On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:38:20 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

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.

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

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.

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.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:19:28 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

It's far, far worse than oil and certainly gas from the pollution and
climate change point of view, and processing coal creates some very
nasty chemicals.

DG

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

Ditto rogue employers.

--
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:

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.

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

--
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 Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:37:10 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

Ditto rogue employers.

Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
being exposed to it.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

It was part of union bashing. Nothing more or less.

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.

So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and take
it? No thanks.

--
*Welcome to **** Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
being exposed to it.

Don't be silly. You simply ignore the law as many do, or try to get round
it with short term contracts. Individuals can't afford to go to law
against an employer.

--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:10:04 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
being exposed to it.

Don't be silly. You simply ignore the law as many do, or try to get round
it with short term contracts.

If contracts are short term, then that should be obvious to the
employee before he takes the job and the implications as to why from
the timescale offered.

Individuals can't afford to go to law
against an employer.

That's untrue. I've done it myself in the past, and I'm very much an
individual.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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?

--
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 Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:07:45 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

It was part of union bashing. Nothing more or less.

I suppose that if you feel that unions should have unfettered power,
then that's an understandable viewpoint.

I feel that in the early years of the 20th century they may have had a
role to play, in the 60s and 70s a fair proportion of the blame for
the decline in UK industry could be laid at their door and that it was
reasonable that their power should have been curtailed. Secondary
action was among the most obvious of those areas.



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.

So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and take
it? No thanks.


This depends on whether you believe that the employer/employee
relationship has to be an adversarial one. Personally I don't.

Either way, there is an inevitable decline in union importance and
influence as a result of the changing nature of business and where it
is conducted.

I suspect that in about a generation, the discussion will be academic
anyway because people will have moved on from the trappings of the
past.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

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.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:31:28 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
I feel that in the early years of the 20th century they may have had a role
to play, in the 60s and 70s a fair proportion of the blame for the decline
in UK industry could be laid at their door and that it was reasonable that
their power should have been curtailed.

Very near all the blame should be placed at the door of grossly incompetent
management. All the blame should be placed at the door of Thatcherism - even
though some was from people pre-Thatchering Thatcher. Some Union official and
members took the idea of 'self-self-self' very seriously and did a great deal
of harm. Thatcher encouraged the idea and made it 'respectable'.

I think that you are confusing the difference between being selfish
and taking individual responsibility for one's self.

The first of these is not desirable if it is at the explicit expense
of others. However, I see nothing wrong at all with an individual
taking responsibility for themselves and the state or other
collectivist organisation having as little involvement in that as
possible. The two are quite different.

I certainly didn't agree with all of Margaret Thatcher's approaches on
things but do not consider that most of her policies were encouraging
people to be selfish in the sense of doing others down. Also, one
may not agree with her policies and views on things, but at least they
was seldom any confusion on where she stood on an issue. We have not
had that in a prime minister from either party since.

I can understand if some people prefer to have state involvement in
their lives or feel more comfortable with a collectivist organisation
such as a trade union "supporting" them in some way, but I do not
believe that it is reasonable to then suggest that any alternative to
that is being self centred. That simply demonstrates insecurity.



To my mind
the idea is criminal whether it's done by a worker in a car factory or a
Director paying himself millions. Today's criminals are mainly those in
directors' chairs.

Hmm.... I would say that most are on the government front benches.
Most on the opposition front benches haven't figured out how to be a
criminal.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Derek ^ wrote:

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.

The facts prove that statement to be incorrect

Thatcher came to power on 4th May 1979

Pits open in 1975/76 241
Pits open in 1979/80 219
Loss of 22

Pits open in 1983/84 170
Loss of 49

Source
http://www.coal.gov.uk/media//36C84/...20Update.P DF


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.

Clean coal technologies were at a very advanced stage of development
in the 1980's with the UK being world leaders in fluidised bed
combustion. Thatcher in her infinite wisdom pulled the plug on both
the research programme and the test platform at Grimethorpe and what
was a good 20 year lead on the rest of the world was lost forever with
the USA pushing development now and as usual claiming it was "invented
there"

Remember Grimethorpe?

It was immortalised as Grimley in the film Brassed Off (1986)

A notable quote from that movie that really can't be perfected:
"So God was creating man. And his little assistant came up to him and
he said: "Hey, we've got all these bodies left, but we're right out of
brains, we're right out of hearts and we're right out of vocal
chords." And God said: "**** it! Sew 'em up anyway. Smack smiles on
the faces and make them talk out of their arses." And lo, God created
the Tory Party"


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.

On its arse? Despite the crippling effects of the nuclear levy that
Thatcher tried to keep quiet. coal was the mainstay of electricity
generation right up to the point at which Thatcher's muppets Cecil
Parkinson and John Wakeham decimated any last remains of an energy
policy and forced the dash for gas power generation in the early 90's.

In the coming year the UK will become a net importer of gas, do your
own research on where that gas will come from, the stability of those
nations and the costs to industry and the consumer - then you might
begin to realise the legacy that the evil vindictive ******* Thatcher
has bestowed on the UK.

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 !

No one ever mentioned coal for use in homes but if Wayne and Waynetta
Slob had to shovel coal to keep warm the levels of obesity would be a
damn sight lower.

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 production was relatively stable at around 100 million tonnes
from the early 1970's through to 1984 despite a reduction in manpower
from 287,000 down to 191,000 (down from 700,000 miners and 200 MTonnes
in the 50's) - a quite remarkable increase in productivity yet the
evil **** Thatcher still thought it necessary to crap on the miners.

Source:

http://www.coal.gov.uk/media//36C84/...20Update.P DF

But despite all that the vast majority of those electric motors,
steels furnaces, railways etc were still indirectly fuelled by coal as
the nuclear contribution was far from achieving its peak.

Nuclear power actually peaked in terms of installed capacity in 1996
when Sizewell B was commissioned, and in terms of an energy supply
basis the peak was in 1998 with 10.2%

Source

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/...es05_1_1_1.xls


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.

No one ever mentioned coal for direct use in homes

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.

The true significance of the UK? - despite having that **** Thatcher
as PM and having the 22nd largest population, we still have the 6th
largest GDP. Science, research and development and our manufacturing
industry are totally ****ed though - Thatcher's enduring legacy yet
again.

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?

Get that right, French TV's wouldn't work anywhere but France and
their colonies. British/Swedish/Finnish/German/Italian/Spanish TV's
would (with minor tweaks to the sound subcarrier offsets/and or the
tuners) work right across Europe except France. It was the French,
as usual that were out of line. The Americans still don't get the
basics right half a century later. They can put a man on the moon but
get them to have accurate skin tones on a CRT is bordering on
witchcraft. 50-55 years ago international and national standards
organisations were just getting off the ground torch batteries and car
bulbs were among the first things to be standardised.

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.

Maybe you never noticed but the price of a large screen (mid 20" size)
TV's in the UK have been relatively stable at roughly GBP 500 all
from 1970 to the mid 90''s. The price may have been 6 months salary
in 1972 but the benchmark is often quoted alongside the price of a
Mars Bar, the former being an example of mass production efficiency
and the price the market could bear, the latter being an accurate
measure of inflation. Only when ultra cheap imports were brought in
did the price decline to the point where a TV has by force become a
throwaway item - the consumer may initially think this is a good idea
but the environmental consequences are huge.

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.

Reading that bit again gives me a warm feeling. ahh, Maggie, don't you
just hate her guts?

--

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:19:05 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
being exposed to it.

Apparently the catering company employer had already formally
considered engineering an unofficial strike to allow them to dismiss
the existing workforce at no notice and replace them with cheaper
labour.

Fundamentally the problem is that of outsourcing. The management
consultant mantra is to "outsource" non-core activities. Bear in
mind that most management consultants have never actually managed
anything in real life and most lack any ability to do so and you
don't have to look hard to see the weakness in this argument.

I have a cookery book written some years ago by BOAC/BA chefs
explaining the oddities of in flight catering. It is written by
enthusiasts who had a real interest in their passengers and with
providing them with a service. No such book is for sale today.

BA decided that cost, not quality, was all that mattered and off
loaded catering to Swissair for GBP36m, Swissair went bust and the
present lot bought the company apparently for several hundred
million. At the time of purchase BA accounted for some 95% of
turnover. It didn't take the brain of archdeacon to realise that if
the operation had been off loaded to reduce cost and you had just
added a few hundred million pounds of takeover costs to the books
that this created a problem. (At least for all except those board
members who had taken their money and run).

No outsourcing company is interested in quality or innovation, they
simply want to reduce hassle and push quality down to the minimum
they can get away with. Anyone having the unfortunate experience of
eating BA meals in the last few years will know their caterers have
managed to do this with great skill.

BA however have the same lack of ability in junior and middle
management of many UK firms backed up by senior managers whose eye is
only on this years bonus. Get in, make change, get out. That the
"saving" doesn't last 6 months beyond departure is irrelevant.

Until they get some competent managers who understand people this
cycle of disaster is going to continue for evermore.

There are no bad troops, only bad officers may be a very old saying
but it as true today as when it was first proposed.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Andy Hall wrote:

Most on the opposition front benches haven't figured out how to be a
criminal.

Probably were trained by IMM and about the same standard from what I
can see.

Regards
Capitol

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Very near all the blame should be placed at the door of grossly
incompetent management. All the blame should be placed at the door of
Thatcherism - even though some was from people pre-Thatchering Thatcher.
Some Union official and members took the idea of 'self-self-self' very
seriously and did a great deal of harm. Thatcher encouraged the idea and
made it 'respectable'.

I think that you are confusing the difference between being selfish and
taking individual responsibility for one's self.

The first of these is not desirable if it is at the explicit expense of
others. However, I see nothing wrong at all with an individual taking
responsibility for themselves and the state or other collectivist
organisation having as little involvement in that as possible. The two
are quite different.

They are very different. I know which was 'championed' by Thatcher and which
is evident in the management in question. In both cases it's selfishness at
the expense of others.

--
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:
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.

--
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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and take
it? No thanks.

If the workers don't like it they can leave and set up their own
businesses with their own capital and expertise, shouldering all the
risk themselves.

Owain

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 21:43:54 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:19:05 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
being exposed to it.

Apparently the catering company employer had already formally
considered engineering an unofficial strike to allow them to dismiss
the existing workforce at no notice and replace them with cheaper
labour.

The source of this appears to be one of the tabloid newspapers (and I
don't mean the Times).



Fundamentally the problem is that of outsourcing. The management
consultant mantra is to "outsource" non-core activities. Bear in
mind that most management consultants have never actually managed
anything in real life and most lack any ability to do so and you
don't have to look hard to see the weakness in this argument.

In that respect, I agree with you. I have little respect for
management consultants for the reasons you describe, but also because
they allow, in effect, people who should be managing a business not to
make decisions and take responsibility for them.



I have a cookery book written some years ago by BOAC/BA chefs
explaining the oddities of in flight catering. It is written by
enthusiasts who had a real interest in their passengers and with
providing them with a service. No such book is for sale today.

Generally neither is the service because relatively few customers are
willing to pay the price involved. For most airlines, their business
and first class passengers produce the highest margin, but I still
wouldn't describe the service as outstanding.

Some months ago, I made a trip on BA's first class using frequent
flyer points. The catering and choice thereof was reasonably good,
but I wouldn't say outstanding.

I've also used Virgin's Upper Class (priced about the same as BA's
business class) and frankly that is better value for money and
customer ethic rather better as well.



BA decided that cost, not quality, was all that mattered and off
loaded catering to Swissair for GBP36m, Swissair went bust and the
present lot bought the company apparently for several hundred
million. At the time of purchase BA accounted for some 95% of
turnover. It didn't take the brain of archdeacon to realise that if
the operation had been off loaded to reduce cost and you had just
added a few hundred million pounds of takeover costs to the books
that this created a problem. (At least for all except those board
members who had taken their money and run).

I think that the customers and the WTC bombing made the largest
difference in the sense that people want ever cheaper flights. Since
fuel costs are the same and maintenance (hopefully) is of the same
standard, catering is an obvious area for cost reduction.





No outsourcing company is interested in quality or innovation, they
simply want to reduce hassle and push quality down to the minimum
they can get away with. Anyone having the unfortunate experience of
eating BA meals in the last few years will know their caterers have
managed to do this with great skill.

This may or may not be true of airline catering, but in other fields,
outsourcing companies certainly do try to bring a certain amount of
innovation to their customers, a) because the contract may require it
and b) because it is one method by which they can seek to
differentiate.

IME, some outsourcing is purely initiated as a pencil and paper
exercise by accountants while in other cases the parties have much
better than an arm's length relationship. The latter, are generally
more successful.






BA however have the same lack of ability in junior and middle
management of many UK firms backed up by senior managers whose eye is
only on this years bonus. Get in, make change, get out. That the
"saving" doesn't last 6 months beyond departure is irrelevant.

Until they get some competent managers who understand people this
cycle of disaster is going to continue for evermore.

There are no bad troops, only bad officers may be a very old saying
but it as true today as when it was first proposed.

I don't disagree....


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Don't be silly. You simply ignore the law as many do, or try to get
round it with short term contracts.

If contracts are short term, then that should be obvious to the employee
before he takes the job and the implications as to why from the
timescale offered.

But they're frequently rolled on, with a small gap of say a week between.
Fortunately, the law now sees this as continual employment.

Individuals can't afford to go to law against an employer.

That's untrue. I've done it myself in the past, and I'm very much an
individual.

But not one on the minimum legal rate - or anywhere near that?

--
*Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

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

Chris Hodges wrote in
. uk:

snipped
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).

Who cares about IEC plugs! The kettle does not have a kettle lead. (Sounds
daft but you know what I mean. The flex is hard-wired into the base unit of
the kettle. Unless the round 'cordless' connector also conforms to some IEC
standard?) And then that would mean that the French and German versions
differ in a pretty significant component from the UK version.

[Yippeee - the German version is available in white! So I now have to
decide if a) the price including postage is acceptable and b) the 2200 watt
model is OK. Suppose I had better check the Dutch market as well...]

However, I have now started to understand the IEC connectors a little bit.
But will a C15A fit into a C16 (or is it the other way round)?

Your point about 10A does seem to make some sort of sense. Just not sure
where the limit lies.

If French electrics are so bad, why are we seeing such active disparagement
between USAian and UK people about their respective systems? Club together
to send our beloved deputy thingummyjig to Paris post haste... Part le P
est arrivée.

I really did not expect such a huge thread about BA/Gate Gourmet. Even
though the partner of person I work with is a manager for GG!

--
Rod

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Rather hypothetical. The purpose of legislation was in respect of
inappropriate secondary action.

It was part of union bashing. Nothing more or less.

I suppose that if you feel that unions should have unfettered power,
then that's an understandable viewpoint.

Actually, no. I was all in favour of secret ballots, and careful logging
of the numbers attending meetings. Because I knew the idea of hairy arsed
miners etc being intimidated to vote against their true beliefs by a
couple of activists to be just so much media rubbish. And was proved right.
So when that didn't cripple the unions, Thatcher had to go further. She
didn't want fair industrial relations but the return to a master slave
scenario.

I feel that in the early years of the 20th century they may have had a
role to play, in the 60s and 70s a fair proportion of the blame for
the decline in UK industry could be laid at their door and that it was
reasonable that their power should have been curtailed. Secondary
action was among the most obvious of those areas.

No - most of it came down to just plain poor management. BMC/BL being the
prime example. They released what amounted to prototypes and expected the
public to do the final testing. Forget poor workmanship - they simply
weren't properly developed. And if they had major engineering flaws it
doesn't take too much imagination to assume that the production
engineering was poor too, so they couldn't be built properly within the
time allowed. And that is going to frustrate a decent worker and make
disputes likely. Those same workers produced decently made cars before and
after.



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.

So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and take
it? No thanks.


This depends on whether you believe that the employer/employee
relationship has to be an adversarial one. Personally I don't.

Of *course* it shouldn't be. But when a company decides to increase
profits by worsening the pay and or conditions of the workforce - and
believe me it happens regularly - then at some point the workforce will
call a halt to it.

And it's not new. I left the BBC in '78 because their rigid following of
the so called prices and incomes policy meant I was getting close to being
no longer able to pay the mortgage. Others on the same grade as me - and
with say between 10 and 20 years service - were eligible for free school
meals for their kids and whatever the equivalent was to income support.

Shortly afterwards, due to vast losses of qualified staff, the BBC was
forced to revise conditions of service to pay them a *lot* more.

Either way, there is an inevitable decline in union importance and
influence as a result of the changing nature of business and where it
is conducted.

I suspect that in about a generation, the discussion will be academic
anyway because people will have moved on from the trappings of the
past.

Perhaps the majority of the workforce these days doesn't have experience
or indeed memories of the benefits of a good union. Many only 'know' about
them from the rubbish they read in the press. But things are changing. The
hours worked and the conditions of service for many in this country are
just plain ridiculous, and I can see a revolt coming. And this can only be
done by organising the workforce, now as before.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

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

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:51:59 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Don't be silly. You simply ignore the law as many do, or try to get
round it with short term contracts.

If contracts are short term, then that should be obvious to the employee
before he takes the job and the implications as to why from the
timescale offered.

But they're frequently rolled on, with a small gap of say a week between.
Fortunately, the law now sees this as continual employment.

In reality it makes very little difference, other than to the basis of
a severance payment.




Individuals can't afford to go to law against an employer.

That's untrue. I've done it myself in the past, and I'm very much an
individual.

But not one on the minimum legal rate - or anywhere near that?

Possibly, although there are such things as legal aid etc.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:21:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Rather hypothetical. The purpose of legislation was in respect of
inappropriate secondary action.

It was part of union bashing. Nothing more or less.

I suppose that if you feel that unions should have unfettered power,
then that's an understandable viewpoint.

Actually, no. I was all in favour of secret ballots, and careful logging
of the numbers attending meetings. Because I knew the idea of hairy arsed
miners etc being intimidated to vote against their true beliefs by a
couple of activists to be just so much media rubbish. And was proved right.
So when that didn't cripple the unions, Thatcher had to go further. She
didn't want fair industrial relations but the return to a master slave
scenario.

Hmmmmmmm........



I feel that in the early years of the 20th century they may have had a
role to play, in the 60s and 70s a fair proportion of the blame for
the decline in UK industry could be laid at their door and that it was
reasonable that their power should have been curtailed. Secondary
action was among the most obvious of those areas.

No - most of it came down to just plain poor management.

Not my recollection.

BMC/BL being the
prime example. They released what amounted to prototypes and expected the
public to do the final testing. Forget poor workmanship - they simply
weren't properly developed. And if they had major engineering flaws it
doesn't take too much imagination to assume that the production
engineering was poor too, so they couldn't be built properly within the
time allowed. And that is going to frustrate a decent worker and make
disputes likely. Those same workers produced decently made cars before and
after.

As I recall, most of the disputes were as a result of the demarcations
over who did what and a general inflexibility in working practices
making it untenable to justify investment on a commercial basis.
Bailouts by successive governments really only prolonged the
inevitable that has now taken place.






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.

So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and take
it? No thanks.


This depends on whether you believe that the employer/employee
relationship has to be an adversarial one. Personally I don't.

Of *course* it shouldn't be. But when a company decides to increase
profits by worsening the pay and or conditions of the workforce - and
believe me it happens regularly - then at some point the workforce will
call a halt to it.

A company doesn't increase profits just for fun, though. It has to
produce a return for its investors. Typically, these are not wealthy
people sitting in mansions but institutional investors producing a
return to fund the payouts for pension schemes, ISAs and all the other
investment vehicles based on the stock markets.

