I made a post last week about a firm going into administration for a second time just over a year after doing a pre-pack deal.
I was hoping to understand two things.
The first is why this can possibly be a good thing to do and secondly why it is allowed.
As stated, there have been a number of firms within my area in the haulage industry who have entered into a pre-pack deal in recent years and in almost all cases, it has ended in failure for a second time.
Yes, one can argue that those drivers had another year or so of employment but there is the counter argument that jobs were far easier to find then than now, when far more firms have ceased trading.
But let’s leave the drivers argument aside and look at the other losers.
What about the suppliers to these firms who are left owing money, some for a second time. Most are working on a very small margin and has the potential to cause financial difficulties and job losses within their field too. At the very least the loss has to be recovered from somewhere and in my experience that is usually the end user. So in fact we end up paying the bad debts of the firms that do this not once but twice.
In many cases it is pre-planned with staff and contracts being surreptitiously moved to another firm when it actually happens. Monies owed for goods supplied, work done and consumables used, benefit the new firm but the cost of them remain with the old one an underpaid.
If an individual was to do this it would be wrong but seems to be agreeable and honourable in business, providing the person responsible for the financial disasters left behind at the old firm, is given a position with the new one.
In the event that the pre-pack deal turns out to be a success, is the previous money owed ever paid back in full?
Why would an owner of a business see it get into financial difficulties, but think he could start again from scratch and make it a success?
Is it a case of learning from your mistakes, or is it a case of going flamboyantly and irresponsibly through life leaving a wake of other businesses in financial ruin, to pay for your own mismanagement?
To me it seems more like the latter.
Pat
|
Try using the forum search facility.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=3141&m=62967&v=e
>>If an individual was to do this it would be wrong
Very, very, funny...
|
Still a lot of questions unanswered mappy, and you're the man with the answers to this one.
Pat
|
Please don't call me mappy. "Mapmaker" will do very well, thank you.
Answers to follow.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 15 Feb 11 at 15:23
|
I do apologise Mapmaker, for being so familiar!
Pat
|
>> The first is why this can possibly be a good thing to do
Because it keeps the business going, keeps the poor downtrodden working classes in their jobs.
>>and secondly why it is allowed.
Because entrepreneurs are considered to be beneficial to society, and should be allowed another chance.
>> Yes, one can argue that those drivers had another year or so of employment but
>> there is the counter argument that jobs were far easier to find then than now,
>> when far more firms have ceased trading.
The counter argument holds no water, as it is only made with the benefit of hindsight.
>> What about the suppliers to these firms who are left owing money, some for a
>> second time.
See link above.
>> In many cases it is pre-planned with staff and contracts being surreptitiously moved to another
>> firm when it actually happens. Monies owed for goods supplied, work done and consumables used,
>> benefit the new firm but the cost of them remain with the old one an
>> underpaid.
Not correct at all. Newco pays Old fair market value for goodwill and stock and work in progress. Therefore the creditors get SOMETHING back. If Oldco were just wound up then the creditors wouldn't get that.
In ALL cases it is pre-planned, that's why it's called a pre-pack.
>> If an individual was to do this it would be wrong
LOL. The evidence suggests you don't think that, so stop writing it. You have not merely encouraged an individual (hardworking and downtrodden no doubt LOL) to do this, you have contributed financially towards this. You presumably do not, therefore, consider it to be wrong.
>> In the event that the pre-pack deal turns out to be a success, is the
>> previous money owed ever paid back in full?
No. N.B. The creditors have already had more back than they would have had back if the company had been allowed to go under.
>> Why would an owner of a business see it get into financial difficulties, but think
>> he could start again from scratch and make it a success?
It gives a company a chance to get out of its bad contracts. e.g. if a high street chain goes into a pre-pack with 100 stores, it will probably dump the leases on some of them and negotiate the rent down (for Newco compared to Oldco) on others of them. The new, slimline company is therefore better placed to be profitable in future.
>> Is it a case of learning from your mistakes, or is it a case of
>> going flamboyantly and irresponsibly through life leaving a wake of other businesses in financial ruin,
>> to pay for your own mismanagement?
The individual will have to put more of his own money into Newco, so he will be risking more of his own money than anybody else's.
It's not all roses going into a pre-pack, but there is more chance of roses than there is with closing the company.
|
I appreciate your answer, and will ignore the inevitable 'digs'.
I am however, once again utterly dissapointed that I can have no respect whatsoever for a person I would normally look up to.
I'll go and research it elsewhere to get a broader view of it.
Pat
|
I think you'll find a range of views on this Pat, even from the informed.
Here are two brief, opposing points of view -
www.director.co.uk/magazine/2009/8%20September/debate_63_01.html
I'm uncomfortable with pre-packs for a number of reasons.
The obvious one is that they are, as somebody has said, planned. In practice I think that means it's quite likely that the directors and their advisers have consciously decided to continue to trade while insolvent, knowingly running up some bills they will not be paying. The supposed justification for this is that it can realise more value overall for creditors than a fire sale, and that might sometimes be the case, but, if you extended credit to them a few days before, you might not feel too happy about it.
The second is where the assets and business are sold to Newco which has the same shareholders and/or directors as Oldco. There is a clear conflict of interest here for the owners/directors between preserving as much value as possible for creditors, and getting the best deal (i.e. lowest purchase price) for Newco. Connected to this is that the business should be properly marketed to potential new owners by the administrator - somebody might want to pay more for the business than Newco. Even if the administrators are conscientious in doing this (and my experience of receivers and administrators is that they can be more interested in billing work than doing it), the directors are in a very good position to hamper the process.
The third is the question of how or why Newco should be more viable than Oldco, on a trading basis. Will it get in to the same pickle as Oldco, for the same reasons? How concerned are the principals of Newco provided that they will be able to enrich themselves while it lasts? (If you don't know what I mean, recall Rover where the rescuers, the Phoenix Four, came out of it c. £42m better off when it inevitably went bust to the tune of £1bn. )
Mapmaker makes the point that entrepreneurs should be supported. Define entrepreneur -
in an earlier thread I mentioned the serial incarnations of a local building firm whose esrtwhile principal now lives in Jersey. Years ago, I handled some transactions for a smallish demolition company, run successfully for many years by a prudent, honourable and cheerful individual, a true entrepreneur who made money by doing a decent job and paying his way. The only thing that I can recall ever riling him was was losing business to competitors who essentially didn't really care whether they went bust or not (and several did, more than once). It never hurt the principals. As soon as it became clear that they had catastrophically underpriced a big job, they became very entrepreneurial indeed, with assets disappearing in all directions prior to receivership, and soon re-established themselves afterwards having walked away from the consequences of bad decisions at the expense of employees, customers, banks, PAYE, VAT, NI and other businesses large and small - as well as making it difficult for more prudent competitors to succeed.
A slightly philosophical point is whether 'entrepreneurs', successful or not, have really 'earned' the money they 'make'. The market economy is much better at generating wealth than distributing it. Arguably the world's most successful capitalist, Warren Buffett, plans to give 99% of his wealth away, rather than leaving it to his children. His view seems to be that it's the economy as a whole that generates wealth, and the capitalist merely manages to hang on to more of it - he couldn't do it in isolation, or in sub-Saharan Africa, and ultimately the wealth belongs to the wider world from which it came. Interesting point of view.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 15 Feb 11 at 21:36
|
|
Top post Manatee & a welcome antidote to the sniping that seems to have 'de riguer' here in the last few weeks.
|
Thank you so much Manatee for taking the time to explain both sides of the pre-pack deal to me. I do appreciate it.
Having read the link you kindly found I find myself coming out on the side of Mark Henstridge. He seems to confirm the fears I’ve had about it for sometime and answers my question about unpaid bills never getting paid.
I heard the news over the weekend of another two Haulage firms going into administration and possibly a third to follow. Whether they will use the pre-pack option isn’t clear yet, but at least I now understand more fully what that option involves.
My concerns are much the same as yours and I am told by employers of firms who enter pre-pack deals that they are instructed to fill up their tanks with diesel on their fuel cards, during the day before anyone is aware of the difficulties. I’ve been told similar by suppliers of other goods, and I know of cases where the smaller suppliers have faced very real hardship because of this.
To me this seems to be completely dishonest in a case where, for instance a fleet of Lorries are transferred in a pre-pack deal to Newco with full fuel tanks each holding an average of 500 litres.
Even more so when the directors of the Oldco are running the Newco and the Lorries the following day.
It really is hard for a normal worker like me to understand why this practice has a seal of approval, but it does seem that as in most things, there is always a loophole that can be exploited, at the expense of others.
I have always believed that with the help of a Haynes manual I could repair my car when I’ve had to, and have done many times. Likewise, I knew that if this was explained simply to me with an unbiased view of both sides I could understand this too.
However, I have read, and re-read your last paragraph a few times now but still don’t really understand it (sorry!)
Could you expand on that a little please?
Thanks again
Pat
|
>> However, I have read, and re-read your last paragraph a few times now but still
>> don’t really understand it (sorry!)
>>
>> Could you expand on that a little please?
>>
>> Thanks again
>>
>> Pat
Possibly because it was a bit off the point! I'll be back later - work, the curse of the drinking classes, is interfering with my life again...
|
ive references to pda helping out a "bankrupt" friend.
are these on the forum or should i mind my own business
|
Out of respect for my feelings nyx2k, I would appreciate it if you would.
Pat
|
no problem. pda
if i dont need to know to follow a thread then im not interested in helping to air ones laundry
|
Thanks, and I prefer Pat to pda:)
Pat
|
ok pat.
all i can say is if you believed you helped someone in need and you feel ok about it then you only have yourself to answer to.
regards Nick.
Last edited by: nyx2k on Tue 15 Feb 11 at 16:05
|
Pat.
You are (I am sure) well aware that I am not getting at you for how you wish to spend your money; I however am completely unable to reconcile your "bash the bosses" statement (reproduced below) where you say that it is wrong for an individual to go bankrupt with your actions in assisting an individual to do exactly the same.
>>If an individual was to do this it would be wrong but seems to be agreeable and
>>honourable in business, providing the person responsible for the financial disasters left
>>behind at the old firm, is given a position with the new one.
Please explain.
BTW, if you hear of firms going into administration then they will not be having pre-packs. The whole thing about "pre" is that it is something that is arranged before the company goes into administration, so that the business goes into Newco immediately Oldco goes into administration.
|
I think I've made my concerns clear here mapmaker
>>My concerns are much the same as yours and I am told by employers of firms who enter pre-pack deals that they are instructed to fill up their tanks with diesel on their fuel cards, during the day before anyone is aware of the difficulties. I’ve been told similar by suppliers of other goods, and I know of cases where the smaller suppliers have faced very real hardship because of this.
To me this seems to be completely dishonest in a case where, for instance a fleet of Lorries are transferred in a pre-pack deal to Newco with full fuel tanks each holding an average of 500 litres<<
If an individual were to do this type of thing it would be wrong. It is the PRE-PLANNED bit of it I have trouble in understanding.
Pat
|
What's the alternative Pat? The Alternative is usually immediate redundancy with no payments for all the workers AND all the previous bills fuel bills still not paid.
At least when oldco prepacks into newco, you as an employee have an opportunity to get out of newco with some planning.
|
Despite what you think I am not looking at this only from an employees angle.
It seems to encourage collusion and at the very least seems to be immoral to allow anyone to 'plan' to do this and then to be involved in the resurrection of a previously failed business venture, with almost always, the same staff and people running it.
Certainly in my local area confidence among the smaller suppliers is at an all time low because of this happening so often.
Pat
|
>>If an individual were to do this type of thing it would be wrong.
You have SUPPORTED an individual to do exactly this sort of thing. How can it be wrong for individuals and companies, but right for one particular individual? How does an individual, getting further and further into debt think he will ever be able to repay the borrowings for yet another 300" TV screen?????
What you describe with diesel etc. is patently dishonest, and is in fact probably illegal as it represents insolvent trading by the directors of the company. However it is but a small detail in the grand scheme of things.
You are getting wrapped up in - and annoyed by - the small detail (which as you describe is certainly immoral and probably unlawful) and are ignoring the enormous benefits to a company (and its employees) where the company is over-extended and needs e.g. to negotiate down the rent it is paying (that rent being in excess of current market value), to be able to get out of onerous leases for buildings it no longer needs.
>>It is the PRE-PLANNED bit of it I have trouble in understanding.
It HAS to be pre-planned otherwise it just doesn't work. Once a company is in administration it rapidly loses its employees, its contracts, its will to live. Whereas if it can rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes it can continue as a going concern benefiting everybody.
Extending my above example. A company has two shops rented at £1,000 per week and four staff. On account of the downturn it has two loss-making shops and the company goes bust and the landlords lose all their income. New businesses are not being set up currently, so the landlords would be in a very poor situation with no tenants.
The management know that if only they could close one shop and negotiate the rent down on the other to £700 per week (which would in fact be a fair market rent for 2011) then the company would be able to continue to employee three full-time staff (or four 75% staff).
The company is committed to its leases for the next ten years and has no way out by negotiation/break clause. So, which would you rather:
1. Both shops close, everybody loses their jobs and the landlord goes bankrupt too.
2. One shop closes, everybody continues to work part time and the landlord just about manages to continue breaking even.
By going into administration and immediately coming out as a leaner, cleaner company, i.e. through a pre-pack we reach situation two.
|
A further thought on the pre-planned bit.
A pre-pack does not mean that a company pre-plans to rip off its suppliers which I think is what you feel it means.
It just means that the company pre-plans to be resurrected, having first found itself in a complete mess.
And no it doesn't repay the creditors of the old business, that's limited liability for you. Anybody extending credit to a limited company knows that there is a limit to the amount of liability of the shareholders.
|
>>A pre-pack does not mean that a company pre-plans to rip off its suppliers which I think is what you feel it means<<
Surely by allowing the same management team to benefit from the profits of the new company, it actively encourages this?
I can see the benefit of the scenario of the two shops that you quote, however, where it falls down for me is that the original management of the shops entered into the leases voluntarily with a business plan.
Surely if this plan proved to be flawed in some way, as it did then that is a serious misjudgement on their part.
Why would anyone be allowed to say in effect 'Whoops, sorry, I got that wrong, but I'll have another go' and be supported in that action by banks and businesses?
Surely any confidence in the original management is lost by then.
Pat
|
>>Surely if this plan proved to be flawed in some way, as it did then that is a serious misjudgement on their part.
You may not have noticed that we are just going through a very deep recession. If everybody produced business plans on the prudent basis of being able to weather a deep recession like this then we'd still be living in caves.
I'm sure that would make you happier.
|
I've tried very hard mapmaker, to have a discussion with you about this and learn from you.
I've ignored the digs in every post, but still they go on
>>I'm sure that would make you happier<<
In view of this I'll leave you and Zero to nut it out between you and I'll hopefully get another view from Manatee later tonight.
I bid you good day.
Pat
|
Dig???
You are an over-sensitive flower, aren't you. I see no digs.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 16 Feb 11 at 14:24
|
>> Dig???
>>
>> You are an over-sensitive flower, aren't you. I see no digs.
Looked like a dig to me too.
|
Not sensitive at all mappy, it's just that better men than you have tried to lead me down a route I don't intend to go...and failed.
Pat
|
>> Not sensitive at all mappy, it's just that better men than you
If I'd referred to Pat as "better women than you" I've no doubt I'd be being given an eyebashing for making offensive personal comments.
But, it's OK for our pet lady mascot woman lorry driver Yeh! (not my words) to be directly offensive and personal, isn't it.
Mapmaker, please, Pat, not Mappy.
|
mappy, in this classless world of yours if Zero can call you mappy then so can I.:)
Pat
|
>> In view of this I'll leave you and Zero to nut it out between you
>> and I'll hopefully get another view from Manatee later tonight.
I thought I was being pretty detached and impersonal myself!
|
Certainly if they made a hash of it the first time round, the chances of getting exactly the same business model, sales, planning, directors, equipment and employees to make it work a second time round is a pretty long bet.
>> Surely any confidence in the original management is lost by then.
|
Mappy, what's your feelings about Chapter 11 bankruptcies? This seems to me to be a better solution.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code
|
|
Very good for the lawyers, certainly.
|
Leaving aside personalities, I don't see why supporting personal bankruptcy means you should also support pre-pack administration.
The two topics are distinct, a decision on each can be taken in isolation.
Bringing in personalities, enquiries were made into the bankrupt supported by Pat, myself and others on here.
One thing he did not do is run up thousands of pounds of credit the day before he declared himself insolvent.
Perhaps that was because he couldn't fit 5,000 litres of diesel into the tank of his car. :)
Equally, I have read of bankrupts on other forums who nearly merit John H's description of thieves.
For me, there are supportable and non-supportable bankrupts, and supportable and non-supportable pre-packs.
|
>> Leaving aside personalities, I don't see why supporting personal bankruptcy means you should also support
>> pre-pack administration.
>>
>> The two topics are distinct, a decision on each can be taken in isolation.
Indeed, and I agree. It is however pda who has stated that it is unacceptable for an individual.
"If an individual was to do this it would be wrong but seems to be agreeable and honourable in business."
Whereas, the reality is that the owner of a business that has gone under has lost a load of his own money. Compare this with an individual who has run up debt on credit cards who has "won" a load of consumer goods/holidays/meals out for which he will never have to pay.
I do wonder if I waste my time and effort posting here. If you read my post above, Iffy, the directors of a company that is trading wrongfully can be made personally liable for the debts of the company. Therefore if you put 5,000 gallons of diesel into your company's lorries the day before putting a company into administration then you PERSONALLY may be liable. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_while_insolvent_(UK)
|
Mapmaker,
In my best polite & respectful tone can I ask that you let the thing with Pat drop?
We all say things that can be portrayed as inconsistent with our actions or what we've said before and the longer this goes on the more it looks like a personal dig/crusade.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 16 Feb 11 at 16:00
|
>> Mapmaker,
>>
>> In my best polite & respectful tone can I ask that you let the thing
>> with Pat drop?
>>
I agree. It's all looking a bit childish.
|
|
I'd go along with that. It's becoming tiresome.
|
|
Two people on the internet having a discussion. Don't bother reading it; the world won't end!
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 16 Feb 11 at 16:31
|
... Therefore if you put 5,000 gallons of diesel into your company's lorries the day before putting a company into administration then you PERSONALLY may be liable...
I've known one or two people who ran small companies which went bust.
The rule always was you could lose your limited liability if you ran up debts knowing they would not be paid.
Pre-pack administration seems somehow to over-ride that, which is one of the reasons pre-pack is being questioned in this thread.
|
>>Pre-pack administration seems somehow to over-ride that
Really? Evidence, please as to how that works.
|
...Evidence, please as to how that works...
As there is no gap between Oldco and Newco, Oldco must be trading while insolvent, at least while the pre-pack is being arranged, if not longer.
Trading - as in the case of the lorry firm - will involve supplying goods and services, but also receiving goods and services, which will routinely be supplied on credit terms.
As far as we know, the lorry drivers were not issued with petty cash for fuel and told: "Don't use your fuel cards lads, the firm's going into pre-pack administration and we know the card account won't be paid."
They were told quite the reverse.
During the transfer, some taking of credit is inevitable.
For example, any company has to continue to use electric light, and to heat its premises.
It's a matter of how much taking of credit is acceptable.
Or as Manatee said at 21.33 yesterday: I think that means it's quite likely that the directors and their advisers have consciously decided to continue to trade while insolvent, knowingly running up some bills they will not be paying. The supposed justification for this is that it can realise more value overall for creditors than a fire sale, and that might sometimes be the case, but, if you extended credit to them a few days before, you might not feel too happy about it.
|
>>As there is no gap between Oldco and Newco, Oldco must be trading while insolvent, at
>>least while the pre-pack is being arranged, if not longer.
