News RSS Feed


JOBS LOSSES: Union hits out at council


FIVE hundred jobs are being axed by Oxfordshire County Council.

The council announced today it was planning to make savings of £90m in its budgets over the next five years — with a tenth of its 5,000 staff to go.

While a spokesman said it hoped to “focus on natural staff turnover and managing vacancies”, he admitted there would be redundancies.

It is not known yet where the cuts will hit, but the figure does not include school staff.

The county is blaming an expected loss of money coming from central Government because of the recession and the bail-out of the banks.

Only last week the Tory-run administration at County Hall pledged to freeze council tax rises for the next three years if David Cameron won the General Election next year.

Council leader Keith Mitchell would not speak directly to the Oxford Mail tonight, but in a statement issued via the council’s press office, he said he stood by the pledge, saying it was one of his top priorities.

He said: “Times are hard for Oxfordshire residents as well as organisations and our position is we want to keep as much money in people’s pockets as we can.

“We wouldn’t want to try and set a council tax increase more than 2.5 per cent. It’s about how low we can get it.”

But Mark Fysh, of the union Unison, attacked the council for its use of consultants and interim workers, which he said cost the authority £12m a year.

Mr Mitchell said he wanted “to make a leaner, better organisation” but pledged to protect front-line services.

He said: “Obviously local government nationally and here in Oxfordshire would rather not be in this position, but we’re being responsible with residents’ money and protecting their services in the worst national economic climate in generations.

“This is a five-year plan. We can review matters as we set our budgets each year and, if the financial picture nationally improves, we can react accordingly.”

But an unhappy Mr Fysh said: “This is a Conservative council already supposed to be lean and mean. I would not want to see any redundancies, quite frankly.

“Where we would like to see the cuts is in the cost of consultants and interim workers the council uses.

“What do you want? Do you want proper service or do you want to pay consultants?

“We are here to serve the public and so are the politicians. It’s about time they did.”

tshepherd@oxfordmail.co.uk

Comments(16)

LadyPenelope says...
9:53pm Thu 2 Jul 09

If they think they can axe 500 jobs, then it just goes to show how inefficient the current council is!

Lizabelle says...
11:34pm Thu 2 Jul 09

No, it doesn't show how inefficient the current council is. The axing of 500 jobs would simply add more pressure to an already overloaded workforce.

Unfortunately there is a widespread myth that local government is overstaffed, whereas the truth is that it is only overstaffed with unnecessary senior administrators, mostly resulting from the present "Labour" government's obsession with bean-counting. It seems to me that Keith Mitchell and his companions have little interest in providing proper services. Their concern is to cut Council tax in order to gain votes. Most cuts are done as invisibly as possible; a favourite trick is to cut a backroom service and simply add its duties to an existing department with no additional funding or personnel.

Regrettably many people in this country expect to receive public services, but don't want to pay for them. Few seem even to know which services are provided by District/City as opposed to County. But they are still desperate to believe policitians who say they can provide everything without actually charging anyone a few pounds more. When local government finally collapses under the strain the public might actually regret the lack of so much it didn't even know it had. But by that time it will be too late.

And no, I am not a local government employee.

Abingdon Neil says...
8:29am Fri 3 Jul 09

Lizabelle is quite right about this.

The County will not be able to cut 10% of its workforce without there being an impact on services.

This is a politically motivated move by the Tories and, assuming they haven't come up with a plan like this in just a few weeks, they should have been open about it in the elections.

(And I am also not a local government employee)

cheradenine says...
8:44am Fri 3 Jul 09

Sadly, the public accounts don't state the staffing levels (As they do with the city council, and you can clearly see the huge growth there).

What it does show is the following (after above inflation council tax rises):

2004/2005:
Income: £801m
Employee Costs: £394m
Other operating costs: £349m

2008/2009:
Income: £899m
Employee Costs: £501m
Other operating costs: £351m

So - operating costs barely budge, employee costs go up by more than the increase in income - over 28%!

If you work in the private sector, and your employers' income goes down as they hit hard times, you can expect redundancies. I'm not sure I understand why the council feels it ought to be immune.

LadyPenelope says...
8:53am Fri 3 Jul 09

Hmmm, I have several friends who work for the council, who love their job as it's well paid and not a massive amount is expected of them! Perhaps these friends form the unique 10% that will get axed, although from what they tell me, effort vs pay for a council job is much better than that of most private sector jobs.

This is not me speculating, I'm hearing this from council workers!!

bagsie says...
9:40am Fri 3 Jul 09

Instead of redundancies why not have a sliding scale staff cut for all employees with the highest paid taking the biggest cuts. This would preserve jobs and save on paying unemployment benefits.

bagsie says...
9:42am Fri 3 Jul 09

Correction to above comment: for "staff" read "salary".

Concerned one says...
10:17am Fri 3 Jul 09

I applaud the County council in trying to reduce council tax. Perhaps the City administration should follow suit instead of cynically increasing our tax by 4.5% just under the percentage which would have brought down the wrath from the government. I have friends in the public sector who are now working part-time and taking unpaid leave to try and secure their jobs why should public sector staff be treated any differently. Those who say it is a Tory move to gain votes obviously have enough money to keep on paying extortionate council tax bills year on year.

Concerned one says...
10:43am Fri 3 Jul 09

Correction: "I have friends in the public sector"

should read: I have friends in the private sector....

Old zimner says...
11:17am Fri 3 Jul 09

The real shame is that Keefy boy isn't being axed, especially in this weather. There is enough hot air as it is.

Oxford resident says...
2:23pm Fri 3 Jul 09

Keith Mitchell, leader of Oxfordshire County Council, says he wants to make "a leaner, better organisation". Perhaps he should start by cutting the amount he takes from us council-tax payers. In 2007-8, he got a total remuneration of £27,342, including £9,318 for "travel and subsistence".

Oxford resident says...
2:23pm Fri 3 Jul 09

Keith Mitchell, leader of Oxfordshire County Council, says he wants to make "a leaner, better organisation". Perhaps he should start by cutting the amount he takes from us council-tax payers. In 2007-8, he got a total remuneration of £27,342, including £9,318 for "travel and subsistence".

Oxford resident says...
2:24pm Fri 3 Jul 09

Keith Mitchell, leader of Oxfordshire County Council, says he wants to make "a leaner, better organisation". Perhaps he should start by cutting the amount he takes from us council-tax payers. In 2007-8, he got a total remuneration of £27,342, including £9,318 for "travel and subsistence".

Oxford resident says...
2:24pm Fri 3 Jul 09

Keith Mitchell, leader of Oxfordshire County Council, says he wants to make "a leaner, better organisation". Perhaps he should start by cutting the amount he takes from us council-tax payers. In 2007-8, he got a total remuneration of £27,342, including £9,318 for "travel and subsistence".

Mynard says...
5:09pm Fri 3 Jul 09

cheradenine wrote:
Sadly, the public accounts don't state the staffing levels (As they do with the city council, and you can clearly see the huge growth there). What it does show is the following (after above inflation council tax rises): 2004/2005: Income: £801m Employee Costs: £394m Other operating costs: £349m 2008/2009: Income: £899m Employee Costs: £501m Other operating costs: £351m So - operating costs barely budge, employee costs go up by more than the increase in income - over 28%! If you work in the private sector, and your employers' income goes down as they hit hard times, you can expect redundancies. I'm not sure I understand why the council feels it ought to be immune.
The difference, cheradenine, is that private firms get rid of staff when their goods and services aren't in demand by the public, their income drops, and their current staffing levels aren't necessary. The services provided by local government have never been in greater demand, the workload of County Councils has increased to a level which would make them spectacular profits if they were allowed to operate on a true business model (i.e. charging directly for each item of service provision), but instead they're forced to do all this extra work for no payback. I do find it interesting that people who would never dream of walking into a pub and saying "Pint of best, mate, and I'm not paying you more than 50p", nevertheless scream blue murder if asked to pay a realistic price for the public services they use.

HughdeGree says...
10:53pm Sun 12 Jul 09

Cutting down duplication is they key to saving money, not axing jobs. The County employ hundreds of consultants on a full-time basis, then have hundreds of equally qualified professionals keeping an eye on them. They should internalise all this work, then if further cuts are needed, get rid of some of the higher management levels as a couple of tiers of management is all that should be needed.


Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses