This is known as "holding to ransom", i.e. blackmail, in the trade.
This is known as "holding to ransom", i.e. blackmail, in the trade.
Giving a bonus for just doing your job? Seems common practice at the top in big business. It's either ok for all, or not at all.
I don't recall there being a threat of industrial "action (i.e., inaction) to go with the bonuses in so called big business. And they are often if the form of shares available in the future. An incentive, IOW, to improve the company.
Don't get me started on 'honours' either. Far too many people get a gong for doing their job. Civil servants above a certain grade, of course, but some sports people too (but I accept that some do other stuff that may merit a gong). As for 'services to television, theatre, etc.. they are just doing their job...!
Our council pays lollypop people to operate pelican crossings. I would sack them and if the pedestrians are too stupid to press the button and wait its hard luck.
Kids like the lollipop ladies. It's all part of their day if you walk to school, someone to say hello to and pat the kids on the head. Good enough reason to get rid of them I suppose
it was a similar claim when they couldn;t give nurses or care workers more = because they wanted to ensure they weren't doing it for the money, pity the= y don;t do that with politics i.e not pay much because they want to attract= peolpe that care about the country rather than thos ethat aree just lookin= g for a high salery. A friend of mine does care work and gets about =A36.30 an hour, to make up = his money he hands out flyiers for bands outside pubs and clubs and gets = =A37 an hour for that.
They don't need to since the board does it automatically.
Yeah yeah. And that's not their job as CEO?
On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:18:36 PM UTC+1, The Medway Handyman wrote: =20
They're busy, killing the Queen's enemies or training to do so. It's a full= time job. Besides which, I don't think there's much of an army left. =20
I suspect you (and I) are missing a piece of the information jigsaw.
Now if I were to look for the missing piece(s), I think I'd start by gettin= g the list of directors of G4S and find out what schools they were at, who their relatives are, etc..=20
Where would you look?
Wrong. All servicemen pay for their food, unless on ops.
+1
Correct.
No. He did his first tour of duty at 18 (might have been 17, he joined the light infantry at 16 1/2) and I am sure he mentioned that he would not be paying for food and accommodation whilst on tour. Although I am sure the food and accommodation was subsidied in the barracks.
A quick search finds
Do they still get double rations?
Digressing a little...rather perversely, there's a weighbridge down the end of Mill Lane, Whittlesford (which is a cul-de-sac), just next to our primary school. There isn't a lollypop lady and there is no history of accidents I know of, despite the excessive number of children being driven to school (we cycle, as it's only half a mile).
I think the weighbridge was there before the school. Still, it's an utterly silly arrangement!
Michael
In message , Michael Kilpatrick wrote
The point is, as you say, there is no history of accidents. It can only be a potential problem for around 2 half hour periods a day, weekdays only and for only 2/3rds of the year.
Too many local councils impose silly speed restrictions and road calming outside of schools and these apply 8760 hours a year when, at most, the problem times are around 200 hours a year.
IMO, the major problem for road safety is actually the parents on the school run. Go past any school at going in or throwing out time and you will see that parents double parked, parked on crossings, letting their kids out of the car on the offside etc.
The Tories and Group 4 go back a loooong way. Istr there was a very unhealthy connection between them (seats on boards, etc) in the early 80s.
A lot of the "security" seems geared to showmanship than anything else. I was very close to the Park Lane Hilton yesterday afternoon and heard an interesting snippet of the police briefing as I walked past. It seems that their job is in part to keep the press out of the building so that the Olympic "Family" (a nice Mafia term) can party in peace.
The Met officers were on good form and remained friendly to tourists still allowing photography. There are an incredibly large number of Xray machines about and bored looking drudges in Dayglo tabbards since Monday. By last night they had finally been given their tasteful green waterproofs which was very ironic as it was no longer raining by then.
The taxis mutinied over the Olympics lanes on Tuesday causing gridlock for a while. Large numbers of troops around too with naff pink Olympic logos stuck on their shoulders. They at least were disciplined and organised which is more than could be said for G4S. Tented shopping venues selling vastly overpriced Olympic tat were already in operation. Some venue entrances were knee deep in mud with rickety duck boards.
Official Olympic food sponsor McDonalds, Official Olympic Drink Coke = Official Olympic disease Type II Diabetes just about sums it up. (with apologies to The Now Show for recycling)
It is interesting to note that the corporate brand enforcement security team by comparison is fully staffed and going round menacing anyone not an official sponsor using Olympic trademarked words out of turn.
G4S thought it was money for old rope. It is difficult to imagine how they could have made such an appalling mess of things. Looks on the face of it like they will probably blame it on "computer problems" rather than bad management. Very hard to sack a computer.
With any luck it might send a message to the government that private sector is not automatically "better" than public sector. I hope that G4S will be forced to pay for *all* the consequential damages and costs that ensue from their serious breach of contract. I suspect that the LOCOG contract to supply may be incompetently written - time will tell.
There was one that G4S put up for interview who could hardly speak a word of English. He was a team leader, or something.
MBQ
That's because this is an on-going task and the staff will be on sensible length contracts.
I don't understand how it is a surprise to anybody that if you offer someone two weeks work at minimum wage with six months notice, that many of them don't actually turn up because they will have found something else to do instead.
And whilst I can see solutions to this problem, they don't just happen if you muddle through, you have to plan for that solution at the start - and no-body did.
tim
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.