N'Al on 22/7/2012 at 12:27
Absolutely nowhere in this thread have I - or anyone else for that matter - implied that workers (especially low-paid 'grunts') never get screwed over by their employers. Still happens far too often, in fact, all around the world. I'm well aware of that.
Point is, it is equally as naïve to think that a large corporation's sole imperative is to bleed its own workforce dry. There are tangible economic benefits to such things as employee retention, employee engagement and employee development (even of 'grunts'). Unfortunately, admittedly, these are far harder to quantify - and take much longer to materialise - than quick-fix cost cutting measures, so there's always a risk (as Thirith mentioned) that a company will opt for those instead. Nevertheless, there are large global organisations that treat their employees with respect.
SubJeff on 22/7/2012 at 13:00
The security mess-ups are less of a concern to me than this nonsense with sponsorship. Lord Coe couldn't say for sure if someone with a Pepsi t-shirt would be let in!
Ok, they've cleared it up now and said that "common sense" will be used, but I beg to differ; the fact that you have to specify that common sense will be used, alongside the entire issue being brought up AT ALL, tells us that common sense is not and will not be used.
Idiots.
heywood on 22/7/2012 at 23:00
Yeah, but without the corporate funding the people of the host country will have to pay even more for the privilege.
scumble on 23/7/2012 at 11:33
As it is the government can't actually "afford" the thing. There have been the usual mutterings about "regeneration" but I would be very surprised if the budget looks any better next year.
SubJeff on 23/7/2012 at 11:44
Quote Posted by heywood
Yeah, but without the corporate funding the people of the host country will have to pay even more for the privilege.
Yes yes, but there will be sponsorship anyway. I agree with stopping advert-bombers but have you ever heard of anything like this before
ever, anywhere on Earth?
