Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Jul 1, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Lunacy? Or a pre-emptive strike by BVT?
What is not mentioned is that this is part of a sliding scale of planning ranging from "work explosion, take on more people" to the worst case scenario seen here.
This is very selective quoting, focusing on only one part of the article and taking it out of context.
I just added this to the other CVF thread.
Question: My bold. Why is the MoD - ie the taxpayer - willing to pay redundancies to private sector workers?
Depending on the nature of the contract and industrial agreeement signed to form up BVT - if the alliance was contractually guranteed a certain level of workload, which MOD did not then meet and layoffs resulted, we may be liable to pay for it, as its our fault?
A lot of the problems linked to procurement tie into the fact that MOD wouldnt support workflows until it had a single entity to deal with, while industry wouldn't merge till it had a guranteed workflow!
So, potentially another cunning 'success' for New Labour and its (defence) industrial policy?
It seems that the pigeons have come home to roost. Remember Lord Drayson's Defence White Paper on Defence Industrial Strategy published in Dec 2005? It sought to ensure that the capability requirements of the Armed Forces can be met now and in the future by giving industry a clearer idea of MOD priorities; allowing them to make informed decisions on restructuring. It also sought to promote a sustainable defence industrial base that maintains the industrial capabilities needed in the UK to ensure national security.
The bit about the Maritime Sector starts on page 68.
Separate names with a comma.