Improving halls in a way that works

[flossy]

Surely it should be the university paying for an efficiency study of Resbus?

[julio]

al,

by paying someone to do a job for you you are employing them. thats why in the service industry we have this little phrase "the customer is always right"

it was realised in the private sector long ago that if an employer, such as a company is the one who gives an employee money for a job they do, then that relationship is the same as the relationship between customer and the employer.

the customer employs the company, the company responds by in turn employing the correct staff for the job requested of them.

normally the customer has choice of companies for a service - just as the employer has choice of people to employ, and the employees have a choice of companies to work for. thats how competition works... everyone gets the best deal they can get.

in this wee town there is a monopoly... which means over employment, increased inefficient and decreased customer service.

there are only a certain number of ways to fight this monopoly:

1) encourage boycott
2) form a union
fight for better regulation
or
4) create more competition.

now, we have a union, and hall committees which are unions of their own. these are supposed to represent our interests, not the university's. and our unions are looking into ways of increasing housing competition with ideas like cooperative house (whether i like this individual idea is neither here nor there)... as regards regulation, the university can do better - last i heard no-one knew exactly how many spare beds the uni had, if any, and mr. work himself in a meeting i attended had no idea how many RMs or cleaners were employed in the halls... and finally - encourage boycotting... well, thats going on right now - and as soon as the university realises that it is getting a bad reputation, it ought to respond with changes and improvements.


its really not that difficult!


(again, quarterstaff from someone else's computer *shrugs*)

[julio]

[s]Cain wrote on 17:04, 17th Mar 2005:
[s]quarterstaff wrote on 16:36, 17th Mar 2005:[i]
glad to see you are concerned with the views of all the students who are your constituents, miss association socs officer.


How is Tweedle Dum one of Liliputian's consituents from her role as Association Societies Officer?

or are you confusing that with her role as Second Year Rep?

[hr]
I hold an element of surprise
[/i]



tweedle-dum is a member of a society is he not? he is therefore a constituent of louises. i hinting that jules' opinions on university issues is as valid as anyone elses and that although she may, or may not, have personal animosity towards the dashing young chappy, she ought to leave it behind her... she is a representative of the union, and ought to behave as such... she, like the RMs is a servant to the larger student community... as they say in sandhurst "serve to lead"

(quarterstaff, actually)

[Al]

[s]julio wrote on 19:59, 17th Mar 2005:
al,

by paying someone to do a job for you you are employing them.

You are not paying them though. Not directly. You pay residence fees to the university who then use part of those fees to provide a service. There is no direct payment from you to the hall. That fact alone means that you are not a customer in the traditional sense of the word.

[hr]
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[Light the Rag]

When posting as "Liliputian", the user is not representing the Students' Association.

Isn't this the reason Admin allows up to three accounts? So that people can post using their real name for serious matters, and other usernamesfor stuff that needn't be taken seriously?

[Tweedle-Dum]

[s]Al wrote on 20:53, 17th Mar 2005:
[s]julio wrote on 19:59, 17th Mar 2005:[i]
al,

by paying someone to do a job for you you are employing them.

You are not paying them though. Not directly. You pay residence fees to the university who then use part of those fees to provide a service. There is no direct payment from you to the hall. That fact alone means that you are not a customer in the traditional sense of the word.
[/i]


Explain to me how me (employer) paying the university's residential services (employee) to provide me with accomodation and food (service) does not mean that I pay the wages of the staff, and thus employ them, in the same way that I employ the services of restaurants to provide me food, and in paying for that food pay the staff wages, and thus employ them.

[adrenaline addicts anonym]

Hmm, do I detect an element of bitterness in Tweedle-Dums speech that he wasn't elected senior student?
Just out of interest, if you dislike it here so much, why do you keep coming back? Judging by your rather spectacular attempts to cook duck (flame grilled), you obviously think you can cook, so why not give us all a break and get a flat. Yes, it is expensive, but going by the amount of cash you spend on drink, you should be able to afford it.

And if we are moaning about halls, my personal pet hate is when people have loud drunken parties several times a week out in the corridor when other people are trying to work. At least have the decency and respect to move into your own room. And yes, I do mean you Tweedle-Dum.

[David Bean]

[s]antisthenes wrote on 19:18, 17th Mar 2005:
It's not this nonsense of Co-operative Housing (create an election issue so that you can get re-elected, anyone?) we need - it's an RBS system that works for us. Tweedle-Dum and Quarterstaff hit the nail on the head - efficiency savings are attainable, [i]with an increase in service. Will we get them? No, because Our Union would rather spend £7,000 on some referendum for something that is unlikely to happen(do we have any guarantee to the land?) than save some of the £7,000 a day that RBS saves on wages alone.
[/i]

Yes, and so would the students, given the result of the referendum. Funny, that. However, I have to ask, how else should the money be spent? By negotiating with the University on issues which, I repeat (rejecting Tweedle Dum's idea that students not doing anything somehow hurts the University for the nonsense that it is), we have no bargaining power on?

And if Ben Reilly created the co-operative housing issue so he could be re-elected, well, we'd all have to be frankly amazed at him for the political mastermind he would have to be - given that he stood (and won) DoR on the policy a WHOLE F'IN YEAR AGO!

[hr]
"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?- Matthew 16:26

[Al]

[s]Tweedle-Dum wrote on 21:22, 17th Mar 2005:
Explain to me how me (employer) paying the university's residential services (employee) to provide me with accomodation and food (service) does not mean that I pay the wages of the staff, and thus employ them, in the same way that I employ the services of restaurants to provide me food, and in paying for that food pay the staff wages, and thus employ them.


I would. However, as I can't make the concept any simpler, I fear I would be wasting my time.

[hr]
Life is too important to be taken seriously.

[antisthenes]

[s]David Bean wrote on 23:12, 17th Mar 2005:
Yes, and so would the students, given the result of the referendum. Funny, that.

Mmmm, 3% margin in a vote with no "No" campaign. An outstanding result for democracy.

However, I have to ask, how else should the money be spent? By negotiating with the University on issues which, I repeat (rejecting Tweedle Dum's idea that students not doing anything somehow hurts the University for the nonsense that it is), we have no bargaining power on?

The fact that you admit we have no bargaining power indicates how spineless you are, and how useless you will be at effecting real change as SRC Postgraduate Accomodation Rep. We, then are captives in our own bedrooms. with no hope of improving the lot of ourselves or our successors. Meanwhile, the University, which is as two-faced as ever, using the sale of Hamilton to fund high-expense development and looking at the possiblity of privatisation (as talks with the Scottish Executive will show), can waste our hall fees on inefficiencies that we all can see, regardless of our sobriety (oh, Tweedle-Dee, rather like the fool in Lear who knows the truth).

And if Ben Reilly created the co-operative housing issue so he could be re-elected, well, we'd all have to be frankly amazed at him for the political mastermind he would have to be - given that he stood (and won) DoR on the policy a WHOLE F'IN YEAR AGO!

Living the life of Reilly? Was that as high on the agenda as that? I think not. The impetus for such a policy within the Union, to the point of a referendum, has only existed recently, hard won by certain interest groups within the Association, when it appeared that it would be shot down.

[Koala Boy]

[s]antisthenes wrote on 23:56, 17th Mar 2005:
Living the life of Reilly? Was that as high on the agenda as that? I think not. The impetus for such a policy within the Union, to the point of a referendum, has only existed recently, hard won by certain interest groups within the Association, when it appeared that it would be shot down.


I beg to differ with this point - co-operative housing was definitely the top point on Reilly's manifesto. He even gave a separate little talk on the issue because it was a bit complex to cover during hecklings.

[hr]
Stick it up your jumper
IMAGE:images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:kD6MwnrIVS0J:www.lovecorner.it/peluches/koala.jpg

[David Bean]

You're darn tootin' it was top of his manifesto. It was what he based his campaign around. And as for the SRC and, particularly, me, being spineless, well, firstly you'd need to check the job descriptions to find out that it isn't my job to bargain with anybody (that's why we have, you know, sub-committees), and secondly you'd have to figure out that having no bargaining power is a matter of fact, not something we students can change with the chutzpa that seems to be the most you can bring to the table just now. I'd like to see how far you'd get speaking to Brian Lang and Alistair Work the same way you've been quite happy to speak to me.

[hr]"For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?- Matthew 16:26

[Ethan With]

The union is using its money by investing it, and using the interest as recurring income.

[RJ Covino]

[s]flossy wrote on 19:59, 17th Mar 2005:
Surely it should be the university paying for an efficiency study of Resbus?


At a recent meeting I attended, the Secretary to the University Court informed the Students' Association that if we wanted to foot the bill for a study of how to improve ResBus, the University would gladly accept it.

I suppose that's neither here nor there as co-op housing will solve all of our problems as if by magic. IF the DoR can wring the money out of the Students' Association Board for the feasibility study without a clear mandate from the students. IF the feasibility study actually deems the entire enterprise to be feasible. IF the land really does make itself available as the DoR has been assured by a member of the University hierarchy (and they NEVER go back on their promises, remember). IF the money (£15 mil, was it, for accommodation for, at most, 250 students at a time?) can be raised to build it...

Lots and lots of if's before co-op can solve all of our problems, to my view. I'd say that if the Students' Association is going to spend the £7k on something other than, say, the societies and the services it already provides which are underfunded, we'd do better by the students by buying some manner of study of ResBus for the University in an attempt to fix some of the problems that might be fixable and which affect a much larger percentage of the student body, rather than chase after a pie-in-the-sky dream accommodation plan that most of the currently enrolled students will never see completed or have the opportunity to live in.

Back to your sniping.

[Ben Reilly]

[s]RJ Covino wrote on 11:24, 18th Mar 2005:
At a recent meeting I attended, the Secretary to the University Court informed the Students' Association that if we wanted to foot the bill for a study of how to improve ResBus, the University would gladly accept it.

I'm sure they would. It wouldn't deal with the problems associated with how ResBus treats students, the kind of accommodation that the University builds (DRA...) or be a long term solution. It would be a band aid on a gaping sore.

I suppose that's neither here nor there as co-op housing will solve all of our problems as if by magic. IF the DoR can wring the money out of the Students' Association Board for the feasibility study without a clear mandate from the students. IF the feasibility study actually deems the entire enterprise to be feasible. IF the land really does make itself available as the DoR has been assured by a member of the University hierarchy (and they NEVER go back on their promises, remember). IF the money (£15 mil, was it, for accommodation for, at most, 250 students at a time?) can be raised to build it...

Bullshit £15M, and you know it. One of the things that the feasibility study would look at would be how much it would cost. Throwing figures out that are probably more than twice the real figure don't do you any justice. It is actually very rare for a member of the University hierarchy to go back on what they've said. It's much more likely that they would just not say it.

Lots and lots of if's before co-op can solve all of our problems, to my view. I'd say that if the Students' Association is going to spend the £7k on something other than, say, the societies and the services it already provides which are underfunded,

£7,000 (which is a maximum) is the Net Present Value of an extra £210 pounds a year for societies (assuming a discount rate of 3%). If you're telling me that societies need that extra £210 a year (don't forget that inflation will mean that it's worth less than that soon) so much I'd be very interested to hear your reasoning behind it.

we'd do better by the students by buying some manner of study of ResBus for the University in an attempt to fix some of the problems that might be fixable and which affect a much larger percentage of the student body, rather than chase after a pie-in-the-sky dream accommodation plan that most of the currently enrolled students will never see completed or have the opportunity to live in.



Any study on ResBus would be a short term measure. If you're telling me that it's better to spend money that would probably have minimal impact (remember that the usual argument we hear is that as St Andrews is unique, things elsewhere just wouldn't work here) is better than a long term, sustainable approach, you've got to be kidding.

I also find it slightly ironic that you, somebody far to the right of me, is calling for more regulation, while I'm calling for the creation of competition.

[Ben Reilly]

I'll come back and answer the rest of the stuff later, but I didn't feel able to let that one go without correction.

[RJ Covino]

[s]Ben Reilly wrote on 11:52, 18th Mar 2005:
I'm sure they would. It wouldn't deal with the problems associated with how ResBus treats students

This is a problem which has made itself manifest throughout Alistair Work's Student Experience series of surveys, or so I have been led to believe.

the kind of accommodation that the University builds (DRA...)

This is a problem which the University Court, at least according to John Matthews, is well aware of and has taken on-board for future planning initiaitives.

Bullshit £15M, and you know it.

Do I? I've been waiting for proper figures for nearly a year now since you first started talking about this project. I seem to recall that number being bandied about at some stage, so I put it down. I have not once, in the hours and hours of meetings I've endured on the subject of co-op housing, seen anything like a figure for how much it would cost set down on paper. Further, speaking as you so often do as an economist, I think you should know better

It is actually very rare for a member of the University hierarchy to go back on what they've said.

I am amazed that after a year's worth of official involvement with some of our senior University officials that you can sit there and type such a thing. Not amazed, in fact, aghast. Possibly even agog.

Any study on ResBus would be a short term measure.

Where is your evidence for this? Since we're playing entirely in the realm of IF's here, what IF the study proved to the University that a complete change in the way they approach the students were necessary, and caused them to start treating students as customers rather than as cattle? Surely this would be of longer-term benefit, and is but one example I could choose off the top of my head.

If you're telling me that it's better to spend money that would probably have minimal impact is better than a long term, sustainable approach, you've got to be kidding.

Thank you for being so dismissive when I was actually being serious. You've just waved away any suggestion that any other solution than co-op to the accommodation problem is wrong, which I think is a most unhelpful attitude to take. The Students' Association Board, as I recall anyway, were more inclined to agree with my point of view than your own. Regardless, I don't necessarily think that the two plans being discussed are mutually exclusive.

What I *do* think is that we shouldn't be plunging all of our representational effort into a project which barely touches the lives of the students here present now who are having problems in halls and in University-managed residences NOW as has been shown above and elsewhere which are problems which we as a Students' Association could be doing something about.

I also find it slightly ironic that you, somebody far to the right of me, is calling for more regulation, while I'm calling for the creation of competition.

Ah, taking it to the personal level, how very sad. I do not recall ever advocating an increased amount of regulation for anything. What I said was that we could, if we choose to do so, acquire a survey of their current operating practice which would contain recommendations for how they might improve it. Where do regulations come into that?

[Guest]

you could save a fuckload of money if students emptied their own bins.

[Guest]

Explain to me how me (employer) paying the university's residential services (employee) to provide me with accomodation and food (service) does not mean that I pay the wages of the staff, and thus employ them, in the same way that I employ the services of restaurants to provide me food, and in paying for that food pay the staff wages, and thus employ them.


I would. However, as I can't make the concept any simpler, I fear I would be wasting my time.

Agreed.

Fundamentally, there is no direct contractual nexus between the students and the employees of Resbus. There have been no terms agreed between yourselves and the employees governing the rights granted and obligations imposed in respect of each other. Nor are there any of the hallmarks of a typical employee/employer contractual relationship (you do not directly pay employer's national insurance contributions for their account, you have no right to terminate their employment, they have no statutory rights against you etc etc).

You are correct that, de facto, you pay the wages of the Resbus employees by means of the payments required under the residence contract you have with the residence business provider. However this is a service contract rather than an employment contract (the latter carrying with it more onerous obligations and more clearly defined rights for each party thereto), much as the restaurant example is a service contract.

You could therefore perhaps exert some leverage to influence the amendment of the terms of service that Resbus supplies to you (where a contractual nexus does clearly exist), though the current supply/demand position in respect of accommodation does not favour the consumer.

However, I am afraid that the belief that you somehow de iure employ the Resbus employees is misplaced.

[ever_nocturnal]

.