A4e boss quits

[maix27]

Surprised there's nothing on this already:

Link to article in lefty paper shocker

I for one think this is going to get a lot bigger.

Another great example of Citizen Dave's judge of character. £8m to find people who still get benefits jobs for free to the employer.

My dead cat could do that.

[Ozzie Osmond]

maix27 said:

Another great example of Citizen Dave's judge of character.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Topbuzz]

Thought it was a sound idea personally. After 365 days without finding a job but being paid to look I don't see the problem of easing people back into work. If they don't want to work in poundland they can stop claiming and work at Waitrose if they are suitable.

[Chrisw666]

Hateful company, makes way too much profit from others misery. Very good at submitting reports though...

[Oakey]

Well, you don't want to be too good at finding people jobs do you, otherwise you and your 3500 staff are going to be looking for work yourselves

[Eric Mc]

Aparently she was able to pay herself an £8 million dividend last year from the company. Nice work if you can get it.

[nigel_bytes]

A4E, all for emma.

[Mr GrimNasty]

maix27 said:

Another great example of Citizen Dave's judge of character. £8m to find people who still get benefits jobs for free to the employer.

I think you'll find her grasping tentacles date back a lot further than Dave, yet another inherited problem.

[Mojooo]

Topbuzz said:

Thought it was a sound idea personally. After 365 days without finding a job but being paid to look I don't see the problem of easing people back into work. If they don't want to work in poundland they can stop claiming and work at Waitrose if they are suitable.

It was an OK idea in theory. It goes wrong if the company starts abusing you and working you much harder than they do paid employees and you are trapped for X amount of weeks because you will lose your benefits totally.

I bet the company in general were absolutley raping the Govt for money.

[anonymous-user]

i think she still owns it thou

[davepoth]

The reason she's gone is that apparently some of the people on the "work for free" scheme were at her offices. So the government was paying her company to place jobseekers, who were then placed in her office, for which she got more money. Hmm.

[carmonk]

I'm more interested why the OP has a dead cat.

[davepoth]

carmonk said:

I'm more interested why the OP has a dead cat.

He had a live one and it died?

[carmonk]

davepoth said:

carmonk said:

I'm more interested why the OP has a dead cat.

He had a live one and it died?

I'd have got rid of it but no worries, just wondered. I used to have a dead owl but that's probably OT.

[JagLover]

Eric Mc said:

Aparently she was able to pay herself an £8 million dividend last year from the company. Nice work if you can get it.

Personally I would judge it by how effective and costly the service provided by the private company was, in comparison to the public sector. Not by how much profit a private company can make from providing the service.

Given the massive inefficiencies in much of the public sector it is entirely possible to provide a better service at a lower price and still make a decent return for the shareholders.

I do not really understand the logic that regards service provision by a public sector organisation as being inherently more 'virtous'. Ignoring entirely that many have too many managers, on very generous pay and perks.

As for the specific circumstances in this case the company concerned detected the fraud and informed the police. She went because this would be used as a political football and might bring down the company, and resigning would reduce the heat.

Edited by JagLover on Saturday 25th February 20:55

[turbobloke]

JagLover said:

Eric Mc said:

Aparently she was able to pay herself an £8 million dividend last year from the company. Nice work if you can get it.

Personally I would judge it my how effective and costly the service provided by the private company was, in comparison to the public sector. Not how how much profit a private company can make from providing the service.

Given the massive inefficiencies in much of the public sector it is entirely possible to provide a better service at a lower price and still make a decent return for the shareholders.

I do not really understand the logic that regards service provision by a public sector organisation as being inherently more 'virtous'. Ignoring entirely that many have too many managers, on very generous pay and perks.

Nor do I, not least as individual 'high flying' public sector managers seem to become rabbits frozen in headlights when it comes to strategic thinking with a budget going beyond about 10 zeroes, and call in the private sector. That's if they have sense, sometimes the private sector is called in after it's gone titsup. Then, the people they call in can be selected in curious ways and further screwups follow.

[Odie]

so for that 8mill bonus she got, she could have employed 400 members of staff at 20k each a year....

This is craziness, seriously what does the government think its doing.

Im all for work experience, but slave labour is certainly not an option.

I have vast amounts of retail experience, if I was on the 'dole' would I be expected to work in a shop 'or else'...

[Eric Mc]

Odie said:

so for that 8mill bonus she got, she could have employed 400 members of staff at 20k each a year....

This is craziness, seriously what does the government think its doing.

Im all for work experience, but slave labour is certainly not an option.

I have vast amounts of retail experience, if I was on the 'dole' would I be expected to work in a shop 'or else'...

It wasn't a "Bonus".

She runs and owns her own limited company. She is therefore a shareholder of her own company. If a company makes profits (which is the intention of most businesses - as defined by HMRC), then the shareholders can be paid a dividend from those profits.

Obviously, the company had adequate profits to allow a dividend of that size to be paid to her (and presumably other shareholders too).

[frosted]

maix27 said:

Surprised there's nothing on this already

Really ?

[crankedup]

From my reading the Company have allegedly been signing off 'ghost' time sheets and submitting these for payment. The poor hard pressed tax payer just shells out the money, no questions asked, until now. It is said the practice was common during the Labour Government years. An audit investigation is the only way to clear the allegations one way or other. Meanwhile perhaps Emma, no longer Chairperson of A4e, will be concentrating on launching a new Company to replace A4E?