An organisation will continue to repeat it's own mistakes & provoke further discontent within, unless it listens to it's employees.
In this case, the masses did speak in August. A unanimous vote of no confidence in the CEO. Followed by "a September to remember" as termed by those who work within.
This would have (and should have) been a massive wake up call to any reasonable organisation.
So why would an organisation further agitate the situation by the termination of one of the key players from the August meeting?
The organisations plans must be so critical to it's success, that they are willing to consciously provoke further disengagement & reaction amongst the majority of it's present employees.
If I was one of the company individuals managing the situation, I would have considered a substitution type test. That being, would any of my other employees feel the same way as that demonstrated in the published article?
The answer would have been an overwhelming yes. In fact (possibly) the majority of the pilot workforce, as evidenced by the meeting some 3 months earlier.
This has got to be saying something about how the organisation chooses to manage their employees.
The company was in a tough predicament either not commenting or reacting to the publishing of the article & have the momentum of the August meeting gather pace & media attention. Or terminate JE's employment (which they did) & have the employees further support his cause & also gain further media attention in the process.
Either way, it's got the company "heavies" such as DH & MR out in the media defending their actions. As opposed to the normal commentary from SW.
As mentioned by another writer, the company was in a catch 22. I believe the preferred action should have been listening to JE privately & determine if the SYSTEMS or POLICIES within needed fixing.
Who is causing the greater degree of damage to the organisation, an individual or management?