Why does everyone think we don't already 'work to rule'? Ours is one of the most rule-based professions around. Let's have a look at some of the things we would apparently stop doing if we worked to rule:
Anotherthing posted:
Working to rule means just that... we could drop the extra sectors that we are not required (contractually) to maintain. We could refuse to do overtime for a month. The company, the airlines and UK Industry and economy would suffer big time. Is that elitist - no, it's fact.
What you need to get through to your brain is that working to rule does not mean working unsafely... it means doing the minimum required to fulfil our contract. Safety will never be compromised.
1) Extra sectors: Voluntary (not denying they help in flexibility, but they are voluntary)
2) Overtime: Voluntary
3) Working 1 hour (or less, sometimes) on and half an hour off: less than the 90 mins we are supposed to at a busy unit and still less than the legal maximum of 2 hours on 30 mins off: not 'to rule'
4) Early goes: working less than our contractual hours: not 'to rule'
5) Half day's leave at short notice: not required to be allowed after roster publication but occurs regularly: not 'to rule'
6) Flexible shifts: not required if a business need can be shown for people to be in at normal shift times (and a 'work to rule' would probably create such a business need): not 'to rule'
I'm not denying that staff flexibility allows the operation to be run safely and in a slick manner, but be careful what you wish for if you talk about strict rule implementation of working practices. Noses and faces should not be separated to spite each other!
