Brown warns that economic storm is not over

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

Well from what I hear from HR departments is any one +20 years service wont be going due to it not being cost efficient.

That's interesting to hear, but that has never stopped then in the past when they are given a certain number of posts to chop. Compulsory redundancy for people with less service is just as expensive. Why would the civil service be trying to cut the severance package for longer serving staff if they were not planning to cut longer serving staff? (so much for loyalty :whistle:). It ought to be obvious that getting rid of staff with plenty of time to go before retirement and retaining those with a short period to retirement is strategically stupid (though again that has not stopped them in the past).

As a fairly new civil servant, the message I am getting from all this (and the pensions fiasco a few years ago) is that loyalty does not pay. That is not in the best interests of politicians or departmental heads.

Really2 wrote: »

I am sure they can cut jobs that do not require much experience or otherwise how did anyone ever get in to the public service.

Not sure how you would get to your wage inflation scenario ask any ex trained car manufacturer in the midlands (or any area of industry that has seen big job losses) how much more they earn now compared to 10 years ago.
I bet a lot of MG rover staff are still on less than what they used to earn.

There is a passing on of information and a memory of past decisions that is priceless. However, when I said the above, I was framing my mind to civil service policy work rather than operational concerns.

The reason why wages would inflate in this scenario is because in 10 years time the people with 20 years + service will be mostly retired and many of their potential successors would have had their posts chopped. So the Civil Service would have to recruit outsiders. If those new outsiders do not have the employment protection of current civil servants, market forces would dictate that they end up being paid more. This is on the same basis that consultants trade security for hard cash. You would be destroying the future to save (not a lot) of cash in the short term (yet again that has not stopped them in the past).

You !!!!!! on your staff at your peril.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The reason why wages would inflate in this scenario is because in 10 years time the people with 20 years + service will be mostly retired and many of their potential successors would have had their posts chopped.

Or recruited on a lower wage within 5 years if budget ease.

I really can't see it costing more to recruit "outsiders" in the future for one they may recruit internally.
Another point is that many may still want the work and benefits of working in the public sector even if they still don't get the current employment terms they currently get.

You have to realise doing massive severance packages now can't happen without cutting services massively in the short term.
They will not be able to magic the funds to cut anyone (many) who has served over 20 years.

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

Or recruited on a lower wage within 5 years if budget ease.

I really can't see it costing more to recruit "outsiders" in the future for one they may recruit internally.

They would only be recruited on a lower wage if private sector wages are lower too. In fact, government would be recruiting in a better jobs market so that would be unlikely. Otherwise there would simply be lots of unfilled posts. If you have unfilled posts at a certain grade there are only three ways to resolve that problem; 1) increase pay 2) increase T&C benefits 3) reduce the calibre of person for that grade. You can buck the jobs market in the short term but not over the longer term.

On a further practical note, decreasing the number of civil servants in a recession and increasing them in a boom is very pro-cyclical and would make boom/bust cycles more severe (taken with the extra public spending that would be entailed).

Actually, there is a further solution which you see in developing countries; turn a blind eye to bribery and slush funds. Definitely not something I would want to see in the UK! (that was the norm before Northcote Trevelyan BTW).

Really2 wrote: »

Another point is that many may still want the work and benefits of working in the public sector even if they still don't get the current employment terms they currently get.

Yeah, but if you reduce those benefits (such as a reduced pension/greater job insecurity etc) then all that happens is that wages rise to compensate. The only way that would not happen would be if private sector T&Cs decline too. None of this is in the best interests of the UK population.

The principle of giving good benefits to civil servants is a practise that has been accepted as good practise in civilisations since at least the days of the Chinese Qin Dynasty in the third century BC.

Civil Service incentives have to reward loyalty, discretion and integrity. For example a good pension keeps people on the straight and narrow and keeps their mouths shut in retirement. Politicians mess with that at their peril, (notice now past Cabinet Secretaries have started to publically criticise past PMs more). You get the government you pay for.

Really2

We shall see. I have nothing to gain from what I have been told, infact my wife would have a lot to gain if she could get voluntary.

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

We shall see. I have nothing to gain from what I have been told, infact my wife would have a lot to gain if she could get voluntary.

The "efficiency savings" agenda is a massive pre-election side-show.

At the end of the day, if a future government is dumb enough to do the slash and burn routine they only have themselves to blame for any unforeseen consequences. Someone with enough smarts can always work out how to benefit from most situations if they feel they are being cheated.