The Pilots’ Union announced that they were going on strike, due to failed negotiations with the Management of Croatia Airlines and workers gathered in the union of aircraft technicians, cabin crew and pilots. Thus, pilots, cabin crew and aircraft mechanics of Croatia Airlines are going on strike, which was announced at the end of June or the beginning of July.After a year and a half, we have exhausted all possibilities for any agreement because we do not have a serious interlocutor, the union points out, adding that years of wrong business decisions, stubborn refusal to accept facts and anyone’s well-intentioned proposals and criticism have led to a crisis. flight operations cannot work with their own personnel and aircraft.We believe that our colleagues from the management, unfortunately, no longer work within the framework of reasonable human behavior and Croatia Airlines has become a victim of a disastrous business policy. The best example is the still current situation with hundreds of canceled flights and hired foreign planes, which has caused us millions in damage. The conditions for industrial actions have been acquired as a last resort to point out to the owner the problems of the company. We will inform the public and our passengers about all events in time. We once again call on the Government of the Republic of Croatia to help Croatia Airlines while there is still time and to appoint the best management in the full term. ” conclude from the Union
Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion I encouraged them to research the speaker, listen to his/her words, and then use their research and intelligence to rebut the speaker during the question-and-answer session.What then to make of the Albany Law School students who walked out of a panel on travel bans to protest one speaker?They’re students at a prestigious institution of legal education. I have friends who graduated from that school and serve in truly distinguished capacities today. These students will be challenged when they argue cases against opposing attorneys and try to convince juries. Why not undertake a challenge now?It’s my hope that the next time said students are again faced with this type of challenge, they’ll stay and question the individual(s) with the intelligence they obviously have in order to attend this school.Michael FondacaroAlbanyMore from The Daily Gazette:EDITORIAL: Beware of voter intimidationEDITORIAL: Urgent: Today is the last day to complete the censusEDITORIAL: Find a way to get family members into nursing homesFoss: Should main downtown branch of the Schenectady County Public Library reopen?Feds: Albany man sentenced for role in romance scam I preface this letter by noting that I mentor Asian-American students at the University at Albany. I made clear to them at the beginning of this semester that should the university extend a speaking invitation an individual whose views they and I would consider reprehensible and repugnant that they shouldn’t interrupt or attempt to shut down the speaker.
The ongoing ITV vs Box Clever case has reached a new stage as the UK Court of Appeal handed back the debate to the Upper Tribunal, some 15 months after it left the court.The legal wrangling relates back to attempts by The Pensions Regulator (TPR) to issue a financial support direction (FSD) to ITV to cover the Box Clever pension scheme deficit.FSDs create a legal requirement on a company to contribute to deficit repairs within a pension scheme it has links to.The case will now be re-heard by the Upper Tribunal, which must decide if TPR and the trustees can use additional evidence submitted outside of its original FSD case, something that ITV requested be ignored. The Upper Tribunal is effectively an appeals court but does allow new evidence to be submitted as part of an ongoing case.It originally dismissed ITV’s protests over the new evidence, but the Court of Appeal has now requested the court re-examine the case from scratch.The Court of Appeal did not accept ITV’s request to have new evidence struck from the case, but, when referring the case back to the Upper Tribunal, it asked it to consider why additional evidence was submitted late on in the litigation.Hogan Lovells, the law firm representing ITV, said the judgment showed its questions regarding the late-stage submission of TPR’s evidence was important, and that it should not be approached on a “simplistic” basis.Angela Dimsdale Gill, the litigation partner for Hogan Lovells, said it welcomed the guidance from the Courts, as clarity was necessary for TPR, and others, over what the regulator can and cannot do.“The fact it is not to be taken as a given that the regulator can change its case whenever it pleases – as contended by the regulator – means it would do well to determine at the outset what the justification for its regulatory action is, since it will by no means be certain it will be able to change horses later on,” she added.A spokeswoman for TPR said: “The regulator is pleased the Court of Appeal has rejected the test advocated by ITV and that it has adopted a broad discretionary test, following arguments advanced by the regulator and trustees.”The case refers back to September 2011 when TPR issued a warning notice to ITV regarding the potential of an FSD. The regulator’s Determinations Panel decided to follow through three months later.ITV referred the £62m challenge from TPR and the trustees for Box Clever to the Upper Tribunal, where both parties made cases based on the evidence used within the FSD determination.However, in a second round of evidence, TPR amended its case, making different allegations against ITV over its funding for the Box Clever scheme, at which point ITV requested the new evidence be ignored.The Upper Tribunal rejected this appeal in December 2013 before ITV took the request to the Court of Appeal, which ruled this week.Dimsdale Gill said the next chapters of the case could prove significant for the pensions and business community – in a variety of ways, it would “test the threshold of the regulator’s powers”.It is likely the retrospective application of legislation will remain a key part of the case, given the power to issue FSDs did not exist until 2005, some two years after Box Clever’s failure and five after it was created.Box Clever was a joint venture set up in 2000 by Granada (now ITV) and Thorn TV, and included the creation of the pension scheme for transferred and new employees.The company failed in 2003, leaving a pension scheme deficit of around £60m (€82m).However, ITV said it never had any involvement in the scheme and oversaw no increase it its shortfall.Some 11 years after the failure of the firm, the Box Clever scheme entered PPF assessment in late 2014.
The young man juggler in a display with the chair while the robotic human being stands behind himThere was a side attraction at the finals of the West Africa Football Union (WAFU) between eventual winners, The Gambia and host Liberia on May 6 at the Samuel Kanyon Doe Sports Complex.It was in the first game between La Cote d’Ivoire and Mali when the two men, a bottle juggler and another moving in calculated steps appeared near the perimeter of the pitch.Though my location on the field (VIP) did not allow me the chance to get closer to the two men, I was able to capture their images as both of them; particularly the bottle juggler began to demonstrate his skills.At first he held three empty stout bottles or what appeared to be three empty plastic bottles. He held the three bottles together and pulled out and threw it so high that before it could descend to his location, he would throw the other two at the same time.He juggles with the three bottles all at once in rapid movementBy now the one he had first thrown into the air, would easily fall into his hand and he would continue with the process with rapid motion that drew the attention of soccer fans.He would keep his rapid motion on for several seconds as he moved back and forth the direction the bottles were descending and he was so expert about it that at no occasion did the any of the bottle fall, by any chance.Afterward he would hand over the three bottles to the robot man and picked up a white empty plastic chair. As you can see in one of the pictures, he would place an angle edge of the chair somewhere on his face and allow his hands to fall on his side. Surprisingly he would keep the chair in a steady position for several minutes.After some performance, the robot man would pick the scene. With his body painted white, in a dark shades with red writings on his chest and his stomach, he would robotically move one step after the other as if he was being controlled by a magnetic system inside or outside his body.Lately, there have been a good number of people who are earning a form of income through advertising messages or products for businesses and some government agencies. The man had WINNERS written on his chest.The young man in question behaved as if he was walking on motorized wheels, as robots are programmed with dozens of movable segments that are typically made of metal or plastic. In a pure imitation, the young man behaved as if he were a real robot that spins wheels and pivot jointed segments with some sort of actuator or a hydraulic system, a pneumatic system (a system driven by compressed gasses). The imitation was so perfect that many people wondered how he could get it so perfectly right.In any case, those were the two side attractions that provided a form of entertainment for thousands who thronged the Samuel Kanyon Doe Sports Complex, particularly in the final day of the tournament as the two teams engaged each other in a grand finale.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)