public service worries

foxgloves

My husband & I both work for a local authority. We are both currently on Section 188 notices as our posts are at risk (almost all council workers have been served these). Our service area has to save 84 full time equivalent posts and we learned yesterday that the level we are on will be reducing staff from 25 to 13. Under this government, I don't think any public sector workers can feel safe. The cuts are front-loaded which means most of the savings have to happen this year, then more in the following two years. Members of the public, I think, are only just waking up to what this level of cuts will mean to them. By the time they realise, it will be too late, staff & their skills & experience will already have been made redundant. I'm seriously now thinking about VR, so I can use the lump sum to pay off 2 loans, and maybe just carry on living an even more 'old-style' simple life. I have always been so ethically behind my job but I am finding it very hard to support the cuts that are being made to valuable & essential services to ordinary people & am coming to the conclusion that the people at the top are not people I want to work for any longer. Haven't made a decision yet, though, as finances would be tight.....and would also rely on partner keeping his job at same council. What horrible times we're living through. My sympathies to all public sector workers in the same position. We are very definitely NOT all on the inflated salaries & pensions that Daily Mail readers think we are!!

Spendless

copperjar wrote: »

I work for the public sector. Just found out today that my job is being "disestablished" as are 60% of the jobs at my level. This is the first part of the savings - then we will be on to cuts.

The (biggest) problem is that the Government has front loaded the cuts to local authorities. So the 28% cuts over 4 years actually means 14% in 2011-12, 7% 2012-13, 1% (bizarre!) 2013-14 and 6% in the final year. BIG savings need to be made in the next financial year.

My local council are looking at streamling big style - there is talk of somehow merging libraries and Sure Start centres on some of the services provided. They are also asking all charities to make 3% savings this year (until March 2011) and 10% 2011-12. So there will invariably be massive knock on effects.

It really is bleak.

ahh the year BEFORE the next General Election.;)

I was talking to my neighbour this morning. He works for our council and said several hundred jobs have gone this week, and more are to follow in 2011. I have a temp job in the private sector and as much as I'd liek the security of a permanent contract, I have my reservations about applying for any that are funded from the public purse.

bluecelticgirl

I am also on a local authority contract until March funded by a previous government initiative to help young unemployed so can't see this continuing under the present government. To be honest I see so much waste of public money and a lot of overpaid staff doing very little so have to agree that some of the cuts are long overdue.

TREVORCOLMAN

I think the worst thing in all of this is that it always seems to the jobs go at the lower end.

Perhaps if we stopped paying Euro MPs £91,000 each a year in unreceipted allowances (in addition to their pay) we could save more public servants who are paid around the 14-17k mark!

natman

Hi again, Just an update on our current situation....

It's been around 6 weeks since my initial post and wondered if any news had filtered through in public service spending?
My wife has been told that the local authority will be announcing decisions regarding future spending and job cuts etc.

The local authority has decided to try and reuduce the impact of job cuts by changing terms and conditions of jobs

It has published this-
In an attempt to save jobs within the authority, the trade unions were able to sign a collective agreement with the Council to amend the terms and conditions of employment.

Automatic incremental progression will be suspended for the year 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012.
During this period, no employee will receive a pay increment


Unpaid Annual Leave
All employees will be required to take 4 days (or equivalent hours) unpaid annual leave (pro-rata for part-time employees) during the leave year 2011/2012

There are other measures - introducing car parking to staff car parks, reducing milegae claims.
It claims that this may save over 100 jobs.

sunshine_1988

natman wrote: »

Hi again, Just an update on our current situation....

It's been around 6 weeks since my initial post and wondered if any news had filtered through in public service spending?
My wife has been told that the local authority will be announcing decisions regarding future spending and job cuts etc.

The local authority has decided to try and reuduce the impact of job cuts by changing terms and conditions of jobs

It has published this-
In an attempt to save jobs within the authority, the trade unions were able to sign a collective agreement with the Council to amend the terms and conditions of employment.

