On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:40:20 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

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?

Well.... what I do notice each time I am on a departing aircraft
(several times a month) is that there are a lot of people involved in
the handling of food and other supply trollies on and off the
aircraft.

I didn't necessarily mean the flight waitresses themselves in terms of
money handling, but the processing of it afterwards. That's an
incremental cost.



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?

Probably. THe point was really that people don't seem to want to buy
food on board, but will accept and eat it if given to them for "free".
Perhaps this has been used to justify one aspect of cost cutting on
the part of the airlines - i.e. to say that people don't value getting
food, therefore don't bother to provide it in any great way included
in the fare.

Having said that, I've been travelling for long enough and on enough
different airlines to have noted that these things go in cycles. At a
certain point, the airlines decide that outdoing each other on service
rather than price is a good idea and improves their margins. If the
caterers are lucky, that may be about to happen.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:29:24 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:


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


Really? Does the Crown Prosecution Service know about this? I don't
see the courts and prisons full of managers caught pickpocketing.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Matt wrote:
"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.

Scargill did make a mess of his actions and argument - though I don't know how
he could have got it right - but all he did was correctly state the plans that
the government already had for closing down the industry. If anything he badly
underestimated the damage that the government intended, the illegal acts they
were prepared to take, the illegal funding they were willing to put into it,
and the damage they were willing to inflict in order to get their way.

But then no one expected any of that and some obviously still continue to deny
the obvious.

--
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 Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:32:28 +0100, "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.

There speaks a Daily Mail reader.

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:27:47 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

The first necessary step is actually to sack the incompetent managers
who allowed (or possibly arranged for) this situation to arise. The
first to go should be the Directors. With the same bunch in charge in
the future no plan is going to work.

Having got some managers in who can manage then the way the company
works can be considered. If you keep a workforce informed and have
sound leadership situations like this simply don't arise.

You start reform at the top - not the bottom. Perhaps now is the
time for some of people who have claimed inflated pay for the "risk"
they are taking as managers and directors to find out what the word
risk means.

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

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) 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.

And the members of Democratic Union of Mine workers (sorry if that's not
the exact name) are all still in work mining coal?

--
*Be nice to your kids. They'll choose your nursing home.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) 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.

And the members of Democratic Union of Mine workers (sorry if that's not
the exact name) are all still in work mining coal?

Don't be silly, they were Thatcher's puppets although they were far to
stupid to realise it at the time.

Yet another legacy of Thatcher:

Once upon a time a tired driver fell asleep at the wheel and veered
off the road, down an embankment and his land rover and trailer ended
up on a railway line. Moments later a passenger train hit it at high
speed and derailed. The train stayed upright and It was a perfectly
survivable accident for all on board the passenger train right up
until some considerable distance from the original collision it
catastrophically hit a slow moving freight train coming the other way,
left the lines completely, overturned and killed 10 people.

All this death and heartache - despite their being a direct and
dedicated freight line from a local mine with the *best* productivity
in the British coal industry to a local power station five miles away
it was preferred by the private operators of the power station
(another industry decimated by Thatcher and her minions) to fetch coal
from the other side of the world by bulk carrier, transport it by rail
with the last sector being along a route shared with high speed
passenger traffic.

Thatcher has blood all over her hands.


--

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

That is a pernicious lie. Most governments have been relatively honest in this
respect - at least as far as the official figures are concerned, if not the
'headline' figures. Now see who got rid of the statisticians responsible for
ensuring the figures were valid ...

--
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

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

I'd second that. It doesn't take much to bring out the under achieving
envy brigade does it? They just can't accept that without Thatcher, they
would have achieved close to zero improvement in their living standards
and can't believe that Bliar and co have laid the groundwork for a major
recession any time now. I see that it's now summer and unemployment
figures are steadily rising, when they should be falling. Being out in
the shops this afternoon, it was a desert, even in B & Q on a "Grey Day"!

Regards
Capitol

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

I'd second that. It doesn't take much to bring out the under achieving
envy brigade does it? They just can't accept that without Thatcher, they
would have achieved close to zero improvement in their living standards

There was a steady increase (on average) in living standards for
*everyone* after WW2 until Thatcher arrived. Then the increase was far
greater for those with, than those without, as it were. In other words,
she increased greatly the gap between rich and poor.

and can't believe that Bliar and co have laid the groundwork for a major
recession any time now.

Good grief. We've been recession free for longer than any period in living
history. Of course a recession is likely to come along sometime. Happens
in every country.

I see that it's now summer and unemployment figures are steadily
rising, when they should be falling. Being out in the shops this
afternoon, it was a desert, even in B & Q on a "Grey Day"!

Seems you're willing to wait a very long time indeed to say 'I told you
so'.

And have a very short memory about the Thatcher years and those of her
successors.

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

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

"Matt" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) 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.

And the members of Democratic Union of Mine workers (sorry if that's not
the exact name) are all still in work mining coal?

Don't be silly, they were Thatcher's puppets although they were far to
stupid to realise it at the time.

Yet another legacy of Thatcher:

Once upon a time a tired driver fell asleep at the wheel

If I recall the case you're referring to the incident occurred
'first thing in the morning'? Why was the Driver tired? Had he not
slept and assured himself that he was fit to drive? Oh, that's right!
He'd been 'up all night' -- 'on the internet, wasn't he?

.... and veered
off the road, down an embankment and his land rover and trailer ended
up on a railway line. Moments later a passenger train hit it at high
speed and derailed. The train stayed upright and It was a perfectly
survivable accident for all on board the passenger train right up
until some considerable distance from the original collision it
catastrophically hit a slow moving freight train coming the other way,
left the lines completely, overturned and killed 10 people.


I like the solution you're advocating ! Ban slow moving
freight (hauling) trains off 'lines' that carry passengers!
Should work ... !

--

Brian

In article , Matt
writes
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) 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.

And the members of Democratic Union of Mine workers (sorry if that's not
the exact name) are all still in work mining coal?

Don't be silly, they were Thatcher's puppets although they were far to
stupid to realise it at the time.

Yet another legacy of Thatcher:

Once upon a time a tired driver fell asleep at the wheel and veered
off the road, down an embankment and his land rover and trailer ended
up on a railway line. Moments later a passenger train hit it at high
speed and derailed. The train stayed upright and It was a perfectly
survivable accident for all on board the passenger train right up
until some considerable distance from the original collision it
catastrophically hit a slow moving freight train coming the other way,
left the lines completely, overturned and killed 10 people.

All this death and heartache - despite their being a direct and
dedicated freight line from a local mine with the *best* productivity
in the British coal industry to a local power station five miles away
it was preferred by the private operators of the power station
(another industry decimated by Thatcher and her minions) to fetch coal
from the other side of the world by bulk carrier, transport it by rail
with the last sector being along a route shared with high speed
passenger traffic.

Thatcher has blood all over her hands.


That Gt Heck accident was a one off, where in most all accidents
several things went wrong at once. Now are you going to tell me that at
Ufton Nervet where the Mazda car was parked across the line the points
down the line which actually derailed the loco should have been
changed/moved/or whatever because of the fact that they were there?.

If Gary hart had crashed a few seconds later, the outcome would have
been different, if he crashed a few 10's of metres sooner the outcome
would have been different again, if the coal train had been sooner or
later the outcome different yet again.

Whatever has this to do with Thatcher. Shes been gone several years now
and still road traffic goes by road with the socialist government in
power since 1997 ?.........


--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:51:09 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:27:47 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

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.

The first necessary step is actually to sack the incompetent managers
who allowed (or possibly arranged for) this situation to arise. The
first to go should be the Directors. With the same bunch in charge in
the future no plan is going to work.

Having got some managers in who can manage then the way the company
works can be considered. If you keep a workforce informed and have
sound leadership situations like this simply don't arise.

You start reform at the top - not the bottom. Perhaps now is the
time for some of people who have claimed inflated pay for the "risk"
they are taking as managers and directors to find out what the word
risk means.



This is making the assumption that the management is incompetent. They
have been attempting to negotiate changes in working practice for
several months in order to reduce costs by £14m in the context of
losses of £25m. They would probably need to have a sweeter deal from
BA and tip out some of the workforce to balance the books.

It is important to keep the workforce informed, and certainly the
adversarial situation created by part of the workforce and the union
does not help with that. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter
how informed the workforce is, the economics dictate that there are
going to have to be some changes. One can go on negotiating and
discussing until blue in the face, but eventually the management does
have to act to address the losses. Since a substantial part of the
cost in a service business is the payroll, it is not rocket science to
figure out where cost cutting has to be done.


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:34:53 +0100, Matt
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) 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.

And the members of Democratic Union of Mine workers (sorry if that's not
the exact name) are all still in work mining coal?

Don't be silly, they were Thatcher's puppets although they were far to
stupid to realise it at the time.

Yet another legacy of Thatcher:

Once upon a time a tired driver fell asleep at the wheel and veered
off the road, down an embankment and his land rover and trailer ended
up on a railway line. Moments later a passenger train hit it at high
speed and derailed. The train stayed upright and It was a perfectly
survivable accident for all on board the passenger train right up
until some considerable distance from the original collision it
catastrophically hit a slow moving freight train coming the other way,
left the lines completely, overturned and killed 10 people.

