Jersey Water say 20 jobs are at risk
JERSEY Water has warned that 20 jobs are at risk as it seeks to keep prices down and give shareholders a better return.
In a short statement released yesterday the utility company, of which the States is the largest shareholder, said that staff had been advised of impending changes.
However, union boss Nick Corbel, of Unite, said that Jersey Water staff had been told yesterday that 20 of them would be made redundant at the end of this month.’
In its statement, Jersey Water said that the changes, if implemented, would result in improved operational efficiency for the company.
Article posted on 5th November, 2009 - 2.57pm
26 Article Comments
Are the States really fussed about shareholder value? No. Clearly therefore an unsustainable excuse for these redundancies. And I don’t suppose for one minute that any superfluous middle managers or executives will be shown the door.
Report abuse
I am sorry for the workers involved but applaud Jersey Water for out-sourcing the work to a private contractor so becoming more efficient. I just wish the States would have the same balls to do the same.
(Hopefully many of the workers being made redundant will gain employment with the private company that is to undertake the work they were doing)
Report abuse
spare a thought this xmas for those poor shareholders!!!!
Report abuse
This story leaves a nasty taste – rather like untreated sewage.
Report abuse
Fox moulder wrote ’spare a thought this xmas for those poor shareholders!!!!’
Those shareholders are actually the people of Jersey. Or perhaps we should continue to get stiffed by insisting we only have our assets invested in companies who refuse to make efficiency savings ? Would that keep you happy perhaps ?
Report abuse
spare a thought this xmas for those poor shareholders!!!!
Actually you are one of those shareholders. But perhaps we should only let the State invest in companies who refuse to make efficiency savings so the value of your investment, and the value of the dividend paid into the State’s coffers, gradually declines
Report abuse
think 20 more people(family income) losing jobs this year while other are moaning about a bank holiday and being hard done by puts it in perspective.
Report abuse
As per others comments the JNWW Co is not totally owned by the states so as they own around 75% of the shares that means up to 25% of the company is in private ownership. Are any of you saying that none of this 25% will be getting increased dividends if the profits go up?
As far as I am concerned it is appalling what has happened here, this is another 20 people out of work in very uncertain times, at this rate how are unemployment benefits going to be sufficient to meet all this extra demand? If they do get other jobs they will probably be poorly paid which will mean less tax (if any) from another section of the working classes.
Luckily the states can just up GST to cover issues like this. I myself as a tax payer would prefer as many people as possible in employment to keep the tax revenues up. Others seem to prefer lower tax revenues and higher personal taxation to make up for the reduction in tax revenues.
Unfortunately as people tend to only be interested in themselves these days they will not say anything until they are in the same position, then it will be too late as there will be no one interested in their plight.
Report abuse
#8 Adrian
Since Jersey Water is a utility company, its profits are taxed at 20 per cent. This includes additional profits generated by the layoffs. Also, the subcontractor’s employees will be taxed on their salaries.
Given the above, the effect on the tax take is likely to be negligible.
Report abuse
Adrian
Following your logic through to conclusion, you think everyone in Jersey should be employed despite there being no work for them. How is that sustainable for private business? Why would you leave people in post if their jobs were no longer needed? You must be the only person in Jersey happy to pay higher utility bills for inefficient utility companies. As for unemployment costs, whether you pay higher social to pay for higher unemployment or higher water rates to keep people twiddling their thumbs all day with nothing to do makes no difference.
“if they do get other jobs they will probably be poorly paid” I think the important word there is “probably”. They could end up in work that pays more, has better benefits or more flexibility.
“unfortunately as people tend to only be interested in themselves these days they will not say anything until they are in the same position”
Not sure what you mean there, when the “people” you refer to is yourself as a majority share holder. While this is unfortunate for those involved, the JNWW has financially compensated these people and has vowed to ensure they seek new employment. Personally I think that’s “people” showing interest in others.
Report abuse
JAMES Those shareholders are actually the people of Jersey. Or perhaps we should continue to get stiffed by insisting we only have our assets invested in companies who refuse to make efficiency savings ? Would that keep you happy perhaps ?
actually james JW is a private company with the states having shares in it, and the shareholders do get returns!!!
Report abuse
any redundancies are alway bad news but why announce them just before Christmas ?
Report abuse
My pal has worked for them for over eighteen years and he is one of the twenty told they ARE being made redundant next month!!
