ForArgyll.com: Argyll's online broadsheet.

Is it really the case that these workers …

Comment posted Job losses of established staff follow SPT’s change of operator of Kilcreggan Ferry by Baffled.

Is it really the case that these workers have nothing in their job description apart from one ferry service? If that is not true, they are not ‘literally redundant’ and this article is very damaging.
And what about other issues concerning maintenance and access at the pier? Arrangements for the Waverley?

Recent comments by Baffled

  • Golden Gladiator Hoy to go for Glasgow 2014
    ‘I wanted to win in front of my home crowd’ – in London. Your views, Alec?
  • Councillors Freeman and Robb get unanimous council approval for urgent motion on Kilcreggan ferry
    The ‘new’ boat cannot move at the required speed and is too small for all the passengers to sit inside – see this from Cove and Kilcreggan community council – thelochsidepress.com
  • Reader queries strange council advertising
    Since that week’s paper also included a story about footpaths in Tarbert on Loch Fyne, maybe they’re expanding?
  • Seabus campaigner raises serious questions on ClydeLink Ltd’s financial ability to build new ferry
    A couple of quick comments about this article which, despite being 1100 words long, doesn’t add as much it might to the debate.
    • How can a ‘campaigner’ be anonymous? It’s make the job a bit difficult I’d have thought
    • The same man who runs Clydelink also runs a very well known boatyard locally which is an entirely separate business, so it isn’t difficult to guess how the building of the new boat might work – hence it isn’t a matter of Clydelink ‘on its own’
    • Whoever won a new tender under such a timescale, unless they already had a suitable boat or two plus crew sitting about idly (which hardly makes commercial sense) would struggle hugely to get everything ready in less than three months. Why is the timescale so short?
    • Finally, do we know for certain that the decision by SPT’s operations committee is final, and doesn’t have to be ratified by another meeting, as with councils?
  • Robb concerned at change to payment requirement for Helensburgh developer
    Actually I quite like the idea of a refurbished bandstand – but surely the issue here is the difference between a payment of £50,000 and a refundable payment of that amount, dependent on refurbishment. I trust, perhaps naively, that there will be ample clarity and independence in the assessment of whether this refurbishment is adequate.

powered by SEO Super Comments