All this death and heartache - despite their being a direct and
dedicated freight line from a local mine with the *best* productivity
in the British coal industry to a local power station five miles away
it was preferred by the private operators of the power station
(another industry decimated by Thatcher and her minions) to fetch coal
from the other side of the world by bulk carrier, transport it by rail
with the last sector being along a route shared with high speed
passenger traffic.

Thatcher has blood all over her hands.


What a fanciful idea.

The Selby rail crash was as the result of the car driver falling
asleep at the wheel because he'd been up all night. Pure and simple.
To try to relate it to a government policy (even of the present
government) is stretching reality rather too far.

The current incumbent of Downing St is a long way from being free of
blood on his hands in a number of areas.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

tony sayer wrote:

If Gary hart had crashed a few seconds later, the outcome would have
been different, if he crashed a few 10's of metres sooner the outcome
would have been different again, if the coal train had been sooner or
later the outcome different yet again.

Whatever has this to do with Thatcher. Shes been gone several years now
and still road traffic goes by road with the socialist government in
power since 1997 ?.........

.....and if they had not privatised the electricity industry the train
would have been fetching British coal on a dedicated freight line less
than five miles to the power station rather than dragging it halfway
round the world and then onto a high speed passenger line. No
collision, no loss of life.

It might have escaped your attention but Thatcher wrecked the coal
industry out of petty spite regardless of any future requirements of
the nation, then privatised the electricity and gas industry and so
seriously unbalanced the energy market that it caused a huge increase
in gas generation in the early 90's

The liberalisation of the gas market caused a huge one way export in
gas to Europe to maximise profits with no regard for the future
consequences....and now the **** has started hitting the fan. The
price of gas is now going through the roof, some very significant gas
fired power stations built in the mid 90's have already been
mothballed because the wholesale price of gas is now prohibitively
high.

The dependency on gas for generation has become such that there is
serious risk of supplies to gas generation being denied in extreme
winter conditions leading to the possibility of power cuts or periods
of significant load restrictions for what remains of industry (basic
priority for gas in such circumstances is to consumers for safety
reasons)

Where 15 years ago we had very healthy gas reserves they are
approaching the point where in the next year the UK becomes a net
importer. Unfortunately the pipeline network across Europe is not
sufficient at certain times of the year to support wholesale transfers
across the network from Russia to the UK so Transco are having to
build huge LNG terminals and import gas from unstable regimes such as
Libya and Algeria. British Gas it certainly is not.

In the meantime there are proven reserves of coal of 500 years usage
at 1990 levels being abandoned because of the legacy of Thatcher being
continued by the ****** Tory B liar.

In case you are in any doubt I'm neither a supporter of Scargill,
Thatcher, B Liar or the ****head Kennedy, just a supporter of common
sense, something UK plc abandoned years ago.

Thatcher's Legacy - coming to kick every man woman and child in the
teeth for centuries to come.


--

"Brian Sharrock" wrote:

If I recall the case you're referring to the incident occurred
'first thing in the morning'? Why was the Driver tired? Had he not
slept and assured himself that he was fit to drive? Oh, that's right!
He'd been 'up all night' -- 'on the internet, wasn't he?

And how different would be the view of the general public if it had
been a junior doctor driving home after 70 hours on duty?

Despite the propaganda to the contrary its still happening.

--

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:48:09 +0100, Matt
wrote:

"Brian Sharrock" wrote:

If I recall the case you're referring to the incident occurred
'first thing in the morning'? Why was the Driver tired? Had he not
slept and assured himself that he was fit to drive? Oh, that's right!
He'd been 'up all night' -- 'on the internet, wasn't he?

And how different would be the view of the general public if it had
been a junior doctor driving home after 70 hours on duty?

Despite the propaganda to the contrary its still happening.


..... and your point is?


--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Matt wrote:
.....and if they had not privatised the electricity industry the train
would have been fetching British coal on a dedicated freight line less
than five miles to the power station rather than dragging it halfway
round the world and then onto a high speed passenger line. No
collision, no loss of life.

But what about all the people who would have died falling down stairs or
in fires caused by candles when the power workers had another of their
strikes? They needn't have botherd phoning the fire brigade, because
they'd be on strike too, and they woudln't have had a phone anyway
because there was a waiting list for an expensive GPO phone. What about
all the children scalded from kettles being poured into baths because
there was no electricity to run the boiler? What about all the people
who would have died in road accidents because street lighting and
traffic lights failed?

