[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Hell's Child

Telesales in the north are recruiting approx 40 staff for the new manchester "super centre". Why would they do this if they were planning on moving to india?
Why would a communications company, with it's own network move jobs to another country where it would have to pay to get the calls routed to britain using another providers lines? Economically, although wages are cheaper in india etc the cost of running the centre is more expensive overall because of the fact ntl would have to pay another carrier to transfer the calls to the UK which far outweighs the benifit that would be seen with cheaper staff costs.

The company is trying to steamilne, and although I have sympathy for those that have/will loose their jobs (and yes I have friends that have been given their 90 days) it should free up cash which means more investment in technology/better investment and an overall better service for the people that pay our wages.. i.e the customer.
From a customer point of view one of the major probs was being transfred from NW to NE, then to London etc, with 3 major centres that will stop, it will also mean it is more cost effective and easier to impliment changes to the centre technology (ie systems) which, yes, are outdated and need improving. All of this to me makes it look as though, for the customer at least, theses changes are good.

I seem to recollect that NTL have on numerous occasions advertised for staff in areas where they have shortly after announced job losses.

If you think that NTL will not move jobs to India because of the cost of calls from there to the UK then surely the same principle would apply to NTL Freedom having call centres there. Why did they do this if it is more costly than using call centres based on their own network?