Fairline Sq55 painted blue

  • Thread starter Thread starter jfm
  • Start date Start date
Yup, and at least the troll could be nicer to the folks on here - we of all people are helping there not be a recession in the boatbuilding world! (me especially so far as Fairline is concerned /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif)

PS Nick your bim has arrived at EBY. Saw it y'day. All fine
 
Good point - in theory.
You've never dealt with workers representatives while being in charge of shutting down a plant, have you?
Trust me, the "it's not our fault" line is useless in such situations: the full responsibility for what you're doing is bound to be assumed by yourself and of your company, regardless of any excuse you might have.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You've never dealt with workers representatives while being in charge of shutting down a plant, have you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, lots of times, and my experience is the opposite of yours. Does anyone really expect their employer to keep on more people than they have work for? In my experience they don't, and as long as they feel the criteria on which the redundancies have been selected were fair, and that they were fairly assessed against those criteria, they dont hold a grudge against the company. Fairline are cutting staff 'cos not enough people are buying boats, 'cos there's a credit crunch and a recession. That's out of their control. We have no reason to believe they didn't conduct fair assessments to decide who should go, so no reason to assume that any ex-employee should hold a grudge.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, lots of times, and my experience is the opposite of yours.
Does anyone really expect their employer to keep on more people than they have work for?
...

[/ QUOTE ]Wow, "lots of times"?!? Are you doing it for a living?
Because if not, I'd politely suggest to reconsider the strategies of your company... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
But back to the point: you're actually mixing up a few different issues here.
I said nothing about assessment criterias and fairness. Let's take them for granted.
My point had just to see with the approach towards the problem which is being faced.
See, of course workers do not expect their employers to pay them for nothing, but workers expect - with good reasons - their employers to do everything they can before laying them off.
So, let's make an even clearer example of an external event totally out of the employer control (because against the credit crunch and the recession there are indeed companies which are doing better than others, even within the same markets).
An earthquake destroys completely a plant, and it's not worth rebuilding it, for good economical reasons.
So, from one day to another, the work is not there anymore.
Now, even in this case, when dealing with the workers, I wouldn't tell them that it's only mother nature to be blamed, if they don't have a job anymore.
I'd rather explain that I/we (the company, anyway) made all possible efforts to relocate them elsewhere (if that makes sense), and that I/we evaluated the rebuild of the plant, but... (or whatever other option might apply).
But at the end, I/we could not find any decent alternative, and I/we am/are very sorry for that.
Imho (and experience), that's much better than just blaming someone or something else.
Oh, and of course It would be sensible to actually make any possible effort, rather than just saying it was made!... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
But I don't think you're really disagreeing. Even in your earthquake example, what you say to the workers is "Mother nature did it. I tried hard to find other wys to employ you but I couldn't. So mother nature wins. You are terminated"

In the Fairline case the story is likely the same: "there is a Big Recession. We have looked at other ways to employ you, evaluated keeping the plant going, relocating you to our plant that makes bigger boats that are selling better, etc, but none of those options works, so The Big Recession wins and you are redundant"

Same thing really?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, "lots of times"?!? Are you doing it for a living?
Because if not, I'd politely suggest to reconsider the strategies of your company... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Yes, it's sort of my job, we buy companies in trouble that sometimes need plant closures, amongst other things, to make them viable.

As jfm says, I don't think we're disagreeing. The most important thing (in avoiding employees having a grudge) is that they believe there is no other sensible option to keep them employed. I think in the current credit crunch / recession Fairline will not find it difficult to convince their employees that they have to reduce their headcount to stay viable. Yes, some employees could look at Sunseeker and say they're not having redundancies, so it's a Fairline strategy problem, but they can equally look at Sealine, who are shedding more, or Princess who are in the same boat.

Once the employees have accepted the need to cut labour, it's all about whether the process of selection is fair
 
[ QUOTE ]
The most important thing (in avoiding employees having a grudge) is that they believe there is no other sensible option to keep them employed.

[/ QUOTE ]Yup, now we're definitely not disagreeing.
'Twas your initial statement, where you seemed to assume that people shouldn't have a grudge just because the depression is not their employer's fault, that I read as a bit simplistic - maybe I just misunderstood it.
Anyway.
Sadly, it's neither the grudge nor its absence that can put food on the table, so at the end of the day the song remains the same, for all those involved... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top