OT French Kettles
Rod
After dismissing every one we see for some reason or another, we came
across the Krups FLF2 - which we think might be fine:
<http://www.johnlewis.com/Electrical/Kitchen+Appliances/Tea+and+Coffee/Kett
les/230196542/Product.aspx>
Except we don't like black!
Further searching found:
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0004JMMQC/qid=
1123881650/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7674411-6356966?v=glance&s=kitchen&n=
507846>
which appears to be the same kettle but available in white (that would be
acceptable). But, being amazon.com, this is obviously the US model FLF2-J4
- wrong voltage and a paltry 1750 watts. The wattage issues have been
discussed at considerable length here recently.
As we are off to France for a couple of days, I just thought about getting
one there. (DIY bit - I would have to change the plug!)
<http://www.leguide.com/sb/leguide/recherche/str_MotCle/Krups/org/3/t/1/502
0500.htm>
Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?
(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)
--
Rod
Andy Hall
>
>As we are off to France for a couple of days, I just thought about getting
>one there. (DIY bit - I would have to change the plug!)
>
><http://www.leguide.com/sb/leguide/recherche/str_MotCle/Krups/org/3/t/1/502
>0500.htm>
>
>Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
>And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts?
If you look a bit further there are 2.5kW ones
>Do
>French electrics not support 3 KW appliances?
Circuits are 16A from what I've seen so no reason why not.
>How do they handle high load
>appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?
32A and 45A circuits.
>
>
>(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)
Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot. Not that anybody
goes on the airlines for the catering anyway.......
--
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
--s-p-o-n-i-x--
>Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
>And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
>French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
>appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?
As far as I understand it, they are simply catering for French
electrics, which generally is lower rated than here.
If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
French houses would catch fire.
sponix
Grunff
> Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
> nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.
Totally agree - I've never understood the concept of going on strike - I
can't imagine ever not turning up to work in this way, and if I ever
did, I'd expect to lose my job. I've felt this way in all my previous
jobs too, where I would have had a lot less say in the matter. The whole
concept is just alien to me.
--
Grunff
Harvey Van Sickle
>> (No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)
>
> Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
> nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.
Ummmm...that's precisely what happened, and what's led to all the
fooferah...
(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in third-
party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no control over
the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Rod
news:Xns96B0EBE0...@62.253.170.163:
I suppose you could say that they have landed themselves in hot water. :-)
--
Rod
Peter Parry
>Do French electrics not support 3 KW appliances?
French electrics generally struggle with 50W appliances. Also the
French have an odd way of selling electricity with the rate depending
upon the maximum (not average) consumption. This is policed by a
device known as a "disrupteur" which knocks off the supply if you
exceed a certain load. To reset it requires a visit from the
electricity board or the use of a device every corner shop sells.
>How do they handle high load appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?
Generally very badly and accompanied by burning smells, smoke and
loud fizzling sounds. Decades (centuries) of bribing various
officials and inspectors has left France with an electrical system
the Albanians would be ashamed of.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
Paul Andrews
news:Xns96B0E5460BE75h...@130.133.1.4...
> Do
> French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
> appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?
LOL
I worked in France for a few months and rented the top floor of a house. The
rest of the house had the owner living in and an attached dance studio (the
owner was a dance teacher). One evening I tried putting on the kettle whilst
i was ironing. The result was that the whole house went into darkness,
including the dance studio, during a dance lesson..
Beautiful house though. When we left they decided to replace the carpets,
which were foam backed and glued down. They were most amused when I said
that most people in britain put newspapers underneath specifically to stop
the carpet sticking to the floor..
Paul
Mike Dodd
Better that than the frogs torching our sheep.
(Dons fireproof clothing)
Mary Fisher
"Mike Dodd" <no-address@lo0> wrote in message
news:42fd9405$0$6475$cc9e...@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>>
>> If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
>> French houses would catch fire.
>>
>> sponix
>
> Better that than the frogs torching our sheep.
>
> (Dons fireproof clothing)
No need, I couldn't agree more.
Mary
Andy Hall
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On 12 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
>> On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod <spam....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>-snip-
>
>>> (No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)
>>
>> Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
>> nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot.
>
>Ummmm...that's precisely what happened, and what's led to all the
>fooferah...
The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.
The correct procedure would have been for the airline to have
continued to fly, giving customers a voucher or part refund on tickets
and to push the cost of doing so to the catering firm for
non-performance of supply.
>
>(Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
>catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in third-
>party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no control over
>the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)
Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
aspects of a business.
Airlines use rather a lot of kerosene as well, but typically don't do
oil exploration or run refineries.
mike ring
> If they were to sell 3kw kettles in france then a number of older
> French houses would catch fire.
>
mike
Harvey Van Sickle
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:09:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
><harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> (Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
>> catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in
>> third- party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no
>> control over the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)
>
> Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
> aspects of a business.
Agreed, but an airline is a service industry, and the passenger
experience *is* an essential core aspect of that business. It differs
fundamentally from, say, building and fuelling the planes.
When you out-source some aspects of your core business in service
industry -- like passenger servicing, call centres, or reservations --
you clearly lose direct control over that part of your core business
and can only influence it indirectly.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Andy Hall
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On 13 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:09:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
>><harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> (Where BA shot themselves in the foot was by out-sourcing their
>>> catering to save a few bob: by doing that, they get caught in
>>> third- party crossfire. They get all the grief an blame, with no
>>> control over the solution. Chickens/home/roost/to/coming stuff.)
>>
>> Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
>> aspects of a business.
>
>Agreed, but an airline is a service industry, and the passenger
>experience *is* an essential core aspect of that business. It differs
>fundamentally from, say, building and fuelling the planes.
>
Well..... the passenger experience thing is what the airlines traded
on for years and moderately successfully.
Then passengers decided that they wanted to buy on price and not
service (or the airlines convinced them of it).
>When you out-source some aspects of your core business in service
>industry -- like passenger servicing, call centres, or reservations --
>you clearly lose direct control over that part of your core business
>and can only influence it indirectly.
Most airlines outsource their passenger handling and catering at many
remote locations and have done for some time.
As far as reservations are concerned, most have been progressively
screwing the travel agents over the last few years and driving
passengers towards buying restricted electronic tickets on line. This
is going in the opposite direction and not always that helpful to
travellers.
Mary Fisher
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:jicsf197mt5fnuk9i...@4ax.com...
>
> As far as reservations are concerned, most have been progressively
> screwing the travel agents over the last few years and driving
> passengers towards buying restricted electronic tickets on line. This
> is going in the opposite direction and not always that helpful to
> travellers.
Which do you do, Andy?
Mary
Andy Hall
<mary....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
>news:jicsf197mt5fnuk9i...@4ax.com...
>>
>> As far as reservations are concerned, most have been progressively
>> screwing the travel agents over the last few years and driving
>> passengers towards buying restricted electronic tickets on line. This
>> is going in the opposite direction and not always that helpful to
>> travellers.
>
>Which do you do, Andy?
>
>Mary
A combination of the two.
If I am doing a simple out and back trip to somewhere that is well
served with flights like Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt then I usually
pick an airline and book it on the airline's web site. The major
groupings are reasonable for that (e.g. OneWorld, Star Alliance etc),
especially when there is code share. Frequently I don't know when I
will return, so may book a fixed outbound flight and a flexible
return. It's reasonably easy to change a booking or even check in
on line and to use E-tickets in this scenario.
However, often I am doing trips involving a sequence of 2-4 places in
a week and where it is either too restricting or even impossible to
make the complete trip with one airline or even with one alliance. It
may also be that a direct routing isn't possible or economic. In
these instances there is a high likelihood that I will need to alter a
flight timing or even a routing along the way.
In these instances, an E-ticket, even if possible, would be a
nightmare. This is because of a mix of currencies and the non
joined-up nature of the airline reservation systems between companies,
and the effect is that if an alteration is needed part way through,
the airline handling it has to convert the ticket to paper, calculate
the value, do the currency conversion and usually issue a new ticket.
In complicated cases, this can take 30 minutes or more and is hopeless
if one is tight on time.
So for these, I use a business travel agent who is first of all able
to get me good combinations and options of sectors and fares and
secondly can help with changes mid trip. They would be more
expensive than on line booking for a simple trip, but for the
complicated ones, being able to call them 24x7 if needed and get
issues fixed and changes made without hanging around is well worth it.
raden
<gru...@ixxa.com> writes
form of contingency plan, or not even seemed to have considered such an
event happening
--
geoff
raden
<an...@hall.nospam> writes
>>
>>
>>(No - thankfully we are not and were not going to be flying!)
>
>Lucky you. I was nearly stranded on the way back today. Lot of
>nonsense - I think that they should sack the lot. Not that anybody
>goes on the airlines for the catering anyway.......
>
--
geoff
Owain
> What I don't understand is how a major company like BA didn't have any
> form of contingency plan, or not even seemed to have considered such an
> event happening
Indeed, it's only the drinks and nibbles supplier that's shafted them
FFS, not Air Traffic Control. I bet the local Asian corner shop could
have rustled up a planeload of pakoras, samosas, and cans of Irn Bru.
Owain
Peter Parry
wrote:
>The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
>business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.
They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
very wide margin.
>Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
>aspects of a business.
Unfortunately many companies run by accountants, and BA are a classic
example, have decided customers are a non core activity.
Capitol
Owain wrote:
> Indeed, it's only the drinks and nibbles supplier that's shafted them
> FFS, not Air Traffic Control. I bet the local Asian corner shop could
> have rustled up a planeload of pakoras, samosas, and cans of Irn Bru.
Not so. The problem for BA was that the local union members went on
an unofficial strike and refused to handle baggage for BA and some other
airlines, in order to force BA etc, to pressurise the catering company
into giving in to the union demands. As Tony and friends repealed the
trade union legislation which allowed an employer to recover their
losses from a trade union whose members went on unofficial strikes, BA
were screwed. Reading between the lines, the caterer with a largely
Asian, militantly unionised and apparently inefficient workforce and
generating huge losses, decided that the company would do the best thing
for the shareholders and pull the plug. That decision, I believe was
taken in the US, as few British managers would have the guts to do it!
BA then tried to source from the local corner shop AIUI, which is one
of the reasons given for the unofficial strike. What it also shows, is
that reliance upon only one supplier is akin to suicide in a cut throat
high volume consumer business.
Regards
Capitol
Andy Hall
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>
>>The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
>>business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.
>
>They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
>very wide margin.
It's a customer/supplier relationship, with BA being the customer of
the catering firm - separate companies. Therefore what possible
relevance does the employment terms and conditions of the caterer's
staff have to the employees of their customer? That's a nonsense.
>
>>Outsourcing is simply a way of not having to deal with non-core
>>aspects of a business.
>
>Unfortunately many companies run by accountants, and BA are a classic
>example, have decided customers are a non core activity.
That's certainly true.
Bob Eager
wrote:
No, it's not just that. When that happened, they coped with food
vouchers and sandwiches. It was the illegal secondary action, involving
many of their OWN staff, that dropped them in it. Without check-in
staff, baggage handlers, etc. life gets more complicated.
Peter Parry
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:00:25 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>>They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
>>very wide margin.
>
>It's a customer/supplier relationship, with BA being the customer of
>the catering firm - separate companies.
BA used to own the catering company and off loaded it (complete with
TUPE) to another firm, that firm in turn off loaded it (at a nice
profit) to the current owners who of course had to recover the price
they had paid for it. At the same time BA were screwing the company
into the ground on price as BA accounted for well over half their UK
turnover.
> Therefore what possible
>relevance does the employment terms and conditions of the caterer's
>staff have to the employees of their customer? That's a nonsense.
The point all the bozos with MBA's missed was that at Heathrow whole
families work there and have for years. The catering staff were
wives, cousins, sisters etc of the baggage handlers and when they
went on strike they didn't find it too difficult to persuade other
family members to join in.
BA have so little idea about, or interest in, who works for them
(apparently they are busy re-designing the design on tail fins) that
this simple relationship and the effect it might have simply didn't
occur to them.
According to the BA person I was talking to today they had calculated
that by off loading the catering (and other) services they would
reduce the probability of the follow on strikes they have seen before
and the last few days has caught them completely flat footed.
Geoffrey
wrote:
>The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
>business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.
Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired them.
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.
Once upon a time, the Unions were there to make sure the bastard
employers treated their workers decently. Maggie put an end to that
(and BTW an end to rather a lot of jobs at the same time) but there
are vestiges left - hence the rather impressive cessation of BA
flights.
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".
I feel sympathy for all the people who had their holidays ruined but I
daresay the sacked catering staff wish they could afford the
occasional foreign holiday and I expect the directors of BA will still
get their large bonuses and long holidays at the end of the year while
their minions continue to work for minimum wage with a smile on their
faces, glad to have a job.
In a few weeks, everyone will have forgotten about it, the catering
company will get "new" management and will be manage to sack the
workers quietly and with no fuss.
--
Warning: Do not look directly into laser with remaining eye.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:29:15 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:00:25 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>>>They are all related, a point that passed the dimwits at BA by by a
>>>very wide margin.
>>
>>It's a customer/supplier relationship, with BA being the customer of
>>the catering firm - separate companies.
>
>BA used to own the catering company and off loaded it (complete with
>TUPE) to another firm, that firm in turn off loaded it (at a nice
>profit) to the current owners who of course had to recover the price
>they had paid for it. At the same time BA were screwing the company
>into the ground on price as BA accounted for well over half their UK
>turnover.
Then more fool the catering firm for being so reliant on one customer.
They should have actively sought other customers and/or restructured
their business a long time previously.
>
>> Therefore what possible
>>relevance does the employment terms and conditions of the caterer's
>>staff have to the employees of their customer? That's a nonsense.
>
>The point all the bozos with MBA's missed was that at Heathrow whole
>families work there and have for years. The catering staff were
>wives, cousins, sisters etc of the baggage handlers and when they
>went on strike they didn't find it too difficult to persuade other
>family members to join in.
>
>BA have so little idea about, or interest in, who works for them
>(apparently they are busy re-designing the design on tail fins) that
>this simple relationship and the effect it might have simply didn't
>occur to them.
>
>According to the BA person I was talking to today they had calculated
>that by off loading the catering (and other) services they would
>reduce the probability of the follow on strikes they have seen before
>and the last few days has caught them completely flat footed.
Clearly there is incompetence on BA's part for not realising this
earlier and doing something about it.
However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
company and different operational area.
I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
remember the eventual consequences.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>>The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
>>business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.
>
>Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired them.
I used the expression "laid people off" in the generic sense, be it
termination for cause, redundancy or temporary stand down.
Whatever the reason is, it is not justification for employees of other
companies or in totally unrelated areas to withdraw their labour on
the basis of said dispute.
>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.
That's fine, but this should not be without consequences for those
withdrawing their labour on this basis and liability for any union
involvement.
>
>Once upon a time, the Unions were there to make sure the bastard
>employers treated their workers decently. Maggie put an end to that
>(and BTW an end to rather a lot of jobs at the same time) but there
>are vestiges left - hence the rather impressive cessation of BA
>flights.
Hopefully those vestiges will pass, justifiably into industrial
history as soon as possible.
The consequences of inappropriate union strength and especially of
secondary action are very obvious in terms of their eventual effect on
sectors where they were typical in the 60s and 70s.
>
>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".
Of course. However, it is not appropriate to do so if you are not
directly involved in the dispute as an employee.
>
>I feel sympathy for all the people who had their holidays ruined but I
>daresay the sacked catering staff wish they could afford the
>occasional foreign holiday and I expect the directors of BA will still
>get their large bonuses and long holidays at the end of the year while
>their minions continue to work for minimum wage with a smile on their
>faces, glad to have a job.
The catering firm has been in a situation where it hasn't made a
profit since 2000 and its revenues have fallen 35% since 2001. Faced
with the reality of that, there is no other option than to find ways
to restructure the business and to cut costs. They had tried for
several months to reach agreements with unions and employees and
change working practices in order to match the reality that they are
working in.
Part of that reality (I believe a small part) is said to be due to the
WTC bombings. I think that a much bigger part is the change in the
market dynamic of people wanting cheap and no frills air travel. THe
inevitable consequence of that is that business of the airline
catering firms is adversely affected.
I can't find anything to suggest that the company's offer was outside
the law, but was what was required to secure the future of the
company, which is not a charitable organisation. If, at the end of
the day, some of the employees don't want to accept what's on offer,
they have the option of looking for other jobs or doing as they did
and withdrawing their labour. However, they can't expect to do so
without there being consequences of termination of employment if said
activity puts them outside their employment contract.
As to the directors of BA or even the middle managers.... they work
for a different company. However, their bonuses should be hit for
not having a contingency in place in terms of an alternative catering
supplier and alternative baggage handling.
>
>In a few weeks, everyone will have forgotten about it, the catering
>company will get "new" management and will be manage to sack the
>workers quietly and with no fuss.
--
.andy
Grunff
> 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".
What utter crap. If you don't like your job, you quit. That simple. You
don't hold your employer to ransom until they give in to your demands.
--
Grunff
Paul Giverin
<gru...@ixxa.com> writes
he want's. You do what you have to do. In this case, it may have worked.
good luck to them. Any company that sacks employees who were off on
holiday or sick on that day don't deserve any sympathy.
--
Paul Giverin
British Jet Engine Website http://www.britjet.co.uk
Dave Plowman (News)
Capitol <cap...@spamfree.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Not so. The problem for BA was that the local union members went on an
> unofficial strike and refused to handle baggage for BA and some other
> airlines, in order to force BA etc, to pressurise the catering company
> into giving in to the union demands.
They shared the same union. And the union 'demands' were that they
shouldn't sack staff without reason.
> As Tony and friends repealed the trade union legislation which allowed
> an employer to recover their losses from a trade union whose members
> went on unofficial strikes, BA were screwed.
The idea of being able to recover 'losses' from a trade union if their
members take unofficial action is just plain ludicrous, since how could
they stop it? They might have been able to in the days of closed shops,
but then those were banned too, and still are.
Airlines and others seem to be above the law when it comes time for
compensation when things go wrong, so why should trades unions be
different?
--
*Funny, I don't remember being absent minded.
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
Grunff <gru...@ixxa.com> wrote:
> Totally agree - I've never understood the concept of going on strike - I
> can't imagine ever not turning up to work in this way, and if I ever
> did, I'd expect to lose my job.
And this is usually what happens. Think I've been technically sacked three
times. ;-)
> I've felt this way in all my previous jobs too, where I would have had
> a lot less say in the matter. The whole concept is just alien to me.
Contrary to general belief, few want to strike. After all you don't get
paid when on strike, and most work because they need the money to live on.
All strikes have a reason. And it takes two groups to create this reason -
workers and management. Unfortunately, the media rarely give the full
facts of the dispute. It's only when you become personally involved in one
that you realise this for certain.
--
*I brake for no apparent reason.
Dave Plowman (News)
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >BA used to own the catering company and off loaded it (complete with
> >TUPE) to another firm, that firm in turn off loaded it (at a nice
> >profit) to the current owners who of course had to recover the price
> >they had paid for it. At the same time BA were screwing the company
> >into the ground on price as BA accounted for well over half their UK
> >turnover.
> Then more fool the catering firm for being so reliant on one customer.
> They should have actively sought other customers and/or restructured
> their business a long time previously.
And bigger fool BA for relying on one supplier. But then they can squeeze
the prices paid rather easier that way.
--
*No radio - Already stolen.
Derek ^
wrote:
>Rod <spam....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
>> And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts? Do
>> French electrics not support 3 KW appliances? How do they handle high load
>> appliances such as heaters, cookers, etc.?
>
>I'm not sure about the French, but in Italian houses there are two types
>of socket, 10A and 16A, although usually most sockets are 16A with a
>secondary set of connectors to take a 10A plug. TBH operating a 2.2kW
>load from a 10A socket sounds to me like pushing the limits but I
>suppose that it may be reason that the kettles are limited to 2.2kW.
>
>As to cookers, as in the UK, single ovens can be fitted with a plug
>(16A), larger ovens need to be wired in.
I'm sure a SMEG oven I bought had the possibility of being connected
to a 3 phase supply by a cunning re-arrangement of links. Can't quite
see how they could do that unless they just put the top oven on one
phase and the bottom one on another. The main (fan) oven only has one
element on at a time.
DG
Dave Plowman (News)
> in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
> remember the eventual consequences.
And those miners who refused to go on strike have still got jobs?
There is little 'traditional' industry in this country as we simply can't
compete with the far east etc on cost.
--
*If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.
Matt
>I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
>in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
>remember the eventual consequences.
We ended up with that cnut Thatcher, losing completely a whole sector
of our indigenous energy resources, making us dependent on imported
gas and leading to an impending energy crisis the likes of which we
have never known.
The IRA were evil bastards 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.
But its won't be long now Maggie before everyone is dancing on your
grave you evil twisted vindictive fcuking bastard. You won't be
missed at all and your "legacy" will ensure you are hated for
generations to come. You could have saved a bit of money and jumped
in that hole with Ted Heath the other week though.
--
Dave Plowman (News)
Most strikes start the other way. The employer is doing the aggression, as
in this case.
--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?
Geoffrey
wrote:
Blimey! I didn't realise there was anyone left who shared my views on
Maggie. This country would be a lot better off if some precient person
had strangled her at birth.
Hey ho - there isn't any way to get the genie back in the bottle and
no way to get back the country of my childhood. Matt - you and I will
share a silent toast when the old bag finally sinks into hell.
Andy Hall
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <mpctf1p0bn1b4iosk...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
>> in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
>> remember the eventual consequences.
>
>And those miners who refused to go on strike have still got jobs?
>
>There is little 'traditional' industry in this country as we simply can't
>compete with the far east etc on cost.
It becomes a circular issue. People want to pay as little for things
as they can and then wonder why local industry declines.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>
>>I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
>>in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
>>remember the eventual consequences.
>
>We ended up with that cnut Thatcher, losing completely a whole sector
>of our indigenous energy resources, making us dependent on imported
>gas and leading to an impending energy crisis the likes of which we
>have never known.
>
The industrial sectors were lost purely because people were inflexible
and priced themselves out of the market.
Andy Hall
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <42ff1857$0$18200$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> Grunff <gru...@ixxa.com> wrote:
>> > 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".
>
>
>> What utter crap. If you don't like your job, you quit. That simple. You
>> don't hold your employer to ransom until they give in to your demands.
>
>Most strikes start the other way. The employer is doing the aggression, as
>in this case.
Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.
This doesn't amount to aggression, simply trying to deal with a
commercial reality. There aren';t really any alternatives when a
company has been losing money for five years and has lost a third of
its revenue.
Dave Plowman (News)
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
> declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
> worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
> practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
> with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.
So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
For example?
> This doesn't amount to aggression, simply trying to deal with a
> commercial reality. There aren';t really any alternatives when a
> company has been losing money for five years and has lost a third of
> its revenue.
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?
--
*All generalizations are false.
Andy Dingley
wrote:
>I'm sure a SMEG oven I bought had the possibility of being connected
>to a 3 phase supply by a cunning re-arrangement of links.
Some friends recently bought an oven / gas hob (an impressive beast -
not Smeg, but a similar up-market brand) with such an arrangement. It
was supplied with two controller modules (presumably potted triacs) that
were fitted as alternatives for single or three phase.
Andy Hall
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <t7duf1hf3n6rqn2r7...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
>> declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
>> worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
>> practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
>> with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.
>
>So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
>For example?
It's a judgment call that they can make but then have to accept the
consequences - i.e. customers may not like it and will shop elsewhere.
Also, the labour costs in India are starting to increase, so I suspect
it won't be that long before there is a migration back.
>
>> This doesn't amount to aggression, simply trying to deal with a
>> commercial reality. There aren';t really any alternatives when a
>> company has been losing money for five years and has lost a third of
>> its revenue.
>
>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?
Very good question. I wasn't suggesting that the catering firm was
beyond reproach. One does wonder why they didn't try to attract
other business. Possibly they did, but BA would still represent by
far the largest catering contract out of LHR anyway, and most of the
recent airline growth (or lack of shrinkage) has been in the cheap
sector anyway, where catering is not a significant factor.
Matt
>The industrial sectors were lost purely because people were inflexible
>and priced themselves out of the market.
...and I thought Drivel had the exclusive licence on talking bollocks
here.
--
Chris Hodges
> On 12 Aug 2005 21:32:18 GMT, Rod <spam....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>As we are off to France for a couple of days, I just thought about getting
>>one there. (DIY bit - I would have to change the plug!)
>>
>><http://www.leguide.com/sb/leguide/recherche/str_MotCle/Krups/org/3/t/1/502
>>0500.htm>
>>
>>Again, this is a similar model (FLF244) but it seems to be in noir only.
>>And here at last is the question! Why is this is rated at 2200 watts?
>
>
>
>
>>Do
>>French electrics not support 3 KW appliances?
>
>
>
>
But what are the IEC plugs in the kettles rated at (assuming a cordless
kettle)? 10A IIRC, and France runs/ran on 220V (OK it's 230 nominal
now, just like here).
--
Spamtrap in use
To email replace 127.0.0.1 with blueyonder dot co dot uk
John Cartmell
Geoffrey <Gfou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Blimey! I didn't realise there was anyone left who shared my views on
> Maggie.
Quite a few! ;-)
I happened to be visiting a school when her resignation was announced and the
cheers were quite spontaneous (and loud!) as the news travelled around the
place. A good few will have reason for long memories.
--
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
John Cartmell
<an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> The catering firm has been in a situation where it hasn't made a profit
> since 2000 and its revenues have fallen 35% since 2001. Faced with the
> reality of that, there is no other option than to find ways to restructure
> the business and to cut costs.
Except by charging more for their services and paying a reasonable living wage
out of that. They accepted an impossible contract believing they could bully a
subservient and impotent workforce into taking all the strain of the too low
prices. It didn't work out as planned.
John Cartmell
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
> baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
> withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
> company and different operational area.
There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees with no
warning and for no reason?
Geoffrey
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:01:06 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
><da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <t7duf1hf3n6rqn2r7...@4ax.com>,
>> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>>> Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
>>> declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
>>> worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
>>> practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
>>> with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.
>>
>>So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
>>For example?
>
>It's a judgment call that they can make but then have to accept the
>consequences - i.e. customers may not like it and will shop elsewhere.
>
It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most.
Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't
they?
Andy Hall
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <mpctf1p0bn1b4iosk...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
>> baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
>> withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
>> company and different operational area.
>
>There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees with no
>warning and for no reason?
There are. Take a look at the Employment Acts.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:08:05 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:01:06 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
>><da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <t7duf1hf3n6rqn2r7...@4ax.com>,
>>> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>>>> Trying to restructure their business in order to stem losses in a
>>>> declining market size inevitably is going to result in a loss of hours
>>>> worked. Either that can be accomplished by changing working
>>>> practices and hours of people that are there or replacing those people
>>>> with others who are willing to accept a changed arrangement.
>>>
>>>So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
>>>For example?
>>
>>It's a judgment call that they can make but then have to accept the
>>consequences - i.e. customers may not like it and will shop elsewhere.
>>
>
>It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most.
>Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't
>they?
It's not a great scenario whichever way one looks at it. However, it
seems to be to be in a situation of remaining in business and
employing *some* people for *some* hours is better than going bust and
employing nobody.
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <ggdtf1dp2hfehbe9f...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
><an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> The catering firm has been in a situation where it hasn't made a profit
>> since 2000 and its revenues have fallen 35% since 2001. Faced with the
>> reality of that, there is no other option than to find ways to restructure
>> the business and to cut costs.
>
>Except by charging more for their services and paying a reasonable living wage
>out of that. They accepted an impossible contract believing they could bully a
>subservient and impotent workforce into taking all the strain of the too low
>prices. It didn't work out as planned.
OK. So let's say that a bottom up approach is taken and the costs of
paying a "reasonable living wage" are reflected in the costs from the
caterer to the airlines. The airlines would have some choices
including:
- pass those costs on to the paying passengers
- save cost elsewhere
- make a smaller profit
Passengers want ever more for ever less
Saving cost elsewhere would mean altering the terms and conditions for
another group of employees.
Shareholders (typically institutional investors running pension funds,
ISAs and the like) are not going to want reduced profits.
At the end of the day, it becomes a question of whether other
employees are willing to make sacrifices in their terms and conditions
or whether the public are willing to pay more for their travel or
receive less from their investments.
I don't see any volunteers lining up for any of those.
Geoffrey
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:14:18 GMT, Geoffrey <Gfou...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most.
>>Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't
>>they?
>
>
>It's not a great scenario whichever way one looks at it. However, it
>seems to be to be in a situation of remaining in business and
>employing *some* people for *some* hours is better than going bust and
>employing nobody.
Interesting answer when you consider that this particlar quote was
about Banks and call centers in India.
Geoffrey
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:33:09 +0100, John Cartmell
><jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <ggdtf1dp2hfehbe9f...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
>><an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>>> The catering firm has been in a situation where it hasn't made a profit
>>> since 2000 and its revenues have fallen 35% since 2001. Faced with the
>>> reality of that, there is no other option than to find ways to restructure
>>> the business and to cut costs.
>>
>>Except by charging more for their services and paying a reasonable living wage
>>out of that. They accepted an impossible contract believing they could bully a
>>subservient and impotent workforce into taking all the strain of the too low
>>prices. It didn't work out as planned.
>
>
>OK. So let's say that a bottom up approach is taken and the costs of
>paying a "reasonable living wage" are reflected in the costs from the
>caterer to the airlines. The airlines would have some choices
>including:
>
>- pass those costs on to the paying passengers
do this second
>
>- save cost elsewhere
don't do this
>
>- make a smaller profit
do this first.
>
>
>Passengers want ever more for ever less
We all want. Not all of us get.
>
>Saving cost elsewhere would mean altering the terms and conditions for
>another group of employees.
>
>Shareholders (typically institutional investors running pension funds,
>ISAs and the like) are not going to want reduced profits.
>
No - they certainly are not.
>
>At the end of the day, it becomes a question of whether other
>employees are willing to make sacrifices in their terms and conditions
>or whether the public are willing to pay more for their travel or
>receive less from their investments.
>
>I don't see any volunteers lining up for any of those.
No, neither do I so let's just screw the most vulnerable and least
able to do anything about it.
Andy Hall
wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:33:48 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>>OK. So let's say that a bottom up approach is taken and the costs of
>>paying a "reasonable living wage" are reflected in the costs from the
>>caterer to the airlines. The airlines would have some choices
>>including:
>>
>>- pass those costs on to the paying passengers
>
>do this second
>>
>>- save cost elsewhere
>
>don't do this
>>
>>- make a smaller profit
>
>do this first.
OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to accept a
lower return on your investments.
>>
>>At the end of the day, it becomes a question of whether other
>>employees are willing to make sacrifices in their terms and conditions
>>or whether the public are willing to pay more for their travel or
>>receive less from their investments.
>>
>>I don't see any volunteers lining up for any of those.
>
>No, neither do I so let's just screw the most vulnerable and least
>able to do anything about it.
OK, so following the logic of reducing profits, the direct result is a
reduction in the returns available from investments such as pension
schemes. Thus the most vulnerable in our society, the pensioners,
are hit.
Geoffrey
wrote:
>
>OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to accept a
>lower return on your investments.
>
Investments? What investments :)
>
>
>>>
>>>At the end of the day, it becomes a question of whether other
>>>employees are willing to make sacrifices in their terms and conditions
>>>or whether the public are willing to pay more for their travel or
>>>receive less from their investments.
>>>
>>>I don't see any volunteers lining up for any of those.
>>
>>No, neither do I so let's just screw the most vulnerable and least
>>able to do anything about it.
>
>OK, so following the logic of reducing profits, the direct result is a
>reduction in the returns available from investments such as pension
>schemes. Thus the most vulnerable in our society, the pensioners,
>are hit.
The most vulnerable in our society are not the pensioners living off
pension schemes (although I admit that will be the case eventually).
Those living off a state pension, disability pensions and the dole are
somewhat less well off.
My mother lives off a state pension only. If anyone would like to
contribute towards a few investments for her I'm sure she'd appreciate
it. Sadly, nursing for 47 years didn't quite give her the income to
put much by and having the stupidity to marry a garage mechanic who
worked for someone else having three kids didn't help either.
Still, I can't complain - neither of my parents were ever out of work
and we were never hungry. Also we don't have to worry about
inheritance tax...
And you've no need to worry about her, at 85 she won't be a burden on
the state for too much longer and her three kids suppliment her
pension to make it possible for her to live comfortably. Perhaps
having three kids wasn't such a bad idea after all.
Capitol
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> So the banks etc *need* to move their call centres to India to survive?
> For example?
>
Get used to the real world! If it's cheaper to do it elsewhere, it will
be done elsewhere (even if it is a foul up in the short term). We tried
being non competitive in the 70's and it took Thatcher to get us out of
the mess and give us todays standards of living(with significant help
from the Chinese). British Leyland has taken 30 years to die, the market
would have had a chance of preventing this if it had been allowed to go
into liquidation 30+ years ago. With lower costs available from Eastern
Europe, I'm amazed that airline catering is still in Heathrow. Catering
companies closely resemble holiday companies IME, ie any profit is
either illusory or temporary before they go broke!
Regards
Capitol
Capitol
Geoffrey wrote:
> It seems to me that it's their (ex) employees who suffer the most.
> Still, who cares about them, they can always get another job can't
> they?
>
Not if Gordon continues in his present pattern! There has to be a
natural limit to the number of non jobs the remaining workers can
support. There is now no such thing as a permanent job in most
industries. Perhaps that's a good thing for society as a whole, as
people will have to get used to the idea of being self reliant again and
not relying on the taxpayers to provide their living standards.
Regards
Capitol
John Cartmell
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to accept a
> lower return on your investments.
The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you advocating
that idea or do you accept certain limitations?
John Cartmell
<an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:44 +0100, John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <mpctf1p0bn1b4iosk...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
> > <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >> However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
> >> baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
> >> withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
> >> company and different operational area.
> >
> >There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees
> >with no warning and for no reason?
> There are. Take a look at the Employment Acts.
I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their employer
is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before they go hungry
or can't pay the mortgage/rent?
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <9r2vf1l0i0jodbl8i...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
><an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:44 +0100, John Cartmell
>> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >In article <mpctf1p0bn1b4iosk...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
>> > <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> >> However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
>> >> baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
>> >> withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
>> >> company and different operational area.
>> >
>> >There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees
>> >with no warning and for no reason?
>
>> There are. Take a look at the Employment Acts.
>
>I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their employer
>is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before they go hungry
>or can't pay the mortgage/rent?
Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
outside the terms of the agreement.
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <k96vf11ots1lbqctu...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to accept a
>> lower return on your investments.
>
>The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you advocating
>that idea or do you accept certain limitations?
Of course there are limitations.
I am simply pointing out that the suggestion of squeezing company
profits in order to fund higher payroll has consequences for
investments that many people make to fund their retirement.
Harvey Van Sickle
There was, perhaps, some validity in that when pension schemes were
honoured. But that day's gone.
The last few years have sseen cost efficiencies which involve corporate
management saying: "You know that deferred income that you were
supposed to have, which compensated your lower salary in order to fund
your pension? Well, to increase current efficiency we can't afford
your pension any more -- sorry, but you should have saved more, out of
that salary that we didn't pay you so that your pension would be
funded".
As arranged by the large pension firms, the pension industry has become
-- by and large -- a financial scam.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Matt
>Also, the labour costs in India are starting to increase, so I suspect
>it won't be that long before there is a migration back.
"How is you spell London, you sure in England because cannot find on
computer"
UK National Rail Enquiry Line 2005 - outsourced to India
--
Andy Hall
Yes indeed, which is why it is prudent, and always has been, to have a
range of investment vheicles for retirement and other purposes.
Harvey Van Sickle
We agree furiously (as I've seen it put elsewhere.)
Which is why -- in earlier days -- those people who believed what the
employing bodies told them were misguided to do so; and it's also why,
today, it is still unwise to believe that what an employer says is
"necessary to ensure the survival of the business" is, in fact, true.
--
Cheers,
Harvey
John Cartmell
<an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:25:48 +0100, John Cartmell
> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <9r2vf1l0i0jodbl8i...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
> ><an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:34:44 +0100, John Cartmell
> >> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> >In article <mpctf1p0bn1b4iosk...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
> >> > <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >> >> However, there should be legal and financial consequences for said
> >> >> baggage handlers and others not directly involved in the dispute to
> >> >> withdraw their labour in regard to a dispute that is in a different
> >> >> company and different operational area.
> >> >
> >> >There are. How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees
> >> >with no warning and for no reason?
> >
> >> There are. Take a look at the Employment Acts.
> >
> >I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their
> >employer is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before
> >they go hungry or can't pay the mortgage/rent?
> Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
> outside the terms of the agreement.
Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and survive
without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be payable) whilst the
law takes its course? Don't be silly.
Capitol
John Cartmell wrote:
> In article <k96vf11ots1lbqctu...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>
>>OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to accept a
>>lower return on your investments.
>
>
> The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you advocating
> that idea or do you accept certain limitations?
It is not guaranteed that the profits would increase with slaves, the
quality of the workforce plays a big part in the results. Look what
happens in Africa.
Regards
Capitol
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
.
>> >
>> >I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their
>> >employer is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before
>> >they go hungry or can't pay the mortgage/rent?
>
>> Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
>> outside the terms of the agreement.
>
>Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and survive
>without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be payable) whilst the
>law takes its course? Don't be silly.
I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides
which, they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were
a legally legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have
assisted with that. The starting point was an unofficial strike
because the employees didn't like the company restructuring.
The union had at least been bright enough to realise that the strike
was illegal and therefore didn't back it.
Andrew Gabriel
John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> writes:
>How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees with no
>warning and for no reason?
Well that would hardly apply in this case.
Since the employer spent some 2 hours warning the employees what
would happen if they didn't return to work, the legal view was
that for those employees on strike, the employer acted within
the law, i.e. both warnings and reason were given. It would seem
that some of the employees dismissed were not involved in the strike
and in these cases, the employer acted illegally. I've heard on the
news since that those not involved in the strike (some staff on sick
and maternity leave) will be offered their jobs back.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Brian Sharrock
"Andy Hall" <an...@hall.nospam> wrote in message
news:e6fvf1hs9772r4o8v...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:44:36 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
> <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>On 14 Aug 2005, Andy Hall wrote
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:27:27 +0100, John Cartmell
>>><jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <k96vf11ots1lbqctu...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>>>>> OK. So the implication of this is that you are willing to
>>>>> accept a lower return on your investments.
>>>>
>>>> The return would go up if we were allowed to use slaves. Are you
>>>> advocating that idea or do you accept certain limitations?
>>>
Anyone following the BBC/OU series about the utilisation of
slave labour in the Sugar Plantations might dispute that ...
last weeks episode showed that despite purchasing slave labour
due partly to mismanagement the owners seemed to go bankrupt.
{Or were disposed by their creditors who called-in their loans).
--
Brian
Derek ^
wrote:
>Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>
>>I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
>>in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
>>remember the eventual consequences.
>
>We ended up with that cnut Thatcher,
Tell you what, there were more coal mines closed by Calligan in the 4
years before she got in than she closed in the 4 years after.
It's clear the mining industry was f*cked when the clean air act was
brought in. And *then* we discovered we had North Sea Gas.
I won't mention the halving of route miles on the railways by
Beeching, followed closely by the end of steam traction altogether.
> losing completely a whole sector
>of our indigenous energy resources, making us dependent on imported
>gas and leading to an impending energy crisis the likes of which we
>have never known.
>
Give over. The industry had been on it's arse since before the turn of
the century, my father was a miner in the 1920s, but not for long.
I've got an old 1896 OS map of where I live. The area was peppered
with abandoned coal mines even then. By the time my mother moved out
of her council house in 1966 the only people in the street still
burning coal were the miners who got it free !
*Look at it*.
Nuclear Power at it's peak, coal fires prohibited, North Sea Gas
coming on, Railway industry in decline with coal utilisation finished,
Iron/Steel industry abandoned coal. Coal fired mills/factories with
steam engines had gone to small electric motors decades previous ...
Coal, Let's face it nobody wanted it. I don't know of anybody with a
house heated by coal, it's dirty, polluting, inefficient and hard
work.
>The IRA were evil bastards 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.
>
I didn't *like* her myself. She was just like the manageress at the
place where I worked.
But you should take a look at an atlas sometime and note the relative
land area of Great Britain and that of China and India put together.
That gives you some idea of our true significance in the world since
the British Empire has come to an end.
50 - 55 years ago countries kept their technology proprietory. A
British telly wouldn't work in France, an American phone wouldn't work
in England. Even things like torch batteries and car bulbs were
different sizes here and in Europe. Now with common standards this is
a thing of the past, but by that same token it is possible to
manufacture in Asia for the world market and the Chinese and the
Indians will work for 1/30th of a European Salary. Do you see any
campaigning to keep the cheap manufactured goods out of the country?
When I started work as a graduate engineer in 1972 a 21" colour TV
would have cost me 6 months salary. I don't see any great clamour to
go back to those days either.
>But its won't be long now Maggie before everyone is dancing on your
>grave you evil twisted vindictive fcuking bastard. You won't be
>missed at all and your "legacy" will ensure you are hated for
>generations to come. You could have saved a bit of money and jumped
>in that hole with Ted Heath the other week though.
DG
John Cartmell
And then the company sacked employees not involved in the strike. NB Not made
them redundant - but sacked them. The only person who should be out of a job
now is that idiot USAian who sacked them and refuses to re-instate them.
John Cartmell
Too late. The company acted so badly wrong that the only acceptable response
is to re-instate the lot. The company managers failed miserably in their core
responsibility to shareholders, employees and customers and need to be sacked
without compensation for gross incompetence. Now.
Dave Plowman (News)
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >As arranged by the large pension firms, the pension industry has become
> >-- by and large -- a financial scam.
> Yes indeed, which is why it is prudent, and always has been, to have a
> range of investment vheicles for retirement and other purposes.
Fine in theory, but this depends on having surplus income. And quite a bit
of it. Which many simply don't have *especially* in early working years
where a pension fund is best started.
--
*Ah, I see the f**k-up fairy has visited us again
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Dave Plowman (News)
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and
> >survive without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be
> >payable) whilst the law takes its course? Don't be silly.
> I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides
> which, they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were
> a legally legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have
> assisted with that.
Contrary to belief, most unions are anything but rich. And I'll bet any
firm being taken to court over some labour dispute by a union would get
massive financial support (if needed) from industry in general.
> The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees
> didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been
> bright enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore
> didn't back it.
Making strikes illegal is simply a waste of time. When has any workforce
been prosecuted for taking 'illegal' action? And if it did happen, there
would be another general strike which I'd be happy to join in.
--
*Reality? Is that where the pizza delivery guy comes from?
Dave Plowman (News)
Derek ^ <use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Coal, Let's face it nobody wanted it. I don't know of anybody with a
> house heated by coal, it's dirty, polluting, inefficient and hard
> work.
It's a source of energy. And it can be converted into a clean and
efficient fuel - in a similar way that we don't burn raw oil.
--
*Eschew obfuscation *
Andy Hall
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <mtg0g1hahjf3see7r...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> >Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and
>> >survive without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be
>> >payable) whilst the law takes its course? Don't be silly.
>
>> I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides
>> which, they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were
>> a legally legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have
>> assisted with that.
>
>Contrary to belief, most unions are anything but rich. And I'll bet any
>firm being taken to court over some labour dispute by a union would get
>massive financial support (if needed) from industry in general.
Possibly, but the supplier would presumably have addressed that issue
in their contract.
>
>> The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees
>> didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been
>> bright enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore
>> didn't back it.
>
>Making strikes illegal is simply a waste of time. When has any workforce
>been prosecuted for taking 'illegal' action? And if it did happen, there
>would be another general strike which I'd be happy to join in.
Rather hypothetical. The purpose of legislation was in respect of
inappropriate secondary action.
We are in the 21st century now, not the 1920s or even the 60s/70s, and
the unions need to wake up to the reality of the modern economic
world.
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <mtg0g1hahjf3see7r...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
><an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 23:06:15 +0100, John Cartmell
>> <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote: .
>> >> >
>> >> >I know the Acts in question. Now how do employees signal that their
>> >> >employer is ignoring those Acts and force him to re-instate them before
>> >> >they go hungry or can't pay the mortgage/rent?
>> >
>> >> Through the proper legal process, if indeed, the employer has stepped
>> >> outside the terms of the agreement.
>> >
>> >Poor people working on minimum wage take an employer to court and survive
>> >without any income (NB unemployment benefit would not be payable) whilst
>> >the law takes its course? Don't be silly.
>
>> I'm not being silly at all. That's the legal process. Besides which,
>> they are apparently members of a trade union. If there were a legally
>> legitimate claim against the employer, the union should have assisted with
>> that. The starting point was an unofficial strike because the employees
>> didn't like the company restructuring. The union had at least been bright
>> enough to realise that the strike was illegal and therefore didn't back it.
>
>And then the company sacked employees not involved in the strike. NB Not made
>them redundant - but sacked them. The only person who should be out of a job
>now is that idiot USAian who sacked them and refuses to re-instate them.
It appears that the catering firm has offered to reinstate half of the
dismissed workforce, including those not involved in the illegal
strike.
It also appears that union officials met with BA staff hours before
the events of last week.
Clearly there is far more going on here on the part of the union than
meets the eye.
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <430049bc$0$38038$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>,
> Andrew Gabriel <and...@cucumber.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <4d9a623...@cartmell.demon.co.uk>,
>> John Cartmell <jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> >How about legal restraints on companies that sack employees with no
>> >warning and for no reason?
>
>> Well that would hardly apply in this case.
>> Since the employer spent some 2 hours warning the employees what
>> would happen if they didn't return to work, the legal view was
>> that for those employees on strike, the employer acted within
>> the law, i.e. both warnings and reason were given. It would seem
>> that some of the employees dismissed were not involved in the strike
>> and in these cases, the employer acted illegally. I've heard on the
>> news since that those not involved in the strike (some staff on sick
>> and maternity leave) will be offered their jobs back.
>
>Too late. The company acted so badly wrong that the only acceptable response
>is to re-instate the lot.
Why? They still need to cut hours worked and cost.
Any substantial reinstatement would not achieve that objective, and
all that would happen would be to stave off a far worse situation in a
few weeks.
> The company managers failed miserably in their core
>responsibility to shareholders, employees and customers and need to be sacked
>without compensation for gross incompetence. Now.
That's just nonsense and irrelevant to the core issue which is that
the man hours worked by catering staff have to be reduced.
Derek ^
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <p4m0g158ldr6pd5q1...@4ax.com>,
> Derek ^ <use...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Coal, Let's face it nobody wanted it. I don't know of anybody with a
>> house heated by coal, it's dirty, polluting, inefficient and hard
>> work.
>
>It's a source of energy. And it can be converted into a clean and
>efficient fuel - in a similar way that we don't burn raw oil.
It's far, far worse than oil and certainly gas from the pollution and
climate change point of view, and processing coal creates some very
nasty chemicals.
DG
John Cartmell
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> We are in the 21st century now, not the 1920s or even the 60s/70s, and
> the unions need to wake up to the reality of the modern economic
> world.
Ditto rogue employers.
John Cartmell
<an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >Too late. The company acted so badly wrong that the only acceptable
> >response is to re-instate the lot.
> Why? They still need to cut hours worked and cost.
Hard bloody cheddar. They tried the 'easy' way out by ignoring the law and
the employees rights. It didn't work. They - the owners, shareholders, and
managers, now need to pay the cost of their cowboy tactics.
> Any substantial reinstatement would not achieve that objective, and all
> that would happen would be to stave off a far worse situation in a few
> weeks.
And I hope the appropriate people pay the cost.
> > The company managers failed miserably in their core responsibility to
> >shareholders, employees and customers and need to be sacked without
> >compensation for gross incompetence. Now.
> That's just nonsense and irrelevant to the core issue which is that the man
> hours worked by catering staff have to be reduced.
Clearly the company took on the contract at too low a price. Now they are
trying to make their ultra-low wage employees pay the cost of their
(management) mistake.
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <nm41g11m7vnqcp0nv...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> We are in the 21st century now, not the 1920s or even the 60s/70s, and
>> the unions need to wake up to the reality of the modern economic
>> world.
>
>Ditto rogue employers.
Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
being exposed to it.
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <m851g1lqdo1s90u9u...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
><an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>
>> >Too late. The company acted so badly wrong that the only acceptable
>> >response is to re-instate the lot.
>
>> Why? They still need to cut hours worked and cost.
>
>Hard bloody cheddar. They tried the 'easy' way out by ignoring the law and
>the employees rights. It didn't work. They - the owners, shareholders, and
>managers, now need to pay the cost of their cowboy tactics.
Where have they acted outside the law? The only issue that has been
reported where this might have taken place is the dismissal of people
who were on holiday or off sick. There has already been an offer to
reinstate those people (which appears to have been refused by the
union) and they would also have legal redress and possible
compensation. It appears at this point that the remainder who were
dismissed were dimissed with cause and due process.
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?
>
>> Any substantial reinstatement would not achieve that objective, and all
>> that would happen would be to stave off a far worse situation in a few
>> weeks.
>
>And I hope the appropriate people pay the cost.
The appropriate people are those who were unwilling to participate in
a necessary restructuring and chose to disrupt the company and its
major customer. I am sure that they will pay the cost.
>
>> > The company managers failed miserably in their core responsibility to
>> >shareholders, employees and customers and need to be sacked without
>> >compensation for gross incompetence. Now.
>
>> That's just nonsense and irrelevant to the core issue which is that the man
>> hours worked by catering staff have to be reduced.
>
>Clearly the company took on the contract at too low a price.
Do you have the commercial details of the contract? We know from what
has been reported that the caterer's business volume has decreased by
over 30% in the last three years. We also know that there is a
massive swing away from fully serviced flights to cheap airlines.
Since BA is by far their largest customer, it is therefore obvious
that the business volume to the caterer will have gone down as well. I
think that it is highly unlikely that a caterer will have been able to
negotiate a contract that keeps overall payment to the caterer the
same regardless of volume.
Given the scenario of less money coming in and less product required,
it does not take a genius to work out that the required man hours have
to be scaled back.
> Now they are
>trying to make their ultra-low wage employees pay the cost of their
>(management) mistake.
The only mistake made was not acting earlier.
Dave Plowman (News)
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> >Making strikes illegal is simply a waste of time. When has any workforce
> >been prosecuted for taking 'illegal' action? And if it did happen, there
> >would be another general strike which I'd be happy to join in.
> Rather hypothetical. The purpose of legislation was in respect of
> inappropriate secondary action.
It was part of union bashing. Nothing more or less.
> We are in the 21st century now, not the 1920s or even the 60s/70s, and
> the unions need to wake up to the reality of the modern economic
> world.
So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and take
it? No thanks.
--
*Welcome to Shit Creek - sorry, we're out of paddles*
Dave Plowman (News)
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
> any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
> being exposed to it.
Don't be silly. You simply ignore the law as many do, or try to get round
it with short term contracts. Individuals can't afford to go to law
against an employer.