Owain

In article ,
Matt wrote:
In case you are in any doubt I'm neither a supporter of Scargill,
Thatcher, B Liar or the ****head Kennedy, just a supporter of common
sense, something UK plc abandoned years ago.

;-)

In the height of the Scargill era, I was working on a kids prog called
CBTV. It had a 'face the public' interview with a 'celebrity' where a
panel of kids asked the questions. Usually recorded earlier in the day,
although the prog was live.

With a pop star, the kids asked their own questions. With a politician,
etc, it was obvious they'd been prompted by their teachers.

And so it was with the Scargill interview - dead boring. But there was a
recording fault, and they all had to hang around until it was sorted. And
then the kids started asking their own questions. Sometimes very hostile -
views lifted from their parents? And Scargill came alive. He gave concise
and considered answers to all the 'Mail' type views expressed by the kids,
and soon had them eating out of his hand. I was most impressed.

But VTR eventually found the recording was ok, so being short of time we
had to move on. I'd have loved to re-shoot that interview after both
Scargill and the kids were at ease, and asking and answering honestly.

Thatcher's Legacy - coming to kick every man woman and child in the
teeth for centuries to come.

She certainly did for my industry. Of course it still exists, but the
conditions of service and pay are poor.

If I were in charge, I'd require MPs to suffer the worst conditions of
service that they legislate for others.

I'll give a couple of examples.

If, as a member of staff working in central London I'm required to work so
late that I can't get home by public transport, a taxi provided by the
employer is taxed as a perk. Even although I might have a season ticket
for that journey. An MP can claim a taxi after a late night sitting as
expenses regardless.

If I take a job away from home, it's not possible to claim the whole cost
of accommodation there as an expense against tax. MPs get generous
allowances for their London accommodation if their constituency is not
there.

I could go on about the fact that they don't have to turn up at work to be
paid, and can't be sacked easily. And their generous pension plans. Etc,
etc.

--
*When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say? *

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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:24:20 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:51:09 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

You start reform at the top - not the bottom. Perhaps now is the
time for some of people who have claimed inflated pay for the "risk"
they are taking as managers and directors to find out what the word
risk means.

This is making the assumption that the management is incompetent.

Of course they are, with competent capable managers this situation
would never have arisen. They are the people whose justification for
their large pay packet is the "risk" they take. Why try so hard to
insulate them from the consequences of their failure?

They have been attempting to negotiate changes in working practice for
several months in order to reduce costs by £14m in the context of
losses of £25m. They would probably need to have a sweeter deal from
BA and tip out some of the workforce to balance the books.

They have failed and should reap the rewards of that failure.

It is important to keep the workforce informed, and certainly the
adversarial situation created by part of the workforce and the union
does not help with that.

The adversarial situation is caused by weak management. With good
managers this sort of trade unionism simply doesn't thrive. That it
does is a reflection upon the low standards of the directors and
managers. Did you see the interview on TV with that arrogant
dipstick trying to blame everyone but himself for the companies
failure?

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter
how informed the workforce is, the economics dictate that there are
going to have to be some changes.

So how many senior managers are they proposing to sack?

eventually the management does have to act to address the losses.

So you start at the top - they failed to control the situation years
ago.

Since a substantial part of the
cost in a service business is the payroll, it is not rocket science to
figure out where cost cutting has to be done.

So I repeat - how many board members and senior managers are they
proposing to shed?


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

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 23:53:38 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:24:20 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:51:09 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

You start reform at the top - not the bottom. Perhaps now is the
time for some of people who have claimed inflated pay for the "risk"
they are taking as managers and directors to find out what the word
risk means.

This is making the assumption that the management is incompetent.

Of course they are, with competent capable managers this situation
would never have arisen. They are the people whose justification for
their large pay packet is the "risk" they take. Why try so hard to
insulate them from the consequences of their failure?

Nobody's insulating anybody. Without specific evidence the
discussion becomes conjecture.




The adversarial situation is caused by weak management. With good
managers this sort of trade unionism simply doesn't thrive.

Unfortunately it does, as history has shown.



So how many senior managers are they proposing to sack?

eventually the management does have to act to address the losses.

So you start at the top - they failed to control the situation years
ago.

Not necessarily. It depends on what the issues are and have been.


Since a substantial part of the
cost in a service business is the payroll, it is not rocket science to
figure out where cost cutting has to be done.

So I repeat - how many board members and senior managers are they
proposing to shed?


This is irrelevant. The full set of information required to know what
has happened and to form an opinion has not been published.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:10:28 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
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.

That is a pernicious lie.

No it isn't. I wasn't basing the remark on numbers or percentages of
people but on the plethora of schemes.

Most governments have been relatively honest in this
respect - at least as far as the official figures are concerned, if not the
'headline' figures.

I include in my comments all of the methods used to reduce the
apparent figures. Training schemes, "new deals" and all the rest
where they don't result in sustained and sustainable employment, but
are in effect temporary in nature. A better measure would be to
factor in all those who had been involved in one of these and then to
look at whether they were employed in 1,2 and 5 years time, and for
how much of that time they had been employed.

Now see who got rid of the statisticians responsible for
ensuring the figures were valid ...

Anything that reduces the proportion of state employees in an economy
is a good thing.



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Matt
writes
tony sayer wrote:

If Gary hart had crashed a few seconds later, the outcome would have
been different, if he crashed a few 10's of metres sooner the outcome
would have been different again, if the coal train had been sooner or
later the outcome different yet again.

Whatever has this to do with Thatcher. Shes been gone several years now
and still road traffic goes by road with the socialist government in
power since 1997 ?.........

....and if they had not privatised the electricity industry the train
would have been fetching British coal on a dedicated freight line less
than five miles to the power station rather than dragging it halfway
round the world and then onto a high speed passenger line. No
collision, no loss of life.

O come on now, you do have your head in the sand re this. I suppose that
the crash at Ufton Nervet and lets say Ladbroke grove were all her fault
then?...

Post that on uk.railway and see what response you get...

It might have escaped your attention but Thatcher wrecked the coal
industry out of petty spite regardless of any future requirements of
the nation, then privatised the electricity and gas industry and so
seriously unbalanced the energy market that it caused a huge increase
in gas generation in the early 90's

And so what if it did?. I note that the coal industry isn't in as good
shape as it was as they haven't the market for the coal..

The liberalisation of the gas market caused a huge one way export in
gas to Europe to maximise profits with no regard for the future
consequences....and now the **** has started hitting the fan. The
price of gas is now going through the roof, some very significant gas
fired power stations built in the mid 90's have already been
mothballed because the wholesale price of gas is now prohibitively
high.

So then they'll have to look elsewhere, nuclear power perhaps/..

The dependency on gas for generation has become such that there is
serious risk of supplies to gas generation being denied in extreme
winter conditions leading to the possibility of power cuts or periods
of significant load restrictions for what remains of industry (basic
priority for gas in such circumstances is to consumers for safety
reasons)

Where 15 years ago we had very healthy gas reserves they are
approaching the point where in the next year the UK becomes a net
importer. Unfortunately the pipeline network across Europe is not
sufficient at certain times of the year to support wholesale transfers
across the network from Russia to the UK so Transco are having to
build huge LNG terminals and import gas from unstable regimes such as
Libya and Algeria. British Gas it certainly is not.

As is bugger all else..


In the meantime there are proven reserves of coal of 500 years usage
at 1990 levels being abandoned because of the legacy of Thatcher being
continued by the ****** Tory B liar.

It'll keep there its not going to go away is it?. When its deemed
economic to mina again and the demand is there it'll be mined.
Why don't you start up a mine and see how you get on and what profits
you make?..

In case you are in any doubt I'm neither a supporter of Scargill,
Thatcher, B Liar or the ****head Kennedy, just a supporter of common
sense, something UK plc abandoned years ago.

Ah!, now I'll agree with you there.....

Thatcher's Legacy - coming to kick every man woman and child in the
teeth for centuries to come.


Yes I suppose she'll get the blame for every malaise known to man, but
she was voted into power was she not, as what were the alternatives
around at the time, and we are still a democracy eh?.....


--
Tony Sayer

Thatcher's Legacy - coming to kick every man woman and child in the
teeth for centuries to come.

She certainly did for my industry. Of course it still exists, but the
conditions of service and pay are poor.

But if it was that bad Dave, would you still be working there?. And if
you weren't and they couldn't get the staff, surely they'd have to pay
more and offer more?.....

If I were in charge, I'd require MPs to suffer the worst conditions of
service that they legislate for others.

Don't get me started on those wasters. Before they run UK PLC they
should have the skills to form, start and run a car parts factory in the
Midlands, then and only then perhaps they should be allowed to run the
country!......

--
Tony Sayer

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
If I take a job away from home, it's not possible to claim the whole cost
of accommodation there as an expense against tax.

I think this is now allowable. Certainly a few years ago it wasn't.

I agree with you on MPs, they all including the PM should be paid the
national average wage and pension, so that they directly reflect the
incomes of their electors and realise that to represent the people is a
privilege and not a gravy train. They should also be limited to two or
three terms of office or as a governmental employee so that they can
experience a life other than politics.

