Council Jobs to Go -10% Staff Saving Needed

Poppy9

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I know how to fill in forms - it's filling them in in such a way as to allow all the boxes to be ticked !

Dogmatic approach, as illustrated above. is probably indicitive of the huge cultural difference between public & private sector.

When I recruit I put advert in local paper. Get maybe 20 or 30 CVs. Select top 6 to interview - position usually filled within 2-4 weeks max. of start.

My parner (LA leisure services) started recruitment process by writing job description (for part-time assistant who left) in Aug - offered sucessful candidate job in Nov and hopes she will start early Jan. This was lowest grade p/t job. Though important to her she thought that interview didn't merit the attendance of 3 senior staff for 1 day + all other stuff on shortlisting, scoring etc etc

But none of this makes it harder to get into a LA to work it's just a slower process.

Before a freeze on recruitment (sorry vacancy management:rolleyes: ) where you now cannot advertise a job for 3 months to save money the routine was

X hands in notice giving 4 weeks notice (standard notice usually) 1.4.08, fill in vacancy advert and pass to HR within 1 week, job advert on intranet/job centre usually within 1 week with 2 week closing date (it's equal ops to allow potential applicants to make enquiries about the post, completing application etc hence 2 week advert).

Employee X leaves 30.4.08, closing date for new applicants now closed but in preparation staff involved in recruitment have planned ahead and can review forms the day after closing. The interview dates were also pencilled in when the vacancy form first went to HR (some 4 weeks earlier) so can send out letter for interview within the week.

Like the private sector we can then offer an immediate start to the right candidate but usually we have to wait for them to work out their notice to either their private or public sector employer unless of course they are out of work.

So within 5 weeks of X handing in notice we have appointed. 99% of the time only 2 staff interview, only usually 3 if we have more than 1 post covering more than 1 team so rather than do two lots of interviews do it all together.

All current public sector staff didn't just walk into the building and say "give us a job", they all went through the same application process. I was the first member of my family to work in public sector so had no one to pull strings or get me in and I've not pulled strings to get anyone in either. In fact it was a source of great amusement to my father who ran his own business as he wasn't too fond of the council:D .

Compare this to my working in the private sector. First job I just walked in and asked and didn't fill in any form but told to start Saturday. Didn't like it and left. Next job a friend's aunt had got her a job there and she then got me a job. Again no applying.

Applying to the public sector is more regulated than private sector as there is the preception that it's jobs for the boys. Hence long time adverts, regulated recruitment process i.e. 1 person alone cannot interview. It's to make it equal and fair to all.

Oblivion

Poppy9 wrote: »

Applying to the public sector is more regulated than private sector as there is the preception that it's jobs for the boys. Hence long time adverts, regulated recruitment process i.e. 1 person alone cannot interview. It's to make it equal and fair to all.

I agree with that point of view Poppy, but I feel compelled to add a rider which I have no doubt some will regard as racist, but it is simply intended as a statement of fact.

My final years as a senior manager in LA employment were made more and more difficult by endless legislation pouring down from central government, not least of which was Equal Opportunities.

My concept of a fair interview was to select the person best qualified and most suited to the vacancy, irrespective of race or creed. All that went out of the window with the Equal Opportunities and similar pieces of legislation. If our LA had 5% of its population belonging to a particular ethnic minority, our staffing was expected to reflect that, so interviewers were put under pressure to ensure that the quota was filled. It didn't matter if they couldn't do the job, if the ethnic fit was right to make the statistics look good, they were in.

It was one of the main reasons I was glad to retire from a career which was rapidly becoming overwhelmed by nanny-state dictatorship.

Dave

Poppy9

Oblivion wrote: »

I agree with that point of view Poppy, but I feel compelled to add a rider which I have no doubt some will regard as racist, but it is simply intended as a statement of fact.

My final years as a senior manager in LA employment were made more and more difficult by endless legislation pouring down from central government, not least of which was Equal Opportunities.

My concept of a fair interview was to select the person best qualified and most suited to the vacancy, irrespective of race or creed. All that went out of the window with the Equal Opportunities and similar pieces of legislation. If our LA had 5% of its population belonging to a particular ethnic minority, our staffing was expected to reflect that, so interviewers were put under pressure to ensure that the quota was filled. It didn't matter if they couldn't do the job, if the ethnic fit was right to make the statistics look good, they were in.

It was one of the main reasons I was glad to retire from a career which was rapidly becoming overwhelmed by nanny-state dictatorship.

Dave

Would I be right in guessing you were from a London authority?

