Carillion. Close to going bust.

[Tashyboy]

Just read that the second largest construction company in the UK is very close to going bust. It has debts of £900 million with banks reluctant to lend them more. The contracts it holds and people it employs are unbelievable.
However once more there is a pension black hole of £600 million. Why is it continuously allowed to happen that Joe public and the employees will end up missing out.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

It's amazing how this shower continually get public funded contracts. I know of 2 sub contractors who have been sent under because of how ruthless they are. There's 100's more.

I heard yesterday that a number of trades have walked off the new Royal Liverpool Hospital job due to non payment to contractors for many months. This is already 6 months behind schedule and is at least another 6 months away from being finished.

A few years ago they changed there payment terms from 90 to 120days overnight. Horrible company to work for.

The biggest issue is theyre involved with so much government work that the government can't let them go under, so us the tax payer end up footing the bill.

They consistently ,over promise, under deliver, over estimate and under cut.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

120 days payment terms. That should be illegal, genuinely, not a throwaway comment. The knock on effect on other firms is immense. Awful. I wish the general workers well but the bosses who implement a policy like that can go swing.

Back to Tashy's point. I've no idea why firms are allowed to raid the pension pot. How can it end well? That should be untouchable.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

120 days payment terms. That should be illegal, genuinely, not a throwaway comment. The knock on effect on other firms is immense. Awful. I wish the general workers well but the bosses who implement a policy like that can go swing.

Back to Tashy's point. I've no idea why firms are allowed to raid the pension pot. How can it end well? That should be untouchable.

Point of order, just because there is a deficit in the pension fund , doesn’t mean that the company has been dibbing into it.
Barclays Bank, for instance,has a big deficit, down to their investments not growing as much as planned owing to very low interest rates for 10 years.

I do hope the normal workers are properly protected, the pensions protection people need to grow some backbone

 

[SteveJay]

Point of order, just because there is a deficit in the pension fund , doesn’t mean that the company has been dibbing into it.

Absolutely agree Phil. A lot of excellent firms have pension deficits due to low interest rates. The test is whether they are actively taking steps to address that. I don't think it would be easy, or even possible to "raid the pension pot".

 

[bluewolf]

I might be completely wrong, but I thought that companies used to be able to take out excesses in the pension fund but are not liable for replacing those funds when the pot then goes into deficit??

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I might be completely wrong, but I thought that companies used to be able to take out excesses in the pension fund but are not liable for replacing those funds when the pot then goes into deficit??

Local Authorities were encouraged to take payment 'holidays' by the 1980's Tory Government.

 

[DCB]

A Company that over extended because it wanted it fingers in too many pies. It seemed to forget where it's core business came from and tried to get a slice of the action wherever that action was. Next few days are going to be very interesting.

 

[NWJocko]

Local Authorities were encouraged to take payment 'holidays' by the 1980's Tory Government.

This is true but, for balance, private companies were encouraged to do the same under the New Labour gov't in the late 90's due to the growth of funds purely down to market performance. Post the early 2000's downturn the company I worked for at the time made it clear they hadn't paid in during the "good times" and we then had to up our contributions to fill the gap.

 

[bluewolf]

This is true but, for balance, private companies were encouraged to do the same under the New Labour gov't in the late 90's due to the growth of funds purely down to market performance. Post the early 2000's downturn the company I worked for at the time made it clear they hadn't paid in during the "good times" and we then had to up our contributions to fill the gap.

I worked for a company who's owner took out £60m when the fund was in surplus. Shortly after this the market Downturned resulting in a sizeable deficit. It's still in deficit now and is causing serious issues.

 

[NWJocko]

I worked for a company who's owner took out £60m when the fund was in surplus. Shortly after this the market Downturned resulting in a sizeable deficit. It's still in deficit now and is causing serious issues.

Yep, the good old New Labour economic forecasts of continuous growth have worked wonders there.......

I'm in the same boat, it's scandalous it was ever allowed to happen tbh.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Point of order, just because there is a deficit in the pension fund , doesn’t mean that the company has been dibbing into it.
Barclays Bank, for instance,has a big deficit, down to their investments not growing as much as planned owing to very low interest rates for 10 years.

I do hope the normal workers are properly protected, the pensions protection people need to grow some backbone

IMO companies shouldn’t be allowed to pay dividends if there’s a deficit in their pension fund.

 

[Jacko_G]

IMO companies shouldn’t be allowed to pay dividends if there’s a deficit in their pension fund.

I like that!

 

[Tashyboy]

Point of order, just because there is a deficit in the pension fund , doesn’t mean that the company has been dibbing into it.
Barclays Bank, for instance,has a big deficit, down to their investments not growing as much as planned owing to very low interest rates for 10 years.

I do hope the normal workers are properly protected, the pensions protection people need to grow some backbone

Trouble is phil is that you don't have to dib into it, a lot of companies don't pay into it full stop. My company went bust so said pension went into the PPF fund. The government let the same company start up again three days later under a differant name, knowing full well that it to would go into liquidation two years later not having paid a penny into my pension pot, yet I had to. Guess what. The bloody directors had there pensions paid.
Tata steel, they went tits up. The government changed the rules by allowing the employees to have there pensions go into the PPF fund whilst the company was still running to allow the company to carry on. It is worth Billions 😳 Worldwide.
Grips my poo when I hear the government preaching that you should have pensions yet it cannot regulate the industry, yet at the same time has its hands in my miners pension pot every week

 

[Tashyboy]

IMO companies shouldn’t be allowed to pay dividends if there’s a deficit in their pension fund.

This,👍 when the mining industry went bust it owed £600 million plus. When I collared Cheif exec John Lloyd in a meet the lads open meeting in the canteen. I pointed out our pension black hole was £120 million. The company was worth £900 million. He said we are looking at it. Five years later the company went bust. Yet during that time they paid dividends.

 

[fundy]

IMO companies shouldn’t be allowed to pay dividends if there’s a deficit in their pension fund.

could well end up causing more damage to a lot of firms if you make it less attractive to external shareholders, could even put a lot out of business pretty much overnight if you saw an exodus of external shareholders

edit: the right approach would be having to pay a certain percentage of pre divi profits into any pension fund in deficit before paying divis i think

 

[Tashyboy]

could well end up causing more damage to a lot of firms if you make it less attractive to external shareholders, could even put a lot out of business pretty much overnight if you saw an exodus of external shareholders

edit: the right approach would be having to pay a certain percentage of pre divi profits into any pension fund in deficit before paying divis i think

well I for one am sure that paying something rather than nothingis a better idea.

 

[FairwayDodger]

could well end up causing more damage to a lot of firms if you make it less attractive to external shareholders, could even put a lot out of business pretty much overnight if you saw an exodus of external shareholders

edit: the right approach would be having to pay a certain percentage of pre divi profits into any pension fund in deficit before paying divis i think

That would be the risk. Would need phased in, perhaps, but would then be a real incentive to keep the pension scheme healthy.

 

[Andy]

After being told by them that it was safe to crush asbestos, I seriously wondered about them. Supposedly they even had a letter from the Head which we were never shown lol

They honestly couldn't run a bath.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

could well end up causing more damage to a lot of firms if you make it less attractive to external shareholders, could even put a lot out of business pretty much overnight if you saw an exodus of external shareholders

edit: the right approach would be having to pay a certain percentage of pre divi profits into any pension fund in deficit before paying divis i think

That’s the issue, it’s not just the 50k employees, it’s the hundreds of subbies and their employees they’ve already got screwed down to the last ha’penny on 120 days payment terms that will suffer the most.

Yet all of the shareholders and execs have had their feed from the trough already.

Another epic swindle.