emma royd Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Agreed, but not just efficiency. The previous government started to put fingers in pies that the government should have no business putting their fingers in, not to mention the number of quangos that popped up. http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=91285 Local government staff productivity lags far behind the private sector, indicating the potential for sizable cost savings without the need to axe services, consultants are poised to report. A forthcoming study by management consultants Knox D’Arcy – leaked to the Conservative Home website and based on daily ‘shadowing’ of senior staff within local government and private sector bodies - suggests the level of ‘active’ staff management by senior council officials is low, averaging just 3%. As a consequence, the consultants claim that over two-thirds (68%) of the working day of junior staff in local government is ‘lost’, often through poor supervision. Classic examples of ‘lost’ productivity included time staff spent chatting socially, time spent awaiting instructions from managers and time lost to late arrivals at work. Councils’ 32% effective utilisation rate contrasts with 44% in the private sphere. The consultants claim increasing local government productivity to private sector levels could allow a typical county council employing 30,000 people to cut their staff by 8,000 and still achieve similar outcomes. Extrapolated across the UK, the report infers local government could achieve its current outcomes with almost half a million fewer staff if it increased productivity to private sector levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=91285 Local government staff productivity lags far behind the private sector, indicating the potential for sizable cost savings without the need to axe services, consultants are poised to report. HMRC has spent £120million on a consultant driven idea called PaceSetter. The Result? Countless hours spent playing with sticklebricks and an 11 page glossary of Japanese and German words. Kaizen Blitz my a*se, as Jim Royle would say. Cutting consultants sounds a good place to begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=91285 Local government staff productivity lags far behind the private sector, indicating the potential for sizable cost savings without the need to axe services, consultants are poised to report. A forthcoming study by management consultants Knox D’Arcy – leaked to the Conservative Home website and based on daily ‘shadowing’ of senior staff within local government and private sector bodies - suggests the level of ‘active’ staff management by senior council officials is low, averaging just 3%. As a consequence, the consultants claim that over two-thirds (68%) of the working day of junior staff in local government is ‘lost’, often through poor supervision. Classic examples of ‘lost’ productivity included time staff spent chatting socially, time spent awaiting instructions from managers and time lost to late arrivals at work. Councils’ 32% effective utilisation rate contrasts with 44% in the private sphere. The consultants claim increasing local government productivity to private sector levels could allow a typical county council employing 30,000 people to cut their staff by 8,000 and still achieve similar outcomes. Extrapolated across the UK, the report infers local government could achieve its current outcomes with almost half a million fewer staff if it increased productivity to private sector levels. Odd it should be leaked to ConservativeHome don't you think? Makes you wonder whether the report might be politically motivated, perhaps? http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2010/08/public-sector-productivity-no-pride.html How much credence should one put in a report by a Management Consultancy Company after interviewing just 36 people? A company that has a vested interest in saying managers are bad at their jobs since.... that is where they make their money. I suppose I might think it of some interest, but I certainly wouldn't entrust sufficient faith in it to justify the level of cuts being planned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Public sector cuts - NOT ACCEPTABLE. No ifs, no buts, they are just plain wrong. Aimed at hurting those who have the least the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Ironically, a percentage of all these moaning back office public sector featherbedded golden pension layabouts are already private sector workers. Companies like Serco, Capita and Compass have enormous contracts to provide services to the public sector. Does anyone have any numbers for the proportion of UK public services already supplied by the private sector? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emma royd Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Odd it should be leaked to ConservativeHome don't you think? Makes you wonder whether the report might be politically motivated, perhaps? http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2010/08/public-sector-productivity-no-pride.html How much credence should one put in a report by a Management Consultancy Company after interviewing just 36 people? A company that has a vested interest in saying managers are bad at their jobs since.... that is where they make their money. I suppose I might think it of some interest, but I certainly wouldn't entrust sufficient faith in it to justify the level of cuts being planned. It seems it was leaked to the BBC as well. It seems they've heard of Knox D'Arcy, who they say carried out 1,855 workers' surveys. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11034769 How much credence should one put in a report like the one from Unisonactive, when they have a vested interest in rubbishing a report that is pointing out how little their membership does and how many of them are not actually needed. Makes you wonder whether the unison blog might be politically motivated, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I think that the problem can be summed up quite easily. EFFICIENCY Over the 13 years of the last government private secor productivity inceased by around 25%. Over the same period the public sector took on almost 1 million extra people and its productivity reduced by around 5%. There is the nub of the problem. Too many folk doing not enough work in the public sector. The public sector needs to adopt similar work practices and efficiencies that the private sector took on board a decade ago. In that way they could probably shed a million jobs without anyone noticing the difference. Where have you got you figures from, have just made them up like I suspect you have? The fact remains, that vital publics services are better off in the public sector - The employees work for less in the private sector, provide cheaper services and are more timely and efficient. The private sector cannot p*ss into a pot in competition with the public sector. If you wanted your passport renewed would you prefer to pay around £90 and have it returned in a few weeks at most, or pay £500 and have it in a couple of months? Just look at the processing of Housing Benefit claims for an example. Oh and BTW, you never told me the name of nature of your business when asked, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Where have you got you figures from, have just made them up like I suspect you have? A leaf out of your book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 One siignificant problem at the moment is coupled with swingeing cuts is the firesale of public serice assets. The probation service, prison service and fire service are all facing the unwelcome (and inexpert) hand of privatisation interfering with them at the behest of a government who are constitutionally biased toward asset stripping the nation's services. What make these practices even more unsavoury is that the government are cherry picking based upon risk, ie ensuring the private sector bear the minimum risk and the public sector are lumbered with the high risk scenarios. I personally feel that a public service should be just that if it provides protection to the general public. I see no reason why essential public services should be cut or privatised to pay for the bunterish escapades of incompetant, chinless halfwits. What pays for the public sector! Surely any economy requires a larger private sector than public sector otherwise the maths will never add up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 What pays for the public sector! Surely any economy requires a larger private sector than public sector otherwise the maths will never add up! Everyone who pays taxes. The public sector is there to provide vital services that people need to live effectively and make life esier - hint: civil. It is not there to make profit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.