Log in

No account? Create an account
18 November 2008 @ 04:18 pm
Ah, bureaucracy  
Right hand, left^Wright hand?
Just received a flyer in the mail for a former employee. A "he's been gone for close to a year" former employee.

This would not be worth noting, except that the flyer came from UT Human Resources.

Compare and contrast
Story from Tennessee Today, yesterday: UT Police Department expects to save $80,000 / year by reducing costs. How? They are currently spending about $100,000 /year on over-mileage charges on leased vehicles. To reduce this, each car's mileage is checked at the end of the shift. If it's over its allotted mileage, the key goes on a red board. If it's within 200 miles of the allotment, the key goes on a yellow board. If it's more than 200 miles from the allotment, the key goes on a green board. Cars are checked out green first, yellow only if all green are gone, and red only if all yellow are gone.

Story from Knoxville News Sentinel, yesterday: UT Athletics expects to save $80,000 / year by reducing costs. How? They will no longer give ushers at basketball games a voucher for a hotdog and a soda. CORRECTION: USHERS, not vendors. I can has accuracy sometimez plz?
Fat Fred the Otter and Skippy: LMAOfatfred on November 18th, 2008 09:36 pm (UTC)

Remember that poem I gave you?
starcat_jewelstarcat_jewel on November 18th, 2008 09:46 pm (UTC)
They must have a helluva lot of vendors, if ONE hotdog and soda per vendor per game is going to save them $80,000 per year! Or is there some other factor that I'm missing here?
(Deleted comment)
Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on November 19th, 2008 02:21 am (UTC)
Mistake on my part. Ushers, not vendors.
Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on November 19th, 2008 02:19 am (UTC)
I'm sorry; I don't know where I got vendors from. USHERS. My mistake.
starcat_jewelstarcat_jewel on November 19th, 2008 03:19 am (UTC)
I'm still not buying it. As several people pointed out in the comments, that $7 hotdog and soda probably cost the university something like $2 to purchase; they're saving wholesale but calculating the results retail.
Curious Stuffonelargecat on November 19th, 2008 03:39 pm (UTC)
I agree...that was my first thought, too. They just want to make it look like they're saving ON PAPER.
gh4acws on November 18th, 2008 11:32 pm (UTC)
the police dep sceme
will only work ifthe3 average mileage of all cars is equal or below the agreed upon mileage: If the overmileage charges are caused by unequal use of the leased cars. If not that system is only adding another layer of work.
Since it sounds plausible at first glance and I KNOW bureaucracies I am not at all sure someone sat down and checked that.

right hand wright hand:
It is probably impossible to have a database that is both complete and without contradictions. This is why every database design should plan for maintenance and correction. For vital databases this cost of running it may well be more than the design and building cost.
This happens also the only reason I have against the 'no fly' antiterrorist database: I see no obvious way of contesting a false entry in there: The organizations that provide the data are - from sheer selfinterest - unlikely to relay that they made a mistake and Joe Millar not Joe Miller is a suspect.
This is not a new problem though: Rumor has it in the late sixties they discovered a department of the Italian state responsible for paying pensions to veteran fighter-comrades of Garibaldi. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Garibaldi) Nice job if you can get it.
Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on November 19th, 2008 02:22 am (UTC)
Re: the police dep sceme
The full article said that some cars were racking up lots of over-mileage charges and others weren't even approaching their allotment.

And, yeah, I understand multiple databases and the impossibility of getting truly clean data, but it still amused me.
what doesn't kill me better run: charisma: shockercarlyinrome on November 19th, 2008 02:46 am (UTC)

Better way for the government to reduce costs: stop fucking paying for leased vehicles. This goes for everyone. You do not need your business to lease a car for you. Unless an enormous percentage of your time at work is spent driving, your job should not be paying for your ride. Who does that? My job doesn't lease a car for me. And the more money people have, the better their position, the better and more expensive the cars leased for them. Like that whole thing with Mr. and Mrs. Mayor a few years back; y'all are rich. You do not need to be driving the newest model on the taxpayer's tab. Kthx.

Xiphias Gladiusxiphias on November 19th, 2008 06:32 am (UTC)
I think that police patrol cars count as "an enormous percentage of your time at work is spent driving."
Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on November 19th, 2008 12:22 pm (UTC)
I agree with xiphias -- for police patrol cars, I think it makes sense to lease rather than buy. On the other hand, I'm not a business or economics major.