Jump to content

Private firms to take over probation work

Recommended Posts

It's purely from personal observation and that of friends. I didn't suggest I had tomes of research on the subject but from my experience more than 3 months off is pretty much it in the private sector and on massively reduced pay, in the public sector it can go on for a lot longer on full pay, then half pay.

 

I do not think a pub conversation can be regarded as an accredited source.In the public sector the lower paid will get less protection than the middle managers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not think a pub conversation can be regarded as an accredited source.In the public sector the lower paid will get less protection than the middle managers.

 

It's not a pub conversation, but I did not claim that I had an accredited source.

 

Google it and it throws up internal documents acknowledging the problem within the probation service on page one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's right. If I don't like the service on a bus route provided by First, I charter a helicopter.

 

You could get a taxi....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could get a taxi....

 

The council is the purchaser of First Bus Services, so constituents should complain to the council and if they bother listening they can give the tender to a different company

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The council is the purchaser of First Bus Services, so constituents should complain to the council and if they bother listening they can give the tender to a different company

 

Or they could award the contract to multiple companies so there is no monopoly, but you have hit the nail on the head. Donkey has the wrong example as the situation he/she is describing is one created by the public sector management or mismanagement if you want to put it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do award to multiple companies (don't they do this in Sheffield? I haven't caught a bus for years!). However one route will only have one operator so still kind of a monopoly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They do award to multiple companies (don't they do this in Sheffield? I haven't caught a bus for years!). However one route will only have one operator so still kind of a monopoly.

 

Some routes such as the 52 has both First and Stagecoach, and its widely appreciated as the best route in Sheffield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some routes such as the 52 has both First and Stagecoach, and its widely appreciated as the best route in Sheffield.

 

If it were a truly competitive system, licenses to run routes would be on offer to anyone who could demonstate they had a suitable vehicle(s) and the right licenses and insurance etc. Under such a system operators could run any route they liked on short term contracts. If they weren't making enough money because too many drivers were working that route, they could switch routes at the end of the contract. The routes that nobody wanted to run could be subsidised with money raised by a levy on the sale of tickets from more profitable routes. This levy and/or the sale of licenses could also be used to maintain stops and stations.

 

True competition should be open to as many people as practical, with no scope for favouring any candidate who meets the requirements over any other. If operator's licenses were oversubscribed to, candidates would be picked through a lottery. Those who failed to meet the terms of their contract would be penalised or disbarred. This definitely does not happen at the moment. And subsequently, all the transport companies are guilty of repeated breeches of the terms of their tenders.

 

The system we have at the moment is open to massive influence through cronyism, because in reality only those with sufficient wealth and influence stand any chance of successfully winning a bid for a contract.

 

Privatisation isn't nearly as competitive as its politcal exponents would like us to think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it were a truly competitive system, licenses to run routes would be on offer to anyone who could demonstate they had a suitable vehicle(s) and the right licenses and insurance etc. Under such a system operators could run any route they liked on short term contracts. If they weren't making enough money because too many drivers were working that route, they could switch routes at the end of the contract. The routes that nobody wanted to run could be subsidised with money raised by a levy on the sale of tickets from more profitable routes. This levy and/or the sale of licenses could also be used to maintain stops and stations.

 

True competition should be open to as many people as practical, with no scope for favouring any candidate who meets the requirements over any other. If operator's licenses were oversubscribed to, candidates would be picked through a lottery. Those who failed to meet the terms of their contract would be penalised or disbarred. This definitely does not happen at the moment. And subsequently, all the transport companies are guilty of repeated breeches of the terms of their tenders.

 

The system we have at the moment is open to massive influence through cronyism, because in reality only those with sufficient wealth and influence stand any chance of successfully winning a bid for a contract.

 

Privatisation isn't nearly as competitive as its politcal exponents would like us to think it is.

 

your point falls apart at the first hurdle donkey. saying that anyone should be able to run the buses on short term contracts would mean only those with the investment in buses etc could tender and would end up with the exact same situation we have today. companies need long term contracts to invest and then make the money. How would you for example be able to tender if you had no way of providing the service?

 

However I never said it was perfect, but the most reliable and well serviced route in Sheffield IS one that operates within a competition for business and this speak volumes for the argument that competition in the private sector works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your point falls apart at the first hurdle donkey. saying that anyone should be able to run the buses on short term contracts would mean only those with the investment in buses etc could tender and would end up with the exact same situation we have today.

 

Nope!

 

If operator's licenses were oversubscribed to, candidates would be picked through a lottery.

 

 

companies need long term contracts to invest and then make the money.

 

 

Nonsense! Many - if not most - transport companies continue to exist and adapt to changing circumstance without long term contracts. If you ring up for a taxi, you expect to be able to get one. Right? They are able to forcaste the likely contiuance of demand in their business without the benefit of a long term contract. I lived in Belfast in the 1980s. Busses were very infrequent in certain areas because of the risk of hijack. Transport services were provided by black taxis operating on set routes. You could flag them down anywhere on the route. They were cheaper and more frequent by far than any bus service I've seen anywhere else in the UK or Ireland. They were not subsidised.

 

 

How would you for example be able to tender if you had no way of providing the service?

 

 

You wouldn't. Obviously.

Edited by donkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonsense! Many - if not most - transport companies continue to exist and adapt to changing circumstance without long term contracts. If you ring up for a taxi, you expect to be able to get one. Right? They are able to forcaste the likely contiuance of demand in their business without the benefit of a long term contract. I lived in Belfast in the 1980s. Busses were very infrequent in certain areas because of the risk of hijack. Transport services were provided by black taxis operating on set routes. You could flag them down anywhere on the route. They were cheaper and more frequent by far than any bus service I've seen anywhere else in the UK or Ireland. They were not subsidised.

 

 

 

 

You wouldn't. Obviously.

 

A taxi is not a bus and the outlay for a taxi is completely different to a fleet of buses :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A taxi is not a bus and the outlay for a taxi is completely different to a fleet of buses.

 

You seem to be mis-interpreting what I am suggesting. I am not advocating large companies running fleets of busses. I am advocating lots of individuals or small companies running single busses or small fleets of busses.

 

You can argue this reason and that reason why it would not work, but I've seen it working with my own eyes, in Belfast, India and Turkey, anmd no doubt a lot of other places I haven't been to. This system, in my experience, provides more frequent services, with more small busses and mini-busses in operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.