Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Nickolarge

The Cuts Will Save Us All

Recommended Posts

I have to comment on this myth of non jobs and massive over staffing. All these folk who will not be missed when they are no longer doing whatever it is they do now. This idea that we can slash loads of jobs and this will somehow improve the economic outlook.

When I started work in the late 70's I was with British Airways. In the run up to privatisation it was deemed that BA needed to slim down.

Over an 18 month period the workforce was reduced from 42,000 to 24,000. That's a massive drop by any standards. Did they really have that many surplus staff?

About 15 years later I read that BA needed to cut 10% of their workforce. 5000 staff were to go. It turned out they had nearly 55,000 employees.

Either they went through a period of massive growth or they should never have got rid of the first lot.

BA had also farmed out catering, ground support engineering and many other tasks leading up to privatisation so this new figure of 55,000 was for a company doing far less of the business of running an airline than before.

Cuts will be made but to think that these jobs are not needed is wrong. The cuts are an accounting exercises and nothing more. That's all they ever were at BA and nothings changed.

Oh, and they also attacked the airways pension scheme back then so nothing new there either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it Hasting they were at last night on Newsnight? Where they said 42% of jobs are in the public sector compared to 27% average

I'd love councils to publish the numbers of workers and pay levels and actually name the jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to comment on this myth of non jobs and massive over staffing. All these folk who will not be missed when they are no longer doing whatever it is they do now. This idea that we can slash loads of jobs and this will somehow improve the economic outlook.

When I started work in the late 70's I was with British Airways. In the run up to privatisation it was deemed that BA needed to slim down.

Over an 18 month period the workforce was reduced from 42,000 to 24,000. That's a massive drop by any standards. Did they really have that many surplus staff?

About 15 years later I read that BA needed to cut 10% of their workforce. 5000 staff were to go. It turned out they had nearly 55,000 employees.

Either they went through a period of massive growth or they should never have got rid of the first lot.

BA had also farmed out catering, ground support engineering and many other tasks leading up to privatisation so this new figure of 55,000 was for a company doing far less of the business of running an airline than before.

Cuts will be made but to think that these jobs are not needed is wrong. The cuts are an accounting exercises and nothing more. That's all they ever were at BA and nothings changed.

Oh, and they also attacked the airways pension scheme back then so nothing new there either.

yes. the number of people going on foreign holidays has never increased since the late 70s. The credit bubble certainly did not allow peopel to take foreign holidays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuts will be made but to think that these jobs are not needed is wrong.

Totally irrelevant whether the jobs are "needed" or not. We can't afford to pay for them, so they have to go.

You can theorise what the consequences will be, but we'll find out shortly won't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally irrelevant whether the jobs are "needed" or not. We can't afford to pay for them, so they have to go.

You can theorise what the consequences will be, but we'll find out shortly won't we?

Not true

Apparently UK Bondholders have agreed a deal where they will accept Pebbles off Brighton Beach as full payment going forward,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it Hasting they were at last night on Newsnight? Where they said 42% of jobs are in the public sector compared to 27% average

I'd love councils to publish the numbers of workers and pay levels and actually name the jobs.

In this case it will be a lot of Mrs. Miggins, £9.5K pa, 27hr week, Social Service Nursing Home Care Worker.

Hastings is chock full of the retired, elderly, needy and, yes, the unemployed benefits addicted.

Tiny private sector, poor links, low profile. Places like this will suffer the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case it will be a lot of Mrs. Miggins, £9.5K pa, 27hr week, Social Service Nursing Home Care Worker.

Hastings is chock full of the retired, elderly, needy and, yes, the unemployed benefits addicted.

Tiny private sector, poor links, low profile. Places like this will suffer the worst.

But knowing they have 1200 part time care workers costing £10k a tear

and 140 care managers at 100k a year would indicate where cuts can be easily made.

12 teachers are leaving my sons school at the end of term (Frighteningly close now) - only one going to a better paid job, many early retirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally irrelevant whether the jobs are "needed" or not. We can't afford to pay for them, so they have to go.

You can theorise what the consequences will be, but we'll find out shortly won't we?

