It is a recognition that its cost base is having a more than serious impact on its operating costs and the bottom line profitability. But is this really an approach that will have an impact at all, or is it just another example of window-dressing management on the part of the senior management of BA?
Scratch below the surface, and even simple economics will show that this really is nothing more than an exercise in semantics. Take the numbers, for example: whether it's 30,000 or 40,000 employees, most of the workforce are in the lower-echelon pay scales, and even a ‘guessimate' average of £1,500-£2,000 per employee as a monthly base is only going to provide somewhere between £45 million and £80 million. This is hardly sufficient to even touch the sides of BA's operating costs over the next 12 months, and, ultimately, whether it happens or not, it's inevitable that redundancies will follow soon after.
So what does such a proposal do to the workforce? Well, first, it makes them even angrier and less motivated than perhaps they are at present. Because the staff at BA, like in any large corporate entity, are not mugs, even though their management and principals delude themselves into believing they are. The vast majority of them are intelligent, articulate and up-to-date in current affairs even if their primary source of readership material comes from the tabloid end of the market. The delusion of many large corporations is that their workforce is, for the most part, cannon fodder to be used, abused, misused and ultimately discarded whenever they cease to be of any further value. Examples are everywhere and too many to mention. The UK banks, insurance companies and financial institutions are perhaps too easy a target in the current market; so, let's not be too hard on BA. They are, after all, a British institution and there are not that many of them remaining after the Government giveaway of late of anything even remotely resembling a British asset.
Sadly, although BA had the right idea in trying to appeal directly to their workforce, I think they went about it in the wrong way. The smart move would have been to appeal to the generosity of the workforce in supporting them through difficult times. But that involves the management of BA taking an open and trusting approach with their workforce, and that's a step too far beyond for them. To be open and to trust your workforce, you have to believe in them to do what's right for the business; and that's not within the makeup of senior management in the world of multinational corporations. Just look at the example of General Motors and ask whether the same fate could befall BA. Of course it could and that's where BA management has badly miscalculated, because without providing any leadership as to what the future might hold, other than the prospect of receivership, they have failed to recognise that what employees want most is the confidence and security that comes from a job well done.
Charles Helliwell is an executive coach
British Airways shows it doesn't understand its staff by asking them to work without pay
British Airways' (BA) request that its entire staff work voluntarily without pay in July poses a huge dilemma not only for the staff but for the airline itself. It's as close to a public 'outing' of a publicly-listed company as it comes.
