Jobs with Glasgow City Council

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Postby germistonguy » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:56 am

AlanM wrote:It does seem to have taken on a life of its own, but I don't think it's crossed the line or even got close to it.

Although I was surprised at the umbridge taken at the 'jobs for the bhoys' remark as it was simply a paraphrasing of 'jobs for the boys' which has more 'establishment' connotations and I felt it fitted the context of the discussion more.

If it caused any offence I apologise

Alan


No offence caused Alan. I am genuinely interested, like I said in an earlier post "
My knowledge on the subject of religion and council jobs is zero,..." Even though I grew up in Glasgow and am aware of the special significances of religion in Glasgow, I am not at all clued up on the 'whys' or the history (no pun intended). My adult life has been spent in England, where catholic/protestant is less of an explicit issue. I am also genuinely surprised that powerful positions are held by catholics, when it was always my understanding that catholics, historically, have had a hard time gaining employment in Glasgow. It would be helpful to gain an unbiased insight what seems to me a bit of a discrepancy.
germistonguy
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 2:49 am

Postby germistonguy » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:47 am

crusty_bint wrote:Okay... thread unlocked now guys, try and steer clear of sectarian subject matter ...keep it all relevant :D

Cheers,

Crusty

Crusty, sorry I posted my last post before I realised it had previously been locked and sectarian subject matter was out of bounds. However I don't think we should bury our heads in the sand regarding Glasgow's 'special' situation. This situation reproduces itself throughout the generations because it is NOT discussed. Instead, the young and impressionable act the way they do when it comes to religion/politics/football teams Glasgow Flavour, because no-one explains to them why they SHOULDN'T cry out FTP, FTQ, IRA, UDA etc.

You previously deleted a thread entitled 'come on the gers' stating:

This thread has been locked, and will be deleted later this evening.

Footbal colours are not permitted on Hidden Glasgow, there are plenty of sites out there who would be happy to support this sort of thread, please feel free to continue this thread on one of those sites.

This thread will only lead to discord.

Any questions/queries should be directed to me.

Crusty.


Crusty, football politics and religion are intertwined in Glasgow - that is why religion came up on this thread. I (and I am sure many others) feel it is important to discuss it here, and feel it could be discussed much more sensibly here, rather than, one of the other sites you state would be happy to support this sort of thread

.
germistonguy
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 2:49 am

Postby crusty_bint » Wed Nov 02, 2005 4:04 am

I don't make the rules: I only implement them! ...at least thas what i used to say when I worked for BT ::):

Listen guys, I understand what you're saying but the admin team decided a long time ago that this isn't what Hidden Glasgow is about, and quite frankly we don't really want to have to tidy up and/or intervene when discussions get heated. And heated is undoubtedly what they will get when sectarian jibes are poked here and there.

I don't wish to single any one out and I won’t, but my point (and not one I just came up with myself and decided to get busy with I might add) was that if the content of this thread, which will, and does touch on certain sensitive issues, cannot be kept above that of the Daily Record then there is no place for it here.

Our motto, in cases like this, is prevention is better than cure. I might point out that on many other forums you would not be given the opportunity to continue the discussion further and you would be left to like it or lump it. We don’t want that here though.

The crux of the matter then: I, on behalf of the Admin Team, had made a reasonable request that this thread steers clear of slippery green and orange slopes, then there’s no problem :D I’m not saying you can’t mention it, just don’t turn the topic into something so hateful.

We’re all reasonable people right? Most of the time anyway I’m sure :wink: So lets get back to the original topic of debate as I for one am interested to hear the opinions put forward here

Crusty
...wotever
crusty_bint
-
-
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:52 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby lordsleek » Wed Nov 02, 2005 6:04 am

to misquote Matt Maginn Keep the orange fenian bastards out of it.

Nepotism is not about religion as by defenition your relatives will probably have the same religion as you. The big problem with GCC is that the rule was not what you know, not even who you know but who you are related to.

:roll:
User avatar
lordsleek
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:43 am
Location: Uddingston

Singing I'm no a .......

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:25 am

The big problem with GCC is that the rule was not what you know, not even who you know but who you are related to.


Something entirely unique in the field of employment. I think not.

Nobody on this let's take a guess all white board maybe with some registered disabled users has made any comments on the under represention of minority ethnic and disabled citizens in the workforce. Maybe we already know that regardless of how abysmal GCC's percentages these workers till form a higher percentage of the workforce than they do in comparable workforces.

But hey let's keep to something we think we know.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6255
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Postby Socceroo » Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:14 am

Good point, yes it is true that Glasgow City Council as with most other Local Government Authorities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, have higher percentages of disabled and ethnic minority workers in their employment than other large organisations / companies.

This is of course to be admired, it should be reassuring to know that Glasgow City Council is embracing these issues because it really wants to.

Does it really want to? Or is it because there is some Government / COSLA decree stating that they have to, and therefore Glasgow's nest of 35 hour a week paper shufflers and "unpaid" Councillors therefore follow the line.

As stated by others earlier in this thread, there are many excellent people in Glasgow City Council across the board, who i genuinely believe care about what they are doing and are passionate about what they do in their working life.

Unfortunately, there is still a high percentage of Council employees in middle to senior management positions who would not be able to sustain a career in private industry.

I know quite a few managers from my time in Consruction Management and Education who have, by their own admission, taken the easy route of a job with the Council.

It is some of these 35 hour a week boys who are now making poor decisions (indecisions) about our Built Environment and allowing Developers to walk all over them.
Last edited by Socceroo on Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Socceroo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Mount Flo, Glasgow

Postby Vladimir » Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:30 am

Surely working 35hours doesnt mean poor decisions on built environment. :?
Last edited by Vladimir on Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Vladimir
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1830
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:40 am
Location: Confédération Générale du Travail

Postby Bex Bissell » Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:38 am

Socceroo wrote:Unfortunately, there is still a high percentage of Council employees in middle to senior management positions who would not be able to sustain a career in private industry.

I know quite a few managers from my time in Consruction Management and Education who have, by their own admission, taken the easy route of a job with the Council.


Damn right, what I do know about the civil service is that it fairly well paid and if your not very good at your job you'll either get a promotion, ie "get them out of my hair" or moved sideways onto a project.
You see it's extremely difficult to sack someone by the book of employment law also a non redundancy policy keeps the flotsam n jetsam kicking about.
User avatar
Bex Bissell
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby dee » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:37 pm

how many people work for the glasgow city council


about 30%
User avatar
dee
Busy bunny
Busy bunny
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:16 pm

Postby Bonz » Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:32 pm

dee wrote:how many people work for the glasgow city council


about 30%



...... approximately 36000 Dee.
User avatar
Bonz
Second Stripe
Second Stripe
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: The 'Shire

Jobs with Glasgow City Council

Postby Socceroo » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:13 am

Glasgow City Council's website tells us that there are 38,000 people or thereabouts employed by them (us) currently.

It also tells of the following figures for time off work by employees for the period 2004 / 2005 :

Chief Officers and Local Government Employees were off 5.3% of their working year

Craft Employees were off 4.2% of their working year

Teachers were off 3.4% of their working year

There are 365 days in the year (the last time i looked) minus say 35 days hols leaves 330 days, minus 102 days off at weekends or days off during rota leaves 228 days for work.

Apply 5.3% absence (as is the case with middle to Senior Officers / Management) = 12 days off each year or an additional two weeks holiday at the Tax payers / Council Tax payers expense.

The average for the above three groups is 4.3% which equates to 9.8 days off for sickness x 38,000 employees = 372,400 working days off sick. How much does that cost? 8O
User avatar
Socceroo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 8:51 pm
Location: Mount Flo, Glasgow

Postby Fat Cat » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:33 pm

Do Social Workers not have the highest rate of sick leave?
User avatar
Fat Cat
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:09 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby AlanM » Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:44 pm

From memory It was the highest incidence of stress related absences
User avatar
AlanM
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1827
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 8:59 am
Location: Knightswood

CaMoSA

Postby Dexter St. Clair » Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:24 pm

It used to be the Police were top of the absence league, Then Social Work then the Roads.

Only Social work are still council employees.

Somebody has to be top of the league.

Of course you need to have a look at the vacancies besides the figures because the ones who are still at their work have to pick up the statutory work of their sick colleagues which gives them added stress and it all goes round and it comes out here.
User avatar
Dexter St. Clair
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6255
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:54 pm

Postby My Kitten » Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:59 pm

Social work do indeed have the most abysmal absence rates, mostly at the care homes end of things, stress from covering sick leave, sore backs lifting the old buddies etc
User avatar
My Kitten
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 6106
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 10:10 am

PreviousNext

Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests