Re: Work for Benefits, or lose them : Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:17 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

The economy needs to become less dependent on the public sector, particularly in the north.

1999-2009, something like 400,000 new public sector jobs. No doubt many of them 'non' jobs paying decent salaries.

Just out of interest, what would you deem an acceptable number?

What constitutes a job being classed as a "'non' job"?

If you think the employment figures in the public sector are too high, can you define which of the jobs are unnecessary and therefore which services to cut?

Re: Work for Benefits, or lose them : Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:58 am  

West Leeds Rhino wrote:

Just out of interest, what would you deem an acceptable number?

What constitutes a job being classed as a "'non' job"?

If you think the employment figures in the public sector are too high, can you define which of the jobs are unnecessary and therefore which services to cut?

+1

Re: Work for Benefits, or lose them : Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm  

West Leeds Rhino wrote:

Just out of interest, what would you deem an acceptable number?

The number required to run government departments and public services to an acceptable standard. By way of example, the MoD has decided it can function with 30,000 less civilian support staff then it had in early 2012. Which beckons the question as to why it ever had them in the first place?

What constitutes a job being classed as a "'non' job"?

See the jobs supplement to The Guardian on Thursdays. Aka 'Jobzilla'.

I have not looked at it since I left uni (several years ago) but it was page after page of equality and diversity officers, outreach co-coordinators, inter-faith performance managers, and other such bollox. It was rare to find these jobs paying less than £30K p/a and many of them paid much much more.

If you think the employment figures in the public sector are too high, can you define which of the jobs are unnecessary and therefore which services to cut?

I am not a civil servant but I once did some work at a very large government department. It quickly became apparent that around 25% of civil servants who worked there were completely and utterly useless to the point that their posts could easily be disestablished and the work divided up between others. Which, funnily enough, is what appears to be happening now.

It is not a case of private sector = good, public sector = bad. But it is apparent that far too many public sector workers were on cushy little numbers earning decent money in return for doing not a lot of work. It has rightly been recognised that this sort of culture has to end.

Re: Work for Benefits, or lose them : Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:57 pm  

Does it mean that? Or does it mean they are doing less with fewer employees?

If a hospital reduces staff but closes A&E does it mean those staff were employed in non-jobs? Or does it mean a reduction in the work being carried out?

You seem to assume 25% of staff fall in the non-job category, so it'll be easy to point them out wont it? So go on then.

Re: Work for Benefits, or lose them : Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:15 pm  

Him wrote:

Does it mean that? Or does it mean they are doing less with fewer employees?

If a hospital reduces staff but closes A&E does it mean those staff were employed in non-jobs? Or does it mean a reduction in the work being carried out?

This is not what I am talking about and you know it. I don't think anyone would ever try and argue that A&E was a non-job.

You seem to assume 25% of staff fall in the non-job category, so it'll be easy to point them out wont it? So go on then.

These people are not hard to spot. Generally they are overweight, have poor dress sense, facial hair (and that is just the women) and spend most of their time either in the canteen or on a cigarette break. If you do catch them sat at their desk they are probably on RL Fans bitching about how poop the tories are and how the world owes 'the poor' a living.

They have a never ending amount of sickies / doctors appointments / time off for personal reasons. Such people would have long since been binned in the private sector, but chances are they have qualified for unfair dismissal. So getting rid of them without a huge payoff or lengthily disciplinary procedure is an absolute nightmare. And if they happen to be BME, standby for a discrimination claim.

Re: Work for Benefits, or lose them : Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:13 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

This is not what I am talking about and you know it. I don't think anyone would ever try and argue that A&E was a non-job.

Yet some of the cuts in public sector jobs have led to A&E's being understaffed. As proved by Channel 4 & Sky News' latest programmes. So how many of the jobs that have been cut are "non-jobs"?

The Video Ref wrote:

These people are not hard to spot. Generally they are overweight, have poor dress sense, facial hair (and that is just the women) and spend most of their time either in the canteen or on a cigarette break. If you do catch them sat at their desk they are probably on RL Fans bitching about how poop the tories are and how the world owes 'the poor' a living.

They have a never ending amount of sickies / doctors appointments / time off for personal reasons. Such people would have long since been binned in the private sector, but chances are they have qualified for unfair dismissal. So getting rid of them without a huge payoff or lengthily disciplinary procedure is an absolute nightmare. And if they happen to be BME, standby for a discrimination claim.

Ah another one who thinks he works harder than everyone else.

Re: Work for Benefits, or lose them : Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:33 pm  

Him wrote:

Yet some of the cuts in public sector jobs have led to A&E's being understaffed. As proved by Channel 4 & Sky News' latest programmes. So how many of the jobs that have been cut are "non-jobs"?


Ah another one who thinks he works harder than everyone else.

And another one who is blinkered about public sector workers sitting at a desk, pushing pens and shuffling papers all day long, conveniently forgetting they include lollypop people, bin men, doctors, nurses, paramedics, police, dinner ladies, care workers, firemen, lifeguards, librarians, roadsweepers and the list can go on and on. Without the public sector workers the country would be a worse place to live.

Re: Work for Benefits, or lose them : Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:43 pm  

Him wrote:

Yet some of the cuts in public sector jobs have led to A&E's being understaffed. As proved by Channel 4 & Sky News' latest programmes. So how many of the jobs that have been cut are "non-jobs"?

I don't believe that for one minute.

I mean, no potential Prime Minister would EVER put his face on a 30ftx60ft billboard during his election campaign with the words "We'll cut the deficit not the NHS" in answer to his opposition critics that his party were only remembered for previously decimating the NHS - would he ?

No, no-one would be THAT daft.

Re: Work for Benefits, or lose them : Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:57 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

The number required to run government departments and public services to an acceptable standard. By way of example, the MoD has decided it can function with 30,000 less civilian support staff then it had in early 2012. Which beckons the question as to why it ever had them in the first place?

So withdrawing personnel out of Iraq and Afghanistan had no part to play in not needing as many civilian support staff?

See the jobs supplement to The Guardian on Thursdays. Aka 'Jobzilla'.

I have not looked at it since I left uni (several years ago) but it was page after page of equality and diversity officers, outreach co-coordinators, inter-faith performance managers, and other such bollox. It was rare to find these jobs paying less than £30K p/a and many of them paid much much more.

I think your lack of understanding of some of those roles is more a reflection of your prejudice than it is about public sector jobs. My sister was an outreach co-ordinator and was often the first port of call for young people that were feeling suicidal and/or unable to go home. I know she is a hard worker. Personally, I think that is a valid service offered by the council. Would you prefer to leave all these young people on the street or worse, or is it a matter for the 'big society'?

I am not a civil servant but I once did some work at a very large government department. It quickly became apparent that around 25% of civil servants who worked there were completely and utterly useless to the point that their posts could easily be disestablished and the work divided up between others. Which, funnily enough, is what appears to be happening now.

It is not a case of private sector = good, public sector = bad. But it is apparent that far too many public sector workers were on cushy little numbers earning decent money in return for doing not a lot of work. It has rightly been recognised that this sort of culture has to end.

Are you aware that local councils have already and are still making job cuts? It is not just 'non-jobs' that are being affected though. I am not a civil servant but I do work with quite a lot, mostly hard working.

If I was going to moan at public spending, it would start with the white elephants that are HS2 and the recent IT projects for the NHS and the benefits, but hey, you keep bitching on RL Fans about all those people who work for the council that get paid more than you but do less work than you, all because of those pesky poor people that dare to crawl out of the gutter.