No, indeed BA is not a commune or co-operative, and no, I am not suggesting that a company owner/manager does not have the right to do it, but what I would expect is for the managers to approach the workers and perhaps ask for their involvement in the process, as it is often the workforce that are good at finding areas of waste and expense that can be reduced in order to save on costs, rather than immediately hitting their pay packets and/or terms and conditions of employment.
Another Apple culture moment: “Empower employees to make a difference.”
In your first line you acknowledge my point that BA is neither a commune nor a co-operative, but you seem to expect it to act like one. As far as I am aware, negotiations have taken place many times in this dispute, involving both parties. For various reasons, neither party sees fit to acquiesce to the other. Now, WW has/had an obligation to his shareholders to ensure the smooth and profitable operation of the airline, absolutely nothing wrong with that, and of course, it is ideal if you can carry your workforce with you in the process. Why should it be acceptable to the potential strikers, to engage in an action that is likely to seriously damage the company, and at the same time jeopardise their continued employment. Yet if WW engages in practices that will enable BA to adapt to the new, more competitive airline industry, and thereby ensure safe and stable employment for its staff, the guy is demonised, he can’t win!
As I’ve said before, I abhor the rabid ‘free market Stalinism’ that appears to have become central to society here over the last 30 years or so. However, it seems the great majority of British voters support it, and have done so for a very long time, although that might shortly change, its the system we have. Bosses bonuses, big cars and houses etc etc are an integral part of the system like it or not, it serves no purpose to keep on bleating about them, as alas, they have always been here.
Sign In
