Wrong.
What? You think this is wrong?
Industrial relations has two sides.
Or this?
the duty to run an efficient and professional company falls to the directors, and the managers they employ.
What do you think the directors are paid for?
Wrong.
Industrial relations has two sides.
the duty to run an efficient and professional company falls to the directors, and the managers they employ.
The management is paid when they're on strike? Really?...and they're not paid when on strike. The management is.
You're the first one to pull someone up, if they are not crystal clear on what they have written. And your post could be interpreted in at least two very different ways.You know what I meant.
BL cars were dire, in terms of being rushed into production before the designs were fully completed, shoddy build quality and reliability. Thinking back to when I was first driving in my teens and had an Austin Allegro it seemed normal to have something break almost weekly. A steering rack retaining bracket shearing off in a Motorway contraflow was the final straw.
Sad really when you consider the once proud heritage of Austin, Rover, Morris, Wolseley, Triumph etc. all gone. Only the marques that were sold off to other manufacturers continue such as Jaguar, Mini, MG, & Land Rover.
Some feel that bringing several manufacturers together under one BL badge was the problem. If so, how come the Germans managed it extremely successfully under 'Auto Union' or Audi as it's known today and symbolised by the rings of the individual companies in their logo....Hmmm....I think securespark's post probably explains.
Fair enough.You're the first one to pull someone up, if they are not crystal clear on what they have written. And your post could be interpreted in at least two very different ways.
...and nor do they get paid while they are on strike - unlike, during all this strife, the management who do continue to be paid.they're not paid for running the company, they're not paid for setting the policy and ethos, they're not paid for setting the employment and personnel practices. They're not paid for deciding how much the company should invest in improvements, training or machinery, and how much it should distribute to shareholders.
I wonder who Brig thinks is paid for running the company, setting the policy and ethos, setting the employment and personnel practices. and for deciding how much the company should invest in improvements, training or machinery, and how much it should distribute to shareholders.
It certainly isn't the assembly-line drones, or the warehousemen, or the canteen workers.
Can Brig guess who it is?
The UK has a healthy automotive industry because Margaret Thatcher bailed out British Leyland, once the country's biggest car company, and allowed Japanese automakers to establish their first European factories in the country, a leading academic said
Current colleague used to work at "The Rover", on the "track of tears" (their name for the production line).
Shop floor had no time or respect for anyone in shirt and tie (even visiting customers), let alone management.
They were very well paid, relative to what they did / didn't produce.
They had no pride in their work, and no consequence from poor-quality work.
Quality control was poor, and the product was inferior to foreign competitors' offerings.
Union was all-too-ready to call the workforce out (poor relationship with "management").
While it is all too easy to blame the management, the unions didn't want to work with the management at all; they wanted to wag the dog.
I wonder who Brig thinks is paid for running the company, setting the policy and ethos, setting the employment and personnel practices. and for deciding how much the company should invest in improvements, training or machinery, and how much it should distribute to shareholders.
It certainly isn't the assembly-line drones, or the warehousemen, or the canteen workers.
Can Brig guess who it is?