Whitehouse Staff

Decide how the world should be governed and by whom.
Forum rules
The emphasis here is on original comment and opinion by the poster.
Article length Cut-and-Past posts are discouraged
The general Code of Conduct rules apply to this forum.

Whitehouse Staff

Postby Yogi » 02 Oct 2013, 08:12

As I type this, our country's government is shut down, partially, due to some bickering in the congress over next year's budget. As far as I'm concerned they are not doing the job we elected them to do, but that's an item for another post. A front page story in this morning's paper says that 1300 employees in the White House were furloughed due to the lack of funding. About 400 got to keep their jobs because they are considered "essential" while the furloughed people obviously are not.

So, let me do the math here: 1300 + 400 = 1700. Yikes, that says it takes 1700 people to run the White House and only 24% of them are essential. The only thing more eye opening than that statistic is being one of the furloughed employees who just discovered that they are non-essential to running the government.
User avatar
Oracle Class Poster
Oracle Class Poster
Posts: 7013
Joined: 04 Aug 2007, 19:37
Location: Chicagoland

Re: Whitehouse Staff

Postby Ice.Maiden » 03 Oct 2013, 09:20

I don't often poke my nose in here, but that's a clever deduction Yogi, which'd sound amusing if it wasn't so serious, so I decided to check out what's happening with the mass austerity programme that our government's bestowed upon its Councils.

In June, it was (agreed) that a 10% cut in funding'd bring in a total of £30 million in from each Council. A third of staff were deemed as non-essential and've lost their jobs. This's going to carry on until at least the 2015 budget, as the axe keeps falling.

More retention of funds might include children’s centres, museums and sports centres, as well as reduce road maintenance budgets, increase bus fares and switch off street lights between midnight and dawn.

If a third of all Council workers were classed as non-essential, then why were they employed in the first place? What happens if a majority of these people can't find other jobs? Those who've been working for various departments for 2 years get redundancy money, but get no state help with their bills, etc., if they have above a certain amount in the bank. When that dwindles, how much are they going to pay out in Welfare payments?

The article suggested that the UK's been over-spending for decades, and yet both Labour and Conservative governments've continued to employ all these "non-essential" people, who must feel bad enough about losing their jobs, let alone coming to the realisation, as you say, that they weren't really needed anyway.
User avatar
Golden Poster
Golden Poster
Posts: 70045
Joined: 14 Aug 2009, 23:31
Location: Peak District

Re: Whitehouse Staff

Postby AJRC » 07 Oct 2013, 05:57

I'm amazed the number was as high as 400!
User avatar
Oracle Class Poster
Oracle Class Poster
Posts: 5108
Joined: 22 Aug 2007, 03:34
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

Return to Political Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests