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

How To Downsize The Public Sector Workforce

Recommended Posts

What some nations are already doing is whenever a public worker retires, they do not replace the person. Since the age of the government workforce is quite old, huge numbers are retiring each year. In addition with an organization that has millions of employees there is always people dropping dead on the job, becoming too disabled to work, or leaving to pursue other opportunities.

It reminded me because I have seen some young people putting up with low pay and long hours, saying its all worth it because soon everything will open up above them. Because all these people are set to retire. It seems rock solid logic, until you factor in the government may simply not replace all those people.

Firing large numbers of people or cutting wages is politically difficult. But if 5% of the workforce retires this year and simply isn't replaced that would never even make the news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some nations are already doing is whenever a public worker retires, they do not replace the person. Since the age of the government workforce is quite old, huge numbers are retiring each year. In addition with an organization that has millions of employees there is always people dropping dead on the job, becoming too disabled to work, or leaving to pursue other opportunities.

It reminded me because I have seen some young people putting up with low pay and long hours, saying its all worth it because soon everything will open up above them. Because all these people are set to retire. It seems rock solid logic, until you factor in the government may simply not replace all those people.

Firing large numbers of people or cutting wages is politically difficult. But if 5% of the workforce retires this year and simply isn't replaced that would never even make the news.

I think you will find that recruitment drag is the predominant way in which central and local government are reducing workforces. Only trouble is no one is moving and vacating jobs due to the state of the economy and the possibility of a redundancy payout :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some nations are already doing is whenever a public worker retires, they do not replace the person. Since the age of the government workforce is quite old, huge numbers are retiring each year. In addition with an organization that has millions of employees there is always people dropping dead on the job, becoming too disabled to work, or leaving to pursue other opportunities.

It reminded me because I have seen some young people putting up with low pay and long hours, saying its all worth it because soon everything will open up above them. Because all these people are set to retire. It seems rock solid logic, until you factor in the government may simply not replace all those people.

Firing large numbers of people or cutting wages is politically difficult. But if 5% of the workforce retires this year and simply isn't replaced that would never even make the news.

Fair point. But I think you are giving government more credit than they're due. They just aren't that smart. Not to mention the pension liabilities of the staff that are coming up to retirement is a massive black hole in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you will find that recruitment drag is the predominant way in which central and local government are reducing workforces. Only trouble is no one is moving and vacating jobs due to the state of the economy and the possibility of a redundancy payout :lol:

Great point. I remember when companies were bringing out their plans to downsize in the wake of the recession, and they all said we won't need to lay off any employees we will just have a freeze on recruiting. In normal years 20% of their workforce leaves each year. But with the recession few wanted to take the chance of jumping into a new company and being low on the totem pole there. So that forced the corporations into mass lay offs.

I still think because of the age of the government workforce they will be able to make most cuts through simply not replacing people. For example easily during the Tories 5 year term, we could see 20% of the government workforce retire. Those also tending to be the more senior and higher paid employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point. But I think you are giving government more credit than they're due. They just aren't that smart. Not to mention the pension liabilities of the staff that are coming up to retirement is a massive black hole in itself.

Yes to some extent it doesn't really solve their problems, it just moves it onto the pension plan balance sheets. Although it is better than paying a worker and a pensioner. This way they just pay the pensioner.

It looks like a pension renegotiation is coming. And by negotiation I mean the government will tell people their new pension amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some nations are already doing is whenever a public worker retires, they do not replace the person. Since the age of the government workforce is quite old, huge numbers are retiring each year. In addition with an organization that has millions of employees there is always people dropping dead on the job, becoming too disabled to work, or leaving to pursue other opportunities.

It reminded me because I have seen some young people putting up with low pay and long hours, saying its all worth it because soon everything will open up above them. Because all these people are set to retire. It seems rock solid logic, until you factor in the government may simply not replace all those people.

Firing large numbers of people or cutting wages is politically difficult. But if 5% of the workforce retires this year and simply isn't replaced that would never even make the news.

They did this recently at the council I work at. Except they gave them all 3x their 'normal' redundancy to leave early. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guessed shooting them, it appears that's not the answer. :)

The only trouble is that these people if they retire are still going to cost the taxpayer cash due to the wage we pay them not to work when they retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

The only trouble is that these people if they retire are still going to cost the taxpayer cash due to the wage we pay them not to work when they retire.

Who says they're going to stop working? They may come back as contractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprise the government haven't introduced a redundancy tax like similar to Ireland. Just set to 95% for anything over 10k** to effectively cap public sector redundancy payouts.

** Random figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What some nations are already doing is whenever a public worker retires, they do not replace the person. Since the age of the government workforce is quite old, huge numbers are retiring each year. In addition with an organization that has millions of employees there is always people dropping dead on the job, becoming too disabled to work, or leaving to pursue other opportunities.

It reminded me because I have seen some young people putting up with low pay and long hours, saying its all worth it because soon everything will open up above them. Because all these people are set to retire. It seems rock solid logic, until you factor in the government may simply not replace all those people.

Firing large numbers of people or cutting wages is politically difficult. But if 5% of the workforce retires this year and simply isn't replaced that would never even make the news.

That's fine until you realise that the average age of the paramedic/fireman/nurse/policeman/soldier coming to help you is 58.

They'll be using a stairlift to get you out of the burning house instead of a ladder........

Whereas a 58 year old diversity officer will be just as useful as a 28 year old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id rather see them walk the plank into a river full of hungry crock.

that is a very interesting post to readd rather too quickly! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the thing I find very wasteful are manned canal and railway crossings. I may not have my facts right but

canal crssig

drove up there to day it's a private road to one farm

railway crossing

add this is a manned crossing to a couple of building

what a waste of man power for just the occasional car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok .. here something radical ..

Asa race we have been working for 7 days a week, then 6 days, and now 5 days a week -- improvements in productivity mean we now need to only work 4 days a week to keep most of us employed ..

Public sector need work only 4 days a week - reduce the salaries proportionally --- may even be a win - win situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did this recently at the council I work at. Except they gave them all 3x their 'normal' redundancy to leave early. :o

Problem is Local Government redundancies are difficult to prove legally unless the function the employee is engaged in ceases to exist.. Often less costly in time and money just to enhance the payout - they go willingling having signed a compromise agreement.

When I got made redundancy in a stitch up I took the Council to the tribunal. With legal costs they bill was inexcess of £100K. I would have gone voluntarily for £10K on top of my stat redundancy.

Edited by Kurt Barlow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprise the government haven't introduced a redundancy tax like similar to Ireland. Just set to 95% for anything over 10k** to effectively cap public sector redundancy payouts.

** Random figure.

Erm anything over 30K is taxed as if it is normal income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain why my idea wouldn't work

Simply do the following. Tell ALL public sector employees that anyone earning 25k or less will NOT have any salary cut. Then knock of 0.5% of the total wage (in excess of 25k) for each 1k after that... So if you earned 26k then you're salary would be reduced by 1x 0.5% = (now be £25,870) not too much of an issue, and not worth striking over...

but you earn 40k, and you're 15k over the limit, so your salary is cut by 15x0.5% = 7.5% now £37,000 (a 3k reduction)

Thus those at the bottom are fine, middle managers take a bit of a hit, senior managers take a large hit, and people on more than the PM get mullered...

25k = 25k

35k = 33,250 (5% reduction)

55k = 46,750 (15% reduction)

100k = 62,500 (37.5% reduction)

etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guessed shooting them, it appears that's not the answer. :)

The only trouble is that these people if they retire are still going to cost the taxpayer cash due to the wage we pay them not to work when they retire.

Like all the teachers retiring in their 50's when I was at school in the 90's there was loads of them retiring at 50odd. A woman at my work is retiring soon, her husband was a teacher and was pensioned off about 10 years ago (he must have been about 50?) how is this sustainable? She told us once about the stress that caused him to retire, i had to be sensitive and bite my tongue and not set off on one about how ridiculous it all was (ok he may have been stressed but he could have moved career - gone into administration maybe?) the public sector really needs a wake up call.

And don't get me started on firemen - a fantastic service they provide and I am grateful for it, but it is by no means the most dangerous in society today - fishing and farming are far worse (for less reward in most cases) yet they all retire early too - why should they not work in fire safety work once they feel they are physically unable to play an active role. every large company/building have fire safety officers now, surely an ex fireman is a perfect person for the job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea but the wrong way round, executives and managers need their pay protected so just take the money from the less well paid.

You may think this is stupid and immoral but .... they are actually doing this by making the lower paid redundant but retaining all the management.

Sadly enough that is how these things seem to work.

All these councils who are right now cutting library services and audio books for the blind etc. etc. will also have a significant number of employees at the trough fulfilling essential management roles who are untouched by any cuts and many may argue are unneccesary but are retained as that is the way of things and it is much better to blame the Tories for blind Mrs Smith being unable to get audio books because of that nasty George Osborne than to blame the shameful waste of the spending of councils on crap that 20 years ago probably was not needed or quite simply did not exist.

(I only mention this as it was very much the jist of a recent news report on Radio 5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25k = 25k

35k = 33,250 (5% reduction)

55k = 46,750 (15% reduction)

100k = 62,500 (37.5% reduction)

Works for me. No one - I mean, no one - in the public sector should be on more than £80K.

As other posters say, it would never happen while you have a self-serving mid-upper management layer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok .. here something radical ..

Asa race we have been working for 7 days a week, then 6 days, and now 5 days a week -- improvements in productivity mean we now need to only work 4 days a week to keep most of us employed ..

Public sector need work only 4 days a week - reduce the salaries proportionally --- may even be a win - win situation

Except if you applied that to teachers, families with two working parents would then need to fund childcare for a day a week.

Edited by noodle doodle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did this recently at the council I work at. Except they gave them all 3x their 'normal' redundancy to leave early. :o

I met a senior person at a council and was chatting to him about a bunch of things. One thing I asked was how does it make sense to payout someone early and give them full pension.. how could that possibly save money?

He said.. ah.. it is because the payout and early pension goes onto the pension expenses and off the council's expense books. While we the taxpayers still pay for it, the council making the decision can show a reduction in their own expense accounts and hit the targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok .. here something radical ..

Asa race we have been working for 7 days a week, then 6 days, and now 5 days a week -- improvements in productivity mean we now need to only work 4 days a week to keep most of us employed ..

Public sector need work only 4 days a week - reduce the salaries proportionally --- may even be a win - win situation

Thats a good outside the box thought. In the 19th century people often worked 80 hour work weeks. six, 12 hour days and they got lucky only 8 hours on Sunday.

Then by the 1920's the industrial standard was the 60 hour work week. six, 10 hour days. In the 1930's it was Sears which first moved to the 40 hour work week to save jobs. Just five, 8 hour days. Soon it became law in most western nations, if you wanted someone to work more than that you had to pay overtime.

The next step is the 32 hour work week. There is also some similiar reforms we could put in place like the 2 year maternity leave and 1 year in addition for men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Works for me. No one - I mean, no one - in the public sector should be on more than £80K.

As other posters say, it would never happen while you have a self-serving mid-upper management layer.

Yes but if they don't pay over £80K how is the public sector ever to lure the wealth creating innovators from the private sector to transform and bring about the efficiencies needed?

:lol:

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.

  • 309 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.