In message , Andy Hall writes
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.

The what ?


If not, then they have to go.

Well yes ultimately.


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.


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.


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.

Says who ?


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.


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.


- 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".


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

Nothing wrong with delivering a service as your primary objective
either.


- 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.


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. 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.


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.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore