More Dismal Reading

[IanD]

1 minute ago, ditchcrawler said:

I think most large companies do. It actually costs quite a bit to employ someone if you are a decent employer, Pay rate, holiday pay, sick pay, training, protective clothing etc. Same with plant that may lay idle for months

All the highlighted factors apply equally to direct employees and contractors. The biggest saving is from maximising utilisation of both people and especially expensive plant, which is much easier for big contractors with many customers in many different areas than a relatively small business like CART where both end up sitting idle for periods when work is impossible for one reason or another but can't easily be redeployed elsewhere.

 

If using contractors wasn't cheaper than direct labour, companies wouldn't do it... 😉

[Paul C]

1 hour ago, Midnight said:

I would love to hear from anyone about an alternative solution that doesn't involve the government handing over even more money for Parry to squander. 

 

 

 

 

 

OK No worries, nothing much to add from the last time a similar thread came up on this same/similar topic.

[Midnight]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

All the highlighted factors apply equally to direct employees and contractors. The biggest saving is from maximising utilisation of both people and especially expensive plant, which is much easier for big contractors with many customers in many different areas than a relatively small business like CART where both end up sitting idle for periods when work is impossible for one reason or another but can't easily be redeployed elsewhere.

 

If using contractors wasn't cheaper than direct labour, companies wouldn't do it... 😉

If it is the most cost-effective way for a particular project then I agree. When I hear from C&RT ground staff that they are not allowed to fix a valve on a hydraulic paddle and they have to get the contractors in then no. Horses for courses me thinks.

 

 

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

 

OK No worries, nothing much to add from the last time a similar thread came up on this same/similar topic.

Remind me of your solution

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Midnight

[ditchcrawler]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

All the highlighted factors apply equally to direct employees and contractors. The biggest saving is from maximising utilisation of both people and especially expensive plant, which is much easier for big contractors with many customers in many different areas than a relatively small business like CART where both end up sitting idle for periods when work is impossible for one reason or another but can't easily be redeployed elsewhere.

 

If using contractors wasn't cheaper than direct labour, companies wouldn't do it... 😉

No, In my experience of working for a large good company the contractors were on a shit deal and a lot lot cheaper than company employees. Do you think the grass cutting teams on the towpath are still employed and paid if there is no grass to cut, they are probably on Zero hour contracts, probably no pension as not employed long enough. They wont be posting to this forum on full pay. 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Midnight said:

.. and efficiency savings!
(Sorry for the jargon but what else would that be?)

 

At least closing canals is part of a possible solution. They already seem to have closed some of the Pennine Routes.

Further increased funding from the government is not a realistic alternative no party will support that ATM. The cavalry are not coming over the hill so how do we run the show with what we have?

Therese Coffey: "Today, I am notifying Parliament of our intention to provide additional grant funding from 2027 to the Canal & River Trust. The Trust is a charity responsible for 2,000 miles of waterways and associated historic industrial infrastructure in England and Wales. The Trust is responsible for maintaining navigability and safety of its waterways including reservoirs, embankments and other infrastructure."

No mention there of non-essentials.

I didn't say smarter working is the whole answer, but...

How many paddles can be fixed for the same cost of a media person to manage sponsored (££££s) Facebook adverts?
How many swing bridges can be fixed for the same cost of running events like let's fish, let's walk etc? Other agencies can do that.
How many small jobs can be carried out by ground staff so contactors aren't needed?
How much extra funding would a membership scheme bring in? (Yes I know other users would have a say)
Yes increase income from users (all users), but be carefull you get the balance right or a decrease will be the result.

Remember the video with Parry stood near the L&L breach saying he was going to spend more on maintenance and cut down on non-essentials.
How many have been cut down?
How many could be cut down?
Look across the whole business model and see how every £pound is spent. Then spend only on what is vital to acheive the core business. If there's any money left over, Facebook adverts and the like are fine. They could even employ a Poet Laureate to vandalise lock beams.

... or do we just roll over and say there's nothing else except more government funding and admit defeat?

 

 

 

"Efficiency savings" is very often trumpeted as the magic solution to getting more for less; what it usually means is sacking people, especially more expensive experienced ones, and if unavoidable replacing them with younger cheaper inexperienced people. Isn't this exactly the opposite of what you wanted, which was keeping an experienced workforce who knew what they were doing?

 

You keep banging on about publicity and media as if all this can be got rid of and the money saved used to fix paddles, but this is entirely ignoring the government-driven policy to get more use of the canals for non-boaters -- which means spending money on this.

 

You might not agree with this policy but it's one CART have zero chance of changing because it's not their choice. Stopping such a policy would most likely see the government further reducing the CART grant which would make things *much* worse for boaters than any savings in publicity/media cost -- it's the law of unintended consequences in action... 😞

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

No, In my experience of working for a large good company the contractors were on a shit deal and a lot lot cheaper than company employees. Do you think the grass cutting teams on the towpath are still employed and paid if there is no grass to cut, they are probably on Zero hour contracts, probably no pension as not employed long enough. They wont be posting to this forum on full pay. 

I didn't say the employees of contractors were better-paid, as you say they're often not. But that still makes using them cheaper than direct employees, so what are CART supposed to do -- spend even more of the money they haven't got on fewer better-paid/treated direct employees so even less maintenance gets done?

[Midnight]

24 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

"Efficiency savings" is very often trumpeted as the magic solution to getting more for less; what it usually means is sacking people, especially more expensive experienced ones, and if unavoidable replacing them with younger cheaper inexperienced people. Isn't this exactly the opposite of what you wanted, which was keeping an experienced workforce who knew what they were doing?

 

You keep banging on about publicity and media as if all this can be got rid of and the money saved used to fix paddles, but this is entirely ignoring the government-driven policy to get more use of the canals for non-boaters -- which means spending money on this.

 

You might not agree with this policy but it's one CART have zero chance of changing because it's not their choice. Stopping such a policy would most likely see the government further reducing the CART grant which would make things *much* worse for boaters than any savings in publicity/media cost -- it's the law of unintended consequences in action... 😞

"what it usually means is sacking people," In my experience of local authority this usually meant managers on fat salaries. If they sacked half of the C&RT top brass nobody would notice. If they sacked any more ground staff everybody would notice.

Where is this government-driven policy? The EA run waterways but I don't see them on Facebook. Boaters already do a lot of FB promotion of canals.

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Midnight

[Allan(nb Albert)]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Which was exactly my point -- blaming Richard Parry (or blue signs, or executive bonuses, or subcontracting, or gold-plating, or empire-building, or...) is simply trying to shift the blame away from the real cause of the problem which is a mismatch between required and available funding, as Dickens famously pointed out.

 

The only "solutions" -- not suggested by me, simply the unvarnished truth -- are either to significantly reduce the required funding (e.g. by closing canals -- though this is difficult for reasons explained many times) or increase the available funding. Many people on here are strongly resistant to boaters paying more -- even though it's often been said that the license fee is "a bargain" -- and the only realistic alternative is increased funding from the government, which could be justified by making the waterways attractive to people (not just boaters) and seeing them as a historic item of UK infrastructure which is worth preserving. If only the government chose to do this, which they clearly haven't... 😞

 

Anyone saying that boaters shouldn't pay more and the government is already generously paying more than they have to is effectively saying that they accept the inevitable decline of the canals in future -- and this is clearly the attitude of some on CWDF, either saying "I'm glad I'm out of it, the best days are past", or "it's all going to hell in a handbasket, but I don't care because I'll be dead by then anyway"... 😞

You forgot to put "rant over" at the end ...

 

[IanD]

Just now, Allan(nb Albert) said:

You forgot to put "rant over" at the end ...

 

It's not a rant, just some facts that some people don't want to face up to. If you don't like them, maybe you can find some alternative facts you prefer? It worked for Donald Trump... 😉

[Allan(nb Albert)]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

It's not a rant, just some facts that some people don't want to face up to. If you don't like them, maybe you can find some alternative facts you prefer? It worked for Donald Trump... 😉

You mean alternative facts like the government setting visitor number targets for CRT? Deliberate lie or did you not bother to check?

Anybody any idea what the current funding gap is?

Anybody any idea how much needs to be spent each year to maintain the waterways?

[Arthur Marshall]

Two points. First, of course using contractors is cheaper for the company. It also means you get workers not invested in the job, and, if on minimum wages, resentful too, so you get shoddy and unsatisfactory work. They won't be coming back to make good - someone else will do that.

Secondly, I'm not sure where this nonsense that licences are too cheap is coming from. Possibly true if you're residential in the middle of London, elsewhere, it simply isn't so.

The majority of boaters are leisure owners, and most of those only get out for a few weeks in the year. Six or seven grand a year for that aint cheap - that's over a thousand quid a week for a holiday in something you already own. I reckon my old boat on a cheap mooring now costs me about two thousand a year in CRT's licence and fees (with another thousand or two on top for maintenance). I'm lucky in that I use the boat for about three months of the year - when there's anywhere I can go because of stoppages. It might be cheap for a merchant banker, but not for me and I suspect not for most users.

[Tonka]

17 hours ago, IanD said:

You're missing my point -- I'm not saying CART are brilliant or beyond reproach, exactly the opposite. But lots of people seem to be harking back to "the good old days" with things like lengthsmen/lockies who were paid a pittance but often had cheap/subsidised accommodation (lock cottages) which is simply impossible nowadays. Same with inhouse jobs-for-life (but badly paid) workforces, nobody wants to do this nowadays when working for contractors pays better. And doing quick repairs in ways which are simply incompatible with modern H&S practices, which many people pooh-ooh but are there for very good reasons (reducing workplace deaths and injuries) and and can't be legally ignored anyway.

 

It's not the last century any more, and CART need to work in ways that are compatible with modern working practices. If you don't like that, I suggest you hop in a time machine... 😉

 

The inhouse vs. contracted workforce comes up time after time, and there are very good reasons why so many firms use contractors nowadays, largely to save money -- and since CART are short of funding, what else are they supposed to do? A skilled inhouse workforce is an expensive luxury nowadays which can only be justified if there's enough money to pay for it -- I know, I'm part of one... 😉

 

So yes you get what you pay for, but as in so many areas nowadays the only realistic option is to do things as cheaply as possible (subcontractors) and accept that the quality is lower. That's a reality just as much for CART as many other cash-strapped organisations... 😞

But using a contractor doesn't necessarily save money. British Airways outsourced all of their IT to an Indian Company because according to the accountant the hourly rate was cheaper. The fact that it took longer and so ended up costing more could not be seen by the accountant 

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

You mean alternative facts like the government setting visitor number targets for CRT? Deliberate lie or did you not bother to check?

Anybody any idea what the current funding gap is?

Anybody any idea how much needs to be spent each year to maintain the waterways?

 

I assume you've read the documents/briefings from the government setting out their policies/plans for CART, and read the documents (and watched the videos) from CART about what they're doing with the canals and why?

 

If you disagree that these make it pretty clear where the government's priorities apply -- getting millions of people to make more use of the canals, not tens of thousands of boaters -- then you're just ignoring the evidence.

 

Various estimates of the funding gap have been put forwards, including the maintenance backlog something like £100M/year is probably the shortfall to adequately maintain the canals. Nobody's saying this is an exact figure because there are too many unknowns, but it's something like this.

4 minutes ago, Tonka said:

But using a contractor doesn't necessarily save money. British Airways outsourced all of their IT to an Indian Company because according to the accountant the hourly rate was cheaper. The fact that it took longer and so ended up costing more could not be seen by the accountant 

Any other cherries you'd like to pick?

 

Companies and organisations use subcontractors because it costs less than having a large organisation of direct employees, and cost is the most important thing nowadays -- either to make profit for shareholders and executives (boo! hiss!) or to make the best use if what little money you have (CART).

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Midnight]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

If you disagree that these make it pretty clear where the government's priorities apply -- getting millions of people to make more use of the canals, not tens of thousands of boaters -- then you're just ignoring the evidence.

 

 C&RT already seem quite adept at fiddling the numbers so why bother with expensive publicity just lie - oh!

[IanD]

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Two points. First, of course using contractors is cheaper for the company. It also means you get workers not invested in the job, and, if on minimum wages, resentful too, so you get shoddy and unsatisfactory work. They won't be coming back to make good - someone else will do that.

Secondly, I'm not sure where this nonsense that licences are too cheap is coming from. Possibly true if you're residential in the middle of London, elsewhere, it simply isn't so.

The majority of boaters are leisure owners, and most of those only get out for a few weeks in the year. Six or seven grand a year for that aint cheap - that's over a thousand quid a week for a holiday in something you already own. I reckon my old boat on a cheap mooring now costs me about two thousand a year in CRT's licence and fees (with another thousand or two on top for maintenance). I'm lucky in that I use the boat for about three months of the year - when there's anywhere I can go because of stoppages. It might be cheap for a merchant banker, but not for me and I suspect not for most users.

 

If you're spending six or seven grand a year on boating and maybe 15% of that is going to the organisation that makes it possible at all (CART) and they haven't got enough money to sustain the canals, it's not unreasonable to say they should get a bigger slice of the boating pie because without the canals the rest of the money is useless. Yes this will put up the cost of boating. What is the alternative?

 

The impact on less well-off boaters could be reduced by stronger banding of license fees (e.g. by boat age/cost), but every time this is suggested the boaters who would pay more to compensate scream in anguish... 😞

5 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 C&RT already seem quite adept at fiddling the numbers so why bother with expensive publicity just lie - oh!

The publicity is not aimed at you, it's aimed at Joe Public who might consider walking/cycling/fishing. Oh dear, all the things that many boaters seem to hate... 😞

[Midnight]

6 minutes ago, IanD said:

The publicity is not aimed at you, it's aimed at Joe Public ....

 

...but you said it was Government policy. So C&RT's already incredibly high visitor numbers must surely satisfy the policy aims without spending any more on publicity?

[Paul C]

57 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

 

Remind me of your solution

 

 

 

It’s already been mentioned on this thread, by someone else. It’s not worth repeating; and I don’t see any significantly different angle on this thread to others, or new info. So I’ll spare you.

[adam1uk]

14 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 

...but you said it was Government policy. So C&RT's already incredibly high visitor numbers must surely satisfy the policy aims without spending any more on publicity?

 

When the government did actually say that CRT was good value for money.  And then they cut the grant for future years anyway.

[Arthur Marshall]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

... 😞

The publicity is not aimed at you, it's aimed at Joe Public who might consider walking/cycling/fishing. Oh dear, all the things that many boaters seem to hate... 😞

Does anyone, anywhere, really think a sign saying "Enjoy your local canal" is going to suddenly make someone decide to have a stroll on the towpath? Especially, as to see the sign, they are already on it?

You'd need publicity NOT on the canal to encourage its use. On there, it's pointless.

[Alan de Enfield]

48 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Secondly, I'm not sure where this nonsense that licences are too cheap is coming from. Possibly true if you're residential in the middle of London, elsewhere, it simply isn't so.

The majority of boaters are leisure owners, and most of those only get out for a few weeks in the year. Six or seven grand a year for that aint cheap

 

 

Whilst you relate the costs to the 'too cheap licence fees' one hopes that you are actually including other costs in your figure of 'six or seven grand a year', or, is that you forecast for the licence fee in the near / medium future ?

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Does anyone, anywhere, really think a sign saying "Enjoy your local canal" is going to suddenly make someone decide to have a stroll on the towpath? Especially, as to see the sign, they are already on it?

You'd need publicity NOT on the canal to encourage its use. On there, it's pointless.

You mean like online and Facebook publicity campaigns, which were also being complained about?

 

Signs like you mentioned -- as in many other places like national parks -- are intended to make people feel more welcome, which encourages them to come back or tell other people. It's simple psychology, and whether you as a boater think it's pointless or not is missing the point entirely... 😉

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

U

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Whilst you relate the costs to the 'too cheap licence fees' one hopes that you are actually including other costs in your figure of 'six or seven grand a year', or, is that you forecast for the licence fee in the near / medium future ?

I was including general costs. Whether a part of something is cheap or not is proportional to the total cost of owning it. When I started this lark, my licence/CRT fees cost about half my mooring costs. Now they are five times it.

It also matters what you are paying for, which for the past few years and the forseeable future is not to be able to go where you want to when you want to. It's like being forced to buy a train ticket and book your seat on a train that the company know it's going to cancel, and doesn't have enough capacity anyway, but won't refund the money.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

U

I was including general costs. Whether a part of something is cheap or not is proportional to the total cost of owning it. When I started this lark, my licence/CRT fees cost about half my mooring costs. Now they are five times it.

It also matters what you are paying for, which for the past few years and the forseeable future is not to be able to go where you want to when you want to. It's like being forced to buy a train ticket and book your seat on a train that the company know it's going to cancel, and doesn't have enough capacity anyway, but won't refund the money.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make -- that your mooring fees have gone up by much less than the license fee and presumably everything else over the years? You could have compared the annual license fee to the price of a big flat-screen TV, that would have made it look even *more* expensive... 😉

 

Yes it's being forced to pay more for an ever-deteriorating service, just like the trains. That's what happens when costs go up and you have insufficient investment in both infrastructure, hardware and people -- track, trains and train staff for the railways. It's a real bummer... 😞

Edited October 26, 2023 by IanD

[Allan(nb Albert)]

50 minutes ago, Midnight said:

 C&RT already seem quite adept at fiddling the numbers so why bother with expensive publicity just lie - oh!

Here is an example of "fiddling the numbers" from the annual report that fed into the Defra grant review. Visitor numbers more of less double from the previous year presumably to give the impression that public benefit had also risen

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Here is an example of "fiddling the numbers" from the annual report that fed into the Defra grant review. Visitor numbers more of less double from the previous year presumably to give the impression that public benefit had also risen

 

 

Add that into the mix of 'how the numbers are obtained' and it all becomes very questionable.

 

Phone 1000 people (at random  - yeh - that happens doesn't it) and ask if they have visited or been near a canal in the last 2 weeks.

 

Multipy the answer by 65,000 to get the extrapolated number as part of the population.

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Add that into the mix of 'how the numbers are obtained' and it all becomes very questionable.

 

Phone 1000 people (at random  - yeh - that happens doesn't it) and ask if they have visited or been near a canal in the last 2 weeks.

 

Multipy the answer by 65,000 to get the extrapolated number as part of the population.

You mean, just like all polls work?

 

(except you'd hope that to be statistically valid the usual precautions are taken -- big enough sample, corrected so the results match the demographics of the actual population)

 

How else do you suggest CART estimate such numbers -- individually interview 65M people? 😉