On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:40:50 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

Too late. The company acted so badly wrong that the only acceptable
response is to re-instate the lot.

Why? They still need to cut hours worked and cost.

Hard bloody cheddar. They tried the 'easy' way out by ignoring the law and
the employees rights. It didn't work. They - the owners, shareholders, and
managers, now need to pay the cost of their cowboy tactics.

Where have they acted outside the law? The only issue that has been
reported where this might have taken place is the dismissal of people
who were on holiday or off sick. There has already been an offer to
reinstate those people (which appears to have been refused by the
union) and they would also have legal redress and possible
compensation. It appears at this point that the remainder who were
dismissed were dimissed with cause and due process.

Ar eyou seriously suggesting that the shareholders in the form of
pension schemes and managed funds should pay for the apparently
illegal behaviour of the employees who were dismissed?


Any substantial reinstatement would not achieve that objective, and all
that would happen would be to stave off a far worse situation in a few
weeks.

And I hope the appropriate people pay the cost.

The appropriate people are those who were unwilling to participate in
a necessary restructuring and chose to disrupt the company and its
major customer. I am sure that they will pay the cost.



The company managers failed miserably in their core responsibility to
shareholders, employees and customers and need to be sacked without
compensation for gross incompetence. Now.

That's just nonsense and irrelevant to the core issue which is that the man
hours worked by catering staff have to be reduced.

Clearly the company took on the contract at too low a price.

Do you have the commercial details of the contract? We know from what
has been reported that the caterer's business volume has decreased by
over 30% in the last three years. We also know that there is a
massive swing away from fully serviced flights to cheap airlines.

Since BA is by far their largest customer, it is therefore obvious
that the business volume to the caterer will have gone down as well. I
think that it is highly unlikely that a caterer will have been able to
negotiate a contract that keeps overall payment to the caterer the
same regardless of volume.

Given the scenario of less money coming in and less product required,
it does not take a genius to work out that the required man hours have
to be scaled back.



Now they are
trying to make their ultra-low wage employees pay the cost of their
(management) mistake.


The only mistake made was not acting earlier.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl