At a special meeting this evening (6th July), West Berkshire Council's Executive is to consider recommendations for reductions in spending following the unprecedented announcement by the Coalition Government of cuts totalling nearly £1.1 m to funding already allocated in this financial year.
There are two main measures which are being considered as a result. Firstly, the introduction of an external recruitment freeze which it is hoped will save around £800,000 over the remainder of the current financial year. Secondly to reduce work in specific areas which would have been funded using income from Government funding known as the Area Based Grant by just under £700,000 during the current year.
Taken together these two actions could deliver more than the £1.1 million that is required. Given the risks involved in achieving these savings in a year, it is felt necessary to set a target above the saving actually required.
The proposed reduction in government grant is being spread across Council services and will lead to a small reduction in staff posts. Some 50 staff are likely to be affected, and consultation with those individuals will begin after the Executive meeting this evening if the recommendations are approved.
Councillor Graham Jones, Leader of West Berkshire Council said: "We are in an unprecedented situation. Never before have we had cuts made by Central Government to funding for the current financial year which we have already budgeted for. I think as an administration we are being very realistic. The Government had to act to deal with the deficit but that doesn't take away from the fact that that gives us some very difficult decisions to make in the middle of the year."
An external recruitment freeze may well save money - but it makes little sense when it comes to ensuring that WBC has the staff skills appropriate to their needs.
If a social worker resigns or retires it means that they can only be replaced from within the council staff - perhaps by a librarian or a general office worker - how is this efficient?
An external recruitment freeze may well save money - but it makes little sense when it comes to ensuring that WBC has the staff skills appropriate to their needs.
If a social worker resigns or retires it means that they can only be replaced from within the council staff - perhaps by a librarian or a general office worker - how is this efficient?
None of these roles require a degree level qualification. Arguably at 'front line' level, with an appropriate degree of training, staff from any of these roles could operate in the other. The staff concerned would already be aclimatised to WBC's corporate ways; so only functional training would be necessary. This is probably more efficient than filling from the open market. Equally, it's also a great motivator for the staff to have the opportunity to widen their experience. Lets look on the positive side for once!
None of these roles require a degree level qualification. Arguably at 'front line' level, with an appropriate degree of training, staff from any of these roles could operate in the other. The staff concerned would already be aclimatised to WBC's corporate ways; so only functional training would be necessary. This is probably more efficient than filling from the open market. Equally, it's also a great motivator for the staff to have the opportunity to widen their experience. Lets look on the positive side for once!
You seem to need a degree for almost every job these days - certainly if you want to be a social worker or librarian.
The real problems with filling posts from existing staff are: 1 You spend loads of dosh training staff in one role only to see them move to a new role that needs loads more training (I dread to think what WBC's training budget is already). 2 Every post you fill means you have an empty post elsewhere - just moving the problem around. 3 You reduce staff levels by losing those with the skills and gumption to progress their career through a move, but hang on the the least efficient members of staff. The net result is a lowering of overall staff performance. 4 You don't bring in new skills and experience.
If staff numbers must be cut there should be some design behind the cuts - reduce posts in areas where there is least need for staff, don't allow chance dictate where the cuts fall.
You seem to need a degree for almost every job these days - certainly if you want to be a social worker or librarian.
This is because the whole educational awards system has been devalued, or dumbed down. A degree is fairly meaningless compared with fifteen years ago and qualifications that really meant something, HND for instance now come on a bog roll that you tear off as required. I saw a letter from a youth the other day asking for an apprenticeship and he/she identified a Pass in English(Grade D ). The letter was unusually in fairly neat handwriting it had four spelling mistakes.
Hang on, didn't you post just a week or two ago?Make your mind up. If getting a degree isn't that difficult then re-training staff shouldn't be a problem, should it?
But might be more expensive than getting a graduate 'off the shelf'.
Hang on, didn't you post just a week or two ago?Make your mind up. If getting a degree isn't that difficult then re-training staff shouldn't be a problem, should it?
It might be easy to get a degree - but to train a monkey??
Make your mind up. If getting a degree isn't that difficult then re-training staff shouldn't be a problem, should it?
I have a certain sympathy for this view, but the inanities of the system means that staff doing jobs like social work must demonstrate their ability to do the job. A relevant degree goes a long way towards this - retraining staff might be possible in terms of actually being able to do the job it probably takes a couple of years and a lot of expense before they are able to do the job fully. Hiring a recent graduate should shorten the training time and expense.
And this can be made worse if the person moving to the new job also has to be replaced in a similar manner.
I have a certain sympathy for this view, but the inanities of the system means that staff doing jobs like social work must demonstrate their ability to do the job. A relevant degree goes a long way towards this - retraining staff might be possible in terms of actually being able to do the job it probably takes a couple of years and a lot of expense before they are able to do the job fully. Hiring a recent graduate should shorten the training time and expense.
Whilst dumping older, more life experienced staff in favour of a younger, cheaper workforce as you suggest isn't technically illegal it's not going to engender loyalty with those remaining. Additional would you really want social services in this area run by a bunch of 21 years olds?
What will happen in local government is what's been happening for the past year or so. People will leave and won't be replaced and the rest of the workforce will be expected to pick their work. Fine if it's one person, but what happens if it's half the department. Whatever sphere of work it is, it's bound to have an impact on front-line services.
Sadly this is the situation we're in as a country having to bail our the bankers given the public don't want to pay any more in tax so there's no use as a local government worker griping about being faced with twice as much work or as a citizen that the pot-hole in your area hasn't been fixed for ages. Local government will simply have to do less.
Whilst dumping older, more life experienced staff in favour of a younger, cheaper workforce as you suggest isn't technically illegal it's not going to engender loyalty with those renaming. Additional would you really want social services in this area run by a bunch of 21 years olds?
No I would prefer experienced staff - but 22 year olds with a basis in the theoretical and legal side of the job can gain that experience. Older people with neither experience or the backgound knowledge are not necessarily better. I would like to see jobs advertised so that candidates from outside can compete with internal candidates and that the best person for the job be chosen.
What will happen in local government is what's been happening for the past year or so. People will leave and won't be replaced and the rest of the workforce will be expected to pick their work. Fine if it's one person, but what happens if it's half the department. Whatever sphere of work it is, it's bound to have an impact on front-line services.
Of course the cuts will impact on front line services - but the impact would be lessened, or concentrated in lower priority services if the cuts are managed. Refusing to recruit people with the necessary skills to avoid redundancy payouts elsewhere is not the best approach (just a cheap one). WBC seem to be acting on a macro scale - if the overall head count drops then the staff bill drops and all is well - ignoring the effect on services of random losses of staff.
Sadly this is the situation we're in as a country having to bail our the bankers given the public don't want to pay any more in tax so there's no use as a local government worker griping about being faced with twice as much work or as a citizen that the pot-hole in your area hasn't been fixed for ages. Local government will simply have to do less.
It's not only the bankers are to blame, we as a nation have an immense personal debt - encouraged by the banks, but nevertheless undertaken by a population that has moved on from the idea of saving up for some desirable to a buy now, hope to be able to pay later culture.
The public may not want to pay more tax, but that isn't going to stop tax rises. VAT & CGT already - there will be more to come.
Of course we are also to blame for electing a Tory government, we should think ourselves lucky that they have had to enlist the Lib-Dems - it might make the going a little less tough.
It's not only the bankers are to blame, we as a nation have an immense personal debt - encouraged by the banks, but nevertheless undertaken by a population that has moved on from the idea of saving up for some desirable to a buy now, hope to be able to pay later culture.
The public may not want to pay more tax, but that isn't going to stop tax rises. VAT & CGT already - there will be more to come.
Of course we are also to blame for electing a Tory government, we should think ourselves lucky that they have had to enlist the Lib-Dems - it might make the going a little less tough.
We are in this mess largely because we had to pay vast amounts of money to bail the banks out. Services are being slashed, tax (in different forms) is rising to fill the coffers. If the banks were made to pay the loans back quicker, rather than hand out bonuses, this would go a long way to fill those coffers, services would not have to be cut so dramatically and tax would rise less. Cuts will hit children, pensioners, unemployed and elderly - all the people who dont 'buy now, hope to pay later'. The estimate is 600,000 losing their jobs in the public centre. That is 600,000 redundancy payments, 600,000 unemployment benefits, and 600,000 lots of income tax we have lost.
We are in this mess largely because we had to pay vast amounts of money to bail the banks out. Services are being slashed, tax (in different forms) is rising to fill the coffers. If the banks were made to pay the loans back quicker, rather than hand out bonuses, this would go a long way to fill those coffers
I don't think it would scratch the surface. Bonuses are a small percentage of the revenue that the person is recognised as generating.
services would not have to be cut so dramatically and tax would rise less. Cuts will hit children, pensioners, unemployed and elderly - all the people who dont 'buy now, hope to pay later'.
Also, less working capitol a bank has, less loans it will grant to...
The estimate is 600,000 losing their jobs in the public centre. That is 600,000 redundancy payments, 600,000 unemployment benefits, and 600,000 lots of income tax we have lost.
...private enterprise, targeted by the coalition to employ a large number of these people.
We are in this mess largely because we had to pay vast amounts of money to bail the banks out.
Abolugtely - but the banks needed bailing out because they owned too much bad debt - money borrowed by people who could never pay it back and on security that simply wasn't worth enough to cover the debt.
The biggest issue may have been the 'sub-prime' mortgages in the US, but they cannot have been helped by the growing trend for UK customers to renage on their debts - encouraged by opportunistic companies promising to clear your debts in no time. There is over £1 trillion of personal debt floating around in the UK financial system.
They were far too greedy. The worst thing about the bank crisis was that they actually knew the risk they were taking; even employing people who were telling them loud and clear. That's wicked in my book. As for bonuses being just a small percentage of the money they make - someone somewhere has to loose. I an cursed with a long memory - we were told the 'small percentage' tale in the 1970s' 'no, big bonuses won't affect your pension'....oh yeah?
You missed the point, which is, the cash value of the bonuses is simply not enough to save all the swingeing cuts we might experience. It would be symbolic, more than practical.
Remember this, we are meant to have an EU to protect the us from this sort of out-come. Sure the banks were wrong, but the EU and America systemically failed to protect its citizens from themselves as well as tempering the banks.
Also, while the banks were busy making money, the governments were happy to go on a spending spree that simply was not sustainable on the scale it was doing. Also, many of us were happy with the cheap loans and healthy profits to help support pensions.
Banks are simply an element in this issue. We have to look wider to understand full blame.
Sorry disagree! It WAS bankers greed worldwide that precipitated this collapse. Very little Europe could have done. Unfortunately those at the top were paid off with their 30 pieces of silver. However, it was started by greedy bankers. Cutting stupid unearned bonuses would have far more than a presentational effect. In UK would lower house process in London and suburbs, reduce upward pressure on top end wages, make pensions and investments far safer. What gets me is that this was all condoned by a Labour Government! Banks DO NOT create wealth, they simply extract it. If they take a larger slice of the cake, someone else gets a smaller one. Simple as that. Yes the bankers were to blame, wholly and totally. To suggest others, such as regulatory authorities, were also is not right. That’s akin to saying the Magistrates are just as much to blame for crime as the criminals they judge.
What gets me is that this was all condoned by a Labour Government! Banks DO NOT create wealth, they simply extract it. If they take a larger slice of the cake, someone else gets a smaller one. Simple as that. Yes the bankers were to blame, wholly and totally. To suggest others, such as regulatory authorities, were also is not right. That’s akin to saying the Magistrates are just as much to blame for crime as the criminals they judge.
The Labour Government were (partially) to blame for not controlling the industry. In a similar vein courts could be construed as to be condoning crime for not passing strong enough sentences/fines and thereby partially to blame if crime rockets as a result.
So then, George Washington's famous saying might not have been so memorable. 'Father I cannot tell a lie, I felled the tree....but you are partly to blame it was your axe'
You missed the point, which is, the cash value of the bonuses is simply not enough to save all the swingeing cuts we might experience. It would be symbolic, more than practical.
Remember this, we are meant to have an EU to protect the us from this sort of out-come. Sure the banks were wrong, but the EU and America systemically failed to protect its citizens from themselves as well as tempering the banks.
Also, while the banks were busy making money, the governments were happy to go on a spending spree that simply was not sustainable on the scale it was doing. Also, many of us were happy with the cheap loans and healthy profits to help support pensions.
Banks are simply an element in this issue. We have to look wider to understand full blame.
Take just one bank, RBS, we bailed them out and then they paid bonuses of £1.3 billion, this included £1M to 100 people. I really think this is taking the proverbial. I know that these bonuses wont wipe out the debt, but they would go a long way to, say, not trashing the school building projects. The reduction of our debt is supposed to hit everyone, but it does seem to hit the innocent rather the perperrators.
Sorry disagree! It WAS bankers greed worldwide that precipitated this collapse. Very little Europe could have done.
Then there is no point in having it, because that is what they are meant to do. There was a number of countries that didn't get effected. If it was all the fault of the global banks, they would have done.
Our Governments were crap and did nothing to help, I'm afraid, and we let them. I think your analogy is not right. What we had was crap parents who let their kids do exactly what they wanted.
Take just one bank, RBS, we bailed them out and then they paid bonuses of £1.3 billion, this included £1M to 100 people. I really think this is taking the proverbial. I know that these bonuses wont wipe out the debt, but they would go a long way to, say, not trashing the school building projects. The reduction of our debt is supposed to hit everyone, but it does seem to hit the innocent rather the perperrators.
Sadly, this is the rule of life. If wealth didn't matter and didn't buy privilege, what would be the point of of having any?
No sorry, you simply can't pass on or back blame for bad behaviour. I agree parents influence, governments moderate, but we stand and fall on our own. I know many people from broken homes and disadvantaged backgrounds, who have succeeded without bad behaviour. What's the difference between a con man (of a case recently reported locally) who extorted a large sum from an OAP for roof repairs, and the Bank executive who made the self serving decisions which took the whole of her pension? One gets gaol and the other a peerage! In your job, are you constantly thinking how to chizel just a few more quid off the unsuspecting punters? Didn't think so, but that's the banking ethos! By the way, no Country is immune - the generalist press don't generally publish that. Look at the specalist press or the web subscription specalist reports - rather different picture emerges.
If Government, or indeed, the EU can't control banks, then what is their worth? As for your parent comment, I don't understand what you are trying to say. A you say, banks are a business, but banks are a necessity these days, they need to be profitable.
Gordon Brown was quick to take the credit for a stable economy in the 'good' years, but blamed the international market when it went bad. He can't have it both ways. He was complicit (as were the Tories in some regard) in all this mess.
If Government, or indeed, the EU can't control banks, then what is their worth? As for your parent comment, I don't understand what you are trying to say. A you say, banks are a business, but banks are a necessity these days, they need to be profitable.
Gordon Brown was quick to take the credit for a stable economy in the 'good' years, but blamed the international market when it went bad. He can't have it both ways. He was complicit (as were the Tories in some regard) in all this mess.
Indeed banks are a business and as such should self regulate. As Old Goat said, we would be disgusted by a plumber who ripped a pensioner off and spent the money on a holiday, what is the difference? Should we therefore blame the government for all the cons of small businesses? BTW not one of the big banks CEO has a degree in maths.
Should we therefore blame the government for all the cons of small businesses?
The Government determines company law. If they see how business can unfairly exploit its customers, we most certainly expect them to deal with it. Again yours is a poor analogy.
Logged
Male
