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

Poppy9

According to the article there has been a 6.5% rise in LA employees since 1997.

In the last 13 years due to the rise in elderly population the increase in demand for home and residential care for clients has far exceeded the increase in LA employees. Partly because staff are now expected to work harder and also because the LA contracts out many of it's services to the private sector.

Also the number of childcare has increased demand due to huge increases in children being referred to the LA. Demand often increases in excess of 50% year on year in some LA. More referrals mean more Social Workers.

The article should really show how the rise in LA employees pans out against the rise in "clients" that Local Authorities now have to deal with.

I know my own LA is cutting services and staff to a minimum. For over 4 years there has been a virtual freeze on recruitment with only essential posts being filled. We've just had another cull and quite honesty I've never seen so many people genuinely worried about how they are going to be able to cover the vacant posts as there is a limit to the number of working hours in a day.

Sickness levels in some areas of the public sector are higher than the private sector due to the nature of the job. Where you have staff who have a lot of manual handling in their jobs, be it lifting clients to emptying bins, then then the risks are higher no matter how good your manual handling training is. If sickness figures were split to show sickness levels amongst admin staff & manual handling staff then I thiink that would show a clearer picture. I know from working for the LA for 30 years that in the offices I have worked there have been staff who have never taken a day sick in 40 years of working and it's common that people go years without a sick day (you get a letter congratulating you).

We are currently 5 down on a team of 30 due to staff cut backs while having increasing demands placed on us due to Govt. directives which we have to comply with. On top of this we've had no pay rise for over 3 years and face a further 2 year pay freeze. Many staff in other LA have had pay cuts of thousands of pounds under the Job Evaluation scheme, we still have this to come.

We still have to meet the rises in cost of living be it increased petrol cost (the mileage allowance paid to staff using their own car for work purposes has not increased in over 4 years plus they now have to pay to park their car at their work place for which they cannot reclaim the cost, even if they only have to bring their car to work to be available for work purposes), council tax or rising food prices.

We are told we are lucky to have a job, and yes we are. We don't think we are "special" we understand the real world, we have partners, family etc. who work in the private sector. We live with the constant resentment from non public sector workers, it's par for the course. The majority of us seek to provide an excellent service and take pride in our work. Compulsory redundancies are happying in LA across the country, no one feels smug and secure.

Oh and then there is our fabulous pension which is constantly being erroded. The average pension is £4,000 a year - £2,600 for women.

RacyRed

Poppy9 wrote: »

According to the article there has been a 6.5% rise in LA employees since 1997.

In the last 13 years due to the rise in elderly population the increase in demand for home and residential care for clients has far exceeded the increase in LA employees. Partly because staff are now expected to work harder and also because the LA contracts out many of it's services to the private sector.

Also the number of childcare has increased demand due to huge increases in children being referred to the LA. Demand often increases in excess of 50% year on year in some LA. More referrals mean more Social Workers.

The article should really show how the rise in LA employees pans out against the rise in "clients" that Local Authorities now have to deal with.

Good point. I'd like to see that ratio too.

I know my own LA is cutting services and staff to a minimum. For over 4 years there has been a virtual freeze on recruitment with only essential posts being filled. We've just had another cull and quite honesty I've never seen so many people genuinely worried about how they are going to be able to cover the vacant posts as there is a limit to the number of working hours in a day.

Sickness levels in some areas of the public sector are higher than the private sector due to the nature of the job. Where you have staff who have a lot of manual handling in their jobs, be it lifting clients to emptying bins, then then the risks are higher no matter how good your manual handling training is. If sickness figures were split to show sickness levels amongst admin staff & manual handling staff then I thiink that would show a clearer picture. I know from working for the LA for 30 years that in the offices I have worked there have been staff who have never taken a day sick in 40 years of working and it's common that people go years without a sick day (you get a letter congratulating you).

Another good point. It would be interesting to see that comparison.

We are currently 5 down on a team of 30 due to staff cut backs while having increasing demands placed on us due to Govt. directives which we have to comply with. On top of this we've had no pay rise for over 3 years and face a further 2 year pay freeze. Many staff in other LA have had pay cuts of thousands of pounds under the Job Evaluation scheme, we still have this to come.

We still have to meet the rises in cost of living be it increased petrol cost (the mileage allowance paid to staff using their own car for work purposes has not increased in over 4 years plus they now have to pay to park their car at their work place for which they cannot reclaim the cost, even if they only have to bring their car to work to be available for work purposes), council tax or rising food prices.

One of the causes of resentment is that these deprivations happened in the private sector years ago. I distincly remember LA pickets outside council offices striking about reductions in pension entitlement at a time when many private sector pension funds were beng shown up as the useless cons they were - and for many of us who have been left high and dry, still are.

We are told we are lucky to have a job, and yes we are. We don't think we are "special" we understand the real world, we have partners, family etc. who work in the private sector. We live with the constant resentment from non public sector workers, it's par for the course. The majority of us seek to provide an excellent service and take pride in our work. Compulsory redundancies are happying in LA across the country, no one feels smug and secure.

