call100 saidHow true - you have discovered a major problem that PCCC will have to cope with.

Here is my fav quote of the day....

Source: - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8293621/Cabin-crew-plan-guerilla-tactics.html

Litebulbs:

I certainly don't expect anything more from BASSA than to file the financial disclosure documents required by law..no more no less, and as a non-member I certainly don't feel entitled to know what they do with every pound that comes their way. The same can be said of the PCCC.

This demand by some for "transparency" over such a small expenditure by the PCCC is nothing more than an attempt to infer that somehow their money is soiled by BA.

I do agree that it is time for the PCCC to come out of the shadows and put a face on the organization and am hopeful that that happens soon. While I understand, given the history of some members of BASSA, that they might be hesitant, I don't see how they can continue to claim leadership from behind a curtain. It may also help them defend against the charges of being simply BA minions as they would be seen as actual Cabin Crew seeking alternatives to BASSA.

..and Joao..try not to take the board so seriously. Its simply a group of individuals interested in a particular situation. Rudeness directed at me personally does nothing for your argument.

What the Telegraph does not realise is that it is not BASSA’s call._ It is up to Unite to say what sort of industrial action.
Unite is very quiet.
Unite may silently pass the deadline in which case there is no industrial action.

Whoever said this should apologise.

notlangley:

Its quite alright. With such a diverse group following this adventure we are bound to attract those that are less than friendly at times...

..and I notice that Jaoa is busy deleting and amending previous posts.

If only it was as easy for BASSA and BA to rewrite history ;)

At least you got the name right, this time ;)

BASSA's accounts
 

surely, even the smallest, local group that has funds would expect to publish rudimentary accounts that members can question? i would be reluctant to belong to one that did not but then, i'd be there to question what is spent in my name first of all.

are there not members of BASSA able and willing to make a written request for the accounts to be either, published or provided to them personally?

if that doesn't work, is it beyond them to write to Unite, requesting that they require BASSA to provide this information.

Failing response to those requests, reference to the TU oversight body might be productive.

a bit of pro bonno legal work might be necessary if nothing comes of those approaches. It must be possible to require disclosure in law if you have a legitimate interest.

i take it no one is suggesting more heinous than a failure to publish (audited) accounts?

on a different tack, the suggestion that PCCC members shouldn't put themselves forward if they are afraid of attack, doesn't merit consideration: no one should be attacked for holding different views however much we may disagree with the views held.

certainly, there will be a time, not too far distant, when PCCC will need to declare their hand, personally and financially, but they are entitled to a breathing space to 'put the package together'.

Guerilla Tactics
 

As notlangley correctly points out, this is not BASSA's call. However their view is interesting in that it is effectively an admission that a full-blown strike would produce an embarassingly low turn-out, which would be hopelessly ineffective against BA's improved contingency plans.

If they were allowed by Unite to go down the guerilla route and test the grey areas, they would be taking on BA in a legal battle, and they have not won too many of those so far.

Pot? Kettle?
 

:confused: :eek: :confused: :eek: :confused: :eek::confused: :eek: :confused: :eek:

Haymaker:

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that impression when I read the article...but you are right. It certainly can be read as an admission of weakness.

Would BASSA attempt a work to rule assault without the blessing of Unite? Such an action may certainly cause disruption to BA but for how long? And at what cost to the unprotected Crew?

Where in the world is Litebulbs??? :)

...and pencisely's post on the previous page, which I just went back and reread, brings up an interesting issue. If this is not a continuation why are the BASSA leadership acting as if it is.

As quoting dictionary definitions seems to be becoming de rigeur here, might I respectfully point out that "rabid" is an adjective describing an animal or a person suffering from rabies?

One of the main symptoms of that disease is foaming at the mouth. The only person, currently contributing on these threads, who appears to be "rabid" is a new but prolific contributor to the "other" thread.