Pension reducing from 16% to 12% for uk employees, this is one of the primary benefits for people in UK as it's considered to better than other companies. Could it be a strategy to get rid of people by stealth?
10 replies (most recent on top)
Be glad you still have a pension. In the US, it was terminated completely after the GE fiasco.
@2gr Oh Hi HR
@2dc what kind of deal are you hoping to make? It's happening, end of.
Hope everyone has voiced concerns and demanded a deal as part of these changes with your appointed rep. If you say nothing, nothing will happen (other than the changes go through without any deal)
@a5+1:
You are making the mistake of comparing your sensible medium term logic with the very short term logic of the BH Senior Management.
So let's be clear here; more experienced staff usually cost more money than inexperienced green fry, so in their eyes fewer experienced staff can be chalked up as a short term cost down, together with their associated benefit packages, which all looks good when the bonus cheques get sent out.
To quote the previous poster, "It's all about Me, Me, Me" these days.
@gj+1jxwb0zzd
If you go outside of the O&G bubble, things are a lot different in the real world where benefit levels are as described, even with some large FTSE 100 companies, so take your 12% & be happy that they didn’t make it 5% legal minimum.
Given the current state of BH, I still say 12% is rather generous, and I’m sure people in other industries would give their right arm for that cut.
You must be living in your own little bubble, or be one of those people on the Management grift, if you think BH is a great place to work.
I have many years of working here, and morale has never been so low, with experienced people, even more so than myself, smelling the coffee & leaving without the Management even trying to retain them or attempt to address their perfectly legitimate concerns.
This is not something that happened back in the day, where local & regional Management were intelligent enough to understand where the money & innovation actually came from, & where Loyalty & commitment were actually valued over the "It's all about Me, Me, Me" attitude that seems to be encrusted in BH these days.
And it’s not just the Employees who can see this either – if it was so great, our workshops would be overflowing with work, but they aren’t.
As far as direction is concerned, it may be present at Board Room level, but on the Coal Face, where things actually get done, the biggest complaint I have heard is the disconnect that there is between the Top & bottom.
Still, if you are happy and doing fine, then who am I to say differently – clearly I’m just a disgruntled employee, nothing is toxic, everything is fine, our customers are chuffed to bits, & there’s nothing to see here.
@dk disagree. This isn't Lorenzos first rodeo and if hes good at anything it's strategy. I haven't seen the toxic work environment either but maybe this is certain areas or disgruntled employees. You are mistaken on the pension though, most employers within oil and gas are not 5% max, I can assure you of this. Shell/BP match up to 20% and other oil equipment suppliers are good too. I agree with you that the benefits package is good within Baker Hughes but this is why people are here. Take it away and roll the dice
@a5+1jxwb0zzd
Indeed it is true what you say, but I think you are confusing BH with a company that has a clear long term strategy, which by now should be clear they don't.
Note that people stay or leave a company for a myriad of reasons, but given the number of experienced staff who have quit of their own accord, I'd say that the pension contribution alone isn't enough, & anyways, BH look at Experienced Staff as an overhead these days, & one that they can do without.
I'll play Devil's advocate here & say that for all their failings, the pension contribution from BH at 16% is hard to beat, & even at 12% it is very good compared to other large companies.
Seriously, check it out for yourself & you will be astonished at the number of apparently respectable companies who pay the bare minimum of 5%.
As a cynic, I'd say that the only reason it hasn't gone down to 5% minimum is because the Brass would also be affected, & that just wouldn't do.
In conclusion, BH might be a toxic company to work for, but the benefit package is hard to beat.
If oil prices are expected to dramatically increase, would it not be a better strategy to retain key personnel and focus efforts in other areas? Unfortunately many are staying at the company for this benefit so taking it away could cost more money in the long run.
The company is bracing for dramatically higher oil prices and this is one way they can stay competitive.