Why? Why? Why?

OK, dear readers. Examine the following three statements:

If you pay exceedingly generous bonuses to a select few individuals at the pinnacle of any management hierarchy, it will inevitably lead to those businesses being better managed, and consequently improving shareholder value.

If you remove the ability of employees to request the right to work flexibly, it will inevitably lead to increased productivity within the workforce.

If you remove the practice of collective pay bargaining in the NHS and education sector (presumably requiring each region to undertake such activities independently), this will also boost productivity.

All three of the above statements are ones which form the backdrop to much debate within the UK’s management community at the moment.

OK, the debate is never put in such stark terms, although the recent proposals put forward by the Institute of Directors for the drastic curbing of employee rights come pretty close to it.

'Axe' public sector union rights, say business leaders

Management, especially where it involves people, is never a precise science, and therefore the laws of cause and effect don’t exactly apply.

But for a generous bonus culture to lead to better financial performance or reduced rights for employees to lead to improved productivity there must in theory be an unbroken chain of causality that can be observed and investigated.

If the statements above are true, it doesn’t matter how many links there are in the chain, but there must be a connection between the cause and the effect.

Can someone help me out here: why do we believe that our generous bonus culture has led to increased financial performance? And why do we believe that reducing the rights of employees will similarly lead to increased productivity?

I’m not looking for an explanation of every link in the chain. Just the first one will do.

Employee Relations: the Ugly Sister of HR

Research just undertaken reveals that more than half (54%) of UK senior HR professionals are working in teams in which no one has experience of dealing with trade union action.

HR Sector in Danger of Strikeout by Trade Union Action

And is that lack of capability in HR departments likely to pose a threat to those organisations? You bet! The research also reveals one in five senior HR professionals believe that trade union action is likely to affect their organisation in the next six months.

Of these, 20% say that this activity is likely to have a "huge impact" on the organisation.

Recent industrial action within Transport for London, the BBC and the Fire Service would add weight to this concern. There is also an increasing fear that government spending cuts could be the signal for mass strikes in the UK.

The terrifying fact is that almost two-thirds (63%) of the survey respondents say they know little or nothing about the current laws on trade unions, and 40% say they do not feel confident about dealing with union action.

So what are UK HR professionals doing to ensure that this situation is remedied? Precious little it seems, if the content of the seminars at the CIPD annual conference which starts today is anything to go by! With the exception of the Service Delivery and Information seminar stream, Employee Relations is the category of seminars and workshops at the annual conference with the fewest number of activities within it.

If you wish to be seduced by Strategy Insights and Solutions (“Overcoming the Paradoxes of Global Leadership”, “The Next Stage of HR Evolution: insight-driven HR” or “Do Leaders Really Need to be Tired? A study of resourcefulness, leadership and the power of true human vitality” for example) you’ve a choice of 14 seminars to tempt you. Employee Engagement- the HR fad of the moment –has 12 seminars with slinky titles such as “Creating your own Happiness: the science of luck” or “Why Happiness Makes Business Sense” to lead you astray.

But Employee Relations - today’s Ugly Sister of the HR world - has a mere four seminars aimed at increasing the knowledge and skills of the profession’s self-confessed dunces, and of those four seminars, only one is specifically focused on managing the relationship with Trade Unions.

As the publicity material for the one directly relevant seminar states:

Industrial relations are very much back on the HR agenda. How can you work with trade unions to deliver a more productive workforce and even become a beneficial ally during periods of change? What does a good employer– union relationship look like?

By no means is this an easy question to answer, but at some point HR will need to block its ears to the siren calls of strategy, organisational design and talent management, and realise that there’s a difficult job to be done. The job that used to be called Industrial Relations. The name might have changed, but the activity is still there to be done.

CBI campaigns for modernisation of strike legislation

Timed to perfection, coinciding with the Conservative Party Conference and the London Tube Strike, the CBI this week called for changes in the law to raise the threshold for industrial action, and to ensure that if strikes occur disruption is minimised.

CBI unveils package of measures to avoid strikes

The CBI argues that their recommendations for modernisation of the UK employment relations legislation are essential if the current recovery is to be kept on track.

The CBI believes the law needs updating to reflect the fact that 85% of private sector employees are not members of a union, and that most employers engage directly with staff or their representatives to bring about changes in the workplace.

Their recommendations include:

• Employers should be able to use agency temps to cover for striking workers.
• The notice period for industrial action should increase from seven to 14 days after the ballot takes place to give the public and businesses more time to prepare for strikes.  
• People should have the right to decide whether they want to be represented by a union. Ballots should always be held on union recognition – it should never be automatic.  
• Strikes should be the result of a clear, positive decision by the workforce concerned. The test for a legitimate strike should be that 40% of balloted members support it as well as a simple majority of those voting.  
• Only paid-up union members should be able to vote – there should be a single legal definition of a union member.  
• Unions should keep records up to date. They should conduct an annual audit of their membership and make all reasonable endeavours to keep records accurate throughout the year.  
• Union members should be required to hear both sides of the argument before voting in a strike ballot. Employers and unions should each be allowed to send concise statements with the ballot papers, setting out the scope, nature and reason for the dispute.  
• Union members should be advised on the implications of striking for them personally. Ballot papers should include a notice warning that pay and non-contractual benefits can be withdrawn if an employee goes on strike.

These recommendations are likely to polarise the population into those that think that Trade Unions are an anachronism, led by a band number of militant Marxists intent on holding a company to ransom, and those who think that the CBI’s recommendations are an attempt to totally remove the last weapon in the Trade Unions’ arsenal – that of the removal of labour.

So, dear readers of HR Case Studies: What do you think? Comments welcome.

Anyone seen an HR Director around here?

Who is responsible for Employee Relations strategy in the UK’s major organisations?

You’d think that the answer would be pretty straightforward: surely it’s the organisation’s HR Director, isn’t it?

But you’d be excused for thinking otherwise if you looked in the national press this week.

To put this issue into context: Unions within National Rail have given the green light for the first national rail strike in 16 years; British Airways cabin crew are due to begin a second round of strikes over proposed changes to their pay and conditions. Both of these conflicts have been given a significant level of media attention.

Here’s the HR Case Studies challenge for today: can you tell me who the HR Director is in either of these organisations? Or (for a bonus point!) can you find a single reference to the HR function in any press coverage of the strike action?

The figures in the media spotlight in both of these cases are the Chief Executives of the organisations, together with the National Trade Union Officials who represent the striking workers. So far the HR Directors in both of these disputes seem not only to have been denied a speaking part, but also aren’t even in the theatre, never mind on the stage!

It will probably be stated that both National Rail and BA have made a decision to have a single point of contact with the media. Clearly with BA in particular that is the forceful character of Willie Walsh (who, incidentally, originally trained as an Aer Lingus pilot and was a union shop steward, before eventually moving into management). But for the HR function to remain silent on the issue can only lead to criticisms of its role and purpose.

If the UK’s HR profession is to answer those critics who question the reasons for its existence, it is surely at times like this where it needs to make its presence felt.

Brits: Your employer owes you over £5,000 for unpaid overtime

According to figures published by the TUC, if you're an average Brit putting in unpaid overtime you would only start being paid from today if you'd done all your unpaid work at the start of the year!

However, if you're one of those who clock up over 10 hours a week, you'll have to wait until April 26th before the money hits your bank account.

Last year more than five million workers did an average of seven hours 12 minutes of unpaid overtime every week, worth £27.4 billion, or £5,402 each, according to the TUC.

Press Association: Rise in workers' unpaid overtime

So how do we compare with our colleages across Europe? An exact comparison is difficult to make, as there are different rules and thresholds in place, but many countries have imposed maximum overtime limits and these are highlighted below. (Information derived from European Industrial Relations Observatory Online)

Austria
Maximum 5 hours per week

Belgium
No maximum

Denmark
Maximum 12 hours over 4 weeks

Finland
138 hours over a 4-month period

France
180 hours per year or set by collective agreement

Germany
Varies between sectoral agreements.

Greece
3 hours per day spread over 43 hours

Hungary
200 hours per year

Italy
250 hours per year (or lower by agreement)

Netherlands
None, but there are overall statutory daily, weekly and quarterly working time limits

Norway
200 hours per year

Poland
4 hours per day, 150 hours per year

Spain
80 hours per year

Sweden
None, but there are overall statutory weekly working time limits

UK
None, but there are overall statutory weekly working time limits (from which individuals may 'opt out')

As TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber has stated: "Staff are understandably doing all they can to help their company recover from the recession - and bosses should thank them for going that extra mile, but working time still needs to be properly managed. A long hours culture is bad for workers' health and family life - whether the hours are paid or not."

