SCC rehiring loads of staff it made redundant

[callum1990 10]

Can come and work for me if your out of work strruggling

[damageandy 10]

They might need them in the short term, but thats the whole point it gives them flexibility and if they dont need them next year they dont have to use them. Theres nothing imooral about using temps or agency staff.

 

You wont see any reliable figures because the article you are getting worked up about doesnt contain them. The normal reason is that it will save them money. As services are already cut the opposite of seeing more services is seeing fewer cut than they might otherwise have to make.

 

 

 

So your solution is you want to increase taxes?

 

 

 

 

 

How do you know this, when you dont know the salary these people are being paid? We dont know the views of these people, some of the might have been quite happy to trouser the redundancy payment and walk back into the same job. Agency work tends to pay a higher £ per hour than full time jobs. If we didnt have a flexible labour market then we wouldnt be coming out of the recession, one that was made significantly worse by the previous government overspending.

 

There are many reasons people cant afford to buy houses. Mostly to do with a housing shortage, lack of international competitiveness of this country and the individuals positioning within the market to do a job that pays well enough.

 

Countries cant just print and tax their way out of things indefinitely they have to earn it before they can spend.

 

So yeah your quotes shows i didnt at all say i had no interest in economics did it.

 

Employers can employ people short term without having to use agencies to do so. Its a simply way remove workers existing benefits that they had written into there contracts - pretty immoral in my opinion and going backwards for a civilised society.

 

I read a little more than just a poor Star article to come to such conclusions.

 

My solution is inferred rather obviously collect the tax due, dont write off massive tax bills for reasons unknown, close aviodance loopholes make the wealthy pay an appropritae level of tax.

 

Have a look and any lower skilled agency pay rate - its min wage, compare that wage to regular employees who get paid more.

 

I come to such conclusions by reading, keeping up with the news and having enogh common sense to read between the bull.

 

Have you not seen the recent borrowing figures?

[smiggs 10]

Couldnt really careless if it makes economic sense or not, it doesnt make moral sense.

 

A council using agency staff or zero hour contracts to effectively bypass employment rules is not the kind of country we should be living in, its a backwards step for workers and a supposed civilised society.

 

It's interesting how the council did this, they could have tupee'd the staff across to the new supplier, they'd have lost most of the benefits anyway but instead they made them redundant paid them off, in the knowledge that they'd probably get a job back when the new suppliers looked around for people to do the jobs. Just reeks of pork.

 

However I agree they this is not a practice that the council should be doing or encouraging, it's not a fair deal for their former employees or future outsourced employee. Having worked in an outsourced role myself, I can tell you that not only do you feel resentful to the agency for being paid to do nothing but employ you and the outsourcer for putting their bank balance before your place in their organisation.

[strangerthe6 10]

The employees taking redundancy are being re employed by the Council not the outsourcing companies. It's a way of giving them a pay off, releasing their pension but still working. The employees are delighted with the arrangement. The Councils excuse for not confirming the numbers involved is pathetic.

[999tigger 10]

The employees taking redundancy are being re employed by the Council not the outsourcing companies. It's a way of giving them a pay off, releasing their pension but still working. The employees are delighted with the arrangement. The Councils excuse for not confirming the numbers involved is pathetic.

 

So you have more knowledge of whats gone on? Have they volunteered?

[Happ Hazzard 10]

I and many other people in the private sector would be delighted to recieve a hefty lump sum and then to be re-employed doing the same job we are currently doing. The public sector are so out of touch it's unreal.

[Stan Tamudo 10]

I and many other people in the private sector would be delighted to recieve a hefty lump sum and then to be re-employed doing the same job we are currently doing. The public sector are so out of touch it's unreal.

 

You're out of touch HH, you're an absolute disgrace.

[999tigger 10]

You're out of touch HH, you're an absolute disgrace.

 

Why is he a disgrace?

[the_bloke 17]

Such employment practices are a major contributing reason why people dont recieve a living wage and why people cant afford to buy there own homes.

 

The ironic thing in this context is that SCC already pays the living wage to the small amount of workers it has left on the books on the bottom pay scales.

 

The article in the Star is extremely vague however; there is no indication as to the type of staff or part of the business that is now taking these workers back on. It might purely be to cover maternity leave or to work through a backlog of work that isn't the normal day to day work, which is perfectly understandable.

 

I'd rather SCC pay an agency worker for 3 months to do 3 months of work than pay a full time employee to do 3 months of work in 12 months.

[Stan Tamudo 10]

Why is he a disgrace?

 

What's it got to do with you?

[strangerthe6 10]

So you have more knowledge of whats gone on? Have they volunteered?

 

The people I know appeared to come to a mutual arrangement. What the official line was I don't know. According to The Star the Council aren't likely to say.

[Happ Hazzard 10]

The public sector should be run for the benefit of the people who pay for it, not for the benefit of the people who work for it.