Darth Vader Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 No doubt it'll be an 0845 and all computer menus rather than real people. So you'll be sat on the phone for about 45mins to get to a human who then tells you've connected to the wrong department and will transfer you then again waiting an eternity fore someone to answer until you give up Well, if it is, I won't be phoning up to help them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buble Fan Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 A typical "half a story" (or even less) from The Star. The fact is that the Council is completely re-designing its service delivery and the single telephone number is only a very small part of it. I attended a workshop today which gave a much wider picture of how things are going to change over the next few years with much more availability to access services over the internet, applying and paying for services, reporting items which require repair etc etc. The whole service delivery will change and will be much more customer friendly. ... but of course the Star prefer to portray all these positive changes as bad news. And I wish people would get off John Mothersole's back. From what I've seen he and other senior directors are actually doing a good job and although the Council is obviously going to have to make cost reductions, service delivery changes such as those I have learned about today, are actually the only logical way forward. More automation, more on-line access to services and staff in a customer service centre who will be able to deal with most enquiries first hand. Only the more complex enquiries will then have to referred on to staff with more specialist knowledge. Other Councils have been successful in going down the same route, - so come on give the changes chance to work and have some faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallBuilder Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Well I'm going to hang on to all the phone numbers I have for various departments within the council as when I ring some-one I like to firstly know that I am speaking to the right person so I'm not having to repeat myself and secondly I also like to get a name so I can chase things up if required Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 <snip> And I wish people would get off John Mothersole's back. From what I've seen he and other senior directors are actually doing a good job and although the Council is obviously going to have to make cost reductions, service delivery changes such as those I have learned about today, are actually the only logical way forward. <snipped> Isn't JM one of the execs who are on a higher wage than the PM? So... running this city is worth more than running the country? Who exactly can justify a £184,000 a year salary? (oh, and incidentally, the £9,000 "cut" he's allegedly getting is equal to our annual salary, for some of us!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPMiddleton Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 BT have certainly ramped up their charges. It used to cost about £140 to put a line in. :hihi::hihi::hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 (an MP gets £65K, BTW, the PM gets £142500, which is over £42k less than the chief exec) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcrust Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Isn't JM one of the execs who are on a higher wage than the PM? So... running this city is worth more than running the country? Who exactly can justify a £184,000 a year salary? (oh, and incidentally, the £9,000 "cut" he's allegedly getting is equal to our annual salary, for some of us!) The PM's salary is not a sensible blanket benchmark for public sector pay. There isn't an MP in the Commons who wouldn't be PM for minimum wage, even without the millions they get from book deals and lecture tours. On the other hand, City Council CEOs do the jobs they do for the money so salaries need to be competitive with industry. When viewed in a more appropriate context, £184k isn't excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lauren84 Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Anyone paid £184k is excessive if it is to our detriment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 They are going to lay people off and make tings more efficient, it may well cost £22m but it is far less than the bill of £33m they would receive. Labour vs capital. Human is very low in the grand scheme of things. Lets hope your not one to lose your job, lets hope your fellow staff don't ridicule your predicament. Remember that charity is not what it once was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Anyone paid £184k is excessive if it is to our detriment! You should check out what RBS are paying these days:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.