On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:44:59 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

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


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.


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




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.

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.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl