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.

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

rlclick here if you want / need to listen via the netrl

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"