Wednesday, 1 December 2010

What Power do Diversity Outreach Co-ordinators Have?

The Heresiarch, who is usually subtle in his analysis, left a comment on my last post.

"The cuts are going to make diversity outreach co-ordinators miserable by making them unemployed."

Well, I'd like to think so. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Meanwhile, the left is arguing that there's no significant waste, and any cut to expenditure will result in Nurses being thrown onto the dole, Policemen being fired and the decimation of "front-line services". They don't believe the DORCs will be fired either.

So.

Much as I distrust bureaucracy, there are some people working in the public services who care about those services which are delivered by local Government. Surely they can see that, when the choice between firing a DORC and, say, a bin-man or teacher, who is going to survive the cut? Left and right seem to agree that it's Miss Jones who will be saying goodbye to class 2b, and the DORC who will continue to collect her pay-cheque. Am I totally naive to believe that to not be the case?

What is it about DORCs which makes them so difficult to fire? Surely they can't ALL be in possession of pictures of their boss up to his nuts in an 8-year old?



8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would think it's because the type of person that could lower themselves to do such work, wouldnt hesitate to play the race card or any other card when threatened with redundancy.

banned said...

Ask any council Office worker privately and they will have plenty of stories about overmanning and making up work as they all sit around with that twitty mousey look.
As you say it will be the bin-men and road sweepers who will cop the cuts, the Common Purpose goons in power will look after their own kind, DORCs especially.

Anonymous said...

Councils should be forced to list jobs and numbers of employes.

Would be much harder for them to sack binmen whilst keeping non-jobs employed.

Simon Jester said...

"Left and right seem to agree that it's Miss Jones who will be saying goodbye to class 2b, and the DORC who will continue to collect her pay-cheque. Am I totally naive to believe that to not be the case?"

Yes.

The reason is simple: by keeping the undesirable expenditure out of the scope of cuts, and instead threatening to cut those things that people actually want, the spenders hope to avoid all cuts (using the resultant outcry to grab some extra cash).

Do you think it was a coincidence that the BBC threatened to scrap Radio 6, instead of any of the rest of its bloated empire?

Odin's Raven said...

There's little chance that cuts would mean cutting the bloated salaries and perks of council bosses and politicians.

They always cut useful services in order to protect themselves and promote lefty outrage at the very idea of restraining the growth of public expenditure.

If Redwood is right, the annual totals of government spending will continue to rise, it's just a reduction in the rate of increase.

DORC's will be preserved because they are preparing the future. All the useful functions may be scaled back because they represent the society that is being in every way eroded and replaced by another third world socialist hell hole run by and for Guardianista apparatchiks and useful idiots.

Clone-of-Blair leading the Previously-Conservative party will do nothing to interupt let alone reverse this process. He and his followers and Limp-Dumb allies are far too PC to tolerate anything so reactionary. They are only concerned about their reserved seats on the Gravy Train.

chris said...

"What is it about DORCs which makes them so difficult to fire?"

Well Tory councils were more reluctant to hire them in the first place, because the people that become DORCs vote labour and so they want as few of them on their patch as possible. That makes firing them difficult, since they didn't hire the. Whereas Labour run councils hired loads, for the payroll vote, but are looking for the most damaging cuts they can find to try to score points against the Tories, and firing DORCs is nowhere near damaging enough for them.

The Heresiarch said...

All good points. But we should also think about why the DORCs, and other such people, came to be employed in the first place.

Many of them are doing supervisory and regulatory jobs that are mandated by various pieces of legislation - the Equality Act and so on - that require local authorities to monitor their implementation of social engineering schemes and also superintend what is happening in the private sector. There are innumerable laws these days (some New Labour, some deriving from compulsory EU directives) that require legions of staff to fill out forms, tick boxes, compile reports, send out questionnaires and all the rest of it. However otiose, these tasks usually fulfil legal obligations.

It isn't simply that DORCS and the like are politically well-connected and good at playing office games (though they are) or that they know where the bodies are buried (though sometimes they do) or that Labour councils can cause the coalition more embarrassment by cutting front-line services (that's true too, of course). More important that all these is the legal necessity of having the DORCS. A local authority can sack binmen and close libraries without violating its legal obligations.

The Coalition (especially the Tories in it) talk a good game about cutting unnecessary pen-pushers, but they show little sign of making the legislative amendments that would be needed to make it possible. Most aspects of Harman's Orwellian Equality Act have been fully implemented, or will be. And so it goes on. The DORCS will indeed inherit the earth.

Fenrir said...

Another aspect to this arises from how these jobs are often funded. Many of these non-jobs are funded centrally via grants which cover not only the direct costs (wages etc.) but also a contribution to non-direct costs (rent, HR, etc) if the diversity co-ordinator is sacked the LA will have to fork out for the redundancy from their general money and will lose the extra cash they received over and above the basic salary.

There was an error in this gadget