Wait for until the cuts begin to bite.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A voluntary redundancy would be a job cut, yes.

I was referring to simply not hiring as people leave, for whatever reason.

So yours sisters place as not cut a job and has no redeployment pool?

They desperately need to hire and can't. Must be the only council in the UK?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It does not say that.

It states public sector employment has fallen by 120,000.

A job cut in my mind = job redundancy. People actually being laid off and cut.

No a Job cut is a job where someone used to work in it and the job is now no more.
How ever you get to that is irrelevent, if they are not looking to fill the post with internal staff (redeployment) in a recruitment freeze environment the job has been cut.

This Job is no more!
He has ceased to be!
'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, rests in peace!
If you hadn't nailed 'im to the internal vacancie board 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory!
'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, '
e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX -JOB

sjaypink

Really2 wrote: »

No a Job cut is a job where someone used to work in it and the job is now no more.

But your OP refers to 'the cuts biting', and that a line often heard here is 'when the cuts start'.

I think it is obvious that most people using such terminology will be referring to jobs cuts through compulsary redundancy (the stage most LG, civil service, NHS etc have yet to get to) as it is those which are anticipated to 'bite'.

A reduction in headcount due to natural wastage may be a job loss but is not the point you seemed to be making in your title or OP (although perhaps the point of the link).

Poshbird

Really2 wrote: »

A line we hear a lot on here.

Waiting for the IMF report today I read the following.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8558924/IMF-report-on-the-UK-economy-live.html


I remember having debates on here not so long ago and people were saying the cuts have not started, Are they sure?
Job losses had not started, are they sure?
Cuts were not front loaded?

Glad my wife works in LG otherwise I might even start believing what some debate on here!:eek:

The housing benefit cuts do not really show up yet, because they postponed them unless people move.

So when people in London come to move for whatever reason they will get a shock that they will get less money than they did before they moved. This will have a knock on effect of lowering average rents.

In North London for instance it used to be about 340 per week for a 2 bed place now 290, and just a bit further North than that it used to be 230 now down to 220. Doesnt sound like much but these cuts will continue.

Also they have just postponed forcing the cuts on everyone who gets help with the rent, but when they do have to force it because they just can not keep paying out so much in housing benefit, then you will see average rents crash.

tomterm8

sjaypink wrote: »

But your OP refers to 'the cuts biting', and that a line often heard here is 'when the cuts start'.

I think it is obvious that most people using such terminology will be referring to jobs cuts through compulsary redundancy (the stage most LG, civil service, NHS etc have yet to get to) as it is those which are anticipated to 'bite'.

A reduction in headcount due to natural wastage may be a job loss but is not the point you seemed to be making in your title or OP (although perhaps the point of the link).

There's an odd thing here: the conservatives haven't really changed anything major financially since Labour came into power, the effect of their changes are (in the main) only started 2 months ago.

Obviously, the Tories did cut a few things, mainly around future expenditure the labour party committed to. But much more propaganda cuts than ones with real economic effect.

This is nothing surprising, because it takes time to turn around government spending - most expenditures are arranged years in advance.

So... if the 'Tory' cuts are only starting to hit this financial year.

Whose cuts were the ones we had in the last financial year...

L - A - B - O - U - R.

Which puts the lie to the Labour claims they wouldn't have cut anything. From what I can see, they were basically cutting at almost the same rate the conservatives are planning to cut at.

B_Blank

So you guys think reducing the deficit from 10-11% of gdp to 9% of gdp means the worst is over? I take it maths isnt your strong point. There is still a hell of alot of cuts to come. In fact about 80% of the cuts still have to come.

ChiefGrasscutter

I remember one large private company I worked for....
It had a simply stated policy - the worst performing10% of the staff WOULD be made redundant each year....regardless of how the company was performing.

Then there was another company where, come the announcement that more redundancies were imminent (a regular event every few year) the work rate from staff went up sharply.......as everybody was desperate to prove to the executives how valuable they were to the company.

The old trick of keeping a job position open but unfilled when the person had left and then come redundancy time of closing the job and then claiming you had axed a position was more likely to result in the manager trying that one on finding themselves top of the redundancy list.
I also recall someone was made redundant and the unions made a huge fuss saying how vital they were etc.... eventually the company caved in and deleted his redundancy from the list - and simply made someone else redundant instead: there weren't anymore appeals against redundancy after that 'event'.

Needless to say the concept of having to emply MORE staff at any time was never ever on the agenda.
And then I heard recently that is it Birmingham council has 50000 employees and I shake my head in disbelief!

The snag with going down the voluntary path is that the more marketable/better staff are the ones that apply - then you are forced to turn some of them down - so they then get annoyed...

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

No a Job cut is a job where someone used to work in it and the job is now no more.
How ever you get to that is irrelevent, if they are not looking to fill the post with internal staff (redeployment) in a recruitment freeze environment the job has been cut.

This Job is no more!
He has ceased to be!
'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, rests in peace!
If you hadn't nailed 'im to the internal vacancie board 'e'd be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory!
'E's off the twig!
'E's kicked the bucket, '
e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX -JOB

I can't really argue with you any further.

You are right, a job is no longer being offered, therefore, if a person has left, either through retirement, choice to leave, death or any other reason, and that job is not advertised again, you can class it as a job which does no longer exist.

However. To call that a cut, you'd have to suggest that people have their wages cut when they leave a job through their own free will. Of course. That would be stupid. Their wages have not been cut, they are simply no longer working for their wages.

A job cut, in the context being talked about here, is when a person LOSES their job. The job has been axed. Anyone who has been made redundant, voluntarily or not, has seen their job cut.

The jobs I'm talking about and referenced, which is happening all over the public sector at the moment, are not jobs that have been axed. They are jobs that have been left and the position has not been filled. It's the loss of a job, and see's less people employed in the public sector, but the job was not cut, as no one was asked, or forced to leave. The job would have continued if the employee stayed there.

I cannot explain this any more. I'm amazed we can argue this in all honesty.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The jobs I'm talking about and referenced, which is happening all over the public sector at the moment, are not jobs that have been axed. They are jobs that have been left and the position has not been filled. It's the loss of a job, and see's less people employed in the public sector, but the job was not cut, as no one was asked, or forced to leave. The job would have continued if the employee stayed there.

I cannot explain this any more. I'm amazed we can argue this in all honesty.

What are you smoking?

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

What are you smoking?

Can you elaborate?