Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Mike Stevens wrote: >> No, that's not quite the situation, as I understand it. If the cuts had not >> happened there would have been some job losses (possibly all the 180, >> snip
> With respect, though, that's not really the main issue for waterway users. > > The 180 job losses are deeply regrettable for the people concerned. I know > a couple of people who lost their jobs: conversely, one very good friend snip > But the question for us, as users, is whether BW is a better organisation > with those 180 _posts_ removed. Does BW function better without (say) > two central freight staff, a distinct Birmingham-based unit, a dedicated > regeneration director - whoever they may be? Is BW improved by no longer > having a heritage person in the waterway unit Chris D mentioned? > THere is no doubt in my mind that these jobs were a direct result of Defra's cuts. As such, by definition BW (and therefore the waterways at large) cannot be better off. On the other hand, had those jobs been allowed to be replaced by natural attrition there is every likelihood that BW would have been able to improve their effeciency. Some might argue that they will catch up; that is in due course they will reach the point in time where those jobs could have been 'unreplaced'. But the real danger is that we may never get to reach that point because the state of the waterways will have gone backwards because the cuts have forced undesirable/hasty/inadvisable 'savings' like bringing forward a reduction of headcount and delaying repairs of 200 year old assets. Rather like cutting out a diseased organ because long term treatment was expensive only to find that a cheaper cure was around the corner. Either way the patient was 'cured' but the surgical cure left the patient living but without the vital organ. > My understanding of Robin Evans' comments at the London Boat Show > forum was that he believed yes, BW would be a more efficient organisation > with the 180 posts removed. > I'm sure that is true. But did you ask him whether that efficiency would have occurred in the future without job losses had BW been left to manage their business without the cuts? Indeed, did you ask him whether making 180 people immediately redundant because he HAD to save money achieved the same level of efficiency as natural attrition? Cheers Will > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- Will Chapman Save Our Waterways www.SaveOurWaterways.org.uk
