OT French Kettles

[John Cartmell]

Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and survive without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be payable) whilst the law takes its course? Don't be silly.

[Capitol]

It is not guaranteed that the profits would increase with slaves, the quality of the workforce plays a big part in the results. Look what happens in Africa.

Regards Capitol

[Andy Hall]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:06:15 +0100, John Cartmell wrote: .

I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides which, they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were a legally legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have assisted with that. The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been bright enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore didn't back it.

[Andrew Gabriel]

Well that would hardly apply in this case. Since the employer spent some 2 hours warning the employees what would happen if they didn't return to work, the legal view was that for those employees on strike, the employer acted within the law, i.e. both warnings and reason were given. It would seem that some of the employees dismissed were not involved in the strike and in these cases, the employer acted illegally. I've heard on the news since that those not involved in the strike (some staff on sick and maternity leave) will be offered their jobs back.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Fine in theory, but this depends on having surplus income. And quite a bit of it. Which many simply don't have *especially* in early working years where a pension fund is best started.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Contrary to belief, most unions are anything but rich. And I'll bet any firm being taken to court over some labour dispute by a union would get massive financial support (if needed) from industry in general.

Making strikes illegal is simply a waste of time. When has any workforce been prosecuted for taking 'illegal' action? And if it did happen, there would be another general strike which I'd be happy to join in.

[Brian Sharrock]

Anyone following the BBC/OU series about the utilisation of slave labour in the Sugar Plantations might dispute that ... last weeks episode showed that despite purchasing slave labour due partly to mismanagement the owners seemed to go bankrupt. {Or were disposed by their creditors who called-in their loans).

[John Cartmell]

And then the company sacked employees not involved in the strike. NB Not made them redundant - but sacked them. The only person who should be out of a job now is that idiot USAian who sacked them and refuses to re-instate them.

[John Cartmell]

Too late. The company acted so badly wrong that the only acceptable response is to re-instate the lot. The company managers failed miserably in their core responsibility to shareholders, employees and customers and need to be sacked without compensation for gross incompetence. Now.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It's a source of energy. And it can be converted into a clean and efficient fuel - in a similar way that we don't burn raw oil.

[Andy Hall]

Possibly, but the supplier would presumably have addressed that issue in their contract.

Rather hypothetical. The purpose of legislation was in respect of inappropriate secondary action.

We are in the 21st century now, not the 1920s or even the 60s/70s, and the unions need to wake up to the reality of the modern economic world.

[Andy Hall]

It appears that the catering firm has offered to reinstate half of the dismissed workforce, including those not involved in the illegal strike.

It also appears that union officials met with BA staff hours before the events of last week.

Clearly there is far more going on here on the part of the union than meets the eye.

[Andy Hall]

Why? They still need to cut hours worked and cost.

Any substantial reinstatement would not achieve that objective, and all that would happen would be to stave off a far worse situation in a few weeks.

That's just nonsense and irrelevant to the core issue which is that the man hours worked by catering staff have to be reduced.

[Derek ^]

It's far, far worse than oil and certainly gas from the pollution and climate change point of view, and processing coal creates some very nasty chemicals.

DG

[John Cartmell]

Ditto rogue employers.

[John Cartmell]

Hard bloody cheddar. They tried the 'easy' way out by ignoring the law and the employees rights. It didn't work. They - the owners, shareholders, and managers, now need to pay the cost of their cowboy tactics.

And I hope the appropriate people pay the cost.

Clearly the company took on the contract at too low a price. Now they are trying to make their ultra-low wage employees pay the cost of their (management) mistake.

[Andy Hall]

Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without being exposed to it.

[Andy Hall]

Where have they acted outside the law? The only issue that has been reported where this might have taken place is the dismissal of people who were on holiday or off sick. There has already been an offer to reinstate those people (which appears to have been refused by the union) and they would also have legal redress and possible compensation. It appears at this point that the remainder who were dismissed were dimissed with cause and due process.

Ar eyou seriously suggesting that the shareholders in the form of pension schemes and managed funds should pay for the apparently illegal behaviour of the employees who were dismissed?

The appropriate people are those who were unwilling to participate in a necessary restructuring and chose to disrupt the company and its major customer. I am sure that they will pay the cost.

Do you have the commercial details of the contract? We know from what has been reported that the caterer's business volume has decreased by over 30% in the last three years. We also know that there is a massive swing away from fully serviced flights to cheap airlines.

Since BA is by far their largest customer, it is therefore obvious that the business volume to the caterer will have gone down as well. I think that it is highly unlikely that a caterer will have been able to negotiate a contract that keeps overall payment to the caterer the same regardless of volume.

Given the scenario of less money coming in and less product required, it does not take a genius to work out that the required man hours have to be scaled back.

The only mistake made was not acting earlier.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It was part of union bashing. Nothing more or less.

So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and take it? No thanks.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Don't be silly. You simply ignore the law as many do, or try to get round it with short term contracts. Individuals can't afford to go to law against an employer.