Perhaps you see some as being more equal than others.
: Huh? No.
Who should receive the highest salaries if all is (now?) distributed equally?
Huh? You tell me. I thought AMEs get AME pay. LAMEs get LAME pay. Managers get manager pay etc. I said nothing about all receiving the same pay!
Your original assertion implied that salaries could help find efficiencies leading to the 'blue-collar' work being done in 75% of the previous times. I simply said that less time at work (by any individual) in return for the same pay (as they formerly received) simply would not last.
When change is needed management should be able to coherently and honestly;
a. explain their research and what it shows,
b. enunciate what they think needs to be done,
c. elicit valuable/knowledgeable employee input which
may even uncover options not previously considered,
d. finalise a clearly understood plan, and
d. bring an engaged workforce along with them for the good of all, in order that
e.
EVERYONE gets to celebrate, not just a chosen few.
How egalitarian of you to recognise that!
The problem is that recent management strategies seem more intent on ramming through "improvements" (an apparent yet common euphemism for "cheaper on paper") which benefit a few, and with very little of all the other true leadership traits which would add credibility to the plans. By the absence of
true leadership, exhibiting the positive behaviors you've explained, management actually create the resistance-prone employees it so abhors.
My concern is that, given so many commentators still consider some of these buffoons to be 'world-class' managers, perhaps such a management style really is part of a plan to characterise employees as 'too hard to work with', and thus facilitate a slash-&-burn/get-rich-quick-and-bugger-the-rest-of-'em mentality.
