Originally Posted by jetsbest
... is a bit disingenuous as it's only the first half of the 'efficiency cycle'.
Once that logic is bedded-down and the efficiencies found, the next management move becomes one of two options:
1. We have too many employees knocking off early so we need fewer workers for the services we so efficiently provide, or
2. We have the capacity to do more work with the employees we have because they're currently under utilised.
Either way, it's NEVER about some egalitarian ideal where pay is preserved for less hours at work. Care to comment?
And then the 'game' starts over....
The answer to part 1 was that the redundancy payouts were made significant and were based on salary so they are greater than just basic time with no overtime.
Once you have an efficient set of practices you could of course reduce numbers. Or, more likely, you would go out and win more work on the back of those efficiencies.
Is it an egalitarian ideal? Well. I would argue that's not a valid usage of the word, egalitarian is equality for all. I do not and have not advocated such, there is always a need for differing salaries. Egalitarian principles would state AMEs and LAMEs get paid the same, so I don't think you're using the word you are looking for.
If you mean utopian, as in idealistic, then the answer is, as all real world answers are, complicated. Is it utopian to provide a workplace where people earn a decent living without huge amounts of overtime? What about significant overtime? Moderate overtime etc? It comes down to where you draw the line.
But what is certain is that having employment if your field of expertise is vastly superior to not having such employment. In order to do that a company needs to be profitable. Provided both sides of the equation are treated with respect then it works to the advantage of all. Keeping people validly occupied for their agreed salaried hours isn't a loss of the utopian ideal, it is the realisation of a genuinely effective workplace and therefore a workplace that should survive.
That's why it is complicated, what value do you place on a direct contribution to making your own future employment more secure?
And yes, the game keeps going over and over, that's just the way the world is. Every time you make improvements you can be pretty much certain some competitor somewhere is also making improvements. As soon as you stop they will get the advantage over you and it is their workplace that will survive at the expense of your own.
So yes, you can rest on your laurels if you like, but all that will do is crush them and make you vulnerable. Like it or not, that's the way it is. It is why SIAEC, built with the assistance of Qantas, is now in a position they are a superior value offering to QF engineering. You can yell and scream and hate it all you like, but the simple fact is they deliver what is required with a better value proposition in many instances.