Public sector pay

[Nibble]

And if youre a millionaire already.

Quite.

 

[jevs]

Lets hear if anyone here feels their senior managers are worth that sort of money.

One of my senior managers is NSC's very own Jack Straw and i think he's the best.

There'll be an apple on your desk in the morning Graeme

 

[El Presidente]

Having moved from private to public sector my experience is that the pay is lower (I took a 25% pay cut) working in government, but the stresses are far less.

I am often left slack jawed by the casual attitude to work taken by people in the public sector, because it is almost impossible to be sacked for being useless.

Having said that, I had the misfortune to work with some prize cocknockers in both sectors.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I guess the pay off for private sector workers is that you're in a far better position to go to the boss and demand a pay rise based on your competence. That's the thing that wound me up about the government criticising public sector pay and pensions recently. No matter how much more efficient I am at my job than some of my colleagues, I would still be on the same salary as any other person with the same length of service.

This sick leave thing may be a fact, I have no idea, but why is it the case? Why would you have more sick leave in the public sector? Surely it's just as easy for anyone in the private sector to pick up the phone and call in, or is it to do with the type of jobs involved being more risky?? Just curious, like.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

No matter how much more efficient I am at my job than some of my colleagues, I would still be on the same salary as any other person with the same length of service.

I appreciate yours is not a typical job, but that statement hardly inspires much initiative in the workforce I would have thought. For many people - not all, I agree - the attitude would be "if it doesn't make any difference if I work hard or not, then I won't"

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

I guess the pay off for private sector workers is that you're in a far better position to go to the boss and demand a pay rise based on your competence. That's the thing that wound me up about the government criticising public sector pay and pensions recently. No matter how much more efficient I am at my job than some of my colleagues, I would still be on the same salary as any other person with the same length of service.

This sick leave thing may be a fact, I have no idea, but why is it the case? Why would you have more sick leave in the public sector? Surely it's just as easy for anyone in the private sector to pick up the phone and call in, or is it to do with the type of jobs involved being more risky?? Just curious, like.

Here bloody here and the unions make sure that those that have been in the job the longest get the best rewards. A few years ago the pay deal at work offered me so little progression that it would have taken me 47 years to reach the top of the pay scale.

To be fair though I think these problems probably exist in all large organisations. I certainly heard tell of things like it happening in places like Amex, its just that public organisations tend to be the biggest.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I appreciate yours is not a typical job, but that statement hardly inspires much initiative in the workforce I would have thought. For many people - not all, I agree - the attitude would be "if it doesn't make any difference if I work hard or not, then I won't"

No, I agree, but that's the way public sector pay scales work. To be fair, certainly in my line anyway, it's not the sort of job people join up with a view to sitting on their arses all day, and honestly (alright, I accept you're just going to have to take my word on this one!) most of us have a fair bit of pride in what we do, and make a damn good job of it. Personally I think you get out what you put in. Yes, I could sit around doing bugger all but I'd be bloody bored, and if I can't get excited about my job, what can I do?

But like any workplace, there are a few, mostly older, long in service time-servers, it is fair to say. You just kind of hope their retirement date gets there as quick as possible.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

No, I agree, but that's the way public sector pay scales work. To be fair, certainly in my line anyway, it's not the sort of job people join up with a view to sitting on their arses all day, and honestly (alright, I accept you're just going to have to take my word on this one!) most of us have a fair bit of pride in what we do, and make a damn good job of it. Personally I think you get out what you put in. Yes, I could sit around doing bugger all but I'd be bloody bored, and if I can't get excited about my job, what can I do?

But like any workplace, there are a few, mostly older, long in service time-servers, it is fair to say. You just kind of hope their retirement date gets there as quick as possible.

Exactly, that's why I singled your professin out as not beign typical, but you can easily see how it happens in other sectors. Then you have the knock-on efect, of " well, if Johns' doing nothing, and getting the same money, then why should I".

O/T - I remember talking to an old bloke at a party once, who worked for the council, and he was delighted that his "absolutely ideal job, that I've waited 30 years for" had just come up. He wanted to be a man that drove around to road-works each morning, putting road signs out, then do nothing all day until he had to pick them up again in the evening !!!

 

[drew]

What a joke.

9000 people in the public sector earn more than the prime minister at £142,500, and 1000 earn more than 200,000.

Sack the high earners and promote from within at lower salaries.

Are you the headline writer for the Daily Mail? Sensational headline backed up by fcuk all fact.

I work in the public sector and I think most of the managers are crap. However in my previous private sector job they weren't just crap, they were mindbendingly awful at their jobs, with no ability to communicate , do their own work or take any responsibility, and were constantly fudging things to make certain people look good and other's shite

I've never worked for the public sector but at the four companies I have worked, the managers have been utter crap driven by greed and in several cases, showing irreverance at any regulation that gets in the way.

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? Wandsworth Council has a budget of £200m. How many private sectors firms with that sort of turnover would have a CEO on less than £300k?
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?

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 for real?

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).

I concur.

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.

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.

Let's be honest, £475k is an exception rather than the rule but like the tabloids it is used to attack all the GPs.

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.
What is hype is the way it is depicted as being catastrophic to our economy and the fact that the Tories are demanding it be eliminated in 5 years rather than over a longer period as proposed by Labour, the pre election Libdems and most other major economic powers. It is just a tory ploy to dismantle the state and put decision making back in the hands of those that can afford to do it, ie the wealthy.