OK. Confession time for HR Case Studies readers: how much unpaid overtime are you putting in?

Quick! Somebody get me a paramedic with sensible socks, shiny shoes and a tucked-in shirt (and clean religious headgear!)

I dare you not to laugh at this.

Avid followers of HR Case Studies will already be aware that senior management within North West Ambulance Service have decreed that socks with images of cartoon characters, or days of the week are "inappropriate" and "unprofessional", and therefore must not be work by front-line staff. Novelty sock lovers who work for the service could face disciplinary action if they continue to wear them on the job.

But the fashion police have now gone one stage further.

Staff must now also ensure their green shirt is tucked in at all times, footwear must be issued by the trust and be fully polished and religious headwear should be "clean and laundered."

BBC News: Ambulance crews face 'silly sock' discipline

Confession time: did you snigger when reading this?

Technorati feed confirmation ZWF632WUYY4Y

What happens when your employees are not engaged: They lick your chicken.

An unlicked chicken

Here’s a challenge for those of you involved in Employee Engagement: could you have succeeded with this guy who used to work in my local Asda store?

Film of supermarket worker Adeel Ayub who worked in the Asda store in Fulwood, Preston was posted on YouTube by one of his “friends” and accomplices.

The oh-so-hilarious prankster is shown letting off fire extinguishers, throwing eggs in a store room, ripping seats in the employee rest area, cutting his colleagues’ clothes, playing football in the aisles of the store, and urinating in a rubbish bin. His ever-so-funny encore for the appreciative audience is licking a raw chicken before putting it back on the shelf.

This week, he is starting a two-month jail term after he was sentenced at Preston Magistrates Court. For some unfathomable reason he was shocked at the sentence, and his solicitor does not believe that “the sentence is proportionate to the crime”

Lancashire Evening Post: Asda saboteur who denied licking raw chicken is jailed. (Warning! Contains link to video footage which some might find offensive)

• What might Asda wish to do to minimise the negative impact of this former employee's actions on current staff?

New role models for HR professionals: Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall

Shame on you People Management magazine!

In the current online edition of the CIPD's flagship publication, there's a report on (yet another!) workplace survey, this time one undertaken by that well known player on the field of Human Resources, Lloyds Pharmacy. According to the survey HR professionals are amongst the workers most likely to engage in an office romance.

But just cast your eyes over this:

Call centre staff polled the highest - at nearly 29 per cent - when asked to admit to a romantic indiscretion with a colleague. Finance employees ranked second at 28 per cent, while HR workers came in third place, with 26.5 per cent confessing to an office romance.

"Admit to a romantic indiscretion?" Hang on there People Management! Whatever happened to good old honest workplace romance? Why assume that any office based relationship must be indiscreet! I'm sure that many HR professionals will be well versed in untangling the complex web of extra-marital flings and illicit passion in the customer service department, but there must also be numerous instances of unattached boys and girls finding their life partner at work (even in the HR department while co-operating on the implementation of the new performance management system, or downsizing the sales team!)

Forget Dave Ulrich and Linda Gratton: Let's have Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall as the role models for HR professionals.

Here's looking at you, kid.

More than a quarter of HR professionals admit to workplace flings

Taking bullying seriously: The Church of England

This morning's Radio 4 Sunday programme included a fascinating news item concerning bullying of ministers within the established church. But banish the idea of a bullying bishop or a vengeful verger: most of the reported bullying, intimidation and harassment comes from the parishioners rather than the clergy.

The issue is clearly being treated seriously not only within the church but within the UK Trade Union movement.

Responding to claims of abuse, harassment and bullying, the Church of England has issued a Dignity at Work booklet, offering “practical advice to help prevent bullying and harassment, and to deal with any cases that occur”

A telephone helpline has been set up by the Faith Workers Branch of the trade union Unite, which says intimidation of ministers and priests from all denominations is a hidden problem. A bishop is among the 150 clergy and ministers who have sought protection with the trade union Unite from what it describes as a culture of bullying in the established Church. Apparently most of those who have sought help are members of the Church of England but Roman Catholic priests, rabbis and imams have also joined Unite, according to the national officer for the union’s faith workers’ branch.