I'm in Wales and we don't have that pressure (yet) in our LA and I'm sure that my colleagues who are non white or English:p are the best persons for the job.

We do have to guarantee an interview for a disable person who meets the criteria.

Best application form I read was under the section of employment history

:Name of previous employer. - Robert
:Reason for leaving - to work for Jim:rotfl:

Oblivion

Poppy9 wrote: »

Would I be right in guessing you were from a London authority?

Is it that obvious

Poppy9 wrote: »

Best application form I read was under the section of employment history

:Name of previous employer. - Robert
:Reason for leaving - to work for Jim:rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl: Oh yes, I've seen a few like that in my time ...

Do you suffer from any incapacity -- Not yet but I haven't been offered the job yet. :rolleyes:

Dave.

Mandark

Oblivion wrote: »

My concept of a fair interview was to select the person best qualified and most suited to the vacancy, irrespective of race or creed. All that went out of the window with the Equal Opportunities and similar pieces of legislation. If our LA had 5% of its population belonging to a particular ethnic minority, our staffing was expected to reflect that, so interviewers were put under pressure to ensure that the quota was filled. It didn't matter if they couldn't do the job, if the ethnic fit was right to make the statistics look good, they were in.

It was one of the main reasons I was glad to retire from a career which was rapidly becoming overwhelmed by nanny-state dictatorship.

Dave

A lot of people counter the positive discrimination argument with the 'best person for the job' argument, Dave. The problem is though, can you trust those involved in the candidate selection process to select people without prejudice? The government didn't think so and I think they were right. The laws were brought in because Black and Asian people (and women and dsiabled people) weren't getting a look in, especially in more senior roles and it's still a struggle. People might say they're fair minded but personally, I wouldn't trust most of them to be so.

Mandark

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

[quotears =Davesnave;16776447]
Interesting that - 6 times in my working career I've applied for LA jobs (all of which according to the job description I've been eminently suited) but not even been offered an interview.

My partner, who's worked in LA for 25 years says most jobs are filled internally. She also says that recruiting is a nightmare with all the hoops that have to be gone through (including having 3 senior interviewers, at least 1 of both sexes, oven for the most junior position......how much time and organisation does that take?). Most positions are filled in as shoe ins from other depts. so external advertising is a waste of time. I also understand that disadvantaged minorities are guaranteed interviews even if they are not suited to the job.

So much for significant numbers of LA staff making it in the outside world. Same applies for private sector trying to get in. It's about time we stopped having this demarcation - a bit of cross-fertilisation of ideas and practices would be a good thing.

BTW conditions and pressures can also be grim in private sector - many employees are only on minimum rates of pay and get precious few 'perks'

Just goes to show that even with equal opps laws people will get around it and appoint favourites or known persons. I know people ideal for local government who've struggle to get an interview or been overlooked for favourites.

Oblivion

Mandark wrote: »

A lot of people counter the positive discrimination argument with the 'best person for the job' argument, Dave. The problem is though, can you trust those involved in the candidate selection process to select people without prejudice? The government didn't think so and I think they were right. The laws were brought in because Black and Asian people (and women and dsiabled people) weren't getting a look in, especially in more senior roles and it's still a struggle. People might say they're fair minded but personally, I wouldn't trust most of them to be so.

I am sympathetic to that point of view, and I don't doubt that discrimination has been a problem in interviews in all walks of life. I like to think that I always played 'with a straight bat' and conducted my interviews fairly.

What I found unacceptable was the usual government response to 'use a sledge-hammer to crack a nut', and in doing so, introducing Positive Discrimination which in my view is one of the most poisonous presences in society today.

Dave.

neverdespairgirl

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

gets 35 days + a couple of extra stats

Blimey, he must hardly ever be at work!

neverdespairgirl

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I know how to fill in forms - it's filling them in in such a way as to allow all the boxes to be ticked !

Dogmatic approach, as illustrated above. is probably indicitive of the huge cultural difference between public & private sector.

We are definitely private sector at my Chambers. We are all self-employed barristers.

When we recruit for pupils, we use a similar process to the one described by Poppy. We don't have an application form, it's CV plus covering letter. Two people read through all applications seperately, and give points for exam grades, university degree, work experience, all the rest of it. They then put them in three piles, definintely no, maybe, and invite for interview. Then the two people compare and contrast their piles.

Old_Slaphead

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Blimey, he must hardly ever be at work!

Throw in say a week's training, 10 days stats, couple of week's sickies and flexitime - he isn't. And he's management.