The public service cuts & strike action.

[Guy Fawkes]

Cornholio,not me on the Postmen. Look i don't want anyone to lost their job,however just look where and what on Taxpayers money is wasted. Wasted 'bigtime' How often do you see a Pelican crossing 'patrolled' at school time by a Lollypop man ? Those crossings cost the best part of £100K EACH and the have CCTV. Yet we pay someone to 'patrol it' You can see it all around you.

I work in the public sector. A few years ago management investigated whether it would be cheaper to get a private company in to take over from my team (carrying out time in motion studies, inviting tenders etc) and the result was that it would cost nearly 3 times as much to bring an outside company in than staying as we were. (buying and replacing / maintaining equipment required, staffing costs etc) We are very underpaid for what we actually do (even the management admit that) so i can't see how anyone can argue taxpayers money is being wasted here.

Yet there is this unfair generalisation that anyone working in the public sector are a not giving value for money and are wasting cash left right and centre but its not true of everyone. - Of course there will be some examples where money isn't used as well as it could have been, but that also happens in the private sector too.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Mr Apples & MartinF. thank-you.

 

[clapham_gull]

Spot on.


People might also want to consider what cut backs to key public services will do to the multitude of firms that service the Public Sector - IT, stationery, building firms, and a range of other private companies will all suffer

In true Tory style all the cuts plus VAT rise will, of course, impact most on the least well-off while the wealthy will remain safe from any significant tax rises. We could of course always ask the Banks for our money back...

A very good point not understood by the those who don't work under such circumstances. I've spoken to a number of people working in the private sector who are worried about their jobs because of cuts in the public.

Does the public sector need cutting back ? Obviously yes. Will the effect be felt simply in the public sector ? Absolutely not.

 

[Billy the Fish]

A very good point not understood by the those who don't work under such circumstances. I've spoken to a number of people working in the private sector who are worried about their jobs because of cuts in the public.

Does the public sector need cutting back ? Obviously yes. Will the effect be felt simply in the public sector ? Absolutely not.

Indeed, my company had projects lined up for a large council and a government department which have now been canned.

It's very easy to get into a binfest type argument about public v private here. At the end of the day we're all just trying to earn a living, most people don't need to give a shit about where the money for their salary comes from, you just do what you've trained to do, for whoever you managed to get a job with.

I do feel sorry for people who lose their jobs, but at the end of the day the country should be run like a business and if we're spending £156 billion more than we earn every year surely anyone can see that can't go on forever.

I'm clearly no economist but it's pretty obvious that there's a balance between the size of the public sector and private sector, one can't exist without the other. The better the private sector is doing the more tax revenue there is to pay for public services, if there isn't enough money coming in from taxes then we need to cut our cloth accordingly.

Also, the answer to unemployment is not to give everyone a job with the state because it's unsustainable, as is propping up entire industries with government projects. The answer is to grow the private sector and grow the industries that actually bring money into the country rather than just shifting it around between ourselves, somthing that new labour has neglected despite the party name and origin.

 

[desprateseagull]

abolish / privatise the NHS- going that way. anyhow..

scrap NI contributions.

make people pay for healthcare.

survival of the fittest /richest, and all that..

 

[Curious Orange]

Indeed, my company had projects lined up for a large council and a government department which have now been canned.

It's very easy to get into a binfest type argument about public v private here. At the end of the day we're all just trying to earn a living, most people don't need to give a shit about where the money for their salary comes from, you just do what you've trained to do, for whoever you managed to get a job with.

I do feel sorry for people who lose their jobs, but at the end of the day the country should be run like a business and if we're spending £156 billion more than we earn every year surely anyone can see that can't go on forever.

I'm clearly no economist but it's pretty obvious that there's a balance between the size of the public sector and private sector, one can't exist without the other. The better the private sector is doing the more tax revenue there is to pay for public services, if there isn't enough money coming in from taxes then we need to cut our cloth accordingly.

Also, the answer to unemployment is not to give everyone a job with the state because it's unsustainable, as is propping up entire industries with government projects. The answer is to grow the private sector and grow the industries that actually bring money into the country rather than just shifting it around between ourselves, somthing that new labour has neglected despite the party name and origin.

Stop all this sensible talk right now!!

 

[ady1973]

Why should the public sector feel they have a right to get a pay increase very year ??

If there is NO money left there is NO money to give you a pay rise or is that too difficult to understand (you may need to set up a new department to work that one out and another department to issue a memo for telling you this).

The private sector have been cutting back for maybe 2/3years now and it is only now that it is going effect the public sector they are jumping up and down and throwing their toys out of their prams, please enter the real world.

 

[Skintagain 1983]

Thought you might like to read the myths and facts about civil and public services.

Public and Commercial Services Union - PCS

Since 2004, when the government announced 100,000 posts would be cut from the civil service, tens of thousands of civil and public servants have lost their jobs and about 2,000 offices have been closed.

Pay for many civil servants in recent years has been frozen or increased below the rate of inflation.

And yet, the coalition government plans to make massive cuts in public spending that will inevitably lead to thousands more job cuts, and hit public sector pay and pensions. The new government is also committed to further privatisation of our public services.

While sections of the media and some politicians continue to try to blame the public sector for the country’s economic problems, the truth is that civil and public servants are as much the victims of the recession as other workers.

To help challenge some of the common myths and misconceptions, we provide some facts and figures about public sector pay, pensions, jobs and privatisation.

Myth 1: civil and public servants are well paid

The myth
Civil and public servants are well paid and have enjoyed better pay rises than the private sector.

The facts
Since 2007, basic pay in the civil service has increased by 6.5% and inflation by 10%, meaning a real terms cut in living standards.

Almost half (48%) of civil servants are in admin grades where the average (median) pay in 2009 was £17,120 for women and £17,600 for men.

Average civil service pay is £22,850 a year, compared to £24,970 in the private sector.

35,000 (7%) civil servants are paid less than £15,000 a year.

40.5% of civil servants - 210,000 people - are paid £20,000 or less. And 63% of civil servants - 330,000 staff - earn less than £25,000 a year.

There are currently 230 separate sets of negotiations over pay and terms and conditions across the civil service.

A member in one department can earn up to a third more than a member in another department/agency on the same grade.

Government plans to cap public sector pay at 20 times the lowest salary will have very little impact in the civil service. In the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, the lowest paid are on £13,110 and the highest paid is the IT director on £249,999.

Unlike elsewhere in the public sector, progression costs for civil servants are included in the overall pay pot. So when pay is frozen, they suffer a double whammy of not being rewarded for length of service or given a cost of living increase.

When you compare civil service grades with comparable jobs in the private sector, admin officers, who deliver services such as getting people back into work, tax credits and passports, are paid 21% less.

Executive officers, who typically work as supervisors and in roles that require a vocational qualification, are paid 18% less than the private sector.


Myth 2: civil service pensions are ‘gold plated’

The myth
Private sector employers are paying for ‘gold-plated’ public sector pensions, which are expensive, unsustainable and unfair when compared to their own pensions.

The facts
Pensions in the civil service are far from generous and have been changed recently to a career average scheme.

The growing gap between public and private sector pensions is the fault of private sector employers retreating from decent pensions. The real divide is between executives in the boardroom securing for themselves large pensions with low retirement ages, and their workforces suffering repeated cuts.

It is counterproductive to degrade pensions because it will force more people into poverty and onto state benefits in their retirement – this is more costly and will have to be met by future taxpayers.

We all help to pay for private sector pensions through the price of goods and services. And we all help to contribute to public sector pensions through taxation.

Excluding the very highest earners, the average civil service pension is £4,200 a year.

More than 100,000 people receive a civil service pension of £2,000 or less a year: over 40,000 receive less than £1,000, and more than 60,000 get between £1,000 and £2,000.

Two and a half times as much public sector money is spent subsidising private sector pensions through tax relief than paying for public sector pensions – 60% of this goes to earners at the higher rate.

The Treasury’s estimate of the cost of public sector pensions as a proportion of the UK’s national output shows a modest increase from 1.5% to 2% by 2027/28. After this, projections show a slight decline.

The civil service is covered by a collection of several different pension schemes which have developed over the years. The most recent is called nuvos and is a defined benefit whole career base scheme for new entrants from 30 July 2007.

Myth 3: civil and public servants are secure in their jobs

The myth
The civil service is bloated, and civil and public servants all have safe and cushy jobs.

The facts
Since the Gershon review in 2004 tens of thousands of jobs have been cut from the civil service, resulting in a deterioration of services to the public.
Job cuts and office closure programmes are ongoing in many departments under the previous government’s ‘efficiency savings’. The new government’s plans to cut public spending further and quicker will inevitably lead to more job losses.

Revenue and Customs: Since 2006, HMRC has cut more than 20,000 staff towards its target of 25,000 by March 2011, and 200 offices have been closed, are in the process of closing or are under threat.

Cutting jobs in the department responsible for collecting tax makes no sense, especially when around £120 billion is lost to the economy every year through tax evasion and avoidance, and through revenue not being collected because of a lack of resources.

The department’s own figures also show that, after staff costs, tax inspectors bring an average of £600,000 a year each in tax revenue.
Cuts have led to increased errors, backlogs in post and half the calls from the public going answered last year.

Department for Work and Pensions: Between 2005 and 2008, 30,000 jobs were cut. A further 5% year on year job cuts were planned for 2008 onwards, but the department took on 15,000 staff on 18-month fixed term contracts to cope with rise in unemployment.

These contracts are coming to an end and, though some may be renewed for a limited time, ultimately the department is looking to continue reducing its staff.

As DWP increases automation of services, such as online claims to benefit, it is likely there will be further moves to cut jobs.

The government has also announced it will replace all existing back to work schemes with a single work programme provided by voluntary and private sectors.

Ministry of Defence: Since 2004, 25,000 jobs have been cut with a further 10,000 threatened for 2010 to 2013.

The coalition government has announced it intends to cut the department’s running costs by 25%, and more detail is expected in the next strategic defence review.

UK Border Agency: In June, the agency announced it is to cut 1,700 posts this year, but we believe there are plans to cut almost a third of the UKBA’s 20,000 staff in the coming years, coupled with a massive increase in workloads for those that remain.

This will hit the agency’s casework particularly hard, and the advice and support staff provide to some of the most vulnerable members of society will inevitably suffer.

Myth 4: privatisation is efficient and cost-effective

The myths
Privatisation is efficient, provides better quality than the public sector, and is more responsive to service users.

The government can no longer afford to run the range of public services it has in the past so, to save money, it should allow private companies and the voluntary sector to step in.

The facts
The private sector’s main motive is profit, so quality is often compromised.

This also means private businesses and charities are more likely to be attracted to easier-to-provide services, leaving the more difficult ones to the public sector – this risks further undermining the perception of public services.

The private sector is responsive to shareholders rather than service users – for example privatised water companies often put shareholder dividends over investment in new infrastructure to address water leakages.

There is no evidence that the private sector delivers services more cheaply – the bail out of Railtrack and other privatised services by successive governments are examples.

The government wants to be seen to be reducing public spending by moving the costs of services off the balance sheet. Some recent examples include:

Defence training: The defence training rationalisation programme is the largest privatisation ever embarked upon by the Ministry of Defence.

With a price tag of £19 billion it seeks to privatise the work of over 1,100 civil servants and puts at risk a further 1,900 posts through cuts in support and admin grades.

Not only does this raise the spectre of mass redundancies, but also of the collapse of defence training at a time when British forces remain in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Royal Mint: The previous chancellor Alistair Darling announced the Royal Mint will be operated as a private sector company owned by the government. There are no valid operational or commercial reasons for this.

The Land Registry: There will be a large programme of ‘rationalisation’ and much of the operation will be subject to restructuring and market testing.

QEII Conference Centre: There are plans to sell off this asset to the private sector by 2012, despite the fact it is operates efficiently with secure bookings and income that is set to continue to generate revenue for the government in years to come.

The Met Office: This is to be subjected to much more commercial pressure, with a requirement to further refine its business model and seek partnerships with the private sector.

Defence Storage and Distribution Agency: The agency is to be restructured on more commercial lines, including the disposal of so called surplus assets, and looking at “alternative methods of ownership to fund capital requirements”. All the necessary groundwork for eventual privatisation.

Transport: The fiasco of rail privatisation has had far reaching effects on services, safety and cost of travel.

Health: Privatisation and PFI has led to job cuts, a reduction in the number of beds and massive budget deficits.

Water: Privatisation has led higher bills, job losses and serious infrastructure problems with massive water leakage problems.

So plaase don't spew out the usual Mail, Express, Telegraph, Sun headlines before checking the facts and myths.. Thanks

 

[Skintagain 1983]

Another cracker from tv yesterday where 2 experts were asked who the government owes the money to. Between them they replied... global finance companies.

They were then asked who caused the financial crisis.. and embarrassed they admitted ... global finance companies!

The governments across the globe bailed out, er .... global finance companies.... following the catastrophic financial collapses... then having given them billions of our money they take orders from the .... global finance companies.... to reduce the fiscal debts so they can pay the interest on the loans global finance companies make to governments. No wonder capitailsm works for the rich...

 

[Marshy]

good point well made. we've had 2 years of "transformation" at my company, those left haven't had a pay rise. welcome to the real world, public sector.

Typical comment from someone who obviously dosent work in the public sector. All you see and read about is the guaranteed 2.5% or whatever it is inflation pay rise. You dont hear about the job regradings and agenda for change procedures we go through every few years.

I work in the NHS IT Dept and i havent had a pay rise for 3 years already so it will be 5 in total....at least now.

 

[strings]

I'm in two minds about this (and I've said so before on NSC).

I work in the public sector myself and have faced two years of nothing but cuts. I've lost my job, and worked my way back up to the same position by managing to get a job in the same organisation, but lower down the ladder. Now my department is being cut by 50% (having already been cut last year, and the year before). I'm moving to the private sector in August and can't wait for the comparitive stability.

I'm not saying the public sector should be immune from cuts (in my opinion quangos should be hit hard), but merely pointing out that public sector jobs across much of the country have been subject to constant cuts for the last 2 years. The illusion that those in the public sector has been somehow protected, in many parts of the country, been very far off the mark.

 

[drew]

f*** 'em. I work in the private sector and have not had a pay rise in 4 years. I know what to do if I don't like it........

So, you like not having a pay rise then.

NOTHING IS EVER BLACK AND WHITE?
It is on Planet NSC.
The private sector are the good guys and the public sector have a cushy life and get easy pensions.
Now where do Sir Fred Goodwin, RBS, the overpaid joker in charge of BP and co fit into the NSC/Daily Mail view of things?

Thought you might like to read the myths and facts about civil and public services.

Public and Commercial Services Union - PCS

Since 2004, when the government announced 100,000 posts would be cut from the civil service, tens of thousands of civil and public servants have lost their jobs and about 2,000 offices have been closed.

Pay for many civil servants in recent years has been frozen or increased below the rate of inflation.

And yet, the coalition government plans to make massive cuts in public spending that will inevitably lead to thousands more job cuts, and hit public sector pay and pensions. The new government is also committed to further privatisation of our public services.

While sections of the media and some politicians continue to try to blame the public sector for the country’s economic problems, the truth is that civil and public servants are as much the victims of the recession as other workers.

To help challenge some of the common myths and misconceptions, we provide some facts and figures about public sector pay, pensions, jobs and privatisation.

Myth 1: civil and public servants are well paid

The myth
Civil and public servants are well paid and have enjoyed better pay rises than the private sector.

The facts
Since 2007, basic pay in the civil service has increased by 6.5% and inflation by 10%, meaning a real terms cut in living standards.

Almost half (48%) of civil servants are in admin grades where the average (median) pay in 2009 was £17,120 for women and £17,600 for men.

Average civil service pay is £22,850 a year, compared to £24,970 in the private sector.

35,000 (7%) civil servants are paid less than £15,000 a year.

40.5% of civil servants - 210,000 people - are paid £20,000 or less. And 63% of civil servants - 330,000 staff - earn less than £25,000 a year.

There are currently 230 separate sets of negotiations over pay and terms and conditions across the civil service.

A member in one department can earn up to a third more than a member in another department/agency on the same grade.

Government plans to cap public sector pay at 20 times the lowest salary will have very little impact in the civil service. In the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, the lowest paid are on £13,110 and the highest paid is the IT director on £249,999.

Unlike elsewhere in the public sector, progression costs for civil servants are included in the overall pay pot. So when pay is frozen, they suffer a double whammy of not being rewarded for length of service or given a cost of living increase.

When you compare civil service grades with comparable jobs in the private sector, admin officers, who deliver services such as getting people back into work, tax credits and passports, are paid 21% less.

Executive officers, who typically work as supervisors and in roles that require a vocational qualification, are paid 18% less than the private sector.


Myth 2: civil service pensions are ‘gold plated’

The myth
Private sector employers are paying for ‘gold-plated’ public sector pensions, which are expensive, unsustainable and unfair when compared to their own pensions.

The facts
Pensions in the civil service are far from generous and have been changed recently to a career average scheme.

The growing gap between public and private sector pensions is the fault of private sector employers retreating from decent pensions. The real divide is between executives in the boardroom securing for themselves large pensions with low retirement ages, and their workforces suffering repeated cuts.

It is counterproductive to degrade pensions because it will force more people into poverty and onto state benefits in their retirement – this is more costly and will have to be met by future taxpayers.

We all help to pay for private sector pensions through the price of goods and services. And we all help to contribute to public sector pensions through taxation.

Excluding the very highest earners, the average civil service pension is £4,200 a year.

More than 100,000 people receive a civil service pension of £2,000 or less a year: over 40,000 receive less than £1,000, and more than 60,000 get between £1,000 and £2,000.

Two and a half times as much public sector money is spent subsidising private sector pensions through tax relief than paying for public sector pensions – 60% of this goes to earners at the higher rate.

The Treasury’s estimate of the cost of public sector pensions as a proportion of the UK’s national output shows a modest increase from 1.5% to 2% by 2027/28. After this, projections show a slight decline.

The civil service is covered by a collection of several different pension schemes which have developed over the years. The most recent is called nuvos and is a defined benefit whole career base scheme for new entrants from 30 July 2007.

Myth 3: civil and public servants are secure in their jobs

The myth
The civil service is bloated, and civil and public servants all have safe and cushy jobs.

The facts
Since the Gershon review in 2004 tens of thousands of jobs have been cut from the civil service, resulting in a deterioration of services to the public.
Job cuts and office closure programmes are ongoing in many departments under the previous government’s ‘efficiency savings’. The new government’s plans to cut public spending further and quicker will inevitably lead to more job losses.

Revenue and Customs: Since 2006, HMRC has cut more than 20,000 staff towards its target of 25,000 by March 2011, and 200 offices have been closed, are in the process of closing or are under threat.

Cutting jobs in the department responsible for collecting tax makes no sense, especially when around £120 billion is lost to the economy every year through tax evasion and avoidance, and through revenue not being collected because of a lack of resources.

The department’s own figures also show that, after staff costs, tax inspectors bring an average of £600,000 a year each in tax revenue.
Cuts have led to increased errors, backlogs in post and half the calls from the public going answered last year.

Department for Work and Pensions: Between 2005 and 2008, 30,000 jobs were cut. A further 5% year on year job cuts were planned for 2008 onwards, but the department took on 15,000 staff on 18-month fixed term contracts to cope with rise in unemployment.

These contracts are coming to an end and, though some may be renewed for a limited time, ultimately the department is looking to continue reducing its staff.

As DWP increases automation of services, such as online claims to benefit, it is likely there will be further moves to cut jobs.

The government has also announced it will replace all existing back to work schemes with a single work programme provided by voluntary and private sectors.

Ministry of Defence: Since 2004, 25,000 jobs have been cut with a further 10,000 threatened for 2010 to 2013.

The coalition government has announced it intends to cut the department’s running costs by 25%, and more detail is expected in the next strategic defence review.

UK Border Agency: In June, the agency announced it is to cut 1,700 posts this year, but we believe there are plans to cut almost a third of the UKBA’s 20,000 staff in the coming years, coupled with a massive increase in workloads for those that remain.

This will hit the agency’s casework particularly hard, and the advice and support staff provide to some of the most vulnerable members of society will inevitably suffer.

Myth 4: privatisation is efficient and cost-effective

The myths
Privatisation is efficient, provides better quality than the public sector, and is more responsive to service users.

The government can no longer afford to run the range of public services it has in the past so, to save money, it should allow private companies and the voluntary sector to step in.

The facts
The private sector’s main motive is profit, so quality is often compromised.

This also means private businesses and charities are more likely to be attracted to easier-to-provide services, leaving the more difficult ones to the public sector – this risks further undermining the perception of public services.

The private sector is responsive to shareholders rather than service users – for example privatised water companies often put shareholder dividends over investment in new infrastructure to address water leakages.

There is no evidence that the private sector delivers services more cheaply – the bail out of Railtrack and other privatised services by successive governments are examples.

The government wants to be seen to be reducing public spending by moving the costs of services off the balance sheet. Some recent examples include:

Defence training: The defence training rationalisation programme is the largest privatisation ever embarked upon by the Ministry of Defence.

With a price tag of £19 billion it seeks to privatise the work of over 1,100 civil servants and puts at risk a further 1,900 posts through cuts in support and admin grades.

Not only does this raise the spectre of mass redundancies, but also of the collapse of defence training at a time when British forces remain in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Royal Mint: The previous chancellor Alistair Darling announced the Royal Mint will be operated as a private sector company owned by the government. There are no valid operational or commercial reasons for this.

The Land Registry: There will be a large programme of ‘rationalisation’ and much of the operation will be subject to restructuring and market testing.

QEII Conference Centre: There are plans to sell off this asset to the private sector by 2012, despite the fact it is operates efficiently with secure bookings and income that is set to continue to generate revenue for the government in years to come.

The Met Office: This is to be subjected to much more commercial pressure, with a requirement to further refine its business model and seek partnerships with the private sector.

Defence Storage and Distribution Agency: The agency is to be restructured on more commercial lines, including the disposal of so called surplus assets, and looking at “alternative methods of ownership to fund capital requirements”. All the necessary groundwork for eventual privatisation.

Transport: The fiasco of rail privatisation has had far reaching effects on services, safety and cost of travel.

Health: Privatisation and PFI has led to job cuts, a reduction in the number of beds and massive budget deficits.

Water: Privatisation has led higher bills, job losses and serious infrastructure problems with massive water leakage problems.

So plaase don't spew out the usual Mail, Express, Telegraph, Sun headlines before checking the facts and myths.. Thanks

Excellent post.

The trouble with half the posters on here is a blinkered view. Privatisation doesn't always work. Take the health service. Ward cleaning is taken out of control of the ward and put in the hands of private companies. Subsequently we get massive increases in infections picked up in hospitals. People die of MRSA and C.dif etc and the hospitals are then paying out massive compensation but the cleaning companies get away with it.

As for people telling the public sector to fu*k off, perhaps that's what the nurses should should say to you when you turn up on their doorstep at A&E and get abusive because you've had one too many.

 

[beorhthelm]

Thought you might like to read the myths and facts about civil and public services.

presumably from the PCS? so completely objective.

i will take issue with one:

Myth 2: civil service pensions are ‘gold plated’
[...]
The facts
Pensions in the civil service are far from generous and have been changed recently to a career average scheme.

if thats the sort of "facts" they wish to portray, its not worth reading the rest. People inside the public sector recognise the pensions are very generous compared to private or personal pensions, even after the recent changes. the average numbers they provide include parttime jobs and those that worked for a short period, massivly skewing the numbers. those earning less than £1000 from their pensions are likely to be like my mum, working a few hours a week as a dinner lady for 10 years, hardly representitive of hundreds of thousands of office based civil servants on typical office admin salaries.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

Are there really people out there who think CS's get a huge pension without thinking that that pension must be more than they currently earn?

A pension is a proportion of pay and low pay means low pension.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Public vs Private sector debates are both pointless and boring.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Thought you might like to read the myths and facts about civil and public services.

Public and Commercial Services Union - PCS

So plaase don't spew out the usual Mail, Express, Telegraph, Sun headlines before checking the facts and myths.. Thanks

Because the Union are really going to give an objective view aren't they

What you've just done is post a load of daily mail headlines, just at the opposite end of the scale.

 

[Dandyman]

Because the Union are really going to give an objective view aren't they

What you've just done is post a load of daily mail headlines, just at the opposite end of the scale.

Except that his facts can be checked if you think they are wrong.

I never quite get the idea that attacking pensions is a good thing - Do people actually think OAPs living in poverty and/or being reliant on state benefits is either economically or morally desirable?

 

[Skintagain 1983]

presumably from the PCS? so completely objective.

i will take issue with one:



if thats the sort of "facts" they wish to portray, its not worth reading the rest. People inside the public sector recognise the pensions are very generous compared to private or personal pensions, even after the recent changes. the average numbers they provide include parttime jobs and those that worked for a short period, massivly skewing the numbers. those earning less than £1000 from their pensions are likely to be like my mum, working a few hours a week as a dinner lady for 10 years, hardly representitive of hundreds of thousands of office based civil servants on typical office admin salaries.

I am a public sector worker. I have been in the civil service for nearly 24years. I am an Executive Officer at the pay scale maximum yet I still earn less than £24,500.

Executive officers, who typically work as supervisors and in roles that require a vocational qualification, are paid 18% less than the private sector. Some reward eh?

My last pension statement showed my predicted annual civil service pension at retirement age after 38 years service to be £10,500pa. So this is the "gold plated" civil service pension you're all talking about? Some reward eh?

Excluding the very highest earners, the average civil service pension is £4,200a year. More than 100,000 people receive a civil service pension of £2,000 or less a year: over 40,000 receive less than £1,000, and more than 60,000 get between £1,000 and £2,000.

Civil servants in DWP at the top of their pay scale have had no pay rise for 3 years. Some reward eh?

So as I said previously, please don't spew out the Mail, Express, Telegraph and Sun headlines before sorting the facts from the myths!



Thanks

 

[BLOCK F]

Thought you might like to read the myths and facts about civil and public services.

Public and Commercial Services Union - PCS

Since 2004, when the government announced 100,000 posts would be cut from the civil service, tens of thousands of civil and public servants have lost their jobs and about 2,000 offices have been closed.

Pay for many civil servants in recent years has been frozen or increased below the rate of inflation.

And yet, the coalition government plans to make massive cuts in public spending that will inevitably lead to thousands more job cuts, and hit public sector pay and pensions. The new government is also committed to further privatisation of our public services.

While sections of the media and some politicians continue to try to blame the public sector for the country’s economic problems, the truth is that civil and public servants are as much the victims of the recession as other workers.

To help challenge some of the common myths and misconceptions, we provide some facts and figures about public sector pay, pensions, jobs and privatisation.

Myth 1: civil and public servants are well paid

The myth
Civil and public servants are well paid and have enjoyed better pay rises than the private sector.

The facts
Since 2007, basic pay in the civil service has increased by 6.5% and inflation by 10%, meaning a real terms cut in living standards.

Almost half (48%) of civil servants are in admin grades where the average (median) pay in 2009 was £17,120 for women and £17,600 for men.

Average civil service pay is £22,850 a year, compared to £24,970 in the private sector.

35,000 (7%) civil servants are paid less than £15,000 a year.

40.5% of civil servants - 210,000 people - are paid £20,000 or less. And 63% of civil servants - 330,000 staff - earn less than £25,000 a year.

There are currently 230 separate sets of negotiations over pay and terms and conditions across the civil service.

A member in one department can earn up to a third more than a member in another department/agency on the same grade.

Government plans to cap public sector pay at 20 times the lowest salary will have very little impact in the civil service. In the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, the lowest paid are on £13,110 and the highest paid is the IT director on £249,999.

Unlike elsewhere in the public sector, progression costs for civil servants are included in the overall pay pot. So when pay is frozen, they suffer a double whammy of not being rewarded for length of service or given a cost of living increase.

When you compare civil service grades with comparable jobs in the private sector, admin officers, who deliver services such as getting people back into work, tax credits and passports, are paid 21% less.

Executive officers, who typically work as supervisors and in roles that require a vocational qualification, are paid 18% less than the private sector.


Myth 2: civil service pensions are ‘gold plated’

The myth
Private sector employers are paying for ‘gold-plated’ public sector pensions, which are expensive, unsustainable and unfair when compared to their own pensions.

The facts
Pensions in the civil service are far from generous and have been changed recently to a career average scheme.

The growing gap between public and private sector pensions is the fault of private sector employers retreating from decent pensions. The real divide is between executives in the boardroom securing for themselves large pensions with low retirement ages, and their workforces suffering repeated cuts.

It is counterproductive to degrade pensions because it will force more people into poverty and onto state benefits in their retirement – this is more costly and will have to be met by future taxpayers.

We all help to pay for private sector pensions through the price of goods and services. And we all help to contribute to public sector pensions through taxation.

Excluding the very highest earners, the average civil service pension is £4,200 a year.

More than 100,000 people receive a civil service pension of £2,000 or less a year: over 40,000 receive less than £1,000, and more than 60,000 get between £1,000 and £2,000.

Two and a half times as much public sector money is spent subsidising private sector pensions through tax relief than paying for public sector pensions – 60% of this goes to earners at the higher rate.

The Treasury’s estimate of the cost of public sector pensions as a proportion of the UK’s national output shows a modest increase from 1.5% to 2% by 2027/28. After this, projections show a slight decline.

The civil service is covered by a collection of several different pension schemes which have developed over the years. The most recent is called nuvos and is a defined benefit whole career base scheme for new entrants from 30 July 2007.

Myth 3: civil and public servants are secure in their jobs

The myth
The civil service is bloated, and civil and public servants all have safe and cushy jobs.

The facts
Since the Gershon review in 2004 tens of thousands of jobs have been cut from the civil service, resulting in a deterioration of services to the public.
Job cuts and office closure programmes are ongoing in many departments under the previous government’s ‘efficiency savings’. The new government’s plans to cut public spending further and quicker will inevitably lead to more job losses.

Revenue and Customs: Since 2006, HMRC has cut more than 20,000 staff towards its target of 25,000 by March 2011, and 200 offices have been closed, are in the process of closing or are under threat.

