Wait for until the cuts begin to bite.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

Graham, if the job is still open it can be filled internally, if it is not in the redeployment pool posts the job has gone.

It really is that simple. All jobs that need filling can be filled through redeployment, a recruitment freeze does not stop redeployment or secondment.
With budget cuts why do you think they are not being advertised internally if they are not cut posts?

Your opening line is a corker though considering your post

Really2

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 no one has been re-employed the job has been cut! Hence there is one less person working in the public sector.

PS Retirement at her own free will, you mean registered for interest in early retirement when they said that was going to be cuts?
So if she had not Graham what would happen to the jobs in her department?
You make it sound like had no one taken redundancy they would not have cut jobs!

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

err is that not 120,000 jobs not available to people on the dole?

Are they all well off and don't need a job.

The argument is rubbish, they may retire early they may take redundency and some will have been forced as my wife knows some.

But to say a cut is not a cut if they go of their free will is just madness.
It is 120,000 jobs less in the british economy, no way round that figure if they were not cut unemployment would be 120,000 lower.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

cuts.

It does, they might not know it though, in the past someone would have filled the post, now they may be sat on the dole.

ash28

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?

No but the department has and it's one less job that can be filled by someone on the dole or leaving school or university. So she might not have suffered a job loss herself but someone has lost the potential to replace her.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Hasn't Graham now conceeded the point? No need to continue the nit-picking any further then!

Really2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Hasn't Graham now conceeded the point? No need to continue the nit-picking any further then!

Unless he has conceded that there are 120,000 people on the dole that would not have been had these jobs been open he hasn't.

The cuts have bitten regardless of the position of the people who left.

Graham_Devon

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Hasn't Graham now conceeded the point? No need to continue the nit-picking any further then!

Check out post 29.

I "conceeded" there.

We are talking about the cuts biting. 120,000 had their jobs "cut". The language used was to state that cuts are already happening and people are already losing their jobs. Some are, but 120,000 people have not found themselves forced out of a job through job cuts.

I remember having debates on here not so long ago and people were saying the cuts have not started, Are they sure?

What he means to say is the debates stated that people have not yet been forced from their jobs en masse. In the main, it's been natural wastage.

Job losses had not started, are they sure?

Job losses. That infers people LOSING their jobs. Not people on the dole who didn't have a job in the first place, who may have missed out on a position that may have been available.

In post 7, I referenced what I was talking about. The job LOSSES.

Even Hamish states no mass redundancies, just natural wastage. So he's on the same level. Don't see anyone having huge issues with him saying it.

Sjay sumed it up clearly in one sentence.

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'.

Same old people with the same old issues.

If really2 had simply said "yes, true, not everyone has actually lost their jobs but it's still a job thats no longer availiable" I would have simply agreed. But if her wants to state people are losing thier jobs, and 120,000 of them have, I will disagree.

Thrugelmir

Really2 wrote: »

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

In the private sector its called an efficiency drive. Over time any organisation can become bloated and extremely unproductive.

Downturns have an impact on peoples attitude to work.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But if he wants to state people are losing thier jobs, and 120,000 of them have, I will disagree.

People are losing their jobs there were 5 compulsary in my wife's department, 7 loses in total including voluntary. (they found dec and got 3 months notice)
You can't spin that as anything other as 7 lost jobs as without cuts they would all be there!!!

120,000 people less work in the public sector, but they are not job loses as they don't need the jobs. (ignore the people on the dole).

It's the worst argument since King Charles II was reported to have a slight scratch on his neck as a cause of death.