Birmingham Council - "The end of services as we know it"
Discussion
martin84 said:
Whether or not too high a proportion of Birmingham works for the council or the aforementioned Labour council keeps people in work whose jobs aren't required isn't the whole story. If you sack these people they'll be out of work, completely. I don't think anybody here wants us to put more people on the unemployed scrapheap.
I do. We already have an enormous government deficit to add to our enormous existing debt, and we will have this year, next year and most likely the year after that. People are paying more tax and seeing less government spending, but we simply can not afford to keep people on in non jobs just to falsely hold down unemployment.
martin84 said:
You talk about the public sector having to suck it up, but it'll be the lower paid 'workers on the ground' who will suffer the most. Council Chief Executives won't have to suck it up, those in charge of employing more people than their Council can afford in the first place won't have to suck it up. Those in Government who over the years slimmed down the private sector and expanded the public sector won't have to suck it up. I have the sympathy on the strength that the private sector is unwilling or unable to make up the ground of the public sector job losses, so those people will most likely be unemployed for a while. We'll save x amount from the Councils budget to pay it out in Social Security instead and I'm not sure that's productive.
It's often the people higher up in the organisation that need to be removed as they're in capable of completing their responsibilities efficiently. However, as most of those that make it to these roles are public sector lifers, they don't see it that way and save their own skin first. Also, those in government that bloated the public sector for years actually got voted out last time, so they did have to go and find themselves a new job.
martin84 said:
'It's s
t for us so I want it to be st for them' isn't going to get us anywhere but bankrupt as a country on many levels, not just financially. This 'us vs them' of the private and public sector mentality which exists on here is depressing to say the least.
I don't like seeing people lose their jobs, irrespective of what sector they were in. When it's their own fault that's fine, but when it's the fault of others then it's not. The public sector expanded by 2 million since 1997, the Government actively encouraged public sector employment and offered many of the safeguards and guarantees which private sector employment doesn't. It's not the workers fault the Government went out of it's way to slim down the private sector, it's not like they could've got a job which didn't exist.
2 million new roles in the last 15 years!!! What on earth was being forgotten about before 1997 that you'd need 2 million new employees in 15 years?!t for us so I want it to be st for them' isn't going to get us anywhere but bankrupt as a country on many levels, not just financially. This 'us vs them' of the private and public sector mentality which exists on here is depressing to say the least.I don't like seeing people lose their jobs, irrespective of what sector they were in. When it's their own fault that's fine, but when it's the fault of others then it's not. The public sector expanded by 2 million since 1997, the Government actively encouraged public sector employment and offered many of the safeguards and guarantees which private sector employment doesn't. It's not the workers fault the Government went out of it's way to slim down the private sector, it's not like they could've got a job which didn't exist.
Whilst its not the employees fault that the last government over spent, they did happily pocket the cash. I'm not going to sympathise with them if someone has finally chopped the head off their golden goose.
martin84 said:
It's easy for you to say it's no biggie when you're in gainful employment. Would you be saying that if you'd just got the sack and added to the monumentally huge unemployment scrapheap, fighting it out with 50-100 candidates for every job and having to send 100 applications to even get 5 responses? That's the reality for most out there at the moment, so that's why I won't join PH's celebration of sackings. I've been there when the st first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.
Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
I've been in a position where my department was shutting and everyone around me was being made redundant. Those that sat and played the victim were the first out the door. Those that knuckled down and worked harder were found roles elsewhere in the company. The same should happen when downsizing the council. If it doesn't, that says more about the management and their ability to do their roles properly. t first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
Whilst I don't like seeing people made unemployed, I'd prefer that than seeing the country go bankrupt. If someone is in a role that is not effective or can be done more efficiently elsewhere, then right now as a country we need to make the books balance before giving out money like the public sector is some kind of employment charity.
martin84 said:
It's easy for you to say it's no biggie when you're in gainful employment. Would you be saying that if you'd just got the sack and added to the monumentally huge unemployment scrapheap, fighting it out with 50-100 candidates for every job and having to send 100 applications to even get 5 responses? That's the reality for most out there at the moment, so that's why I won't join PH's celebration of sackings. I've been there when the st first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.
Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
What a monumentally stupid thing to sayt first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
I suppose your solution is the government should employ everyone who is currently unemployed as Jeremy Kyle quality anaylists. They can be paid 20grand and work from home.
martin84 said:
hornetrider said:
Oh dear.
Are you saying you do want to put more people on the unemployed scrapheap?People on here get upset when a car factory closes and loses jobs, but if a public sector worker gets laid off you rejoice in glee. Irrespective of where either of them worked, the end result is the same to that person; they don't have a job anymore.
I was made redundant last november. I'm not on the scrapheap. My father was made redundant aged 62 he still found work. People in the private secotor get made redundant all the time.
thinfourth2 said:
martin84 said:
It's easy for you to say it's no biggie when you're in gainful employment. Would you be saying that if you'd just got the sack and added to the monumentally huge unemployment scrapheap, fighting it out with 50-100 candidates for every job and having to send 100 applications to even get 5 responses? That's the reality for most out there at the moment, so that's why I won't join PH's celebration of sackings. I've been there when the st first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.
Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
What a monumentally stupid thing to sayt first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
I suppose your solution is the government should employ everyone who is currently unemployed as Jeremy Kyle quality anaylists. They can be paid 20grand and work from home.
Yes great idea make them all redundant so we can save money,pay them a load of money to leave their job, then pay them benefits, pay their council tax put them in public housing as they can't afford to pay the mortgage,etc etc. That'll really help the deficit!
I know you can't employ everyone, but wholesale redundancies look good in the short term, but rarely help in long term.
eccles said:
thinfourth2 said:
martin84 said:
It's easy for you to say it's no biggie when you're in gainful employment. Would you be saying that if you'd just got the sack and added to the monumentally huge unemployment scrapheap, fighting it out with 50-100 candidates for every job and having to send 100 applications to even get 5 responses? That's the reality for most out there at the moment, so that's why I won't join PH's celebration of sackings. I've been there when the st first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.
Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
What a monumentally stupid thing to sayt first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
I suppose your solution is the government should employ everyone who is currently unemployed as Jeremy Kyle quality anaylists. They can be paid 20grand and work from home.
Yes great idea make them all redundant so we can save money,pay them a load of money to leave their job, then pay them benefits, pay their council tax put them in public housing as they can't afford to pay the mortgage,etc etc. That'll really help the deficit!
I know you can't employ everyone, but wholesale redundancies look good in the short term, but rarely help in long term.
I'm off to work soon
I have very strong feeling son this subject - the assumption that public sector largesse is somehow benign.
Firstly, on the matter of resources - staff and buildings - the PS have a very marked influence and in some areas have sufficiently deep and broad enough pockets to crowd out the private sector. We saw it in the Nu Labia boom years when staff churn in lower paid jobs was virtually unmanageable and everyone wanted - demanded as their right - to be a 'manager. We had a girl join us in the office who was a classic example, barely capable of working on her own, she left in pretty short order, for the public sector, to 'manage'. If anyone feels that is in any way a reflection of a toxic environment in our workplace, all I can say is that she was replaced by another girl, an 18 year old school leaver, who was head and shoulders above in every aspect of character and performance (but was not, by any means a manager, but then didn't aspire to being one anyway).
Secondly, there is the cost of the taxation that pays for the spending in the first place. If you beleive in the private sector, you have to beleive it can allocate that capital for better return - both for the business and the natioanl GDP - than the state spending OPM (other people's money). You cannot beleive otherwise, other than for core essential public sector roles.
Firstly, on the matter of resources - staff and buildings - the PS have a very marked influence and in some areas have sufficiently deep and broad enough pockets to crowd out the private sector. We saw it in the Nu Labia boom years when staff churn in lower paid jobs was virtually unmanageable and everyone wanted - demanded as their right - to be a 'manager. We had a girl join us in the office who was a classic example, barely capable of working on her own, she left in pretty short order, for the public sector, to 'manage'. If anyone feels that is in any way a reflection of a toxic environment in our workplace, all I can say is that she was replaced by another girl, an 18 year old school leaver, who was head and shoulders above in every aspect of character and performance (but was not, by any means a manager, but then didn't aspire to being one anyway).
Secondly, there is the cost of the taxation that pays for the spending in the first place. If you beleive in the private sector, you have to beleive it can allocate that capital for better return - both for the business and the natioanl GDP - than the state spending OPM (other people's money). You cannot beleive otherwise, other than for core essential public sector roles.
Talk of cutting services and posts masks the real problem here - the councillors.
They are so wrapped up in protecting their own areas that it gives senior management so few options. What they should be looking to do is to redesign services, using effective procurement and embracing technology. If that then means the service runs with 50% of current staff then so be it.
What will happen is senior management's hands will be tied and we'll see a blanket 20% reduction across services who will continue with their inefficient practices.
Just one example - our local council spent £50k last year to provide free dog waste bags at it's one stop shops, based on a decision by a small number of influential councillors that there was too much st on their pavements. They still have £48k of bags left but in their wisdom have decided to start charging for them from next year. I truly despair.
They are so wrapped up in protecting their own areas that it gives senior management so few options. What they should be looking to do is to redesign services, using effective procurement and embracing technology. If that then means the service runs with 50% of current staff then so be it.
What will happen is senior management's hands will be tied and we'll see a blanket 20% reduction across services who will continue with their inefficient practices.
Just one example - our local council spent £50k last year to provide free dog waste bags at it's one stop shops, based on a decision by a small number of influential councillors that there was too much s
t on their pavements. They still have £48k of bags left but in their wisdom have decided to start charging for them from next year. I truly despair. Sargeant Orange said:
Just one example - our local council spent £50k last year to provide free dog waste bags at it's one stop shops, based on a decision by a small number of influential councillors that there was too much st on their pavements. They still have £48k of bags left but in their wisdom have decided to start charging for them from next year. I truly despair.
A perfect example of flawed analysis - that people who do not clear up after their own dogs would bother to do so if bags were provided for free - and a completely bungled execution. £50k of dog-poo bags - were they expecting a bout of doggy dysentery?!t on their pavements. They still have £48k of bags left but in their wisdom have decided to start charging for them from next year. I truly despair. 
martin84 said:
It's easy for you to say it's no biggie when you're in gainful employment. Would you be saying that if you'd just got the sack and added to the monumentally huge unemployment scrapheap, fighting it out with 50-100 candidates for every job and having to send 100 applications to even get 5 responses? That's the reality for most out there at the moment, so that's why I won't join PH's celebration of sackings. I've been there when the st first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.
Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
I'm a contractor. I fight it out for roles all the time.t first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
I'm not 'celebrating' any sackings. However I do realise the company/council is greater and more important than any one individual.
If a company behaved like this then before long they would go bust and everyone would be out of a job.
Which bit of 'There is no money left' do you not understand?
Edited by hornetrider on Wednesday 24th October 08:07
Digga said:
perfect example of flawed analysis - that people who do not clear up after their own dogs would bother to do so if bags were provided for free - and a completely bungled execution. £50k of dog-poo bags - were they expecting a bout of doggy dysentery?!
Try this one for flawed analysis, although in this case not totally down the the LA:2006: - A neighbouring council had a child in it's catchment area who was disabled and nearing comprehensive age. The comprehensives in the area were old and had no disabled access. The parents had two options - allow the child to be transported daily to a neighbouring authority's school which did have the facilities or force their council to provide the facilities. She wanted her child in the local school...
The authority has the option of a cheap temporary solution or £1.5m of permanent improvements. The councillors didn't want to waste money on temporary measures so £1.5m was spent installing the necessary improvements.
2012: They have decided to knock the school down and build a new super school. Where's that facepalm?
hornetrider said:
martin84 said:
It's easy for you to say it's no biggie when you're in gainful employment. Would you be saying that if you'd just got the sack and added to the monumentally huge unemployment scrapheap, fighting it out with 50-100 candidates for every job and having to send 100 applications to even get 5 responses? That's the reality for most out there at the moment, so that's why I won't join PH's celebration of sackings. I've been there when the st first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.
Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
I'm a contractor. I fight it out for roles all the time.t first hit the fan a few years ago and it was beyond horrid, so unlike you I don't wish it on others.Only on PH does the majority think unemployment is a good thing.
I'm not 'celebrating' any sackings. However I do realise the company/council is greater and more important than any one individual.
If a company behaved like this then before long they would go bust and everyone would be out of a job.
Which bit of 'There is no money left' do you not understand?
t happens so we'd all do well to be prepared...surely people with the least employability took advantage of the good times and put something by for a rainy day, just like the last Labour government did - fat chance - while upskilling too, in case things got tough. Or they didn't need to, never having made any bad life choices including by passing up on development opportunities, some free. And having made bad life choices any people fitting that description would never blame their position on anybody else, that's for sure, nor would they expect a daft Labour government to borrow the country into lower living standards for many years to come for just about everybody.
martin84 said:
How do people get jobs which don't exist?
Well one thing you could do is greatly reduce the level of taxation on private enterprise (which is currently, amongst other things, is used to employ said Public Sector workers). When taxes go down, the private sector is encouraged to expand and as a result will create more private sector jobs. The ex public sector non job / financial drain now has productive employment and contributes to the economy thus creating additional tax which can then be spent on things like education and healthcare.......Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 24th October 09:39
martin84 said:
How do people get jobs which don't exist?
I guess they'll just have to hang around waiting for somebody else to create jobs, in the same difficult economic conditions, then whine about the income of those that do. In the meantime they will have to tighten their belts while living off what they put aside for a rainy day, just like Labour didn't. No matter, it's all everybody else's fault, mostly those who create jobs and wealth.
Digga said:
perfect example of flawed analysis - that people who do not clear up after their own dogs would bother to do so if bags were provided for free - and a completely bungled execution. £50k of dog-poo bags - were they expecting a bout of doggy dysentery?!
Sounds about right. We already have adequate legislation on the statute books to prosecute people who's dogs foul. But it's never used and those s who do it get fined £5 a week. I would like to see mandatory £500 fines or a weeks jail for people who litter or let their dogs foul. The bbc interviewed a council representative on radio 4 yesterday. He managed to successfully convince me that the cuts were utterly justified, repeatedly ignoring questions like why should they get 20% more per person than average, as they currently do, and not managing to provide any examples of where this money was going. He just bleated pathetically about how it was all so unfair.
50,000 council employees serving an area of 1million. 
And they are surprised there is no money left?? WTF are these 50,000 employees doing exactly?
I put a call out to my local planning officer on Monday 10am……..I’m still waiting for my return call. One of two things is happening here, either they are so worked off their feet because my council ratio isn’t 1:20 of the people they serve, or they are bone idle feckers
And they are surprised there is no money left?? WTF are these 50,000 employees doing exactly?
I put a call out to my local planning officer on Monday 10am……..I’m still waiting for my return call. One of two things is happening here, either they are so worked off their feet because my council ratio isn’t 1:20 of the people they serve, or they are bone idle feckers
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff