On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:39:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:19:22 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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?

Are you suggesting that pension funds should be invested in companies that
disregard the law in respect of their employees' rights and conditions?

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.

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.


"Stole" is either an emotive word or a specific criminal one. Which
do you mean? If it's the criminal one, please can you supply evidence
of where there has been explicit criminal activity and in
contravention of which statute.

In terms of supporting the employer, I'll make the following comments:

- The employer should have taken action earlier to stem the losses.
However, that would also have meant alteration of amount of employees
and/or conditions.

- I don't support the action of the employer in respect of terminating
the employment of people legitimately absent through sickness or
holiday. However, that can easily be corrected for those affected.

- I am not aware of any other confirmed reports of illegal activity on
the part of the employer. As far as has been reported so far, they
did follow the required procedures for dismissal of those not
legitimately absent.

- I don't support the behaviour of the dismissed employees or of those
working for other employers in disrupting the business of other
employers and their customers at a time when maximum damage would be
incurred. That is completely unacceptable.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl