Still spending too much? Lets sack more staff!

#2
Don't be daft, we need typhoon submarine killering aircraft. and lots of upper levels of management, we don't need the low level minions. So we'll get rid.
 

Grumblegrunt

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
by getting rid of so many staff one would hope that means less departments to shuffle stuff around racking the price up.

I mean which muffin came up with a transport/tanker aircraft which can take cargo but doesnt have the loading door, carries fuel but cant fuel itself or take on fuel from another (allthough I think its an excuse to claim we still need cyprus for refueling) and cant make ascension without the stop at senegal. everyone else managed to get that deal and cheaper than we did.

or the FRES bollocks where they've spent 500 million and havent even got a garage full of afvs to justify it.

sack the lot, give the units the budget to buy what they like from somewhere which makes stuff that works.
 
#4
Or it will mean less of those nasty CS staff saying - Excuse me General/Air Marshal/Admiral whatsit, you're running over budget on your latest shiny toy again.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
I like to see MOD CS sacked. It means my job's secure for a few more years. After all, they're not reducing the work load in MOD by rationalising and improving how they do things, in fact, they're making it more complicated. And its generally the more competent who take voluntary redundancy because they know they can get a job outside. So more work, less staff, less knowledgeable people doing the work equals more outsourcing. To me. Thank you.
 

Boldnotold

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
Like what you say Bouillabaises. They don't seem to have learned that getting rid of cheap people who do work and giving the work to outsource companies, who rarely get out of bed for less than 40% margin, isn't actually saving money. Especially when you take into account the army of expensive 'contract monitors' they have to employ!
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
One of the big growth industries around Bristol - defence consultancy companies. Mostly staffed by ex-MOD CS and ex-military Abbey Wood desk officers, doing the same jobs they were doing but for profit.
 
#9
One of the big growth industries around Bristol - defence consultancy companies. Mostly staffed by ex-MOD CS and ex-military Abbey Wood desk officers, doing the same jobs they were doing but for profit.
..........................

Gives us all a chance when the brown envelope falls through the door!!
 
#10
I mean which muffin came up with a transport/tanker aircraft which can take cargo but doesnt have the loading door, carries fuel but cant fuel itself or take on fuel from another (allthough I think its an excuse to claim we still need cyprus for refueling) and cant make ascension without the stop at senegal. everyone else managed to get that deal and cheaper than we did.
I believe someone also pointed out that as these freaks of the air are PFI, if the civvies who own them don't get a few flights out of them too the RAF pay them for the priveledge...

bonkers. Bomber Harris would be bombing Dresden with whomever thought that abortion up, pref on fire but either way.
 
#11
Like what you say Bouillabaises. They don't seem to have learned that getting rid of cheap people who do work and giving the work to outsource companies, who rarely get out of bed for less than 40% margin, isn't actually saving money. Especially when you take into account the army of expensive 'contract monitors' they have to employ!
We monitor our contracts, do we?

News to me... :)

Litotes
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#12
Cleverly the MOD employ one lot of consultants to do the engineering tasks and another lot to monitor and manage the ones doing the work. MOD monitor them both
 
#13
It seems only a good thing to get rid of MOD staff, though granted I have no idea how the MOD operates, or what exactly it does, surely all we need are tanks planes and guns and were good to go? surely... all the paper cannot be... necesarry.
 
#14
And on the boring realistic note, personnel costs are the only immediate way of making an in-year saving; EP is generally tied into contracts that can't bring the saving required *right now*.
 
#15
"It seems only a good thing to get rid of MOD staff, though granted I have no idea how the MOD operates, or what exactly it does, surely all we need are tanks planes and guns and were good to go? surely... all the paper cannot be... necesarry. "

Please tell me this is a poor attempt at a wah?
 

Boldnotold

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
We monitor our contracts, do we?

News to me... :)

Litotes
On the few Government privatisations I know about, the lowly employees are removed, and a whole department of high-grade CS is created to monitor the contract. In one case in a lovely new office in Warrington, which soon filled its two storeys and had to expand into the office next door. So sack people who know how all the systems integrate, and make lots of lovely high-grade 'monitors'.
 
#17
And on the boring realistic note, personnel costs are the only immediate way of making an in-year saving; EP is generally tied into contracts that can't bring the saving required *right now*.
Agreed. This is the only realistic way to make in-year financial savings irrespective of the amount of redundancy available. I work for the Home Office and the latest VERS package was one months' pay for each year served up to a maximum of 21 months. The HO is now on tranche 3 of VERS to get rid of another 600 staff, and so it goes on... Talking to an NHS colleague yesterday, she reckons that the NHS will be re-employing thousands of staff in the next 12 months but on much worse T&Cs. And, of course, if you leave on VERS your pension rights are preserved but if you are subsequently re-employed you cannot go back onto the old scheme, even up to 2015-16 when Classic and Premium will disappear, although accrued rights will remain up to that point. Public Sector pensions are the elephant in the room and the Government is desperate to do anything to reduce its unfunded liabilities. There is no realistic prospect that the pension deficit will be made up, certainly not under present rates of economic growth. Nonetheless, I do not see why I should pay more for substantially less - when David Cameron and George Oscborne agree to the same with their MP's and Mionsterial pensions then I will fall into line...
 

Boldnotold

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
I do hope this pain is being spread, and that we'll see MPs' pensions stop at the next election, and anyone elected having a less 'gold-plated' scheme.

Also all those 'advisors', 'chiefs of staff' and other political hangers-on having their public funding cut.

Because for the cost of them (say 1,000 people at a quarter of a million quid each, roughly) you could certainly keep a lot of nurses, policemen, Sure-Start staff and soldiers in jobs.
 
#19
It seems only a good thing to get rid of MOD staff, though granted I have no idea how the MOD operates, or what exactly it does, surely all we need are tanks planes and guns and were good to go? surely... all the paper cannot be... necesarry.
It was boring paper that caught Gordon Foxley. Or would you rather that money go towards backhanders than bullets?
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top