So if it offends then ignore the last sentence and answer the serious questions, you can't have a serious debate if you are not prepared to contribute.

I have answered the serious questions



Unlike some on here, I can't answer posts at whatever time of day they come in at and I cannot see how you can imply that I haven't contributed.

Well if you just look a couple of posts above this one you'll see one that asked some questions for you to answer, you preferred to complain about a dig at the end rather than answer the questions.

I appreciate you may not be able to but they do provide some insight into the issues that you raised on the previous page, why ignore them ?

If you read my response again you will see that I have put my answers in bold in the quoted post from Serge A. Storms.

Move along please, nothing to see here...

Ha!

Take that capitalist oppressor!

OK name the company and we will be able to get a set of stat accounts from companies house and we can verify that what you say is correct and have a serious debate.

£300m cash contribution to the parent? was that just a repayment of funds lent to the company by the parent in the first place?

So many imponderables - just name the firm what's the big secret?

They are making a sixth of the workforce redundant so yes.



He evidently can't answer this.

I live down south nowadays, so forgive me if I've got my wires crossed...

But I was told that 'one' of the reasons the refuse guys were being asked to take a paycut was due to the council's oversight in not reacting to the 'equal pay' issue that raised it's head (via europe?) 3 years or so?
The council are now under pressure to be seen to pay equal wages to men/women, so rather than raise the wages of the female staff, they have opted to bring the men' wages down to the ladies level - and in turn, save a load of cash.

Like I say, I don't know if this is true or not - but either way I think the whole thing reflects really badly on the council - unless of course all the council bigwigs are also taking a 20/30% cut....

If they raised the wages of the females it would require a hike in the council tax of approx 18% - a non runner.

And law suggests the ladies in the office should earn what the bin men earn - not sure if that is correct but that is how I read it

The £300m was a repayment but is an indication of the fact that the company is cash rich and if it was facing the problems it claims why didn't it ask the parent company to let it keep the money. After all the parent company didn't need and thqat anmount of money could have paid for a lot of staff development so that come 2010 we'd be in an excellent position.

As regards naming the company, there are obvious reasons for this - most companies would take a dim view of this sort of discussion.

My bin hasn't been emptied for 5 weeks now.

None of the financial evidence given to either the Works Council, Trade Unions or Redundancy Consultative Forums and as I have summarised here would indicate we are in trouble.


Not a case of "can't", I missed it. The simple answer is, outside of senior management, we haven't got the foggiest idea.

LS16_Rhino wrote: Why would a financially stable company axe over a sixth of its workforce if it wasn't for fiscal reasons?


Very much depends. The merger of Ntl and Telewest and subsequent purchases by what is now Virgin media has led to duplication of functions across the board. Naturally these excesses have been trimmed down. Not because there is any financial urgency to do so, but to make sure that there never is.

Agreed. Successful companies frequently look at their structure to make sure they are lean, and able to react quickly.

92% vote to stay on strike.

Lazy, good-for-nothing, money grabbing, do-f**k-alls.

Am I going to get a rebate on my council tax for the reduced refuse collection service? Am I fook.

They’ve had it far too good for far too long and now they’re faced with a wage that is actually proportional to the amount of work they actually do they’re up in arms.

They should just be please that they managed to get away with it for so long.

No urgency maybe but the underlying reason is still one of a financial nature.

The company I work for has just done some divisional restructuring (again) and subsequently axed duplicated positions – financially based decisions.

The reasoning behind all mass redundancies is always based on a financial policy and not, as JohnG, suggests just a good excuse to out trouble causers and ‘bad eggs’.

if you have any questions for gordon brown get tuned in nowm, he's on in the next half an hour and call 0845 106 2 108

[url=http://www.realradioyorkshire.co.uk/click here if you want / need to listen via the net[/url

Should be able to sack the lot of 'em and take on new staff. There'd be plenty of takers for the jobs.

on now

Are you sure, really really sure that your company didn't ask to defer the payment or to make it in milestones X months apart?

The reality is that it's unlikely that any credible company would shed 1200 of 6000 staff and repay a loan of £300M without having very little alternative. The £100M operating profit figure is a red herring also unless you can tell us the turnover.

Is it possible that the parent company may have needed the £300M to repay a loan that they had taken or could one of the supporting financial institutions called in a debt to reduce thier financial burden? Stories like this are never isolated and are frequently long and complex, but don't let that stop you.

You speak like you expect the shopfloor worker to understand the complex financial structures of the company and parent company that they work for - there is a reason why not many workers co-operatives make it beyond the small business level you know

Quote ="McLaren_Field"You speak like you expect the shopfloor worker to understand the complex financial structures of the company and parent company that they work for - there is a reason why not many workers co-operatives make it beyond the small business level you know '" Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not but what about Suma started in Leeds and £24 Million turnover and the rest just for the record. www.cooperatives-uk.coop/live/im ... view09.pdf

Quote ="McLaren_Field"You speak like you expect the shopfloor worker to understand the complex financial structures of the company and parent company that they work for - there is a reason why not many workers co-operatives make it beyond the small business level you know '" Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not but what about Suma started in Leeds and £24 Million turnover and the rest just for the record. www.cooperatives-uk.coop/live/im ... view09.pdf

You could also include the John Lewis Partnership for good measure.

None of which distracts from the point, your average Co-op or JLP shopfloor worker has the first clue of what goes on in the boardroom and the only entry in the annual accounts that they are interested in is the word "dividend"