No Fujitsu Pay Freeze 2009

Signatures 1565 total

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... 32 › »

1. 101
   Name: Stuart Berrisford on Mar 26, 2009

   Base location code (e.g. HOM99): BRA07

   Comments: Every year, Fujitsu seems to find any excuse, not to hand out money to its employees. Every year, our project makes profit regardless. In short, I am shocked.

   Flag
2. 102
   Name: Stuart Crawshaw on Mar 26, 2009

   Base location code (e.g. HOM99): WAK01

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 103
   Name: Christopher Plumb on Mar 26, 2009

   Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN35

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 104
   Name: Dawn Jones on Mar 26, 2009

   Base location code (e.g. HOM99): WAK01

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 105
   Name: Roy Gerard on Mar 26, 2009

   Base location code (e.g. HOM99): CRE02

   Comments: It simply isn`t good enough to impose a pay freeze after a number of dissappointing years, without provision of the reasons in full. I`d also be very angry if the pay freeze didn`t affect everybody ie at every level in the company.

   Flag
6. 106
   Name: Anonymous on Mar 26, 2009

   Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN 35

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 107
   Name: Anonymous on Mar 26, 2009

   Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN33

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 108
   Name: Adrian Muckley on Mar 26, 2009

   Base location code (e.g. HOM99): SOL10

   Comments:

   Flag
9. 109
   Name: Anonymous on Mar 26, 2009

   Base location code (e.g. HOM99): LDN04

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 110
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): hom99

    Comments:

    Flag
11. 111
    Name: Khemraj Singh on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): bsn01

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 112
    Name: Lynne Hodge on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): man33

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 113
    Name: Chris Cooper on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN33

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 114
    Name: Steve Gee on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): WAK01

    Comments: Frankly disgusted by this decision.

    Flag
15. 115
    Name: Gurbir Singh on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): hom99

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 116
    Name: Leslie Worrell on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): HOM99

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 117
    Name: Peter Court on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): STN02

    Comments: How can this be justified when the company is still making a large profit

    Flag
18. 118
    Name: S. Ilyas on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): wak01

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 119
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): STN02

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 120
    Name: John Connor on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): HOM99

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 121
    Name: Pat Edmonds on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): HOM99

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 122
    Name: David Smith on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): HOM99

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 123
    Name: John Cappello on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): Lon14

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 124
    Name: Richard John Heald on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): WAK01

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 125
    Name: Simon Hodson on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): man33

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 126
    Name: Sher Merdona on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): man23

    Comments: Unjustified profiteering at the expense of the employees. How can a company who has made several statements that the credit crunch has no real effect on the business and that the increase in outsourcing puts it in a better position, and who have announced reasonable profits suddenly announce a pay freeze at the expense of its employees yet again after the non payment of share in success recently. Its a disgrace.

    Flag
27. 127
    Name: Baber Alvi on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): SLH01

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 128
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN33

    Comments:

    Flag
29. 129
    Name: Alison Gwynn on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): HOM99

    Comments:

    Flag
30. 130
    Name: ALAN SPURR on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): WAK01

    Comments: full justification should be provided and a sufficient notification period should be provided for a change to company policy. this goes against the management charter for fujitsu services

    Flag
31. 131
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): HOM99

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 132
    Name: Nigel Fisher on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): HOM99

    Comments:

    Flag
33. 133
    Name: Ian Murphy on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): HOM99

    Comments:

    Flag
34. 134
    Name: Bradley Studd on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): wak01

    Comments: Shocking

    Flag
35. 135
    Name: Melvin Davies on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN23

    Comments: Fujitsu management are using the recession as an excuse to not give employees a pay rise - even in boom years pay rises are very dissappointing

    Flag
36. 136
    Name: Keith Liversedge on Mar 26, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): WWK01

    Comments: No bonus, no pay rise - does this apply to all company levels Are senior management going to go to sites to explain - I think not!

    Flag
37. 137
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN33

    Comments: You are playing with your employees lives. Without staff you have no company.

    Flag
38. 138
    Name: Justin Hayes on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN35

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 139
    Name: McIver on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): warr08

    Comments:

    Flag
40. 140
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN35

    Comments:

    Flag
41. 141
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): Man35

    Comments: We deserver better than this

    Flag
42. 142
    Name: Peter Brownlee on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): WAR08

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 143
    Name: Peter Bartlett on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN34

    Comments: All I am asking is for the company to honour the promises already made and NOT to throw away the good will that has been forged over the pay discussions.

    Flag
44. 144
    Name: Stuart Hamer on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN33

    Comments:

    Flag
45. 145
    Name: Anonymous on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): HOM99

    Comments: I agree that the cancelation of our pay review is unjusttified, because it gives no insentive for us to do any more than the bog standard day to day work

    Flag
46. 146
    Name: James Leftwich on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN33

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 147
    Name: David on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): NTL02

    Comments:

    Flag
48. 148
    Name: PETER.WOOD on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN34

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 149
    Name: Louise on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): MAN35

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 150
    Name: Alan Burrell on Mar 27, 2009

    Base location code (e.g. HOM99): Cre02

    Comments: I do not believe that the company are unable to fund a pay rise. They are boosting profit at the expense of the staff. The Performance Plus Appraisal system has no purpose when there is no pay rise to reward effort & dedication.

    Flag

Page: « ‹ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... 32 › »