On Friday, January 26, 2007 9:59 AM [GMT+1=CET], Steve Haywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am most concerned by this posting. The implications seem to me to be > alarming. > > I had been led to believe that as a direct result of the DEFRA cuts > 180 people had been made redundant. Now I find that this was simply > not true and that the redundancies would have happened anyhow! No, that's not quite the situation, as I understand it. If the cuts had not happened there would have been some job losses (possibly all the 180, possibly not) over an extended period of time, achieved mainly by not replacing people who left from the relevant bits of BW's workforce, withoiut any actua redundancies. In other words no actual people would have lost their jobs (although some might have had to move from on job to another within the organisation). As a former TU official, I know that this is *very* different from making people redundant. Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus III web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Defend the waterways. Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
