BALPA save BA money!
 

Come on SEPLA reps, stop being awkward with Iberia and follow the lead of your colleagues in BALPA! In a fine example of the spirit of collaborative working, BA and BALPA have agreed to sacrifice all the ongoing holiday pay that BALPA spent millions of pounds of members money on legal fees to win, and replace it with a single, communist-inspired wealth redistribution program which will remove up to £1000 per year from the income of those pilots who work to their contracted 900 hours per year, and instead use it to fund those who don't feel like working so hard, including managers and BA BALPA reps.

In addition, this conveniently removes the remote risk BA faced in being pursued by individual pilot employees for operating a payment scheme in breach of EU law, to the cost of BALPA members.

Our colleagues in SEPLA should wise up and see how it is done. Don't waste your time letting members vote on it, simply sign up to the deal and tell your members they agreed to it when they voted on an entirely different matter several months ago! Should any Spanish union counterparts need further advice they can currently find Il Duce and the rest of his BA Captains Council holed up in the BALPA HQ bunker in London desperately avoiding any questions from a hostile membership. For more information send an email to BALPA and make the subject: JPT (Judkins' Poll Tax).

To clarify your headline, how much money is this saving BA?

Ooo, trainers NCP, ongoing holiday commitment, potentially discriminatory pro-rating of PTW pilots, legal risk of future challenges. I reckon that's worth quite a bit over the next 20 years. Jolly nice of Il Duce and the clowns to arbitrarily redistribute the earnings of their members too, BA must be laughing into their lattes at those mugs doing their dirty work for them. It looks like there'll be a few less members too.

CP, kinda disgusted that you can talk about people like that. People that do work incredibly hard for us.
Put your own name forward if you think that you can do so much better.

Why don't you post it like this on the BALPA forum and let's have a name to the crap that you waffle.

Fair enough not agreeing with something, it's a democracy. No need to lower yourself to vile insults.

If that's what hard work brings then it's clear the team at the top need a long holiday. Preferably a permanent one. And where was the democratic vote on this particular daylight robbery? Slipped into the bmi vote deal? What a joke!

Tosh to the whole thing!

BALPA are an effective tool in helping to make airline managers look intelligent

SZ

I hope you're right, and I hope Charlie Pop takes the opportunity to post his/her thoughts on the BALPA forum - assuming he/she is a member of course.

IMHO possibly the only silver lining I can find in this apparent debacle is that elsewhere we've got a sometimes heated but civilised, vaguely rational debate going on, and above all it's one that is most definitely not being controlled or censored by senior association reps.

WTF
Is going on?

Well, long story short, it started with a long newsletter went out last night to BA BALPA members which started by saying:

Without going into too much detail about the subsequent text it appears that the "mechanism" being proposed by the Company Council Reps would have seen many individuals (but not all) taking a significant pay cut - which generated a just a tiny :eek: bit of traffic on the BA BALPA Forum. Charlie Pop's choice of words is a bit extreme but he certainly gives you an fairly accurate idea of the thoughts being expressed by some "in that place"....it's the closest I've seen that site come to melt down in a long long time...........

Fortunately (IMHO of course) we heard a few minutes ago that it seems those involved in negotiations have appreciated the membership's concerns, have taken a step back and decided to reconsider the proposed mechanism.

Yes ain't that queer! After an outpouring of criticism the BACC have managed to get BA management to reconsider their position. Which is interesting, as a managerial source has suggested that BA were not happy with this solution in the first place and it was, in actuality, being pushed by the BACC. Now given the historical positions of BA wishing to preserve some form of incentive pay, and the BACC wishing to remove it, it does seem a curious volte-face for both parties. Has anyone ever seen the BACC override the 'firm legal advice' apparently given to both parties that only a fixed FPA would be legally robust? That would be a first. Something doesn't add up.

I know what you mean, it is all a bit odd.

The whole episode (which has lasted barely 24 hours) has all been a bit strange to say the least.....the only saving grace is that it seems the BACC actually listened to the members concerns, though it does seem the volume had to be cranked up to 11 to get a result :E.....

Best we get down to New Road with some branches. I think someone might need to cover their tracks!

Why would you go to New Road?

Make that Bath Road then. Or just follow the truck carrying lots of cans of whitewash.:ok:

"Nothing to see here, move along now."

Seems BALPA are having a bad week. Another mis-step from them joining with UNITE to try to stop non-union members from receiving holiday pay. It's either a right or it's not, if it's not a right then hand back the money you won, don't try to keep it from others.

