On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:32:58 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
Well, yes. When you shut down the mines that certainly results in better
industrial relations in them. On paper.

The sad thing there was the belief by anybody that there was a viable
business considering the nature of the world market in coal.

At that time, maybe. Of course many would say that relying purely on world
wide market forces may not be of benefit in the long term for 'us' as a
whole. As the current trend in gas prices may prove.

Of course. The questions then go full circle. Are we willing to pay
more for something in the short term to achieve a greater long term
control of prices? Do we want to erect trade barriers as Bush did to
attempt to protect the US steel industry?

I don't see large numbers of takers for either.



All the time that was wasted on trying to grab larger slices of eve
smaller pies, would have been much better focussed on reinvesting and
retraining to address more viable markets. In that respect, all
concerned can share the blame, including consumers wanting to have
lower prices than could be achieved locally.

Yes. Yet it's the unions that get the blame - always.

I think that depends on who is doing the reading and writing.



Same with much of the rest of UK
owned industry. Perhaps it has escaped you there is no longer a UK owned
mass car maker? And the now successful car makers in the UK are owned by
those who have a less cavalier attitude to industrial relations - hence
better productivity, quality and industrial relations despite using the
same workers.

A coming to reality of all concerned. It takes two parties (at
least) to have an argument, and the confrontational nature of
employer/union behaviour (for which both are to blame) is responsible
for much of this.

Much of the confrontation in BL was due to the appalling mismanagement.
From the very top downwards. Trying to make poorly production engineered
cars and then blaming the workforce for not building them properly.

Companies of this size have their own cultures and their fiefdoms.

At one stage I can remember almost everybody in Rover wearing grey and
red uniforms as workwear even if they drove a desk.
I don't think that it changed people's outlooks, though.

TBH, I am very surprised that the company lasted as long as it did.

The notion that all of this is a class or political struggle as
promoted strongly by the unions a generation ago - less so today, but
it's still there - really has no place in the business environment at
all.

The class struggle consisted of a few thinking they were the ruling class
and that they could do as they wished. And I'm not talking elected
politicians here.

That comment could be equally applied to mill owners and union
grandees.



It is a cultural change that can make a difference - a realisation on
the part of all concerned in a business that job security does not
come from having internal disputes about who gets what but realising
that it is from the willingness of the customer to buy the product
being sold and the confidence of the investors to continue their
commitment.

--

..andy