More job cuts Sheffield Council 2013/2014

[Funky_Gibbon]

you labour boys ballsed it up simply so it wasnt labour overspending then?

 

In every year of the Thatcher government and every year of the Major government with the exception of 88-91 and 96/97 (where public spending had fallen partly due to mass privatisation of industries in the years previous) the proportion of GDP spent on public spending was HIGHER than any following year under Labour right up to the point where Labour were forced to bail out the private banks.

 

Public spending did not cause this mess. Dodgy (and indeed criminal) global banking practices, insane private debt through the housing bubble and an increasing deficit betweem what should have be paid in tax and what was paid in tax were the real culprits. The Tories just blamed public spending because their ideology is that private is good and public is bad and they saw an opportunity to privatise large parts of the State.

 

This situation had been building for decades as more and more of the Glass–Steagall Act was repealed by the right-wing governments of the 80s and 90s. Labour's actual failure was that they didn't do anything to stop it.

[strangerthe6]

Millions of people have lost their jobs. In the Council's case it is good news. The organistation needs a massive cull. its being long overdue for years.

 

Im sure those 600 people will get a payout like anyone else made redundant and they will have to search for another one. Just like everyone else.

 

Just because you are a civil servant does not mean the world OWES you a living. We are all accountable and nothing lasts forever. When money is tight cuts have to be made no matter what business you are in.

 

The Council have had an easy ride for too long. SOME people became so deluded that they were indispensible to the organisation. Well, wake up time.

 

The money is running dry (allegedly) and the Council needs better management and more streamlining. Now is the time.

 

There won't be 600 people lose their jobs, there'll be about 30 compulsory all lower paid. There'll be a number of senior managers take early retirement, get their pension and pay off and then be re employed by the Council on a lower "temporary" job. Most of the 600 "jobs" will be vacancies that haven't been filled for years. We hear the same old stories every year.

[Shef_Fitness]

I wouldn't imagine too many directors or consultants will be losing their jobs.

 

Sadly it will be the people who don't deserve to lose their jobs that will be punished, the admin staff, dinner ladys etc.....

 

Until the people are at the top suffer the pain, then nothing will improve. They can carry on as they please because they know they are untouchable.

 

Hard for them to understand the anger thats felt by those at the bottom, but to be fair, when your on over £100k per annum, living in leafy parts of Sheffield, enjoying the trappings of a well paid lifestyle then why would they change?

[Planner1]

I wouldn't imagine too many directors or consultants will be losing their jobs.

 

Sadly it will be the people who don't deserve to lose their jobs that will be punished, the admin staff, dinner ladys etc.....

 

Until the people are at the top suffer the pain, then nothing will improve. They can carry on as they please because they know they are untouchable.

 

Hard for them to understand the anger thats felt by those at the bottom, but to be fair, when your on over £100k per annum, living in leafy parts of Sheffield, enjoying the trappings of a well paid lifestyle then why would they change?

Senior managers are very dedicated and work extremely hard. They don't deserve to lose their jobs either.

 

There are several people at director level losing their jobs as services are merged as part of the cuts.

 

The role of "Consultants" is much misunderstood. Many people who are brought in by the Council to cover peaks in workload or to do a specific job which the Council can't resource are classed as "consultants". In my field these are generally engineers or planners. The increasing use of such people is a factor of the lower number of staff the Council actually employs.

[Tony]

Indeed, more consultants is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[kdicko]

No.

 

You do have to wonder why each ward needs 3 Councillors though, wouldn't just 1 be an easy change to make?

 

66% saving in direct costs, and only 1 election to pay for every 4 years instead of 3.

 

Just a thought.

 

it would be,but then i suppose they would start bleating!

[Penistone999]

Indeed, more consultants is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

Not if the consultants Fee is higher than the salary of a permanent member of staff who would do the same job.

[Tony]

Not at all. You're forgetting that the consultant comes and goes according to demand, and that their fee includes everything from PAYE to accountancy to annual holiday, in other words all the additional costs of employing somebody. Plus if they are no good you can use somebody else next time.

 

I'm guessing that you don't keep a decorator on your payroll all year just so you can decorate in the summer?

[Penistone999]

Not at all. You're forgetting that the consultant comes and goes according to demand, and that their fee includes everything from PAYE to accountancy to annual holiday, in other words all the additional costs of employing somebody. Plus if they are no good you can use somebody else next time.

 

I'm guessing that you don't keep a decorator on your payroll all year just so you can decorate in the summer?

 

My properties are student lets, so i could probably do with decorators on my payroll all year round. :hihi:

[ormester101]

In every year of the Thatcher government and every year of the Major government with the exception of 88-91 and 96/97 (where public spending had fallen partly due to mass privatisation of industries in the years previous) the proportion of GDP spent on public spending was HIGHER than any following year under Labour right up to the point where Labour were forced to bail out the private banks.

 

Public spending did not cause this mess. Dodgy (and indeed criminal) global banking practices, insane private debt through the housing bubble and an increasing deficit betweem what should have be paid in tax and what was paid in tax were the real culprits. The Tories just blamed public spending because their ideology is that private is good and public is bad and they saw an opportunity to privatise large parts of the State.

 

This situation had been building for decades as more and more of the Glass–Steagall Act was repealed by the right-wing governments of the 80s and 90s. Labour's actual failure was that they didn't do anything to stop it.

 

 

labours failure they wasted millions