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. can you give some examples of these areas that were ineffective and what the cost was? 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.

The subprime market was a gamble by the banks which they then did their level best to shield from the the rest of the world. Why do you consider the economy was over extended? Had the banks not fcuked us over then what was to stop the economy growing during that period?

 

[drew]

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

That is a very selective comment you have made. Did you actually read the article you refer to? I quote "But the ONS pointed out when focusing on full time workers with pension provision the situation changed. It said median total reward in the private sector is higher, at £666 a week compared with £644 for those in the public sector - a difference of £22"

In other words, the private sector figures you refer to include a host of part time workers. It also doesn't compare like for like, ie the private sector will also include the vast majority that are on the minimum wage where there would be very few of these under the public sector.

 

[Uncle C]

That is a very selective comment you have made. Did you actually read the article you refer to? I quote "But the ONS pointed out when focusing on full time workers with pension provision the situation changed. It said median total reward in the private sector is higher, at £666 a week compared with £644 for those in the public sector - a difference of £22"

In other words, the private sector figures you refer to include a host of part time workers. It also doesn't compare like for like, ie the private sector will also include the vast majority that are on the minimum wage where there would be very few of these under the public sector.

Do I detect a bit of vested interest creeping in here?

 

[beorhthelm]

The subprime market was a gamble by the banks which they then did their level best to shield from the the rest of the world. Why do you consider the economy was over extended? Had the banks not fcuked us over then what was to stop the economy growing during that period?

pay attention: it was the banks creating that growth. where else did you think it came from? then a good slice found its way through taxation (40% on all those nice bonuses remember) and loans into the public sector to manufacture jobs. all was good in the garden. the economic cycle by all models and measures should have had a down swing years ago, but it kept on driving up. Brown pronounced an economic miracle, an end to boom and bust, borrowing more as his projections showed growth forever...

oops.

or do you really think Brown had brought in a new economic paradigm, and if so please eloborate what it was generating the underlying growth for the past 8 years.

(btw the low inflation was largely the result of the chinese taking on the role as the worlds factory, making everything and anything for next to nothing. that wont last forever either, sooner or later their own demand they'll catch up, then what happens?)

 

[beorhthelm]

lets be clear, i dont think the financial institutions have covered themself in glory. some have been abhorant in their activities, which amount to fraud. and they have gotten away with economic murder.

but im not blinkerd from the fact they fuelled the good years too, as so many seem to be. they brought all the booze to the party, everyone enjoy themeselves but now blame them for the hangaover. we didnt have to endulge. this is why remarks like this need challenging:

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.

while true, its a barely relevant point. one could equally say the bankers weren't responsible for billions of pounds being budgeted on wasteful projects and growing inefficent departments.

this is ofcourse all easy to say in 20/20 hindsight, but it wasnt hidden. it was just not understood. if you look on wikipedia, you'll see the entry for Credit Default Swap originates from 2005, and Collateralized debt obligation originates from 2004, over three years before the problems manifested themselves. how regulators let them go on, and especially how they allowed the secondary markets to exist (basically insure on someone elses loss) is something which will never be addressed all the time people bitch about some bankers getting a bonus for doing their job.

or, in this case, the fact some positions in the civil services are highly paid. another distraction from how the politicians and regulators failed us. but the left dont want to look at that issue, they just want to attack the big banking boggey man. shame, it will all just happen again.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

One of my senior managers is NSC's very own Jack Straw and i think he's the best.

There'll be an apple on your desk in the morning Graeme

I thought JS was a retired chap , with so much excellent and time consuming work he has put in to provide the photo updates

 

[drew]

Do I detect a bit of vested interest creeping in here?

Not sure what you mean. I'm not in the public sector and not on benefits.

 

[thedonkeycentrehalf]

There's more job security in the public sector and there appears to be a reluctance/drive to modernise/improve efficiency.

Many people working in local government are feeling very insecure about job security. Many have already lost jobs this year and once the spending review is announced in October, it is expected that many other jobs will go. These won't be high earning civil servants based in Whitehall - these are people who are doing a job for an average (or lower) wage providing services to the public which councils will no longer be able to provide.

I'm currently a public sector worker. It's not something I chose because I have a yearning to serve the people nor did I chose it because I wanted an easy life (not that I get that). I got made redundant from a private sector company, needed a job and this came up. I needed work, a job came up, I took it, just like I would have done if a suitable private sector job had come up. I took a substantial drop in salary to join the public sector but I'd rather be working than not.

Whatever your views on the public sector, for many people it's a job, a way of earning money, paying the bills, keeping a roof over your families head, getting the cash to pay for an Albion ticket and a pre-match beer - no different to anyone else on here.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

From my knowledge of the public sector, it is top heavy with highly paid managers who spend all day having meetings. for many, making decisions is not something they can do hence the need to hire consultants, also at a healthy price.

As for the work, closing local offices in favour of big 'centres' means than work is moved around and nobody 'has ownership'. It becomes a system where, even with the best will, you cannot help as the work is done elsewhere and call centres do not have the staff to cope.

Looking closer to home, just how many chief exec's have B&H City council had in it's short time? look at the salary they have paid 'to get the highest calibre' and look at how many have been able to walk away and still take huge 'golden handshakes'.