Massive Job Losses expected in Public Sector

1984ReturnsForReal_2

carolt wrote: »

'Professionals who know what they're doing'?

Have you ever contacted a pivate recruitment agency? How difficult do you think the job is? Do you imagine they know the first thing about the profession they're dealing with? They're not 'professionals' - since when was working for a recruitment agency a profession?

Believe me, I've dealt with several as a teacher, and they can't tell their !!!! from their elbow.

Not that I suspect the mugs at the call centres are very well-paid. It's the owners of the agencies who make the profits.

There goes someone who really doesnt know what they are talking about.


I have over 13 years experience, including:

Management (management of vacancies & management of several consultants & several branches)
Teaching
Engineering
Nursing

& normal day to day muppet admin jobs which require a totally different person than those needed at jobcentres to be able to identify & understand the needs of a position & find the right candidate.

But I guess you feel you can get these people for £13k per annum.

MUPPET.....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

carolt wrote: »

They have cleaning agencies? Certainly never noticed them.

How do they find cleaners normally?

No idea. But they send the staff, we provide the materials, and if someone doesn't show, the manager on duty calls the agency and they send someone else to cover. We pay a fixed amount per week to the agency, they pay the staff, and we've had no problems since it started.

They also have a full service contract cleaning division, but offer a more basic staff provision service on an agency basis too. They seem to constantly recruit in the local papers and job sites for the cleaning company, so I'd assume thats also how they get the agency staff.

Regardless, it's problem free, which we like, and surprisingly cost effective, when you look at the other knock on costs of the problems we experienced with in-house staff.

Spartacus_Mills

chucky wrote: »

which Government? this one or the previous one or even both?

All from 1997. Really the creation of the FSA is what I am thinking of. The regulation of the FSA was poor. Brown trumpeted his "light touch" regulation of the city and that has certainly not helped us.

His move to de-politicise interest rate setting was a very good move (although when times got hard the govt did interfere) but the move to create the FSA was not.

olly300

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The recruitment agency that we use as a company are extremely professional and use specialised recruiters for different sectors. In fact, the one that recruited me used to work in our industry at management level, so understands the job roles well. I'd be fairly sure he's on at least 60K, and he's not the most senior person we work with.

Recruiters for the many millions of jobs above the 40K mark will be earning good money, will more than likely be well qualified to degree level, and have specific CIPD qualifications on top of that.

A friend of mine is a recruiter that specialises in senior management, she has a masters degree, used to be an HR director, and as a recruiter makes well in excess of 100K a year.

Well you found a good agency.

I've spoke to different recruitment consultants in my time and have worked with a number.

Very few of them have actually worked in the profession they are recruiting for. A vast majority of them are simply sales men and women who know nothing about the industry they are recruiting in regardless of whether they have a degree or not. (And I haven't even started on people who work in HR.)

Myself and friends' went to university with some people who ended up working in recruitment, and have had fun in the past discussing stuff with them because they no absolutely nothing about the industries they are recruiting for.

Also lots of them regardless of their background are unable to understand the basics of contract and employment law, and come out with rubbish and stupid threats. Considering some of these people have access to a lawyer either professionally or personally it's not particularly hard for them to check what they are talking about.

Spartacus_Mills

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No idea. But they send the staff, we provide the materials, and if someone doesn't show, the manager on duty calls the agency and they send someone else to cover. We pay a fixed amount per week to the agency, they pay the staff, and we've had no problems since it started.

They also have a full service contract cleaning division, but offer a more basic staff provision service on an agency basis too. They seem to constantly recruit in the local papers and job sites for the cleaning company, so I'd assume thats also how they get the agency staff.

Regardless, it's problem free, which we like, and surprisingly cost effective, when you look at the other knock on costs of the problems we experienced with in-house staff.

They find cleaners the normal way, through advertisments in job centres and local newspapers. Also some of the agencies, like Kelly's and Hays as well as local agencies, that do not just focus on the more skilled employees will advertise for them. Usually in shop windows.

chucky

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

All from 1997. Really the creation of the FSA is what I am thinking of. The regulation of the FSA was poor. Brown trumpeted his "light touch" regulation of the city and that has certainly not helped us.

His move to de-politicise interest rate setting was a very good move (although when times got hard the govt did interfere) but the move to create the FSA was not.

i was thinking more of the Thatcher era where it all started to be deregulated - Big Bang and all the benefits that that came along with making London Europes fincancial centre. Labour just continued this.

lemonjelly

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I notice how certain people who fly off the handle at the merest suggestion that bears may be happy about job losses relating to lower house prices, rub their hands together in glee at the thought of public sector jobs going.

Hypocrisy much?

Yes, from another thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieJ
It does seem strange that a severe problem directly caused by the excesses of private sector organisations and their management results in public sector/union bashing

Post of the month :T

StevieJ

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Actually the government with its lax regulation of the banking sector through the FSA has made things far worse in our country.

I also take it that the teachers, bin men, policemen, Nurses and so on were not indulging in this orgy of borrowing that has brought us to where we are today ? It is just the bankers fault then, not the people who borrowed beyond their means ?

Fact is we do not have the money whatever the reason.

Then again what would the alternative govt have done, it is true we can only surmise, but here is a clue.


Mr Redwood's group also sees "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision, saying it is the lender, not the client, who takes the risk. :eek:

Mr Cameron is believed to be fully behind Mr Redwood's programme in what will represent a significant shift to the Right

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

Then again what would the alternative govt have done, it is true we can only surmise, but here is a clue.


Mr Redwood's group also sees "no need to continue" to regulate mortgage provision, saying it is the lender, not the client, who takes the risk. :eek:

Mr Cameron is believed to be fully behind Mr Redwood's programme in what will represent a significant shift to the Right

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560100/Tories-plan-14bn-cuts-to-red-tape.html

All ifs and buts.

It does not matter what an alternative government would do. What matters is what the government of the day did.

Spartacus_Mills

chucky wrote: »

i was thinking more of the Thatcher era where it all started to be deregulated - Big Bang and all the benefits that that came along with making London Europes fincancial centre. Labour just continued this.

Well the Thatcher era certainly started the deregulation ball rolling but did keep the role of the regulator with the BofE to act as a brake. The BofE acted decisively on BCCI for instance, the FSA gave Northern Rock a clean bill of health a couple of months before it went bump. I do not think we can blame Mrs T for Labour failing to adequately regulate the banks.

The issue, for me, is the lack of teeth in the FSA and the light touch regulation rather