Thus there is a cause and effect all the way through, and one person's
payrise ultimately comes out of somebody else's savings scheme.





And it's not new. I left the BBC in '78 because their rigid following of
the so called prices and incomes policy meant I was getting close to being
no longer able to pay the mortgage. Others on the same grade as me - and
with say between 10 and 20 years service - were eligible for free school
meals for their kids and whatever the equivalent was to income support.

Shortly afterwards, due to vast losses of qualified staff, the BBC was
forced to revise conditions of service to pay them a *lot* more.

I remember that era well. The phenomenon was not restricted to
public service organisations such as Auntie.

I was working for a defence contractor at the time and the government
leaned on them not to give out pay rises or even to put the pay rises
in a suspense account as they had wanted to do. There was a union,
although I didn't join on principle - it wouldn't have made any
difference anyway because whoever it was was pretty toothless anyway,
and this was 1977-8 not 1979 and later.

I left the organisation for another in a different field of
electronics entirely, nearly tripled my salary and was given a company
funded car into the bargain.

The lessons I learned from that were to always make sure that I was
acquiring new skills, always keeping an eye on marketability, never
taking employment for granted and never relying on others to help me
out.

This has worked well as a principle and I can also put my hand on my
heart and say that it has never involved doing anybody else down.



Either way, there is an inevitable decline in union importance and
influence as a result of the changing nature of business and where it
is conducted.

I suspect that in about a generation, the discussion will be academic
anyway because people will have moved on from the trappings of the
past.

Perhaps the majority of the workforce these days doesn't have experience
or indeed memories of the benefits of a good union. Many only 'know' about
them from the rubbish they read in the press. But things are changing. The
hours worked and the conditions of service for many in this country are
just plain ridiculous, and I can see a revolt coming. And this can only be
done by organising the workforce, now as before.

Oh dear. This is the rhetoric of a bygone era. The UK certainly
works longer hours typically than in most other western European
countries, but organised labour and shorter hours under the same terms
and conditions simply won't fly. One only has to look at inward
investment into countries like France to see the negative effect of
the 35 hour week (or rather what passes as an impression of it).

The discussion should not be about the hours worked or pay and
conditions, but what is necessary to get the job done. When and only
when that is sorted out, is it reasonable to have the discussion about
pay and conditions. Otherwise, the latter discussion becomes
academic.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Owain wrote:
So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and
take it? No thanks.

If the workers don't like it they can leave and set up their own
businesses with their own capital and expertise, shouldering all the
risk themselves.

In practice, what risk does a boardroom fat cat have?

With a small business - say under 100 people - there really is no excuse
for poor industrial relations. The owner - who may well be at risk if it
fails - will realise the need for decent staff relations. He'll know all
the staff by name, and they'll know him. And he'll keep them informed.

--
*Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
But they're frequently rolled on, with a small gap of say a week
between. Fortunately, the law now sees this as continual employment.

In reality it makes very little difference, other than to the basis of a
severance payment.

It was thought to be one way to have what amounts to an employee, but
without having to pay holiday and sick pay etc. Or allow them into a
pension scheme.

Individuals can't afford to go to law against an employer.

That's untrue. I've done it myself in the past, and I'm very much
an individual.

But not one on the minimum legal rate - or anywhere near that?

Possibly, although there are such things as legal aid etc.

Legal aid to sue an employer? You cannot be serious. ;-)

--
*A closed mouth gathers no feet.

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:27:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
But they're frequently rolled on, with a small gap of say a week
between. Fortunately, the law now sees this as continual employment.

In reality it makes very little difference, other than to the basis of a
severance payment.

It was thought to be one way to have what amounts to an employee, but
without having to pay holiday and sick pay etc. Or allow them into a
pension scheme.

Equally, an individual could factor holiday and at least short term
sick pay into such an arrangement. Whether a pension scheme is worth
having is another subject.



Individuals can't afford to go to law against an employer.

That's untrue. I've done it myself in the past, and I'm very much
an individual.

But not one on the minimum legal rate - or anywhere near that?

Possibly, although there are such things as legal aid etc.

Legal aid to sue an employer? You cannot be serious. ;-)


Take a look at this:

http://tinyurl.com/95zf3


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:22:19 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Owain wrote:
So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and
take it? No thanks.

If the workers don't like it they can leave and set up their own
businesses with their own capital and expertise, shouldering all the
risk themselves.

In practice, what risk does a boardroom fat cat have?

That's a loaded description, but assuming that you mean a senior
executive director, then quite a lot.


With a small business - say under 100 people - there really is no excuse
for poor industrial relations. The owner - who may well be at risk if it
fails - will realise the need for decent staff relations. He'll know all
the staff by name, and they'll know him. And he'll keep them informed.

Which is all the more reason for encouraging small businesses and a
reduction in state involvement in them. It doesn't seem to be
happening either though.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

No - most of it came down to just plain poor management. BMC/BL being the
prime example. They released what amounted to prototypes and expected the
public to do the final testing. Forget poor workmanship - they simply
weren't properly developed. And if they had major engineering flaws it
doesn't take too much imagination to assume that the production
engineering was poor too, so they couldn't be built properly within the
time allowed. And that is going to frustrate a decent worker and make
disputes likely. Those same workers produced decently made cars before and
after.


I can only agree with this. The Marina was unbelievably bad and was
followed by a string of even poorer models. I recently changed a door
handle on a 96 Rover and was appalled by the unbelievable stupidity of
the production engineering. The workforce manufactured the product in
spite of the apparent impossibility to do so.


Perhaps the majority of the workforce these days doesn't have experience
or indeed memories of the benefits of a good union. Many only 'know' about
them from the rubbish they read in the press. But things are changing. The
hours worked and the conditions of service for many in this country are
just plain ridiculous, and I can see a revolt coming. And this can only be
done by organising the workforce, now as before.

I'm afraid I cannot agree. The unions are dead, they just don't know
it. The long hours culture is a result of high taxation and low
productivity policies pursued by the treasury for most of the last
century. The only way to sustain the current high standard of living for
most people is to have a double income. The effect of both parties in
government over the past 18 years has been to destroy investment in new
techniques and to deter enterprise wherever possible. Indeed, it is
getting to more resemble Socialist Russia each day, so it's just a
matter of time before it collapses. The minimum wage acts( brought in
to increase tax take--do the sums) and excessive regulation and taxes
are slowly ensuring that low tech jobs are going offshore at an
increasing rate and that no sensible individual sets up a new
manufacturing business in the UK. History shows that the high tech jobs
follow the low tech ones and never come back. The tax take from income
tax is AIUI decreasing year on year, as high wage jobs are rapidly
decreasing in numbers.

You can't organise a workforce when they don't have jobs to pay for the
expenses of the Union bosses! Most of the unions I have experienced in
action have existed only for the benefit of the officials and not the
workforce.

The effect of the modern consume only economy is also apparent in the
US, where the private pension schemes are in an even bigger mess than
over here, however their taxation policies do encourage risk taking and
growth. If the companies being invested in by the insurance companies
can't make decent profits, then the workers pensions suffer.

Regards
Capitol

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The discussion should not be about the hours worked or pay and
conditions, but what is necessary to get the job done. When and only
when that is sorted out, is it reasonable to have the discussion about
pay and conditions. Otherwise, the latter discussion becomes
academic.

Sounds a bit like religion. Put up with s**t now and you'll have your
reward in heaven. While the bishops have their reward now.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

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

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
There was a union, although I didn't join on principle - it wouldn't have
made any difference anyway because whoever it was was pretty toothless
anyway, and this was 1977-8 not 1979 and later.

This was at the time that the papers were telling you that the Unions had a
stranglehold everywhere and, on the strength of those lies, Thatcher got in
government.

And BTW you benefitted from any negotiations that Union might have negotiated
regarding pay and conditions - and did so on the backs of those workers who
did join the Union and pay their subs.

--
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 , Capitol
wrote:
You can't organise a workforce when they don't have jobs to pay for the
expenses of the Union bosses! Most of the unions I have experienced in
action have existed only for the benefit of the officials and not the
workforce.

You have made some very poor choices of Union. Most that I have been involved
in have existed through the hard work of unpaid officials who have frequently
sacrificed chances of promotion in order to help their fellow workers.

--
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 Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:37:01 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:27:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Legal aid to sue an employer? You cannot be serious. ;-)


Take a look at this:

http://tinyurl.com/95zf3

Which does say that publicly-funded legal representation is not
available at an Employment Tribunal.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
The minimum wage acts( brought in
to increase tax take--do the sums) and excessive regulation and taxes
are slowly ensuring that low tech jobs are going offshore at an
increasing rate and that no sensible individual sets up a new
manufacturing business in the UK.

If someone really thinks they can't afford to pay 5 quid odd an hour, then
their business isn't viable anyway. It's just not a living wage in any
part of this country. Unless they can supply free accommodation, etc.

--
*The most wasted day of all is one in which we have not laughed.*

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

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Most of the unions I have experienced in action have existed only for
the benefit of the officials and not the workforce.

Not mine, and by a long chalk. What did you do to correct the situation,
assuming you were a memeber? Union officials are elected by the workforce
as are local committees, etc.
But many members simply complain about such things without offering to
stand as a rep, etc, and change what they don't like.

If you've only experienced them from the 'other side' your views are
likely to be somewhat biased. Like mine. ;-)

--
*When blondes have more fun, do they know it?

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 08:01:50 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:37:01 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:27:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Legal aid to sue an employer? You cannot be serious. ;-)


Take a look at this:

http://tinyurl.com/95zf3

Which does say that publicly-funded legal representation is not
available at an Employment Tribunal.


No, but it does cover help with preparation for a tribunal and for an
appeal.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:35:01 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Very near all the blame should be placed at the door of grossly
incompetent management. All the blame should be placed at the door of
Thatcherism - even though some was from people pre-Thatchering Thatcher.
Some Union official and members took the idea of 'self-self-self' very
seriously and did a great deal of harm. Thatcher encouraged the idea and
made it 'respectable'.

I think that you are confusing the difference between being selfish and
taking individual responsibility for one's self.

The first of these is not desirable if it is at the explicit expense of
others. However, I see nothing wrong at all with an individual taking
responsibility for themselves and the state or other collectivist
organisation having as little involvement in that as possible. The two
are quite different.

They are very different. I know which was 'championed' by Thatcher and which
is evident in the management in question. In both cases it's selfishness at
the expense of others.

I disagree. Can you find anything where MT specifically said that
promotion of self at the expense of others was a virtue?


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:01:55 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The discussion should not be about the hours worked or pay and
conditions, but what is necessary to get the job done. When and only
when that is sorted out, is it reasonable to have the discussion about
pay and conditions. Otherwise, the latter discussion becomes
academic.

Sounds a bit like religion. Put up with s**t now and you'll have your
reward in heaven. While the bishops have their reward now.


It's not religion - simply reality.

Implicit in the suggestion of "put up with s**t now" is the assumption
of an adversarial relationship. I don't accept that.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:29:58 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
There was a union, although I didn't join on principle - it wouldn't have
made any difference anyway because whoever it was was pretty toothless
anyway, and this was 1977-8 not 1979 and later.

This was at the time that the papers were telling you that the Unions had a
stranglehold everywhere and, on the strength of those lies, Thatcher got in
government.

Thatcher entered government because a majority of people voted for
members of her party. It is the British form of democracy.

The background was the incompetence of the previous government.


And BTW you benefitted from any negotiations that Union might have negotiated
regarding pay and conditions - and did so on the backs of those workers who
did join the Union and pay their subs.

I didn't benefit from any negotiations because none were had. Only a
few left wing activists joined the union and there was little interest
from most of my colleagues. Most took responsibility for themselves
and found much better jobs. The pay freeze probably did spur some who
wouldn't have otherwise done so into looking over the parapet.

Indirectly, I suppose that they could thank the government of the time
for creating the screwed up and artificial environment that forced
them to do so.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl