YOUR leader opinion about the job losses at BMW (A dark day for the city, Oxford Mail, February 17), was almost spot on.

I was informed of a shop stewards’ meeting scheduled for 4.30am on Monday, February 16.

At that meeting the Plant Convenor, Bernard Moss, informed the stewards of what was happening. We were told that the reason the company had delayed the process of information to the shop floor was, apparently, because of the likelihood of angry workers venting their outrage in the form of material damage to company property.

Your reports suggest that perhaps there may have been some substance behind the rationale. Regardless of when the decision was actually made, this does not provide a blanket excuse for BMW’s crude and inelegant exhibition of serenity.

Plenty of oxygen was given to the after-echoes of the announcement.

Union representatives were on the receiving end of vitriol, abuse and had objects thrown at them. Robust criticism, however discomforting it may be at times, is acceptable, but you do not have to stretch the imagination far to recognise that this was a pre-planned display of steamy aggression organised (by the very few) for the amusement of showtime surfers.

No one can escape from the fact that, firstly, it is not the union’s job to notify agency workers that their assignment at BMW has been terminated.

Secondly, the union is not, and never will be, some sort of protectorate body which renders a vouchsafe guarantee of job security.

Contemporary history compounds the reality that even in a climate of economic stability, the manufacturing industry, and in particular, the automotive sector, shall always remain sensitive to the dynamic of market forces.

At Plant Oxford, the continual downfall in customer demand dictated the need for a review of projected volume requirement.

The workforce was made aware that bilateral discussions on the strategic restructuring of shift patterns were taking place.

Logic would have told them that this would mean reduced levels of production output and hence further job losses.

The media has glossed over the responsibility of the two on-site recruitment agencies, namely Manpower and right4staff.

They are the agency workers’ employers, and they evidently knew (at least three days before the official announcement) that the weekend shift would be disbanded. But to no one’s surprise, opted for silent retreat. With reasonable caveats, BMW has agreed to write off any WTA (banking hours) deficit exceeding 37 hours.

The agencies like to present themselves as sincere guardians of care and correctness. Both organisations now have an opportunity to dispel some unfavourable opinions by following the example of their client.

As widely chronicled, the agency workers are the first casualties.

They are indeed vulnerable to subtly opportunistic employers, who have, with the tacit acquiescence of this Labour Government, made a hypocrisy of the whole conceptual ethos of a free and flexible labour market The revival of the Mini brand has been a remarkable success and deservedly finds a place in the modern annals of celebrated achievement.

The whole workforce – notwithstanding the odd maverick – can be proud of that. This also includes the agency workers for they to have measurably contributed in the manufacture of a wonderful product.

And, despite the overt indifference towards them, most have demonstrated a commitment to BMW which, sadly, has not been reciprocated in the spirit one would have expected from a company with such a venerable stamp.

Like everyone else, including the people directing operations at Plant Oxford, I profoundly sympathise with all those affected by what has happened.It is some scant consolation that at least the vast majority of agency associates who lost their jobs have maintained their fundamental values, and therefore can hold their head high – unlike the handful of pitiful idiots who find gratification in wilful sabotage.

VICTOR VJESTICA Donnington Bridge Road Oxford