back to article There will be blood: BT to axe 13,000 employees

Former state monopoly BT is to chop 13,000 jobs over the next three years and will shutter its current London HQ under plans to wring out £1.5bn in costs and boost its flagging share price. The roles earmarked for redundancy are mainly in the back office and middle management, but BT did not specify which areas of the business …

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: if you think they are bad now...

        Can something be 'rather moot'?

        1. 0laf

          Re: if you think they are bad now...

          It's a moot point

        2. Pen-y-gors

          Re: if you think they are bad now...

          Don't see why not. Usually meaning is 'subject to debate', a moot being an assembly. A term generally out of fashion, but still occasionally heard. I remember attending a "Ley-hunters Annual Moot" in Lewes many years ago. (Don't ask....but the highlight was a talk by Michael Bentine!)

  1. KBeee
    Meh

    I wonder how much that block they own by St. Pauls is worth. Or do they actually own it?

    1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

      A Fitting AI Tribute to a Sterling Stirling Asset

      Is it Monumental to BT? ...... The Point at the Beginning of Future TelePathic Communications? The Hub from Which All Spread with News and Views Shared Better ..... For Parallel Visions to Binocular Lengths Ahead?

      Or is that Application more likely to be of Vital Interest to a GCHQ type Operating System. which always seems to be fighting Brush Bush fires.

      It is Almighty Hard to Unhand the Reins of COSMIC Power when a Great President has still so much more to Provide and Spill upon the AI rWaves. But Time Moves Everything On, not ACTioNs in Spaces or Places ........ They are the Magic Play Ground where Life and Lives in Live Operational Virtual Environments are Realisable and when Positively Creative, So Created. Supportive Reinforcement of the See Scapes available, permits remits which simply driver markets actuators to do their thing, only better .... to Sterling Stirling Asset Standards

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Like most of London, they most likely own the building, but not the land.

      Source: Just guessing, like all good internet sourced facts.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'm guessing they flogged it off years ago to rent it back from Monterrey -at least that's what they did with all the other BT buildings to get out of the shit when the dot com bubble burst.

      1. Gommster

        you mean Telereal ? - probably as they acquired about 90% of BTs buildings in order to service some of the 3G debt.

    4. The Boojum

      Read the figure of £200m somewhere.

  2. T0G

    Instead of laying these people off they should be retrained to replace the non-existent customer support management. The people who can direct you to the right place for support, the people who talk to each other and share data, that sort of stuff that BT doesn't bother with. Which is probably why they haven't signed up to the Ombudsman service...

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. John H Woods Silver badge

        British Disease

        "It seems to be a British disease - management are held in higher esteem than those that actually know what they are doing, and actively denigrate engineers" -- AC

        It's the class system. Whilst managers will (grudgingly) accept contractors who earn more than they, no permanent member of their team should ever approach their salary.

        The corollary is that the only way to get increasingly well paid in IT is to steadily become more of a manager and less of a technician - or to become a contractor.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: British Disease

          It's the class system. Whilst managers will (grudgingly) accept contractors who earn more than they, no permanent member of their team should ever approach their salary.

          That's not a class system, its simply stupidity by both managers and HR, neither of whom can conceive that "management" is a necessary evil, but accepting that should not mean that pay levels should correlate with organisational "seniority". You do need a gradient, (otherwise nobody would want to be promoted and you'd have no management), but typically it is too steep, and is absolute. I can think of many instances where a manager was entirely competent at their job, but added less value to the business than some of their direct reports, who should have been paid more. This is what creates the crap idea that employees have to aspire to manage at increasing levels to earn more, rather than accepting that some (even many) are not interested or perhaps suited to management roles, but contribute handsomely to the business doing what they do best (and often increasingly so as their experience increases).

          Sadly, all large corporates are run by PHBs, so this will never change.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "It seems to be a British disease - management are held in higher esteem than those that actually know what they are doing, and actively denigrate engineers. It will never change as the senior managers got there by being "managers" - to the detriment of knowledgeable people."

        Anyone who is an engineer in the formal sense will be in a management grade. Senior engineers in senior management grades.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        speaking as a former 'middle manager' in BT

        It's quite a misused term. eg. I led a team of highly skilled IT designers. I lost my job in the last round of cuts. All my people were also counted as middle managers in the weird BT job families- despite most of them never having line managed anyone. Speaking to former colleagues yesterday; their jobs are under threat. These 'middle managers' typically have top notch external accreditations.

        I was eased out via a 'carpark conversation' with a senior manager: "You'd be much happier if you left tomorrow with 12 months salary your bank account". Of course it being BT it took months to actually get the money and it was wrong a couple of times too.

        For me, the bureaucracy came from the top down; senior managers walling off their empires; and conducting manoeuvres for land grabs of other people's. When I left there will still over a thousand people with 'Director' in their job title. When I worked in Global Services the ratio of project managers to engineers was 2:1. You can guess which group us got axed in the 2010 cull.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

      4. Jamie Jones Silver badge
        Trollface

        It seems to be a British disease - management are held in higher esteem than those that actually know what they are doing, and actively denigrate engineers. It will never change as the senior managers got there by being "managers" - to the detriment of knowledgeable people.

        Of course, all that will change for the better when we leave the EU! </sarcasm>

  3. CJatCTi

    They are getting out of PSTN - so they don't need so many people

    The market is moving to VoIP, so bussness & residental only need an Internet connection - 1 per customer. No switching voice at the exchanges, no income from phone calls, so they need less people.

    But you can garentee the ones that go will be the ones who know how things work & how to get things done.

    1. HmmmYes

      Re: They are getting out of PSTN - so they don't need so many people

      'The market is moving to VoIP, so bussness & residental only need an Internet connection - 1 per customer.'

      hahahahahahahaha.

      Have you tried managing a large scale IP network, running different services?

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: They are getting out of PSTN - so they don't need so many people

        Or running a site without a backup line for that matter?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        WTF?

        Re: They are getting out of PSTN - so they don't need so many people

        "'The market is moving to VoIP, so bussness & residental only need an Internet connection - 1 per customer.'"

        As opposed to a separate cable for phone and internet?????

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: They are getting out of PSTN - so they don't need so many people

      a) there's already one connection into the home

      b) while the PSTN will fall and a BT VoIP platform finally takes its place (they tried to do this 10 years ago mind), businesses will still want fat trunks for their calls - and that's long been a competitive business, including VoIP services from BT, so those that are with BT are through choice and not necessity.

      c) I would bet money on BT remaining a massive player in voice - it'll be BT's VoIP platform that underpins UK telephony instead of BT's PSTN. BTGS is a bit of a money pit but one of their more successful products is the Global IP Exchange - what that does is self explanatory.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: They are getting out of PSTN - so they don't need so many people

        "I would bet money on BT remaining a massive player in voice"

        I might too, but only because BT will likely remain the default provider of phone, data, TV, and other content services to the naive and ill-informed at home and in business. Anyone with a clue knows that BT are an awful company to deal with (as supplier, customer, sharp end employee, etc).

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Burn in hell!

    They should axe all 106,000 staff and have done with it. The sooner BT burns in hell the better.

    1. tip pc Silver badge

      Re: Burn in hell!

      you don't realise how much the other ISP's rely on BT for things to magically work. No BT No VM, no Vodafone, no Sky. They are all interrelated via contracts here there and everywhere.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Burn in hell!

        I absolutely do realise. They can still burn in hell.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Burn in hell!

          The point is... If VM, Sky, Vodafone etc can't exist without BT then they are simply a privately controlled monopoly instead of a state monopoly and it means the bullshit about competition being good is just that. Bullshit.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Burn in hell!

            Or the others could invest in their own infrastructure, but you know that costs money...a LOT of money. Much easier to offer a shit service for 99p a month.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Burn in hell!

