FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

G4S

Jump to newest
 

By *icketysplits OP   Woman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Pleased to see that they are accepting the error and taking the financial hit for this cock up on the Olympics security.

But, what about all of their other public contracts? Changing their brand from Group4 to G4S hasn't fundamentally changed the company or their catalogue of profits made on public sector contracts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago

Hull

It's going to be interesting to see how they fare with their bid for running Prisons.

They were the favoured candidate company up to now, but according to some Govt sources as reported in the press, they may have shot themselves in the foot with this debacle.

I used to work for a security company a few years ago, but G4S won the contract at renewal. I "saw the writing on the wall" and got out; I'm so glad I did, as my colleagues who remained behind suffered a great deal with cuts in hours, no wage increases in the past 4 years such they are now on National Minimum Wage, and working conditions are terrible.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They are a shocking company, with a shocking reputation. The main blunder was loco giving them the contract in the first place, at a very overpriced level.

They have said they will pay for the body of the extra troops - this shouldn't even be an option.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *histler21Man
over a year ago

Ipswich

I thought the Chief Exec said on the TV this morning that they had about another 6 or so thousand people that would be ready in time. So why the rush to get the troops? Or is his assertion fantasy?

Sounds like there is a lot of red tape involved (surprise, surprise) - so I wonder if this problem is not all of their own making.

OK, you could argue that they should have planned for delays in getting the paperwork done - but it doesn't seem they have a lack of people being interested (think he said 110,000 applications).

I'm not a shareholder just in case anyone wondered.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplits OP   Woman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"They are a shocking company, with a shocking reputation. The main blunder was loco giving them the contract in the first place, at a very overpriced level.

They have said they will pay for the body of the extra troops - this shouldn't even be an option. "

They have a Work Programme contract too - because of their experience in training people into work!

The reports on their recruitment practices for the Olympics security are dreadful.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I found out the other day that g4s have it written into there contract that security guys won't work for long periods in heavy rain! The whole thing is a joke.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplits OP   Woman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"I thought the Chief Exec said on the TV this morning that they had about another 6 or so thousand people that would be ready in time. So why the rush to get the troops? Or is his assertion fantasy?

Sounds like there is a lot of red tape involved (surprise, surprise) - so I wonder if this problem is not all of their own making.

OK, you could argue that they should have planned for delays in getting the paperwork done - but it doesn't seem they have a lack of people being interested (think he said 110,000 applications).

I'm not a shareholder just in case anyone wondered."

Many applicants but not as many processed. Left the appointments process too late and hit a block getting clearances and so lost some people appointed. But read up on the recruitment process and the general demographic employed has been students.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *histler21Man
over a year ago

Ipswich


"snip...

Many applicants but not as many processed. Left the appointments process too late and hit a block getting clearances and so lost some people appointed. But read up on the recruitment process and the general demographic employed has been students."

Hardly surprising students will apply - after all, who is going to take time off work, or ditch their job, for a couple of weeks work? I hope some of the long-term unemployed get this opportunity to get some more 'recent' work experience (and some money too).

That said, not sure the pay will be too great - my son's girlfriend is an official photographer (getting to see the opening ceremony and mens 100m final) - but doing it pro bono...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This situation exposes yet another woeful example of pubic money being allocated to companies charged with providing specific results where those responsible for awarding the contracts have failed to adequately monitor progress……

G4S and the well paid officials who drew up the contract should be held to account for their action and inaction’s…

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They were granted this contract 3 years ago, and were told about the clearance issues then. Just a simple lack of planning and big company wing it mentality.

Someone like lord coe is getting a massive backhander on these contracts, that's why he's still defending them in the media. And praising them for admiting they got it wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplits OP   Woman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"They were granted this contract 3 years ago, and were told about the clearance issues then. Just a simple lack of planning and big company wing it mentality.

Someone like lord coe is getting a massive backhander on these contracts, that's why he's still defending them in the media. And praising them for admiting they got it wrong. "

I don't think that is why Lord Coe is defending them and praising them. He is pragmatic and is juggling all of the world now questioning him about the safety of their athletes and officials about to arrive and settle into the Olympic Park.

I do agree that G4S did not plan this process well - the security plans have been on everyone's mind since 7/7 and G4S have been cocky and winging it, as you say.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Wouldn't give G4S a contract to run a piss up in a brewery let alone anything else!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

G4S or Group4 as previously know, have been headhunting my son for the last 3 years as he is a well known and very competent security operative in East Kent, he won't give them the time of day

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

OTOH army standins will be firearms trained - G4S operatives are unlikely to be. Handy in the event of any situation that flares up.

Wolf

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

I heard on one of the bulletins that their average attendance on any day is between 40% and 80%...

a worrying figure and recipe for disaster

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplits OP   Woman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

And now the Police have been drafted in after only 50 or so G4S people were available for work today.

Theresa May's response just seems to be, we believed their reassurances and they have let us down.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire


"And now the Police have been drafted in after only 50 or so G4S people were available for work today.

Theresa May's response just seems to be, we believed their reassurances and they have let us down."

the actual news story was something like 17 out of 50odd people turned up to a works hotel in manchester.

tbh i would RATHER have the police and army guarding the venues than some jumped up little hitler, who has a uniform and 5 minutes training, trying to deal with irate foreigners that cant get in because they have the wrong ticket for the wrong section, or something.

all leave should be cancelled, but those in attendance should be WELL remunerated, seeings as bus and underground workers are getting bonuses for doing what they should be doing, ffs!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

West Midlands Police Federation chairman Ian Edwards said "You shouldn't lose your local police officer because of the Olympics. Communities are suffering because a private company has failed to deliver on a contract." He's right you shouldn't!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

All leave should be cancelled?

Do you think the soldier returning from a gruelling 6 months tour in Afghanistan would agree with you there?

From what I have read they are only providng 50% of the staff agreed to and returning only 20% off the money they are paid how does that equate?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovedupstillCouple
over a year ago

mullinwire


"All leave should be cancelled?

Do you think the soldier returning from a gruelling 6 months tour in Afghanistan would agree with you there?

From what I have read they are only providng 50% of the staff agreed to and returning only 20% off the money they are paid how does that equate?"

unfortunately thats the way it has to be, because of the shambles that is the organisation of the security.

whether they should use returning troops is a different matter, and one of conjecture, but all standing troops should be available.

but, as i say, they should be handsomly rewarded, and leave be reinstated as soon as the duty is over.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford

I say f*ck em. Let the athletes fight amongst themselves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland

You are correct they should be rewarded but they wont be although the leave will be reinstated. I THINK?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

G4s in their supposed security role are one piece of the whole event, however as regards safety they are fundamental and have failed spectacularly before the starter has said 'go'...

for the chief exec to not have known till 9 days before this became public is a shocking lack of management..

for whomever in the home office not to have been on top of this aspect given g4s less than exemplary record thus far is incompetent..

end of the day theresa may should be accountable..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adja_lazloCouple
over a year ago

Solihull

we have worked closely with G4s, shocking work ethics, pricing structure and back hands galore.

Lots of small companies have and will shut down due to them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

shocking attendance figures on the news just now..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I thought the Chief Exec said on the TV this morning that they had about another 6 or so thousand people that would be ready in time. So why the rush to get the troops? Or is his assertion fantasy?

Sounds like there is a lot of red tape involved (surprise, surprise) - so I wonder if this problem is not all of their own making.

OK, you could argue that they should have planned for delays in getting the paperwork done - but it doesn't seem they have a lack of people being interested (think he said 110,000 applications).

I'm not a shareholder just in case anyone wondered."

The Execs in charge of G4S honestly believed there wasn't a problem but what has come to light is that they didn't have a grasp of what was happening at ground level. Recruits were recruited but as most of them were recruited some time ago and told to wait for the order to attend work many of them found work elsewhere and were then unavailable when required.

The mistake as I see it was Locog giving the contract to a single company whereas I think local interests would have been better served economically by awarding contracts to firms already operating in the Olympic cities who know those cities well and can recruit locally.

G4S management are guilty of complacency at best, incompetence at worst. And yes, it's a no broainer that they should pay for whatever costs are incurred bringing in troops and/or the police to make up the shortfall. As for future public contracts, I think G4S will still get them as the logistics are already in place but I think they are going to be looked at a lot closer than they are at present and tightened down legally than they are presently.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"shocking attendance figures on the news just now..

"

They were only counting the hi-vis vests, not actually discovering if 10 out of 58 workers turned up. Some of those not wearing vests should have been so there's an area for immediate improvement.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"end of the day theresa may should be accountable.. "

Jeremy Hunt is the minister in charge of the Olympics. He said on Newsnight that contingency plans were always in place if G4S didn't deliver and he was put on the spot being asked why a contingency plan should be needed in the first place. What kind of sumb question was that... anyone with a semblance of intelligence knows that you plan for the best, prepare for the worst.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

From what I have read they are only providng 50% of the staff agreed to and returning only 20% off the money they are paid how does that equate?"

Basic maths tells me that 50% of staffing costs doesn't equal 50% of the total contract value.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" West Midlands Police Federation chairman Ian Edwards said "You shouldn't lose your local police officer because of the Olympics. Communities are suffering because a private company has failed to deliver on a contract." He's right you shouldn't! "

Local bobbies can now get some rare overtime that they're always clambering for. Front line services aren't going to be disrupted unless there's another riot in London somewhere during the Olympics. Ian Edwards is a tit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Having worked for them in the past i can confirm that what that guy on tv said is the norm in their everyday work, taking people on who cannot speak/write english, the companys a joke

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland


"

From what I have read they are only providng 50% of the staff agreed to and returning only 20% off the money they are paid how does that equate?

Basic maths tells me that 50% of staffing costs doesn't equal 50% of the total contract value. "

Nor will it equal 20%

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland


" West Midlands Police Federation chairman Ian Edwards said "You shouldn't lose your local police officer because of the Olympics. Communities are suffering because a private company has failed to deliver on a contract." He's right you shouldn't!

Local bobbies can now get some rare overtime that they're always clambering for. Front line services aren't going to be disrupted unless there's another riot in London somewhere during the Olympics. Ian Edwards is a tit."

They are drafting policemen in from all over the country which equates to travel time overtime hotel costs and expenses, not just London losing policemen from the frontline.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

From what I have read they are only providng 50% of the staff agreed to and returning only 20% off the money they are paid how does that equate?

Basic maths tells me that 50% of staffing costs doesn't equal 50% of the total contract value.

Nor will it equal 20%"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The contract was worth 300 million pounds for supplying 10000 staff . They managed only 2/3 of they staff levels. So why are they only handing back between 20 - 50 million pounds. Do the maths it does not add up. And on a daily basis they are only providing on average between 40 - 80 % of the staff . It's a joke.

I say most of the ministers are non executives of the company and are receiving back handers

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ENGUYMan
over a year ago

Hull

I have a friend of mine who is in The Met Police, and he has been drafted in, off his usual duties, to cover for G4S's shortfall.

Whilst his family have whinged about his extra long hours, he says the overtime will be welcome!

Just a thought! What about all of those "alleged" G4S workers who failed to show up at any stage of the whole debacle, whether during training, or at the events venues?

What about naming and shaming them? Let them stew in a problem they caused!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The contract was worth 300 million pounds for supplying 10000 staff . They managed only 2/3 of they staff levels. So why are they only handing back between 20 - 50 million pounds. Do the maths it does not add up. And on a daily basis they are only providing on average between 40 - 80 % of the staff . It's a joke.

I say most of the ministers are non executives of the company and are receiving back handers "

yet another example of corporate looting..where's the water cannon?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

As always, the private sector provides yet another example of profit before service.

Welcome to the future of all public services.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"I have a friend of mine who is in The Met Police, and he has been drafted in, off his usual duties, to cover for G4S's shortfall.

Whilst his family have whinged about his extra long hours, he says the overtime will be welcome!

Just a thought! What about all of those "alleged" G4S workers who failed to show up at any stage of the whole debacle, whether during training, or at the events venues?

What about naming and shaming them? Let them stew in a problem they caused!"

the 'workers' were not on a retainer, probably a lot of them found employment or decided against working for the company?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplits OP   Woman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"

the 'workers' were not on a retainer, probably a lot of them found employment or decided against working for the company?"

It's even worse than that. I have heard from some people they are waiting at home to be told when and where to go and have not been issued with a work schedule.

Even the writers of TwentyTwelve didn't manage to dream this one up (although they did cover the coach getting lost in the first series and last week got some of the security and transport issues spot on).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ucky_LadsCouple (MM)
over a year ago

Kidderminster+ surrounding areas.

wasn't it group 4 that kept losing prisoners when taking them to court from the prisons a few years ago?,the group 4 name got dragged through the mud so it was re-branded gs4 security but now that been dragged through mud also!.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

From what I have read they are only providng 50% of the staff agreed to and returning only 20% off the money they are paid how does that equate?

Basic maths tells me that 50% of staffing costs doesn't equal 50% of the total contract value.

Nor will it equal 20%"

£285m/12,500 staff = £22,800 per annum in wages, for 1 month's work. That's not likely is it. So let's reduce that amount to £1,500 for the month of the Olympics (and that's being conservative with it as I reckon those 'security guards' will get no more than £1,000 for the month), so if we input the figures now we get 12,500 (the original number of staff G4S were contracted to provide) x £1,500 = £18,750,000

Therefore, £285m / 100 = £2,850,000 (1%)

£18,750,000 / £2,850,000 = 6.57%

The total wage bill for 12,500 workers was only ever going to be 6.5% of the total contract value. If you consider that G4S have delivered only half the amount of workers it promised then it's only paying out 3.25% of the money it has received. Still not quite 20% is it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland


"

From what I have read they are only providng 50% of the staff agreed to and returning only 20% off the money they are paid how does that equate?

Basic maths tells me that 50% of staffing costs doesn't equal 50% of the total contract value.

Nor will it equal 20%

£285m/12,500 staff = £22,800 per annum in wages, for 1 month's work. That's not likely is it. So let's reduce that amount to £1,500 for the month of the Olympics (and that's being conservative with it as I reckon those 'security guards' will get no more than £1,000 for the month), so if we input the figures now we get 12,500 (the original number of staff G4S were contracted to provide) x £1,500 = £18,750,000

Therefore, £285m / 100 = £2,850,000 (1%)

£18,750,000 / £2,850,000 = 6.57%

The total wage bill for 12,500 workers was only ever going to be 6.5% of the total contract value. If you consider that G4S have delivered only half the amount of workers it promised then it's only paying out 3.25% of the money it has received. Still not quite 20% is it?"

On those figures where the hell is all the money going to end up? apart from the £57 million management fee the profits are obscene.

No wonder the Tories are hell bent on privatising everything if this is the kind of dough they can screw us for in their consultancy roles.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

From what I have read they are only providng 50% of the staff agreed to and returning only 20% off the money they are paid how does that equate?

Basic maths tells me that 50% of staffing costs doesn't equal 50% of the total contract value.

Nor will it equal 20%

£285m/12,500 staff = £22,800 per annum in wages, for 1 month's work. That's not likely is it. So let's reduce that amount to £1,500 for the month of the Olympics (and that's being conservative with it as I reckon those 'security guards' will get no more than £1,000 for the month), so if we input the figures now we get 12,500 (the original number of staff G4S were contracted to provide) x £1,500 = £18,750,000

Therefore, £285m / 100 = £2,850,000 (1%)

£18,750,000 / £2,850,000 = 6.57%

The total wage bill for 12,500 workers was only ever going to be 6.5% of the total contract value. If you consider that G4S have delivered only half the amount of workers it promised then it's only paying out 3.25% of the money it has received. Still not quite 20% is it?

On those figures where the hell is all the money going to end up? apart from the £57 million management fee the profits are obscene.

~

No wonder the Tories are hell bent on privatising everything if this is the kind of dough they can screw us for in their consultancy roles."

With my sceptical head on I'd lay a year's salary that at least £100m of it was 'consultancy fees', which basically entails G4S scratching a few doodles on a few pieces of paper and each time Hugh Robertson, the Minister for Olympics, enquired as how it's coming along, he was met with "we're almost there, the consultancy was more involved than we thought, can we have another £10m ta."

"But you just had £30m!"

"Ah, yes, well that went on canvassing Stratford residents on where they'd like to park their cars during the Olympics as we can't let them leave their cars where they usually park them."

"Ah, ok, I understand. Here's your money."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"end of the day theresa may should be accountable..

Jeremy Hunt is the minister in charge of the Olympics. He said on Newsnight that contingency plans were always in place if G4S didn't deliver and he was put on the spot being asked why a contingency plan should be needed in the first place. What kind of sumb question was that... anyone with a semblance of intelligence knows that you plan for the best, prepare for the worst."

anyone with a semblance of intelligence andcommon sense knows you plan for failure and have a plan b for the initial plan, but were talking about the coalition..

and security is not the remit of the GLA, ODA, LOCOG or the Dept for Culture Media and Sport its the home office thats why theresa may answered the issues the feckup by G4s in the house..

hopefully the security will now be better due to G4s cock up ironically, but if it went pear shaped it would be the home secretary who would go..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplits OP   Woman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Buckles regrets signing the contract but won't return the management fee because they have managed the contract on the ground. Who appointed this man to run the company? I despair at the governance on some private sector boards.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"Buckles regrets signing the contract but won't return the management fee because they have managed the contract on the ground. Who appointed this man to run the company? I despair at the governance on some private sector boards."

I despair even more at the incompetants who drew up and awarded the contract in the first place.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplits OP   Woman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"Buckles regrets signing the contract but won't return the management fee because they have managed the contract on the ground. Who appointed this man to run the company? I despair at the governance on some private sector boards.

I despair even more at the incompetants who drew up and awarded the contract in the first place.

"

Sadly, I think the contract will have been written in such a way that there can be no clawback either.

What will Buckles take as a bonus this year or golden handshake if he goes?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *icketysplits OP   Woman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

No contrition at all! Boasting of how many public contracts they have in all ares of society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top