With respect I would suggest that there is a deal of difference between the stereotypical victorian mill owner and modern management. To kick off with, the mill owners were in the main deeply religious men with a strong work ethic who were not responsible to shareholders and who invariably did not have a senior management team running the enterprise. Any profits from the mill went into the owner's pocket, thus he had a vested interest in operating at the lowest cost threshold.
Contrast this with the management teams of companies like BA, where although the senior execs do get bonuses, they invariably come in the form of share options. The profits don't go into their pockets, they are shared by all the shareholders (assuming the company pays a dividend). It is utter tosh to suggest that the management team of any company is exploiting the current economic situation to undermine its staff. In any organisation employee costs invariably figure as one of if not the highest cost items. So in a time when revenues are down, the logical area to tackle is cost reduction and employee PPI costs are a prime target.
Unions are in a difficult position. They should be aware of the economic realities but it runs counter to their position. They know that cutbacks are required, but the notion of losing a few in order to protect the many is opposed to the idea of protection for all.
As far as executive pay goes, yes, the amount that Stuart Rose gets as part time chairman of M&S does seem ridiculous, but then so is the amount that football clubs pay for players. At least Stuart Rose has been able to help M&S make a profit. And on the subject of pay, why does nobody shout about the package that TU leaders enjoy ?