From the BBC:
[Manchester Council] Leader Sir Richard Leese said: "The unfairness of the government's financial grant settlement for Manchester, one of the five worst in the country, has been widely reported. We now have to find £110m in savings next year - £60m more than expected - because of front-loading and the redistribution of money from Manchester to more affluent areas...
"At the same time we will continue to invest through our M People employee programme to improve the skills and the productivity of the majority of our staff who will stay with us."
The M People programme, developed in conjunction with the unions, aims to match the skills of the existing workforce to roles that can improve services.
I guess that those employees will have to find the heroes inside themselves and move on up, or something.
On a lighter note: "to match the skills of the existing workforce to roles that can improve services"?? In other words, M Council didn't decide which services to provide first, and then recruit people who could do them. It appears that M Council just recruited an extra ten thousand people (they say that they have 24,000 on their payroll, about one-twentieth of the population of that great City) and then let them decide what they wanted to do.
Thursday 13 January 2011
M People?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ah, this'll be the old public sector binding commitment to put vacancies first to people who, having found their role redundant, will be offered "redeployment" and preferred to any other candidate for said vacancy regardless of qualifications, experience or competence.
Doesn't matter who's best for a job.
Oh and often they'll be kept on in their redundant role until a redeployment opening is identified. Could take years........
So 5% of the population work for the council. Assuming about 1/3 of the population work that means that 15% of the working population work for the council. Hmm. That's some overhead.
FT, that appears to be how it works.
L, fair point. Across the country as a whole, nearly a quarter of workers work for the state directly (7 or 8 million) and millions more in state-funded corporatist sector.
To be fair to local councils, if we pro rate that 5% across the whole country, that's about three million people working for local councils, but by and large, the bulk of the two million public sector workers doing something useful work for councils, and these people do need some back up staff.
So really, local councils would only have to cull one-sixth of their worforce; it's the 4 or 5 million 'other' public sector who are for the chop.
Post a Comment