In article , Dave Plowman (News)
scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
How do you explain to each and every member of staff in a large company
how any pay rise etc is arrived at? By letter?

Well these were quite young small companies...

Usually far less need for a union in those as everyone should know
everyone else.

Also, a member of staff with a grievance or whatever is likely being
happier talking it over with a colleague who is a member of that union
rather than a manager. The rep can then put across the point - likely
without the heat of the previous scenario.


Never knew anyone who had one. The pay was good conditions good, staff
treated like human beings. Management were as often as not likely to be
buying rounds in the pub after work. People wanted to work there and
enjoyed it..

Somehow, I don't think that happened in the companies we were talking
about. Management thought their job was only to manage - ie to get the
most out of the workforce for the least possible money/effort. Ie maximum
profit at all costs. If they have that attitude, you can't really blame a
workforce from taking the exact opposite one.

Good management will know how to get the best from their workforce and
that doesn't mean terrorising them or mistreating them.


Of course none of that would be needed with a perfectly run company. But
being run by humans, most unlikely.


Course I never worked for the likes of BT or a large nationalised firm
that I could imagine wouldn't be anywhere near the same;(.

I did have a uncle who worked in a large factory up North, he hated the
management there with a large vengeance....

Sadly all too common. But when a 'them and us' situation develops, it's
usually the fault of the management.

And that .. was what I meant in the previous post..
--
Tony Sayer