300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

chucky

A._Badger wrote: »

I simply couldn't care less how I 'look' to you, Chucky. You're just a self-appointed milk monitor here, who pops into threads, trying to show how smart you are by picking holes in things you clearly fail to understand.

oh you do care, otherwise you wouldn't have made a 3 paragraph reply to my post...

problem is about your post is that you didn't answer the point, just deflected the point being made and went on a rant about milk monitors. well done, keep it up. :T

Harry_Powell

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Hate to admit it but you are right.. we are going through a restructure at work (Gloucestershire council) and there will definately be redundancies; however, if I am one of those, the housing benefit will look after me as I am a single parent with a young child in a private rental. And I will get Income Support and CTC too.. so I won't be any worse off if I was laid off. BUT I want to work; and I am looking for another job before the cull begins as I don't want to be a stay at home layabout on benefits..

Making me redundant in one hand and giving it to me back in benefits = crazy.

Do you really believe that all 300,000 people will be better off living on benefits as you claim you will be?

I know the benefit system is rather generous, but I didn't realise it paid the equivalent of a £28k salary and final salary pension. I might give up work now and go on the dole!!!

"The percentage difference between the median level of full-time earnings in the public sector (£539 per week) and the private sector (£465 per week) widened over the year to April 2009, following annual increases of 3.1 per cent and 1.0 per cent respectively."

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

chucky

kabayiri wrote: »

The outsourcing companies, like Capita, were licking their lips at the prospect of change, just check the press reporting a few weeks back.

Politically these companies provide politicians with a 'solution' ; shift jobs out to the these outsourced companies, and then let those companies squeeze the jobs down over a period of time. It's happened before.

here is what many of these anti-leftie ranters, anti-Labour or even the people that wanted 'change' don't realise.

the tories and lib dems won't be much better by contracting out these services - there will be many changes and probably make situations much worse.

A._Badger

marklv wrote: »

And you are saying that there is no ruthless oligarchy in a capitalist society? Utter tripe!

No, it is you who said that. And I agree, it is utter tripe.

What I said is that socialist societies are inevitably ruled by an oligarchy. The fact that capitalist ones are too doesn't in the least invalidate my point.

What makes this significant is that socialist societies claim to eradicate something they despise when, almost without exception, they make it worse.

kabayiri

marklv wrote: »

Outsourcing might save a little money initially, but in the long term it doesn't work. Besides, you still need people to assure and audit what these outsourcers are actually doing. In my experience, outsourcing is always a false economy.

You might be right Mark.

But you can see how a new government desparate for money saving suggestions would be seduced by the likes of these companies.

They are very skilled at making the pitch.

I do some work for one client, and they are very adept at showing call handling costs lower than internal handling [probably because they are uber tight on costs!].

bendix

I love marklv. I really do.

He left the private sector for some 'safety' job in the public sector, and now he is railing against the fact that he's in the firing line.

And yet - for the last 18 months - he hasnt give a !!!! about the pain the private sector has been going through.

Your turn now, pal. If that's schadenfreude, sign me up.

Kohoutek

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Are you seriously claiming that the figleaf of 'identifying with' means any genuine attempt to put into practice? All of your quoted examples are barely disguised, personality-cult dictatorships.

Everybody knows that true socialism has never been implemented anywhere - and that the cases which have come closest - Scandinavia comes to mind - have been pretty good places to live while still allowing for enlightened free enterprise - I don't recall any shortages of Saabs and Volvos around while what you doubtless consider to be a supreme 'nanny state' was in force.

You're hilarious Alan. :rotfl:

What is 'true socialism'? Who determines what constitutes 'true socialism', you? I thought socialism was a broad ideology that was capable of several interpretations. Obviously Mr Alan Cross has the exclusive right to construe what socialism means using weasel words like 'everybody knows'?

What was not 'true socialism' about Britain under Clement Atlee? High rates of income tax at the top end for redistributive purposes, 20% of private industry nationalised, the introduction of a 'cradle to the grave' welfare state and national health service.

You should try studying the history of Latin America too - then you'd realise how extraordinarily ignorant your assertion about 'Scandinavia' being the only place where socialism has ever been tried looks. The fifth largest country in the world by population - Brazil - has a democratically elected socialist government right now, if you want a current example.

thescouselander

chucky wrote: »

here is what many of these anti-leftie ranters, anti-Labour or even the people that wanted 'change' don't realise.

the tories and lib dems won't be much better by contracting out these services - there will be many changes and probably make situations much worse.

This is true. If a contractor was brought in to replace me like for like with the same qualifications etc it would cost the government over £1000 per day - unfortunately for me I dont get paid anything like that as a civil servant.

Harry_Powell

chucky wrote: »

here is what many of these anti-leftie ranters, anti-Labour or even the people that wanted 'change' don't realise.

the tories and lib dems won't be much better by contracting out these services - there will be many changes and probably make situations much worse.

Come on chucky, don't be so naive. The sales pitch for outsourcing is that costs will be reduced and services are increased, but we all know the real reason and the real value of outsourcing, and that's to get rid of public sector staff without a union struggle. Divide and conquer - it's the TUPE way.

These deals work because a few years after outsourcing, a 'get out' clause in the contract is activated and the outsource company is told to re-bid for the work and needs to reduce costs or the outsourcer will go with a competitor. The outsourcing company then gets rid of the deadwood and hey-presto, a cheaper service with less staff and no union hangovers - because it's better to have some union members in work, than to lose the contract and have all of them out of work. What a scam.

tomterm8

bendix wrote: »

I love marklv. I really do.

He left the private sector for some 'safety' job in the public sector, and now he is railing against the fact that he's in the firing line.

And yet - for the last 18 months - he hasnt give a !!!! about the pain the private sector has been going through.

Your turn now, pal. If that's schadenfreude, sign me up.

Whereas, I don't see it as a private sector / public sector divide. I think that these cuts are bound to result in more private sector jobs going than "public sector" jobs.

A lot of private sector companys are funded by the public sector. A lot of private sector companies that are just keeping their heads out of the water are going to go bust when public sector workers can't buy their products any more.

Sensible public sector workers, right now, are cutting back their spending... even if they aren't going to be fired, they are planning for it.

That is going to be hurting a lot of private sector employees.