The contract sets out a road map that determines how company policy will be determined and its identical to how KA housing and Swire housing is determined. So it'll be a case of one in, all in.
As for "sign or be fired" ironically CX set the legal precedent there.
After telling the A scalers in '99 they'd be in contractual limbo if they didn't sign the new contract and therefore not be on any recognized contract at all (you have been warned) they proceeded to recoginise the non-signees original contract for the remainder of their careers.
But that brings me to my point. Why just remove housing if sign or be fired actually was an option for them. Why not remove all the pesky niceties that cost them money that could otherwise be spent on gambling contracts that they are legally obliged to conform to? Why not give 35,000 employees a sign or be fired contract?
Quite simply, they can't.
No one doubts we're dealing with people of mediocre intelligence and zero organizational ability but I'd be hesitant to think they're stupid.
Last edited by Progress Wanchai; 20th Jul 2017 at 14:39.