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

milliebear00001

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!

Of the two posts highlighted, the bouncy castles tend to be provided by leisure centres and Surestarts, who offer them for pre-schoolers and parents via 'mum and toddler' type groups, or they run in school holidays to provide children with somewhere supervised to go for an hour for a small charge. They are also provided (for a fee) at weekends for children's birthday parties. The councils who run them probably run them at a small loss (taking into account the salary of the attendant who will very often have other duties in the context of the leisure centre/Surestart concerned).

The latter post, is a cost-cutting post - somebody brought in to discover cost-cutting measures and, essentially, find out who can be sacked - somnething I'd imagine most people here would wholeheartedly approve of.

For me, the expansion of public sector jobs goes hand in hand with the additional services that I see provided in my local area - Surestarts, children's centres. youth clubs, park and environment investment etc etc. I would want a detailed description of what these jobs really mean, before I make a judgement about whether or not they are truly 'non jobs'.

I am a frontline public sector worker now. I previously worked for an investment management company. I know I work a damn sight harder now, for a lot less pay, than I did back then!

milliebear00001

ILW wrote: »

I believe you do tend to get a different breed of manager within the private sector. Most contracts tend to have non performance clauses which are absent in public sector contracts.

I believe over the lst 10 years or so, only around 7 teachers have been dismissed for being useless.

Pehraps this is because it's relatively easy to say whether or not a manager is 'being useless' - bottom line/sales figures/productivity etc.

How does one decide whether or not a teacher is 'useless'? There isn't a common bottom line for them, just as there isn't for many public sector, frontline positions. Useless nurse? Useless doctor? Useless firefighter?

ILW

milliebear00001 wrote: »

Pehraps this is because it's relatively easy to say whether or not a manager is 'being useless' - bottom line/sales figures/productivity etc.

How does one decide whether or not a teacher is 'useless'? There isn't a common bottom line for them, just as there isn't for many public sector, frontline positions. Useless nurse? Useless doctor? Useless firefighter?

I believe a report by a former Ofsted director, stated that there were around 17,000 incompetent teachers. Every one that works with them know who they are including the school heads, but are powerless to do anything about it.

milliebear00001

ILW wrote: »

I believe a report by a former Ofsted director, stated that there were around 17,000 incompetent teachers. Every one that works with them know who they are including the school heads, but are powerless to do anything about it.

I would be interested to know how the 'ex-Ofsted Director' has come up with that figure - and on what basis the report has adjudged so many teachers 'incompetent' - perhaps you could provide a link?

I am not sure how you know so many of the people those teachers work with, or their personal opinion of the teachers. I won't ask you to clarify.

Academic

ILW wrote: »

I believe a report by a former Ofsted director, stated that there were around 17,000 incompetent teachers. Every one that works with them know who they are including the school heads, but are powerless to do anything about it.

DYOR

Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of Ofsted, first made this unsubstantiated claim in 1995. In a classic case of lazy journalism the BBC repeated the claim 15 years later (July 2010) on their 'current affairs flagship' Panorama.

BTW Woodhead claimed it was 15,000 not 17,000.

Many would argue that Woodhead had/has a particularly biased view of the teaching profession, not to mention a chequered history.

milliebear00001

Academic wrote: »

DYOR

Chris Woodhead, the former chief inspector of Ofsted, first made this unsubstantiated claim in 1995. In a classic case of lazy journalism the BBC repeated the claim 15 years later (July 2010) on their 'current affairs flagship' Panorama.

BTW Woodhead claimed it was 15,000 not 17,000.

Many would argue that Woodhead had/has a particularly biased view of the teaching profession, not to mention a chequered history.

Ah! Chris Woodhead - the teacher's friend - all becomes clear.