MG Rover - t’is a sad day

Yes of course it was!

However, his post was in reference to HSBC, not Rover, and the way I read it was directed at Management in general screwing the workforce and wasn't company specific.

IMO the peole who owed rover and are closing it bought it for a very small fee(£10) i belive and now they are individual millionaires don't give a toss anymore so are closing plant while they're still rich. Its about time this country stopped giving all its best companies away to foreign countries. I used to say i was proud to be British but the way the country isgoing im not so sure any more.

Peter Fenwick wrote: I'm not saying let the work force run the company, but how many times do we here about businesses making profits then announcing that there going to either cut the workforce or freeze salaries. I know that the item in the news only gave a limited amount of information but how, when the announced record profits this year, can they justify not paying everyone a fair cost of living rise, which IMO should be a matter of right. Without a cost of living rise you are effectively giving everyone a pay cut.

This is the essence of a good philosophical debate.

On the one hand, you may take the view that an employee earns a salary required to maintain a certain standard of living and therefore takes in to account things like inflation, property prices, mortgage or rent costs, etc. and that when these things rise, so too should salaries by a similar %.

On the other hand you have the perspective that says that an employee earns a salary that is appropriate to the value of the the job they do.  Salary changes are linked to the rise, or fall, in the value of that job to the employer.  Therefore factors such as inflation, etc, which are outside the control of the employer, should not have a bearing on the salary paid.  Likewise, if the value of the job done increases by an amount greater than the rate of inflation, etc. then the salary should rise appropriately and independently of the factors such as inflation.  To improve living standards in this situation involves an employee increasing their value by improving their skillset is some way.

I'm not sure which viewpoint is right.

I think an analysis of significant organizations that fail or have been run into the ground will find that they tend to be older, longer established companies with less flexible workforces (and management) where workpractices have become more important that work processes.  The link between effort and reward (on both sides) has been blurred.

Unions do have a very important role to play in ensuring that exploitation of staff does not occur but as you said, power influences actions as often as principles do.  Again this is true of management equally often.  The abuse of power, whoever does it, is not a noble thing.

rubberknees50 wrote: Dergside wrote: This is the essence of a good philosophical debate. Sadly many firms don't go with either system, and workers just get told there's no money for wages, work harder and there might be one day!

That is the time when employee's should vote with their feet, but unfortunately the most exploited in this way are usually the most vulnerable and least able to do that. 

That is where unions should be stepping in, but it usually doesn't work like that.  In many cases today, unions are big businesses themselves and don't have too much time for the "little people".  My gripe in these situations are that at least employers are upfront about the profit motive.