Public Sector

[Futuo]

The private sector has had its recession so when is the Public Sector having theirs?

So many non jobs advertised in papers like the Guardian, diversity this, equality this blah blah.

Chap on Question Time last week was talking about the billions wasted on quangos and non jobs.

High time they were given their P45s

[Bri957]

Have you thought about applying?

[Futuo]

I'm not politically correct enough, I'm not even brown or a lesbian so wouldn't stand much chance of a cushy job / pension for life.

Besides if we all applied who'd pay all that income tax to keep the non jobs in lentils and 2CVs?

[Tangent Police]

There are actually a lot less "jobs" at the moment, both temp/permanent in the PS.

There is a totally and utterly bonkers ratio of applicants to positions as well.

I have a fair load of experience in teaching and I can say 100% that there are one hell of a lot of people "Turning their talents" and "Using their heads" to bust their arse getting qualified to stand in a very very long queue with a lot of recently unemployed hyper-quality staff. I heard this was the case in medicine a while ago and I imagine it's the case with virtually every other "doable" sub-sector.

Anecdote: There was a job came up in a local primary school the other day. 192 applicants. Heard something similar from a cousin who is a Welsh cop....

Hopefully the public sector cuts aren't that harsh, as there will be less people in competition with me

[Futuo]

Do we need jobs like these?

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/950409/programme-ma...

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/960723/director-of-...

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/957378/cultural-reg...

How many new non jobs have Labour created, just vote buying as turkeys don't vote for crimbo do they?

Whole departments need to go, the country is skint so can't afford these wasteful types any more. Well never could really.

[Guybrush]

Tangent Police said:

There is a totally and utterly bonkers ratio of applicants to positions as well.

The economy's in the crap, what better place to work than such a cushy environment, paid for by the unprotected private sector? It's helping to wreck the country, but of course Labour knows this...

[DSM2]

Futuo said:

Do we need jobs like these?

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/950409/programme-ma...

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/960723/director-of-...

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/957378/cultural-reg...

How many new non jobs have Labour created, just vote buying as turkeys don't vote for crimbo do they?

Whole departments need to go, the country is skint so can't afford these wasteful types any more. Well never could really.

Arguably better than the recently advertised position for a 'Street Naming Officer' to work with the Street Naming Team.

I kid you not.

[playerone]

My wife is a consultant at a local authority and they are getting rid of a fair number of staff and having budgets cut heavily.

Im sure these jobs are being replaced by some quango or irrelevant call centre in Newcastle.

[loafer123]

I discussed the cuts with a reasonably senior civil servant over Christmas.

His, fairly high priority, department was due to have 7% cuts this year and next.

I asked him how much would come from natural wastage (resignations/retirements) and he said 2-3%, so that's a decent amount more to be done...

[ewenm]

Of course once they've received their P45s they will need to look for other jobs, or go onto benefits. Given the job market isn't great at the moment and those sacked from the public sector won't be the best staff, a lot will end up on benefits - is that better? Yes, it might cost the taxpayer less, but is it better for society? I don't know.

[Randy Winkman]

Presumably, with more public sector people on the dole, private sector employers can reduce wages.

[Deva Link]

Smashing. We'll all end up on minimum wage. Don't rejoice too soon if you're a business owner - no-one will have any money to spend.

[Hub]

I work for a local authority - there are major budget difficulties (well, it has been bad in the last couple of years but worse now a requirement for about 10% cuts year on year has been set), job cuts, pay cuts, recruitment freeze, lack of resources, little or no training budget etc, with consequent low staff morale due to all these. The recession is just starting, and will probably last... well, forever!

[strudel]

You could sack half the people at my place and you'd get twice as much done as there wouldn't be so much fking mindless bureaucracy. The public sector is feeling the squeeze from what I can see.

[hidetheelephants]

ewenm said:

Of course once they've received their P45s they will need to look for other jobs, or go onto benefits. Given the job market isn't great at the moment and those sacked from the public sector won't be the best staff, a lot will end up on benefits - is that better? Yes, it might cost the taxpayer less, but is it better for society? I don't know.

They'll be getting redundancy, not the sack. The folk who opt for the redundancy payoff tend to be the go-getters, the people you want to keep; the dunderhead quotient rises and efficiency sinks like a lead-lined diving bell.

strudel said:

You could sack half the people at my place and you'd get twice as much done as there wouldn't be so much fking mindless bureaucracy. The public sector is feeling the squeeze from what I can see.

If only it worked like that...

[Deva Link]

loafer123 said:

I discussed the cuts with a reasonably senior civil servant over Christmas.

His, fairly high priority, department was due to have 7% cuts this year and next.

I asked him how much would come from natural wastage (resignations/retirements) and he said 2-3%, so that's a decent amount more to be done...

Maybe there's something unique about his department, but 2-3% is an impossibly low number. With a large workforce spread evenly over ages 20-60 there would be 2.5% retiring every year even if they worked to 60.

My wife works in a department that, due to current economic situation, is insanely busy and they've got to lose 10%. They let all the non-permanent staff go straight away (many jobs at all levels in the civil service are on fixed term or temporary contracts) and they've identified enough other staff who were going to leave anyway over the next 6mths.

[Futuo]

ewenm said:

Of course once they've received their P45s they will need to look for other jobs, or go onto benefits. Given the job market isn't great at the moment and those sacked from the public sector won't be the best staff, a lot will end up on benefits - is that better? Yes, it might cost the taxpayer less, but is it better for society? I don't know.

Paying someone 60k to do some politically correct non job is a lot worse than paying them what they are really worth i.e. Income Support.

If things are that bad then why are these jobs still being advertised, a recruitment freeze should mean no more new jobs.

hidetheelephants said:

If only it worked like that...

They have at least two folk to do one persons work to cover for sickies, so you could sack a huge number and the tax payers wouldn't notice a blind bit of difference.

[Guybrush]

Futuo said:

ewenm said:

Of course once they've received their P45s they will need to look for other jobs, or go onto benefits. Given the job market isn't great at the moment and those sacked from the public sector won't be the best staff, a lot will end up on benefits - is that better? Yes, it might cost the taxpayer less, but is it better for society? I don't know.

Paying someone 60k to do some politically correct non job is a lot worse than paying them what they are really worth i.e. Income Support.

If things are that bad then why are these jobs still being advertised, a recruitment freeze should mean no more new jobs.

hidetheelephants said:

If only it worked like that...

They have at least two folk to do one persons work to cover for sickies, so you could sack a huge number and the tax payers wouldn't notice a blind bit of difference.

Yes, some public sector employees may say they're busy, but are they busy doing anything useful? The country was in a far better financial state in 1997 when there were almost a million less of them, so we got by somehow.

[RichardD]

Guybrush said:

...Yes, some public sector employees may say they're busy, but are they busy doing anything useful? The country was in a far better financial state in 1997 when there were almost a million less of them, so we got by somehow.

Co-incidentally when there were a million less PS employees in 1997, were there a million more in manufacturing?

[Bing o]

The problem as I see it is duplicitous in it's nature. We need to cut the public sector massively. We also need to raise taxes to pay off the deficit.

The UK will become increasingly less attractive to investors and businesses, meaning less tax revenue and higher unemployment.

I can only see this ending very badly, possibly far worse than the Seventies.