Automatic incremental progression will be suspended for the year 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012.
During this period, no employee will receive a pay increment


Unpaid Annual Leave
All employees will be required to take 4 days (or equivalent hours) unpaid annual leave (pro-rata for part-time employees) during the leave year 2011/2012

There are other measures - introducing car parking to staff car parks, reducing milegae claims.
It claims that this may save over 100 jobs.

Hello
I hope you dont mind me posting. I work for the local government too and I have just started a thread as I am really worried that I could be made redundant.

The things which you have listed above sound like they may filter down to other LA's. I suppose taking unpaid leave etc is a pain, but if it keeps the job secure its not too bad in the long run.

I think I have all of this to come - we were told about a year ago now that we would all get letters offering us part time or term time etc - we never had these but I presume they may be on thier way soon. It seems that the high up staff have all been sorted out first - the staff lower down seem to be the ones now suffering - its very sad.

I hope your wife is ok in the end.

ceridwen

How self-defeating is that??? If the employer in this case is expecting to impose 4 days unpaid leave on the employee - the employee might well "get their own back" by taking 4 days "sick leave" that isnt (ie they are perfectly well). That is a very obvious way available to them to "pay the employer back" for doing this to them - there may be others...;)

I know the Union has agreed this in this case - but I wonder whether it is possible to bring a legal claim against the employer on the grounds that they have breached some law or other? There must BE some law or other that this goes right against - and maybe your wife has legal cover as an add-on to your household insurance...so could start searching for some relevant law to use to fight back against this.

It could be the thin end of a wedge....this year 4 days...next year 10 days....the following year 20 days....

madmittens

Ceridwen

Whilst I have the utmost respect for the majority of your posts, I'm sorry but I have issues with this one.

In an ideal world, we'd all stand up for our rights (and I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't - for important issues).

But given the current situation, what's worse? Taking four days unpaid in a year but otherwise unscathed, or employer going bust/having to make large scale redundancies and hugh numbers having to seek JSA? I know which I'd prefer...

Personally I'd rather feel that my employer has done everything they can to mitigate job losses. If it comes to redundancy later, so be it - at least WE'VE tried.

I'm going through this at the moment (narrowly escaped redundancy earlier this year ((unfortunately a number of friends/colleagues lost their jobs), now on a reduced working week). I don't know what will happen in the future, but at least we've all tried to save the 'company' (and although I currently work in the private sector, I've also worked within a County Council during the last recession and felt the same then too).


I suppose it depends on one's attitude to employment...

ceridwen

Fair 'nuff...and we will likely all differ a bit in this...

I'm just concerned about the "thin end of the wedge" scenario....I've seen it so often in so many contexts by now.....:cool:

I really rate some of these old phrases (ie based in long experience by people...) and the one that comes to mind here is "Give them an inch and they will take a mile".

sunshine_1988

madmittens wrote: »

Ceridwen

Whilst I have the utmost respect for the majority of your posts, I'm sorry but I have issues with this one.

In an ideal world, we'd all stand up for our rights (and I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't - for important issues).

But given the current situation, what's worse? Taking four days unpaid in a year but otherwise unscathed, or employer going bust/having to make large scale redundancies and hugh numbers having to seek JSA? I know which I'd prefer...

Personally I'd rather feel that my employer has done everything they can to mitigate job losses. If it comes to redundancy later, so be it - at least WE'VE tried.

I'm going through this at the moment (narrowly escaped redundancy earlier this year ((unfortunately a number of friends/colleagues lost their jobs), now on a reduced working week). I don't know what will happen in the future, but at least we've all tried to save the 'company' (and although I currently work in the private sector, I've also worked within a County Council during the last recession and felt the same then too).


I suppose it depends on one's attitude to employment...

Hi
I agree with you. I work in the LA too and I think that the majority of people would rather take a reduced week than lose thier job. In some cases it could mean that in an office of 6 people, if everyone took a reduced week it could save 1 person being cut as theoretically you would be saving 6 days per week, if that makes sense.

Realistically I dont think they could ever go as far as making you take too much unpaid leave without agreement, if the employee disagrees with it then they are well within thier rights to leave or raise it with HR/Unions.

Hopefully it is a short term thing in many LAs and things may pick up in the next 2-3 years.