[Aisha~~]

Resigned from my job with them. Before I came down I assumed that the problem was in admin and that the situation on the ground would be better. How wrong I was. From direct experience I can say the Park isn't safe. Nor is Excel. I'm not willing to be involved with this company anymore, and if **** goes wrong, I don't want to be connected to it in any form.

[Joe909]

(Original post by Freiheit)
Typical bad service from a private company funded by a contract from the public. They had nothing to lose. They were given the contract worth so much money but even if they fail to provide the service, the government has no option but to help them.

Hmm. Shocking you're blaming this on the private sector.... in January 2012 MP's said they needed 2000 staff. In March, they changed that to 10,000. Do you not understand the logistics of having an 8000 increase in needed staff with only 5 months to go ?

[Joe909]

The fact that the government asked G4S to allow students to get the jobs (to make their figures look better) rather than SIA trained staff has done nothing but make things worse.

[Freiheit]

(Original post by Joe909)
Hmm. Shocking you're blaming this on the private sector.... in January 2012 MP's said they needed 2000 staff. In March, they changed that to 10,000. Do you not understand the logistics of having an 8000 increase in needed staff with only 5 months to go ?

Why sign a contract you cannot honour?

Nick Buckles, chief executive of the world's second largest private sector employer, told MPs the firm should never have taken on an expanded 2012 contract to provide more than 10,000 security personnel.

Addressing members of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, he said: "Clearly we regret signing it but now we have got to get on and deliver it."

Incompetence? Greed?

He told the committee he had been informed on July 3 while he was in America on holiday that there were problems with recruitment. He said the news came as a "complete and utter shock".

Why does a chief executive realise this issue so late (3rd July)?


Source: http://news.sky.com/story/961037/g4s...ating-shambles

[Joe909]

(Original post by Freiheit)
Why sign a contract you cannot honour?


Incompetence? Greed?


Why does a chief executive realise this issue so late (3rd July)?


Source: http://news.sky.com/story/961037/g4s...ating-shambles

They signed the initial contract of 2000. When MP's said they needed 10k were they really going to decline that after spending all the money to train 2000 ?

They signed for 2000, not 10,000. Blame MP's rather than G4S.

Logic my friend, logic.

[Freiheit]

(Original post by Joe909)
They signed the initial contract of 2000. When MP's said they needed 10k were they really going to decline that after spending all the money to train 2000 ?

They signed for 2000, not 10,000. Blame MP's rather than G4S.

Logic my friend, logic.

If they signed up for 2000, why did the chief executive claim he should not have signed the "expanded 2012 contract to provide for more than 10,000"? This suggests they signed and agree to offer 10,000 when they could have refused. Are you suggesting they did not sign for 10,000?

[Joe909]

(Original post by Freiheit)
If they signed up for 2000, why did the chief executive claim he should not have signed the "expanded 2012 contract to provide for more than 10,000"? This suggests they signed and agree to offer 10,000 when they could have refused. Are you suggesting they did not sign for 10,000?

Don't be so naive. What would their share prices have looked like if they had declined ? You cannot expect the private sector to be as inefficient and lackluster as the public.

[. . .]

(Original post by Drewski)
When they hold training sessions and not one person shows up, as has happened a few times in both Manchester and London, you have to assume that it's their communications that are totally up the spout. The other factors won't help, but if they're not getting in touch with you to arrange things, you can't be blamed for not being turning up.

Why do you have to assume it's a communication problem? On what basis do you hold that assumption?

[Drewski]

(Original post by . . .)
Why do you have to assume it's a communication problem? On what basis do you hold that assumption?

Because, in at least 2 of those cases, some 150-200 people were invited. A failure rate is expected with recruitment like this, but 100%? Even if some of the people were put off by mismanagement, changing contracts and their own circumstances changing, some people still really want to be a part of this thing, but for everybody to not turn up says more that just disinterest.
It just seems incredibly unlikely that everybody chose not to.

Plus, I know of people who have been in the G4S system and received 3 month's worth of notices, letters and emails in the same 48hrs...

[Herr]

There is a lot more than meets the eye with this.

It is highly unlikely G4S would make such a big blunder, remember this is a company that runs many prisons in UK as well as provides security to numerous very secure locations not just in UK but all over the world, as a security contractor they have an excellent record.

The main problem with this is too damn much politicking, on one side the politicians keep cutting and trimming cost down and then they turn around asking for a gold plated service. Then the politicians got the idea that the Olympics need to reduce the unemployment figures as well, they couldn't arm twist McDs or Dow or BMW so they selected the next easiest one.

End of the day politicians are living in their own world to think they could hire students to be security guards at such a major event with so little training, in fact am shocked in a country so concerned of health and safety as well as terrorism such a blunder can be made.

[Friar Tuck]

(Original post by Joe909)
Don't be so naive. What would their share prices have looked like if they had declined ? You cannot expect the private sector to be as inefficient and lackluster as the public.

So you are saying that no private sector company could have refused the new contract they couldn't deliver, causing serious security risks and issues, but this is still preferable to the public sector?

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by Joe909)
Don't be so naive. What would their share prices have looked like if they had declined ? You cannot expect the private sector to be as inefficient and lackluster as the public.

Their share prices would have looked better their failure to deliver makes them look. Yes, the politicians dumped them right in it by changing the contract. Yes, the private sector was only ever involved because of politicians' greed and incompetence. That doesn't alter the fact that, however you look at it, G4S have screwed up monumentally. Nor does it alter the fact that it's not the first time they've screwed up whilst taking advantage of a PFI contract in this country.

[Joe909]

(Original post by Friar Tuck)
So you are saying that no private sector company could have refused the new contract they couldn't deliver, causing serious security risks and issues, but this is still preferable to the public sector?

I'm not saying that at all, what I am saying however is that you must understand that no matter what had happened, NO private sector company could have delivered an extra 8000 fully trained and ready staff. This has all been a ginormous **** up due to multiple factors, not only huge amounts of disorganization that I'm sure happened on G4S' side, but also the government increase in numbers.

If G4S had been told this target from the get go, maybe, just maybe they may have delivered, but it's highly unlikely. The Army would always have been called in no matter what.

And for all the people bashing G4S as a company; show me one other UK private security contractor that has the resources and manpower to complete this job, otherwise shut the **** up.

[cid]

Had a laugh yesterday, my little brother came round for dinner, he is one of the troops drafted in to cover G4S's short comings, apparently G4S employees are intimidated by the soldiers and to help tackle this there will be mixed military/civilian PSA and VSA teams.

With civilian G4S team leaders taking command of troops ... yeah i do not see that happening, apparently a few heated exchanges have already occurred between soldiers and some of the G4S team leaders who don't realize squaddies don't give a **** if your on £2 extra an hour you're still a civvy and had better be "double 'ard" (not my words lol) if you're gonna try to throw your weight around.

Oh to be a fly on the wall...

[zaliack]

(Original post by Joe909)
I'm not saying that at all, what I am saying however is that you must understand that no matter what had happened, NO private sector company could have delivered an extra 8000 fully trained and ready staff. This has all been a ginormous **** up due to multiple factors, not only huge amounts of disorganization that I'm sure happened on G4S' side, but also the government increase in numbers.

If G4S had been told this target from the get go, maybe, just maybe they may have delivered, but it's highly unlikely. The Army would always have been called in no matter what.

And for all the people bashing G4S as a company; show me one other UK private security contractor that has the resources and manpower to complete this job, otherwise shut the **** up.

Who would have known about their refusal to accept 8000 more in a new contract? The Government would have just moved onto the next bidder and got them to work with G4S. The fact is, G4S overestimated their ability to reach their targets, and now they should cover all additional costs incurred by the British Government.

Also, are you secretly Nick Buckles?

[Elastoplast]

Soldier returns to his Land Rover to find this. At least G4S are doing their bit.

[alex5455]

(Original post by ~Justin~)
Soldier returns to his Land Rover to find this. At least G4S are doing their bit.

I just love how they have pre printed fines for military vehicles

[JessicaLouisaBond]

they are so unorganised i am supposed to be working for them ive heard nothing

[curtis871]

I'd put most if not all the blame on them. I applied, was turned down (not left waiting for an answer like some) and a few weeks ago got an email asking if I was still available. If I wasn't suitable when they thought they'd have enough staff how the hell am I suitable now.

[thegodofgod]

Given all of the rumours about G4S, I just wish they would go into administration.

That would bring a very desirable end to this excuse of a 'security company'.