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

War On Thousands Of Local Borough Council 'non-Jobs'

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/8332107/War-on-thousands-of-local-borough-council-non-jobs.html

War on thousands of local borough council 'non-jobs'
Almost three million people are employed by local borough councils after an “explosion” in “crazy non-jobs”, the Coalition has claims.
.../
The Coalition is highlighting the figures at a time when councils are threatening to cut basic services and increase charges because of cuts in central government funding.
Ministers want councils to cut middle-management waste instead.
Bob Neill, the local government minister, said: “These figures reveal the explosion in town hall jobs and bureaucracy under Labour and reinforce the need for some councils to start cutting out middle management.
“Crazy non-jobs like cheerleading development officers, farting competition judges and press officers tasked with spinning propaganda on bin collections provide no value to the public..../
They were for a d
irector of regeneration and employment on a salary of “up to £140,000”
; an assistant director of adult services on £90,000 a year; and an assistant director for supporting communities, also on £90,000 a year. The council said it would be making cuts of £91 million, resulting in closures of libraries, leisure centres and youth projects and hundreds of job losses. :angry: :angry:

The cull needs to begin with the fat troughers at the top--like someone said on another thread: CUT THE SNOUTS not the jobs.

What ever happened to the Golden Trough Award threads?

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the play their games, they will get theirs soon enough. This was always inevitable and it's better to let these people hang themselves rather that legislate to force them to manage cuts in a specific way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let the play their games, they will get theirs soon enough. This was always inevitable and it's better to let these people hang themselves rather that legislate to force them to manage cuts in a specific way.

I think that this will be a long game though. The general public has to "turn" on the public sector before meaningful change happens. The anger towards bankers has to be satiated before the public "turns" on the public sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this will be a long game though. The general public has to "turn" on the public sector before meaningful change happens. The anger towards bankers has to be satiated before the public "turns" on the public sector.

+1

That said, the MSM are doing a good job of highlighting the wages of those "at the top" and the stupid job titles.

The frustrating thing is the unions (and perhaps the bosses themselves) are talking about cutting front line staff, when in fact if you look at the figures most of the jobs created were back-room and not people-facing.

Edited by exiges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote;

There were 741,702 people on council payrolls who were not in traditional “front- line” jobs such as those in education, social services, recreation, libraries, planning, environmental health, culture, heritage or trading standards.

Im am glad to see for once the Telegraph making some distinction between 'front line' traditional services and other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They were for a director of regeneration and employment on a salary of “up to £140,000”

Did they bring tens of millions pounds worth of investment into their area and thousands of jobs? If so paying up to £140k a year for that might be worth it to the local economy.

If they just attended local meetings, talked 5h1te and used lots of buzzwords then clearly a waste of money.

Which one was this person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local government jobs are only created in response to central government demands.

Saying "press officers to spin changes to the bin collection scheme" is an outright lie.

What happened is that EU directives were bought in reducing the amount of waste that could be sent to landfill - huge fines for non-compliance were agreed to by central government and responsibility for sorting it out handed to local councils.

So councils who previously stuck black bin bags into holes in the ground suddenly had to arrange sorting and collection rounds for millions of tonnes of different waste streams going to different facilities.

This meant every household in a district had to be communicated to and having a press/media campaign is the best way to do this so lots of council's bought in temporary staff to do this. A perfectly legitimate use of money.

Likewise "Climate Change Officers" only existed because in about 2000 every council was required to draw up contingency plans for how they would cope with a range of scenarios (flooding, drought, heavy snow for a sustained period) by central government.

Equality and Diversity Officers again exist because of central government demands that councils help businesses comply with laws they have put into place.

Blaming council's for spending money to comply with government demands and European law frankly takes the piss,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote;

There were 741,702 people on council payrolls who were not in traditional “front- line” jobs such as those in education, social services, recreation, libraries, planning, environmental health, culture, heritage or trading standards.

Im am glad to see for once the Telegraph making some distinction between 'front line' traditional services and other areas.

Damn those IT staff, legal departments and call centres.

Clearly they should all be sold off to Serco so we can pay the same amount out but pretend the private sector has taken up the slack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn those IT staff, legal departments and call centres.

Clearly they should all be sold off to Serco so we can pay the same amount out but pretend the private sector has taken up the slack.

I know from first hand contracting out support services is counterproductive. However in theory those support services are a function of the front line and not 'services' in their own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Local government jobs are only created in response to central government demands.

Saying "press officers to spin changes to the bin collection scheme" is an outright lie.

What happened is that EU directives were bought in reducing the amount of waste that could be sent to landfill - huge fines for non-compliance were agreed to by central government and responsibility for sorting it out handed to local councils.

So councils who previously stuck black bin bags into holes in the ground suddenly had to arrange sorting and collection rounds for millions of tonnes of different waste streams going to different facilities.

This meant every household in a district had to be communicated to and having a press/media campaign is the best way to do this so lots of council's bought in temporary staff to do this. A perfectly legitimate use of money.

Likewise "Climate Change Officers" only existed because in about 2000 every council was required to draw up contingency plans for how they would cope with a range of scenarios (flooding, drought, heavy snow for a sustained period) by central government.

Equality and Diversity Officers again exist because of central government demands that councils help businesses comply with laws they have put into place.

Blaming council's for spending money to comply with government demands and European law frankly takes the piss,

Which should in theory relate to public demand

The public desire / demand schools and education for children - hence the provision of schools

The pubic demands / desires safe food (and other goods) which is why we have trading standards / environmental health

The public demands / desires assistance for the elderly and infirmed - hence social services

The public demands / desires rubbish collection and clean streets - hence steet cleaning services & refuse collection

The public demands / desires Libraries.....hence the provision of libraries

The public demands / desires the regulation of taxis - hence we have taxi admin and enforcement

The public demands the regulation of landlords and HMo's - hence Environmental Health regulation

etc

etc

etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know from first hand contracting out support services is counterproductive. However in theory those support services are a function of the front line and not 'services' in their own right.

I don't disagree I just hate it when all back office staff work is implicitly described as wasteful.

£40k planning officers scanning in maps and putting them on the internet (so that people can view plans from home rather than having to drive to council offices) is surely a waste of resources compared to a £16k admin assistant doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn those IT staff, legal departments and call centres.

Clearly they should all be sold off to Serco so we can pay the same amount out but pretend the private sector has taken up the slack.

Call centre staff in my LA get paid the same as a Fair Trading Officer around £23k a year. HSBC, around the corner pay £15k for what basically amounts to the same job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree I just hate it when all back office staff work is implicitly described as wasteful.

£40k planning officers scanning in maps and putting them on the internet (so that people can view plans from home rather than having to drive to council offices) is surely a waste of resources compared to a £16k admin assistant doing it.

We sing from the same hymn sheet.

I worked in LG from 1991 to 2008 and saw this trend chart its insidous course. When i was a middle level manager, on a few occasions I managed to get temporary admin support to free up field officer time and it made such a difference. Of course the PTB didn't approve.

Ultimately I had enough of the ******** so I got out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call centre staff in my LA get paid the same as a Fair Trading Officer around £23k a year. HSBC, around the corner pay £15k for what basically amounts to the same job.

Cambridge Shiity Council did the same thing. Made loads of back office experienced staff redundant and then employed new staff on higher salaries for their flagship. It was disgusting.

Infact so much so, as I was leaving my parting gift to Cambridge shitty Council was to represent one of those redundant staff at tribunal for free and win them £23K :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which should in theory relate to public demand

The public desire / demand schools and education for children - hence the provision of schools

The pubic demands / desires safe food (and other goods) which is why we have trading standards / environmental health

The public demands / desires assistance for the elderly and infirmed - hence social services

The public demands / desires rubbish collection and clean streets - hence steet cleaning services & refuse collection

The public demands / desires Libraries.....hence the provision of libraries

The public demands / desires the regulation of taxis - hence we have taxi admin and enforcement

The public demands the regulation of landlords and HMo's - hence Environmental Health regulation

etc

etc

etc

In theory yes. In practice, there are things that the public wants which are being denied and many things that the are being provided that the public doesn't want. This relates to Timak's point : the EU and national government force local government to follow some rules that we wouldn't choose if we were given a choice in a referendum.

The next question then becomes what sort of management structure is required to efficiently deliver the services that the public wants and how much incumbents should be paid. It is at this stage that the public sector fails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory yes. In practice, there are things that the public wants which are being denied and many things that the are being provided that the public doesn't want. This relates to Timak's point : the EU and national government force local government to follow some rules that we wouldn't choose if we were given a choice in a referendum.

The next question then becomes what sort of management structure is required to efficiently deliver the services that the public wants and how much incumbents should be paid. It is at this stage that the public sector fails.

I agree. I joined LG in 1991. It was a well run large convservative district council with low council tax. We had the following departments;

Community Services (Housing, Street cleaning, refuse, crem, parks and gardens)

Environmental Health (food safety, health and safety, private sector housing, environmental protection)

Planning & Building Control

Leisure and Tourism (inc economic development)

Legal (inc committee services)

Treasurers

Personnel

Chief Execs

All well run and quite clear what each department did. Of course in 1997 Liebour got in locally and fecked everything up from top to bottom. As a result 5 years later shyte run down front line services, army of non jobbers, and high council tax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The next question then becomes what sort of management structure is required to efficiently deliver the services that the public wants and how much incumbents should be paid. It is at this stage that the public sector fails."

OK - a few of us on here can get together and design a system using IT effectively to meet these needs with a slimmed-down management structure - maybe based on a Co-Operative or Industrial/Provident model and incorporating the Mondragon pay differential of maximum 6 x minimum salary for the top management layer.

