Another way..., £12m of savings, but frontline services protected Options

[user23]

Without looking at the documentation, I believe the customer service savings would be through redundancies. Shaw House would involve one redundancy and an alteration of working practices, but once we get the detail we have requested is there a reason to prevent customer services absorbing the contact centre and for Shaw House to be run as a trust with the council renting the bits they require?

So basically you're sacking people from most departments and have botched together some numbers to try to back it up.

What would happen in customer service after you sacked a few of the telephone operators? Would you make people wait longer on the phone or make the more specialist back office staff answer more direct calls from the public?

[GMR]

But this is it. Labour have said they will support what is needed provided it is thought out and fair. The bits Labour object to nationally are not fair, whilst there is so much going through without comment because we are not opposing it.

Again, locally they had the chance to review what is waste or cut frontline services. They chose frontline services. It's an easy option, and as I said earlier, I can't make decisions about national policy but I can and I am willing to take them locally if Graham Jones and others don't want to do it.

Isn't fair a matter of opinion? I believe your objective is not to be 'fair' but to make political gain out of criticising the coalition government. As i said many times, even Brown had admitted that if he had won he would have been even more severe than Thatcher. Labour had their chance, now it is the turn of the coalition; they might fail, then again they might not. Let us support them.

[Richard Garvie]

So basically you're sacking people from most departments and have botched together some numbers to try to back it up.

What would happen in customer service after you sacked a few of the telephone operators? Would you make people wait longer on the phone or make the more specialist back office staff answer more direct calls from the public?

I would protect frontline services. there needs to be serious saving all over the council, but surely the purpose of the council is to give a better end product and good value? Axing frontline services and failing to address waste is not the way forward, despite what the Tories might think. I know, let's not have any change at Market street but axe bus services (that's right, there almost cut to the bone already) axe a few more day centres (that's right, now we only have four left) or maybe we should scrap youth services altogether? The fact is, no matter how many frontline services the Tories cut, there will be a time they need to make savings at Market street, lets not bury our heads and pretend otherwise. This is a clear example of tackling the tough decisions, and Labour would do just that. I'm sorry, but I will not sit here and defend the axe being taken to frontline services when the Tories refuse to look within the council cost base for waste.

But as long as you are ok User23, who cares about what happens to the carers and the youth workers.

[user23]

I believe the customer service savings would be through redundancies.

I would protect frontline services. there needs to be serious saving all over the council, but surely the purpose of the council is to give a better end product and good value? Axing frontline services and failing to address waste is not the way forward

Make your mind up, are you or aren't you going to make redundancies in customer service and other front line services?

What would happen in customer service after you sacked a few of the telephone operators? Would you make people wait longer on the phone or make the more specialist staff (like youth workers and carers) answer more direct calls from the public?

What's all this waste you're on about too, give us all some more details please?

[Richard Garvie]

I already said I would reduce staff numbers. You know as well as I do that regardless of what I put in an alternative budget, staff numbers will have to be reduced. The key thing here is whether we prioritise actual frontline services, or whether we just make huge cuts to the care staff. Then again, isn't the reduction of care staff more ideology that was decided some time ago?

The customer services team and contact centre could effectively work under the same banner, with savings made through management cost reductions and and the naturage wastage of some positions. Where is the Tory plan? The real one? You know, the one they have already set and keeping hidden away? As for the Lib Dems, they slate Labour for objecting to some cuts because they are genuinely not fair, yet when it comes to the West Berks Lib Dems they kick up merry h ell without having a genuine, reasearched, thought out plan themselves and it's ok for them!!! Very much a case of double standards on both the Tories and Lib Dems part. Our elected members should be hanging their heads in shame, so much for protecting the vulnerable.

Just so I answer your question, we won't have any care workers left should we win control of the council next year, which is a crying shame. Maybe we can get some of the office staff to go out and shower disabled patients, help them go to the loo and all of the other tasks our brilliant care workers provide. You may remember talking about care workers a few weeks ago, if these decisions were not prejudged, how did we know they were going to be hard hit by the cuts?

On Monday, we will be launching our "show West Berks the red card" campaign. I will be asking local residents to sign red cards which will then be handed to Graham Jones (the leader of the council) to show him exactly our the majority of people in West Berkshire feel about his cuts. If you want to take part and sign one of our red cards, call me on 07593 278690 or email richard.garvie@googlemail.com.

[user23]

The customer services team and contact centre could effectively work under the same banner, with savings made through management cost reductions and and the naturage wastage of some positions. Where is the Tory plan? The real one? You know, the one they have already set and keeping hidden away? As for the Lib Dems, they slate Labour for objecting to some cuts because they are genuinely not fair, yet when it comes to the West Berks Lib Dems they kick up merry h ell without having a genuine, reasearched, thought out plan themselves and it's ok for them!!! Very much a case of double standards on both the Tories and Lib Dems part. Our elected members should be hanging their heads in shame, so much for protecting the vulnerable.

Didn't this already been happen ten years ago when Amey ran things? You've based your entire cost saving plan on things that already happened and you've done next to no research it would seem. It's just vague numbers, waffle about getting rid of managers and waste followed by attack after attack on others.

Richard, you're awful at this, do stop it now and go and do something else. You obviously haven't learnt the lessons from Kinnock in '92 as you're saying things like "by the time we win control of the council" and you've ruining whatever little chance that Labour in West Berkshire had, judging by the responses in this thread.

[Richard Garvie]

For the small number of people like you User23 who spin my comments to look like something completely different, why would anyone believe what you say? The fact is, you seem to be fighting against the cuts being directed at waste and spending within the back office yet seem perfectly happy for Graham Jones to slash frontline services.

[user23]

For the small number of people like you User23 who spin my comments to look like something completely different, why would anyone believe what you say?

Don't take my word for it. Next time you ring up to use one of their front line services ask them "are the customer services team and contact centre effectively working under the same banner". I think you might get the answer that they're the same thing and have been for ten years or so. Perhaps you should have done a bit of research like this before botching together your plan and making the Labour Party look daft?

As for the "small number of people". I can't find one person in this thread that agrees with you.

[Richard Garvie]

In terms of financial cost centres, are they the same team?

[user23]

In terms of financial cost centres, are they the same team?

You've just told everyone you can make £360,000 worth of savings every year in customer service and the contact centre. How can you propose this without knowing the answer to your question?

Please, for Labour's sake, stop now.

[Richard Garvie]

I do know the answer. And the answer is very clear, we spend:

Cost Centre 45560: Contact Centre - £812,780 per year
Cost centre 48514: Customer Services - £454,120 per year

Almost £1.3m on the same department then?

[Richard Garvie]

One area we didn't make savings because I can't find any detail of what each cost centre does:

48610: Imagery, graphic design - £40,840
48620: Imagery, reprographic services - £317,720
48626: Print rationalisation - £259,570

Is this an efficient use of public money?

[Richard Garvie]

Another cost we didn't understand so didn't include in our figures:

41450: Other general expenses - £616,100

[user23]

I do know the answer. And the answer is very clear

Why did you ask the question then. You plan to save £360,000 by merging two front line departments (and sacking a load of people) that might already be one? You've basically published a spreadsheet of meaningless figures accompanied by a whole load of waffle.

[On the edge]

Standards of service are an interesting point. In resource terms, it does cost a lot to resource up so that call answering targets are met. With the telephony kit most organisations have - that's an easy measure. So, efficiency equals time it takes to answer.... All that really demonstrates is bad target setting. When what the customers want isn't 'sub second call answer' - just reasonable pick up AND the right answer when they get through. So with effective management, numbers can be trimmed and costs reduced. Less staff, but more effective. I have to say, every time I've called WBC - the phone has been answered very quickly indeed, but try getting an answer without being passed from pillar to post, only to find 'Mr Pringle is at lunch!!' On their stats. they've handled my call well by meeting the target.

[Richard Garvie]

Exactly. Numbers can be reduced, and with a bit of training staff can take calls on various different issues. The Tesco call centre in Dundee handles calls for flowers by phone, tesco wine, clubcard and who knows what else. Operators are trained up one department at a time, and when calls come in it says what department the call is on the phone and brings up the contact centre notes for that department. We could have a similar system which promotes more efficient working and also saves a bit of money. But as the poster above says, it's ok being answered quickly but do you actually get a result from you initial call (or calls)? By having a bit of a shake up, we can probably end up with a better service. But this is why we need to employ non traditional methods when setting the budget, take away the heart and make decisions with the head. It doesn't matter what party I represent, my colleagues and I have been working our socks off to come up with a genuine alternative. What have the Tories and the Lib Dems done? That's right, they continue to bury their heads and leave everything to the officers. They will then fob us off with tall tales about the previous Government!!!

[user23]

Exactly. Numbers can be reduced, and with a bit of training staff can take calls on various different issues. The Tesco call centre in Dundee handles calls for flowers by phone, tesco wine, clubcard and who knows what else. Operators are trained up one department at a time, and when calls come in it says what department the call is on the phone and brings up the contact centre notes for that department. We could have a similar system which promotes more efficient working and also saves a bit of money. But as the poster above says, it's ok being answered quickly but do you actually get a result from you initial call (or calls)? By having a bit of a shake up, we can probably end up with a better service. But this is why we need to employ non traditional methods when setting the budget, take away the heart and make decisions with the head. It doesn't matter what party I represent, my colleagues and I have been working our socks off to come up with a genuine alternative. What have the Tories and the Lib Dems done? That's right, they continue to bury their heads and leave everything to the officers. They will then fob us off with tall tales about the previous Government!!!

I mostly agree with you on this one Richard. Unfortunately you're looking to cut the budget of the front line service that answers the phones to the tune of £360,000 so it's unlikely to happen. You'll need to spend more on this service in terms of staff numbers, staff training and IT investment to get what you describe to work effectively.

[Richard Garvie]

Again it's all about opinions!!! I believe savings can be made, and once we see the call volume stats and everything else, I will publish them here and you can tell me if savings can't be made. I would rather we didn't have to make savings in any department, but the reality is we need to save £33,320,000 over four years. Every department is likely to see cost reductions at some point, it's unavoidable. The officers have put together the Tory plan, and regardless what anyone says this is the plan they will use. Instead of standing up and saying "these are the difficult choices we have taken", they continue to PAY for advertising asking people to take part in what is an online only consultation. We have been open and honest about some of the difficult choices we need to take, the Tories continue to keep theirs under wraps (not that anyone other than Graham Jones will have any idea of what it involves) and the Lib Dems will just moan about the Tory plan without proposing their own. There is always a danger about being open with what you would do instead, and that is that there will always be something that each person would like to save. I think it's time that our friends who get paid to represent us stood up and had their say on what they would do.

User23, can you please respond to the points I raised above?

[Richard Garvie]

One area we didn't make savings because I can't find any detail of what each cost centre does:

48610: Imagery, graphic design - £40,840
48620: Imagery, reprographic services - £317,720
48626: Print rationalisation - £259,570

Is this an efficient use of public money?

Another cost we didn't understand so didn't include in our figures:

41450: Other general expenses - £616,100

[blackdog]

Why did you ask the question then. You plan to save £360,000 by merging two front line departments (and sacking a load of people) that might already be one? You've basically published a spreadsheet of meaningless figures accompanied by a whole load of waffle.

I tend to agree that the cuts suggested by Newbury Labour are little more than a list of figures of savings made from budgets that they know little about. To be fair to them it is a plan - which is more than the Lib-Dems have come up with.

Now its your chance User - how would you propose that WBC cut 9.2% from their budget?