Policing to be done by private companies??????

[4eyesbetter]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/m...ion-security-firms-crime?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Is there anyone at all who can look in the mirror and truthfully say that if they get mugged or their house is burgled that they are completely happy and comfortable to have the investigation carried out by the lowest bidder?

And if there is, could they please just piss off to a private island already, make their own arrangements, and stop wrecking everything for the rest of us?

 

[Toby Warren]

Mugging no course I'm not happy.

Private company to do DNA testing - fine
Private company type up interview notes - fine
Private company keeping a road closed while a crime is investigated rather than a more expensive copper doing it - fine
Person I ring and report my bike being stolen and getting a reference numb by a private company fine.

Thin edge of the wedge maybe

Personally I don't buy the public perfect private evil argument

Should somethings be defended and fought for yes - where is that line draw that is a personal choice.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

Private company to do DNA testing - fine
Private company type up interview notes - fine
Private company keeping a road closed while a crime is investigated rather than a more expensive copper doing it - fine
Person I ring and report my bike being stolen and getting a reference numb by a private company fine.

There's no reason why these people can't be employed by the Police force. There are plenty of civilian employees of the Police already. Do you think their HR department is staffed by boys in blue.

The only difference is that a private company will have to make a profit from the deal.

 

[Toby Warren]

There's no reason why these people can't be employed by the Police force. There are plenty of civilian employees of the Police already. Do you think their HR department is staffed by boys in blue.

The only difference is that a private company will have to make a profit from the deal.

Of course they can and if you feel that is the best way of running things - that's great.

As said before I have less of a clear cut view. I also work for a company that sub contracts some public sector works so admit a bias in the discussion.

I can assure you it's not as simple as public good private bad. Nor is it as simple as public doesn't work for a profit therefore it's got be better.

 

[Taff]

If this does go ahead, what are the odds on loads of retired coppers setting up their own private companies to bid for the work?

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

Nor is it as simple as public doesn't work for a profit therefore it's got be better.

It isn't that simple but it really ought to be. I've never understood why the public sector has a problem with running a business properly.
In the 70s the state chose not to lay off hundreds of employees of British Leyland even though they couldn't make cars but that was a decision based on the effect/cost of laying them off against the effect/cost of keeping them on.

There is no reason why, if run properly, a public company can't be exactly as efficient as a private one, if only the state had the bottle to let the people in charge run it as such. On such a basis a public company wouldn't be better it would be exactly the same only cheaper as there is no profit to be taken out.

Now if we can just get the goverments of all hues to get their political hands of the police, NHS etc etc.......

 

[Taff]

.... There is no reason why, if run properly, a public company can't be exactly as efficient as a private one ...

Now class. 20 house points to the first pupil to spot the key word in that sentence.

 

[Toby Warren]

It isn't that simple but it really ought to be. I've never understood why the public sector has a problem with running a business properly.
In the 70s the state chose not to lay off hundreds of employees of British Leyland even though they couldn't make cars but that was a decision based on the effect/cost of laying them off against the effect/cost of keeping them on.

There is no reason why, if run properly, a public company can't be exactly as efficient as a private one, if only the state had the bottle to let the people in charge run it as such. On such a basis a public company wouldn't be better it would be exactly the same only cheaper as there is no profit to be taken out.

Now if we can just get the goverments of all hues to get their political hands of the police, NHS etc etc.......

Trouble is the public sector isn't a business and is subject to hugely different forces than a purely commercial business. (for a start the law is different for public sector).

Asking them to be more efficient is in my view is unlikely. Systemically they are designed differently. It's like turning an oil tanker.

My personal favourite is the co-op method. We are trialling (with good effect) at some of our sites that all employees are targeted and 'bonused' on the same targets but also the exactly same reward - i.e the most junior employee gets the same % as the GM.

Early days but showing some really positive signs.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

Trouble is the public sector isn't a business and is subject to hugely different forces than a purely commercial business. A)(for a start the law is different for public sector).

B)Systemically they are designed differently.

C) My personal favourite is the co-op method. We are trialling (with good effect) at some of our sites that all employees are targeted and 'bonused' on the same targets but also the exactly same reward - i.e the most junior employee gets the same % as the GM.

A) It doesn't have to be but politicians feel the need for a bit of social engineering
B) They don't have to be etc etc
C) I wholeheartedly approve of the co-op method but the bonus scheme wont work unless you can get buy-in (I hate that phrase) from the junior staff, which is difficult. We tried it in our organisation of 5000 staff and below a certain level the staff felt they had no ownership (I hate that as well) of the targets so just trudge along and feel robbed when they don't get the bonus they expected. Changing that is certainly an oil tanker but, unless there have been several environmental disasters that I haven't read about, oil tankers do actually turn eventually.

 

[Toby Warren]

Getting the bonus right has been tough, we've settled on.

Total profit (needs to be paid for!)
Fuel use
Accident rate
Absence rates
Plus some industry specific measures

Very hard to do. Don't under estimate the vested interests.

 

[OB..]

A private company has to make a profit or it fails. That is not true in the public sector so the drivers are different. Some parts of the public sector, eg police, cannot be expected to make a profit as they do not charge for their central services - indeed who could they charge for detective work, for example. MI5 as a public company?

Where the state decides to run businesses such as the coal mines, and to some extent the NHS, you would hope they could do so efficiently, but there is always the fact in the background that they will get bailed out if necessary by the taxpayer.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

but there is always the fact in the background that they will get bailed out if necessary by the taxpayer.

Whilst trying not to sound like a Daily Mirror headline writer....unlike RBS and Lloyds

Either have a free market or don't

 

[Robert Burns]

The positive side of having a subcontractor is that you will pay them less than you pay your own staff when you take into account annual leave, sick pay, tax, pensions etc. (because the subcontractor will employ for less and therefore cost less)

The other positive side is that you will assign your subcontractor some fairly ridged KPI's to ensure that they are performing as required. If they fail any of their KPI's then they will be hit with a financial penalty. This ensuring they work as hard as possible to deliver what is expected of them.

I agree with Toby that private does not equal bad, but it must be accountable and provide the same service as well or better than the previous system in order to be accepted.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

The positive side of having a subcontractor is that you will pay them less than you pay your own staff when you take into account annual leave, sick pay, tax, pensions etc. (because the subcontractor will employ for less and therefore cost less)

This would be a long conversation that probably doesn't belong here but rather on a politics forum.
If the subcontractor is paying the staff less,then the argument would be that this is the market value for that quality/quantity of work, if suitably qualified people are willing to do the job for the lower amount (with the sub-contractor) then that's their market value. The organisation employing the sub-contractor could employ these people for exactly the same, lower, wage.
The total paid to the sub-contractor must be greater than the total salary the worker would earn, including leave, sick pay, pension etc plus a little profit. So in theory the original organisation could pay the lower wage minus the profit and so do it for less.
The problem, as I said before is that government will not allow public bodies to have the same flexibility for employment as private companies.
If you want market forces to be able to drive salaries, thats fine as long as you accept that they can go up as well as down

 

[Ian_Cook]

Now class. 20 house points to the first pupil to spot the key word in that sentence.

Ahem..... IF?

 

[Robert Burns]

The positive side of having a subcontractor is that you will pay them less than you pay your own staff when you take into account annual leave, sick pay, tax, pensions etc. (because the subcontractor will employ for less and therefore cost less)

This would be a long conversation that probably doesn't belong here but rather on a politics forum.
If the subcontractor is paying the staff less,then the argument would be that this is the market value for that quality/quantity of work, if suitably qualified people are willing to do the job for the lower amount (with the sub-contractor) then that's their market value. The organisation employing the sub-contractor could employ these people for exactly the same, lower, wage.
The total paid to the sub-contractor must be greater than the total salary the worker would earn, including leave, sick pay, pension etc plus a little profit. So in theory the original organisation could pay the lower wage minus the profit and so do it for less.
The problem, as I said before is that government will not allow public bodies to have the same flexibility for employment as private companies.
If you want market forces to be able to drive salaries, thats fine as long as you accept that they can go up as well as down

It's not great for those who are working it, but it's value for money for those paying taxes (you are basically non profiting investors).

It's down to the managers to ensure the quality is there. If it isn't they will miss their KPI's and suffer.

Think of it the same way as you building a garage on the side of your house. You get 3 quotes and almost always will go for the cheaper. When they start building you have 2 choices you can either sit back and let them build it and then debate issues at the end, or you can be part of the process at each step ensuring the are doing each bit as agreed.

One way will get you what you want, the other won't. Do you really care about the companies you didn't give the work too or their staff? Not really as that is not your concern. You just want your garage built well for a good price.

No one said the modern world was perfect. But that's the way it works.

 

[Taff]

Ahem..... IF?

Very well spotted lad. Go straight to the top of the class.

Ricardowensleydale is of course correct; "There is no reason why, if run properly, a public company can't be exactly as efficient as a private one, if only the state had the bottle to let the people in charge run it as such" but the problem is that too many people see the public sector as an enormous job creation scheme rather than just a means of prividing a public service. In short, they feel the country owes them a living and the public sector is there to keep them in a job. The unions are far too powerful and I would suggest that there are far too many people in charge who would rather "go with the flow" than rock the boat, so they keep their mouth shut and count down the days to their gold-plated public sector pension. After all it's not their money that's being wasted is it?

Yes most tankers do turn eventually, but it's also true that some don't and hit rocks in some style as the Sea Empress and the Torrey Canyon reminded us.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

I would suggest that there are far too many people in charge who would rather "go with the flow" than rock the boat, so they keep their mouth shut

That is exactly the problem. Why is there an unwillingness in the public sector to give people who aren't doing their job properly the heave-ho. There is this problem. We all know it and we all know that this is why there is a dreadful momentum.
That is where the Government needs the bottle to change things. The Public Sector pays it's top execs salaries which are supposedly equivalent to the private sector, why are these execs unwilling to earn their £250K. It really doesn't have a gret deal to do with the unions anymore.
I've always considered myself left wing but never understood why the left is unwilling to say "these people are stealing money from the state by not working hard or doing their job properly, get rid of them"
If you like, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...these people are not using their abilities and are robbing those in need.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

I would suggest that there are far too many people in charge who would rather "go with the flow" than rock the boat, so they keep their mouth shut

That is exactly the problem. Why is there an unwillingness in the public sector to give people who aren't doing their job properly the heave-ho. There is this problem. We all know it and we all know that this is why there is a dreadful momentum.
That is where the Government needs the bottle to change things. The Public Sector pays it's top execs salaries which are supposedly equivalent to the private sector, why are these execs unwilling to earn their £250K. It really doesn't have a gret deal to do with the unions anymore.
I've always considered myself left wing but never understood why the left is unwilling to say "these people are stealing money from the state by not working hard or doing their job properly, get rid of them"
If you like, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...these people are not using their abilities and are robbing those in need.
Or for the more traditional amongst you "He who does not work, neither shall he eat" II Thessalonians 3:10

 

[Davet]

In general terms private companies will compete against each other for business - which is not merely a matter of employing the same people to do the same job but for less money, it is also about Business Process Re-engineering - doing things in a different way and finding efficiencies by doing so. A single organisation can't just keep chopping and changing - but several organisations doing the same job in different ways will help evolve the fittest way to do it.

but the key is to define "fittest"; which is where intelligent KPIs come in, together with penalties for missing that mean something and affect the survival of the organisations concerned.

The issue with the police is that they have significant powers of arrest and detention, and indeed the power to investigate or not in the first place. Many feel that having that power in hands that may be commercially aware is not a good thing. After all we trust the police won't ignore stuff just because someone has bought them a bottle or two of champagne. Don't we?