No Ernie, I didn’t, did I 🙄

The clue is in “everyone”. It’s not unfair if you treat everyone the same.

what about constructive dismissal, it’s definitely that?

Raising VAT was such a silly idea. Throttle consumer-led recovery just at the wrong time and un-progressive to boot. Couldnt have been a worse idea.

Osborne could do some good by u-turning on that one. Even though Ed “The Bollocks” Balls is a big fan of cutting VAT it doesnt make it a bad idea. But it does mean that the chancellor is even less likely to go for it because it wouldnt want to hand Balls a winner.

We spend more money than we take in taxes – ergo, we are overspending, do you understand the concept?

It really does not matter what other people are doing – if all your mates maxed out their credit cards to but new bikes, would it make it OK for you to do it too?

But this type of claptrap is being used to justify policies left right and centre. Countries “overspending” is not the same as me overspending as an individual. The economy does not work like that.

The tories austerity programme will and is making the situation worse by stifling growth and increasing unemployment.

+1

can someone explain for me how it’s legal to sack everyone without it falling under unfair-dismissal or similar.

Quick high level summary.

The tories austerity programme will and is making the situation worse by stifling growth and increasing unemployment.

I’m constantly amazed by the inability of apparently intelligent people to see this. How much worse does it have to get? 🙄

Rather than just saying growth is being stifled, what are your suggestions for developing long term sustainable growth?
Easy to criticise and all that…

Some people really have no idea about what the public sector does for them

Are there any minimum wage workers in Shropshire council (I’d presume there would be some)? Seeing as these people can’t be reinstated on less pay how is it unilateral?

The core issue is nicely summed up at every recent demo/march

“NO CUTS” on banners demonstrates how far removed many people are from reality

Everything that follows is just consequence

The gravy train needs derailing

what about constructive dismissal, it’s definitely that?

No it’s not constructive dismissal – they are not leaving their employment because of the behaviour of their employer. They are leaving because they have all been sacked.

firstly, Simon, make sure that the lions share of tax-payer-funded infrastructure investment, like, say…. erm….. I don’t know… a huge railway development goes toward creating jobs

Oh….. hang on a minute….

This happened to Mrs-g and every single person that works at the company on a temp contract about 2 years ago, only it was a 10% cut.

And the notice given was about 10 days, not 2 or 3 months, so the chances of find another job were a bit smaller too.

Thought about it, the sensible thing to do was accept the cut and keep working. Simple

Secondly, give the banks a damn good kick up the arse to ensure that instead of hourding the cash they’ve been bailed out with, they actually encourage investment from business to create jobs.

If only they were somehow dependent on taxpayer guarantees, or maybe even largely taxpayer-owned. If only eh?

Oh well….

As long as people are happy to pay extra for every service the council provides (bins, street lights, etc) I can’t see this going wrong at all.

The economy is ****, so making more people redundant and screwing public confidence is just going to add wood to the fire.

The Tories seem to be doing everything they can to get us back to the good old Thatcher days of 15% inflation, and 13% interest rates again.

I could go on

firstly, Simon, make sure that the lions share of tax-payer-funded infrastructure investment, like, say…. erm….. I don’t know… a huge railway development goes toward creating jobs

And who will use these new fangled railways to make them profitable?

ourmaninthenorth – thanks for the link, it makes more sense now.

The Tories seem to be doing everything they can to get us back to the good old Thatcher days of 15% inflation, and 13% interest rates again.

I think high inflation and interest rates were pretty much a certainty once the the first QE program began (not that I’m sure there were any alternatives), now we’re just waiting to see who ends up holding the parcel when the music stops…

The rail travel sector increases year on year. Hence Thameslink (I believe it services a little Hamlet darn sarf

Hence this:

Yay for German engineering

and then this:

But not British stuff. Its rubbish

That’s 1400 people directly, and 10,000 indirectly on the rock and roll. Hurray!

portlyone – Member

Some people really have no idea about what the public sector does for them

Over to you portly.

And who will use these new fangled railways to make them profitable?

Zee Germans.

/edit Binners beat me too it.

The question is, why did Bombardier lose the contract? Cost? Quality? Design? Or…

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond said the Thameslink contract procurement process was started by the previous Government, adding: “Under the criteria that the previous Government set out in the contract, Siemens were the winner of that competition and under European procurement law we had no choice but to announce them as the preferred bidder.”

?

But not British stuff. Its rubbish

That’s 1400 people directly, and 10,000 indirectly on the rock and roll. Hurray!

A fair amount of those directly affected (1,200?) were already marked out for redundancy due to other projects finishing weren’t they? Not that I disagree with your point.

and further don simon’s post (which is absolutley correct, gov tenders must go thorugh OJEU and cannot be awarded on grounds of nationality except for specific security reasons I believe)…

… chap from railway magazine (yep, I m sure he owns a Thermos) on the Today programm said that the Siemns trains were just BETTER than the bombardier ones. Do we deserve to buy shite trains just because theyre british? Also, bombardier had said that they would still have made some 1,000+ redundancies EVEN IF THEY HAD WON THE CONTRACT becuase other contracts were completing anyway.

EDIT: retro beat me to it.

Good job we have European partners who won’t hear of any of this protectionism nonsense, like France! Nope – its the same level playing field for everyone.

And going back to the banking point. The capital for Kraft’s leveraged buyout of Cadbury was supplied by taxpayer-owned RBS. So we lent an American company billions of quid provided by thee British taxpayer to buy a British company, close the plants, make the workforce redundent and move production abroad

With decisions like that we’ll be sailing out of recession in no time, I’m sure

Yeah we facing similar problems at work Don, where we have long term relationships with certain external companies, but now rather than just giving us the contract and knowing that we will deliver, they have to put it out to European tender, and buy the cheapest tender, with the hope that they will deliver what they want (which they won’t)
Alas such transparency in procurement sounds lovely in principle, but in practice. hmm.

There was a strike last week with less justification than this.

The obvious ploy is they sack everyone, and when they come to re-employ them they all say ‘no’. Why wouldn’t that work? Because they would not all stand together.

The obvious ploy is they sack everyone, and when they come to re-employ them they all say ‘no’. Why wouldn’t that work? Because they would not all stand together.

I think that would a be superb idea. Then youd find the proper market value of the roles on offer as it would be opened up to the entire unemployed labour force of the county! Knock out!

😉

The “private sector = generates wealth” and “public sector = doesn’t” thing really bugs me:

If I opened a shop selling widgets to British people, and I import all those widgets from China, how much wealth have I generated for the country? As I see it, I’ve just moved some wealth from here to China. Or, have I got my economics arse-backwards?

The question is, why did Bombardier lose the contract? Cost? Quality? Design? Or…

According to a chap on Radio Derby who was from the rail industry press – Bombardier probably lost the contract because…
a) they were more expensive
b) Siemens were offering a better service at the lower price
c) Bombardier have been late by many years on their current contracts which isn’t inspiring confidence in the company.

My neighbour also worked in the rail industry in Derby for thirty odd years (latterly in working out worldwide maintenance contracts for Bombardier), and he was saying Siemens have far better working practices.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if the Bombadier management had proposed a cut in salary and an increase in productivity and improved working practices (which I understand to be more for less to help win the contract?

Of course instead of kicking the public sector yet again we could just make rich people/companies pay the tax they owe. Crazy idea I know.

Simon – I’d say, given the situation ,and the alternatives, everything would have been on the table. It certainly would have been if it were me.

dismissing and re hiring is not uncommon practice a customer of mine and his wife have bothe gone through the same process she lost 15% him nearer 30% but as they both agreed it was either that or possibly one or both be out of work.
large businesses like Tesco do much the same virtually every dau by making roles redundant but retaining staff in different roles on a pay scale that reduces over 2 – 4 years to the new level, mrs tts had this happen 18 months ago shes still the pharmacist but with a new title and over 36 months her ‘reward’ is adjusted to the lower level ( ie her pay remains the same until the rate catches up and or she loses 25% of the difference every year) and no one every bats an eyelid. Tesco is the countries largest private sector employer with 120k union members..

C’mon – award it to a British firm, coz its gotta be better for the economy – it’ll be like the old days again!

And if it was on the table, binners, what went wrong?

I don’t know if it was on the table. You’d have to be pretty daft not too really. You’d think. Turkeys and christmas, and all that

TJ – GDP has dropped, therefore state spending must decrease to maintain the status quo, its quite logical really, thats how %ages work!

The opposite is true. Read your Keynes.

Didn’t state spending increase while GDP was increasing?