Tax implications
 

One assumes that reps report both their BA and Union income, so that their tax codes can be adjusted accordingly?

(One assumes that because I can't believe the tax man wouldn't consider it "earnings" and already have taken care that they are getting their share).

Well notlangley,

I can only speak for myself but it is after the first ballot that I left the union realising that I was not going to be able to strike because I knew it was the wrong thing to do, so maybe other people felt like I did, I don't know.

Betty Girl
 

Would you carry out and support action short of a strike, if you were a union member, but voted against industrial action?

The Watford Tribunal heard the case last week.

I don't think the Employment Tribunal has given its decision yet. I expect it will be weeks before we learn of the decision.

Some of the reduction in crew 'numbers', so far as crew complements are concerned, in December 2009, and since, occurred because existing full time crew took part time. These and any other part time crew still have a 'whole' vote for or against IA, and presumably are better able to afford IA as they are clearly not the breadwinner of the family.

Remember a lot of crew took (I think about 1,000) voluntary redundancy to allow the reduction in crew complements. The figure of 12,780 included crew who had left BA by way of voluntary redundancy, hence why BA got an injunction to block the strike.

Also, soundings are that the figure of 10,220 includes crew who have left the union.

At a rough estimate, BASSA and CC89 have lost at least 1,500 members during this dispute.

There may still be a strong alligence to BASSA (when this has been successfully cultivated by BASSA for decades it is not going to change overnight), but it has been weakened by a loss of members.

4,000 fewer crew voted yes to strike in the third ballot than in the first. That is a significant fall in support.

Thats always assuming that the membership records are correct and Unite have 10200 CC members in BA. I've flown with plenty in the last couple of months who arent Unite members (and havent been for 5 years in one case) and yet got sent ballot papers for this last ballot and are thus included in the 10200. It seems to me that we (including Unite and BA) have no clue what the Unite CC membership is or how many have left.

Notlangley.

The "unnamed British Airways hack", " reckless statement by an anonymous spokesperson" quote you are talking about comes directly from Willie Walsh.

He wrote an article on 21st January published on the BA intranet under the news section to BA staff in response to the ballot result.

It is still there to see & the quote you highlight are his words, not those of an unnamed hack.

There have been some (unsourced) suggestions elsewhere that Unite may have to do the ballot again because of the likelihood of a successful challenge to this ballot.

Aside from everyone possibly losing the will to live in the interim, if Unite considers that a strike cannot go forward because of non-union members being balloted, it would surely take weeks/months for BASSA to fix its database to be certain that there are no procedural errors. Also, the issue of protection/continuation will not go away under a new ballot

Litebulbs,
I left not just because I did not want to strike but because I could see that what Bassa was doing, was taking crew out over the WRONG issue. The main reason that Bassa wanted a strike, as far as I could see, was a vain attempt to protect the CSD rank on E/F and prevent CSD's on WW having to actually work on flights in the cabin during the inflight service routines. They had not negotiated in faith and were trying to get 767 longhaul work transferred to E/F in order to protect the CSD rank on E/F also.

I disagreed with all of this and whatever the action was I could not have supported it. Bassa have bombarded crew with misinformation and lies throughout this dispute and have said anything they could, to scaremonger crew into doing their bidding and thank God many are now starting to see the light.

Notlangley,

I think 'Just an observer' has given a good reason for all your figures not adding up as you would have liked.

As well as some taking VR, many took part time or were part time before they took VR or are just part time now. BA count people for total headcounts in parts, so 2 x 50% = 1 person and 4 x 75% = 3 people, so in that example 4 people on the total headcount of crew actually equals 6 voting people. Unless you know how many leaving were part time or how many have been given part time since the original figures, you wont be able to just add or subtract the figures accurately.
So I think you can't really compare the two sets of figures and equate it to anything understandable.

Hope that helps you understand why you are having trouble understanding the discrepancies in the figures.

Betty Girl
 

I have attempted to reply to you for the last 30 minutes and all that I can come up with is what a bloody mess, because the positions are so polarised within the workforce, regardless of what the management team are doing.

BASSA Membership
 

It has been said on these threads that BASSA subs are paid by payroll check off. If this is correct and there are not other methods BASSA subs are collected then BA know exactly how many BASSA (not addressing CC89) members there are and who they are. From the CC89 web site : “National Officer Brian Boyd then addressed the meeting. He gave an update on the current legal situation which was welcomed by all. He also confirmed current membership figures that we have 1241 members, Bassa have 8975, so 10216 were balloted.” By simple subtraction BA know how many of the 8975 ballots were sent to non BASSA members. It is not rocket science if the assumption about how subs are collected is correct. Someone else will have to explain why BASSA can not figure it out.

It is accurate to say that all members of BASSA pay their dues by payroll deduction (there maybe the odd person that chose other methods) CC89 are virtually all on Direct Debit.

Your assumptions are therefor pretty good.

It has previously been said on a number of occasions, that the BA figures for payroll deduction cannot be correct in reflecting the total BASSA/BA staff membership, as a number of members pay by direct debit from the their bank accounts or credit cards.

Does anyone know if this method of payment is being used and although BASSA is by its title only concerned with BA CC, have they any members in other airlines, possible ex BA CC.

VC - Apologies, just found that my post crosses yours, which provides the answer. ;)

A copy of those who do being regularly given to BASSA, as I recall, the inability (??) of BASSA to decipher the spreadsheet was one of their excuses in one of the court cases.

Am I correct in thinking that the Union's monthly subscription fee is the same amount for all its members? If so can't the Union simply divide the total amount of subscription fees deposited to its bank account in any month by the amount of its monthly fee and come up with the number of members who chose to pay that month be they BASSA or CC89?

None of this is rocket science.............

AV Flyer
 

Members of the Bassa branch pay more per month than me.

Doesn't BA deduct union dues from CC monthly salary payments? If so then BA knows exactly how may paying members there are.

There will be the facility to pay by checkoff, but it might not be compulsory.

Is there an outcome yet in DH's tribunal and so what was the outcome? If not when is it due?

It will be especially interesting to find out how Bassa reacts, if they finally understand or if the will cry wolf once more...

"It is not because BA want to sack crew" - disagree. I don't believe BA want to sack all striking crew. But if Unite handed them the opportunity to sack the "ring leaders" \ key extremists then I think they would take it.

As I asked above - why would BA want to stop "illegal" \ "unprotected" strike action now which only allows for protected strike action in a few months that hits summer bookings?

I think that course of action would result in problems if any of the extremists or ring leaders went for an ET. It would have to be all the strikers or none realistically.

Just as an aside, email from the BA Exec Club just now:

I realise that there may have been some uncertainty around your travel plans during recent months or indeed you may have been hoping to make a booking during the dates affected by Unite's strike action.

To avoid any concerns you may have had about losing your status and to reassure you of your value to us, we have renewed your Gold membership for another year.

Have not flown with them once in 2010.....

I refer you to the answer I gave the honourable members a short while ago.:ok:

I see from the CC Thread that some Union bloke will be spouting on the Politics Show tomorrow :yuk: ... I am just so excited by the prospect of hearing something meaningful that I may go and prune some roses.

I doubt very much he will have anything to say, other than the usual blather about "BA Management", "Imposition" and other things written on his little cards of 'things to say when interviewed by the Meeja'.

Days to go Len?
Very few ... so what will happen then?
:mad:

Striking = Cricket . Law Courts = Water Polo
 

Len McCluskey is going to be on the Daily Politics show on BBC2 at noon tomorrow (Tuesday 8th).
No doubt he will be complaining that as a hard hitting batsman he is togged up in his best cricketing gear - white pads, studded boots, formidable leather gloves, tough helmet etc.
Whereas those absolute rotters BA have insisted that he plays Water Polo.

If Andrew Neil is interviewing him, he will not get an easy ride.

OK .. the roses can wait :cool:

Dear Baggers, I'm sure someone will post the iPlayer link that you're not allowed to watch [as a non-Licence payer] ;)

Flying with BA to the Caribbean next weekend and back the weekend after. am I worried - NO

it could be all talk and no information
 

baggersup saidChances are LM will just say "there will be an announcement later this week" and then stone-wall any and all supplementary questions.

Nothing missed, he waffled on a bit about his members, Andrew Neil mentioned he was voted in by only 7% of Unite members and that was really about it. and LM gave his view on bankers bonuses and the use of social media.

All very boring.

Len
 

I think that Len's interview with Andrew Neil was most enlightening. He was obviously totally unprepared to discuss BA. That can only mean that they have now realised that there is no way of pursuing IA as a result of their flawed ballot.

The Bassa membership aren't going to be at all happy.:{

Still too early to say IMHO. Unite have till Friday of course, and delaying the announcement till then will prolong the dipute for the maximum possible time, to the benefit of certain senior BASSA members (but no-one else :ugh:).

I think that there will be an announcement either way on Friday. BASSA are seemingly desperate to strike regardless of both the dangers to their members and the utter pointlessness of it all, so my money is still on a strike announcement come Friday.

The presenter and question-asker was Andrew Neil._ Not one word about cabin crew or BASSA or BA or airlines was mentioned by either AN or LM._ I have no reason to suppose that this was a condition of Len McCluskey appearing on the programme._ However had there been such condition then this would explain the no mention of the topic._ It would also be consistent with LM’s relaxed and confident mood throughout the entire programme.

I did record the programme, but have now deleted it.
__________________________________________
Edited to add AN asked LM about strikes during Royal Wedding - AN rapidly attached a whole range of organisations i.e. an unfocussed question._ As a reflex action LM brushed this aside as being a decision of members and not a decision of Unite.

breaking news just seen on SKY, that UNITE are going to declare the ballot invalid...

So where does that leave BASSA (apart from self destruction...) ?

I fail to see how any number of re-ballots will provide them with a result which includes legal protection.

The very fact that the strike mandate came from a ballot that had to be reworded so that it didn't include issues related to a previous strike, links the new ballot to previous industrial action, making any strike illegal.

BASSA have blamed so many people and raised so many 'issues' in the past two years that there's nothing left for a clean protected strike.

So I guess plan B is an unprotected strike... lets see how that goes.

This wont change much, if anything an increased pro-strike majority (of those balloted) is likely. The next ballot will probably return a similar number of yes-voters, a reduced number of no voters (as some may have followed DH's helpful advice and left BASSA) and a reduced number of non-voters (assuming BASSA actually bother sorting out their membership list).

Baggersup
 

For once Baggers, I beg to disagree. Bassa/ Unite have been shown to be totally incompetent which is very embarrassing for Unite's new leader. Len will NOT be happy.

I agree that they will run another ballot but I don't think that they'll be in a great hurry. After all it costs a few £1,000s to run it properly, & even more to make a complete Horlicks of it.:ugh:

In the other place

http://www.pprune.org/6231752-post2901.html