The concept should be familiar to the unions, things like equal pay for women - just because the union led the fight, should only union members get equal pay.

This is petty and beyond contempt.

I understand the feelings here, I am affected by this as well. Can I suggest that we keep this to our own BALPA forum... Dirty washing, public, etc.....

Juan. Just submit a small claims court application for the holiday pay amount quoting the 1984 employment act regarding "unequal treatment". You can't reward or punish employees doing the same job or guilty of the same misdemeanour unequally. You don't have to prove the validity of the holiday pay claim just that you have been treated differently from another employee. The court will be even more sympathetic because you are being victimised for not joining a union - all that closed shop stuff.
I'm going to do it once the pay is awarded, can't do anything before that.

It's all alright though, because post-Ewing, BALPA are all open and honest and transparent and cuddly. Couldn't possibly be any dodgy backroom deals being done.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Just for my own curiosity. How exactly are BALPA trying to stop non members getting the holiday pay (or whatever the final settlement ends up being?)

BALPA have co-written, with UNITE, a letter to BA urging them not to pay Holiday Pay (HP) to anyone that was not in the union. This after trying to cut pay without consultation in order to remove the cost liability of HP from BA - only this would apply to all pilots. So screwing over the non-union pilots. It gets worse, by allying themselves with UNITE, the mother union of BASSA, they are helping to screw over any cabin crew that left the union during the dispute with BA.

Is it the whole holiday pay or the back pay element?

JT, as many of your colleagues have posted, let's move on together. It's time to heal the wounds and move forward working together like all trade unions should. I applaud their joint statement. Just as you are annoyed 'BA backers' won't be included, I'm equally annoyed our decent pilots who left BALPA won't be.
There's nothing to stop them taking a claim out in their own names and they'll probably win it, but why should others benefit from a claim they haven't financially contributed to?

I suppose Wonker that you are also against Universal suffrage or any other right won by a small group. A right is a right and this petty union posturing is vile and unworthy.

Unions cannot have it both ways, If they want to negotiate pay and T&Cs for everyone, the price has always been that non-members also get the benefits. When the union stoops to actively trying to stoops to this sort of behaviour it demeans ALL their members by turning them into petty, childish and small-minded.

This is not about "moving-on" something you seem desperate for people to do yet you continue to harp on about at every opportunity. This is about fairness for all, not just union members. It has nothing to do with your obsession.

So why do I pay my membership fees? For others who don't?
Get real JT - we're not talking about a broke, impoverished group!

Leaving this specific letter writing aside.

Whilst I'm not a BA pilot, I am a long time BALPA member. Surely you have that the wrong way round! If you want the benefits of membership you need to be a member and not hang on to the coat tails of those who are willing to stump up 1% of their gross salary.

BALPA took a risk spending money I have given to them by going to the courts. Sometimes they win like in the holiday pay case, sometimes they lose like in open skies. It's a risk you take going to court. It's a risk I'm happy to support just as BALPA takes risks in my airline which I hope the members in BA are willing to support.

But why on earth should I risk my subs on someone who isn't willing to pay his or her fair share?

And as to negotiating T's and C's, I'm pretty sure in the current BALPA BA agreement there's a clause that states that any pilot is free to negotiate their own terms and conditions. If you're not happy with what balpa's doing on your behalf (without you paying for the service) feel free to negotiate your salary, per diems, rostering agreement, loss of licence, health care, pension etc yourself.

I wouldn't worry gorter, JT just sees red mist when I post then quickly posts some irrational response to try and get 'one over', without thinking of the ridiculous statement he's just made.
If you're employed and want support and protection a union provides, then you jolly well contribute towards it - we're not a charity!

WW,

You don't get to play that game. You take any opportunity you can to have a pop at BA pilots and BALPA. We may agree on this one issue but in general I find your stance towards your fellow union members to be left wanting.

Wonker you've summed it up there. BALPA does more than just negotiate T&C, it provides support and protection amongst other things. For those who don't want that they are carried along with the T&C negotiated. It's up to the individual to choose if the price of membership is worth the subs to them. Morals apart - if you're OK with someone else paying to which you receive a benefit without contributing.

Gorter I'm not sure you're correct in believing that a company will negotiate with an individual. I think that most will only negotiate with the agreed union if there is one.

It's totally irrelevant if you are a member of BALPA or not when it comes to holiday pay. BALPA set the precedent and campaigned for the payment using members subs but each and every case was brought as an individual case citing the persons name.

