PeteMorris Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I think it's perfectly acceptable that contracts should be adhered to by both sides.. don't you? is the the 5 minute argument or the full half hour? If I thought those instances in the link were perfectly acceptable I'd say so. As it is, I think they're obscene. BTW, it's just a 2 minute one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 If I thought those instances in the link were perfectly acceptable I'd say so. As it is, I think they're obscene. BTW, it's just a 2 minute one! Which bits obscene? The fact that they got other employment or the fact that contracts were fulfilled? (assumimg the latter to be true)..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I'm not nitpicking.. you said it was a waste of money I asked what was..If their contracts determine the redundancy pay (negotiated with whoever employed them ..Labour?) then I don't see a problem..if they didn't pay it then the resulting court case would no doubt be more expensive..the fact that they obtained employment somewhere else afterwards is irrelevant..or do you think that anyone paid redundancy shouldn't be eligible for other work ..? It happens in other walks of life..I've known quite a few people in my industry do the same..given a month's notice of redundancy and got themselves another job to start the day after the notice period ... The government had a contract with me to pay me a pension at 60. Then they changed the rules and moved the goalposts. Now some women who were expecting to retire at 60 won't retire until they are 66. My point is, if they can change this 'contract' as it suits them, because circumstances have changed, why can they not ammend these rediculous payouts in keeping with the times? If the recipients sued for their £400,000 etc public opinion might make them think differently. It worked in Bob Diamond's case. And it might expose what they actually did for their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The government had a contract with me to pay me a pension at 60. Then they changed the rules and moved the goalposts. Now some women who were expecting to retire at 60 won't retire until they are 66. My point is, if they can change this 'contract' as it suits them, because circumstances have changed, why can they not ammend these rediculous payouts in keeping with the times? If the recipients sued for their £400,000 etc public opinion might make them think differently. It worked in Bob Diamond's case. And it might expose what they actually did for their money. Do you have a signature on youir "contract"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The government had a contract with me to pay me a pension at 60. Then they changed the rules and moved the goalposts. Now some women who were expecting to retire at 60 won't retire until they are 66. My point is, if they can change this 'contract' as it suits them, because circumstances have changed, why can they not ammend these rediculous payouts in keeping with the times? If the recipients sued for their £400,000 etc public opinion might make them think differently. It worked in Bob Diamond's case. And it might expose what they actually did for their money. Do you have a signature on youir "contract"? Here we go. Nitpicking again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 Here we go. Nitpicking again! That's not nitpicking, it's proving Anna B's argument that she has a contract with the government to let her claim a pension at 60 is a bit silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Here we go. Nitpicking again! Not nitpicking..Anna is using the word "contract"...I certainly don't have one with the government do you? Is she saying that the gov. can't change anything? Ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 That's not nitpicking, it's proving Anna B's argument that she has a contract with the government to let her claim a pension at 60 is a bit silly. I was refering to Truman's query on whether she has a signature on said contract. I agree with Anna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I was refering to Truman's query on whether she has a signature on said contract. I agree with Anna She can't have a signature on a non-existant contract...that was my point,there is no contract..and for your second point.. am I supposed to be surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Not nitpicking..Anna is using the word "contract"...I certainly don't have one with the government do you? Is she saying that the gov. can't change anything? Ever? Only when it suits 'them' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.