Why can none of you see this from the perspective of a company; in this case an Airline but it might be applied to any commercial venture?

If you have the luxury of a super keen, willing, qualified workforce "Begging" to work for free, pay to work, or ultimately work only when required for buttons you would be mad not to engage?

I think it is hillarious that some Toff from Chigwell has paid through the nose such that his darling offspring can subsidise a junket for the masses. Everyone wins.

1. Chigwell Toff can 'blow off' to his chums at the golf club that Timothy is an Airline Pilot.

2. EZY/ FR (delete insert they are all the same) get dirt cheap labour.

3. Gaz and Chelsea can fly for buttons to Alicante as the cost structures are reduced below that of a council dust lorry.

Why can none of you understand?? What is so complex? You passed your ATPL exams didn't you?

Frankly; I am delighted for all parties in this transaction. Stop Whining!!:E

Ok cirromange. So every flexi crew joins BALPA and suddenly everything will be better? And I'm the one that's had the lobotomy? You make me chuckle!

Fair enough. You keep your £2/month and we'll keep everything the same without even trying :ugh:

Are you seriously content with that or do you have any illuminating theories to put to us?

Phensocks,

It is actually that simple. :ugh:

But the problem lies in the fact that Flexicrew are contractors - so cannot be 'properly unionised'. A pitfall of being temporary/contract/agency staff and not a permanent employee.
Same as the Ryanair pilots in a word. Part of the reason that management like such contracts - you have virtually no rights.


There are a few ways that this could be swung.

Permanent crews could refuse to fly with Flexicrew on grounds of flight safety - flexi F/Os flying fatigued, unwell etc. It's a stretch...
though, I do wonder what the media would make of such a state of affairs? But not an ideal move overall and may not achieve any tangible results.



The deal clincher would be as follows... :E

Flexicrew as a collective or one 'lone gunman' could claim permanent employment rights - see Nadine Quashie's plight at the bottom of this reply. If one man succeeded then the whole deck of cards would collapse. The precedent would be set and flexicrew/Brookfield/Storm McGinley would be over.

The use of disguised employment is a form of tax evasion and is illegal. Feel free to argue with HMRC IR35.

HM Revenue & Customs: Employment status

Pay particular attention to the bit about halfway down that link entitled 'Employed or Self Employed? (or just see below)
I think that will clarify exactly where Flexicrew, Brookfield and Storm McGinley stand...


Pulled straight from HMRC IR35;


"As a general guide as to whether a worker is an employee or self-employed; if the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, then the worker is probably an employee:

• Do they have to do the work themselves?
• Can someone tell them at any time what to do, where to carry out the work or when and how to do it?
• Can they work a set amount of hours?
• Can someone move them from task to task?
• Are they paid by the hour, week, or month?
• Can they get overtime pay or bonus payment?

If the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, it will usually mean that the worker is self-employed:

• Can they hire someone to do the work or engage helpers at their own expense?
• Do they risk their own money?
• Do they provide the main items of equipment they need to do their job, not just the small tools that many employees provide for themselves?
• Do they agree to do a job for a fixed price regardless of how long the job may take?
• Can they decide what work to do, how and when to do the work and where to provide the services?
• Do they regularly work for a number of different people?
• Do they have to correct unsatisfactory work in their own time and at their own expense?"

And here is the Lap Dancer Nadine Quashie that just won employment rights... If she can do it - what's your excuse? :confused:
Have a read, chaps... Her plight sound similar to the way that Ryanair/Flexicrew has illegally 'employed' pilots for the past few years??? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/yeees.gif

Lap dancer Nadine Quashie: Why I took on Stringfellows | Life and style | The Guardian

I think you'll find IR35 about as much use as tits on nun, but keep dreaming that it is the golden bullet.

How successful has IR35 been for HMRC? | Churchill Knight & Associates Ltd

I believe the CTC guys have their tax and NI paid by CTC and therefore totally legal therefore they are acting as subcontractors and their is nothing illegal about that.

Phensocks,

There wasn't a great deal of substance in that link... other than to show that HMRC isn't really paying as much attention to the rule as what it should be doing. It appears that HMRC are using this legislation as a scarecrow, as opposed to actually investigating 'disguised employment'. Probably down to resources and general inclination/apathy at HMRC, is my guess... :ugh:
I will agree to disagree with you on IR35... I believe that it is indeed a line of advance.


Furthermore, new rules have recently surfaced permitting contractors the right to claim 'employee status' after 12 weeks. Not sure of the specifics on this one. There's also another route. There is European legislation regarding equal remuneration for people doing the same role. Again, I am not aware of the specifics.

Overall, BALPA need to be speaking to financial and employment experts, to find the definitive 'golden bullet' that could wipe out Flexicrew for good. A dangerous precedent has been set here.

I really hope I'm right otherwise this profession is dead. :\