Manchester City Council to cut 2,000 staff posts

doire_2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12177853

Maybe someone should tell them not to worry because Hamish always tells us that 75% of people who loose their jobs will find permanent employment within 6 months

vivatifosi

The key is in the title - cutting 2,000 posts, not 2,000 jobs. If its anything like the LA I work for, a lot of those jobs have been on short term contract for a while anyway and others have not been refilled. So the actual number of redundancies will be lower than 2000. Then you will get people applying for vol redundancy because it suits them to do so, or taking early retirement, or jobs been TUPE'd over to NGOs/other organisations, so the number of compulsory redundancies will be lower still.

It's still a horrible level of uncertainty for those facing losing their jobs, but the headlines seem worse than reality. Unfortunately LAs only have a certain number of choices they can play with: cut services, charge for services, partner with other local LAs to share back office functions, exec offices etc.

doire_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

The key is in the title - cutting 2,000 posts, not 2,000 jobs.

About 2,000 jobs are to go at Manchester City Council because of government spending cuts, the authority has said

vivatifosi

doire wrote: »

About 2,000 jobs are to go at Manchester City Council because of government spending cuts, the authority has said

But the article also says:

The council said it wanted to avoid compulsory redundancies.

I'm not saying it isn't horrible for people working in Manchester CC, rather that what is going on below the headlines is actually likely to have a less dramatic impact on the workers.

doire_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

But the article also says:

The council said it wanted to avoid compulsory redundancies.

Every company or council that has to lay people off say that!

Really2

doire wrote: »

Every company or council that has to lay people off say that!

And try to do it. They have stopped recruiting to cover staff leaving for the last 2-3 months now and are saving those posts in "job pools"

At my wifes council out of 7 post cuts out of 22 staff they only had to make 2 compulsory redundancies.

vivatifosi

Really2 wrote: »

And try to do it. They have stopped recruiting to cover staff leaving for the last 2-3 months now and are saving those posts in "job pools"

At my wifes council out of 7 post cuts out of 22 staff they only had to make 2 compulsory redundancies.

Same where I am. I'm not a senior manager making these decisions and my job is one of those that may be made redundant. However the fact remains that compulsory redundancies will not be that high.

For a long time, only those posts that it has been deemed necessary to fill have been filled, with those needing to be filled being done on a short-term contract. Therefore plenty of posts will be cut without impacting anyone's job, while those on short term contracts will not see contract renewed. Some of the people on short term contract are looking for alternatives, but have the comfort of a six month buffer in order to do so. Actually this is one of the hard parts - maintaining frontline services when colleagues are leaving. As I said, its not great, but it isn't dreadful.

The_White_Horse

should be 6000.

i think the main job they should cut back on is that moron you speak to when you phone the council and they tell you it is not their department that deals with your issue, but can't tell you what department you actually need. Here is an example:

me: Hello, i would like to complain about roads

council: hello, roads? er, its someone else who deals with roads.

me: but isn't this the road and transport division?

Council: yeah, but it is county that deals with roads innit.

me: I have no idea. you tell me.

Council: i dunno. try the reception.

me: but they put me through to you.

Council: sorry, its not our department.

and so on. sack them. Oh, that is all of them.

IronWolf

The_White_Horse wrote: »

should be 6000.

i think the main job they should cut back on is that moron you speak to when you phone the council and they tell you it is not their department that deals with your issue, but can't tell you what department you actually need. Here is an example:

me: Hello, i would like to complain about roads

council: hello, roads? er, its someone else who deals with roads.

me: but isn't this the road and transport division?

Council: yeah, but it is county that deals with roads innit.

me: I have no idea. you tell me.

Council: i dunno. try the reception.

me: but they put me through to you.

Council: sorry, its not our department.

and so on. sack them. Oh, that is all of them.

Its not his fault you rang the wrong person

I used to work for a phone company, and the helpline number was 150. Now a lot of people know that mobile helplines are also 150. We got so many people ringing up about their mobile being broken, which had nothing to do with us

Me: Hi How can I help
Disgruntled customer: Hi my mobile phones not working
Me: Im sorry you've dialed the wrong number, we dont supply mobile phones
Disgruntled customer: But it says call 150 in my manual
Me: Yes, you have to call 150 on your mobile phone, not your landline
Disgruntled customer: But my mobile phones broken
Me: We dont deal with mobile phones
Disgruntled customer: How am I supposed to call 150 on my mobile when its broken to report its broken!
Me: Thats not our issue, we are not your mobile phone company
Disgruntled customer: Well why do you have the same number!
Me: We dont, 150 is a shortcut saved into the phone
Disgruntled customer: But my mobile phone is also 150!
Me: Even if our number wasn't 150, you'd still be unable to call your mobile phone company, who may I remind you we are not
Disgruntled customer: So how do I contact them?
Me: Why are you asking me? We are not your mobile phone company
Disgruntled customer: Can you not help me at all?
Me: Do you have any queries regarding your landline?
Disgruntled customer: No
Me: Then you do not need my help
Disgruntled customer: Ok then bye
Me: Thank you for calling!

Percy1983

I don't work for manchester council but where I work is partially funded by them. I don't feel to worried just yet, but you never know.

Old_Slaphead

Many in the 55-60 age range are going for VR with no penalty for early access to pension. Great deal for many who would have liked early retirement anyway.

That moves the bulk of cost from council to pension fund leading to a much bigger scheme shortfall......more costs for taxpayer and significantly more for employees a few years down the line.