London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

"For many years there has been a good relationship between employees/unions and management Jansen chose to ignore that and walk away from negotiations so if he gets away with this where does it stop."

My understanding is that BT went as high as they were willing to go, with a final offer. Didn't BT up the original offer from £1,200 to £1,500 during negotiations? So the Union secured an extra £300 across the board, BT disagreeing to go higher isn't "walking away". The Union could have accepted the extra £300 as a win, instead they've decided to start a fight. Failing to agree isn't walking away, unless you define walking away as the Union not getting their way.

"Low paid get 8% higher paid minimum 3.5%. The union said they accept rises should be skewed to low paid. They will negotiate a flat rate of , eg, £1750 or a One off bonus on top of the £1500, meaning more lower paid secure 10% and the higher paid end up with a minimum 4%."

Where did you get that information from? As I haven't seen that myself.
An extra £250, on top of the existing pay rise, comes to £20.83 a month. £5.21 a week is hardly life changing, and arguably unnoticeable, hardly worth losing wages and pension contributions over.
The CWU have been quite vociferous, and loitering outside someone's property is potentially harassment and unacceptable, what were they thinking? Put banners up outside BT commercial properties, but outside someone's house, really? Add to that, they are telling nutters where Philip Jansen's family may be staying, potentially encouraging others to harass them, or worse. I wonder how the Union would feel if Philip Jansen sent people round to the Union leaderships houses and putting up banners outside their houses.
The narrative pushed by the Government is that Energy prices will drop, and supply chain issues will ease, reducing inflation next year, so is this the time to pick a fight, at the risk of creating a persistant inflationary environment? My pension pay rise this year was just over 2% this year, the most I can expect is around 4.2% capped pay rises; I believe the BT pensions are capped around 5%, what happens to them in a high inflation wage-price spiaral? And as I pointed out previously, but quoting a metaphor I heard on CNBC, the BOE Hammer is interest rates, with the nail being inflation, can the lower paid cope with big increases in thei mortgage interest rate?
I own my house, I have investments on top of my pension, so I'll be ok. I've been around long enough to see the relationship between big pay rises and inflation; Should the unions get their way, with big pay rises, there may be unintended consequences going forward, like big hikes in interest rates.

"The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has upheld the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) decision on 5 of the 6 challenged grounds.

CMA Chief Executive Andrea Coscelli said:

We welcome this resounding endorsement by the Competition Appeal Tribunal of the CMA’s approach to reviewing mergers that may harm innovation. Innovation is a vital part of the competitive process, particularly in digital markets. We also welcome the Tribunal’s endorsement of the ‘care and careful consideration’ given to this issue by the independent Inquiry Group in this case.

This judgment helps reinforce our ability to protect competition and innovation in digital markets.

Last December, Meta launched an appeal against the CMA’s decision that Meta’s acquisition of Giphy would lead to a substantial lessening of competition. Following an in-depth investigation, the CMA had found that Meta’s purchase of Giphy would reduce competition between social media platforms and had already removed Giphy as a potential challenger in the display advertising market in the UK. The CMA’s decision required Meta to sell Giphy to a purchaser approved by the CMA.

The Tribunal handed down its judgment on Meta’s appeal today. The Tribunal upheld the CMA’s decision on 5 of the 6 challenged grounds. In particular, the CAT had “no hesitation” in concluding that the CMA’s finding that the merger between Meta and Giphy substantially reduced dynamic competition was lawful. Dynamic competition is what leads firms to innovate, through a process of creating new, better products for consumers over time. Giphy had created a new form of advertising using gifs in messaging, called paid alignment, which the Court agreed was driving dynamic competition that was lost when Meta bought Giphy.

The Tribunal only found in Meta’s favour in relation to the treatment of certain third-party confidential information. The Tribunal considered that the CMA’s approach to disclosure in this case overly favoured confidentiality concerns of third parties. The impact of this on the CMA’s decision will be determined in due course."

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cat-endorses-cma-assessment-that-meta-s-purchase-of-giphy-harms-competition

Th judgement's in:

"For the reasons given in the Judgment, the Tribunal unanimously dismissed all of Meta’s Grounds except part of Ground 4. The Tribunal decided that:

In relation to Ground 1, the CMA correctly directed itself to the test it had to apply and the decision made by the CMA was one that it was entitled to make.

In relation to Ground 2, the CMA acted rationally in order to put itself in a position properly to apply the substantial lessening of competition test in a case of dynamic competition.

As regards Ground 3, the CMA’s conclusions as to the counterfactual are, as conclusions in relation the static competition position, unassailable.

In respect of the first element of Ground 4, the Tribunal doubted whether the CMA can be criticised for making insufficient inquiries of any person assuming there was proper consultation and saw no basis for suggesting that the CMA’s investigation was impeachable on a judicial review. In respect of the second element of Ground 4, the CMA failed to properly consult and wrongly excised portions from the Decision.
Ground 4A fails as the named individual members of the CMA group are not expected to personally conduct a merger investigation and personally draft the CMA’s provisional findings and final decision.

Ground 5 is dismissed as it is predicated on a successful challenge to the Horizontal SLC and the Tribunal has concluded that Meta’s substantive challenges to the Horizontal SLC in Grounds 1 to 3 all fail.

On the basis that the CMA’s decisions regarding the Horizontal and Vertical SLCs are unimpeachable, Ground 6 fails as ss.35 and 41 EA02 confer a broad and wide discretion on the CMA in crafting remedies in relation to completed mergers and the remedies ordered by the CMA were not irrational and well within its remedial powers.

This is an unofficial summary prepared by the Registry of the Competition Appeal Tribunal."

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/142941221-meta-platforms-inc-v-competition-and-markets-authority-judgment-14-jun-2022

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for fleccy

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)