|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 30, 2022 7:36:45 GMT
I do appreciate where you are coming from, but if you can save your company multiple million pounds, is it not best to pay a good buck to get someone that can deliver, than pay someone who can not , that only makes the situation worse? If paying someone x, that produces efficiencies of x times any number greater than one, is that not a job well done? Trouble is, there are too many in the public sector, and companies consulted by the public sector that are not up to the job. If you can do a job the saves or earns your organisation many millions of pounds ... should you not be rewarded ... or are we saying, you maybe able to save us £200m, but we can't pay you more than £75k, so we don't want your savings? If you are saying TfL should be leaving these kind of people to the private sector, how are TfLs ills ever going to be corrected? As a company, if someone can increase your bottom line by £5m, would a £1m salary be out of order? Peoplemoan on here about TfL and the cuts, but the well versed saying, is you pay peanuts, you employ monkies. TfL have come up with the current consultations. Do 2+2 make 4 or 5? Don't get me wrong ... probably too many of those in the report, do not deserve their salary, thats the public service for you, but should the public service not try to attract the best performers? Or should we just accept the way it is run at the moment, as acceptable incompetence. It seems like a bit of a vicious circle you’re suggesting. Pay more to cut more to pay more but with less staff. Talented people can still be completely incompetent, money doesn’t buy experience. But what TfL should do is completely change its whole training model. Recruit from outside the transport bubble, even with non-degree school/college leavers. Stick them in the trenches, six months to a year on placement with bus operators or the tube moving around every couple of months to get real experience training so when they transfer to that office based role they actually understand the struggles that the frontline faces. There is an art to recruitment and basing it solely on money, regardless of 2021 ideals, is so outdated. Additionally they should get rid of the nominated passes. My arse they don’t cost TfL anything.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jun 30, 2022 8:03:44 GMT
I do appreciate where you are coming from, but if you can save your company multiple million pounds, is it not best to pay a good buck to get someone that can deliver, than pay someone who can not , that only makes the situation worse? If paying someone x, that produces efficiencies of x times any number greater than one, is that not a job well done? Trouble is, there are too many in the public sector, and companies consulted by the public sector that are not up to the job. If you can do a job the saves or earns your organisation many millions of pounds ... should you not be rewarded ... or are we saying, you maybe able to save us £200m, but we can't pay you more than £75k, so we don't want your savings? If you are saying TfL should be leaving these kind of people to the private sector, how are TfLs ills ever going to be corrected? As a company, if someone can increase your bottom line by £5m, would a £1m salary be out of order? Peoplemoan on here about TfL and the cuts, but the well versed saying, is you pay peanuts, you employ monkies. TfL have come up with the current consultations. Do 2+2 make 4 or 5? Don't get me wrong ... probably too many of those in the report, do not deserve their salary, thats the public service for you, but should the public service not try to attract the best performers? Or should we just accept the way it is run at the moment, as acceptable incompetence. It seems like a bit of a vicious circle you’re suggesting. Pay more to cut more to pay more but with less staff. Talented people can still be completely incompetent, money doesn’t buy experience. But what TfL should do is completely change its whole training model. Recruit from outside the transport bubble, even with non-degree school/college leavers. Stick them in the trenches, six months to a year on placement with bus operators or the tube moving around every couple of months to get real experience training so when they transfer to that office based role they actually understand the struggles that the frontline faces. There is an art to recruitment and basing it solely on money, regardless of 2021 ideals, is so outdated. Additionally they should get rid of the nominated passes. My arse they don’t cost TfL anything. There is a small pool of naturally talented people that do deserve these salaries, as they return value and then some to the business/organisation. The trouble you seem to get are the individuals who are rewarded through systematic failure. They cock up one high powered job, walk away into another position, and then proceed to repeat abject failure. It is when people do not get the position on ability, rather who they know, or married/related to. If ever there was a perfect case study for this kind of failure, just look at the last 10 years of Croydon Council. Using your model ... how many of those people going through that training regime would stay with TfL. Mainly the crap ones, anyone that showed signs of promise would be out the door as quickly as possible looking for a better role.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 30, 2022 8:20:32 GMT
