Jump to content

Harecastle Tunnel employees to be made redundant.


wandering snail

Featured Posts

45 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Repeatedly some on the forum say that C&RT is not a charity because, 

they don't help the poor

they don't send food overseas

they don't save Donkey's

etc etc etc

 

The oft held perception of a charity is that it must 'give to the poor' and this is (probably) reinforced by the Oxford Dictionary definitions :

 

charity
noun
  1.  
    an organization set up to provide help and raise money for those in need.
    "the charity provides practical help for homeless people"
     
  2. the voluntary giving of help, typically in the form of money, to those in need.
    "the care of the poor must not be left to private charity"

 

C&RT is a limited company with Charitable purposes which are detailed in its Articles of Association (which I listed in post #34) but by many, "preserve, protect, operate and manage Inland Waterways for public benefit" is not seen as a charitable activity.

 

Ask the "man on the Clapham omnibus" for examples of what he thinks a charity does. 

But that is a definition of charity with a small c. CaRT, however, is a Registered Charity, with capital letters, which is defined and regulated by law and does not depend at all on what a dictionary, or anyone else, chooses to define it. There may well also be organisations that fit the above dictionary descriptions but, if not Registered then neither their obligations and benefits, and those of their donors, are protected.

 

Interestingly, as the purpose of creating the Charity Commission, which registers charities and regulates them, was to provide such protection, the requirement to cite the charity number in many places has led to many donors and grant givers to use this as a primary form of identity check and 'guarantee' that the recipient is genuine etc. There are exceptions known as Exempt Charities. They have the general benefits of being a Registered Charity but self regulate or are regulated separately. One of the most numerous are the Parochial Church Councils which form the legal basis of each CofE parish/parish church. The lack of a charity number can sometimes be a pain!

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

It makes a profit?

I meant a Registered Charity in general -which was the point being made in the post to which I referred. At some level, all charities have to make a profit in the long term or, like any organisation, they go bust. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Repeatedly some on the forum say that C&RT is not a charity because, 

they don't help the poor

they don't send food overseas

they don't save Donkey's

etc etc etc

 

The oft held perception of a charity is that it must 'give to the poor' ...

I look on C&RT as somewhat akin to the National Trust.  Both preserve assets for access by the public, but also charge for access/ services, have plenty of employees, and struggle to raise enough money to fund everything they would like to do ...

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Cheese said:

I look on C&RT as somewhat akin to the National Trust.  Both preserve assets for access by the public, but also charge for access/ services, have plenty of employees, and struggle to raise enough money to fund everything they would like to do ...

 

A good comparison, but I'd suggest that the NT are more successful in both raising funds (having 'Members' helps) and, maintaining their assets. 

 

It is interesting to look at the NT's sources of income - something C&RT could learn from.

 

The NT's income from memberships (is £243m against a cost of raising that sum of £57m) is almost the same as C&RT's total income, add in the 'legacies' (£66m) and the sale of 'renewable energy' (£72m) and their income is not reliant on the (£7m) Government grants (C&RT = £50m)

 

If C&RT could make the waterways 'appealing' (maybe they are trying via their 'Better by Water' advertising) then I'm sure they could actually achieve, in part, what the NT do.

 

 

 

Screenshot (358).png

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

A good comparison, but I'd suggest that the NT are more successful in both raising funds (having 'Members' helps) and, maintaining their assets. 

 

It is interesting to look at the NT's sources of income - something C&RT could learn from.

 

The NT's income from memberships (is £243m against a cost of raising that sum of £57m) is almost the same as C&RT's total income, add in the 'legacies' (£66m) and the sale of 'renewable energy' (£72m) and their income is not reliant on the (£7m) Government grants (C&RT = £50m)

 

If C&RT could make the waterways 'appealing' (maybe they are trying via their 'Better by Water' advertising) then I'm sure they could actually achieve, in part, what the NT do.

 

 

 

Screenshot (358).png

But the NT have something to offer their members such as free access to buildings or free parking. We were members of the NT when we used to visit the Lake District a lot as it saved us more on parking than the membership.  CRT don't really have anything to offer in return for becoming a friend that you can't get for free.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

But the NT have something to offer their members such as free access to buildings or free parking. We were members of the NT when we used to visit the Lake District a lot as it saved us more on parking than the membership.  CRT don't really have anything to offer in return for becoming a friend that you can't get for free.

