Up to 2,000 jobs going at Birmingham City Council

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

When the government invests in public services without paying for them out of taxation, such as the 3% deficit Labour have run since c. 2002 or the 'off balance sheet' liabilities in PFI deals, then they are simply using the future to pay for the present.

Now we're in the future, it's obvious these things aren't affordable. I don't deny that investing in schools is worthwhile, but we cannot maintain the current £90 billion structural deficit forever. We need to face up to fiscal reality.

that's all very lovely and sounds really nice but it means nothing related to what you were claiming a few posts back

Kohoutek wrote: »

This whole discussion is irrelevant because the public sector does not generate wealth, the taxes from public sector workers are recycled private sector taxes.

Pennywise

chucky wrote: »

the public sector invests in schools, hospitals and much more - these things are investments in wealth that are more valuable than any monetary wealth that you'd ever aspire to.

I agree, but the public sector also wastes a vast amount of money in other areas. By all means, ring-fence efficient frontline workers supported by a modest/efficient management/administrative structure, but we need a hatchet job on all the non-essential and discretionary areas and need to get some efficiency and cost reductions throughout areas where front line essential services can be maintained.

Without a profit-driven private sector, we wouldn't have a public sector at all. The public sector may not create wealth per se but it facilitates the private sector to create essential wealth. Sadly, the public sector seems to be more pre-occupied with hassling wealth creating business rather than helping/facilitating them due to inherent political correctness and political leanings and that has to stop. The public sector needs to be reigned in back to basics of health, welfare, education and infrastructure - anything more can't be financed and needs to be scrapped.

Old_Slaphead

chucky wrote: »

your perception of wealth needs to change - life isn't about cash, bank accounts, credit cards and property.

the public sector invests in schools, hospitals and much more - these things are investments in wealth that are more valuable than any monetary wealth that you'd ever aspire to.

It is about when many of these things haven't been paid for but are being left for future generations - great inheritance for your kids.

Unless public sector costs are cut we'll never be able to get much growth back into the economy.

chucky

Pennywise wrote: »

I agree, but the public sector also wastes a vast amount of money in other areas. By all means, ring-fence efficient frontline workers supported by a modest/efficient management/administrative structure, but we need a hatchet job on all the non-essential and discretionary areas and need to get some efficiency and cost reductions throughout areas where front line essential services can be maintained.

you've made your point extremely well and presented it how it should be - you are right of course.

my post was in response to the generic sound bites from another poster who claimed the public sector produced no wealth at all. he's obviously obsessed with money.

i don't work in the public sector by the way

bouche

doire wrote: »

That is shocking news. Only the tip of the iceberg of whats coming


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/8508023.stm


Up to 2,000 jobs could go from Birmingham City Council during the next financial year. The council, the largest local authority in the UK which employs 52,000 people, said it had to make savings of up to £69m by April 2011.


The cuts are based on an assumption that unions will agree to a pay freeze, with the council saying there could be more jobs to go if not.
Reports have been circulating for some time about job losses.
Chief executive Stephen Hughes said the council was facing "a very large challenge".


'Voluntary redundancies'
"In my time in public service this is probably the biggest challenge we are ever going to face," he said.
Staff in several departments have been sent letters asking if they wish to take voluntary redundancy and the council has said it hopes most losses can be made through that or early retirement.
Workers in the children and young people's department are expected to bear the brunt of the losses.
The council has said teachers or social workers are not under threat.
Other areas which could be affected include day care centres, residential homes for the elderly, sport and leisure facilities and libraries.
The council has also identified several areas where it can increase its revenue.
These include looking at what can be done to increase revenues at its cemeteries and crematoria, vehicle recovery and parks, museums and libraries departments.

Coucils are skint and so are Housing associations.

They could of course get rid of the middle men and their "pensions" - that would enable more money to be used to help the elderly or perhaps, collect rubbish - ONCE A WEEK:rotfl:

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

that's all very lovely and sounds really nice but it means nothing related to what you were claiming a few posts back

You understood what I meant, surely? HMRC don't collect sunshine and happiness to pay for those new hospitals and schools. Real money has to come from somewhere. OK, "the public sector doesn't generate money".

The government has a £178 billion gap between taxation and public spending. That equals fewer government services.

Andy_L

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

If you add the Skilled Trades into the figures which IMO are as much a professional occupation requiring qualifications as white collar ones (a 5 year apprenticed plumber/tradesman is just a well qualified and probably much more use to society than a CS CO with a non-relevant degree) the numbers are about the same

I see you're trying to conflate the 2 lists. The CS (with irrelevent/no degree) is Admin & Secretarial, they only get into Professional with a relevant degree. BTW why did you leave out Associate Prof & technical: couldn't have been an attempt to skew the figures could it?

I belive the Plumbers C&Gs etc count as higher ed (ie BTec HNC/D sort of level), of coruse if they're Fellow of their charted institute then they move into the Managers/Senior officials group

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Product.asp?vlnk=14248
Warning, link to tedious spreadsheet of occupation groupings

vish16

the decision makers (i.e. 50k+ per year) will be the ones picking and choosing to sack the minions (i.e. 12k per year staff) just to justify their jobs.
Then come the annual performance review, these decision makers will say "look what I did, I saved the council loads of money".
The head of the council will say "Well done, you will get a 10% pay rise". And then the council is back to square one with even greater deficits.

Just get rid of the wasters in non-value creating jobs (i.e. "Strategist Manager" or "Assembly Business unit manager" etc) and retain the core staff i.e. social workers, care workers, cleaners, waste collectors etc etc and you'll get a gtd tons of millions pounds saving. These are the people we need to keep.

jodie264

I totally agree...I work with a lot of them from childrens services - or should I say worked (and no I'm NOT a public sector worker), They are being pushed before they are shoved and the working conditions are not something people from the private sector would believe. Ive worked in both and what you lose on the roundabouts as they say - he who casts the first stone and all that

jodie264

Not true - the training arms HAVE HAD toi show a profit form some time now