back to article BT accused of 'misinformation' campaign ahead of strikes

BT stands accused of running a "misinformation" campaign against unionized staff at its Openreach subsidiary as tens of thousands of network engineers prepare to go on their first national strike since 1987. The industrial action is due to start tomorrow and run again on August 1 in protest over pay award in April, and the …

  1. Will Godfrey Silver badge

    Dirty tricks?

    I can't believe that such an honorable company as BT would indulge in such tactics.

    /s

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Dirty tricks?

      and naturally the CWU is totally honorable

      Hence why they re also bring the postal workers out on strike...

      /s

      1. gandalfcn Silver badge

        Re: Dirty tricks?

        Whataboutism is a major proof of having no argument.

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: Dirty tricks?

          The press release section of the CWU website is quite educational - very few releases in the years prior to June/July, where there is a flood of releases about the postal worker's strike, including one crowing about how it will be the largest.

          It would seem, although you won't find this out from the CWU, the fundamental complaint is that BT gave the workers the bonus without getting the CWU's prior approval.

          Not saying that BT couldn't afford to give more, but my approach would be more along the lines of thankyou very much, now when are you paying the remaining 25%...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Dirty tricks?

            Roland06, you've been posting rubbish on The Register for years. Often it's disinformation, misinformation, fake news, lies. Basically the usual stuff someone with a low IQ would post, or someone susceptible to what is known as "too much time on the internet on dodgy websites who can no longer accurately distinguish fact from fiction."

            If anybody doubts me, go read and skim through a year of this poster's history. They often post conspiracy theory rubbish and generally try to deflect from known factual actuality, instead choosing to state utter guff. Some of it might be jokey, but they don't use the /S sarcasm indicator and seem to genuinely believe some of the nonsense they post, which is rather worrying.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Dirty tricks?

            Roland06, you've been posting rubbish on The Register for years. Often it's disinformation, misinformation, fake news, lies. Basically the usual stuff someone with a low IQ would post, or someone susceptible to what is known as "too much time on the internet on dodgy websites who can no longer accurately distinguish fact from fiction."

            If anybody doubts me, go read and skim through a year of this poster's history. They often post conspiracy theory rubbish and generally try to deflect from known factual actuality, instead choosing to state utter guff. Some of it might be jokey, but they don't use the /S sarcasm indicator and seem to genuinely believe some of the nonsense they post, which is rather worrying.

  2. sabroni Silver badge

    Phillip Jansen 32% Simon Loweth 25%

    People who do the actual work: £1,500.

    It's obvious that there is money to spunk away when it comes to executive pay rises.

    How greedy and stupid do you have to be to think you can get away with this shit?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Phillip Jansen 32% Simon Loweth 25%

      It's more than fair. The workers are generously overpaid almost 2% of Phil's pay, so 2% of his 32% pay rise or 0.64% is equitable.

      Anymore than that is overly generous and will only result in them thinking they are above their station in my book.

  3. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Flame

    "This represents a pay rise of around 5 percent on average"

    Nice.

    Where's the other 25% that the CEO got ?

    1. Mike_G

      Re: "This represents a pay rise of around 5 percent on average"

      The others at BT (Myself included) who are above these grades only got a 3% rise, yes admitedly more than the £1500 flat fee but still.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: "This represents a pay rise of around 5 percent on average"

        What would have been the implications for you / your household personally if you had received the flat £1,500 instead of 3%? And if it were a flat £3,000? And if the £1,500 was a two year deal at £1,500 a year? Just trying to get a perspective on the ramifications of all this.

        1. jollyboyspecial

          Re: "This represents a pay rise of around 5 percent on average"

          There used to be a time when execs got payrises and bonuses and shareholders got dividends only when the company performed exceptionally well.

