[News] Civil Service jobs

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Talking of public servants, this is what is happening.

: Richmond upon Thames College in West London is threatening to fire and rehire 127 teachers – their entire teaching staff - unless they sign new contracts which give them 10 days less leave.

Fire-and-rehire is spreading.

But it's all perfectly legal, unlike 'Sir' Starmer's drink party.

Under labour, we would all need a passport to travel to Scotland, and it would take years to get it renewed. Fact.





















:

 

[goldstone]

Also ignored is the impact on the local economies where the 91,000 civil servants live - 91,000 people with reduced disposable income after redundancy, and so spending less in local shops and amenities, so more local businesses and shops likely to go under - having recently struggled through Covid lockdowns.

Tories just don't think beyond the next tabloid-pleasing headline.

There are plenty of job vacancies at present so they should not experience a problem finding work. The only problem is that most jobs outside the civil service require people to work for a living and this could come as something of a shock.

 

[Guinness Boy]

There are plenty of job vacancies at present so they should not experience a problem finding work. The only problem is that most jobs outside the civil service require people to work for a living and this could come as something of a shock.

Did you make it to page 5 of the Daily Mail today or did you just read the front page headline and say to yourself "that's quite enough thinking for today"?

 

[Seagull58]

When any organisation has to make 91,000 redundancies, it’s in deep trouble.

Gordon Brown created half a million additional public sector jobs. I expect BoJo is simply cutting some excess fat. It's the UK. not Cuba.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Doomsters and gloomster hard at it again on the main board.

Oh what fun.

 

[darkwolf666]

There are plenty of job vacancies at present so they should not experience a problem finding work. The only problem is that most jobs outside the civil service require people to work for a living and this could come as something of a shock.

If you REALLY believe what you type, then you clearly are an idiot - failing that you are an extremely good angler!

 

[dazzer6666]

There are plenty of job vacancies at present so they should not experience a problem finding work. The only problem is that most jobs outside the civil service require people to work for a living and this could come as something of a shock.

Crass generalisation. The last organisation I worked for had thousands of employees that were stealing a living IMO. Possible to hide away for years doing **** all. Several came in from the ‘civil service’ and found it much easier (as well as being more flexible with better pay, better holidays, bonuses etc etc).

 

[The Clamp]

Gordon Brown created half a million additional public sector jobs. I expect BoJo is simply cutting some excess fat. It's the UK. not Cuba.

I didn’t know that. I’ll look into it.

 

[The Clamp]

Doomsters and gloomster hard at it again on the main board.

Oh what fun.

I’m sure the 91,000 will try and be positive as they find themselves out of work in such times. Still, they won’t have to pay the the NI increases…..oh.

 

[darkwolf666]

Interesting read... so basically the government recruited circa 90,000 additional civil servants to see Brexit through, now they are surplus to requirements...

https://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-numbers.html

Apparently...

 

[Marty___Mcfly]

Interesting read... so basically the government recruited circa 90,000 additional civil servants to see Brexit through, now they are surplus to requirements...

https://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-numbers.html

Apparently...

 

[worthingseagull123]

It will happen over 3 years with an external recruitment freeze, natural wastage and the end of some temps and those on fixed term contracts.

The government cannot afford to make wholesale compulsory redundancies.

 

[usernamed]

What I find interesting about this type of manoeuvre is that it becomes a self reinforcing cycle.

People feel that they’re not getting an adequate level of service from public services, this frustrates them. So, a story like this becomes good news for those frustrated by the level of service offered by public services. “That’ll learn ‘em!” comes the cry from the Daily Mail contingent, and they applaud the announcement of cuts.

If it actually happens, then further starved of resource, public services deteriorate further. This frustrates the public further, enabling a government so minded to say “for efficiency we’re culling the number of Civil Servants.” and that will again draw cheers from the Daily Mail brigade, who hate these lazy Civil Servants, and yet who will have to wait an extra month for their passport, and an extra 20 minutes before anyone answers the phone at HMRC or DWP. Isn’t it amazing that the fewer Civil Servants there are, the lazier they get?

With regard to increased Civil Service numbers since Brexit, of course there are. Previously we didn’t need to employ as many customs officers (single market) we didn’t need our own trade negotiators, and the ECJ handled trade disputes so our courts system didn’t have to. Taking back control means doing these things for ourselves, that isn’t cheap. That money we paid into the EU bought us all that.

To go back to pre-Brexit levels of Civil Service while managing this huge swathe of additional responsibilities is going to mean massive reductions in the level of service offered across general government services.

I’m not sure how many really voted for vastly reduced Civil Service capability, but I’m certain the Johnson cheerleaders will be along soon to tell us this was exactly what they always envisaged, and definitely what everyone wants. We gleefully continue to impoverish ourselves on every level.

 

[drew]

What I find interesting about this type of manoeuvre is that it becomes a self reinforcing cycle.

People feel that they’re not getting an adequate level of service from public services, this frustrates them. So, a story like this becomes good news for those frustrated by the level of service offered by public services. “That’ll learn ‘em!” comes the cry from the Daily Mail contingent, and they applaud the announcement of cuts.

If it actually happens, then further starved of resource, public services deteriorate further. This frustrates the public further, enabling a government so minded to say “for efficiency we’re culling the number of Civil Servants.” and that will again draw cheers from the Daily Mail brigade, who hate these lazy Civil Servants, and yet who will have to wait an extra month for their passport, and an extra 20 minutes before anyone answers the phone at HMRC or DWP. Isn’t it amazing that the fewer Civil Servants there are, the lazier they get?

With regard to increased Civil Service numbers since Brexit, of course there are. Previously we didn’t need to employ as many customs officers (single market) we didn’t need our own trade negotiators, and the ECJ handled trade disputes so our courts system didn’t have to. Taking back control means doing these things for ourselves, that isn’t cheap. That money we paid into the EU bought us all that.

To go back to pre-Brexit levels of Civil Service while managing this huge swathe of additional responsibilities is going to mean massive reductions in the level of service offered across general government services.

I’m not sure how many really voted for vastly reduced Civil Service capability, but I’m certain the Johnson cheerleaders will be along soon to tell us this was exactly what they always envisaged, and definitely what everyone wants. We gleefully continue to impoverish ourselves on every level.

Not sure it's got too much to do with Brexit. We now have the same levels of civil servants as we had in 2010 when the Tories came in. I'm guessing their austerity measures cut back the service to what it was immediately before Brexit vote and then due to poor service levels they rose to what they are now.

 

[clapham_gull]

The PM could start with looking at Rees Mogg.

He turned up to a Sky News interview today with four advisors.

Not including nanny.

Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

 

[usernamed]

Not sure it's got too much to do with Brexit. We now have the same levels of civil servants as we had in 2010 when the Tories came in. I'm guessing their austerity measures cut back the service to what it was immediately before Brexit vote and then due to poor service levels they rose to what they are now.

Regardless of whether for or against Brexit, it can’t be ignored with regard to Civil Service staff numbers. Leaving the EU means that there are functions that were previously carried out in Brussels on behalf of the whole EU, that now need to be carried out on a smaller scale by the Civil Service just for the U.K. I don’t say that for point-scoring on one side of the Brexit argument (we’ve left, what would be the point) it’s simply fact.

To try to go back to pre-Brexit levels of staffing when Brexit has given the Civil Service additional duties to perform seems optimistic to say the least. If actually attempted and not just another dead cat, this will go the same way as with police numbers, services will be overwhelmed, and additional staff will need to be taken on.

Each time we go through this cycle we pay for the redundancies, we pay for the recruitment exercises, we pay for the training of new staff and we pay those staff while they’re being trained. It is vastly more efficient to keep the staff you have then go “boom and bust” with staff numbers. By all means move resource around within the service to where it’s needed, but don’t keep throwing it out and then buying more.

 

[clapham_gull]

By all means move resource around within the service to where it’s needed, but don’t keep throwing it out and then buying more.

Totally agree. The announcement is little more than an attempted vote winner. The short fall will probably be made up with expensive private sector contracts.

Don't get me wrong, the public sector at times is an absolute shit show, but the Tories have had over a decade to change it. All they have done is massively increase the headcount and now need something so they can announce tax cuts at the next election.

Can't believe anyone has fallen for it.

Even the voters round here in Wandsworth and wised up the "one trick pony" line of the lowest council tax in the country line.

They are bereft of ideas.


Sent from my SM-A526B using Tapatalk

 

[Baldseagull]

Have you ever looked at any government/council outside works , people standing around watching the digger or indeed not there after closing/reducing the amount of traffic. It's not just office workers. People of all skills tend to shirk if either they are not incentivised properly.

Their is a role in construction known as Banksman. His job is to be an extra pair of eyes and ears for the machine operator, who cannot always see the end of the bucket, hook of the crane, etc. In excavations their may be two or three Banksmen depending on the site hazards. Despite this and many other H&S measures, construction is still the industry most likely to kill you. There could also be groundworkers there ready to jump in and dig by hand once the digger has reached a depth close to the services they are trying to access, or shore up the excavation. It isn't always possible for everyone that needs to be there, to be doing something productive all the time.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The short fall will probably be made up with expensive private sector contracts.

….and let me guess who these will be awarded to.

 

[Peteinblack]

What I find interesting about this type of manoeuvre is that it becomes a self reinforcing cycle.

People feel that they’re not getting an adequate level of service from public services, this frustrates them. So, a story like this becomes good news for those frustrated by the level of service offered by public services. “That’ll learn ‘em!” comes the cry from the Daily Mail contingent, and they applaud the announcement of cuts.

If it actually happens, then further starved of resource, public services deteriorate further. This frustrates the public further, enabling a government so minded to say “for efficiency we’re culling the number of Civil Servants.” and that will again draw cheers from the Daily Mail brigade, who hate these lazy Civil Servants, and yet who will have to wait an extra month for their passport, and an extra 20 minutes before anyone answers the phone at HMRC or DWP. Isn’t it amazing that the fewer Civil Servants there are, the lazier they get?

With regard to increased Civil Service numbers since Brexit, of course there are. Previously we didn’t need to employ as many customs officers (single market) we didn’t need our own trade negotiators, and the ECJ handled trade disputes so our courts system didn’t have to. Taking back control means doing these things for ourselves, that isn’t cheap. That money we paid into the EU bought us all that.

To go back to pre-Brexit levels of Civil Service while managing this huge swathe of additional responsibilities is going to mean massive reductions in the level of service offered across general government services.

I’m not sure how many really voted for vastly reduced Civil Service capability, but I’m certain the Johnson cheerleaders will be along soon to tell us this was exactly what they always envisaged, and definitely what everyone wants. We gleefully continue to impoverish ourselves on every level.

Classic Tory playbook: slash staff and cut funding > service deteriorates further - repeat process > further deterioration > Government announces that "we've tried to improve things, but these people are inherently lazy/incompetent, so we'll need to pursue privatisation." Cue cheers from Daily Mail readers!