It can be a system where most admin is done online bringing costs down to a minimum.

We can be clever in covering the crazy Government Requirements for various non-job posts by creating posts in theory rather than practice.

However the VIs and troughers would ignore it completely as they have too much to lose - the only way to get such a thing implemented would be to launch a campaign amongst the council-tax payers - although most I guess would still be apathetic and not really interested - unless the savings were huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The next question then becomes what sort of management structure is required to efficiently deliver the services that the public wants and how much incumbents should be paid. It is at this stage that the public sector fails."

OK - a few of us on here can get together and design a system using IT effectively to meet these needs with a slimmed-down management structure - maybe based on a Co-Operative or Industrial/Provident model and incorporating the Mondragon pay differential of maximum 6 x minimum salary for the top management layer.

It can be a system where most admin is done online bringing costs down to a minimum.

We can be clever in covering the crazy Government Requirements for various non-job posts by creating posts in theory rather than practice.

However the VIs and troughers would ignore it completely as they have too much to lose - the only way to get such a thing implemented would be to launch a campaign amongst the council-tax payers - although most I guess would still be apathetic and not really interested - unless the savings were huge.

One of the problems for slimming down LG management is the myriad of different responsibilities that it has. I would suggest the first stage would be a root and branch assessment of the legislative book to see what is outdated and unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I joined LG in 1991. It was a well run large convservative district council with low council tax. We had the following departments;

Community Services (Housing, Street cleaning, refuse, crem, parks and gardens)

Environmental Health (food safety, health and safety, private sector housing, environmental protection)

Planning & Building Control

Leisure and Tourism (inc economic development)

Legal (inc committee services)

Treasurers

Personnel

Chief Execs

All well run and quite clear what each department did. Of course in 1997 Liebour got in locally and fecked everything up from top to bottom. As a result 5 years later shyte run down front line services, army of non jobbers, and high council tax

The recent story on the BBC about the Manchester and Trafford councils was interesting. It seems that the cuts are being imposed on some sort of efficiency basis. More efficient councils are seeing smaller cuts. Perhaps there is some logic being applied at long last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems for slimming down LG management is the myriad of different responsibilities that it has. I would suggest the first stage would be a root and branch assessment of the legislative book to see what is outdated and unnecessary.

Is it possible to get hold of this info online as to what are the current LG responsibilities and what is being done currently that is outdated and no longer appropriate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The next question then becomes what sort of management structure is required to efficiently deliver the services that the public wants and how much incumbents should be paid. It is at this stage that the public sector fails."

OK - a few of us on here can get together and design a system using IT effectively to meet these needs with a slimmed-down management structure - maybe based on a Co-Operative or Industrial/Provident model and incorporating the Mondragon pay differential of maximum 6 x minimum salary for the top management layer.

It can be a system where most admin is done online bringing costs down to a minimum.

We can be clever in covering the crazy Government Requirements for various non-job posts by creating posts in theory rather than practice.

However the VIs and troughers would ignore it completely as they have too much to lose - the only way to get such a thing implemented would be to launch a campaign amongst the council-tax payers - although most I guess would still be apathetic and not really interested - unless the savings were huge.

Why do you think that councils hated the poll tax? Too many of the voters too aware of what the councils squandered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would do if I became 'dictator of local government' for a month would be not to slash services, but to abolish all district councils and hand over their powers, responsibilities and assets to county councils, which would become single-tier authorities. This would be done at minimum cost. It would simply be a transfer of powers and assets at midnight on a given date. The districts would effectively become subsidiaries of the county councils and would carry on functioning as before to start with, but would gradually be rationalised as economies of scale are introduced - starting with the chief executives. The county chief executive and all the district ones would have to apply for a single new chief executive post of the new authority. - the rest would be out of the job.

Edited by Hyperduck Quack Quack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would do if I became 'dictator of local government' for a month would be not to slash services, but to abolish all district councils and hand over their powers, responsibilities and assets to county councils, which would become single-tier authorities. This would be done at minimum cost. It would simply be a transfer of powers and assets at midnight on a given date. The districts would effectively become subsidiaries of the county councils and would carry on functioning as before to start with, but would gradually be rationalised as economies of scale are introduced - starting with the chief executives. The district ones would be sacked and the county one would have to re-apply for their own job, with the sacked district CE's being invited to apply too. £100,000 salary cap, too.

I agree with your point. There are five unitary authorities in south east Wales. These were established by the Tories in the nineties who abolished the old Gwent county council and districts and replaced them with unitaries. I would replace the unitaries with one larger authority under the old Gwent County Council banner.

At the moment there are five of each departments within the unitaries servicing the 550,000 odd population of Gwent, all replicating services and all with five sets of management, administration and Councilors.

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.

  • 312 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.