Staff Redundancies

[Funcone]

Without knowing what positions are being cut it’s hard to gauge the impact, but 190’s a big number. Realistically these aren’t all positions that are surplus to requirement. It seems to me that most of the people actually delivering the product on the frontline aren’t permanent staff (although some of the frontline staff at the resort may be permanent). I may be wrong, but it’ll be hard to cut this number of staff without the quality of the product suffering in some ways. It won’t necessarily be immediately obvious, but losing these positions will have at least an indirect effect on the guests. But time will tell.

 

[Rick]

I may be wrong, but it’ll be hard to cut this number of staff without the quality of the product suffering in some ways. It won’t necessarily be immediately obvious, but losing these positions will have at least an indirect effect on the guests. But time will tell.

I suppose you have to remember two things related to the above:

1) there are likely to be less guests in 2016 so you need less people to provide the service. For instance, if you have a 50% drop off in school bookings, you only need half as many people coordinating that income stream.

2) it might be that there are the exact same number of people delivering that service in 2016, but it'll be delivered in a different way, perhaps only in the high season. For instance, you currently have a salaried member of staff who works in stores. With the budget (income) next year, you suspect that you will only need an individual for 4 months out of the year in that particular position, so you pay someone hourly which is far more flexible and cheaper because you don't have the on costs that you have with a salaried member of staff.

 

[Dar]

If that was the case I'd hope they would try to negotiate with the staff whose jobs are on line to transfer to hourly contracts, with guaranteed minimums, before outright laying them off and recruiting for what is essentially the same role.

 

[DiogoJ42]

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to make people redundant, then hire new staff to do the same job. Although as always with these things, a tiny, pathetic loophole can always be found. You may not need a "sales assistant", but an "assistant sales operative" is totally different...

 

[Rick]

@DiogoJ42 Absolutely - but it's also fair game in a lot of instances. Certainly depends on the company.

You have to remove the human element from redundancy, it's the way of the world. It's difficult but there you go. If you want to see a human element, don't forget that 190 people (many of whom could take VR) exiting the business will help secure the jobs of four times as many, that's worth considering.

 

[Dar]

I'm sure those jobs are at risk in a business that made £179 million profit after tax last year. It's a shame that money takes a higher priority than the "human element" in business. Simply writing this year off as extraordinary event and transferring the necessary staff over to hourly contracts without so many losses would be better in my eyes.

What happens when next year provides a rebound to pre-crash visitor levels and those staff aren't there? You can't just magic up trained, knowledgeable staff. Of course, they'll probably get agency workers or something to further erode the customer experience but it'll be ok because tickets will be £75 and a burger will be a tenner.

 

[MattyH]

As far as I'm aware all frontline staff below manager level are seasonal. They are not the people being effected by this recent announcement.

Not all front line staff, I know a few ride ops who are permanent who are required for christmas events, for example they were involved in operating Frog Hopper during the Christmas Market last year.

 

[Martin]

The fact you have to "remove the human element" and just view them as numbers, not people says it all. It may be the way of the world but it's wrong. The 190 won't be saving the jobs of the rest of the company, which is still in a very strong position. Dar's post there is absolutely spot on. The assumption seems to be that they'll actually only cut staff they don't need, but this is Merlin we're talking about. There's no way the park will come out of this better off. Even if there was any chance of it happening with some other company, again, this is Merlin we're talking about.

 

[Tim]

Not all front line staff, I know a few ride ops who are permanent who are required for christmas events, for example they were involved in operating Frog Hopper during the Christmas Market last year.

I've worked a Christmas event for the last 2 years, was still seasonal. My contract was just extended a little. I assume Alton Towers does the same with their staff. If not then these 190 lost jobs might just be turning those people from permanent to seasonal. That sucks for them (believe me I know exactly how they'd feel) but in terms of guest experience not much would change.

 

[EuroSatch]

A lot of the 'floor' staff are on permanent contracts

 

[jon81uk]

As far as I'm aware all frontline staff below manager level are seasonal. They are not the people being effected by this recent announcement.

They used to have some ride ops employed all year, especially 10 years ago when they used to open coasters for winter weekends for hotel guests. Of course as they don't really do as much winter opening any more this may no longer be the case.

 

[BarryZola]

Just wanted to add a few thoughts after keeping my eyes on this thread. It all seems so similar to another large company where I work, Tesco. They also have shareholders to keep happy by regularly posting profits that are as high as possible. Due to increased competition and less footfall in stores and therefore sales they have had a dip in profits in recent years as you'll all be aware. They reacted to this within the last year by removing a whole layer of staff company wide. The 'team leader' role which was the layer of thousands of staff between managers and general assistants was abolished (apart from checkouts and dotcom I believe) which will save them a lot of money over the coming years but may well lead to a lesser shopping experience for the customer in many aspects. However, Tesco will still post huge profits every year, just not as huge as preferred by shareholders or larger than the previous years bumper profits (shareholders like increased profits year on year, can't be doing with just huge profits every year).

