Arnold wrote:
Quote:
The company said it had spent up to £220 on sponsoring security training licences for each participant and that boots and combat trousers cost more than £100
No mention of how much they were paid for every steward. I doubt they made a loss.
We "subjects" can never be trusted with that sort of information.
It's a fair guess that the company wouldn't have tendered for the contract if it was a guaranteed money loser.
Which takes me half way to another of my rants. On the subject of the growth of executive pay.
Notice CBI, Federation of small businesses and assorted blackshirt front organisations taking every opportunity to attack employee's protections.
"We can no longer afford it" that plead from their Bentleys or their mansions - whether the subject be redundancy compensation, laws to prevent them killing their staff, or anti-monopoly legislation.
These same people who "can no longer afford it" have just enjoyed 2 decades of the fastest growth of their pay - ever, at a time when average pay has nudged along more or less in line with inflation.
They justify these huge rises in 2 main ways.
We are wealth creators - they say - like the general who takes credit for all his victories, but always finds excuses for defeat.
We are risk takers - they say - neatly ignoring how risk led to the mess they've left us in.
The claim of being risk takers seems particularly unsupportable.
There is no tier of industry more insulated against failure than the directors with their golden parachutes, and wealth management packages.
It's also a bitter lie when they are making every effort to offload any residual risk onto their salaried staff with short term contracts,
bogus self employment and "Train for free and you might get a job later" schemes.
Rant done...
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Good article though. Once again, tabloids show their contempt of the criminal justice system. Contempt of Court eh.
