Compromise

[tobyaw]

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?

Comments

[tobyaw]

Management are employees too. One could argue that they are the normal employees, in that they are working for the benefit of the business, and strikers are abnormal in that they are damaging the business yet get to keep their jobs (if not their perks).

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.

[ggreig]

Your definition of normal doesn't seem to agree with any in the dictionary!

(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.

[tobyaw]

Normal employment: I have a contract with my employer, and they pay me in return for work. Abnormal employment: I have a contract with my employer, but I choose to badmouth them in public, do things that hurt their business, and withhold my work, but I still expect to work for them without losing any perks or benefits. And what about self-respect?

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.