Putting the local government job "cuts" into perspective

[trousers]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html#ixzz1EIw22soW

 

"Figures revealed in Parliament – separately from the LGA statistics – showed that town hall jobs hit 2.9million under Labour, up 179,000 from 1997.

 

That means that even if disputed trade union claims that 162,000 local government posts are now under threat are true, local government employment would still be higher than it was when Labour came to power.

 

Overall, 57 per cent of all the jobs created under Labour were state or ‘para-state’ jobs, meaning they are dependent on public spending."

 

[dune]

It's typical of the Socialists and their top heavy nanny state ideolgies. All these non jobs they've made up serve to bloat the public sector which in turn bolsters the control freak mania that is at the heart of Socialism.

[notnowcato]

Given that the majority of jobs highlighted in the cut out do not appear to be newly created jobs as such, you'd have to question the facts behind the figures. From personal experience the service I've received from Brighton City Council has been superb, of course that level of service is now under threat.

 

dune - have you applied for the Access to Nature position? Would suit you.

[badgerx16]

I have just had a meeting at which I have been told that, after 28 years with my employers, my job is at risk of compulsory redundancy. Not in a 'non-job', but an essential technical/professional role, where 4 current posts are being condensed into 3.

 

How 'into perspective' is that ?

[trousers]

I have just had a meeting at which I have been told that, after 28 years with my employers, my job is at risk of compulsory redundancy. Not in a 'non-job', but an essential technical/professional role, where 4 current posts are being condensed into 3.

 

How 'into perspective' is that ?

 

Sorry to hear about your personal circumstances which, of course, don't fit into my somewhat generic devil's advocate replay of the Daily Mail article.

 

Looking at your role though, if there is enough "essential" work to keep 4 people fully occupied then on the surface it seems like a false economy to be laying off 1 out of those 4 people. Perhaps 'the powers that be' see the overall service provided by your team/department as "essential" but feel that the work coming up can be carried out by 3 rather than 4 people? Has the team always comprised of 4 people during your 28 years or has it fluctuated depending on the local government workloads?

 

I work for a small-ish (15 man) software company and our headcount fluctuates up or down by 3 or 4 employees on a year-by-year basis depending on demand. That's seen as 'normal' in my industry.

Edited 18 February, 2011 by trousers

[badgerx16]

Sorry to hear about your personal circumstances which, of course, don't fit into my somewhat generic devil's advocate replay of the Daily Mail article.

 

Looking at your role though, if there is enough "essential" work to keep 4 people fully occupied then on the surface it seems like a false economy to be laying off 1 out of those 4 people. Perhaps 'the powers that be' see the overall service provided by your team/department as "essential" but feel that the work coming up can be carried out by 3 rather than 4 people? Has the team always comprised of 4 people during your 28 years or has it fluctuated depending on the local government workloads?

Owing to a 3 year recruitment freeze, the 4 have been doing the work of 5 for quite a while. This is purely a financial decision, work requirements are secondary - 28% of budget cut by April 1st across the organisation.

[trousers]

Owing to a 3 year recruitment freeze, the 4 have been doing the work of 5 for quite a while. This is purely a financial decision, work requirements are secondary - 28% of budget cut by April 1st across the organisation.

 

I don't know what industry you're in or which part of local government you work for but I've seen similar, if not harsher, wage freezes and budget cuts over the last 5+ years in the private sector (within my industry).

 

This doesn't make the fact the public sector are now 'catching up' with the cost rationalisation that has happened in the private sector any more palatable of course but.....perhaps....it does put the current public spending cuts into some kind of perspective.

[badgerx16]

I don't know what industry you're in or which part of local government you work for but I've seen similar, if not harsher, wage freezes and budget cuts over the last 5+ years in the private sector (within my industry).

 

This doesn't make the fact the public sector are now 'catching up' with the cost rationalisation that has happened in the private sector any more palatable of course but.....perhaps....it does put the current public spending cuts into some kind of perspective.

It's just that articles like the one you quoted are taken as being 'the norm' across the public sector, when in fact it is far and away a miniscule minority of the jobs that fit such a category. Yet some people swallow this tripe wholesale and believe every bit of hype and drivel the Heil, Torygraph, and Express spout.

[barney]

Granted the jobs listed above seem like a waste of space but what about the sparks,plumbers,chippies,binmen,cleaners,teaching-assistants,caretakers are these all made up jobs as well.The present government are using the global financial crisis as an excuse to decimate and privatise the public sector.Dont forget the public sector also creates a huge amount of work for the private sector,making 100s & 1000s of honest hard working people unemployed is just adding to our problems.

Still under the BIG SOCIETY we will still do the work for nothing( right)?

[dune]

I have just had a meeting at which I have been told that, after 28 years with my employers, my job is at risk of compulsory redundancy. Not in a 'non-job', but an essential technical/professional role, where 4 current posts are being condensed into 3.

 

How 'into perspective' is that ?

 

I hope it's not you that gets finnished but it is about time the public sector was dragged into the real world. If 4 jobs can be condensed into 3 then it should be done regardless of the fact that Labour left us with largest budget deficit in G20 making the cuts unavoidable. Taxpayers have a right to expect efficiency and to pay as little tax as is possible.

[dune]

Owing to a 3 year recruitment freeze, the 4 have been doing the work of 5 for quite a while.

 

So 4 have been doing the work of 5 and now 3 will be doing the work of 4.

 

With respect working in the public sector is renowned for being a cushy plod along career choice. In the private sector you'd have been down to 3 a long time ago. Why should you lot be considered "special"?

[Deppo]

You really are a pr*ck, Dune. The bloke may be losing his job - show some f*cking shame for once in your sorry, ****ty little life.

[Deppo]

Oh, sorry, that should have started with the words "With respect"

[Joensuu]

Dune if 3 can manage the workload of 5 then you are right. However if there is a backlog of work, or anyone is working excessive overtime, you'd be wrong.

 

badgerx16 - best of luck.

[dune]

Dune if 3 can manage the workload of 5 then you are right. However if there is a backlog of work, or anyone is working excessive overtime, you'd be wrong.

 

They'll just have work a bit harder then won't they. It's the way the private has been for years now. I believe in low taxation and giving people more money in their pockets to spend as they please - Socialism on the other hand is all about taking as much taxation as possible so that superior Socialists can distribute it as they see fit making sure they look after themselves first and foremost.

 

[dune]

You really are a pr*ck, Dune. The bloke may be losing his job - show some f*cking shame for once in your sorry, ****ty little life.

 

I've said I hope it's not badger that loses his job due to the mess Labour left the country in, but I cannot say that i'm not pleased that the public sector is being dragged into the 21st century. Taxpayers deserve an efficient public sector.

[buctootim]

Sorry to hear about your job Badger. Hope it all pans out okay.

 

Its a pity that the forum idiot posts video clips in a poor attempt to cover his lack of knowledge of not just the public sector but also the private. Yes you can cut local government services by 10%, 25%, 50% or even 75% and save on paying the tax. Its possible to increase class sizes to 40, not repair roads, close fire stations, reduce police manpower, close museums and swimming pools, sell off parks for housing. It depends on the quality of life we want.

 

The number of 'non' jobs is arguably greater in large private companies than in the public sector. you'll find most large companies spend far more on staying in touch, market research and reaching out to their customers than local government do. Of course when private companies do it its good business practice, when public services do it its a waste of taxpayers money. Yes the government needs to eradicate the budget deficit, but to pretend it can be done simply by eliminating waste is specious.

Edited 18 February, 2011 by buctootim

[Thedelldays]

I work in public sector ad for years in my field the powers at be having been hacking and slashing kit/personnel./hardware and telling us to crack on..

 

they were doing this when the country was on a spending binge

[Joensuu]

They'll just have work a bit harder then won't they. It's the way the private has been for years now. I believe in low taxation and giving people more money in their pockets to spend as they please - Socialism on the other hand is all about taking as much taxation as possible so that superior Socialists can distribute it as they see fit making sure they look after themselves first and foremost.

