Gordon is a liar. More job losses .........

Yes, thank God they're not "proper jobs" like those in the "financial services industry".

A dynamic and healthy market econonmy will have a turnover of companies closing and opening. This in no way indicates anything wrong in the economy.

Gaz

In message , Crowley writes

Beginning to suspect???

Anybody who has believed what Gordon Brown, (or any cabinet minister), says, since shortly after they came to power in 1997, is on a different planet.

He has been having us on since day 3!

Unemployment has risen for 14 consecutive months Gaz to around a million and the overall total is still masked by over 2.3 million on invalidity benefit and thousands more on various 'employment schemes'

What do you think that may indicate ?

Good post !

This may have been true, but times are changing. What worries me is the movement of Companies to other Countries. For instance, Terry's of York now make their chocolates in Poland. They have not closed down and left a big hole in the market for another company to fill. They are selling just as much. But are employing almost nobody in Britain. Not only is there no hole in the market, but their costs are now so low that they will be in a position to force other British companies into moving or closing.

snip

TUPE doesn't protect people who have been made redundant.

WTF are you on about?

They haven't - yet (you clearly haven't bothered to read the article). And that's the whole point of TUPE. You cannot make jobs (effectively people) redundant on the ground that a contract xfers from one employer or contractor to another. If you do it is automatically unfair dismissal (ETOR excepted).

Read the article on the link from the OP, and learn a bit about employment law, then you will know.

What is more worrying is the level of government debt and liability. PFI schemes are not officially recorded as government debt, and public sector pensions aren't, either.

That knocks a whopper of a hole through the public finances, and along with Gordon "Remind me again about economic cycles" Brown's fiddling and squeaking, I'm not at all confident about the economy. The current setup is built on air and consumer debt; massive mortgage debts which will see negative equity if interest rates go up and rather startling credit card debts, too.

All this is stable provided interest rates stay stable. As soon as they go up a bit, all those debts will force people bankrupt and cause an economic upset. That's why Gordie's been so very careful to preserve the current inflated prices of housing and why Prescott has been burbling on about building houses in the South-East (where they cannot get built because of water and infrastructure deficiencies); he knows it can't come off which gives him an excuse to sit about doing bugger all.

Or, as others say, preserving the status quo.

if we are talking about the DHL Exel warehouse, 550 jobs will go.

And

you can make positions redundant if the workers are no longer needed. which is what appears to be the case here, being as somerfield don't need the services of the warehouse now.

If you do it is automatically unfair dismissal (ETOR

not relevant here

it is you who hasn't absorbed the facts here.

i think the loss of 550 jobs confirms my understanding of employment law.

and the 350 people left over will not be banking on everlasting employment either. TUPE or no TUPE. d**khead

"if" ? - so you evidently haven't read the article, or the many others you would find if you bothered to google.

"appears" ? - so you evidently haven't read the article, or the many others you would find if you bothered to google.

That isn't yet established. Some of the jobs appear to be at risk, but TUPE provides protection, unless ETOR can be shown to apply, as I pointed out previously.

In that case, TUPE applies. No question.

Examples, please. (And it should be "haven't" not "hasn't". But I guess a mediocre command of grammar isn't your strong point.)

What loss? That isn't yet established, and your thinking evidently has precious little to do with the law.

Without exception, my experience is that people who can neither argue their case logically or coherently, nor avoid descending to abuse of the more knowledgeable by using terms like "WTF" and "d**khead" are not merely _always_ wrong, they _know_ they are wrong. So that's one piece of knowledge I'll grant you have absorbed.

Tatty bye.

yawn..............

by using terms like "WTF" and "d**khead" are not merely

yawn..............

you have a fixation with TUPE, but it does not compel an employer to keep staff who are not needed.

the oulook for the staff at that place is poor. and that is why TUPE will not be mentioned when the redundancies take place. which they will.

BTW, please remember to point out my lack of the use of capital letters at the beginning of sentences. it will make you will feel like you are clever.

every time someone estimates public sector pension liabilities there is a bigger figure.

i think 1,000bn was the last estimate I read.

sacking 5,000+ nhs staff helps to address the problem i guess :-(

I dread to think of the harm PFI is doing to the public finances. the whole idea is madness.

how about government borrowing? the economy has been growing for years, yet they have been borrowing 10s of billions of .

borrowing today = tax tomorrow.

no wonder gordon brown is desperate to get to no. 10. in his own words (i believe): "there are two kinds of chancellor - those who are sacked and those who get out in time."

"Scott2k5" wrote

Nah - just less benefits for the leaches on society!