Why are there so many temps in local government?

[Guineveretoo]

was just guessing there, i've always considered local goverment to be councils, but it's a minor point really

It's not really a minor point. At least, not to the many thousands of civil servants, and the many thousands of local government workers, and the trade unions

 

[Guineveretoo]

So temps are more expensive... they are not, certainly not in the short term.

No redundancy, no holidays, no sick/maternity pay, no pension, easy to get rid of when yet another reorganisation...

A reorganisation can happen pretty often you know, as you seem to imply too.

Isn't this just what I said?

 

[Hollis]

I would imagine its because its such a tortuous process getting a new role approved by the Trade Union, that its easy just to hire a temp.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I would imagine its because its such a tortuous process getting a new role approved by the Trade Union, that its easy just to hire a temp.

Would that we were so powerful

 

[marty21]

if you work in housing for a local authority, your job may have been transferred to an almo, (arms length management organisation ) and they "deliver" housing services for the council, they have to do it at a certain cost (usually a housing association will have the management contract, although there are some private companies now getting involved) and often they try and get rid of long standing staff on decent contracts, pay them off, so that they can hire cheaper temps and make more money on the management contract.

and other services are also contracted out, bins are the other big one, school meals as well

 

[marty21]

It's not really a minor point. At least, not to the many thousands of civil servants, and the many thousands of local government workers, and the trade unions

aye

 

[Errol's son]

The reasons why local government employs a lot of temps is not actually because they are cheap, as such, because they are not necessarily.

I think you are saying they are not cheap.

I say they are cheap in the short term (ie, no holidays, sick pay etc) and so if reorganisations keep happening, as they appear to, they are cheaper than permanent staff.

Are we in agreement? My previous post wasn't the clearest.

 

[Guineveretoo]

shame it's not us that gets all the dosh though

There are occasions, actually, where temps get an hourly rate more than they would get if they were directly employed. I was in that position for over a year, some years back. I kept being offered a full time post, but I couldn't afford the drop in weekly pay, so I waited until I found a job which was less of a drop.

Sometimes, temps are used because the pay set for a particular post is just too low to attract anyone. Crap, but true

 

[Hollis]

Would that we were so powerful

I dunno, 6 months intense negotiation to get a clause added to an existing job description round here.. even if the manager and staff concerned are happy with it..

.. I dunno..

 

[Guineveretoo]

I think you are saying they are not cheap.

I say they are cheap in the short term (ie, no holidays, sick pay etc) and so if reorganisations keep happening, as they appear to, they are cheaper than permanent staff.

Are we in agreement? My previous post wasn't the clearest.

I am not sure whether we are in agreement or not.

What I was saying was that employers don't, as a rule, take on temps as a way of saving money.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I dunno, 6 months intense negotiation to get a clause added to an existing job description round here.. even if the manager and staff concerned are happy with it..

.. I dunno..

Well, that's one trade union branch with some power, but there are not many places where that happens.

 

[marty21]

There are occasions, actually, where temps get an hourly rate more than they would get if they were directly employed. I was in that position for over a year, some years back. I kept being offered a full time post, but I couldn't afford the drop in weekly pay, so I waited until I found a job which was less of a drop.

Sometimes, temps are used because the pay set for a particular post is just too low to attract anyone. Crap, but true

i was a temp for a housing association, and had to to take a pay cut to take a contract with them, I was a bit tired of being a temp tbh,

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

There are occasions, actually, where temps get an hourly rate more than they would get if they were directly employed. I was in that position for over a year, some years back. I kept being offered a full time post, but I couldn't afford the drop in weekly pay, so I waited until I found a job which was less of a drop.

Sometimes, temps are used because the pay set for a particular post is just too low to attract anyone. Crap, but true

Not in my case sadly. My agency, Josephine Sammons, are crap.

Your second sentence is almost certainly correct though. I've been at this job for near enough 2 years. I'd temped there over half a dozen times though before this current booking and I've NEVER (in five years) seen a new perm, so they've 3 perm posts (now 5) that haven't been taken by a perm in maybe 5 years, apparently because the wages are crap, but in fact, the wages are more than the temps are getting, but it's such a shitty job, none of the temps are interested in going perm

 

[DIY Manual]

I work in local government, as a permanent member of staff and get £13854 a year, approximately £7.20 an hour without discounting holidays (21 days).

Temps in my dept get £8.50 an hour, and the Council pay Reed £11.99 an hour for them. The kind of work that we do means that they need to be here for a good few months to be productive, it's not something you can just drop into easily.

It's fucking shite way to run a place.

 

[Minnie_the_Minx]

I work in local government, as a permanent member of staff and get £13854 a year, approximately £7.20 an hour without discounting holidays (21 days).

Temps in my dept get £8.50 an hour, and the Council pay Reed £11.99 an hour for them. The kind of work that we do means that they need to be here for a good few months to be productive, it's not something you can just drop into easily.

It's fucking shite way to run a place.

that's crap

But you do get bank holidays and civil servants do like to take sickies




*makes hasty exit*

 

[GoneCoastal]

Temps are usually more expensive, but they are easily disposable, and the responsibility of the worker rests on the agency, not the employer, so less risky than permament staff

And also, temp agencies are paid via invoicing not payroll so temp staff don't therefore show up on manpower reports

So you can make it appear that you haven't recruited to fill perm positions because they aren't included in the payroll costs - payment from a different patr of the budgets maybe