The Environment Agency is to shed 1,700 of its staff

[pointngo]

yes it is a shame Steph, and any reduced capability of the EA could be a disaster waiting to happen, but all industries have had to go through it over the last few years. The worrying thing is that enforcement of byelaws relating to fishing is likely to reduce even further, if that's even possible.

One thing that might be positive (if there is a positive in economic downturn) is that the deadwood employees will most likely go and hopefully the threat of job loss might spur those remaining to work a bit harder. As said, their workload will increase, streamlining a business always impacts on those remaining, but they should be glad they've still got a job in what I'd expect to be a very rewarding (perhaps not financially) industry. I do feel sorry for those that work hard and are still losing their jobs though.

I've had some dealings with the EA in the past and have been quite impressed by some of them but the "on site" staff need a kick up the rear end if what I saw last week was anything to go by.. nevermind their complete failing to police illegal fishing.

 

[jacksharp]

It's just a shame that people have to lose their jobs, regardless of the circumstances. Necessary, yes, but sad none the less.

...and the other side of the coin is the people who work in the private sector letting out whoops of glee because the public sector are so privileged with their cushy job and pensions. An argument that no-one can ever win.

 

[nicepix]

The trouble with cost cutting in government agencies is that those making the decisions concentrate on what they are saving and don't consider the effects of their changes. These effects can outweigh the savings made at the other end.

The Crown Prosecution Service made changes to their service to save money and it cost the police millions in extra costs. It all comes out of the same pocket - yours! So no one wins in the end.

I suspect that the changes in the EA will have similar added costs to others.

 

[S-Kippy]

The trouble with cost cutting in government agencies is that those making the decisions concentrate on what they are saving and don't consider the effects of their changes. These effects can outweigh the savings made at the other end.

The Crown Prosecution Service made changes to their service to save money and it cost the police millions in extra costs. It all comes out of the same pocket - yours! So no one wins in the end.

I suspect that the changes in the EA will have similar added costs to others.

Quite....change in itself is not a bad thing but there is a limit to what you can expect from people...not so much in terms of raw output but the mental strength/agility to cope with remorseless change while keeping basic services running. I have seen endless changes...all theoretically sound but the practical impacts have not been thought through well enough because the "savings" are too attractive to ignore. Eventually things sort themselves out but its the front line that takes the grief until they do...not the numpty or highly paid consultant suit that suggested it then buqqered off to shag up something else.

Time & again I have seen decent ideas fail because nobody had the wit to ask & then actually listen [as opposed to pretending to listen] to the people doing the job. I suspect a load of things might have gone a whole lot better if they had. Sadly,once a public statement of intent to do something by X date is made then the old "coming ready or not" attitude takes over & another not unreasonable idea/concept goes belly up.

And dont get me started on HS2 !

 

[bullet]

Then again, look around almost any office. See the covert phone-users, the private emailers, the game-players, the asleep at their desk sorts - do as little as you can and get away with it; it's endemic, part of the national mindset and culture.

Cripes!! Better stop arsing around looking at this forum and phone some customers.

 

[nicepix]

Quite....change in itself is not a bad thing but there is a limit to what you can expect from people...not so much in terms of raw output but the mental strength/agility to cope with remorseless change while keeping basic services running. I have seen endless changes...all theoretically sound but the practical impacts have not been thought through well enough because the "savings" are too attractive to ignore. Eventually things sort themselves out but its the front line that takes the grief until they do...not the numpty or highly paid consultant suit that suggested it then buqqered off to shag up something else.

Time & again I have seen decent ideas fail because nobody had the wit to ask & then actually listen [as opposed to pretending to listen] to the people doing the job. I suspect a load of things might have gone a whole lot better if they had. Sadly,once a public statement of intent to do something by X date is made then the old "coming ready or not" attitude takes over & another not unreasonable idea/concept goes belly up.

And dont get me started on HS2 !

The biggest issue before I left was the drastic cutting of the numbers of civilian support staff. For twenty years previously they had been using cheaper civilian staff to do the menial tasks that were keeping people like me from doing what the public thought we should be doing. Then at a stroke they decide to cut all those staff and tell the public it won't affect front line services. Of course it will, and did. If it hadn't then all those people working in support services had been earning money for nothing and the people who employed them are guilty of gross negligence.

When the Enviornment Agency cuts its staff it too will reduce its efficiency. Let's say as an example the officers dealing with fly-tipping are made redundant. Within a short space of time councils up and down the country will be spending £££'s extra dealing with the increased amount of rubbish dumped all over the place. The government saves a few £££'s in one hand and pays out more £££'s in the other mg:

 

[flightliner]

I was at a lake last week when 4 EA blokes turned up in 4 different cars. They spent an hour or so chatting in the carpark then spent the next 3 hours checking 1 valve which consisted of opening it, watching water coming out the pipe, then closing it!

They then spent an hour chatting about what was on tv before they left.. they were right behind me so I heard every word.

with the low water levels on the lake there are a lot of big swan mussels exposed and one of them thought they were cockles!

so that's approx. 20 man hours to check one valve, along with 4 lots of petrol expenses!

I know they're not all bad but EA staff wasting money like this should be sacked. How can they claim underfunding when they throw money away?

Bit late seeing this thread but the above reads pretty much of things I ,ve seen in the recant past. Two EA employees coming onto a lake I fish, both in seperate cars, one carrying a specimen jar which she handed to a male co - worker who filled it and handed it back ( ???).
Five EA guys opposite me on the Trent-- four watching while one did some scooping around with a net for lamprey (there for over a half hour).
Two guys on a comorant survey sat in the car as it was raining, we walked upstream and counted forty sat on a boom across the river. When the rain had stopped they came up to do a count and recorded non as the comorants had all gone, we told them they had missed the "party" but their findings were recorded as a "no problem".
Another time on the trent another five plus a supervisor arrived on a badly swollen river on a high tide and started to look for signs of water voles, when we suggested that it would/may have been better when the river was low , clear and with muddy margins where prints could be easily spotted as against the rock sided high banks that had been washed down with loads of rain they sort of agreed. Mny of them are there because they have degrees in a much needed subject but like my old dad used to say-- "intelligence is no substitute for common sense."
Man management seems sadly lacking in the instances I,ve quoted yet the EA on the whole provide a much needed service for everyone, not just for angling but for town and countryside alike . Anyone having to sort out the waste has to my mind has a task on their hands and it will be a sad day for those where the finger points.
Nicepix is correct tho when he says savings will be made to someones satisfaction but others will pick up on the cost that will be needed on the rebound.