Aristeides: State Job Vacancies Website

This proposal was submitted to ConservativeHome some time ago and is being published now - after George Osborne indicated that it might become Tory policy.

> Summary

Consolidation of all government and local authority job advertisements into one exclusive website.

> Explanation

The policy is quite simple: all government and local authority jobs will only be advertised on a single government-run website. Operationally, it will be on a low cost almost blog-style platform, searchable by indexing (google-type) software. No one who is looking to work in the civil service should not be able to use the internet. All job centres would obviously also have readily available access to the site over the internet. Departments, councils and quangos would then use the site rather than advertising in the press. With the benefit of technology, jobs can easily be sorted by area, skill or salary.

> Political risks and opportunities

Very few risks since this is admittedly a "small" idea. The policy enables the party to say it is prepared to come up with genuinely cost-saving policies and is serious about efficiency at every level of government. It will please the not inconsiderable number of people who are fed up with the Guardian being funded by government jobs ads too. It will also make wasteful and nonsensical hiring practices much more transparent and increase the accountability of those state organisations advertising them.

> Cost

This is a genuine cost saving initiative. The website should be able to be set up for under two million pounds and operated for about £250k per annum. This cost would be borne by central government though it could be outsourced to a small efficient concern. Placing adverts would be free for all state advertisers meaning that the savings can be calculated to the penny by adding total current expenditure on job advertisements (assumed to be in the tens of millions).

> Questions for Conservativehome readers

1. What should the extent of the definition of "state job" be? Would it include, for example, Network Rail or Royal Mail employees?
2. Is there a case for identifying other small but efficient policies and banding them together into e-Government platform, with the e standing for efficient?
3. Could there possibly be a further beneficial effect whereby increased exposure of wasteful non-jobs actually discourages state organisations from making them up in the first place?

   

Comments

[James Sproule]

Good, albeit small idea , and we needs lots more like them. Has anyone told The Guardian of this idea - they will have a fit!

[Mark Wadsworth]

YES - I can't see a downside. State jobs should be defined as anybody whose salary is borne by the State, however indirectly.

[Sivil Sepent]

It will be a big website!!!

[Derek Johnson]

Sivil, hopefully it won't be a big website when we implement this excellent proposal. There will be adverts for teachers, doctors, dustmen, policemen etc.... You know, people that are productive!

There will be no diversity officers, no signposting co-ordinators etc...

In light of today's Pre-Budget statement from Brown and his "business as usual" message, the arrival of this web portal can't come soon enough.

Only worry is whether we'll have any money to set it up.

[Angelo Basu]

How much is currently spent on job advertisements by the State? What would be the compliance cost of requiring every state body to change its recruitment processes to accomodate this?

If this is covering "anybody whose salary is borne by the State, however indirectly" wouldn't this also load a compliance cost as well as a regulatory removal of commercial freedom from private sector contractors undertaking outsourced public sector tasks?

I can understand and share the disgust at the apparently large number of "diversity officer" type jobs, but surely the proper policy to tackle that sort of pointless waste would be to say that we would stop recruiting for those sorts of job and change the ethos of the public sector to stop it being so self-regarding?

The proposal doesn't strike me as a good way of dealing with that real problem. I doubt that it will "shame" public bodies into changing the jobs that they create away from support officers for disabled muslim lesbian pig farmers. All it does is create a further layer of regulation preventing the state from advertising using media available in the market. If this is a good idea, then set it up as a business and sell the advertising space to public sector bodies!

In fact, it has already been done. The Guardian has demonstrated real success as a business in establishing itself as the place to find public sector jobs (including those in the Conservative Party). Without any State involvement! If you want to give the right wing media a boost on advertising revenue compared to the Guardian you'd be more effective if you advocated lifting the restrictions on tobacco advertising!

[Mark Wadsworth]

Angelo, somebody worked out that state advertising of jobs costs about £800m per annum. Aristeides' idea would cost a fraction of that.

What compliance costs? If I am an employer carrying out something being funded by the government (e.g. I cook school meals etc) then part of the contract with the government (or whichever branch) will say "all vacancies will be advertised on www.jobs.gov.uk". Seems simple enough to me.

[James Cleverly]

The site could save millions of pounds. If the site also charged private sector advertisers who want to recruit from the public sector it might be self financing or even profitable.

Fancy that, a public sector venture that was a profit centre rather than a cost!

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this policy related to the jobs already listed at www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk? are we saying that state jobs aren't listed there already? why not?
why does this policy recommend a new website rather than use existing resources?

If this is a policy solely to stop adverts in the Guardian, why not call it that? Altenatively, I don't think it's right if the basis of this policy is that jobcentreplus is for low-lifes looking for minimum wage and guardian reader types are too good for it.

[Rachel Joyce]

I think this is an excellent idea.
There is an NHS jobs website but as most jobs are also advertised in journals etc, people don't use it very much. However, it does allow electronic job applications and also through doctors.net you can get electronic alerts to the types of jobs you are interested in.
If jobs were ONLY advertised this way, it would save a significant sum. It would also probably improve quality of applications - I have had to advertise internally for recruitment purposes in the past not for HR reasons but purely because we didn't have the money to afford to advertise in a journal.

[Big Ted]

Can we have some local Councillors submit this as a motion in their local Council Chamber?

[Jake]

Broadly, a decent idea but the compulsion concerns me.

Two linked thoughts:

1. Advertising works and that is why commercial organisations spend plenty of good money on it. Is it wise to rule out ever advertising a government vacancy other than on a government jobs website? When an economist looks for a new job she looks for a new and interesting role in economics - whether it is public or private sector is neither here nor there. If the private sector jobs are widely publicised in the Economist and the public sector ones are not, who is likely to attract more applicants and get the top potential employee?

2. A government jobs website can reinforce the public/private divide. Personnel should flow freely between the two sectors, spreading ideas and different perspective. This idea - if compulsory - creates a ghetto.

This idea makes sense for teachers for example where the large majority are public sector so any central resource will have critical mass. It does not make sense (and I mean specifically as an exclusive and compulsory idea) for jobs where public and private sector employers compete for the best employees such as for scientists, secretaries, lawyers, cooks, accountants, security guards - indeed a hell of a lot of jobs and professions.

[aristeides]

Thank you all for the comments.

To address one or two of the issues raised...

Angelo - I am sorry but I disagree with many of your premises. However, I agree that such a policy would not logically be spread to include private sector contractors - the whole point of using them in the first place is that they are much better at this sort of thing than state organisations. But I am most certainly not happy that "The Guardian has demonstrated real success as a business in establishing itself as the place to find public sector jobs". This is your and my money we are talking about, and I resent it being spent on a leftist backscratching exercise.

Mark - I think the £800 million per annum is an exaggeration and was happier with my "tens of millions" estimate. Furthermore, James is right that in fact the website would likely be a profitable venture. Maybe the Guardian would pay to advertise on it to try and get its readers back?

Anonymous Coward - Your first questions are interesting but my answer would be who cares? Of course, it should be a new website, executed well, and, yes, there would be publicity costs. However, the savings versus the present situation are of a different order of magnitude. Regarding whether it is solely to stop ads being placed in the Guardian, the answer is no. The Guardian should be free to compete in the market of advertising private sector and NGO jobs, just not ones that you and I are currently paying for, which in future will be advertised for free on the website. The purpose of the policy is to save money.

Jake - I do see your point and I would be prepared to see advertisements for government economists placed in The Economist with sign off at a relatively high level. Indeed, I would be surpised if the Government does not contract headhunters to find the next Chairman of the BBC and advertise accordingly. Equally, at the other end, state organisations use recruiters and agencies for teachers, nurses, etc. Obviously, to them the website would be another string to their bow.

However, the bulk of the jobs are advertised in the Guardian because they are state jobs. I would rather concentrate on this 80+% and secure real savings.

As I said, thanks for the comments. It looks like George Osborne is picking up and running with this one... good luck to him!

[Kishan Das]

I want a job.

[Alex Scattergood]

If the only place you can get a state job is via the Job centre plus web site or recruiters on centrally stipulated margins - (say 5% salary) the savings would be imense. People who want state jobs buy the lefty rags , if they just logged on to a website we cut out the middleman. Staff not accomplished with computers may well be assisted with Jobcentre employees or relatives anyway.

Think of the possibilities, processing the electronic applications, the fact all applicants have the same chance (remove names, ages & ethnic backgrounds etc from applications given to selection boards to level the playing field), automatic cross referencing shortlists with CRB lists etc. Auto checking of references. Consideration of candidates for other jobs when applications fail. May make the application process less unpleasant for the applicant.