700 Connaught staff to be made redundant
A total of 700 Connaught workers will be made redundant, administrators KPMG have announced.
A spokesperson for construction union UCATT said workers in Sefton, Merseyside, working on a contract for One Vision Housing Association, had been told by conference call they are to lose their jobs. Employees working on contracts for Barnet Homes and for Circle Anglia in the London borough of Merton are also to be made redundant.
Lovell, the social housing arm of Morgan Sindall, has taken on some of Connaught’s social housing contracts, with around 2,500 workers expected to transfer.
But 700 workers will lose their jobs and a further 1,200 face uncertainty.
Alan Ritchie, general secretary of UCATT, said: ‘The remaining Connaught staff are in complete limbo.
‘Unfortunately many of them have been treated quite disgracefully, dedicated workers have been left devastated after being told they no longer have jobs.
‘It is essential that councils and housing associations take these contracts back in house and employ the dedicated workforce to continue to provide vital services.’
Readers' comments (8)
Sidney Webb | 10-Sep-2010 3:05 pm
It is crucial that the collapse of this private enterprise does not cost the public purse. The whole idea of privatising the workforce in the first place was supposidly to save money and improve standards. Have standards improved? No. has money been saved? No.
UCATT is right in its analysis to bring the services back in house, ensuring continuity and avoiding the public being ripped off by hungry competitor companies.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 10-Sep-2010 5:40 pm
Almost inevitably Sparty here wasn't even thought off when direct labour organisations for maintenance were being tested to destruction.
The dlo was expensive, the work was crap, and you couln't kick them out.
No chance, Sparty.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 10-Sep-2010 7:30 pm
Strange view anonymous - I definately do remember them. I remember that a skilled craftsman could fit all the tools that he needed into the carryall on the front of his bike. I remember he would turn up on time, complete the work to a good standard, and leave the place tidy afterwards. If he did not then his manager who inspected the work afterwards would make his displeasure clear.
Having a full range of skilled tradespeople available meant that the repairs service could be swift and responsive. When times were quiter the staff were redeployed into other work, or when the snow fell they would be on clearance and visits, the latter being where elderly and vulnerable were visited to see if they needed any help.
The endless moving of the goal posts meant that it was impossible for other than private bids to suceed in the CCT, but the lowest tender proved poor value and worse service to such a degree that value as well as cost became accepted under the legislation. When this change occured some in-house bids suceeded, but the die was cast by then.
Now we have the typical privatised service, employing the basic skilled for the lowest wage, with minimum standards, little value, and opitmised cost. Well done anonymous for supporting the creation of terminal decline. Unlike you I am old enough to remember the truth of the situation not the fantasy history dreamed up by Tory central office.
You find me a tenant who tells you they get a better cheaper service now compared to then and I'll show you the liar you have found - or at least an easily deluded tabloid reader.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Chris | 10-Sep-2010 7:41 pm
What a tragedy for the staff concerned - they did not fail, but there managers failed them - but who pays the price; and how much of a price will tenants pay for the growing monopolisation of suppliers?
An obvious reality with privatising a public service is where the latter could provide standards at cost the former must make a profit. To meet the lower cost requirement and make a profit means reducing standards, cutting corners, cutting pay and generally lowering service. You could not get a private contractor to work in a private house for the cost the private companies bid for the social sector work, yet the companies find a way to 'make-good' and make a profit, and pay the executives massive salaries and bonuses to boot.
On a level playing field an internal contractor would always be better - more value for money, and meeting higher standards for staff and for tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ivor williams | 11-Sep-2010 9:28 am
I know a HA which has gone back to DLO because it saves money, The Tenants like to have their own workforce because they know who to complain if the work is not done right, My HA has all ways had its own DLO are Tenants thing it is the best thing since sliced bread.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
McMadman | 13-Sep-2010 11:29 am
So much for the private sector good, public sector bad debate. This private sector firm deliberately underbid on its contracts in order to grow its orderbook and perceived worth. In short - it lied. Now it is unsustainable.
What opprobium would flow from our right wing friends on this site if this were a Council. Kass would blow a gasket if it was a Housing Association doing the same. So let's call this for what it is - private sector rank greed, incompetence and lies costing hundreds their jobs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Melvin Bone | 13-Sep-2010 2:32 pm
'So let's call this for what it is - private sector rank greed, incompetence and lies costing hundreds their jobs..
True...but did you notice how 2/3 of the company was not effected. This would appear to mean that only part of the company was mismanaged.
I notice they did not bother sending redundancy notices out in taxis as a certain rather badly run council once did...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 13-Sep-2010 2:43 pm
........ Or by text as a terribly operated bank .......... although in there case that was only after all the money strangely evapourated into the ether (or should that be into the executives' off shore accounts - sceptical, moi!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment