|
PC767 - my point exactly, I am guessing there is no recent precedent of consulting (or negotiating) whilst furloughed due to a pandemic. Not all the senior Unite key players are necessarily furloughed and the concept is untested so I guess high risk on both sides.....is it reasonable to say Len McClunky et al could have engaged as head and senior bods at Unite who are not furloughed, do the reps gets employed outside BA by Unite to represent members ? I really don’t know.....am sure both sides are getting expensive legal advice........
|
To play Devil's advocate: in an airline environment where the roles of captain and first officer are clearly defined and require only a minimum standard to be met and maintained, why should a company value loyalty, and why should salaries increase the longer you've been there. Companies in every sector only pay the minimum salary they need to retain staff. I'd suggest that the salaries on offer for pilots are still FAR in excess of what people would accept.
|
Originally Posted by TOM100
(Post 10807626)
Hi GS Alpha - a very enlightening post. Just for clarity a part time post is not an MPE (manpower equivalent) it’s a HCE (head count equivalent) a full MPE (how BA measure it) would be a half MPE (part time role) and then, say, paying 2 other people the other equivalent half an MPE to make a whole. So if BA paid two people as 50% PT that is equivalent to 2 x HCE but 1 x MPE i.e the two people = 1 Manpower Equivalent. MPE is usually how they measure overtime etc so if you have 3 people earning lots of OT(3 x HCE) you would still have three people but with the OT costs could be equivalent to 5 people’s salary or 5 x MPE if that makes sense ? Semantics I know but there is a difference.
i also agree they have to attempt to talk and try and consult - no idea (especially as current circumstances unprecedented) how a court would view a blanket refusal to even attempt to consult. BA have filed the S188 as they are legally required so for BASSA to say we won’t talk until you remove it does seem a precarious position to take. |
@ GS-Alpha
I am not involved, but as I see it the only real questions at the moment are: 1) Is BA's action legal ( short-term) ? 2) What are the effects (medium/long-term ) ? |
I believe FTE and MPE are the same essentially......dunno why BA use MPE Think it is to do with factoring OT hours rather than just physical heads, we digress....
|
Originally Posted by Plastic787
(Post 10807761)
Well knowing BA it must have crossed their mind to furlough those at risk knowing there’s a good chance they can take advantage of “the grey” in order to then make those people redundant and pay them
their notice in accordance with their reduced monthly furlough pay. Can’t be that strapped for cash... |
Originally Posted by Busdriver01
(Post 10807878)
Can’t be that strapped for cash...
https://www.theguardian.com/business...on-coronavirus |
|
Originally Posted by wiggy
(Post 10807884)
But in other news they are also playing the "look how strapped for cash we are" crad..
https://www.theguardian.com/business...on-coronavirus |
Paisley and Renfrewshire North MP Gavin Newlands is bringing forward an emergency bill to the House of Commons which, if passed, will prevent companies from dismissing staff and rehiring them on contracts with worse terms.
Probably won't get parliamentary support, but if it does ???? Greater number of overall pilot redundancies out of revenge and because it will mainly be cheaper LIFO sacrifices ? |
I left 22 years ago, but one thing that has not been mentioned is the billion pound "black hole" in NAPS. I appreciate that has been closed to new contributions and accruals for some time, but there must be quite a few crew on all "teams" that have a big vested interest in ensuring BA keep paying into the scheme to fill the black hole? Was £300 million a year afaik before Corona. Even a 10% reduction of pension over a potential 20+ year retirement (even in this day and age) equates to a lot of cash.
|
A 'final salary' pension scheme that was a British Airways responsibility less than 15 years ago will be paying out 35% less to existing pensioners from August this year.
Be very worried if you are in an underfunded final salary pension scheme within the 'BA realm'. |
[QUOTE=NoelEvans;10808186]A 'final salary' pension scheme that was a British Airways responsibility less than 15 years ago will be paying out 35% less to existing pensioners from August this year.
Be very worried if you are in an underfunded final salary pension scheme within the 'BA realm'.[/QUOT what is the source for this 35% drop!! |
why should a company value loyalty Well they maintain a seniority system which stops anyone ever leaving, so I'm guessing they place some value on it. |
This might not help the dynamics of the relationship (not that there is much of one anyway).
https://www.travelweekly.co.uk/artic...-of-air-europa |
Originally Posted by TOM100
(Post 10807892)
Indeed. The same PR job. One-trick pony. |
Originally Posted by NoelEvans
(Post 10808186)
A 'final salary' pension scheme that was a British Airways responsibility less than 15 years ago will be paying out 35% less to existing pensioners from August this year.
Be very worried if you are in an underfunded final salary pension scheme within the 'BA realm'. What is your source? I believe that once in payment, the pension is safe. Also, I believe legally safe, is the ring-fenced NAPS pension. Ironically, the amount saved from closing NAPS almost exactly equates to the ‘special dividend’ paid out to shareholders last year. |
Originally Posted by 777JRM
(Post 10808267)
This may be nonsense.
What is your source? I believe that once in payment, the pension is safe. Also, I believe legally safe, is the ring-fenced NAPS pension. Ironically, the amount saved from closing NAPS almost exactly equates to the ‘special dividend’ paid out to shareholders last year. |
I have just been on my NAPS website and there is no mention of this 35%cut . I always thought that one you were drawing a pension it was safe. Who knows these days!
|
As I understand it, once a pension is in payment then it is protected for life and paid in accordance with the rules of the scheme, even if that means cannibalizing the future pensions of those not yet drawing them. (Doesn't seem very fair to me, but when was anything to do with finance ever "fair"?) However I understand that the company is legally obliged to make up the shortfall, if it can... What I was highlighting is the fact that if BA doesn't make money in future and can't pay their £300 million a year "fill in" then the black hole shortfall will persist and at some point the pensions for those taking them in the future will have to be cut. There must be plenty of NAPS members still in the employ of BA who will stand to lose a lot of money if BA does not "thrive" in future and to a lesser extent deferred members like myself. So salary cut now or smaller pension later?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 22:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.