Job culling at Blackburn with Darwen Council ‘is at an end’ (From Lancashire Telegraph)

A good business man from the private sector could still trim down the white collar staff by at least another 25% to give us tax payers value for money.

So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

and all that remain are fascist Capita braindeads all ready to hand over the nation to Serco and its very own civil government...at least we are getting closer to seeing the entire enemy that thinks it can take over mi country.....


Mmmmm I don't think so chubbies....

richard wrote:
So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

Yes! If it means that those that aren't on good wages and pension benefits like local government employees can save some money on future council tax rises.

richard wrote:
So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

It's far cheaper to society than paying them far more for a full time wage, plus huge benefits, for a totally uneccessary job.

If the logic is that someone in a job is actually putting more into society than someone on benefits, then why don't we employ all the slack in the public sector.

The reason is it costs lots and lots of money to pay someone to do a job we don't need. We can't afford to pay for all the non-jobs we have anyway.

There are lots and lots more jobs like that in the public sector.

The big question is - how many managers are there still on £50,000 or more, and how are these obscene wages justified when front line services are being cut.

No-one deserves more than £50,000 in a local council. That's a huge wage to a normal hard working person. Incredibly those on £50,000 or more went up last year - not down! Frontline services might suffer but never the bloated fat cat management.

The private sector is loosing massively to the public sector because it can't compete with the stupidly high wages Labour and the unions convinced themselves that they all deserved. Of course you deserve a massive pay rise if you are deciding it yourself.

Why aren't the unions campaigning about fat cats in the councils? Is it because the unions are lead by fat cats themselves?

What a greedy disgrace eh, whilst the rest of us suffer.

That's looking at it as if people working for the council take their money and it disappears into the ether, never to be seen again. But it ends up right back in the economy in shops, in taxes and so on.

If fewer people have jobs, fewer people spend, so fewer jobs are needed overall... and not just fewer public sector staff, but private sector staff too.

richard wrote:
That's looking at it as if people working for the council take their money and it disappears into the ether, never to be seen again. But it ends up right back in the economy in shops, in taxes and so on.

If fewer people have jobs, fewer people spend, so fewer jobs are needed overall... and not just fewer public sector staff, but private sector staff too.

So why should council employees be exempt from the hardships the rest of society faces? They may spend their money in shops etc but don't the rest of the populus deserve to be able to spend in shops? There is already a two tier society with the rich versus the poor, now you are advocating another tier the haves and the have nots! Secure well paid jobs that is.

I'm not sure when this "race to the bottom" attitude became the popular opinion? We've gone from fighting for better wages and conditions for everyone, to saying "if we can't have it, neither can you". We should ALL be fighting for better conditions, and as Jack said above that could start with addressing the growing inequality of wealth over the last few decades. Then we might all be back to considering pensions and decent wages as the norm rather than in-fighting over which few get them.

A Darener wrote:

richard wrote:
So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

Yes! If it means that those that aren't on good wages and pension benefits like local government employees can save some money on future council tax rises.

you don't have to pay council tax to a private corporation, we are to pay tax to the constitiutional realm only. and of course today the councils are corporate enterprises as is the United Kingdom....

http://youtu.be/Vx5r
NRNC15c

Lifeinthemix wrote:
and all that remain are fascist Capita braindeads all ready to hand over the nation to Serco and its very own civil government...at least we are getting closer to seeing the entire enemy that thinks it can take over mi country.....


Mmmmm I don't think so chubbies....

and all that remain are fascist Capita braindeads all ready to hand over the nation to Serco and its very own civil government...its known as the New World Order this scheme is to establish a New World Order in fact a reality? Yes it is. If you do not believe this I encourage you to study the United Nations documents and also the treaties which, once ratified by individual nations, become INTERNATIONAL LAW. The United Nations created the Commission for Global Governance, if you don't believe this, visit the United Nations website and look it up.

The Commission for Global Governance released a report: Our Global Neighbourhood, that predicates a world court, a global tax, and global police force. And the U.S. State Department Publication 7277 outlines a one world police force under the United Nations. So many prominent world leaders are calling for a one world government the intention is obvious. Yet most people are so occupied by life's responsibilities, careers, sports and television, they have little time to study what's going on in the corridors of power. And for people like Lifeinthemix who are stuck in local issues and thinking somebody wants to take over a country with no resources of its own to sustain life are in the main quite mad.
Labour sold Britain to the Banksters who have made a world thats to expensive to die in.We have all become the victims of Worldwide Pandemic Overpopulation.(W.P.
O).And as more of the worlds resources disappear to times of antiquity the more desperate the elite will become to reduce the worlds population by a massive 90%.

Jack Herer wrote:

richard wrote: So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

It's far cheaper to society than paying them far more for a full time wage, plus huge benefits, for a totally uneccessary job. If the logic is that someone in a job is actually putting more into society than someone on benefits, then why don't we employ all the slack in the public sector. The reason is it costs lots and lots of money to pay someone to do a job we don't need. We can't afford to pay for all the non-jobs we have anyway. There are lots and lots more jobs like that in the public sector.

"a totally uneccessary job"

Like cleaning your streets or emptying your bins or sorting out the mess that capitalism has made by housing people. What about all the children being sexually abused, or the elderly being conned from their money?

Lets get rid of these council staff and we can send YOU round to the parents of a groomed child so that you can explain why she has 4 different seaman secretions in her private parts? No but you’ll criticise the public sector workers that do.

jack daniels wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

richard wrote: So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

It's far cheaper to society than paying them far more for a full time wage, plus huge benefits, for a totally uneccessary job. If the logic is that someone in a job is actually putting more into society than someone on benefits, then why don't we employ all the slack in the public sector. The reason is it costs lots and lots of money to pay someone to do a job we don't need. We can't afford to pay for all the non-jobs we have anyway. There are lots and lots more jobs like that in the public sector.

"a totally uneccessary job"

Like cleaning your streets or emptying your bins or sorting out the mess that capitalism has made by housing people. What about all the children being sexually abused, or the elderly being conned from their money?

Lets get rid of these council staff and we can send YOU round to the parents of a groomed child so that you can explain why she has 4 different seaman secretions in her private parts? No but you’ll criticise the public sector workers that do.

You find me a manager from the council who gets £50,000 a year cleaning the streets or emptying the bins, and I'll show you either a liar or someone who is overpaid?

No-one is on about people actually at the coal face - real workers who do real jobs - we need those and are extremely grateful for the work they do. We are on about the reams of managers incredibly paid £50,000 and above in local councils. Those overpaid and uneccessary people are costing normal people in hugely expensive council tax bills.

The managers from the council don't do the important jobs - the one's you mention - they cut those jobs to keep their own, and then give themselves a nice big pay rise in the process.

Oddly enough the unions never seem to mention these fat cats within the council. Fat cats who cut real jobs and real services.

Oddly enough the union leadership seems to belong to this fat cat collective too. They're not going to campaign for the change we really need in a hurry then are they? They'd be attacking themselves.

That's the disgraceful situation we have right across the public sector unfortunately.

richard wrote:
That's looking at it as if people working for the council take their money and it disappears into the ether, never to be seen again. But it ends up right back in the economy in shops, in taxes and so on.

If fewer people have jobs, fewer people spend, so fewer jobs are needed overall... and not just fewer public sector staff, but private sector staff too.

You just don't get basic economics do you? I'm guessing you work in the public sector.

If the government pays someone £40,000 a year (plus another £30,000 realistically for their pension contributions), then that's £40,000 they have to find to pay that person month in month out.

Even if that person pays 50% in taxes overall with everything they buy, the government is still £20,000 down every single month.

If a person is paid £8,000 a year on benefits, then the government is down less than a grand each month. That person still buys things and pays taxes for those things - say they pay 20% tax on that in VAT, fags, booze, whatever. Which means the government is only loosing £600 a month instead.

£600 a month is far less to be loosing than £20,000 a month. Do you understand that? These are public sector workers who need to be paid out of taxes - the same taxes which need to pay benefit claimants as well.

That doesn't even factor in obscene pension costs.

Check up on your months and years next time will you - they keep switching.

"Which means the government is only loosing £600 a month instead." Okay, which of these is of greater benefit to the overall economy:

Losing (I like the use of that, as if the money is just going nowhere) £600 a month to a person who contributes back so little to the wider economy than they're virtually useless.

