Steve Hayes wrote: > Not so, some of the ground staff in the East Midlands area have gone. For > instance, >the maintenance forman on the Grantham has gone. I understand >that there will not >be a forman allocated to one individual waterway but that they will >circulate to wherever they are needed.
Well, perhaps that is an exception to the rule. All I can repeat is that I was told in no uncertain terms that none of the 180 jobs were ground staff. Perhaps the situation you mention above is just a change in operating methods. Anyway, I'm only quoting what I have been told. If you think I've been misinformed or that BW are changing the rules why not ask them and see what they say. That's how I got my information; I find them more than happy to clear up misunderstandings. Cheers Will > > Steve > > Will Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sue Burchett wrote: >>> But the question for us, as users, is whether BW is a better organisation >>> with those 180 _posts_ removed. Does BW function better without (say) >>> two central freight staff, a distinct Birmingham-based unit, a dedicated >>> regeneration director - whoever they may be? Is BW improved by no longer >>> having a heritage person in the waterway unit Chris D mentioned? >>> cheers >>> Richard >> Can the system manage with losing more on the ground staff? It isn't just >> office staff that are going and not being replaced. >> Sue nb Nackered Navvy >> > > My understanding...as a result of a direct question to BW, is > that there are no ground staff amongst the 180 redundancies. They > are all admin. > > Cheers > > > -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
