Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
aa3

Edinburgh Council To Slash 1,200 Jobs

Recommended Posts

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/Edinburgh-Council--to-slash.6311140.jp

Edinburgh Council to slash 1,200 jobs in savings drive

The boss of every department of the city council has been told to draw up urgent proposals showing how staffing costs can be slashed by 12 per cent...

The council already employs 400 fewer staff than it did a year ago but the speed of the reduction will be stepped up under the new plans.

My comments: On other threads on how the state can reduce expenses we all agreed that the best way to do it is to give broad based wage cuts.. instead of firing people. But we also agreed its very unlikely for this to happen, instead Britain was always going to take the downsizing path. While probably giving performance bonuses to the management for hitting targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/Edinburgh-Council--to-slash.6311140.jp

Edinburgh Council to slash 1,200 jobs in savings drive

My comments: On other threads on how the state can reduce expenses we all agreed that the best way to do it is to give broad based wage cuts.. instead of firing people. But we also agreed its very unlikely for this to happen, instead Britain was always going to take the downsizing path. While probably giving performance bonuses to the management for hitting targets.

Pension liabilities are eating up increasing propotions of budgets, headcoutns and efficiency are the real problems, wage cuts will hardly dent either of those problems.

So no, there is no general agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/Edinburgh-Council--to-slash.6311140.jp

Edinburgh Council to slash 1,200 jobs in savings drive

My comments: On other threads on how the state can reduce expenses we all agreed that the best way to do it is to give broad based wage cuts.. instead of firing people. But we also agreed its very unlikely for this to happen, instead Britain was always going to take the downsizing path. While probably giving performance bonuses to the management for hitting targets.

The boss of every department of the city council has been told to draw up urgent proposals showing how staffing costs can be slashed by 12 per cent.

This is the wrong way of going about things, independant people should be making reductions/cuts/redunancies not the bosses, truth be told a lot of them should be going which is not going to happen if they are doing the deciding themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pension liabilities are eating up increasing propotions of budgets, headcoutns and efficiency are the real problems, wage cuts will hardly dent either of those problems.

So no, there is no general agreement.

Pensions are the elephant in the room. It wouldn't be so bad if everyone retired on say 60% of their average career earnings. But final salary is insane.

I guess I'll modify my original statement to say if making operating expenses cuts salary cuts seem better than headcount reduction while leaving salaries the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boss of every department of the city council has been told to draw up urgent proposals showing how staffing costs can be slashed by 12 per cent.

This is the wrong way of going about things, independant people should be making reductions/cuts/redunancies not the bosses, truth be told a lot of them should be going which is not going to happen if they are doing the deciding themselves

well, it may be true that culling the top three TIERS of management will acheive the 12 %.

thats where I would start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The boss of every department of the city council has been told to draw up urgent proposals showing how staffing costs can be slashed by 12 per cent.

This is the wrong way of going about things, independant people should be making reductions/cuts/redunancies not the bosses, truth be told a lot of them should be going which is not going to happen if they are doing the deciding themselves

I see your point.. especially if the bosses and their close associates need to be cut. Otoh I hate seeing outside consultants, I'm always wondering why we are paying for a boss AND the outside consultants to make the decisions the boss should be making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They keep talking about job cuts in my part of the World - the 3 major Councils within a 20 mile radius of me are each talking abot 750 job cuts a piece - but they never do it, just keep talking about it.

The sensible thing would be for people to have a choice of their job or a 25% wage cut - the latter would probably bring a HPC sooner IMPO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point.. especially if the bosses and their close associates need to be cut. Otoh I hate seeing outside consultants, I'm always wondering why we are paying for a boss AND the outside consultants to make the decisions the boss should be making.

:) Blame shifting at the expense of the taxpayer :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments: On other threads on how the state can reduce expenses we all agreed that the best way to do it is to give broad based wage cuts.. instead of firing people.

Did we? I don't remember agreeing to that. I'm firmly of the opinion that the best way to scale back the size of the state is to reduce head count in an orderly and civilised manner by recruitment freezes, redeployments, and where necessary early retirements and redundancies. There are many government activities which need ot be closed completely, others which can be combined and slimmed down, layers of management to be stripped out, and superflous posts everywhere that can be eliminated. It's absurd that there are almost a million more civil servants on the state's books today than a decade ago. In addition there has been a huge increase in private sector positions which only exist due to government outsourcing, regulation, or legal requirements. Such quips (quasi independent public sector) jobs include consultants, tax advisors, parking enforcement goons, HIPs inspectors, workfare scamsters, license application solicitors, and many more parasitic occupations. At last half of those need to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we? I don't remember agreeing to that. I'm firmly of the opinion that the best way to scale back the size of the state is to reduce head count in an orderly and civilised manner by recruitment freezes, redeployments, and where necessary early retirements and redundancies. There are many government activities which need ot be closed completely, others which can be combined and slimmed down, layers of management to be stripped out, and superflous posts everywhere that can be eliminated. It's absurd that there are almost a million more civil servants on the state's books today than a decade ago. In addition there has been a huge increase in private sector positions which only exist due to government outsourcing, regulation, or legal requirements. Such quips (quasi independent public sector) jobs include consultants, tax advisors, parking enforcement goons, HIPs inspectors, workfare scamsters, license application solicitors, and many more parasitic occupations. At last half of those need to go.

