Labour stands by 6A

Written By: - Date published: 8:12 am, July 25th, 2013 - 97 comments
Categories: class war, labour, national, workers' rights - Tags: , ,

The Employment Relations Act Part 6A ensures that jobs are transferred to a new contractor, on the same terms, if a firm is restructured. It is one of the few protections that vulnerable workers have – workers such as the cleaners who protested at Parliament yesterday:

Cleaners protest employment law changes

Cleaners converged on Parliament this afternoon to protest against proposed employment law changes. Beating red buckets with wooden spoons they chanted: “Hands off 6a.”

The Government wants to scrap the clause of the Employment Relations Act, which protects low-paid workers when their jobs are restructured. …

Parliamentary cleaner Mareta Sinoti told the crowd, of about 50, scrapping the clause would cause “suffering”. … “We work hard on low wages … part 6a is the only job security we have.” …

Under the plans, announced in October, businesses with fewer than 20 staff will no longer have to keep on those employees. Labour Minister Simon Bridges says the bill will provide greater “fairness, flexibility and clarity” in employment law.

So what is Labour’s position?

Labour leader David Shearer and Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly also addressed the crowd. Shearer said Labour would repeal the changes if elected next year.

After the protest, he said there was “very little hope” the Government would listen. “Why pick on the most vulnerable? It’s a pretty mean and insensitive government that has to stick the boot in to the lowest paid workers in our country.”

Good to see Labour doing the right thing. They will have plenty of damage to repair when the Nats are gone, this is yet another item to add to the list.

97 comments on “Labour stands by 6A ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. AmaKiwi 1
    25 July 2013 at 8:57 am

    What would your neighbors say? Would the majority of them say, “Retain 6A,” or would they vote to dump it? I would not have difficulty convincing 90% of the people I know that retaining 6A is a matter of fairness.

    Binding referendums are a deterrent.

    Helen Kelly would be able to say to the Nats, “If you cut 6A, before you can chill your Chardonnay we will have the 25,000 signatures for a referendum. Then we will convince the voters to overwhelmingly veto this crap legislation.”

    “Shearer said Labour would repeal the changes if elected next year. After the protest, he said there was “very little hope” the Government would listen.”

    So it won’t be until 2018 at the earliest that there is any chance to reinstate 6A. How about direct democracy instead of, “In 5 years Prime Minister Cunliffe will fix it.”

  2. BM 2
    25 July 2013 at 9:25 am

    I don’t see what the fuss is all about, Seems quite fair when you read this

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1210/S00509/changes-to-part-6a-approved-by-cabinet.htm

    • framu 2.1
      25 July 2013 at 10:12 am

      “seems quite fair when you read the press release from the person pushing it”

      yeah that really stands up to scrutiny

  3. Darien Fenton 3
    25 July 2013 at 9:47 am

    BM this is a big deal. You should go talk to the cleaners involved. And so should Simon Bridges.

    Others : please like this : https://www.facebook.com/pages/Standing-Up-For-Workers/441471685960209

    We are all in this together.

    • Santi 3.1
      25 July 2013 at 10:19 am

      I disagree with you, Darien. The legislation is very fair.

      • framu 3.1.1
        25 July 2013 at 10:45 am

        why should a contract be subject to change because one party shifted their part of the existing contract to another person?

        why are you righties so keen on changing the rules you supposedly champion as soon as its the average worker using them?

        • BM 3.1.1.1
          25 July 2013 at 10:55 am

          The contract is with the company not the workers.

          From what I understand if company B wins a contract off company A, company B has to take on company A workers.

          What happens if there isn’t enough work for company B staff?, do they miss out because the cleaning jobs have to be done by company A workers.

          Seems bizarre to say the least.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.1.1.1
            25 July 2013 at 11:06 am

            Yeah, the dumbarse management should have done their sums better, eh. What kind of a fuckwit takes on more staff than they have work for?

            Edit: silly me, that would be a right wing fuckwit.

          • McFlock 3.1.1.1.2
            25 July 2013 at 12:17 pm

            But that’s stupid: your worst-case scenario is that company B workers are in the exact same position as they were before the won contract. So are company A workers. If they have too many workers and natural attrition isn’t solving it, maybe they should look to expanding the market, say going into domestic cleaning.

            • BM 3.1.1.1.2.1
              25 July 2013 at 12:21 pm

              LOL, what a tool.
              You have no idea about what’s involved in operating a business, do you?

              • McFlock …
                25 July 2013 at 12:27 pm

                Fuck, you’d be awesome to watch when someone takes a pg out on you. From overly-simplistic analysis to abuse in one iteration. ka-ching!

                • BM …
                  25 July 2013 at 12:33 pm

                  Maybe you should go run a service based business for a while or get yourself into a position so you can see first hand what’s involved and experience how small businesses operate.

                  Get out of that cloistered public service environment and experience life in the real world, it’ll do you good.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    25 July 2013 at 12:44 pm

                    I avoid doing business with toxic idiots. Who wants to listen to tiresome bigotry at work?

                    • King Kong …
                      25 July 2013 at 12:50 pm

                      If your business doesn’t already have a slogan, could I suggest “run for limp dicked fuck knuckles by limp dicked fuck knuckles”

                      It will help you avoid contact with the toxic idiots.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      25 July 2013 at 1:07 pm

                      Your call is important to us. Please hold.

                  • McFlock …
                    25 July 2013 at 12:45 pm

                    Maybe you should pull your head out of your arse and stop assuming that you’re the only one with any “real world” experience. It’s that sort of arrogance that must make you a fucking goldmine for any unionised employee.

                    • BM …
                      25 July 2013 at 12:52 pm

                      Going by some of the responses I’ve read in this thread the chances of anyone else having any “real world”experience are distinctively low.

                      BTW I don’t employ staff any more, not worth the hassle.

                    • framu …
                      25 July 2013 at 12:55 pm

                      yes – i wonder why you found it a hassle?

                      you know the old saying about pointing i hope

                    • BM …
                      25 July 2013 at 1:01 pm

                      Moved onto a different type of business, no need for staff, thank Christ.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      25 July 2013 at 1:09 pm

                      BM has human resource management issues. Why am I not in the least bit surprised?

                    • McFlock …
                      25 July 2013 at 1:30 pm

                      BTW I don’t employ staff any more, not worth the hassle.

                      really? I found it okay. Only had one person who was trying to take me for a ride, but he was quite manageable when boundaries and expectations were (politely) made clear and it was apparent that I wasn’t an absentee manager, even if I wasn’t as qualified as him (downside of employing highly proficient specialists). Worked out okay in the end. But then I tend to roll with things pretty well.

          • framu 3.1.1.1.3
            25 July 2013 at 12:19 pm

            do the workers have a contract or not?
            Should the terms of the contract which is still in effect be honored or not?

            note – this is a separate issue to redundancy which can be enacted as a clause of an employment contract

            note: mods, this is meant to be a reply to BM above @ 10.55am – but the delete wont function for some reason

          • framu 3.1.1.1.4
            25 July 2013 at 12:44 pm

            Part 6A of the Act (Part 6A) provides employment protection for employees when an
            employer’s business undergoes restructuring and the employee(s)’ work is assigned to a new employer.

            its got nothing to do with companies competing for contracts and its got everything to do with the contract between the employer and the employee.

            you understand wrong, both on this and redundancy

            If your going to crow about your business smarts it would help if you knew employment law basics as well

  4. tricledrown 4
    25 July 2013 at 9:52 am

    blind monetarist yeah as usual trying to hide the full story of Nationals policies creating more poverty by allowing employers to lower wages the tax payer will have to top up more on working for families !
    Undermining hard one improvements in conditions and pay!
    Hopefully when you right wingers retire you get to go to a retirement home where they pay the minimum wage its not a pretty site!
    when people get paid a pittance they just don,t care!
    thats why the warehouse has figured its better to pay a living wage then their customers and shareholders will benefit from people who put their heart and sole into their work!

  5. srylands 5
    25 July 2013 at 11:51 am

    The solution is to get rid of 6A entirely. If I win a contract because my company is more efficient, why on earth should I have an obligation to take on the loser comapny’s employees? It is bizarre.

    • McFlock 5.1
      25 July 2013 at 12:20 pm

      because you’re obviously such a good manager that you can get the best out of your new employees when the “loser company” couldn’t. And if that’s an issue, you can competently manage the employment disputes process. Oh, and you factored in such transition costs when you made the tender for the contract, because you’re such a brilliant manager.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1.1
        25 July 2013 at 12:45 pm

        Ka-ching!

      • srylands 5.1.2
        25 July 2013 at 1:05 pm

        “because you’re obviously such a good manager that you can get the best out of your new employees when the “loser company” couldn’t. ”

        Yes exactly. It is called competition.

        “Oh, and you factored in such transition costs when you made the tender for the contract, because you’re such a brilliant manager.”

        “Transition costs” aka “deadweight hand of government labour market regulation”. And no I didn’t because there shouldn’t be any.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1.2.1
          25 July 2013 at 1:11 pm

          Reality isn’t the right shape for you? Fucking cry-baby.

        • framu 5.1.2.2
          25 July 2013 at 1:12 pm

          Part 6A of the Act (Part 6A) provides employment protection for employees when an
          employer’s business undergoes restructuring and the employee(s)’ work is assigned to a new employer.

          its nothing to do with competing companies

          • Tracey 5.1.2.2.1
            25 July 2013 at 1:30 pm

            Is it possible for a new company to be formed and ownership transferred to that company and workers for the previous company retained in smaller numbers?

            I would like to see claims for constructive dismissal extended to 12 months following an employee being made redundant. It is usually a few months after a fake redundancy that evidence is actually available. I have digressed. I apologise.

            • framu 5.1.2.2.1.1
              25 July 2013 at 1:43 pm

              no digression as i see it – perfectly valid point/question

              to be honest i dont know – but i wouldnt be surprised if simply making a new company is in fact allowed

              But there does seem to quite a few comments that have gotten the basics of this law wrong from the get go on this thread

              (im not an employment lawyer – so if anyones reading this who can provide some informed clarification please do)

              • DavidC …
                25 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

                framu. (and others)

                Correct me if I am wrong.

                Company A is unhappy with existing service supplier so it tenders its cleaning services.

                Employer X is the incumbent with 10 staff , tenders for $100,000/yr.

                Employer Y is new kid on block and tenders $90,000/yr.

                Employer Y wins and must hire the 10 staff from X at existing conditions/pay.

                Is this incorrect?

                • framu …
                  25 July 2013 at 2:18 pm

                  im pretty sure thats wrong – ive never heard of any law anywhere on the planet that requires you to take on a competing companies staff

                  c’mon, think about it – thats plain crazy

                  the company offering the tender isnt the employer of the cleaning staff

                  its the contract provider to the company. That company is who employs the staff. not the contract provider

                  section 6a applies only to the relationship between the company and the staff – not the tender provider as they arent the employer of said staff

                  like i said – im not a lawyer so happy to be proven wrong on this.
                  But it does concern me that there appears to be quite a few people who claim employer status who dont seem to know for sure

                  • DavidC …
                    25 July 2013 at 2:44 pm

                    framu. I agree its weird but see srylands example down the bottom of the thread. I think its a cut and paste from the rule book!

                    new employer must hire the staff of the old employer that wish to be retained in existing positions!

                    weird!

                • RJL …
                  25 July 2013 at 2:44 pm

                  This is basically right, but the details depend on the circumstances.

                  The essential idea of 6a is that if somebody is doing a job then despite whatever restructuring/re-contracting between contractors/employers goes on, as long as substantially the same job needs doing, then the original person must be offered the opportunity to do that same job at their original conditions.

                  The new employer is then perfectly able to dismiss his new employees, for non-performance, or other legitimate reasons, and is able to renegotiate new contracts with those employees (when the existing contracts expire), with a starting point of the original contracts.

                  The intention is that while contractors can compete, they cannot compete on the basis of their capability to screw their workers. In your example, therefore, the 10% saving that makes Y the more competitive contract can’t be due to paying the workers less.

                  The devil is whether or not new jobs under the new employer are substantially the same as the jobs under the previous employer.

        • DavidC 5.1.2.3
          25 July 2013 at 1:52 pm

          The best and most important choice you make with staff is who you hire.

          Afterall you cannot squeeze gold out of a turd.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.1.2.4
          25 July 2013 at 2:11 pm

          And no I didn’t because there shouldn’t be any.

          Really? And just where were you going to get the employees to do the job if it wasn’t going to cost you anything? Did they just happen to fall off the back of a truck perchance?

      • DavidC 5.1.3
        25 July 2013 at 1:23 pm

        How do you factor in those transition costs unless you are privy to the contract conditions of your oppositions staff?

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1.3.1
          25 July 2013 at 1:26 pm

          Perfectly legitimate question to ask the person awarding the contract: “any existing circumstances I should know about?”

          That’s what all this is about, isn’t it? Right wingers have such low IQs they want everyone else to pay for their due diligence failures.

          • DavidC 5.1.3.1.1
            25 July 2013 at 1:28 pm

            WTF ?

            Why would the company that is awarding the tender have any knowledge of the oppostions staff employment condition?

            • infused 5.1.3.1.1.1
              25 July 2013 at 1:46 pm

              Because OAK is a moron.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1.3.1.1.2
              25 July 2013 at 1:47 pm

              “Existing circumstances? Part 6A of the ERA will apply.”

              Srylands’ “due diligence” is to whine like a baby about us having laws. What’s yours? Whine like a baby and make sure you have enough resources to cover your legal obligations?

              • DavidC …
                25 July 2013 at 1:53 pm

                OAK ….. is that meant to be an answer?

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  25 July 2013 at 2:06 pm

                  Why would I bother addressing your strawman question?

                  I said “circumstances” not “existing employment conditions”. There’s a difference. An English dictionary and sufficient cognitive capability will help.

                  • DavidC …
                    25 July 2013 at 2:12 pm

                    OAK

                    Well the “circumstance” that would affect a newly employed but unwanted staff member would be redundancy and that “circumstance” would also affect the new employer possibly at great cost.

                    You can shuffle sideways as much as you like but it was a simple question that you should be able to give a straight forward answer to without reverting to abuse.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      25 July 2013 at 2:23 pm

                      We don’t know the existing employment terms and conditions, therefore we know nothing, right? It’s a meaningless question.

                      If there’s a way to find out what those terms and conditions are, you bet I’m going to try and find out, but whether or not, planning that there will be some beats the hell out of whinging about having to obey the law and then pretending it’s the government’s fault when something goes wrong.

                      The problem you have here is that you think everyone else should bend over for your business whims, whereas I think you should be the one bending over in gratitude at the society that provides you with such opportunities, instead of being such a wingnut ingrate.

                    • DavidC …
                      25 July 2013 at 2:39 pm

                      OAK.
                      You are ranting.

                      I dont think anyone should bend to my business whims. I just want to be able to win a tender and use my own staff, that I chose, that I value, that I respect, for work that I have selected as being suitable to my workforce.

                      If I choose to underbid another company that may be because I wish to keep my existing staff employed. Having to hire that last companies duds will not help my staff at all.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      25 July 2013 at 2:44 pm

                      All so reasonable, all very responsible, until the last sentence, when you show your prejudice and ignorance.

                      “Duds”, eh? No wonder some people think all employers are scum.

                    • DavidC …
                      25 July 2013 at 2:47 pm

                      OAK

                      You disagree that there are dud employees out there?

                      Everyone is golden in your book. Only Managers are scum huh?

                      oh wait…what happenes when the Manager is also an employee?

                      I am beginning to think infused is right!

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      25 July 2013 at 2:54 pm

                      Yes, of course criticising your baseless destructive generalisation is exactly the same as believing there are no bad employees, and the fact that that some people think all employers are scum means I must think that. Your logic is “so bad it’s not even wrong”.

                      New Zealand is one of the easiest countries in the world in which to do business, and yet there is an endless queue of whinging wingnuts who can’t seem to make it. Personally I think it’s the low IQ.

                    • DavidC …
                      25 July 2013 at 3:05 pm

                      OAK.
                      Have a nice afternoon.
                      I need to take my 223 for a walk as it is feeling lonely and underappreciated afterall guns need loving too 🙂

        • RJL 5.1.3.2
          25 July 2013 at 2:48 pm

          Because sub-part 2 of Section 6A states that any transition costs associated with staff transfers must be disclosed as part of the tender process.

          • DavidC 5.1.3.2.1
            25 July 2013 at 2:59 pm

            Is a termination cost a transition cost?

            • RJL 5.1.3.2.1.1
              25 July 2013 at 3:04 pm

              Yes, if there are termination costs that will be triggered, that must be disclosed as part of the tender process.

            • McFlock 5.1.3.2.1.2
              25 July 2013 at 3:12 pm

              Even if it weren’t, if you’re pretty sure you’ll want to make the current workers redundant because you have a different organisational model (or if it’s pretty obvious that the current workers are going to have some disciplinary issues due to the culture that’s been allowed to evolve), you can still factor in a fair estimate based on the industry. E.g. cleaners aren’t likely to be on seven figures.

    • framu 5.2
      25 July 2013 at 12:25 pm

      correct me if im wrong – this isnt about different companies competing for contracts

  6. Tracey 6
    25 July 2013 at 1:20 pm

    I kept scrolling down to find reasoned argument… and got to the bottom.

    It seems recently the language and behaviour on this site has plunged. I don’t point a finger at any “side” just the tone of posts generally.

    [lprent: The standard of comments varies quite a lot over time and on a daily basis. Depends on the posts, topics, moderation levels, and where discussions move to

    But it is always at it’s lowest in the dead of winter for some reason (along with the page views). Both pick up in August.

    Comments appear to become more personal in the middle of the election cycle – probably because there is a reduction in the numbers of new people incoming that we see in the year running up to the election.

    Ummm will have been running for 6 years in another few weeks.. ]

    • infused 6.1
      25 July 2013 at 1:47 pm

      Since ages ago. Mods let any lefties get away with murder here. Anytime someone disagrees, it’s the banstick.

      OAK just trolls the shit out of this site and low and behold.

      [lprent: Nope. There are particular behaviours we’re looking to prevent from spreading. Most of them are listed in the policy. If you ever look at what people get banned for, they are usually in accordance with those. These days most people respond to a warning on most things.

      Currently I have the following listed.

      Yes 2013/08/21 – copied a large list from kiwiblog and pasted here without quoting, a link or even an explanation. Doubled up because he clearly didn’t read the response to that comment and commented while banned.
      rhinocrates 2013/07/28 – threatening someone.
      millsy 2013/07/27 – threatening people
      bigbruv 2013/07/27 – attempting to start a irrelevant flamewar about unions after being threatened by millsy
      SHG 2013/08/12 – trying the pwned tactic and deciding to get really offensive in response?

      Permanents (from memory)
      KP – being a boring troll who couldn’t argue
      Mark – responding to a amnesty by being thoroughly offensive to authors and myself

      Perhaps you could point out how they fit your thesis. Personally I view it more as people acting like dicks on someone elses site. ]

      • Ben 6.1.1
        25 July 2013 at 5:04 pm

        This post has broken the formatting on posts below it, for me anyway (FireFox 20).

        All the text below this one is in bold and the indenting is all screwed up. I suspect there’ll be a missing close bold tag on the bottom of your edit comment lprent.

    • Santi 6.2
      25 July 2013 at 1:48 pm

      Correct. Too many personal attacks, low-flying insults and no attempt to argue the points of discussion. Some supporters of the Left prefer the easy way out and even ask for outright bans.

      • King Kong 6.2.1
        25 July 2013 at 1:50 pm

        Fuck you

      • Sable 6.2.2
        25 July 2013 at 2:04 pm

        I’m not sure this is such a bad thing. People are rightly angry and fed up with these scumbags. The last two PM’s we have had have behaved liked dictators and those who came before them were no gems either. Does anyone actually remember a time in recent memory when we had decent , reasonable and ethical government in this country?

        So call the swine names by all means if its eases your pain and rebuke those who think voting for the same cretins will somehow make things better because it wont.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.2.2.1
          25 July 2013 at 2:17 pm

          Does anyone actually remember a time in recent memory when we had decent , reasonable and ethical government in this country?

          Nope, can’t say that I do.

      • tricledrown 6.2.3
        26 July 2013 at 12:20 am

        grinch

    • DavidC 6.3
      25 July 2013 at 1:57 pm

      Tracey. I agree.
      I blame the Shearer/Cunliff spat, I think a lot of moderates have taken a break as its a bit nasty and some that are left (ha ha 🙂 ) here wear their undies a bit too tight.

  7. Sable 7
    25 July 2013 at 1:53 pm

    Keys is really looking to slowly move back to the bad old days of the Employment Contracts Act (ECA) where each employment agreement is individual between an employer and employee and no rights are effectively binding.

    What I find hard to understand is how the economy is going to be sustained if the people who buy goods and services are deprived of a meaningful wage? What does this mean for employers over the longer term?

    This reflects the insanity and lack of logic inherent in neo-liberalism which is largely responsible for the current economic crisis. The question that remains to be answered is if these hard hearted measures continue will the crisis ever abate?

  8. srylands 8
    25 July 2013 at 2:07 pm

    Yes this is about independent companies competing for contracts.

    The ERA has this example in Part 6A

    Example E
    An airport operator enters into an agreement with an independent contractor to provide food catering services at the airport.

    Some time later, the agreement under which the independent contractor provides those services expires or is terminated.

    The airport operator then enters into an agreement with a second independent contractor to provide food catering services at the airport.

    Employees of the first independent contractor to whom section 69F applies may elect to transfer to the second independent contractor.
    _________

    Why should government interfere with the market outcome by forcing a successful company to take on dud workers from the loser company? If teh loser company has good workers they will be retained.

    Thsi is labour market protectionism pure and simple. And it has teh same dire effect as product market protectionsim via tariffs and quotas. Thanks to R. Douglas they are now part of history. Labour market protectionism will just go down the same route. In 20 years our kids will look back and have a laugh just like we look back on NZ manaufacturing motor vehicles and have a laugh.

    We really need to see teh big picture here!

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.1
      25 July 2013 at 2:13 pm

      Why should the government interfere in the market to protect you from me?

    • framu 8.2
      25 July 2013 at 2:26 pm

      interesting – i suspect theres reasons for this. and it is but one example after all.

      perhaps its been written that way because of historical cowboy behaviour from employers?

      ” to take on dud workers from the loser company?” – who says their duds?

    • McFlock 8.3
      25 July 2013 at 2:26 pm

      Because the old company didn’t have dud workers. It had dud managers. What you’re saying is that if a team loses a car race, it is always and without exception the fault of the car(worker), not the driver (manager). Actually, it’s almost always the opposite.

      In 20 years our kids will look back and have a laugh just like we look back on NZ manaufacturing motor vehicles and have a laugh.

      Mostly because people like you turned them into soulless little parasites with a sense of entitlement and no concept of ethics.

    • Draco T Bastard 8.4
      25 July 2013 at 2:29 pm

      If teh loser company has good workers they will be retained.

      That’s got to be some of the worst libertarian BS yet. The contract and the negotiation of it had nothing to do with the workers. What it will have been about is price and the only way that a company can get a contract over an existing holder of the contract is to go in with a lower price and as they can’t lower anything else they must have to lower wages and the only way they can do that is by employing either new people who have to be trained or the same people on lower wages. 6A prevents them from hiring the same people on lower wages which is why this government is changing the law.

      And it has teh same dire effect as product market protectionsim via tariffs and quotas.

      Yeah, full employment and rising living standards were such dire problems.

    • DavidC 8.5
      25 July 2013 at 2:40 pm

      sryland, can you give us a link?

  10. srylands 10
    25 July 2013 at 2:48 pm

    “What it will have been about is price and the only way that a company can get a contract over an existing holder of the contract is to go in with a lower price”

    You obviosuly have no experience in running a business. Low prices are ruinous if the standard is unacceptable. I recently sacked my cleaner because she was doing a crap job. I employed a new cleaner at 20% higher cost who does a briliant job. I am happy. New cleaner is happy.

    Whenever I hear David Shearer talk about “hands on” government I feel sick.

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.1
      25 July 2013 at 2:59 pm

      Good. Take some time off, we’re sick of your whining about how hard done by you are.

    • RJL 10.2
      25 July 2013 at 2:59 pm

      You obviosuly have no experience in running a business. Low prices are ruinous if the standard is unacceptable.

      Exactly. I recently won a contract, my company’s bid was 20% higher than our nearest competitor, but we won the bid because the company awarding the tender judged that we will do the best job.

      • DavidC 10.2.1
        25 July 2013 at 3:03 pm

        Awesome. There should be a lot more like that.

        But obviously the tender wasnt for work at a Uni, Hospital or Council.

        Lowest price wins for those guys no matter what.

        • RJL 10.2.1.1
          26 July 2013 at 10:02 am

          But obviously the tender wasnt for work at a Uni, Hospital or Council.

          Lowest price wins for those guys no matter what.

          In the absence of other information, of course lowest price wins. Which is why the person writing a tender bid needs to provide other information in the form of a cogent argument about why her bid is the best one, despite not being the cheapest.

          Governmental and quasi-governmental organisations like you suggest (and large corporations) are in my experience actually the easiest to win tenders under with high performance (rather than low cost) bids. This is because such organisations have readily available information about their policies and decision making processes, so a professional bid writer can ensure that her bid is seen in the best possible light by the decision makers.

          Small and medium sized businesses are the worst, because it is often unclear who the decision makers are, and the decision makers are often owners who (due to personal investment) are sometimes too distracted by price and / or some unexpected detail.

      • McFlock 10.2.2
        25 July 2013 at 3:27 pm

        One thing I’ve noticed over the years in venue security is that every few years a new player enters the market paying their staff a few dollars/hr more, or a pub revamps and improves staff (training, staff levels, and equipment). After five years or so the staff haven’t had a pay rise, the experienced doorstaff have moved on to real$$, the equipment is tatty and frequently unserviceable, and staffing levels have been reduced because there was never any trouble (because security were doing their job well). Then things finally come to a head, there’s a serious incident on-premises (or a “fuck that was really close to making BBC headlines” call), and the security is reorganised, upstaffed, new radios bought, etc.

        The cleaning equivalent is that the contractor starts out quality-based with a few clients, vacuuming and wiping down surfaces every night, but they end up stacking so many jobs on the list that they’re basically only emptying bins at a sprint because they now have 15 minutes to do the entire floor, rather than 45mins.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.3
      25 July 2013 at 4:18 pm

      And that would be hiring a cleaner, not an entire contract for services. You’re obviously still contracting out the cleaners services for far more than what you’re paying the cleaner. 20% extra on the contract would have meant that the business that already had the contract would still have it.

      EDIT:
      And somebody broke it. Looking at the flow it seems that it was LPrent when he was adding the admin comments to 6.1

  11. srylands 11
    25 July 2013 at 4:32 pm

    “You’re obviously still contracting out the cleaners services for far more than what you’re paying the cleaner.”

    No I am not.

  12. srylands 12
    25 July 2013 at 5:14 pm

    I don’t

    • Draco T Bastard 12.1
      25 July 2013 at 6:38 pm

      Right, so after complaining that others don’t know how to run a business you admit that you have NFI how to do so at all.

      • DavidC 12.1.1
        25 July 2013 at 7:08 pm

        what is wrong with running a business for no profit?
        For many years I competed against a family owned business that only stayed afloat to provide jobs for the massssssive family unit. It worked for them and hurt me a lot.

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1
          25 July 2013 at 8:44 pm

          what is wrong with running a business for no profit?

          In the capitalist environment and with srylands libertarian beliefs? Everything.

          For many years I competed against a family owned business that only stayed afloat to provide jobs for the massssssive family unit. It worked for them and hurt me a lot.

          I suspect that the problem you had there was that they were free-hold while you were trying to make profits for yourself and the bank (with the bank getting more profit than you).

          • DavidC 12.1.1.1.1
            26 July 2013 at 8:57 am

            You are quite wrong.

            The family busi would just work for wages, I (and partner) started doing what we did so that we didnt have to just get wages, we always had great cashflow and a freehold building.
            I would just rather spend a week sucking on SCUBA rather than working for half rates just to keep busy.
            In the end we just expanded our market enough so that they became irrelevent, time and retirement too care of their management. Sorted.

Links to post