SurfaceAgentX2Zero
5:35 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Do you think she knew the difference between the US Treasury and the Fed, Pickled? Because if she did, she knew a COLOSSAL sight more about economics than you do.
|
Hammer and Pickle
5:33 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Well Rand clearly knew fuck all about the real economy and real capitalism if she in fact made such a COLLOSALY dim prediction. But I suspect she didin’t and the only dim twat here is Fiddle with his INFANTILE yearning for fucking up the business climate with ideologically-led government interference into the labour market.
|
Darlo Debs
5:27 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Willtell in cases like these when do the workers ever get the opportunity to?. Its a bit hypothetical.
|
BRANDED
5:17 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
I keep thinking this thread's about my arse
|
After8
5:16 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
I agree with kronic for once. The current parliamentary labour party particularly the moderates cannot accept brexit and cannot work out why the conservatives are in power. They're a shambles.
I notice that this thread has moved away from windrush and I suspect the country will move on now too. Labour won't know when to quit though.
|
Willtell
12:56 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
, 11:11 Tue May 1
Exactly so Comma and if you check, I said that it was the case. I said that it was "human nature" to grab what they could before the shutters came down.
Of course the workers would never have done that would they?
|
Infidel
12:02 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Comma
Exactly. It's called Crony Capitalism and it's the curse of the modern age.
Ayn Rand called them "looters" in Atlas Shrugged and predicted that they would multiply and eventually bring down the entire capitalist system.
Every time I see evidence of her prediction - the Phoenix Four, Fred Goodwin, Carillion, Tony Blair - I get more depressed about the way things are going.
|
,
11:11 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Willtell, that BBC article forgot to tell us how it all went right for the Carillion bosses financially.
Their workers face cuts in their pensions yet the bosses were busily filling their coffers before the game was up. Typical.
|
Willtell
10:41 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
That's not right Debs. That's the kind of thing the Labour party put about but it isn't true. I'm sure once directors know a company is folding they will grab what they can but that's human nature. Carillion went because it tried to bid too low then kept losing out.
This is why Carillion went bust and it's from BBC -
What went wrong for the firm?
Some argue that it overreached itself, taking on too many risky contracts that proved unprofitable. It also faced payment delays in the Middle East that hit its accounts.
Last year, it issued three profit warnings in five months and wrote down more than £1bn from the value of contracts.
This made it much harder to manage its mountainous £900m debt pile and £600m pension deficit.
In December, the firm convinced lenders to give it more time to repay them.
However, the company's banks, which include Santander UK, HSBC and Barclays, were reluctant to lend it any more cash.
What were Carillion's biggest setbacks?
Among its biggest problems were cost overruns on three public sector construction contracts:
The £350m Midland Metropolitan Hospital in Sandwell. The opening was originally scheduled for October 2018, but difficulties with the heating, lighting and ventilation systems forced a delay of the launch date to spring 2019
The £335m Royal Liverpool Hospital. The new 646-bed hospital was due to be finished by March 2017, but the completion date has been repeatedly pushed back amid reports of cracks in the building
The £745m Aberdeen bypass, which is being built by the Aberdeen Roads Ltd consortium, a joint venture that includes Balfour Beatty and Morrison Construction alongside Carillion. It is due to open in spring 2018. One key stretch was due to open a year earlier, but was delayed because of slow progress in completing initial earthworks. Last month, environment watchdogs slapped a £280,000 penalty on the consortium for polluting two of Scotland's most important salmon rivers
Why does its collapse matter?
As Carillion is such a big supplier to the public sector, some fear there will be a lot of disruption.
Labour MP Jon Trickett told Parliament before the announcement that if it went under, it would risk "massive damage" to a range of public services.
Thousands of jobs also hang in the balance. Unions have said workers do not deserve to be caught in the crossfire and have urged the government to safeguard their jobs and bring Carillion's contracts back in house.
The government, which has praised Carillion's work on projects such as Crossrail, has said it will provide funding to maintain the public services run by the firm.
