Oil giant Total SACKS 900 people

wordy · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:21

jamief said:
You would think so. Even if they weren't aware, do you expect their employers to pay them when there is no work?

[TW]Fox;14316466 said:
Thats generally how projects work, yes?

At the same time the workers were sacked more were hired for another construction project. Were the workers already employed led to believe they would be shifted onto that by Total?

If so then you can understand them being upset. If nt and they were aware of what was going to happen then I'll lose smypathy.

There is two sides to this story I'd like to hear both.

Dolph · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:22

mattheman said:
You support it, they start cutting workers for foreign ones, until its at your door step most people in this country dont care, then when it hits them its too late. theres a lot more to it than what the BBC are reporting.

Cue the conspiracy theory that says it can't just be militant workers being stupid...

panthro · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:22

mattheman said:
You support it, they start cutting workers for foreign ones, until its at your door step most people in this country dont care, then when it hits them its too late. theres a lot more to it than what the BBC are reporting.

Go away. Dont try and turn this thread into a immigration thread.

Dolph · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:23

wordy said:
At the same time the workers were sacked more were hired for another construction project. Were the workers already employed led to believe they would be shifted onto that by Total?

If so then you can understand them being upset. If nt and they were aware of what was going to happen then I'll lose smypathy.

There is two sides to this story I'd like to hear both.

No, they weren't, they were employed by completely different companies contracted to do completely different work.

Any expectation of move over only existed in the minds of people who think they are entitled to a job, rather than having to actually earn it.

Rich_L · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:27

Dolph said:
Those are the damages I'm talking about. The estimated costs of a tube strike are approx £100m a day. If the union has not been reasonable in calling the strike and is just bullying, they should be liable for those costs. Likewise if TfL are found to have behaved unreasonably when judged by an independant party on a reasonable test, then they should be liable. If they are both being unreasonable, then liability should be split.

As I said in t'other thread, that's a bit of a silly idea. For a start, how on earth would you even start assessing the 'damage' caused by such an intangible thing as making it harder to get to work?

If you are going to rely on the Courts, surely it would make more sense to just have a Court or appointed arbitrator to rule on the reasonableness of each sides demands before any loss occurred

aardvark · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:27

hah, good.

NickK · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:28

If you're not happy - there's the door. As dolph has stated I disagree that people have a 'right' or are entitled to a job.

I wasn't happy but I'm man enough to get off my own butt todo something about it. So I have no sympathy.

Dolph · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:30

Rich_L said:
As I said in t'other thread, that's a bit of a silly idea. For a start, how on earth would you even start assessing the 'damage' caused by such an intangible thing as making it harder to get to work?

With the tube strikes, it's more a case of people not getting to work at all, customers not being able to get in to places and so on, that are generally much easier to quantify.

If you are going to rely on the Courts, surely it would make more sense to just have a Court or appointed arbitrator to rule on the reasonableness of each sides demands before any loss occurred

And as I said in the other thread, I agree. But the use of arbitration in negotiations hasn't stopped strike action before, and you couldn't say that even if the ruling was binding, it was illegal to strike without infringing on human rights. The correct response, therefore, is to give people responsibilities along with their rights.

a1ex2001 · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:51

That 100m a day figure for the tube strikes is ludicrous and just plucked out of thin air.

Total have done the right thing it was a wild cat strike so they got what they deserved, a properly organised and notfied union strike is a slightly different matter.

Dolph · 19 Jun 2009 at 10:54

a1ex2001 said:
That 100m a day figure for the tube strikes is ludicrous and just plucked out of thin air.

It's from the London chamber of Commerce. Do you have an alternative calculation of the losses?

Total have done the right thing it was a wild cat strike so they got what they deserved, a properly organised and notfied union strike is a slightly different matter.

Which is why I didn't advocate treating them the same. However manifestly unreasonable demands which lead to blackmail strike action should incur some responsibility for the organisers.

a1ex2001 · 19 Jun 2009 at 11:03

Dolph said:
It's from the London chamber of Commerce. Do you have an alternative calculation of the losses?

No because it's impossible to calculate. How much of that 100m is really lost and not just delayed until tomorrow or next week or next month. It's a ridiculous idea that you can put a figure on it.

jamief · 19 Jun 2009 at 11:06

a1ex2001 said:
No because it's impossible to calculate. How much of that 100m is really lost and not just delayed until tomorrow or next week or next month. It's a ridiculous idea that you can put a figure on it.

If the money is delayed by a day, then it is lost. Because the following day would have brought its own £100m. Its a fairly simple concept.

scorza · 19 Jun 2009 at 11:08

NickK said:
If you're not happy - there's the door.

Isn't that just what they've done? :confused:

What exactly are you criticising them for?

jamief · 19 Jun 2009 at 11:09

scorza said:
Isn't that just what they've done? What exactly are you criticising them for?

He meant that if an employee isn't happy with their working conditions, they can find alternative employment rather than going on strike.

Dolph · 19 Jun 2009 at 11:10

jamief said:
If the money is delayed by a day, then it is lost. Because the following day would have brought its own £100m. Its a fairly simple concept.

Either that or the money is spent outside London, because it's losses to businesses in London.

a1ex2001 · 19 Jun 2009 at 11:14

jamief said:
If the money is delayed by a day, then it is lost. Because the following day would have brought its own £100m. Its a fairly simple concept.

No thats over simplistic. Take a really basic example I was planning on buying a coat on oxford street but didn't go because of the tube strike, instead I go next week and buy exactly the same coat for the same money. Nobody has lost a thing, the same thing applies to big business just because I didn't do a deal today because of the tube strike doesn't mean I won't do it tomorrow using the same money. There will be business spikes after these events to make up for business that couldn't be done, obviously not all of it but a huge majority of the real money deals.

scorza · 19 Jun 2009 at 11:25

jamief said:
He meant that if an employee isn't happy with their working conditions, they can find alternative employment rather than going on strike.

They're not really on strike are they though, as strikes have to be ballotted etc first. Effectively what they've said is that Total are in breach of contract (a verbal contract is still a contract) and therefore they don't have to work there any more. In just the same way, Total have said that they don't believe that they're in breach of contract, therefore the employees are in breach and so they've terminated the contract to allow the workers to find alternative employment.

Dave M · 19 Jun 2009 at 11:28

panthro said:
Go away. Dont try and turn this thread into a immigration thread.

You misunderstand, the back story is an Italian company won the contract and would only employ Italian contractors to do the work, leaving local contractors (who may be polish, german, whatever) out in the cold.

mattheman · 19 Jun 2009 at 17:47

if people did'nt strike you would most likely be still working in nasty conditions.

Moley · 19 Jun 2009 at 18:03

a1ex2001 said:
No thats over simplistic. Take a really basic example I was planning on buying a coat on oxford street but didn't go because of the tube strike, instead I go next week and buy exactly the same coat for the same money. Nobody has lost a thing, the same thing applies to big business just because I didn't do a deal today because of the tube strike doesn't mean I won't do it tomorrow using the same money. There will be business spikes after these events to make up for business that couldn't be done, obviously not all of it but a huge majority of the real money deals.

Your example is oversimplistic and only takes into account one-off or occaisional purchases. What about all the restaurants and cafe's that people go to everyday? If they lose a days trade its LOST and cannot be got back.