Civil service bloodbath.

[Talk Wrench]

There's plans afoot to slash over 90, 000 civil service jobs.

There's been plenty of comment on here over the years about how bloated and inefficient the CS is, but will a slash and burn policy make the CS more effective?

Cost of living: PM orders ministers to plan 90,000 civil service job cuts - but union warns of 'reckless slash and burn'

Mr Johnson has told cabinet ministers to come up with a plan to slash departmental workforces to 2016 levels, implying a reduction of about a fifth.

news.sky.com

 

[Rugby-Jock-Lad]

What's the bet that the ones they get rid of are the competent, helpful ones who actually know their jobs while the self-serving, brown nosing, incompetent schmoosers survive???!!!!! That's a rhetorical question by the way..........

 

[Oldstacker]

Speaking as someone who has been a CS almost exactly as long as I was in uniform, I can only say that I am constantly frustrated by my seniors in my efforts to deliver an effective service to the front line (of all 3 colours). Many of them appear to have no understanding of the realities of life at units nor any understanding of how their decisions may affect hundreds or thousands of unit personnel across defence. They are too often 'egged on' in this by contractors who also neither know nor care about unit impacts and 'green job' officers who get into key positions despite having the 'wrong' background specialisations (i.e. cap badges) and whose approach tends to be 'tell the troops to do what they're told and all will be well" even though too many of my colleagues have no idea of the context & steps that they need to tell the troops!. I have colleagues who have made it plain that they will never return to office working (I'm in office more than I wfh) and are losing all the benefits, both to themselves and the organisation, of informal collaboration on the floorplates.

Frankly, if they want to include me in the 91k then so be it - I am running out of patience and willingness to bang my head on the brick walls much longer.

To quote Schiller
"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain."

(Yes, RJL is right...)

 

[Tin basher]

I joined the CS after leaving the RAF the dickhead to good egg ratio is completely flipped over far to many cruisers in the CS who do the minimum knowing that getting rid of them is extremely difficult if not impossible. A good bellend indicator is the guy who moves departments every 12 months or so as mangement try to spread his ineptitude around in a fair and equitable manner. Whether there are actually 90K+ who are lead swinging I find hard to believe. The tricky bit will be ditching the right ones.

The CS was once compared to early versions of the SA80 in that it didn't work but couldn't be fired.

 

[vim_fuego]

As a Consultant...this sort of thing tends to turn into rich pickings for well-heeled chaps like myself...

 

[Tin basher]

As a Consultant...this sort of thing tends to turn into rich pickings for well-heeled chaps like myself...

Indeed it does 2 CS replaced by 2 contractors on a better hourly rate happened many many times. Get out clause is the contractors are allegedly only short term. From personal experience some can be there for years.

 

[Dirge]

It's like an endless cycle, if it's not reducing headcount it's moving all the London based offices out to somewhere considered much cheaper. I was a CS for approx 10 years in London and went through the process twice, the last failed plan was moving to Westbury on Trym, Bristol. They will go through the motions, cull whatever numbers they can and then the service will gradually bloat up again until a subsequent government realises they need to save money and the next round will begin again.

 

[Oldstacker]

I joined the CS after leaving the RAF the dickhead to good egg ratio is completely flipped over far to many cruisers in the CS who do the minimum knowing that getting rid of them is extremely difficult if not impossible. A good bellend indicator is the guy who moves departments every 12 months or so as mangement try to spread his ineptitude around in a fair and equitable manner. Whether there are actually 90K+ who are lead swinging I find hard to believe. The tricky bit will be ditching the right ones.

The other typical scenario is that management finally grasp that activity X needs to be done, so someone with management of activity X(ish) is recruited to fill the post. That person then reveals they have never done X(ish) in a defence environment and probably not even a similar environment (think Air engineering vs submarine engineering say) so spends 12 months investigating the task, doing their mandatory training and getting involved with lots of non-X but 'good for career development' stuff, drafting a strategy document for the seniors to sign off, then a policy plan for the seniors to sign off & then a process map for everyone to sign off (which they don't because it is flawed) before announcing that they have found a better post to move to. The end result is that 12 - 18 months after the seniors were interested enough to fill the post, lots of effort has been expended but X still hasn't actually been done and either the whole process starts again or the seniors have become more interested in something else (because they are different people by now) or are under pressure to cut budgets so the newly vacant post (which doesn't DO anything is the first to be cut. Until new seniors can be persuaded that X really should be done and the merry-go-round starts again.

I've seen it several times....

 

[Tin basher]

getting involved with lots of non-X but 'good for career development' stuff,

I've seen it several times....

There are indeed CS staff who become professional course attendees who achieve little, are rarely at their primary task but have a folder full of certificates from courses they have completed.

"That person then reveals they have never done X(ish).................think Air engineering vs submarine engineering"

Oh who would do such a thing!

 

[Deltaitem]

So Johnson's throwing 90,000 civil servants under the bus so he can announce a tax cut. Hmm, 90,000 earners who will be on the dole, funded by taxes, 90,000 earners who will have a massively reduced disposable income, who then won't be able to spend their money into the local economy, reducing said economy's ability to earn more and thereby pay into the taxation system, thereby leading to worse public services.
As a fan of Keynsian economic theory, it just seems to me to be another example of tory dumb-assery.
I suppose it means less people for Johnson to invite to No 10 parties, until the next utterly dumb national decision that will require more civil servants.
Bereft of (some) politicians willing to do their jobs in Northern Ireland, there may be a need for a few more civil servants over there.

 

[busby1971]

Economy could probably cope with and absorb 90,000 good workers, employment sits at the theoretical full employment levels in many areas around the country. I would also expect a big chunk of these leavers to exit on voluntary redundancy terms as demanded by the powerful unions and COSOP rules.

There’s still plenty of processes in central CS or arms length departments that could easily, safely and more inexpensively be outsourced, which would also mop up some of this Labour. I would guess that the number of retires added to the number of people required to carry out the work more efficiently would be pretty close to the total number of the roles removed.

 

[Deltaitem]

If they're about to be hoyed out of their jobs just so that Johnson can keep his, they bloody well need powerful unions! If only they were powerful, maybe their jobs would be safe. We all know that unions in this country are never as powerful as the tory scaremongers would suggest.

 

[busby1971]

Some unions operating in monopolistic industries with a monopolistic workforces are still pretty powerful, if cars can drive on streets without driver input, why do we have train drivers, never mind retaining conductors.

 

[Oldstacker]

Economy could probably cope with and absorb 90,000 good workers, employment sits at the theoretical full employment levels in many areas around the country. I would also expect a big chunk of these leavers to exit on voluntary redundancy terms as demanded by the powerful unions and COSOP rules.

There’s still plenty of processes in central CS or arms length departments that could easily, safely and more inexpensively be outsourced, which would also mop up some of this Labour. I would guess that the number of retires added to the number of people required to carry out the work more efficiently would be pretty close to the total number of the roles removed.

Hmm, maybe & maybe not. I deal on a daily basis with a contractor company (big, well known name) undertaking work previously done by MOD staff (mainly CS) most of whom were TUPE'd across. Many of the TUPE'd staff have retired or moved on and 'proper' external staff recruited to work within greatly modernised and slimmed down processes. Except that there are still insufficient staff, with lacking (but slowly growing) defence knowledge and a less than exemplary reputation amongst the broader community with whom we deal.

 

[busby1971]

There’s always turbulence in change, change is a constant and should be embraced rather than fought.

 

[Deltaitem]

I'd say change is better if it's owned rather than imposed. I can't see many people embracing a change that results in them losing their job.

 

[busby1971]

Agree, however, having run one of these events for a few hundred Civil Servants those that own their own change journeys normally have a more positive journey and outlook at the end of the process.

And when I’ve been recruiting people theres nothing more damaging to an interview than an angry candidate.

 

[muttywhitedog]

My particular area are getting a right royal kicking at the moment, metaphorically speaking. The reason we cannot cope with demand is twofold:

1. Many people havent bothered renewing their passport since 2020. (approx 5m)
2. Many HMPO employees have left without being replaced, meaning less trained staff to deal with increased demand. (Usual year 7m - this year 10m)

Knowing the nationality act and its sub-sections is not something you can pick up overnight, and in "normal" years, we would draft in colleagues from the wider home office to process adult and child renewals during the spring/summer, leaving the trained personnel to deal with first time applicants. Unfortunately, those people are not available due to them all processing visas for Ukrainians fleeing war, or Afghans fleeing the Taliban, or boatloads of people fleeing France, so we have recruited agency staff to process the straightforward work - BUT they still need some knowledge on nationality acts, Parental Responsibility, One-name policy for ID etc etc, and we need to train them, which takes more personnel out to deliver training.

The agency staff are on fixed term appointments, until late 2023 - when they leave, Boris can claim that he's shed several hundred jobs from the Passport Office and technically be correct.

 

[Barch]

If the Civil Servants that are getting laid off are any good they shouldn't find it too difficult to find a new job, if they are not any good they shouldn't be working for the government to start with.

 

[4mastacker]

I don't think Boris's idea will result in 90,000 CS being added to the dole queue. I guess he will follow previous examples and turn certain departments into self-funding agencies/trusts so he can claim to have reduced the number of CS. The problem is, even though an organisation has changed names and been removed from the public payroll, the people who are actually doing the job will still be the same with the same attitudes/approach toward the job - renaming British Waterways (part of the Dept of Transport) as the Canal & River Trust is an example I would give to demonstrate what I'm trying to say.