Ease the cost of living crisis by making more people unemployed ?

Germanshepherdsmum

If 91,000 people have been made redundant then there were 91,000 people who had become surplus to requirements. Why should the taxpayer have to fund the salaries, pensions and other incidental costs of people who have become surplus to requirements? You wouldn’t expect stakeholders in the private sector to do that.

It depends what you think a "requirement" is. The cuts will fall most heavily on the big departments such as the DWP, which is already over-stretched. Working in the frontline for the DWP isn't a popular job anyway because the employees get so much flak and there's a high turnover, but it's no wonder they don't get back to people quickly, make mistakes and don't have enough time to deal with claimants. But who cares whether benefit claimants are treated badly? It's not a "requirement" to keep them happy.

Delays in responding to calls, to any office, isn't new, nor, necessarily due to WFH. "You are in a queue, your call is important to us" is, sometimes, business-speak for "...but not enough to employ sufficient staff...", wherever they might be working.
As for BJ and his "bit of cheese"- maybe that's your work ethic, Mr Prime Minister, but don't tar everyone with the same brush.
I deliver lunch sometimes to my WFH daughter as she isn't able to leave the screen long enough to make something. She eats as she works, on occasion to the surprise of her Zoom caller.

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

ShropshireMiss whilst I agree with the majority of your post, many many ordinary folks have their works/private pension invested in property.

If /when there is a substantial fall in inner city commercial rents, there could be a knock on effect for many pensioners if these properties are then sold on for lower prices.

The pension companies will see where the growth in property prices is and invest there.

You know, GG13, that the only reliable, gold plated, cast iron money guaranteed investment is in government bonds. The government will always pay the interest due and redeem at value. All the rest, dress it up as one might, is speculation.

Germanshepherdsmum

If 91,000 people have been made redundant then there were 91,000 people who had become surplus to requirements. Why should the taxpayer have to fund the salaries, pensions and other incidental costs of people who have become surplus to requirements? You wouldn’t expect stakeholders in the private sector to do that.

Oh, GSM. Just keep drinking the Kool Aid.

Do you seriously think that any sort of proper analysis has gone into this Boris Johnson soundbite?

GrannyGravy13

ShropshireMiss whilst I agree with the majority of your post, many many ordinary folks have their works/private pension invested in property.

If /when there is a substantial fall in inner city commercial rents, there could be a knock on effect for many pensioners if these properties are then sold on for lower prices.

The pension companies will see where the growth in property prices is and invest there.

ShropshireMiss

The sandwich and coffee shops should find a new business model, delivering food and coffee to peoples homes, and the office space could be used for housing. Actually work from home can be beneficial to the economies of small towns and villages as if people aren’t commuting they are more likely to shop locally.
There are plenty of investment opportunities for pension funds outside of commercial and office property, and ant pension fund heavily invested in it is very risky and not diversified enough.

In my town, a number of retail spaces (which haven't been doing too well in recent year) have been turned into work-at-home hubs. Spaces can be rented by the day by people who would normally work in London and don't have space at home. Apparently, they're very successful. People can network with each other and it's provided opportunities for the local sandwich bars/coffee shops.

A good saving would be sacking Rees-Mogg from his job as a Minister of State (he isn’t a cabinet minister) at the Cabinet Office. Boris was desperate to get rid of him as Leader of the House so basically invented a non-job, with nothing to do, for him at the Cabinet Office. If he needs to fill up his time by walking around the cabinet office sticking notes on peoples desks he clearly has too much time on his hands. If he wants to check up what people are doing working from home all he needs to do is go on MS Teams and speak to them. ‘Minister for Brexit Opportunites’… it’s ridiculous Boris gave him a none-job because he didN’t want to upset his friends when he moved Res-Mogg as leader of the House of Commons. I’m sure Mogg is the only one in his department sitting around doing nothing.

Zonne, my son and daughter in law had covid a couple of weeks ago, not mildly either, but both worked from home throughout. No change in delivery of service to clients.

If 91,000 people have been made redundant then there were 91,000 people who had become surplus to requirements. Why should the taxpayer have to fund the salaries, pensions and other incidental costs of people who have become surplus to requirements? You wouldn’t expect stakeholders in the private sector to do that.

Whoops. All of that should be in the past tense, since I retired at the end of the last financial year! I doubt two months has changed anything though.

Also jumping in a little late. I’ve worked for the civil service, the private sector, local government, and the third sector. I’ve also worked from home or hybrid for well over 30 years, across all bar one of those (local government).

When my department had to move very quickly to all home working, I was one of those involved in supporting the change, and measuring the impact. Overall, once early issues with technology were resolved, the experience was positive, for both staff and the department, with productivity increasing (we had smashed our annual KPIs within a quarter,) and remaining high. Alongside staff working better than ever, our annual ‘satisfaction surveys’ show that most staff are happier and feel more valued than when they were in the office full time. Those who don’t tend, unsurprisingly, to be younger and without space at home to work. However, even amongst this cohort, more locally based working in, for example, a shared workspace with limited time/days in a central office is the preferred option. Our retention rates bear out the increased level of satisfaction, too.

I also want to pick up the service delivery point: many of the problems (which I think are being greatly exaggerated by some media) were - are - caused by COVID itself. If people are off sick, they aren’t delivering, obviously. Still let’s all rush back to the office and make sure we exacerbate that problem.

91,000 made redundant, perhaps having to start claiming benefits, so 91,000 people and their families spending less in shops, restaurants etc, so less incomes for shops and businesses….
Majority of civil servants in the high delivery departments are administrative assistants earning the minumum wage, administravie officers earning around £22,000 before tax, no, pension payments, or executive officers earning around £27,000 before tax, nI, pension payments. The people getting the sack will be Joe Muggins who works at the job centre.

HousePlantQueen

Why are some of us arguing with posters who get their "information" from the Daily Mail and then post it as fact? What a waste of time

Maybe it's in the vain hope that they might see the error of their ways

winterwhite

What infuriated me most was JR-M saying that all this is being efficient with the 'the tax payers' money'. This mantra is always trotted out to justify cuts, but apparently never considered in discussions of MPs' expenses or their subsidised meals.

'Tax payers money' is a load of b*llocks anyway. Taxation never fully funds spending, and, the Treasury is raking in £millions from the fuel duty on soaring fuel prices. And VAT on other VATable commodities which have increased in price...

Why are some of us arguing with posters who get their "information" from the Daily Mail and then post it as fact? What a waste of time

What infuriated me most was JR-M saying that all this is being efficient with the 'the tax payers' money'. This mantra is always trotted out to justify cuts, but apparently never considered in discussions of MPs' expenses or their subsidised meals.

GrannyGravy13

Speaking from experience dealing with the tax office (various departments) has been getting gradually more stressful over the last 10 years, the last two years have been an abomination.

If you read the article posted earlier you can see that civil service employees were cut back heavily during the tory 'austerity' phase from 2010. So observed poor performance over a decade can be explained initially by that. They increased to deal with Brexit and then covid.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/civil-service-staff-numbers

As a counter anecdote, I can say that my application to have my driving licence upgraded, to include the category C1 entitlement I lost when I had to renew my licence at age 70, was dealt with quickly and efficiently,;well within the time given on the government website for renewing licences.

The sandwich and coffee shops should find a new business model, delivering food and coffee to peoples homes, and the office space could be used for housing. Actually work from home can be beneficial to the economies of small towns and villages as if people aren’t commuting they are more likely to shop locally.
There are plenty of investment opportunities for pension funds outside of commercial and office property, and ant pension fund heavily invested in it is very risky and not diversified enough.

Passport office are urgently employing 300 new staff, so the problem appears to be understaffing, with civil service numbers being greatly cut after the 2008 crash between 2010 and 2016. The increase in civil service numbers after 2016 was linked to brexit and wasn’t in front line public services where they were needed.
Also the part of the passport office which appears to have caused problems was their telephone service. The passport office telephone service had been privatised by giving it to a French outsourcing company, the reason they can’t get full access to information when callers phone isn’t because they are working from home, it’s because as a private company the government does not let them have full access to information.

ShropshireMiss whilst I agree with the majority of your post, many many ordinary folks have their works/private pension invested in property.

If /when there is a substantial fall in inner city commercial rents, there could be a knock on effect for many pensioners if these properties are then sold on for lower prices.

Speaking from experience dealing with the tax office (various departments) has been getting gradually more stressful over the last 10 years, the last two years have been an abomination.

Most of the anti-work from home articles are in the Daily Mail. The holding company of the Daily Mail is also heavily invested in city commercial and office space, the leasehold offices and the leaseholds of the overpriced sandwich and coffee shops that the office workers are expected to buy from. So the Daily Mail has a vested financial interest in ending work from home.

Just a reminder that Rees- Mogg’s trust fund is heavily invested in city commercial and office property. That includes the leased office space itself and the overpriced coffee and sandwich shops that he wants office workers to restart paying through the noses for. So Rees-Mogg has a personal financial interest in ending work from home, as his trust. Fund is depending on the leasehold revenues from office space and from the leasehold revenues of the overpriced coffee and sandwich shops.
Interesting I read an article yesterday where Rees-Mogg said he was against an extra tax on the profits of the oil companies. I’m sure his trust fund also receives lots of dividend income from the polluting oil companies.
Just a thought, civil servants are also tax payers, and so a proportion of their salary is coming from their own tax payments.

The conversation has moved on but I wanted to answer you GSM. I worked in the private sector.

But there is no reason to treat people in the public sector differently just because they are in the public sector. If people are skiving, whereever they work, its up to management to do something about it. If management are skiving, its up to the leadership to change the environment and get managers who can manage properly. Its even more important to get that in the pubic sector, where its important for the running of the country, but of course its not easy. Much easier to say "no more WFH", even though that's not the problem.

If Rees-Mogg had put one of those "sorry I missed you" notes on my desk I'd have been in his office the next day saying what the F* is this? Next stop HR. But unfortunately the public sector seem to think they can treat employees as though we're still in the Victorian age, then blame them when things go wrong.

Some very interesting information here on passports.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2022-05-12/debates/6E89196F-813E-43FE-A500-E88CBAA9ABD7/HMPassportOfficeBacklogs

Passport offices facing the highest volume of applications ever due to pent up demand caused by pandemic. 90% of applications dealt with in 6 weeks. Less than 1.4% of passports taking longer than the 10 weeks recommended as the time you should allow for passports to be received.

Interestingly also 500 new staff since April 2021 and 700 more due by this summer. Seems more staff are needed, not less and that those working from home are delivering.