--
*"I am " is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. *
Andy Hall
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <2ec1g1hra5ktjmeir...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
>> any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
>> being exposed to it.
>
>Don't be silly. You simply ignore the law as many do, or try to get round
>it with short term contracts.
If contracts are short term, then that should be obvious to the
employee before he takes the job and the implications as to why from
the timescale offered.
>Individuals can't afford to go to law
>against an employer.
That's untrue. I've done it myself in the past, and I'm very much an
individual.
Andy Hall
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <nm41g11m7vnqcp0nv...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> >Making strikes illegal is simply a waste of time. When has any workforce
>> >been prosecuted for taking 'illegal' action? And if it did happen, there
>> >would be another general strike which I'd be happy to join in.
>
>> Rather hypothetical. The purpose of legislation was in respect of
>> inappropriate secondary action.
>
>It was part of union bashing. Nothing more or less.
I suppose that if you feel that unions should have unfettered power,
then that's an understandable viewpoint.
I feel that in the early years of the 20th century they may have had a
role to play, in the 60s and 70s a fair proportion of the blame for
the decline in UK industry could be laid at their door and that it was
reasonable that their power should have been curtailed. Secondary
action was among the most obvious of those areas.
>
>> We are in the 21st century now, not the 1920s or even the 60s/70s, and
>> the unions need to wake up to the reality of the modern economic
>> world.
>
>So the bosses do what they want and the workers simply lie back and take
>it? No thanks.
This depends on whether you believe that the employer/employee
relationship has to be an adversarial one. Personally I don't.
Either way, there is an inevitable decline in union importance and
influence as a result of the changing nature of business and where it
is conducted.
I suspect that in about a generation, the discussion will be academic
anyway because people will have moved on from the trappings of the
past.
John Cartmell
Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> 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?
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <ijc1g1hlc5p21hhl1...@4ax.com>,
> Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> 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.
John Cartmell
<an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
> I feel that in the early years of the 20th century they may have had a role
> to play, in the 60s and 70s a fair proportion of the blame for the decline
> in UK industry could be laid at their door and that it was reasonable that
> their power should have been curtailed.
Very near all the blame should be placed at the door of grossly incompetent
management. All the blame should be placed at the door of Thatcherism - even
though some was from people pre-Thatchering Thatcher. Some Union official and
members took the idea of 'self-self-self' very seriously and did a great deal
of harm. Thatcher encouraged the idea and made it 'respectable'. To my mind
the idea is criminal whether it's done by a worker in a car factory or a
Director paying himself millions. Today's criminals are mainly those in
directors' chairs.
Andy Hall
<jo...@cartmell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <90n1g1pm54jee7413...@4ax.com>, Andy Hall
><an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>> I feel that in the early years of the 20th century they may have had a role
>> to play, in the 60s and 70s a fair proportion of the blame for the decline
>> in UK industry could be laid at their door and that it was reasonable that
>> their power should have been curtailed.
>
>Very near all the blame should be placed at the door of grossly incompetent
>management. All the blame should be placed at the door of Thatcherism - even
>though some was from people pre-Thatchering Thatcher. Some Union official and
>members took the idea of 'self-self-self' very seriously and did a great deal
>of harm. Thatcher encouraged the idea and made it 'respectable'.
I think that you are confusing the difference between being selfish
and taking individual responsibility for one's self.
The first of these is not desirable if it is at the explicit expense
of others. However, I see nothing wrong at all with an individual
taking responsibility for themselves and the state or other
collectivist organisation having as little involvement in that as
possible. The two are quite different.
I certainly didn't agree with all of Margaret Thatcher's approaches on
things but do not consider that most of her policies were encouraging
people to be selfish in the sense of doing others down. Also, one
may not agree with her policies and views on things, but at least they
was seldom any confusion on where she stood on an issue. We have not
had that in a prime minister from either party since.
I can understand if some people prefer to have state involvement in
their lives or feel more comfortable with a collectivist organisation
such as a trade union "supporting" them in some way, but I do not
believe that it is reasonable to then suggest that any alternative to
that is being self centred. That simply demonstrates insecurity.
>To my mind
>the idea is criminal whether it's done by a worker in a car factory or a
>Director paying himself millions. Today's criminals are mainly those in
>directors' chairs.
Hmm.... I would say that most are on the government front benches.
Most on the opposition front benches haven't figured out how to be a
criminal.
Matt
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:38:13 +0100, Matt <pa...@duluxtheshaggydog.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>>I suppose that it is sufficiently long after the wrecking of industry
>>>in the 60s and 70s by inappropriate industrial action for people to
>>>remember the eventual consequences.
>>
>>We ended up with that cnut Thatcher,
>
>Tell you what, there were more coal mines closed by Calligan in the 4
>years before she got in than she closed in the 4 years after.
The facts prove that statement to be incorrect
Thatcher came to power on 4th May 1979
Pits open in 1975/76 241
Pits open in 1979/80 219
Loss of 22
Pits open in 1983/84 170
Loss of 49
Source
http://www.coal.gov.uk/media//36C84/Coal%20Production%20Since%201947%202004%20Update.PDF
>It's clear the mining industry was f*cked when the clean air act was
>brought in. And *then* we discovered we had North Sea Gas.
Clean coal technologies were at a very advanced stage of development
in the 1980's with the UK being world leaders in fluidised bed
combustion. Thatcher in her infinite wisdom pulled the plug on both
the research programme and the test platform at Grimethorpe and what
was a good 20 year lead on the rest of the world was lost forever with
the USA pushing development now and as usual claiming it was "invented
there"
Remember Grimethorpe?
It was immortalised as Grimley in the film Brassed Off (1986)
A notable quote from that movie that really can't be perfected:
"So God was creating man. And his little assistant came up to him and
he said: "Hey, we've got all these bodies left, but we're right out of
brains, we're right out of hearts and we're right out of vocal
chords." And God said: "Fuck it! Sew 'em up anyway. Smack smiles on
the faces and make them talk out of their arses." And lo, God created
the Tory Party"
>> losing completely a whole sector
>>of our indigenous energy resources, making us dependent on imported
>>gas and leading to an impending energy crisis the likes of which we
>>have never known.
>
>Give over. The industry had been on it's arse since before the turn of
>the century, my father was a miner in the 1920s, but not for long.
On its arse? Despite the crippling effects of the nuclear levy that
Thatcher tried to keep quiet. coal was the mainstay of electricity
generation right up to the point at which Thatcher's muppets Cecil
Parkinson and John Wakeham decimated any last remains of an energy
policy and forced the dash for gas power generation in the early 90's.
In the coming year the UK will become a net importer of gas, do your
own research on where that gas will come from, the stability of those
nations and the costs to industry and the consumer - then you might
begin to realise the legacy that the evil vindictive bastard Thatcher
has bestowed on the UK.
>I've got an old 1896 OS map of where I live. The area was peppered
>with abandoned coal mines even then. By the time my mother moved out
>of her council house in 1966 the only people in the street still
>burning coal were the miners who got it free !
No one ever mentioned coal for use in homes but if Wayne and Waynetta
Slob had to shovel coal to keep warm the levels of obesity would be a
damn sight lower.
>Nuclear Power at it's peak, coal fires prohibited, North Sea Gas
>coming on, Railway industry in decline with coal utilisation finished,
>Iron/Steel industry abandoned coal. Coal fired mills/factories with
>steam engines had gone to small electric motors decades previous ...
Coal production was relatively stable at around 100 million tonnes
from the early 1970's through to 1984 despite a reduction in manpower
from 287,000 down to 191,000 (down from 700,000 miners and 200 MTonnes
in the 50's) - a quite remarkable increase in productivity yet the
evil twat Thatcher still thought it necessary to crap on the miners.
Source:
http://www.coal.gov.uk/media//36C84/Coal%20Production%20Since%201947%202004%20Update.PDF
But despite all that the vast majority of those electric motors,
steels furnaces, railways etc were still indirectly fuelled by coal as
the nuclear contribution was far from achieving its peak.
Nuclear power actually peaked in terms of installed capacity in 1996
when Sizewell B was commissioned, and in terms of an energy supply
basis the peak was in 1998 with 10.2%
Source
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/inform/energy_stats/total_energy/dukes05_1_1_1.xls
>Coal, Let's face it nobody wanted it. I don't know of anybody with a
>house heated by coal, it's dirty, polluting, inefficient and hard
>work.
No one ever mentioned coal for direct use in homes
>>The IRA were evil bastards 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.
>>
>
>I didn't *like* her myself. She was just like the manageress at the
>place where I worked.
>
>But you should take a look at an atlas sometime and note the relative
>land area of Great Britain and that of China and India put together.
>That gives you some idea of our true significance in the world since
>the British Empire has come to an end.
