Jump to content
Complete France Forum

Olympic staff dont turn up for work.


Frederick

Recommended Posts

There are many anecdotes turning up concerning this shambles. It appears that when people were first interviewed about this, they were told that the rate was (in some cases) £140/day. Others were told that travel and accommodation would be provided. Subsequently, they have been told that the rate is £80/day, no travel expenses, no accommodation. There has been a gross failure to communicate: some have been contacted to ask why they didn't turn up for training: answer; they were never contacted about the training days. Others who have turned up for training have gone away none the wiser as to what they were supposed to be doing. Some have received no contracts. Others have received contracts but no indication of where to report to. The contract value was of the order of a couple of hundred million pounds. Bear in mind that the entire budget for the games was supposed to be £2.4 billion at the outset. Meanwhile, 400 people have been employed to go round preventing people who are not official games sponsors from using words like "London", "2012", "Bronze", "Silver", "Gold", "Olympic", "Games" etc in any form of advertising. Parliamentary time was wasted passing a special bill to enable this enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Pickles"]There are many anecdotes turning up concerning this shambles. It appears that when people were first interviewed about this, they were told that the rate was (in some cases) £140/day. Others were told that travel and accommodation would be provided. Subsequently, they have been told that the rate is £80/day, no travel expenses, no accommodation. There has been a gross failure to communicate: some have been contacted to ask why they didn't turn up for training: answer; they were never contacted about the training days. Others who have turned up for training have gone away none the wiser as to what they were supposed to be doing. Some have received no contracts. Others have received contracts but no indication of where to report to. The contract value was of the order of a couple of hundred million pounds. Bear in mind that the entire budget for the games was supposed to be £2.4 billion at the outset. Meanwhile, 400 people have been employed to go round preventing people who are not official games sponsors from using words like "London", "2012", "Bronze", "Silver", "Gold", "Olympic", "Games" etc in any form of advertising. Parliamentary time was wasted passing a special bill to enable this enforcement.

[/quote]

Like me, they're probably sick of the whole thing already... and it hasn't even started!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Pickles"]Meanwhile, 400 people have been employed to go round preventing people who are not official games sponsors from using words like "London", "2012", "Bronze", "Silver", "Gold", "Olympic", "Games" etc in any form of advertising. Parliamentary time was wasted passing a special bill to enable this enforcement.
[/quote]

Really, oh shame [:P]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw some guy being interviewed with David Moorcroft. Understandably, Moorcroft was fully in favour and said the British public would benefit from the feel-good factor of staging the Games.

The other guy said the British public would no doubt also have appreciated the feel-good factor if each man, woman and child in the country had instead been given a free Carribean holiday, apparently the equivalent cost. (Although if I had accepted that offer, I think I might have chosen to wait until the rush was over.)

He also said that the cost to the taxpayer had gone up between 9 and 11 times (!) since it was agreed to stage the Games, based on the cost estimates then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Pickles"]There are many anecdotes turning up concerning this shambles.

[/quote]

And G4S doesn't come out of many of them looking too good. A friend has just posted this on Facebook.

security guards are 'failing to turn up' for work at Olympic sites - I wish they would stop putting it like that - my brother-in-law has a job doing Olympic security with G4S - he has his badge and security clearance to the highest level - they dragged him from Leeds to London at his own cost on his son's birthday party to pick up his security badges - but he has no work schedule or start date - in fact every time he rings they say he has to do some training - then he says they have already seen his certificate for that training (he has all his security training certificates and is a highly experienced guard) - then they check & say 'oh yes, so you do', wait for an email - then he waits and then rings them up.............. you get the picture!!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm generalising here, but I have some (small) amount of sympathy for G4S.

Trying to recruit 000's of personnel for what amounted to very short term contracts with no longer term job possibilities, can't have been easy.

IMO they share the blame with the mandarins in Government who seriously thought that this was feasible.  However, someone in G4S and /or Govt should, months ago, have been asking the question "How many have we got", understanding that for certain you'd get an x% no-show rate. It turned out to be much worse than they expected.

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall when Theresa May was told about this !!!![blink]  Blood on the floor.

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gardian"]I'm generalising here, but I have some (small) amount of sympathy for G4S.

Trying to recruit 000's of personnel for what amounted to very short term contracts with no longer term job possibilities, can't have been easy.

IMO they share the blame with the mandarins in Government who seriously thought that this was feasible.  However, someone in G4S and /or Govt should, months ago, have been asking the question "How many have we got", understanding that for certain you'd get an x% no-show rate. It turned out to be much worse than they expected.

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall when Theresa May was told about this !!!![blink]  Blood on the floor.[/quote]

I have no sympathy for them:

1: They went in for this contract with their eyes open - no-one deceived them about what the task was.

2: The terms were quite generous, and became substantially more so when it was decided that more staff were needed

3: G4S CHOSE to start the recruitment process late on: they had plenty of time to get on with this earlier but they adopted what one commentator termed "just-in-time" principles. Just-in-time is NOT suitable for a "project": it is suitable for what are essentially mass production - or at least ongoing production - systems.

4: The terms that they offered the recruits were exploitative: eg no payment for attendance at (obligatory) training days. Training in many cases was carried out centrally, so that (for example) people from Leeds had to travel to London at their own cost to attend training sessions.

5: They then changed the offer, lowering the wages payable and reneging on payment of expenses.

6: They screwed up the communication such that many people did not receive appointments for training days

7: They screwed up scheduling, not taking into account people's locations when allocating them to tasks

8: They screwed up communication again, so that people who managed to attend the various training sessions were not allocated any tasks.

9: They still intend to take the £57 MILLION "management fee" from the contract, despite the fact that they do not appear to be managing anything.

If this company is not blacklisted from taking part in any more UK public sector contracts, they (and all the other leeches) will just keep on wasting UK taxpayers' money whilst rewarding themselves for failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Pickles"]

.If this company is not blacklisted from taking part in any more UK public sector contracts, they (and all the other leeches) will just keep on wasting UK taxpayers' money whilst rewarding themselves for failure.


[/quote]

Pickles, you clearly do not understand how companies get public sector contracts - the bigger the foul-ups the more credible the public sector sees the contractors....makes the public sector seem better than it is.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe 'they' should have turned to volunteers like those recruited for the Olympic Games already. They will perform their duties in their holiday time and have travelled to training days (unpaid) was at their own cost. They will pay for all travel and accommodation costs apart from returning them to their London accommodation after midnight as and when necessary - but might take several hours, as people living in different parts of London will be taken in the same coach. They seem to have more than enough volunteers by a mile - and some good candidates on the reserve list have been told they're highly unlikely to be needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="gardengirl "]Maybe 'they' should have turned to volunteers like those recruited for the Olympic Games already. They will perform their duties in their holiday time and have travelled to training days (unpaid) was at their own cost. They will pay for all travel and accommodation costs apart from returning them to their London accommodation after midnight as and when necessary - but might take several hours, as people living in different parts of London will be taken in the same coach. They seem to have more than enough volunteers by a mile - and some good candidates on the reserve list have been told they're highly unlikely to be needed.

[/quote]

I think that you're right. The only wrinkle is that because the G4S people are supposed to be doing "security" tasks, they are, I understand, legally required to undergo the checks and training that I gather are now required for bouncer-type jobs. However, one of the impressions that I get from the various anecdotes that I have read is that quite a few of those that applied to G4S wanted to help and were not really in it for the money, but have been disillusioned by the way that they have been treated. It's about expectations: if you are led to believe that a certain set of conditions will prevail, and then subsequently discover that these are being reneged, the "goodwill" towards both the Games and the company are destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="nomoss"]Doesn't anyone think the Olympic Committee shares any responsibility?[/quote]

Which one? The IOC, which has for years provided ample evidence of corruption within its ranks?

Or Locog, the one that has been going around threatening (and I use that word advisedly - they are apparently making personal visits accompanied by "minders") mere mortal business-owners affected by unnecessarily-long road closures and other major inconveniences (eg destroying the livelihoods of businesses in the vicinity of the main Olympic venues) who dare to question certain policies and closures and offer alternatives? Just because local businesses aren't cash sponsors does not mean that they aren't being expected to contribute, directly and indirectly - and yet they aren't being allowed to derive any benefit!

[quote user="nomoss"]If not, what exactly is their function? (I will refrain from the sarcastic comments which spring to mind)[/quote]

Both Locog and the IOC seem to be prime examples of "jobs for the boys"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Pickles"][quote user="nomoss"]Doesn't anyone think the Olympic Committee shares any responsibility?[/quote]
Which one? [/quote]

I was thinking of the London lot. Principally what appears to be known as the Board.

The board members are:[2]

Isn't the board responsible for the oversight of any organisation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="nomoss"][quote user="Pickles"][quote user="nomoss"]Doesn't anyone think the Olympic Committee shares any responsibility?[/quote]

Which one? [/quote]

I was thinking of the London lot. Principally what appears to be known as the Board.

Isn't the board responsible for the oversight of any organisation?

[/quote]

Of course, it depends on the sense in which they use the word "oversight" (as in "Oh, no, that wasn't criminal negligence, that was just an oversight!")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gardian"]

I'm generalising here, but I have some (small) amount of sympathy for G4S.

Trying to recruit 000's of personnel for what amounted to very short term contracts with no longer term job possibilities, can't have been easy.

IMO they share the blame with the mandarins in Government who seriously thought that this was feasible.  However, someone in G4S and /or Govt should, months ago, have been asking the question "How many have we got", understanding that for certain you'd get an x% no-show rate. It turned out to be much worse than they expected.

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall when Theresa May was told about this !!!![blink]  Blood on the floor.

 

  

[/quote]

G4S (according to BBC/Channel 4) are the largest company in thee World, by far, providing these services.

Sympathy, even in the smallest way, will not be given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, maybe not Frederick.

They have already withdrawn their bids to provide security for the next football World Cup and the next Olympics so they clearly feel they cannot bounce straight back.

If I was a  shareholder in G4S I would certainly make it a very personal crusade to se the back of this management team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not normally a Guardian reader and don't know if the following is standard fare from them or a bit tongue in cheek but they reckon that this G4S debacle makes a compelling article against privatisation!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/17/g4s-privatisation-racket-outsourcing-revulsion?newsfeed=true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...