Regards
Capitol

Andy Hall wrote:

This is irrelevant. The full set of information required to know what
has happened and to form an opinion has not been published.

I cannot agree, Peter's main points are correct, weak management
produces union problems. In this case, the company has run at a loss for
3 years apparently. In the Weinstock days of GEC, and again in US
managed ITT, 3 weeks was the maximum period that a loss was allowed in a
mature business, followed by replacing the manager in week 4!

I've seen the staff reduced by 50% in one afternoon to correct the
situation. In another international company, I've seen the "close"
decision taken and executed in a couple of days.

Regards
Capitol

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
She certainly did for my industry. Of course it still exists, but the
conditions of service and pay are poor.

But if it was that bad Dave, would you still be working there?. And if
you weren't and they couldn't get the staff, surely they'd have to pay
more and offer more?.....

No - the country is full of meja graduates who'll work for pennies.

If I were in charge, I'd require MPs to suffer the worst conditions of
service that they legislate for others.

Don't get me started on those wasters. Before they run UK PLC they
should have the skills to form, start and run a car parts factory in the
Midlands, then and only then perhaps they should be allowed to run the
country!......

I'd be happy if they just weren't so protected against the sort of things
we all have to survive.

--
*I believe five out of four people have trouble with fractions. *

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

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:52:27 +0100, Capitol
wrote:



Andy Hall wrote:

This is irrelevant. The full set of information required to know what
has happened and to form an opinion has not been published.

I cannot agree, Peter's main points are correct, weak management
produces union problems. In this case, the company has run at a loss for
3 years apparently. In the Weinstock days of GEC, and again in US
managed ITT, 3 weeks was the maximum period that a loss was allowed in a
mature business, followed by replacing the manager in week 4!

I've seen the staff reduced by 50% in one afternoon to correct the
situation. In another international company, I've seen the "close"
decision taken and executed in a couple of days.

Regards
Capitol

I agree that weak management can cause union problems, but that wasn't
really my point.

There are plenty of companies that run at a loss for a lot longer than
three years and it does not necessarily mean that the management is
poor.

For example, it is quite common to put together a business plan which
assumes losses for a period of time because of investment or other
reasons related to the business and to enter profitability later.
This is fine, although shareholders will be looking to see that the
business performs according to the plan or that if it doesn't that
necessary corrections are made.

I am not saying that this is the case here, but equally we don't know
what the terms of the agreement are between BA and GG or between GG
and its parent company; neither have any of us attended their board or
management meetings. Therefore anything that is said can only be an
observation based on what is reported in the press.

My point is simply that there is not enough information there to be
able to point the finger at the management. They may have been
operating within parameters agreed with their parent.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:30:47 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I agree that weak management can cause union problems, but that wasn't
really my point.

Weak management causes problems whether or not there is a union,
there is no "can" about it. Equally good management avoids problems
whether or not a union is involved. The days of idiot unions having
untrammelled power without responsibility was thankfully ended years
ago (no matter how the resident idiot apologist for murderers may try
to rewrite reality).

There are plenty of companies that run at a loss for a lot longer than
three years and it does not necessarily mean that the management is
poor.

Having a plan which involves making a loss for a defined time is
somewhat different from having no idea how you will ever make a
profit.

My point is simply that there is not enough information there to be
able to point the finger at the management. They may have been
operating within parameters agreed with their parent.

There is ample evidence to point a finger at the managers and
directors. They are incompetent. The simple fact they have ended up
where they have is absolute evidence of that.

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

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:56:13 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:30:47 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

I agree that weak management can cause union problems, but that wasn't
really my point.

Weak management causes problems whether or not there is a union,
there is no "can" about it.

That's the reverse of my point. Of course weak management causes
problems, but doesn't necessarily cause them with unions. Equally,
unions are unfortunately perfectly capable of causing problems whether
or not management is weak.


Equally good management avoids problems
whether or not a union is involved.

Not necessarily. It's perfectly possible for a union to disrupt a
business even of the management is good.


The days of idiot unions having
untrammelled power without responsibility was thankfully ended years
ago (no matter how the resident idiot apologist for murderers may try
to rewrite reality).

Thank goodness. As somebody already remarked, the unions are dead,
they just don't realise it yet.


There are plenty of companies that run at a loss for a lot longer than
three years and it does not necessarily mean that the management is
poor.

Having a plan which involves making a loss for a defined time is
somewhat different from having no idea how you will ever make a
profit.

Of course, and we don't have the information to which applies here or
whether it is between the two - i.e. having a plan but not executing
to it.


My point is simply that there is not enough information there to be
able to point the finger at the management. They may have been
operating within parameters agreed with their parent.

There is ample evidence to point a finger at the managers and
directors. They are incompetent. The simple fact they have ended up
where they have is absolute evidence of that.


No it isn't. You don't have sufficient information to come to that
conclusion unless you were present at board and management meetings
and have sight of the commercial arrangements with at least
shareholders, suppliers and customers.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
She certainly did for my industry. Of course it still exists, but the
conditions of service and pay are poor.

But if it was that bad Dave, would you still be working there?. And if
you weren't and they couldn't get the staff, surely they'd have to pay
more and offer more?.....

No - the country is full of meja graduates who'll work for pennies.

There you are then. I know where your coming from on that as
broadcasting is still seen as a very desirable job and people do work
for next to nothing. Supply and demand somewhere?...



If I were in charge, I'd require MPs to suffer the worst conditions of
service that they legislate for others.

Don't get me started on those wasters. Before they run UK PLC they
should have the skills to form, start and run a car parts factory in the
Midlands, then and only then perhaps they should be allowed to run the
country!......

I'd be happy if they just weren't so protected against the sort of things
we all have to survive.

Agreed


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Capitol wrote:
I agree with you on MPs, they all including the PM should be paid the
national average wage and pension, so that they directly reflect the
incomes of their electors and realise that to represent the people is a
privilege and not a gravy train.

Then, discounting altruism, the only people prepared to be MP's would be
those whose abilities and earning capacity was below average.

--
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]

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The days of idiot unions having
untrammelled power without responsibility was thankfully ended years
ago (no matter how the resident idiot apologist for murderers may try
to rewrite reality).

Thank goodness. As somebody already remarked, the unions are dead,
they just don't realise it yet.

No they're not.

At one place I work, my union is close to getting recognition. If the
workforce is balloted and more than a certain percentage want this it
happens by law.

And surprise surprise. Many of the things that were making the workforce
want their union involved - like excess hours, some of which unpaid,
observing the maximum working week, statuary meal breaks etc, have now
suddenly been implemented.

Only the naive would think these were freely given.

But a union is if anything needed more in a largely freelance industry to
prevent victimization. At the moment, few with genuine grievances would go
direct to management as it's all too easy to simply not give them another
contract as a trouble maker.

--
*If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

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

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
No - the country is full of meja graduates who'll work for pennies.

There you are then. I know where your coming from on that as
broadcasting is still seen as a very desirable job and people do work
for next to nothing.

It may have been once, but not so now.

Supply and demand somewhere?...

Like plumbers, these things take a long time to filter through.

--
*A cubicle is just a padded cell without a door.

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

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
Then, discounting altruism, the only people prepared to be MP's would be
those whose abilities and earning capacity was below average.

So an improvement, then?

--
*Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:54:26 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The days of idiot unions having
untrammelled power without responsibility was thankfully ended years
ago (no matter how the resident idiot apologist for murderers may try
to rewrite reality).

Thank goodness. As somebody already remarked, the unions are dead,
they just don't realise it yet.

No they're not.

At one place I work, my union is close to getting recognition. If the
workforce is balloted and more than a certain percentage want this it
happens by law.

And surprise surprise. Many of the things that were making the workforce
want their union involved - like excess hours, some of which unpaid,
observing the maximum working week, statuary meal breaks etc, have now
suddenly been implemented.

Only the naive would think these were freely given.

But a union is if anything needed more in a largely freelance industry to
prevent victimization. At the moment, few with genuine grievances would go
direct to management as it's all too easy to simply not give them another
contract as a trouble maker.

I can see your point for your particular sector. However, in an
environment that is freelance wouldn't you normally be paid either an
hourly rate or a price for the job or some combination of the two?

If that's the case, why would the concepts of excess hours and maximum
working week apply?



--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
But a union is if anything needed more in a largely freelance industry
to prevent victimization. At the moment, few with genuine grievances
would go direct to management as it's all too easy to simply not give
them another contract as a trouble maker.

I can see your point for your particular sector. However, in an
environment that is freelance wouldn't you normally be paid either an
hourly rate or a price for the job or some combination of the two?

All contracts vary, but in this case it's based on so many hours per week,
with extra being paid if they are exceeded. If you finish early for any
reason, those hours are removed from any subsequent overtime payments
later in the week. But the hours are purely calculated from 'on camera'
time, with no provision made for prep and wrap outside these hours. And
for some, these outside paid for working hours are getting longer, for
various reasons. So they needed rationalising. But of course the bean
counters aren't going to be concerned about things which previously they
got for nothing...

