500,000 job losses
That's the figure plastered on the front of most of the newspapers this morning - 500,000 to be made unemployed. Except the source for this, being the accidental reveal of a set of papers, states 490,000. I suppose that doesn't make for such an impressive headline though.
One could ask how this is supposed to improve things? Public servants tend to have decent contracts which means having to pay them off, I understand they still have their pension plan, and now they may also be entitled to unemployment benefit.
So money out, future money out, and short term money out while the state receives no labour from them. I just hope the long-term gains justify this.
3 comments:
I agree with you, but I am sorry to say that it is about time the government reeled in the gravy train that is the public sector. I am not talking about police, fire, nhs, schools, although even some areas of them need looking at. I think all of them should be excempt. But its the total soft way everything else is run in the public sector. I work for a big company in Stourport, one of few left in this area and we have had to put up with all sorts of changes and cuts for a few years now. If you have three instances of sick in a 12 month period, you lose sick pay. Any instance of sickness and you lose the small quartely bonus as well. The company has everybody doing more with less staff and budget. The result, we are still doing well and afloat. Its been hard. We are tired, frustrated at times and thourighly p****d off at other time, but we still have jobs. I am sick of hearing about the waste at the MOD, the sickness levels at many public sector departments and massive redundency and early retirement payouts. The whole public sector should be run on private sector priciples. The problem is, the shock to SOME people in the public sector, finding out how difficult work can be, would probably put half of them off sick with stress. My concern is, with all these public sector cuts, its the private sector that will have to bail them out in tax.
Oh, and don't get me started on the benefits system. Thats where alot of it goes. Needs a total overhaul. Two things I would never understand. One, benefits are paid for sitting at home. Why? Get them out on the streets, canals cleaning. Help old people with shopping, anything. No working to help society, no benefits. Or a cut in them at least. Secondly, why are benefits paid in cash? Why not pay some of it in supermarket vouchers, then at least we know its not being spent down the pub. Moan over, for now. Great blog by the way. Everybody stop using Vale Road car park. Even one car parked there is too many. Now I am finished.
Up to a point I agree that the public sector needs to be run like the private sector, however the flaw lies in the differences in motivation.
The private sector's over-riding consideration is making money; the public sector doesn't and to an extent shouldn't take that into consideration.
Value for money - no problem, but it has to take into account the larger picture. A certain fizzy drink manufacturer doesn't have to care that they're sucking all the water out of the ground and depriving the local villages - they're not its customer base; it will only care when others take up the cause and it affects their bottom line.
The public sector has to (or at least should) take such things into consideration. Which ties back to the Broadwaters/Vale Road debacle; this is in a way an action of the Council working as a private sector company.
This is the problem with the oscillation we see between putting things under state control or privatising them. Under state control it's not 'their' money they're using and wastefulness can arise; under private control it's the opposite and it can become parsimonious.
A middle ground has to be found.
As for benefits - as you say don't get me started. The simplistic avenue is to have those who have the ability to earn the money - in effect the council are already paying them so why not indeed have them tidying the streets, or cleaning the canals.
Well what if they decide not to bother? Remove their benefits; how does that help? You're either depriving their dependants or encouraging some to turn to less legal methods of obtaining money.
... personally I would go for the "Here's your boiler-suit go and pick up litter" while employing the person who would originally do this job to supervise; I can just see the problems attached to it too.
Post a Comment