Day 302 - 18 Nov 96 - Page 19
1 which were the same matters which we put to Mr. Nicholson
2 and he recognised those as valid, consistent and important
3 reasons.
4
5 I will look at turnover. I might as well look at turnover
6 now. There is the US turnover figures, which I don't know
7 where they were put, but the only comment we have to make
8 about that obviously is December 1989, which might be a
9 good reference point, it was 189 percent turnover in the
10 States, at the same time as it was 195.6 percent or
11 something in the UK. That would be a relevant date. In
12 fact, in September and October 1989 it was 197 percent. So
13 we are talking about similar levels of turnover in the UK
14 and US at that time, late 1989.
15
16 And, in fact, in the States it had been, in previous years,
17 higher, so that in the same months in 1986 it was between
18 224 and 241 percent turnover. The drift seems to be going
19 down, so it is quite possible that the 300 percent figure
20 given in the fact sheet may have been the official figure
21 at that time in the States when the fact sheet was written
22 and researched. I don't know, not having anything to do
23 with producing that fact sheet, whatever Lord Justice Neill
24 said. So that is a massive turnover figure. And
25 Mr. Pearson deals with turnover in his evidence. I am
26 going to look through his evidence in some detail.
27
28 On top of what I just read out from Mr. Beavers' evidence
29 about reasons given, consistent and important reasons given
30 by workers for quitting their jobs, he said on day 125,
31 page 21 and the next couple of pages too, "no notice is
32 required" to "terminate" an employee. And the company
33 would "reserve the right to change any term or condition of
34 the employment without prior consultation or agreement".
35
36 Then he said "they have no guaranteed employment rights,
37 they do no have guaranteed employment or guaranteed
38 conditions of employment". That last one was on day 125,
39 page 23, line 8.
40
41 So, in summary, we have all the power in the hands of the
42 management who never get -- or he did not know of a single
43 example of anyone being disciplined or sacked for violating
44 company policy. All the power in the hands of the
45 management, absolutely no rights whatsoever for the
46 employees, a company committed to opposing trade unions, by
47 his own admission, which would be the only protection apart
48 from statutory protection that employees could have. The
49 statutory protection such as it exists is continuously --
50 well, we have an example, is undermined by the company,
51 that young people are targeted who are inexperienced and
52 looking for an identity, i.e. the most vulnerable section
53 of the workforce. The pay could not be lower, virtually
54 could not be lower without being illegal.
55
56 And there is an admission that the company only pays
57 overtime, which he agrees is fair, but they only pay it
58 because otherwise -- they only pay it when they are forced
59 to. And it is high pressure work based on a global policy,
60 hustle policy which has been condemned by the UK Health and
