Recession in Britain 'at an end' - BBC

hundredk

lostinrates wrote: »

Neither are most staff in corporate law firms bound by EU work hour directives.

In which case the cost/benefit analysis to outsource or not would not include the benefit of longer shifts or working hours.

I was referring to like for like and (**I imagine) in India there are less stringent or no WTD regulations. But in UK, my understanding** is a UK call centre worker has to opt out of 48hr EU directive to work more than 48 hour average week and can then only go on to work up to a 60 hour week on average (averaged over a 13 or 26 week period).

**I'm sure someone will flame me if that's not the case

Cleaver

BettiePage wrote: »

Recession in Britain 'at an end' - BBC

Does that mean we need to rename the board again? My suggestion would be:

Bicker and argue about House Prices, who is a Sock Puppet, the Economy, Bulls vs Bears & Recovery

Does what it says on the tin.

lostinrates

hundredk wrote: »

In which case the cost/benefit analysis to outsource or not would not include the benefit of longer shifts or working hours.

I was referring to like for like and (**I imagine) in India there are less stringent or no WTD regulations. But in UK, my understanding** is a UK call centre worker has to opt out of 48hr EU directive to work more than 48 hour average week and can then only go on to work up to a 60 hour week on average (averaged over a 13 or 26 week period).

**I'm sure someone will flame me if that's not the case

Conflicting points being discussed IMO, and a decision is always made on a balance of pros and cons.

A uk non EU directive bound Lawyer IS going to need access to a night secretary. One will cost more than the other, both would be cheaper elsewhere, in all likelihood. I don't know why DH couldn't send stuff via email to India rather than the duty secretary down stairs in many cases. He often does something similar in unsociable hours (duty staff in UK may not be avilable especially if more thana few all night things going on, but then there are offices elsewhere where can take up the slack for many things)

Its also worth pointing out that it is possible to be qualified in a country in which you are not born in or reside in. e.g. DH's firm employs lawyers with qualifications in mulitple juristictions: seems a ''logical business route'' to consider, not just for cost but for service provition to international clients and for less direct reasons too.


EU work hours directive has an awful lot of 'get outs' asfaik.

FWIW I think this is one of things I can annoyingly see both sides to:o

hundredk

dfh wrote: »

Companies like Direct line and Churchill are running UK only call centres and they continue to be profitable.

That's their decision and they may even choose to market that point. It doesn't necessarily mean that Indian call centres may not ultimately prove to be cheaper and make them even more profitable.

I use Churchill and if they offered me a significantly lower premium as a trade off for "streamlined customer service" (well they wouldn't say crap), I'd do the same as them and consider the saving Vs the possible inconvenience when I wanted some customer service. Good old MSE!

dfh wrote: »

If the Indian call centres are indeed so good they why do we have hundreds of threads on here complaining about the service? Why do we have so many threads asking which companies run UK only call centres?

I'm sure the consensus is that they are not as good as UK call centres but that's not the point. More to the point is that the companies who have outsourced will have balanced losing a few customers and making a few ex gratia payments against the savings afforded by cheap labour.

Many customers may moan on threads etc but these don't contribute to the companies evaluation. Also with so many companies outsourcing, customers often think what is the point of changing to end up with another company doing the same.

dfh

Actually they do choose to market that point ! And while I agree with you about savings,surely cheap is not always the best ! Problem is that many business are quite arrogant and think they can get away with shoddy service.Unfortunately,unless people are pro-active they will continue to get away with it.

Cleaver

dfh wrote: »

Companies like Direct line and Churchill are running UK only call centres and they continue to be profitable.

Is that the same Churchill and Direct Line that are owned in entirety by the hugely profitable RBS?

hundredk

lostinrates wrote: »

Conflicting points being discussed IMO, and a decision is always made on a balance of pros and cons.

A uk non EU directive bound Lawyer IS going to need access to a night secretary. One will cost more than the other, both would be cheaper elsewhere, in all likelihood. I don't know why DH couldn't send stuff via email to India rather than the duty secretary down stairs in many cases. He often does something similar in unsociable hours (duty staff in UK may not be avilable especially if more thana few all night things going on, but then there are offices elsewhere where can take up the slack for many things)

Its also worth pointing out that it is possible to be qualified in a country in which you are not born in or reside in. e.g. DH's firm employs lawyers with qualifications in mulitple juristictions: seems a ''logical business route'' to consider, not just for cost but for service provition to international clients and for less direct reasons too.


EU work hours directive has an awful lot of 'get outs' asfaik.

FWIW I think this is one of things I can annoyingly see both sides to:o

Agree with all this, esp in bold and, in lots of cases I would think the salary savings offer a big pro.

Same thing happened with manufacturing - look at textiles and garments and all the far east labels in high street products - the UK manufacturers cannot compete and are priced out of the market.

Cleaver

dfh wrote: »

Actually they do choose to market that point ! And while I agree with you about savings,surely cheap is not always the best ! Problem is that many business are quite arrogant and think they can get away with shoddy service.Unfortunately,unless people are pro-active they will continue to get away with it.

You've summed it up in your last sentence. The market decides whether overseas call centres are profitable / suitable.

You're correct in stating that some people don't like them enough to chose a company that advertise that they only use British call centres, and that's fine. But certain companies will have them abroad because it's evident that whilst everyone says that they may prefer a British call centre, for the once a year that they have to call it doesn't really matter where it's based. As long as that attitute continues, so will call centres abroad.

For what's worth the call centre for my car insurance provider can be based on Mars for all I care. Think I've rung it once in the past 5 years.

dfh

Cleaver wrote: »

You've summed it up in your last sentence. The market decides whether overseas call centres are profitable / suitable.

You're correct in stating that some people don't like them enough to chose a company that advertise that they only use British call centres, and that's fine. But certain companies will have them abroad because it's evident that whilst everyone says that they may prefer a British call centre, for the once a year that they have to call it doesn't really matter where it's based. As long as that attitute continues, so will call centres abroad.

For what's worth the call centre for my car insurance provider can be based on Mars for all I care. Think I've rung it once in the past 5 years.

I know but what if you had to make a claim. it can be a nightmare trying to talk to someone who you cannot understand and who cannot understand you

hundredk

dfh wrote: »

Actually they do choose to market that point ! And while I agree with you about savings,surely cheap is not always the best ! Problem is that many business are quite arrogant and think they can get away with shoddy service.Unfortunately,unless people are pro-active they will continue to get away with it.

Cheap Vs Quality is the consumers decision. If you had the choice of buying a 100% quality product for £1 or a 90% quality product for 60p which would you choose? Of course it's difficult to quanitify like this and is about individual choice but companies know a lot will trade off some quality for a reasonable saving. In the example of customer service call cantres, it's only a problem if you need to use them.

I agree businesses know they can get away with it, or at least consider how much flak they may get for £££savings but isn't that a commercial decision?

Oh, I hate foreign call centres!