Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
It may seem "reasonable to think" yes, but it is not exclusively factual.
|
No, but the balance of probabilities would strongly suggest it's the case as anything else would be suicidal. We're splitting hairs a tad here. They don't appear to have been advertising for permanent staff, your advertisement is for self-employed hence employed purely at the company's convenience with about as much job security as the average employee in the USA. The delivery drivers discussed in the PR blurb, at least, were precisely 0% permanent, all agency / subcontracted.
Regardless I don't agree with many that unions were entirely to blame, however it doesn't change that CityLink were loss-making and all indications are that their costs were too high given their market place. Whether unions could have done more to accommodate the demands of management or not is by-the-by.
I'm purely interested in the timing of the announcement. It seems abundantly clear that they were a casualty of an industry engaged in a race to the bottom where self-employed drivers using their own vehicles are increasingly common.
Blame their customers, the retailers, and in turn us for demanding free delivery if we pay over £x and being happy just to whinge when a delivery from a disinterested, self-employed driver goes pearshaped rather than paying more for higher quality service.
---------- Post added at 17:15 ---------- Previous post was at 17:14 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Angry
I take your points entirely, sir. And, as I said, I appreciate your opinion.
Best we wait and see what comes out in the wash.
Happy new year to you & yours.
|
This indeed - it could quite easily be a part of an accounting scheme to acquire losses for tax purposes.
