In article ,
John Cartmell wrote:
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.

Heh heh - in my branch of BECTU - then ACTT - several shop stewards where
promoted into management.

The cynical might say this was to get them out of management's hair, but
in practice a good negotiator is likely to be a good manager. And talk
about poacher turned gamekeeper with at least two of them ;-)

--
*Why is it that rain drops but snow falls?

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:16:51 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

And don't forget it all has to be paid back - many people imagine
legal aid is really aid - it isn't, it's a loan and you don't even get
that if you have savings or equity above £8000.

Most people aren't prepared to put everything on the line on the
offchance that our wonderful judicial system might come up with a just
result. I most certainly wouldn't.

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

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

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Ar eyou seriously suggesting that the shareholders in the form of
pension schemes and managed funds should pay for the apparently
illegal behaviour of the employees who were dismissed?

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

Certainly not. They may have broken the law in respect of people
who were legitimately absent, but I am sure will redress that. It is
far from clear that they have broken the law in respect of those who
should have been working.

So you support them because some of the people they stole from weren't
entitled to legal protection - as long as they begrugingly replace (without
interest?) what they stole from those with legal protection.
Now that they have been found out.
Now that the 'big boys' have been forced to step in.
Now that the Press are taking notice.

They're criminals. If you support them your position is untenable.


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

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

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

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

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

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


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:40:36 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:16:51 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


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.

And don't forget it all has to be paid back - many people imagine
legal aid is really aid - it isn't, it's a loan and you don't even get
that if you have savings or equity above £8000.

Most people aren't prepared to put everything on the line on the
offchance that our wonderful judicial system might come up with a just
result. I most certainly wouldn't.


Ok, but then that's your choice. You can get legal help from the CAB
scheme in preparation of a case. That would filter out whether or not
the case has some chance of success or not.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:44:58 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Thatcher entered government because a majority of people voted for
members of her party. It is the British form of democracy.

The first sentence is true. The second is not necessarily true: in 1951
Churchill became PM despite the Conservatives getting less votes
(though more seats) than Labour:

Con 12,660,061 votes 44.3% 302 seats
Lab 13,948,883 48.8% 295
Lib 730,546 2.6% 6


Of course, which is why I added "British form" of democracy.

All of them are broken in one way or another.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
Thatcher entered government because a majority of people voted for
members of her party. It is the British form of democracy.

The first sentence is true. The second is not necessarily true: in 1951
Churchill became PM despite the Conservatives getting less votes
(though more seats) than Labour:

Con 12,660,061 votes 44.3% 302 seats
Lab 13,948,883 48.8% 295
Lib 730,546 2.6% 6

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:48:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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.

This is the unfortunate aspect of this particular case. While I don't
support the strike action and the basis on which it is done, I do have
sympathy with their scenario of being on a low wage.

THe catering and hotel industries are poorly paid. Some hotels do
provide accomodation for some of the staff, some people working in
restaurants etc. do have the opportunity to earn tips. I suspect
that people in a catering firm like this don't have either
possibility.

However, it does come back to who pays. On airlines that I use that
have an economy class where nothing more than one soft drink is
provided and everything else is charged, very few people buy the
optional food such as sandwiches and salads etc. SAS, for example,
charges about £4 for what would be around £3.50 on the ground, so not
a huge price hike considering the extra handling involved.

When people have paid £50 for a ticket, are they going to spend £4-6
on food? It seems generally not.

Even in business class, most of the time the food is not that good,
and on the same pricing scale would probably be chargeable at no more
than £10 or so in most cases. Added to this, on most flights, this is
a relatively small proportion of the seats these days.

So the reality is the the airline catering market has dramatically
shrunk. There is simply less demand for food in general and also the
potentially higher price and higher margin meals.

Clearly GG's business has not been viable at the staff and pay levels,
and business levels that they have been doing, which is why they have
been losing money. The airlines don't need the amount and level of
catering that they used to because the customer is unwilling to pay. I
agree that it's not reasonable to pay less than £5 an hour, so it
isn't rocket science to figure out that the only way forward is to
reduce staff levels or hours worked. THe alternative is no company
and no staff, and that doesn't help anybody.






--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Geoffrey
trolled:

Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired them.

Not on a whim I'll wager.

Secondly you have to realise that the ground staff at an airport are a
bit like a village. They all know each other and are a pretty close
knit community. When a big part of your community gets fired, you get
mad.

Why? If someone gets fired, it is because they are not any use to the
business any longer. Simple fact of life. Your opinion is a bit like a
stroppy parent lamping a teacher when "little Johny" gets expelled.

Once upon a time, the unions (capitalisation corrected) were there
to make sure the *******
employers treated their workers decently.

Don't make me laugh. The unions were run by mad commies like Red Robbo who
were determined to hold the country to ransom in pursuit of their policies.
They cared for no-one but themselves and led to countless job losses due to
business failure.

Maggie put an end to (some of) that.

Praise the Lord, otherwise we would be back to the 70s, although it looks
like we still might be heading back that way thanks to Bliar and chums.

Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".

The employer offers a job at a particular wage and conditions. If you don't
like it, sling your hook and look for something that suits you better.




--
AJL

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

snip


Clearly GG's business has not been viable at the staff and pay levels,
and business levels that they have been doing, ...

If I interpret what's being reported and/or not reported in the media
correctly ... CG (UK) was originally that portion of BA's flight
catering which was hived off with an exclusive contract [and obligation]
to continue 'vittling' the BA fleet for a period of years.
CG, albeit now acquired by somebody who bought something after
Swissair became bankrupt, inherited the staffing structure and
overheads of BA's Catering Division ...

.... which is why they have
been losing money.

Nows there's a strange thing !
Speculation

We must honour our contract and provide food to BA, else they'll sue us
for breach of contract!
We are losing money honouring this contract - If we break our contract
we'll lose more money.
We'll provoke our workers to strike.
We'll not fulfill our contractual obligations, but invoke force majeure
citing the workers' strike.
BA will cancel our contract citing non-performance.
Who'll remember the workers, in six months time?

/Speculation

...... The airlines don't need the amount and level of
catering that they used to because the customer is unwilling to pay. I
agree that it's not reasonable to pay less than £5 an hour, so it
isn't rocket science to figure out that the only way forward is to
reduce staff levels or hours worked. THe alternative is no company
and no staff, and that doesn't help anybody.


Once upon a time, when I was travelling long-haul frequently, I
pondered whether it was possible to waste away on a continuous
diet of airline food

--

Brian

In article , Matt
URL:mailto
Andy Hall wrote:

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.

Regardless of your leftie leanings, there is no excuse for that
sort of vitriol.

*plonk*

--
AJL

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

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?

Because of trying to deal with the unions who think business is a charity
that should be held to ransom?

--
AJL

On 16 Aug 2005, Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote

In article , Geoffrey
trolled:

Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired
them.

Not on a whim I'll wager.

Secondly you have to realise that the ground staff at an airport
are a bit like a village. They all know each other and are a
pretty close knit community. When a big part of your community
gets fired, you get mad.

Why? If someone gets fired, it is because they are not any use to
the business any longer.

Ok, but of that was the case, why is the company saying that they're
willing to re-hire most of the sacked workers? Either they "weren't of
any use" or they were of use; take your pick.

If the business is saying "The employees weren't of use yesterday -- so
we sacked them -- but, hang on: they're of use today, so we better re-
hire them", well that's a bloody incompetent way to run a business.


--
Cheers,
Harvey

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:29:53 GMT, "Brian Sharrock"
wrote:



Once upon a time, when I was travelling long-haul frequently, I
pondered whether it was possible to waste away on a continuous
diet of airline food


Quite possibly, and if you need/want a special meal for whatever
reason, many are completely unsuitable.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Is it a coincidence that the American investment banker who bought Gate
Gourmet is also the Chairman of Ryanair, a low-cost airline with no
in-flight catering?

Andy Hall wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:48:41 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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, th=
en
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.

This is the unfortunate aspect of this particular case. While I don't
support the strike action and the basis on which it is done, I do have
sympathy with their scenario of being on a low wage.

THe catering and hotel industries are poorly paid. Some hotels do
provide accomodation for some of the staff, some people working in
restaurants etc. do have the opportunity to earn tips. I suspect
that people in a catering firm like this don't have either
possibility.

However, it does come back to who pays. On airlines that I use that
have an economy class where nothing more than one soft drink is
provided and everything else is charged, very few people buy the
optional food such as sandwiches and salads etc. SAS, for example,
charges about =A34 for what would be around =A33.50 on the ground, so not
a huge price hike considering the extra handling involved.

When people have paid =A350 for a ticket, are they going to spend =A34-6
on food? It seems generally not.

Even in business class, most of the time the food is not that good,
and on the same pricing scale would probably be chargeable at no more
than =A310 or so in most cases. Added to this, on most flights, this is
a relatively small proportion of the seats these days.

So the reality is the the airline catering market has dramatically
shrunk. There is simply less demand for food in general and also the
potentially higher price and higher margin meals.

Clearly GG's business has not been viable at the staff and pay levels,
and business levels that they have been doing, which is why they have
been losing money. The airlines don't need the amount and level of
catering that they used to because the customer is unwilling to pay. I
agree that it's not reasonable to pay less than =A35 an hour, so it
isn't rocket science to figure out that the only way forward is to
reduce staff levels or hours worked. THe alternative is no company
and no staff, and that doesn't help anybody.


=20
=20
=20
=20
--=20
=20
.andy
=20
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On 16 Aug 2005 04:54:53 -0700, "frgriffin" wrote:

Is it a coincidence that the American investment banker who bought Gate
Gourmet is also the Chairman of Ryanair, a low-cost airline with no
in-flight catering?


Who knows?

I guess that it's called covering the market.

However, I don't imagine Ryanair doing catering for BA any time soon.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
SAS, for example, charges about £4 for what would be around £3.50 on
the ground, so not a huge price hike considering the extra handling
involved.

But no rent on the premises, etc?

You'll get a pretty decent supermarket sandwich for about half that. And
anyone who has priced up one sandwich knows just how much of that is
profit. And I'm not convinced there is any extra handling - the factory
will be close to the airport (in this case) and should be able to deliver
straight to the plane or a central distribution where they are treated
much as any other consumables an aircraft needs.

--
*According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist.

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

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
Don't make me laugh. The unions were run by mad commies like Red Robbo
who were determined to hold the country to ransom in pursuit of their
policies.

'Red Robbo' didn't run a union. He was an elected shop steward, and was
re-elected by the workforce he represented - however much this didn't suit
the tory media.

They cared for no-one but themselves and led to countless job
losses due to business failure.

You think strikes brought down BL?

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:33:17 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

That would filter out whether or not
the case has some chance of success or not.

I believe about half of CAB aided cases fail.


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

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
In article , Matt
URL:mailto
Andy Hall wrote:

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.

Regardless of your leftie leanings, there is no excuse for that
sort of vitriol.

Maybe he should have said "*Some* of the IRA were evil *******s."? The
statement was possibly a touch severe.

--
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 22:47:25 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

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

Actually I think it was the Times or Telegraph (or both) where I read
it. Apparently the company confirmed the proposal had been considered
but dismissed some months ago. The plan did seem to be very similar
to what occurred though.

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:19:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) wrote:
Don't make me laugh. The unions were run by mad commies like Red Robbo
who were determined to hold the country to ransom in pursuit of their
policies.

'Red Robbo' didn't run a union. He was an elected shop steward, and was
re-elected by the workforce he represented - however much this didn't suit
the tory media.

They cared for no-one but themselves and led to countless job
losses due to business failure.

You think strikes brought down BL?

He probably thinks it was because of the miners strike that all the
pits were closed.

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:19:58 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:33:17 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

That would filter out whether or not
the case has some chance of success or not.

I believe about half of CAB aided cases fail.


Which means that the other half succeed.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 17:02:34 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:47:25 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

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

Actually I think it was the Times or Telegraph (or both) where I read
it. Apparently the company confirmed the proposal had been considered
but dismissed some months ago. The plan did seem to be very similar
to what occurred though.


I'm still waiting to hear confirmation of something in contravention
of employment legislation, other than dismissal of people legitimately
absent. There has already been an offer to correct that.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:01:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
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?

I'm fairly certain that she never said it; but just look at her actions. And
look at where she got her support.


I did and I have. I don't find anything selfish at all. I do make a
distinction between selfish in the sense of explicitly doing so
directly at the expense of others as opposed to being self sufficient.

For some reason, some people confuse the two and automatically equate
anything that encourages people to deal with their issues themselves
and not through some collectivist arrangement as being selfish.

I don't take that view. I can completely reconcile an approach of
sorting things out for myself and not expecting others to do so.
Provided that I don't do anything explicitly to the detriment of
others, then I think it's a reasonable approach. Moreover, I can't
find anything in MT's policies that go beyond that into suggesting to
people that they advance themselves at the expense of others.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:09:40 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
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.

The background was the desertion of the government by the Liberal Party who
thought they could get more votes out of that desertion in the face of a
torrent of lies by the Tory Press. The government had managed to hold down
inflation after it had gone through the roof with the previous Tory
government but holding down inflation meant keeping your nerve. The Liberals'
nerve broke. After the election Thatcher kept down inflation by letting
unemployment rip to 4-6million after winning the election complaining that
the Labour government might have unemployment over 1 million. And inflation
wasn't held down by Thatcher as anyone with a mortgage at that time can
testify.

This of course is nonsense because economic cycles in those days
followed a predictable time pattern and it's silly to suggest that
things changed more quickly and after an election.

Unemployment figures, in the same way as inflation figures have been
manipulated by successive governments of both parties to the point
that neither figure has any real credibility. There have been a
whole raft of changes over what counts and what doesn't, bogus
training schemes to take people out of the figures, new deals and so
on.




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.

You did. You benefited from government policy promoted by all the Trades
Unions.

I don't regard artificial pay restraint as a benefit at all.
Furthermore I don't want or need an organisation like a trade union to
negotiate things on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of doing so
myself, thanks.



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.

The pay freeze was imposed to get out of the mess caused by the previous Tory
government.

Yeah, right....


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:16:51 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
SAS, for example, charges about £4 for what would be around £3.50 on
the ground, so not a huge price hike considering the extra handling
involved.

But no rent on the premises, etc?

You'll get a pretty decent supermarket sandwich for about half that. And
anyone who has priced up one sandwich knows just how much of that is
profit.

If you base it purely on materials, then it does appear to have a
substantial margin. There are labour and distribution costs also.


And I'm not convinced there is any extra handling - the factory
will be close to the airport (in this case) and should be able to deliver
straight to the plane or a central distribution where they are treated
much as any other consumables an aircraft needs.

Items have to packed into special trays, go through security checks
which involve more handling, loaded on and off the plane, delivered to
the person, money collected and processed,....

There is a price/principle objection. On some flights on the same
airline, economy passengers get a similar but "free" sandwich. Most
people seem to take and eat them. As soon as they have to pay
separately, few buy.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:14:32 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:


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

What do you call it if you illegally sack someone and remove their only
income?

It is dismissal, not theft - that is something quite different and
whether or not it is the employee's only source of income is not
relevant.

An employee may have a legitimate claim against the employer for
unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal or even constructive dismissal.

More information at

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/.../dismissal.htm

among other places. There is no mention of the word "steal", and
the only mention of "theft" is in relation to gross misconduct on the
part of the employee.





[Snip]

However, that can easily be corrected for those affected.

So theft is OK as long as you offer to return the goods once the policeman
arrives on the scene?


No, but then theft has not taken place, so the question is academic.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:08:43 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


Which means that the other half succeed.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of "That would filter out whether or not
the case has some chance of success or not" is it.


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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
For some reason, some people confuse the two and automatically equate
anything that encourages people to deal with their issues themselves
and not through some collectivist arrangement as being selfish.

I'm not confusing the two at all. Thatcher whooped up selfish action to the
extent of severely (and possibly permanently) damaging whole swathes of
society. We live in a poorer place because she existed (and continued to exist
despite the IRA).

--
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 Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:09:40 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
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.

The background was the desertion of the government by the Liberal Party
who thought they could get more votes out of that desertion in the face of
a torrent of lies by the Tory Press. The government had managed to hold
down inflation after it had gone through the roof with the previous Tory
government but holding down inflation meant keeping your nerve. The
Liberals' nerve broke. After the election Thatcher kept down inflation by
letting unemployment rip to 4-6million after winning the election
complaining that the Labour government might have unemployment over 1
million. And inflation wasn't held down by Thatcher as anyone with a
mortgage at that time can testify.

This of course is nonsense because economic cycles in those days followed a
predictable time pattern and it's silly to suggest that things changed more
quickly and after an election.

You clearly did *not* have a mortgage in the 1980s. I did. :-(

Unemployment figures, in the same way as inflation figures have been
manipulated by successive governments of both parties to the point that
neither figure has any real credibility. There have been a whole raft of
changes over what counts and what doesn't, bogus training schemes to take
people out of the figures, new deals and so on.

Exactly. To put you in the picture I had to deal with the results of some of
them as a civil servant and had to calculate some of the unemployment
statistics. Pre-Thatcher they were (mostly) fair and their limitations well
known. Thatcher repeatedly massaged the figures - and all in the same
direction. The published figures need to be increased by at least 50% for
chunks of her time in order to allow comparison with previous years.

You did. You benefited from government policy promoted by all the Trades
Unions.

I don't regard artificial pay restraint as a benefit at all. Furthermore I
don't want or need an organisation like a trade union to negotiate things
on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of doing so myself, thanks.

The vast majority of people aren't. I know very few reasonable people who are.
The fact that you consider yourself so capable says much about you.


The pay freeze was imposed to get out of the mess caused by the previous
Tory government.

Yeah, right....

Yeah. Right. Would you dispute that? Want to check the figures for 1970 to
1974 again and see their knock-on into the late 70s. Want to compare that with
the trend before Thacher got in? Or are you suckered by all the Press lies
that the Tories bought?

--
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 Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:14:32 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:


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

What do you call it if you illegally sack someone and remove their only
income?

It is dismissal, not theft - that is something quite different and whether
or not it is the employee's only source of income is not relevant.

An employee may have a legitimate claim against the employer for unfair
dismissal, wrongful dismissal or even constructive dismissal.

More information at

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/.../dismissal.htm

among other places. There is no mention of the word "steal", and the
only mention of "theft" is in relation to gross misconduct on the part of
the employee.

So employers cannot steal from employees? And yet they do it every day.

--
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:
Actually I think it was the Times or Telegraph (or both) where I read
it. Apparently the company confirmed the proposal had been considered
but dismissed some months ago. The plan did seem to be very similar
to what occurred though.


I'm still waiting to hear confirmation of something in contravention
of employment legislation, other than dismissal of people legitimately
absent. There has already been an offer to correct that.

Sounds like the firm is about to go into liquidation. Arranging a 'strike'
is one way of trying to avoid paying statuary redundancy payments. Hope
they don't succeed.

--
*If God had wanted me to touch my toes, he would have put them on my knees

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

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
And I'm not convinced there is any extra handling - the factory will be
close to the airport (in this case) and should be able to deliver
straight to the plane or a central distribution where they are treated
much as any other consumables an aircraft needs.

Items have to packed into special trays, go through security checks
which involve more handling, loaded on and off the plane, delivered to
the person, money collected and processed,....

Err, surely they'd be delivered in the packaging they're sold in? After
all, the reason for outsourcing is to end up with no labour costs? And
all aircraft have trolley dollies for security, etc, reasons. They come
free for dispensing food and drink?

There is a price/principle objection. On some flights on the same
airline, economy passengers get a similar but "free" sandwich. Most
people seem to take and eat them. As soon as they have to pay
separately, few buy.

Well, yes. But an efficient airline will have ordered their stocks with
this in mind?

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance. *

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

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:06:17 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:08:43 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:


Which means that the other half succeed.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of "That would filter out whether or not
the case has some chance of success or not" is it.

Depends on how the numbers are counted and whether they included those
that fell at the first hurdle of advice because they were no hopers.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:20:34 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
For some reason, some people confuse the two and automatically equate
anything that encourages people to deal with their issues themselves
and not through some collectivist arrangement as being selfish.

I'm not confusing the two at all. Thatcher whooped up selfish action to the
extent of severely (and possibly permanently) damaging whole swathes of
society.

Where? Which policies explicitly advocated selfishness at the expense
of others? Which "swathes of society" were damaged?

We live in a poorer place because she existed (and continued to exist
despite the IRA).

That's utter nonsense.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , John Cartmell
wrote:

Maybe he should have said "*Some* of the IRA were evil *******s."? The
statement was possibly a touch severe.

I take it that was tongue in cheek? I was referring to his wish for harm to
come to members of the Conservative government of the time. There is no need
for that sort of attitude, but I do find it typical of hard lefties. They
have little argument, so rely on violence, both real and implied to make
their point.

--
AJL

In article , Geoffrey
wrote:


He probably thinks it was because of the miners strike that all the
pits were closed.

The pits were closed because they were unworkable, mainly because of the
actions of Scargill and co, trying to hold the country to ransom.

--
AJL

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:31:40 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Actually I think it was the Times or Telegraph (or both) where I read
it. Apparently the company confirmed the proposal had been considered
but dismissed some months ago. The plan did seem to be very similar
to what occurred though.


I'm still waiting to hear confirmation of something in contravention
of employment legislation, other than dismissal of people legitimately
absent. There has already been an offer to correct that.

Sounds like the firm is about to go into liquidation. Arranging a 'strike'
is one way of trying to avoid paying statuary redundancy payments. Hope
they don't succeed.


That would either be at the choice of the shareholder (presumably
parent company in Switzerland or U.S.) if they choose to cease funding
the losses, or if the company becomes insolvent in which case the
directors legally have to cease trading and proceed from there.

If this is the situation, then usually the only creditor who gets some
pickings is the tax man.

The most sensible outcome would be for the workforce and the union to
wake up and smell the coffee and realise that there have to be some
changes. There's really no point in arguing about how the company
arrived at this point (e.g. should management have done something
else) because the clock can't be wound back and today's economic
situation has to be faced.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:28:13 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:

This of course is nonsense because economic cycles in those days followed a
predictable time pattern and it's silly to suggest that things changed more
quickly and after an election.

You clearly did *not* have a mortgage in the 1980s. I did. :-(

Yes I did in fact. However, for a variety of reasons which can in
different ways be attributed to the more favourable business climate
in the 80s and early 90s, I no longer do.




Unemployment figures, in the same way as inflation figures have been
manipulated by successive governments of both parties to the point that
neither figure has any real credibility. There have been a whole raft of
changes over what counts and what doesn't, bogus training schemes to take
people out of the figures, new deals and so on.

Exactly. To put you in the picture I had to deal with the results of some of
them as a civil servant and had to calculate some of the unemployment
statistics.

Ah... That explains everything....


Pre-Thatcher they were (mostly) fair and their limitations well
known. Thatcher repeatedly massaged the figures - and all in the same
direction. The published figures need to be increased by at least 50% for
chunks of her time in order to allow comparison with previous years.

All successive governments have massaged unemployment figures - none
more than the present one.



You did. You benefited from government policy promoted by all the Trades
Unions.

I don't regard artificial pay restraint as a benefit at all. Furthermore I
don't want or need an organisation like a trade union to negotiate things
on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of doing so myself, thanks.

The vast majority of people aren't. I know very few reasonable people who are.

You must move in very limited circles. This is the typical rhetoric
that is used to justify state intervention in people's lives and the
bureucracy to make that happen. There's a big problem with it. It
doesn't actually produce anything to benefit the economy.

The fact that you consider yourself so capable says much about you.

There is no exclusivity on looking after oneself.




The pay freeze was imposed to get out of the mess caused by the previous
Tory government.

Yeah, right....

Yeah. Right. Would you dispute that? Want to check the figures for 1970 to
1974 again and see their knock-on into the late 70s. Want to compare that with
the trend before Thacher got in? Or are you suckered by all the Press lies
that the Tories bought?

I'm not suckered by very much at all, least of all the press, and
especially not by disgruntled civil servants.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote:

In article , Geoffrey
wrote:


He probably thinks it was because of the miners strike that all the
pits were closed.

The pits were closed because they were unworkable, mainly because of the
actions of Scargill and co, trying to hold the country to ransom.

I do find it typical of hard righties. They have little argument, so
rely on bull****, both real and implied to make their point.


--