One of the selling points for London hosting the Olympics was job creation. The stated aim was to create at least 20,000 jobs for local residents in the five Olympic host boroughs, as well as to put the unemployed to work. On the eve of the games, it appears as if the numbers will be far short of the goals, and several of the staffing firms providing temporary workers have come under scrutiny.
We have already heard about the shortage of security guards that one company, G4S, was supposed to provide. The Army is now having to step in to bridge that gap with soldiers.
And another company, Close Protection UK, was awarded a reputed £850,000 contract to provide fire safety staff at the Olympics. The company reportedly won the deal because it was significantly more competitive on price than its rivals.
However, the other companies bidding for the contract were offering to supply trained firefighters, rather than the lesser trained “marshals” CPUK will provide.
“The public would rather see trained fire officers on call than inexperienced and poorly trained young people,” says Lord Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister. “Olympic organisers must now urgently explain what due diligence they did of CPUK.”
“The public would rather see trained fire officers on call than inexperienced and poorly trained young people.”
The firm’s managing director, Mary Prince, says CPUK won the contract because “the main contractor does not have sufficient staff.” The Observer in London has confirmed that CPUK’s fire marshals have not been tested during practice drills at the Olympic stadium.
However, the Olympics contract wasn’t what first put Close Protection UK on the radar of government officials.
Last month the company was found to have bussed in a group of long-term unemployed jobseekers, to work as unpaid “stewards” during the Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations. They were also told to sleep under the London Bridge before working on the river pageant.
Last month the company was found to have bussed in a group of long-term unemployed jobseekers, to work as unpaid “stewards” during the Queen’s diamond jubilee celebrations. They were also told to sleep under the London Bridge before working on the river pageant.
Two men who were part of the group, but don’t want to be identified for fear of losing their unemployment benefits, said they were forced to camp under London Bridge the night before the event, had to change into their security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain.
Close Protection UK confirmed it used up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices for the three-day event in London. But added that they spent considerable resources on training and equipment that stewards could keep and that the experience was voluntary and did not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits.
One woman worker said, ”London was supposed to be a nice experience, but they left us in the rain. They couldn’t give a crap … No one is supposed to be treated like that, working for free. I don’t want to be treated where I have to sleep under a bridge and wait for food.”
A male steward said, “It was the worst experience I’ve ever had. I’ve had many a job, and many a bad job, but this one was the worst.”
Hopefully nobody working at the Olympics will echo those sentiments. The games are supposed to be a global celebration of sport and competition. But with the event over budget and under performing in some critical areas, this upcoming Olympics might be notable for some of the wrong reasons.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
There will be many negative stories coming out of London (we are talking about the British after all), nevertheless, the city is overtaking even New York as the opportunity capital of the world and the much needed infrastructure improvements will serve as a launch pad for the rest of this century.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
G4S shortage issues could be deduced to inadequate organization paired with a poor workflow and business management software
Reading complaints from G4S its safe to say their back end hadn’t the capability to align with the front and the bottom dropped out, a preventable fiasco nonetheless
as far as the other, Close Protection UK, sounds a bit like cheeky practices with expected results I am a firm believer that you get back from a business and from the people who work in creating it what you put into supporting those very people working
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“that you get back from a business and from the people who work in creating it what you put into supporting those very people working”
amen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0