That's not a situation specific to pre-packs though. That applies to (pretty much) all companies placed into insolvent administration; it's a fine line between what consitutes an insolvent company and what doesn't. There's no fine line in filling up all the company's tanks the day before going bust. The rules are no different for pre-packs and anything else. To write:
>>Pre-pack administration seems somehow to over-ride that
is just wrong.
|
Until I've spoken with the other mods I am locking this thread. It is generating a lot of unnecessary petty squabbling and bad feeling. It's even spilling over into other threads, which is highly undesirable, and references other events inappropriately, IMO. If you really must bicker then please try to keep it in one place.
It should be remembered that people are quite entitled to different views and should not be shouted down, patronised or bullied just because their view may not align with your own.
Someone somewhere above said it's only an internet forum. That may be true but I'd personally like to see people respect one another and interact in the same way they would if the matter was being discussed over a pint.
Anyway, I expect we'll re-open this later. It's an interesting topic and my own views have been swinging back and forth, and it's one of those threads which one can actually learn something from.
This action and my words are not intended either to point a finger at or demonstrate support for any individual, neither is it censorship. Just I'm personally sick of seeing some of this stuff and want a breather.
|
Opened up again. Any what I call stirring, or having a pop at someone, may well be deleted. This may have collateral effect on subsequent posts. Please play together nicely and ave me the effort... :-)
Just a reminder to all, there is a thumbs up and down at the bottom of posts where you can express your feelings about the post. It may be helpful if people used it a bit more.
|
Thanks for opening it up Smokie, I learned a lot from this thread and although still undecided about it, I'm certainly better informed.
I'm also working today and this weekend so you should be OK:)
Pat
|
With my limited understanding this
www.accountancyage.com/aa/analysis/2025777/emis-pre-pack-start
seems to be a far better way forward.
Have I read that right or not?
Pat
|
|
EMI's going into a pre-pack is a better way forward than EMI's going into a pre-pack??? Don't get you.
|
I'm wondering if Pat thinks that as the bank who were owed money by EMI took them over in a pre-pack it's not so bad... well read on to see it's not exactly a good example of a fair and upstanding pre-pack.
About 4yrs ago EMI were heavily in debt with a poor trading future. They were sold for £4.2 billion to a guy who's not German but we'll call him Hans. Hans was part financed by the bank Citigroup (to the tune of £2.5 billion) who encouraged him to make the purchase with £1.7 billion of his own/company money as well. Hans soon realised he'd paid far too much for EMI and in 2009 he even took Citigroup to court saying they'd not been honest with him when they supported the purchase valuation of EMI. Hans lost the case but many think there was some truth in his claims, he still may appeal this court ruling.
EMI seems to have had a multilayered finance/parent company/manangement situation and Hans wasn't everyone's favourite, he'd no previous experience of the music industry and it was said that his leadership had helped to allow artists like the Rolling Stones slip away from EMI.
It appears part of the management may have started plotting with Citigroup in 2010 to squeeze Hans out... finally early in 2011 Hans was out-manoeuvred by his management and his personal funding for EMI was shown to be technically insolvent which gave Citigroup the chance to wade in and take EMI from Hans with this pre-pack arrangement where Citigroup became the new owner. Hans and his backers have lost all of their £1.7 billion initial investment.
Citigroup have no long term interest in EMI and apparently they're already seeking to re-structure it and find a buyer as a whole or in parts. Oddly one of the potential buyers is Hans who perhaps thinks he might recoup something of his losses by owning/trading it again.
I've only taken an interest in this from the point of view of a record user who'd seen the EMI label on his music from the earliest days. The above is a laymans account but give or take near enough for the point of this discusion.
So as usual in business nothing is quite as it seems with multi billion pound assets being traded like playground swaps.
|
I'm reluctant to resurrect this thread and certainly don't want to start WW3 again but after thinking about it all day yesterday, I feel I have to post this to explain how I feel administration can be dealt with. It also shows the reason for my outrage at the previous case.
tinyurl.com/5wwtn2h
This is a very well respected firm where jobs were only available by dead mens shoes. I have had personal experience of both the owner,the quality of the drivers and the integrity of the whole operation.
