On 28/01/07, Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve Haywood wrote: > > On 27/01/07, Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> THere is no doubt in my mind that these jobs were a direct result > >> of Defra's cuts. As such, by definition BW (and therefore the > >> waterways at large) cannot be better off. > > > > > > > > I am afraid you have this wrong, Will. The redundancies were not even a > > result of the DEFRA cuts, let alone a direct result. > > Really? Then one of our sources is incorrect. Mine is BW. Where > did you get your facts from?
You must stop treating BW as some homogeneous organisation which you can just tap into when you want the 'truth' of a situation. Eugene Baston is not the received word of God, Will. There are others in BW management who, off-record, are not peddling the official line. There those at office and bankside level, and those who represent them, who have been aware of BW's redundancy policy for some time. There are some who were aware of their jobs being at risk long before the DEFRA cuts were announced. But as it happens, with regards to this particular subject, even Eugene will confirm that there was a long term strategy for 180 'redundancies' (ie so there should be no quibbling over language, there was a long term plan to phase out 180 jobs) Adrian's posting of January 26th is about as pithy a summary of the facts as there is. I hope he will forgive me quoting him. '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.' Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
