BT Punishing Plusnet Customers & staff
OK. KevinR and other posters, here is my view of what is happening at BT and how it is affecting the behaviour of PlusNet management:
:opinion on
In the mid to late 90's, BT embarked on a business venture to sell Systems Integration Services. This was initially set up as BT Syntegra and was a separate business entity. This company was later branded as BT Global Services and I believe, closely modelled on the Services arm of the Computer Company bearing the same name. The problems with this business are the same as those encountered by other Systems Integrators where failures of close specification in contracts compounded by inadequate change management and risk management have led to protracted schedules and cost over-runs. Whereas the pain of this can be shared with the client in "Time and Materials" contracts, this almost invariably puts the provider in default of contract and liable not only for the costs of over-run but also liquidated damages and other penalties. In the current climate, there may also be issues of non payment and cancellation of contracts by the clients.
So, what does a company in this position do besides the obvious action of trimming "discretionary" expense and reducinfg "fixed" costs by cutting the workforce? The Liabilities side of the Balance Sheet are hard to change but the Assets side can be manipulated by a) maximising the listing of Debts to the company .... and .... b) maximising the value of Accounts receivable.
It is the latter of these that PlusNet (and all other BT Retail businesses) have been directed to do. It is standard accounting practice that ALL contracted revenue can be shown as Accounts receivable although the actual payments may be scheduled far into the future. This is manifested as the imposition of 18 month contracts for all new or changed contracts. Yes I know that existing customers can pull this back to 12 months by raising a Ticket but there are very few of us that know this and the majority will accept the 18 month contract.
This practice is even more severe at BT where rolling 12 month contracts have been enforced.
:opinion off
This is all very deep for the time which is now almost 2 am on Sunday night/ Monday morning so I look forward to further discussion tomorrow......
:opinion on
In the mid to late 90's, BT embarked on a business venture to sell Systems Integration Services. This was initially set up as BT Syntegra and was a separate business entity. This company was later branded as BT Global Services and I believe, closely modelled on the Services arm of the Computer Company bearing the same name. The problems with this business are the same as those encountered by other Systems Integrators where failures of close specification in contracts compounded by inadequate change management and risk management have led to protracted schedules and cost over-runs. Whereas the pain of this can be shared with the client in "Time and Materials" contracts, this almost invariably puts the provider in default of contract and liable not only for the costs of over-run but also liquidated damages and other penalties. In the current climate, there may also be issues of non payment and cancellation of contracts by the clients.
So, what does a company in this position do besides the obvious action of trimming "discretionary" expense and reducinfg "fixed" costs by cutting the workforce? The Liabilities side of the Balance Sheet are hard to change but the Assets side can be manipulated by a) maximising the listing of Debts to the company .... and .... b) maximising the value of Accounts receivable.
It is the latter of these that PlusNet (and all other BT Retail businesses) have been directed to do. It is standard accounting practice that ALL contracted revenue can be shown as Accounts receivable although the actual payments may be scheduled far into the future. This is manifested as the imposition of 18 month contracts for all new or changed contracts. Yes I know that existing customers can pull this back to 12 months by raising a Ticket but there are very few of us that know this and the majority will accept the 18 month contract.
This practice is even more severe at BT where rolling 12 month contracts have been enforced.
:opinion off
This is all very deep for the time which is now almost 2 am on Sunday night/ Monday morning so I look forward to further discussion tomorrow......
Quote from: puddy why do some abled body users think disabled people have chips on their shoulders?
I'm disabled too, even fought an industrial tribunal case where the employer tried to argue that I wasn't (they failed).
But as I don't need to mention it I don't.
And as no-one referred to your disability (and probably are not aware of it) either it would indeed appear that there is no justification or explanation for your assertion. If it was aimed at me I would feel aggrieved.
I'm somewhat reminded of (white, jewish) Sacha Baron Cohen's famous quote "Is it 'cos I's black?"
(someone earlier did, I believe, advise you to read what you've written before you posted it)