Wait for until the cuts begin to bite.

Cleaver

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.

A post not being advertised after somone either moves on, retires, or leaves for other purposes is not a job cut. It's not people being laid off. It's simply someone leaving and not being replaced. Budgets can, and have taken this into consideration and allowed people to leave without being replaced.

Huh? I don't get this. Let's say I have a staff budget which means I have 20 people employed at a cost of £1 million. I'm told to cut my staff budget by 25%, or £250,000 before the next financial year.

It doesn't really matter how I do this. So my options as a manager are:

a) Make five of my staff redundant
b) Ask for five volunteers to go
c) Wait for five people to leave (retire, quit etc.) and not replace them

All of these three things do the same thing, which is cut my staff budget by 25%. Obviously option c) is the cheapest way to go about this. Job cuts in the public sector is very much about having less people in jobs that you had in the first place, and it doesn't really matter how you go about this.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

Huh? I don't get this. Let's say I have a staff budget which means I have 20 people employed at a cost of £1 million. I'm told to cut my staff budget by 25%, or £250,000 before the next financial year.

It doesn't really matter how I do this. So my options as a manager are:

a) Make five of my staff redundant
b) Ask for five volunteers to go
c) Wait for five people to leave (retire, quit etc.) and not replace them

All of these three things do the same thing, which is cut my staff budget by 25%. Obviously option c) is the cheapest way to go about this. Job cuts in the public sector is very much about having less people in jobs that you had in the first place, and it doesn't really matter how you go about this.

Let's take this back to basics.

My sisters colleague, who decided to take retirement on her own free will as anyone else does.

Has she suffered a job cut?

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Let's take this back to basics.

My sisters colleague, who decided to take retirement on her own free will as anyone else does.

Has she suffered a job cut?

If we're taking this back to basics, if a public sector department is asked to make 'job cuts', what that means is that they are expected to cut their staff budget by a certain percentage. So maybe 20% before the next financial year. So to say again, you can make a job redundant, you can ask for people who want to go or people leave and you don't replace them. The outcome is the same - the job is cut and you save the money.

The question, "has she suffered a job cut" doesn't make any real sense. People are either sacked, made redundant or choose to leave. The employer then decides if they replace the person. If they don't then the job has been cut.

I can't say if there has been a job cut in your sister's department as you haven't told me if they recruited to her colleague's old job.

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

If we're taking this back to basics, if a public sector department is asked to make 'job cuts', what that means is that they are expected to cut their staff budget by a certain percentage. So maybe 20% before the next financial year. So to say again, you can make a job redundant, you can ask for people who want to go or people leave and you don't replace them. The outcome is the same - the job is cut and you save the money.

The question, "has she suffered a job cut" doesn't make any real sense. People are either sacked, made redundant or choose to leave. The employer then decides if they replace the person. If they don't then the job has been cut.

I can't say if there has been a job cut in your sister's department as you haven't told me if they recruited to her colleague's old job.

Ok, if you can not understand the context of whats being said, thats cool.

I've explained it enough, and a few others seem to get it.

In the context really2 is talking about, and opens the discussion with (reference arguments in other threads where people have said the cuts haven't biten fully yet), the people I am talking about have not been HIT with a job cut. They have simply left their jobs.

The organisation has not replaced them, therefore cut a post. But they have not made anyone redundant, which is the usual understanding of job cuts "biting".

I'm done.

Cleaver

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, if you can not understand the context of whats being said, thats cool.

I've explained it enough, and a few others seem to get it.

In the context really2 is talking about, and opens the discussion with (reference arguments in other threads where people have said the cuts haven't biten fully yet), the people I am talking about have not been HIT with a job cut. They have simply left their jobs.

The organisation has not replaced them, therefore cut a post. But they have not made anyone redundant, which is the usual understanding of job cuts "biting".

Ahh, I see what you mean.

I guess it all depends on what the original estimate was I guess. For example, if we (as a nation) decided to make 100,000 public sector job cuts this year then I guess some bright spark economist somewhere will work out that 80% of these will be people laid off and 20% will come from natural attrition and not replaced. If what actually happens is that 50% of people just leave of their own accord and then 50% need to be laid off, then the result to the public purse is pretty much the same (100,000 jobs have been 'cut'), but more people are happy as they chose to go and, presumably, have other financial support available.

I was just making the point that when it comes to job cuts it doesn't really matter how and why people go, just that you don't re-employ to the role.

Rochdale_Pioneers

A job cut is a job cut. The least painful route for everyone is to take natural shrinkage of whatever form. But if that job is not replaced its a cut - a person who would have been employed as replacement will not be employed. The people left working for the company have to cover the work done by the cut employee, meaning they work harder for at best frozen pay.

With respect Graham you're trying to peddle a very fine line.......

Graham_Devon

Cleaver wrote: »

Ahh, I see what you mean.

I guess it all depends on what the original estimate was I guess. For example, if we (as a nation) decided to make 100,000 public sector job cuts this year then I guess some bright spark economist somewhere will work out that 80% of these will be people laid off and 20% will come from natural attrition and not replaced. If what actually happens is that 50% of people just leave of their own accord and then 50% need to be laid off, then the result to the public purse is pretty much the same (100,000 jobs have been 'cut'), but more people are happy as they chose to go and, presumably, have other financial support available.

I was just making the point that when it comes to job cuts it doesn't really matter how and why people go, just that you don't re-employ to the role.

Yup, I already agreed earlier with really2 that a person leaving and not being replaced is a loss of a post, and will show on the figures.

But that doesn't mean someone physically has suffered a job cut. Therefore, the cuts have not neccesarily "bitten" anyone and no one has suffered a loss as a result.

When people talk about cuts "biting", I regard that as people actually being hit with the loss of a job. Not retiring because they are 62 and feel like leaving and spending some time potting plants in the garden.

It's another "is the house price the price of the house" argument. In other words, semantics. But this post was specifically started with the point of bringing up old arguments surrounding job losses and goes on to imply that 120,000 people have suffered job cuts.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

With respect Graham you're trying to peddle a very fine line.......

Accepted.

I'll start a thread next week, suggesting these 120,000 job cuts will effect house prices as people have had their jobs cut.

Watch the response and the falling over oneselves to make sure everyone understands these jobs have been cut through natural wastage, and therefore don't effect house prices.

That argument has already happened, with the same people

B_Blank

To be honest I dont even know what Graham is arguing about. Even I accept that not filling a job is a job cut. I think he just likes to try and prove how clever he is

tomterm8

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Accepted.

I'll start a thread next week, suggesting these 120,000 job cuts will effect house prices as people have had their jobs cut.

Watch the response and the falling over oneselves to make sure everyone understands these jobs have been cut through natural wastage, and therefore don't effect house prices.

That argument has already happened, with the same people

I think from a macro economics viewpoint it doesn't really matter. Of course, economically it is more efficient to lose jobs via natural wastage than having to fork over the money for redundancy. But, it has minimal effects.

From a political viewpoint it is important.

From a economic viewpoint... it isn't.