BT CEO ups cost-cutting plan amid rising inflation and soaring energy costs BT Group is looking to wrench out higher savings amid rising inflation in the relentless pursuit of improved profits. Britain's former state-owned telecommunication biz today outlined results for the six months ended September 30, with revenue up 1 percent year-on-year to £10.4 billion ($11.6 billion) due to growth in Consumer …
@wolfetone
"So you'd rather the people working at BT resort to using BT branded foodbanks, rather than being paid an appropriate wage?"
Wow do you think that low of BT employees? That they are so useless and incapable that the only place that would hire them is BT? That they must be paid more by BT because nobody out there would hire them?
They obviously have a higher opinion of themselves (not bashing) that they feel they should be paid more. So they should go get a job being paid more elsewhere then.
The employer doesnt 'owe' them more just because someone has a different idea of an 'appropriate wage'. A boss doesnt just pay someone more because they have some inflated idea of what they should be paid (right or wrong), they pay to retain the worker for the job, if they feel the worker is worth it.
Uh, my take on this is that the salary isn't increasing in step with inflation so effectively it's a drop in pay if seen in the context of "what this amount of money actually buys".
This, coming when the head honcho gave himself a near third extra. Is it really any wonder they're annoyed?
@heyrick
"Uh, my take on this is that the salary isn't increasing in step with inflation so effectively it's a drop in pay if seen in the context of "what this amount of money actually buys"."
The salary cant always rise with inflation. If we end up in a wage price spiral then we will have much more serious problems. I dont see people complaining when wages rise faster than inflation but thats not something that can continue indefinitely.
"This, coming when the head honcho gave himself a near third extra. Is it really any wonder they're annoyed?"
I can see why that would upset them. As I said they should go get other work where they are better compensated.
A boss doesnt just pay someone more because they have some inflated idea of what they should be paid (right or wrong), they pay to retain the worker for the job, if they feel the worker is worth it.
Bullshit! Employers pay the absolute minimum they can get away with. {Remember the employer hostility to the national minimum wage?} The same goes for working conditions, pensions, holiday entitlement, etc. Lower payroll costs generally mean more bonuses and share options for the boardroom. It also means lower productivity. Why work hard when the wages are shit and extra effort isn't rewarded? That benefits nobody.
You're right to say employers pay what they imagine an employee is worth. But that's inevitably much lower than what the employee is actually worth. This is clearly shown by BT giving their CEO a 30% rise on his seven-figure salary while offering 1-2% to everyone else. If he's worth a 30% rise for running an underperforming company - profits and revenue are down this year - the rest of BT's employees (who don't perform any better or worse than he does) are surely worth a similar pay rise.
This post has been deleted by its author
It must have escaped your attention that the lying shagger, kamikaze Kwarteng and lettuce Liz have already dragged the country down: fucked economy, recklessly incompetent and criminal government, sleaze, lies, corruption, etc.
Negotiating for a pay rise in line with the rate of inflation isn't remotely like a ransom demand either.
@R Soul
"It must have escaped your attention that the lying shagger, kamikaze Kwarteng and lettuce Liz have already dragged the country down: fucked economy, recklessly incompetent and criminal government, sleaze, lies, corruption, etc."
Feel better now??
"Negotiating for a pay rise in line with the rate of inflation isn't remotely like a ransom demand either."
What negotiation? They downed tools to harm their employer that they wish to gain more money from. Ransom.
@AC
"This negotiation, the one confirmed by BT:"
You might want to read the headline of your link- "BT re-enters pay talks to prevent further strikes, says union". Ransom. You may or not agree with the strike but the point of the strike is to hold the company to ransom.
@Roland6
"I note inherent in your viewpoint, is an assumption that it is okay for employers to hold employees to ransom...."
Then you are wrong. At what point do I say an employer can force someone to work? The worker signed a contract to work for the company and has conditions to allow them to leave of their own free will. So where is the ransom?
"but the point of the strike is to hold the company to ransom"
Yeah, that's kind of what striking is about. All else fails, simply cease working until the company wises up. It's the sledgehammer approach, but one of the few times the employees have some semblance of power in a negotiation, and why some employers are terrified of unionisation.
One employee withholding services, shitcan him. All employees withholding services, oh shit.
"What negotiation? They downed tools to harm their employer that they wish to gain more money from. Ransom."
Well, clearly there were negotiations before strike action was started. There are laws around that specify that. So-called "wildcat strikes" are not legal in the UK and haven't been for a long time.
"BT said it was the highest award given to staff in years"... "Jansen was awarded a 30 percent-plus pay hike in April, taking his package to more than £3 million"... but he's an important man and deserves to be paid many multiples of the pay of mere workers
Don't forget, as the banner says across the bottom of every BT ad, your BT charges go up by CPI+3.9% every year (April?), so that would currently be 10.1%+3.9% = 14% and possibly another 4% by next April
Revenue for BT until March 2022 was just short of £21Bn.
I am not saying his pay is justified but it does not appear to be hugely out of alignment. The issues of executives pay rises is always thorny as they always appear to be many times larger than what is offered to regular staff. The argument that it is needed to attract and retain "talent" is dubious but whilst everyone is doing it, what else are companies supposed to do?
The big shareholders can always vote against the board pay deals.
I always find it strange that top bosses are offered large sums of money, large pay rises, and large bonuses in order to 'retain talent'
While us mere mortals are treated as disposable numbers
I used to know a company like that.... they shut down one manufacturing site situated on prime building land in somewhere expensive, and transfered everything down next to us.
The 'talent' thought it an excellent idea and rewarded themselves very well... sadly they forgot 1 tiny little detail.
The products they made were very specialised and you had to have a lot of experience in handling/using them.... and all the experienced staff stayed put resulting in the spiffing new factory having to be staffed by newbies.
They lost £15 million in the first year..... £5 million in the second, 6 months into the 3rd year they went bust.
The 'talent' were dismissed and handed golden parachutes(paid to the end of their contracts actually) , the staff got 90 day notices and next to f all
EVERY employee is valuable to a company's good health, whether its the top guy or the floor sweeper, and therefore deserve being treated the same.
god I sound so left wing these days
Is it really "left wing" to recognise that pretty much everyone in a company is a contributing factor to the success of said company? From the CEO to the cleaner, everybody has a role.
It's just a shame that them at the top of the ladder are so often drunk on their own self importance that they neglect to understand that the <whatever> that is produced is actually produced by the little minions that so often get treated relatively poorly, and without those minions there's no production, and without production there's no product, and without a product what the hell is the point of all the management?
Not annoymouse as couldnt really care. Im in Enterprise as well and your right, our team alone has lost 60% of members in 2 weeks, and its the same across the other teams.
On top of the low wages and rewards, the forced return to office and management failures, has just added more costs which we have to find somewhere, so like most Im looking elsewhere.
I'm hearing of people in BT Security being offered literally double and sometimes TRIPLE the money elsewhere for near-identical work. And we're not even talking about middle-aged Senior grades, we're talking about folks straight off the grad and apprenticeship programmes in their mid 20s.
The company are clearly very worried and I've heard some interesting stories recently. But I'm also looking around.
You're not wrong, the attrition rate in Security (as it is across the company) is high.
One of the issues is of course that a company with 100,000 employees, cannot afford to pay £80k a year to each and every IT specialist but what has contributed highly to that, is that there are now only about 5 grades across the management roles (that includes all the highly specialised IT skills) when there used to dozens of different roles.
Some HR guru (not) decided to bring it down to 5 meaning there is no room for differentiation between an E or D role who is a cyber specialist or the same grade in Group doing a bit of average PM, admin or HR work.
Therefore people are leaving to be paid double or triple and the completely non-technical Directors setting budgets and strategy only see a decrease in cost and celebrate that, and not what it means to future capability or morale for those left picking up the pieces.
I work in BT the cost cutting has got so bad now that external auditors are now removing quality assurance certificates required to commercially trade. The work that people and teams used to do are now not being done as the seniors have sacked all of them. The business nowadays is very much reactionary rathee than busines as usual crazy as some of the commercial contracts are worth hundreds of millions to BT. The talent in high skilled areas such as cyber are leaving in there droves, rip BT.
This post has been deleted by its author
Part of me wants it to go the direction of any provider can use and work on the network and thus receive the revenue. I do wonder if reasonably soon BT would start to disappear as other providers come in with better service. Having just come from an area that has had zero connectivity for 5 days though maybe I am just bitter. Seriously, 5 days network outage in a non war zone area, would not have even though that possible in modern days. Also no forecast for restoration of service.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
