Teeqoz said:
Your argument is that it's a net loss of grid girl jobs, and my argument is that I don't care, because the owners of F1 made the call that those positions weren't worth keeping on to. They are entirely within their rights to do so, as long as they follow any laws and regulations that apply to them.
That should also answer who "they" are - those who made this decision, namely the owners. . Obviously it's their will too remove grid girls, because ultimately, regardless of potential outside influences, they made the decision. Of course the grid girls can disagree, I assume most people would disagree with a decision that results in yourself losing your job, but it's not their decision to make - it's the F1 owners, again as long as they follow laws and regulations that apply when making such a decision.
How on earth could I prove that keeping grid girls would lead to a net loss in profits? That's a hypothetical that no one could prove. And that's not even what I'm saying - I'm saying that the owners seem to think it was more likely that keeping grid girls would result in a net loss in profits than the opposite. If not, why would they have removed them?
The owners of F1 might be mistaken, maybe it would have paid of to keep grid girls, but that's another thing entirely - they made the judgement that removing grid girls was more likely to pay off than keeping them.
The telegraphist example was arbitrary - the point is that no one has made any decision to ban grid girls, the F1 owners just made the call that employing them isn't in their financial interest, much like telegraphists. There is more concrete evidence for why employing telegraphists doesn't make sense for phone companies, but ultimately, both decisions are based on what the respective companies judge as being in their best interests.
It sucks that people who certainly enjoyed their job lost opportunities to do so, but it's fair for F1 to make that decision.
|