              Outside the 18-month contract headline offers, BT Line Rental and 52Mbps FTTC fibre 'combo' comes in at close to £50 a month, before calls, plus a potential "pure profit" of £20.85 a month in additional services, 1571, CallerID, Nuisance blocking etc.

              International calls are extortionate. Calls to Australia cost £1.02 per minute for the first minute, £0.80 per minute each additional minute.

              It's hardly 99p a month.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Burn in hell!

                Worth pointing out that caller ID, 1571 and nuisance call blocking are either free for everyone or free while in contract.

                I can't think of a single landline provider, including those that do not use BT infrastructure, who has sensible international call costs (not without paying for an addon). They're a similar rip off on mobiles too, again, unless you pay for an addon. Most people would find a dialthrough number or just use Skype, Facetime or Whatsapp anyway.

                BT's customer service leaves a lot to be desired but on a technical level it seems to work quite well - especially since they're now in a sadly very exclusive club of UK ISPs that offer IPv6 to bog standard broadband users.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Burn in hell!

                  Caller display, 1571 (nuisance blocking is part of 1571 though) are not free. BT Privacy with Caller Display costs £1.75 a month (previously free if you made x calls per quarter).

                  BT Privacy is only free if you take out a new 12 month line rental contract

                  Broadband choices lists the charges as follows:

                  1471 FREE

                  Anonymous caller reject £6.30 per month

                  Answer 1571 £2.50 per month (BT now lists this a £3.00 per month)

                  Call Minder £5.00 per month

                  Caller display £1.75 per month

                  Choose to refuse £5.30 per month

                  Withhold number FREE

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Burn in hell!

                    The basic 1571 service is free if you basically use your landline at all (logically, if you never use it, why would you need voicemail anyway?). The nuisance calling feature I am referring to - "call protect" - is free though you can pay for greater control. Caller ID is free if in contract, as I said before.

                    http://www.bt.co.uk/pricing/notifs/18-06-2010/Call_Charges_boo/NotificationPeriodImpl5631911101_d0e3320.htm - try looking at the definitive price list and not some "broadband choices" nonsense.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The definition of insanity

    Is doing the same thing again and again, and expecting something to change.

    As Elmer said, this is exactly the same message that BT was pushing fifteen years ago, when they announced that they were shifting to a more "agile" way of working and started flogging off any building which wasn't (metaphorically) nailed to the ground, under some bizarre sell-and-rent-back scheme.

    In fact, the quote on the BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44065422) looks like it was simply dug out of a cupboard and dusted off:

    "It is critical that BT transforms its operating model to build a lean and agile organisation that delivers sustained improvement in customer experience and productivity"

    Either way, I'm very much not regretting moving on from there!

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: The definition of insanity

      "tarted flogging off any building which wasn't (metaphorically) nailed to the ground, under some bizarre sell-and-rent-back scheme."

      Yes, that really is bizarre. Didn't some rich industrialist one say "if it appreciates in value, buy it, if it depreciates in value, rent it." Property invariably appreciate in value so selling off your buildings and renting them bark is barking mad unless you are desperate for short term cash and have failed at every other option to raise some.

      1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

        Re: The definition of insanity

        so selling off your buildings and renting them bark is barking mad

        It was the Done Thing for a while in uber-capitalist circles. Something to do with propping up share prices by extracting value from existing assets in order to pay dividends.

        And, like all such short-term measures is utter, utter futile madness in a long-term view.

        Sadly, CEOs and Boards are now not selected for the long-term view - they are selected to 'maximise shareholder value' in the short term. Then, when the company involved get into financial difficulty[1], said CEO and Board regretfully leave with their diamond-studden golden parachutes.

        [1] Which they inevitably do. Like the "buy the company with debt raised against the company assets" that became popular in the early 2000's and directly lead to the collapse of a number of large companies when their market share declined and they could no longer service the debt incurred in buying themselves. As happened with Toys 'R Us.. (and nearly has happened with Dell).

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The definition of insanity

        It's worth bearing in mind that this was in the aftermath of the dotcom collapse, when BT's share price dropped from ~£10 to the £2-£3 level (and where it's languished ever since). From a beancounter perspective, drastic measures were needed, and the property portfolio was an easy target.

        Then too, presumably, part of the calculation was based around the fact that they were reducing headcount at the same time, so fewer buildings were needed and they could let the leases lapse. Back in the late noughties, the building I was working in had an entire floor mothballed, while the local BT building was even emptier; it's since been sold off altogether and turned into student accommodation.

    2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: The definition of insanity

      "It is critical that BT transforms its operating model to build a lean and agile organisation that delivers sustained improvement in customer experience and productivity"

      Ah, did someone find a pile of 'Total Quality Management' training books left over from the '80s? Or around the time when BT was convincing all it's L1+ managers that the most important issue was not entitlement to a personal coat stand as an L3, but agreeing to a 1 year contract! Suprisingly some managers thought that was a great idea and they'd still have jobs for life, much as their fathers and grandfathers before them.

      Unsuprisingly, many of those managers are probably still there having refined their axe dodging skills.

  6. adam payne

    Speaking of the latest job-shedding, chief exec Gavin Patterson, said: “I am really excited to be delivering the next stage of BT’s transformation and have put in place the team that will support me in achieving these objectives.”

    You might be excited but I bet the thousands of people being given the axe aren't excited about it.

    The statement is completely inappropriate.

    1. Fred Dibnah

      Dreadful. Straight out of the David Brent Book of Management.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M16QSsOggY

  7. 0laf

    Look back the BBC news, same shite, same platitudes just from BT never mind other large businesses going back to 2000 and beyond.

    Do they teach these crap PR announcements at MBA school?

  8. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Digging Deeper ......

    However, BT will borrow £2bn by issuing bonds and pay it straight into the pension deficit. The bonds will be acquired by the pension scheme itself. An earlier plan to pledge network assets to trustees to reduce the need for more cash was abandoned. ..... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/10/bt-axe-13000-jobs-quit-london-hq-cost-cutting-drive/

    Hmmm? Is that not a perfect enough copy of a Ponzi scheme activity and usually criminal?

    And is it also wilfully trading whilst bankrupt, both of which can be costly to the fine tune of billions?

    1. Phil Endecott

      Re: Digging Deeper ......

      No it’s nothing remotely like a ponzi scheme. Huh?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: not a ponzi scheme

        Not a ponzi scheme by the usual definition of the term, perhaps. Maybe "find the lady" would be a better comparison? Or some other class of illusion/delusion?

        BTplc owes BTpensionfund loadsamoney (£billions of contractually binding deferred wages),

        Despite this longstanding debt owed ultimately from BTplc to its employees pension fund showing little sign of a realistic recovery plan, the BTpensionfund management hand BTplc £2bn of allegedly real (employees deferred wages) money, in exchange for promises of 'jam tomorrow'.

        The effect of this transaction, to my simple way of thinking, seems to be the following:

        (a) increase the pension deficit by £2BN (because £2BN has left the pension fund bank account)

        (b) faciitate the printing some magical monopoly money which is printed in the apparent form of BTplc bonds which anyone with a clue (apparently except the pension fund management?) knows are likely to be useless in due course.

        (c) the BTpensionfund management say "yes, your £2B of lovely bonds look like an excellent deal in return for £2B of real money. Thank you so much. Your lovely bonds aren't vaporware at all."

        (d) profit - but where, and for who?

        When BTplc inevitably goes bust, which is the only foreseeable result of BT's years of board level incompetence, where will the missing £2BN pension fund money be? It won't be heading for the ex-employees retirement accounts, you can be sure of that.

        To summarise: Another huge wodge of real money (deferred wages) disappears from the BT pension fund into the grubby hands of the City moneychangers, and the City's bogus bonus pots, never to be seen again (not as deferred wages for the employees anyway).

        Meanwhile the pension fund managers can say "I have in my hand a piece of paper" (the bond/monopoly money paper). A piece of paper which will likely be about as much use as Prime Minister Chamberlain's infamous piece of paper was.

        The official verbage (as reported by the Telegraph):

        "The triennial review of BT’s pension scheme, the largest private scheme in Britain, found that the funding shortfall increased from £7bn to £11.3bn as interest rates remained historically low.

        Trustees agreed to keep the draw on BT’s cash at its previously agreed level for the next three years but it faces an increase from 2020 to £900m a year with the aim of closing the deficit by 2030. That compares with the previously planned maximum of £724m.

        BT will also borrow £2bn by issuing bonds and pay it straight into the pension deficit. The bonds will be bought by the pension scheme itself."

        from

        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/05/10/bt-axe-13000-jobs-quit-london-hq-cost-cutting-drive/

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The obvious maths...

    Cut heads in Global Services by 4000 last year.

    This year - revenue down in Global Services... MUST be their fault.

    1. tip pc Silver badge

      Re: The obvious maths...

      yup, work harder not smarter.

  10. My Alter Ego

    Hope BT Local Business are getting canned

    While I empathise for anyone losing their jobs, I truly hope the Local Business (LB) are going to removed from the face of the earth. They have been the cause of every problem we've ever had:

    1. LB insisted we change the name on the account from the director's name to the company name. When we did the LB sales droid cancelled out account and recreated it, most likely to get his grubby little hands on commission for a "new" contract. Result - ISDN 30 down for 36 hours.

    2. Renewed contract early, LB sales droid couldn't do his job properly so we got billed £4,700 for "leaving our contract early". Result - out of pocket for two months.

    3. Signed contract to upgrade to flex-up a leased line and add resilient fibre. Contract was subject to us accepting any excess construction charges (which LB insisted wouldn't be an issue, something we didn't believe but thought it's worth a shot). When quoted £40,000 + VAT we declined. So they charged us £5,000 for breaking our contract. Result - still out of pocket as it nobody knows how to rectify the screw up.

    4. Refuse to provide a SIP trunk. Apparently for legacy (or anything the don't support - Asterisk) they will only provide an ISDN gateway which, so we have to maintain a PRI for bugger all reason (Asterisk -> PRI -> BT ISDN Gateway -> BT SIP Trunk)

    BT know they have us by the balls, as we're too scared of reversing the Direct Debit because we know some over-zealous little shit will pull the cord, even though as billing dispute is in process.

    1. simpfeld

      Re: Hope BT Local Business are getting canned

      Couldn't agree more. If you don't know the horror of this, a BTLB is a third party company that BT outsource some of their business customers account management to.

      My experience is that they are really only interested in new sales (presumably all they get paid by BT for), so any issues with an existing contract (even a pretty hefty one) don't get actioned well. Seem keen to bug you for new work when the existing stuff isn't going well.

      Someone in BT probably got paid a pile of cash to think up this broken BTLB scheme.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hope BT Local Business are getting canned

      ". Refuse to provide a SIP trunk. Apparently for legacy (or anything the don't support - Asterisk) they will only provide an ISDN gateway which, so we have to maintain a PRI for bugger all reason (Asterisk -> PRI -> BT ISDN Gateway -> BT SIP Trunk)"

      We had similar with KPN in the Netherlands

      KPN SIP > KPN Converter > Audiocodes Mediant 2000 > Internal SIP.

      I was going to drop in a Brekeke SIP proxy to spoof the headers and just hook up to that, but we sold that division, so never needed to bother.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hope BT Local Business are getting canned

      I work for BT (not senior or middle management and I actually do something productive) and I'm disgusted by that part of the business operation.

      I can only echo your experience. My dad is a BT business customer. He moved premises (they were so close that they are served by the same cab). They could not have made a bigger mess of the move and the resulting months of billing issues.

      After emailing Gav P, a minion replied, someone who really typified the idea of "customer service" - absolutely fantastic, with a quick resolution and constant updates. Shame that BTLB is a million miles from that.

      He refuses to make any more changes to the account as he thinks it'll mess up the bill even more. Good for revenues!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like