Public sector pay

[Uncle C]

In spite of what I have just said, I've just read that report on the BBC: how on earth does the leader of Wandsworth Borough council (Tory) earn twice as much as the PM?

And how does a single GP get paid £475,000? I thought all NHS staff were on a sliding scale for their position? Has this guy singlehandedly discovered a cure for cancer or something?

Buts thats all OK if you listen to some of the responses on here.

 

[e77]

It isn't so much the money they are paid but when I ever have dealings with non-emergency public sector people they just seem to be on a different planet their private sector cousins (massively sweeping generalisation).

For example, the senior tax official not feeling he needed to apologise (before being 'persuaded' he had to) was just unbelievable.

 

[beorhthelm]

What shite. No one in the public sector was responsible for sub-prime mortgages or any of the other idiotic "can't fail" examples of financial genius.

and what have sub-prime mortgages got to do with public sector inefficiencies and government spending more money than received year, after year, after year?

 

[Dandyman]

and what have sub-prime mortgages got to do with public sector inefficiencies and government spending more money than received year, after year, after year?

We have an economic crisis because an under-regulated greedy and irresponsible financial sector f*cked the global economy.

Most people in the public sector work for modest salaries and while inefficiencies do exist there is no evidence to suggest they are any more prevelant than in the private sector.

The deficit is being hyped out of proportion to justify what are increasingly clearly dogma and greed driven attacks on the basic premise of public service (not that Neo-Labout with PFI and the rest helped the situation).

 

[Peteinblack]

We have an economic crisis because an under-regulated greedy and irresponsible financial sector f*cked the global economy.

Most people in the public sector work for modest salaries and while inefficiencies do exist there is no evidence to suggest they are any more prevelant than in the private sector.

The deficit is being hyped out of proportion to justify what are increasingly clearly dogma and greed driven attacks on the basic premise of public service (not that Neo-Labout with PFI and the rest helped the situation).

This

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

and what have sub-prime mortgages got to do with public sector inefficiencies and government spending more money than received year, after year, after year?

Are you serious?

I think the point is that the financial sector gambled recklessly with investors money until the entire financial system collapsed. In order to avoid banks imploding the Government elected to protect the national infrastructure by using public money to prop up the banks.

There is now no public money left because of this so the Government is now turning the spotlight onto public servants who are "paid more than the PM" in an attempt to build a consensus that these individuals are leeching the public purse dry with their greed.

The cause of the crisis was greedy and reckless bankers parcelling up bad debt and selling it to each other in creative ways...a lot of it was subprime mortgages. Thats basically banks lending money to people who have no means of paying it back.

If I had applied for a job at a certain salary, gone through the interview process and hopefully demonstrated my suitability for the role to a high enough level to get offered it I would be feeling pretty f***ing got at right now.

Funny how no-one was going on about this in the good times...and now they are whilst the Bankers, who caused the mess in the first place, are back to happy days.

I hope this is clear now.

It'll end in tears.

 

[brakespear]

We have an economic crisis because an under-regulated greedy and irresponsible financial sector f*cked the global economy.

Most people in the public sector work for modest salaries and while inefficiencies do exist there is no evidence to suggest they are any more prevelant than in the private sector.

The deficit is being hyped out of proportion to justify what are increasingly clearly dogma and greed driven attacks on the basic premise of public service (not that Neo-Labout with PFI and the rest helped the situation).

this.

 

[brakespear]

Are you serious?

I think the point is that the financial sector gambled recklessly with investors money until the entire financial system collapsed. In order to avoid banks imploding the Government elected to protect the national infrastructure by using public money to prop up the banks.

There is now no public money left because of this so the Government is now turning the spotlight onto public servants who are "paid more than the PM" in an attempt to build a consensus that these individuals are leeching the public purse dry with their greed.

The cause of the crisis was greedy and reckless bankers parcelling up bad debt and selling it to each other in creative ways...a lot of it was subprime mortgages. Thats basically banks lending money to people who have no means of paying it back.

If I had applied for a job at a certain salary, gone through the interview process and hopefully demonstrated my suitability for the role to a high enough level to get offered it I would be feeling pretty f***ing got at right now.

Funny how no-one was going on about this in the good times...and now they are whilst the Bankers, who caused the mess in the first place, are back to happy days.

I hope this is clear now.

It'll end in tears.

and this

 

[itszamora]

In spite of what I have just said, I've just read that report on the BBC: how on earth does the leader of Wandsworth Borough council (Tory) earn twice as much as the PM?

And how does a single GP get paid £475,000? I thought all NHS staff were on a sliding scale for their position? Has this guy singlehandedly discovered a cure for cancer or something?

GPs are self-employed, they are not NHS staff. Even so I agree that that does seem like an extraordinarily large amount of money.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

The answer actually of course is that the PM and ministers are paid relatively poorly for the actual jobs that they do. The reason they get paid at that level is

1. They didn't want the job for the money
2. There isn't a rigorous selection procedure.

If you treated the UK Government like a company then the PM should probably be on £1 million plus and most senior ministers on £400k plus.

IMHO the worst thing is the GP's on mega bucks. At least most of the others are in charge of big organisations.

 

[El Presidente]

If directors or managers don't perform at a private company they are replaced, that doesn't seem to be the case at councils or hospitals.

Not always true, and at what cost, Fred Goodwin for example was removed at RBS, but the cose was many millions.

It is not a black and white issue.

 

[Uncle C]

Public sector workers earn £136 a week more in pay and pensions than their private sector counterparts, Office for National Statistics data proves.

http://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/1733115/state-workers-private-sector-workers

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I agree with the GP salary thing btw.

£475k for sitting there saying "You want antibiotic" seems a bit steep.

I have met a LOT of GP's down the years and in my experience they are, by and large, pretty lazy and overpaid...especially recently..And they are about to be given more referral powers and "control" of secondary care...god help us.

I suppose they are a lot cheaper than a new hospital though.

Oh, while I'm on it, if thats what they can haggle for themselves to get bunced, good on em.

 

[withdeanwombat]

The PM's pay is relatively low,but the perks are enormous.Nice little pension,plenty of post PM lecture tours and books,probably loads of freebies post PMship as well.

Our current PM hasn't had a stall at a boot sale before this top job,so he's doing all right.

As for top earners in the public sector,I'm sure the vast majority earn their income,and could be high earners in the private sector if their was a job that attracted them,or for which they might be head hunted.

Course,if you are advocating from each according to their ability,to each according to their need..........................

 

[beorhthelm]

We have an economic crisis because an under-regulated greedy and irresponsible financial sector f*cked the global economy.
...
The deficit is being hyped out of proportion to justify what are increasingly clearly dogma and greed driven attacks on the basic premise of public service (not that Neo-Labout with PFI and the rest helped the situation).

a deficit of £180 billion and the highest in Europe is not hype. most of that was already there before any bail outs, which will be paid back over the next few years anyway. when will the left recognise this simple fact, and acknowledge Brown took all he could and then some in the boom years?

the economic cycle was turning downward while Brown kept increaseing spending before Northern Rock occured, and he failed to change anything afterwards.

Are you serious?
...
There is now no public money left because of this so the Government is now turning the spotlight onto public servants who are "paid more than the PM" in an attempt to build a consensus that these individuals are leeching the public purse dry with their greed.

yup. see above.

there's no public money because we've been in deficit for years (to be fair probably nearly as long anyone here has been alive) and Labour massivly overspent. one can argue that it was needed, but that doesnt escape the fact that they did spend, often in areas that have been very ineffective. I think its not the government but the media throwing a spotlight on senior civil servants, because its sensationalist, but frankly its a distraction. a few hundred high paid executives wont make much difference, its the thousands a teir or two below them (and a teir or two above the core frontline services) thats costing the money and inefficient.


you can blame bankers all you like, history tells us politicans made hay and the sub-prime collapse was a catalyst to an already over-extended economy. the politicans (and regulators such as there were) failed their job.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Not always true, and at what cost, Fred Goodwin for example was removed at RBS, but the cose was many millions.

It is not a black and white issue.

Obviously it's not black and white, I'm just going on anecdotal evidence from people I know who've worked at the local council, the same as dandyman is giving anecdotal evidence from his job.

Goodwin is a bad example as the world of investment banking seems to be in it's own little universe, a bit like professional football.

Personally I would've let the whole system collapse and then come up with something that benefits the 6 billion people on this planet, rather than let a handful of people stockpile wealth and resources.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Most people in the public sector work for modest salaries and while inefficiencies do exist there is no evidence to suggest they are any more prevelant than in the private sector.

I agree with your comment re most salaries being modest in the Public Sector (but you fail to mention the Pensions) however I cannot agree with your comment re inefficiencies.

My wife now works in the Public Sector (having spent most of her working life in the Private Sector) and she works with people who, to use her word, "have never worked in the real world'.

They constantly expect something for nothing, have far higher sick rates than in the Private Sector (that is a known fact anyway - look up the figures) and have an attitude of 'why do it today when it can be done tomorrow'

Let's face it, there are crap employees in the Public and Private Sector, but IMO there are generally a lot less places to hide in the Private Sector.

 

[1066gull]

i can already see i put in more value for my work than many people on higher salaries its the way i been brought up though....value what you have in the end by doing a bloody good job of it

 

[Nibble]

I think, to be entirely fair, there are going to be managers in every area of the public sector, as well as every part of the private sector, who aren't that good at their jobs.

Which I suppose further justifies the argument that the director salaries need to be high to attract the best candidates from the private sector.

To be honest, I've always thought, whatever the political leanings of the incumbent, that the Prime Minister's salary is incredibly LOW. When you consider his/her responsibilities, media profile, the risk to their own lives and lifestyles that is involved, the fact that they earn little more than a Chief Constable, say, or an NHS director, and far less than many bankers, city workers, private sector managers or even a fairly shit, 18 year old Championship footballer with no qualifications, is quite astonishing.

Not when you think what the original intention of the role was. To selflessly serve the nation, irrespective of reward or incentive.

 

[Tubby Mondays]

Not when you think what the original intention of the role was. To selflessly serve the nation, irrespective of reward or incentive.

And if youre a millionaire already.