Quite it makes no sense at all to even argue the toss about overmanning or whatever as we simply cannot afford the labour force... it has to go... I have seen these poorly thought through socialist arguments before by Bob Crowe and his merry band of nutters... what normally happens is that they agree that the budget must be brought into balance but then say very firmly that their members "rights" cannot be breached... in other words they haven't a clue of how to bring the budget back into balance.... like it or not cuts are the only way..... I suspect we sadly find that the unions will stand in the way of a system whereby say hours or pay and perks are reduced so that more people are not made outright redundant....... I think using all the methods available including reduced hours/job sharing/ wage cuts/ perks cuts etc will enable the least wrost outcome in terms of outright redundancies from this programme but I remain convinced that the unions won't allow it as they will see it as a rowing back from their precious "rights" which they feel they have won.... nutters the lot of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on the news last night again saying "we can't do that it would be a breach of their employment contract"

I worked for a company a few years ago, come in one morning and everyone had a new contract on their desks and a letter saying sign-it-or-leave

Everyone signed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it Hasting they were at last night on Newsnight? Where they said 42% of jobs are in the public sector compared to 27% average

I'd love councils to publish the numbers of workers and pay levels and actually name the jobs.

Hastings is too small a town for these figures to be useful. All it means it that there are no major employers in the town (which there isn't) and that most of the workers who live there work in one of the adjacent employment centres (e.g Brighton).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on the news last night again saying "we can't do that it would be a breach of their employment contract"

I worked for a company a few years ago, come in one morning and everyone had a new contract on their desks and a letter saying sign-it-or-leave

Everyone signed it.

I don't like that any more than I like having unaffordable jobs - it effectively means that there's no point in you having a contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on the news last night again saying "we can't do that it would be a breach of their employment contract"

I worked for a company a few years ago, come in one morning and everyone had a new contract on their desks and a letter saying sign-it-or-leave

Everyone signed it.

This isn't legal. It wouldn't work with a unionised workforce.

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't legal. It wouldn't work with a unionised workforce.

tim

If they hadn't done it, the company would have folded and nobody would have had a job, including the union leaders, of which thankfully there were none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to comment on this myth of non jobs and massive over staffing. All these folk who will not be missed when they are no longer doing whatever it is they do now. This idea that we can slash loads of jobs and this will somehow improve the economic outlook.

When I started work in the late 70's I was with British Airways. In the run up to privatisation it was deemed that BA needed to slim down.

Over an 18 month period the workforce was reduced from 42,000 to 24,000. That's a massive drop by any standards. Did they really have that many surplus staff?

About 15 years later I read that BA needed to cut 10% of their workforce. 5000 staff were to go. It turned out they had nearly 55,000 employees.

Either they went through a period of massive growth or they should never have got rid of the first lot.

BA had also farmed out catering, ground support engineering and many other tasks leading up to privatisation so this new figure of 55,000 was for a company doing far less of the business of running an airline than before.

Cuts will be made but to think that these jobs are not needed is wrong. The cuts are an accounting exercises and nothing more. That's all they ever were at BA and nothings changed.

Oh, and they also attacked the airways pension scheme back then so nothing new there either.

I'm sure some people who are cut are actually needed. But in industries I have seen: the NHS; the quangos there are thousands who do not justify their salaries. Often they may be hospital consultants who have a nice niche and may be well qualified but are paid full time for onto 18-20 hours of work a week. Or quangos whose purpose it is is just to exist and take money from governments.

The problem is that the people who will lose their jobs first will be cleaners and maintenance staff who are needed. Noone has the guts to go after senior high paid people because of pure laziness

Until we recognise the damage ideology has done and may do in the future we will continue to go from one extreme to another

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone on the news last night again saying "we can't do that it would be a breach of their employment contract"

I worked for a company a few years ago, come in one morning and everyone had a new contract on their desks and a letter saying sign-it-or-leave

Everyone signed it.

In 2001 during the dot-com crash I worked for a company that one afternoon made us all redundant. They instantly let go of 30% of the staff and re-employed the remaining 70% of us on less money and less favorable terms.

It was probably illegal but I don't even recall anyone complaining (young and naive). You just felt fortunate to still have a job. They used shock and awe to great effect and pretty much did what they wanted while everyone was still off balance. Not a happy time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they hadn't done it, the company would have folded and nobody would have had a job, including the union leaders, of which thankfully there were none.

That isn't the case with UK PLC (however much you want it to be)

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one has to distinguish between 'non-job' and 'non-worker'. I wouldn't deny that there aren't some people working in the public sector doing things that ultimately aren't necessary (or they serve only an artificially created purpose) but that doesn't mean they don't work hard.

For example, if one authority decided to appoint an officer with responsibility for cancelled and abandoned projects and ideas, that person might work hard and conscientiously to collate information and expertise on all the things in the past that the authority considered or intended to do but never came to fruition. If this person is any good, they will also try to make their work relevant, say, by using past failures as lessons for the future and weave themselves into the network with other departments so that they become a one-stop shop for anything to do with defunct projects.

A non-worker, on the other hand, could be employed in a worthwhile occupation, but not be doing their job.

Edited by blankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one has to distinguish between 'non-job' and 'non-worker'. I wouldn't deny that there aren't some people working in the public sector doing things that ultimately aren't necessary (or they serve only an artificially created purpose) but that doesn't mean they don't work hard.

So what? You put someone in a hamster wheel and pay him to run. If he runs fast all day or if he just walks, so what? It's a waste of money, he's not doing anything of any value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what? You put someone in a hamster wheel and pay him to run. If he runs fast all day or if he just walks, so what? It's a waste of money, he's not doing anything of any value.

The cuts to NHS admin staff and 'putting doctors in charge' instead may not be a good idea.

Admin staff = very cheap

Senior doctor = very, very expensive

It makes more sense to employ cheap admin to do paperwork than it does to employ a very expensive doctor to do paperwork instead of seeing patients.

In the police and teaching it is the opposite way round, police officers spend all day in the office while cheaper PCSO's are on the streets and teachers slink off in lessons to do paperwork and marking leaving the teaching to a lowly paid classroom assistant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cuts to NHS admin staff and 'putting doctors in charge' instead may not be a good idea.

I agree, though that particular policy is nothing to do with cuts, the total money being spent is going to be unchanged as I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't the case with UK PLC (however much you want it to be)

tim

tim123,

It may well happen that public sector wages will have to be cut in this fashion. If the government ever finds it cannot borrow enough money to finance the deficit, then it either has to print the money, which will lead to rampant inflation, or it has to cut wages just like the private sector does, be that legal or illegal. It is a case of maths, doesnt matter what the law says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone on the news last night again saying "we can't do that it would be a breach of their employment contract"

I worked for a company a few years ago, come in one morning and everyone had a new contract on their desks and a letter saying sign-it-or-leave

Everyone signed it.

Some could just have taken redundancy as specified in the terms of their contracts if they had wished.

If their contract had said then get 2 months wages for each year of service, a lot less would have signed the new contract.

Most companies rely on their staff not knowing their rights in order to make a descent profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes. the number of people going on foreign holidays has never increased since the late 70s. The credit bubble certainly did not allow peopel to take foreign holidays.

The time period in question was between 1984 and 1999. Not really full on credit bubble time. And if this boom in travel was happening they should have kept the original staff rather than pay 18,000 people a full years pay tax free for doing nothing.

The whole privatisation thing was one enormous scam. (Waits for some idiot to reply saying that they were all lame duck companies that needed to be sold off).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally irrelevant whether the jobs are "needed" or not. We can't afford to pay for them, so they have to go.

You can theorise what the consequences will be, but we'll find out shortly won't we?

The thing is that I can afford to pay for the services I need and I will venture to suggest so can you and likewise the majority of members on this site.

But I soon won't be able if my wife loses her public sector job and I am unable to find any customers because they too have lost their jobs.

Hardly anyone here seems to grasp this very important side effect of draconian cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this case it will be a lot of Mrs. Miggins, £9.5K pa, 27hr week, Social Service Nursing Home Care Worker.

Hastings is chock full of the retired, elderly, needy and, yes, the unemployed benefits addicted.

Tiny private sector, poor links, low profile. Places like this will suffer the worst.

So true. It's the same here. Everywhere you look it's old pensioners or women in nurse like uniforms.

Which is ok if you are into that kind of thing ;) (Nurses, not pensioners :blink: )

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 146 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.