Don't forget that this thread is about the non jobs. Once those have been culled then hard working LA staff on the front line will find that they regain their credibility.

Oh and then there is our fabulous pension which is constantly being erroded. The average pension is £4,000 a year - £2,600 for women.

To me, the bouncy castle attendant job really exemplifies the problem. Bouncy castles do not operate 365 days a year, so why do they need a specific person to run them?

Might it be because this role isn't in anyone else's job description? So no matter how much "slack" there may be in the relevant department, the managers cannot turn round and say to someone "YOU have the capacity to do this role as well as the one you currently do, so get on with it".

That is the big difference. In the private sector you do what the bosses decided they want you to do and the job descriptions are barely worth the paper they are printed on. While LA staff resist efficiencies there will be resentment, simply because if the rest of us try that kind of resistance we find ourselves out of a job.

And ANY pension is better than none, which is what private sector employers provide for many of us.

Poppy9

RacyRed wrote: »

To me, the bouncy castle attendant job really exemplifies the problem. Bouncy castles do not operate 365 days a year, so why do they need a specific person to run them?

Is the job full time or seasonal and the salary pro-rata? I know my LA employees seasonal staff for local leisure attractions during the summer holidays. Some of the leisure attractions are income generating through fees which cover costs, others like beach lifeguards do not.

RacyRed wrote:

Might it be because this role isn't in anyone else's job description? So no matter how much "slack" there may be in the relevant department, the managers cannot turn round and say to someone "YOU have the capacity to do this role as well as the one you currently do, so get on with it".

I honestly don't know anyone who has said "I can't do that it's not in my job description". A job needs doing and you do it. Some jobs I'm well over paid to do, others I would say I'm underpaid to do but I do them regardless.

This has been the attitude since I started work and I was surprised as anyone to find myself in the early days of having to do another sections work on a specified day because that was their peak day and it had always been the case that the work was shared out amongst the whole department regardless of what their normal job was. It was the days when people were paid in cash or cheque and money had to be counted and cheques put in pay packets.

Also during the post office strike many years ago we were each given a pile of envelopes that were near our homes and told to deliver them, in our own time when we got home!

RacyRed wrote:

One of the causes of resentment is that these deprivations happened in the private sector years ago. I distincly remember LA pickets outside council offices striking about reductions in pension entitlement at a time when many private sector pension funds were beng shown up as the useless cons they were - and for many of us who have been left high and dry, still are.

I agree that the situation with private companies pensions is disgraceful but the answer is not to drag us all down to the same level and place a bigger burden on the state who have to make up the shortfall when pensioners are living in poverty. I do not agree with the civil service having a non-contributory pension scheme. All schemes should be contributory but I think while joining them is optional that given the ever increasing debts students are facing in the future they will just not be able to afford or want to contribute to the pension scheme.

RacyRed wrote:

Don't forget that this thread is about the non jobs. Once those have been culled then hard working LA staff on the front line will find that they regain their credibility

I don't think any public sector employee will ever have credibility with non public sector employees. The biggest critics are usually those who have never worked one day in any areas of the public sector but "know" what goes on. Up until about 4 years ago there was a constant turnover of jobs so these people were free to apply and come join us in the public sector but never did. You have to wonder why if it is such a cushy number.

I don't see any adverts for non jobs in my LA, in fact I don't see many adverts for jobs aside from Social Workers and cleaners now!

RacyRed wrote:

That is the big difference. In the private sector you do what the bosses decided they want you to do and the job descriptions are barely worth the paper they are printed on. While LA staff resist efficiencies there will be resentment, simply because if the rest of us try that kind of resistance we find ourselves out of a job.

And in the public sector you do what the Govt. has decided you should do and what councillors feel the electorate want you to do and what your boss wants you to do. Often you feel that it's a waste of time/money and that it's my money being wasted because I'm a council tax payer too. However we have no choice, we have to do what we are told to do. No different to private sector there because as long as it's legal you have to do it.

RacyRed wrote:

And ANY pension is better than none, which is what private sector employers provide for many of us.

OH has a private pension from his days of being self employed. It's !!!!!! but all he could afford. He has been public sector for last 10 years so will have something of a better pension to look forward. The price though has been his health. I doubt he will be able to work in his present job for very much longer due to ill health

The_White_Horse

lets face it, if every council put all its staffs' names in a hat and pulled out 50% at random to be sacked - in the real world, we would have no idea it had even happened.

i bet the council employ far more waste management consultants, waste engineers, waste architects and any other job title they can prefix with the word "waste" than they did 20 years ago. yet 20 years my bin was collected weekly and now it is fortnightly.

hateful wasteful useless councils.

sack 50% and give the remaining 50% the offer of a 50% pay cut - or they can leave and you can take the one you just fired back.

the public sector is a deadly cancer. soon more people will work for the council than anywhere else. we will all be public sector - but don't worry - our income tax will fund it all won't it lefties?

amcluesent

Let's not forget every Council is riddled with a Common Purpose cadre seeking to wreck and disrupt to further their own hidden agenda

The_White_Horse

Poppy9 wrote: »

Up until about 4 years ago there was a constant turnover of jobs so these people were free to apply and come join us in the public sector but never did. You have to wonder why if it is such a cushy number.:(

i'll tell you why - you have to be a certain type of person to work in the public sector. you have to be a guardian reading lefty (or mirror reading lefty for the lowly jobs).

