To think Local Government is full of pointless jobs that exist just to justify managers’ roles?

[NimblePoster]

I worked in Local Government for years and while some teams work hard and deliver real benefits to communities, there are also entire roles - and even teams - that serve no real purpose.

Managers accumulate staff because having a bigger team gives them status, justifies higher pay, and probably makes their own jobs feel secure (especially given the mass job cuts in LG over the past two decades). With little oversight, managers keep people on even when their function disappears. I’ve seen whole teams sitting idle, their jobs now pointless, yet still being paid as if they’re essential.

AIBU to think a huge chunk of Local Government is just wasting taxpayer money?

The District Council I work for has 250 staff down from 600ish 10 years ago. We're all super stressed doing the work of 3!

whole teams sitting idle, their jobs now pointless

Can you give an example of this?? It seems completely crazy when councils are so incredibly stretched and they are cutting services to the bone to prioritise their statutory duties (mostly social care these days, if the papers are to be believed).

According to this report, between 2012 and 2024, the number of employees in England’s councils reduced by over half a million (552,000), a decline of 31.5%.

https://www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk/report-says-workforce-capacity-is-one-of-the-biggest-challenges-facing-councils-and-calls-for-national-branding-campaign-to-recruit-staff/

The fact that councils are stretched makes it even more concerning that inefficiencies still exist. Just because resources are tight doesn’t mean they’re always allocated effectively. I’ve seen roles that had a purpose at one time but became redundant over time, yet they were never restructured or removed.

Yes, council staff numbers have declined significantly but that doesn’t necessarily mean every remaining role is essential or that resources are being used efficiently. Cuts often hit frontline services first, while some managerial and bureaucratic structures remain intact. The challenge isn’t just workforce capacity - it’s whether the roles that still exist are delivering the most value for the community.

Can you ask whoever is in charge of road repair to do their fucking job!

Staff at my local council are on their knees. People leave and aren't replaced, or where they are Staff turnover is very high. All levels feel overwhelmed and the service they are able to offer is very poor.

Now this may be in part because they're used to a culture where demands weren't high, but I don't think that's the case currently.

I think, like with most parts of the public sector, it is a mix of incredibly hard working /overworked people nearing burnout (usually the technical specialists) and then too many manager type roles and waffly non -jobs where people spend their time doing very little or creating conflict /more jobs just to justify their own existence

District councils don't deal with road repairs

Can you give an example? I don’t doubt there are some roles that could change but your argument is very vague, if there are so many teams sitting idle then name some you’d get rid of.

There are a lot of these goady posts about public sector workers at the moment.

Most of the public sector is a waste of money. They should concentrate on what people think is important. Emptying the bins and fixing the roads. Instead of having meetings about meetings.

I have a friend who works for a council in the education department and when school is starting or on they do crazy amounts of work but when it's school holidays there's nothing at all. But they still have to go in and sit there. They aren't allowed to go on the internet so they literally do nothing all day, for weeks at a time.

I understand the need for specifics but part of the issue is that inefficiency is often built into the system rather than tied to a single job title. For example, I’ve seen teams created for short-term projects that no longer serve a purpose but continue to exist, or layers of middle management that add bureaucracy without clear outcomes. It’s less about individual job roles and more about a culture where roles are justified by internal processes rather than public benefit. That said, departments like Transformation teams that exist for years after their projects have ended often raise questions about their necessity.

Yes it almost feels like Labour Party researchers via their social media team have been tasked with stirring up ‘debate’ to test the waters on severe cuts.

I expect Rachel Reeves will be receiving a report by end the month.

No we need specific examples not generalities I’m afraid.

DH was a road technician which meant he was tracking pot holes, sink holes etc.
Insurance claims, tracing blocked grids. Setting up a gang to do the repairs.
At that time he was 1 of 15 for a whole county.
The day he was made redundant that number had been reduced to 1 in 10.
Now it's 1 in 6.
These workers do not have an office they work out of a van.

Yes. Give examples otherwise you're not helping. Which teams and roles could the council do away with?

There are three levels of council where I live. Parish and district councils do a good job. District do a lot of the basics that the public rely on and yet seem very short staffed.

At county council level, there are some competent departments, but others have been found lacking, especially SEN provision and child protection.

Also some of the roles at county level are a complete waste of taxpayers money, replicating what the private or voluntary sectors could do better. Worryingly, there has been a proposal to scrap the district councils and give more power and more resources to the county council.

Are you related to Elon?

Local authority job roles are created at a much higher level than that of the manager who manages the teams. I'm not say the staffing structures are always the most efficient, but I can tell you that's not the result of middle managers trying to garner status by increasing their own number of direct reports. These decisions are made at executive level and those people's salaries don't depend on having additional people on the pay roll doing nothing.

I’m becoming sick of these identical threads declaring whole swathes of other people jobs ‘useless’. Yes of course some people don’t pull their weight as with any organisation, but most people cover at least their basic job description and many others go above and beyond with little thanks or pay.

These are people with bills to pay, mouths to feed, same worries as many others, yet because they work for the state, their livelihoods don’t matter, their mortgages and rent, childcare costs, credit card bill, being able to take their elderly parents to the garden centre, none of it matters.

It must be so demoralising given how difficult the world is nowadays in general for public sector workers to see themselves being labelled useless and unwanted/needed every time they watch the news or open a paper.

These are people, and our fellow countrymen and workers. It’s disgusting rhetoric.

You are not being unreasonable.

If it’s not civil servants stealing from the taxpayer, it local government taking the piss. These people are useless and are basically robbing the public purse. Doing all they can to avoid working, taking endless sick time, skiving and being mostly useless. And yet they keep being given more and more money to do naff all. Thats why the paying public is getting sick of them.

If they weren’t so useless, people wouldn’t complain. Get over yourself.

All of them are useless?

Tell us what job it is you do so we can decide if you are useless, public slated and should be gotten rid of.