Or losing £20,000 a year to someone who will be performing a public service, be out spending and saving, generating jobs and further tax returns, completing the loop.

The former situation creates two circles of money transfer - the rich and the poor - and the latter creates one circle of free-flowing capital.

Incidentally I've read back over your recent comments and you seem fond of ending them with calling people utter morons, so if you plan on doing that and not seeing this as a debate then let me know and I'll stop wasting my time now.

richard wrote:
Check up on your months and years next time will you - they keep switching.

"Which means the government is only loosing £600 a month instead." Okay, which of these is of greater benefit to the overall economy:

Losing (I like the use of that, as if the money is just going nowhere) £600 a month to a person who contributes back so little to the wider economy than they're virtually useless.

Or losing £20,000 a year to someone who will be performing a public service, be out spending and saving, generating jobs and further tax returns, completing the loop.

The former situation creates two circles of money transfer - the rich and the poor - and the latter creates one circle of free-flowing capital.

Incidentally I've read back over your recent comments and you seem fond of ending them with calling people utter morons, so if you plan on doing that and not seeing this as a debate then let me know and I'll stop wasting my time now.

I only save insults for those who insult. For what it's worth though, chamone m/f is a moron!

Look - the government just needs to balance it's books - it has to be able to cover what goes out with what comes in. Simple. The Gordon Brown cycle of debt, debt, debt for our children's children turned out to be a disaster. Europe is currently on the brink of collapse because of countries who took that philosophy to heart like Greece.

The private sector has to therefore generate enough in taxes to pay for everything in the public sector. The public sector must be sustainable in this respect - enough in to match enough out - otherwise we're heading for collapse like Greece. Currently it's not clear whether our public sector is sustainable as yet, not long term, certainly not with the current pensions, with new changes to them or not.

Over and above that though, the public who are paying for everything in taxes need to think they are getting value for money. They have to scrimp and save themselves so it's only right there isn't wastage, because that's effectively stealing people's hard earned money.

That's the current problem with the public sector - it has hugely uneccessary roles and management which simply wouldn't exist in the private sector or that company would go under from total inefficiency.

Normal people don't want to pay hundreds of pounds for vast swathes of uneccessary management who are paid over £50,000 a year. Management who's numbers went up incredibly, not down, when front line services were being cut last year. People are struggling themselves and need that money. Wasting that money is stealing from them.

The obscene pay for the fat cats at the top of councils is very clearly just stealing from the normal person on the street. They are led and protected by fat cats at the unions though. Union members themselves come out in force to protect those fat cat pensions for those at the top. Incredible eh.

If not, then why aren't the unions campaigning massively to cut this fat cat pay in the councils that most normal people are disgusted at?

Jack Herer wrote:

richard wrote:
That's looking at it as if people working for the council take their money and it disappears into the ether, never to be seen again. But it ends up right back in the economy in shops, in taxes and so on.

If fewer people have jobs, fewer people spend, so fewer jobs are needed overall... and not just fewer public sector staff, but private sector staff too.

You just don't get basic economics do you? I'm guessing you work in the public sector.

If the government pays someone £40,000 a year (plus another £30,000 realistically for their pension contributions), then that's £40,000 they have to find to pay that person month in month out.

Even if that person pays 50% in taxes overall with everything they buy, the government is still £20,000 down every single month.

If a person is paid £8,000 a year on benefits, then the government is down less than a grand each month. That person still buys things and pays taxes for those things - say they pay 20% tax on that in VAT, fags, booze, whatever. Which means the government is only loosing £600 a month instead.

£600 a month is far less to be loosing than £20,000 a month. Do you understand that? These are public sector workers who need to be paid out of taxes - the same taxes which need to pay benefit claimants as well.

That doesn't even factor in obscene pension costs.

Is that the end of job cuts in the public sector..? I think not. Over the next three months, councils around the country will begin to agree budgets for 2012. The agreement of these budgets – and the service cuts they entail – will mark the start of the second year of appalling cuts to local government services.

Adult care services, children’s care services, daycentres for people with disabilities, daycentres for the elderly, respite carehomes, libraries, youth centres, youth offices, children’s homes – vital local government services took massive hits around the country in 2011. More will go as the government’s slashing of local government grants continues.

Job losses will be decided in council meetings around the country where cuts proposals will be agreed over the next few months (they have also pointed out privatisation threats here and there). Generally, council budgets are agreed in February and March at full council meetings and you can expect at least another 25% of white collar workers to be axed.And i would advise each reader of this post to invest in their own litter pickers and red plastic bags to clean your own streets just as Cambo planned it in his big society or as we have come to know it.
New World Order. Its coming people and there is nothing anybody can do to stop it.

There is no shortage of money in the Government coffers! Only that it is wasted,
e.g. We borrow to pay a "rich" country like India....must be rich they have a space programme (we don't) they have a nuclear capability, probably never to be used. They keep tyrannical regimes going in Africa, Zimbawe etc. by saving their government from helping its own people, thereby releasing funds for palaces/Rolls Royce's etc for their top politicians etc etc. We waste millions on the EU, a glorified club for get rich quick foreign and British politicians, whilst we in Britain cut back and back. What fools that must make us!

I have to ask the question, how many of the "fat Cat" Local Government Managers does Jack Herer or the "Darener" know. Do they understand the qualities, experience and knowledge that such people bring to Pubic Service. I would guess the answer is Non. In fact I would offer that the two main protagonists in this debate are sat at home, bored and frustrated that they have no worth to society. Get inside the belly of the beast and then comment from an informed position, not ignorance.

I know from experience that in most organisations, and that includes private industry, there are usually more chiefs than indians. This means that there are endless meetings discussing what to do but not actually doing anything. Passing instructions down the line until it reaches the "workers" who usually know far more about what is going on than, "them upstairs" and would probably get the job done more quickly and efficiently without the interference of so called "managers".

Jack Herer wrote:

jack daniels wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

richard wrote: So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

It's far cheaper to society than paying them far more for a full time wage, plus huge benefits, for a totally uneccessary job. If the logic is that someone in a job is actually putting more into society than someone on benefits, then why don't we employ all the slack in the public sector. The reason is it costs lots and lots of money to pay someone to do a job we don't need. We can't afford to pay for all the non-jobs we have anyway. There are lots and lots more jobs like that in the public sector.

"a totally uneccessary job" Like cleaning your streets or emptying your bins or sorting out the mess that capitalism has made by housing people. What about all the children being sexually abused, or the elderly being conned from their money? Lets get rid of these council staff and we can send YOU round to the parents of a groomed child so that you can explain why she has 4 different seaman secretions in her private parts? No but you’ll criticise the public sector workers that do.

You find me a manager from the council who gets £50,000 a year cleaning the streets or emptying the bins, and I'll show you either a liar or someone who is overpaid? No-one is on about people actually at the coal face - real workers who do real jobs - we need those and are extremely grateful for the work they do. We are on about the reams of managers incredibly paid £50,000 and above in local councils. Those overpaid and uneccessary people are costing normal people in hugely expensive council tax bills. The managers from the council don't do the important jobs - the one's you mention - they cut those jobs to keep their own, and then give themselves a nice big pay rise in the process. Oddly enough the unions never seem to mention these fat cats within the council. Fat cats who cut real jobs and real services. Oddly enough the union leadership seems to belong to this fat cat collective too. They're not going to campaign for the change we really need in a hurry then are they? They'd be attacking themselves. That's the disgraceful situation we have right across the public sector unfortunately.

But these ‘fat cats’ that you go on about are somewhat justified by the amount of work they do to ensure that the provision the council provides is to a legal minimum requirement and adheres to government and European legislation. What I think is evident by your posts is that you don’t have any idea about how the council works. 15 years ago I never used any council services, and neither did I understand or care about what these people did. Since then, I have seen the work that is done, and the complexities of ensuring that a council service actually works (usually with an ever reducing budget). I’m afraid that you repeatedly sound like somebody who does not have the facts or experience to comprehend the roles and duties of the staff within the council, and yet again, you come across as a bit bitter.

living the end times in BB1 wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

richard wrote:
That's looking at it as if people working for the council take their money and it disappears into the ether, never to be seen again. But it ends up right back in the economy in shops, in taxes and so on.

If fewer people have jobs, fewer people spend, so fewer jobs are needed overall... and not just fewer public sector staff, but private sector staff too.

You just don't get basic economics do you? I'm guessing you work in the public sector.

If the government pays someone £40,000 a year (plus another £30,000 realistically for their pension contributions), then that's £40,000 they have to find to pay that person month in month out.

Even if that person pays 50% in taxes overall with everything they buy, the government is still £20,000 down every single month.

If a person is paid £8,000 a year on benefits, then the government is down less than a grand each month. That person still buys things and pays taxes for those things - say they pay 20% tax on that in VAT, fags, booze, whatever. Which means the government is only loosing £600 a month instead.

£600 a month is far less to be loosing than £20,000 a month. Do you understand that? These are public sector workers who need to be paid out of taxes - the same taxes which need to pay benefit claimants as well.

That doesn't even factor in obscene pension costs.

Is that the end of job cuts in the public sector..? I think not. Over the next three months, councils around the country will begin to agree budgets for 2012. The agreement of these budgets – and the service cuts they entail – will mark the start of the second year of appalling cuts to local government services.

Adult care services, children’s care services, daycentres for people with disabilities, daycentres for the elderly, respite carehomes, libraries, youth centres, youth offices, children’s homes – vital local government services took massive hits around the country in 2011. More will go as the government’s slashing of local government grants continues.

Job losses will be decided in council meetings around the country where cuts proposals will be agreed over the next few months (they have also pointed out privatisation threats here and there). Generally, council budgets are agreed in February and March at full council meetings and you can expect at least another 25% of white collar workers to be axed.And i would advise each reader of this post to invest in their own litter pickers and red plastic bags to clean your own streets just as Cambo planned it in his big society or as we have come to know it.
New World Order. Its coming people and there is nothing anybody can do to stop it.

That's the problem. We don't want the front line services to be cut. They don't need to be cut.

We want the vast swathes of management who earn over £50,000 a year cut. Those are the people deciding these cuts, making people redundant - real people doing real jobs we'd miss - but keeping their own jobs, even creating more of them. When we wouldn't even know those management jobs were gone if they went - they are so uneccessary.

Front line services don't need to be cut at all. Bloated fat cat management needs to be cut.

Why aren't the unions campaigning for this? Why are the unions protecting the fat cats at the councils?

Normal people don't want their front line services cut thanks. They want to see the end of jobs that aren't even needed but cost an absolute fortune.

The fat cats earning over £50,000 need to see their wages cut to realistic levels before any front line service is even looked at. Why aren't the unions campaigning for this, when the average normal hard working person on the street is screaming for it to happen?

When did the unions become protectors of fat cats over the normal person in the street? That's what they currently are.

Well, there'd be an exodus of experienced public sector workers to equivalent private jobs, which suddenly seem far more appealing!

jack daniels wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

jack daniels wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

richard wrote: So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

It's far cheaper to society than paying them far more for a full time wage, plus huge benefits, for a totally uneccessary job. If the logic is that someone in a job is actually putting more into society than someone on benefits, then why don't we employ all the slack in the public sector. The reason is it costs lots and lots of money to pay someone to do a job we don't need. We can't afford to pay for all the non-jobs we have anyway. There are lots and lots more jobs like that in the public sector.

"a totally uneccessary job" Like cleaning your streets or emptying your bins or sorting out the mess that capitalism has made by housing people. What about all the children being sexually abused, or the elderly being conned from their money? Lets get rid of these council staff and we can send YOU round to the parents of a groomed child so that you can explain why she has 4 different seaman secretions in her private parts? No but you’ll criticise the public sector workers that do.

You find me a manager from the council who gets £50,000 a year cleaning the streets or emptying the bins, and I'll show you either a liar or someone who is overpaid? No-one is on about people actually at the coal face - real workers who do real jobs - we need those and are extremely grateful for the work they do. We are on about the reams of managers incredibly paid £50,000 and above in local councils. Those overpaid and uneccessary people are costing normal people in hugely expensive council tax bills. The managers from the council don't do the important jobs - the one's you mention - they cut those jobs to keep their own, and then give themselves a nice big pay rise in the process. Oddly enough the unions never seem to mention these fat cats within the council. Fat cats who cut real jobs and real services. Oddly enough the union leadership seems to belong to this fat cat collective too. They're not going to campaign for the change we really need in a hurry then are they? They'd be attacking themselves. That's the disgraceful situation we have right across the public sector unfortunately.

But these ‘fat cats’ that you go on about are somewhat justified by the amount of work they do to ensure that the provision the council provides is to a legal minimum requirement and adheres to government and European legislation. What I think is evident by your posts is that you don’t have any idea about how the council works. 15 years ago I never used any council services, and neither did I understand or care about what these people did. Since then, I have seen the work that is done, and the complexities of ensuring that a council service actually works (usually with an ever reducing budget). I’m afraid that you repeatedly sound like somebody who does not have the facts or experience to comprehend the roles and duties of the staff within the council, and yet again, you come across as a bit bitter.

Trust me - I know a lot. I know £50,000 is a massive wage - in the private sector anyway, outside specialist fields such as law or banking. I also have experience of councils as well, so I know how much managers are paid and the number of staff under them - and they are bizarrely few - managers would have far more staff under them in the private sector for the same wage, i.e. they have far far less responsibility in the public sector for far higher pay.

Either councils need to start showing the public exactly how complex and difficult these jobs are - and how much these "management" actual do - otherwise they will rightly say that it is disgusting that these people are paid this vast amount of money. That is a lot of money in the private sector, and so that's a lot of money to most people on the street who are paying for it but struggling themselves. Those people do extremely complex and busy jobs themselves.

Currently it just looks like fat cats claiming they deserve this money, but can't justify it beyond saying it's "complex". It all looks incredibly fishy when it's them who's decided they deserve it in the first place. Everyone is greedy - everyone would claim they deserve that money. That doesn't mean they do. The public needs to be convinced, because currently it looks bad.

Front line services don't need to be cut - fat cat jobs need to cut or their wages brought into the real world instead.

Jack Herer wrote:

jack daniels wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

jack daniels wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

richard wrote: So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

It's far cheaper to society than paying them far more for a full time wage, plus huge benefits, for a totally uneccessary job. If the logic is that someone in a job is actually putting more into society than someone on benefits, then why don't we employ all the slack in the public sector. The reason is it costs lots and lots of money to pay someone to do a job we don't need. We can't afford to pay for all the non-jobs we have anyway. There are lots and lots more jobs like that in the public sector.

"a totally uneccessary job" Like cleaning your streets or emptying your bins or sorting out the mess that capitalism has made by housing people. What about all the children being sexually abused, or the elderly being conned from their money? Lets get rid of these council staff and we can send YOU round to the parents of a groomed child so that you can explain why she has 4 different seaman secretions in her private parts? No but you’ll criticise the public sector workers that do.

You find me a manager from the council who gets £50,000 a year cleaning the streets or emptying the bins, and I'll show you either a liar or someone who is overpaid? No-one is on about people actually at the coal face - real workers who do real jobs - we need those and are extremely grateful for the work they do. We are on about the reams of managers incredibly paid £50,000 and above in local councils. Those overpaid and uneccessary people are costing normal people in hugely expensive council tax bills. The managers from the council don't do the important jobs - the one's you mention - they cut those jobs to keep their own, and then give themselves a nice big pay rise in the process. Oddly enough the unions never seem to mention these fat cats within the council. Fat cats who cut real jobs and real services. Oddly enough the union leadership seems to belong to this fat cat collective too. They're not going to campaign for the change we really need in a hurry then are they? They'd be attacking themselves. That's the disgraceful situation we have right across the public sector unfortunately.

But these ‘fat cats’ that you go on about are somewhat justified by the amount of work they do to ensure that the provision the council provides is to a legal minimum requirement and adheres to government and European legislation. What I think is evident by your posts is that you don’t have any idea about how the council works. 15 years ago I never used any council services, and neither did I understand or care about what these people did. Since then, I have seen the work that is done, and the complexities of ensuring that a council service actually works (usually with an ever reducing budget). I’m afraid that you repeatedly sound like somebody who does not have the facts or experience to comprehend the roles and duties of the staff within the council, and yet again, you come across as a bit bitter.

Trust me - I know a lot. I know £50,000 is a massive wage - in the private sector anyway, outside specialist fields such as law or banking. I also have experience of councils as well, so I know how much managers are paid and the number of staff under them - and they are bizarrely few - managers would have far more staff under them in the private sector for the same wage, i.e. they have far far less responsibility in the public sector for far higher pay.

Either councils need to start showing the public exactly how complex and difficult these jobs are - and how much these "management" actual do - otherwise they will rightly say that it is disgusting that these people are paid this vast amount of money. That is a lot of money in the private sector, and so that's a lot of money to most people on the street who are paying for it but struggling themselves. Those people do extremely complex and busy jobs themselves.

Currently it just looks like fat cats claiming they deserve this money, but can't justify it beyond saying it's "complex". It all looks incredibly fishy when it's them who's decided they deserve it in the first place. Everyone is greedy - everyone would claim they deserve that money. That doesn't mean they do. The public needs to be convinced, because currently it looks bad.

Front line services don't need to be cut - fat cat jobs need to cut or their wages brought into the real world instead.

Another point worth noting is that the council is running public consultation exercises on cuts – they’re crowdsourcing views on services to slash. This maybe because councils were subject to public and legal pressure last year for failing to consult service users about cuts proposals. It’s probably also a useful way to diffuse anger about cuts – the more a council meets and talks with people, the more often it can ram home the “we have no choice except to cut” line. Otherwise if they don't make the cuts they can say goodbye to their pensions and no matter how much the tax payers have to suffer they will protect their pensions.

Jack Herer wrote:

jack daniels wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

jack daniels wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

richard wrote: So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

It's far cheaper to society than paying them far more for a full time wage, plus huge benefits, for a totally uneccessary job. If the logic is that someone in a job is actually putting more into society than someone on benefits, then why don't we employ all the slack in the public sector. The reason is it costs lots and lots of money to pay someone to do a job we don't need. We can't afford to pay for all the non-jobs we have anyway. There are lots and lots more jobs like that in the public sector.

"a totally uneccessary job" Like cleaning your streets or emptying your bins or sorting out the mess that capitalism has made by housing people. What about all the children being sexually abused, or the elderly being conned from their money? Lets get rid of these council staff and we can send YOU round to the parents of a groomed child so that you can explain why she has 4 different seaman secretions in her private parts? No but you’ll criticise the public sector workers that do.

You find me a manager from the council who gets £50,000 a year cleaning the streets or emptying the bins, and I'll show you either a liar or someone who is overpaid? No-one is on about people actually at the coal face - real workers who do real jobs - we need those and are extremely grateful for the work they do. We are on about the reams of managers incredibly paid £50,000 and above in local councils. Those overpaid and uneccessary people are costing normal people in hugely expensive council tax bills. The managers from the council don't do the important jobs - the one's you mention - they cut those jobs to keep their own, and then give themselves a nice big pay rise in the process. Oddly enough the unions never seem to mention these fat cats within the council. Fat cats who cut real jobs and real services. Oddly enough the union leadership seems to belong to this fat cat collective too. They're not going to campaign for the change we really need in a hurry then are they? They'd be attacking themselves. That's the disgraceful situation we have right across the public sector unfortunately.

But these ‘fat cats’ that you go on about are somewhat justified by the amount of work they do to ensure that the provision the council provides is to a legal minimum requirement and adheres to government and European legislation. What I think is evident by your posts is that you don’t have any idea about how the council works. 15 years ago I never used any council services, and neither did I understand or care about what these people did. Since then, I have seen the work that is done, and the complexities of ensuring that a council service actually works (usually with an ever reducing budget). I’m afraid that you repeatedly sound like somebody who does not have the facts or experience to comprehend the roles and duties of the staff within the council, and yet again, you come across as a bit bitter.

Trust me - I know a lot. I know £50,000 is a massive wage - in the private sector anyway, outside specialist fields such as law or banking. I also have experience of councils as well, so I know how much managers are paid and the number of staff under them - and they are bizarrely few - managers would have far more staff under them in the private sector for the same wage, i.e. they have far far less responsibility in the public sector for far higher pay.

Either councils need to start showing the public exactly how complex and difficult these jobs are - and how much these "management" actual do - otherwise they will rightly say that it is disgusting that these people are paid this vast amount of money. That is a lot of money in the private sector, and so that's a lot of money to most people on the street who are paying for it but struggling themselves. Those people do extremely complex and busy jobs themselves.

Currently it just looks like fat cats claiming they deserve this money, but can't justify it beyond saying it's "complex". It all looks incredibly fishy when it's them who's decided they deserve it in the first place. Everyone is greedy - everyone would claim they deserve that money. That doesn't mean they do. The public needs to be convinced, because currently it looks bad.

Front line services don't need to be cut - fat cat jobs need to cut or their wages brought into the real world instead.

So please tell us why you know this is true? What experience have you to justify your opinion?

Now they've managed to lose 1000 jobs at the council to save money then surely they do not need so many managers to 'manage', so how many of these top bosses will admit their services are no longer required and resign themselves to save money?

Maybe one of these highly experienced managers could find out who in the council tax department is on the rob and creating false accounts to hide what they are doing!

Where are all these "managers" that you lot seem to think there are? Go on... ask the Council to publish their management and staff structure. And then ask Capita to do the same. And then find out how much Capita are costing the Council and whether they are truly offering the value for money that both they and the council reckon they are.
.
If you want to find savings, instead of worrying about (the actually very few) managers and the (actually not as gold plated) pensions of the public sector, find out for yourselves what the private sector is costing the council. And only THEN will you be in a position to pontificate about local govt spending.

s_smith wrote:
Where are all these "managers" that you lot seem to think there are? Go on... ask the Council to publish their management and staff structure. And then ask Capita to do the same. And then find out how much Capita are costing the Council and whether they are truly offering the value for money that both they and the council reckon they are.
.
If you want to find savings, instead of worrying about (the actually very few) managers and the (actually not as gold plated) pensions of the public sector, find out for yourselves what the private sector is costing the council. And only THEN will you be in a position to pontificate about local govt spending.

Yes, mister manager at the council!

We would ask but they would never tell us the truth would they?

If the council were competent at what they do they wouldn't need to outsource council services to the private sector would they?

Corruption, and looking after their lapdogs come first, paying public are way down the list of need to knows!

And, besides, if any of these people were so good at their jobs they should have no problem getting a job in the private sector so i don't see why they are so bothered about being made redundant etc!

99% of them would end up on the dole and they know it, which is why they are **** about the cuts!

All the redundencies nice payout and full wages untill they shuffle,all had been arranged two years agono cuts its a cover up.

Jack Herer wrote:

jack daniels wrote:

Jack Herer wrote:

richard wrote: So another 250 people from the area losing their jobs, reducing their spending and requiring benefits is a good thing?

It's far cheaper to society than paying them far more for a full time wage, plus huge benefits, for a totally uneccessary job. If the logic is that someone in a job is actually putting more into society than someone on benefits, then why don't we employ all the slack in the public sector. The reason is it costs lots and lots of money to pay someone to do a job we don't need. We can't afford to pay for all the non-jobs we have anyway. There are lots and lots more jobs like that in the public sector.

"a totally uneccessary job" Like cleaning your streets or emptying your bins or sorting out the mess that capitalism has made by housing people. What about all the children being sexually abused, or the elderly being conned from their money? Lets get rid of these council staff and we can send YOU round to the parents of a groomed child so that you can explain why she has 4 different seaman secretions in her private parts? No but you’ll criticise the public sector workers that do.

You find me a manager from the council who gets £50,000 a year cleaning the streets or emptying the bins, and I'll show you either a liar or someone who is overpaid? No-one is on about people actually at the coal face - real workers who do real jobs - we need those and are extremely grateful for the work they do. We are on about the reams of managers incredibly paid £50,000 and above in local councils. Those overpaid and uneccessary people are costing normal people in hugely expensive council tax bills. The managers from the council don't do the important jobs - the one's you mention - they cut those jobs to keep their own, and then give themselves a nice big pay rise in the process. Oddly enough the unions never seem to mention these fat cats within the council. Fat cats who cut real jobs and real services. Oddly enough the union leadership seems to belong to this fat cat collective too. They're not going to campaign for the change we really need in a hurry then are they? They'd be attacking themselves. That's the disgraceful situation we have right across the public sector unfortunately.

Then please specify who you are talking about!
I agree there are far too many chiefs and they do need to be culled / have their wages reduced.
However, those who work at the "coal face" aren't mind readers. All they see is comments about how everyone who works for the council is overpaid and under-utilised. Its upsetting, offensive and, if it is not what you mean, un-necessary. Please, think about who is reading your comment before you post it. Generalisations can have unintended victims.