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
