1000 consultants to be hired at Cap Gemini

A pretty useless lot to have had any dealings with in my experience!

The French MD even says a lot of existing consultants will leave because they won’t like the changes.

I hope these disgruntled staff take legal action!

I just don’t understand the culture in companies these days. They don’t seem to do enough training and development and just buy in experience because it’s cheaper. So much for all the bullshit about team building!

I don’t think they are being ageist, they are asking for people with a specific skillset and the people who provide those skills are going to be younger. If you are a wrinkly and have the skills why wouldn’t they employ you?

I just don’t understand the culture in companies these days. They don’t seem to do enough training and development and just buy in experience because it’s cheaper. So much for all the bullshit about team building!

Where is all the experience that they are buying coming from? It’s a business, it has a function to make money and not molly coddle the employees. It’s all bullshit.

(broad brush statement here)

In my experience, French companies tend to have rather poor ability to understand the legalistic intricacies of UK employment laws, possibly due to them being used to working in an environment governed by employer/union relationships, rather than employer/law relationships.

(wide generalisation over)

Where is all the experience that they are buying coming from? It’s a business, it has a function to make money and not molly coddle the employees. It’s all bullshit.

oh the children of thatcher…. its all about the money with them…

🙁

Companies have a social contract with the markets they enter into. On the understanding they are allowed to make money in a relatively unrestricted fashinn, it used to be understood that for that opportunity, you “buy into” the society by supplying jobs, paying taxes and generally benefitting the society you joined.

If all you want to do is sell, make cash, and keep it, you should be barred from entering the society.

In much the same way, companies shouldnt be allowed to lobby governments. They dont get a special “vote”, but the employees do. If governments take decisions that employees like, they will vote them in. Employees will tend to like things that benefit themselves, and ergo, their earning ability and progression, in a meritocitous way. (is that even a word?). Compaines are essentially an important but parasitic part of society. (I mean this in a non insulting way).

Like most management consultancies the thing Cap Gemini are best at is recycling old rope at great expense to taxpayers. The “develop a simple process for one successful organisation, sell it to twenty other insecure ones in unrelated sectors model” Currently it seems to be the UK public sector they’re feeding on. Most of them are kids anyway as far as I have seen, as the more experienced ones get out before their souls are destroyed and they become worthless husks.

Ah catharsis.

I just don’t understand the culture in companies these days. They don’t seem to do enough training and development and just buy in experience because it’s cheaper. So much for all the bullshit about team building!

I assume a lot of them are IT consultants. Anyone in IT knows they have a short shelf life when they start. I can’t imagine they’ll make a fuss.

oh the children of thatcher…. its all about the money with them…

If all you want to do is sell, make cash, and keep it, you should be barred from entering the society.

The days when businesses took great pride in being considered to be “model employers”, and went to great lengths to cultivate that corporate image, are long gone. Since those heady early years of Thatcher in fact.

Sure, some employers still associate some importance to that image, but it has nowhere near the sort of marketing clout it once had. We no longer live in that sort of society.

“Model employers” in terms of importance, went down the same road as “contract compliance” and “industrial democracy”…….all things which were once high on the agenda, and are considered to be a vital part of a social-democratic society.

my previous company used c(r)ap gemini as the IT outsourcing partner and they were crap, no other way of putting it. But i guess it made sense to someone at some point, then again the contract wasn’t renewed so make of that what you will.

oh the children of thatcher…. its all about the money with them…

WTF? 🙄

There was a time when employers went to great lengths for their employees, think Bournville. Can you imagine any modern employer doing something similar now? times change, a companies duty is to their shareholders and not to their employees.

It was these kinda companies that ‘persuaded’ the UK government that IR34 would be a good idea – by reducing the number of indie-contractors.

Equally do you think Bournville would have been so considerate if it would have made them loss making?
Not all businesses have shareholders.

There was a time when employers went to great lengths for their employees, think Bournville. Can you imagine any modern employer doing something similar now? times change, a companies duty is to their shareholders and not to their employees.

The hard truth is that the companies who dont invest in their workforce and have ways of managing innovation are the ones that will crash and burn first. Companies like M&S and, dare I say it, Tesco who consider staff contentment and associated benefit from increased motivation will always do well. There are of course shit companies that treat their staff like shit, that continue to be profitable, but they are fewer an farer between.

Balanced scorecard anyone?

Companies like M&S and, dare I say it, Tesco who consider staff contentment and associated benefit from increased motivation will always do well.

Exactly, and they are still in the business of making profit. M&S didn’t give two hoots to the loss making element of the European expansion when they simply closed it and made all those poor people redundant. It’s more a question that the employees are viewed as a way of extracting more money from the market. If you think that the company is concerned about the employees well being, you are being very naïve.

Company directors have a duty to their shareholders to make as much profit as possible. If ‘being nice’ to staff helps this then that’s fine, but it’s not what companies exist for.

If ‘being nice’ to staff helps this then that’s fine, but it’s not what companies exist for.

Very true, but you’d have to be naive to assume that being nice to your staff wasn’t a good thing for the success of the company.

Very true, but you’d have to be naive to assume that being nice to your staff wasn’t a good thing for the success of the company.

I don’t think I’ve ever worked for a company where the employees have been happy with what they got from the company. They receive a salary that allows them to do certain things, in return for the work they do. The company will give you just enough to function.

IR34

I take it you meant IR35.

companies who dont invest in their workforce and have ways of managing innovation

Yep, industrial democracy for example, can improve productivity and reduce industrial disputes. However, employers in the UK today, more than any other Western country, have employment law stacked in their favour. So they tend to rely heavily on sackings and having strikes declared illegal by the courts to maintain productivity.

Contract compliance, has little direct economic benefit for employers/businesses, other than the fact some employees and clients are more likely to be attracted to businesses with sound ethical policies. Whilst this might have carried some significant weight 30 years ago, specially in the public sector, today “cheapest” is the most overriding consideration and there is little concern for the effects it might have on the wider society – including the often negative economic consequences of “cheapest”.

Whilst this might have carried some significant weight 30 years ago, specially in the public sector, today “cheapest” is the most overriding consideration and there is little concern for the effects it might have on the wider society – including the often negative economic consequences of “cheapest”.

And this is reflected in the number of “where can I buy this for less?” threads that appear here.
So we, as consumers, are responsible and not the businesses. 😀

I don’t think I’ve ever worked for a company where the employees have been happy with what they got from the company. They receive a salary that allows them to do certain things, in return for the work they do. The company will give you just enough to function.

Really? I feel sorry for you. Work should be much more than about pay.

Work should be much more than about pay.

You don’t listen/hear to people complaining?

this is reflected in the number of “where can I buy this for less?” threads that appear here.
So we, as consumers, are responsible and not the businesses.

Yes I recognise the attitude don simon, and I guess that’s why Jujuuk68 referred to you as a child of thatcher.

But firstly the point remains that for example, a government department buying foreign made vehicles in preference to British manufactured ones, whilst it might well represent better “value for money” short term, the long term consequence not keeping British workers employed might be a negative economic impact on the wider society. The same goes for the environment, employment opportunities (sex, age, etc), local sourced materials, etc, etc.

And secondly, whilst for example, “buy Britsh” consumer focused campaigns might not be as popular as they were 40 years ago, there are still some consumers who buy “ethically”. Although maybe not you.

You don’t listen/hear to people complaining?

Not in the places I’ve worked for the past 15 years. Although my current boss is a complete twunt.

The chances are that if they are complaining about pay, then there are other significant issues which need resolving.

Very true, but you’d have to be naive to assume that being nice to your staff wasn’t a good thing for the success of the company.

Certainly true in my business. But where you have an unskilled labour force and no problem recruiting (for example) I’d assume ‘being nice’ would be a waste of money and make you uncompetitive.

And secondly, whilst for example, “buy Britsh” consumer focused campaigns might not be as popular as they were 40 years ago, there are still some consumers who buy “ethically”. Although maybe not you.

I generally assume anything british will be overpriced crap so actively avoid it. The only times I’ve knowingly bought british I’ve been proved right.

But where you have an unskilled labour force and no problem recruiting (for example) I’d assume ‘being nice’ would be a waste of money and make you uncompetitive

Dunno, being nice works at all sorts of levels. You’d have to compare the cost of being nice with the improved productivity and reduced recruitment costs.

Well there you are 5thElefant, obviously you buy “ethically”.

All it needs now is for companies to proudly advertise that none of their products are British, and they will reap huge rewards from customers like you.

Dunno, being nice works at all sorts of levels. You’d have to compare the cost of being nice with the improved productivity and reduced recruitment costs.

And that’s the rub. There is a cost benefit relationship.

But firstly the point remains that for example, a government department buying foreign made vehicles in preference to British manufactured ones, whilst it might well represent better “value for money” short term, the long term consequence not keeping British workers employed might be a negative economic impact on the wider society. The same goes for the environment, employment opportunities (sex, age, etc), local sourced materials, etc, etc.

Yet the economy is now global and the Nissan you bought might just be keping a British worker in a job. And the British label might just be giving work to a foreign economy. Best to forget the national identity here.

And that’s the rub. There is a cost benefit relationship.

I prefer to think of it as win – win, but I’m one of those happy go lucky, glass half full kinda guys 😀

Me too, but I’m also a realist. It’s quite interesting when you get the inside view of a large and incredibly successful supermarket chain and discover that they don’t, in the big picture, give a hoot about the customer. Give the punter something to keep them happy, but it’s not your priority. 😈
As for me being a child of Thatcher, that’s about the funniest thing I’ve ever seen.

Best to forget the national identity here.

Spoken like a true thatcherite 😀

Of course you have completely missed the point. The example I gave was simply to show, as an example, the possible long-term economic consequences of short-term economic advantage. The point of “contract compliance” is that it takes all sorts of considerations into account – not just the narrow immediate “cost” consideration. Some of which might be economic, and some might be environmental, social, etc. It is precisely the sort of considerations which you would expect a more responsible business to take into account.

And btw : “the economy is now global” you make it sound as if it’s all fair, equal, and on a level playing field – it isn’t. Capitalism might well like unfettered access to all markets so that profits can be maximised, but unfettered capitalism does not tend to work in the interests of the wider society. Don’t be fooled into the false neo-liberal claim that there is no other alternatives.

“The economy is now global” indeed……..if Thatcher could hear you she would say “you have learnt well my child”.

Of course you have completely missed the point. The example I gave was simply to show, as an example, the possible long-term economic consequences of short-term economic advantage. The point of “contract compliance” is that it takes all sorts of considerations into account – not just the narrow immediate “cost” consideration. Some of which might be economic, and some might be environmental, social, etc. It is precisely the sort of considerations which you would expect a more responsible business to take into account.

I generally agree but I haven’t got a f*****g clue to what the **** “contract compliance” is except for more management bollox.
Bless you with your Thatchete insults, more of the Ernie_Lynch humour I guess, or are you really that ignorant?

And btw : “the economy is now global” you make it sound as if it’s all fair, equal, and on a level playing field – it isn’t. Capitalism might well like unfettered access to all markets so that profits can be maximised, but unfettered capitalism does not tend to work in the interests of the wider society. Don’t be fooled into the false neo-liberal claim that there is no other alternatives.

Where did I say that it was fair? And where did I say that I support capitalism?

Gosh don simon, you sound rattled……calm down mate 🙂

Contract compliance is requirements in a contract which stipulate certain undertakings, eg, that materials should come from a sustainable source, that 10% of employees live locally, that companies involved should have no business dealings Col Gaddafi’s Libya, that sort of stuff. Government funded agencies/authorities tend to require contract compliance far more. The fact that you are unaware of contract compliance and its ethical consequences is probably a sign of the times, and how everything now is simply only seen from a purely profit perspective.

And where did I say that I support capitalism?

And where did I say that you supported capitalism ? I simply suggested that you shouldn’t be fooled by the neo-liberal claim that there is no other alternatives. There is, and there always has been.

Gosh don simon, you sound rattled……calm down mate

The day I get rattled on the forum is the day I leave. 😉

The fact that you are unaware of contract compliance and its ethical consequences is probably a sign of the times, and how everything is now simply only seen from a profit perspective.

Which is probably true as it’s more than ten years since I did business in the UK and also probably why UK companies are losing so much business. Santander? Various UK airports bought out by Spanish companies etc.

And where did I say that you supported capitalism ?

Here, you appear to want to tell me what I mean without knowing the whole story.

And btw : “the economy is now global” you make it sound as if it’s all fair, equal, and on a level playing field – it isn’t. Capitalism might well like unfettered access to all markets so that profits can be maximised, but unfettered capitalism does not tend to work in the interests of the wider society. Don’t be fooled into the false neo-liberal claim that there is no other alternatives.

And of course here.

Spoken like a true thatcherite

Which is probably true as it’s more than ten years since I did business in the UK and also probably why UK companies are losing so much business.

What’s that suppose to mean ? What is, “probably why UK companies are losing so much business” ? The fact that contract compliance no longer has the sort of commitment it once had ?

Here, you appear to want to tell me what I mean without knowing the whole story.

Well tell me the whole story then……..I’m all ears.

And btw, I wasn’t aware that the Spanish economy was doing so much better than the UK economy – it’s certainly not what my newspapers and sister in Madrid are telling me. Or have I got that wrong again and it’s not what you said ?

It means that by being ethical in business means you lose, simple. Business is not ethical, it’s about making money, if you can make profit and look after your staff then perfect, if not, tough shit.

.I’m all ears.

Why? So you can put your own slant on it?
Bill Gates, capitalist or socialist?

Or have I got that wrong again and it’s not what you said ?

Yes.

It means that by being ethical in business means you lose, simple. Business is not ethical, it’s about making money

So why are British businesses losing out to Spanish ones, now that they are less ethical than before……..is it because Spanish businesses are even less ethical ? Again, its not what I hear from my sister.

Why? So you can put your own slant on it?

Not at all. Quite frankly most of the time, I haven’t a clue what you’re on about, so I couldn’t put a slant on it even if I wanted to.

You still sound rattled btw

.is it because Spanish businesses even less ethical ?

I really wouldn’t know.

Not at all, quite frankly most of the time I haven’t a clue what you’re on about, so I couldn’t put a slant on it even if I wanted to.

Why do you bother replying then?

You still sound rattled btw

Aaw bless, but thanks for caring.

Why do you bother replying then?

Because I’m trying to find out ?

thanks for caring

Well I have to confess, I don’t really care. I just thought I would point out that you still sound rattled. It’s fine by me though.

So no answer to the fact that Spanish companies have bought out UK companies and are still buying foreign companies with cash buyouts, your sister needs to do her homework. Spanish companies are not ethical in the slightest, but of course a quick Google would tell you that.
And I’m still waiting for an answer to the Bill Gate question.