 

Drop the anti-'socialist' rhetoric and agenda already. What I said would be true in any organisation, whether public or private. 'Work a bit harder' is only possible if you are arguing that badger and his colleageues don't already work hard enough.

[OldNick]

to a degree Dune is correct, the public sector should be working to save the nations taxpayers money as well as providing a service. I doubt you will be able to get hold of any senior officer after 3.30 today in a lot of council departments. My experience of trying to contact planning officers or the like on a friday afternoon is nye impossible over the years.

i dont wish to see anyone lose a job, but i also resent the way the council tax goes up and up rather than efficiencies made.

[Deppo]

I am Roller Disco Coach for Southampton and the New Forest, and can tell you that it is essential work. I am doing the work of 4 people (or two Skateboard Coaches).

[Special K]

to a degree Dune is correct, the public sector should be working to save the nations taxpayers money as well as providing a service. I doubt you will be able to get hold of any senior officer after 3.30 today in a lot of council departments. My experience of trying to contact planning officers or the like on a friday afternoon is nye impossible over the years.

i dont wish to see anyone lose a job, but i also resent the way the council tax goes up and up rather than efficiencies made.

 

Slightly off tangent, but i always found it strange that Government departments (local and central) talk about "efficiency savings" during tough times. surely it pays to investigate these efficiencies during decent times so as to save time, money and effort. Oh well.

 

To put another slant on the original post, over 400,000 people have lost their jobs in the construction industry during this recession, and the figure keeps rising. I was one. During the last decade i've been made redundant twice, in fact. The way i see it is you just gotta keep going somehow and keep the wolf from the door, pointless whinging about it.

[saint_stevo]

180 jobs gone, and £9m saving in the next 4 years.........

[angelman]

Owing to a 3 year recruitment freeze, the 4 have been doing the work of 5 for quite a while. This is purely a financial decision, work requirements are secondary - 28% of budget cut by April 1st across the organisation.

 

 

Badger, sorry about your situation. Not a good situation to find yourself in. Can I ask a question?

 

Why is this happening now? Has your organisation (what ever that might be - you may have said but I haven't picked up on it) suffering from a loss of income due to the current cycle? I only ask because it seems strange that many companies suddenly seem to decide to have efficiency cuts when times are bad, when I would have thought that they would have always strived for efficiency. This is also seemingly very prevalent in both local and central government, where they miraculously save £x million through efficiency cuts. Why haven't these organisations been efficient in the first place? I realise that I have moved away from your situation into a more general one, but was curious to know the thinking/reasoning that has prompted your bosses to act like this.

[LGTL]

Dune, I sure as hell don't know who you work for in the Private Sector, or indeed what you do (you would never tell anyway), but there is more then enough waste, bullsh*t and people going along for the ride in the Private Sector too, trust me.

 

This superiority complex from those in the Private Sector, fuelled by the media, is unjustified, and that is coming from somebody working for one of the largest multi-national companies in the world at the moment.

Edited 18 February, 2011 by LGTL

[notnowcato]

Cutting jobs does not necessarily equal efficiency savings, as seems to be the underlying current in many of the posts here. What is more likely to happen is that inefficiency will increase due to there not being enough resource.

[badgerx16]

Why is this happening now? Has your organisation (what ever that might be - you may have said but I haven't picked up on it) suffering from a loss of income due to the current cycle? I only ask because it seems strange that many companies suddenly seem to decide to have efficiency cuts when times are bad, when I would have thought that they would have always strived for efficiency. This is also seemingly very prevalent in both local and central government, where they miraculously save £x million through efficiency cuts. Why haven't these organisations been efficient in the first place? I realise that I have moved away from your situation into a more general one, but was curious to know the thinking/reasoning that has prompted your bosses to act like this.

 

It is a Public Sector body that on April 1st loses 28% of it's budget as compared to last year.

[notnowcato]

It is a Public Sector body that on April 1st loses 28% of it's budget as compared to last year.

 

Sh*t situation. One poor bugger will lose his job, the other 3 get stiffed with having to cover that work too. Best of luck.

[Lord Duckhunter]

What local Labour and in some cases Lib/Dem councils are doing is a disgrace and I hope the local voters wake up and smell the coffee. Take Manchester, cuts will reduce their income to 2008 levels and yet in 2008 I dont recall any clamour for more "investment", they were able to run libraries and swimming pools, so there is no need to cut these types of services, they are doing it to try and paint the coalition as the bad guys and playing politics with people's lives.

 

The Labour party were committed to cuts, with it's last chancellor admitting that cuts would be "tougher and deeper" than those implemented by Margaret Thatcher" had they won the election. Now they play politics with the issue, standing on the sideline opposing every cut in a cynical , and deeply dishonest way. I just hope that the British people are not as stupid as the Labour Party seem to think they are.

[saintfully]

What local Labour and in some cases Lib/Dem councils are doing is a disgrace and I hope the local voters wake up and smell the coffee. Take Manchester, cuts will reduce their income to 2008 levels and yet in 2008 I dont recall any clamour for more "investment", they were able to run libraries and swimming pools, so there is no need to cut these types of services, they are doing it to try and paint the coalition as the bad guys and playing politics with people's lives.

 

The Labour party were committed to cuts, with it's last chancellor admitting that cuts would be "tougher and deeper" than those implemented by Margaret Thatcher" had they won the election. Now they play politics with the issue, standing on the sideline opposing every cut in a cynical , and deeply dishonest way. I just hope that the British people are not as stupid as the Labour Party seem to think they are.

 

There is such a thing as inflation y'know. If you reduce income to 2008 levels, dosn't mean that your costs are at 2008 levels. Happy to help.

[Lord Duckhunter]

There is such a thing as inflation y'know. If you reduce income to 2008 levels, dosn't mean that your costs are at 2008 levels. Happy to help.

 

Inflation isn't high enough to justify cuts to front line services. If everyone had to go back to 2008 wages, it would hurt, but most people would be able to manage.

 

At work I run on less staff than 2008, a lower CTS and still manage to get by, councils could do the same without cutting front line services. It's a political game they're playing.

[dune]

What local Labour and in some cases Lib/Dem councils are doing is a disgrace and I hope the local voters wake up and smell the coffee. Take Manchester, cuts will reduce their income to 2008 levels and yet in 2008 I dont recall any clamour for more "investment", they were able to run libraries and swimming pools, so there is no need to cut these types of services, they are doing it to try and paint the coalition as the bad guys and playing politics with people's lives.

 

The Labour party were committed to cuts, with it's last chancellor admitting that cuts would be "tougher and deeper" than those implemented by Margaret Thatcher" had they won the election. Now they play politics with the issue, standing on the sideline opposing every cut in a cynical , and deeply dishonest way. I just hope that the British people are not as stupid as the Labour Party seem to think they are.

 

You only have to compare Conservative Trafford Council with Labour Manchester City council. The Socialists are deliberately cutting services and trying to preserve the "non jobs" for political reasons. Wheras Conservative Trafford council are streamlining management and office bods as much as possible to protect frontline services.

Edited 18 February, 2011 by dune

[Verbal]

While everyone is in this jobs-cutting frenzy, let's dump the royal family asap. You couldn't even give that inbred crowd reasonable-sounding job descriptions. Then renationalise or sell off the Duchys of Cornwall and Lancaster - whose combined value is in excess of £1bn.

[dune]

While everyone is in this jobs-cutting frenzy, let's dump the royal family asap. You couldn't even give that inbred crowd reasonable-sounding job descriptions. Then renationalise or sell off the Duchys of Cornwall and Lancaster - whose combined value is in excess of £1bn.

 

Were you born in this country?

 

If not I would suggest that may explain why you have no respect for our ways.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Dune,if you want to get rid of "non jobs" then I suggest you start with 80% of the Royal family.

[dune]

Dune,if you want to get rid of "non jobs" then I suggest you start with 80% of the Royal family.

 

Our Royal family contribute hugely to the economy of this country. Just look at all the tourists they attract.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Our Royal family contribute hugely to the economy of this country. Just look at all the tourists they attract.

 

They come to see Prince Andrew do they?

 

How on earth does Paris attract any tourists, they haven't a Royal family?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

So 4 have been doing the work of 5 and now 3 will be doing the work of 4.

 

With respect working in the public sector is renowned for being a cushy plod along career choice. In the private sector you'd have been down to 3 a long time ago. Why should you lot be considered "special"?

 

The guy could be losing his job...unbelievable arrogance.

 

Can the champion of the private sector tell me if it is strong enough yet to absorb all these 'compulsary' job losses?

Edited 18 February, 2011 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[Verbal]

Were you born in this country?

 

If not I would suggest that may explain why you have no respect for our ways.

 

This is not even up to your usual dumbass standards.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

This is not even up to your usual dumbass standards.

 

Let him speak Verbal, the mods can't ignore him forever.

[Joensuu]

Let him speak Verbal, the mods can't ignore him forever.

 

It is a mystery why they have tolerated him thus far.

[saintfully]

Inflation isn't high enough to justify cuts to front line services. If everyone had to go back to 2008 wages, it would hurt, but most people would be able to manage.

 

At work I run on less staff than 2008, a lower CTS and still manage to get by, councils could do the same without cutting front line services. It's a political game they're playing.

 

The vast majority of council staff have wages well below the national average and well established contracts so cutting wages might be more difficult than you imagine. But thats not really my point - costs, as I'm sure you are aware, are much more than just wages. How much has petrol gone up since 2008 for example? How much has food gone up? You state that your costs and staffing have decreased since 2008 but you still manage to get by - but 'getting by' isn't really good enough when your talking about Meals-on-Wheels, for example.

 

Also, Im glad that you're getting by okay, but how do you know? Has your profit increased? What about your customer satisfaction? I've no idea what your business is, but since by Dunes standards you were running it inefficiently in 2008 (which is a paradox because I understood that private business couldn't run inefficiently?), you must have a poor day-to-day measure of its success/failure.

 

Finally - it might suit your world view to think that its a political game but that doesn't make it true. Please stop reading the Mail and being so divisive - 'we're all in this together' remember.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The vast majority of council staff have wages well below the national average and well established contracts so cutting wages might be more difficult than you imagine. But thats not really my point - costs, as I'm sure you are aware, are much more than just wages. How much has petrol gone up since 2008 for example? How much has food gone up? You state that your costs and staffing have decreased since 2008 but you still manage to get by - but 'getting by' isn't really good enough when your talking about Meals-on-Wheels, for example.

 

Also, Im glad that you're getting by okay, but how do you know? Has your profit increased? What about your customer satisfaction? I've no idea what your business is, but since by Dunes standards you were running it inefficiently in 2008 (which is a paradox because I understood that private business couldn't run inefficiently?), you must have a poor day-to-day measure of its success/failure.

 

Finally - it might suit your world view to think that its a political game but that doesn't make it true. Please stop reading the Mail and being so divisive - 'we're all in this together' remember.

 

 

Firstly, I dont read the mail (or any daily), my opinions are not formed by newspapers or any other media.

 

Secondly, had I been told in 2008 that I would have to make savings, lose staff and work smarter I would have said "that's not possible", however having no choice in the matter made us take a good hard look at things and savings were made. Companies in the private sector have been making cuts for the past 3 or 4 years. Pay freezes, recruitment bans, screwing suppliers down,stopping final salary pensions.

 

We are all in this together, including public sector workers, they should not be exempt from the realities that Labour left us with. To leave our debts for our children and grand children to pay off is just plain wrong.

[Whitey Grandad]

They come to see Prince Andrew do they?

 

How on earth does Paris attract any tourists, they haven't a Royal family?

It is far, far cheaper to have a monarchy than a president. I agree about all the hangers-on, though, we don't need to pay for them.

[Whitey Grandad]

The vast majority of council staff have wages well below the national average and well established contracts so cutting wages might be more difficult than you imagine. But thats not really my point - costs, as I'm sure you are aware, are much more than just wages. How much has petrol gone up since 2008 for example? How much has food gone up? You state that your costs and staffing have decreased since 2008 but you still manage to get by - but 'getting by' isn't really good enough when your talking about Meals-on-Wheels, for example.

 

Also, Im glad that you're getting by okay, but how do you know? Has your profit increased? What about your customer satisfaction? I've no idea what your business is, but since by Dunes standards you were running it inefficiently in 2008 (which is a paradox because I understood that private business couldn't run inefficiently?), you must have a poor day-to-day measure of its success/failure.

 

Finally - it might suit your world view to think that its a political game but that doesn't make it true. Please stop reading the Mail and being so divisive - 'we're all in this together' remember.

 

I'm afraid customer satisfaction with the public services is no longer relevant. We can't afford them as things stand so they will have to change. End of story.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I'm afraid customer satisfaction with the public services is no longer relevant. We can't afford them as things stand so they will have to change. End of story.

 

Not really, I don't see why we can't tax the super rich, especially those sods who run the banks and get £2million in bonuses, to the hilt to pay for it.

[Window Cleaner]

Not really, I don't see why we can't tax the super rich, especially those sods who run the banks and get £2million in bonuses, to the hilt to pay for it.

 

They'd say just stop the hand-outs that they're already financing.It's an unsolvable problem in the developed world.The super-rich won't pay more than they consider their fair share, the super poor can't pay so the in-betweens pay for everybody and then find themselves out of work because we have to keep giving more and more to those who have little or no income.

[derry]

Every job at whatever level being paid for with public funds should be evaluated. It is necessary, keep it, it can be done without, get rid of it. The public sector should consist only of the essential public services. Leisure, PR etc should be cut unless self financing through fees..

[Jonnyboy]

I work in public sector ad for years in my field the powers at be having been hacking and slashing kit/personnel./hardware and telling us to crack on..

 

they were doing this when the country was on a spending binge

 

Still, youve got a "tidy" pension and lump sum coming up soon havent you?

[John B]

Firstly, I dont read the mail (or any daily), my opinions are not formed by newspapers or any other media.

 

Secondly, had I been told in 2008 that I would have to make savings, lose staff and work smarter I would have said "that's not possible", however having no choice in the matter made us take a good hard look at things and savings were made. Companies in the private sector have been making cuts for the past 3 or 4 years. Pay freezes, recruitment bans, screwing suppliers down,stopping final salary pensions.

 

We are all in this together, including public sector workers, they should not be exempt from the realities that Labour left us with. To leave our debts for our children and grand children to pay off is just plain wrong.

 

I am really pleased that you don’t read the Daily Mail but I am not sure you fully understand the Economy of the UK which has had other periods of high budget deficits during recent years.

 

So it is a common economic occurrence as we have all had to pay for the policies of past governments so I think it is a little dramatic the way you are describing the situation .

 

I do accept that the current budget deficit is high but this due to the bailout of the banks during the global financial crisis if the Labour Government had not acted in the manner it did supporting the banks the situation would be a great deal worse .

 

With regard to other comments about the cuts I fully support the Labour plan of reducing the defect within four years as this would give a better chance for the economy to grow with less unemployment and loss of public services.

 

A lot of the cuts in my borough will affect children and young people by withdrawing support for pre school age children and support for young adults to get into employment as well as young carers.

 

I think the more we can do for children and young people to reach their full potential the better it will be for them and society in general.

 

But the extra cuts being made by the Tories will probably lead here to more teenage pregnancies and trouble with teenagers because of the withdrawal of help for troubled families.

 

Most redundancies will affect some local people and cause concern to them as well as reducing tax income and probably increasing the welfare bill