Management Restructure?

[mexicopete]

@Equalizer87, I haven't worked for Tesco all of this time, but an array of cowboy outfits. Out of all of said outfits, Tesco is far and away the biggest Cowboy one lets just call it the Ponderosa.LOL. 

[Equalizer87]

@mexicopete

Tesco being the biggest cowboy outfit of all seems about right. If only we could have an undercover Panorama investigation about it all, would turn up a whole world of c**p.

[Duracell]

Alas whilst I understand your sentiment. I can't help but feel that due to the size of the company and the wealth of untapped knowledge it has, because it is who it is, who we speak of, it compounds all concerns.

Because of the scope and size of the business it should have better facilities to cope with change and adversity. Yet it doesn't.

Why? Simply because the culture does not promote individual thought of application, the company in simple terms is to generic.

[Equalizer87]

Yes  the culture is the issue. But that's how they all think, it's almost like asking what Polmont cards someone has. If you have the right ones, you get to spout all the c**p  you want.

[Arizonarugby]

So just one question, if the powers that be thinks it's possible to run an operation at peak time with less managers , then why are they asking for 10 managers to support a site during peak period !!!!!!!!!

[Duracell]

So they are asking, the managers that are being made compulsory redundant to remain in the capacity that is being made redundant?

The redundancy process is clear in the company's obligation of detail, that they make clear during the consultation the business case.

Surely what you are saying, is contradicting of the detail.
It implies the business case is actually uncertain and even flawed.

They are saying
We have a plan.
We are giving you notice of that plan and intent.
Yet we can't apply the plan in the timeframe we intend because the business can't accomadate the plan.

If the business can't accomadate the plan then the business plan is seriously flawed.

To enter into a process which expects clear business needs and reasoning, with statutory timeframes, when it is known those time frames can't be met by the business need is actually quite outrageous.

If the business needs can't accept the change process and timeframes then the business need for the change is seriously flawed and should be in serious question.

[Duracell]

I don't think there would be much scope for this reasoning to halt or reverse this decision.

What I would expect is the process not be delayed in its timeframe because the business can accomadate the plan.

You say 10 are being asked to stay and support because the business can't accomadate the process entered into.
If the 10 decline, what will happen? it seems from what you have said they are being asked not told.
If the operation seriously can't meet the plan at this time, and the 10 decline surely the process should can be questioned at least.

I hope Sata reps are all over this like a rash.

[nolotil]

So just one question, if the powers that be thinks it's possible to run an operation at peak time with less managers , then why are they asking for 10 managers to support a site during peak period !!!!!!!!!

You say 10 managers are being asked to help support a site during a peak period? Is this Hinkley or Lichfield. What managers are being asked? from what site?

[Arizonarugby]

So just one question, if the powers that be thinks it's possible to run an operation at peak time with less managers , then why are they asking for 10 managers to support a site during peak period !!!!!!!!!

You say 10 managers are being asked to help support a site during a peak period? Is this Hinkley or Lichfield. What managers are being asked? from what site?

No it's not one of the "pilot" sites , but that irrelevant, "the partnership" have decided that depots can run with 50 % less managers , so then are they asking for support at this particular depot !!!!

[nolotil]

So just one question, if the powers that be thinks it's possible to run an operation at peak time with less managers , then why are they asking for 10 managers to support a site during peak period !!!!!!!!!

You say 10 managers are being asked to help support a site during a peak period? Is this Hinkley or Lichfield. What managers are being asked? from what site?

No it's not one of the "pilot" sites , but that irrelevant, "the partnership" have decided that depots can run with 50 % less managers , so then are they asking for support at this particular depot !!!!

Its not irrelevant at all, sites will have clerks running the podiums at all sites. This thread is about redundancy

[nolotil]

Duracell fancy being my rep for my one to one's?

[fargone]

I don't wish to sound callous or indifferent, but if you are an employee, and are let go, there's not much that you can do about it.

[Billy Budd]

Night shift managers at my DC are stuck on podiums doing everything apart from actually 'Managing!'

They spend most of the night on the podiums reading the sports pages on MSN or on their phones checking Facebook! The shift managers spend more time out at the smoking zone than on the warehouse floor. But hopefully no more!

Clerks or warehouse staff could work the podiums and the managers that escape the axe can finally do the job they are highly paid to do...that is 'MANAGE' the distribution floor!!!

Hopefully the decent managers are retained to do this...

[snowyowl]

  Sadly I feel that any Team Managers with any Management talent at all will take the cash and run and we'll be left with the brown nosed urchins. Something to look forward to eh!   

[Duracell]

No it's not one of the "pilot" sites , but that irrelevant, "the partnership" have decided that depots can run with 50 % less managers , so then are they asking for support at this particular depot !!!!

So it's not one of the pilot sites, I assumed you had knowledge of either site or both.
Yet it isn't either.

The other sites apparently yet to be in consultation are going through  xmas as normal with consultation periods starting after.

I am now lost in the point you are making.

Nobody within consultation is facing a delay because the business can't cope with it.
Other sites are yet to be in consultation until after the pilot has finished.

Where are have they started the process but asking those affected to remain in the business as you suggested earlier.

I thought it was outrageous. turns out now it's unbelievable too.

Duracell fancy being my rep for my one to one's?

.

I can't unfortunately, I haven't got the ability.
Even if I did, the invitation on here would make the oddness of it stand out.

[lackofinterest]

my thoughts exactly snowy

[Arizonarugby]

No it's not one of the "pilot" sites , but that irrelevant, "the partnership" have decided that depots can run with 50 % less managers , so then are they asking for support at this particular depot !!!!

So it's not one of the pilot sites, I assumed you had knowledge of either site or both.
Yet it isn't either.

The other sites apparently yet to be in consultation are going through  xmas as normal with consultation periods starting after.

I am now lost in the point you are making.

Nobody within consultation is facing a delay because the business can't cope with it.
Other sites are yet to be in consultation until after the pilot has finished.

Where are have they started the process but asking those affected to remain in the business as you suggested earlier.

I thought it was outrageous. turns out now it's unbelievable too.

Duracell fancy being my rep for my one to one's?

.

I can't unfortunately, I haven't got the ability.
Even if I did, the invitation on here would make the oddness of it stand out.

Duracell , the point I'm making is that you either can or you can't run a DC with less managers - the company and the union can't have both ways - in 6 months (maybe 12), there won't  be enough managers (with any kind of experience ) to bail the company out.

All DC's would have (or should have ) received the same comms , regarding the support required, and the DC that requires it.

The cost of supporting this depot , week 37 - 42 with goods in, loaders, assemblers, and managers will cost a fortune, but then again closing this depot then having to reopen it again was another costly shorted decision by the partnership !!!!!!

[snowyowl]

What strikes me in all of this is that nobody really knows what's going on, what happened to "open and transparent" it's mainly speculation. We all think we know little bits, we all think we know what might happen but really we haven't got a clue. At a time when the company needs solid leadership and certainly needs its staff on board Drastic has managed to create an atmosphere of dread. Perhaps that's part of the plan to dishearten staff so they jump ship, although I think most will remain to see what they can get out of it first. On a serious note none of this is going to inspire anybody to work any harder or exhibit any loyalty to a company that is causing them sleepless nights. As an old gaffer of mine used to say "couldn't manage a f*cking tomato box"

[nolotil]

No body seems to know what is going on, even those involved in it. How can you have a pilot project that keeps all managers on until after Christmas, so it appears to work? Lots of "yes" managers left though

Depots are falling now, so what will happen when it gets busy?, work will be moved to other depots? then thanks for the commitment but you are next to go.

Lets face it, this is spreading over all the network, so we have "over performing managers everywhere" trying to ensure they are the next one to go

[nolotil]

When has this company not released redundant staff in the past? made them work the "lieu" time?

Union and the simple northern one?

[nolotil]

Night shift managers at my DC are stuck on podiums doing everything apart from actually 'Managing!'

They spend most of the night on the podiums reading the sports pages on MSN or on their phones checking Facebook! The shift managers spend more time out at the smoking zone than on the warehouse floor. But hopefully no more!

Clerks or warehouse staff could work the podiums and the managers that escape the axe can finally do the job they are highly paid to do...that is 'MANAGE' the distribution floor!!!

Hopefully the decent managers are retained to do this...

Internet was taken away from managers many moons ago

[tut tut]

From their own phones, wow that is truly amazing. The big T has come on leaps and bounds in technology, and it truly has the ability to stop mgrs from keeping their own tech from them !!!

[picktocube]

Depots are falling now, so what will happen when it gets busy?, work will be moved to other depots? then thanks for the commitment but you are next to go.

I thought it already was  busy .Our DC has had full OT since lat Christmas ,pre-shift,post shift ,full shift ,whenever you want .
Cannot get enough agency through the door . Management wise ,our shift consistently runs on 3 or 4 managers a night, even though there are 9 of them.

[Duracell]

The company fail in my opinion at the people side of Managing.

I can see the logic in splitting the operational side of the role from the people side, to to target and focus with the people and raise the company's game in communication. It is a common well know failing the company has that is generally accepted.

The problem is, to remove half to replace them with the same number in newly created level one roles is a bitter pill to swallow.

You still have the same number of bodies doing the same amount of work which presents a cost cutting exercise.

The problem lies with the level of accountability in the New operation roles. The company can't expect these lower level roles to have the accountability that management had as when they do the operational side.
As we all know the salary drives the level of accountability, the newer roles can't be expected to exercise decision making and be accountable if things go wrong at Level one pay grade it just isn't right or fair.

The volumes and operation drive every decision made, how can you have level 1 pay grades affecting it, not to be accountable is wrong and to be accountable at that level for that pay grade is also wrong.

What is the performance management for these new grades going to look like?

I am not trying to play down the redundancy situation, but the company have to pay for operational accountability.

If people wish to take on such roles, then fine but to me that responsibility should not be at work level 1.

If we look at a manager role, we all understand some are stronger in the operational
side and are weaker at the people side and visa verse.
If the company embrace that, and don't remove roles but merely split and designated them to meet ability levels then surely that is better.

In team building exercises training advocates organising the team to meet the teams
Strengths whilst realising weakness, so split management to meet those strengths, put people skills with the people and put operational skills with the operation, keep people managing what they are good at whilst retaining pay grades across both managements styles that is a reflection of the accountability.

Operational Team Manager
People and Recources Team Manager.

Still all managers... Doing what they are good at.

Restructures don't have to be about reducing management.

Good leadership can be about exploiting strengths and not just cost cutting.

Very poor approach .

[snowyowl]

From what I understand clerks will run and manage the podiums ( at a slightly raised rate) whilst the remaining managers will manage the shop floor. As for accountability (measured work) I have no idea how this could be possibly achieved.