bassett one Posted November 8, 2022 Author Share Posted November 8, 2022 thanks for that very intresting,i hope they close the under used buildings and sell on,but also they cut waste in staffing or move jobs around as the housing has in my opinion more staff than needed ,so it will be intresting how it works out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ01 Posted November 8, 2022 Share Posted November 8, 2022 Hands up anyone who predicted the return of 'there's 2 million people in SCC Housing team & they all get paid 2 million a year' 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 Wish someone would say what HeHasRisen has posted. Can’t be bothered reading PDFs . Surely it’s easier to say what it says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 21 hours ago, HeHasRisen said: Suppose this should be a new thread, but will fit in here...seems the plan is to vacate the building TOTALLY https://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s55389/7 - FSC Report FINAL.pdf That 'report' repeats itself so many times it is unbelievable. The author is obviously under-employed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrotequila Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 Confirmed yesterday that the plan is for the council to vacate the building and workers to go into the old town hall or Howden house, so it will most likely end up being split into flats eventually. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Planner1 Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 43 minutes ago, RollingJ said: That 'report' repeats itself so many times it is unbelievable. The author is obviously under-employed. It’s just the council’s standard report format that makes that happen. The author is a director and certainly will not be “under employed” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 (edited) Well, @Planner1, if I had produced that amount of waffle in the reports I had to write in my working days, my managers/directors would be wondering what other jobs they could find for me - a report should be be clear, concise and as brief as possible - or so I was always told. In other words, the 'standard format' needs extensive revision. Edited November 9, 2022 by RollingJ Added text. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 45 minutes ago, RollingJ said: Well, @Planner1, if I had produced that amount of waffle in the reports I had to write in my working days, my managers/directors would be wondering what other jobs they could find for me - a report should be be clear, concise and as brief as possible - or so I was always told. In other words, the 'standard format' needs extensive revision. Hmmm... I'd be surprised if the 'Director' has even read the report. I've seen this sort of thing before... ... it gets read by some 'menial' who 'signs it off' and forwards it to their 'manager'. The 'manager' is 'too busy' to read everything, so as it's already been 'signed off' by the 'menial' just adds his/her signature and forwards it up to the next level, and so on. So effectively, each level of 'authorisation' is just rubber stamping that the 'report' has been 'authorised' by the previous level. I agree with you completely Mr Rolling about the quality of the report... ... but we're apparently wrong to comment, as SCC 'know best'. It's just another example of what is accepted as 'the right way to do things'. These people just can't see how unprofessional they really are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeHasRisen Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 You think a "menial" has decided to sell a massive 11 (?) storey building? Doubtful. Thats the main takeaway from this surely, is nobody going to have a moan about it? Go on, somebody wants to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollingJ Posted November 9, 2022 Share Posted November 9, 2022 1 minute ago, Mr Bloke said: Hmmm... I'd be surprised if the 'Director' has even read the report. I've seen this sort of thing before... ... it gets read by some 'menial' who 'signs it off' and forwards it to their 'manager'. The 'manager' is 'too busy' to read everything, so as it's already been 'signed off' by the 'menial' just adds his/her signature and forwards it up to the next level, and so on. So effectively, each level of 'authorisation' is just rubber stamping that the 'report' has been 'authorised' by the previous level. I agree with you completely Mr Rolling about the quality of the report... ... but we're apparently wrong to comment, as SCC 'know best'. It's just another example of what is accepted as 'the right way to do things'. These people just can't see how unprofessional they really are... @Mr Bloke- it is the difference between the public and private sectors approach to reports. If they are to have any value, as I said, they should contain the required information in a clear and concise manner, then maybe people would have time to read them. @HeHasRisenHave you read the report - without falling to sleep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now