Cutting jobs in the department responsible for collecting tax makes no sense, especially when around £120 billion is lost to the economy every year through tax evasion and avoidance, and through revenue not being collected because of a lack of resources.

The department’s own figures also show that, after staff costs, tax inspectors bring an average of £600,000 a year each in tax revenue.
Cuts have led to increased errors, backlogs in post and half the calls from the public going answered last year.

Department for Work and Pensions: Between 2005 and 2008, 30,000 jobs were cut. A further 5% year on year job cuts were planned for 2008 onwards, but the department took on 15,000 staff on 18-month fixed term contracts to cope with rise in unemployment.

These contracts are coming to an end and, though some may be renewed for a limited time, ultimately the department is looking to continue reducing its staff.

As DWP increases automation of services, such as online claims to benefit, it is likely there will be further moves to cut jobs.

The government has also announced it will replace all existing back to work schemes with a single work programme provided by voluntary and private sectors.

Ministry of Defence: Since 2004, 25,000 jobs have been cut with a further 10,000 threatened for 2010 to 2013.

The coalition government has announced it intends to cut the department’s running costs by 25%, and more detail is expected in the next strategic defence review.

UK Border Agency: In June, the agency announced it is to cut 1,700 posts this year, but we believe there are plans to cut almost a third of the UKBA’s 20,000 staff in the coming years, coupled with a massive increase in workloads for those that remain.

This will hit the agency’s casework particularly hard, and the advice and support staff provide to some of the most vulnerable members of society will inevitably suffer.

Myth 4: privatisation is efficient and cost-effective

The myths
Privatisation is efficient, provides better quality than the public sector, and is more responsive to service users.

The government can no longer afford to run the range of public services it has in the past so, to save money, it should allow private companies and the voluntary sector to step in.

The facts
The private sector’s main motive is profit, so quality is often compromised.

This also means private businesses and charities are more likely to be attracted to easier-to-provide services, leaving the more difficult ones to the public sector – this risks further undermining the perception of public services.

The private sector is responsive to shareholders rather than service users – for example privatised water companies often put shareholder dividends over investment in new infrastructure to address water leakages.

There is no evidence that the private sector delivers services more cheaply – the bail out of Railtrack and other privatised services by successive governments are examples.

The government wants to be seen to be reducing public spending by moving the costs of services off the balance sheet. Some recent examples include:

Defence training: The defence training rationalisation programme is the largest privatisation ever embarked upon by the Ministry of Defence.

With a price tag of £19 billion it seeks to privatise the work of over 1,100 civil servants and puts at risk a further 1,900 posts through cuts in support and admin grades.

Not only does this raise the spectre of mass redundancies, but also of the collapse of defence training at a time when British forces remain in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Royal Mint: The previous chancellor Alistair Darling announced the Royal Mint will be operated as a private sector company owned by the government. There are no valid operational or commercial reasons for this.

The Land Registry: There will be a large programme of ‘rationalisation’ and much of the operation will be subject to restructuring and market testing.

QEII Conference Centre: There are plans to sell off this asset to the private sector by 2012, despite the fact it is operates efficiently with secure bookings and income that is set to continue to generate revenue for the government in years to come.

The Met Office: This is to be subjected to much more commercial pressure, with a requirement to further refine its business model and seek partnerships with the private sector.

Defence Storage and Distribution Agency: The agency is to be restructured on more commercial lines, including the disposal of so called surplus assets, and looking at “alternative methods of ownership to fund capital requirements”. All the necessary groundwork for eventual privatisation.

Transport: The fiasco of rail privatisation has had far reaching effects on services, safety and cost of travel.

Health: Privatisation and PFI has led to job cuts, a reduction in the number of beds and massive budget deficits.

Water: Privatisation has led higher bills, job losses and serious infrastructure problems with massive water leakage problems.

So plaase don't spew out the usual Mail, Express, Telegraph, Sun headlines before checking the facts and myths.. Thanks

Skintagain,I hope you didn't print off that skewed article whilst you were meant to be toiling for the state!

 

[Digweeds Trousers]

Cut cut cut. Good idea.

Let's add, add, add to the unemployment total

Let's add, add, add to the amount needed for more unemployment benefit

twat, twat, twat

So what's your suggestion to the current mess? Keep spending until we all go pop?

For christ's sake its nothing more than common sense....cuts are what is required and that's what happened.

A bit of a no-brainer really.