In much the way that staff at Tesco have just had to muddle on and fill in the gaps as best as possible for the roles that have been removed from the company, you'll probably find that this will occur at Alton also. Things will be much more 'stretched'. They may well hire more staff in some form or another if things ever get really busy again, but I would suggest that recruitment in future may be far more considered and on a basis where they will only employ when absolutely necessary, not just hiring people to be better safe than sorry in-case it is busy one day. So yes, it is wrong that employee's are treated as so easily dispensable, but it is unfortunately the way things are these days with so many large corporations just looking at the bottom line and for increased profits to please shareholders. Like many have said, I wouldn't expect things to get much better with the current ownership of the place.

 

[Enter Valhalla]

Every business in the world, pretty much, has staff which it could manage without. It's all about looking at whether or not the company would seriously be hindered by removing these positions. By re-structuring management and staffing structures, Alton Towers are identifying that the reduced work load brought on by fewer guests can be spread out and allocated in a more efficient way. When three people could do the job of four or five people it makes perfect sense to allocated the work load in that way and then, once attendance picks up again and the work load demands are higher, additional staff will be recruited to cope with that extra work load. That's a pretty obvious way of doing things and Merlin cannot take the risk of over spending on unnecessary staffing if there's the possibility of another very quiet season ahead. If people think that me having the opinion makes me a cold, evil, capitalist baddie, then I hope to hell that those people on here never enter the world of business because that is an extremely tame statement compared to some of the more cut throat things which I've heard over the years.

 

[Rick]

^ Well said @Enter Valhalla

If the accident hadn't happened and Alton had their best season on record, the situation would the opposite. More money/guests = more staff. You've got to take your idealist hats off, it's just the way the world works. no matter how tragic you think it might be. For those who are suggesting that Merlin could bank roll Alton until things pick up again, that's the fast track to nowhere and we know much some of you hate fast track.

 

[Martin]

It's funny because thinking sacking nearly 200 people will make things better is more idealist than thinking it's a horrible thing to do. And sacking staff hoping they don't have a busy year and have to break the law by rehiring is much more of a fast track option than better utilising staff and making changes where they actually need them - the way the company is run.

 

[AndrewH]

It's funny because thinking sacking nearly 200 people will make things better is more idealist than thinking it's a horrible thing to do. And sacking staff hoping they don't have a busy year and have to break the law by rehiring is much more of a fast track option than better utilising staff and making changes where they actually need them - the way the company is run.

We don't know that all managers are safe they could also be cut but keeping staff for guests that aren't going to come (nothing new to encourage them to) is how to make the situation worse. Plus they would be rehiring illegally if they needed to because it they would probably have seasonal contracts first in different roles that could become full time or might not but I highly doubt they would need to refil these posts as there is no reason for guests not visiting this year to visit next year.

 

[Slugjc]

I would think some managers would be in this. If statement is true early retirement would suggest some senior staff.

 

[Rick]

It's funny because thinking sacking nearly 200 people will make things better is more idealist than thinking it's a horrible thing to do. And sacking staff hoping they don't have a busy year and have to break the law by rehiring is much more of a fast track option than better utilising staff and making changes where they actually need them - the way the company is run.

It's not about making things better, it's about reducing your cost base so that you can be, or approaching cash flow positive. You can't reduce your cost base without reducing staff, services, or product. You have an opportunity to better utilise staff when you don't have enough - this is the opposite situation, you have too many.

At the risk of sounding patronising, Alton Towers is like a mini city and half the population just moved out. Therefore you need less people to make the city function. Then, when the good times roll around again you can reappoint to the same positions, or into a new structure that better suits the needs of the business now and going forward.

 

[kris3012]

Too many people jumping the gun here imo without all the facts.
As has been said any business needs to keep staff levels to suit predicted workload (as best as possible).
No point having staff for no reason(yes its unfortunate people are losing there jobs id hate to be in there positions), but to slag Merlin off for doing it is ridiculous imo every company in the world(that is successful) would be acting in exactly the same way.

 

[RoyJess]

I fully understand that Alton is a business and they need to make a profit. I also understand that it may be necessarily to cut staff if the cash-flow is not there. My main concern is that before the incident, the park was already making cuts which could be felt by the guest. If they are cutting staff, then what else are they going to cut during the 2016 season and how much will this affect guest experience and satisfaction.

All I can see is this downward viscous circle which will run the park into the ground.