Is money the only motivational tool?

British Airways made the headlines yesterday with news that they are asking their 40,000 staff to work free of charge for a month in an effort to cut costs at the airline who are facing up to large losses again this year, after a £401 million loss in 2008.  BA boss Willie Walsh is aiming to lead by example in this initiative but with new cabin crew paid approximately £11,000 is this a fair request to make when family finances are already being squeezed by the credit crunch?  What can BA do to soften this blow and prove to their employees that they are still a valued part of the business?

Is unpaid work a valid alternative to redundancy?

It seems clear that BA are in financial difficulty and this measure is being intended as an alternative to redundancy.  We've seen a similar tactic used by other companies during this credit crunch.  For instance at the start of the year car company Honda shut its factory in Swindon for four months.  Workers recently returned to work at the plant, albeit to a 3% reduction in wages.  Under the Honda scheme however employees recieved full pay for two months and 60% of salary for the remaining two months, so it's perhaps not directly applicable to the BA case.  If the choice was a stark decision between accepting the bitter medicine or facing the chop though, how would you react? 

The 2009 salary survey conducted by the CMI found that a surprising number of you would be quite happy to take this seemingly drastic action if it meant saving your job in the longer term.  This is supported by further research by recruitment consultants GlassDoor.com that showed that 34% of people would take an unpaid leave of absence to save their jobs longterm.

Is there an alternative to unpaid work though?

Ok, so employees might be willing to take this short-term pain but it's far from ideal.  Pretty much every business now trumpets the importance of its staff and how crucial they are to the wellbeing of that business.  So what alternatives are there that can help you to reduce costs at the same time as maintaining morale amongst your workforce?

The aforementioned salary survey uncovered a number of iniatives people would value in place of salary.  Some of the incentives uncovered included:

  • Increases in holiday allowance
  • Redeployment to other business areas
  • Time off in lieu of work
  • Greater training support

This final one is a key one for me because not only does providing training help your staff in the work they do for you, and subsequently make them feel more valued by your company, it also adds significantly to their employability by others should the dreaded chop come their way.  This would be particularly useful in the BA example because staff there must be very concerned.  In the same inhouse newspaper that delivered the unpaid work message staff were informed that the company faces a 'fight for survival'.  BA isn't a charity so you can certainly understand employees reluctance to engage in such an activity. 

BA simply have to do something to sweeten this bitter pill because at the moment this strategy appears to fall halfway between what is really required.  On one hand it fails to accept the need to streamline the organisation and remove some of the fat hanging over from the days of nationalisation.  On the other hand it hangs the spectre of redundancy over the entire workforce, including the thousands of employees that do a fantastic job and have a long-term future at the company.

What do you think of the BA iniative?  How would you react if your company offered you unpaid work?

 

Comments

I agree that this is an odd strategy for BA to employ. It doesn't solve any of their long-term problems and merely gives them a lot of bad publicity. I wonder how much of it was driven by the fear that mass redundancies will result in mass strike action?

It's easy to see why people are so angry at Willie Walsh over this issue. Him losing one months salary is nothing, for most people though it's a huge issue. As a major player BA ought to be renegotiating the costs imposed on it by BAA. Staff salaries are chicken feed in comparison.

By all means offer a reduction in pay but surely this should go along with a reduction in hours? Buggered if I'd want to work the same hours for no pay.

Well, what can I say... if I was a BA employee, I would NOT be happy. Aside from the world economy which is somewhat beyond control, BA are in the mess they're in because of poor management. If anyone, then, it's the managers who should be taking cuts and working for free.

I love how short working, temporary layoffs, unpaid working and pay cuts are being presented as exciting innovations rather than a return to the bad old days.

Now it seems that BA want staff to accept a two year pay freeze.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8127705.stm

http://www.businessinsider.com/adobe-shuts-down-for-a-week-to-survive-th...

Reveals today that Adobe are asking staff to take their paid leave this week as the companies north American offices shut for the week. It's the second such shut-down Adobe have used this year.

He's aiming to lead by example? He wishes to set the good example that the simple solution to the recession is to stop paying your employees? Bit of a strange tactic.

I read somewhere that BA staff are generally better paid than a lot of other airlines so their cost base is much higher (may not be true for all roles).

Be that as it may, the reality facing BA is that they are in serious danger of going down the tubes. Would you rather have a pay cut and keep a job or lose it completely. This is the stark reality at BA as losses mount and their 'niche'in the industry shows no sign of any return in the short to medium term.

Don't say I like it but they have to do something. Willie giving up half his income would still bring the argument that the could afford to but won't change the fundementals.

BAA will only ask him to give up their most prized posession - the landing slots - which are vital to any long term future that BA have.