Ryanair BALPA Recognition

[BongleBear]

I'm not quite sure why pro-BALPA members are avoiding answering my question on the forums, so I want to make myself clear on a new thread which is for discussion on the union recognition debate.

I am an FO at a UK base and want to know how BALPA are going to improve things at Ryanair, or even stop things getting worse.

Please don't see this as a new opportunity to abuse each other - this thread is for people like me to get the knowledge they require in order to have a reason to vote yes.

My colleagues have told me that Ryanair management only have to attend meetings with BALPA representatives, but MOL has said that he wont do a thing they ask. So what is the point? Don't just answer with "It's for the future....." - How is it for the future of this industry when MOL doesn't have to pay attention to BALPA?

As far as I can see, the only things that will change are those promised by MOL - I wont list them because those who need to know already do know the threats.

Please answer as I would love for there to be a reason to vote for union recognition, but I just can't see how it's in anyones best interest.

[whatdoesthisbuttondo]

Don't you Ryanair managers and pilots have your own forum here or elsewhere for this kind of thing?

[The Real Slim Shady]

Bongle,

I applaud your valiant effort to get answers in a reasoned manner.

Regrettably, the pro BALPA lobby are now resorting to personal attacks and threats rather than reasoned debate.

[Fightback Fred]

Regrettably, the pro BALPA lobby are now resorting to personal attacks and threats rather than reasoned debate.

Sorry RSS but what planet are you on. Is it BALPA who today threatened to shut LTN, was it BALPA who have threatened every pilot, was it BALPA who sent the Recognition roulette rubbish, Was it BALPA that effectively tried to destroy a fellow pilots career to silence evenryone else. Is it really BALPA who are threatening you.

You may have questions RSS, we all do, but if you want people to take you seriously, you are not doing yourself any favours with comment like that.

BongleBear. As someone who is inclined towards BALPA, I also have some questions. I will email BALPA about them, and I am prepared to wait until any election and then decide which way that vote will go, if I do decide to vote. I may abstain

Ryanair are threatening people and their livlihoods, and people have genuine questions agreed, I do to BongleBear but I for one am willing to wait a few weeks to see what if any their response is and the pilots who they say are organising to take this course, before rushing to swift judgements.

Just because my vindictive and maverick CEO is trying to intimidate me I am not going to lay the blame for that at BALPAs door nor react to his threats.

Yes I want instant answers, don't we all, but I guess there is a process going on here.

I intend to see what our pilot colleagues who are supposedly running this thing under BALPA have got to say and am willing to at least give them the time to formulate some sort of response.

I have opinions, and am seeking clarifications, like RSS to.

I am guessing this thing will take a month or 2? (does anyone know) and yes the base freeze does affect me and my family, and I cannot afford to lose my job, I want to move base, but I am also rankled at this constant bullying crap we get and I am not going to rush to instant conclusions, until I do see the full picture, which I am not sure I do yet. I will not be a part of any anti BALPA bangwagon rubbish, because I am being bullied and am not be reasoned to nor will I rush to fully endorse, yet.

I am not in the "oh please don't hurt me michael, OK I'll sign michael". camp.

I will no be formulate my opinion beacuse I am being threatened by O'Leary or his minions not for anything. Nor will I misplace my anger at BALPA when it is the management who are making the threats.

[SID PLATE]

That's a well reasoned post Fred ... it should set an example to some of the more hysterical contributors on here.
You have to consider the fact that RYR management are using intimidatory tacticts to dissuade its pilots, the majority of whom are dissatisfied with their management style,, from voting for union recognition.
If BALPA is recognised, and if the promised threats are carried out, then that would be considered as having punished its pilots for voting for an action with which the management disagree.
...... and what would be the point of that ?
If I make a serious mistake when operating I might expect a bollocking, in order to persuade me to learn from it, and not do it again. If I get flashed by a speed camera. I'd expect to pay a fine.....
However, if I cast a vote for something I believe in, resulting in something my managers disagree with, but can't change ... recognition .... then any punishment meted out for doing so would be vindictive and counterproductive.
RYR's primary concern is Flight Safety. Having its aircraft crewed by victimised and pissed off BALPA represented pilots would be detrimental to this .... now wouldn't it?

(For further reading, please refer to the Papi India HS Trident accident report, Staines reservoir, near LHR, some time back, in the Olden Days.)

[The Real Slim Shady]

Is it really BALPA who are threatening you.

No Fred it isn't BALPA: it is a BALPA member writing on behalf of other BALPA members who made the threat making allegations of secret BALPA lists to persecute individuals who disagree with them.

Frankly, it is rather childish: a sensible debate on the pro's and cons is what is needed not the personal attacks and threats from BALPA members because we don't agree with them.

[Fightback Fred]

OK RSS, if you say that someone has PM'd you , I can only take you at your word.

However, I don't believe BALPA would threaten anybody nor groups of BALPA memebers. that is the managements bag. And they are doing it daily.

First - it is obvious where many of the card carrying pro and anti balpa members and contributors stand here on pprune in the majority of cases, I would count you in the anti Balpa, from your posts RSS?

Second - I have heard many things already done by the management branded as BALPA's fault or becuase of BALPA.

So if it was an individual, they should know better and should not have written to you. But seeing the firestorm of opinion this has created and all the sudden anti BALPA rhetoric and outrage on another thread. It got me thinking.

There is a part of me, and I am cynical, that wonders if someone from your side of the fence has done it deliberately to you to provoke you and this reaction.

Wonderfully simple in my mind, Start writing alleged threats making out they come from BALPA or its members to anti BALPA members and watch what happens? That'll get them to turn away, and they (the management) can then use it to further dissuade fence sitters.

Are you absolutely sure it was genuinely from BALPA or affiliate? or are is there a chance you could be being played?.

Put it this way, I am sure there are management types throwing their oar in here, who will DO ANYTHING to turn people away. And that is their duty to MOL.

RSS I would'nt put anything past them, especially right now.

[alibaba]

BB check you Pm's..

Slim Reasoned debate is not by taking VERY selective quotes of the law and statute and then twisting it by adding personal comment and opinion. The for mentioned individual tried to state that 10% of the bargaining unit was all that was necessary for recognition to be followed thorough instead of the legal requirement of a majority of workers of 50%+1 either members or voting. The full statute was not quoted to many EMA members so trying to distort the truth as the Ryanair management did in the base visits and in various memos on CD. Whatever the individual’s motivation, the individual’s intention was to try and clearly mislead the pilots involved and so he will have to now live with that reputation as somebody who misleads, just like our own management try to do. This type of behaviour is abominable and should not be tolerated.

The codes of practice are their for people to look at; Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, inserted by the Employment Relations Act 1999, sets out the statutory procedure for the recognition and de-recognition of trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. There are many sources on the internet and I ask people to look for themselves.

10% of the bargaining unit is only needed for the CAC to undertake a hearing of whether automatic recognition is likely due to membership numbers of 50% plus or more likely in the case of Ryanair; a vote is necessary where a MAJORITY of workers in the bargaining unit have to vote in favour for collective bargaining. Some sources on the internet are as follows but there are many, many more on the internet. The law is the law ladies and gents and Ryanair management or select individuals can not rewrite these, whatever personal motivations these and him have and every company, manager, union and person or pilots is liable to answer to it. Here is some info:

Employment Relations Act 1999 (c. 26)

and

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004...0040024_en.pdf

Plus much more on the net, that you can do the research for yourself as I have only spent a couple of minutes searching and have properly not got the best results as there are many documents.

You are entitled to your opinion but many people feel that a clearly constructed untruth should be aired and the individual should not be entitled to such an attempt to mislead people..

Stick to the facts.

