Tidewaiter2
New member
Just keep digging the tunnels
Been there, done that, suits found Tom & Dick, didn't find Harry!
Been there, done that, suits found Tom & Dick, didn't find Harry!
Coast guard outsourcing
- Thread starter robertj
- Start date
Searush
New member
He's referring to Middle Management.
The decision makers at the top are usually pretty sharp & make the right decisions given the right info.
The guys at the coalface dealing with the customer day to day are also often very good at solving customer problems & dealing with equipment shortages - they have to be;
Cos the cotton wool heads in the middle are often straight from college, never seen a customer or had to do the job & don't have the strategic view of the guys at the top.
End result is that the top & bottom layers often work in isolation - and the decision makers don't ever get to understand teh consequences of tehir decisions.
It's why many Business Gurus say "Walk the shop floor & listen to the guys who solve the customers' problems". Sadly, not many senior managers do this. They just accept the "happy Clappy" claptrap the middle managers think they want to hear.
NormanS
Well-known member
Thanks for that, Searush. Understand perfectly. Been there.
Tidewaiter2
New member
Harry is still open, next moonless night, get in the queue
Well Done, Searush, but one should obfusticate when and wherever poss. to keep the Inbetweeners on the back foot.
Grumpybear
New member
Harry is still open, next moonless night, get in the queue
Well Done, Searush, but one should obfusticate when and wherever poss. to keep the Inbetweeners on the back foot.
Which is what middle managers do, to conceal their utter pointlessness. They even have their own gurus, who preach against shallow pyramids to create extra layers of management.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
So you are saying that as a middle manager you did not contribute much
Perhaps that was the problem ----you should have been sacked sooner
Grumpybear
New member
Probably.
The company should either have listened to the advice I was paid to give, or replaced me, or done away with my post. If they had done the first, they might not have ended up doing the last. Actually, all would have gone no worse had I continued in my previous post. There were about a dozen contracts managers reporting to a director, which worked OK; then they promoted five of us to act as regional managers and hired five new CMs to fill the gaps? Then they split the department in two and hired another director. The business didn't grow enough to cover the extra costs while contract margins were tightening. I wasn't the only one to go.
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Deleted
Last edited:
NormanS
Well-known member
Meanwhile back with the Coastguard..........
Tidewaiter2
New member
+1, and charge a blo@@y fortune to waste a day or two of your time telling you to do the @@@@@@@ obvious, that you do anyway,if you are any good at all, and could have been condensed into about an hours presentation, with a handout and coffee at the end.
Still Channel Yacht seems to have bosses who've learnt from the Fire & Rescue Service leadership ethos, so I wish him continued good luck there- we always relished the bosses who did get their hands dirty with real work and knew what we were talking about. Too few of that type about, alas, just muppets who do 'good meetings'.
PeterWright
Well-known member
A Big Thank you to Channel Yacht
Ever since the current Coastguard reorganisation was first proposed, all the yottie message boards, including this, have been full of bleats, which I as a fellow yottie of 50 years standing, find difficult to understand.
Throughout this saga, Channel Yacht, a professional with real inside knowledge, has patiently offered reasoned replies explaining that this reorganisation was much needed and will , on balance, enhance capability while reducing cost - an eminently sensible step. Equally, he has accepted that no major change such as this will be achieved without hiccoughs, our focus should be on helping the service manage those as they arise, not arguing for turning back the clock of progress.
For those who think government cost saving is penny pinching, put yourself for a moment in the shoes of the average UK taxpayer, who will never even contemplate going to sea in a small craft. Why should he be paying for a Rolls Royce safety service to our chosen leisure pursuit? If we want it that badly, surely we should be required to fund it through a yachting tax. I bet such a proposal would really get the message boards humming, but its not so unreasonable. In that context, I remain extremely grateful to both successive UK governments and to the men and women of the Coastguard service for the support they provide when I'm at sea.
Basically, our nation is bust (as the last government's 1st secretary to the Treasury put it in a note to his coalition successor: "There is no money!"). We should either be supporting all government cost saving initiatives or volunteering to pay more tax.
So thanks, ChannelYacht for having the patience to keep all the threads on this topic at least half sane.
Ever since the current Coastguard reorganisation was first proposed, all the yottie message boards, including this, have been full of bleats, which I as a fellow yottie of 50 years standing, find difficult to understand.
Throughout this saga, Channel Yacht, a professional with real inside knowledge, has patiently offered reasoned replies explaining that this reorganisation was much needed and will , on balance, enhance capability while reducing cost - an eminently sensible step. Equally, he has accepted that no major change such as this will be achieved without hiccoughs, our focus should be on helping the service manage those as they arise, not arguing for turning back the clock of progress.
For those who think government cost saving is penny pinching, put yourself for a moment in the shoes of the average UK taxpayer, who will never even contemplate going to sea in a small craft. Why should he be paying for a Rolls Royce safety service to our chosen leisure pursuit? If we want it that badly, surely we should be required to fund it through a yachting tax. I bet such a proposal would really get the message boards humming, but its not so unreasonable. In that context, I remain extremely grateful to both successive UK governments and to the men and women of the Coastguard service for the support they provide when I'm at sea.
Basically, our nation is bust (as the last government's 1st secretary to the Treasury put it in a note to his coalition successor: "There is no money!"). We should either be supporting all government cost saving initiatives or volunteering to pay more tax.
So thanks, ChannelYacht for having the patience to keep all the threads on this topic at least half sane.
nordic_ranger
Active member
The Coast Guard service mostly deals with commercial traffic from all nations which is the life blood of this country. This traffic feeds and clothes us and keeps us warm.
Certainly yacht and small craft activities come under the remit of the Coast Guard but that is mostly summertime daytime traffic and does not ammount to their total workload.
Without shiping as an island nation we would flounder.
chanelyacht
Well-known member
Actually, commercial traffic takes up very little of our incident time (apart from Dover with the Channel, and Falmouth with international work.
Leisure traffic probably accounts for around 60% of incident working, inland or shoreline around 30%, and 10% commercial. People forget we deal with a lot of coastal / inland ish missing persons, assisting police, etc.
I always find it odd we are funded from general taxation, considering it could be added easily onto light dues or tonnage landed.
Figures above are gut feel from workload not official ones by the way.
PeterWright
Well-known member
The Voice of Sanity
Once more Channel Yacht tells us the facts to discount a post made up of wild guess work.
Just listen to the VHF when you're at sea and it's obvious that recreational boaters (as the EU calls us) create the largest workload for the Coastguard. Commercial shipping at least pays light dues, although I'm ignorant as to whether that funds the CG, Trinity House or just gets mopped up by the Treasury as any other non hypothecated tax.
Thanks again Channel.
Once more Channel Yacht tells us the facts to discount a post made up of wild guess work.
Just listen to the VHF when you're at sea and it's obvious that recreational boaters (as the EU calls us) create the largest workload for the Coastguard. Commercial shipping at least pays light dues, although I'm ignorant as to whether that funds the CG, Trinity House or just gets mopped up by the Treasury as any other non hypothecated tax.
Thanks again Channel.
wadget
New member
As far as I am aware Light dues are split between trinity house, northern light house board, and the Irish one.
As for the coastguard, the country is broke and savings need to be made. If the coastguard can be run in a more efficient way while giving the same service, then it should.
Yacht owners don't really pay any more towards the coastguard than the average taxpayer who will probably never go to sea. If yacht owners want a "better" coastguard they should be prepared to pay for it.
Same goes for light dues. I'm sure there was a thread on here a while back about virtual AtNs, but unless yachts pay light dues why would it matter what they think of the plans?
wadget
New member
It really is obvious that commercial traffic puts a lot less pressure on coastguards than recreational. You just have to listen to solent and compare it with somewhere like Aberdeen to notice, much more commercial traffic in Aberdeen and a lot more yachts in solent, and in a smaller area.
Also commercial vessels tend to need less radio checks, run out of fuel less, break down less.