Welfare Changes

[RyeSloan]

I see IDS has had his way with the Treasury and is getting to (largely) implement his welfare changes.

BBC Story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12486158)

While there is more detail needed and the task is a daunting one the coalition should be appluaded for finally trying to tackle the wasteful mess that is Britiains welfare system.....

[heretoday]

This could be a classic Holy Ground thread.

For what it's worth I'm always confused as to the idea that claimants lose benefit if they refuse reasonable job offers.

Under what circumstances are they ever actually offered jobs?

[easty]

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "Long-term unemployment has doubled not because of a sudden increase in work-shy scroungers, but as an inevitable result of economic policies based on cuts that destroy growth.

"Of course no welfare support is perfect and a small minority play the system, but just as conjurors divert your attention when doing a trick, today's proposals are based on blaming the jobless for their own unemployment in the hope that voters won't notice the real cause."

I agree with this from the OP's link.

The Government are making folk devils of the unemployed to deflect from the fact that the private sector aren't looking likely to create the jobs that the Government said they would.

I'm not saying change isn't needed though, and I don't know what I'd do if I was in power (bar, of course, expelling Kerry Katona/James Corden/Jordan/George Osbourne from the country).

[ancient hibee]

What the TUC fail to point out is that long term unemployment is rising because of action(or rather inaction)at government level 18 months ago.It's not because of current cuts-most of which have not actually taken place.A comparison of unemploment rate changes within the public sector and the private sector would be interesting.

[Speedy]

Does anyone know why people aged 18-24 get less on JSA than those aged over 25?

[easty]

Does anyone know why people aged 18-24 get less on JSA than those aged over 25?

Cos all you young'uns would just spend it all on sweets and football stickers anyway! :greengrin

[Speedy]

Cos all you young'uns would just spend it all on sweets and football stickers anyway! :greengrin

:greengrin

Football stickers are expensive!

[Beefster]

This could be a classic Holy Ground thread.

For what it's worth I'm always confused as to the idea that claimants lose benefit if they refuse reasonable job offers.

Under what circumstances are they ever actually offered jobs?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I presume that when they're on Jobseekers then they need to seek a job? If so, there will be a lot of folk that go through the motions (ala Trainspotting) and, if they are ever offered a job knock it back.

As for the changes, something has to be done. Whenever successive governments continually try to simplify something by tinkering at the edges, the thing in question inevitably becomes more and more complicated (e.g. tax, welfare, pensions).

IDS knows what he's talking about and most are tentatively welcoming the changes (except the unions as usual).

[col02]

I have to applaud the sentiment behind the reforms but will be interested to see if they can reverse the damage that now appears to have taken hold in certain communities where we are now looking at 2 or 3 generations seeing their role in society as permanent benefit claimants rather than anything constructive. I hope to see the government follow thru on their promise to reward hard working low income families as this could go a long way to bucking the trend that see's claiming benefits as the easier option.

[Leicester Fan]

What annoys me is Labours' half hearted semi backing of these plans but at the same time saying they won't work because of rising unemployment.

They had 13 years, 10 or 11 where we had steady growth when they could have done this with much less pain and hardship than will be the case now.

[One Day Soon]

What the TUC fail to point out is that long term unemployment is rising because of action(or rather inaction)at government level 18 months ago.It's not because of current cuts-most of which have not actually taken place.A comparison of unemploment rate changes within the public sector and the private sector would be interesting.

That is just cobblers. Labour took every action they could to prevent unemployment rising - in particular 'Quantitative Easing' - to make sure that there was money supply in the economy when the banks effectively shut up shop and consumer confidence was shrinking.

If you think the job losses from the Big Tories, Wee Tories coalition have not yet kicked in then you haven't been paying attention. If you recall, the present SNP administration decided not to implement the in-year budget reductions George Osborne kicked off with as soon as he got his privileged feet under the table in Number 11.

Two things flow from this. Firstly the politically motivated daftness of the SNP in delaying those savings into the following year meant the greater pain of trying to implement 18 months worth of cuts in just 12 months. Secondly the rest of the UK got on with making the cuts and having consequential job losses immediately thereby driving up unemployment.

Don't say that the coalition cuts aren't responsible for rising unemployment - because they are.

[ancient hibee]

That is just cobblers. Labour took every action they could to prevent unemployment rising - in particular 'Quantitative Easing' - to make sure that there was money supply in the economy when the banks effectively shut up shop and consumer confidence was shrinking.

If you think the job losses from the Big Tories, Wee Tories coalition have not yet kicked in then you haven't been paying attention. If you recall, the present SNP administration decided not to implement the in-year budget reductions George Osborne kicked off with as soon as he got his privileged feet under the table in Number 11.

Two things flow from this. Firstly the politically motivated daftness of the SNP in delaying those savings into the following year meant the greater pain of trying to implement 18 months worth of cuts in just 12 months. Secondly the rest of the UK got on with making the cuts and having consequential job losses immediately thereby driving up unemployment.

Don't say that the coalition cuts aren't responsible for rising unemployment - because they are.

Quote me any compulsory redundancies that have taken place in the public sector-I don't mean announcements of job losses but actual redundancies.

[easty]

Quote me any compulsory redundancies that have taken place in the public sector-I don't mean announcements of job losses but actual redundancies.

I'm pretty sure there were redundancies made at Registers of Scotland. And the Forrestry Commission.

[Beefster]

That is just cobblers. Labour took every action they could to prevent unemployment rising - in particular 'Quantitative Easing' - to make sure that there was money supply in the economy when the banks effectively shut up shop and consumer confidence was shrinking.

If you think the job losses from the Big Tories, Wee Tories coalition have not yet kicked in then you haven't been paying attention. If you recall, the present SNP administration decided not to implement the in-year budget reductions George Osborne kicked off with as soon as he got his privileged feet under the table in Number 11.

Two things flow from this. Firstly the politically motivated daftness of the SNP in delaying those savings into the following year meant the greater pain of trying to implement 18 months worth of cuts in just 12 months. Secondly the rest of the UK got on with making the cuts and having consequential job losses immediately thereby driving up unemployment.

Don't say that the coalition cuts aren't responsible for rising unemployment - because they are.

How much less was government spending at the end of 2010 compared with the end of 2009?

Edit: I can't be arsed waiting for you to discover that around 5/6% more was being spent in November 2010 than in November 2009. In total, the coalition spent 7% (or £23.3 billion) more between May 2010 and December 2010 than the Labour government did for the same period in 2009. All official figures.

So, someone's giving you dodgy information.

[bighairyfaeleith]

How much less was government spending at the end of 2010 compared with the end of 2009?

Edit: I can't be arsed waiting for you to discover that around 5/6% more was being spent in November 2010 than in November 2009. In total, the coalition spent 7% (or £23.3 billion) more between May 2010 and December 2010 than the Labour government did for the same period in 2009. All official figures.

So, someone's giving you dodgy information.

surely thats them just seeing through the labour policies though, well thats what they say when it's an unpopular policy like the VAT rise :devil:

[One Day Soon]

Quote me any compulsory redundancies that have taken place in the public sector-I don't mean announcements of job losses but actual redundancies.

1. Why on earth would you draw a distinction between compulsory and voluntary redundancies? Public sector bodies have been trawling for - and taking - voluntary redundancies since Osborne got in.

2. Why on earth would you draw a distinction between public and private sector redundancies? Both sectors pay the price for these cuts.

3. Why on earth wouldn't you take account of the public sector vacancies which haven't been getting filled because public sector bodies have been anticipating the cuts in advance to make their implementation easier to manage?

4. Why on earth wouldn't you include the effect of reducing confidence in the private sector caused by committing to cutting too far and too fast in the public sector (that spend bleeds heavily into the private sector), the dampening effect of the VAT rise and the failure to get the banks back into the lending game - particularly for SMEs which is where the growth has to come from?

[One Day Soon]

How much less was government spending at the end of 2010 compared with the end of 2009?

Edit: I can't be arsed waiting for you to discover that around 5/6% more was being spent in November 2010 than in November 2009. In total, the coalition spent 7% (or £23.3 billion) more between May 2010 and December 2010 than the Labour government did for the same period in 2009. All official figures.

So, someone's giving you dodgy information.

Parking for the moment the one club nature of deciding to measure increases in unemployment simply against public expediture figures, are you comparing 2009 outturn figures with 2010 estimated outturn figures? The projected increase in total public expenditure between 2009 and 2010 should have been £39 billion should it not?

On 24 May 2010 Osborne announced £6bn of immediate cuts - with more and higher to follow - having an immediate impact in terms of both recruitment freeze across the public sector and sending the signal that future years reductions would be severe. That as much as anything else was what solidified the reluctance of both public and private sectors to invest in employment.

[Beefster]

Parking for the moment the one club nature of deciding to measure increases in unemployment simply against public expediture figures, are you comparing 2009 outturn figures with 2010 estimated outturn figures? The projected increase in total public expenditure between 2009 and 2010 should have been £39 billion should it not?

On 24 May 2010 Osborne announced £6bn of immediate cuts - with more and higher to follow - having an immediate impact in terms of both recruitment freeze across the public sector and sending the signal that future years reductions would be severe. That as much as anything else was what solidified the reluctance of both public and private sectors to invest in employment.

Public sector redundancies would have been happening whoever was in power (and were already happening before the last election). That's the nature of trying to eradicate a deficit. It is tiresome for folk to keep perpetuating the myth that this wouldn't have happened if those nasty Tories hadn't been handed power.

I'm sure it goes down a treat on the Guardian and New Statesman websites though.

[One Day Soon]

Public sector redundancies would have been happening whoever was in power (and were already happening before the last election). That's the nature of trying to eradicate a deficit. It is tiresome for folk to keep perpetuating the myth that this wouldn't have happened if those nasty Tories hadn't been handed power.

I'm sure it goes down a treat on the Guardian and New Statesman websites though.

1. I agree that public sector job losses would be taking place to one extent or another regardless of who was in power. The question is not whether they would be taking place, it is how many and how fast. The private sector position cannot be divorced from a discussion of this sort. A job loss is a job loss and cutting expenditure directly through public sector spending reductions and indirectly by damaging confidence in the private sector and among consumers all adds up to one thing - greater unemployment.

You can cut it any way you like, the Big Tories, Wee Tories coalition have gone after savings much harder than is necessary. The motivation is straight out of the Neocon/Orange Book guide to creating a centre right consensus built upon shrinking the state and public services in order to grow private sector health, education and common service provision. The 'Big Society' is the prophylactic strapped onto the end of this deranged experiment to try and mop up the mess that will be made of all sorts of public services.

2. It's not the nature of trying to eradicate a deficit. It's the nature of trying to use eradicating a deficit as cover for wading into collective provision in a way that would delight Thatcher.

3. If it's tiresome that's because a) it's true, b) with power comes responsibility and this government is failing to exercise power responsibly, c) it can hurt when the scales fall from people's eyes as the Big Tories and Wee Tories are now discovering.

4. You are clearly more conversant with the Guardian and New Statesman websites than I am.

I wouldn't read the former because they seem peopled by tree hugging twats who betrayed hundreds of years of radical editorial policy to support the Lib Dems in the last election (FFS - this is the party of Clegg and Laws. It's hard to tell whether they are Tories cross dressing as Lib Dems or Lib Dems cross dressing as Tories. Either way its not pretty).

As for the New Statesman, any publication that gives John Pilger space to rave really does need a long lie down in a dark room.

So no, I don't read either of them.

5. You didn't discuss the figures I was asking about. You may be right in your interpretation or you may not. I'm genuinely curious to know what version of the figures you were using.

6. The economic policy being pursued would be pretty barking at the best of times, but while we are teetering on the edge of double dip/stagflation? We have been here before twice relatively recently - the first time it was Thatcher/Joseph/Lawson and the second time it was Lamont. The common feature was and remains that they believe unemployment is a price worth paying.

[Beefster]

1. I agree that public sector job losses would be taking place to one extent or another regardless of who was in power. The question is not whether they would be taking place, it is how many and how fast. The private sector position cannot be divorced from a discussion of this sort. A job loss is a job loss and cutting expenditure directly through public sector spending reductions and indirectly by damaging confidence in the private sector and among consumers all adds up to one thing - greater unemployment.

You can cut it any way you like, the Big Tories, Wee Tories coalition have gone after savings much harder than is necessary. The motivation is straight out of the Neocon/Orange Book guide to creating a centre right consensus built upon shrinking the state and public services in order to grow private sector health, education and common service provision. The 'Big Society' is the prophylactic strapped onto the end of this deranged experiment to try and mop up the mess that will be made of all sorts of public services.

2. It's not the nature of trying to eradicate a deficit. It's the nature of trying to use eradicating a deficit as cover for wading into collective provision in a way that would delight Thatcher.

3. If it's tiresome that's because a) it's true, b) with power comes responsibility and this government is failing to exercise power responsibly, c) it can hurt when the scales fall from people's eyes as the Big Tories and Wee Tories are now discovering.

4. You are clearly more conversant with the Guardian and New Statesman websites than I am.

I wouldn't read the former because they seem peopled by tree hugging twats who betrayed hundreds of years of radical editorial policy to support the Lib Dems in the last election (FFS - this is the party of Clegg and Laws. It's hard to tell whether they are Tories cross dressing as Lib Dems or Lib Dems cross dressing as Tories. Either way its not pretty).

As for the New Statesman, any publication that gives John Pilger space to rave really does need a long lie down in a dark room.

So no, I don't read either of them.

5. You didn't discuss the figures I was asking about. You may be right in your interpretation or you may not. I'm genuinely curious to know what version of the figures you were using.

6. The economic policy being pursued would be pretty barking at the best of times, but while we are teetering on the edge of double dip/stagflation? We have been here before twice relatively recently - the first time it was Thatcher/Joseph/Lawson and the second time it was Lamont. The common feature was and remains that they believe unemployment is a price worth paying.

The Treasury's official figures on governmental spending.

I won't dispute the fact that £39bn projected increase figure but the period I spoke about was a 7 month period so I've no idea how it stacks up against what actually happened. Even if spending didn't match the projected increase (if the increase for 7 months was £23.3 bn, it can't have been that far short I'd had thought), it's sort of like me moaning cos the missus promised me a new TV for £1500 but only spent £1200 on me in the end.

As for the rest, you're obviously fairly wedded to the Labour/Union's party line so I won't try and convince you otherwise. I don't mind criticism and I'm far from a total supporter of the government, honest, but this total opposition of everything they do, all whilst conveniently ignoring who was in charge when the mess was made, is selective at best. It's fairly standard for new Oppositions to oppose for the sake of it - hopefully they'll follow the template and 'constructively' oppose at some point in the next couple of years. With Ed Balls as effectively co-leader though, I have my doubts.

[Dinkydoo]

Quote me any compulsory redundancies that have taken place in the public sector-I don't mean announcements of job losses but actual redundancies.

No compulosry redundancies as of yet within NHS D&G however as staff move around internally (and on occassion, externally) thier positions are simply not being replaced.

For example, the department I work within has had a Recruitment Admin and a HR Advisor leave the organisation over the past 9 months. Both positions still haven't been advertised and the department has now been informed that the over zealous vacancy control group (put in place by the government initially to prevent jobs being created/readvertised where they aren't neccessary) has decided that the Recruitment Admin position is going to be advertised at a lower pay banding and at 16hpw (where previously it was Fulltime, 37.5hpw).

We probably won't get another HR advisor in to fill the other vacant position, with the additional workload being shared amongst the other HRA's.

Whilst this hasn't really affected my self as of yet as I work within the systems section of the department, providing user and developmental support for our personnel, training and equal pay systems, I still realise that to ask an already overworked group of staff to do more work with less hours/money and to the same high standard is taking the piss just a bit.

Especially when there are bank bosses, consultants and most directors (that I've ever come across) earning well over £100,000 each year.

If the coallition government focussed they're efforts on reducing the outrageous amount we pay to top end earners right across the country instead of trimming down those already poorly paid "lower" positions, we might actually be able to save a bit of money whilst not demoralising the majority of the workforce.

[Beefster]

No compulosry redundancies as of yet within NHS D&G however as staff move around internally (and on occassion, externally) thier positions are simply not being replaced.

For example, the department I work within has had a Recruitment Admin and a HR Advisor leave the organisation over the past 9 months. Both positions still haven't been advertised and the department has now been informed that the over zealous vacancy control group (put in place by the government initially to prevent jobs being created/readvertised where they aren't neccessary) has decided that the Recruitment Admin position is going to be advertised at a lower pay banding and at 16hpw (where previously it was Fulltime, 37.5hpw).

We probably won't get another HR advisor in to fill the other vacant position, with the additional workload being shared amongst the other HRA's.

Whilst this hasn't really affected my self as of yet as I work within the systems section of the department, providing user and developmental support for our personnel, training and equal pay systems, I still realise that to ask an already overworked group of staff to do more work with less hours/money and to the same high standard is taking the piss just a bit.

This happens all the time in the private sector. Surely it's better not to replace someone who is moving on than to replace them and then have to make someone redundant further down the line?

[Dinkydoo]

This happens all the time in the private sector. Surely it's better not to replace someone who is moving on than to replace them and then have to make someone redundant further down the line?


Yes, of course it is but I'd hit the submit button a bit too prematurely there without adding the last wee bit at the bottom which basically sums up why i feel quite aggrieved at all this:

Especially when there are bank bosses, consultants and most directors (that I've ever come across) earning well over £100,000 each year.

If the coallition government focussed they're efforts on reducing the outrageous amount we pay to top end earners right across the country instead of trimming down those already poorly paid "lower" positions, we might actually be able to save a bit of money whilst not demoralising the majority of the workforce.

To me it seems that all, any government ever does is penalise the lower paid workers by not replacing positions and tweaking job descriptions very subtly to justify a lower hourly rate of pay; when we continue to pay massive amounts of cash to those staff in a higher position.

There is something very wrong with the society we live in IMHO where someone can be paid '100 times' more than someone else.

[Beefster]

Yes, of course it is but I'd hit the submit button a bit too prematurely there without adding the last wee bit at the bottom which basically sums up why i feel quite aggrieved at all this:

Especially when there are bank bosses, consultants and most directors (that I've ever come across) earning well over £100,000 each year.

If the coallition government focussed they're efforts on reducing the outrageous amount we pay to top end earners right across the country instead of trimming down those already poorly paid "lower" positions, we might actually be able to save a bit of money whilst not demoralising the majority of the workforce.

To me it seems that all, any government ever does is penalise the lower paid workers by not replacing positions and tweaking job descriptions very subtly to justify a lower hourly rate of pay; when we continue to pay massive amounts of cash to those staff in a higher position.

There is something very wrong with the society we live in IMHO where someone can be paid '100 times' more than someone else.

All the government can really affect is pay in the public sector. IMHO no-one in the public sector should earn more than the Prime Minister. However, if the public sector wants to attract capable leaders they do have to pay a wage that will do so.

In the private sector, the only thing that they can do is tax more. That removes some of the incentive to create wealth and doesn't really deal with the high wage that was the problem in the first place.

[Speedy]

All the government can really affect is pay in the public sector. IMHO no-one in the public sector should earn more than the Prime Minister. However, if the public sector wants to attract capable leaders they do have to pay a wage that will do so.

In the private sector, the only thing that they can do is tax more. That removes some of the incentive to create wealth and doesn't really deal with the high wage that was the problem in the first place.

This. Using private sector executive pay as a reason to suggest public sector admin pay is unfair is ridiculous IMO. It's completely irrelevant.

[Dinkydoo]

All the government can really affect is pay in the public sector. IMHO no-one in the public sector should earn more than the Prime Minister. However, if the public sector wants to attract capable leaders they do have to pay a wage that will do so.

In the private sector, the only thing that they can do is tax more. That removes some of the incentive to create wealth and doesn't really deal with the high wage that was the problem in the first place.

Yep, and thats where we end up back at the start of this "catch 22".

Do you settle for a lesser quality of workforce because the private sector is offering much more attractive wages, or do we match the competitiveness of the privately owned businesses by offering a similar rate of pay to thier CEO and Directors............

I don't know the answer but it irritates me that the government seem content to carry on in this way when infact we really should be doing something to try to change it.

[Speedy]

Yep, and thats where we end up back at the start of this "catch 22".

Do you settle for a lesser quality of workforce because the private sector is offering much more attractive wages, or do we match the competitiveness of the privately owned businesses by offering a similar rate of pay to thier CEO and Directors............

I don't know the answer but it irritates me that the government seem content to carry on in this way when infact we really should be doing something to try to change it.

It's a balancing act. You offer an attractive wage in order to attract quality at the top but the package is obviously not going to match private companies.

Like it or not, a lot of the cuts have to come at the lower end of the scale.

[Dinkydoo]

It's a balancing act. You offer an attractive wage in order to attract quality at the top but the package is obviously not going to match private companies.

Like it or not, a lot of the cuts have to come at the lower end of the scale.

I understand the reason why we pay people stupid amounts of money for simply doing a job that is deemed more important than those at the lower end of the scale but surely when it comes to making savings, it's a really inefficient way of doing things.

To me it seems illogical to mess about with thousands of poorly paid jobs saving pennies here and there, affecting a wide range of people and services when perhaps only one or two similar sacrifices would have to come from the higher end of the scale.

Unless of course most of the director type folk really do enough to justify being paid 100 times more than the rest of the organisation, which I'm not convinced they do tbh.

Or maybe the people who makle these decisions realise that they would be putting thier own position in danger by setting such a precident.

[Speedy]

I understand the reason why we pay people stupid amounts of money for simply doing a job that is deemed more important than those at the lower end of the scale but surely when it comes to making savings, it's a really inefficient way of doing things.

To me it seems illogical to mess about with thousands of poorly paid jobs saving pennies here and there, affecting a wide range of people and services when perhaps only one or two similar sacrifices would have to come from the higher end of the scale.

Unless of course most of the director type folk really do enough to justify being paid 100 times more than the rest of the organisation, which I'm not convinced they do tbh.

Or maybe the people who makle these decisions realise that they would be putting thier own position in danger by setting such a precident.

I don't know what sort of changes they are making at the top but the reason there are a lot more changes at the bottom(or nearer the bottom) is simply that there are more people employed at that level. For example, if there is a department with 100 people in it and they decide that 1 job is unnecessary then removing that job would save, for the sake of this example let's say, £20k? If this is applied on a wider scale then it is a lot more than a few pennies here and there.

I personally don't know what the pay is like across all the public sector but the people I do know that work in the public sector have a good package. The basic pay might not be excellent but the costs of holidays, flexi-time etc. add up.

Anyway, this is going off topic.

[Dinkydoo]

I don't know what sort of changes they are making at the top but the reason there are a lot more changes at the bottom(or nearer the bottom) is simply that there are more people employed at that level. For example, if there is a department with 100 people in it and they decide that 1 job is unnecessary then removing that job would save, for the sake of this example let's say, £20k? If this is applied on a wider scale then it is a lot more than a few pennies here and there.

I personally don't know what the pay is like across all the public sector but the people I do know that work in the public sector have a good package. The basic pay might not be excellent but the costs of holidays, flexi-time etc. add up.

Anyway, this is going off topic.


I can see where you're coming from re the ratio of lower paid workers to higher and it is more than "pennies here and there" that are being saved but in comparrision to what could be saved IMO, it's nothing.

It simply doesn't seem fair that somone on under 20k a year is expected to do more and more whilst those fatcats making the cuts are enjoying a very cushty pay packet year on year.

But aye, way off topic. :greengrin

[Speedy]

I can see where you're coming from re the ratio of lower paid workers to higher and it is more than "pennies here and there" that are being saved but in comparrision to what could be saved IMO, it's nothing.

It simply doesn't seem fair that somone on under 20k a year is expected to do more and more whilst those fatcats making the cuts are enjoying a very cushty pay packet year on year.

But aye, way off topic. :greengrin

I honestly don't think it is nothing in comparison to the savings that could be made by making savings at the top(although I would imagine there are savings/cuts being made at all levels). I don't have any experience of what senior managers earn or what they actually do, so I may not be in the best position to comment, but I suspect that the jobs they do are absolutely necessary and would require a certain level of understanding so it would make it harder to remove and position and allocate the workload elsewhere. This obviously doesn't stop them being offered less money for doing the same job but that goes back to what has already mentioned(i.e. attracting the calibre of staff required).

Another thing that I would say, from my experience working in a supermarket, is that people at the bottom tend to think that managers have nothing better to do than sit on their arse all day and let other people get on with "the real work". If it is that easy then there would be nothing to stop those on low salaries moving up the ladder so they can "sit on their arse" and earn cushty salaries. Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that senior managers do a lot more than it may appear to those nearer the bottom.

Anyway, well off topic.

[Betty Boop]

I honestly don't think it is nothing in comparison to the savings that could be made by making savings at the top(although I would imagine there are savings/cuts being made at all levels). I don't have any experience of what senior managers earn or what they actually do, so I may not be in the best position to comment, but I suspect that the jobs they do are absolutely necessary and would require a certain level of understanding so it would make it harder to remove and position and allocate the workload elsewhere. This obviously doesn't stop them being offered less money for doing the same job but that goes back to what has already mentioned(i.e. attracting the calibre of staff required).

Another thing that I would say, from my experience working in a supermarket, is that people at the bottom tend to think that managers have nothing better to do than sit on their arse all day and let other people get on with "the real work". If it is that easy then there would be nothing to stop those on low salaries moving up the ladder so they can "sit on their arse" and earn cushty salaries. Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that senior managers do a lot more than it may appear to those nearer the bottom.

Anyway, well off topic.

You've obviously never worked for the Council then ? :wink:

[Speedy]

You've obviously never worked for the Council then ? :wink:

Can't say I have :greengrin

[IWasThere2016]

Quote me any compulsory redundancies that have taken place in the public sector-I don't mean announcements of job losses but actual redundancies.

Happening in the Scottish FE and HE sectors right now.

[Beefster]

Happening in the Scottish FE and HE sectors right now.

That's a devolved matter.

[bighairyfaeleith]

That's a devolved matter.

:faf: quality tory comeback, where does the devolved government get it's money from?

[Beefster]

:faf: quality tory comeback, where does the devolved government get it's money from?

London obviously.

Are the SNP told how much to spend on education? If they are so opposed to it, why don't they use their tax-raising powers to minimise the effects? Why not stop the council tax freeze instead of cutting education? Why abolish tolls on the bridges? Why increase their International Dev budget? Why remove prescription charges?

If the devolved government are not responsible for their spending during cuts, does that mean that they can't take credit for spending when it's rising? If not to determine the spending priorities, what is the point of the devolved administration?

Edit: To the OP, apologies for contributing to this going way OT.

[bighairyfaeleith]

London obviously.

Are the SNP told how much to spend on education? If they are so opposed to it, why don't they use their tax-raising powers to minimise the effects? Why not stop the council tax freeze instead of cutting education? Why abolish tolls on the bridges? Why increase their International Dev budget? Why remove prescription charges?

If the devolved government are not responsible for their spending during cuts, does that mean that they can't take credit for spending when it's rising? If not to determine the spending priorities, what is the point of the devolved administration?

Edit: To the OP, apologies for contributing to this going way OT.

So the London government can basically make any decisions it likes and we are all to blame for not being able to make things work under those decisions??

The tories are doing this now with a lot of the councils in England as well, squeezing them really hard and then saying it's the councils fault for deciding to cut a particular service. The tories have started the domino effect, they can't now sit back and say nothing to do with us guv!!!

[Beefster]

So the London government can basically make any decisions it likes and we are all to blame for not being able to make things work under those decisions??

The tories are doing this now with a lot of the councils in England as well, squeezing them really hard and then saying it's the councils fault for deciding to cut a particular service. The tories have started the domino effect, they can't now sit back and say nothing to do with us guv!!!

You didn't answer any of my questions.

[bighairyfaeleith]

You didn't answer any of my questions.

Thats because I'm not a supporter of the snp government, so why would I defend them?

Some of your points do have validity but when it comes on the back of the tories trying to pass the buck it's a bit hard to take seriously

[Beefster]

Thats because I'm not a supporter of the snp government, so why would I defend them?

Some of your points do have validity but when it comes on the back of the tories trying to pass the buck it's a bit hard to take seriously

I think the Coalition have been fairly clear that they are making cuts almost everywhere so I'd be surprised if folk didn't know the ultimate source of the cuts. There is merit in their argument that the devolved governments/councils/BBC/quangos/whoever make their own decisions about where to implement those cuts.

As I said though, the SNP are in a better position than most in that they could raise their own taxes (or make savings on pointless political gestures elsewhere) if they opposed the cuts that much. That would be political suicide though and would stop them being able to blame London for everything.

[IWasThere2016]

That's a devolved matter.

Remark I quoted was Public Sector :wink: and it is happening dann sarf also. Today's headlines:

John O’ Groat Journal

£1.2m cuts cast a cloud over college

http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/9199/_A31.2m_cuts_cast_a_cloud_over_college.html <http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/9199/_A31.2m_cuts_cast_a_cloud_over_college.html>



BBC News

Dumfries and Galloway College job cut talks held

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12503910 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12503910>



Press and Journal

Fears that courses could be scrapped at new university

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2143708?UserKey <http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2143708?UserKey> =

adf



The Courier
Students ready to protest threat to Dundee College music course

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/Living/Music/article/10949/students-ready-to-protest-threat-to-dundee-college-music-course.html <http://www.thecourier.co.uk/Living/Music/article/10949/students-ready-to-protest-threat-to-dundee-college-music-course.html>

Similar cuts happening at James Watt, Ayr, Angus Colleges and Univs in Glasgow, Strtathclyde and Dundee.

There will be compulsory redundancies.

[RyeSloan]

Nice to see such an off topic thread...I might hazard a guess that this is down to the fact that this might actually be a sensible move from a coalition government so no mileage for the naesayers but I won't :greengrin

As for the comments re job loses....I sometimes wonder what planet some people have been on for the last 2-3 years. The company I work for has had numerous recruitment freezes in this time, moved work offshore, had a total pay freeze for 2 years and asked all staff to do more with less. This was required to ensure the company stayed in business, thankfully it did and it is now starting to see the benefits of such drastic action.

Considering the state of the public finances what on earth makes people think that the Public Sector can avoid similar pain? No one wants it but considering the deficit continues to rise the "too much too soon" line seems total fantasy.

[Dinkydoo]

I honestly don't think it is nothing in comparison to the savings that could be made by making savings at the top(although I would imagine there are savings/cuts being made at all levels). I don't have any experience of what senior managers earn or what they actually do, so I may not be in the best position to comment, but I suspect that the jobs they do are absolutely necessary and would require a certain level of understanding so it would make it harder to remove and position and allocate the workload elsewhere. This obviously doesn't stop them being offered less money for doing the same job but that goes back to what has already mentioned(i.e. attracting the calibre of staff required).

Another thing that I would say, from my experience working in a supermarket, is that people at the bottom tend to think that managers have nothing better to do than sit on their arse all day and let other people get on with "the real work". If it is that easy then there would be nothing to stop those on low salaries moving up the ladder so they can "sit on their arse" and earn cushty salaries. Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that senior managers do a lot more than it may appear to those nearer the bottom.

Anyway, well off topic.

You are absolutely correct, managerial positions to generalise, do usually require a higher level of expertise than some lower posts and within the NHS this partially involves a sound understanding and internal knowledge on how the organisation works on an operational level, directorate to directorate.

I know I'm swerving off course quite a bit with this but there was a very good program on BBC 4 a few weeks ago called Justice and the Big Society. The particualr episode I watched was centered around a debate facilitated by Harvard Philosophy Professor Michael Sandel and focussed on whether it was ethically fair to pay someone like Wayne Rooney £10.2 million every year when a care worker only earns £12,000; the outcome of said debate was that the majority of the audience (voting using hand held device thingys) overwhelmingly backed the proposal that pay disparity was unfair, which FWIW was made up of several MP's, philosophy professors and advisors to David Cameron and Ed Milliband.

What I wasn't saying before was that all senior staff sit around all day and do nothing which I think is what you were implying, it was that I'm not sure most of them could justify such a massive wage, which is entirely different. As such I feel it would be a worthwhile excercise in investigating where savings could be made at the top end of the scale - the difference in annual pay between, for the sake of arguement, band 3 and 'deputy head of department 8b' is around 40 grand. Therefore shaving a few hours here and there from the lower banded positions seems like an excercise in futility when measured against the potential savings of doing something similar with a managerial position.

Anyway, thats me off my soap box now :greengrin

:soapbox:

Edit: Apologies SiMar for the hijack, I tend to get a bit overly passionate about things like this : )

[Phil D. Rolls]

You've obviously never worked for the Council then ? :wink:

Or the NHS. :agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

You are absolutely correct, managerial positions to generalise, do usually require a higher level of expertise than some lower posts and within the NHS this partially involves a sound understanding and internal knowledge on how the organisation works on an operational level, directorate to directorate.

I know I'm swerving off course quite a bit with this but there was a very good program on BBC 4 a few weeks ago called Justice and the Big Society. The particualr episode I watched was centered around a debate facilitated by Harvard Philosophy Professor Michael Sandel and focussed on whether it was ethically fair to pay someone like Wayne Rooney £10.2 million every year when a care worker only earns £12,000; the outcome of said debate was that the majority of the audience (voting using hand held device thingys) overwhelmingly backed the proposal that pay disparity was unfair, which FWIW was made up of several MP's, philosophy professors and advisors to David Cameron and Ed Milliband.

What I wasn't saying before was that all senior staff sit around all day and do nothing which I think is what you were implying, it was that I'm not sure most of them could justify such a massive wage, which is entirely different. As such I feel it would be a worthwhile excercise in investigating where savings could be made at the top end of the scale - the difference in annual pay between, for the sake of arguement, band 3 and 'deputy head of department 8b' is around 40 grand. Therefore shaving a few hours here and there from the lower banded positions seems like an excercise in futility when measured against the potential savings of doing something similar with a managerial position.

Anyway, thats me off my soap box now :greengrin

:soapbox:

Edit: Apologies SiMar for the hijack, I tend to get a bit overly passionate about things like this : )

Charge nurses get 40 grand a year, and I would say the majority of them have minimal management ability. Most of them can't work a PC, other than to access local systems, and IMHO are in post due to battlefield promotions. The NHS would do well to look at the number of people working at that level.

[IndieHibby]

As I understand it, the current recession/low growth/stagflation phase started when the banks realised that years of over-lending had left them all with balance sheets riddled with bad debts, of which none would disclose, so stopped lending to each other. 'Le Casino' was as much, if not more so, the responsibility of the cheap-money / low regulation period presided over by government / regulators than the bankers. Blaming the greed of the bankers is akin to giving kids the key to Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and then blaming the kids for stuffing their faces - anyone looking at house prices in the period 2003/4-2007 should have realised something was amiss...

Sensible opinion / capitlist orthodoxy should have let the banks go under, yet this was not feasible as, unlike say, a manufacturer where a product would no longer be produced and a competitor would absorb their share of the market, the banks had huge swathes of our money and would have ruined millions of people had they been left to 'market forces'.

So in steps the tax-payer - you, me and increasingly, our children.

So, if inflation is the answer to this problem, then who pays? You, me and our children. Certainly not high-wage earners.

This is not my idea of fairness.

[RyeSloan]

As I understand it, the current recession/low growth/stagflation phase started when the banks realised that years of over-lending had left them all with balance sheets riddled with bad debts, of which none would disclose, so stopped lending to each other. 'Le Casino' was as much, if not more so, the responsibility of the cheap-money / low regulation period presided over by government / regulators than the bankers. Blaming the greed of the bankers is akin to giving kids the key to Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and then blaming the kids for stuffing their faces - anyone looking at house prices in the period 2003/4-2007 should have realised something was amiss...

Sensible opinion / capitlist orthodoxy should have let the banks go under, yet this was not feasible as, unlike say, a manufacturer where a product would no longer be produced and a competitor would absorb their share of the market, the banks had huge swathes of our money and would have ruined millions of people had they been left to 'market forces'.

So in steps the tax-payer - you, me and increasingly, our children.

So, if inflation is the answer to this problem, then who pays? You, me and our children. Certainly not high-wage earners.

This is not my idea of fairness.

The first two parts of your post I agree with :greengrin

However the last part doesn’t make sense to me….

Who/what is classes as a ‘high earner’?

Why do you not think these people are ‘not paying’?

Considering ‘high earners’ are they not likely to be paying more than most through the tiered tax bands?

Finally if inflation is the ‘answer’ (I assume you mean above target the 2% target, say 4%, rather than double digits) how do high wage earners not pay when compared to ‘you, me and our children’??

[Speedy]

You are absolutely correct, managerial positions to generalise, do usually require a higher level of expertise than some lower posts and within the NHS this partially involves a sound understanding and internal knowledge on how the organisation works on an operational level, directorate to directorate.

I know I'm swerving off course quite a bit with this but there was a very good program on BBC 4 a few weeks ago called Justice and the Big Society. The particualr episode I watched was centered around a debate facilitated by Harvard Philosophy Professor Michael Sandel and focussed on whether it was ethically fair to pay someone like Wayne Rooney £10.2 million every year when a care worker only earns £12,000; the outcome of said debate was that the majority of the audience (voting using hand held device thingys) overwhelmingly backed the proposal that pay disparity was unfair, which FWIW was made up of several MP's, philosophy professors and advisors to David Cameron and Ed Milliband.

What I wasn't saying before was that all senior staff sit around all day and do nothing which I think is what you were implying, it was that I'm not sure most of them could justify such a massive wage, which is entirely different. As such I feel it would be a worthwhile excercise in investigating where savings could be made at the top end of the scale - the difference in annual pay between, for the sake of arguement, band 3 and 'deputy head of department 8b' is around 40 grand. Therefore shaving a few hours here and there from the lower banded positions seems like an excercise in futility when measured against the potential savings of doing something similar with a managerial position.

Anyway, thats me off my soap box now :greengrin

:soapbox:

Edit: Apologies SiMar for the hijack, I tend to get a bit overly passionate about things like this : )

Apologies for the confusion there, the bit about the perception that managers don't do much was to do with my experience rather than your post. I should have made that clear when I wrote it.

[ancient hibee]

Happening in the Scottish FE and HE sectors right now.

Surely discussions about job cuts not making compulsory redundacies at the moment.

[Dinkydoo]

Charge nurses get 40 grand a year, and I would say the majority of them have minimal management ability. Most of them can't work a PC, other than to access local systems, and IMHO are in post due to battlefield promotions. The NHS would do well to look at the number of people working at that level.

Make that minimal to no management ability with the vast majority not very being computer literate (I know from personal experience, running 'drop-in' type training sessions for the system we previously used for online mandatory training).

The NHS would do well to look at improving the skill mix of the staff within clinical Nurse type roles, but thats an entirely different matter which would most likely involve spending money rather than saving it.


Apologies for the confusion there, the bit about the perception that managers don't do much was to do with my experience rather than your post. I should have made that clear when I wrote it.

No worries, my misunderstanding.

[IWasThere2016]

Surely discussions about job cuts not making compulsory redundacies at the moment.

No, some are at the stage of CRs, and many will have CRs as the cuts are beyond the levels of just volunteers.