600, 000 jobs cut in the public sector = 700, 000 job cuts in the private sector

lynzpower

The composting supervisor runs a full composting facility! I think thats quite a low salary to be honest.

As youll be aware local authorities get reductions to their operating budgets should they send too much waste to landfill.

UK likely to miss landfill targets
Ecologist

28th September, 2009

Badly thought out waste policy could land the UK with a £0.5 billion fine

The UK is a long way from meeting EU landfill targets, according to a recent survey of stakeholders in the waste sector.

Just over half the respondents expect the UK to meet the first deadline in 2010 for new requirements to reduce biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill.

But more than two-thirds of respondents thought the UK would fail to meet the 2013 targets.

If the UK fails to meet next year's target it will face a £180m fine. This would rise to £500m if it failed to meet the 2013 and 2020 targets.

Clearly you have no idea what a befreinding co-ordinator does. If they had called it a volunteer co-ordinator maybe it would be ok under the "big society banner"

The reason for breastfeeding advice is that it is cheaper to employ people to do this, instead of midwifery time that is a) short and b) more expensive. As we have the one of the lowest breastfeeding rates it was thought of as important.

I can see why this is the sort of thing that is cut though as no one places a price on the value of a child being breastfed. ( ie there is no financial figure placed on it).

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6122296.ece

including a £23,000-a-year composting supervisor, a toothbrush adviser for infants and a ceremonial sword bearer.
trampoline coaches, skate park attendants, flower arrangers, a “befriending co-ordinator” and a £15-an-hour yoga instructor.

How any one can arge that this is not the case is beyond me.

Every council have non-statutory departments (services they do not have to provide)
It just so happens they are the first being hit also.

Hm... a number of the jobs you mention sound like they are attached to the councils commercial services. For example 'Composting supervisor' sounds rediculous, unless it is in the context of a commercial waste disposal business the council runs at a profit. 'Yoga instructor' sounds rediculous, but my aunt used to be a council employee as a yoga instructor, and while she was paid a reasonable amount of money, the council raked money in by charging the participants money. You can't say something is rediculous unless you know the context, the reason why the council made a particular choice.

Frankly, it sounds like the times went on a trawl, looking for the most 'rediculous' things they could find, stripping away the context of the decisions, and then with sloppy reporting filled 500 words, while ignoring the fact these things are pretty marginal.

I would like newspapers to be charged the full cost of freedom of information requests; that is the most obvious waste of money in the article.

Really2

lynzpower wrote: »

Clearly you have no idea what a befreinding co-ordinator does. If they had called it a volunteer co-ordinator maybe it would be ok under the "big society banner"

The reason for breastfeeding advice is that it is cheaper to employ people to do this, instead of midwifery time that is a) short and b) more expensive. As we have the one of the lowest breastfeeding rates it was thought of as important.

I can see why this is the sort of thing that is cut though as no one places a price on the value of a child being breastfed. ( ie there is no financial figure placed on it).

I never wrote it, but having a child I think "Breast is best" is drilled in enough via the NHS. Why does a council need to do it also?

But befriending co-ordinators seem to be more to do with social care not breast feeding?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&nfpr=1&&sa=X&ei=XwSOTPHRF4GRjAfRv7ipBg&ved=0CBQQBSgA&q=befriending+co-ordinator&spell=1
I presume you linked the two?

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

I am not disputing that there are non jobs in the private sector. The point is that I am not forced to contribute to their salaries. It is between the companies and their shareholders.

You forgot customers, some private sector firms are virtual monopolies (water?).

StevieJ

tomterm8 wrote: »

Hm... a number of the jobs you mention sound like they are attached to the councils commercial services. For example 'Composting supervisor' sounds rediculous, unless it is in the context of a commercial waste disposal business the council runs at a profit. 'Yoga instructor' sounds rediculous, but my aunt used to be a council employee as a yoga instructor, and while she was paid a reasonable amount of money, the council raked money in by charging the participants money. You can't say something is rediculous unless you know the context, the reason why the council made a particular choice.

Frankly, it sounds like the times went on a trawl, looking for the most 'rediculous' things they could find, stripping away the context of the decisions, and then with sloppy reporting filled 500 words, while ignoring the fact these things are pretty marginal.

I would like newspapers to be charged the full cost of freedom of information requests; that is the most obvious waste of money in the article.

I don't normally do this but I hope I am doing you a favour, it is ridiculous, BTW very good post.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

Hm... a number of the jobs you mention sound like they are attached to the councils commercial services. For example 'Composting supervisor' sounds rediculous, unless it is in the context of a commercial waste disposal business the council runs at a profit.
'Yoga instructor' sounds rediculous, but my aunt used to be a council employee as a yoga instructor, and while she was paid a reasonable amount of money, the council raked money in by charging the participants money. You can't say something is rediculous unless you know the context, t

I did not say anything was ridiculous,
But
A) do you know any councils that run commercial waste disposal at a profit? (ps how does composting sound like commercial waste?) Councils are not obliged to collect commercial waste.
I presume your aunt worked in a council leisure center, she would not be paying for the space and most council leisure centers run at a loss.
The obvious point there would be people would pay a private yoga instructor also, and that the instructor would then be charged for a room at a leisure center.

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6122296.ece

including a £23,000-a-year composting supervisor, a toothbrush adviser for infants and a ceremonial sword bearer.
trampoline coaches, skate park attendants, flower arrangers, a “befriending co-ordinator” and a £15-an-hour yoga instructor.

How any one can arge that this is not the case is beyond me.

Every council have non-statutory departments (services they do not have to provide)
It just so happens they are the first being hit also.

In reality any non-statutory service provided by councils at the moment is a non job. As it is money spent on a service they are not obliged to provide.

every single one of those jobs has a use. you run the risk of putting a price on everything and seeing the value of nothing. in particular, the composting officer (the only job that seems to be permanent full time post that they give the salary for) is a really valuable role. we have food waste bins in our area. clearly the management of this waste needs to be overseen.

toothbrush advisor - really important. i would imagine they discuss tooth brushing technique and general oral healthcare as well. setting up the correct routine will save loads in future trips to the dentist. oral hygiene issues can also cause other health problems such as cancer.

ceremonial sword bearer - not a full time job but as a race we are taken with ceremony and the odd bit at local level doesn't seem extreme to me.

skate park attendants - helping keep a local exercise area crime and problem free.

flower arrangers - all large organisations involved with government have call for a number of events. as long as not excessive this isn't a problem.

befriending coordinator - needs a job description but i'd imaging this is helping improve social and communication skills. again worthwhile.

yoga instructor - if this was to cater for a class for several employees then definitely worthwhile to improve health and wellbeing. 15 pounds an hour is actually very cheap for a yoga instructor. we have one who comes to our work and her fee is way higher than that (closer to 100 i think).

marklv

ILW wrote: »

I am not disputing that there are non jobs in the private sector. The point is that I am not forced to contribute to their salaries. It is between the companies and their shareholders.

Wrong. You contribute to the salaries and pensions of private sector employees when you buy their products. Your argument is nonsensical because you are comparinbg apples with oranges; the public and private sectors are two different beasts and serve two different purposes. Even if you privatised the whole public sector, the companies doing the work would still have to raise money from taxes. You wouldn't be able to cherry pick what you want to pay for and what you don't.

marklv

Really2 wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6122296.ece

including a £23,000-a-year composting supervisor, a toothbrush adviser for infants and a ceremonial sword bearer.
trampoline coaches, skate park attendants, flower arrangers, a “befriending co-ordinator” and a £15-an-hour yoga instructor.

How any one can arge that this is not the case is beyond me.

Every council have non-statutory departments (services they do not have to provide)
It just so happens they are the first being hit also.

In reality any non-statutory service provided by councils at the moment is a non job. As it is money spent on a service they are not obliged to provide.

If these jobs have clear terms of reference and objectives, together with budget approval, then they are worthwhile jobs, regardless of whichever titles are used to describe them. It's not for you to determine what is and isn't a proper job; there are people who manage these organisations and it's their decision.

ninky_2

marklv wrote: »

If these jobs have clear terms of reference and objectives, together with budget approval, then they are worthwhile jobs, regardless of whichever titles are used to describe them. It's not for you to determine what is and isn't a proper job; there are people who manage these organisations and it's their decision.

i think as they are elected then it is fair to criticise - and of course you can always vote against. but i've yet to see one really convincing 'non-job' described.