TUC Conference.

lynzpower

The problem is that many many local authority staff, deal with those MOST in need of state services, so in a downturn some of the most neediest people lose out. This therefore means that any protective and preventative services will be less available, and voila, more people in crisis, that cost more to deal with. In my experience, in one of the best (!!) local authorities in the country there were simply not enough staff & I was working evenings & weekends just to try to keep on top of my workload.

I love the way so many people seem to think LA working is some sort of doss! I have much more "life" now I work in the private sector ( and I generally do a 50+ hour week) . I also object to the way LA workers are painted as some sort of scrounger -I worked in social work because I was totally committed to my clients and believed that my contribution to vulnerable childrens & adults needs was valid and worthwhile. Also, bear in mind, not all LA staff have pensions- certainly most people I knew didnt. So I really do think this is a huge red herring. PLus add to the mix that many LA employees are on contract due to funding arrangements,so do not qualify for pension in any case.

Think about it:
Social workers & child and adult protection teams ( family breakdown. child abuse, alcohol , mental health provision, and drug realted services need more staff in tough times) At the same time charity based provision declines ( the alcohol rehab spaces dry up, chance of a nursery place like the holy grail etc)
Occupational health officers
Housing and homelessness officers ( obvious)
Antisocial behaviour officers and street teams ( we all expect crime and deviance to rise in recession)
Environmental work ( fly tipping obviously happens more in downturns as companies and individuals alike- plus they need every penny)
For statutiory services, the local authority has no choice if they want to fund- they ultimately have to.

The services we generally see getting reduced is libraries, leisure ( swimming pools for example) parks ( watch them become more rundown and even more no-go areas) support for the elderly & disabled- which tends to mean that those who need homecare ( washing & bathing, someone to get shopping in for them if they are housebound etc) get abandoned more than they already are- meaning ultimately we end up with further "bedblocking" within the NHS costing infinately more. Childcare- forexample the training of childminders- to help people get back to work- will also suffer IME. Luncheon clubs also disappear or certainly cant keep up with demand for the older people, leading to greater mental health needs/ starvation of the elderly/ them going without heating as they cant afford it etc)
Coupled with the local authority recieving LESS revenue from council tax ( as more people go onto CTB) and business rates become harder to collect ( more collection officers/ bailiffs etc) times will get tougher.

I worked in LA for over 5 years, and in that time, the only spending I could see that was WAY out of line was PFI- contracting costs money in itself, and again IME can be very poor services. Getting morrisons ( PFI giant) out to deal with a broken loo in a carehome can cost 500+ plus ( not including parts) even though you nad I kow a yellowpages plumber would probably cost more like 250 if that. Difficulty is these providers are contracted in for many years, and its a tremendous waste of money to get out of these contracts. Contract monitoring officers is one area I d like to see gone, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime- with all major parties somehow believeing that contracting is great VFM that they will never abandon. :wall:

this is exactly why GB should have saved up and put money aside for the tough times, so those of us in society who need to be looked after, or at least supported to become independent, will fall even further by the wayside.

GB talking about the working classes makes me PSML.