News0 min ago
GS4 Recruitment mess up
14 Answers
Does anyone have any sympathy at all for GS4 regarding their failure to recruit enough staff for the Olympics?
It seems that they did not allow enough time to recruit and training given was very basic, but can you imagine what kind of difficulties they must have faced when attempting to recruit people for this kind of work?
A once in a lifetime event offering people probably a few weeks work at best, with a lot of jobs on offer that only require basic security training.
They had to find thousands of people, had to work out the best time to attempt to start interviewing people that would be available during the Olympics that they can offer the temporary work to, then of these people that accept, some of them in the months leading up to the Olympics may manage to find full time work and then dump the temporary job as has happened.
I understand that there were people with experience in this line of work that could not understand why they were not recruited, this does seems daft, but why would you employ someone who is probably over skilled at security work and will require a wage to reflect their skills, for a job that requires little more than to check some handbags?
Of course I know there is a lot of fault on GS4's part that someone needs to answer to, but the papers and politicians have been so eager to jump on the bandwagon to condemn for what must have been a massively difficult task to plan successfully!
And no I do not work for GS4! Just trying to see things a little bit from their side.
I am sure that plenty will not agree with me and perhaps I am being over generous towards GS4 with my summing up of the situation as I see it, so I will be interested to hear anyone else's thoughts either agreeing with me or otherwise!
Thanks Sue
It seems that they did not allow enough time to recruit and training given was very basic, but can you imagine what kind of difficulties they must have faced when attempting to recruit people for this kind of work?
A once in a lifetime event offering people probably a few weeks work at best, with a lot of jobs on offer that only require basic security training.
They had to find thousands of people, had to work out the best time to attempt to start interviewing people that would be available during the Olympics that they can offer the temporary work to, then of these people that accept, some of them in the months leading up to the Olympics may manage to find full time work and then dump the temporary job as has happened.
I understand that there were people with experience in this line of work that could not understand why they were not recruited, this does seems daft, but why would you employ someone who is probably over skilled at security work and will require a wage to reflect their skills, for a job that requires little more than to check some handbags?
Of course I know there is a lot of fault on GS4's part that someone needs to answer to, but the papers and politicians have been so eager to jump on the bandwagon to condemn for what must have been a massively difficult task to plan successfully!
And no I do not work for GS4! Just trying to see things a little bit from their side.
I am sure that plenty will not agree with me and perhaps I am being over generous towards GS4 with my summing up of the situation as I see it, so I will be interested to hear anyone else's thoughts either agreeing with me or otherwise!
Thanks Sue
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
It was always a logistical nightmare, given the requirements of the role. The reason that everyone is so annoyed at G4S is, in part because of the potential this has to tarnish the reputation of Britain, and the failure to alert anyone that they were having recruitment problems.
It is true that they were informed at a relatively late stage by LOCOG that a...
It is true that they were informed at a relatively late stage by LOCOG that a...
14:25 Thu 19th Jul 2012
I agree with you. The Olympics are a very important event and apart from having stadiums and athlete accommodation ready on time, security is the next most important priority. For this reason the Government should have appointed somebody to oversee recruitment and have access to all information from the beginning, not finding out during the last few weeks.
The inability to recruit enough people would have shown up many months ago and a solution found,there isn't time to sort it out now. Did the government even check to see if GS4 could deliver the recruits? If they just accepted the word of GS4 then they are equally to blame.
The inability to recruit enough people would have shown up many months ago and a solution found,there isn't time to sort it out now. Did the government even check to see if GS4 could deliver the recruits? If they just accepted the word of GS4 then they are equally to blame.
It was always a logistical nightmare, given the requirements of the role. The reason that everyone is so annoyed at G4S is, in part because of the potential this has to tarnish the reputation of Britain, and the failure to alert anyone that they were having recruitment problems.
It is true that they were informed at a relatively late stage by LOCOG that a huge ramp up in numbers was required, but they still were confident enough, some may say greedy enough, to bid for the contract.So, lack of foresight and greed on their part.
It has emerged that their training is substandard; That the terms and conditions of what they can offer is substantively different to what they first advertised; they have failed to keep successful applicants in the loop and informed - in consequence, many have since found jobs elsewhere; and that they are unable to manage the workforce to get the security staff they have trained to the relevant location on time - 17 of 56 only turned up at a Manchester hotel, for instance.
The consequence of this is that the state has to step in - police drafted in, annual leave cancelled, the military drafted in large numbers, and the suspicion is that this will detract from their regular jobs.
Even now, as I write this, it looks like even more troops will have to be drafted in to fill the gaps.
This is an appalling litany of error and mismanagement, as the Chief Executive himself has publically admitted to the house Select Committee.
I just hope we learn the right lessons from this. Outsourcing should not be the default position, and where outsourcing is carried out, much more vigorous audit processes need to be implemented, and greater financial penalties imposed for failure. That way, we may have less occasions when companies like G4S bid for lucrative public servuce contracts knowing they can cut corners with costs, or get the taxpayer to effectively subsidise private endevour.
It is true that they were informed at a relatively late stage by LOCOG that a huge ramp up in numbers was required, but they still were confident enough, some may say greedy enough, to bid for the contract.So, lack of foresight and greed on their part.
It has emerged that their training is substandard; That the terms and conditions of what they can offer is substantively different to what they first advertised; they have failed to keep successful applicants in the loop and informed - in consequence, many have since found jobs elsewhere; and that they are unable to manage the workforce to get the security staff they have trained to the relevant location on time - 17 of 56 only turned up at a Manchester hotel, for instance.
The consequence of this is that the state has to step in - police drafted in, annual leave cancelled, the military drafted in large numbers, and the suspicion is that this will detract from their regular jobs.
Even now, as I write this, it looks like even more troops will have to be drafted in to fill the gaps.
This is an appalling litany of error and mismanagement, as the Chief Executive himself has publically admitted to the house Select Committee.
I just hope we learn the right lessons from this. Outsourcing should not be the default position, and where outsourcing is carried out, much more vigorous audit processes need to be implemented, and greater financial penalties imposed for failure. That way, we may have less occasions when companies like G4S bid for lucrative public servuce contracts knowing they can cut corners with costs, or get the taxpayer to effectively subsidise private endevour.
As far as I'm aware it's only been mentioned once on TV news that each applicant has to be vetted and given security clearance by half-a-dozen different authorities, including MI5, the Criminal Records Bureau, etc, etc. The amount of time that this has been taking up before G4S could actually employ each individual applicant is unbelievable.
@Heathfield
Like Booldawg said. Are you saying that G4S were unaware at the time of their tender, what the vetting procedure was going to be, or that the vetting process was changed following the award of the tender?
I find the idea that G4S were ignorant of what vetting procedures were needed extremely unlikely.
Like Booldawg said. Are you saying that G4S were unaware at the time of their tender, what the vetting procedure was going to be, or that the vetting process was changed following the award of the tender?
I find the idea that G4S were ignorant of what vetting procedures were needed extremely unlikely.
Thanks all, you have provided some very interesting points and it makes my initial sympathy look a bit misplaced now!
Agree that it must have been a nightmare, but granted they should have had the experience and the foresight to deal with this.
Although perhaps the the point that heathfield has made could have had far greater knock on tenancies than anyone realised and may be a valid reason for some of their difficulties, you see in even with the wealth of very good answers you have provided I am still trying to be understanding!!
Many thanks for the responses
Sue
Agree that it must have been a nightmare, but granted they should have had the experience and the foresight to deal with this.
Although perhaps the the point that heathfield has made could have had far greater knock on tenancies than anyone realised and may be a valid reason for some of their difficulties, you see in even with the wealth of very good answers you have provided I am still trying to be understanding!!
Many thanks for the responses
Sue
What is glaringly obvious is the G4S have pocketed tens of millions of £ but failed to provide even the most basic amenities for the employees they have recruited.
There was a post on AB a day or so ago where a guard from Wolverhampton had been hired by G4S to work 3 weeks of 12 hour shifts in London There is no accomadation anywhere for under £100 a night and it is impossible to get there and back in time by public transport. If he wanted to do it he needed to drive 3 hours in,work 12 hours then drive 3 hours back . You might do that for 1 day but never for 3 weeks. The only people who can do it are those who live near by or have relatives or friends to put them up.
Add in the fact that they are only offering a maximum of 5 weeks work and no food is provided and you can see why so few can do it.
There was a post on AB a day or so ago where a guard from Wolverhampton had been hired by G4S to work 3 weeks of 12 hour shifts in London There is no accomadation anywhere for under £100 a night and it is impossible to get there and back in time by public transport. If he wanted to do it he needed to drive 3 hours in,work 12 hours then drive 3 hours back . You might do that for 1 day but never for 3 weeks. The only people who can do it are those who live near by or have relatives or friends to put them up.
Add in the fact that they are only offering a maximum of 5 weeks work and no food is provided and you can see why so few can do it.
Hi Eddie51, agree that what is being offered does not look that attractive to a would be employee, but there is no requirement on an employer to provide accomodation or food to an employee for free, you would think that GS4 would be looking to employ locals where ever possible which would keep travel costs down.
Many thanks
Sue
Many thanks
Sue
They should have done in the beginning what has had to be done now by other local agencies. That is to recruit people who lived near the venus. How the hell did they ever expect (as in the case I mentioned) some one to travel in from over 200 miles away , work a 12 hour shift and then have to drive back as no accomadation was available and to do this every day for 3 weeks ?
Eddie
"How the hell did they ever expect (as in the case I mentioned) some one to travel in from over 200 miles away , work a 12 hour shift and then have to drive back as no accomadation was available and to do this every day for 3 weeks ? "
My question would be, why did this person apply for the job under these conditions?
"How the hell did they ever expect (as in the case I mentioned) some one to travel in from over 200 miles away , work a 12 hour shift and then have to drive back as no accomadation was available and to do this every day for 3 weeks ? "
My question would be, why did this person apply for the job under these conditions?
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.