300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

treliac

marklv wrote: »

But it's not that simple. Big cuts make big headlines, but as most civil servants earn below £22k a year

Then, if they have children, they stand a good chance of being better off unemployed.

tomterm8

marklv wrote: »

I don't actually believe there will such huge job losses in the civil service, the papers are exaggerating things to attract readers. My reckoning is that local government will be worst hit, and also the NHS - the civil service is probably lower down the 'hit list'.

The budget deficit is £160 billion.

The NHS budget as a whole is £100 billion.

The NHS employs 1.6 million people.

Why don't you think we are looking at 300,000 job losses?

kunekune

Could you guys remember that public sector employees are PEOPLE too? How would you feel if it was you facing the chop? And then you read some of these comments ...

lostinrates

kunekune wrote: »

Could you guys remember that public sector employees are PEOPLE too? How would you feel if it was you facing the chop? And then you read some of these comments ...

Hi kunekune

Probably one would feel the same as one would feel being a banker, a politician, a landlord, a tenant or any other individual part of a group subject to pillory. I don't think any person is not in a position to understand how it feels to be one of a group ridiculed or vilified in this way.

JasonLVC

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I could tell you stories that would make you scream for reform.

The truth is, yes there is waste. However, cutting waste might result in higher benefits payments. I'd rather EVERYBODY had the opportunity to work. It is more important that the people are happy than the country is rich.

GG

I recall the last government had an opportunity to cut costs rather than cut jobs, but they chose to ignore that.

That's not a go at Brown personally, but at the first hint of cutting those final salary pensions, cutting those bonuses for top civil servants and some redundancies and the unions were rattling sabres - we've already had public sector strikes earlier this year (job centres/HMRC), not that anyone cared or noticed.

So whilst I agree cost cutting is preferable to job cuts, you only need to look to BA staff who are striking over a PAY RISE (and the postal workers who got a pay rise but didn't want to be more efficient) to see how futile any attempt to 'overall' the public sector would be.....hence cuts will be the cleaner and easier approach.

lynzpower

anyone who works in government will know that the axe will fall in completely the wrong place.

Ok so they wil not recruit for those jobs that lay empty at the moment. IMO they are child protection social work, older peoples social work, mental health supportm, care jobs ( ie undertaking personal care) and other roles like this.

My sister advises me that Trading standards advice is getting cut neighbouring authorities. So the stat stuff will continue to be done ( weights and measures) but the rest of it, dream on.

The most effective way of saving money is to bring functions in house.

Whoever seems to think long pfi contracts could just be ignored "because we are in a tough situation" is living in a total dreamworld. These contractors arer employers, andstate business keeps them going- if you dont tihnk that they will fight tooth and nail to get the contract maintained or a massive payout to dissolve the contract is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

T

axpayers will be forced to step in to bail out a £21.5bn programme for new hospitals, schools and roads because private funding has dried up in the recession.
In an unprecedented step, the Government is to announce extra state funding for controversial private finance initiative (PFI) projects within days. Industry insiders say the bill to the taxpayer could be as much as £4bn.

Ministers now face calls from the Conservatives to 'go back to the drawing board' on their entire PFI programme.

Though the Tories pioneered the use of PFI 20 years ago, Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Philip Hammond said the Government had to accept the 'world had changed'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1147884/Taxpayers-slapped-4bn-bail-failed-PFI-projects.html#ixzz0opkh1wGN

Ealing Council has dropped plans to pass management of its homes from its arm’s-length management organisation to private companies, following a leadership change.

The move will not save ALMO Ealing Homes from the axe, however. On Tuesday, councillors voted instead to bring the management of the council’s stock back in-house. The policy shift took place because Labour took political control of the council from the Conservative Party in this month’s local elections.
The previous Conservative administration had planned to end the council’s contract with arm’s-length management organisation Ealing Homes from March 2011. Private sector organisations would be invited to bid for contracts to manage Ealing’s 18,000-homes.
But the council’s Labour group had always opposed this. In its manifesto, it pledged to stop ‘the privatisation of the management of council homes’.
In December 2008, the ALMO’s rating from the Audit Commission dropped from two stars to one. The commission report said this was due, in part, to ‘ongoing tensions between Ealing Homes and the council’.
Julian Bell, leader of the council, said: ‘We were concerned the privatisation proposals would mean poor service at higher costs. Immediate effects of bringing the management in-house are increased savings and better performance in terms of service to tenants.’

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk//6509889.article

Andy_L

mitchaa wrote: »

The military benefit from a non contributory final salary pension,surely this should be looked at? NHS/Police etc at least have contributory pension schemes.

No real difference between the 2, the Armed Forces have their pay abated before they see it to reflect a (6%ish?) employees contribution so if you wanted to make it contributary you'd have to give them that %age back in pay first which would then increase thier final salary so give them more pension

donaldtramp

Could you guys remember that public sector employees are PEOPLE too? How would you feel if it was you facing the chop? And then you read some of these comments ...

500 people at my work recently got the sack. They got no warning and no 6 month wage pay off that the public sector are "entitled" to in many cases. They haven't been in receipt of taxpayer money for their pensions whilst in employment. They didn't threaten to go on strike and hold their employers and the public to ransom.
They just got on and went to look for other jobs.

Private sector employees are people too. Just a bit less "equal" than the public sector.

headcone

jonewer wrote: »

This is the problem with socialists. You are motivated by spite and envy of those richer than you, and you disguise it as concern for those poorer than you.

You do know that if you levied a 95% tax on bonuses, the financial sector would go somewhere else, the governemnt tax take would plummet in a catastrophic fashion, borrowing would spike, no-one would buy our debt, taxes would rise exponentially and the whole country would be staring bankrupty in the face within 24 months. Then, when we're properly a third world country, the IMF comes in and dictates an austerity package that makes the current round of cuts look like a penny coin that rolled under the sofa.

But dont let reality get in the way of your spiteful little socialist fantasy.

Hear Hear,

Thank god that when the Socialist banking system failed,the capitalist calvalry selflessly galloped to the rescue breaching the defences and saving us all. HURRAH.

donaldtramp

Then, if they have children, they stand a good chance of being better off unemployed.

Do you seriously think the benefits systems will survive as it is?
We are BROKE!