Taxi Driver Online

It has been reported that the proposal to merge City and Central includes a provision for both management committees to remain in place for a year.

It is believed that this is being suggested to allow for a smoother transition to the "professional management" for the merged companies.

Viewers of this forum will recall that such a model has been attempted before. At a recent AGM Central's members were presented with a proposal for its main office bearers to become employees of the company. That proposal was rejected by members.

And haven't Central brought in "professional management" before, only to demote the individual to office manager and retain control of the day to day running of the company in the committee?

Now we see a similar proposal being mooted, with the potential for committee members to become "employees" of the company.

It is likely that any decision in respect of candidates for the "professional management" of the merged company would fall to those committee members drawn from both existing companies.

Isn't it also entirely likely that members of those committees would offer themselves for consideration for the new management positions, their candidacy based on their "experience" of the business and the trade.

Such argument may, unsurprisingly, prove "irresitable" to the new joint committee. With these interview arrangements, these candidates may well be successful in their applications.

This brings a comparable situation:-

Now, if you believe that a committee member is no longer suitable to hold the post, he can be voted off.

Following the merger, dispensing with the services of the same individual will be extremely difficult. He or she will be protected by employment Law. The feet will be under the table and "members" will have little say in it.

Unless the existing, and the proposed joint, committee members are disbarred from offering themselves as candidates for the new "professional management" positions, wouldn't the effect be to simply transfer control of the company from the members to those appointed to the new highly paid management positions - where employment law will have effectively given them a job for life?

Now tell me where I've got this wrong.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

The cuckoo in the nest

BROOD PARASITES

Brood parasites are organisms that use the strategy of brood parasitsm ... involving the manipulation and use of host individuals ....

As this behaviour is damaging to the host, it will often result in an evolutionary arms race between parasite and host.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

Dod, Les, Murray and Bill are trying to steal your companies right from under your very noses. Colky and Fleming's plan, was to use management consultants to convince the members, they were worth 50K salaries plus re-election every three years. Now it's a merger with both committees remaining in place for at least a year, or so they say.

The truth is, professionals brought in to run the new super company don't need 10 numpties to help them through the process.

If both committees were really acting in their member interests, they would disqualify themselves from the process. The feasibility study and forthcoming business plan would explain how the company would be organised in the interest of its members, and that includes the management structure. The capacity in which a committee would operate, if at all, would be up for discussion by the body of the new company membership. There would be no committeemen welding themselves into salaried positions without the management and members determining a need for it first.


You have been warned.

_________________
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, "Animal Farm"

Thing is, if it were me, and I know the trade wants to disregard my opinion, but I vouch they do so at their peril, if it were me,, I would be looking for a SWOT analysis of the proposal.

To proceed to any next stage, I would want to know what the Strengths of any merger would ne, what would be the Weaknesss, what Opportunities would result and definitely what the Threats would be.

Without this being clearly stated to members, I would construe this as being half-cocked or someone trying to hide the truth.

Now I know that the cretins on the fannie forum fear me. The rants of the so-called honest cabby neing a case in point.

But I have nothing to lose here. The members only have their companies to lose.

I want the merger to go ahead. because the certainty is that it will destroy the companies and herald the de-restriction which the skull and I are going to make happen.

Vote merger. You know it makes sense.

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"

_________________
IDFIMH

_________________
Skull, "You are a police inspector, aren't you?"
Cab Inspector Smith, "Yes."
Skull, "So, are you going to tell Mr Taylor what his rights are?"
Smith, "And ... What rights?"