OT French Kettles

[Chris Hodges]

But what are the IEC plugs in the kettles rated at (assuming a cordless kettle)? 10A IIRC, and France runs/ran on 220V (OK it's 230 nominal now, just like here).

[Geoffrey]

It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most. Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't they?

[Andy Hall]

[Andy Hall]

There are. Take a look at the Employment Acts.

[Andy Hall]

It's not a great scenario whichever way one looks at it. However, it seems to be to be in a situation of remaining in business and employing *some* people for *some* hours is better than going bust and employing nobody.

[Andy Hall]

OK. So let's say that a bottom up approach is taken and the costs of paying a "reasonable living wage" are reflected in the costs from the caterer to the airlines. The airlines would have some choices including:

- pass those costs on to the paying passengers

- save cost elsewhere

- make a smaller profit

Passengers want ever more for ever less

Saving cost elsewhere would mean altering the terms and conditions for another group of employees.

Shareholders (typically institutional investors running pension funds, ISAs and the like) are not going to want reduced profits.

At the end of the day, it becomes a question of whether other employees are willing to make sacrifices in their terms and conditions or whether the public are willing to pay more for their travel or receive less from their investments.

I don't see any volunteers lining up for any of those.

[Geoffrey]

Interesting answer when you consider that this particlar quote was about Banks and call centers in India.

[Geoffrey]

do this second

don't do this

do this first.

We all want. Not all of us get.

No - they certainly are not.

No, neither do I so let's just screw the most vulnerable and least able to do anything about it.

[Andy Hall]

OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to accept a lower return on your investments.

OK, so following the logic of reducing profits, the direct result is a reduction in the returns available from investments such as pension schemes. Thus the most vulnerable in our society, the pensioners, are hit.

[Geoffrey]

Investments? What investments :)

The most vulnerable in our society are not the pensioners living off pension schemes (although I admit that will be the case eventually). Those living off a state pension, disability pensions and the dole are somewhat less well off.

My mother lives off a state pension only. If anyone would like to contribute towards a few investments for her I'm sure she'd appreciate it. Sadly, nursing for 47 years didn't quite give her the income to put much by and having the stupidity to marry a garage mechanic who worked for someone else having three kids didn't help either.

Still, I can't complain - neither of my parents were ever out of work and we were never hungry. Also we don't have to worry about inheritance tax...

And you've no need to worry about her, at 85 she won't be a burden on the state for too much longer and her three kids suppliment her pension to make it possible for her to live comfortably. Perhaps having three kids wasn't such a bad idea after all.

[Capitol]

Get used to the real world! If it's cheaper to do it elsewhere, it will be done elsewhere (even if it is a foul up in the short term). We tried being non competitive in the 70's and it took Thatcher to get us out of the mess and give us todays standards of living(with significant help from the Chinese). British Leyland has taken 30 years to die, the market would have had a chance of preventing this if it had been allowed to go into liquidation 30+ years ago. With lower costs available from Eastern Europe, I'm amazed that airline catering is still in Heathrow. Catering companies closely resemble holiday companies IME, ie any profit is either illusory or temporary before they go broke!

Regards Capitol

[Capitol]

Not if Gordon continues in his present pattern! There has to be a natural limit to the number of non jobs the remaining workers can support. There is now no such thing as a permanent job in most industries. Perhaps that's a good thing for society as a whole, as people will have to get used to the idea of being self reliant again and not relying on the taxpayers to provide their living standards.

Regards Capitol

[John Cartmell]

I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their employer is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before they go hungry or can't pay the mortgage/rent?

[John Cartmell]

The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you advocating that idea or do you accept certain limitations?

[Andy Hall]

Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped outside the terms of the agreement.

[Andy Hall]

Of course there are limitations.

I am simply pointing out that the suggestion of squeezing company profits in order to fund higher payroll has consequences for investments that many people make to fund their retirement.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

There was, perhaps, some validity in that when pension schemes were honoured. But that day's gone.

The last few years have sseen cost efficiencies which involve corporate management saying: "You know that deferred income that you were supposed to have, which compensated your lower salary in order to fund your pension? Well, to increase current efficiency we can't afford your pension any more -- sorry, but you should have saved more, out of that salary that we didn't pay you so that your pension would be funded".

As arranged by the large pension firms, the pension industry has become

-- by and large -- a financial scam.

[Matt]

"How is you spell London, you sure in England because cannot find on computer"

UK National Rail Enquiry Line 2005 - outsourced to India

[Andy Hall]

Yes indeed, which is why it is prudent, and always has been, to have a range of investment vheicles for retirement and other purposes.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

We agree furiously (as I've seen it put elsewhere.)

Which is why -- in earlier days -- those people who believed what the employing bodies told them were misguided to do so; and it's also why, today, it is still unwise to believe that what an employer says is "necessary to ensure the survival of the business" is, in fact, true.