![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Two nice victories for the goodies
Apr. 12th, 2013 08:55 pmI'm sure I recommended the ENO Eugene Onegin at the end of 2011. It's interesting watching the ROH's production on BBC4 at the moment. Despite its rather higher ticket prices, the ROH one isn't anywhere near as good. It's not just the accessibility of the language issue (ENO, as almost always, used what was a very good translation into English, whereas this is in Russian), but the difference in design and direction. ENO's used more naturalistic sets (a couple of which got applause, a rarity from the ENO audience) where this is a more high concept 'let's set it in a library' one. Plus, even allowing for the difference between being in the room and listening to it on a TV, the singing is not noticeably better either.
ENO can mess it up too, and have done, but it's good to see an example of them stuffing the ROH.
In wholly unrelated good news, a sensible decision from the Court of Appeal. In 2007, the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority agreed a three year pay deal with the GMB and Unison. After two years of fixed pay increases, it said in the third year..
Come the third year, they offered a 1.825% rise which was rejected, so implemented an increase of 1.575%, being 1% above the tiny NJC settlement.
When it got to an employment appeal tribunal, it said that the use of the word 'or' meant that the employer could pick which ever of the figures it liked or even start negotiations afresh. The Court of Appeal have effectively said "Come off it, no-one around the table thought that 2.5% could be a maximum rise, it is clearly the minimum even though it does not use that phrase..."
ENO can mess it up too, and have done, but it's good to see an example of them stuffing the ROH.
In wholly unrelated good news, a sensible decision from the Court of Appeal. In 2007, the London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority agreed a three year pay deal with the GMB and Unison. After two years of fixed pay increases, it said in the third year..
.. pay will be increased by 2.5% or by .. 1% above the NJC settlements [i.e. the general pay for local government workers] for the same period.
Come the third year, they offered a 1.825% rise which was rejected, so implemented an increase of 1.575%, being 1% above the tiny NJC settlement.
When it got to an employment appeal tribunal, it said that the use of the word 'or' meant that the employer could pick which ever of the figures it liked or even start negotiations afresh. The Court of Appeal have effectively said "Come off it, no-one around the table thought that 2.5% could be a maximum rise, it is clearly the minimum even though it does not use that phrase..."