500,000 Public Sector Workers Culled

Hectors_House

amcluesent wrote: »

Voluntary schemes have already been used across many spending depts. with peeps going by 22 Oct.

I expect the 490,000 was in addition to those already going.

Lot's of peeps will be cursing the day they saw the Guardian advert for Lesbian Movement & Dance Outreach Co-Oridinator instead of getting a proper job packing widgets in t'mill.

I find all the fuss in the press amusing seeing as cuts have been already happening for at least a year.

My employer (private sector) slashed hundreds of jobs in the last three years with barely a whisper in the press about it and those of us left have had to take on cutbacks in overtime and a pay freeze.

I actually know a lesbian employed in lobbying ministers for funds to provide free training courses for 'minorities' who lost her very nice salaried job earlier this year.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

You're getting desperate now. Noone is saying we don't need doctors.

People are questioning the need to have armies of pseudo-social workers charged with promoting something as intrinsically natural as breast-feeding, earning between £20-£45k per year, funded by the taxpayer.

It's just layer after layer of waste.

Frankly, I don't believe even you are comfortable defending it.

it's hardly armies. they are not pseudo-social workers. and breast-feeding is no longer part of natural life as it once was (when was the last time you saw someone breastfeeding in public?). combined with the best efforts of nestle et al encouraging powdered and bottle feeding for decades as well as the pressures (and opportunities) on women to do so much more than childrear it's not surprising that many mothers (and babies) need a little help. a friend of mine nearly lost her baby because although she thought she was breastfeeding her baby actually wasn't taking anything in and she had to be rushed to a and e after being seen by a maternity visitor who spotted a problem. if it hadn't been for the intervention of a specialised professional (pseudo social worker as you call it) the baby probably would have died or suffered brain damage from dehydration.

ILW

shortchanged wrote: »

Is that why the UK has some of the worst breast feeding rates in Europe?

I would suggest that is for many reasons, and not having "experts" advising on when and how would be very low on the list. Many mothers just cannot be bothered.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

I would suggest that is for many reasons, and not having "experts" advising on when and how would be very low on the list. Many mothers just cannot be bothered.

i have yet to meet the mother of a newborn who can't be bothered. i did know of one mother who suffered severe post natal depression and couldn't look after herself let alone her child for the first two years.

very strange circles you must move in.

shortchanged_2

ILW wrote: »

I would suggest that is for many reasons, and not having "experts" advising on when and how would be very low on the list. Many mothers just cannot be bothered.

or is it other factors such as social and educational factors?

Sweden which as we all know is a country with a very good standard of living where the breastfeeding rate is nearly 100%.

The lack of breastfeeding in the UK is likely to be very much down to socio-cultural reasons, therefore you could argue that education on breast feeding is an important job.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

i have yet to meet the mother of a newborn who can't be bothered. i did know of one mother who suffered severe post natal depression and couldn't look after herself let alone her child for the first two years.

very strange circles you must move in.

I do know a few career women who returned to work about a month after giving birth and now use a full time nanny to look after the children. It is a choice they can afford and have made , but feeding is just something that the nanny deals with for about 14 hours of the day. I make no judgement, just stating from my experience.

wherediditallgothen

ninky wrote: »

i have yet to meet the mother of a newborn who can't be bothered.

They do exist.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

I do know a few career women who returned to work about a month after giving birth and now use a full time nanny to look after the children. It is a choice they can afford and have made , but feeding is just something that the nanny deals with for about 14 hours of the day. I make no judgement, just stating from my experience.

ah those sorts of circles.

but the women who can afford nannies are not the ones who public paid breastfeeding advisors are aimed at. children who are cared for by nannies are fine - it's a system that has served the royals and wealthy for generations. i believe you can even get wet nurses to come and breastfeed for you if you have enough cash.

ILW

shortchanged wrote: »

or is it other factors such as social and educational factors?

Sweden which as we all know is a country with a very good standard of living where the breastfeeding rate is nearly 100%.

The lack of breastfeeding in the UK is likely to be very much down to socio-cultural reasons, therefore you could argue that education on breast feeding is an important job.

You do not need a £40k "expert to tell women that breast feeding is good for the baby. A midwife could tell them that as part of her normal duties.

Former_Spice

ILW wrote: »

So if the pensions are not being paid for out of taxation, where is the money coming from?

In part, by employee contributions out of their salary and returns on stock market investment. No, you cannot double count salaries already earned and employee contributions claiming both are taxpayers money.