Latest:
WHAT INDUSTRY UNITY?
00:00 09 Jun 1994
|
Last week's statement outlining a new initiative to create unity
among construction employers could almost be designed to add extra
confusion to an already byzantine world of contractor
representation. It certainly raises more questions than it
answers.
The statement refers to the establishment of a new organisation 'representing and promoting the whole industry.' It emanates from the BEC, the FCEC, and 'the Major Construction Groups' - an amorphous and unidentified team of top firms. The crucial question is this. Are they proposing a new body genuinely to speak for all construction, or one to represent all building and civil engineering, or one for main contractors?
Specialist firms, who have just completed a rationalisation of their own structure, are hardly going to buy the first option. And the smaller firms in the FMB won't accept the first two.
To an extent, the appointment of consultants to advise on best practice in employer representation begs the question. It equally smacks of a cop-out and a ready-made alibi for any subsequent failure to achieve the goal.
It has been swiftly noted that objectives of the new body are precisely those of the Construction Industry Employers Council. So where does that leave CIEC?
It is stated that the body must employ high quality staff capable of producing ideas, papers, and a service comparable with major bodies such as the CBI. Some will question whether the CBI offers a role model. The engineering employers of the EEF evidently did not think so. That aside, this looks like a distinct snub to existing staff.
The BEC, of course, has already restructured as a pan-industry umbrella body. It already is a new body awaiting a new name. So the broad concept of a new organisation by the end of the year can equally fit in with existing developments.
A final question. Is there a fallback position? What if any party rejects the consultants' report? Unity bids have failed before. The only answer is a clear sense that this time, somehow, something is going to be forced through.
The statement refers to the establishment of a new organisation 'representing and promoting the whole industry.' It emanates from the BEC, the FCEC, and 'the Major Construction Groups' - an amorphous and unidentified team of top firms. The crucial question is this. Are they proposing a new body genuinely to speak for all construction, or one to represent all building and civil engineering, or one for main contractors?
Specialist firms, who have just completed a rationalisation of their own structure, are hardly going to buy the first option. And the smaller firms in the FMB won't accept the first two.
ADVERTISEMENT
To an extent, the appointment of consultants to advise on best practice in employer representation begs the question. It equally smacks of a cop-out and a ready-made alibi for any subsequent failure to achieve the goal.
It has been swiftly noted that objectives of the new body are precisely those of the Construction Industry Employers Council. So where does that leave CIEC?
It is stated that the body must employ high quality staff capable of producing ideas, papers, and a service comparable with major bodies such as the CBI. Some will question whether the CBI offers a role model. The engineering employers of the EEF evidently did not think so. That aside, this looks like a distinct snub to existing staff.
The BEC, of course, has already restructured as a pan-industry umbrella body. It already is a new body awaiting a new name. So the broad concept of a new organisation by the end of the year can equally fit in with existing developments.
A final question. Is there a fallback position? What if any party rejects the consultants' report? Unity bids have failed before. The only answer is a clear sense that this time, somehow, something is going to be forced through.
ADVERTISEMENT
Most Viewed Articles
ADVERTISEMENT