![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Compromise
Watching the BBC News coverage of the BA/Unite legal action, it struck me that the BBC’s correspondents seemed to be espousing compromise as the only sensible path for BA and Unite to follow, and they emphasised that ACAS was ready to provide arbitration facilities. Maybe this is an editorial line that fits easily into the BBC’s centrist ethos, but it strikes me that it is hard to justify.
BA is a loss-making airline with a pension deficit that is nearly double its market capitalisation. It pretty obviously needs to make some tough decisions in order to resolve its financial problems, just as our LibCon government is going to need to do with the nation’s finances.
But if any changes an organisation tries to make are met with hostility, and end up being curtailed through a process of compromise, then presumably the implication is that the organisation should adopt a more extreme position initially, so they get the result they want after the compromise. This might be second-nature for those who spend their lives negotiating, but I want to believe that a business can and should be run in a way that involves practical business-led decision making, with an honest presentation of its position. Maybe it isn’t possible in a heavily unionised business; how can a company have a relationship with its employees if there is a third-party organisation in the middle?
BA is a loss-making airline with a pension deficit that is nearly double its market capitalisation. It pretty obviously needs to make some tough decisions in order to resolve its financial problems, just as our LibCon government is going to need to do with the nation’s finances.
But if any changes an organisation tries to make are met with hostility, and end up being curtailed through a process of compromise, then presumably the implication is that the organisation should adopt a more extreme position initially, so they get the result they want after the compromise. This might be second-nature for those who spend their lives negotiating, but I want to believe that a business can and should be run in a way that involves practical business-led decision making, with an honest presentation of its position. Maybe it isn’t possible in a heavily unionised business; how can a company have a relationship with its employees if there is a third-party organisation in the middle?
no subject
no subject
I don’t think it matters whether Willie Walsh is taking a pay cut (although he did work a month last year without oay) — he is trying to save a dying business, and it looks like Unite is trying to kill it.
In a competitive marketplace for jobs, I think striking should lead to sacking. There are plenty of other airlines employing cabin crew. If BA’s staff don’t want to work, someone else will.
no subject
That would leave all the power in the employer's hands. I take your point about difficult decisions, and I like to believe the best of people - but it's a sad fact that if the workers don't have any leverage, some employers will take advantage. I have no idea whether this applies in BA's case. I'm not particularly impressed with either side - the union didn't dot its Is and cross it's Ts, and the company is using legal technicalities to thwart a pretty clear democratic decision.
no subject
BA posted record losses today — it has had two massively loss-making years. Without their workforce helping them to reduce costs and work towards profitability, they may as well give up
no subject
It appears it is. Agreement on the substantive working practices has been reached in principle, but BA is intent on permanently withdrawing perks specifically from staff who struck - punishing them for exercising their right to withdraw their labour.
If the company were talking about withdrawing perks generally, that might be a reasonable change to working practices based on cost concerns. Withdrawing them from selected workers who've actively disagreed with management decisions (and already "paid" for it by losing their pay on strike days) is bullying.
no subject
With the strikes causing great customer hassle and uncertainty, and probably causing a long-term drop in the business-class travel that BA depends on, I would have thought that it would be sensible to use perks to reward employees who work for the benefit of the company. Why should the people who damage the business receive a perk?
The strikers may have 'paid' by losing their pay on strike days, but the cost to the company is much larger than that.
no subject
Also worth pointing out that some people claim they're striking for the good of the company because cutbacks are affecting precisely the business class travel you mention; with business class passengers paying £3000 for a flight and only getting their third choice of meal, for example.
There's a relative aspect to costs as well as an absolute one; lost pay may be much smaller than lost business in absolute terms, but it could still be a big loss for the employee concerned.
no subject
Striking for the good of the company seems a spurious defence for the blatant short-termism and self-interest exhibited by the strikers. One assumes that BA has departments full of highly-paid (and hopefully highly competent) accountants and business analysts working out exactly how to save money, manage their debt burden, and maintain good customer relations.
The cabin crew may be at the 'coal face' of customer relations, but there is no way they can see the the whole picture.
no subject
(Correct me if I'm wrong but) I suspect you don't think striking can ever be justified, in which case we are never going to agree. I think it's an acceptable last resort, to be avoided by negotiation if at all possible; but if employers aren't prepared to negotiate it is legitimate.
As regards viewing the whole picture, I think perhaps companies could learn something from the armed forces, where there has to be a relationship of trust between the rank and file and their commanders. The common soldier may be expected to die for a bigger picture he can't see - a bit more extreme than the expectations of the average job role - but if the common soldiers are driven to the point of mutiny, they may well face punishment but the commanding officer is also regarded as having failed.
You mentioned below that few companies are run for the benefit of their employees. That's probably the heart of the problem. People will be more accepting of tough decisions if they feel they belong than when they feel they're being bought to work for the benefit of "corporate psychopaths". I'm not saying BA's management fall into that category - how would I know? - just that some of their employees may feel they do.
no subject
I'm not sure whether you're right or wrong about my views on strikes! I suspect I would be more sympathetic if the working conditions were below industry standard and if the company were profitable. But in this case the business is broken, the employment costs are way above industry standard, and the reasons for striking sound astonishingly trivial.
Interesting that you raise the point about negotiating, since my original post was about the evils of compromise. If the back-room boys run the numbers and work out what savings need to be made, do we want the company to honestly implement a policy of cuts? Or do we want them to adopt an extreme position, so that after negotiation and compromise (and stikes and brinkmanship) they achieve the result that they need?
You call it negotiation, I call it haggling. And I think it is a pretty rotten way to run a business.
no subject
no subject
With roughly 90% of cabin crew being union members, 79% of ballots were returned, with 81% in favour of a strike. Which means that roughly 58% of cabin crew voted in favour of striking.
I imagine the working environment will be pretty unpleasant, before, during, and after the strike, with people on opposing sides of the picket line having to work together in an enclosed space.
no subject
That's still an overwealming mandate to strike. I think you have to wonder (given other Airlines aren't having the same problems) whether BA has set out to deliberately antagonise their union, or whether they've done it through gross incompetence. I certainly think this sort of dispute isn't in anyones interest- you just have to wonder how it can have reached this sort of level. Hard line attitudes on both sides, one assumes.
no subject
I can't imagine that BA's goal could have been to deliberately antagonise Unite; rather, I suspect they came to a realisation that the only way they can recover the business is to break free from the status quo. When you're losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year, compromise is no longer an option.
no subject
no subject