I actually agree with you.dvbuk55 wrote:I have no idea why there is an insistence that there be a time limit set on terms and conditions, no one in this land has a cast iron guarantee that any business structure will survive long enough to ensure T and Cs will not be changed over a given period - 3 years in my mind is not sustainable let alone 5, 7 or 10. Providing that no changes would take place without agreement, which can only be discussed when the circumstances are known.
Pay and Pensions are the two factors which need to be agreed.
I've long made the point that, should any person or company gather a majority shareholding, then they'd never honour any agreement.
I also don't believe any such agreement can be legally binding.
The only thing I will say is, if there isn't any majority shareholder that can gain overall control of RM at any point during the agreed time period, be it 3 years or 10 years, then maybe the union would be able to start court proceedings for breach of contract (or some similar angle of attack). But I severely doubt it, I just don't think it would hold up. So, whatever is agreed to, can be broken in my view.
I actually think the 3 year deal was aimed at keeping industrial relations workable, so that when (and it's inevitable in my opinion) the Government decides to sell off their remaining shares, they would be able to get the best possible price for them.