BDO Stoy Hayward to cut 250 jobs

Double Standards

In times of prosperity firms are loathe to employ - so that they can run the staff to the ground and staff end-up doing longer hours (selfishly) to meet unrealistic targets. Now when the same staff need to TLC, the firms turn their back on them. My reference to "firms" is to most of the top tier firms. I have had the unfortunate experience to see hard working colleagues made redundant all in the name of recession. In fact firms are making more money now than in any previous periods. How pathetic!!!

Posted by: Held back for obvious reasons , 05 Dec 2008 | 00:00

If this is you then try me!

Hi ... if this article applies to your job then please
try applying to me! Jonathan vowles
chartered accountants.
I have been trying to recruit for
most of 2008 but not found the right person yet.
Jonathan

Posted by: jonathan vowles , 05 Dec 2008 | 00:00

it's a shame

You won't believe how staff work so hard
to defend the course of their firms,
yet when it comes to difficult times
the very firms turn their backs on them. Why
don't senior management rather cut-back
on their heavy wages and profit to retain the staff?

Posted by: Edwin Seigo , 05 Dec 2008 | 00:00

Not all the same

I work at GT. The firm's been very open and
honest with all the staff about what's going on
and I know of people who've been found
jobs in other cities and divisions.

In the good years GT's been great to work for.
For those below manager it's paid overtime
and a supportive atmosphere.
Don't judge all the firms by the
standards of the bad ones.

Posted by: Also withheld , 06 Dec 2008 | 00:00

Job cutting

The firm seems to be being greedy by cutting jobs before the work actually runs short - many of the staff affected were in fact working overtime virtually every week. The firm's profits have continued to grow over the past few years.

Posted by: witheld , 06 Dec 2008 | 00:00

Three thoughts

1 - I was made redundant by BDO Stoy Hayward some years back as part of an earlier round of partner cuts. I had no complaints about how I was selected or treated.

2 - It's important to remember that hard work alone is not enough. What matters is how productive you are, how efficient, how commercial and how much you contribute to your employer's prosperity. Work hard, staying late and doing overtime MAY be evidence of all these things but sometimes it's the weaker workers who put in extra effort in an effort not to be found out. Most employers aren't fooled though.

3 - Many employers will 'carry' weaker employees for longer than they should as it's easier than going through the whole sacking or redundancy process. And no one wants to risk claims of unfair dismissal on an ad-hoc basis. But in a recession firms will take the opportunity to cut out all the weak links in one go. Much less hassle. Of course some undeserving people will also get caught up in such unfortunate culls. But some will simply have been lucky not to lose their job much earlier.

Posted by: Witheld for commercial reasons , 11 Dec 2008 | 00:00

Your legal rights

I am from the big 4, and I have recently been selected as being at risk of redundancy.
However, i do not agree that the company has handled the redundancy properly.

They are proposing to make me redundant one day before the bonus entitlement in order to make me sign the compromised agreement (i.e give up my legal rights in return for money).

They are also making trainees redundant. Trainees are called 2 days before their ACA exams. They just can't wait for 3 days to let their trainees finish their exams. I would day its totally inhuman and inrresponsible.

I am not disclosing the name of the firm here yet, since i am in considerating of giving up my enhanced payment to pursue my legal rights.

hugely disappointed by my firm.

Posted by: sweetieivy , 11 Dec 2008 | 00:00

hire and fire = economic prosperity?

As an economist I remember just a few years ago UK government advisers claimed that the UK economy enjoyed low unemployment and economic growth (relative to the rest of the EU) because it had adopted the US system. Government intervention into the economy was to be at a bare minimum, trade Unions were over time weakened and undermined, minimum wages to be held down, redundancy entitlements to be limited and dismissal procedures made easier to create a more "flexible" labour market. All these measures it was claimed was the reason why the UK/US are so successful and that all countries should follow suit. Any economist disputing these claims was too readily dismissed. Now it is all too obvious which countries will suffer the deepest recessions and highest rate of unemployment; so much for neoliberalism.

Posted by: Omid , 09 Jan 2009 | 00:00

Job Security

I have always found it interesting that those in employment think their income is more secure than that fo the self-employed - until there is a recession, that is. Then they realise that the business comes first.

The irony is that were the professions to have even a hint of entrepreneurialism about them, they'd be hiring more people, because the opportunities out there are still massive.

Posted by: Joe , 13 Jan 2009 | 00:00

Trainees redundant?

I am appalled that trainees are to be made redundant at such a reputable firm as BDO Stoy Hayward; no other accountancy firm of such reputation has opted to take such measure.

Trainees are a source of cheap labour and the life-blood of all accountancy firms. Trainees are also the most vunerable members of the workforce and should be made redundant as a last resort.

Posted by: Kreshnik Bozhani , 14 Feb 2009 | 00:00