War on thousands of local borough council 'non-jobs'

RJP33

julieq wrote: »

The private sector is measured against return to shareholders. That maintains a level of efficiency. Fail to meet expectations and your share price collapses and you get taken over.

There's no such measure in the public sector, and arguably higher levels of unionisation mean that any attempt to increase efficiency is difficult to impose. You'll do well even to get a public sector employee even to admit they could be more efficient, let alone impose measures on performance as stringent as in the private sector. That's why HR is unpopular I imagine, because HR is the function that measures and questions productivity.

A very good summation, we need to have a really good look at the public sector to make sure everything being done is a good use of our money. We shouldn't give in to the temptation of leaving things the way they are for fear of bad headlines.

Prudent

amcluesent wrote: »

Among the jobs that have been spawned by the boom in “non-jobs” were a “bouncy castle attendant” on a salary of £13,000 at Angus council in Scotland and a “cheerleading development officer” in Falkirk.




FACT - The gravy train goes on for the leisured classes, leeching off the productive sector!

I work for one of the above councils. We are are always running short of essentials like toilet roll, rubber gloves (for intimate care and tube feeds) and antispetic wipes. We are being told the funding for these things will be reduced further.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Are those people who are working from home or having blackberry Friday's being paid by taxpayers, ninky?

No.

End of discussion.

Furthermore, the ONS reports adnauseum about the growing disparity between productivity levels in the private and public sectors. Guess which is increasing and which is declining?

How private companies manage low performing staff is a private matter and of interest only to management and shareholders. When low productivity in the public sector becomes endemnic, it is a matter for ALL of us.

so those who work in the public sector should work harder and more conscientiously than those in the private sector? why should 'the taxpayer' (that mythical daily mail beast who doesn't actually exist as a single entity) be a harder taskmaster than the private company owner? after all those who work in the public sector are taxpayers themselves. i'm a taxpayer and if someone in the public sector takes a duvet day once in a while but still gets their job done i really couldn't care less.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

so those who work in the public sector should work harder and more conscientiously than those in the private sector? why should 'the taxpayer' (that mythical daily mail beast who doesn't actually exist as a single entity) be a harder taskmaster than the private company owner? after all those who work in the public sector are taxpayers themselves. i'm a taxpayer and if someone in the public sector takes a duvet day once in a while but still gets their job done i really couldn't care less.

For the reasons that have been well explained several times. If a private sector employee doesnt contribute, it is a drain only on that private company. It affects productivity, profits, overall performance etc. It is a matter between the employer and the employee.

In the public sector, they are dealing with OUR money. The public sector has grown out of all proportion in the last decade, and yet its productivity has slumped. Don't quote me on that . .go look at the ONS figures.

As someone who contributes excessively to government coffers (an individual taxpayer, not a mythical beast) I resent the growth in public spending occassioned by vast increases of unproductive public sector employees.

It's not about duvet days. It's about waste of public resources.

No, I don't expect them to work harder than private sector employees. I expect them to work at the same level, with the same levels of productivity. I expect them on average (there are always exceptions) to have the same levels of sickness.

But it's not like that, is it? There is a malaise in the public sector which, frankly, would not be tolerated in the private sector.

Spartacus_Mills

amcluesent wrote: »

Local authorities have taken on an extra 180,000 workers since 1997, with the total number not employed in traditional front-line roles now standing at almost 750,000, according to ministers.

The Coalition is highlighting the figures at a time when councils are threatening to cut basic services and increase charges because of cuts in central government funding.

Ministers want councils to cut middle-management waste instead.

Among the jobs that have been spawned by the boom in “non-jobs” were a “bouncy castle attendant” on a salary of £13,000 at Angus council in Scotland and a “cheerleading development officer” in Falkirk.

North East Lincolnshire council [is] advertising for a “future shape programme manager” on £70,189 per annum.

FACT - The gravy train goes on for the leisured classes, leeching off the productive sector!

I noticed the airhead Susannah Reid on BBC breakfast defended the non-jobs when the article was discussed on the far from partial, public sector gravy train, the BBC.

Andy_L

ILW wrote: »

Why should a council be running a bouncy castle?

Well that's the million dollar question isn't it. What should a council provide to its residents?

Open green spaces with somewhere for kids to play? yes/no/maybe? I doubt the private sector could make enough money doing it to bother so if people want them then the council has to do it
Then again, they could just sell the parks of to housing developers instead

abaxas

Andy_L wrote: »

Well that's the million dollar question isn't it. What should a council provide to its residents?

Open green spaces with somewhere for kids to play? yes/no/maybe? I doubt the private sector could make enough money doing it to bother so if people want them then the council has to do it
Then again, they could just sell the parks of to housing developers instead

How about we define what a council actually 'needs' to do?

Then everything else is a bonus.

bendix

Councils 'need' to provide the community with 'cheerleading community coordinators'.

Loughton_Monkey

abaxas wrote: »

How about we define what a council actually 'needs' to do?.

... and at what cost.

abaxas wrote: »

Then everything else is a bonus.

Substitute "dropped" for the word 'bonus'.

freddielaker

What will the guardian do without all that ad revenue!!