The natural response to such cases may be one of surprise or even an accusation of hypocrisy. After all, surely the church is the last place where you'd expect to encounter such behaviour, isn't it?

But rather than criticise the church, it would be more appropriate to applaud it for implementing good business practice firstly by accepting that a problem exists and subsequently introduding processes to address it in a sensitive and effective manner.

Radio 4 Sunday Programme

Times Online: Clergy and ministers need protection from Church bullying, Unite union says

Unite (Trade Union): Faith workers branch members’ information

Church of England: Dignity at Work booklet

 

• HR Professionals: if your organisation has introduced an anti-bullying policy, has it been effective?
• Business Studies Students: assuming that your school has an anti-bullying policy, how effective do you believe that it has been, and how would it transfer into a work environment?
• Clerics: is there a reluctance to admit that bullying behaviour actually occurs within the church?

Now is (not) the winter of our discontent

Personally, I’d be happy to return to an era when the pop charts were filled with classics by The Police, Pink Floyd and The Boomtown Rats (though I’ll pass on Dr Hook, The Bee Gees and Lena Martell), but it seems that despite a rash of strikes involving Royal Mail, British Airways refuse collectors and the fire service, fears of a return to the UK-wide strikes of 1979 are overstated.

The CIPD’s employee relations adviser recently said that the UK was unlikely to face a repeat of the “winter of discontent”. He claimed that the disputes in Royal Mail and the transport sector were “anomalies in terms of industrial relations, because the government is still seen as the ultimate banker or guarantor of service continuing”

The adviser did add, however, that during the current recession, the private sector would “still have lower levels of industrial action because of changed staff attitudes and an increasing need to be competitive globally.” He also predicted there would be more strikes in the public sector, particularly after the likely spring general election. This prediction is based on the assumption that there would be a backlash against a new Conservative government proposing to introduce legislation to deal with industrial relations in essential services.

Sounds pretty much like 1979 to me.

By the way: best selling UK single of 1979? Bright Eyes by Art Garfunkel.

Yuk.

The cost of poor HR: €1 billion and 25 lives

Regular readers of HR Case Studies will be familiar with the shocking series of suicides at France Télécom which have taken place while the Company has been implementing a modernisation drive.

Since February 2008, there have been 25 suicides and a further series of attempted suicides.

The cost of a badly managed restructuring programme now stands at a 6.4 per cent drop in third quarter profits, 25 lives and (announced yesterday) a €1 billion stress-reduction programme intended to enable staff aged over 57 to work part time. The part-time jobs would be made available on a voluntary basis to employees who felt that full time work was endangering their health.

Company Chairman Didier Lombard is blamed by unions for disorientating staff through a massive change programme since the business was privatised in 2004. Unions blame performance targets, tough management and imposed workplace mobility measures for the series of suicides.

The former state monopoly has been forced into a wide-ranging review of working practices overseen by Stéphane Richard, a former French government adviser who took over as deputy chief executive this month.

Mr Richards has already admitted that the group has ''gone too far'' into its attempts to supervise staff through the introduction of ''control tools''.

Times Online: France Télécom to invest €1bn to prevent suicides

• How could the engagement of a robust HR function have prevented this situation from developing?

Royal Mail dispute: what's all that about then?

Is it just me, or are you also in the dark over what the Royal Mail strike is actually about? OK, it’s obvious that management of Royal Mail want to “introduce modern working practices” (whatever that actually means) and striking staff feel the need to protest against Royal Mail for “making efficiency cuts without modernising the service” but beyond that, the details of the dispute seem to have evaded me.

With that in mind, I’m therefore not sure whether my local postie is a workshy, lazy, trouble-maker (assuming that he’s one of those on strike) or a strike-breaking scab (if he’s not!)

Terminology like this is the subject of a brief article in this week’s Personnel Today, which also explores the inevitable polarisation of opinion that takes place during any dispute. The forced choice for Royal Mail staff to nail their colours to the mast of either “striker” or “scab” leads to the inevitable creation of stereotypes which in turn brings about “a self-fulfilling cycle that further divides the groups, as they consistently look for positive similarities with their own group while making negative comparisons with colleagues in the other group. Any small or insignificant differences are quickly blown into major points of disagreement, leading to emotional, long-lasting divisions between once friendly and supportive colleagues”

So, as the article suggests, although the Royal Mail dispute may have a short-term resolution, the rifts that form during strike action tend to be long-lasting and deep.

Strikes: the psychological impact on non-striking staff

• One for teachers: research the background to the Royal Mail dispute to ensure that students are aware of the positions of both parties
• One for HR professionals: if you were part of Royal Mail, how could you improve the public’s awareness of what this dispute is actually about?
• One for the rest of you: where do your sympathies lie in this dispute?

Mind your language!

Stupid. Unjustified. Unreasonable. Wrong.

With language like this characterising the current impasse between Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union (CWU) the suggestion that the conciliation service ACAS should be invited to mediate between the aggrieved parties sounds long overdue.

Unless there is a sudden change of heart by either of the parties, on Thursday, 22 October, mail centre staff and drivers will strike (“Unjustified!” says Royal Mail) The next day it will be delivery and collection staff (“Unreasonable!” Says Royal Mail)

In response to the threat of strike action Royal Mail is intending to double the 15,000 temporary staff it usually recruits before Christmas (“Stupid!” Says the CWU) These extra workers will deal with the backlog caused by the strikes as well as helping with the Christmas rush.

Meanwhile, sitting like vultures on the sidelines, TNT (the UK's largest private mail firm) is lobbying the government to allow it to deploy its postal workers on the streets if the stoppage goes ahead.

Union urged to cancel post strike

• Does the dispute between Royal Mail and the Trade Unions epitomise a relationship that has broken beyond repair?
• Previous disputes which have similarly featured such antagonistic language have ultimately been settled. Is such language possibly merely rhetoric?
• The management of many organisations would claim to work in a spirit of partnership and collaboration with Trade Unions. Can you see such a relationship ever existing within Royal Mail?
• Is it ever right that a Trade Union can in effect hold members of the public to ransom in furtherance of its cause?

Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

New research suggests (oh, how I groan whenever I hear that phrase….) that having an almighty ding-dong with your work colleagues could be beneficial for all concerned.

According to strategy consultants Cognosis (and I can feel another groan on the way …) a heated argument can encourage a robust exchange of ideas, leading to innovation and improvement in policy and vision (can this man possibly fit any more management jargon and buzzwords into one sentence, I hear you ask?)

“Great strategy emerges when people are encouraged to challenge the status quo, ask awkward questions and examine 'sacred cows'," says the report based on a survey of more than 1,000 executives from across the business world.

Helpfully, the Cognosis report also includes handy hints on how to argue effectively:

• Direct, assertive, high-energy exchanges can trigger breakthrough thinking
• No personal agendas
• Listen, ask 'why', try to understand other viewpoints
• Use open and encouraging body language, not defensive or closed
• Raised voices may be OK but keep tone civil
• Don't think winners/losers, explore ideas to co-create winners/winners
• Ensure there's an agreed deadline for resolution

Responses to the research has been mixed. One workplace psychologist (yes, it’s time for a third and final groan) commented “This has clearly been dreamt up by people who are in control of their thinking, their bodies and their emotions, but the rest of the world is not so angelic”

Can a blazing row at work be productive?

So, come on you horrible lot: answer these questions and share your views.

• Do you agree with the suggestion that a good row in the office might be a positive thing?
• What's the difference between arguing and challenging constructively?
• Is any form of aggression in the workplace unacceptable?
• Are there some work environments where a "full and frank exchange of views" may be more acceptable than others?
• Is aggression ever appropriate for a workplace leader?

The tragic cost of company restructuring at France Telecom

The female employee of France Telecom’s Orange subsidiary who threw herself out of a fourth floor window last week was the company’s 23rd suicide in the last 18 months. She had just attended a meeting to discuss a reorganisation of the customer service department she worked in. As Management Today has reported, it’s hardly surprising that the French government, which still owns a quarter of the company, has stepped in to reassure staff that the problem is being addressed. The company’s Trade Unions put the blame for these alarming statistics firmly at the door of France Telecom’s 'modernisation' programme, which has seen 22,000 jobs lost and 10,000 people change jobs (often from a technical to a customer service or sales role). Other employees have taken dramatic action when being told that their jobs are changing; last week a technician stabbed himself in the stomach in protest at being moved into a new role.

A spokesman for France Telecom pointed out that France as a whole has a high suicide rate, of 17.8 per 100,000 people. But since that's about the number of people France Telecom employs, its suicide rate is clearly well above average, and definitely high enough to cause serious concern. The company has promised to bring a temporary halt to its restructuring programme while it introduces measures to deal with workplace stress. The good news for French HR professionals is that France Telecom is recruiting a number of them.

France Telecom forced to account for human cost of restructuring

• What action would you expect the HR team in France Telecom to be taking following these events?
• How might France Telecom have anticipated its employees reacting in such a dramatic fashion?
• What are your views on the restructuring which has led to so many employees being required to change jobs?
• What actions do many organisations take to minimise workplace stress?
• As this latest even was the 23rd suicide in 18 months, should the company have taken action earlier and, if so, what?

A Sunday shambles!

London Midland runs about 1,200 train services, calling at 149 stations between London, the Midlands and the North West. It relies on drivers volunteering to staff its trains on Sundays but this week not enough had offered to work, so services will not run. Rail users' groups have called the situation "a shambles" and the company's unions have said it could have been avoided. "This weekend, so few have volunteered to work, that we have had no choice but to cancel services," said a spokesman for the company. Bob Crow, who is general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers Union (RMT) said the move was not organised action by workers but simply a case of the contractual right not to work being exercised. "Their contracts of employment say they're not forced to work on a Sunday, so it's their choice." As far as passengers are concerned, a user commented, "It's a shambles. How can they run an essential service on a voluntary basis? It's an astonishing way to operate a train service." Understandably, the government has been urged to look into the firm's voluntary work rules.

Passengers braced for rail chaos

• How could this situation have been prevented?
• What are the advantages to both a company and its employees of paying overtime when additional work is required?
• What are the typical premium rates that an employee might receive for working overtime on (a) a normal working day, (b) a weekend, and (c) a Bank Holiday?
• Can a company require its employees to work on a Sunday?
• How could a refusal to ever work on a Sunday limit an individual's career development
• Research activity: Explore the work of Keep Sunday Special who campaign for Sunday remaining primarily a day of rest for family, friends and community.
• What happened next? Suggestion for further activity: the dispute has now developed and a resolution seems to have been reached. Discuss the possible solutions to this employee relations issue, and then read the attached article to see what actually happened.

Stay-away train drivers have Sunday double pay reinstated

Where there is no vision, the people perish

The King James Version of the Bible may not be the automatic first place to look for advise on mission statements for organisations, but the writer of Proverbs 29:18 hit the nail on the head with his observation that "Where there is no vision, the people perish." Many organisations have recognised this and created vision and/or mission statements which are intended to set the organisation's purpose, guiding values and principles, and the way it intends to achieve its objectives, often also recognising the interests of customers and other stakeholders. Producing a successful mission statement is by no means an easy task: too short and it might appear bland, too long and it will turn people off; too strategic and it might alienate the workforce, too tactical and it will be uninspiring; too aspirational and it may well sound corny. Above all, a mission statement will only ever be of value to an organisation if the people within it understand what it means and the business subsequently practises what it preaches.


Sadly, no prizes (other than eternal fame!) but can you identify the following organisations from their mission statements? And how successful do you believe these mission statements to be?

1. (We are) an international group of independent non-governmental organizations dedicated to fighting poverty and related injustice around the world, working together internationally to achieve greater impact by our collective efforts.
2. To be the consumer's first choice for food, delivering products of outstanding quality and great service at a competitive cost through working "faster, simpler and together"
3. To provide its customers with safe, good value, point-to-point air services. To effect and to offer a consistent and reliable product and fares appealing to leisure and business markets on a range of European routes. To achieve this they will develop their people and establish lasting relationships with their suppliers
4. To be the UK's best fast service restaurant experience
5. To be the place for health and beauty customers. We want to secure market leadership in the UK and build on our brands' growing success internationally
6. A high profile organisation which campaigns successfully for trade union aims and values, assists trade unions to increase membership and effectiveness, cuts out wasteful rivalry and promotes trade union solidarity
7. To lead in the development and promotion of good practice in the field of the management and development of people, for application both by professional members and by their organisational colleagues.

Ryanair and Virgin: Compare and Contrast!

Blaming the decision on Manchester Airport's refusal to lower its charges, Ryanair is either closing or switching nine of the 10 routes that currently operate from Manchester, with a loss of up to 600 jobs in the area. This news once again brings controversial Chief Executive Michael O'Leary into the limelight, and provides an opportunity to compare the organisational cultures of Ryanair with that of Virgin Airlines.

Ryanair

• Michael O’Leary appointed as Chief Executive in 1985
• Concentrates on the short haul, mainly European market
• No frills approach
• O’Leary (Mr. Grumpy?) becoming infamous for his “earthy” language, controversial advertising and unusual practices including suggesting that passengers may have to carry their own bags” and pay to use the toilet (!)
• Ryanair operates in only one market
• Ryanair makes it clear that price is its main reason for gaining repeat business
• Ryanair cabin crew are employed by a third party
  

Virgin

• Founded by Richard Branson in 1984
• Mainly concentrate on long haul flights
• Positioned at the quality end of the market
• Branson (Mr. Happy?) often appears personally in publicity to indicate closeness to employees and customers
• Airline is part of a major brand including trains and financial services
• Virgin works hard at customer loyalty
• Virgin cabin crew (frequently glamorous blondes!) are employed by Virgin and are selected through a lengthy recruitment process
  

• What are the differing HR challenges in both of these organisations?
• How successful would these two organisations be if they had to switch the markets in which they operate?
• How well do you believe each organisation is placed to survive the current economic downturn?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of outsourcing (or subcontracting) such a key element of the workforce as cabin crew?
• Could either organisation be successful without its dynamic, charismatic and controversial Chief Executive?

For a more detailed case study on Ryanair and Virgin, see "Management and Organisational Behaviour" by Laurie J. Mullins (FT Prentice Hall)

Dispute at Royal Mail gets political

Click

As more postal strikes hit the UK (see yesterday's entry) the temperature in the dispute has heated up with calls from Business Secretary Lord Mandelson for the Trade Union to "wake up" and help stop the further decline of the business. His comments have been declared "an absolute disgrace" by senior members of the Trade Union, who have also claimed that government ministers are attempting to destroy the Trade Union. Lord Mandelson has also refused to get actively involved in the dispute, leaving both sides to slog it out between themselves. Royal Mail are insistent that the door remains open for further discussions about how modernisation can be introduced. Small businesses are understandably concerned that this will negatively affect them, and there is also a worry (denied by the Royal Mail) that the delivery of this week's A Level results may be delayed. Royal Mail has already made it public that they are in a tight financial position and that cuts are inevitable.

• Why might Lord Mandelson on behalf of the Labour Government refuse to intervene in the dispute?
• Earlier this week the Government also declined to become involved in the call for a Commission on High Pay in UK businesses. What might be the reasons behind this, and are there some arguments between employers and Trade Unions (or groups of employees) where it would be essential for the Government to become involved?
• What other Trade Unions are represented within Royal Mail?
• Research Activity: Explore the history of the Trade Union Movement and its links with the Labour Party

Problems for Royal Mail

Click

This week will see further strike action by members of the CWU (Communication Workers Union) within Royal Mail as a result of disagreements over job cuts and reductions in service. As ever, there are two sides to every dispute.

The Trade Union believes that Royal Mail is failing to invest properly in modernisation and is removing jobs without agreement;

Royal Mail believe that changes are essential, but the Trade Union is opposing them

The Trade Union believes that service quality will be compromised by the reduction in jobs;

Royal Mail believe that the Trade Union need to join the Company in tackling the challenge by the increase in electronic media

The Trade Union have called a series of strikes in key locations over the next week to highlight their case;

Royal Mail have condemned the CWU for striking locally over much-needed modernisation and change and said that they are expecting 90% of their staff to be working normally.

• Which government agency could be involved in mediating in such a dispute?
• What steps must a Trade Union take before calling its members out on strike?
• What action can (and can't!) a company take against striking employees?
• What other examples are there of organisations that have struggled to introduce change to working practices as a result of technological change?
• Now that the Royal Mail no longer has a monopoly over the delivery of mail in the UK, how is this likely to restrict the immediate impact of the strike action?
• Further Research Activity: compare the cost of sending a simple letter through thedomestic mail in different coutries. Do your findings make you more supportive of either the Royal Mail or the Trade Union