On 30/01/07, Steve Haywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 30/01/07, Nick Atty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Steve Haywood is right that BW were going to cut 180 jobs anyway and > > that this is a bad thing for the waterways. > > Actually, in the interests of accuracy, and knowing as I do it will > make me very unpopular with Dorothy, I have so say that this isn't > what I think. > In the interests of the debate, is there anyone on the list that could > make a case for the defence? > > Steve
I think that it's very hard to argue this out without a lot more knowledge than it is possible for outsiders to have. But I do know that I am always suspicious of the easy line that only 'front line' staff have proper jobs and everyone else is a useless backroom bureaucrat. (part of the problem with the NHS is that it is not managed well enough) I'm even more suspicious when it's a nice round number like 150 - that strikes me as deciding the number of jobs to go first and then deciding who goes - not a process based on any real evaluation of the jobs involved. And don't get me started on the nonsense that all the private sector is so much better managed than all the public sector - a good piece in the FT today on this! -- Nigel Stanley
