Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irish Rail - Risk of Strike Action
Options
Comments
-
The Irish Rail service should be abolished in its entirety.
A country of our size can transport goods and people more efficiently, quicker, cheaper and in a more environmentally friendly manner using our road network.
The only reason the rail network still survives is because of the massive subsidies it receives from Govt. Our taxes are literally being wasted keeping an anachronistic 18th century mode of transportation on life support.
The current inter-city motorway network has adequate capacity to cater for current rail users if busses were to replace the inter-city train services tomorrow - with no loss in service.
Turn the railways into greenways and see our tourists numbers skyrocket as we market ourselves as the premier cycling destination in the world.
It's a win-win and will save the country billions of euros.
It's a shame no Govt would have to balls to implement it.0 -
They had a 40% cut in funding, as another poster said, so that gives you a good idea of what 'power' they have.actually it is you who are engaging in " hand waving "
If a group of people find themselves in a position of power. then there is always the temptation to exercise it
If there is no balance to the exercise of that power, then the temptation will become overwhelming
if you ever had to supply solutions in to the public service, you would see the complex industrial relations that exists at first hand. the " power " struggles between those that have job security and hence can strike with relative impunity and those charged with running the situation , i.e. overall delivery of the service.
All rights are typically circumscribed, its a balance of competing " rights"
I see no point in entering into this debate at that level, I cannot tell the truth of the matter from the various media pronouncements , nor I suspect can you .
but I have enough first hand experience of the power play that goes on in the public service (in general ) to see that " victim-hood" is ingrained in all sides of the debate
one must be " aggrieved " to justify action, so the first stage is to lay the appropriate grounds for being " oppressed", thats just basic "striking-101", other wise you'd just look like a naked opportunist and that wouldn't do at all.
Many posters will never be happy with unionized workers having any power - unions have fúck all power compared to the power of their employers (both public and private).
So, where is the balance to this power? Workers and unions should have way way more power than they do at present.
A 40% cut in funding, wages that have stagnated for years - and have effectively reduced, due to inflation - increased work hours as another poster said; come off it, they have more than enough justification to be fighting their corner here.0 -
Why should I have to 'explain' that? I don't agree with a 'race to the bottom' in wages, in comparison to other countries, you have to explain why you think Swiss levels of pay are appropriate.Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »Ah good a tangible argument. So can you explain why Switzerland which is the country with the EU's highest consumer price index of 124.51 is paid less than Irish Rail drivers who live in a country that is 14th on the table and has a consumer price index of 79.71.
Your argument is mute and wrong
If you think my argument is mute or wrong, merely asserting that does bugger all - you have to provide a counterargument.0 -
Oh look, just as I predicted - you are presenting facts which do nothing to counter others arguments, just so you can use them as a rhetorical tool, to say you are presenting 'facts' and have a superior argument - even though your argument doesn't even counter anything you reply to :rolleyes:Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »If one side can provide arguments and facts and figures and the other cannot provide anything other than general comments when I guess you know the rest.
As for how to find stuff, I don't know if you have heard of this amazing technological breakthrough called Google. It will blow your mind
Sorry, that rhetorical trick isn't going to work - you need to provide actual counterarguments.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »They had a 40% cut in funding, as another poster said, so that gives you a good idea of what 'power' they have.
Half of which will be reversed next year, you keep seem to be omitting that.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »Actually all public spending boosts the economy - that is an inherent mathematical fact about national accounting - public spending, inherently flows into the private economy (and it is not 1:1 funded, through taxes, as nearly all governments run a deficit).
The fact that inflation has increased, means that these workers wages have effectively been slowly eroded - meaning they are due a pay rise, regardless of who else has suffered the same.
Yes, Clinton ran a surplus, and so did Ireland - do you know what effect that had on the economy? People made up for the lack of money flowing into the economy, by taking on more private debt.
That sure ended well...blowing up a massive debt bubble that helped tank the economy - and then what happened? All that debt ended up on the governments balance sheet in the bailout, making public debt even worse than it would be without a private-debt-boosting budget-surplus.
When you remove money from the economy - as running a surplus does - the economy picks up the slack, through increased private debt.
That's why, historically, governments let debts diminish through inflation, not through surpluses (and no, you are wrong - letting debts whittle through inflation, does not have to increase Debt vs GDP) - governments nearly always run deficits, with surpluses/balanced-budgets being the rare exception to the rule.
That's a nice mathematical theory alright, you cannot categorically state that public spending always improves the economy even if you are putting it into the hands of a select group of people, that is absolutely absurd.
Inflation has effected everyone equally, I don't see what special effect it has on Irish Rail employees over any other employee.
You cannot blame private debt on a lack of government spending, I have no idea how you can draw that conclusion. People ended up taking on debt of their own free will and volitions, a speculative property bubble caused all of the debt to be transferred onto the governments balance sheet no a lack of public spending. You've gone off the rails on that one. :pac:
Again, you seem to be making accusations about my posts that just aren't there, first you said I posted that you worked for Irish Rail? Dunno where you got that one and you've done it again with this one. When did I say that letting an original debt diminish through inflation would add debt to the gdp ratio?
I said if a government constantly keeps running deficits it would add debt to the GDP ratio. You seem to have this idea that a government can keep on going forever and ever running massive budget deficits, that's just not the case, they actually have to pay what they owe eventually.0 -
See you've just laid bare that you want to actually kill and privatize the whole rail transport service - and that this is the real agenda behind your arguments.Irish Rail is a legacy , a legacy made up of infrastructure from the 19th century, and mixed up with some modern technology
It didn't arrive on friday with a " social brief"
Rail transport exists in ireland for a complex series of reasons, partly transport orientated ( Dublin area only) , partly historical , partly because railways once were a key part of the national transport infrastructure , but not any more in any sense. partly because the political cost of firing everyone and shutting it down is too great etc etc
Because of the difficulties in shedding staff, Railway management are forced to save money by implementing infrastructure cuts and scaling back services, hence the removal of certain services and shortening DART etc during the recession. But in doing do they destroy their own market and subject the rail network to a death by a 1000 cuts.
Then you couple that by saving staff costs by natural wastage, since you do not have the option of redundancy , i.e. people leaving or retiring and you end up with a complete unbalanced staff base. Those with non transferrable skills will remain and stick it out to the bitter end and those with good marketable skills will leave.
The next result is a service with baked in inefficiencies and is in fact dying in front of us.
perhaps like a fallen horse we should end its misery
Things/claims you have not provided backing for here: Claims of 'baked-in inefficiencies'; claims that infrastructure deterioration are due to staff costs (when they are due to lack of government funding); claims that rail transport is no longer key national transport infrastructure; that if the cost of firing everyone and shutting it down were not too great, then that would be done; claiming the service is 'dying' when it is just underfunded - all of these claims are unbacked, and many (particularly the idea that rail transport is no longer key national transport) are just flat out wrong.
Rail transport provided as a public service inherently has a 'social brief' - it operates with the purpose of providing social benefit - and moreso, that's how it should work as well, and is the only valid standard for judging these services (both quality and cost wise).0 -
This kind of stupid rhetoric just shows you would forever oppose anything other than a balanced-budget or surplus, simply for ideological reasons - there is no other reason why you would portray properly funding a public service, as a runaway waste of finances.Sure, lets just spend spend spend spend like the bank will never run dry and not worry about the consequences.
That worked so well for Ahern and Cowen's governments and their friends in the banks and property development.
Don't bother pretending you give a toss about the quality of the rail services, you seem to just be a 'deficit-hawk' looking for endless cuts to government services.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Why should I have to 'explain' that? I don't agree with a 'race to the bottom' in wages, in comparison to other countries, you have to explain why you think Swiss levels of pay are appropriate.
You brought up the topic of consumer price indexes versus salary levels as a reason to justify the high wages of Irish drivers. But when it's clearly pointed out to you how over paid Irish Rail drivers are paid in relation to the ACTUAL most expensive EU country you resort to the burden of proof is on you despite the cold hard facts showing you that you are wrong.
At the end of the day Irish drivers are paid higher than Swiss drivers who live in the most expensive country in the EU while Ireland is 14th.
Or in other words you have no reasons and Occams Razor applies which is the Irish drivers are grossly, grossly overpaid as is.0 -
Advertisement
-
KomradeBishop wrote: »Actually all public spending boosts the economy - that is an inherent mathematical fact about national accounting - public spending, inherently flows into the private economy (and it is not 1:1 funded, through taxes, as nearly all governments run a deficit).
Yes, I'm sure every cent of the money spent from the public coffers to international consultancies on Irish Water did wonders to boost the Irish economy. You know, the same as all imports help the economy....... Oh wait, I think at least part of this might be backwards.
Realistically public spending can be on imports, which does not boost the economy, and may also not provide any benefits over an alternative solution. It is possible for money to be wasted in the public sector, including on these imports, even though you would have us believe any money spent there is actually a stimulus. Please stop trying to confuse the issue with the smoke and mirrors of false assertions, while accusing much less vague statements of trying to do that0 -
Your analogy with a car driver is a specious one - any idiot can see the difference between driving a car on a public road, where the maximum amount of lives in danger at any time would stretch to reach a dozen - and a train that can be full of hundreds of people.Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »By that rationale I should be compensated to match the fact that I don't crash my car and kill someone or a buss load of people like what happened in that poor old situation in France. In that case it seems the truck driver is directly responsible for 42 lives being lost.
But I'm fairly certain if he had been paid more then they would still be alive. See how mute your point is yet?
No the facts and figures were presented so people like you can stop talking rubbish about how poorly treated and paid Irish Rail workers are when they are clearly not. Facts and figures you have actually yet to rebuke properly, and I also note your complete lack of an answer to my very specific question on Switzerland , the level of pay and cost of living (not that I'm surprised)
I already posted what I worked as earlier in the thread. I've taken pay cuts to the tune of 40% but guess what I didn't bitch about it I got on with and did my job.
The facts you provide don't do anything to challenge my arguments - you're still completely lacking any argument, as to why Switzerland is a justified example - you're just presenting facts irrelevant to my arguments, simply so you can try to use them as a rhetorical tool.
What is your justification, for reducing the wages to those of Swiss railway workers? Do you know anything about their rail system, or the quality of compensation for their workers, or how well that lines up with the work they do?
You seem to just be advocating a 'race to the bottom' type mentality - I don't think anyone here with sense, will agree with that.0 -
How much of that goes into rail tho. The 27m seems to be an across the board number I couldnt see how much rail gets. Even that being said how does it factor into costs for the following year.
The official figure figure is just over half of the overall CIE PSO cuts are being reversed. I would expect Irish Rail to get at least half of their cut PSO back and Dublin Bus to get very little.0 -
Can you provide a good justification why we should engage in a 'race to bottom' with wages of other countries railway workers - when we don't even discuss the quality of their compensation, or whether those workers merit such low levels of compensation?They are , clearly they are well paid, relative to their compatriots else where , and with salaries approaching 50-60 K ( and overtime ) they are well ahead of the average industrial wage earner or office worker
SO leaving that aside , whats your next argument
The 'average industrial wage' has no relevance to this discussion at all - what other 'average' worker has the responsibilities these train drivers do?0 -
Stranger Danger wrote: »The Irish Rail service should be abolished in its entirety.
no it shouldn't. the anti-rail nonsense was tried and it failed. investing and encouraged use is the way.Stranger Danger wrote: »A country of our size can transport goods and people more efficiently, quicker, cheaper and in a more environmentally friendly manner using our road network.
no it can't. the amount to keep the roads up to the standard required currently is huge compared to rail. it just sso happens that we all use road from time to time. however shutting the railway dispite what some think will increase that spending for the huge amount of cars which will replace it (most aren't going to the bus services) . rail is way more environmentaly friendly then the huge pollution that is the road network could ever be.Stranger Danger wrote: »The only reason the rail network still survives is because of the massive subsidies it receives from Govt.
it survives because it is necessary, and subsidies mostly keep any rail network alive within the EU.Stranger Danger wrote: »Our taxes are literally being wasted keeping an anachronistic 18th century mode of transportation on life support.
our taxes are keeping a modern railway, which has issues that can be fixed alive for the purposes of public transport. public transport which if didn't exist would mean more cars on the road. rail is a modern form of transport and any country who actually cares about supplying proper public transport has realized rail is a part of it. the only people who would have an issue from what i can see are road lobbiests, road hauliers, maybe bus operators, and begrudgers.Stranger Danger wrote: »The current inter-city motorway network has adequate capacity to cater for current rail users if busses were to replace the inter-city train services tomorrow - with no loss in service.
busses will never be a replacement to rail. they are a low grade form of transport which are an advertisement to simply take the car. there will be a loss in service as i'd hedge my bets the majority of former rail users will simply take the car, as they are not going to be forced into taking an inferior method of public transport just to suit political or other agendas.Stranger Danger wrote: »Turn the railways into greenways and see our tourists numbers skyrocket as we market ourselves as the premier cycling destination in the world.
not turn our functioning railways into greenways, which few will actually visit just to suit anti-rail types, as ireland will never be the premier destination in the world for cyclists. we have plenty of areas for greenways.Stranger Danger wrote: »It's a win-win and will save the country billions of euros.
its not a win win, its a win for road lobbiests road hauliers and the anti-rail brigade. and lose for the rest of us. it won't save the country anything.Stranger Danger wrote: »It's a shame no Govt would have to balls to implement it.
its great that no government so far have the balls not to implement such nonsense.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »Can you provide a good justification why we should engage in a 'race to bottom' with wages of other countries railway workers - when we don't even discuss the quality of their compensation, or whether those workers merit such low levels of compensation?
The 'average industrial wage' has no relevance to this discussion at all - what other 'average' worker has the responsibilities these train drivers do?
Bus driver0 -
Why should I mention that, when the point in question was the power of the unions? If the unions can't stop a full 40% cut in funding, then peoples impression of their power on this thread, is extremely overblown...Half of which will be reversed next year, you keep seem to be omitting that.
It is only later, that 20% of that is being returned (which hasn't even happened yet - that's next year) - and Irish Rail have had to build up enormous debt while that 40% cut was in place, meaning they should be getting a lot more than 20% - they should be gettin a good 60% or more back to help work off the debt and fund restoration+expansion of services, at the very least.
Effectively, Irish Rail have to work off the backlog in the 40% lack of funding, going back multiple years - and they are still going to be adding to that backlog, as the 20% won't restore proper funding yet.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »See you've just laid bare that you want to actually kill and privatize the whole rail transport service - and that this is the real agenda behind your arguments.
kill if off , maybe , privatise it , no , it cant be privatised
'Things/claims you have not provided backing for here: Claims of 'baked-in inefficiencies
Ive followed CIE-IR-IE activities for many years, I even supplied tech to them. in any enterprise where you cannot rebalance staff costs as business demands change you get imbalance.claims that infrastructure deterioration are due to staff costs (when they are due to lack of government funding);
you remixing up my words, I merely said that if staff costs are inflexible, then costs have to be achieved elsewhere , typically in non staff costs but that kills the business
( for example , Limerick waterford never had sunday services in the last 30 years , because it was impossible to justify sunday staff costs, hence no service )
.claims that rail transport is no longer key national transport infrastructure; that if the cost of firing everyone and shutting it down were not too great, then that would be done; claiming the service is 'dying' when it is just underfunded - all of these claims are unbacked, and many (particularly the idea that rail transport is no longer key national transport) are just flat out wrong
outside of Dublin commuter , rail passengers transport is an irrelevance , freight has totally disappeared with a handful of private run trains remaining, stock has rusted away in sidings .
The fact is that the subvention to retain an grown IE into a modern high speed system is too great, given the sparse population , short distances and disconnection from europe.
Public transport in certain cases has a " social dimension " or a PSO , that doesnt mean it has to be delivered by rail however . where routes are not viable for commercial exploitation that the state subsidies that route, be that via a commercial operator or state entity , no more then it subsidies Aer Arran to fly to the islands.
Its does mean that Rail has any priority on such service,
Onen only has to look at the annual subsidy per passenger travelling on interurban rail as against a dublin commuter to see the nonsense you are spouting. why should some one travelling from Galway to Dublin be subsidised to the tune of over 5K per annum, whilst the lowly Dart commuter is only 5 euros per annum . yet the galway route has plenty of commercial bus services that can take that same passanger
Railways are here ( still ) for complex reasons, few of which are " social"0 -
end of the road wrote: »its great that no government so far have the balls not to implement such nonsense.
speaking of nonsense are you going to answer any of my questions or just quietly hope your can continue talking your nonsense0 -
If the government went completely mental and decided to disband IR and cancel all trains, Dublin would grind to a halt. The roads are knackered as is, can you imagine adding countless more commuters onto them? It'd be an absolute catastrophe.0
-
Advertisement
-
It's a fact, not a theory - it's basic national accounting, which any proper economist knows.That's a nice mathematical theory alright, you cannot categorically state that public spending always improves the economy even if you are putting it into the hands of a select group of people, that is absolutely absurd.
Inflation has effected everyone equally, I don't see what special effect it has on Irish Rail employees over any other employee.
You cannot blame private debt on a lack of government spending, I have no idea how you can draw that conclusion. People ended up taking on debt of their own free will and volitions, a speculative property bubble caused all of the debt to be transferred onto the governments balance sheet no a lack of public spending. You've gone off the rails on that one. :pac:
Again, you seem to be making accusations about my posts that just aren't there, first you said I posted that you worked for Irish Rail? Dunno where you got that one and you've done it again with this one. When did I say that letting an original debt diminish through inflation would add debt to the gdp ratio?
I said if a government constantly keeps running deficits it would add debt to the GDP ratio. You seem to have this idea that a government can keep on going forever and ever running massive budget deficits, that's just not the case, they actually have to pay what they owe eventually.
I never said public spending 'always' improves the economy - don't change my words to suit your argument.
It does not matter if inflation affects everyone equally - it is effectively a pay cut for the Irish Rail workers over the years their wages have been stagnant - they deserve a pay increase as compensation.
I did not blame private debt on a lack of government spending, I showed how it is due to a surplus of government spending - that is a mathematical accounting fact, surpluses remove money from the private economy, and private debt increases were used to make up part of the slack for that.
A government running a permanent deficit, with a stable Debt to GDP ratio, never has to run a surplus - you saying 'If a government keeps borrowing it'll find itself ending up like Greece or Argentina' implies deficits = increasing Debt to GDP to unsustainable levels.
Deficits can mean a stable or even reduced Debt to GDP level - again this is mathematically true, as Debt to GDP is affected largely by inflation, which erodes Debt vs GDP even with a deficit, if the deficit is balanced so as not to overpower inflation.
Governments never repay what they owe, they roll it over forever - that's how it's always been, and how it always will be - people still get paid in the end, but the public debt levels rarely ever reach zero; that is definitely the exception, rather than the rule.0 -
You haven't established that the low wages of the Swiss workers are justified - which you would need to do, to attack my argument - lets hear that argument?Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »You brought up the topic of consumer price indexes versus salary levels as a reason to justify the high wages of Irish drivers. But when it's clearly pointed out to you how over paid Irish Rail drivers are paid in relation to the ACTUAL most expensive EU country you resort to the burden of proof is on you despite the cold hard facts showing you that you are wrong.
At the end of the day Irish drivers are paid higher than Swiss drivers who live in the most expensive country in the EU while Ireland is 14th.
Or in other words you have no reasons and Occams Razor applies which is the Irish drivers are grossly, grossly overpaid as is.
The argument is over what level of wages is justified, not over what country has the lowest wages relative to cost of living - i.e. I am not going to accept your idea, that a 'race to the bottom' in wages is justified - you haven't presented any information, about the quality of pay or quality of work environment, of the Swiss workers.0 -
donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »If the government went completely mental and decided to disband IR and cancel all trains, Dublin would grind to a halt. The roads are knackered as is, can you imagine adding countless more commuters onto them? It'd be an absolute catastrophe.
100% agreed Dublin without the DART would be an unmitigated disaster. But that doesn't mean that it can't be disbanded / sold liquidated and operating again under another legal entity within a 24 hour period.0 -
KomradeBishop wrote: »You haven't established that the low wages of the Swiss workers are justified - which you would need to do, to attack my argument - lets hear that argument?
The argument is over what level of wages is justified, not over what country has the lowest wages relative to cost of living - i.e. I am not going to accept your idea, that a 'race to the bottom' in wages is justified - you haven't presented any information, about the quality of pay or quality of work environment, of the Swiss workers.
Oh right so you can use the point that Ireland has a high cost of living to justify the level of pay for IR drivers, but I cannot point out the inherent flaws if your argument?
Move the goalposts much ????? :P:P:P:P
Simple fact, Swiss train drivers living in the most expensive country in EU are paid less than Irish drivers who are living in the 14th most expensive or in other words Irish train drivers are grossly overpaid. No matter how you try and change the goalposts and ask me to provide information (considering you have provided nothing yet) it doesn't change that simple fact even if you wish really hard it will stay the same fact.
Even in simple silly land economics sure I agree let the train drivers have their restoration of pay, I've no problems with that but they must join the long list of workers a lot more deserving than them who should be dealt with first, they will be waiting a long time.0 -
yet the galway route has plenty of commercial bus services that can take that same passanger
actually, its doubtful the bus service would be able to take them without buying extra vehicles. that passenger will be unlikely to use the bus anyway. while passenger numbers are down and i find that a problem, the vast majority of routes in the country are doing fine. of course they can do better, but they are for the most part doing fine. there is some worry by me for my route for example, and we have a couple of others which will be gone within the next few years. but over all the vast majority of the network is doing fine, but could do better, i would agree on that.Railways are here ( still ) for complex reasons, few of which are " social"
that may be, i don't know. but if a government was really determined to get rid of the railway they would do it, i can bet my life on itticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
As inefficient (in both financial and social benefit interpretations) as that spending was, it's a fact that that money was paid to people, who then respent it into the economy, thus boosting the private economy.Yes, I'm sure every cent of the money spent from the public coffers to international consultancies on Irish Water did wonders to boost the Irish economy. You know, the same as all imports help the economy....... Oh wait, I think at least part of this might be backwards.
Realistically public spending can be on imports, which does not boost the economy, and may also not provide any benefits over an alternative solution. It is possible for money to be wasted in the public sector, including on these imports, even though you would have us believe any money spent there is actually a stimulus. Please stop trying to confuse the issue with the smoke and mirrors of false assertions, while accusing much less vague statements of trying to do that
That's still a bad waste of productivity - it should have been spent doing something better - but it's still a mathematical fact, that it boosted the amount of money flowing through the private economy.
You are right that if an excessive amount of the money goes into imports (the 'foreign sector'), that diminishes the boost to the private economy. Ireland currently exports way more than it imports though.0 -
donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »If the government went completely mental and decided to disband IR and cancel all trains, Dublin would grind to a halt. The roads are knackered as is, can you imagine adding countless more commuters onto them? It'd be an absolute catastrophe.
i never said that Dublin commuter rail should be shut
just the inter urban rail, they carry so few passengers that their transfer to the road would be detectable
however Dublin commuter could definitely be PPPed along the LUAS model, with a private operator but public owned infrastructure .0 -
that may be, i don't know. but if a government was really determined to get rid of the railway they would do it, i can bet my life on it
Maybe , but to date they have not had the courage. but like Beet, interurban rail has had its day in Ireland, funds will never be made available to bring the whole network up to modern high speed electric systems, and therefore it will slowly die away , next we'll see the removal of the Rosslare to Waterford track work , then the Nenagh Ballybrophy section, and then wexford to rosslare. ( all rumoured to be on the chopping block)
After that Dublin waterford looks very exposed, with low numbers travelling and very low line speeds, the station is now effectively reduced to a single platform " halt" ( it once had 8 platforms!)
piece by piece it falls away , but of course the staff will be paid more and more to run a smaller and smaller network0 -
Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »100% agreed Dublin without the DART would be an unmitigated disaster. But that doesn't mean that it can't be disbanded / sold liquidated and operating again under another legal entity within a 24 hour period.
really? the only thing that can happen within a 24 hour period is simply the company wound up and restarted under a new name with the same staff and management. effectively, a different way of rebrandingticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »really? the only thing that can happen within a 24 hour period is simply the company wound up and restarted under a new name with the same staff and management. effectively, a different way of rebranding
Again you show your very simple understanding of issues.
Let me explain in simple terms, a company is a legal entity, if a company is wound up and liquidated it is no longer a legal entity (doesn't exist and has no assets) , a new company is an entirely different legal entity and can take who and what they wish in terms of employees.
If you wanted to rebrand you simply send in a G2 Form to the Companies Registration Office to change the name and pay your marketing department to do their thing.
They are two entirely different things, so again apart from showing your complete lack of knowledge of something you are posting about, you still haven't answered any questions put to you on this thread.
Your really quite laughable at this stage to be honest.0
Advertisement