On 6 Jul 2011 at 12:42pm jrsussex wrote:
The forum is strangely quiet on the issue of the difference in pay levels between the public and private sectors. The divide was 5.3% in 2007 but has jumped to 7.8% now.
On 6 Jul 2011 at 1:16pm Private Sector Worker wrote:
Will they bite?
On 6 Jul 2011 at 1:25pm Gnasher wrote:
From the office of natuional statistics report:
Comparison of the two sectors is complicated because of differences in the types of job and characteristics of employees. Allowing for these differences as far as possible, in April 2010, public sector employees were paid on average 7.8 per cent more than private sector employees. This was an increase of 2.5 percentage points since 2007, where the pay difference was estimated at 5.3 per cent. For consistency over time, these estimates assume employees of those banks reclassified to the public sector in 2008 were in the private sector.
This analysis is based on characteristics collected in the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings and the Labour Force Survey. There are other factors that could influence the pay difference and this analysis does not include other forms of remuneration, for example pension contributions, company cars and health insurance. Also, ASHE does not cover those who are self-employed so it will miss many high paid self-employed and also some lower paid. The timing of the survey in April means that only bonus payments related to April are included, outside of the main bonus season which is normally January to March. These factors would account for some but not all of the difference.
Comparing employees who have a degree or an equivalent qualification shows that on average those in the public sector earned around 5.7 per cent less than those in the private sector in 2010.
This article also looks at the differences between the types of jobs in the two sectors and the characteristics of the people within them, showing that:
‚?Ę The public sector is made up of a higher proportion of higher skilled jobs ‚?? widening over the last decade as lower skilled jobs have been outsourced from the public to the private sector.
‚?Ę The public sector consists of a higher proportion of older employees and earnings tend to increase with age and experience
‚?Ę The public sector workforce contains more people with a degree or an equivalent qualification, 38 per cent in 2010, compared with 23 per cent in the private sector
‚?Ę The gap between the lowest and highest earners is higher in the private sector with the top 5 per cent (95th percentile) of earners paid around 5.6 times more than the bottom 5 per cent (5th percentile). The gap is 4.6 times in the public sector.
On 6 Jul 2011 at 1:32pm Ratty wrote:
Ah yes, the perfect private sector: News of the World, premier league footballers, Northern Rock, insurance mis-selling etc etc.
On 6 Jul 2011 at 1:37pm Independent thinker wrote:
Possibly people aren't reacting, because it was already pointed out on here, as well as in the media, that the differences aren't comparing like with like. If you go to the BBC news website linked below you'll see the difference is due to a large number of factors, including: shifting of unskilled jobs from the public to private sector, leaving those jobs that require higher qualifications which command higher salaries. It also doesn't include self employed lawyers, businessmen or entrepreneurs. It doesn't include typical private sector perks like pension contributions, company cars, health plans or bonus payments. And it points out that the public sector work force is on average older.
In fact when comparing like for like, it also says that "In 2010, some 38% of workers had a degree or equivalent qualification in the public sector, compared with 23% in the private sector. Comparing the pay of these graduates flips the pay gap around, with public sector workers earning 5.7% less than those in the private sector."
If the BBC has their facts wrong, then by all means come back and show us the correct ones, but otherwise the only lesson seems to be that if you take steps to further your education and skills, on average you'll earn more money, but less in the public sector than in the private sector.
Check it out here »
On 6 Jul 2011 at 1:40pm Independent thinker wrote:
Sorry, Gnasher, you beat me to it!
On 6 Jul 2011 at 2:27pm Confucioushesay......... wrote:
Privatise everything and pay everyone by their efforts and then we would have a level playing field! No benefits, no freeloading no work (meaning no pay).etc.........................
Nothing to moan about? HOW DULL!
On 6 Jul 2011 at 3:35pm jrsussex wrote:
Play with the figures as much as you like, I have 3 sisters in HM Revenue & Customs, each of them employed for over 20 yrs in Essex in what use to be the VAT HQ. I also have friends employed in local government The benefits alone in the main far out-strip anything the private sector has, do not quote the fat-cats I'm referring to Joe public. I have seen and read the employment contracts they operate under. You will not convince me that the public sector is not better off than those working in the private sector.
Surprise, surprise those in the private sector are also struggling to get a pension fund together, they are being made redundant, they are losing their dwellings to a far greater degree than the public sector. Believe me I work with the low paid and see what is happening every day.
On 6 Jul 2011 at 3:58pm Private Sector Worker wrote:
Wivelsfield Primary School are looking for a caretaker. 15 hrs a week - salary £13,000 per year (not pro rata). Now thats not bad money!
On 6 Jul 2011 at 5:10pm Vesbod wrote:
Ooo, I think I'll apply for that....
On 6 Jul 2011 at 7:56pm Evil Tory On Tour wrote:
It is fairly shocking that day or two after Lord Patten described BBC pay levels as, "..one of the most toxic reasons for the public‚??s lack of sympathy with the BBC", that they publish, on what is tax payer funded web site, a piece that parrots a TUC Press releases on the same subject.
Comparisons are difficult true, but that misses the point . The Public Sector have been better paid for years. The point is, that at a time when we are supposedly pulling in our belts the wealth creating side of the country is the one taking the hit while the Union protected tax eating side is the one protesting. That is after rises of an additional 15% during the Blair/ Brown period.
The unions have been defending their better deals on the basis of grads for a long long time. Whether the reward given a teacher as compared to an executive in a competitive industry is really determined by possession of a degree is .... ahem.. questionable. It is not questionable that whilst more money has poured into the client state it has spawned ever bushier management structures (the private sector has flattened out .)
Not only do we now have 40% of graduates going into the dependent sector ( thats about 20% of the work force) but 50% of top grads as more and more supposed higher level jobs are divided up
If you include employers Pension contributions ( and this is from the ONS) the media Public Sector employee gets a full 30% more and if you put in the true cost *(including future treasury balances to the fund) the Premium is more like 50% overall.
The reason for the surplus is basically the Unions and lack of competitive consequences. Same as the tube drivers and it matters not if they have a degree or press a button and have a sandwich.
Surely even those people can see that having the BBC`s 24 hour a day disinformation is absurd at such a time when their selfish interest is so obvious .
On 6 Jul 2011 at 8:36pm MC wrote:
"The point is, that at a time when we are supposedly pulling in our belts the wealth creating side of the country is the one taking the hit while the Union protected tax eating side is the one protesting."
Tell that the thousands of public sector workers who are being made redundant, are on a pay freeze, or who are re-applying for their jobs. As ever you are speaking rubbish.
On 6 Jul 2011 at 10:33pm pedant wrote:
Divide and rule. The Tories are getting their way, fighting amongst ourselves...
On 7 Jul 2011 at 9:34am 'ere be monsters wrote:
Since when have party political driven posts not ended up with"fighting amongst ourselves" Pedant? Can't blame that on just one party.
On 7 Jul 2011 at 11:16am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Where it is possible to compare like with like, eg solicitors, surveyors, accountants, HR and IT staff etc, the private sector almost invariably pays more. Even in teaching, staff in independent schools tend to be better paid and have an easier job in a better working environment than their state school counterparts.
A friend in IT is a contractor working alongside NHS staff doing an identical job. He gets paid 4 times as much as they do. Another friend fancied moving to local government, until he saw an identical job to his advertised for 25% less than he gets in the private sector. A friend in charge of HR for a property company with about 350 employees was on the same money as the county council's head of HR a few years ago. The county council had about 10,000 staff at the time.
An awful lot of local government employees are in graduate only professions, which give higher than average salaries.
On 7 Jul 2011 at 11:39am Mr. Money Tree wrote:
Lets compare then - Hay Group undertook a survey looking at private sector remuneration for senior HR professionals for 2009, examining the top 422 private sector companies.Among the findings were that there were only 17 HR directors/division heads among the 422 private sector companies on salaries over £200,000 per annum.
By contrast, the HR director for the public sector BBC at the time earned ¬£320,000. What‚??s more, two of her deputies earned more than ¬£200,000‚?¶‚?¶ i.e. the BBC alone had 3 members of its staff on higher salaries than 87% of the most successful private sector equivalents.
Elsewhere in the public sector, the HR Director of the Derby Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust earned ¬£246,000‚?¶‚?¶and so on.
On 7 Jul 2011 at 11:46am 'ere be monsters wrote:
That's 5,000 TV licences to pay those 3 salaries, glad to see my money's not being wasted.
On 7 Jul 2011 at 12:59pm Zen Cybal wrote:
Mr Money Tree PLEASE do not use the term earned when relating to fat cat salaries...............many of them don't EARN it, it's just paid to them!
Annette Curtin- Twitcher, you made a good case for reducing the qualifications needed for some of the Public sector workers(?), a lot of the jobs could be done by the less qualified for less money methinks!
Could be more efficiency for less outlay Q.E.D.
On 7 Jul 2011 at 1:14pm Clifford wrote:
The main thing we have to do is ensure there's a battle between workers in the private sector and the public sector on the basis of divide and rule. Signed, A Tory.
On 7 Jul 2011 at 2:39pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
All the parties are just the same Clifford. I could see why public sector workers if they weren't being paid at all, like the Greeks. We could easily end up in the same sinking boat and it won't matter which party is steering it.
On 7 Jul 2011 at 6:58pm bastian wrote:
we will never end up in the same boat as the greeks because we have a healthy arms trade.Huntings and Janes keep this country afloat.When the euro was first begun the idea of euro-crash was mooted,but it has to happen for people to understand what it means.