Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Another G4S Olympics fiasco

33 replies

NicholasTeakozy · 16/07/2012 18:28

Manchester police now providing security BBC story. I really hope the cost of this is to be paid by G4S.

OP posts:
ajandjjmum · 16/07/2012 18:30

I'm sure it will be. I'm also sure that the teams will be safer than with G4S providing the security!

Original poster
NicholasTeakozy · 16/07/2012 22:55

Apparently there are seven sites affected all over the country. The private sector really is better. Pay them a fortune just to watch them fuck up.

OP posts:
Ponders · 16/07/2012 23:00

I really can't believe just how badly this has all turned out - &, especially, how it's been allowed to turn out so badly so close to the start, FFS!

why wasn't somebody on top of this????

Original poster
NicholasTeakozy · 16/07/2012 23:33

Apparently the government were told ten months ago. Jeremy Hunt says it's normal for big companies to fail to deliver what they promise. So that's alright then.

OP posts:
Ponders · 16/07/2012 23:36

but Theresa May says they only found out in the last few days, NT

she wouldn't lie to us, would she?

I mean she's a Tory! They are renowned worldwide for their integrity & openness!

CogitoErgoSometimes · 17/07/2012 07:34

"Pay them a fortune just to watch them fuck up"

It's going to cost G4S a fortune to rectify this, not the taxpayer. There are very few security companies big enough to tackle a contract as big as the Olympics. G4S has about 25% market share, Securitas 11% and the rest would be too small to take it on. I'd like to know why, out of 1.5m unemployed, they couldn't find 30,000 suitable candidates...

Rubirosa · 17/07/2012 07:38

Because no one who is unemployed is going to risk signing off for a 3 week long zero hours contract that may or may not see them actually get any work! It could take weeks to sign back on afterwards and people need reliable money to survicve.

ajandjjmum · 17/07/2012 07:41

I think it's more the calibre of candidates that's the problem. People accepted positions, in 20,000 cases went through accreditation, and then disappeared off the radar.

I can't believe that even a politician would lie so blatantly about when they had the information. The numbers were only increased at the beginning of the year, so I don't see how the government could have known 10 months ago.

EdithWeston · 17/07/2012 07:50

It seems pretty clear that tranche A of military (7,000 or so pax) were mobilised for Op Olympics some month ago, and that tranche B (the additional 3,500) only in the middle of this week. So I think it is totally possible that both Hunt and May were telling the truth, and that each mobilisation shows that the Govt and LOCOG acted at the times they knew.

Who scrutinised and signed the contract with G4S?

Why was it not properly monitored? And why is their actual performance not being checked? That only 17 out of 56 guards turned up for work, and had the police not noticed (and that was serendipitous - they do not appear to have a formal role in monitoring G4S performance), would it have gone unnoticed?

Why the supine attitude to private contractors from Hunt? Are G4S under- performing in their many, many other Government contracts? When were those contracts signed? What performance monitoring is going on? Who is holding them to what performance measures?

ajandjjmum · 17/07/2012 09:07

Agree Edith - total inefficiency. I just think that we need to put everything in place quickly to get over it, and then hold the post-mortem after the Games.

As an aside, I can't help be feel a bit sorry for the G4S chairman, who apparently came to the job just three weeks ago!

niceguy2 · 17/07/2012 09:13

Because no one who is unemployed is going to risk signing off for a 3 week long zero hours

If that was the contract which was being offered then whoever decided this should be fired. Anyone with experience of zero hour contracts should have known that it is difficult to fill positions even for a long term engagement, let alone for a 3 week period.

What should have been done (and I accept I have the benefit of hindsight) was a 3 month fixed term contract. First two months of training, last month actually in operation.

Labradorlover · 17/07/2012 10:33

It gets worse. Just heard on the radio that only 20 out of 300 have turned up to secure the Boxhill area for the road race.
Not only was zero hours contract wrong, but the hourly rate was too low.

Ponders · 17/07/2012 10:55

G4S got the contract because their bid was 25% lower (??? can't remember exactly, was on the radio news recently) than any other.

Why anyone in Govt thought that meant they could still provide the best possible staff is another burning question Hmm

Original poster
NicholasTeakozy · 17/07/2012 11:10

Cogito, It's going to cost G4S a fortune to rectify this, not the taxpayer

What will most likely happen is what happens with other outsourced and privatised fuck ups: the taxpayer will foot the bill. Connex, Network Rail, ATOS and A4E all made massive amounts of money by failing, and us taxpayers continue to foot the bill. They haven't paid any money back, nor will they be forced to, because that's how corporate capitalism works.

OP posts:
ajandjjmum · 17/07/2012 11:12

That's crazy! Of course, they were given the contract under the previous government.

niceguy2 · 17/07/2012 11:32

And the burning question is who in Locog decided to give the entire contract to a single supplier?

sugarice · 17/07/2012 12:08

Nick Buckles is going to get a roasting in front of the committee!

CogitoErgoSometimes · 17/07/2012 13:13

"no one who is unemployed is going to risk signing off for a 3 week long zero hours contract"

Given the story today that olympic staff who took on the jobs aren't even showing up, what does that say about the work ethic of some people? Hmm Happier sat at home?

BlackOutTheSun · 17/07/2012 13:17

''Given the story today that olympic staff who took on the jobs aren't even showing up, what does that say about the work ethic of some people? Happier sat at home?''

Thats because G4S had a big fuck up on their computers and letters of start dates were not send out

Rubirosa · 17/07/2012 13:58

Or maybe Cogito they have got jobs in the meantime rather than sitting at home waiting for a letter that may or may not come?

CogitoErgoSometimes · 17/07/2012 14:44

Neither of those apply here. If there was a problem with computres/letters, no-one would have turned up at all. If someone gets a better offer they should have notified G4S. It's clear they can't be bothered. Article

Catkinsthecatinthehat · 17/07/2012 15:55

While some people might have got better offers and not let G4S know, I had a look at their facebook page a couple of days ago and it was full of people asking what on earth had happened to their application/accreditation/rota/uniform - problems at all stages of the process. The story Cogito linked to mentions someone who was sent a work pass despite not being offered a job, so it's possible that some people who have jobs don't know it.

BBC News 24 interviewed an MP in the last hour who was talking about a constituent who has spent 18 hours (!) over the last few weeks on hold on the phone to G4S, trying to find out where she stood.

He also claimed that all uniform and training costs would be deducted from wages. A risky prospect for a zero hours contract.

AThingInYourLife · 17/07/2012 16:02

" I'd like to know why, out of 1.5m unemployed, they couldn't find 30,000 suitable candidates..."

According to DH, who works in a related area, they didn't find candidates because they were trying to keep costs down by hiring last minute, so as to not have to pay people for very long.

They thought they could do it on the cheap, but it turns out (duh!) that cutting corners by not hiring and training people in a timely fashion is really fucking stupid.

The blame for this lies squarely with G4s, not with the British unemployed (as much as you might wish that to be the case).

Ponders · 17/07/2012 16:07

all uniform and training costs would be deducted from wages

really???

so what would G4S have paid for?

Vagaceratops · 17/07/2012 16:10

They are still collecting their £53 million management fee though!