> >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, >> possibly not) over an extended period of time, achieved mainly by not >> replacing people who left from the relevant bits of BW's workforce, withoiut >> any actua redundancies. In other words no actual people would have lost >> their jobs (although some might have had to move from on job to another >> within the organisation). As a former TU official, I know that this is >> *very* different from making people redundant. > >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 >has taken the opportunity to take voluntary redundancy from BW. So I can >clearly see the difference between a fulfilled person leaving on their own >terms and a frustrated person unwillingly made redundant. > >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? > >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 have had a robust "exchange of views" >with Eugene today so hopefully he's prepared to step in if the official BW >line is in fact different. > >cheers >Richard
Can the system manage with losing more on the ground staff? It isn't just office staff that are going and not being replaced. Sue nb Nackered Navvy
