Date: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:47 am. By: John Beardmore
In message , Andy Hall writes
On 2006-12-17 13:13:27 +0000, John Beardmore said:
In message , Andy Hall writes On 2006-12-16 22:45:01 +0000, John Beardmore wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> said:
In message , Andy Hall <andyh@hall.nospam writes
So would I. It should be based on these principles: - short, medium and long term recognising that if the short term isn't done properly, there will be no long term Good...
- staffing levels to match the level of business. This inevitably means hiring people when business is good and letting them go when it's not. Or at least redeploying them. Only provided that the positions to which they are redeployed are viable and are beneficial to the business. The what ?
The business.
Which it isn't.
If not, then they have to go. Well yes ultimately.
Sooner rather than later.
The Micawber principle seldom works.
I think there is an issue here. The notion of 'unconditional jobs for life' has rightly gone, but if you are going to employ people on short term contracts or otherwise with little security, they are going to want to be paid more. In extremis, this takes you back to employing consultants.
Though again, this assumes that LAs are a business. They should operate on business principles but don't. Probably because they don't know how to do so. Again, this assumes that they are businesses.
Operating on business principles ensures the best return on investment for the capital employed.
Operating on environmental principles ensures that there will continue to be a habitat in which business can be done.
Since council tax payers are funding all of this, they are entitled to the best return.
They are entitled to a fair return. As are council staff for their effort.
I'm not sure that council staff should be exploited by rate payers any more than staff should exploit their position.
That means the minimum cost to achieve the objectives required.
That's fine as long as the objectives include things like reasonable terms and conditions of employment.
Seems to me that the number of bins needing to be emptied will be the same in good times and bad, even if the volume of waste falls. True. However, if one company does not do a good job and loses customers, its market share will decline. If that isn't corrected, the consequences are obvious. Yes - we mover back to a single provider solution and will have wasted a huge amount of effort implementing your scheme.
Nope. N-1 does not equal 1 unless N was 2 beforehand.
Indeed, but it is possible to decrement more than once. Or did you plan some intervention when n=2 ?
If so, what of market forces ?
Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ? If so, why ? Absolutely. We always need less government. But not particularly in an economic downturn then.
That's especially when it is needed. Reduction of the tax burden is one of the best ways to stimulate an economy.
If as much work needs doing, it should take as many staff unless you plan to start exploiting people ?
That means reducing public sector costs. The most effective way of doing that is to reduce head count.
That's fine as long as the population served is willing to accept lower levels of service.
This is even more true during an economic downturn because effort should be directed towards making money for the economy rather than spending it. But the bins still need to be emptied.
Of course. However, this does not require public sector involvement.
Nor private I guess.
It remains to be decided, and there has to be good reason for change.
- quarterly profits are important as are half year and annual ones. The occasional shortfall is allowable, but continued failure should result in change of management. But while LAs should be efficient, they should not be about making a profit. It is possible for an organisation to run on business principles and for profit to be engineered to zero. I'm not suggesting that it be "engineered to zero", but that it "should not be about making a profit".
Therein lies the rub. If the mentality is that there will always be more funding to cover the incompetences and wastage, then there is never an incentive for improvement.
Well there is, because unspent funds can always be used for additional projects.
Despite your jaundiced views, there are no brownie points for public sector overspend.
Unless the tools of carrot and stick are available, that doesn't happen. Every organisation should be run on this basis - extras for over-performance, dismissal for persistent under-performance. It's perfectly simple to run an operation on a profit basis and reinvest the profits or to distribute as a staff incentive.
Yes - it is, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way "an operation" can be run.
There is, however, nothing wrong with making a profit. Nothing wrong with delivering a service as your primary objective either.
Only provided that people want to buy what you have to sell and accept the price to be reasonable.
Yes, though I expect that when clean water, sewers, municipal waste disposal and other services were put in place, there were plenty of people who would have thought that the price was unreasonable.
I'm not especially sure that the public will always make good decisions on this sort of infrastructure, or that the private sector make great custodians. It seems to me that both public and private sector can make an utter balls of it.
- cost should always be minimised while keeping the level of service that the customer is willing to buy. Broadly.
This does not mean minimal provision or minimal environmental standards. Well, unfettered capitalism would probably opt to provide the thing that providers can make most profit out of, and ignore the environment utterly. Nobody said anything about unfettered capitalism other than you. Nor have all your assertions about capitalism and markets specified any particular fetters.
They have all the way along. Several times I have said that the service products offered would have to achieve a minimum level but that providers may wish to offer more for a higher price.
Yes - you have said that, but you can't guarantee that multiple competing providers won't in aggregate have a greater environmental impact than the current single provider, and clearly it's not something that the market, or those that would have a market care much about.
Even if a few providers offer better 'environmental' performance, it seems highly unlikely that this will amount to much more than removing dog muck and chewing gum - nothing that will undo the damage caused by running multiple vehicle fleets, never mind anything significant and new that in aggregate can better the current situation.
I am not aware of any significant environmental progress that has not been driven by legislation. Are you ? This isn't particularly relevant to the subject. Nor does the whole discussion have much to do with "Siting of panels for solar water heating". But my point stands - unfettered capitalism takes pretty much no account of global commons and environmental performance.
Nobody proposed unfettered capitalism.
If the market is free to make the present situation worse, I suggest it is not fettered enough !
By only complying with minimum standards, you don't do anything to improve the environmental performance, and very probably make it much worse.
By leaving it to the market, you offer people a bunch of solutions, the selection of any of which are unlikely to achieve more than the reduction of new environmental harm.
Minimum standards of safety, health and environmental legislation have been imposed, which on the whole, industry has not wanted, and there is little reason to expect much more than minimum levels of compliance from industry, if indeed that.
It's quite possible to set the standards required by legislation.
Indeed - and despite, your not liking it, the market and the bluntness of legislative instruments, this is having some benefit.
If those aren't adequate, then the requirements can be altered to take account of that.
Yes - though I'm trying to suggest that, given how marginal the benefits of introducing more actors to this market, you alter your scheme to only go ahead if the life cycle impact will be lower then the present mechanism.
Customers should be able to buy the service appropriate to them and for the best price. In many situations, yes. In almost all situations unless there is a very good reason why not. Waste collection isn't one of them. But protection of the environment is.
No it isn't.
Well - I don't agree with you, and fortunately, not do the EU directives.
Cheers, J/. -- John Beardmore