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
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 ?

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