Originally Posted by
rockflyertalk
Is this a matter upon recent reflections? Or a plan much further down the pipeline? If an immediate plan then will WS staff now work remotely indefinitely?
This type of scenario is something that businesses will be looking at with a fine tooth combe. Once businesses assess the savings they make from not having a HQ with rent/mortgage, utility bills, tax, service staffing etc, we honestly could see a dramatic shift in where or how businesses operate.
Walsh and his constant obsession on costs never ceases to amaze me. I look forward to an IAGBA CEO who balances the cost with the affects on staff and customer versus what we have witnessed for the last 5 years at least.
I'm sure it's been in the pipeline for a while. Nothing, nothing of what's being proposed now has been created on the fly.
In other news, I spoke with old colleagues from the last department I worked for in BA before leaving. I'll skip the details, but they were told, yesterday, of the proposed plan "subject to consultation". The reduction in headcount is equal to 78% of the total workforce (which was reduced by 30% in 2017). As this is the doing of the same man who culled Heathrow and Worldwide ops, it's skewed towards the bottom of the food chain: whilst 30% Band 1 and 2 jobs will remain, only 15% of Band 3 will survive. No early retirement, although there's a fair few people with 30/40 years' worth of NAPS who could; no VR; re-apply for your job and if you're not "lucky", you get statutory redundancy. Apparently, and I haven't seen the email so I can't say for certain, there word "sorry" does not feature in it. Or offers of support for that matter.