That's a loaded description, but assuming that you mean a senior executive director, then quite a lot.
Which is all the more reason for encouraging small businesses and a reduction in state involvement in them. It doesn't seem to be happening either though.
I can only agree with this. The Marina was unbelievably bad and was followed by a string of even poorer models. I recently changed a door handle on a 96 Rover and was appalled by the unbelievable stupidity of the production engineering. The workforce manufactured the product in spite of the apparent impossibility to do so.
I'm afraid I cannot agree. The unions are dead, they just don't know it. The long hours culture is a result of high taxation and low productivity policies pursued by the treasury for most of the last century. The only way to sustain the current high standard of living for most people is to have a double income. The effect of both parties in government over the past 18 years has been to destroy investment in new techniques and to deter enterprise wherever possible. Indeed, it is getting to more resemble Socialist Russia each day, so it's just a matter of time before it collapses. The minimum wage acts( brought in to increase tax take--do the sums) and excessive regulation and taxes are slowly ensuring that low tech jobs are going offshore at an increasing rate and that no sensible individual sets up a new manufacturing business in the UK. History shows that the high tech jobs follow the low tech ones and never come back. The tax take from income tax is AIUI decreasing year on year, as high wage jobs are rapidly decreasing in numbers.
You can't organise a workforce when they don't have jobs to pay for the expenses of the Union bosses! Most of the unions I have experienced in action have existed only for the benefit of the officials and not the workforce.
The effect of the modern consume only economy is also apparent in the US, where the private pension schemes are in an even bigger mess than over here, however their taxation policies do encourage risk taking and growth. If the companies being invested in by the insurance companies can't make decent profits, then the workers pensions suffer.
Regards Capitol
Sounds a bit like religion. Put up with s**t now and you'll have your reward in heaven. While the bishops have their reward now.
This was at the time that the papers were telling you that the Unions had a stranglehold everywhere and, on the strength of those lies, Thatcher got in government.
And BTW you benefitted from any negotiations that Union might have negotiated regarding pay and conditions - and did so on the backs of those workers who did join the Union and pay their subs.
You have made some very poor choices of Union. Most that I have been involved in have existed through the hard work of unpaid officials who have frequently sacrificed chances of promotion in order to help their fellow workers.
available at an Employment Tribunal.
If someone really thinks they can't afford to pay 5 quid odd an hour, then their business isn't viable anyway. It's just not a living wage in any part of this country. Unless they can supply free accommodation, etc.
Not mine, and by a long chalk. What did you do to correct the situation, assuming you were a memeber? Union officials are elected by the workforce as are local committees, etc. But many members simply complain about such things without offering to stand as a rep, etc, and change what they don't like.
If you've only experienced them from the 'other side' your views are likely to be somewhat biased. Like mine. ;-)
No, but it does cover help with preparation for a tribunal and for an appeal.
I disagree. Can you find anything where MT specifically said that promotion of self at the expense of others was a virtue?
It's not religion - simply reality.
Implicit in the suggestion of "put up with s**t now" is the assumption of an adversarial relationship. I don't accept that.
Thatcher entered government because a majority of people voted for members of her party. It is the British form of democracy.
The background was the incompetence of the previous government.
I didn't benefit from any negotiations because none were had. Only a few left wing activists joined the union and there was little interest from most of my colleagues. Most took responsibility for themselves and found much better jobs. The pay freeze probably did spur some who wouldn't have otherwise done so into looking over the parapet.
Indirectly, I suppose that they could thank the government of the time for creating the screwed up and artificial environment that forced them to do so.
Heh heh - in my branch of BECTU - then ACTT - several shop stewards where promoted into management.
The cynical might say this was to get them out of management's hair, but in practice a good negotiator is likely to be a good manager. And talk about poacher turned gamekeeper with at least two of them ;-)
And don't forget it all has to be paid back - many people imagine legal aid is really aid - it isn't, it's a loan and you don't even get that if you have savings or equity above £8000.
Most people aren't prepared to put everything on the line on the offchance that our wonderful judicial system might come up with a just result. I most certainly wouldn't.
"Stole" is either an emotive word or a specific criminal one. Which do you mean? If it's the criminal one, please can you supply evidence of where there has been explicit criminal activity and in contravention of which statute.
In terms of supporting the employer, I'll make the following comments:
- The employer should have taken action earlier to stem the losses. However, that would also have meant alteration of amount of employees and/or conditions.
- I don't support the action of the employer in respect of terminating the employment of people legitimately absent through sickness or holiday. However, that can easily be corrected for those affected.
- I am not aware of any other confirmed reports of illegal activity on the part of the employer. As far as has been reported so far, they did follow the required procedures for dismissal of those not legitimately absent.
- I don't support the behaviour of the dismissed employees or of those working for other employers in disrupting the business of other employers and their customers at a time when maximum damage would be incurred. That is completely unacceptable.
Ok, but then that's your choice. You can get legal help from the CAB scheme in preparation of a case. That would filter out whether or not the case has some chance of success or not.
Of course, which is why I added "British form" of democracy.
All of them are broken in one way or another.
The first sentence is true. The second is not necessarily true: in 1951 Churchill became PM despite the Conservatives getting less votes (though more seats) than Labour:
Con 12,660,061 votes 44.3% 302 seats Lab 13,948,883 48.8% 295 Lib 730,546 2.6% 6
This is the unfortunate aspect of this particular case. While I don't support the strike action and the basis on which it is done, I do have sympathy with their scenario of being on a low wage.
THe catering and hotel industries are poorly paid. Some hotels do provide accomodation for some of the staff, some people working in restaurants etc. do have the opportunity to earn tips. I suspect that people in a catering firm like this don't have either possibility.
However, it does come back to who pays. On airlines that I use that have an economy class where nothing more than one soft drink is provided and everything else is charged, very few people buy the optional food such as sandwiches and salads etc. SAS, for example, charges about £4 for what would be around £3.50 on the ground, so not a huge price hike considering the extra handling involved.
When people have paid £50 for a ticket, are they going to spend £4-6 on food? It seems generally not.
Even in business class, most of the time the food is not that good, and on the same pricing scale would probably be chargeable at no more than £10 or so in most cases. Added to this, on most flights, this is a relatively small proportion of the seats these days.
So the reality is the the airline catering market has dramatically shrunk. There is simply less demand for food in general and also the potentially higher price and higher margin meals.
Clearly GG's business has not been viable at the staff and pay levels, and business levels that they have been doing, which is why they have been losing money. The airlines don't need the amount and level of catering that they used to because the customer is unwilling to pay. I agree that it's not reasonable to pay less than £5 an hour, so it isn't rocket science to figure out that the only way forward is to reduce staff levels or hours worked. THe alternative is no company and no staff, and that doesn't help anybody.
In article , Geoffrey trolled:
Not on a whim I'll wager.
Why? If someone gets fired, it is because they are not any use to the business any longer. Simple fact of life. Your opinion is a bit like a stroppy parent lamping a teacher when "little Johny" gets expelled.
Don't make me laugh. The unions were run by mad commies like Red Robbo who were determined to hold the country to ransom in pursuit of their policies. They cared for no-one but themselves and led to countless job losses due to business failure.
Praise the Lord, otherwise we would be back to the 70s, although it looks like we still might be heading back that way thanks to Bliar and chums.
The employer offers a job at a particular wage and conditions. If you don't like it, sling your hook and look for something that suits you better.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.