Once the precedent in law has been set it is then up to the individual as to whether he/she wishes to pursue the company through the courts for the back payment of holiday pay.

It is not the remit of the Union, Unite or BALPA, to decide who should and shouldn't get paid, the remit of the Union is to represent its members, nothing more.

Those outside of the Union should have received holiday pay from the company over the same period, they didn't, thus, as now encapsulated in law, they should be free to take legal action as they see fit.

What Unite and BALPA are doing is disingenuous to say the least.

The fallout from this and the BMI deal will affect ALL pilots and Cabin Crew, those who are members and those who are not. If the company ran two sets of T's & C's, one for members and one for non members, then I could see the point. The company doesn't.

Leaving aside the personal insults, Unite have not yet been to an ET except to have judgment stayed, waiting the result of the BALPA case. So in reality NO group of employees has a case with BA to expect HP except for those pilots that were part of the claim. Unless the case was to prove a point of law, which it did. The case proved that BA crew with a highly variable pay have a right to an element of that pay while on holiday. With that right established in law, it is offensive when a union then urges an company not to honour that right for non-union members from it's own staff group let alone another one.

My objection is with my union joining forces with UNITE to urge BA not to pay pilots AND cabin crew any HP unless they are part of the union. I think that this is despicable. Pilots unions should not be involved in what a company pays it's cabin crew at all. Indeed until now BALPA has remained neutral - whether Wonker and his ilk will admit it BALPA did not either support or work against BASSA in the strike. Individuals acted but not the union.

So when you say that we are not talking about a broke, impoverished group we are talking about cabin crew. I don't care a fig whether UNITE wants to call for it's non-members to be screwed over, but i do object when my union decides to do so. It is not the place of BALPA to do so any more than it is the place of UNITE to call for pilots not to get their rightful HP.

This is not about someone riding on the coat tails of a union, we all get what we pay for from our respective unions, but about a couple of unions BALPA and UNITE joining forces to try to deny someone their rightful pay - just because the union won that right does not mean they get to decide to whom that right applies. It applies across the board or not at all.

As a non union pilot in BA I have already pointed out to our management that failure to pay non members would constitute discrimination under current legislation, and with the precedent already set, they would lose any further case.

Might have to get the lawyer to write to the company but I cannot see how they can avoid paying.

Either way I will not fund the life style of our BALPA reps....period!

Whilst not anti union per se, they are largely self serving cartels, that have never been able to protect the long term condition in any industry.

But you are quite happy for all the BA balpa members to fund the court case on your behalf.

Our BALPA reps are fellow pilots who are prepared to give up their time - and their family time - to represent us to the best of their ability. Can't we just let them got on with it instead of constantly barracking them?

:8:8:8 Haven't stopped laughing!!!! At least we agree on something JT!!
Unfortunately it was your unions members who helped set up a low paid CC unit at LHR.

WW. God, you are like a broken record. One minute you say: we have to move on and the next you take another pop shot. How can you trust anyone who continually changes his tune to suit his/her own agenda. Have some backbone and move on, I dare you.
(As we all know 50% of your own members all worked through the strike and so did every other department)

Sadistic pleasure because we are an easy target? Self reflect and learn from your mistakes. Wallowing in anger has gotten you this far and legacy crew is f***** due to your actions.

Be brave, apologise to your membership that you gambled with Willy and you lost, not expecting such a turn out by your own members.
Then, we can move forward.

Wonker try to stay on topic for once

Yeah! But you are quite happy to line your own pockets through the financial efforts of others whilst you just sat on your arse with your union dues tucked away in that same pocket.

A little humility might be in order as well as noting that the "self serving cartel" has just secured a huge win for its members, and just maybe any other parasites who want to come along for the ride.

I don't work for BA but am a BALPA member elsewhere. I was also a TGWU (now UNITE) member in a past life, albeit under duress as I had no choice. There are some people on here who want all the protections and perks of Union membership but want other people to pay for it. I have zero sympathy for them frankly.

I think, however, it is ill-advised of BALPA and UNITE to actively ask their management not to give HP to non-members. It opens the door to a 'benevolent' act (divide and conquer?) from management to go against their request and give it out anyway. Furthermore, it is inconsistent in that the unions always negotiate pay rises for the whole workforce and not just their members. Finally, it has an ugly air about it that will only cause unnecessary offense. All-in-all, a very unwise move.

When your "management", and your "Union", are members of the same "club" what do you expect ?

Been there done that (British Midland) believe you have the same "virus" :rolleyes: