Shutdown: workers "gutted" as council decides to cut funding to factory (From Bournemouth Echo)

Losses averaging at £26,000 per disabled employee per year is clearly not sustainable.

I am sure it would cost the council much less per employee to incentivise/subsidis
e each worker in other private sector employment - in fact I guess they could pay their entire wages and still save money compared with bearing the current losses.

Just shows that the government would rather pay for people to be out of work than in it- then it can also stir up prejudice against them for being "scroungers" and "workshy" - whilst letting the big multinationals avoid millions in tax and bailing out the banks with OUR money- the rich are too big to fail and the poor are too small to succeed.

uvox44 what you say is true, why doesnt this report say if any of the people who have gone through this went on to full time emplyment? How much will the Government now be paying for these people to go through a 'back to work' company?

If it's a factory, producing goods, how can it COST over £20K a year per employee to run it? Surely it should be at the very least breaking even?

uvox44 wrote:
Just shows that the government would rather pay for people to be out of work than in it- then it can also stir up prejudice against them for being "scroungers" and "workshy" - whilst letting the big multinationals avoid millions in tax and bailing out the banks with OUR money- the rich are too big to fail and the poor are too small to succeed.

Spot on. I can't resist scrolling down to see the usual echo reader ill informed spite. Always makes me laugh, but your comment was refreshing among the usual stuff. Real shame a few more decent people are being added to the scrap heap by an incompetent overpaid manager.

This looks like a classic case of a factory in a forgotten corner being allowed to drift into a hole.
The factory manager now wants to talk about what can be done. If he had pushed what should have been done three years ago maybe this would not be at the stage that it is.
The charge hand knows what needed to be done but has not been listened to.
It seems that the comfort zone took over.
One enterprising "go getter" could turn this around.
People need leadership, not negativety.

It is a very regretable loss,which should not happen,but unfortunately the situation is being used by a labour councillor for political sniping.Speedies comment should be answered.

All those calling for an Ice Rink being built by the Council should think again as these people haven't got a job now, how can we afford a Rink????

elite50 wrote:
This looks like a classic case of a factory in a forgotten corner being allowed to drift into a hole.
The factory manager now wants to talk about what can be done. If he had pushed what should have been done three years ago maybe this would not be at the stage that it is.
The charge hand knows what needed to be done but has not been listened to.
It seems that the comfort zone took over.
One enterprising "go getter" could turn this around.
People need leadership, not negativety.

As always lets target the weakest to balance the works. Lets not worry about the human aspects of feeling worthwhile and contributing despite a disability....having a reason to get up in the morning having been rejected by mainstream employers. Just throw people on the scape heap probably to never work again. Become despressed, more ill and a greater burden on the state. Weve still got a totally unnecessary and expensive Chief Executive and a Mayor though havent we? And I have heard of any trimming down of the senior staffing levels in Bournemouth Borough Council Social services department (unlike Poole). The way Bournemouth Borough Council treats the disabled of the town as an unecessary expence and draw on towns resources. £26k per worker per annum? Peanuts compared to millions scandered on failed vanity projects. And what do you think the cost will be on income support etc? No Chief Executive would cover cost of five of those peoples lives and the Mayor how many more? Business as usual for the snouts in the trough Tory brigade...recession, depression for the rest of us. Does the seat in the Mayors car get warm automatically for him before he gets in?? Just wondered..

Just what is going wrong with our beloved country...we shut Remploy ( who made some excellent and innovative products ) and now this......cannot understand how a small company with only a handful of employees can be making such a massive loss.Either gross incompetence ( which is doubtful) or the bean counters decided it must go and then produced figures to prove it.

P.S. Does Conor Burns have anything to say about what happens to the weak of this town who he is supposed to represent?? The vulnerable ? Is he not the MP for Bournemouth? What was he elected for? Just to swan up and down to London to pursue is own interests? Anything to say about this rotton Tory council and its rotton selfserving decisions?? Hello anybody there???

step up wrote:

elite50 wrote:
This looks like a classic case of a factory in a forgotten corner being allowed to drift into a hole.
The factory manager now wants to talk about what can be done. If he had pushed what should have been done three years ago maybe this would not be at the stage that it is.
The charge hand knows what needed to be done but has not been listened to.
It seems that the comfort zone took over.
One enterprising "go getter" could turn this around.
People need leadership, not negativety.

As always lets target the weakest to balance the works. Lets not worry about the human aspects of feeling worthwhile and contributing despite a disability....having a reason to get up in the morning having been rejected by mainstream employers. Just throw people on the scape heap probably to never work again. Become despressed, more ill and a greater burden on the state. Weve still got a totally unnecessary and expensive Chief Executive and a Mayor though havent we? And I have heard of any trimming down of the senior staffing levels in Bournemouth Borough Council Social services department (unlike Poole). The way Bournemouth Borough Council treats the disabled of the town as an unecessary expence and draw on towns resources. £26k per worker per annum? Peanuts compared to millions scandered on failed vanity projects. And what do you think the cost will be on income support etc? No Chief Executive would cover cost of five of those peoples lives and the Mayor how many more? Business as usual for the snouts in the trough Tory brigade...recession, depression for the rest of us. Does the seat in the Mayors car get warm automatically for him before he gets in?? Just wondered..

My seat in my car warms up nicely thank you when you flick the switch, so its just not the Mayor's car, but I do agree with all other aspects of this POST.

Just like Remploy, Dorset Enterprises was set up to provide sheltered work opportunities for disabled people, they were never designed to be profit making ventures. To claim that the ongoing “losses” are the reason for closing Dorset Enterprises is, therefore, misleading and is simply a cost cutting exercise.
.
Bournemouth Council has demonstrated a callous attitude towards the provision of services to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. At the same time they squander £millions on vanity projects and are now even considering risking £millions more on speculative property development in a pathetic attempt to rescue Beesley’s failing Town Centre Vision regeneration project.
.
I think that before closing Dorset Enterprises the Council should investigate whether it could be operated using a similar model to the CRUMBS project and Cherry Tree Nursery. Both of these charities survive on a combination of generating revenue from their trading activities, fund raising and grants from the Council, National Lottery and various Trusts.

step up wrote:
P.S. Does Conor Burns have anything to say about what happens to the weak of this town who he is supposed to represent?? The vulnerable ? Is he not the MP for Bournemouth? What was he elected for? Just to swan up and down to London to pursue is own interests? Anything to say about this rotton Tory council and its rotton selfserving decisions?? Hello anybody there???

Whilst it is accepted that money has an influence on decision making, politics is much more about "people" (particularly vulnerable people) than "procedural correctness".

It would seem that certain book-keeping methods have distorted matters (affecting the vulnerable but keen employees at Dorset Enterprises) and such distortions should now be corrected urgently.

The answer to the question posed by Speedy231278 must be made available. The public should now know what overheads are expected to be carried by the affected workforce and the reason why such overheads cannot be reduced.

If losses were this great. I am sure the management and cost structure of the company must have been investigated and corrective measures introduced. If these failed, or did not happen, then the Council is the responsible party for allowing the situation to continue and measures should have been taken ages ago. Management and Council does not let a situation like this continue until the whole situation collapses.

I think everyone here is missing the point. I want to see disabled people active and in work wherever possible as much as the next person, but LOSSES of £26,000 each.........

I presume that each disabled person was earning much less than that £26k so the losses per head are actually higher than their wages.....so in crude terms, it would be cheaper to give them a hefty pay rise and pay them to stay at home than it would be to continue to run this "business".

I am not suggesting that of course, but I am sure the council could provide financial incentives to private sector firms to take these people on, and use our money more efficiently.

I don't think politics cones into this at all. If the losses were £50k, £100k or £500k per person do you think it would still make sense to keep the business running? Of course not.

Why does profit/loss have to be the common denominator in determining whether a project is viable or not.

Why didn't those who decided that this venture wasn't economically sound today, not make the same judgement after year 1 loss of 1/2 a million and year 2 loss of £1 million.

Once again the poorest amongst us suffering due to middle managements inept decision making.

Here we go again with the "let's pick a number" Council.

Brock and Roll,It is as you point out not a political manner,but a labour councillor wants to make it one.

steveatbournemouth wrote:
All those calling for an Ice Rink being built by the Council should think again as these people haven't got a job now, how can we afford a Rink????

What are you talking about? The council aren't going to build an ice rink. They were simply allocating land for potential development by a private firm. Sort it out.

Perhaps The relevant MP (C. Burns)? should institute an in-depth enquiry into this. Find out who was responsible. Publish a full report.
I am sure that there are enough qualified retired people in Bournemouth who would be able to offer voluntary service on this provided that the MP ensured that as an official enquiry full access would be given to those appointed to undertake the investigation. If nothing else, this may prevent similar occurences in the future and will not cost the Council any money.

steveatbournemouth wrote:
All those calling for an Ice Rink being built by the Council should think again as these people haven't got a job now, how can we afford a Rink????

So if we can't afford to keep open a LOSS MAKING factory we shouldn't build leisure facilities that create jobs and provide some thing for families to enjoy?

The two are completely separate and don't worry discussing in the same breath. The money used to fund this factory will not be spent on the ice rink (which will be run or at least built by a private developer probably) and funding for the ice rink planning will come out of a different budget to the factory anyway.

What a ridiculous post.

*don't warrant discussing* even.

Presumably there is little or no opportunity for councillors to have their snouts in the trough here. Now, had it been some grandiose night club scheme, or a development of houses or a cinema complex, there would be no question of council backing and gambling £millions of tax payers money. Dorset Enterprises need to shape up and start greasing a few palms, or at least organise some junket for the 'snouts in trough brigade'... You know - somewhere nice and warm for a few days of 'fact finding'... That sort of thing.

£471K... A mere drop in ocean in comparison to some of this council's more visible loss making ventures. At least this one is a worthwhile cause that allows the employees there to have some dignity in their endeavours.

This is the council yet again proving what a complete and utter shower they are.”

I'm sure there must be other ways to provide the affected workers with 'dignity' that doesn't involve running a loss making factory. How about working out why the factory is making a massive loss? How about finding work elsewhere for them? There must be a solution that would benefit both the employees and the council. This is, according to the article, a factory the has the capability of making deckchairs amongst other things. By a stretch of coast littered with seaside resorts with beaches. How can they manage to run it at such a loss?

Also, so what if it's 'only' £471K a year lost. It's still £471K. If it were a private company, the receivers would have been in years ago. I wonder how much of this 'loss' is simply snouts in troughs, and now they've been rumbled by a higher authority?

As I said after the election results. Anyone who is young, elderly, sick, disabled is in for a rough ride, unless they are one of the rich minority that Cameron will look after.

I am not keen on the political point scoring here, although this should not have happened.

The expenses and losses claimed for this small enterprise do not stack up, I sense a Town Hall fat-cat or two has been at the trough.

Remind us again though please, what have the Council spent in recent years on failed projects, vanity projects and keeping their Officers in the unaccountable and grand style to which they have become accustomed.

muscliffman wrote:
I am not keen on the political point scoring here, although this should not have happened.

The expenses and losses claimed for this small enterprise do not stack up, I sense a Town Hall fat-cat or two has been at the trough.

Remind us again though please, what have the Council spent in recent years on failed projects, vanity projects and keeping their Officers in the unaccountable and grand style to which they have become accustomed.

Including being overpaid.

I hope the echo will be asking to see full accounts and following up with a FOI request if they are withheld.

We (the council tax payers) should be holding the council to account.

There are so many issues this throws up. But surely the first thing is to put the people employed at Dorset Enterprises first.

Let it operate as an independent charity with a £250,000 cash grant for the next 3 years. I'm sure it could survive. and save the council £220,000 according to it's figures.

pete woodley wrote:

muscliffman wrote:
I am not keen on the political point scoring here, although this should not have happened.

The expenses and losses claimed for this small enterprise do not stack up, I sense a Town Hall fat-cat or two has been at the trough.

Remind us again though please, what have the Council spent in recent years on failed projects, vanity projects and keeping their Officers in the unaccountable and grand style to which they have become accustomed.

Including being overpaid.

Hence my call for a clear understanding of what 'overheads' the workers at Dorset Enterprises were (are !!) expected to carry.

Add 23 more scroungers to the list. At least now they can look forward to joining the work programme.

I've avoided reading previous comments, due to the (few) posters on here that are just here to gain a reaction and to generally annoy everyone.
Surely a business, whether there to employ able bodied or disabled people (what's the difference, we're all here to do a job) has to make a profit to survive. If its not making a profit, its down to the management, not employees, who no doubt give their all in a working day. A good manager could turn this business around in no time if they have a decent business plan.

step up wrote:

elite50 wrote:
This looks like a classic case of a factory in a forgotten corner being allowed to drift into a hole.
The factory manager now wants to talk about what can be done. If he had pushed what should have been done three years ago maybe this would not be at the stage that it is.
The charge hand knows what needed to be done but has not been listened to.
It seems that the comfort zone took over.
One enterprising "go getter" could turn this around.
People need leadership, not negativety.

As always lets target the weakest to balance the works. Lets not worry about the human aspects of feeling worthwhile and contributing despite a disability....having a reason to get up in the morning having been rejected by mainstream employers. Just throw people on the scape heap probably to never work again. Become despressed, more ill and a greater burden on the state. Weve still got a totally unnecessary and expensive Chief Executive and a Mayor though havent we? And I have heard of any trimming down of the senior staffing levels in Bournemouth Borough Council Social services department (unlike Poole). The way Bournemouth Borough Council treats the disabled of the town as an unecessary expence and draw on towns resources. £26k per worker per annum? Peanuts compared to millions scandered on failed vanity projects. And what do you think the cost will be on income support etc? No Chief Executive would cover cost of five of those peoples lives and the Mayor how many more? Business as usual for the snouts in the trough Tory brigade...recession, depression for the rest of us. Does the seat in the Mayors car get warm automatically for him before he gets in?? Just wondered..

As previously stated, people need leadership, NOT negativety!

Ayles 10 wrote:
I've avoided reading previous comments, due to the (few) posters on here that are just here to gain a reaction and to generally annoy everyone.
Surely a business, whether there to employ able bodied or disabled people (what's the difference, we're all here to do a job) has to make a profit to survive. If its not making a profit, its down to the management, not employees, who no doubt give their all in a working day. A good manager could turn this business around in no time if they have a decent business plan.

Quite possible. But take away this single responsible and accountable busniness Manager ideal (probably also taking their own risk) and replace them with Bournemouth Council and their Officers.

Point taken?

Ayles 10 wrote:
I've avoided reading previous comments, due to the (few) posters on here that are just here to gain a reaction and to generally annoy everyone.
Surely a business, whether there to employ able bodied or disabled people (what's the difference, we're all here to do a job) has to make a profit to survive. If its not making a profit, its down to the management, not employees, who no doubt give their all in a working day. A good manager could turn this business around in no time if they have a decent business plan.

Is it meant to make a profit ?.

Ayles 10 wrote:
I've avoided reading previous comments, due to the (few) posters on here that are just here to gain a reaction and to generally annoy everyone.
Surely a business, whether there to employ able bodied or disabled people (what's the difference, we're all here to do a job) has to make a profit to survive. If its not making a profit, its down to the management, not employees, who no doubt give their all in a working day. A good manager could turn this business around in no time if they have a decent business plan.

Is it meant to make a profit ?.

This situation has been grossly mismanaged by the council who are TOTALLY 100% responsible for this dismal outcome.
One of first choices made was to get rid of the only marketing person. However, all able bodied admin staff were retained. So get rid of the only revenue generator and retain all the overhead? Good sound commercial decision no1.
Dorset enterprises used to make toys, there was a problem with the quality of some of toys, paint came off, which understandably needed to be addressed and corrected - right - the solution - stop making the toys and thus reduce the product range. Good decision no2.
On several occasions agency staff were employed, they were more expensive. Adding to the overhead and they also took jobs away from the normal staff. Who were left on several occasions with not enough to do. Totally 100% in line with the raisin d'être of the organisation - not. Good Decision no3.
Dorset enterprises has several very expensive, high tech CAD/CAM machines which can machine wood to any number of shapes. They have the capability to make all sorts of stuff. Many suggestions have been made by the staff many times, to expand the range. All refused by the council. Just think of how many simple wooden shapes you can buy in the shops nowadays! Good Decision no 4.
These are just a few of the things that I am aware of which have contributed to this situation - no doubt there are many more of which I am unaware.
The council obviously knows precisely how to run a company into the ground. One could think that they had an agenda in place for a few years to shut the company and congratulations this has been 100% successful.
I know what the staff get paid, not much, certainly not 20k each, I also know that their salary is subsidised by the govt. which makes the £471k loss even more puzzling.
The company was not intended to make a profit that is not why it was created; however, it should not need to make such a huge loss each year. The sole reason that it does is because it has been completely misdirected and mismanaged by Bournemouth council which is totally tourism focused and which does not see any benefit nor understand any commercial activity outside of that sector.
Bournemouth council should be ashamed of themselves - what sort of an example do they set for the rest of society. They don't care what happens to these employees. They don't have to worry about that; they are ok inside the cosy index linked public sector -why would they care about those employees - the most vulnerable o/s in the private sector?

pete woodley wrote:

Ayles 10 wrote:
I've avoided reading previous comments, due to the (few) posters on here that are just here to gain a reaction and to generally annoy everyone.
Surely a business, whether there to employ able bodied or disabled people (what's the difference, we're all here to do a job) has to make a profit to survive. If its not making a profit, its down to the management, not employees, who no doubt give their all in a working day. A good manager could turn this business around in no time if they have a decent business plan.

Is it meant to make a profit ?.

Why not? Had they made a profit, the employees would not be losing their jobs and it would give them a huge boost. I know of a fantastic Company in Oxford who employ people with learning difficulties, they are doing incredibly well & have been for several years. There is a profit share scheme in place, so everyone benefits from their own hard work.

Redgolfer wrote:

step up wrote:

elite50 wrote:
This looks like a classic case of a factory in a forgotten corner being allowed to drift into a hole.
The factory manager now wants to talk about what can be done. If he had pushed what should have been done three years ago maybe this would not be at the stage that it is.
The charge hand knows what needed to be done but has not been listened to.
It seems that the comfort zone took over.
One enterprising "go getter" could turn this around.
People need leadership, not negativety.

As always lets target the weakest to balance the works. Lets not worry about the human aspects of feeling worthwhile and contributing despite a disability....having a reason to get up in the morning having been rejected by mainstream employers. Just throw people on the scape heap probably to never work again. Become despressed, more ill and a greater burden on the state. Weve still got a totally unnecessary and expensive Chief Executive and a Mayor though havent we? And I have heard of any trimming down of the senior staffing levels in Bournemouth Borough Council Social services department (unlike Poole). The way Bournemouth Borough Council treats the disabled of the town as an unecessary expence and draw on towns resources. £26k per worker per annum? Peanuts compared to millions scandered on failed vanity projects. And what do you think the cost will be on income support etc? No Chief Executive would cover cost of five of those peoples lives and the Mayor how many more? Business as usual for the snouts in the trough Tory brigade...recession, depression for the rest of us. Does the seat in the Mayors car get warm automatically for him before he gets in?? Just wondered..

My seat in my car warms up nicely thank you when you flick the switch, so its just not the Mayor's car, but I do agree with all other aspects of this POST.

Why does the mayor need a company car what's wrong with his own, at 24p per mile that would save a load of cash, I guess there is a driver as well, er why , what's wrong with a taxi???