Note the date in the report of the doors closing...Monday 14th March
The drivers were paid for their last weeks work last Friday, as many suppliers as possible were paid too I presume, but a sensible decision was taken that it wasn't possible to carry on trading.
There was no shifting of contracts or vehicles, filling up with diesel to benefit another firm or feathering a nest for future employment of the management.
It was honest and honourable.
It is also incredibly sad that such a firm cannot continue to trade in these hard times.
|
>>or feathering a nest for future employment of the management.
I am sure the workers were very grateful that management decided to close the business rather than to put more money in and keep them in a job.
At least they now have the dole to look forward to.
|
|
And look forward they'll have to. Come across plenty of cases where it takes the DWP ages to actually sort payments out....people dependent of food parcels.
|
I predicted that would be your reaction MM, but there is a point where you don't throw good money after bad and admit it isn't working.
Mr Linch did that honourably.
PU, there are always lorry driving jobs about for good and loyal drivers, of which these all were, so they will be much sought after.
I don't think food parcels will be necessary.
Pat
|
|
It was just a general comment on redundancies and the gap between being paid and waiting for benefits.
|
I think you'll find, at least in my trade, a good worker won't need benefits.
I certainly never have.
You're reputation goes before you and loyalty to a an old established firm speaks volumes if any reference were needed.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Thu 17 Mar 11 at 17:58
|
>> You're reputation goes before you
I'd agree with that up to a point, but if insurance and accident history accompanied the driver then we'd see good times again, for there'd be the shortage of (insurable) proper driver's that's always been the case.
The new breed of transport admin have little or no idea what a good driver is.
|
|
And if you employ agency drivers, how do you know what the reputation is?
|
Most good firms avoid agency drivers like the plague, simply because they can't check.
Pat
|
It's been 12 months since i packed the car transporters in, i'm still an agency bod, though happy enough at that and resigned meself to this being the case for the rest of my working life, i make fair money and the work is a piece of cake, i'll probably go limited company soon.
There are no permanet jobs worth having unless you're happy at £7.50 an hour, that's not sour grapes i can provide an accident free record of some 35 years, and never had a day off unauthorised, or thrown a sicky in all those years, it makes not a jot of difference.
Modern logistics companies don't seem to care if you come back with a 14' trailer that started the day off at 16', no one seems to give a rats any more.
|
That's where you're going wrong GB, going for the big logistics companies.
Pat
|
pretty soon, thats all that will be left. Companies want to outsource the entire logistics chain, and thats where the big operators have the scope and infrastructure.
All that will be left for the rest is the cheap low value non time critical loads, pigs to market, or specilaist loads.
|
That is so far from real life Zero:)
Pat
|
So what were the resons for the failure of Derek Linch Haulage and Joseph Rice?
Why did DHL consolidate a lot of other distribution companies into one?
|
>> That's where you're going wrong GB, going for the big logistics companies.
Unfortunately Pat unless you want to become part of the truck and live in it then logistics is the only choice.
I have had offers, a car transporter operator (handful of trucks) has an opening for me any time i choose, which is nice of him to offer, but i no longer have the slightest interest in sleeping in a tin can, and now i'm out of the cars and back to health (incl the mind) i'll only go down that road if desperate.
I wasn't complaining about my situation, just that even the logistics operators are not recruiting, but using agencies on a semi perm basis.
Z is right, in the midlands nearly every own account operator have handed over to a logistics company, Weetabix being a prime example.
Up to a point some drivers have destroyed their own jobs by taking the P, both in sickies, 6 months at a time, and being somewhat leisurely in ther approach to work whilst milking it, plus attitude.
|
Pat
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8388819/Oddbins-creditors-to-get-21p-in-1.html
Here the creditors would get 13p in the £ if the company were would up, 21p if it is allowed to continue through a CVA - which is pretty similar to a pre-pack really. Restructuring debt/method of operation can often very much be in the creditors' interest.
|
That does surprise me mapmaker.
In what way does that differ from a pre-pack?
Pat
|
Pre-pack administration Part 2 - Mapmaker
