bt offer a years holiday at quarter pay!

[not me]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... r-pay.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The former state telecoms company - one of Britain's biggest private employers with 106,000 staff - is trying to save money as it struggles to cope with the impact of the recession.

BT has proposed that employees take up to a year off, in return for taking a 75 per cent pay cut. To encourage as many workers to take up of the offer, the company will pay their reduced salary as an upfront cash payment.

It is also offering staff a one-off payment of £1,000 if they switch from full-time to part-time work.

Parents are also being offered the opportunity to work only in school term times, so they can spend the summer holidays with their children.

The radical proposals - leaked to The Daily Telegraph - are the latest example of the private sector having to adopt increasingly desperate and inventive measures to tackle the recession by cutting costs without sacking staff.

British Airways last month asked thousands of its staff to work for free during the summer, and to switch to part time hours. Many car manufacturers have sent workers home on half pay for months at a time.

BT - which made a £1.3 billion loss in the first three months of the year - has already announced 15,000 job cuts last year with plans to cut a further 15,000 jobs in the next 12 months.

A senior source at BT told The Daily Telegraph that the "Time Out Options" will save the company from having to cut further jobs as it radically restructures the company.

He said most of BT's divisional managers have been ordered to reduce their labour costs by "more than 10 per cent".

BT is the UK's ninth largest employer and is the biggest company so far to cut its workers' hours in such a way.

John Philpott, the chief economist of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and one of the of the country's top employment experts, said other companies will copy BT's approach.

"It's already a widespread phenomenon in smaller companies, where there is a feeling that everyone is a family and needs to pull together. But more larger companies will follow suit," he said.

Experts believe that cutting workers' hours and pay – rather than outright sacking them – is masking the true extent of the jobs crisis.

While unemployment has risen steadily from 1.7 million a year ago to 2.26 million, many have been surprised it has not climbed higher.

Official figures, however, suggest that while full-time workers have been hit hard, there has been a small rise in the number of part-time workers, as more employees take up their company's offer to cut hours and pay.

There are fears, however, that if the recession worsens schemes such as BT's will not be enough to stop unemployment climbing through three million, especially as the public sector – up until now shielded from the recession – is expected to experience thousands of job losses.

Charles Davis, economist at the forecasting house Centre for Economics and Business Research, said: "There has been a lot of talk about green shoots, but we feel employment has much further to fall, considering we have had the steepest economic contraction since the Second World War."

He also pointed out that while many senior staff at BT, with savings, would enjoy the opportunity for an elongated holiday, many of its blue collar workers such as call centre operatives, could struggle.

"If you've got a mortgage or large monthly outgoings, this is going to be a very tricky issue," he said.

Unions, however, support BT's initiative.

Andy Kerr, deputy general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, said: "We recognise that there are falling work volumes at BT and have been focused on staff retention and avoiding any need for compulsory redundancies."

He said the "summer sabbaticals" are a "great opportunity for staff to pursue travel, study pursue travel, study or other activities while knowing they have a job to return to".

Mr Kerr dismissed suggestions that the scheme amounts to "paying for holidays" and said the plan was an "innovative solution in a 21st century world".

An internal memo detailing the proposals states that staff can take "summer sabbatical" of between one and 12 months for an "easement payment" of 25 per cent of their basic salary for the time they take off. They receive that reduced salary as an upfront payment.

A senior manager in BT said the scheme is designed so that staff can go off on the "long holiday they've always wanted without having to quit their jobs".

A spokesman for the telecoms company said: "These are innovative ways to help keep employees during these tough economic times."

BT's move follows similar restructuring in City companies. When the consultancy firm KPMG offered employees to move to a four-day week, 86 per cent of its staff signed up for the cut in hours and pay.

Law firm Norton Rose has followed suit and 50 other companies have contacted KPMG's personnel department for advice about how to implement similar schemes.

John Cridland, deputy director-general of the CBI, said: "One positive aspect of this brutal recession is that many firms and staff have worked together to find new ways of saving jobs and avoiding redundancies."

These plans are in stark contrast to British Airways, where Willie Walsh, the chief executive, asked all of his staff to work for a month for no pay in order for it to survive.

[stokes11eg]

MMM--does this laying off of staff, apply to only british workers,,or will this include all the workers who are 'outsourced' i.e. india/

[DGP1]

I wonder if RM will offer the same thing you know the way we have a massive reduction in mail volumes that would give the senior management scope to give people a year off at ¼ pay to help cut costs.

[stokes11eg]

No, i think their ploy is to have you work 60 hours for 20 hours pay, fore-go your holidays, to cover all the uncovered shifts-and come in on your day off to get four ticks.

[mailsort6]

This is a great idea, however, do the employees return to the same job they were doing?

[not me]

This is a great idea, however, do the employees return to the same job they were doing?

or if they are made redundant after that year is it based on their 1/4 salary?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

This is a great idea, however, do the employees return to the same job they were doing?

or if they are made redundant after that year is it based on their 1/4 salary?

Will they be entitled to any benefits such as tax credits etc. Will they be classed as working or Job seekers. Far too many questions and uncertainties for my liking.

Thing is with all the profits going to shareholders and big bosses bonuses how many front line workers will feel enough loyalty with BT to take up the offer.

[k979aaa]

No, i think their ploy is to have you work 60 hours for 20 hours pay, fore-go your holidays, to cover all the uncovered shifts-and come in on your day off to get four ticks.

And some question the need too strike!.

[BELIAL]

[

[k979aaa]

And you can bet redundancy payments will be based on the 25% of pay which they will get for the year!.

[pinstripe]

Who, except for those earning obscene amounts per year, could afford to live on 25% of their wages. I doubt if you would qualify for benefits as you voluntarily reduced your hours of work. You know how they are, they give you a pay rise with one hand and raise taxes on the other. Your child tax credit goes up, so does your council tax.

A far better idea that would save a few millions would be for the chiefs to work for nothing, no salary, no bonuses, no expenses, no perks, and not just for a year, but say ten or twenty. See how they like it.

Does anyone else remember when BT were making their mega profits of £100 per second! It was held up as a shining example of the benefits of privatision. Changed times.

[DGP1]

Who, except for those earning obscene amounts per year, could afford to live on 25% of their wages. I doubt if you would qualify for benefits as you voluntarily reduced your hours of work. You know how they are, they give you a pay rise with one hand and raise taxes on the other. Your child tax credit goes up, so does your council tax.

A far better idea that would save a few millions would be for the chiefs to work for nothing, no salary, no bonuses, no expenses, no perks, and not just for a year, but say ten or twenty. See how they like it.

Does anyone else remember when BT were making their mega profits of £100 per second! It was held up as a shining example of the benefits of privatision. Changed times.

The same story with BA and BP, sold off on the cheap then butchered by bonus seeking management with the result that we have higher costs and lesser services.

[andy2007]

Who, except for those earning obscene amounts per year, could afford to live on 25% of their wages. I doubt if you would qualify for benefits as you voluntarily reduced your hours of work. You know how they are, they give you a pay rise with one hand and raise taxes on the other. Your child tax credit goes up, so does your council tax.

A far better idea that would save a few millions would be for the chiefs to work for nothing, no salary, no bonuses, no expenses, no perks, and not just for a year, but say ten or twenty. See how they like it.

Does anyone else remember when BT were making their mega profits of £100 per second! It was held up as a shining example of the benefits of privatision. Changed times.

It would only work, for those who were able to find some temporary work to do, during this "Holiday". That way, they would do quite well out of it. The problem is: Would they go back to their original job?
If they were made redundant while on this "Holiday", would the redundancy payment be based on the 25% pay, or their normal wage (my guess: it'd be based on 25%)?

They should be careful to look into ALL the consequences, before being seduced by the chance to be given 25% of their wage, plus do another job.

[pickaname]

Could one claim benefits while on this holiday. If RM were to offer 25% wages for a year off could I claim Housing and Counicl Tax benefit etc?

[Tman]

The same story with BA and BP, sold off on the cheap then butchered by bonus seeking management with the result that we have higher costs and lesser services

.

If anyone wanted to make a case against privatisation, BA and BP would easily be the worst examples to pick..
"Sold off then butchered by bonus seeking management".... yeah right.