A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Oh dear me



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 15th 16, 07:37 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 223
Default Oh dear me

Max Demian writes:

If I was paying £25m pa for a show I would expect the presenters to be
included, as chattel slaves if necessary.


Or under TUPE if not.
  #22  
Old September 15th 16, 09:53 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Duncanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,176
Default Oh dear me

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:37:43 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:

Max Demian writes:

If I was paying 25m pa for a show I would expect the presenters to be
included, as chattel slaves if necessary.


Or under TUPE if not.


smile

Being pedantic: TUPE doesn't apply in the case of Mel and Sue.
They are employed by Love Productions. There is no change of ownership
of Love Productions so there is no "TU" (Transfer of Undertaking) as in
"TUPE".

I assume that M & S are employed under fixed term contracts and will
continue until the end of their contracts.



--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
  #23  
Old September 15th 16, 11:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,663
Default Oh dear me

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:37:43 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:
Max Demian writes:


If I was paying 25m pa for a show I would expect the presenters

to be
included, as chattel slaves if necessary.


Or under TUPE if not.


TUPE protects employees from their employer, not the other way round.
And applies to hoi polloi, not high falutin' TV presenters.

--
Max Demian
  #24  
Old September 16th 16, 09:46 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,906
Default Oh dear me

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 07:55:05 +0100, Bob Latham
wrote:

TUPE protects employees from their employer, not the other way round.
And applies to hoi polloi, not high falutin' TV presenters.


Tupe is a facade. It is supposed to guarantee employee terms and
conditions after a take over and is used to convince staff they'll be ok
so the transfer goes ahead without a fuss. The guarantee isn't worth the
paper it is written on because the employer can make changes if they wish
to provided they can justify it with one of 3 reasons which a cost,
procedure or technical.

Don't trust tupe it means nothing. All in my opinion of course.


Not just your opinion. My experience supports it too. When a company I
worked for was sold, one of the first things the new owners did was to
gather everybody together (It wasn't a huge company) ostensibly to
introduce themselves and reassure us that there would be no immediate
drastic changes (perhaps to stop people being panicked into leaving en
masse). "Don't worry" they said, "We're not just going to start
sacking people", and then within a few months they began to do exactly
that. Perhaps they thought we were stupid, or had forgotten what
they'd said.The first ones to go were the experienced ones who had
been there the longest (and coincidentally must have been the most
expensive), and over the next year so two they gradually worked their
way down. Since then I've heard on the grapevine that the company
currently employs none of the original staff who had made it what it
was, except for a few who were given the opportunity to re-apply for
their old jobs, or slightly altered and re-named versions of them, at
lower salaries of course.

Rod.
  #25  
Old September 16th 16, 10:02 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Crosland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 511
Default Oh dear me

On 14/09/2016 23:04, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 14/09/2016 20:56, tim... wrote:

wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
The BBC fell 10m short of the amount of money required to keep The
Great
British Bake Off, BBC News understands.

The corporation is thought to have offered 15m per year to keep the
programme on the BBC.

That would have been double the amount the BBC currently pays for the
show and its sister programmes such as An Extra Slice and the Sport
Relief specials.

But it is understood Love Productions refused to entertain any offers
below 25m per year.

This is a consequence of having programmes made by independent (non-BBC,
non-ITV, non-CH4) company which retains the rights to the format of the
programme. The production company can sell their product to the
highest-bidding distributor. Looks as if BBC need to to tighten up their
legal agreements for formats to programmes - assuming that they (and not
the independent programme maker) has the original creative idea for the
format.


I've never watched it, but how does the "creative input" for bake off
differ
from simply being "Masterchef makes cakes"

tim


"Creative Input" is doing the baking in a tent.


No it is having four overpaid people rather than two.


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid
  #26  
Old September 16th 16, 10:48 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,663
Default Oh dear me

On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 07:55:05 +0100, Bob Latham
wrote:
In article ,
Max Demian wrote:


TUPE protects employees from their employer, not the other way

round.
And applies to hoi polloi, not high falutin' TV presenters.


Tupe is a facade. It is supposed to guarantee employee terms and
conditions after a take over and is used to convince staff they'll

be ok
so the transfer goes ahead without a fuss. The guarantee isn't

worth the
paper it is written on because the employer can make changes if

they wish
to provided they can justify it with one of 3 reasons which a

cost,
procedure or technical.


Don't trust tupe it means nothing. All in my opinion of course.


Like the bogus 'consultation' exercises they have when they've
already decided who to make redundant.

--
Max Demian
  #27  
Old September 16th 16, 11:29 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Woody[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,581
Default Oh dear me


"Max Demian" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 07:55:05 +0100, Bob Latham
wrote:
In article ,
Max Demian wrote:


TUPE protects employees from their employer, not the other way

round.
And applies to hoi polloi, not high falutin' TV presenters.


Tupe is a facade. It is supposed to guarantee employee terms and
conditions after a take over and is used to convince staff they'll

be ok
so the transfer goes ahead without a fuss. The guarantee isn't

worth the
paper it is written on because the employer can make changes if

they wish
to provided they can justify it with one of 3 reasons which a

cost,
procedure or technical.


Don't trust tupe it means nothing. All in my opinion of course.



Well, not quite. If someone transfers from one company to another
under TUPE their rights are protected for two years, that is for
instance if made redundant in those two years then full previous
service counts as does redundancy terms etc. If they want to change
the structure then they have to negotiate and usually make some sort
of buy-out offer in addition to any other employment rights. It is
surprising how often the new employer terms and conditions are better
than those already pertaining - after all they have bought the company
(or whatever) and need to keep the employees happy.

I've been through it twice and TUPE does work.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com


  #28  
Old September 16th 16, 01:28 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 933
Default Oh dear me

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
Couldn't disagree more, I've been through it twice and my wife once and it
was an utter sham. The new people changed everything in the first couple
of months as they legally can, provided they can blame cost procedure
changes or technical reasons.

If someone tells you you're protected by tupe look for another job
quickly.

It's just a management BS tool like Investors in People.


Here's a story from long ago, before employee rights and TUPE were ever
thought of.

In the 1920s my great grandpa, who worked in an iron foundry, got a job at a
foundry somewhere in Birmingham, although he was from Dewsbury.

All went well for a few months, and then he and several mates turned up at
work one morning and a new foreman was in charge. Oh, youre George
Thompsons men are you? Right, out! Im having no George Thompsons men
here. Im the new gaffer here. George Thompsons finished and Ive started.
And so they were dismissed, just like that. They had no money because they'd
used up their week's wage over the weekend. So they had to walk all the way
back home, which took them just over a week. They had to sleep in boiler
houses (somewhere warm - boiler firemen were happy to let them "sleep on the
coal") and they'd sung in pubs to earn a bit of pin money.

It was grim in those days :-( I wonder why a new foreman would dismiss all
the men that the old foreman had employed, rather than carrying on using
them to avoid training new men. Sounds like sour grapes and "I'll do it just
because I can do".

  #29  
Old September 16th 16, 02:29 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
James Heaton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Oh dear me


"Woody" wrote in message
...

"Max Demian" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 07:55:05 +0100, Bob Latham
wrote:
In article ,
Max Demian wrote:


TUPE protects employees from their employer, not the other way

round.
And applies to hoi polloi, not high falutin' TV presenters.


Tupe is a facade. It is supposed to guarantee employee terms and
conditions after a take over and is used to convince staff they'll

be ok
so the transfer goes ahead without a fuss. The guarantee isn't

worth the
paper it is written on because the employer can make changes if

they wish
to provided they can justify it with one of 3 reasons which a

cost,
procedure or technical.


Don't trust tupe it means nothing. All in my opinion of course.



Well, not quite. If someone transfers from one company to another under
TUPE their rights are protected for two years


No, the 3 exemptions outlined above apply from day 1 - known as the 'ETO
exemptions'

Economic - business needs to make savings
Technical - equipment/processes
Crucially - organisational - structure of the company. In practice, it is
not too difficult to make a case for restructuring an acquired business that
will pass the organisational exemption.

https://www.gov.uk/transfers-takeove...ment-contracts
gives more detail

James

  #30  
Old September 16th 16, 06:58 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 944
Default Oh dear me

On 16/09/2016 15:57, Martin wrote:

One of them thinks he is going to replace Chris Evans in Top Gear.


Mary Berry could not be any worse than Chris :-)

Jim
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.