100,000 Public Sector Jobs Gone

Sir_Humphrey

People are already going where I am. The proposed new severance package is interesting. The voluntary terms will be more generous than the compulsory terms, with the option to take voluntary terms before the compulsory. What this means is that people who are made compulsorily redundant would show up as a voluntary reduncdancy in the stats.

The proposed new scheme is far more generous for people with less than 12 years service.

The only person I know who has been involuntarily canned is a former private secretary to a former cabinet minister (think Bernard from Yes Minister).

System

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/interactive/2010/dec/14/council-spending-cuts-map

Anyone know of one for scotland? this would be useful...

Really2

DiggerUK wrote: »

Er...it has done, with no need for us to say, "please sir, can I have some more"

Ok you seem to be a bit small in your thinking.

EG, banks fall over, no tax incomes from them , £ is toast, mass job losses etc.

If you can't see how the country needs a banking system it is going to be hard to make you see this I suppose.

Tax incomes have fallen due to the private sector tightening it's belt, you cant expect the private sector to keep pumping up the public sector.

The size of the public sector was unsustainable even before the financial crisis, that is not the fault of the private sector (if you want proof look at government spend since 2001 vs income)

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

People are already going where I am. The proposed new severance package is interesting. The voluntary terms will be more generous than the compulsory terms, with the option to take voluntary terms before the compulsory. What this means is that people who are made compulsorily redundant would show up as a voluntary reduncdancy in the stats.

The proposed new scheme is far more generous for people with less than 12 years service.

The only person I know who has been involuntarily canned is a former private secretary to a former cabinet minister (think Bernard from Yes Minister).

Councils got theirs reduced to 1.5X salary X years service etc. there was no difference between voluntary or compulsory.
Interesting how other departments are getting enhanced packages?

DiggerUK

Really2 wrote: »

.....The size of the public sector was unsustainable even before the financial crisis, that is not the fault of the private sector (if you want proof look at government spend since 2001 vs income)

From the 1980's onwards, elections were won on the promise that the restrictions on 'free enterprise' would be removed, that this would lead to great wealth for all, that this wealth would 'trickle down' to the masses, and that there would be oodles of dosh to make sure that "public services will be safe in our hands"

After 30 odd years of this government nonsense, it appears that whats 'trickling down' on peoples backs ain't wealth.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

A Lot councils are doing the 25% cut in the first year (some departments), I find that a bit odd as they required a 25% cut over 4. So they could of stretched it out a bit not to effect services so much.
But I suppose it means they don't have to do the same process every year for the next three. Also makes the remaining staff a bit more secure

Purely a cynical political tactic so they don't have to cut jobs just before the next election.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

Purely a cynical political tactic so they don't have to cut jobs just before the next election.

I find it hard to agree with that when councils could be controlled by any party. Lab, Lib, Con, etc all control councils who will be setting out how they do their own cuts??

chucky

StevieJ wrote: »

Purely a cynical political tactic so they don't have to cut jobs just before the next election.

cue the posts from the tory and lib dem bots who will bring up the last government or gordon brown

Really2

DiggerUK wrote: »

From the 1980's onwards, elections were won on the promise that the restrictions on 'free enterprise' would be removed, that this would lead to great wealth for all, that this wealth would 'trickle down' to the masses, and that there would be oodles of dosh to make sure that "public services will be safe in our hands"

After 30 odd years of this government nonsense, it appears that whats 'trickling down' on peoples backs ain't wealth.

Still does not go on to how we fund the public sector that was spending more in tax incomes from 2001 tbh.
Sustainability requires balancing the books, you cant expect to ever increase funding to the public sector when even the tax incomes in the boom could not fund it.
Spending need to be decreased from 2001, that is a fact no one can argue with and is part of the reason why the public sector are facing such cuts now.

Sir_Humphrey

Really2 wrote: »

Councils got theirs reduced to 1.5X salary X years service etc. there was no difference between voluntary or compulsory.
Interesting how other departments are getting enhanced packages?

It would be much less generous for those with long service. There are other details which reduce its attractiveness (such as notice periods etc).

This is why I do not support the new scheme, despite the proposed new voluntary terms being twice as generous for me as before, with no change in my compulsory terms.

If I was in my late 40s, the changes would be very bad. I am taking a strategic view.