Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.
Totally agree in concept. I work for local government and have actually done a review of mission-appropriate take-home vehicles.
A blanket ban is a little DOGE-like. Claiming efficiency while actually causing more inefficiency. But periodic reviews of take home assignments and use, coupled with smart policy, is one real way to help decrease inefficiencies and costs.
For example, mobile response social workers will be able to make more calls if they can start their day from home in their take-home vehicle, rather than going into the office to pick up a work vehicle. Then returning to the office to drop off the car. This matters if they are traveling to 5 calls a day (averaging 1-2 hours on each call). But it is not appropriate if they travel to 3-5 calls a week. That's why periodic review is necessary.
But then some workers will a car and others won't. That not fair because the workers are not being treated equally.
If you design a policy based on objective measures such as work load, distance traveled, etc., then yes, it's treating people fairly. These shouldn't be considered perks but necessary tools for job performance.
All employees have the same workload. No employee is more capable than another. The distance traveled is based on the random assignment of cases.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.
Totally agree in concept. I work for local government and have actually done a review of mission-appropriate take-home vehicles.
A blanket ban is a little DOGE-like. Claiming efficiency while actually causing more inefficiency. But periodic reviews of take home assignments and use, coupled with smart policy, is one real way to help decrease inefficiencies and costs.
For example, mobile response social workers will be able to make more calls if they can start their day from home in their take-home vehicle, rather than going into the office to pick up a work vehicle. Then returning to the office to drop off the car. This matters if they are traveling to 5 calls a day (averaging 1-2 hours on each call). But it is not appropriate if they travel to 3-5 calls a week. That's why periodic review is necessary.
But then some workers will a car and others won't. That not fair because the workers are not being treated equally.
If you design a policy based on objective measures such as work load, distance traveled, etc., then yes, it's treating people fairly. These shouldn't be considered perks but necessary tools for job performance.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.
Totally agree in concept. I work for local government and have actually done a review of mission-appropriate take-home vehicles.
A blanket ban is a little DOGE-like. Claiming efficiency while actually causing more inefficiency. But periodic reviews of take home assignments and use, coupled with smart policy, is one real way to help decrease inefficiencies and costs.
For example, mobile response social workers will be able to make more calls if they can start their day from home in their take-home vehicle, rather than going into the office to pick up a work vehicle. Then returning to the office to drop off the car. This matters if they are traveling to 5 calls a day (averaging 1-2 hours on each call). But it is not appropriate if they travel to 3-5 calls a week. That's why periodic review is necessary.
But then some workers will a car and others won't. That not fair because the workers are not being treated equally.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.
Totally agree in concept. I work for local government and have actually done a review of mission-appropriate take-home vehicles.
A blanket ban is a little DOGE-like. Claiming efficiency while actually causing more inefficiency. But periodic reviews of take home assignments and use, coupled with smart policy, is one real way to help decrease inefficiencies and costs.
For example, mobile response social workers will be able to make more calls if they can start their day from home in their take-home vehicle, rather than going into the office to pick up a work vehicle. Then returning to the office to drop off the car. This matters if they are traveling to 5 calls a day (averaging 1-2 hours on each call). But it is not appropriate if they travel to 3-5 calls a week. That's why periodic review is necessary.
Anonymous wrote:I would support an end to all local government take-home cars except police. Let’s start there. My neighbor spends his day at one park but drives his giant parks truck 40 minutes each way every day. I’m sure the truck gets more miles from commuting than working.