If contracts are short term, then that should be obvious to the employee before he takes the job and the implications as to why from the timescale offered.
That's untrue. I've done it myself in the past, and I'm very much an individual.
Are you suggesting that pension funds should be invested in companies that disregard the law in respect of their employees' rights and conditions?
I suppose that if you feel that unions should have unfettered power, then that's an understandable viewpoint.
I feel that in the early years of the 20th century they may have had a role to play, in the 60s and 70s a fair proportion of the blame for the decline in UK industry could be laid at their door and that it was reasonable that their power should have been curtailed. Secondary action was among the most obvious of those areas.
This depends on whether you believe that the employer/employee relationship has to be an adversarial one. Personally I don't.
Either way, there is an inevitable decline in union importance and influence as a result of the changing nature of business and where it is conducted.
I suspect that in about a generation, the discussion will be academic anyway because people will have moved on from the trappings of the past.
Certainly not. They may have broken the law in respect of people who were legitimately absent, but I am sure will redress that. It is far from clear that they have broken the law in respect of those who should have been working.
Very near all the blame should be placed at the door of grossly incompetent management. All the blame should be placed at the door of Thatcherism - even though some was from people pre-Thatchering Thatcher. Some Union official and members took the idea of 'self-self-self' very seriously and did a great deal of harm. Thatcher encouraged the idea and made it 'respectable'. To my mind the idea is criminal whether it's done by a worker in a car factory or a Director paying himself millions. Today's criminals are mainly those in directors' chairs.
I think that you are confusing the difference between being selfish and taking individual responsibility for one's self.
The first of these is not desirable if it is at the explicit expense of others. However, I see nothing wrong at all with an individual taking responsibility for themselves and the state or other collectivist organisation having as little involvement in that as possible. The two are quite different.
I certainly didn't agree with all of Margaret Thatcher's approaches on things but do not consider that most of her policies were encouraging people to be selfish in the sense of doing others down. Also, one may not agree with her policies and views on things, but at least they was seldom any confusion on where she stood on an issue. We have not had that in a prime minister from either party since.
I can understand if some people prefer to have state involvement in their lives or feel more comfortable with a collectivist organisation such as a trade union "supporting" them in some way, but I do not believe that it is reasonable to then suggest that any alternative to that is being self centred. That simply demonstrates insecurity.
Hmm.... I would say that most are on the government front benches. Most on the opposition front benches haven't figured out how to be a criminal.
Apparently the catering company employer had already formally considered engineering an unofficial strike to allow them to dismiss the existing workforce at no notice and replace them with cheaper labour.
Fundamentally the problem is that of outsourcing. The management consultant mantra is to "outsource" non-core activities. Bear in mind that most management consultants have never actually managed anything in real life and most lack any ability to do so and you don't have to look hard to see the weakness in this argument.
I have a cookery book written some years ago by BOAC/BA chefs explaining the oddities of in flight catering. It is written by enthusiasts who had a real interest in their passengers and with providing them with a service. No such book is for sale today.
BA decided that cost, not quality, was all that mattered and off loaded catering to Swissair for GBP36m, Swissair went bust and the present lot bought the company apparently for several hundred million. At the time of purchase BA accounted for some 95% of turnover. It didn't take the brain of archdeacon to realise that if the operation had been off loaded to reduce cost and you had just added a few hundred million pounds of takeover costs to the books that this created a problem. (At least for all except those board members who had taken their money and run).
No outsourcing company is interested in quality or innovation, they simply want to reduce hassle and push quality down to the minimum they can get away with. Anyone having the unfortunate experience of eating BA meals in the last few years will know their caterers have managed to do this with great skill.
BA however have the same lack of ability in junior and middle management of many UK firms backed up by senior managers whose eye is only on this years bonus. Get in, make change, get out. That the "saving" doesn't last 6 months beyond departure is irrelevant.
Until they get some competent managers who understand people this cycle of disaster is going to continue for evermore.
There are no bad troops, only bad officers may be a very old saying but it as true today as when it was first proposed.
Probably were trained by IMM and about the same standard from what I can see.
Regards Capitol
They are very different. I know which was 'championed' by Thatcher and which is evident in the management in question. In both cases it's selfishness at the expense of others.
So you support them because some of the people they stole from weren't entitled to legal protection - as long as they begrugingly replace (without interest?) what they stole from those with legal protection. Now that they have been found out. Now that the 'big boys' have been forced to step in. Now that the Press are taking notice.
They're criminals. If you support them your position is untenable.
If the workers don't like it they can leave and set up their own businesses with their own capital and expertise, shouldering all the risk themselves.
Owain
The source of this appears to be one of the tabloid newspapers (and I don't mean the Times).
In that respect, I agree with you. I have little respect for management consultants for the reasons you describe, but also because they allow, in effect, people who should be managing a business not to make decisions and take responsibility for them.
Generally neither is the service because relatively few customers are willing to pay the price involved. For most airlines, their business and first class passengers produce the highest margin, but I still wouldn't describe the service as outstanding.
Some months ago, I made a trip on BA's first class using frequent flyer points. The catering and choice thereof was reasonably good, but I wouldn't say outstanding.
I've also used Virgin's Upper Class (priced about the same as BA's business class) and frankly that is better value for money and customer ethic rather better as well.
I think that the customers and the WTC bombing made the largest difference in the sense that people want ever cheaper flights. Since fuel costs are the same and maintenance (hopefully) is of the same standard, catering is an obvious area for cost reduction.
This may or may not be true of airline catering, but in other fields, outsourcing companies certainly do try to bring a certain amount of innovation to their customers, a) because the contract may require it and b) because it is one method by which they can seek to differentiate.
IME, some outsourcing is purely initiated as a pencil and paper exercise by accountants while in other cases the parties have much better than an arm's length relationship. The latter, are generally more successful.
I don't disagree....
But they're frequently rolled on, with a small gap of say a week between. Fortunately, the law now sees this as continual employment.
But not one on the minimum legal rate - or anywhere near that?
Chris Hodges wrote in news:AlLLe.88820$ snipped-for-privacy@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
Who cares about IEC plugs! The kettle does not have a kettle lead. (Sounds daft but you know what I mean. The flex is hard-wired into the base unit of the kettle. Unless the round 'cordless' connector also conforms to some IEC standard?) And then that would mean that the French and German versions differ in a pretty significant component from the UK version.
[Yippeee - the German version is available in white! So I now have to decide if a) the price including postage is acceptable and b) the 2200 watt model is OK. Suppose I had better check the Dutch market as well...]However, I have now started to understand the IEC connectors a little bit. But will a C15A fit into a C16 (or is it the other way round)?
Your point about 10A does seem to make some sort of sense. Just not sure where the limit lies.
If French electrics are so bad, why are we seeing such active disparagement between USAian and UK people about their respective systems? Club together to send our beloved deputy thingummyjig to Paris post haste... Part le P est arrivée.
I really did not expect such a huge thread about BA/Gate Gourmet. Even though the partner of person I work with is a manager for GG!
Actually, no. I was all in favour of secret ballots, and careful logging of the numbers attending meetings. Because I knew the idea of hairy arsed miners etc being intimidated to vote against their true beliefs by a couple of activists to be just so much media rubbish. And was proved right. So when that didn't cripple the unions, Thatcher had to go further. She didn't want fair industrial relations but the return to a master slave scenario.
No - most of it came down to just plain poor management. BMC/BL being the prime example. They released what amounted to prototypes and expected the public to do the final testing. Forget poor workmanship - they simply weren't properly developed. And if they had major engineering flaws it doesn't take too much imagination to assume that the production engineering was poor too, so they couldn't be built properly within the time allowed. And that is going to frustrate a decent worker and make disputes likely. Those same workers produced decently made cars before and after.
Of *course* it shouldn't be. But when a company decides to increase profits by worsening the pay and or conditions of the workforce - and believe me it happens regularly - then at some point the workforce will call a halt to it.
And it's not new. I left the BBC in '78 because their rigid following of the so called prices and incomes policy meant I was getting close to being no longer able to pay the mortgage. Others on the same grade as me - and with say between 10 and 20 years service - were eligible for free school meals for their kids and whatever the equivalent was to income support.
Shortly afterwards, due to vast losses of qualified staff, the BBC was forced to revise conditions of service to pay them a *lot* more.
Perhaps the majority of the workforce these days doesn't have experience or indeed memories of the benefits of a good union. Many only 'know' about them from the rubbish they read in the press. But things are changing. The hours worked and the conditions of service for many in this country are just plain ridiculous, and I can see a revolt coming. And this can only be done by organising the workforce, now as before.
In reality it makes very little difference, other than to the basis of a severance payment.
Possibly, although there are such things as legal aid etc.
Hmmmmmmm........
Not my recollection.
As I recall, most of the disputes were as a result of the demarcations over who did what and a general inflexibility in working practices making it untenable to justify investment on a commercial basis. Bailouts by successive governments really only prolonged the inevitable that has now taken place.
A company doesn't increase profits just for fun, though. It has to produce a return for its investors. Typically, these are not wealthy people sitting in mansions but institutional investors producing a return to fund the payouts for pension schemes, ISAs and all the other investment vehicles based on the stock markets.
Thus there is a cause and effect all the way through, and one person's payrise ultimately comes out of somebody else's savings scheme.
I remember that era well. The phenomenon was not restricted to public service organisations such as Auntie.
I was working for a defence contractor at the time and the government leaned on them not to give out pay rises or even to put the pay rises in a suspense account as they had wanted to do. There was a union, although I didn't join on principle - it wouldn't have made any difference anyway because whoever it was was pretty toothless anyway, and this was 1977-8 not 1979 and later.
I left the organisation for another in a different field of electronics entirely, nearly tripled my salary and was given a company funded car into the bargain.
The lessons I learned from that were to always make sure that I was acquiring new skills, always keeping an eye on marketability, never taking employment for granted and never relying on others to help me out.
This has worked well as a principle and I can also put my hand on my heart and say that it has never involved doing anybody else down.
Oh dear. This is the rhetoric of a bygone era. The UK certainly works longer hours typically than in most other western European countries, but organised labour and shorter hours under the same terms and conditions simply won't fly. One only has to look at inward investment into countries like France to see the negative effect of the 35 hour week (or rather what passes as an impression of it).
The discussion should not be about the hours worked or pay and conditions, but what is necessary to get the job done. When and only when that is sorted out, is it reasonable to have the discussion about pay and conditions. Otherwise, the latter discussion becomes academic.
In practice, what risk does a boardroom fat cat have?
With a small business - say under 100 people - there really is no excuse for poor industrial relations. The owner - who may well be at risk if it fails - will realise the need for decent staff relations. He'll know all the staff by name, and they'll know him. And he'll keep them informed.
It was thought to be one way to have what amounts to an employee, but without having to pay holiday and sick pay etc. Or allow them into a pension scheme.
Legal aid to sue an employer? You cannot be serious. ;-)
Equally, an individual could factor holiday and at least short term sick pay into such an arrangement. Whether a pension scheme is worth having is another subject.
Take a look at this:
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.