I do appreciate where you are coming from, but if you can save your company multiple million pounds, is it not best to pay a good buck to get someone that can deliver, than pay someone who can not , that only makes the situation worse? If paying someone x, that produces efficiencies of x times any number greater than one, is that not a job well done? Trouble is, there are too many in the public sector, and companies consulted by the public sector that are not up to the job. If you can do a job the saves or earns your organisation many millions of pounds ... should you not be rewarded ... or are we saying, you maybe able to save us £200m, but we can't pay you more than £75k, so we don't want your savings? If you are saying TfL should be leaving these kind of people to the private sector, how are TfLs ills ever going to be corrected? As a company, if someone can increase your bottom line by £5m, would a £1m salary be out of order? Peoplemoan on here about TfL and the cuts, but the well versed saying, is you pay peanuts, you employ monkies. TfL have come up with the current consultations. Do 2+2 make 4 or 5? Don't get me wrong ... probably too many of those in the report, do not deserve their salary, thats the public service for you, but should the public service not try to attract the best performers? Or should we just accept the way it is run at the moment, as acceptable incompetence. It seems like a bit of a vicious circle you’re suggesting. Pay more to cut more to pay more but with less staff. Talented people can still be completely incompetent, money doesn’t buy experience. But what TfL should do is completely change its whole training model. Recruit from outside the transport bubble, even with non-degree school/college leavers. Stick them in the trenches, six months to a year on placement with bus operators or the tube moving around every couple of months to get real experience training so when they transfer to that office based role they actually understand the struggles that the frontline faces. There is an art to recruitment and basing it solely on money, regardless of 2021 ideals, is so outdated. Additionally they should get rid of the nominated passes. My arse they don’t cost TfL anything. They cost as much as Zip Passes do, you're losing out on unpaid fares.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Jun 30, 2022 17:32:35 GMT
I do appreciate where you are coming from, but if you can save your company multiple million pounds, is it not best to pay a good buck to get someone that can deliver, than pay someone who can not , that only makes the situation worse? If paying someone x, that produces efficiencies of x times any number greater than one, is that not a job well done? Trouble is, there are too many in the public sector, and companies consulted by the public sector that are not up to the job. If you can do a job the saves or earns your organisation many millions of pounds ... should you not be rewarded ... or are we saying, you maybe able to save us £200m, but we can't pay you more than £75k, so we don't want your savings? If you are saying TfL should be leaving these kind of people to the private sector, how are TfLs ills ever going to be corrected? As a company, if someone can increase your bottom line by £5m, would a £1m salary be out of order? Peoplemoan on here about TfL and the cuts, but the well versed saying, is you pay peanuts, you employ monkies. TfL have come up with the current consultations. Do 2+2 make 4 or 5? Don't get me wrong ... probably too many of those in the report, do not deserve their salary, thats the public service for you, but should the public service not try to attract the best performers? Or should we just accept the way it is run at the moment, as acceptable incompetence. It seems like a bit of a vicious circle you’re suggesting. Pay more to cut more to pay more but with less staff. Talented people can still be completely incompetent, money doesn’t buy experience. But what TfL should do is completely change its whole training model. Recruit from outside the transport bubble, even with non-degree school/college leavers. Stick them in the trenches, six months to a year on placement with bus operators or the tube moving around every couple of months to get real experience training so when they transfer to that office based role they actually understand the struggles that the frontline faces. There is an art to recruitment and basing it solely on money, regardless of 2021 ideals, is so outdated. Additionally they should get rid of the nominated passes. My arse they don’t cost TfL anything. how do they "cost" TfL anything? TfL doesn't have to run any extra trains or buses for people who use nominee passes.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 30, 2022 17:56:52 GMT
It seems like a bit of a vicious circle you’re suggesting. Pay more to cut more to pay more but with less staff. Talented people can still be completely incompetent, money doesn’t buy experience. But what TfL should do is completely change its whole training model. Recruit from outside the transport bubble, even with non-degree school/college leavers. Stick them in the trenches, six months to a year on placement with bus operators or the tube moving around every couple of months to get real experience training so when they transfer to that office based role they actually understand the struggles that the frontline faces. There is an art to recruitment and basing it solely on money, regardless of 2021 ideals, is so outdated. Additionally they should get rid of the nominated passes. My arse they don’t cost TfL anything. how do they "cost" TfL anything? TfL doesn't have to run any extra trains or buses for people who use nominee passes. They cost TfL revenue from fares. It might be nominal but it all adds up when TfL are being asked to cut costs.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jun 30, 2022 18:01:30 GMT
It seems like a bit of a vicious circle you’re suggesting. Pay more to cut more to pay more but with less staff. Talented people can still be completely incompetent, money doesn’t buy experience. But what TfL should do is completely change its whole training model. Recruit from outside the transport bubble, even with non-degree school/college leavers. Stick them in the trenches, six months to a year on placement with bus operators or the tube moving around every couple of months to get real experience training so when they transfer to that office based role they actually understand the struggles that the frontline faces. There is an art to recruitment and basing it solely on money, regardless of 2021 ideals, is so outdated. Additionally they should get rid of the nominated passes. My arse they don’t cost TfL anything. There is a small pool of naturally talented people that do deserve these salaries, as they return value and then some to the business/organisation. The trouble you seem to get are the individuals who are rewarded through systematic failure. They cock up one high powered job, walk away into another position, and then proceed to repeat abject failure. It is when people do not get the position on ability, rather who they know, or married/related to. If ever there was a perfect case study for this kind of failure, just look at the last 10 years of Croydon Council. Using your model ... how many of those people going through that training regime would stay with TfL. Mainly the crap ones, anyone that showed signs of promise would be out the door as quickly as possible looking for a better role. The problem is the sheer volume of useless personnel, no doubt some positions created by "a friend of a friend" as it's not what you know, but whom. It's like the BBC comedy W1A, where they had a Director of Better and departments seemed to chase their tails each episode It's very common in public sector roles, obsolete IT systems (usually brought in as the licenses for software is cheaper if it's not up to date), most times they are written on older operating systems, and won't like newer stuff like Windows 10... Like Haringey Council who spent £168k on a logo which looked like a kid designed it on an early version of Microsoft Paint... yet struggle to keep the pavement clear of dumped fridges, mattresses etc... I think when it's public money, it's harder to keep an eye on where it's all going. This is TfL's problem, with the lunatics running the asylum, Khan is nowhere to be seen and there are no real audits except when money runs out and they go begging to Government for more. Dodgy consultants are moved on to another department within such a huge organisation, so it's hard to track them down. Plus high turnover may mean even less accountability. If they saw how private companies run (I have a lengthy process at work if parts sent for a customer laptop do not work, and you get in trouble for wasting parts unnecessarily or not ringing relevant people) there wouldn't be so much burning through money so quickly. I don't see TfL's funds filtering down to our bus network, or to the teenage 318 bus which turns 15 next February, running on slipboards due to knackered blinds
|
|
|
Post by rm1422 on Jun 30, 2022 18:02:13 GMT
Given all this talk of needing to save money, I'm trying to remember when I last had my Oyster checked during a journey. It was certainly before Covid. Are there no more ticket inspectors?
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 30, 2022 18:16:21 GMT
Given all this talk of needing to save money, I'm trying to remember when I last had my Oyster checked during a journey. It was certainly before Covid. Are there no more ticket inspectors? They were pretty rare pre covid, probably non existent now.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 30, 2022 18:21:13 GMT
There is a small pool of naturally talented people that do deserve these salaries, as they return value and then some to the business/organisation. The trouble you seem to get are the individuals who are rewarded through systematic failure. They cock up one high powered job, walk away into another position, and then proceed to repeat abject failure. It is when people do not get the position on ability, rather who they know, or married/related to. If ever there was a perfect case study for this kind of failure, just look at the last 10 years of Croydon Council. Using your model ... how many of those people going through that training regime would stay with TfL. Mainly the crap ones, anyone that showed signs of promise would be out the door as quickly as possible looking for a better role. The problem is the sheer volume of useless personnel, no doubt some positions created by "a friend of a friend" as it's not what you know, but whom. It's like the BBC comedy W1A, where they had a Director of Better and departments seemed to chase their tails each episode It's very common in public sector roles, obsolete IT systems (usually brought in as the licenses for software is cheaper if it's not up to date), most times they are written on older operating systems, and won't like newer stuff like Windows 10... Like Haringey Council who spent £168k on a logo which looked like a kid designed it on an early version of Microsoft Paint... yet struggle to keep the pavement clear of dumped fridges, mattresses etc... I think when it's public money, it's harder to keep an eye on where it's all going. This is TfL's problem, with the lunatics running the asylum, Khan is nowhere to be seen and there are no real audits except when money runs out and they go begging to Government for more. Dodgy consultants are moved on to another department within such a huge organisation, so it's hard to track them down. Plus high turnover may mean even less accountability. If they saw how private companies run (I have a lengthy process at work if parts sent for a customer laptop do not work, and you get in trouble for wasting parts unnecessarily or not ringing relevant people) there wouldn't be so much burning through money so quickly. I don't see TfL's funds filtering down to our bus network, or to the teenage 318 bus which turns 15 next February, running on slipboards due to knackered blinds It’s exactly why I’ve always maintained that organisations like TfL and the NHS should be subject to randomised independent audits in partnership with businesses like KPMG or PWC to ensure they are operating as effectively as possible. I say independent as being done in house would remove the whole point of an auditing process.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 30, 2022 19:05:54 GMT
how do they "cost" TfL anything? TfL doesn't have to run any extra trains or buses for people who use nominee passes. They cost TfL revenue from fares. It might be nominal but it all adds up when TfL are being asked to cut costs. I imagine In the scheme of things the cost must be marginal. I know of family members or have / had passes and they are rarely used.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 30, 2022 19:51:41 GMT
They cost TfL revenue from fares. It might be nominal but it all adds up when TfL are being asked to cut costs. I imagine In the scheme of things the cost must be marginal. I know of family members or have / had passes and they are rarely used. Can't imagine the cost is marginal at all, you're talking about thousands and thousands of people who should be paying full time fares. Many people who I know have them use them all the time. It is an interesting case though as there's obviously the plus side to having it which is staff morale. But in reality while I don't advocate removing any free passes, it should be the first one to go if a desperate need to remove them came to rise.
|
|
|
Post by Alexis on Jun 30, 2022 20:33:47 GMT
Given all this talk of needing to save money, I'm trying to remember when I last had my Oyster checked during a journey. It was certainly before Covid. Are there no more ticket inspectors? I've had them on quite a few journeys in the past couple of months
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 30, 2022 21:10:38 GMT
I imagine In the scheme of things the cost must be marginal. I know of family members or have / had passes and they are rarely used. Can't imagine the cost is marginal at all, you're talking about thousands and thousands of people who should be paying full time fares. Many people who I know have them use them all the time. It is an interesting case though as there's obviously the plus side to having it which is staff morale. But in reality while I don't advocate removing any free passes, it should be the first one to go if a desperate need to remove them came to rise. I do appreciate what you are saying but pretty sure TfL must have an idea of the usage of the free passes. I do imagine lots are used regularly but at the same time so are probably hardly used. There are other places to make savings and as you say you don’t really want to damage morale especially with bus drivers.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 30, 2022 23:10:17 GMT
how do they "cost" TfL anything? TfL doesn't have to run any extra trains or buses for people who use nominee passes. They cost TfL revenue from fares. It might be nominal but it all adds up when TfL are being asked to cut costs. Trouble is many of these assumptions of the money from what Nominal fares cost, do not factor what would be the end potential revenue if they were withdrawn. It is as bad as TfL revenue projections for the ULEZ charge and they badly under estimated the revenue they were going to make. If nominee passes were withdrawn I can see many not using public transport, hardly using it, or switch to other modes of transport.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 30, 2022 23:12:28 GMT
There is a small pool of naturally talented people that do deserve these salaries, as they return value and then some to the business/organisation. The trouble you seem to get are the individuals who are rewarded through systematic failure. They cock up one high powered job, walk away into another position, and then proceed to repeat abject failure. It is when people do not get the position on ability, rather who they know, or married/related to. If ever there was a perfect case study for this kind of failure, just look at the last 10 years of Croydon Council. Using your model ... how many of those people going through that training regime would stay with TfL. Mainly the crap ones, anyone that showed signs of promise would be out the door as quickly as possible looking for a better role. The problem is the sheer volume of useless personnel, no doubt some positions created by "a friend of a friend" as it's not what you know, but whom. It's like the BBC comedy W1A, where they had a Director of Better and departments seemed to chase their tails each episode It's very common in public sector roles, obsolete IT systems (usually brought in as the licenses for software is cheaper if it's not up to date), most times they are written on older operating systems, and won't like newer stuff like Windows 10... Like Haringey Council who spent £168k on a logo which looked like a kid designed it on an early version of Microsoft Paint... yet struggle to keep the pavement clear of dumped fridges, mattresses etc... I think when it's public money, it's harder to keep an eye on where it's all going. This is TfL's problem, with the lunatics running the asylum, Khan is nowhere to be seen and there are no real audits except when money runs out and they go begging to Government for more. Dodgy consultants are moved on to another department within such a huge organisation, so it's hard to track them down. Plus high turnover may mean even less accountability. If they saw how private companies run (I have a lengthy process at work if parts sent for a customer laptop do not work, and you get in trouble for wasting parts unnecessarily or not ringing relevant people) there wouldn't be so much burning through money so quickly. I don't see TfL's funds filtering down to our bus network, or to the teenage 318 bus which turns 15 next February, running on slipboards due to knackered blinds There is a hell of a lot of wastage at TfL, especially paid within London Underground. Even on the buses there is a lot of practices and no accountability or scrutiny of things that operators have been paid for over the years and not carried out. There are loads that I know of and it is across many operators.
|
|