spinofflive
Photo: The Warehouse – edited
Photo: The Warehouse – edited

MoneyOctober 22, 2020

The cost-cutting consultants cashing in at The Warehouse

Photo: The Warehouse – edited
Photo: The Warehouse – edited

BusinessDesk‘s Rebecca Stevenson looks into the controversial restructuring programme at New Zealand’s largest retailer, which has slashed hundreds of jobs and shuttered stores nationwide.

I still recall as an employee of the former Fairfax Media business seeing a report in The Australian in 2013 which filled me, a junior reporter with an interest in business, with dread.

Dr Bain – otherwise known as management consultants from Bain & Co – had been hired to find further cost savings for a business fighting a desperate rear-guard action against dwindling newspaper advertising revenue and the now dominant social networks. Its clear, the article said, that Dr Bain was about to repeat the dosage of cost-cutting it prescribed to Fairfax in 2011 and 2012. The meaning was clear: job cuts, outsourcing, and the expectation to do more with less.

For dairy giant Fonterra, its choice of physician to slash, cut and stitch was McKinsey, who pocketed a reported $100 million for its “Velocity” restructuring programme which was meant to hammer down costs after a series of disasters including its ill-fated China Farms investment.

At listed retailer The Warehouse, its restructuring programme called “Rise” has resulted in the company chopping jobs, closing stores, and the payment of a cool $22 million to a management consultancy firm.

We don’t know which doctor of management The Warehouse acquired to disassemble its business, stripping out people and costs. But we do know it planned to axe about 130 staff from its head office, close nine stores, and is now in the final throes of letting go of up to 750 staff out of its some 11,000 employees.

A silver lining

It’s worth noting the company committed in 2019 to paying the staff who made it through the consultant’s clutches a living wage. But the redundancies have heaped negativity on the business, with critics claiming it took close to $70 million in wage subsidy only to turn around and sack its staff.

The Warehouse Group CEO Nick Grayston said this allegation couldn’t be further from the facts; without the wage subsidy, it couldn’t have paid staff their full wages. Without it, who knows how many more jobs may have been lost. As it is, the company is following through with the plan put in place by the consultants.

Grayston said he was prevented from saying who they are by their contract, but said there were 292 different transformation initiatives executed over about 18 months at NZ’s largest retailer.

He said the company had “accessed pockets of value”. The payments were a success fee, and part of the value the savings and cuts generated. “Roughly 45% were cost-orientated, or cost out, and 55% were margin enhancing.”

The retailer’s expenses in the exercise were paid back in about six months, which helped it with some of the headwinds it was facing, Grayston said.

The Warehouse Group CEO Nick Grayston (Photo: The Warehouse Group)

The $22 million earned by the nameless consultants was more than the company had predicted it might payout in 2019. In that year, the company said it expected to realise further benefits from the Rise programme at a cost of between $18 million to $20 million.

In 2019, Rise cost The Warehouse Group $15.7 million.

A new focus

In his CEO report from that year, Grayston outlined how the company was shifting shape and focus, attempting to become adaptable and deal with its own threats.

It’s clear, Grayston said, the company still needed to make the full pivot from being a rigid, 20th-century command-and-control organisation focused on supply to become a nimble, digital company focused on solving customer problems.

“With that goal in mind, we’re assessing different operational models, adjusting our culture and looking to adopt lean principles such as speed-as-a-habit, agility, flexibility, minimum viable product and fail-fast as part of how we operate.”

It faces increased competition from retailers such as a resurgent Kmart and the soon-coming Costco, and also an onslaught from online.

The Warehouse isn’t unusual among New Zealand retailers in that it’s been a slow mover to online sales. But Covid-19 has shocked the ailing patient into a final recognition – if you’re not online, and doing it well, you could end up dead.

Its results post the nationwide lockdowns show swift change can be forced. Online sales finished the year up 50% on 2019, and in the second half of the year were up 126%. Almost 50% of its online shoppers were new to e-commerce.

Now, The Warehouse has arisen, and Rise is over.

It has a new restructuring programme, with a less try-hard name (Agile) which is in full flow. It has a familiar prescription though – job losses and cost-cutting.

“The group has partnered with the same consultancy firm which helped with the ‘Rise’ transformation programme to assist with the ‘Agile’ transition, based on a similar fee arrangement,” its 2020 financials show.

Whether this programme will be as successful for the consultancy firm as Rise remains to be seen.

For the most recent financial year, its quest for agility saw it book restructuring costs of $22.2 million, with redundancy payments of $13.7 million. It expects to pay out a further $9.1 million in redundancy costs 2021. It’s paid $4.4 million to close stores.

A further $4 million in 2020 was paid to the faceless consultants.

It appears the consultancy business is in good health.

This article originally appeared on BusinessDesk. Its team publishes quality independent news, analysis and commentary on business, the economy and politics every day. Find out more.

Keep going!
ACC bills can be notoriously confusing for the self-employed (Photo: Alice Webb-Liddall)
ACC bills can be notoriously confusing for the self-employed (Photo: Alice Webb-Liddall)

OPINIONMoneyOctober 14, 2020

Here’s why ACC is confusing for the self-employed

ACC bills can be notoriously confusing for the self-employed (Photo: Alice Webb-Liddall)
ACC bills can be notoriously confusing for the self-employed (Photo: Alice Webb-Liddall)

ACC has just started issuing their first bills to self-employed people for two years, and it’s exposed major shortcomings in the ACC levy system, writes James Fuller.

In the last week or so, thousands of self-employed New Zealanders will have received their first ever ACC bill. For many it will be a confusing and frustrating experience.

Unlike those working in salaried employment who pay their ACC contributions via PAYE taxes, self-employed workers must pay ACC separately, as an annual bill.

Based on the type of work an individual does, ACC charges them a percentage of their taxable income as ACC Levies. These taxes go towards paying for medical cover for work and non-work related injuries, and the more “high risk” the type of work, the higher the ACC levies they’ll have to pay.

Last year ACC didn’t send out any bills, as they were resetting their billing cycle to work differently, which means that anyone who has become self-employed at any time within the last two years has just received a surprise bill from ACC, expecting payment to be made within a month. Some of these bills already threaten the use of debt collection agencies if they’re not paid on time.

If an individual hasn’t regularly kept their information up to date with ACC, they may not even receive the bill to the correct postal or email address, meaning that a visit from the debt collectors could be the first they hear of things.

For many recently self-employed people, these bills will not only be unexpected, they’ll possibly be very confusing, and the information on them can potentially be highly inaccurate. They may find that ACC has them listed with a completely incorrect job type – meaning their bill could be a lot higher than necessary, or a lot less than is actually required!

Most affected people will inevitably call in to ACC to clarify things, so no doubt the ACC call centre is “currently experiencing higher than normal call volumes”.

A call to ACC won’t make things much clearer unfortunately. Anyone looking to get an accurate bill from ACC by updating their job type will be faced with even further confusion. The list of “industry standard” job types that ACC has you choose from is hugely outdated, and is more relevant for registered companies, rather than self-employed individuals.

Further frustration awaits you if you happen to earn income from a couple of different types of work, as the ACC levy system can only support individuals having one type of job per financial year. That’s right – only one type of work every 12 months.

So, if for ten months of the year you were working as a graphic designer, and then for the last two months you became a digger driver, and you then told this to ACC, they would charge you as though you’d been a digger driver for the entire year. How is that fair, or accurate?

These days people are earning their income in a multitude of different ways, doing many different types of work – sometimes on a daily basis. The fact that ACC can only support one per year just shows how out of touch the policies are.

So it’s hard to find a job type that fits, and it’s impossible to have more than one job type in a year. So perhaps we should all just ignore it and just accept whatever job type ACC decides to default us to? Unfortunately, accepting the default is no better. The standard default ACC job type is “manufacturing” – one of the highest levy rates – so accepting the default can leave individuals seriously, and unnecessarily out of pocket.

The whole point of the ACC levy system was to have everyone contribute an amount based on the risk profile of the sort of work they do, but why should we bother having a levy system at all if the data is consistently so inaccurate?

Given that 15% to 20% of Kiwis are earning some or all of their income outside of salaried employment, and the vast majority have no need to be a “company” we should be properly overhauling the ACC system to better cater for individuals, rather than expecting them to fit into an outdated model that assumes everyone who isn’t in salaried employment is running a company.

Perhaps we should significantly simplify things, and implement a blended levy rate across everyone, or have a simpler levy system with a handful of bands based on the different types of work individuals might do. That would certainly be preferable to the mess and confusion of the current setup.

There’s no doubt that ACC in itself is a fantastic thing. It is a fundamental part of New Zealand’s healthcare system, and provides cover and support to hundreds of thousands of everyday Kiwis. However the way the levy system is set up, and in particular, the fact that it hasn’t evolved to meet the needs of individuals who earn income independently, means that right now it is woefully out of touch with modern ways of working.