Last week, the Tory MP for Monmouth accused
those expressing anger over job losses at Airbus of ‘crocodile tears’ and argued that some
people have “spent the last few years decrying the airline industry and
talking about the climate emergencies and the rest of it… I hope they now
realise that this is what they have been calling for”. It was a typically
robust performance from a man not exactly known either for his sensitivity to
the difficulties of others or for thinking about the consequences of his words.
And I suspect that those Tories holding seats in the north of Wales –
especially those who only won them a few short months ago – won’t be rushing to
thank him for his intervention. But however poorly he expressed himself and
however unthinking his comments, he does actually have a point. A reduction in
flying will inevitably impact some jobs.
There was another, apparently unrelated, story in
the Sunday Times a week ago in which a number of politicians, including Tory
Theresa Villiers and Labour’s Andy Burnham, called for staff who have been
working at home to return to their offices in city centres because the shops
and restaurants there depended on their custom. Never mind that they have shown
that they can work effectively at home, never mind that public transport is
working well below normal capacity meaning that a return to city centre offices
means an increase in the use of private cars with its accompanying congestion
and pollution: shops and restaurants depend on their business so people should
go back to what they were doing before.
The common theme is that those of us who
want to build a different type of economy, one where people travel less and one
which is less environmentally damaging and more personally fulfilling cannot
legitimately also argue that all existing jobs must also be protected at all
costs. A move to a different type of economy, to say nothing of the changes
which automation and Artificial Intelligence will bring, necessarily requires some
jobs to become redundant, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise. If we get
it right, of course, then they will either be replaced by other jobs and/or we
will find other means of sharing out both the work and the rewards for doing
it; that is all part of the alternative thinking that is required.
The immediate problem is that some of
these changes are being forced upon us at short notice by unplanned
circumstances. And part of the reason that’s such a problem is that, prior to
the pandemic, governments have given far too little thought to how we manage
the necessary changes over a longer period. Even during the pandemic, little
thought has been given to whether some of the forced changes (such as more home
working) might be beneficially continued for the longer term; the emphasis has
all been on ‘returning to normal’. The Welsh government prides itself on some
of the legislation it has passed, such as the Future Generations Act, and so it
should. However, passing laws is meaningless and pointless unless the
government also acts to bring about substantial economic change in a planned
fashion, and the simple truth is that there has been little evidence of that
happening. Ministers have, instead, used every opportunity to support what is
rather than building what should be.
The loss of jobs at Airbus is a tragedy
for those involved, their families and local communities, but pretending that
the downturn in the aviation industry is something that will last a few short
months, and seeking to find ways of maintaining the jobs over that period, is a
sticking plaster approach. The combination of Brexit and the almost complete
shutdown of aviation as a result of the pandemic have made it obvious for
months that there would be a problem for Airbus. Where is the thinking about
how those valuable skills can best be employed for the future, where is the
thinking about how individuals, families and communities can be protected and
supported through a period of change? I don’t really expect to see any of that
from a Tory government in London but it’s disappointing, to say the least, that
we’re not seeing it from the Welsh government either. Protecting existing jobs
is no substitute for planning and managing a transition to a different type of
economy.
1 comment:
"Management of change"seems to be an abstract term found in management textbooks and magazines but almost totally absent/invisible in the real world. The whining about the decline ( and possible fall) of aerospace, airlines,travel and hospitality sectors is in sharp contrast to the rabid enthusiasm for a certain Greta only a few months ago.
You make valid points - so many of the changes are feasible it only requires the will to implement them. To mitigate "pain" it needs to be planned with a vision and related pathways to enable migration from our rather wasteful present to a more efficient future. So aircraft factories may need to switch to producing wind turbines,batteries, or recharging points for instance. And those inner city cafes bars and other feeding points may have to revert to being inner city residential properties in which case a new market for "hospitality" may germinate among those new communities.
Other have complained that booze is at the root of many of society's problems. Why crave the resumption of normal service as seen at various venues last weekend? Perhaps it is time to "call time" on the boozers just like we don't tolerate opium dens. Pubs and similar businesses dependent on drink as their core purpose need to rethink their market position, but that won't happen until society, or government, drive that change.
Too easy to revert to status quo, but with a few minor changes that is where I see us going because no-one is really up to managing major change, and eventually it will be forced upon us.
Post a Comment