[the grim repa]

slim has allowed me to see the supposed threatening pm and it is nothing more than friendly advice to not become over exposed.whether this is misconstrued through over sensitivity or other reasons,i cannot tell.but i can say all the allegations of intimidation are rubbish and are posted by an individual who at no time give cause to believe he is acting on behalf of anyone other than himself and does not espouse his membership of any organisation.
however on the other hand intimidation and threats by ryanair management are a daily reality.but the anti union-anti pilot double standard will not allow some here to cry that foul.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Alibaba

you are patently incapable of interpreting the English language: what I said was a direct quote from the Act " In certain circumstances".

I have made it clear that it is normal that 50% + is required by ballot, however, the issued can be forced " In certain circumstances" if 10% of the union membership vote for it.

That situation becomes relevant when 90% of non members express a negative vote, but 10% who are members express a positive vote.

The difference which yo fail to make clear is that they must be union members: people who are not union members are therefore disenfranchised.

I'm not misleading anyone: the union members have a weight in law which materially disadvantages those who want no part of their organisation.

Don't twist things for your own ends: read the words carefully, and acknowledge that some of us don't belong to any union and could, in certain circumstances ( the wording in the act), have our fate decided by the 10% who are.

[alibaba]

Just to clarify I haven't stated anything you have said as I was referring to;

Frankly, it is rather childish: a sensible debate on the pro's and cons is what is needed

and my reply was;

Slim Reasoned debate is not by taking VERY selective quotes of the law and statute and then twisting it by adding personal comment and opinion

So I was making a link to "Reasoned" or "sensible" debate with in reference to an email which was neither.

I have understood that there was directly quoted but small parts of the act mixed with opinion and conjecture. The act and the codes of practice are very substantial but worth a read in light of the opinion which is flat out wrong in that email.

I have made it clear that it is normal that 50% + is required by ballot, however, the issued can be forced " In certain circumstances" if 10% of the union membership vote for it.

Wrong.. The CAC must have satisfied that 10% of the proposed bargaining unit are already MEMBERS of the union to be able to proceed for a ballot or for a hearing to take place with a review of membership by CAC. In other words if 51% vote against recognition in a ballot then it is not recognised. As simple as that. That is called democracy.

Also important to note; that 40% turnout of the total number of WORKERS in the bargaining unit have to take part in the vote for it to be counted as legitimate.

"In certain circumstances" if the CAC has recognised that for example 90% of WORKERS of a bargaining unit is in membership then it can make a ruling without a vote as there would be no need to obtain one as it is taken that the collective view of WORKERS has already been made due to such high membership levels. In other words the union would have to establish to the CAC more than 50% MEMBERSHIP levels minimum out of the total number of WORKERS in a proposed bargaining unit. The numbers would have to be considerably higher than 50% though. Maybe as much as 70% or 80%. That is what reference to; "certain circumstances or cases” are talking about in the act. The email is mistaking MEMBERS and WORKERS and is not considering what the "certain circumstances" are and so is very misleading.

That situation becomes relevant when 90% of non members express a negative vote, but 10% who are members express a positive vote.

Wrong, MEMBERS and WORKERS again. If 90% of the WORKERS in a proposed bargaining express a negative vote then the union is not recognised. As that is 90% against and 10% positive of the WORKERS in the bargaining unit. Simple.

In terms of the actual vote or ballot membership does not matter as all WORKERS are entitled to a FREE vote no matter what their allegiance or belief and that is down to the majority and their vote. MEMBERSHIP is only assessed in terms of justifying whether the CAC should undertake a hearing to establish if 10% of WORKERS are in particular MEMBERSHIP of that union and whether there is to be a vote or ballot.

Recognition is not granted by 10% membership of WORKERS in a particular bargaining unit. It is misleading and demeaning to colleagues to suggest so. FLAT OUT WRONG.

I'm not misleading anyone: the union members have a weight in law which materially disadvantages those who want no part of their organisation.

Don't twist things for your own ends: read the words carefully, and acknowledge that some of us don't belong to any union and could, in certain circumstances ( the wording in the act), have our fate decided by the 10% who are.

