300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure you understood my comments.

What I'm saying is that the job loses will have to be massively more than 300,000 if the government is really going to cut the deficit by reducing the public sector rather than relying on tax rises, GDP growth and asset sales.

jonewer

CLAPTON wrote: »

What I'm saying is that the job loses will have to be massively more than 300,000 if the government is really going to cut the deficit by reducing the public sector rather than relying on tax rises, GDP growth and asset sales.

And... [shock horror]... cutting benefits. Makes sense, seeing as 1/3rd of the budget goes on benefits, though I know the world not owing people a living is a pretty radical concept round here.

CLAPTON

jonewer wrote: »

And... [shock horror]... cutting benefits. Makes sense, seeing as 1/3rd of the budget goes on benefits, though I know the world not owing people a living is a pretty radical concept round here.

yes of course the benefits budget account for about 25% of total governemnt spend

however, of that just under half is state pensions which the coalition is committed to increasing (linking to the larger of 2.5%, earning or RPI)
redundancies will increase the spend on JSA, HB etc so although there is still a fair bit to cut, it will be a difficult call.

exil

Even cutting spending on "waste" still has a bad effect on the economy. If the economy is booming, the private sector can take up the slack..... but if it isn't we're likely to be back to the 1930s - not just here, but in Europe and the US as well.

Despite the thought of millions of unemployed "penpushers" giving a thrill to some people on here, the majority of public spending goes on benefits (and the vast majority of that on pensions) and on procuring goods and services from the private sector (building schools and hospitals, maintenace and repairs, IT services, arms and munitions, and so on)

And as for quangos - the new government plans to set up 33 new ones...... and maybe a couple more to oversee the slimming down of the existing ones.....

marklv

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

No. You forget the costs of other benefits and also the cost of making these people redundant in the first place. Not so straightforward.

marklv

donaldtramp wrote: »

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

Pensions are outside the scope of these cuts. However I'm sure the defined benefit schemes will close to new applicants shortly, anyway. I doubt that they will close them for existing members, though.

donaldtramp wrote: »

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.

Local councils are local government, not civil service. The same argument applies for them as well, namely that the generous schemes will soon close, I'm sure of that.

donaldtramp wrote: »

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.

The Labour government, in one of its last decisions, recently tried to alter the terms of redundancy for civil servants, but the original contract was framed in such a way that the unions have to agree for any modifications to be made. Of course, the unions appealed to the courts and won the case, so the government is pretty much bugg**ed on this one. All they can do is get people out though early retirement deals and put out a long term recruitment freeze. Of course, civil servants can still be made redundant cheaply if the joined recently, so this is what they may do - get rid of recent joiners.

Kohoutek

marklv wrote: »

The Labour government, in one of its last decisions, recently tried to alter the terms of redundancy for civil servants, but the original contract was framed in such a way that the unions have to agree for any modifications to be made. Of course, the unions appealed to the courts and won the case, so the government is pretty much bugg**ed on this one. All they can do is get people out though early retirement deals and put out a long term recruitment freeze. Of course, civil servants can still be made redundant cheaply if the joined recently, so this is what they may do - get rid of recent joiners.

It's a shame the union is so selfish. If I remember correctly, the altered provision was capping redundancy payouts at £60,000 or two years pay, whichever cheaper. I can't see why this such a outrage - I know it's altering their contract, but times have changed.

If the government has to resort to making new joiners redundant and freezing recruitment long term like you say, it will exacerbate youth unemployment disproportionately. Maybe the union should think about the long term consequences of what it's doing by following this path.

exil

Well, if you sign up to a contract you're supposed to honour it. Even if your name is Gordon Brown or David Cameron.

custardy

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

dont forget many will be eligible for housing benefits
that could add up to a lot of money on top
I know the civil service needs reigned in,bit culling jobs isnt always going to be the as
300,000 added to the unemployment figure may create a relative short term saving but where are the jobs going to come from?
another 300,000 not spending/paying income tax isnt going to

Kohoutek

exil wrote: »

Well, if you sign up to a contract you're supposed to honour it. Even if your name is Gordon Brown or David Cameron.

Well people have to accept that times have changed, and something can't just be set in stone forever regardless of all other circumstances, even if it's written on a legally binding piece of paper. If it was a particularly onerous change that fundamentally abridged the right of the employees, I would be sympathetic. But simply limiting redundancy payouts to two years isn't unreasonable at all - after all you are free to claim benefits if you still haven't found a job two years later.

It's very common for employment contracts to be altered in the private sector to the detriment of the employee in hard times, this alteration is trivial compared with actually having a salary cut. The people who want to keep this provision should understand that if it is kept, it will be to the detriment of people whose jobs are less well protected, or to graduates looking for jobs. I think you have to be a particularly selfish person to want other people to lose their jobs, just so you can keep an exceptionally large potentially redundancy payout.