If that's the case, why would the concepts of excess hours and maximum
working week apply?

Some like to have a life? Most people expect to know well in advance which
days and what hours they'll be working so they can plan their leisure time.

Of course with every job emergencies arise and you might have to stay on
to sort them. But when those emergencies arrive each and every day, at
little to no cost to the employer, it soon dawns that it's down to
careless planning.

At one time such arrangements were common on films, and the workforce was
'bought out' to compensate. But TV seems to want the same sort of
arrangement without paying for it.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:15:26 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
But a union is if anything needed more in a largely freelance industry
to prevent victimization. At the moment, few with genuine grievances
would go direct to management as it's all too easy to simply not give
them another contract as a trouble maker.

I can see your point for your particular sector. However, in an
environment that is freelance wouldn't you normally be paid either an
hourly rate or a price for the job or some combination of the two?

All contracts vary, but in this case it's based on so many hours per week,
with extra being paid if they are exceeded. If you finish early for any
reason, those hours are removed from any subsequent overtime payments
later in the week. But the hours are purely calculated from 'on camera'
time, with no provision made for prep and wrap outside these hours. And
for some, these outside paid for working hours are getting longer, for
various reasons. So they needed rationalising. But of course the bean
counters aren't going to be concerned about things which previously they
got for nothing...

I can see the issue with that. I have seen TV and film production
from time to time as well as crews involved in corporate media events
staged as though they are a film production and it did strike me that
there is a lot of faffing around between the filmed or staged pieces -
especially the set up and take down. Most of it seemed to be because
the "luvvies" for want of a better word, changed their minds N times
as they went along.




If that's the case, why would the concepts of excess hours and maximum
working week apply?

Some like to have a life? Most people expect to know well in advance which
days and what hours they'll be working so they can plan their leisure time.

I can understand that, but is it realistically possible in a creative
environment?



Of course with every job emergencies arise and you might have to stay on
to sort them. But when those emergencies arrive each and every day, at
little to no cost to the employer, it soon dawns that it's down to
careless planning.

OK. Obviously if something could reasonably have been done to make a
situation better and wasn't then it is inconsiderate and should be
discussed with them.



At one time such arrangements were common on films, and the workforce was
'bought out' to compensate. But TV seems to want the same sort of
arrangement without paying for it.

That is unreasonable. Is this because there is an oversupply of
people to do the work, cost pressure on the production companies or
too many production companies or ??


I've always taken a high level view of work. In other words look at
it in totality - what the content is and what is required to do to
achieve what is agreed and what the return is in terms of monetary and
other benefit short and longer term including acquisition of skills.
The hours are a factor in it, but for me not the main one by some way
- I tend to look at what is needed to achieve the objectives and go
from there.





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
At one time such arrangements were common on films, and the workforce
was 'bought out' to compensate. But TV seems to want the same sort of
arrangement without paying for it.

That is unreasonable. Is this because there is an oversupply of people
to do the work, cost pressure on the production companies or too many
production companies or ??

Due to the high pound and high taxation, features are pretty quiet and
have been for some time. So those who prefer to work on them are naturally
scrabbling around for any work going. And poorer paid TV stuff is better
than starving.

So yes, there probably is an oversupply of bods. Of course there are a
vast number of BOFs like me around who will be off the scene shortly - I'm
part of the BBC2 'boom' where the BBC had to near double their in house
production.

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

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

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:33:13 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
At one time such arrangements were common on films, and the workforce
was 'bought out' to compensate. But TV seems to want the same sort of
arrangement without paying for it.

That is unreasonable. Is this because there is an oversupply of people
to do the work, cost pressure on the production companies or too many
production companies or ??

Due to the high pound and high taxation, features are pretty quiet and
have been for some time. So those who prefer to work on them are naturally
scrabbling around for any work going. And poorer paid TV stuff is better
than starving.

So yes, there probably is an oversupply of bods. Of course there are a
vast number of BOFs like me around who will be off the scene shortly - I'm
part of the BBC2 'boom' where the BBC had to near double their in house
production.

I was wondering how this could have come about. From screen credits,
etc. there seem to be a large (growing?) number of (I presume) small
production firms around producing programs shown on terrestrial and
satellite channels. Are these really companies of any substance or
just a small management who pulls together individuals from contacts
etc. when they want to make a programme? Are most of these ex-BBC
people?

Is this another situation of a sector with a population of well
trained and experienced people that will fade as they retire or go and
do something else - i.e. a skillset that will be lost, or are there
new people coming into it who know what they are doing?





--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl