However, this will not save the 460 frontline staff who will shortly go onto redundancy notice. In a letter to affected personnel, Executive Director Nigel Lemmon wrote:
Colleagues, We know that we have a caring, driven and passionate team. We have a team that has helped us to develop our business over the years and we have ambitious plans to continue that growth. However, we currently face a very difficult situation with some existing Welfare to Work contracts formally ending before the new Work Programme begins. This is far from ideal. We passionately want to do the right thing for our employees and our customers, but on this occasion we have had to start the formal process of collective redundancy consultations with all our New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) and our Pathways to Work employees. This decision has not been taken lightly, we have thought long and hard about the options available to us, but regrettably have had to start this process. Whilst some providers have already started these consultations, we made the decision to wait until we had received final confirmation from DWP, ensuring that we could retain our excellent team throughout this period and well past the time that we would have clarity around the Work Programme contracts. Our focus in the coming weeks will be on securing the best possible outcome for our employees and our customers. We want the best team, we know we have got great people and your skills will be vital to the delivery of our own Work Programme and those where we hope to secure subcontractor work. We will do everything possible to secure opportunities for our team going forward. However, you will be aware that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) only last week advised us that the contracts to deliver New Deal for Disabled People and Pathways to Work will not be extended beyond 31st March 2011 and 27th April (Pathways to Work Phase 2) and that a new initiative will be offered to customers by Jobcentre Plus from 1st April until the Work Programme starts. Since we were notified last week, we have been working extremely hard to challenge this position with DWP. However, senior DWP representatives have now confirmed that it is their view that TUPE (the regulations that allow for the transfer of employees from one provider to another) does not apply, either to Jobcentre Plus when the new service starts on 1st April, or to other service providers when the Work Programme goes live (between 1st June and 31st July). This is hugely disappointing and we have now had to take the decision to start formal collective redundancy consultations. This decision only affects our New Deal for Disabled People and Pathways to Work employees. Once we have been informed of the outcome of our Work Programme bids for prime and sub-contracts, we will be able to understand the wider implications across the rest of our Welfare Division. We will continue to provide you with information as and when it becomes available By starting a lengthy 90 day redundancy consultation process, we have been able to secure your colleagues employment with A4e for the next three months. Our commitment and investment reflects our passion to support our team as much as possible and the enormous value and trust we place our team. It is our absolute intention to get the best outcomes for our people and our customers and have the best team going forward. This arrangement will take us into June and importantly, well after the Work Programme contract award announcements. This approach will give us the greatest opportunities once we know where we will be delivering the Work Programme going forward. We know that A4e has the best teams in the industry with extraordinary employees. It is as a result of the friendly and caring service that you have delivered to customers over the years that has enabled us to build A4e into what it is today. I know that we will continue to live our by DNA and to passionately provide excellent service to customers. If you have any queries regarding this announcement or the process, please speak to you manager in person, the HR Shared Services Team by telephone on *************** and we will get back to you as soon as possible. Nigel Lemmon |
By implication, the letter implies some kind of genuine care for its workforces, but let’s face it – a redundancy consultation period is seldom a time to renegotiate your job. These people will almost certainly find themselves unemployed within the next few weeks, unless by some stroke of good fortune they are able to find alternate employment. Most will not be so lucky and will be forced to ‘sign on’ and claim Jobseekers Allowance. In the meantime, Emma Harrison can sit in her luxury home, swanning around with her friend, Citizen Dave, the people’s toff. They are a pair well met. Harrison, like Cameron is also a millionaire, with a personal wealth estimated at £40m – not much chance Emma will be joining her colleagues on the dole then.
Interestingly, if you go to the "MyA4e" website, you will see that Emma Harrison gave Anna Gaunt the opportunity of a 12-month secondment as her assistant. prior to this, Anna had been an employment advisor on their NDDP contract. It rather begs the question of whether has a job to go to once her placement expires. For her sake, I hope she has the chance of redeployment within the company, but the promotion of this posting on their website remains a rather fine example of Emma's team shooting her in the foot.
Now, is it just me, or are there others out there who find it pretty obscene that Some people have profited from welfare to work programmes, whilst other, like the 460 at A4e are cast aside when they have served their usefulness. Because the new programme to be implemented by Jobcentre Plus is so different from Pathways to Work and New Deal for Disabled People, these folk will not be TUPE’d over to the new programme.
Over the coming weeks, as announcements are made on who are the ‘winners’ of contracts for the Work Programme, more will follow. Soon we can expect those hundreds will turn into thousands as companies ‘rationalise’ or even close.
It is a disgrace that workers who have given years to supporting unemployed people back into work should now find themselves in a position where they also face joblessness. The shame is not exclusive to A4e – other companies have profited equally well. Seetec has become one of the largest and most experienced providers of government-funded welfare to work and skills-training programmes. The company employs more than 500 people across a national network of 50 employment and training centres, and helps thousands of people each year to find work or gain qualifications through a diverse portfolio of employability or skills contracts. Last year, Seetec pulled in £21.2m in sales and profits of £2.112m. This enabled the company, which is 56 per cent owned by founder Peter Cooper, to pay total dividends of £990,608.
Or take the example of Maximus, profits in the first nine months of 2010 shot up by 19.4 percent—to £131 million. And its top boss, Richard A Montoni, grabbed a pay package worth £2 million last year.
Perhaps instead of paying out such vast dividends to a selected bunch of money-grabbing shareholders, the company should have been establishing a welfare programme to support these workers if and when contracts come to an end. But of course that is hardly an option for these commercial giants – since when does capitalism look after the working class?
Hi Tacitus,
ReplyDeleteMe again! Thanks for sorting out my comments earlier. Anyway, back to the point. I don't know any of these welfare to work training programme companies nor their bosses (e.g. Emma). However, I don't see what is wrong with redundancy. Its the same as an employee looking to move to another job. He/she has the option to move to another company whenever he wants, but what you are saying here is that the company does not have a choice but to keep this person hired, even though business is going through the doldrums. Is that fair?
I've tried starting up a business before. Its not easy. You risk everything, your career, your family's stability, your money, your life. Sometimes you make it...most times you fail miserably. These people chose to start a business and worked hard on it and succeeded. Therefore I don't see why they should give away all their hard-earned money.
Workers/employees are paid for their time and effort. My employer pays me X amount of money a month. In return I give 40 hours of my life a week. My boss drives a porsche. I help him earn £200k in fees a year. I get paid less than half of that. That's because I don't share the risk.If my company does not get a job for 1 year and I sit on the bench surfing facebook all day, he still has to pay me X amount a month. That is the risk he is taking. They send me for training, they buy laptops for me and pay for my travels.
If I am bitter about him having millions, I go start a company and risk everything I have. I don't go to my boss and demand that he let me drive his porsche half the week because I earned him 200k that year.
Shareholders pour capital into a company so that the company can grow and continue operating. They risk their money. Hence when the company makes a profit, they get a chunk of it. Many a times shareholders invest in a company and it goes bust. They don't get a penny.
ReplyDeleteTake this article for instance. Lets say you own a small company with 5 employees. You hired an office manager. She gets pregnant back-to-back and goes missing for 2 years. Your company is not in the best of health. Do you borrow more money so that you can pay upkeep for an employee that hasn't contributed anything for 2 years? Think about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365956/Jacky-Scott-pregnancies-5-figure-payout-sacked-manager.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Two points here. Firstly, why am I opposed to redundancies - because they affect people's lives and in a climate where 5 people are going for every single job that means many of those affected could face long-term unemployment.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I am not talking about shareholders - that is another issue. I am referring to the directors (many of whom hold no shareholding), who receive vast sums, whilst the frontline workers receive much lower incomes.
emma-harrison.com/about
ReplyDeleteEmma built up her father's company A4E. So what are you talking about? My comments still stands. Here you have one entire article attacking her and her millions.
The govt had proposed to link public sector executive pay to performance today. This is something they have control over and are doing something about unlike Labour. A government can't influence what private companies pay their execs. There's a name for something like that. Its call communism.
By the way, you are contradicting yourself by criticising IDP for keeping welfare to work and at the same time oppose to redundancies made in the same sector. This program has to be in place and improved to help people on benefits back to work. If it was slashed, the Left will complain that the Govt wants people to get off benefits but does not invest in retraining them.
Based on your previous analogy, there is nothing wrong with the car. You just need to put the right fuel and the right driver in it. By reducing benefits to people who have made a career in long term unemployment, the Government is forcing them to seriously think about work. And in changing their behaviours, you improve the success rate of welfare to work.
Currently welfare to work is just a box someone needs to tick in order for them to continue enjoying benefits.
Now back to Redundancies.
ReplyDeleteMeaning: more than enough; overabundant; excess; superfluous
Single biggest revenue generator for a training provider as well as the single biggest cost are the trainers themselves. The same as consultancy. We are the products.
If there's no people for the trainers to train, then a trainer becomes the single biggest cost to the company. A company is set up to make money. That is how economy works. If that company loses the ability to make money and loses money, it becomes insolvent and shuts. When a company closes its doors, it will lose the ability to employ people. Hence more people will be out of work. This will affect more lives
and make the climate even worse with 10 people going for every single job.
If the Govt makes it more difficult to hire/fire people, people will simply refuse to do business in the UK and go somewhere else hence compounding the situation. If I were to think of investing 100k into setting up a business but bombarded with so much restrictions that I spend more time jumping hoops instead of focusing on my business I will go broke. If I hired someone who is not right for the job but unable to let him go and as a result my business suffers and I will lose my 100k. Now would I set up a business in the UK and hire people?
I am not saying redundancies should not ever happen, nor am I suggesting companies should not profit. I am saying two things.
ReplyDelete1. It doesn't make sense to make reduindancies two months before the start of a new contract. These people could easily have been absorbed into the company for a few weeks until Work Programme goes live in June. Then, if the company is not one of the winning contractors, they could have been TPE'd over to the new supplier.
2. The excessive incomes and profits achieved by these companies are not reflected in the low salaries offered to frontline workers. As you will see from later blogs, I make quite a point on the fact that each member of staff generates quite a large some of money for their employer. It would have been nice to have seen their managers showing as much loyalty to their staff as the staff have obviously shown to them.
Finally, I cannot see how changing employment law will affect UK trading opportunities? If companies are restricted from unfairly making people redundant (which I emphasise I am not advocating) it simply is an internal issue between company and employer. It neither affects the price of the commodity, nor the marketplace.
sorry for getting back to you so late, but can you please add back the comment before I talked about redundancies. I had a section on Emma whereby she built up A4E, her dad's company. it probably went to spam because I had a URL Link on it
ReplyDelete