No to proposed outsourcing of the World Bank's gym
307 Comments
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
No need for outsourcing please of our beloved Gym and staff.
T
Tyra Zackery
12 years ago
I cherish the personal attention and advice I get from the staff and would nmt like to lose that relationship.
N
Neena Bhaskar
12 years ago
Please don't outsource the fitness centers
T
Togni Mamazza
12 years ago
It's not just the facility that keeps members going to the gym. It's the quality of the staff and instructors. Bank staff have a personal relationship with the fitness center staff and that is the reason most of us go. The idea of having a fitness center is for staff to get/remain healthy, but if the fitness center staff are so easily replaced, morale will sink and WB staff will be preoccupied with the potential outsourcing of their jobs. This is a terrible message for the WB to send. Keep the jobs in house. Outsourced staff come and go and will not have the level of care or responsibility that current fitness staff have.
V
Virginie Bocard
12 years ago
Please do not outsource the World Bank's Gym. This is one of the best work life balance option we have left!
M
Monica Fernandes
12 years ago
WB is most effective and best managed as of now, please do not outsource it as it will never be the same again.
N
Nereida Mangosing-Koeppen
12 years ago
The World Bank management has always paid lip service that it values its staff. Keeping a World Bank gym expertly staffed by in-house professionals is an opportunity for management to provide tangible evidence of their concern for the health and welfare of staff. Incidentally, healthy staff means means lower health care costs for the Bank.
P
Patricia Rojas
12 years ago
Do not outsource the Gym, as the current bank staff are uniquely qualified to meet our health needs and time requirements.
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
support this petition
F
Frona Hall
12 years ago
Another example of the Bank's shortsightedness - my job was outsourced and it cost my unit much more and more importantly, donor dissatisfaction.
P
PIerre C. VIEILLESCAZES
12 years ago
A classic example of "bad idea" that will result in higher fees and deterioration of the quality of service which was consistently excellent for the last 28 years.
In house WB Gym is a plus compared to an outsourcing approach.
D
Daniela Santos
12 years ago
No to proposed outsourcing of the World Bank's gym!!!!
C
Clemencia Onesty
12 years ago
The Management and trainers are very professional, they know how to take care of the staff.
C
Carlos
12 years ago
Lets keep our volunteer instructors, our fitness staff and our fitness center intact!
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
Totally against it.
Z
Zeina Samara
12 years ago
I belonged to 2 fitness centers outside the Bank and I have yet to find the same type of courses, attention and care. Please don't take this aspect away and become a commercial fitness center, just focused on money
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
Totally against it. It will jeopardize service and prices will be probably higher (it is not cheap right now),
C
Chris Parel
12 years ago
What is the problem? First the Bank needs to clarify why they would take one of the few really functional programs it manages and downgrade it. it needs to define objectives, benefits and costs. Objectively. There is a good prima facie case that contracting out is a losing proposition. If the analysis shows otherwise the first response is to devise other, non-contracting out responses to see if the difference cannot be met in other ways. The US Government requires a 10% gain as a starting point for contracting out discussions--so what do the numbers show? For equal quality? ...a doubtful proposition...
No need for outsourcing please of our beloved Gym and staff.
I cherish the personal attention and advice I get from the staff and would nmt like to lose that relationship.
Please don't outsource the fitness centers
It's not just the facility that keeps members going to the gym. It's the quality of the staff and instructors. Bank staff have a personal relationship with the fitness center staff and that is the reason most of us go. The idea of having a fitness center is for staff to get/remain healthy, but if the fitness center staff are so easily replaced, morale will sink and WB staff will be preoccupied with the potential outsourcing of their jobs. This is a terrible message for the WB to send. Keep the jobs in house. Outsourced staff come and go and will not have the level of care or responsibility that current fitness staff have.
Please do not outsource the World Bank's Gym. This is one of the best work life balance option we have left!
WB is most effective and best managed as of now, please do not outsource it as it will never be the same again.
The World Bank management has always paid lip service that it values its staff. Keeping a World Bank gym expertly staffed by in-house professionals is an opportunity for management to provide tangible evidence of their concern for the health and welfare of staff. Incidentally, healthy staff means means lower health care costs for the Bank.
Do not outsource the Gym, as the current bank staff are uniquely qualified to meet our health needs and time requirements.
support this petition
Another example of the Bank's shortsightedness - my job was outsourced and it cost my unit much more and more importantly, donor dissatisfaction.
A classic example of "bad idea" that will result in higher fees and deterioration of the quality of service which was consistently excellent for the last 28 years.
[email protected]
In house WB Gym is a plus compared to an outsourcing approach.
No to proposed outsourcing of the World Bank's gym!!!!
The Management and trainers are very professional, they know how to take care of the staff.
Lets keep our volunteer instructors, our fitness staff and our fitness center intact!
Totally against it.
I belonged to 2 fitness centers outside the Bank and I have yet to find the same type of courses, attention and care. Please don't take this aspect away and become a commercial fitness center, just focused on money
Totally against it. It will jeopardize service and prices will be probably higher (it is not cheap right now),
What is the problem? First the Bank needs to clarify why they would take one of the few really functional programs it manages and downgrade it. it needs to define objectives, benefits and costs. Objectively. There is a good prima facie case that contracting out is a losing proposition. If the analysis shows otherwise the first response is to devise other, non-contracting out responses to see if the difference cannot be met in other ways. The US Government requires a 10% gain as a starting point for contracting out discussions--so what do the numbers show? For equal quality? ...a doubtful proposition...