Yes, I remarked on that last night. I can see why it's an improvement, but it doesn't seem like that much of one. On the other hand, one of the union's complaints about the previous offer was that they were being handcuffed to a 2.5% increase in the third year, whereas that's now open to review.
*shakes head at quality of news reporting*
I noticed a couple of oddities in Radio 4's coverage the other week, too. One of them was mentioning that the unions rejected a 12% offer, saying they want 20%, without making clear that it was over three years (it sounded like they were asking for 20% right now). I can't exactly remember the other, but I think it was in the other direction — something like "The unions want 20% over the next three years but the employers have offered 3.5%" (where they were actually talking about 3% and another 1% midway through the year).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-06-07 08:58 pm (UTC)I noticed a couple of oddities in Radio 4's coverage the other week, too. One of them was mentioning that the unions rejected a 12% offer, saying they want 20%, without making clear that it was over three years (it sounded like they were asking for 20% right now). I can't exactly remember the other, but I think it was in the other direction — something like "The unions want 20% over the next three years but the employers have offered 3.5%" (where they were actually talking about 3% and another 1% midway through the year).