Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

public sector pay

 
 
On 10 May 2011 at 6:08pm brixtonbelle wrote:
a few myths debunked. sorry mr newamn, it's from the guardian.

Check it out here »
 
 
On 10 May 2011 at 6:20pm Paul Newman wrote:
..and being in the Guardian I had of course read it last night on line , (after I read the Policy Exchange paper ) I don`t think it does de-bunk any myths .The paper`s chief purpose, which is to show it is the Privates Sector are bearing the entire weight of the Nation`s travails, is hardly disputed. look at the rate and direction of change .
Personally I have deep suspicions about the adjustment for "Grade" when Private sector operation's are flat and public sector ones bushy hierarchical trees.


 
 
On 10 May 2011 at 7:53pm bastian wrote:
paul,are you reading the same article?
 
 
On 11 May 2011 at 8:27am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Having worked in both public and private sectors, I'd say it's a very fair article. I'm particularly glad they make the point about skills, even at low grades workers the civil service and local government are often required to interpret and apply complex legislation. I've never had to use my brain anything like as much in the private sector as I have in the public sector.
In the professions and in IT, public sector salaries are generally lower than private ones.
I also think that people need to remember that a pay freeze in a sector where there are final salary pensions is a pension freeze too. Before anyone jumps on the "gold-plated pensions" bandwagon, bear in mind that the average local government pension for female pensioners is in the region of £4k per year. My mother got more a lot than that from my father's private, money purchase scheme after his death.
1
 
On 11 May 2011 at 10:04am jrsussex wrote:
I have nothing against workers in the public sector, almost certainly in the main they work hard and deserve their salaries. The problem, in the minds of the private sector, are the add-on benefits. a certain amount of days per year can be taken off without having to give a reason to offer just one small example, effectively additional holidays. What are without doubt protected pensions rights, which are no longer affordable. I agree that not all public sector workers have large pension pots, it would be rather silly to think they do, but they are linked and in most cases more advantageous that those in the private sector.
In the private sector, generally speaking, those employees who carry out the actual profit making work pay for the essential office staff that look after the administration of the firm. If the administration becomes top heavy then the firm/company will end up insolvent. There lies the problem with the civil service and local Government administration. Very few employees, if any, are actually producing profit, all operating costs come from the taxpayer. If the costs of operating the UK are not tightly controlled then the workers have to be more heavily taxed, either directly or indirectly, which is unfair.
Think of the UK Government as a very large company. I think it correct to say it has only ever shown a huge loss at the end of each financial year.
 
 
On 11 May 2011 at 10:30am Twinky wrote:
Good analysis. The Guardian article debunks the assertion that the public sector benefits are 40% ahead of the private sector, if evaluated on a like-for-like skills basis (which is fair enough). That this is a myth isn't news: I can quite believe that public sector workers have lower salaries (on a like for like skills basis), but higher job security and higher pensions (and before everyone in the public sector starts wailing about job security, Tory cuts and how stupid I am, try the constant fear of redundancy / outsourcing / reorganisation in the private sector, which we've all had to live with for years)
1
 
On 11 May 2011 at 1:32pm Teachers Pet wrote:
Lets not also forget that in some public sector jobs, on a like for like basis, more people are employed as profit is not a consideration.
This in turn can mean lower pay as more jobs are being created in an inefficient way.
1
 
On 11 May 2011 at 1:49pm jrsussex wrote:
Teachers Pet - If I read your post correctly you are endorsing the point that the civil service and local Government employ far too many people, greater stress should be placed on existing staff efficiency before deciding if more staff is required.
On was on Brighton station last Saturday, at the top end of Platform 7 there were 7 Southern Train staff standing around talking, smoking etc. As a past employer that immediately tells they are overstaffed. Perhaps 2/3 is understandable but if 7 staff can be stood contributing nothing to the operation then they are sending a clear message to their management that they are excess to requirements.
 
 
On 11 May 2011 at 1:59pm old cynic wrote:
As a public sector worker (low pay less that 16,000 per annum) with the job axe hanging obver my head I get a bit browned off with the 'public sector have it so good' carping that goes on - generally from people who have no experience of working in that sector.
Ive not had a pay rise for the last two years, Im not going to get one for the next two years and the 250 quid promised by the Govt for low earners has also been stopped.
Iv'e never had the 'certain amount of days per year' and have accounted for every sick day Ive ever had - ditto my fellow workers.
My pension is s#ite as Ive never earned enough in the whole of my career to top it up - nothing 'adventagous' there.
Organisations are top heavy, generally because the public rightly insists on knowing how funds are spent and that they are getting value for money - you need 'non-front line' staff to deliver that. There is also a massive amount of red-tape and legislation that changes almost monthly ion the whims of Govt - hence many of the management role to monitor and deliver that lot!
 
 
On 11 May 2011 at 2:40pm bastian wrote:
old cynic you are so right...I also earn 16k and likewise my pension is crap,it is the dedication to our jobs that keep us in them,our duty to ordinairy people who earn what we earn and less.I to have the axe over my head and despite what is generally thought it is not the first time in my 20 years service...I remember the last lot and the worst thing they did was"change the way people think"about the public sector...it is now an us and them situation.Just think,who are you going to call when the chip pan catches fire?who are you going to call if your ticker hurts?who looked after your kids and your elderly so you could go to your private paid job today?...it's us lot.
 
 
On 11 May 2011 at 4:53pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
JRS, no public sector employee should be producing a profit - that is not the function of the public sector (although some may, of course, generate a certain amount of income).
And haven't the railways been privatised?
 
 
On 11 May 2011 at 4:57pm queequeg wrote:
I recall that, when public sector pensions were the issue, one argument was that the public sector in fact employed a great many unskilled people (dinner ladies and dustmen I think were used as examples) and therefore most pensions could not be categorised as gold plated. In fact they were mostly fairly modest and well deserved.
Now it would seem that most public sector workers are at degree level, hugely stretched, never take time off and thoroughly deserve premium pay. A bit like the RMTU pay deal announced yesterday.
The whole Guardian article twisted logic to the nth degree. The fact is that there is no difference in qualifications, experience, dedication or anything else between public and private sectors ...... and no reason for a pay, conditions or pensions premium.
 
 
On 11 May 2011 at 6:21pm Paul Newman wrote:
Queequeg ...what no-one seems to have even noticed was that this piece was a Union blurb rushed out to counter the Telegraph Front page of the day before . the Telegraph headline ce was based on research by Policy Exchange
If you read the material it was supposed to be debunking you will how weak and biassed the Guardian thing is. Those are all the old arguments, as I say , its just the Union Hymn sheet whenever anyone asks why those who do least get most. Real reason,-Unions and being monopoly providers.Dreadful work from the Guardian
 
 
On 11 May 2011 at 9:52pm Teachers Pet wrote:
Yes AnnetteCT the railways have been privatised but they are still receiving huge amounts of Taxpayers money to operate.
They are also paying large bonuses to their investors and managers are getting large payouts for (wait for it) EFFICIENCY??!!
So we now have 3 sectors:- Public, Private and both combined!!! Which is worse.......you choose.
 
 
On 12 May 2011 at 2:59pm bastian wrote:
QQ,you are right the original employees were dustmen and dinner ladies,I remember when the first private cleaning contracts came in and who were the first people to lose all their benefits?the cleaners.Several years down the line and all the other sections of the council have been slowly chipped away at until no one is quite sure who is who.(or should I say who owns who,who is accountable to who?)This is not good for morale.The situation we are in now is one of great irritation..many of the support staff who still work for the council lost rights to everything years ago...now it's the teachers turn,so,on the subject of degree level jobs,you will find that many supprt staff are over qualified for their posts..this is imaterial,however,an NHS dentist and a teacher are paid differently to each other.basically if you want efficient people working in crucial jobs you need experts and you have to pay them enough to be stable themselves in order that they can help other people who have chaotic lives cope...show me a private company that offers that.
 
 
On 12 May 2011 at 3:13pm Feline wrote:
The reality is that jobs being privatised are more poorly paid because the owner wants more profit - hence the increasing divide between the rich and the rest of us in this country. Plus the relocation of many private company HQs in other countries and therefore tax avoidance and you have the pattern of late capitalism. The only flaw in this continuing process is that as the mass of us get worse off (wages squeezed, uttilities becoming more expensive due to increasing profit margins and an increasing world demand for reducing resources) we will have less spare money to spend and capitalism depends on the creation of wants and therefore consumption.
 
 
On 12 May 2011 at 3:22pm bastian wrote:
are you suggesting that the ora borus of capitalism might just gobble itself up and fail?bring it on.
 
 
On 12 May 2011 at 3:32pm Feline wrote:
Well, as we're now a globalised economy the only thing I'll predict is the rise of the East (China, India etc) while the West stagnates. Of course there is still very cheap labour to be had in these countries but their populations too will want to enter the palace of commodities in order to consume in the same pattern as the West has been for the past 50 years.
 
 
On 12 May 2011 at 4:20pm bastian wrote:
the only reason it is possible for those countries to boom is because they have very few employment rights..any rights to anything actually..it is very like victorian britain in that respect, which poses the question..can capitalism survive without poverty? and can we have infinate growth?I don't own an I-phone and i'm not prepared to at the expense of someones liberty.Do we need these things just to keep the rich,rich,the poor are just kept ticking over...an apendage to the machine.
 
 
On 12 May 2011 at 4:26pm Clifford wrote:
Capitalism always has problems bastian. It needs to pay the workers enough to buy all they produce otherwise the goods mount up and there is a slump. But at the same time if it paid the workers enough to do this there would be no profit. So we have constant booms and slumps, booms and slumps. Workers organise in unions to improve their share of the wealth they produce - but in China they aren't allowed to (unions were banned in Britain till the 1820s). In Britain the unions were crushed by Thatcher's policy of mass unemployment. That's why the share of wealth going to the rich has increased and the share going to the rest of us has gone down in the past 30 years. But you know all this.
 
 
On 12 May 2011 at 5:36pm queequeg wrote:
What is certain is that we are going through a more rapid period of change in the World order than has ever happened without catastrophic war. From the viewpoint of 100 years hence it will seem extraordinary that the western world, in a period of less than 50 years, invested all it's manufacturing capacity in cheap labour countries causing the collapse of the western World. Now we pay the price in a downward spiral of pay and conditions until we can compete with other manufacturers again. Short sighted or what?
 
 
On 12 May 2011 at 5:41pm Eradicater wrote:
Because of the cheap imports from China and India and others we have allowed our manufacturing capabilities to die and one day these imports will be our Waterloo.
This will come about when these countries have complete control of our economy and have bought out our 'service' industries and then raised their prices.
Therefore to survive we need to produce again and sell to the rest of the world or else there will be no income to support the Public sector and other non productive operations.
They have found a non violent way to take over our lives........it's call avarice.
 
 
On 12 May 2011 at 8:47pm MC wrote:
To stand any chance of not being at the mercy of other countries (soon to be Asian) we need to be as independent as possible. We must produce sufficient power, food and water for our own needs. This is hugely important and should not be open to question.
 
 
On 13 May 2011 at 10:36am bastian wrote:
that's more like it chaps... you are beginning to get my rambling, drivel of a point.At present we only trade in arms and hollywoods use of pine wood studios it's not enough to keep a country going.Don't forget we made our own bed ..it is up to us to sort the duvet out.I still don't want an I-phone,i'm just not a participant.
 
 
On 13 May 2011 at 10:54am Feline wrote:
The world is set to consume three times more natural resources than current rates by the middle of the century, according to a United Nations report.
It predicts that humanity will annually use about 140 billion tonnes of fossil fuels, minerals and ores by 2050.
The authors call for resource consumption to be "decoupled" from economic growth, and producers to do "more with less".
Growth in population and prosperity are the main drivers, they observe.
 
 
On 13 May 2011 at 2:13pm Teachers Pet wrote:
Feline, what percentage of the 140 billion tonnes of fossil fuels, minerals and ores that we use is whores?
Sounds breathtaking!
 
 
On 13 May 2011 at 4:15pm Clifford wrote:
MC wrote: 'To stand any chance of not being at the mercy of other countries (soon to be Asian) we need to be as independent as possible.'

Would you like these 'other countries' to buy any of our goods an services (which creates employment here) or do you want them to be as independent as possible too?
 
 
On 13 May 2011 at 4:32pm queequeg wrote:
Clifford
The argument for free trade is a sound and solid one where different countries have different abilities, raw materials and products.
Where all of these things are identical world wide then the only reason to buy from A rather than B is price. Therefore all our designed products (Dyson comes to mind) are manufactured abroad for cheapness. Consequence - high unemployment and wages spiralling downwards.
We in the west have seen it as our mission to bring other areas of the World up to our standard of living - very philanthropic - but these new areas of wealth believe in cut throat competition and the devil take the hindmost. We will rue the day we gave away our technological advantage.
1
 
On 13 May 2011 at 4:37pm MC wrote:
I was talking about being self-sufficient only as far as the real necessities go; power, water, food. Trade the rest as much as you like.

I am convinced that the recent incident where Russia cut of the Ukraine's oil supply is an indication of the likely future. As populations continue to explode and resources get scarcer control of food and water will become crucial and wars will be waged over them, as they are now over oil.
 
 
On 14 May 2011 at 7:30am Clifford wrote:
I'm afraid you're probably right MC.
 
 
On 14 May 2011 at 1:17pm MC wrote:
That's a first then. :-)


6 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Harveys Brewery 40:132
Harveys Brewery

Just noticed. TP started "Quote of the Moment", although it's hard to understand what it's for. more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I like the fact it's safe enough to leave windows open and shops don't need to put grills up at night.
Maddie