"Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 25/01/07, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So when David Miliband answered that a retreat from freight was BW's >> decision, not his, >> BW would back him up. BW wanted to abolish the freight department, >> "retire" the >> restoration director, and close the Birmingham office anyway. > > > >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! > >It makes me wonder how much more of what we've been protesting about in >conjunction with BW, and with BW's support, would have happened anyhow, >regardless of DEFRA? > >Steve I think the situation is actually that BW had long-term plans to reduce the number of its employees. It seems to have felt that it could do that without negatively affecting its operations. However, it was intending to do the reducing by agreement with the employees concerned, over time. The cuts forced it to implement the reductions right away, and compulsorily, and without the time to make the arrangements that would have prevented operational damage. So, not alarming (except in terms of waterway maintenance) and still DEFRA's fault, I suggest. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