          However that was captitalism. We are now operating on late capitalism. So now companies are expected to give execs big payrises and bonuses and pay shareholders big dividends every year, regardless of how well the company is performing. Obviously to justify "rewarding" execs and shareholders for good performance (like shareholders actually perform) the books have to look good. The best was to achieve this especially when times are tough, is to reduce expenditure. And staff pay is a big expenditure. So the simple solution is to keep staff pay down, erode your staff's terms and conditions and of course not replace staff when they leave meaning your staff have to work even harder than before. That way the books will be black and you can "reward" the execs and shareholders by punishing your staff.

          This is particularly true for BT at the moment as we know that the execs are trying to fatten up the company for sale.

          1. goldcd

            You forgot my favourite "Stock buybacks"

            Which are pretty much "We're going to use our money, to buy our own shares, solely to support the price"

            Or "The quarter isn't looking good, so instead of investing to earn more money and raise the price by adding value - we'll just hand you our investment pot and worry about next quarter later"

            Downfall: The Case Against Boeing - (on Netflix) is excellent for showing how this works out.

  4. Howard Sway Silver badge

    CEO Philip Jansen got a 32 percent pay rise to £3.2 million

    It's this type of tone deaf arrogance and greed, in the face of what is going to be a painful time for so many who aren't part of the gilded circle, that is going to exacerbate the backlash from workers and the general public. If he had the sense to announce that in solidarity with the workers, he was going to limit his pay rise to the flat rate £1500 too this year, it would have calmed the employee anger significantly, which might have lessened the appetite for strike action, and therefore been beneficial to the company.

    Deciding that moderation is only for the little people and it's time for the big cheeses to fill their boots is just inviting a huge backlash. (Also, don't inform me that it wasn't his decision, but the remuneration committee's - they all sit on the committees of each others companies and award each other these huge pay rises).

    1. VoiceOfTruth

      Re: CEO Philip Jansen got a 32 percent pay rise to £3.2 million

      Be happy, serfs. Here's another groat.

      1. TheMeerkat

        Re: CEO Philip Jansen got a 32 percent pay rise to £3.2 million

        If you are not happy, find another job, as those people with actual skill usually do.

    2. Stork Silver badge

      Re: CEO Philip Jansen got a 32 percent pay rise to £3.2 million

      Leading from the front is so antiquated

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: CEO Philip Jansen got a 32 percent pay rise to £3.2 million

      not only BT. Many firms are doing share buy backs with money they got over COVID from the tax payer.

      When interest rates are low, we're told that we don't need pay rises because of low interest rates. When they go up, we're told that we can't have pay rises because of inflation spirals.

      Sainsbury's CEO was able to pull out 300% this year and apparently that's not going to drive inflation. Intel have sucked up $59 billion in a hand out even though they made $79 billion in profits that they have used for dividends and share buybacks.

      why can't the people who do the ACTUAL work get pay rises? I've been working with BT closely this year and their engineers are treated like shit. Loads of outsourcing to India and the ones in the UK are expected to drop plans at short notice because there aren't enough staff to cover the work.

      Full support the strikes and roll on a General Strike.

      I'm looking for a new contract at the moment and being offered Perm Roles which are paying less than I was earning 15 years ago as a permie. This is unsustainable. you can't carry on sucking money away from the people who do the work and shovelling it upwards to people who offshore it and whose bank accounts are literally phone numbers now

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: CEO Philip Jansen got a 32 percent pay rise to £3.2 million

        And be prepared for more. Catching the coverage on the rail strikes on the Beeb, I heard noises coming out so called democratically chosen PM candidates mouths which ignited miner strikes in better days. Difference however seems to be that these days "we" got friends on all important spots, and nurtured (and got done) a flag waving culture supported by a corporate based leisure centric society, coupled to a brutal egocentric individualism. So cue the dry eyed quotes of "criminal" while talking about somebody elses constitutional rights, and wheel in "hurting customers", speculating for support, highlighting what a personal PITA not supporting them would mean. And do that important marketing lesson: keep repeating the message as much as possible, so it becomes true. So don't be surprised if you hear the talking heads say things from the same teleprompter.

        Only thing really amazing: the stupidity of the herd falling for it again. And again. And again.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Joke

        Re: CEO Philip Jansen got a 32 percent pay rise to £3.2 million

        > why can't the people who do the ACTUAL work get pay rises?

        If they actually paid you what you are worth to the company then you might start to think about wanting time off to enjoy the money. They can't allow that because then you wouldn't be earning for them.

  5. wolfetone Silver badge

    Misinformation Is Cheaper Than The Truth

    As others have pointed out, Jansen and Loweth (just two examples) have had 32% and 25% increases while the staff get a pittance. I am a BT customer, and they had no trouble telling me my bill was going to increase quite significantly this year in line with inflation. So if they are experiencing an increase in costs, they raise their prices to get more money. What are their workers meant to do? Be happy to be employed and use a food bank?

    Fuck the management, and the management of other companies up and down the UK for this neo-liberalist shit soup they can't get enough of. I read there are fears of a general strike, there is no fear of one. We need one, and everyone should attend their own picket in solidarity with BT staff, ASLEF, RMT, every union in the country that has the rights of their workers at heart.

    That goes for Labour as well. Starmer has laid his cards out on the table, he has no interest in the rights of workers, just the bosses who have put us in to this inflationary mess who are only concerned with profit.

    Solidarity.

    1. Martin-73 Silver badge

      Re: Misinformation Is Cheaper Than The Truth

      Indeed, starmer is further right than thatcher in some ways!

      1. gandalfcn Silver badge

        Re: Misinformation Is Cheaper Than The Truth

        I confess to be being extremely disappointed in him. He desperately wants Labour to win but has alienated Labour and labour whilst grovelling to the Torygraph and the Wail.

    2. GloriousVictoryForThePeople

      Re: Misinformation Is Cheaper Than The Truth

      "Up the workers!", as we say in the Labour party.

    3. gandalfcn Silver badge

      Re: Misinformation Is Cheaper Than The Truth

      How dare you use logic and facts!

  6. TRT Silver badge

    That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

    That's basically someone aged 21 on a salary of around £19,000pa. That's a minimum wage job. And 8% is well below inflation.

    Whilst I support the concept of fixed amount cost of living increases across the board, coupled with performance bonuses and profit sharing increases by grade to reflect contribution of effort to company performance, this BT offer is quite literally a slap in the face.It is clearly not being applied outside the graded pay scales.

    The unions are quite right - it should be double that. That would close the gap between the highest and lowest graded salary. Restraint should be shown in the negotiated salary bands - it's causing incredible anger.

    To put it in perspective the full £3,000 rise over a year would put just £150 per month into the pocket. My mortgage has gone up by that much in the last 6 months alone. The energy and communications bills together have gone up by £40 a month in the same 6 month period. Food is up by £50 a month. I lost the car during lockdown, but if I still had it, then that would have gone from £50 a month before lockdown to £75 a month now.

    1. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

      On the flipside, my energy costs are quadrupling in a year, fuel for my car is 50% higher and my pay rise was less than 5%.

      I can't afford to pay BT enough to give their staff a pay rise twice as high, and don't want to, and think it'll cause an inflationary spiral that'll destroy my meagre savings and leave the whole economy devastated.

      Anybody whose mortgage has gone up by £150/m from just the tiny interest rate rises we've had this year has a £250k mortgage, so I'm really not sure that's going to be a problem for BT's lowest wage staff.

      The inflation is due to the Government spending half a trillion on the Pandemic, along with short term energy issues. Giving people more money isn't going to fix any of that.

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

        I agree with you, Cederic. You raise an important point.

        Inflationary spirals are definitely something we need to try to avoid. That's why I favour fixed cost-of-living awards over simple inflation-linked percentage rises. At the end of the day, someone is going to lose out. Even if everyone gets the same cost-of-living increase that money has to come from somewhere. It can only sensibly come from closing the pay gap. Unless someone can suggest another mechanism for breaking an inflation spiral without regressively increasing poverty?

        A £200k mortgage is not uncommon south of Watford Gap, and for a 2-bed property rents in the South East are similarly over £1200 a month. As many are buy-to-let mortgaged, base rate increases hit rentals as well as owner-occupiers.

        The discrepancy in cost of living across the nation is also a reason why I support regional pay adjustment. National inflation is a headline figure, it's nice and simple, but there are local inflationary pressures as well. Consider island communities that rely on a diesel burning ferry for most supplies.

        Large companies with national pay scales present a particular problem. You can take rail as an example - a driver depoted in the London region will enjoy a different standard of living than a driver depoted in York or Hull, but both could work for the same company, doing the same job on the same route in the same trains.

        Having an equitable pay scale nationally could then cause local inflation, as we see with house prices especially holiday homes in low-wage economies such as Cornwall. Now there's an example... regional service centres for London based organisations get various tax breaks and economic bonuses from having a remote operations centre, but then the staff there claim they are doing the same job as their London-based colleagues, so should get the same wage.

        1. wolfetone Silver badge

          Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

          To paraphrase Mick Lynch when he was talking about wage rises for public sector workers, he pointed out that in 10 years they haven't had a pay rise near inflation. At all. Now we're in the worst inflation period in 40 years, this inflation is nothing to do with people asking for an acceptable wage to live on. It's down to profit driven greed by companies and multi-nationals.

          I mean come on, how can BT not afford to provide their staff with an acceptable wage given the huge profit they made? Energy companies are recording record profits because of the energy increases, yet the UK consumer has to pay 15p a day more in a standing charge because failed energy companies spent the money their customers had in credit. I am with Bulb, I had credit of £300, yet they took that and spent it on something else. Now there are people who can't afford to heat their homes or feed their children who are paying this 15p a day to cover that shortfall.

          The money is there, and raising the spectre of spiralling inflation just takes the focus away from the real problems here. Greed. There is enough money in these companies to provide their workers with what they need, and to provide the public with acceptable levels of living. They are choosing not to do that, our politicians are choosing to not push them to act, and all the while we have to foot the bill. Again.

          1. TRT Silver badge
            Pint

            Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

            To play devil's advocaat here*, do companies see mega profits as a means of attracting more inward investment and making themselves less of a takeover target and more the taker-over?

            I mean, these are board-room level discussions and that's way over my pay-grade and probably ability. In the fish-tank of commerce is it better to be a shark or a minnow? Or that medium sized fish with a moral attitude to consumption whose name I can't think of.

            *Cheers! Thanks... Oh, can I have a cherry on that, please?

            1. wolfetone Silver badge

              Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

              I don't know.

              Are the profits there to serve dividends? Are they there to prop up the share prices? I don't know, I don't serve on the board.

              But if these people are as smart as their perceived importance that their wage rises suggest, even they should've seen that £60 million here to prevent bad PR and loss of service would've been money well spent?

              I got back to the greed thing, as that is the only explanation I can find that explains their wilful negligence over this. It's not so long ago they suggested the use of food banks to their own staff as well don't forget. Who does that? Really?

              1. TRT Silver badge

                Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

                You mean this?

                Yes. But it's NOT a food bank, it's a community pantry. Make someone happy with a cheap rate phone call.

              2. Richard 12 Silver badge

                Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

                Shell and others are doing multi-billion share buybacks.

                That's not investing in the future of the company.

                It's also exactly what every economist predicted - except for Rishi Sunak.

                The only effect is a short-term share price increase, and (in theory) a longer term increase in per-share dividends.

                The only people who genuinely benefit from that are the people receiving shares as part of their remuneration. Like Rishi Sunak's family...

            2. gandalfcn Silver badge

              Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

              Yes, and no. most6 companies will never be a takeover target and most see mega profits as mega bonuses.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

        "I can't afford to pay BT enough to give their staff a pay rise twice as high, and don't want to, and think it'll cause an inflationary spiral that'll destroy my meagre savings and leave the whole economy devastated."

        so the boss taking a 32% raise is fine!!!!!!.

        doff yer cap, and worry about the poor millionaires, how will they afford another buggati or 300ft yacht.

        keep doing the mental gymnastics to support the rich.

        or are you just a millionaire in waiting so hope to benefit from fucking over the poor once you get there?.

        1. Cederic Silver badge

          Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

          Thank you for attacking me for something I didn't say.

          1. TRT Silver badge

            Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

            I think the poster was saying that doubling the offer could been funded by not inflating the executive remunerations and from out of profits, thus not actually affecting the amount you pay to BT at all.

            In other words, the assumption that bills must rise to cover enhanced pay awards is false because all other things need not remain equal.

            1. doublelayer Silver badge

              Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

              That's true, but the executive compensation won't really get there. According to the article, the CEO received a £775k raise and the CFO a £440k one. If we took those both away and divided it among the 39000 workers that participated in the vote, that would give us £31.15 per worker. If we divided that among the 58000 people who received the initial raise, that would be £20.95. I get the optics on this, but the money for larger raises would take a lot more than just cutting the executive's compensation. If they refused a raise, the difference to the workers would only have been cosmetic.

              BT does have profits to dip into. I'm not going to defend their use of them, as I both don't care about them and would like workers not to suffer. I have to point out though that, depending on their business, they might need those for other purposes. If they have large capital investments to make, as network companies often do, their profit might vary a lot. If they have a lot of investors expecting profit to grow, putting a big dent in it might result in those investors changing the company to one with an even more severe cost-cutting system. There are always tradeoffs. For all I know, they weren't important in this case and the company could have done what they're being asked.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

                So because it's only £31.15 per worker and therefore insignificant, that makes it OK for them to award themselves 32% ?

                Is any individual in a company really worth 100 times (or more) than another ?

                1. Tom66

                  Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

                  Why would they be paid what they are if they didn't generate significantly more in revenue/profits? These execs typically serve at the pleasure of shareholders, so if they're making f-all difference for their ridiculous salary they'll get the boot soon enough. I don't like the high salaries/bonuses from an ethical standpoint but it's a consequence of a limited pool of suitable candidates & high demand for their services.

                2. doublelayer Silver badge

                  Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

                  "So because it's only £31.15 per worker and therefore insignificant, that makes it OK for them to award themselves 32% ?"

                  I didn't say that. I said that, because it's insignificant, the company would have to have done a lot more to meet the expectations of the workers. It was about how they could do it, not whether they should. I left the question of what they should do to others.

                  "Is any individual in a company really worth 100 times (or more) than another ?"

                  Sometimes. Whether these people were, I'm not going to say, because I don't really know what they are doing and it's not relevant. There are people who deliver more value than others, though. Those people don't always get paid in proportion with the value they generate, but sometimes they do. Sometimes that value takes the form of getting profits to the people who own the company, and while those people may not be very sympathetic, they own the company and get to make decisions about how it will be run whether you approve or not.

              2. TRT Silver badge

                Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

                BT has over 7.7 billion shares issued, and consistently returns dividends of 10 to 15p per share annually.

                That's not money that's being reinvested.

                Their yield is around 5%, which is not in the top 10 on the FTSE 100, but it's not shabby and it's consistent.

                To award a full £3000 to the 58000 workers paid out of dividends alone reduce the annual divided by 2p. 8p instead of 10p. As a two year pay deal, it's 1p a share per annum. They've already committed to half of that £3,000 and I don't know if that's reflected in the dividend already - I expect that it is.

      3. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

        "On the flipside, my energy costs are quadrupling in a year, fuel for my car is 50% higher and my pay rise was less than 5%."

        Before I start, I'll point out that I live in France. Fuel is double what it was last year, costs are going up. Nothing that isn't happening everywhere else. The government promised a 4% cap on electricity prices, yet the raw cost of a kilowatt hour has gone up by nearly a third.

        My pay rise? Practically bugger all.

        Macron has said that the amount that companies can give to their employees (the infamous Prime Macron) will rise to €6000 before becoming a tax issue. Well, that's all good and well if the place you work for is happy to offer (offer, note, no obligation) six grand.

        It would be far more productive to many more people if he properly bumped up minimum wage, which would have a knock on effect on those paid "close to". Instead, it (the "SMIC") will be re-evaluated this coming Monday, and I expect it'll probably go up around 1.5-2%. Which is, what, a little under €30 a month extra? Any rise is welcome, but a mere euro a day doesn't even.....

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

          And France is already the most heavily-taxed country in Europe, so if they can't afford more handouts no-one can.

          1. heyrick Silver badge
            Meh

            Re: That claim that it's 8% for their lowest paid workers...

            Oh, I think there are handouts, just not for the little guy.

            Or, should I say, business as usual.

  7. jmch Silver badge

    Terminology

    Thanks to dumbing-down of complex subjects by both the press and politicians, most people now take "Inflation" to mean "rise in the cost of living", when the 2, while related, aren't the same thing.

    "Inflation" is the increase of the money supply at a faster rate than the real output of the economy. For example the billions printed* by governments all over the world to help with Covid relief is inflation. While inflation does result in cost of living increases, it is only one of the causes, and not the end result (as it is often described). Other causes are Ukraine war (increasing energy and food prices through classical economics - supply-restriction), Brexit (increasing cost of paperwork & logistics).

    What Infation is actually doing by increasing the amount of money in relation to the amount of products and services on the market is to deflate the value of products and services sold on the market - in effect it is the government 'stealing' a small amount from the whole economy, in order to use that for emergency (or not so emergency) projects, without having to raise taxes. (and, no doubt, the financial intermediaries take some cut).

    In this specific case, cost of living all over Europe and particularly in UK is rising much faster than the £1500/yr being offered, so I'm fully supportive of the workers going on strike. As many others have said, top executives taking huge raises in a climate of giant profits is not a good look. 40k workers X £1500 is £60M. They could easily have doubled it and hardly dented the £1.3B profit, and still afforded to pay £700M or thereabouts to shareholders.

    (not to forget, by the way that in the case of BT, most shareholders are either individual small investors, or pension funds and similair investment/pension vehicles whose ultimate beneficial owners are usually the same middle-class workers struggling with cost of living)

    *not really 'printed', more like brought into existence on a spreadsheet

  8. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge
    Boffin

    Viva!

    "Capitalism is a failed experiment" - Pass it on.

    1. Tom66

      Re: Viva!

      As you type this message on a device invented, designed and innovated upon at the behest of capitalism.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Viva!

        A device manufactured in a communist country, powered with energy sources from another one :-(

        Who's helping build that nuclear power station for us?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Viva!

      Failed or not, it still works better than any of the other *isms.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not so much an independent business then.

    And how could it be when BT kept ownership of property and network?

    1. Trollslayer
      Flame

      Re: Not so much an independent business then.

      As soon as I get a fibre internet connection dial up goes to the old router home.

      Mobile is much better than a land line.

      The icon is burning of the land line.

  10. dave 81
    Devil

    How will we tell the difference?

    BT workers on strike? Seriously, how will we be able to tell the difference?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: How will we tell the difference?

      Maybe your poor experience of BT might be because of management failings (by overpaid management and executives), rather than by the underpaid, demoralised workforce trying to work within the constraints and targets imposed on them. Metrics used for performance measurement have very little to do with customer satisfaction.

  11. jollyboyspecial

    Promises promises

    Openreach promised that all repair appointments already booked for today would be honoured. We're already seeing AM appointments that have been missed. Getting updates from OR telling us that engineers will still be assigned today and then suggesting we check back for updates on Monday. Normally they would be suggesting we checked back for updates the day after the appointment.

    Cleary their contingency plans have failed, but rather than owning the problem and trying to re-appoint for tomorrow they have their fingers in their ears and are pretending that they don't have SLAs to meet. It's pretty clear they are going to build up a backlog from missed appointments today and monday. Add that to all the stuff that they have already booked for next week that would otherwise have been booked for today or monday and they are going to be dealing with a massive backlog come tuesday. Anybody trying to re-book appointments missed today or monday will probably find there's no availability on tuesday or wednesday and before you know it there will be circuits down for a week that should have been fixed inside 24 or 48 hours.

    Can you say service credits?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like