On 2006-12-16 22:45:01 +0000, John Beardmore said:

In message , Andy Hall 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. If not, then they have to
go.


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.


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.




This is far better than carrying excess cost and putting the business
under. Again this is sonething that the public sector is not good at
doing because the customers are obliged to keep funding the
inefficiency.

And again assumes that they are businesses that have a variable demand
on their services.

They should operate as businesses.


Do you think we need less government during an economic down turn ? If
so, why ?

Absolutely. We always need less government. This is even more true
during an economic downturn because effort should be directed towards
making money for the economy rather than spending it.



- 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. There is, however, nothing
wrong with making a profit.




- 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.


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.




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.