Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?
Comments
-
andyrm wrote:We've had an awful lot of rebuttal from various quarters in this discussion, but so far not one explanation as to why the public sector is so full of unmotivated and change resistant people. Yes they are about to face a tough time, but we've had the same in the private sector for quite some time and still get on with things and actually fight to survive.
Any takers?
Because it isn't. This is a massive generalisation, like many others on this thread.simonaspinall wrote:
Reiterate my earlier point - Judge the system on it's results. That's not exactly prejudice, but a subjective interpretation. I see the results of the public sector and make a judgement on the performance.
You cannot possibly see the 'results of the public sector', only the occasional snapshot of things that affect you directly or appear in the press. Some of these things are poor and annoying and cause people (rightly) to jump up and down and complain. Others are good and successful and invariably attract not one jot of interest or positive feedback.
This thread was interesting to start with, but I've become very bored of the stereotyping and 'big ideas' for reform. We've heard it all before.
I liked the turning sharks upside down thing though...0 -
You cant fix the public sector because it doesnt exist. What actually exists are areas of the economy that are primarily or wholly publicly funded. At various points in history areas of the economy that are now within the 'private sector' were publically funded and vice versa. Some of these areas work effectively, others not so much.0
-
I'm spotting a pattern here - why is it that as soon as we question why the public sector is failing (and I count economic, resource and manpower wastage as failure), there is a whole load of defensive reaction from certain quarters, who I guess are employed within that sector.
Here's a hypothetical situation. My boss pulls me aside after noticing that a large percentage of my sales team are underperforming, revenue targets are being missed and the department is losing money. He asks me to work out what is going wrong, work out why this is and then take necessary action to put it right - whether that is in the form of culling the ineffective or resistant team members, reducing overheads or whatever else is needed.
To me (and I am sure just about any other private sector employee), that's the simple rules of business - carry no dead wood. Yet to the public sector (judging on responses here), that's an "attack". Why is it so frowned upon to ask pertinent questions about where OUR money goes, why organisational and personal mediocrity is tolerated and why there is seemingly no culture of striving for continual improvement and excellence?0 -
Just popped out for a few minutes to the post office, and while I was out had a bit of a revelation. Put all public sector workers on 12 month contracts with a renewal meeting every 12 months.There are those that need more job security than that to be motivated. And so 12month contracts would create the problem in some that you are trying to eliminate. it would solve nothing really and you would loose some skilled workers who aren't prepared to work contracts.
It's not really a good suggestion.
In your opinion.0 -
Rolf F wrote:andyrm wrote:Just popped out for a few minutes to the post office, and while I was out had a bit of a revelation. Put all public sector workers on 12 month contracts with a renewal meeting every 12 months. It would swiftly weed out the dead wood and allow the cream to rise to the top - look at the IT/technical contracting industry - only those who are any good and so confident in their ability to survive in a competitive world go into it.
That's a revelation? Destroy any job security to the extent that the entire public sector workforce would be unable and unwilling to buy a house (for example)? Rely on the management to actually make the correct decisions on who to employ?
I don't understand yours (and others) incredibly black and white viewpoint. Of course there is much wrong in the public sector. But that applies to private sector too. And much of what is wrong with the public sector is the implementation of inappropriate private sector methods (some of which have done much good and some of which have done much harm). I'm surprised that you seem entirely unaware of how much private sector practice has been brought in to the public sector - in many cases, quite a few years ago.
As for the IT industry - I have seen what they do and they are absolutely no better or worse than anyone else (but that is only in my experience).
To try to say that the public sector is bad but the private sector is bad too completely misses the point - the private sector does not rely on taking money off people by threat of imprisonment! Therefore you shouldn't give a monkeys what is done in the private sector - and it should have no bearing on the public sector - because they are really not comparable.
If the public sector wishes to be funded effectively by force it needs to account for those funds.
I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different? Because of the union power which makes sacking someone incompetent more trouble than it's worth?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Just popped out for a few minutes to the post office, and while I was out had a bit of a revelation. Put all public sector workers on 12 month contracts with a renewal meeting every 12 months.There are those that need more job security than that to be motivated. And so 12month contracts would create the problem in some that you are trying to eliminate. it would solve nothing really and you would loose some skilled workers who aren't prepared to work contracts.
It's not really a good suggestion.Just because there are different regions operating different processes it doesn't mean those processes are correct, carried out efficiently and can't be improved. It doesn't mean that there aren't comparable systems, structures, work practices, appraisal systems, union activity and employee cultures.
I never said there wasn't any room for improvement. But you really need to take each as a case by case situation. What works and are the faults in one Trust may be the complete opposite for another. Then there are some things that should simply be done by all.
To simply label the 'Public Sector' as you've done is a generalisation.A lot of the criticism here is trying to identify problems which can be fixed and asking 'why is it like that if it's not achieving results' with the problems listed in the 20-something pages previously.
No, all the criticisms here is to take one instance of one part of the Public lets say the service at a Doctor Surgery and not only accuse all Doctors Surgeries in the country of failing but the entire Public Sector which extends beyond one person in a Surgery who may have been having a bad day.
The generalisations I have made about the public sector is the generic motivational and organisational theory of work structure and employee motivation. I've also mentioned other areas of the public sector aside form a Doctor's surgery. So for the record, I do realise there are many areas of the public sector, you can't classify them all together and that there are performing/underperforming areas in each.
What I am saying is that there is a generic disconnect between the employee and the organisation in the posts I have specified previously. A lot of employees in both private and public sector cannot self-actualise and do not believe they can have the control they desire in the system and are alienated, which I believe to be the root cause of disaffection of employees,. This means tax payers don't get value and and private businesses lose margin and revenue. It's not even a public/private specific issue.
What is different is that the public sector as a complete entity is publically funded hence its scrutiny and need for accountability. It's the accountability that's not there. Yes, departments release stats but the public does not feel it can participate in change, are frustrated and so the OP posed the title of this forum.What wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!0 -
andyrm wrote:By "destroy job security", do you mean "remove the jobs for life culture regardless of performance"? In which case yes I 100% advocate this. Nobody has the right to stay in a role in which they are not committing themselves and performing. To ensure their survival, an employee should be justifying their existence at every stage. I learned that a long time ago - every single day sees me trying to achieve more than the previous in order to excel in my career and rise through the ranks in my organisation. Staying stagnant is simply not an option, either in terms of staying sane or staying employed.
And "rely on the management t make the correct decisions" - that's what they are there for!!! A manager is not just a title given in place of a gold watch for long service - it is a role that carries responsibility to get the job of management right. get it wrong repeatedly and you are an ineffective manager and should be shown the door. It's that simple.
No, I don't mean "remove the jobs for life culture regardless of performance" but I thought you'd probably assume so. There is a difference between that and having to re-apply for your job every year which not many private sector people have to do. You seem to believe that all the great words that you apply to yourself don't apply to those in the public sector by definition. I do admire your self belief but that doesn't actually mean you are any good at your job. It does mean that you are probably good at persuading others that you are though. Again, a reason why you'd do well as a public sector manager in career terms but possibly not actually add anything constructive to how the organisation actually works.
Both your faith in the implicit value of management and your extreme black and white viewpoint seems just a little naive - your opinion might change in a few years.Faster than a tent.......0 -
andyrm wrote:Rolf F wrote:That's a revelation? Destroy any job security to the extent that the entire public sector workforce would be unable and unwilling to buy a house (for example)? Rely on the management to actually make the correct decisions on who to employ?
I don't understand yours (and others) incredibly black and white viewpoint. Of course there is much wrong in the public sector. But that applies to private sector too. And much of what is wrong with the public sector is the implementation of inappropriate private sector methods (some of which have done much good and some of which have done much harm). I'm surprised that you seem entirely unaware of how much private sector practice has been brought in to the public sector - in many cases, quite a few years ago.
As for the IT industry - I have seen what they do and they are absolutely no better or worse than anyone else (but that is only in my experience).
By "destroy job security", do you mean "remove the jobs for life culture regardless of performance"? In which case yes I 100% advocate this. Nobody has the right to stay in a role in which they are not committing themselves and performing. To ensure their survival, an employee should be justifying their existence at every stage. I learned that a long time ago - every single day sees me trying to achieve more than the previous in order to excel in my career and rise through the ranks in my organisation. Staying stagnant is simply not an option, either in terms of staying sane or staying employed.
The bit in bold, I think you'll find that there are many many public sector workers who do the same and many who wanted a particular profession whose goal is not to chase a career but deliver a quality service and improve upon this each and everytime.And "rely on the management t make the correct decisions" - that's what they are there for!!!
I think that's naive. You cannot sack a manager who hires a person who underperforms or is not up for the job. You can sack for failing to manage their team effectively.
None of that guarantees that the person is a good judge of character regardless of what a CV might say.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
W1 wrote:I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different?
Because you work on a 3 month notice period, everyone else should as well? What sort of argument is that? In what way is a society where everyone could be kicked out of their jobs at 3 months notice a good one.
Fine, if you want to work under those conditions, great. Others don't and it is reasonable for them not to.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:W1 wrote:I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different?
Because you work on a 3 month notice period, everyone else should as well? What sort of argument is that? In what way is a society where everyone could be kicked out of their jobs at 3 months notice a good one.
Fine, if you want to work under those conditions, great. Others don't and it is reasonable for them not to.
You (both) seem to be confusing a contract period with a notice period - clearly different things.0 -
Monkeypump wrote:Just popped out for a few minutes to the post office, and while I was out had a bit of a revelation. Put all public sector workers on 12 month contracts with a renewal meeting every 12 months.There are those that need more job security than that to be motivated. And so 12month contracts would create the problem in some that you are trying to eliminate. it would solve nothing really and you would loose some skilled workers who aren't prepared to work contracts.
It's not really a good suggestion.
In your opinion.
Hold on let me look around...
Forum. Yes.
Lots of people discussing. Yes
People giving their thoughts and opinions. Yes.
So I guess the answer is. Yes.
:roll:Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rolf F wrote:W1 wrote:I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different?
Because you work on a 3 month notice period, everyone else should as well? What sort of argument is that? In what way is a society where everyone could be kicked out of their jobs at 3 months notice a good one.
Fine, if you want to work under those conditions, great. Others don't and it is reasonable for them not to.
3 months notice is actually good. Most non-senior jobs only have a one month notice period.
But Rolf, your point stands true.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
simonaspinall wrote:It's the accountability that's not there. Yes, departments release stats but the public does not feel it can participate in change, are frustrated and so the OP posed the title of this forum.
Actually I know that in the NHS that isn't entirely true. Foundation Trusts, membership and Governors (who are usually members of the public, patients/carers and staff) are there so that the Trust can representative of the public, gives the public more say and Governors hold the board to account.
The approve the appointment of the Chief Exec and hire the Chair (just one of their powers). Employing NEDS (if written as one of their powers) is another.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Monkeypump wrote:You (both) seem to be confusing a contract period with a notice period - clearly different things.
I assumed the OP meant contract period rather than notice period but didn't think to change the terminology. I'm only on one month notice (as per DDDs' post).Faster than a tent.......0 -
W1 wrote:
I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different? Because of the union power which makes sacking someone incompetent more trouble than it's worth?
it isn't, 90day notice of redundancy/enforced contract change is pretty standard across the working world - look at Duham police recently - every civilian staff member put on 90 day notice. it's happening already where I work my head of dept has been made redundant in a top down review, it will hapen to me or some my colleagues in January when the axe reaches my level.
our place has even used the 90 day option before to drive through unpopular changes to contracts and working hours, certain uni(s)ons rather than being the big militant beasts you fantasize about are quietly tucked in the bosses pocket not raising anything more than a token peep now and again before sitting quietly on their hands again not getting in the way.
where do you and the other private sector bigots get this nonsense that we're swanning about in solid gold ferraris f**king up all day long exempt from the consequences and enjoying magically different redundancy legislation to the private industry?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:simonaspinall wrote:It's the accountability that's not there. Yes, departments release stats but the public does not feel it can participate in change, are frustrated and so the OP posed the title of this forum.
Actually I know that in the NHS that isn't entirely true. Foundation Trusts, membership and Governors (who are usually members of the public, patients/carers and staff) are there so that the Trust can representative of the public, gives the public more say and Governors hold the board to account.
The approve the appointment of the Chief Exec and hire the Chair (just one of their powers). Employing NEDS (if written as one of their powers) is another.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a businessman with a positive track record in their - especially one who has been in a large corporation and is used to dealing with many areas, levels of management and the competing needs of employees, consumers and unions. This could already happen, but I thought i'd raise it.What wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Monkeypump wrote:Just popped out for a few minutes to the post office, and while I was out had a bit of a revelation. Put all public sector workers on 12 month contracts with a renewal meeting every 12 months.There are those that need more job security than that to be motivated. And so 12month contracts would create the problem in some that you are trying to eliminate. it would solve nothing really and you would loose some skilled workers who aren't prepared to work contracts.
It's not really a good suggestion.
In your opinion.
Hold on let me look around...
Forum. Yes.
Lots of people discussing. Yes
People giving their thoughts and opinions. Yes.
So I guess the answer is. Yes.
:roll:
Righto, I think it's a good idea. Therefore it is. Fact. Right?
Disregard the private/public sector discussion, in my industry the contractors are normally amongst the highest performers in a given role. The contractors who do not perform to certain standards are not used again. So, those contractors who get renewed contracts are delivering a better quality service.
Now, I would agree that contractors have a certain mindset, and companies use them as "disposable" assets, but in the vast majority of cases (in my experience, in my industry) the slackers are either FTEs who can coast along knowing they're safe or the contractors who don't get re-used.
If everyone was on a fixed-term contract and had to justify it being renewed, I suspect the slackers would be thinned out more effectively. And yes, I know this over-simplified, but hey, it's Friday and I want to check out the Girls in Lycra Shorts thread...0 -
simonaspinall wrote:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a businessman with a positive track record in their - especially one who has been in a large corporation and is used to dealing with many areas, levels of management and the competing needs of employees, consumers and unions. This could already happen, but I thought i'd raise it.
It does, the Chair of my previous employer is a highly successful Lawyer. The Council of Governors also have non-elected members who are usually Cllr's or proper business types.
Another Chair I know has a number of highly successful businesses and married to a person who runs a multi-million pound well known national organisation.
Trust's operate in the realms of £100milions they have proper business people and proper medical people throughout.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Rolf F wrote:W1 wrote:I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different?
Because you work on a 3 month notice period, everyone else should as well? What sort of argument is that? In what way is a society where everyone could be kicked out of their jobs at 3 months notice a good one.
Fine, if you want to work under those conditions, great. Others don't and it is reasonable for them not to.
3 months notice is actually good. Most non-senior jobs only have a one month notice period.
But Rolf, your point stands true.
3 months notice is usually to protect the company not the employee.0 -
andyrm wrote:Why is it so frowned upon to ask pertinent questions about where OUR money goes, why organisational and personal mediocrity is tolerated and why there is seemingly no culture of striving for continual improvement and excellence?
Because according to DDD it's none of our business.0 -
Rolf F wrote:W1 wrote:I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different?
Because you work on a 3 month notice period, everyone else should as well? What sort of argument is that? In what way is a society where everyone could be kicked out of their jobs at 3 months notice a good one.
Fine, if you want to work under those conditions, great. Others don't and it is reasonable for them not to.
Don't be a fool - I'm not advocating that. All I'm saying is don't get your knickers in a twist about 12 month contracts which - if you're doing your job properly and efficiently - will be renewed.
You raised the issue of job security and bleated about that being unfair - I'm just pointing out that it rarely exists anywhere. Being asked to be on a 12 month contract actually gives more job securtiy than being subject to 3 months notice!
"Jobs for life" is not a driver of efficiency.0 -
W1 wrote:andyrm wrote:Why is it so frowned upon to ask pertinent questions about where OUR money goes, why organisational and personal mediocrity is tolerated and why there is seemingly no culture of striving for continual improvement and excellence?
Because according to DDD it's none of our business.
And The Word According to DDD shall not be questioned.
Oh, and questions put to DDD shall not be answered.0 -
Monkeypump wrote:Righto, I think it's a good idea. Therefore it is. Fact. Right?
Only as much as anyone elses opinion. Why should mine be any less?
And to be fair I didn't say that it was a good idea what I said was that for some doing contract work and having a distinct lack of job secruity won't motivate them in fact it will demotivate. Basic GCSE business studies (theories on staff motivation) will teach you that job security is very much a motivator so it takes a certain type of person to do contract work.
Contractors aren't always the best person for the job. When you have (I'm going to use the NHS) staff working with vulnerable people who need to build a rapport with the (lets say) community care worker or psychologist, knowing that person is only going to be there for 12 months may hinder their treatment.
So i think I'll stand by what I've said.
It's not really a good suggestion.
But this is my opinion, you are entitled to yours.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
shouldbeinbed wrote:W1 wrote:
I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different? Because of the union power which makes sacking someone incompetent more trouble than it's worth?
it isn't, 90day notice of redundancy/enforced contract change is pretty standard across the working world - look at Duham police recently - every civilian staff member put on 90 day notice. it's happening already where I work my head of dept has been made redundant in a top down review, it will hapen to me or some my colleagues in January when the axe reaches my level.
our place has even used the 90 day option before to drive through unpopular changes to contracts and working hours, certain uni(s)ons rather than being the big militant beasts you fantasize about are quietly tucked in the bosses pocket not raising anything more than a token peep now and again before sitting quietly on their hands again not getting in the way.
where do you and the other private sector bigots get this nonsense that we're swanning about in solid gold ferraris f**king up all day long exempt from the consequences and enjoying magically different redundancy legislation to the private industry?
I was attending to the objection regarding 12 month contracts on the basis of job security by simply outlining that it's actually not that much of a problem - and is a good way to get rid of dead wood.
I think it was gold plated pensions rather than solid gold ferraris (which would be fairly crap, to be honest).0 -
So the end conclusion...as it's Friday and we have to leave this on a note of some sort of agreement, especially as this has been a good thread.
The reason the public sector is viewed by a certain part of society is that they believe the public sector (whatever it actually is) is perceived as not providing value and that the members within it are perceived to have favourable job and pay conditions above and beyond what the tax payer expects based on their own conditions and expeience either within or outside the public sector.
Agree?
Now...next thread "Why do people hate the private sec......"What wheels...? Wheelsmith.co.uk!0 -
amnezia wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Rolf F wrote:W1 wrote:I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different?
Because you work on a 3 month notice period, everyone else should as well? What sort of argument is that? In what way is a society where everyone could be kicked out of their jobs at 3 months notice a good one.
Fine, if you want to work under those conditions, great. Others don't and it is reasonable for them not to.
3 months notice is actually good. Most non-senior jobs only have a one month notice period.
But Rolf, your point stands true.
3 months notice is usually to protect the company not the employee.
Yep, usually why they are rolled out to senior staff or roles, which unfilled will seriously effect continuity of business.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
andyrm wrote:
And maybe therein lies the problem - data is collected, bad practices and useless people spotted, but nothing is ever done about it and so the cycle continues. I've seen first hand crazy situations like my mrs (who is a teacher and a much lauded one at that) talking about useless teachers at work who've been there for years. I always wonder why the hell they are still there? Why has nobody sacked them if they are no good at the job which they are paid to do?
Just popped out for a few minutes to the post office, and while I was out had a bit of a revelation. Put all public sector workers on 12 month contracts with a renewal meeting every 12 months. It would swiftly weed out the dead wood and allow the cream to rise to the top - look at the IT/technical contracting industry - only those who are any good and so confident in their ability to survive in a competitive world go into it.
I work in a first hand situation where the incompetent do get addressed and are shipped out if they cannot be brought up to scratch, your sweeping generalisations and 1 example means we're all like that is feeble at best and makes for a very weak argument all round.
so all of the private sector work to a 12 month contract with no guarantee of renewal do they? not when I was in it, none of my private sector family or friends work to than regimen, I don't know anyone on a fixed term contract unless they are employed to a temping job, does this happen to you and your colleagues? If so maybe it says more about deficiecies in you or your chosen industry rather than it being good business practice
how do you reconcile that with people that are training long term for careers that require multi-year apprenticeships to develop the skills and confidence to survive in that competitive world, doctors, scientific specialists, etc.
unfortunately the IT/technical contracting industry is not the be all and end all of the universe, there are other skills and work needed in the world and some of it needs to be handled differently to the arrogant but easily replaceable drone mentality that you seem to think is acceptable in employment.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:simonaspinall wrote:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to include a businessman with a positive track record in their - especially one who has been in a large corporation and is used to dealing with many areas, levels of management and the competing needs of employees, consumers and unions. This could already happen, but I thought i'd raise it.
It does, the Chair of my previous employer is a highly successful Lawyer. The Council of Governors also have non-elected members who are usually Cllr's or proper business types.
Another Chair I know has a number of highly successful businesses and married to a person who runs a multi-million pound well known national organisation.
Trust's operate in the realms of £100milions they have proper business people and proper medical people throughout.
Without wanting to appear argumentative, I wouldn't count a lawyer as a businessman. I would suggest more like a semi-retired CEO/MD who has had experience in the harsh cut and thrust of corporate life would be a far better option. Someone who has hired and fired, forced through change and driven growth within their organisation.
I was very interested to see (can't remember who posted it) the response to my comment that responsibility for bad decisions has to lie with managers and that if they continue making bad decisions, they should be sacked. If a manager is repeatedly hiring useless people, his hiring process needs to be looked at and whatever necessary action taken to prevent further waste of funds. If that means sacking a manager who fails in their duties (one of those duties being hiring & firing staff), so be it. There shouldn't be a culture of tolerance for incompetence.0 -
Monkeypump wrote:W1 wrote:andyrm wrote:Why is it so frowned upon to ask pertinent questions about where OUR money goes, why organisational and personal mediocrity is tolerated and why there is seemingly no culture of striving for continual improvement and excellence?
Because according to DDD it's none of our business.
And The Word According to DDD shall not be questioned.
Oh, and questions put to DDD shall not be answered.
Indeed. Careful, you'll be blacklisted next having been told to wind your neck in.
You don't want to go there.0 -
W1 wrote:Rolf F wrote:W1 wrote:I work on a three month notice period - what sort of job securtiy do I have? Why should the public sector be any different?
Because you work on a 3 month notice period, everyone else should as well? What sort of argument is that? In what way is a society where everyone could be kicked out of their jobs at 3 months notice a good one.
Fine, if you want to work under those conditions, great. Others don't and it is reasonable for them not to.
Don't be a fool - I'm not advocating that. All I'm saying is don't get your knickers in a twist about 12 month contracts which - if you're doing your job properly and efficiently - will be renewed.
You raised the issue of job security and bleated about that being unfair - I'm just pointing out that it rarely exists anywhere. Being asked to be on a 12 month contract actually gives more job securtiy than being subject to 3 months notice!
"Jobs for life" is not a driver of efficiency.
3 months notice is usually good and given out to staff in roles too crucial to the organisation to go unfilled.
A PA will be on one months notice a senior manager will be on three. Given that most NHS staff are on one months notice as is most if not all non-management staff of any organisation, the point you are trying to make is seriously moot.
With 3 months notice as oppose to one, you have infact quite good job security. You have three months to find another job, where as most have one.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0