Analysts say Carillion had a large order book of business lined up.
The big question is, who will ultimately pick up its loss-making public contracts - another outsourced services provider or the government itself?
|
Infidel
10:36 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
You posted that paying low wages means higher profits. That's just ignorance. You don't know how markets work.
And as for insulting you, you called me a racist on this thread earlier, completely randomly.
How dare you accuse me of racism. You have never met me, you know nothing about me. You are a shallow Marxist with straw for brains and when you post nonsense on here and call other posters racist you have no right to plead for others to stop insulting you.
|
Darlo Debs
10:25 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Cariilion went bust moatly because its directors were on the make, when did i bring Carillion into this?
...also you are totally wring on the ages/profits issue and you know it ..so stop being s boorish oaf and insulting me...you are making yourself look like an inadequate, cyber bully.
Read what Zeb said to Surf.....its good advice for you too.
|
Infidel
9:07 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Debs
Paying lower wages does not mean bigger profits. The two are not even related.
These companies operate in fiercely competitive markets where price cutting to win government contracts acts as a severe constraint on profit margins.
I would have thought the bankruptcy of Carillion made the point but for ignorant Lefties it seems the concept of a market is so far beyond your paltry intellect nothing changes.
It’s a matter of time before you just shout RACIST! at Surface as you did with me last week. It’s your default option when you are being pasted on here. Why don’t you just give up? You don’t understand even the basics of the subjects you wade into.
|
zebthecat
2:01 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
You are a truly sad human being surf.
Try interacting with some people face to face once on a while
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
1:49 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Debs,
I know there are vested interests. There are vested interests in everything. Vested interests do not have to be pandered to.
What part of 'a living wage sufficient that the government not have to pay benefits' is so fucking difficult to understand.
Why are you so thick?
|
Darlo Debs
12:46 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
if there werent vested interests then what you have suggested would happen.
That should be pretty obvious to you.
Plenty of nin immigrants do the jobs i listed.
In any case a living wage would not cover a london rent, ic we took the government definition of a living wage.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:39 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
I have no idea what you are rambling on about in your second paragraph. It's almost as if you have failed to understand every word of my post and have reverted to your stock nasty shareholders / mean employers / crooked entrepreneurs mode in the vague hope that it might be relevant.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:37 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Darlo, darlo, darlo.
I'm suggesting what should happen. And yes, a hospital cleaning company paying minimum wages to immigrants is EXACTLY the sort of company that should go bust. If did, because it couldn't pay a living wage that enabled the state to stop paying benefits (subsidy to employers) then any government that wished to stay in power would have to step in and employ the workers directly. At a living wage that enabled them to survive without benefits obviously.
I would have thought this is exactly the sort of thing that you lefties would like. Obviously I do understand that it would mean the end of the benefits drug that you cannot contemplate a life without.
|
Darlo Debs
12:26 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
and you really are a cyber warroir with a bad attitude that gets on peoples tits ...we all have our crosses to bear, but actually i know what you mean, my point and itx a fairly obvious one even for you to grasp is that a company providing a service such as hospital cleaning for example, isnt going to going to the wall in reality is it?
There will be some nice little rewards for shareholders because low wages will mean bigger profits.
They shouldnt be allowed to take subsidies but these companies are probably run by businessmen that pay nics big party donations to whoever is in charge.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:19 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Haha! Childcare workers as well! No nurses? You'e slipping.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:18 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
Debs, instead of putting words into my mouth about how I don't care about poor cleaners etc, why don't you try actually thinking about my post?
You really are the thickest of the thick, too conditioned by generations of benefit addiction to contemplate a world where cleaners would be paid the economic rate for the job.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
12:16 Tue May 1
Re: Windrush.
|
No. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that private sector employers should pay a living wage or go bust. Why is this so difficult to understand? If all the crap employers who have government contracts went bust because the government wouldn't pay a proper rate for the job, then they will go bust and the government would have to employ people directly. On a living wage as I specified.
You even seem to agree with me that this subsidy is unnecessary.
|
| 