No conservative voters work in public sector - apart from the tory councillors themselves.

you have to want 18 meetings to do one act that could be done in 2 seconds in the private sector.

in the sunday times last week a private sector worker went to a public sector job and lasted 4 months before walking out due to the "no can do" attitude. he said he would rather stick pins in his eyes than work there again.

Poppy9

The_White_Horse wrote: »

lets face it, if every council put all its staffs' names in a hat and pulled out 50% at random to be sacked - in the real world, we would have no idea it had even happened.

Do you think the elderly and disabled who rely on homecare workers would notice 50% less staff, do you think you would notice pot holes not repaired, traffic lights not working, school classes of 60 pupils. What about the children needing emergency care or the help of Social Services, can they wait twice as long. The reality is to free up staff to provide front line services you need back office staff.

To meet Govt. targets and provide public accountability, you need back office staff. You can't randomly sack 50% of staff from LA and expect no impact on services.

While you may not be in great need of your LA services right now, one day you may and you will expect them to be ready and waiting to deal with you promptly.

The_White_Horse wrote:

i bet the council employ far more waste management consultants, waste engineers, waste architects and any other job title they can prefix with the word "waste" than they did 20 years ago. yet 20 years my bin was collected wee kly and now it is fortnightly.

hateful wasteful useless councils.

so much better hateful, wasteful households. So what if for 20 years we put all our waste in landfill, at least it was out of our homes. Landfill sites were full, the enviroment forever spoilt, but it wasn't our problem.

The Govt. not the LA decided, after listening to the electorate, that we had to be more responsbile with our waste. If we recycle everything and take more responsibilty for our waste then 2 weekly collection should be fine.

The_White_Horse wrote:

sack 50% and give the remaining 50% the offer of a 50% pay cut - or they can leave and you can take the one you just fired back.

On the same principal can Tesco cut their staff pay by 50%, and reduce number of staff by 50% so my food bill is cheaper please? I'll stand twice as long in the queue for much lower prices. I'm sure the checkout assistants, like council cleaners, on minimum wages will be give into bullying tactics to reduce their pay and return to work for 50% lower wages.

The_White_Horse wrote:

the public sector is a deadly cancer. soon more people will work for the council than anywhere else. we will all be public sector - but don't worry - our income tax will fund it all won't it lefties?

So wanting our society to look after our needy means you have to be a lefty? So wanting a collective organisation to deal with our public services like education, social services, planning, highways, enviroment and regeneration of our towns, cities and communities means you have to be a lefty. Who do you suggest runs these services. The greedy, corrupt capitalists who are only interested in making a profit at any cost?

Poppy9

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i'll tell you why - you have to be a certain type of person to work in the public sector. you have to be a guardian reading lefty (or mirror reading lefty for the lowly jobs).

No conservative voters work in public sector - apart from the tory councillors themselves.

You know this as a fact do you. How do you know what I vote, last time I worked on the elections votes were still secret.

Do you know what newspapers I or my colleagues read? Have you done a survey?

You seem to know so much about us then you must surely be one!

The_White_Horse wrote:

you have to want 18 meetings to do one act that could be done in 2 seconds in the private sector.

Really, how do you know this? I've had 2 brief, informal meetings in last 2 months to address some major changes to our work as a result of Central and European Govt. directives. Email has replaced a lot of meetings where you can share ideas. Oh and my employer has kindly made our work email available from home so we can do this work in our own time, hence I often get an email with a time stamp of 11pm or 6am, when someone has suddenly remembered something important.

The_White_Horse wrote:

in the sunday times last week a private sector worker went to a public sector job and lasted 4 months before walking out due to the "no can do" attitude. he said he would rather stick pins in his eyes than work there again.

I'll have to take your word for this as this newspaper is not on the public sector employee's reading list:D

However how do you not know that he just wasn't upto the job and could contribute nothing useful because he was barren of ideas, initiative, couldn't meet his deadlines or deal with the public etc. He is only one person and I doubt he recognises his own faults.

The_White_Horse

Poppy9 wrote: »

Who do you suggest runs these services. The greedy, corrupt capitalists who are only interested in making a profit at any cost?

yeszddddddddddddddddd

Poppy9

The_White_Horse wrote: »

yeszddddddddddddddddd

I guess you get what you pay for in life. I don't want to see those in real need having to pay more for an essential service to create wealth for a private individual. I don't want my child's school to be driven by profit not by educational standards.

I know there is a lot wrong with the public sector, but I also know the same is true in the private sector. I've worked private sector, my OH worked over half his career in private sector and run his own business. I don't judge people on where they work and insult them based on their choosen career/job. The cleaner in a school works as hard and for as little as a cleaner in a Supermarket.