300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

donaldtramp

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7134040.ece

Front page of the Sunday Times.

AT least 300,000 Whitehall and other public sector workers may lose their jobs as the coalition government sets to work cutting the £156 billion budget deficit.....

And not before time.
Lets get the axe out before we become Greece, the sequel.

The massive expansion of the public sector and increase in bureaucracy has masked unemployment figures, caused us to be even more unproductive and was paid for at great expense (in BILLIONS of pounds worth of debt)

Oh and this is not the "nasty Tory/Lib dems", Labour would have had to do exactly the same. They did after all, blow all the money.....

marklv

donaldtramp wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7134040.ece



And not before time.
Lets get the axe out before we become Greece, the sequel.

The massive expansion of the public sector and increase in bureaucracy has masked unemployment figures, caused us to be even more unproductive and was paid for at great expense (in BILLIONS of pounds worth of debt)

But it's not that simple. Big cuts make big headlines, but as most civil servants earn below £22k a year, and by sacking them you will simply be putting one group of people from receiving salaries to receiving benefits, and of course the cost of making people redundant in the first place will be extremely high, as civil servants enjoy very good redundancy terms. My reckoning is that most of the cuts will done by shuffling people around to make it look as if headcounts have fallen, giving the 55+ groups compulsory early retirements and freezing all but essential recruitment for five years.

In my opinion the savings that the civil service should be making can be achieved by improving outmoded working practices. One question I always ask myself is why they need so many office buildings in central London. A lot of deskbound civil servants could easily work from home 2-3 days a week and come in only for essential face-to-face meetings - much of this is already happening in the private sector. I would cut desks by 50% and make every desk a 'hot' one that needs to be booked to be used. Travelling and hotel stays should also be reserved for absolutely critical reasons only.

dave4545454

great news:T

looking forward to the "bonfire of quangos". let's hope it is literal

Cleaver

dave4545454 wrote: »

great news:T

Is it? I'm pleased the Torys are looking at a number of areas where Labour have spent public money on unecessary things, but I can't see how there is any good news in this situaton. Labour setting up unecessary things, contributing to the country having a deficit, then the Tories come along and cut them leading to people losing jobs and, as a result, private businesses also suffering. Where is the good news? I agree that many of the 1,000 or so quangos need cutting. But it's not as simple as just shutting them down and we all clap our hands in glee. Tens or hundreds of thousands of businesses will be suppliers to these bodies and will lose out and many people will lose their jobs. So I agree that it's a necessary evil, but is it good news? 'Spose it depends what you term by 'good news'.

I also hope that someone has been through these bodies and separated the wheat from the chaff. If there are quango bodies out there that are justifying their existance by being able to prove that they contribute to society in a cost effective way, and can produce evidence that they provide effective return on investment then they should stay.

Oldernotwiser

dave4545454 wrote: »

great news:T

looking forward to the "bonfire of quangos". let's hope it is literal

Spot the person who hasn't got a job and would like more people to be unemployed like he is!

CLAPTON

as I see it
300,000 jobs at say a net saving of £15,000 (i.e. allowing for costs like JSA, redundancy payments)

gives a reduction of costs of £4.5 billion in the first year, more later
not a lot really

donaldtramp

but as most civil servants earn below £22k a year, and by sacking them you will simply be putting one group of people from receiving salaries to receiving benefits,

I will not be contributing to their ludicrously well funded pensions either.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/public-sector-pension-costs-may-reach-16379bn-a-year-1920091.html

The pension deficits in local Councils are now approaching £60 BILLION!!!
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/media/2010/04/daily-telegraph-taxpayers-facing-pensions-burden-as-local-government-deficits-hit-60bn.html

That is despite the fact that we contribute massively to their pensions through our taxes. In my area it is £100 for every man woman and child goes into the public sector pensions. See next link,
http://tpa.typepad.com/home/files/council_spending_uncovered_3_pension_contributions.pdf
Have a look and see how much your local public servants are screwing you for.

Before I hear, "but the average public sector pension is only x pounds a year",
I would like to point out that the poorly paid in the private sector contribute whilst having no pensions provision and that this money also comes from our pensioners.

This is NOT fair and I hope it is finally going to be sorted.

and of course the cost of making people redundant in the first place will be extremely high, as civil servants enjoy very good redundancy terms.

That's something else that needs sorting out. We cannot allow any new public servants to get these ludicrous redundancy terms that people in the real world do not get. Lets look at it as a one off necessary cost and set up new contracts properly.

But my favourite article is this from the daily mash.....
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/horrible-dragon-threatens-council-worker-fantasy-land-201003012514/

The horrible dragon is rightly coming for you and not before time.

dave4545454

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Spot the person who hasn't got a job and would like more people to be unemployed like he is!

spot the sad excuse for a human who's completely unemployable and spends their whole life on here.

kabayiri

CLAPTON wrote: »

as I see it
300,000 jobs at say a net saving of £15,000 (i.e. allowing for costs like JSA, redundancy payments)

gives a reduction of costs of £4.5 billion in the first year, more later
not a lot really

We can't continue with this attitude, we need one with more MSE in it.

4.5bn saved is a saving. So is running a training course 'in house' and not sending a bunch of employees off to a course including hotels and meals etc. These savings in each case may only amount to 10K here, 15K there, but when you start to add them all up it really starts to take effect.

At my current client site we have frequent need to call in external contractors to do cable runs, power board installations, etc.

It's noticeable how quickly a contractor starts to see a client as a 'cushy number', with prices creeping up as a result. Because we have to account for every penny, there is usually an abrupt conversation with the supplier, demonstrating we can and will shop for value. The savings that ensue are really noticeable.

I honestly think that a change in attitude across the board to spending from the public purse can save a lot of money before jobs are impacted.

jonewer

As mentioned above, public sector cutbacks will have a massive effect on the legion of private sector contractors who feed on the foetid carcas of part privatisation and outsourcing.

A lot of taxpayers money could be saved by bringing these services back in house. Two recent news items high light this. First is the met's new HR system. years behind schedule and £10million over budget, and the collapse of the part privatisation of the tube.

Taxpayers money should be used to provide services to the taxpayer, not to line the pockets of commercial entities whose first and only priority is to make as big a profit as possible, irrespective of the level of service they (dont) provide.

Oldernotwiser

dave4545454 wrote: »

spot the sad excuse for a human who's completely unemployable and spends their whole life on here.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

A total of 3/4 months claiming JSA in a working life of 40 years does not indicate unemployability. Remind me again how many years you've been employed since you graduated.