In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.

So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
For example?

This doesn't amount to aggression, simply trying to deal with a
commercial reality. There aren';t really any alternatives when a
company has been losing money for five years and has lost a third of
its revenue.

I don't know the ins and outs of this particular case, but if they've been
losing money for 5 years why didn't they do something about it before?

--
*All generalizations are false.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:16:56 +0100, Derek ^
wrote:

I'm sure a SMEG oven I bought had the possibility of being connected
to a 3 phase supply by a cunning re-arrangement of links.

Some friends recently bought an oven / gas hob (an impressive beast -
not Smeg, but a similar up-market brand) with such an arrangement. It
was supplied with two controller modules (presumably potted triacs) that
were fitted as alternatives for single or three phase.

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.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
company and different operational area.

There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees with no
warning and for no reason?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Geoffrey wrote:
Blimey! I didn't realise there was anyone left who shared my views on
Maggie.

Quite a few! ;-)
I happened to be visiting a school when her resignation was announced and the
cheers were quite spontaneous (and loud!) as the news travelled around the
place. A good few will have reason for long memories.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:01:06 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.

So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
For example?

It's a judgment call that they can make but then have to accept the
consequences - i.e. customers may not like it and will shop elsewhere.

Also, the labour costs in India are starting to increase, so I suspect
it won't be that long before there is a migration back.




This doesn't amount to aggression, simply trying to deal with a
commercial reality. There aren';t really any alternatives when a
company has been losing money for five years and has lost a third of
its revenue.

I don't know the ins and outs of this particular case, but if they've been
losing money for 5 years why didn't they do something about it before?

Very good question. I wasn't suggesting that the catering firm was
beyond reproach. One does wonder why they didn't try to attract
other business. Possibly they did, but BA would still represent by
far the largest catering contract out of LHR anyway, and most of the
recent airline growth (or lack of shrinkage) has been in the cheap
sector anyway, where catering is not a significant factor.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:


The industrial sectors were lost purely because people were inflexible
and priced themselves out of the market.


....and I thought Drivel had the exclusive licence on talking ********
here.


--

Andy Hall wrote:
On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod wrote:



As we are off to France for a couple of days, I just thought about getting
one there. (DIY bit - I would have to change the plug!)

http://www.leguide.com/sb/leguide/re.../org/3/t/1/502
0500.htm

Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts?


If you look a bit further there are 2.5kW ones


Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances?


Circuits are 16A from what I've seen so no reason why not.



But what are the IEC plugs in the kettles rated at (assuming a cordless
kettle)? 10A IIRC, and France runs/ran on 220V (OK it's 230 nominal
now, just like here).


--
Spamtrap in use
To email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder dot co dot uk

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:08:05 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:01:06 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.

So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
For example?

It's a judgment call that they can make but then have to accept the
consequences - i.e. customers may not like it and will shop elsewhere.


It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most.
Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't
they?

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:29:45 +0100, Matt
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


The industrial sectors were lost purely because people were inflexible
and priced themselves out of the market.


...and I thought Drivel had the exclusive licence on talking ********
here.


He does.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:44 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
company and different operational area.

There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees with no
warning and for no reason?


There are. Take a look at the Employment Acts.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:08:05 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:01:06 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.

So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
For example?

It's a judgment call that they can make but then have to accept the
consequences - i.e. customers may not like it and will shop elsewhere.


It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most.
Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't
they?


It's not a great scenario whichever way one looks at it. However, it
seems to be to be in a situation of remaining in business and
employing *some* people for *some* hours is better than going bust and
employing nobody.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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

- save cost elsewhere

- make a smaller profit


Passengers want ever more for ever less

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.


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.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:24:21 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

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


It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most.
Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't
they?


It's not a great scenario whichever way one looks at it. However, it
seems to be to be in a situation of remaining in business and
employing *some* people for *some* hours is better than going bust and
employing nobody.

Interesting answer when you consider that this particlar quote was
about Banks and call centers in India.



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

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.

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

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:23:44 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:



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

Investments? What 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.

The most vulnerable in our society are not the pensioners living off
pension schemes (although I admit that will be the case eventually).
Those living off a state pension, disability pensions and the dole are
somewhat less well off.

My mother lives off a state pension only. If anyone would like to
contribute towards a few investments for her I'm sure she'd appreciate
it. Sadly, nursing for 47 years didn't quite give her the income to
put much by and having the stupidity to marry a garage mechanic who
worked for someone else having three kids didn't help either.

