Efficiency in the public sector

BobQ

Andy Burnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff have been made redundant and subsequently re-employed by NHS organisations on a (a) permanent basis and (b) fixed-term contract basis since May 2010. [147768] 14 Mar 13

Dr Poulter: The number of NHS staff made redundant in the NHS since 1 May 2010 and subsequently re-employed by NHS organisations on a (a) permanent basis is estimated to be 1,300 and (b) fixed term contract basis is estimated to be 900.

These estimates are based on staff recorded on the Electronic Staff Record (ESR) Data Warehouse as having a reason for leaving as either voluntary or compulsory redundancy between 1 May 2010 and 30 September 2012, and who have a subsequent record on the ESR Data Warehouse up to 30 November 2012.
In April 2010 there were 42,515 full-time equivalent (FTE) managers. Between April 2010 and November 2012 this figure has reduced by 6,905 to 35,610 FTE.
The ESR Data Warehouse is a monthly snapshot of the live ESR system. This is the HR and payroll system that covers all NHS employees other than those working in General Practice, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and some NHS staff who have transferred to local authorities and social enterprises.

So 2200 staff have received redundancy and then been re-employed directly.

One wonders how many more have been re-employed as contractors (thereby immediately transforming them into super efficient and productive private sector employees)?

And how much of this is going on in other departments?

sheffield_lad

Maybe as private sector employees they may not feel they can throw sickies as easily?

What is the situation with the pensions do we rid the tax payer of having to subsidise these employees if so I hope they crack on and swap more out of the public sector.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297871/Cost-gold-plated-pensions-public-sector-workers-jump-60-years.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

But this figure is set to rocket to £14.1billion five years later in the year 2017/18, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility.

This is an increase of 58 per cent.

To make matters worse, this is not even the full cost to the taxpayer of paying the pensions of all retired public sector workers.

vivatifosi

The NHS payroll though is enormous. Per the BBC, as at 2011 it was over 1.4m. Put into that context, the number revealed is tiny.

CLAPTON

howee wrote: »

Maybe as private sector employees they may not feel they can throw sickies as easily?

What is the situation with the pensions do we rid the tax payer of having to subsidise these employees if so I hope they crack on and swap more out of the public sector.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297871/Cost-gold-plated-pensions-public-sector-workers-jump-60-years.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

But this figure is set to rocket to £14.1billion five years later in the year 2017/18, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility.

This is an increase of 58 per cent.

To make matters worse, this is not even the full cost to the taxpayer of paying the pensions of all retired public sector workers.

This is under 2% of UK GDP

sheffield_lad

CLAPTON wrote: »

This is under 2% of UK GDP

Or to look at it another way 12% of the current deficit. :eek:

Why should the tax payer (some of which have no pension provision), be made to pay for someone else's?

The public sector pensions should be pegged at the average private sector pension no more no less that would be fair for all of us.

CLAPTON

howee wrote: »

Or to look at it another way 12% of the current deficit. :eek:

Why should the tax payer (some of which have no pension provision), be made to pay for someone else's?

The public sector pensions should be pegged at the average private sector pension no more no less that would be fair for all of us.

Yes but soon the deficit will be zero so the pension cost will be infinite percent.. how scary is that?

Maybe all incomes should be the average of the private sector ... that would be fair for all of us.

sheffield_lad

CLAPTON wrote: »

Yes but soon that will be 0% of the current deficit so that will be OK?

Maybe all incomes should be the average of the private sector ... that would be fair for all of us.

It would depend if the tax payer had to subsidise it.

If I worked in the public sector I would defend it, turkeys voting for Xmas and all that but you seem like an intelligent fella in the back of your head you know its bonkers and unaffordable nearly all PS workers do (bar the one's with their heads in the union mags).

H

CLAPTON

howee wrote: »

It would depend if the tax payer had to subsidise it.

If I worked in the public sector I would defend it, turkeys voting for Xmas and all that but you seem like an intelligent fella in the back of your head you know its bonkers and unaffordable nearly all PS workers do (bar the one's with their heads in the union mags).

H

I don't think less than 2% of GDP is 'unaffordable'.

I don't think retrospectively changing entitlement is reasonable.

Future accrument of pension benefits is a different matter and it would be reasonable to change peoples salaries package etc for the future but unreasonable to claw back previous salary packages.

sheffield_lad

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't think less than 2% of GDP is 'unaffordable'.

I don't think retrospectively changing entitlement is reasonable.

Future accrument of pension benefits is a different matter and it would be reasonable to change peoples salaries package etc for the future but unreasonable to claw back previous salary packages.

But the conditions have to change as we all living longer. look at yours (and mine), state pensions. I was told retire at 65 now 68 and I know as I get closer it will/may be 70+ I accept it as I know that's how it might have to be.

Your lucky in a way as anything accrued so far is safe and you have had a 5yr bonus when Labour bottled it in 2008, but you cannot defend sticking with something unaffordable just because that's what you signed up to years ago.

You have been lucky for many years and have pension which very few not in the public sector will ever get so why not take what you have acquired and accept a new deal which will still be far better than the rest of us.

CLAPTON

howee wrote: »

But the conditions have to change as we all living longer. look at yours (and mine), state pensions. I was told retire at 65 now 68 and I know as I get closer it will/may be 70+ I accept it as I know that's how it might have to be.

Your lucky in a way as anything accrued so far is safe and you have had a 5yr bonus when Labour bottled it in 2008, but you cannot defend sticking with something unaffordable just because that's what you signed up to years ago.

You have been lucky for many years and have pension which very few not in the public sector will ever get so why not take what you have acquired and accept a new deal which will still be far better than the rest of us.

I don't work in the public sector.

Graham_Devon

If say an adminitrator loses their position on a ward, then applies for a position on a ward the other side of the hospital, would this be counted in the figures?

It's made out to sound like NHS workers are getting sacked and then instantly re-hired in exactly the same job.

Not heard of that, but have heard of people losing their position and then finding another, afterall, they have the experience.