Perhaps those at the top should take a pay freeze! Then they could afford to pay their shareholders their cash, instead of paying the the sub-contracter, who will only milk the system one way or another!!
Report abuse
What about Jersey Telcom, States a major shareholder making redundancies,
Jersey Steel again possibly making redundancies, a bit of a pattern going on…
Report abuse
The main shareholders are the States with their inability to kerb spending ,and this is being spun as for the benefit of the shareholders…? and who may we ask will be the shareholders of the private company who will get to do these guys jobs……come on Mr Corbel…defend your men.
Report abuse
Redundancy fears amongst empoyees are going to get worse. 30+ took Voluntary redundancy from JT as they would get a better package than if made to go.
Its fine saying the company will help with reemployment, but are the jobs there? Most of the places that are making people redundant their staff have been there a long time in a particular trade. Its fine saying retrain but these people have mortgages and families to support in an island that is spiralling out of control. Whilst the States of Jersey refuse to curb their spending this will be ongoing, and will drive Jersey and its people into a deep depression.
States of Jersey, Stop wasting Money, tighten your belts and be responsible for the people of this island.
Report abuse
About time the water board started selling off some of the property that they have either let go of in maintainance or charge peppercorn rents on to those not in need.
Report abuse
I think its appalling and something should be done about it, there is the work there its just they hace given it to someone else because its cheaper, why not consult the lads and ask if they would have been willing to take a pay cut.
Someone needs to fight for them!
Report abuse
The work unlike the reservoirs did not dry up…or else they would not be giving those jobs to a private firm…still not clear…? go see The Facts…well researched on Roy Travert.com
Report abuse
I just think it’s a shame on everyone who has lost their job, especially the older folk who will struggle hard to find a job ( and have been with Jersey Water for years and don’t know anything else ) even the younger ones who have lost their jobs are struggling in this climate. It’s a shame for all, someone I care for dearly will no doubt find a job, yet for him he worries not only for himself but ‘the ol boys’ who have been there for years!! what will they do? Indeed, Merry Christmas!
Report abuse
So do we want the states to save money or not?
This is not a popular decision but if it is the right thing to do from a business sense then it is the right thing to do, or do we just carry on blaming the states for spendingour money when every time they suggest pay freeze or redundancies we cry wolf and get angry. we can’t have it both ways!
Report abuse
Can’t understand why people think it is more important to keep people in overpaid non-jobs rather than fund hospitals and schools. Am I missing the point?
Report abuse
Clare Posted Merry Christmas!
Ah yes I remember these well, when the world was a better place and there was order, everything was in its place, and people had safe and secure jobs.
Now capitalism and globalisation have joined forces watch the race to the bottom.
So I’m afraid its goodbye Merry Christmas and hello Humbug. Why pretend anymore? Merry Christmas has gone to join Father Christmas in the land of make believe.
Report abuse
Adrian
Exactly which point in history do you think there was more order or a ‘jobs for life’ culture in the private sector? May be you’re only referring to the public sector and the days where the union was all powerful? Most people have moved forward and want an efficient public sector so that their taxes are utilised in the most efficient way rather than having gravy train employees who you cannot sack for not pulling their weight or cannot improve their efficiency because of militant union rule.
The employee in the private sector has far more protection today than ever even if there is room for improvement. You only have to refer to the source of your “humbug” parody to see scrooges existed even in the mid 19th century… or are you going back further still? It simply isn’t true to say people were better protected way back when. Scrooges always have existed and always will. Like extremists using religion as their excuse, you use capitalism as the excuse for the scrooge phenomenon.
JNWW may be 25% privately owned but I think you forget that it is these people who put up the capital in the first place to make this company function and ensure you have clean water. It is only fair they receive a return. And anyway do you honestly think these unfortunate people were laid off just to satisfy that 25%?
Report abuse
The position is clear Ozouf WILL NOT and cannot do anything about Jersey Water he is too far out of his depth and will not admit to being so. The only winners in this sorry Christmas tale will be the share holders and their families, let’s not forget the chairman of the board had a pay rise of 11% and the directors gave themselves 20% pay raise this year while the work force received cost of living. Do you think that you the customers of Jersey Water will be getting a refund or reduced prices in the near future, if so may I humbly suggest you have a cold shower and have a rethink.
Report abuse
#25 Jean the Bean
In fact, board salaries have to approved by shareholders so you’re gripe is with them.
Report abuse