B&Q staff told of 220 job losses at firm

Daily Echo: B&Q axes 220 staff at head office in Chandler's Ford B&Q axes 220 staff at head office in Chandler's Ford

More than 200 jobs will be lost at the Hampshire headquarters of DIY chain B&Q, it has been revealed today.

The redundancies have been announced as part of a “realignment” of employees at the offices in Chandler's Ford.

Staff at the company were informed this morning about the cuts and a 90-day consultation period will now start.

The retail giant announced plunging profits earlier this year, after the wettest summer in 100 years.

Kingfisher, the group that owns B&Q, said that £30m had been wiped off the group's profits as demand for gardening and outdoor maintenance goods plummeted.

B&Q, who a year ago moved its 1,200 head office staff into a brand new building in Chestnut Avenue, said there were no plans to move their base from Hampshire and that they were “totally committed to the area”.

The company has also said it has created 100 new head office roles as part of the restructure - but there is still a net loss of 220 jobs.

It told staff affected by the redundancies that it will offer “enhanced redundancy packages, which go way beyond statutory requirements.”

In a statement, the company's people director, Fraser Longden added: “We recognise this is a difficult time for everyone and thank everyone for their contributions to the business and this process; these changes are fundamental to creating sustainable jobs and the future growth of the business.”

Comments (55)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:20am Tue 9 Oct 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created.
.
So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage.
.
And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

10:26am Tue 9 Oct 12

peenut81 says...

Surely management not staff should be axed for 2 poor business decisions, moving into a brand new HQ with all the expense entailed during the largest financial crisis in the history of the West.
Management also failed to plan for a wet summer by diversifying or ordering less traditional summer stock.
I'm sure the parasitic accountants, lawyers and bankers involved took their cut still.
Surely management not staff should be axed for 2 poor business decisions, moving into a brand new HQ with all the expense entailed during the largest financial crisis in the history of the West. Management also failed to plan for a wet summer by diversifying or ordering less traditional summer stock. I'm sure the parasitic accountants, lawyers and bankers involved took their cut still. peenut81
  • Score: 0

10:28am Tue 9 Oct 12

dsm says...

"B&Q...said there were no plans to move their base from Hampshire and that they were “totally committed to the area”.

So that's Head Office closed down soon then.
"B&Q...said there were no plans to move their base from Hampshire and that they were “totally committed to the area”. So that's Head Office closed down soon then. dsm
  • Score: 0

10:34am Tue 9 Oct 12

George4th says...

Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country.
Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country. George4th
  • Score: 0

10:36am Tue 9 Oct 12

Shoong says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created.
.
So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage.
.
And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
Your right, they should put their entire business at risk and therefore risking the other 85% of the workforce who might like to keep their jobs.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]Your right, they should put their entire business at risk and therefore risking the other 85% of the workforce who might like to keep their jobs. Shoong
  • Score: 0

10:50am Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created.
.
So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage.
.
And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
B&Q have been slowly reducing its front line work staff for years now
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]B&Q have been slowly reducing its front line work staff for years now southy
  • Score: 0

10:54am Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created.
.
So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage.
.
And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
Your right, they should put their entire business at risk and therefore risking the other 85% of the workforce who might like to keep their jobs.
All business are at risk with the slump in the market thats has been cause though capitalism, the greed of the 2 to 3% of the population is putting every ones jobs at risk.
Listen to the news early this morning this years growth as been recalcuted and it now stands at -0.3 growth.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]Your right, they should put their entire business at risk and therefore risking the other 85% of the workforce who might like to keep their jobs.[/p][/quote]All business are at risk with the slump in the market thats has been cause though capitalism, the greed of the 2 to 3% of the population is putting every ones jobs at risk. Listen to the news early this morning this years growth as been recalcuted and it now stands at -0.3 growth. southy
  • Score: 0

11:01am Tue 9 Oct 12

bigfella says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards bigfella
  • Score: 0

11:03am Tue 9 Oct 12

ajw1986 says...

It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped.
Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate.
It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped. Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate. ajw1986
  • Score: 0

11:04am Tue 9 Oct 12

southy says...

bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking. southy
  • Score: 0

11:05am Tue 9 Oct 12

Lone Ranger. says...

bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
What even more ignorant than your's .. ...... Nah i dont think so
[quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]What even more ignorant than your's .. ...... Nah i dont think so Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:10am Tue 9 Oct 12

captain manering says...

maybe they should stop wasting money on refits and concentrate on business instead. as an ex screfix employee they don't care for staff...
maybe they should stop wasting money on refits and concentrate on business instead. as an ex screfix employee they don't care for staff... captain manering
  • Score: 0

11:13am Tue 9 Oct 12

sotonwinch09 says...

Oh well. Plenty more jobs in the sea.
Oh well. Plenty more jobs in the sea. sotonwinch09
  • Score: 0

11:30am Tue 9 Oct 12

ohec says...

I might not be the sharpest tool in the box but the way i read it they are saying there is a net loss of 220 after the 100 jobs are taken into account, so had they not created the 100 jobs there would have been 320 jobs lost. I am not a big B&Q fan but you can't blame any business for trying to reduce costs in these difficult times as i am sure we all are.
I might not be the sharpest tool in the box but the way i read it they are saying there is a net loss of 220 after the 100 jobs are taken into account, so had they not created the 100 jobs there would have been 320 jobs lost. I am not a big B&Q fan but you can't blame any business for trying to reduce costs in these difficult times as i am sure we all are. ohec
  • Score: 0

11:30am Tue 9 Oct 12

ohec says...