So on one hand you state in your post, if 50% + (the majority) WORKERS

I have made it clear that it is normal that 50% + is required by ballot

decide by ballot to accept a union to commence collective bargaining but on the other you then you state that 10% is deciding it for the majority of WORKERS in a particular bargaining unit. This is all based on “certain circumstances” that have to show way and above 50% membership as the minimum to the CAC as described above.

Maybe it is my literary skills or even my perceptual understanding but I just don't get that? You are saying one thing but then stating something different in the post. The majority rules but then you are saying it doesn’t? I just can’t qualify that argument but it is understood why it was decided to make it as it was designed to muddy the waters.

Either the email is deliberately misleading or it is not but the current evidence speaks for itself.

Read the entire act and take professional opinion by qualified employment specialists, solicitors and the CAC or take advice from somebody who is deliberately misleading for whatever aim or motivation?

Misleading it is and the facts do speak for themselves no matter which way people cut it.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

[intimidatedpilot]

Running out of ideas L H C***..

You seem to have a donkey fetish

[HundredPercentPlease]

Bonglebear,

Why not have a look at how eJ has shaped out with Balpa recognition? Set contracts, proper negotiations, and when recently a genius manager decided to simply remove something from our remuneration (an act you may have to become familiar with), Balpa waved a writ and the decision was hastily reversed.

In a safety critical job, it's important that the employer is not allowed to bully and threaten. Balpa is not a great way to stop that (they are expensive and sometimes a bit unreliable) but they are much better than nothing.

[altogethernow]

Quoting from "The Act"

You guys will be aware that these laws are being modified all the time? That means that if you look up an Act dated 5 years or more ago it is quite likely to have been amended by a subsequent Act of Statutory instrument which will effectively add and delete words and often whole paragraphs.

There is at least one website that unofficially tries to keep up with all the amendments and where you can view/download the Acts you are interested in with the amendments shown as annotations in red - here is a sample:-

Employment Rights Act 1996

[The Real Slim Shady]

Close alibaba but no cigar.

If it goes to the CAC, 10% of the union members have the decision about it going any further.

Then a majority of workers must vote for it AND at least 40% must vote in favour.

BALPA have to accept base by base that we don't want anything to do with them.

[alibaba]

Yes, it goes to the CAC and YOU get a free vote as a WORKER in a bargaining unit the same as all the other WORKERS in that bargaining unit.

10% is a membership test if the ballot is to be called for by the CAC.

The majority decide by vote and ballot which way they want their future collective bargaining to be conducted.

Facts need to be stated and the spin had to be dismissed for what it is for whatever personal motivation. SPIN and MISLEADING INFORMATION. Honesty is what is needed here and it seems to be lacking in various quarters.

Democracy rules.

[Finman]

BALPA have to accept base by base that we don't want anything to do with them.

You mean.....YOU don't want anything to do with them.

The rest of us want a way out of the oppressive 'management' bullying, intimidation and 'take it or get out' attitude.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

BLAPA and the dick of death.

BALPA have to accept base by base that we don't want anything to do with them.

And they will, my dear Slim. The latest flurry, with the noted despicable exception of the threats and intimidation directed at a highly respected EMA Captain and his Lady wife, is responsive to BLAPA learning that their efforts are for naught. Latest Ryanair straw poll suggests, BASE BY BASE, less than 8.75-9.25% interest in BLAPA, and a very high percentage absolutely antagonistic toward it. Oh dear!

Perhaps you should have thought twice before dropping the BRK contractors in the guano, BLAPA, and I'm sure you should have thought twice before taking on a man possessed of the sort of character and integrity found in Slim Shady.

Good heavens, what am I saying. Character and integrity in the same sentence as BLAPA? I might as well be speaking Chinese. BLAPA and their semi-literate, knuckle dragging, bull**** hillbillies (evening Dumb Reaper) wouldn't recognise character and integrity if it drove up their arse in a truck.

NO BLAPA FOR RYANAIR.

[FreeBird1106]

I feel RSS is on a promotion here, hehe. You've just been knighted by Leo, I can smell a good shaftmeister position for this good boy. What is it gonna be? BC? BTRE? How exciting! Or maybe just pathetic..