DDL on 17/7/2012 at 17:10
It's an ablative shield of deniability, too: it was pretty obvious something like this would happen, so this way the government can say "O HOLY SHIT LOOK AT HOW BADLY THEY FUCKED UP", rather than "Yeah, we fucked up". And then they can hold inquiries and shit too, all of which distracts the media from spending time pointing out the government's crippling flaws, because the media is a wholly OOH SHINY-based industry.
Also, I am finding the transcript of the inquiry actually makes me feel bad for Buckles, though I suspect this is mostly down to the fact I can't fucking stand Keith Vaz.
N'Al on 17/7/2012 at 17:34
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
It's the fault of somebody when the fashion of the day is to outsource 'inefficient' public spends to 'efficient' private companies. That's my ideological rub here. It's not really about the Olympics, or capitalism. I'm an occasional capitalist (if not an olympian) myself. It's about policing, youth health care and other important public goods 'n' services that are demonised rhetorically as inefficient and contracted to the efficient private sector expecting them to be somehow made of magic value dust.
See, why didn't you say so in the first place? That certainly seems a more legitimate complaint than the "Oh, woe is me! Capitalism R Bad!!!1!" of the OP. Although I'm still not 100% sure this is the underlying cause of what happened here with G4S...
jay pettitt on 17/7/2012 at 17:36
G4S did, I think, everything you'd expect a giant evil security mega-corporation to do. Win contracts, spend a minimum delivering while talking it up about what a splendid job they're doing.
Obviously they didn't do a very good job of the minimum delivery, but you're not going to get it right every time.
N'Al on 17/7/2012 at 17:44
Urgh, ok then.
Seriously, it's difficult to take you any way seriously when you insist on that "giant evil mega-corporation" shtick of yours.
Honestly, how has this event done G4S any good? They're an absolute laughing-stock now, damaging their reputation for years to come, and they're most likely going to get slapped with massive fines that will cost them more than they gained by winning the contract in the first place. Why would any corporation want to act in this "evil" way? It's just nonsensical.
Look, I don't deny there's many flaws in the capitalist model, but your accusations are just way beyond the realm of common sense...
DDL on 17/7/2012 at 18:02
Plus if your business is basically..providing personel, I'm not sure "immediately lay off everyone from the personel pool" would be top of their agenda, share prices or no.
They're apparently currently employing like 40,000 people worldwide, so mustering up 10,000 -while a tall order (apparently)- is not wholly outside anything that they could ever be expected to manage.
It pretty much reads like a straight forward cock-up, i.e. we were confident at the time that we could do it, but the hints that this might not be the case never filtered up to upper management because bad news never really does, etc etc SHIT HITS FAN
Al_B on 17/7/2012 at 18:27
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
G4S did, I think, everything you'd expect a giant evil security mega-corporation to do.
...apart from building a death star. Then again perhaps that's
exactly what they've conscripted the "missing" personnel into doing. :idea:
jay pettitt on 17/7/2012 at 19:17
Precisley!
june gloom on 17/7/2012 at 19:36
Quote Posted by N'Al
Seriously, it's difficult to take you any way seriously when you insist on that "giant evil mega-corporation" shtick of yours.
Sg3 on 17/7/2012 at 23:53
I was a bit puzzled at the suggestions I've read here that companies aren't always trying to screw their workers. Then I realized that all of the people suggesting that must never have worked on the factory floor, fast food counter, or other low-paid "grunt" positions. At least, not in the last fifteen years.
In every such job I worked, we were expected to continually work faster, without being paid more. (In fact, compared to inflation and cost of living increases, we were continually being paid less.) "We need to increase our production and decrease our mistakes," we were told in one company meeting. (And by "our," of course, they meant "your.")
I hope it's unnecessary for me to point out that increasing production necessarily means increasing worker mistakes. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. But that's exactly what Jay's "directors" want--they want to have their cake and eat it as well. And, really, who is to stop them? And so they screw up the world economy, and screw the "little guy," and remain smiling fat cats who, as Jay recognized, win even when they lose.
When customer orders hit low points, large numbers of workers being laid off was one of the very first steps taken. And even when something goes really bad for the company, the executives usually wind up in a comfortable position. For example, at one of the places I worked, the CEO was accused of embezzling or something, and he simply retired. There was no lawsuit or legal trial. He's probably sipping martinis in the Bahamas now.
Inline Image:
http://www.gdi4x4.com/Peeps/Joyner/slam%20pics/To%20Upload/SlamPic%20IV/rocket%20seat.jpgjay pettitt on 18/7/2012 at 14:39
To be sure I like human endeavour in all it's forms - capitalism or otherwise. But I'd rather - once you're big enough to be dealing with numbers of people - the norm for capitalism was cooperative stylee (and when I'm King that's how it will be).
The thing with market efficiency is that it requires constant gambles at shaving bits (staff costs mostly) here and there to make it work. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. Tough luck for G4S (who are obscenely evil by the way - most of their wealth when they're not paying staff minimum wage while raking it in on tasty public service contracts comes supplying private warfare goods and services to despots, crooks and tyrants - they really are cunts and they probably do have a deathstar) that it didn't pay off this time and that it was such a publicly visible cock up - but that's how it works.
I think N'Al's point is that it's not "efficient" to screw up. But market efficiency is something you achieve as an average over time - it doesn't mean that nobody ever screws up ever. Indeed, it verily demands that you screw up some of the time.
That quick iteration of gambles with wins and losses is fine if it's novelty goods or stuff that doesn't actually matter too much - but when it's stuff that's going to affect important stuff like health provision - a G4S style gamble too far is gonna have long term implications with people's health and well being.