I might not be the sharpest tool in the box but the way i read it they are saying there is a net loss of 220 after the 100 jobs are taken into account, so had they not created the 100 jobs there would have been 320 jobs lost. I am not a big B&Q fan but you can't blame any business for trying to reduce costs in these difficult times as i am sure we all are.
I might not be the sharpest tool in the box but the way i read it they are saying there is a net loss of 220 after the 100 jobs are taken into account, so had they not created the 100 jobs there would have been 320 jobs lost. I am not a big B&Q fan but you can't blame any business for trying to reduce costs in these difficult times as i am sure we all are. ohec
  • Score: 0

11:32am Tue 9 Oct 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.
I'd be interested to know how Tax Free Banking works for companies like B&Q, as someone in the know can you attempt to explain or point us in the direction of where we can read up on it?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.[/p][/quote]I'd be interested to know how Tax Free Banking works for companies like B&Q, as someone in the know can you attempt to explain or point us in the direction of where we can read up on it? Shoong
  • Score: 0

11:35am Tue 9 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.
I really don’t think you should be lecturing us on how B & Q are organising their finances when you still can’t explain how TUSC would actually honour its manifesto commitment of ‘No Cuts’.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.[/p][/quote]I really don’t think you should be lecturing us on how B & Q are organising their finances when you still can’t explain how TUSC would actually honour its manifesto commitment of ‘No Cuts’. freefinker
  • Score: 0

11:45am Tue 9 Oct 12

bigfella says...

southy wrote:
bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.
it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable?

But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.[/p][/quote]it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable? But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok. bigfella
  • Score: 0

11:50am Tue 9 Oct 12

peachy1 says...

Doesn't matter what any of you say in your comments the fact is that B&Q have been an excellent employer in this area for many years

Whe the like of BAT and Pirelli and kiplings all Pulling out B&Q. Kept building and investing

They could quite easily move out of the country but they haven't

They have also indicated that all those going should financially be looked after

Good luck to all those losing their jobs but B&Q should be applauded for th way they have looked after their employees
Doesn't matter what any of you say in your comments the fact is that B&Q have been an excellent employer in this area for many years Whe the like of BAT and Pirelli and kiplings all Pulling out B&Q. Kept building and investing They could quite easily move out of the country but they haven't They have also indicated that all those going should financially be looked after Good luck to all those losing their jobs but B&Q should be applauded for th way they have looked after their employees peachy1
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Lone Ranger. says...

bigfella wrote:
southy wrote:
bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.
it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable?

But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok.
So why not say it was the union comment ??.
.
Once again your description or understanding of the unions IMO are not the same as today ...... As with some other posters you are referering to action that took place 40+ years ago.
.
In addition B&Q were one of the companies that let Slippery Dave know that they would be "picking up" some of the Public workers who were to be made redundant .....
[quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.[/p][/quote]it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable? But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok.[/p][/quote]So why not say it was the union comment ??. . Once again your description or understanding of the unions IMO are not the same as today ...... As with some other posters you are referering to action that took place 40+ years ago. . In addition B&Q were one of the companies that let Slippery Dave know that they would be "picking up" some of the Public workers who were to be made redundant ..... Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Taskforce 141 says...

Yet more people soon to be supported by the crumbling benefit system.

There are 2 problems in the UK.

1. The greed of the super elite wanting more money at the cost of others

2. The benefit bums, who do nothing to help themselves out of their situation and merely milk the state for what they can get

Solve these two problems and you should see a drastic improvement in this country's finances.

over to you government...
Yet more people soon to be supported by the crumbling benefit system. There are 2 problems in the UK. 1. The greed of the super elite wanting more money at the cost of others 2. The benefit bums, who do nothing to help themselves out of their situation and merely milk the state for what they can get Solve these two problems and you should see a drastic improvement in this country's finances. over to you government... Taskforce 141
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Monty3 says...

I used to work at Head Office and the place is full of bullies; with incompetent management! They should have gone with a less impressive & unnecessary new headquarters…maybe there would be a few less staff facing redundancy.
I used to work at Head Office and the place is full of bullies; with incompetent management! They should have gone with a less impressive & unnecessary new headquarters…maybe there would be a few less staff facing redundancy. Monty3
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Over the Edge says...

My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be.

B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages''

Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant.

Double standards?
My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be. B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages'' Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant. Double standards? Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Tue 9 Oct 12

pantsanon says...

ajw1986 wrote:
It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped.
Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate.
Poor management has caused all this staff in stores have not the option of a redundancy package .why are they taking on staff from stores i know someone from nursling store who has just been taken on by h/o? couldnt someone who worked there had that job?slump in sales has nothing to do with the weather is the poor management of stores and skeleton staff in stores that cannot give good customer service .I feel for the staff in stores who no longer have the option of a work life balance ( if they do the revised hours)or as a service manager has said " If you cant do it there's the door " nice ! poor store performance comes from the management who run it... current economic climate is just an excuse for poor managerial performance . overpaid ,idiots B&Q cut your managers wages if the stores dont deliver a realistic budget, as for year on year budgets doesnt the weather ever be taken into account when these are being set?
[quote][p][bold]ajw1986[/bold] wrote: It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped. Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate.[/p][/quote]Poor management has caused all this staff in stores have not the option of a redundancy package .why are they taking on staff from stores i know someone from nursling store who has just been taken on by h/o? couldnt someone who worked there had that job?slump in sales has nothing to do with the weather is the poor management of stores and skeleton staff in stores that cannot give good customer service .I feel for the staff in stores who no longer have the option of a work life balance ( if they do the revised hours)or as a service manager has said " If you cant do it there's the door " nice ! poor store performance comes from the management who run it... current economic climate is just an excuse for poor managerial performance . overpaid ,idiots B&Q cut your managers wages if the stores dont deliver a realistic budget, as for year on year budgets doesnt the weather ever be taken into account when these are being set? pantsanon
  • Score: 0

2:02pm Tue 9 Oct 12

pantsanon says...

Monty3 wrote:
I used to work at Head Office and the place is full of bullies; with incompetent management! They should have gone with a less impressive & unnecessary new headquarters…maybe there would be a few less staff facing redundancy.
Same as the stores mate worst company ever to work for i will not allow my child to ever work there .
[quote][p][bold]Monty3[/bold] wrote: I used to work at Head Office and the place is full of bullies; with incompetent management! They should have gone with a less impressive & unnecessary new headquarters…maybe there would be a few less staff facing redundancy.[/p][/quote]Same as the stores mate worst company ever to work for i will not allow my child to ever work there . pantsanon
  • Score: 0

2:08pm Tue 9 Oct 12

pantsanon says...

bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
They are above minimum wage, but its the way the firm treats you that effects people more . its not all about money some of us have pride and morals .Hence why i dont work there and never would.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]They are above minimum wage, but its the way the firm treats you that effects people more . its not all about money some of us have pride and morals .Hence why i dont work there and never would. pantsanon
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Tue 9 Oct 12

pantsanon says...

peachy1 wrote:
Doesn't matter what any of you say in your comments the fact is that B&Q have been an excellent employer in this area for many years

Whe the like of BAT and Pirelli and kiplings all Pulling out B&Q. Kept building and investing

They could quite easily move out of the country but they haven't

They have also indicated that all those going should financially be looked after

Good luck to all those losing their jobs but B&Q should be applauded for th way they have looked after their employees
Lol excellent employer i suggest you get a job with them and in a years time you can comment again i can assure you your comment will not involve excellent employer!
[quote][p][bold]peachy1[/bold] wrote: Doesn't matter what any of you say in your comments the fact is that B&Q have been an excellent employer in this area for many years Whe the like of BAT and Pirelli and kiplings all Pulling out B&Q. Kept building and investing They could quite easily move out of the country but they haven't They have also indicated that all those going should financially be looked after Good luck to all those losing their jobs but B&Q should be applauded for th way they have looked after their employees[/p][/quote]Lol excellent employer i suggest you get a job with them and in a years time you can comment again i can assure you your comment will not involve excellent employer! pantsanon
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Shoong says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
bigfella wrote:
southy wrote:
bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.
it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable?

But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok.
So why not say it was the union comment ??.
.
Once again your description or understanding of the unions IMO are not the same as today ...... As with some other posters you are referering to action that took place 40+ years ago.
.
In addition B&Q were one of the companies that let Slippery Dave know that they would be "picking up" some of the Public workers who were to be made redundant .....
He actually said B&Q would help pick up the slack? When? I'd be interested to know.

A link to an article perhaps?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.[/p][/quote]it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable? But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok.[/p][/quote]So why not say it was the union comment ??. . Once again your description or understanding of the unions IMO are not the same as today ...... As with some other posters you are referering to action that took place 40+ years ago. . In addition B&Q were one of the companies that let Slippery Dave know that they would be "picking up" some of the Public workers who were to be made redundant .....[/p][/quote]He actually said B&Q would help pick up the slack? When? I'd be interested to know. A link to an article perhaps? Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Over the Edge wrote:
My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be.

B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages''

Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant.

Double standards?
Spot on ........ and good luck to your mate.
.
Double standards is a very polite term for those posters
[quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be. B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages'' Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant. Double standards?[/p][/quote]Spot on ........ and good luck to your mate. . Double standards is a very polite term for those posters Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Shoong says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be.

B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages''

Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant.

Double standards?
Spot on ........ and good luck to your mate.
.
Double standards is a very polite term for those posters
I can only see one comment above that you two may have had the misfortune of misunderstanding as 'commending' B&Q for making people redundant. 'Ave a word.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be. B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages'' Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant. Double standards?[/p][/quote]Spot on ........ and good luck to your mate. . Double standards is a very polite term for those posters[/p][/quote]I can only see one comment above that you two may have had the misfortune of misunderstanding as 'commending' B&Q for making people redundant. 'Ave a word. Shoong
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Tue 9 Oct 12

elvisimo says...

pantsanon wrote:
ajw1986 wrote: It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped. Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate.
Poor management has caused all this staff in stores have not the option of a redundancy package .why are they taking on staff from stores i know someone from nursling store who has just been taken on by h/o? couldnt someone who worked there had that job?slump in sales has nothing to do with the weather is the poor management of stores and skeleton staff in stores that cannot give good customer service .I feel for the staff in stores who no longer have the option of a work life balance ( if they do the revised hours)or as a service manager has said " If you cant do it there's the door " nice ! poor store performance comes from the management who run it... current economic climate is just an excuse for poor managerial performance . overpaid ,idiots B&Q cut your managers wages if the stores dont deliver a realistic budget, as for year on year budgets doesnt the weather ever be taken into account when these are being set?
so you are southampton equivalent of Mary Portas?

You know exactly why they are not performing well, how their management structure works and what their managers are paid. Not forgeting your Meteorological knowledge.

You should perhap offer your services . Or is this another example of an armchair expert?
[quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajw1986[/bold] wrote: It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped. Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate.[/p][/quote]Poor management has caused all this staff in stores have not the option of a redundancy package .why are they taking on staff from stores i know someone from nursling store who has just been taken on by h/o? couldnt someone who worked there had that job?slump in sales has nothing to do with the weather is the poor management of stores and skeleton staff in stores that cannot give good customer service .I feel for the staff in stores who no longer have the option of a work life balance ( if they do the revised hours)or as a service manager has said " If you cant do it there's the door " nice ! poor store performance comes from the management who run it... current economic climate is just an excuse for poor managerial performance . overpaid ,idiots B&Q cut your managers wages if the stores dont deliver a realistic budget, as for year on year budgets doesnt the weather ever be taken into account when these are being set?[/p][/quote]so you are southampton equivalent of Mary Portas? You know exactly why they are not performing well, how their management structure works and what their managers are paid. Not forgeting your Meteorological knowledge. You should perhap offer your services . Or is this another example of an armchair expert? elvisimo
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Tue 9 Oct 12

roofspace says...

George4th wrote:
Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country.
You have got that the wrong way round. It is not reasonable, it is not "protecting" anyones job, it is protecting their profit. They haven't done this to save anyones job. The way people like you go on one would think that they are not making a profit at all but losing money - they are not, they are just not making the excessive profit they wanted.
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country.[/p][/quote]You have got that the wrong way round. It is not reasonable, it is not "protecting" anyones job, it is protecting their profit. They haven't done this to save anyones job. The way people like you go on one would think that they are not making a profit at all but losing money - they are not, they are just not making the excessive profit they wanted. roofspace
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Tue 9 Oct 12

George4th says...

roofspace wrote:
George4th wrote:
Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country.
You have got that the wrong way round. It is not reasonable, it is not "protecting" anyones job, it is protecting their profit. They haven't done this to save anyones job. The way people like you go on one would think that they are not making a profit at all but losing money - they are not, they are just not making the excessive profit they wanted.
B & Q are downsizing their HQ staff by 200 and protecting the jobs of the other HQ 1000 or so. In other words, the 200 staff are not required - do you want them retained to sit around all day doing nothing?!! Do you know how many staff B & Q employ? About 30,000! Now do the percentages!!!
[quote][p][bold]roofspace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country.[/p][/quote]You have got that the wrong way round. It is not reasonable, it is not "protecting" anyones job, it is protecting their profit. They haven't done this to save anyones job. The way people like you go on one would think that they are not making a profit at all but losing money - they are not, they are just not making the excessive profit they wanted.[/p][/quote]B & Q are downsizing their HQ staff by 200 and protecting the jobs of the other HQ 1000 or so. In other words, the 200 staff are not required - do you want them retained to sit around all day doing nothing?!! Do you know how many staff B & Q employ? About 30,000! Now do the percentages!!! George4th
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Over the Edge says...

Shoong wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be.

B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages''

Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant.

Double standards?
Spot on ........ and good luck to your mate.
.
Double standards is a very polite term for those posters
I can only see one comment above that you two may have had the misfortune of misunderstanding as 'commending' B&Q for making people redundant. 'Ave a word.
The point I was making was, people on here yesterday slaughtering the new council administration for making 200 redundancies, yet a private sector company making 200 redundancies is seen as protecting jobs elsewhere within the company.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be. B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages'' Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant. Double standards?[/p][/quote]Spot on ........ and good luck to your mate. . Double standards is a very polite term for those posters[/p][/quote]I can only see one comment above that you two may have had the misfortune of misunderstanding as 'commending' B&Q for making people redundant. 'Ave a word.[/p][/quote]The point I was making was, people on here yesterday slaughtering the new council administration for making 200 redundancies, yet a private sector company making 200 redundancies is seen as protecting jobs elsewhere within the company. Over the Edge
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Tue 9 Oct 12

stopoutsourcing says...

Not to mention that Kingfisher/B&Q are slowly outsourcing all their IT to India so there will be a few more out of work soon im sure.
Not to mention that Kingfisher/B&Q are slowly outsourcing all their IT to India so there will be a few more out of work soon im sure. stopoutsourcing
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Tue 9 Oct 12

chavfreezone says...

as usual those who made the bad decisions i.e. management will keep their jobs and the workers lose there's..

All those slagging unions off will come to regret it one day.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
as usual those who made the bad decisions i.e. management will keep their jobs and the workers lose there's.. All those slagging unions off will come to regret it one day. First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. chavfreezone
  • Score: 0

4:40pm Tue 9 Oct 12

George4th says...

chavfreezone wrote:
as usual those who made the bad decisions i.e. management will keep their jobs and the workers lose there's..

All those slagging unions off will come to regret it one day.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
You could ask Southy!
[quote][p][bold]chavfreezone[/bold] wrote: as usual those who made the bad decisions i.e. management will keep their jobs and the workers lose there's.. All those slagging unions off will come to regret it one day. First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.[/p][/quote]You could ask Southy! George4th
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Georgem says...

roofspace wrote:
George4th wrote:
Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country.
You have got that the wrong way round. It is not reasonable, it is not "protecting" anyones job, it is protecting their profit. They haven't done this to save anyones job. The way people like you go on one would think that they are not making a profit at all but losing money - they are not, they are just not making the excessive profit they wanted.
B & Q are entitled to make a profit, and they're under no obligation to employ anyone. It's unfortunate that people are losing their jobs, but that's the free market for you.
[quote][p][bold]roofspace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country.[/p][/quote]You have got that the wrong way round. It is not reasonable, it is not "protecting" anyones job, it is protecting their profit. They haven't done this to save anyones job. The way people like you go on one would think that they are not making a profit at all but losing money - they are not, they are just not making the excessive profit they wanted.[/p][/quote]B & Q are entitled to make a profit, and they're under no obligation to employ anyone. It's unfortunate that people are losing their jobs, but that's the free market for you. Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Monty3 says...

pantsanon wrote:
Monty3 wrote:
I used to work at Head Office and the place is full of bullies; with incompetent management! They should have gone with a less impressive & unnecessary new headquarters…maybe there would be a few less staff facing redundancy.
Same as the stores mate worst company ever to work for i will not allow my child to ever work there .
I tell everyone I know not to work for them or let people they know work for them.

It's a bully culture...the managers would sell their own grandmothers to get one up on someone else!

Let's all go to Ikea! :-)
[quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty3[/bold] wrote: I used to work at Head Office and the place is full of bullies; with incompetent management! They should have gone with a less impressive & unnecessary new headquarters…maybe there would be a few less staff facing redundancy.[/p][/quote]Same as the stores mate worst company ever to work for i will not allow my child to ever work there .[/p][/quote]I tell everyone I know not to work for them or let people they know work for them. It's a bully culture...the managers would sell their own grandmothers to get one up on someone else! Let's all go to Ikea! :-) Monty3
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

roofspace wrote:
George4th wrote:
Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country.
You have got that the wrong way round. It is not reasonable, it is not "protecting" anyones job, it is protecting their profit. They haven't done this to save anyones job. The way people like you go on one would think that they are not making a profit at all but losing money - they are not, they are just not making the excessive profit they wanted.
If you owned your own business you would understand that the basic idea is to make money by being your own boss, taking your own risks and reaping the rewards. The balance sheet has to be a lot more than +1p in order to demonstrate success for lots of reasons and you don't shed staff on a whim or in order to increase the bottom line. The world is in a mess at the moment and there's no point in risking the whole business venture when by making prudent cuts, the majority can be allowed to survive. Times of plenty will return and if the business is no longer there, then no-one can be re-employed. It's tough but currently some very unpleasant decisions have to be made and they aren't made lightly.
[quote][p][bold]roofspace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: Offloading 15% of HQ staff is quite reasonable given the poor trading conditions they have experienced. It protects the remaining 85% who then have the opportunity to give of their best to ensure the business runs smoothly for all the B & Q staff throughout the country.[/p][/quote]You have got that the wrong way round. It is not reasonable, it is not "protecting" anyones job, it is protecting their profit. They haven't done this to save anyones job. The way people like you go on one would think that they are not making a profit at all but losing money - they are not, they are just not making the excessive profit they wanted.[/p][/quote]If you owned your own business you would understand that the basic idea is to make money by being your own boss, taking your own risks and reaping the rewards. The balance sheet has to be a lot more than +1p in order to demonstrate success for lots of reasons and you don't shed staff on a whim or in order to increase the bottom line. The world is in a mess at the moment and there's no point in risking the whole business venture when by making prudent cuts, the majority can be allowed to survive. Times of plenty will return and if the business is no longer there, then no-one can be re-employed. It's tough but currently some very unpleasant decisions have to be made and they aren't made lightly. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Tue 9 Oct 12

mickey01 says...

these firms are the same as the banks its the front line workers who have to suffer for the miss management of the bosses who make the wrong decisions which if they consulted the people on the front line would learn how real lfe is
these firms are the same as the banks its the front line workers who have to suffer for the miss management of the bosses who make the wrong decisions which if they consulted the people on the front line would learn how real lfe is mickey01
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Over the Edge wrote:
My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be.

B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages''

Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant.

Double standards?
Spot on ........ and good luck to your mate.
.
Double standards is a very polite term for those posters
As i have said before in response ...... Go and find it yourself if you want to know where it came from .......... Thats if you can be bothered !! ........ Oh and i looked at it and read it again at about 6-30pm today
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Over the Edge[/bold] wrote: My mate was told this morning he will not be redundant, however not his current job will change and he won't find out until Friday what his new job will be. B&Q are offering extra money for paying off people accepting redundancy without the consultation period, maybe that is what is meant by ''enhanced redundancy packages'' Yesterday SCC announced a proposal for 200 redundancies to made at the council, many people on here slaughtered them for it, yet today those same people are commending a private sector business for making 200 redundant. Double standards?[/p][/quote]Spot on ........ and good luck to your mate. . Double standards is a very polite term for those posters[/p][/quote]As i have said before in response ...... Go and find it yourself if you want to know where it came from .......... Thats if you can be bothered !! ........ Oh and i looked at it and read it again at about 6-30pm today Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

7:29pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Lone Ranger. says...

Shoong wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
bigfella wrote:
southy wrote:
bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.
it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable?

But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok.
So why not say it was the union comment ??.
.
Once again your description or understanding of the unions IMO are not the same as today ...... As with some other posters you are referering to action that took place 40+ years ago.
.
In addition B&Q were one of the companies that let Slippery Dave know that they would be "picking up" some of the Public workers who were to be made redundant .....
He actually said B&Q would help pick up the slack? When? I'd be interested to know.

A link to an article perhaps?
As i have said before in response ...... Go and find it yourself if you want to know where it came from .......... Thats if you can be bothered !! ........ Oh and i looked at it and read it again at about 6-30pm today
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.[/p][/quote]it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable? But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok.[/p][/quote]So why not say it was the union comment ??. . Once again your description or understanding of the unions IMO are not the same as today ...... As with some other posters you are referering to action that took place 40+ years ago. . In addition B&Q were one of the companies that let Slippery Dave know that they would be "picking up" some of the Public workers who were to be made redundant .....[/p][/quote]He actually said B&Q would help pick up the slack? When? I'd be interested to know. A link to an article perhaps?[/p][/quote]As i have said before in response ...... Go and find it yourself if you want to know where it came from .......... Thats if you can be bothered !! ........ Oh and i looked at it and read it again at about 6-30pm today Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Tue 9 Oct 12

saintmark1977 says...

First the coalition government blames the weather (it is too hot,too cold and the wrong type of snow or rain etc etc) for the state of the economy. Now employers are using the same excuse!

The problem for both of them (and ultimately all of us) is that there is no U K economic growth because of a misguided policy of continued austerity.

It does not surprise me that B and Q suffer when the number of new homes built last year was the lowest since the 1920's and their customers disposable income is at its lowest since the 1990's. What else did they expect?

History shows that no government has ever cut its way out of a double dip recession and nor will the current coalition.

The sadness is that decent people will continue to suffer until there is a change of economic direction.
First the coalition government blames the weather (it is too hot,too cold and the wrong type of snow or rain etc etc) for the state of the economy. Now employers are using the same excuse! The problem for both of them (and ultimately all of us) is that there is no U K economic growth because of a misguided policy of continued austerity. It does not surprise me that B and Q suffer when the number of new homes built last year was the lowest since the 1920's and their customers disposable income is at its lowest since the 1990's. What else did they expect? History shows that no government has ever cut its way out of a double dip recession and nor will the current coalition. The sadness is that decent people will continue to suffer until there is a change of economic direction. saintmark1977
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Tue 9 Oct 12

News Fanatic says...

I am sorry for those who will lose their jobs. However, I made a serious error by giving B&Q the job to supply and fit a kitchen at my old house. What a bunch of useless people who could not orgnise the proviable drink in a brewery.

The kitchen I inherited in my new house was also B&Q supplied and fitted. I had a problem and they fobbed me off.

I have heard of similar experiences with B&Q kitchens/bathrooms.

As a result, B&Q is the very last place I buy anything now.

B&Q should realise that good customer service pays dividends for the business.
I am sorry for those who will lose their jobs. However, I made a serious error by giving B&Q the job to supply and fit a kitchen at my old house. What a bunch of useless people who could not orgnise the proviable drink in a brewery. The kitchen I inherited in my new house was also B&Q supplied and fitted. I had a problem and they fobbed me off. I have heard of similar experiences with B&Q kitchens/bathrooms. As a result, B&Q is the very last place I buy anything now. B&Q should realise that good customer service pays dividends for the business. News Fanatic
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Tue 9 Oct 12

derek james says...

saintmark1977 wrote:
First the coalition government blames the weather (it is too hot,too cold and the wrong type of snow or rain etc etc) for the state of the economy. Now employers are using the same excuse!

The problem for both of them (and ultimately all of us) is that there is no U K economic growth because of a misguided policy of continued austerity.

It does not surprise me that B and Q suffer when the number of new homes built last year was the lowest since the 1920's and their customers disposable income is at its lowest since the 1990's. What else did they expect?

History shows that no government has ever cut its way out of a double dip recession and nor will the current coalition.

The sadness is that decent people will continue to suffer until there is a change of economic direction.
i'll think you'll find most builders will not get their supllies at B and Q far too expensive!, when you compare their prices for fixings against competitors like In Excess and Screwfix there is no comparison.even retford can get that!
[quote][p][bold]saintmark1977[/bold] wrote: First the coalition government blames the weather (it is too hot,too cold and the wrong type of snow or rain etc etc) for the state of the economy. Now employers are using the same excuse! The problem for both of them (and ultimately all of us) is that there is no U K economic growth because of a misguided policy of continued austerity. It does not surprise me that B and Q suffer when the number of new homes built last year was the lowest since the 1920's and their customers disposable income is at its lowest since the 1990's. What else did they expect? History shows that no government has ever cut its way out of a double dip recession and nor will the current coalition. The sadness is that decent people will continue to suffer until there is a change of economic direction.[/p][/quote]i'll think you'll find most builders will not get their supllies at B and Q far too expensive!, when you compare their prices for fixings against competitors like In Excess and Screwfix there is no comparison.even retford can get that! derek james
  • Score: 0

10:33pm Tue 9 Oct 12

pantsanon says...

elvisimo wrote:
pantsanon wrote:
ajw1986 wrote: It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped. Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate.
Poor management has caused all this staff in stores have not the option of a redundancy package .why are they taking on staff from stores i know someone from nursling store who has just been taken on by h/o? couldnt someone who worked there had that job?slump in sales has nothing to do with the weather is the poor management of stores and skeleton staff in stores that cannot give good customer service .I feel for the staff in stores who no longer have the option of a work life balance ( if they do the revised hours)or as a service manager has said " If you cant do it there's the door " nice ! poor store performance comes from the management who run it... current economic climate is just an excuse for poor managerial performance . overpaid ,idiots B&Q cut your managers wages if the stores dont deliver a realistic budget, as for year on year budgets doesnt the weather ever be taken into account when these are being set?
so you are southampton equivalent of Mary Portas?

You know exactly why they are not performing well, how their management structure works and what their managers are paid. Not forgeting your Meteorological knowledge.

You should perhap offer your services . Or is this another example of an armchair expert?
Well maybe the "customers" should be listened to, customer service is non existent.If you ring head office you get no answer same as the stores. Have you worked for them? and yes i know what they are paid i know how they attempt to run their stores and i also know managers get rid of staff one way or the other ( just to make their candles shine a little brighter on the backs of poorly treated employees) just so the managers get their bonus. Its disgusting the things i have seen , they are overpaid idiots. When has B&Q NEVER made a profit? just because this years is lower than last years doesnt mean it wasnt a profit after all profit is profit. if they kept their staff and treated them properly their staff would stay and enjoy their job instead they trim the workforce to a point where customer service is null and void. This is not how Mary Portas started? " from her arm chair" now she is a successful business woman. yes i could be her but would B&Q listen? no because they area greedy company and will end up eating itself . No company will survive the harsh winter we are facing in this economic climate by running on less than a skeleton crew, kind regards from ones comfortable armchair.
[quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajw1986[/bold] wrote: It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped. Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate.[/p][/quote]Poor management has caused all this staff in stores have not the option of a redundancy package .why are they taking on staff from stores i know someone from nursling store who has just been taken on by h/o? couldnt someone who worked there had that job?slump in sales has nothing to do with the weather is the poor management of stores and skeleton staff in stores that cannot give good customer service .I feel for the staff in stores who no longer have the option of a work life balance ( if they do the revised hours)or as a service manager has said " If you cant do it there's the door " nice ! poor store performance comes from the management who run it... current economic climate is just an excuse for poor managerial performance . overpaid ,idiots B&Q cut your managers wages if the stores dont deliver a realistic budget, as for year on year budgets doesnt the weather ever be taken into account when these are being set?[/p][/quote]so you are southampton equivalent of Mary Portas? You know exactly why they are not performing well, how their management structure works and what their managers are paid. Not forgeting your Meteorological knowledge. You should perhap offer your services . Or is this another example of an armchair expert?[/p][/quote]Well maybe the "customers" should be listened to, customer service is non existent.If you ring head office you get no answer same as the stores. Have you worked for them? and yes i know what they are paid i know how they attempt to run their stores and i also know managers get rid of staff one way or the other ( just to make their candles shine a little brighter on the backs of poorly treated employees) just so the managers get their bonus. Its disgusting the things i have seen , they are overpaid idiots. When has B&Q NEVER made a profit? just because this years is lower than last years doesnt mean it wasnt a profit after all profit is profit. if they kept their staff and treated them properly their staff would stay and enjoy their job instead they trim the workforce to a point where customer service is null and void. This is not how Mary Portas started? " from her arm chair" now she is a successful business woman. yes i could be her but would B&Q listen? no because they area greedy company and will end up eating itself . No company will survive the harsh winter we are facing in this economic climate by running on less than a skeleton crew, kind regards from ones comfortable armchair. pantsanon
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Tue 9 Oct 12

pantsanon says...

pantsanon wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
pantsanon wrote:
ajw1986 wrote: It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped. Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate.
Poor management has caused all this staff in stores have not the option of a redundancy package .why are they taking on staff from stores i know someone from nursling store who has just been taken on by h/o? couldnt someone who worked there had that job?slump in sales has nothing to do with the weather is the poor management of stores and skeleton staff in stores that cannot give good customer service .I feel for the staff in stores who no longer have the option of a work life balance ( if they do the revised hours)or as a service manager has said " If you cant do it there's the door " nice ! poor store performance comes from the management who run it... current economic climate is just an excuse for poor managerial performance . overpaid ,idiots B&Q cut your managers wages if the stores dont deliver a realistic budget, as for year on year budgets doesnt the weather ever be taken into account when these are being set?
so you are southampton equivalent of Mary Portas?

You know exactly why they are not performing well, how their management structure works and what their managers are paid. Not forgeting your Meteorological knowledge.

You should perhap offer your services . Or is this another example of an armchair expert?
Well maybe the "customers" should be listened to, customer service is non existent.If you ring head office you get no answer same as the stores. Have you worked for them? and yes i know what they are paid i know how they attempt to run their stores and i also know managers get rid of staff one way or the other ( just to make their candles shine a little brighter on the backs of poorly treated employees) just so the managers get their bonus. Its disgusting the things i have seen , they are overpaid idiots. When has B&Q NEVER made a profit? just because this years is lower than last years doesnt mean it wasnt a profit after all profit is profit. if they kept their staff and treated them properly their staff would stay and enjoy their job instead they trim the workforce to a point where customer service is null and void. This is not how Mary Portas started? " from her arm chair" now she is a successful business woman. yes i could be her but would B&Q listen? no because they area greedy company and will end up eating itself . No company will survive the harsh winter we are facing in this economic climate by running on less than a skeleton crew, kind regards from ones comfortable armchair.
All the time B&Q has a safety net to catch it i.e Kingfisher it will proceed to fail on customer relations.
[quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]elvisimo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ajw1986[/bold] wrote: It sounds like the best option for everyone, plus if the redundancy package is more than usual its not like they are being stuped. Restructuring its current work force is the best way to deal with the lower figures due to the current economic climate.[/p][/quote]Poor management has caused all this staff in stores have not the option of a redundancy package .why are they taking on staff from stores i know someone from nursling store who has just been taken on by h/o? couldnt someone who worked there had that job?slump in sales has nothing to do with the weather is the poor management of stores and skeleton staff in stores that cannot give good customer service .I feel for the staff in stores who no longer have the option of a work life balance ( if they do the revised hours)or as a service manager has said " If you cant do it there's the door " nice ! poor store performance comes from the management who run it... current economic climate is just an excuse for poor managerial performance . overpaid ,idiots B&Q cut your managers wages if the stores dont deliver a realistic budget, as for year on year budgets doesnt the weather ever be taken into account when these are being set?[/p][/quote]so you are southampton equivalent of Mary Portas? You know exactly why they are not performing well, how their management structure works and what their managers are paid. Not forgeting your Meteorological knowledge. You should perhap offer your services . Or is this another example of an armchair expert?[/p][/quote]Well maybe the "customers" should be listened to, customer service is non existent.If you ring head office you get no answer same as the stores. Have you worked for them? and yes i know what they are paid i know how they attempt to run their stores and i also know managers get rid of staff one way or the other ( just to make their candles shine a little brighter on the backs of poorly treated employees) just so the managers get their bonus. Its disgusting the things i have seen , they are overpaid idiots. When has B&Q NEVER made a profit? just because this years is lower than last years doesnt mean it wasnt a profit after all profit is profit. if they kept their staff and treated them properly their staff would stay and enjoy their job instead they trim the workforce to a point where customer service is null and void. This is not how Mary Portas started? " from her arm chair" now she is a successful business woman. yes i could be her but would B&Q listen? no because they area greedy company and will end up eating itself . No company will survive the harsh winter we are facing in this economic climate by running on less than a skeleton crew, kind regards from ones comfortable armchair.[/p][/quote]All the time B&Q has a safety net to catch it i.e Kingfisher it will proceed to fail on customer relations. pantsanon
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Tue 9 Oct 12

pantsanon says...

Monty3 wrote:
pantsanon wrote:
Monty3 wrote:
I used to work at Head Office and the place is full of bullies; with incompetent management! They should have gone with a less impressive & unnecessary new headquarters…maybe there would be a few less staff facing redundancy.
Same as the stores mate worst company ever to work for i will not allow my child to ever work there .
I tell everyone I know not to work for them or let people they know work for them.

It's a bully culture...the managers would sell their own grandmothers to get one up on someone else!

Let's all go to Ikea! :-)
yay ikea here we come
[quote][p][bold]Monty3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Monty3[/bold] wrote: I used to work at Head Office and the place is full of bullies; with incompetent management! They should have gone with a less impressive & unnecessary new headquarters…maybe there would be a few less staff facing redundancy.[/p][/quote]Same as the stores mate worst company ever to work for i will not allow my child to ever work there .[/p][/quote]I tell everyone I know not to work for them or let people they know work for them. It's a bully culture...the managers would sell their own grandmothers to get one up on someone else! Let's all go to Ikea! :-)[/p][/quote]yay ikea here we come pantsanon
  • Score: 0

12:51am Wed 10 Oct 12

peenut81 says...

Gerogem, people like you disgust me, in the same comment you argue that its the fault of the 'free market' you also suggest that there is nothing we can do.
Of course there is, man 'created' free trade and capitalism and therefore man can get rid of free trade and capitalism. Its just a case of educating the masses against the greed of a small but rich minority who own our democracy.
Gerogem, people like you disgust me, in the same comment you argue that its the fault of the 'free market' you also suggest that there is nothing we can do. Of course there is, man 'created' free trade and capitalism and therefore man can get rid of free trade and capitalism. Its just a case of educating the masses against the greed of a small but rich minority who own our democracy. peenut81
  • Score: 0

1:51am Wed 10 Oct 12

Proud from LIVERPOOL says...

derek james wrote:
saintmark1977 wrote:
First the coalition government blames the weather (it is too hot,too cold and the wrong type of snow or rain etc etc) for the state of the economy. Now employers are using the same excuse!

The problem for both of them (and ultimately all of us) is that there is no U K economic growth because of a misguided policy of continued austerity.

It does not surprise me that B and Q suffer when the number of new homes built last year was the lowest since the 1920's and their customers disposable income is at its lowest since the 1990's. What else did they expect?

History shows that no government has ever cut its way out of a double dip recession and nor will the current coalition.

The sadness is that decent people will continue to suffer until there is a change of economic direction.
i'll think you'll find most builders will not get their supllies at B and Q far too expensive!, when you compare their prices for fixings against competitors like In Excess and Screwfix there is no comparison.even retford can get that!
Screwfix is owned by kingfisher (the owners of B & Q ).
The people who used to own Screwfix before B & Q bought it now own Toolstation .
Toolstation usually have branches close to Screwfix.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saintmark1977[/bold] wrote: First the coalition government blames the weather (it is too hot,too cold and the wrong type of snow or rain etc etc) for the state of the economy. Now employers are using the same excuse! The problem for both of them (and ultimately all of us) is that there is no U K economic growth because of a misguided policy of continued austerity. It does not surprise me that B and Q suffer when the number of new homes built last year was the lowest since the 1920's and their customers disposable income is at its lowest since the 1990's. What else did they expect? History shows that no government has ever cut its way out of a double dip recession and nor will the current coalition. The sadness is that decent people will continue to suffer until there is a change of economic direction.[/p][/quote]i'll think you'll find most builders will not get their supllies at B and Q far too expensive!, when you compare their prices for fixings against competitors like In Excess and Screwfix there is no comparison.even retford can get that![/p][/quote]Screwfix is owned by kingfisher (the owners of B & Q ). The people who used to own Screwfix before B & Q bought it now own Toolstation . Toolstation usually have branches close to Screwfix. Proud from LIVERPOOL
  • Score: 0

9:00am Wed 10 Oct 12

Georgem says...

peenut81 wrote:
Gerogem, people like you disgust me, in the same comment you argue that its the fault of the 'free market' you also suggest that there is nothing we can do.
Of course there is, man 'created' free trade and capitalism and therefore man can get rid of free trade and capitalism. Its just a case of educating the masses against the greed of a small but rich minority who own our democracy.
Sorry, I didn't notice I'd disgusted you. I was too busy thinking about my yacht and wiping my backside on fifty pound notes.
[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: Gerogem, people like you disgust me, in the same comment you argue that its the fault of the 'free market' you also suggest that there is nothing we can do. Of course there is, man 'created' free trade and capitalism and therefore man can get rid of free trade and capitalism. Its just a case of educating the masses against the greed of a small but rich minority who own our democracy.[/p][/quote]Sorry, I didn't notice I'd disgusted you. I was too busy thinking about my yacht and wiping my backside on fifty pound notes. Georgem
  • Score: 0

10:19am Wed 10 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

peenut81 wrote:
Gerogem, people like you disgust me, in the same comment you argue that its the fault of the 'free market' you also suggest that there is nothing we can do.
Of course there is, man 'created' free trade and capitalism and therefore man can get rid of free trade and capitalism. Its just a case of educating the masses against the greed of a small but rich minority who own our democracy.
I don't think you've grasped the notion that a scientist is cleverer than you, an athlete can run faster than you, an artist can paint a better picture and an entrepreneur can make more money. Welcome to the real world in which God didn't create us all equal even though socialism would like to drag everyone down to the same level. The energy you put in to your envy and moaning will never achieve anything so channel it towards something useful.
[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: Gerogem, people like you disgust me, in the same comment you argue that its the fault of the 'free market' you also suggest that there is nothing we can do. Of course there is, man 'created' free trade and capitalism and therefore man can get rid of free trade and capitalism. Its just a case of educating the masses against the greed of a small but rich minority who own our democracy.[/p][/quote]I don't think you've grasped the notion that a scientist is cleverer than you, an athlete can run faster than you, an artist can paint a better picture and an entrepreneur can make more money. Welcome to the real world in which God didn't create us all equal even though socialism would like to drag everyone down to the same level. The energy you put in to your envy and moaning will never achieve anything so channel it towards something useful. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:21am Wed 10 Oct 12

ohec says...

I don't understand why anybody is slating SCC or B&Q both have the same problem the amount of money coming in Vs the amount going out the only difference is SCC are trying to balance the books and B&Q are looking for a profit for their investors, and the obvious way to reduce costs is to reduce the most expensive commodity (Labour). We all know that B&Q are not the cheapest so increasing prices is not an option the same as if SCC were to try and increase its revenue there would be hell to pay. When this inept government of ours decides to do a u turn and admit that its austerity measures have failed then maybe we can start to get our economy moving only then will we see jobs available for those that wish to work then and only then can we start reducing benefits so that it actually pays to work.
I don't understand why anybody is slating SCC or B&Q both have the same problem the amount of money coming in Vs the amount going out the only difference is SCC are trying to balance the books and B&Q are looking for a profit for their investors, and the obvious way to reduce costs is to reduce the most expensive commodity (Labour). We all know that B&Q are not the cheapest so increasing prices is not an option the same as if SCC were to try and increase its revenue there would be hell to pay. When this inept government of ours decides to do a u turn and admit that its austerity measures have failed then maybe we can start to get our economy moving only then will we see jobs available for those that wish to work then and only then can we start reducing benefits so that it actually pays to work. ohec
  • Score: 0

11:59am Wed 10 Oct 12

Shoong says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Shoong wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
bigfella wrote:
southy wrote:
bigfella wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions
possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards
Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.
it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable?

But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok.
So why not say it was the union comment ??.
.
Once again your description or understanding of the unions IMO are not the same as today ...... As with some other posters you are referering to action that took place 40+ years ago.
.
In addition B&Q were one of the companies that let Slippery Dave know that they would be "picking up" some of the Public workers who were to be made redundant .....
He actually said B&Q would help pick up the slack? When? I'd be interested to know.

A link to an article perhaps?
As i have said before in response ...... Go and find it yourself if you want to know where it came from .......... Thats if you can be bothered !! ........ Oh and i looked at it and read it again at about 6-30pm today
Great, but as I'm really lazy, certainly too lazy to make vague assumptions and passing them off as facts without any sort of confirmation, can you not do it for me?

Help me out here.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Quote:- .. In a statement, the company said that as a result of restructuring, 200 jobs would be lost and 100 new ones created. . So to translate :- 200 earning above the minimum wage will be sacked then half will be offered the same job paying just the minimum wage. . And this Tory led government want to make it easier to sack staff ..... and are totally against the minimum wage . .... Thank God for Unions[/p][/quote]possibly the most ignorant message i've ever seen in here, and thats saying something given the standards[/p][/quote]Not ignorant at all this is what is going on and its not as low they are passing the savings onto the customer they are not, they are just interested in bigger profits so they can hoard that money in tax free banking.[/p][/quote]it was the Union comment i was referring to mostly. The same Unions that brought the country to its knees in the 70's and made the country a laughing stock and resulted us in being bailled out by the EMF and uninvestable? But so long as they get their 5 fag breaks a day, work to rule, demand additional overtime regardless of cost etc etc etc thats ok.[/p][/quote]So why not say it was the union comment ??. . Once again your description or understanding of the unions IMO are not the same as today ...... As with some other posters you are referering to action that took place 40+ years ago. . In addition B&Q were one of the companies that let Slippery Dave know that they would be "picking up" some of the Public workers who were to be made redundant .....[/p][/quote]He actually said B&Q would help pick up the slack? When? I'd be interested to know. A link to an article perhaps?[/p][/quote]As i have said before in response ...... Go and find it yourself if you want to know where it came from .......... Thats if you can be bothered !! ........ Oh and i looked at it and read it again at about 6-30pm today[/p][/quote]Great, but as I'm really lazy, certainly too lazy to make vague assumptions and passing them off as facts without any sort of confirmation, can you not do it for me? Help me out here. Shoong
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree