Sail's Voluntary Retirement Scheme
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 SAIL'S VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME Case Code-HROB002 Published-2003 INTRODUCTION At a meeting of the board of directors in June 1999, the CEOs of Steel Authority of India's (SAIL) four plants - V. Gujral (Bhilai), S. B. Singh (Durgapur), B.K. Singh (Bokaro), and A.K. Singh (Rourkela) made their usual presentations on their performance projections. One after the other, they got up to describe how these units were going to post huge losses, once again, in the first quarter[1] of 1999-2000. After incurring a huge loss of Rs 15.74 billion in the financial year 1998-99 (the first in the last 12 years), the morale in the company was extremely low. The joke at SAIL's headquarters in Delhi was that the company's fortunes would change only if a VRS was offered to its CEOs - not just the workers. BACKGROUND NOTE SAIL was the world's 10th largest and India's largest steel manufacturer with a 33% share in the domestic market. In the financial year 1999-2000, the company generated revenues of Rs. 162.5 billion and incurred a net loss of Rs 17.2 billion. Yet, as on February 23, 2001, SAIL had a market valuation of just Rs. 340.8 billion, a meager amount considering the fact that the company owned four integrated and two special steel plants. SAIL was formed in 1973 as a holding company of the government owned steel and associated input companies. In 1978, the subsidiary companies including Durgapur Mishra Ispat Ltd, Bokaro Steels Ltd, Hindustan Steel Works Ltd, Salem Steel Ltd., SAIL International Ltd were all dissolved and merged with SAIL. In 1979, the Government transferred to it the ownership of Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. (IISCO) which became a wholly owned subsidiary of SAIL. SAIL operated four integrated steel plants, located at Durgapur (WB), Bhilai (MP), Rourkela (Orissa) and Bokaro (Bihar). The company also operated two alloy/special steel plants located at Durgapur (WB) and Salem (Tamil Nadu). The Durgapur and Bhilai plants were pre-dominantly1ong products[2] plants, whereas the Rourkela and Bokaro plants had facilities for manufacturing flat products[3] . THE JOLT In February 2000, the SAIL management received a financial and business-restructuring plan proposed by McKinsey & Co, a leading global management-consulting firm, and approved by the government of India (held 85.82% equity stake). The McKinsey report suggested that SAIL be reorganized into two strategic business units (SBUs) - a flat products company and a long products company. The SAIL management board too was to be restructured, so that it should consisted of two SBU chiefs and directors of finance, HRD, commercial and technical. To increase share value, McKinsey suggested a phased divestment schedule. The plan envisaged putting the flat products company on the block first, as intense competition was expected in this area, and the long products company at a later date. Financial restructuring envisaged waiver of Steel Development Fund[4](SDF) loans worth Rs 50.73 billion and Rs 3.8 billion lent to IISCO. The government also agreed to provide guarantee for raising loans of Rs 15 billion with a 50% interest subsidy for the amount raised. This amount had to be utilized for reducing manpower through the voluntary retirement scheme. Another guarantee was given for further raising of Rs 15 billion, for repaying past loans. Business restructuring proposals included divestment of the following non-core assets: 2 • Power plants at Rourkela, Durgapur & Bokaro, oxygen plant-2 of the Bhilai steel plant and the fertilizer plant at Rourkela. • Salem Steel Plant (SSP), Salem. • Alloy Steel Plant (ASP), Durgapur. • Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant (VISL), Bhadravati. • Conversion of IISCO into a joint venture with SAIL having only minority shareholding. THE DILEMMA The major worry for SAIL's CEO Arvind Pande was the company's 160,000-strong workforce. Manpower costs alone accounted for 16.69% of the company's gross sales in 1999-2000. This was the largest percentage, as compared with other steel producers such as Essar Steel (1.47%) and Ispat Industries (1.34%). An analysis of manpower costs as a percentage of the turnover for various units of SAIL showed that its raw materials division (RMD), central marketing organisation (CMO), Research & Development Centre at Ranchi and the SAIL corporate office in Delhi were the weak spots. There was considerable excess manpower in the non-plant departments. Around 30% of SAIL's manpower, including executives, were in the non-plant departments, merely adding to the superfluous paperwork. Hindustan Steel, SAIL's predecessor, was modelled on government secretariats, with thousands of "babus" and messengers adding to the glory of feudal-oriented departmental heads. SAIL had yet to make any visible effort to reduce surplus manpower. A senior official at SAIL remarked: "If you walk into any SAIL office anywhere, you will find people chatting, reading novels, knitting and so on. Thousands of them just do not have any work. This area has not even been considered as a focus area for the present VRS, possibly because all orders emanate from and through such superfluous offices and no one wants to think of himself as surplus." With a manpower of around 60,000 in these offices and non- plant departments like schools, township activities etc, SAIL could well bring down to less than 10,000. Reduction of white-collar manpower required a change in the systems of office work and record keeping, and a very high degree of computerization. Officers across the organization employed dozens of stenographers and assistants. Signing on note sheets was a status symbol for SAIL officers. Another official commented: "Systems have to be result oriented, rather than person oriented and responsibilities must match rewards and recognition. There is a need to change the mindset of the management, before specific plans can be drawn out for reduction of office staff." From the beginning, SAIL had to contend with political intervention and pressure. Many officials held that SAIL had to overcome these objectives: “Many employees do not have sufficient orders or work on hand to justify their continuance, and yet political pressures keep them going. It is time that the top management takes a tough stand on such matters. One does not have to call in McKinsey to decide that many SAIL stockyards and branch offices are redundant.” THE VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME As a part of the restructuring plan, McKinsey had advised Pande that SAIL needed to cut the 160,000-strong labor force to 100,000 by the end of 2003, through a voluntary retirement scheme. Pande was banking on natural attrition to reduce the number by 45,000 within two years, but GOI's decision to increase the retirement age to 60 further delayed the reduction. Subsequently, SAIL had requested GOI to bail it out with a one-time assistance of Rs 15 billion and another subsidized loan of the same size for a VRS, to achieve the McKinsey targets. 3 In a bid to 'rationalize' its huge workforce, SAIL launched a VRS in mid 1998, for employees who had put in a minimum service of 20 years or were 50 years in age or above. The scheme provided an income that was equal to 100 per cent of the prevailing basic pay and DA to the eligible employees. About 5,975 employees opted for the scheme. Of them, 5,317 were executives and 658 non-executives. Most of those who opted were above 55 years. On March 31, 1999, SAIL introduced a 'sabbatical leave' scheme, under which employees could take a break from the company for two years for studies/employment elsewhere, with the option of rejoining the company (if they wanted to) at the end of the period. The sabbatical allowed the younger members of the SAIL staff to leave without pay for "self-renewal, enhancement of expertise/knowledge and experimentation," which broadly translated into higher studies or even new employment. On June 01, 1999, SAIL launched another VRS for its employees. Employees who had completed a minimum of 15 years of service or were 40 years or above could opt for the scheme. The new VRS, which was opened to all regular, permanent employees of the company, would be operational till 31st January 2000. Its target groups included: • Those who were habitual absentees, regularly ill and those who had become surplus because of the closure of plants and mines; • Poor performers. Under the new package, employees who opted for the scheme, depending on their age, would get a monthly income as a percentage of their prevailing basic salary and dearness allowance (DA) for the remaining years of their services, till superannuation. Employees above 55 years of age would be given 105 per cent of the basic pay and dearness allowance (DA) every month. Those employees who were between the age of 52 and 55 years would receive 95 per cent of the basic pay and DA while those below 52 years would get 85 per cent of the basic pay and DA. The new scheme, like the old one was a deferred payment scheme, with extra carrots like a 5% increase in monthly benefits for each of the three age groups. By September 1999, over 4,000 employees opted for the new scheme. About 1,700 employees opted for VRS in the Durgapur steel plant while in the Bhilai, Bokaro and Rourkela steel plants. The number varied between 400 and 700. In September 2000, SAIL announced yet another round of VRS, in a bid to remove 10,000 employees by the end of March 2001. The company planned to approach financial institutions for a credit of Rs 5 billion.