Sal Paradise wrote:
On McClusky's salary what are you comparing to - Cameron's salary of 143k makes McClusky look over paid for the respective levels of responsibility. The idea that 1.4m people are relying on him is simply not reality - most are far more reliant on their employers doing the right thing than they are on McClusky. No bad thing if his performance in this dispute is anything to go by. To put his salary in context how many people does unite employ and what are their revenues - basing it on that might be better way of judging whether he is paid at the correct level.
I haven't compared McCluskey's salary to anyone's. That was my question to you.
Once again, you attempt to swerve the question. The level of "reliance" McCluskey was not in the question so I don't know why you've brought it up. What is reality, in both your world and mine, is that he represents 1.4m people. It's up to you to provide the evidence and reasoning for your argument, not me. You were inferring he is paid too much. So prove it.
Sal Paradise wrote:
Why should the workers take a pay cut - because that is the only game in town, the company made that perfectly clear. What bit of that did you not understand? Whether they make money or not was irrelevant and it has proved to be the case. The union have just capitulated and given in to every demand the company requested - so how relevant to the settlement of the dispute was the profitability or otherwise of the company?
Seriously? Come on, you're not that thick. Of course whether they make money or not is relevant. If the company is making money why should the workers accept pay and condition cuts? Once again you're blindly believing the company's stated position.
Sal Paradise wrote:
Should a company making profits reduce labour costs by salary reductions and redundancies - depends on the future view of the business and the market it is in. An good company should be planning for the future and adjusting accordingly. Yes a profitable company should be looking to reduce labour costs if it sees troubled market conditions in the future - just sitting on its laurels as you are suggesting is a recipe for a nasty shock.
Where have I suggested "sitting on its laurels"? You're getting as bad as the likes of Ajw in making things up and not answering questions.
Right finally we get an answer. What if the future view of the business and the market is positive and they'll make increased profits even without reducing wages and conditions? And does the principal of paying higher salaries to attract better directors not apply to workers, supervisors, skilled workers and junior or middle management?
Sal Paradise wrote:
Was the plant losing money - neither you nor I really know the only people who really know is Ratcliffe and his directors. Given the directors were prepared to close it would suggest its a marginal call.
Were they prepared to close it permanently? Or was it a bluff that the unions weren't prepared to call? Why do you continue to believe everything the company states?
Sal Paradise wrote:
I would not trust McClusky to have done sufficient exploration to truly understand the finances of the site - that is just not his style. He is a throw back to the 1970s his ego is much larger than his effectiveness as has been demonstrated but here and at the Labour conference.
Yet you accuse me of myopia?
Can you answer the questions yet about McCluskey? How much are the company paying him? What car does he drive? And how does that (and his salary) compare to other people who represent 1.4m people.
Sal Paradise wrote:
So there you go some points for you to get your teeth into - I look forward to your considered responses.
Yes there are some points in there, sadly only one of them addresses a question you were asked, after several opportunities to answer.