 

The NT offer something which IMO is even more important than the car parks (and loving in the Lake District they are important to me).   That is the right to have a vote at the AGM not a big amount of input/control but more than you get for being a friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

But the NT have something to offer their members such as free access to buildings or free parking. We were members of the NT when we used to visit the Lake District a lot as it saved us more on parking than the membership.  CRT don't really have anything to offer in return for becoming a friend that you can't get for free.

 

Agree - but C&RT should find some angle to get support - how about adopt / sponsor a lock ?

You used to need a licence to use your bike on the towpath - but not now.

Use of the towpath by walkers etc is 'permissive' (the vast majority are not Public Footpaths), is there a way to charge for access.

Can a workboat be sponsored and named to the sponsor ?

 

Sometimes we need to think outside the box.

 

You can go to Africa and watch Lions etc free, but people will still sponsor a 'Lion' and pay £3 per month, or Sponsor a 'Blind' dog etc etc

 

Studies have shown that once a direct debit is set up people rarely if ever will cancel one for £3 or less so if you can get a 'nominal sum' DD set up then there is a fair chance of keeping it in perpetuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

No: it does not distribute its profits.

 

It doesn't make profits, it (would) make surpluses - it doesn't have shareholders. Alan de E has explained the body's constitution above. If income exceeds receipts, it doesn't make a loss. it has a deficit. It may be thought I am splitting hairs, but these concepts are important for tax purposes and make a world of difference in financial terms.  

 

 

Edited by Machpoint005
sp.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Can a workboat be sponsored and named to the sponsor ?

 

Sometimes we need to think outside the box.

 

You can go to Africa and watch Lions etc free, but people will still sponsor a 'Lion' and pay £3 per month, or Sponsor a 'Blind' dog etc etc

Sponsor a new sign? Sponsor a directors bonus? Sponsor a blue shirt's redundancy package?

Edited by Jen-in-Wellies
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

It doesn't make profits, it (would) make surpluses - it doesn't have shareholders. Alan de E has explained the body's constitution above. If income exceeds receipts, it doesn't make a loss. it has a deficit. It may be thought I am splitting hairs, but these concepts are important for tax purposes and make a world of difference in financial terms.  

 

 

Profit
Charities can make a profit or surplus. But all the surplus funds have to go back to the charity. Similarly, charities can and do invest their money in order to generate a return. But that return can only go back to the charity to spend on its cause.

 

from https://www.ncvo.org.uk/about-us/media-centre/briefings/1742-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-charity-now#:~:text=Charities can make a profit,to spend on its cause.

 

and 

 

Your charity will not pay tax on profits it makes from trade if:

you are making money to help your charity’s aims and objectives, known as ‘primary purpose trading’
your level of trade that is not primary purpose falls below the charity’s small trading tax exemption limit
you trade through a subsidiary trading company
Your charity must pay tax on any other profits.

 

from https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charities-and-trading

 

Edited by Mike Todd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dmr said:

A charity is simply a company that does not have shareholders and does not pay a dividend to those shareholders, any "profit" must go back into itself, it does not have to do "charitable work" or give anything away to the needy. Most Universities are now very big and ruthless businesses but they are also charities.

 

...............Dave

PETANs where and may still be a charity, they were the body that did the training for the Offfshore oil and gas industry in East Anglia. A small charity and first name terms. The boss ran a roller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, nicknorman said:

The tunnel person I spoke to in July said he had previously been a CRT employee, but had recently been payed off and re-employed by an agency to do the same job. He was pissed off because he hadn’t been paid for several weeks.

 

So it does rather smack of a smokescreen to get rid of the paid staff and replace with volunteers. Pretty despicable, and having seen what poor supervision and standardisation the volocky programme suffers from, I don’t relish it.

I suspect this happened a few years ago  about the time they stopped getting paid for their lunch breaks, and were forced to stop tunnel traffic for that half hour, which actually meant a lot longer as no-one could be in the tunnel at that time either, and their lunch time was specified so they couldn't be flexible as they had been in the past.

6 hours ago, RS2021 said:

 

As you did you read your letter/contract of appointment. That will say who your employer is. Also check that they are a legal entity. Many large organisations trade on a headline brand, but have many subsidiaries using similar names. e.g. Your company is called Mega Corp you think you work for Mega Corp, but the actual name of the company is Mega Corp Holdings plc. and you don't work for them, you work for Mega Corp (UK 1999) Ltd.

 

If you started working for one company and ended up working for another, then either you have signed a new contract voluntarily, or have been TUPE'd across. Either way you should know.

They were seasonal employees, presumably on a new contract each time, so they probably just assumed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I suspect this happened a few years ago  about the time they stopped getting paid for their lunch breaks, and were forced to stop tunnel traffic for that half hour, which actually meant a lot longer as no-one could be in the tunnel at that time either, and their lunch time was specified so they couldn't be flexible as they had been in the past.

That will from memory have been down to the introduction of the Working Time Directive. Many employers had to make adjustments to working patterns in order to comply or face prosecution with the potential for unlimited fines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

That will from memory have been down to the introduction of the Working Time Directive. Many employers had to make adjustments to working patterns in order to comply or face prosecution with the potential for unlimited fines.

 

With the Working Time Directive you can either comply by aversging a 48 hour week over a rolling 17 week period, or sign a notice agreeing to be exempt.

 

The last company I worked for refused to employ anyone who would not sign the disclaimer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cuthound said:

 

With the Working Time Directive you can either comply by aversging a 48 hour week over a rolling 17 week period, or sign a notice agreeing to be exempt.

 

The last company I worked for refused to employ anyone who would not sign the disclaimer.

There was some clause about max time without a break ISTR. We had to ensure breaks were taken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Happy Nomad said:

There was some clause about max time without a break ISTR. We had to ensure breaks were taken. 

 

When working for my last company fitting out data centres, there was one occasion where I started work at 07:00 on a Saturday and didn't leave it until 05:00 on the Monday morning.

 

Food and drink was taken as and when I could fit them in.

 

Thankfully it was a one off occurrence in a 6 year employment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One issue is that it isn't really much of a job.  I wonder if they could just abandon booking completely and have a rule like "entry northbound only between 00 and 10 minutes past even hours; southbound only between 00 and 10 minutes past odd hours", and controlled by traffic lights?  That would accommodate say 10 boats at minute intervals.  How often would capacity be exceeded?

 

Or did they used to do something like this and there were problems?

 

Safety advice is perhaps better made available via websites, or directly by hire companies, supplemented by volunteers if onsite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Cheese said:

One issue is that it isn't really much of a job.  I wonder if they could just abandon booking completely and have a rule like "entry northbound only between 00 and 10 minutes past even hours; southbound only between 00 and 10 minutes past odd hours", and controlled by traffic lights?  That would accommodate say 10 boats at minute intervals.  How often would capacity be exceeded?

 

Or did they used to do something like this and there were problems?

 

Safety advice is perhaps better made available via websites, or directly by hire companies, supplemented by volunteers if onsite.

Someone needs to be there to open\close the doors though and put the fans on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Cheese said:

One issue is that it isn't really much of a job.  I wonder if they could just abandon booking completely and have a rule like "entry northbound only between 00 and 10 minutes past even hours; southbound only between 00 and 10 minutes past odd hours", and controlled by traffic lights?  That would accommodate say 10 boats at minute intervals.  How often would capacity be exceeded?

 

Or did they used to do something like this and there were problems?

 

Safety advice is perhaps better made available via websites, or directly by hire companies, supplemented by volunteers if onsite.

Might not be ‘much of a job’. 
But I think it’s a much needed and important job. 
Look what happened at Barton tunnel last week when two boats went in from either end and got stuck. 
 

I don’t like the way jobs can be axed to save pennies when CRT waste a lot of money in many many different ways around the system. 
 

No one reads websites for safety info do they?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

When working for my last company fitting out data centres, there was one occasion where I started work at 07:00 on a Saturday and didn't leave it until 05:00 on the Monday morning.

 

Food and drink was taken as and when I could fit them in.

 

Thankfully it was a one off occurrence in a 6 year employment.

I know the feeling

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cuthound said:

 

When working for my last company fitting out data centres, there was one occasion where I started work at 07:00 on a Saturday and didn't leave it until 05:00 on the Monday morning.

 

Food and drink was taken as and when I could fit them in.

 

Thankfully it was a one off occurrence in a 6 year employment.

Been there, done that. Thomas Cook HQ relocation August BH weekend 2016.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.