Letters, feedback, get it off your chest: 28 January 2009

There's a gaggle of letters this week: the thought of Sensis sending its phone books offshore angers some readers, Martin Booth and James Cryer have their say on the state of the industry, while both ISO and gravure prove to be very hot topics.

Re: Fears as Sensis starts printing phone books offshore

I read with horror your recent article about the fears of Sensis going off-shore for the production of their telephone directories.

I felt so strongly about the issue that I sent an email immediately to Sensis.

I thought you may be interested in the correspondence:

David Barker

Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2009 8:56 PM
To: Sensis Feedback
Subject: Feedback

I have worked in the print and graphics industries for the
past 30 years, and recently in the video field with my own business.
I was alarmed to read in Print 21 Online of the (feared) moves you are
making to take print of our telephone  directories off-shore.

As an Australian, a user of your phone books and other services, I wish
to register my objection to any such move which would have a negative
impact on employment in our own country – to the benefit of another.

Your customers (and probably share holders) are predominantly Australian
and I believe it is about time we all looked seriously at preserving our
lifestyles and local economy, rather than focus on shareholders’ return.

Your services and products have served us well over the years and
fulfilled a community need for many generations. And along the way,
helped our economy and Australians prosper.

As you search for ways and means to  replace lost revenue from printed
directories, I trust that management take the broader view and support
our own country and its people.
David Barker

REPLY:

Dear David,
Thank you for contacting Sensis.
I have spoken to my team leader regarding this matter and he has advised
me that this is not the case. We appreciate your concern and feedback.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to reply back.
Fuat

 **************

Re: Retrenchments vs pay cuts: Sharing the Good Times with the Bad

With the pundits claiming an unemployment rate of up to a million, maybe it's time for the printing industry to show some leadership.

Those of us in our industry have always prided ourselves on our technical innovativeness and our capacity to respond to changing technology. From letterpress to offset: from film and plates to CTP: from analogue to digital.

We've taken these tumultuous changes in our stride and have adapted readily - probably due to our tendency to be "early adoptors" of state-of-the-art technology as soon as it becomes available.
Not so however, when the "engineering" involves "human engineering" - specifically, how to re-calibrate our workforce in the optimal way during a downturn.

These days, we're reading constantly of printing companies exhibiting an almost knee-jerk reaction to throw people overboard, on the basis it's better that a few people get fed to the sharks rather than risk the entire lifeboat. There seems an almost callous indifference to the effect that such retrenchments can have on the remaining staff members, not to mention the devastating impact on those who were used as live bait.

I'm not suggesting that companies are obliged to fulfill onerous social responsibilities, although I do seem to recall a certain large printing conglomerate proclaiming its staff were (one of) its greatest assets - until it was time to get rid of them. (Which just happened to be the week before Christmas.)

We are in industry "in transition" however, and accordingly, as an industry, we're starting to recognise our broader corporate responsibilites - via the "Excellence Awards" and other similar programs. Entrants are very keen to demonstrate their claims to be good corporate citizens. But actions speak louder than words, and how would these companies be judged by their actions in undertaking such large and sudden, "bodies overboard" drills.

What I'm proposing is simply a more imaginative re-think to the time-honoured, traditional approach to "retrenchments" - particularly, as when the good times return, those same companies will be expecting the retrenchees to come back again – on an "all is forgiven" basis.

Surely a smarter, more cost-efficient (not to mention humane) approach would be to re-define the challenge as "cutting the payroll", instead of "cutting jobs".
Getting rid of warm bodies attracts all sorts of unwanted side-effects:

 - shaken morale, and feelings of insecurity amongst the "survivors"
 - undesirable publicity from the media, as well as those who became shark-bait
 - additional costs of paying out entitlements and other "hush money" to minimise bad blood
 - loss of corporate cohesion and continuity, as much goodwill and wisdom walks out the door, and
 - the future costs of re-hiring and re-training new, unfamiliar staff.

A more appealing option, I suggest, would be for everyone (including all ranks) to "share the pain" a little bit. I'm sure that if the alternatives were put to staff - 1) we either fire 5 per cent of you, or 2) we each take a 5 per cent pay cut for a while until the feeling passes – it's almost a no-brainer.

This is not as silly or as un-precedented as you may think. Recently overseas, a large health fund has waived directors' fees and its management reduced their salaries by 15 per cent. Similarly a large Asian airline has agreed to cut salaries according to a sliding-scale -25 per cent for senior management down to 5 per cent for lower-paid staff. My proposal isn't as radical as that! I'm only proposing an equal amount across the board - all ranks! A large UK car manufacturer is currently exploring a whole "range of things on the table … we are trying to avoid redundancies. We have spent a fortune training our workforce …"

Apart from saving costs (avoiding expensive termination pay-outs) plan "B" would deliver a powerful boost to morale by demonstrating that the boss is prepared to take part of the pain. In my role as a recruiter, I see the employment market from the top-down and the bottom-up, and hear at first hand the views of the ejected, the un-loved and the un-wanted. Sadly, it's not always the "dead wood" that's trimmed - although that's another story.

By recognising the value of retaining your employees, you're turning adversity into an opportunity to help cement their commitment to working harder as part of a cohesive team-unit. This actually makes good commercial sense in the long-run, as you've invested a considerable amount in your existing staff (haven't you) – it seems a pity to let them go. The other strategy is to re-define the allocation of tasks, as it may be possible to retain someone if their role was modified slightly.

Let's show some creativity and sensitivity in this impending recession. Employees have long memories and it sends the wrong signals when loyal and committed staff (who thought they were there for "good times and bad") suddenly get thrown overboard. Let's NOT have an "accountant led" recovery.

Let's mix some humanity with good business sense by sharing the good times and the difficult. The employees will love you for it and reward you with their loyalty. That's the risk you'll have to take!

If, on the other hand, you choose to go down the retrenchment path, make sure you park the Beemer or the Jag round the corner, at least for a while.

James Cryer

 **************

Re: Collateral damage
It is quite understandable that when times get tough, economically speaking, organisations look for ways to reduce their financial exposure. One way is to shrink into your shell and look for ways to cut costs. Lay off staff, off-load non-core parts of your business and then put your hand out for a hand out from the government (aka the taxpayer).
 
Another way to reduce financial exposure is to ensure every single dollar that passes through your organisation works even harder for you. That's why I don't understand the sudden spate of outsourcing of in-house print operations within both the private and public sectors.
 
An in-house print operation is one of the best ways to retain your dollars internally and ensure you get to keep an eye on them and get them to work in a positive way for you. It means you have the asset, you have the control, you have the ability to hit the ground running when this storm blows over.
 
Wouldn't organisations and their decision makers be better addressing and concentrating on the work practices that got us into this mess in the first place? Getting rid of the in-house facility is collateral damage in an unimaginative strategy to save costs. Getting rid of an efficient and effective in-house operation when a financial crisis hits is like 're-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic'. It might make you feel like you are doing something but it really doesn't help because it isn't addressing the real issue.
 
Martin Booth
Mornington, Victoria