On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:33:48 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:33:09 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
The catering firm has been in a situation where it hasn't made a profit
since 2000 and its revenues have fallen 35% since 2001. Faced with the
reality of that, there is no other option than to find ways to restructure
the business and to cut costs.

Except by charging more for their services and paying a reasonable living wage
out of that. They accepted an impossible contract believing they could bully a
subservient and impotent workforce into taking all the strain of the too low
prices. It didn't work out as planned.


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

do this second

- save cost elsewhere

don't do this

- make a smaller profit

do this first.


Passengers want ever more for ever less

We all want. Not all of us get.

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.


No - they certainly are not.

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.

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


--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.