Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#1
Councils have spent the last year recruiting hundreds of people to 'non-jobs' while claiming government cuts have forced them to cut frontline services.
Despite the fact the public sector has been ordered to make cuts, a survey has found local authorities have created more than 4,000 new posts since the last election.
Councils have advertised for posts such as 'Healthy Walks Co-ordinator', 'Woodfuel Development Officer', 'Active Women Officer' and 'Gypsy Romany Traveller Community Cohesion Officer'.
.
Local authorities up and down the country have been closing libraries and sacking lollipop ladies, claiming the financial squeeze made this unavoidable.
The survey shows that most councils are reducing staff. But a total of 205 have created some 4,148 new posts since last May.
Jobs include 'walking co-ordinators', 'obesity strategy officers' and 'active' workers, whose job it is to persuade the public to take more exercise.
Good old Eric Pickles attacked the 'irresponsible' coucils until it was revealed on Twtter that his dept had hired a computer bod to enhance his on line presence at the cost to the tax payer of £142k per annum.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#2
quite probably.just employ the lollipop ladys [and men] and the libreaians.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
If Councils can afford to employ people in these non-jobs then those Councils clearly have room for more cuts. I hope Eric taken note of these and adjusts downwards their central government grants accordingly.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
eric has to get his own house in order first.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#5
People need to be careful about this in the same way as the £500 spend that Councils are having to publish.. without context to the spend it is meaningless...
What's to say that the spend isn't entirely grant funded or they don't actually make money out of some of the roles?? I think the White Cliffs Countryside Project is like this as their payroll goes via DDC but they are grant funded so cost DDC very little if anything.
Ashford had something like this as the papers said they spend £1million on train fare when in fact it was them paying over £950k central government grant
Also they said they were employing a homeopath when in fact it was payment for housing accomodation, but the person was classified as a homeopath in the Yellow Pages
Context.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#6
But Howard - what are the facts?
What is the timescale? Remember he has been in place for under 10 months. Is this perhaps referring to action taken under the last government? We do not know do we...
But yes, that sounds like an example of waste whatever government it was under.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#7
Rather BTW.
PaulB,
I see an opportunity for a forum/site competition.
The spotting of phrases like, "in place for under 10 months" all the way up to and including, "this has been only their first term..."
From the likes of Barry and others. I feel this could run and run, for a month or two more anyway.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.