The true significance of the UK? - despite having that twat Thatcher
as PM and having the 22nd largest population, we still have the 6th
largest GDP. Science, research and development and our manufacturing
industry are totally fucked though - Thatcher's enduring legacy yet
again.
>50 - 55 years ago countries kept their technology proprietory. A
>British telly wouldn't work in France, an American phone wouldn't work
>in England. Even things like torch batteries and car bulbs were
>different sizes here and in Europe. Now with common standards this is
>a thing of the past, but by that same token it is possible to
>manufacture in Asia for the world market and the Chinese and the
>Indians will work for 1/30th of a European Salary. Do you see any
>campaigning to keep the cheap manufactured goods out of the country?
Get that right, French TV's wouldn't work anywhere but France and
their colonies. British/Swedish/Finnish/German/Italian/Spanish TV's
would (with minor tweaks to the sound subcarrier offsets/and or the
tuners) work right across Europe except France. It was the French,
as usual that were out of line. The Americans still don't get the
basics right half a century later. They can put a man on the moon but
get them to have accurate skin tones on a CRT is bordering on
witchcraft. 50-55 years ago international and national standards
organisations were just getting off the ground torch batteries and car
bulbs were among the first things to be standardised.
>When I started work as a graduate engineer in 1972 a 21" colour TV
>would have cost me 6 months salary. I don't see any great clamour to
>go back to those days either.
Maybe you never noticed but the price of a large screen (mid 20" size)
TV's in the UK have been relatively stable at roughly GBP 500 all
from 1970 to the mid 90''s. The price may have been 6 months salary
in 1972 but the benchmark is often quoted alongside the price of a
Mars Bar, the former being an example of mass production efficiency
and the price the market could bear, the latter being an accurate
measure of inflation. Only when ultra cheap imports were brought in
did the price decline to the point where a TV has by force become a
throwaway item - the consumer may initially think this is a good idea
but the environmental consequences are huge.
>>But its won't be long now Maggie before everyone is dancing on your
>>grave you evil twisted vindictive fcuking bastard. You won't be
>>missed at all and your "legacy" will ensure you are hated for
>>generations to come. You could have saved a bit of money and jumped
>>in that hole with Ted Heath the other week though.
Reading that bit again gives me a warm feeling. ahh, Maggie, don't you
just hate her guts?
--
Peter Parry
wrote:
>Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
>any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
>being exposed to it.
Apparently the catering company employer had already formally
considered engineering an unofficial strike to allow them to dismiss
the existing workforce at no notice and replace them with cheaper
labour.
Fundamentally the problem is that of outsourcing. The management
consultant mantra is to "outsource" non-core activities. Bear in
mind that most management consultants have never actually managed
anything in real life and most lack any ability to do so and you
don't have to look hard to see the weakness in this argument.
I have a cookery book written some years ago by BOAC/BA chefs
explaining the oddities of in flight catering. It is written by
enthusiasts who had a real interest in their passengers and with
providing them with a service. No such book is for sale today.
BA decided that cost, not quality, was all that mattered and off
loaded catering to Swissair for GBP36m, Swissair went bust and the
present lot bought the company apparently for several hundred
million. At the time of purchase BA accounted for some 95% of
turnover. It didn't take the brain of archdeacon to realise that if
the operation had been off loaded to reduce cost and you had just
added a few hundred million pounds of takeover costs to the books
that this created a problem. (At least for all except those board
members who had taken their money and run).
No outsourcing company is interested in quality or innovation, they
simply want to reduce hassle and push quality down to the minimum
they can get away with. Anyone having the unfortunate experience of
eating BA meals in the last few years will know their caterers have
managed to do this with great skill.
BA however have the same lack of ability in junior and middle
management of many UK firms backed up by senior managers whose eye is
only on this years bonus. Get in, make change, get out. That the
"saving" doesn't last 6 months beyond departure is irrelevant.
Until they get some competent managers who understand people this
cycle of disaster is going to continue for evermore.
There are no bad troops, only bad officers may be a very old saying
but it as true today as when it was first proposed.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
Capitol
Andy Hall wrote:
> Most on the opposition front benches haven't figured out how to be a
> criminal.
>
Probably were trained by IMM and about the same standard from what I
can see.
Regards
Capitol
Andy Hall
wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:19:05 +0100, Andy Hall <an...@hall.nospam>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Employers are subject to more legislation regarding employment than at
>>any time in history. There is little room for being a rogue without
>>being exposed to it.
>
>Apparently the catering company employer had already formally
>considered engineering an unofficial strike to allow them to dismiss
>the existing workforce at no notice and replace them with cheaper
>labour.
The source of this appears to be one of the tabloid newspapers (and I
don't mean the Times).
>
>Fundamentally the problem is that of outsourcing. The management
>consultant mantra is to "outsource" non-core activities. Bear in
>mind that most management consultants have never actually managed
>anything in real life and most lack any ability to do so and you
>don't have to look hard to see the weakness in this argument.
In that respect, I agree with you. I have little respect for
management consultants for the reasons you describe, but also because
they allow, in effect, people who should be managing a business not to
make decisions and take responsibility for them.
>
>I have a cookery book written some years ago by BOAC/BA chefs
>explaining the oddities of in flight catering. It is written by
>enthusiasts who had a real interest in their passengers and with
>providing them with a service. No such book is for sale today.
Generally neither is the service because relatively few customers are
willing to pay the price involved. For most airlines, their business
and first class passengers produce the highest margin, but I still
wouldn't describe the service as outstanding.
Some months ago, I made a trip on BA's first class using frequent
flyer points. The catering and choice thereof was reasonably good,
but I wouldn't say outstanding.
I've also used Virgin's Upper Class (priced about the same as BA's
business class) and frankly that is better value for money and
customer ethic rather better as well.
>
>BA decided that cost, not quality, was all that mattered and off
>loaded catering to Swissair for GBP36m, Swissair went bust and the
>present lot bought the company apparently for several hundred
>million. At the time of purchase BA accounted for some 95% of
>turnover. It didn't take the brain of archdeacon to realise that if
>the operation had been off loaded to reduce cost and you had just
>added a few hundred million pounds of takeover costs to the books
>that this created a problem. (At least for all except those board
>members who had taken their money and run).
I think that the customers and the WTC bombing made the largest
difference in the sense that people want ever cheaper flights. Since
fuel costs are the same and maintenance (hopefully) is of the same
standard, catering is an obvious area for cost reduction.
>
>No outsourcing company is interested in quality or innovation, they
>simply want to reduce hassle and push quality down to the minimum
>they can get away with. Anyone having the unfortunate experience of
>eating BA meals in the last few years will know their caterers have
>managed to do this with great skill.
This may or may not be true of airline catering, but in other fields,
outsourcing companies certainly do try to bring a certain amount of
innovation to their customers, a) because the contract may require it
and b) because it is one method by which they can seek to
differentiate.
IME, some outsourcing is purely initiated as a pencil and paper
exercise by accountants while in other cases the parties have much
better than an arm's length relationship. The latter, are generally
more successful.
>
>BA however have the same lack of ability in junior and middle
>management of many UK firms backed up by senior managers whose eye is
>only on this years bonus. Get in, make change, get out. That the
>"saving" doesn't last 6 months beyond departure is irrelevant.
>
>Until they get some competent managers who understand people this
>cycle of disaster is going to continue for evermore.
>
>There are no bad troops, only bad officers may be a very old saying
>but it as true today as when it was first proposed.
I don't disagree....
Rod
news:AlLLe.88820$G8.7...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
<snipped>
> But what are the IEC plugs in the kettles rated at (assuming a
> cordless kettle)? 10A IIRC, and France runs/ran on 220V (OK it's 230
> nominal now, just like here).
>
Who cares about IEC plugs! The kettle does not have a kettle lead. (Sounds
daft but you know what I mean. The flex is hard-wired into the base unit of
the kettle. Unless the round 'cordless' connector also conforms to some IEC
standard?) And then that would mean that the French and German versions
differ in a pretty significant component from the UK version.
[Yippeee - the German version is available in white! So I now have to
decide if a) the price including postage is acceptable and b) the 2200 watt
model is OK. Suppose I had better check the Dutch market as well...]
However, I have now started to understand the IEC connectors a little bit.
But will a C15A fit into a C16 (or is it the other way round)?
Your point about 10A does seem to make some sort of sense. Just not sure
where the limit lies.
If French electrics are so bad, why are we seeing such active disparagement
between USAian and UK people about their respective systems? Club together
to send our beloved deputy thingummyjig to Paris post haste... Part le P
est arrivée.
I really did not expect such a huge thread about BA/Gate Gourmet. Even
though the partner of person I work with is a manager for GG!
--
Rod