Discussion
Johnnytheboy said:
speedyguy said:
It's good that dept's are having their budgets slashed but i'm afraid decision makers will not unemploy themselves. 'back office' diversity bods. Etc will probably remain unaffected at the risk of care assistants and binmen and socially useful people etc losing their jobs 
I'm inclined to agree and have a horrible feeling that pub. sec. decision makers target the useful pubic-facing employees (binmen, plod, nurses etc.) in order that the public 'see' the effect cuts are having.The alternative (that they get rid of a load of 5-a-day bicycling awareness traveller liaison officers) is that the public see no change in the service they receive, and start to wonder why the cuts weren't made years ago.
We shall see I guess.
speedyguy said:
I don't think La's should even be having plants paid for out of taxpayers money in their offices, (or non self funding coffe machines etc) not sure if that would be good for company or job though.
We're not allowed to bring in our own plants here. The ones in the office are tended by a private company.When people did bring in their own plants they were admonished because of the risk of disease and insects to the managed plants.
Craziness.
Leftie pen pushers. Good job that's not a tabloid stereotype or anything. Unless you've got data to the contrary.
Friend of mine is pretty senior in a LA (and not a leftie btw). Comes up with a plan for the forthcoming year, sorted with the relevenant parties...... binned by councillors because it'll leave them politically vulnerable.
If councillors aren't ultimately responsbible and can be called to account, then why have them? Check out your local authority website and you'll see which councillor(s) is(are) responsible for which policy area. So if you don't like the way the cuts are implemented, you can write to them.
Friend of mine is pretty senior in a LA (and not a leftie btw). Comes up with a plan for the forthcoming year, sorted with the relevenant parties...... binned by councillors because it'll leave them politically vulnerable.
If councillors aren't ultimately responsbible and can be called to account, then why have them? Check out your local authority website and you'll see which councillor(s) is(are) responsible for which policy area. So if you don't like the way the cuts are implemented, you can write to them.
IainT said:
speedyguy said:
I don't think La's should even be having plants paid for out of taxpayers money in their offices, (or non self funding coffe machines etc) not sure if that would be good for company or job though.
We're not allowed to bring in our own plants here. The ones in the office are tended by a private company.When people did bring in their own plants they were admonished because of the risk of disease and insects to the managed plants.
Craziness.
The alternative is that staff supply all their own plants, or else (as many places are doing in the current climate) cancel the outside contract, keep their plants and look after them in-house. Invariably you end up with a building full of mostly dead plants within asix months. Nice.
Johnnytheboy said:
speedyguy said:
It's good that dept's are having their budgets slashed but i'm afraid decision makers will not unemploy themselves. 'back office' diversity bods. Etc will probably remain unaffected at the risk of care assistants and binmen and socially useful people etc losing their jobs
I'm inclined to agree and have a horrible feeling that pub. sec. decision makers target the useful pubic-facing employees (binmen, plod, nurses etc.) in order that the public 'see' the effect cuts are having.The alternative (that they get rid of a load of 5-a-day bicycling awareness traveller liaison officers) is that the public see no change in the service they receive, and start to wonder why the cuts weren't made years ago.
Great, less managers and no loss to public facing staff.
Slight problem... the senior people all did work that needed to be done so all that will happen is that some of the current front line staff will just end up doing some of the stuff the others did before they left and there will be less 'front line work' time available.
Today, at my soon-to-be-ex public sector employer, I witnessed a contractor fixing potholes on site. I also witnessed one employee standing around to enforce the no-entry sign the (private sector) workers had erected. And another three standing around supporting him from the pavement. So, a couple of guys doing the work and four standing around watching them.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Personally I have experienced terrible service from Private Sector companies more than I have from Public Sector.Whenever I have had problems with tax it has always been sorted swiftly and correctly.
On the other hand a bank I used caused me huge problems when they setup a standing order arrangement open ended that should have been for 6 months. Took an age to sort out and a stand up argument in front of other customers in the main area of the bank with the bimbo acting as a manager at my branch. For that piece of unprofessional behaviour she was moved and hopefully demoted.
Only last week a fridge I had ordered with a fixed delivery date didn't turn up, no call from them. When I eventually tracked someone down who could give me an answer (having been sent on a merry old goose chase) they blamed the snow. When I asked why they didn't call I got a very disinterested 'don't know'. Order cancelled and a days leave wasted.
Russ T Bolt said:
Personally I have experienced terrible service from Private Sector companies more than I have from Public Sector.
The argument used in this thread against that is "You have the choice not to use that company" -the assumption being that the 'survival of the fittest' business principle will lead the poor performers to improve or go bust.Whilst this is valid to a degree, I recently took part in a large emergency exercise overnight at a major travel hub. The emergency services' response went smoothly, (NHS, Police, Fire, Local Authority). The company operating at the hub f
ked up their bit. Again. It would appear that this angle of their business has not seen huge investment, but they are willing to take the risk in the name of profit, which if big enough, will pay off the legal bills if the worst happens in an inquest and damages are awarded to the public. And the pressure that the statutory services have to put on this company for them to allow us to run a mock emergency reception area in their main building (so that the NHS and police can practice their respective stuff with processing casualties/affected public) has to be seen to be believed.
Anyone who wants to know how well the private sector performs traditionally 'public' functions should see the right royal drainage fk-up affecting a major development I am aware of. Privatised building control apparently signed off multiple unauthorised cross-connections of surface water drains into the foul system with the effect that any major rainfall event now means sewers surcharge with severe flooding of the development and surrounding areas with diluted effluent. But of course, it's the 'planners' fault that 100s of gardens may need to be dug up; not the cowboy building contractors who short-cut the spec or the so-called inspectors who permitted the bodgery...
And don't get me on personal search agents who rob 'free' local authority records by walking in off the street and interrupting planned work, misinterpret or misreport the info, and then sell their 'work' at a 'value added' premium to people who could just commission a regular search directly at half the cost in the first place... wonder how many folk are unwittingly facing huge remediation bills because their des res is atop a former coal gas works or similar when the Environment Agency start working their way through the Contaminated Land Register and start serving notices?
k-up affecting a major development I am aware of. Privatised building control apparently signed off multiple unauthorised cross-connections of surface water drains into the foul system with the effect that any major rainfall event now means sewers surcharge with severe flooding of the development and surrounding areas with diluted effluent. But of course, it's the 'planners' fault that 100s of gardens may need to be dug up; not the cowboy building contractors who short-cut the spec or the so-called inspectors who permitted the bodgery...And don't get me on personal search agents who rob 'free' local authority records by walking in off the street and interrupting planned work, misinterpret or misreport the info, and then sell their 'work' at a 'value added' premium to people who could just commission a regular search directly at half the cost in the first place... wonder how many folk are unwittingly facing huge remediation bills because their des res is atop a former coal gas works or similar when the Environment Agency start working their way through the Contaminated Land Register and start serving notices?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff