490,000 public sector jobs expected to go by cuts by 2015

rick_chasey

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

cee

So currently around 6 million public sector jobs.....

National Statistics Online wrote:

Public sector employment decreased by 22,000 (seasonally adjusted) in the second quarter of 2010 to 6.051 million.

490000 is a little more than 8% reduction in number of workers.

That doesn't sound as bad as the big headline 'nearly half a million jobs to be cut....'

rick_chasey

8% Is a lot!

squired

Unfortunately it has to be done. Why gloat at Tory voters? Would that be similar to Tory voters pointing out that had Labour saved some money for a rainy day things wouldn't be this bad?

I just checked the figures for my company (private sector) and headcount was reduced about 20% as a result of the economic crisis. This is a privately owned profit-making business. I think 8% is getting off lightly.

Pross

Rick, out of interest what would you have the government do to deal with the deficit? It's easy to criticise any form of government cuts but what else are they supposed to do? In an ideal world no-one would lose their jobs but the same would apply in the private sector. I've seen companies closing entire offices in the architectural and civils consulting sectors over the past 2 years. If the money isn't there something has to give and you can't really place all the blame on a Tory government that inherited a complete mess.

rick_chasey

squired wrote:

Unfortunately it has to be done. Why gloat at Tory voters? Would that be similar to Tory voters pointing out that had Labour saved some money for a rainy day things wouldn't be this bad?

I just checked the figures for my company (private sector) and headcount was reduced about 20% as a result of the economic crisis. This is a privately owned profit-making business. I think 8% is getting off lightly.

A small private firm is a little different to the public sector.

For a start, it's a business, not a sector.

The firm I work for has been hiring this year (including me, natch). That's not the point.

Half a million people looking for jobs elsewhere in the private sector is an awful lot of people. That's half a million people buying less stuff etc. It will depress wages across the board, cause the usual problems unemployment causes etc.

I personally can't see the private sector picking up that extra 8% employment, on top of existing unemployment slack any time soon.

As a side note: What's with the "getting off lightly" ? Getting off what? Don't wish ill on people!

Ben6899

Can we talk about something else, please?

No, I'm just being melodramatic. Carry on...

Pross

I suppose they could always offer to keep everyone on but cut the pay of all employees by 8% (in actual terms not real terms) and see if they are prepared to 'share the pain' as many in the private sector 'chose' to do to avoid redundancies. Or even just reduce the overall wage bill by 8% with larger cuts at the top. However, I suspect the Unions will continue to bury their heads in the sand and oppose any cuts to pay whilst at the same time protesting against job cuts.

cee

i guess as well...the devil will be in the detail....

i assume that some parts of the 'public sector' will suffer a higher percentage headcount loss than others.....

Other things to take into account will be...the number of natural leavers not being replaced...retirees and people moving to the private sector on their own...etc...

to me...8% reduction in headcount over 4-5 years doesn't sound as bad........

bartimaeus

And of course 0.5m out of work people are 'a cost' to the taxpayer until the private sector finds them jobs... so these cuts may not actually save much money if there is no work for these people to do. I just hope this is not a re-run of the 30s.

TMR

The Public Sector was simply allowed to grow too big under Labour, this does need to be dealt with. Of course this is going to be tragic for those losing their jobs, there is no escaping that.

However, the level of stupidity amongst the electorate is astonishing. The media scream that it's all the fault of the Banking Sector and Mr & Mrs Benefit believe them. Once people understand that recession and expansion are fundamental and necessary aspects of Capitalism, then hopefully the uninformed furore will die away.

It would be nice if people understood the difference between the deficit and the National Debt as well...

P.S. I am speaking generally BTW. The above comments aren't directed at anyone in this forum.

OffTheBackAdam

The answer is, they aren't prepared to share the pain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8071656/Spending-Review-2010-Public-sector-shun-alternatives-to-cuts.html
Since a lot of them are nowt but paper-shufflers & meetings organisors, they'll be virtually unemployable in the real world!
However, since it's they who decide who'd getting the chop, it'll be the useful ones out of the doors first!

TMR

Bartimaeus wrote:

And of course 0.5m out of work people are 'a cost' to the taxpayer until the private sector finds them jobs... so these cuts may not actually save much money if there is no work for these people to do. I just hope this is not a re-run of the 30s.

It's much less of a cost to pay them benefits than it is to pay their salaries. Personally, I favour the South African model of Social Security. If you don't work, you don't eat.

squired

Bartimaeus wrote:

And of course 0.5m out of work people are 'a cost' to the taxpayer until the private sector finds them jobs... so these cuts may not actually save much money if there is no work for these people to do. I just hope this is not a re-run of the 30s.

Are they a "cost" to the taxpayer though relatively speaking (I'm not sure of the answer myself)? They are a cost to the taxpayer in a job, of which a percentage goes back to the taxpayer. However, it would be interesting to be able to do the calculations and find out how much better/worse off the government would be if those people didn't work for maybe on year. My initial feeling is the the Government would still be better off if those people didn't work.

Rick Chasey - it doesn't matter if it is a business or a sector - the departments in the public sector should be run like a business. In my case, the company I work for employed almost 5,000 people, so the cuts made were quite big. We've been working ridiculous hours since to cover the understaffing that resulted (and no, we don't get overtime). As for my getting off lightly comment, I'm not wishing ill on anyone. It is just a statement of fact that relatively speaking the public sector is getting off lightly compared to what much of the private sector has experienced.

Stu T

and meanwhile bosses in both sectors share sweet FA of the pain

rick_chasey

squired wrote:

Bartimaeus wrote:

And of course 0.5m out of work people are 'a cost' to the taxpayer until the private sector finds them jobs... so these cuts may not actually save much money if there is no work for these people to do. I just hope this is not a re-run of the 30s.

Rick Chasey - it doesn't matter if it is a business or a sector - the departments in the public sector should be run like a business. In my case, the company I work for employed almost 5,000 people, so the cuts made were quite big. We've been working ridiculous hours since to cover the understaffing that resulted (and no, we don't get overtime). As for my getting off lightly comment, I'm not wishing ill on anyone. It is just a statement of fact that relatively speaking the public sector is getting off lightly compared to what much of the private sector has experienced.

There's plenty of public sector stuff that can't be run like a business, which is why it is public sector (say, policing, military, etc), and those parts that can be, have massive drawbacks if they are (say, private healthcare - see the states). It's not applicable.

It's a different sector, hence the distinction.

rick_chasey

Utimately, there are going to be a lot of people joining the 7.8% of the workforce already unemployed...

Barteos

I think that many of those jobs should have never been created at the first place :roll:

TMR

Barteos wrote:

I think that many of those jobs should have never been created at the first place :roll:

Indeed. Quango after Quango...

Pross

Are they a "cost" to the taxpayer though relatively speaking (I'm not sure of the answer myself)? They are a cost to the taxpayer in a job, of which a percentage goes back to the taxpayer. However, it would be interesting to be able to do the calculations and find out how much better/worse off the government would be if those people didn't work for maybe on year. My initial feeling is the the Government would still be better off if those people didn't work.

Based on £25,000 per year they would pay tax and NI to a total of about £6k but the Employer would also be paying NI on that salary too which pretty much cancels out the saving (I assume employers NI applies in the public sector?). Benefits would (by my inexpert calculations and assuming a partner working) be around £5k so the saving would be £20k per year per person so for 500,000 people equals lots (10 billion??)! Of course, there would be the initial costs of redundancy and early retirement payouts though.

**NB the above is based on some very basic internet research and I am more than happy to be corrected. It also takes no account of the social costs and impact on the greater economy.

Gazzaputt

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The answer is, they aren't prepared to share the pain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8071656/Spending-Review-2010-Public-sector-shun-alternatives-to-cuts.html
Since a lot of them are nowt but paper-shufflers & meetings organisors, they'll be virtually unemployable in the real world!
However, since it's they who decide who'd getting the chop, it'll be the useful ones out of the doors first!

Never a truer post made.

I know a cliq that do the rounds of London boroughs. All earn in excess of £80k and not one can actually justify what they do. Higher management in local authority is jobs for the boys (and girls). They stay in these jobs as they have got a position where they can hire and fire. They present cuts they have made without a thought to running of their services as all councilors want to see are cuts.

Local authority staff driving new Porsche 911s surely isn't right?

Pross

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Barteos wrote:

I think that many of those jobs should have never been created at the first place :roll:

Indeed. Quango after Quango...

Not all quangos are / were a bad thing other than they could have done with more public accountability. Many actually made money and / or brought in investment.

Pross

Gazzaputt wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The answer is, they aren't prepared to share the pain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8071656/Spending-Review-2010-Public-sector-shun-alternatives-to-cuts.html
Since a lot of them are nowt but paper-shufflers & meetings organisors, they'll be virtually unemployable in the real world!
However, since it's they who decide who'd getting the chop, it'll be the useful ones out of the doors first!

Never a truer post made.

I know a cliq that do the rounds of London boroughs. All earn in excess of £80k and not one can actually justify what they do. Higher management in local authority is jobs for the boys (and girls). They stay in these jobs as they have got a position where they can hire and fire. They present cuts they have made without a thought to running of their services as all councilors want to see are cuts.

Local authority staff driving new Porsche 911s surely isn't right?

I'm as critical as anyone of the public sector but I don't necessarily agree with this. If they are doing a good job why shouldn't they get a decent salary in keeping with their responsibility and indeed spend that on a Porsche if they want? I wouldn't want the responsibility of running a Council at the salary the average public sector CEO gets.

rick_chasey

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog ... -live-blog

Looks like around 5-6% of those will be lost from the armed forces, including civilians associated with.

Gazzaputt

Pross wrote:

Gazzaputt wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

The answer is, they aren't prepared to share the pain.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8071656/Spending-Review-2010-Public-sector-shun-alternatives-to-cuts.html
Since a lot of them are nowt but paper-shufflers & meetings organisors, they'll be virtually unemployable in the real world!
However, since it's they who decide who'd getting the chop, it'll be the useful ones out of the doors first!

Never a truer post made.

I know a cliq that do the rounds of London boroughs. All earn in excess of £80k and not one can actually justify what they do. Higher management in local authority is jobs for the boys (and girls). They stay in these jobs as they have got a position where they can hire and fire. They present cuts they have made without a thought to running of their services as all councilors want to see are cuts.

Local authority staff driving new Porsche 911s surely isn't right?

I'm as critical as anyone of the public sector but I don't necessarily agree with this. If they are doing a good job why shouldn't they get a decent salary in keeping with their responsibility and indeed spend that on a Porsche if they want? I wouldn't want the responsibility of running a Council at the salary the average public sector CEO gets.

My point is that there position is pointless. It is created for them by others within the clique.

finchy

From my experience of working in the public sector, a lot of the other employees were fairly close to retirement age, so it might be possible that with natural wastage and redeployment the government will avoid too many redundancies.

To those who think that doing public sector work is just paper shuffling in overmanned departments, I did a few months of temp work for my county council, and even doing work as vital as child protection there were severe staff shortages. God knows how they will cope if they have cuts.

Of course the government could just go after their wealthy tax dodging mates, but that would never do, would it?

Cleat Eastwood

Those who strongly value financial success have less empathy, stronger manipulative tendencies, a stronger attraction to hierarchy and inequality, stronger prejudices towards strangers and less concern about human rights and the environment.

Those who have a strong sense of self-acceptance have more empathy and a greater concern about human rights, social justice and the environment.

Pross

I'd love to know what these pointless jobs created by their mates are. In my experience the Council I worked for was over-staffed in the mid 90s computers were reducing the numbers of people needed (for example, at that time our department had a team of about half a dozen typists but people were suddenly equipped to type their own letters, the introduction of CAD meant that one person could produce the drawing output of a whole team of draughstmen and tracers) but these were generally culled in the mid 90s cuts and from my dealings with Councils these days the same departments are now run on a skeleton crew which meant there were always delays when there was a lot of development going on.

The whole "tax dodging rich" is a bit of a red herring as well, if you try to tax them they will live overseas as much as necessary. It happened in the 60's when they tried to introduce a punitive tax rate - look at all the protest songs from rich rock stars at the time who went to live abroad. Plus, it's what a couple of thousand people and it won't fix the huge hole!

MattC59

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

You'd gloat at those who voted Tory ? After the f*ck up that the last government made ?!?!?!?

There are also job losses and pay freezes/cuts in the private sector, except that the private sector don't have unions to p*ss and whine about the fact that they're not on final salary pensions anymore.

The bottom line is that Labour wrote a lot of cheques that they couldn't cash, they over spent massively and created jobs that weren't needed. Unfortunately, the current government is now in the position that it has to rectify the problem and is going to be unpopular with the pink eye, lefty do gooders for doing so.

Cuts have to be made, end of. We're all in the same boat

derm123

I was chatting to a mate who said my local council were loosing huge amounts of staff ie two thirds. I always thought that the council was overstaffed but that level of cuts is frankly silly. The council is heavily dependant on local service/businesses. Cuts will impact them too. Not a big problem in london but will have a huge impact on smaller more remote regions.

I was going to go into a rant about private versus public, there is no point really. Its going to happen and there is nothing I can do about it......

Pross

I suspect your mate is wrong, no Council could survive 67% job cuts unless they contracted out all their services.