Sacked British RIM staffers to get minimum legal payout

Re: That BlackBerry has a *crap* camera

He is probably using an iPhone - I can't see a senior executive putting up with a Blackberry these days....

Re: That BlackBerry has a *crap* camera

my humble curve's camera can photo a sheet of A4 so you can read every word.... in decent light. The image in question looks like it is in some dark hole, which sounds about right.

Re: Marketing

Undoubtably true, but from a cursory examination of the tweet he doesn't say he actually ordered the fois gras.

Au contraire

Its a story about how, yet again, the executive class, which should regard itself as no more than a necessary overhead, is living it up and filling its boots whilst the people who do the real work have to tighten their belts again and again.

Its (almost) enough to turn you into a damned socialist.

Aux lanternes! Aux lanternes!

Re: Interested in how the company complies with the Law's

I feel sorry for those who remain in Slough.

Re: Minimum Legal Payout@Ironclad

"Of course it also makes it attractive for companies to hire in the UK knowing they can divest themselves of staff at relatively low cost."

Actually the cost of getting rid of people isn't important, it's how easy and quickly it can be done. The cost of most reorganisations is considerable, but even if you give people two year's salary, that's still a two year return on the "investment". In terms of the country specific costs, that's largely irrelevant because you don't plan to take on people and make them redundant.

What I didn't notice in the article was mention that earlier this year RIM gave the two "joint CEO's" who got the boot $12m for "loss of office". Now that's worse than the foie gras, in my view, because these two were the architects of the mess. So here's RIM's corporate values for you:

(a) If you are obscenely paid already but incompetent, get given an extra $6m to go away.

(b) If you are a corporate drone doing your best to keep the company going on a middling salary, get told to sod off in time for Christmas with a paltry few grand, and that only because the law says so.

Re: Shear Luxury

Your story about your last firm is quite common, sadly. RBS in particular have made a nice business out of doing this to a whole range of companies that they've lent to, in cahoots with the subsequent buyer and the administrators, and I think you'll read more about this

Not only do they shit on the employees, but these arrangements are specifically intended to shit on the investors who owned the original business, and the junior creditors (eg those who have sold things to the company). Key to it is the lender managing to trigger the insolvency of a cash strapped business that is otherwise fairly sound. Often the arrangement is wrapped up as a "prepack" administration, to make it all quick and profitable for the vultures (normally the senior secured lenders, and usually meaning the banks). Sometimes, rather than the banks, it is the original investors who use administration simply to dodge their liabilities, get out of employee obligations like pension commitments and bonuses, as well as losing all the debt the business had previously built up. Companies House should ban directors of insolvent companies from being a director for five years, and the law should ban them from buying the assets of a company they have been a director of at the time, or immediately prior to insolvency.

Not all, but many of these deals are blatant and wilful fraud, but they continue because the goverrnment are (still) in the pocket of the banks, the FSA, well, not worth their own weight in shit, and the SFO are just out of their depth and too slow, and the courts still treat white collar crime as no more serious than parking offences.

To anybody thinking about fraud, go on help yourself! Nobody is likely to catch you, and even if they do the penalties are pathetic.