Cuts Page 3

Yeah but come on - how many of senior NHS staff are dead wood? In a private enterprise' recruitment over the last few years would not have been as rife as it has been in the NHS.

Savings can be made anywhere in any business/organisation. In the biggest organisations(there aren't many bigger thne the UK NHS!) massive savings can be made through common sense savings. Its just good housekeeping.

I have a very good friend who makes big financial decisions every day working for the NHS - and is a reknown for being a complete f**kwit with his own financial affairs. There is no way any private enterprise (who knew his lack of abilities) would employ him. He can't be the only one.

In my experience, 'The Peter Principle' (the management theory, not the sitcom) exists in the majority of Government departments.

Ok, with the massive cuts we face, there will be some odd decisions made (child benefit seems to be one), but ultimately its the bad medicine we have to take to be better. how ironic that the NHS are going to have to swallow the biggest dose.

Quote: Juan Kerr @ November 10 2010, 7:01 AM GMT

Yeah but come on - how many of senior NHS staff are dead wood?

View original

By 'senior', we're talking about matron-level and above.

Quote: Juan Kerr @ November 10 2010, 7:01 AM GMT

ultimately its the bad medicine we have to take to be better.

View original

How is it good to pay a massive sum out to someone?

No redundancy makes financial sense at first because legal pay outs have to be made. It pays off in the long term. It doesn't just pay off with salary savings but it pays off by getting across a cultural 'gravy train' shift idea to the rest of the organisation. Many people in Govt posts are institutionalised and have no concept of financial accountability and cash management - it has just 'always been there'.

Time for big changes. Time to trim the fat.

Quote: Juan Kerr @ November 10 2010, 8:18 AM GMT

Time for big changes. Time to trim the fat.

View original

Time for short slogans.

The thing is, 'mutual resignation' is purely voluntary. I happen to know two very overworked people who are taking it up, because they are fed up with the enormous pressure. And they hold critical roles. It's the most valuable people who are being 'trimmed' off; the 'dead wood' you talked about will be able to stay on!

The problem of voluntary redundncy and early retirement schemes is that it tends to be the people you would most want to keep who put their hands up. They are most frustrated by mismanagement and more confident of finding new jobs.

On a related note, with the abolition of retirement ages, it will be the people you most want to go who insist in staying on. They have an easy life free from stress, why should they be in a hurry to leave?

Whatever the residual situation of resource cutbacks - its a managerial role to sort it out and use remaining resources better. Public service workers are soon to be exposed to the realities that those in the private sector have to adhere to every single day. People have to pull their weight, and whilst I accept that many do in the public sector, Im sure that many don't.

Just becasue there may be some initial short term negative issues if the medicine tastes badly - that's tough. One thing is for certain, things have to change. Throwing money at a problem is not always the answer.

If the dead wood stays on and the 'real workers' go (something that won't be the case everywhere anyway) - then the dead wood will have to get their act together - or be found out! Its basic economic theory coming into play in an environment where it has been a foreign language for too long for many.

It's all about taking a business like approach to resource management Workers are fundementally resources to be used (in the nicest possible way).

Tough times ahead for sure - but whats the alternative?

Of course there is a social argument for keeping the unemployable in State jobs. Most State jobs do not pay all that much and these people would otherwise be on benefits, so the saving from dismissing them is not that great. And at least by being kept in employment they make some sort of contribution to society, while by going to work every day they maintain some self-esteem and set an example of sorts to any offspring.

I am not saying that is necessarily my point of view, but when I have been a manager of a deadwood member of staff I have seen the benefit of finding them a more or less useful job that is within their capabilities, rather than going through the immensley time-consuming, acrimonious and stressful process of sacking them; particularly when it is clear that they are psychologically or physically incapable of being able to hold down a job anywhere else, and would inevitably become an increasing burden on the welfare state.

Quote: Timbo @ November 10 2010, 11:34 AM GMT

Of course there is a social argument for keeping the unemployable in State jobs. Most State jobs do not pay all that much and these people would otherwise be on benefits, so the saving from dismissing them is not that great. And at least by being kept in employment they make some sort of contribution to society, while by going to work every day they maintain some self-esteem and set an example of sorts to any offspring.

View original

have you been talkign to my manager

So to extend the viewpopint of keeping public employees in jobs just for the sake of it (because apparently it costs the same) - why don't we just give every
unemployed person a job with their local council for the same money - Oh and see if they turn up every morning?

Fact is, generally, its more expensive to keep people in work unnecessarily, than on benefits (thats why people get pissed off when they lose their jobs - as they tend to be financially poorer). Having less people working for them forces flabby, lazy management to improve systems and results - to take up the slack in resources lost.

I hesitiate to use the old Soviet bloc as an example of good governance, but the view in, say, the DDR was that the social advantages of full emplyment justified the cost. To an extent Red China still applies the same philosophy.

I do not say you are wrong, but the point remains that the public sector differs from the private sector, in that efficiency savings do not translate into outright gains. The direct costs of making people unemployed, and the indirect costs of social breakdown, have to be borne by the State.

Apart from a relatively small proprtion cases (often made intractable by equality legisaltion) downright incompetence and laziness have largely been stamped down upon. The same corporate thugs who run the private sector are now running the public sector - there has been a big buy-in of private sector 'expertise'.

Inefficiency tends be more systematic than the result of individual failings. Much of this inefficiency arises from the disruption and overheads resulting from management attempts to impose efficiencies. Last night's Panorama on the failings of HMRC is a case in point. This is the circle Osborne will have to square to achieve his ambitious efficiency targets.

people get pissed off when they lose their jobs - as they tend to be financially poorer

You heard it here first, folks!

Timbo, I admire your attempt to defend the inefficiencies of the state regarding why 'dead wood' should remain to be employed - but isnt it just a little too idealogical?

Don, sarcasm on a comedy forum....hmmm! You know what they say.

It isn't always a fact that all people get pissed off though - when made redundant. Some people walk with a fortune as fate plays into their hands. If you bothered to read what other posters were saying - they were implying that unemployment (to those on low paid jobs) isnt particularly a bad thing - whereas I, generally, disagree with the sentiment (because people generally have less money)

I find that it quite often helps to read all the posts before responding.

Quote: don rushmore @ November 10 2010, 4:30 PM GMT

You heard it here first, folks!

View original