Undisputedtruth

Hugo, nice try but doesn't apply to me. :)) The Kent Management Services Ltd v Butterfield did not endorse your reasoning on bonus entitlement either.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A bonus is a discretionary incentive. > > The clue regarding the unions is in your use of > the word 'entitle'. How often do you hear that > word bandied about by militant tub thumpers? > > Crow and his bullies have managed to turn a > discretionary incentive into a grasping > entitelment poisoned by threats and menaces. > > Your language is all wrong on this Chippy - nobody > is 'entitled' to a bonus. It's an incentive an > organisation may choose to pay if they have > sufficient funds and feel staff have gone beyond > expectations. Well since you have been a former employer then I'd come to expect a warped view on what you constitutes a bonus scheme. Bonus schemes are based on agreements between employee/unions and employers. So if an employee fulfilled their obligation(s) then they're entitled to a bonus.

El Pibe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Really? > I'm pretty sure they've sat over many booms and > busts. > It was brown who thought he'd abolished the > latter....whoops. Under the Tories the recessions during the 1980s and 1990s were deep and long. > In all fairness you can't really lay the recession > at the door of the coalition. Why not? > I was merely asking > if, given that they were so convinced that pulling > the plaster would be beneficial and that the > economy would soon rebalance with the private > sector expanding thanks to the lifting of the > welfare cross the nation bore, nothing got better, > would they be willing to consider another way. > > Sheesh, try writing a sentence that long! The reverse has happened and now we're seeing stagnant growth which undermines savings made from cuts. The reduction of the public sector had more to do with Tories ideology than resolving the economy.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Actually it was buddug being rude. As for my > "don't know any better opinions", I'm just as > capable of doing a google search as you (which is > clearly what you've done). No need for a google search as kidkruger kindly provided a link to the relevant issue. Clueless as ever, Otta. Otta Wrote: > Bankers bonuses are disgusting, but a very > different issue. Yes it's unfair that these RMT > members get less than other RMT members, but you > have to ask, why are any of them being paid > bonuses for their normal working hours? I do not agree with your reasoning on the race to the bottom on bonuses for the working class.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Almost forgot to call you idiot there. Calling me an idiot is laughable at the very least. I more than able to think for myself and have highly developed tastes.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Charming as ever. > > Without feeling the need to be rude to someone > first? Judging by your appearance over by the CPZ's thread and Buddug's issues then I suggest you keep your don't know any reasoning to yourself. The bankers are still getting bonuses in their millions despite bringing this country to near financial ruin. Yet outrage is given to the unions for rejecting a ?100 bonus.

A Tory government is synonymous with recession.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Should I give up the class warfare, or the lovely > coffee? No need, stick to the independents where you're able to keep to your ethical values.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't understand why people should be paid more. > If they are doing overtime they will be paid. As > for working under more pressure, either you can do > the job or you can't. What are tube staff > expecting they will have to do that they wouldn't > expect to be doing as part of their job anyway? I > think they are looking for money 'for old rope' if > I understand this expression correctly. Obviously, you're pretty clueless about the dispute and just using "I don't know any better" logic. Best to stick playing 73's and 100's on the EDF. London Overground and Network Rail staff are getting five to six times more Olympic bonuses than what is being offered to RMT members. Just how far does a ?100 goes these days. Not even enough to buy Starbuck's coffee for every week of the year. I suspect TfL is trying provoke RMT into strike action in view of the pending Mayor's election this May.

I don't think so. There are a number of Starbucks co-located with Sainsbury's. Finchley Road and Greenwich Sainsburys are some of the branches that comes to mind. I popped into Dulwich Sainsburys today and was surprised to see lots of people inside Starbucks. I suspect Starbucks are looking to expand. I think the real issue here is not whether Starbucks are looking to expand but why some people have no idea what makes a good coffee.

Looks like Humphrey is about in Dulwich.

Our hearts will always shine - Ozone

Headline News - William Bell

Wenger knows he has a few young players coming through. Especially a couple of promising central defenders. When Arsenal had a goalkeeping crisis you didn't see Wenger go rushing out to buy a top class keeper. That was because he knew Szczęsny, who was at loan at Brentford at the time, was going to be a good keeper.

Watch out for Stephen Caulker, a promising young Tottenham central defender currently on loan to Swansea.

buddug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi there. I said I wouldn't post again, because of > the laxness of one poster in reading my posts > properly. But I've suddenly realised he's just a > troll (by the way Chippy, 8,500 miles away - where > is he based? Do tell all). He's based in Singapore and possibly on a tax avoidance scheme according to one poster.

I think Quids wants white spaces between the paragraphs, buddug. It just makes it easier to read and understand your points.

Well you've definitely irritated a few people on 'the mixed football at Peckham Rye thread' if my memory serves me right.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > UDT, I work for a well know professional football > club in London and I can only hazard a guess that > I may know more about it than you do given my > role. Stop being insulting to people who disagree > with you for good reasons. Well if you got something to say that adds informed debate on this thread then say it. No point in behaving like an irritating jerk by pointing your finger at me for the wrong reasons. Otta and Hugo both dish out insults. It's only fair they get the same back.

It's a well known fact that Southwark gives a poor service to leaseholders. Even Cllr Barber has admitted it. Harriet Harman have campaigned for improvements for Southwark's leaseholders charges to be more transparent. My concern over this thread is that there are a number of people given opinions on matters they know nothing about. I don't think Cllr Barber is able to help with buddug's case as I feel his hands are tied. Buddu's options would be to take the matter through the complaints process or pursue the matter through legal channels.

I see your signed your last post as an idiot, Otta. Well done for recognising your true worth.

Otta, you really are someone who doesn't know any better. Whatever you may think is not going to change my past history or the way I've always viewed the world. I refuse to indulge in the I don't know any better logic. The fact you think that football TODAY is not the way it is directly because of TV just shows how deluded you are. You may be right that Sky needs football, but I'd argue they need each other. In fact, your own argument that Sky needs football just illustrates how popular it is for the TV viewer, and what huge business it is. Stop being a pr!ck, Otta. I've already said clubs are more commercially aware.

Wakey wakey Hugo. The professional game have always been popular even before TV was invented. Football clubs are now more commercially aware than they were during the 1980s and TV money is only a fraction of their income. I would say TV needs football more than football needing TV. Where would Sky be if it weren't for football? So everything else is made from commercial deals which largely come off the back of the popularity of the team as a direct result of their television coverage. The game of football will always be popular even without TV coverage. I have no idea why you're paying interest to my knowledge of HiFi. I have several interests including fashion, trainers, interior design, DIY, computers, stocks & shares, etc. Hugo, were you always the last kid to be picked for football and regularly got beaten up at school?

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedKingdom/Local%20Assets/Images/Industries/Sport%20Business%20Group/Anonymous/DFML2011/UK_SBG_DFML11_Chart-5.gif TV money only makes a fraction of clubs' income. This fraction works out to an average 36% for the top five richest clubs.

It sounds as though the settings in Bios gave priority to USB over the internal hard drive. Never mind, at least your system is working now. You can change the settings in Bios so that it will boot from the hard drive first, then the DVD drive and finally USB.