8,500 on the line

[truman]

If you read the Yorkshire Post story the unions are expecting over 1,000 job losses over the next four years.

 

 

Isn't this a small enough number to be covered by "natural wastage" rather than compulsory redundancies?

[Saffy]

sheffield council could afford job losses, its top heavy with staff who do nothing and include scriven in that

 

I know someone working on Derbyshire County Council who regularly posted status updates saying "Getting paid £13.75 an hour for sitting in my van playing on facebook" so yes, they are definitely due some cuts!

[Paul2412]

they should sack everyone earning over £30,000 and start over

 

Why? I'm sure they do more of an important job than those on the minimum wage.

[Paul2412]

Indeed - but they can't chose when they take them and 'the system' is so arranged that school teachers are on holiday for every public holiday - so you can deduct 2 weeks.

 

During the 39 weeks that they aren't on holiday they tend to work about 60 hours a week, so in an average year, they work 2340 hours. - The equivalent of 62.4 37½ hour weeks.

 

How many weeks a year do you work Defoe? (Don't forget to deduct all the bank holidays you get in addition to your annual holiday.)

 

How many hours per week do you work? What's your total work year in hours?

 

If you work 37½ hours a week and you have a total of 5 weeks a year off (including public holidays) then you work for 1762½ hours per year. 577½ hours (or 15.4 weeks) less than a teacher.

 

Not wishing to say you are incorrect, but which teachers work for 60 hours a week?

 

I spent 25 years living next door to a teacher, and she was ALWAYS home before I got home from work and spent most of her time either watching the TV far too loud or outside in the garden.

 

She left after I left, and arrived back before I got back. It hardly seems like the same cruel working practices you make out.

[rubydazzler]

Tell me,where did you study philosophy?

or even punctuation ...

 

I'd just comment that the Leader of the Council is not the employer of the council workers. That would be the Chief Executive, afaik. I'm sure that no-one is happy with the prospect of having to cut services and staff to the bone like this. Although if it proves necessary in the end, most of it should be able to be covered by natural wastage.

 

Put the blame where it really lies, with the last Labour Government and Mr Prudence Brown.

[Longcol]

Isn't this a small enough number to be covered by "natural wastage" rather than compulsory redundancies?

 

I assume that will be part of the negotiations with the unions.

 

Thing is there isn't the money about these days to pay for a lot of early retirements like used to happen.

[truman]

I assume that will be part of the negotiations with the unions.

 

Thing is there isn't the money about these days to pay for a lot of early retirements like used to happen.

 

1,000 over 4 years is approx 5 per week surely there's more than 5 people per week taking ordinary retirement or just leaving for another job?

[Longcol]

Not wishing to say you are incorrect, but which teachers work for 60 hours a week?

 

I spent 25 years living next door to a teacher, and she was ALWAYS home before I got home from work and spent most of her time either watching the TV far too loud or outside in the garden.

 

She left after I left, and arrived back before I got back. It hardly seems like the same cruel working practices you make out.

 

Secondary school teachers certainly tend to do a lot of marking, lesson preparation, doing reports etc outside "normal hours".

 

Perhaps your neighbour worked in a primary school?

[Longcol]

1,000 over 4 years is approx 5 per week surely there's more than 5 people per week taking ordinary retirement or just leaving for another job?

 

No idea - I'm sure the unions will be well capable of putting that case forward.

[shanes teeth]

or even punctuation ...

 

I'd just comment that the Leader of the Council is not the employer of the council workers. That would be the Chief Executive, afaik. I'm sure that no-one is happy with the prospect of having to cut services and staff to the bone like this. Although if it proves necessary in the end, most of it should be able to be covered by natural wastage.

 

Put the blame where it really lies, with the last Labour Government and Mr Prudence Brown.

 

No,but the councilors are the ones who got voted in on a promise of no council tax increases,seemingly giving little thought as to how services would be maintained.It is the executives who have to square that circle. If we want services,then we have to pay for them. I'm sure that there are areas where some savings could be made and many people will have their own "pet hates" but if we want a nice,clean,safe,well serviced city to live in,then we all have to pay for it.