The cuts should be done by people with no axe to grind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cap pensions. Across the board.

Cut wages on a % scale someone posted yesterday so the more you earn the bigger the cut - so lower end of payscale is not affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...they are not going to remove themselves or make tough decisions even if they know what needs to be done. (same thing happens in the private sector as well - but at least they pay for their own inefficiencies)

...or go bust if the inefficiencies are too high. Something the public sector doesn't do - it has the option of increasing the load on the general taxpayer, e.g. by upping council tax.

Back to the OP: The Sheffield Telegraph had a story alluding to the announcement of big job cuts next week, after a review (and after the election).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start by getting rid of all jobs with the words "outreach" "diversity" and "facilitator" in the job title.

I strongly suspect you could get rid of all jobs described thus, and most people wouldn't even notice that they'd all disappeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cull the Public sector and the Retail industry in return for State supported breast feeding it is then.

If only we supported business startup's and junked the red tape in 2007. Actually made small business an attractive move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to move to a system where everyone is obliged to save 7% of their income in a pensions scheme - like Australia. Public sector, private sector AND those on benefits.

When you come to retire you claim an annuity.

For the first 40 years it would need to be harmonised with the exisiting system. This would no doubt be complicated but it needs to be done. The present system is grossly unfair and inconsistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start by getting rid of all jobs with the words "outreach" "diversity" and "facilitator" in the job title.

I strongly suspect you could get rid of all jobs described thus, and most people wouldn't even notice that they'd all disappeared.

Add coordinator to that list too. In fact, they should show all job titles to a class of 10 year old kids; anyone with a title the kids can't understand should then be fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to move to a system where everyone is obliged to save 7% of their income in a pensions scheme - like Australia. Public sector, private sector AND those on benefits.

When you come to retire you claim an annuity.

For the first 40 years it would need to be harmonised with the exisiting system. This would no doubt be complicated but it needs to be done. The present system is grossly unfair and inconsistent.

In principle I agree based on idea of individual responsibility. There is one point that just about everyone seems to miss on this though which is there is only a certain amount of money to go around in the economy and whether you take some of that money through tax to look after old people or extract it through dividends and interest payments probably doesn't make much real difference overall. The more retired people you have as a proportion of your population, the more the people who aren't retired have to work to support them regardless of the mechanism used to redistribute the money involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Start by getting rid of all jobs with the words "outreach" "diversity" and "facilitator" in the job title.

I strongly suspect you could get rid of all jobs described thus, and most people wouldn't even notice that they'd all disappeared.

People probably would notice less interference in their activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need to move to a system where everyone is obliged to save 7% of their income in a pensions scheme - like Australia. Public sector, private sector AND those on benefits.

7% isn't enough if you want to retire for 25 years on 60% of your final salary after working 50 years.

You would need to be putting aside around 20-30% a month for 60% of average salary pension, probably 40% for a 60% FINAL salary pension.

Plus of course after 20of your 25 years in retirement, due to inflation, 60% of your final salary will barely buy you a loaf of bread.

Edited by TaxAbuserOfTheWeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7% isn't enough if you want to retire for 25 years on 60% of your final salary after working 50 years.

You would need to be putting aside around 20-30% a month for 60% of average salary pension, probably 40% for a 60% FINAL salary pension.

Plus of course after 20of your 25 years in retirement, due to inflation, 60% of your final salary will barely buy you a loaf of bread.

OK. Could you show your working? Perhaps for someone on an average average salary over his working life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest absolutezero

Pensions are the elephant in the room. It wouldn't be so bad if everyone retired on say 60% of their average career earnings. But final salary is insane.

I guess I'll modify my original statement to say if making operating expenses cuts salary cuts seem better than headcount reduction while leaving salaries the same.

One of the changes to public sector pension schemes was a move from final salary to average salary (adjusted for inflation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add coordinator to that list too. In fact, they should show all job titles to a class of 10 year old kids; anyone with a title the kids can't understand should then be fired.

Hey I think I am a co-ordinator !!

Maybe. Not sure.

Anyway if you have ever seen the inefficiency in the public or private sector then the need for people to co-ordinate is pretty necessary !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that's the 1st year out the way. What about the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years?

If anybody can come out of this unscathed it will be a bloody miracle. Hold on to your wallet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.