Yes they do-ever worked for a company that didn't give it's staff a dickount of some sort on it's given product?
My bad-that should have read-"All companies should
document all offers/perks/benefits properly to protect all parties-it's still a fact.
By documenting it properly in the first instance of course.
Ok-I will say it again....
The fact is that ntl have not protected their staff by documenting their accociate package properly, & now those people being outsourced will lose that.
Unrealistic to expect ntl to protect the interests of their staff you mean?
Not relevant, you cannot lose out on what you never had to start with.
Becasue ntl should have documented their associate package correctly, that's why.
You are entitled to your opinion-but that's what it is-an opinion, mine is a fact.
Why was it not written into their contracts if it being offered to them as part of their overall package then??
But it is offered to staff as part of their overall package.
I know.
That's where you are mistaken-When I used to work for IBM, I received certain benefits that the company I was TUPE'd into didn't/doesn't offer, but I still get these benefits as they were part OF TUPE.
So no-you don't have to work for a particular company to receive previous benefits where TUPE is concerned, you are quite simply-mistaken.
That may be, but whatever happens, it looks like they will lose their assocaite package whgich is not fair.
No more than it suits your current/past agenda of defending them at every opportunity, no.
They should (as I have been saying from the start0
) have all been documented in a professional manner, if they had-we wouldn't be having this 'conversation'
Does the taxman know about the associate package? (He knew about mine as I told him, although Nicola Irvine from ntl actually told us that ntl wouldn't be disclosing it to the taxman-go figure.
If you pay tax on it (I'm sure you do), then you are entitled to keep it under TUPE, but it doesn't look like people will be able to keep it under TUPE, because of the way ntl documented it (or didn't)
But it's on the Intranet, so that's ok.