Still, I can't complain - neither of my parents were ever out of work
and we were never hungry. Also we don't have to worry about
inheritance tax...

And you've no need to worry about her, at 85 she won't be a burden on
the state for too much longer and her three kids suppliment her
pension to make it possible for her to live comfortably. Perhaps
having three kids wasn't such a bad idea after all.

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
For example?


Get used to the real world! If it's cheaper to do it elsewhere, it will
be done elsewhere (even if it is a foul up in the short term). We tried
being non competitive in the 70's and it took Thatcher to get us out of
the mess and give us todays standards of living(with significant help
from the Chinese). British Leyland has taken 30 years to die, the market
would have had a chance of preventing this if it had been allowed to go
into liquidation 30+ years ago. With lower costs available from Eastern
Europe, I'm amazed that airline catering is still in Heathrow. Catering
companies closely resemble holiday companies IME, ie any profit is
either illusory or temporary before they go broke!

Regards
Capitol

Geoffrey wrote:

It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most.
Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't
they?

Not if Gordon continues in his present pattern! There has to be a
natural limit to the number of non jobs the remaining workers can
support. There is now no such thing as a permanent job in most
industries. Perhaps that's a good thing for society as a whole, as
people will have to get used to the idea of being self reliant again and
not relying on the taxpayers to provide their living standards.

Regards
Capitol

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:44 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
company and different operational area.

There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees
with no warning and for no reason?

There are. Take a look at the Employment Acts.

I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their employer
is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before they go hungry
or can't pay the mortgage/rent?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to accept a
lower return on your investments.

The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you advocating
that idea or do you accept certain limitations?

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:25:48 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:44 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
company and different operational area.

There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees
with no warning and for no reason?

There are. Take a look at the Employment Acts.

I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their employer
is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before they go hungry
or can't pay the mortgage/rent?



Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
outside the terms of the agreement.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:27:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to accept a
lower return on your investments.

The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you advocating
that idea or do you accept certain limitations?

Of course there are limitations.


I am simply pointing out that the suggestion of squeezing company
profits in order to fund higher payroll has consequences for
investments that many people make to fund their retirement.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:27:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to
accept a lower return on your investments.

The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you
advocating that idea or do you accept certain limitations?

Of course there are limitations.


I am simply pointing out that the suggestion of squeezing company
profits in order to fund higher payroll has consequences for
investments that many people make to fund their retirement.

There was, perhaps, some validity in that when pension schemes were
honoured. But that day's gone.

The last few years have sseen cost efficiencies which involve corporate
management saying: "You know that deferred income that you were
supposed to have, which compensated your lower salary in order to fund
your pension? Well, to increase current efficiency we can't afford
your pension any more -- sorry, but you should have saved more, out of
that salary that we didn't pay you so that your pension would be
funded".

As arranged by the large pension firms, the pension industry has become
-- by and large -- a financial scam.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

Andy Hall wrote:

Also, the labour costs in India are starting to increase, so I suspect
it won't be that long before there is a migration back.

"How is you spell London, you sure in England because cannot find on
computer"

UK National Rail Enquiry Line 2005 - outsourced to India


--

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:44:36 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:27:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to
accept a lower return on your investments.

The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you
advocating that idea or do you accept certain limitations?

Of course there are limitations.


I am simply pointing out that the suggestion of squeezing company
profits in order to fund higher payroll has consequences for
investments that many people make to fund their retirement.

There was, perhaps, some validity in that when pension schemes were
honoured. But that day's gone.

The last few years have sseen cost efficiencies which involve corporate
management saying: "You know that deferred income that you were
supposed to have, which compensated your lower salary in order to fund
your pension? Well, to increase current efficiency we can't afford
your pension any more -- sorry, but you should have saved more, out of
that salary that we didn't pay you so that your pension would be
funded".

As arranged by the large pension firms, the pension industry has become
-- by and large -- a financial scam.


Yes indeed, which is why it is prudent, and always has been, to have a
range of investment vheicles for retirement and other purposes.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:44:36 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:27:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to
accept a lower return on your investments.

The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are
you advocating that idea or do you accept certain limitations?

Of course there are limitations.


I am simply pointing out that the suggestion of squeezing
company profits in order to fund higher payroll has consequences
for investments that many people make to fund their retirement.

There was, perhaps, some validity in that when pension schemes
were honoured. But that day's gone.

The last few years have sseen cost efficiencies which involve
corporate management saying: "You know that deferred income that
you were supposed to have, which compensated your lower salary in
order to fund your pension? Well, to increase current efficiency
we can't afford your pension any more -- sorry, but you should
have saved more, out of that salary that we didn't pay you so
that your pension would be funded".

As arranged by the large pension firms, the pension industry has
become -- by and large -- a financial scam.


Yes indeed, which is why it is prudent, and always has been, to
have a range of investment vheicles for retirement and other
purposes.

We agree furiously (as I've seen it put elsewhere.)

Which is why -- in earlier days -- those people who believed what the
employing bodies told them were misguided to do so; and it's also why,
today, it is still unwise to believe that what an employer says is
"necessary to ensure the survival of the business" is, in fact, true.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:25:48 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:44 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
company and different operational area.

There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees
with no warning and for no reason?

There are. Take a look at the Employment Acts.

I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their
employer is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before
they go hungry or can't pay the mortgage/rent?

Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
outside the terms of the agreement.

Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and survive
without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be payable) whilst the
law takes its course? Don't be silly.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

John Cartmell wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:

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


The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you advocating
that idea or do you accept certain limitations?

It is not guaranteed that the profits would increase with slaves, the
quality of the workforce plays a big part in the results. Look what
happens in Africa.

Regards
Capitol

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:06:15 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:
..

I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their
employer is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before
they go hungry or can't pay the mortgage/rent?

Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
outside the terms of the agreement.

Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and survive
without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be payable) whilst the
law takes its course? Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides
which, they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were
a legally legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have
assisted with that. The starting point was an unofficial strike
because the employees didn't like the company restructuring.
The union had at least been bright enough to realise that the strike
was illegal and therefore didn't back it.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
John Cartmell writes:
How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees with no
warning and for no reason?

Well that would hardly apply in this case.
Since the employer spent some 2 hours warning the employees what
would happen if they didn't return to work, the legal view was
that for those employees on strike, the employer acted within
the law, i.e. both warnings and reason were given. It would seem
that some of the employees dismissed were not involved in the strike
and in these cases, the employer acted illegally. I've heard on the
news since that those not involved in the strike (some staff on sick
and maternity leave) will be offered their jobs back.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
As arranged by the large pension firms, the pension industry has become
-- by and large -- a financial scam.


Yes indeed, which is why it is prudent, and always has been, to have a
range of investment vheicles for retirement and other purposes.

Fine in theory, but this depends on having surplus income. And quite a bit
of it. Which many simply don't have *especially* in early working years
where a pension fund is best started.

--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and
survive without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be
payable) whilst the law takes its course? Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides
which, they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were
a legally legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have
assisted with that.

Contrary to belief, most unions are anything but rich. And I'll bet any
firm being taken to court over some labour dispute by a union would get
massive financial support (if needed) from industry in general.

The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees
didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been
bright enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore
didn't back it.

Making strikes illegal is simply a waste of time. When has any workforce
been prosecuted for taking 'illegal' action? And if it did happen, there
would be another general strike which I'd be happy to join in.

--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:44:36 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
wrote:

On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:27:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to
accept a lower return on your investments.

The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you
advocating that idea or do you accept certain limitations?


Anyone following the BBC/OU series about the utilisation of
slave labour in the Sugar Plantations might dispute that ...
last weeks episode showed that despite purchasing slave labour
due partly to mismanagement the owners seemed to go bankrupt.
{Or were disposed by their creditors who called-in their loans).

--

Brian

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:38:13 +0100, Matt
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
remember the eventual consequences.

We ended up with that cnut Thatcher,

Tell you what, there were more coal mines closed by Calligan in the 4
years before she got in than she closed in the 4 years after.

It's clear the mining industry was f*cked when the clean air act was
brought in. And *then* we discovered we had North Sea Gas.

I won't mention the halving of route miles on the railways by
Beeching, followed closely by the end of steam traction altogether.

losing completely a whole sector
of our indigenous energy resources, making us dependent on imported
gas and leading to an impending energy crisis the likes of which we
have never known.



Give over. The industry had been on it's arse since before the turn of
the century, my father was a miner in the 1920s, but not for long.

I've got an old 1896 OS map of where I live. The area was peppered
with abandoned coal mines even then. By the time my mother moved out
of her council house in 1966 the only people in the street still
burning coal were the miners who got it free !

*Look at it*.

Nuclear Power at it's peak, coal fires prohibited, North Sea Gas
coming on, Railway industry in decline with coal utilisation finished,
Iron/Steel industry abandoned coal. Coal fired mills/factories with
steam engines had gone to small electric motors decades previous ...

Coal, Let's face it nobody wanted it. I don't know of anybody with a
house heated by coal, it's dirty, polluting, inefficient and hard
work.

The IRA were evil *******s but its a great pity they didn't finish her
off properly in Brighton 1984 doing the country and civilisation the
world over a huge favour.


I didn't *like* her myself. She was just like the manageress at the
place where I worked.

But you should take a look at an atlas sometime and note the relative
land area of Great Britain and that of China and India put together.
That gives you some idea of our true significance in the world since
the British Empire has come to an end.

50 - 55 years ago countries kept their technology proprietory. A
British telly wouldn't work in France, an American phone wouldn't work
in England. Even things like torch batteries and car bulbs were
different sizes here and in Europe. Now with common standards this is
a thing of the past, but by that same token it is possible to
manufacture in Asia for the world market and the Chinese and the
Indians will work for 1/30th of a European Salary. Do you see any
campaigning to keep the cheap manufactured goods out of the country?

When I started work as a graduate engineer in 1972 a 21" colour TV
would have cost me 6 months salary. I don't see any great clamour to
go back to those days either.


But its won't be long now Maggie before everyone is dancing on your
grave you evil twisted vindictive fcuking *******. You won't be
missed at all and your "legacy" will ensure you are hated for
generations to come. You could have saved a bit of money and jumped
in that hole with Ted Heath the other week though.

DG

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:06:15 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote: .

I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their
employer is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before
they go hungry or can't pay the mortgage/rent?

Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
outside the terms of the agreement.

Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and survive
without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be payable) whilst
the law takes its course? Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides which,
they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were a legally
legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have assisted with
that. The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees
didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been bright
enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore didn't back it.

And then the company sacked employees not involved in the strike. NB Not made
them redundant - but sacked them. The only person who should be out of a job
now is that idiot USAian who sacked them and refuses to re-instate them.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
John Cartmell writes:
How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees with no
warning and for no reason?

Well that would hardly apply in this case.
Since the employer spent some 2 hours warning the employees what
would happen if they didn't return to work, the legal view was
that for those employees on strike, the employer acted within
the law, i.e. both warnings and reason were given. It would seem
that some of the employees dismissed were not involved in the strike
and in these cases, the employer acted illegally. I've heard on the
news since that those not involved in the strike (some staff on sick
and maternity leave) will be offered their jobs back.

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

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article ,
Derek ^ wrote:
Coal, Let's face it nobody wanted it. I don't know of anybody with a
house heated by coal, it's dirty, polluting, inefficient and hard
work.

It's a source of energy. And it can be converted into a clean and
efficient fuel - in a similar way that we don't burn raw oil.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:29:39 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and
survive without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be
payable) whilst the law takes its course? Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides
which, they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were
a legally legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have
assisted with that.

Contrary to belief, most unions are anything but rich. And I'll bet any
firm being taken to court over some labour dispute by a union would get
massive financial support (if needed) from industry in general.

Possibly, but the supplier would presumably have addressed that issue
in their contract.



The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees
didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been
bright enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore
didn't back it.

Making strikes illegal is simply a waste of time. When has any workforce
been prosecuted for taking 'illegal' action? And if it did happen, there
would be another general strike which I'd be happy to join in.

Rather hypothetical. The purpose of legislation was in respect of
inappropriate secondary action.

We are in the 21st century now, not the 1920s or even the 60s/70s, and
the unions need to wake up to the reality of the modern economic
world.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:35:47 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:06:15 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote: .

I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their
employer is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before
they go hungry or can't pay the mortgage/rent?

Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
outside the terms of the agreement.

Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and survive
without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be payable) whilst
the law takes its course? Don't be silly.

I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides which,
they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were a legally
legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have assisted with
that. The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees
didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been bright
enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore didn't back it.

And then the company sacked employees not involved in the strike. NB Not made
them redundant - but sacked them. The only person who should be out of a job
now is that idiot USAian who sacked them and refuses to re-instate them.

It appears that the catering firm has offered to reinstate half of the
dismissed workforce, including those not involved in the illegal
strike.

It also appears that union officials met with BA staff hours before
the events of last week.

Clearly there is far more going on here on the part of the union than
meets the eye.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl