NVQ Level 2 in spectator safety

[J Pearce]

A day's work is a day's work whether it is the first day with the company or the last day of 30 years. It deserves payment.

To say it doesn't deserve payment is to say that the work completed was not satisfactory.

 

To lure workers into working for below minimum wage on the promise of proper pay after x hours is surely verging on extortion or coercion. Why would the company ever pay you more when they can cook up some reason for you to fail 'probation' and get the next muppet in the queue for £2/hour... It's one of the oldest cons going.

 

Moreover, they were 'employed' as security stewards. A position of trust and responsibility. How can someone on less than minimum wage with no formal contract be responsible? If it was clearing leaves in the local park or digging ditches things would be different. The job they were asked to do should have been fulfilled by experienced and briefed, if not formally qualified, stewards. Someone somewhere pocketed the difference and exploited those workers.

 

Up against the wall?

[brainwave-generator]

A day's work is a day's work whether it is the first day with the company or the last day of 30 years. It deserves payment.

To say it doesn't deserve payment is to say that the work completed was not satisfactory.

 

To lure workers into working for below minimum wage on the promise of proper pay after x hours is surely verging on extortion or coercion.

 

You have entirely misunderstood the problem.

 

The problem is nothing to do with not paying them because it's some sort of trial shift into being paid. The problem is they can't pay them because the DWP say that any work experience undertaken whilst in receipt of JSA CANNOT BE PAID.

 

Thus if they'd paid them, it'd have either have been illegal, or all of the stewards would have had to have given up their JSA.

[paulears]

The entire point of stewards is to be responsible enough to supervise. If they are being trained, then they will be assisting a person already in possession of the skills - so they are learning how to do the job. If they are working on their own, doing the job, then they are not being trained - they ARE trained, and working, at whatever level they are at. This is established as how training works. You go in at one level, and leave with a higher level. If there is no skills or knowledge input, or supervision - with perhaps assessment of their performance - then it's not training.

 

In this case, they will be responsible, both practically and legally - and preventing entry or exit inappropriately can be sufficient to have you standing before a judge, as demonstrated in the football stadia incidents of previous years.

 

In this case - it suggests to me that stewardship is concerned with simply having the required ratio of public to stewards, with no requirements for the stewards to be actually effective.

 

This is clearly a con. The evidence for their NVQ appears to be "we were present at the event" - which would seem to be insufficient for a pass for Level 2, hence for the qualification, pointless. The interesting thing to me is that the latest 'explanation' blames the driver for arriving early and leaving them. Surely, students under training, working many miles from home should have had members of staff present to look after them, monitor them and later on assess them? No staff present confirms in my mind that it's a paperwork con.

 

Training? My ar5e!

[Brian]

And it's the lead story on 'Today' at 8am this morning.

[kerry davies]

Brainy has a point about JSA and the Work Programme but that is up to 30 hours a week regular "work" and this 3 day jaunt is in breach of existing law which demands jobseekers be available for work at all times. It is an IDS fiddle on the original Labour initiative which was heinous enough itself.

 

There is an intereting facet in the fact that the company involved is the ninth security company this woman has had, 8 going bust in the past, they are training people at Wigan College and these stewards were dragged in from Bristol and Portsmouth and the comapny is at present trading whilst effectively insolvent.

 

I have no problem with genuine work experience for school students but this is exploitation of the worst kind. It contains elements of coercion and blackmail (do this or you don't get to do that) and is loading taxpayers money into this woman's pockets since she has not denied charging full commercial rates for the contract. That is slavery by UN forced labour standards, someone takes all profits from anothers labour.

 

She has apologised but I await the terms of compensation for these people and it is doubtful that she has Olympic contracts to offer since the campsite she used has been refused approval by LOCOG, which she does not seem aware of. Check out Theydon Bois Action Group.

 

Just as a final shot, everyone does know that all the Work Programme participants are un-insured workers, I hope? If you want to take responsibility for co-workers liability then jolly good luck, I have spent too many years trying to remedy the image of the doped-up roadie to accept that sort of thing.

[brainwave-generator]

Brainy has a point about JSA and the Work Programme but that is up to 30 hours a week regular "work" and this 3 day jaunt is in breach of existing law which demands jobseekers be available for work at all times. It is an IDS fiddle on the original Labour initiative which was heinous enough itself.

 

It's not in breach of the law. The JSA scheme permits work experience providing it is unpaid. If you are doing work experience unpaid then you are still entitled to receive JSA. That is what is happening here.

 

That said, it could be one of 2 things depending on how sceptical you are:

a) CPUK are a genuine organisation offering training of new security stewards who have taken them out on a 'real life' project as part of their ongoing development, and are unable to pay them as it is outside the constraints of the DWP rules.

b) CPUK have spotted an opportunity to use free contractors, by convincing them that dole money is better than their money. This means that the stewards get the best rate of pay, and the company pay nothing. Profitable for both.

 

 

There is an intereting facet in the fact that the company involved is the ninth security company this woman has had, 8 going bust in the past, they are training people at Wigan College and these stewards were dragged in from Bristol and Portsmouth and the comapny is at present trading whilst effectively insolvent.

 

Just because they were dragged in from Bristol / Portsmouth it doesn't mean they weren't on similar courses. If CPUK was the contractor handling such a system, they may have had some kind of partnership with other companies in order to get this kind of thing happening as part of their work experience program.

 

 

The entire point of stewards is to be responsible enough to supervise. If they are being trained' date=' then they will be assisting a person already in possession of the skills - so they are learning how to do the job. If they are working on their own, doing the job, then they are not being trained - they ARE trained, and working, at whatever level they are at. This is established as how training works. You go in at one level, and leave with a higher level. If there is no skills or knowledge input, or supervision - with perhaps assessment of their performance - then it's not training.

[/quote']

 

That's by no means limited to CPUK though is it? And it's been happening for years at every festival. How many festivals offer a "work for us and we'll give you a ticket scheme" ? They're not competent stewards, they're mostly just students who can't afford the festival tickets. Training amounts to an evening of 'this is what a radio looks like, press here and talk". Does this amount (by Kerry's definition) to coercion and blackmail? They're told "if you don't work all your shifts, we kick you off site and you can't watch the bands".

[erroneousblack]

A proper Steward was on LBC this morning pointing out that the company would have tendered a bid for the contract based on the pay-rates of NVQ2 level Stewards, (about £8.50 an hour). If they then bus in this lot, do they pay back the money they didn't spend I doubt it! It's not unlike an increasing number of theatre managements that only pay double time for a get out, but still recharge the visiting company for the TMA rate!

[kerry davies]

Before the lawyers Mishcon De Reya close this thread down can I just say that there is an awful lot of background to this story, it is not going away and the ramifications are widespread. Watch the Cait Reilly case, listen to the Week In Politics and watch what is said under parliamentary privilege.

 

As far as the BR is concerned the Mods need to lock this ASAP, this is Britain and democracy died a while back.

[paulears]

kerry - I'm a bit unclear on why it needs locking. Nobody has made, that I can see, any direct statements about the company, just asked questions that haven't been answered? As most of what is being discussed is in the public domain anyway, and just being re-reported with the questions, I'm not sure which bits are dangerous?

[kerry davies]

It is a long and complex story that goes to the heart of the current government, involves some very shady practices by some shady people, only a few of whom are government ministers. So bear with me while I respond to Brainy and try to give a full story..

 

The proprietress of CPUK pled guilty in the past and was convicted of perverting the course of justice yet has somehow been allowed to have at least 8 security companies, closed down mostly for failure to produce audited results by Companies House. Maybe that's because she has direct links to very senior figures inside the SIA, I couldn't possibly comment.

She has a training company which has received over £2m in public funds yet CPUK is trading whilst effectively insolvent, according to accountants who have seen their published accounts. The training company has no significant cash either, nobody knows where the money has gone but she has just bought a brand new Humvee.

 

The kids were at first told they would be paid £400 but once on the bus they were told it was unpaid work experience.

They also believed that CPUK would report them to the Jobcentre for failure to follow "training" and would then have been sanctioned (stopped benefits) hence the coercion/blackmail element. This is common practice on the Work Programmes.

The campsite in Theydon Bois she sent these kids to is apparently illegal, has enforcement notices outstanding and was rejected by LOCOG because it is a swamp.

The company charged for trained and qualified staff at commercial rates then supplied free labour and apprentices and even abandoned them in London after the event leaving them to spend over 10% of their weekly benefits on the tube to the campsite.

CPUK gave a written promise to these kids of £9,000 a head for work at the Olympics for which theyb hold a contract. That is for the sailing which lasts two weeks. Make your own conclusions when I say that at published rates that is 88 straight days pay for 12 hour shifts.

 

The "Work Provider" charity, Tomorrow's People, has been censured by the Charity Commission for being too close to the Conservative Party. This charity is funded by and was set up by Diageo whose CEO dines at Chequers. The head of the charity used to be head of IDS's thinktank.

The DWP lawyers have said that the NMW applies to voluntary schemes and Chris Grayling said the opposite in Parliament whilst the top mandarins are busily running a cleansing programme removing documents from their database.

Show and Event have been asked by The Pageant to investigate all claims.

CPUK and the charity are being investigated by the three main Work Programme organisations in the Southwest.

 

Phillip Blond, the man that proposed the whole Big Society initiative has gone public with condemnation of the entire Work Experience/Programme scheme saying that commercial firms involvement must be stopped immediately and that the government implementation of his concept is utterly flawed. John Prescott and Tom Watson are hopping mad and it has all gone rabidly political. The closure of Jobcentres and the export of the work on Universal Credit to Indian call-centres at a cost to the taxpayer of £5Bn, resulting in 10,000 job losses so far with 35,000 more to come, doesn't help.

 

I am concerned about practices which meant that 80 events professionals in London were denied the work in favour of unpaid, unqualified kids. As Bryson pointed out, technical work was not "protected" from this sort of thing during the Olympics over there. I feel strongly that this is the tip of an iceberg of de-skilling, downward pressure on wages and a general "race-to-the-bottom" that is government policy.

[Simon Lewis]

The closure of Jobcentres and the export of the work on Universal Credit to Indian call-centres at a cost to the taxpayer of £5Bn, resulting in 10,000 job losses so far with 35,000 more to come, doesn't help.

 

 

Just for accuracy, I understand that the IT for Universal Credit is being outsourced, but that the call centres will be UK based.

 

Another viewpoint on the stewarding story, this time from the Daily Mail.

And proof that the

;-)

[kerry davies]

Yes Simon, all the hardware and technical staff will be based in India but they have yet to officially announce the exact location of the call centres. Misled by by an old FT article IIRC. Still 45,000 less jobs.

 

Thanks for the Dan & Dan reminder.

 

More dubious criminality has been revealed in the past of directors today and I expect more interesting info on how on earth they were ever allowed to run a security company, let alone 8 or more.

[kerry davies]

It never rains but it pours.

 

16 CPUK staff were hospitalised after a minibus crash on Saturday on the M40.The CPUK employed driver was arrested for dangerous driving and the possibility that he is not qualified to drive a minibus. If he is unlicensed I expect the insurance to be invalid and lots of ugliness to follow.

[brainwave-generator]

I am concerned about practices which meant that 80 events professionals in London were denied the work in favour of unpaid, unqualified kids.

 

Were they heck.

 

I am working major events on a more than weekly basis at the moment and if you think that every security steward staffing these events is an 'event professional' simply because they're paid for their time, you are seriously naive.

 

2 weeks ago I was on a major event for a major end client, the security company was a well known name in the industry and yet their 'events professionals' were simply low-paid, unqualified kids; as opposed to unpaid, unqualified kids.

 

We were given 2 stewards to guard our kit. One was 17 and she had already done time in a YOI for theft and ABH, the other was 16 and openly admitted to being involved in large scale fraud. Both admitted they lied about their age and the company performed no checks. Not the sort of people you really want guarding your kit, and if we hadn't known their background we'd have happily let them get on with it. More surprising than their past as perhaps their eagerness to tell us how stupid their employer was.

 

Kerry you seem to have taken out a vendetta against CPUK, you must understand that whatever you think of their business practices, they are not the only 'dodgy business' security company in operation and such practices certainly do not deny qualified professionals the work. Focussing your points around second hand information about a security company who you've taken issue with doesn't push this thread forward at all.

[erroneousblack]

It never rains but it pours.

 

16 CPUK staff were hospitalised after a minibus crash on Saturday on the M40.The CPUK employed driver was arrested for dangerous driving and the possibility that he is not qualified to drive a minibus. If he is unlicensed I expect the insurance to be invalid and lots of ugliness to follow.

 

Kerry, good points well made. Lets just hope these cowboys won't be involved with the Olympics...

 

Oh, Hold on!