Unions slams County Council's plan to cut managerial jobs
A UNION has criticised Notts County Council's plan to cut its managerial team by a quarter in the next three years.
Yesterday, 378 managers in "middle and senior tiers" were told their jobs are at risk.
-
County Hall
A quarter of posts are expected to go in the first round of a review of 800 management staff.
A spokesman for Unison criticised the move, which comes weeks after the council appointed a senior director on a £110,000 salary.
"The county council seems to be in a real mess over this," he said. It doesn't make any sense."
The council expects to cut posts at each managerial level.
There are currently four corporate directors, 22 service directors, and 340 heads of service and service managers.
Chief executive Mick Burrows said: "We face an unprecedented financial challenge. We have promised to make our services more efficient and reduce bureaucracy.
"Removing some tiers of management will bring our services closer to our service users and save the council money.
"We appreciate this is a difficult time for some of our people. Some of our employees who have been placed at risk will take voluntary redundancy or find alternative employment, but some compulsory redundancies will be unavoidable."
The move is the first phase of plans to cut 2,500 posts in the next three years. The council needs to save £150 million in that time, starting with £69 million next year.
It also signals the start of the council's restructuring programme, to reduce the duplication of roles and cut management layers.
Councillor Alan Rhodes, leader of the opposition Labour group, said: "It's an enormous number of jobs. It's clearly going to have a huge impact on the local economy and that's something the administration at County Hall don't seem to be taking into account.
"Managers these days in local government don't just sit behind desks shuffling paper, these are hands-on managers, managing extremely complicated services.
"I will be seeking assurances from Mick Burrows that the delivery of those services won't be detrimentally affected."
Mr Burrows claims the council will be one of the most streamlined in the country once the work is complete.
"The public will hopefully be less confused about who's doing what.
"We need to save money, but at the same time not lose focus on what is important to the people of Notts," he said.
The changes are set to be in place by April 2011.
20 Comments
View all
by Claire, Here and there
Saturday, September 11 2010, 1:56AM
“Mr Senseless, why do you think we are in the situation where we have to make decisions like these????? because of labour who ran the country into so much debt and forced these decisions to be made. The situation could have been avoided if prudency and careful planning occured and the nation was not exploited by stifling everyone with excessive taxes.”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Friday, September 10 2010, 7:23PM
“Fred, sorry to keep talking about this, but the independent inspections don't seem to back that assertion about not being efficient up.”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Friday, September 10 2010, 7:21PM
“Andyman I think the independent inspections of the previous administration at County Hall tell you a lot.
And like I say, it is due to policies by this Conservative administration that frontline services are being cut. It was specific Tory policy to privatize the 13 care homes, it was specific Tory policy to close the 3 HWRCS, ETC.”
by Fred, Notts
Friday, September 10 2010, 7:19PM
“Sensible, actually I think the big problem is that public services have moved too far away from basic business principles of good planning, efficient management, customer care, fiscal responsibility etc. Does anyone seriously think that local government in the UK is structured and managed remotely efficiently? Because I don't.”
by Andyman, Derbys
Friday, September 10 2010, 6:53PM
“Now we both appear to have an imposter.”
by Andyman, Derbys
Friday, September 10 2010, 6:52PM
“Yes your previous post has disappeared, not guilty.
There is a document about Unison and other prominent unions which is leaked onto one of the famous sites for such leaked documents, and the basics are simple.
They have concerns about the large numbers of positions being lost, and their expenditure; their concerns are that they will have to axe a proportion from these unions if revenue from members drops.
Find the leaked document, it makes interesting reading.”
by MadBadger, The Sett
Friday, September 10 2010, 6:51PM
“Andyman, there's something in what you say.
I bet you could be got rid of.”
by Andyman, Derbys
Friday, September 10 2010, 6:48PM
“Sensible:
Local authorities have had to become businesses in the way they operate to provide services, and function as authorities. The only difference is the profit, and the certain services they are legally obliged to provide.
If the senior management are allegedly (used in the loosest possible manner) then why have they not found these efficiencies, if they already had found these efficiencies then there would be no need for an improvement director.
With the job creation of the last incumbants many local and national bodies were swelled with unnecessary positions either duplicating existing jobs, or creating many more, it is these that need identification and removing, those necessary need to remain.
There is only one obvious proven conclusion, those in many of these positions know they are in unnecessary positions and are looking after their own interests, nothing more.”
by MadBadger, The Sett
Friday, September 10 2010, 6:43PM
“Andyman, you obviously read my post and then had it removed.
Not that I am bothered.
So, I'll ask agian, have you the source for your claim that members of Unison are "leaving in large numbers"?
Can you substantiate your claim, or is it just another load of hot air?”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Friday, September 10 2010, 6:30PM
“Andyman, if public services were a business, then they would be run for profit, not as a service which they should be.
And I know enough maths to know that, if a public body says it needs to make savings, at the expense of frontline services, it should not be spending £110000 per year on a job which I have yet to be convinced of the need for; the Chief Executive, Service Directors, Portfoleo Holders ETC could surely do just as well on their own at finding the efficiencies?”