Because We're Worth It - Public Sector Pay

[Saver]

This really puzzles me - why on earth isn't this happening more? I know a few blokes who travel - a lot - for their company. South Africa, the States, Japan etc. Why they don't video conference baffles me.

because you can't sit in front of a computer and sort stuff out by video conference. So it depends what you are doing - if you have technical issues that need fixing it is way more productive to be in the same room as the person you need to work with.

If you just want to talk about general stuff then video conferencing is ok sometimes (unless you have really expensive facilities it essentially won't work because you can't hear what is said in the room at the other end where everyone else is - in this case you really need to be in the room physically). Obviously in the long run its cheaper to buy the expensive video facility, but the people in charge can only think about balancing budgets on a short term basis in my experience.

[Saver]

Pay cuts are only part of the picture. Take a million people out of the public sector and put them in the private sector. A million less salaries and pensions to pay, a million people paying tax instead of being paid by tax.

I agree but....how are we going to create these million jobs? Right now if you sack them I bet a large percentage will just end up long term unemployed - either due to lack of jobs or in the case of older workers but from what I hear once you get past 40-45 you are essentially unemployable in a new career, so even if jobs exist they will not be eligible to have one.

You can't just sack all these people tomorrow and expect them to get private sector jobs - you need to have a more gradual transition to give the private sector some time to create the jobs.

[robo1968]

I agree but....how are we going to create these million jobs? Right now if you sack them I bet a large percentage will just end up long term unemployed - either due to lack of jobs or in the case of older workers but from what I hear once you get past 40-45 you are essentially unemployable in a new career, so even if jobs exist they will not be eligible to have one.

You can't just sack all these people tomorrow and expect them to get private sector jobs - you need to have a more gradual transition to give the private sector some time to create the jobs.

I do accept what you are saying but would like to add

If these people are so unemployable why are they currently receiving above average income?

An any company I have ever worked at, anyone not pulling their weight or doing non-jobs has been let go, why should it be any different for the public sector? This sector shouldn't be a buffer to stop the unemployment figures looking worse

You can work on a gradual transition but how can that be done? Enterprise initiatives for recent redundant people? Free retraining?

There is little sympathy for a 40-45 yr old made redundant in the private sector, what makes any of these public sector staff so important?

[Saver]

I do accept what you are saying but would like to add

If these people are so unemployable why are they currently receiving above average income?

because they are perfectly good at their job? The problem is not ability to do the job but a complete and uttter unwillingness to employ an older person in a new job, irrespective of their ability or skills.

[ElPapasito]

because you can't sit in front of a computer and sort stuff out by video conference. So it depends what you are doing - if you have technical issues that need fixing it is way more productive to be in the same room as the person you need to work with.

If you just want to talk about general stuff then video conferencing is ok sometimes (unless you have really expensive facilities it essentially won't work because you can't hear what is said in the room at the other end where everyone else is  - in this case you really need to be in the room physically). Obviously in the long run its cheaper to buy the expensive video facility, but the people in charge can only think about balancing budgets on a short term basis in my experience.

It won't be long now where we will have video-conference cubicles where one wall projects the image of the rest of the board room table and room you are 'sitting' in and the sound is as if you really are in the room. And you can pass round documents as if they were on the table. Rising travel costs will make it an imperative.

[Saver]

I do accept what you are saying but would like to add

If these people are so unemployable why are they currently receiving above average income?

An any company I have ever worked at, anyone not pulling their weight or doing non-jobs has been let go, why should it be any different for the public sector? This sector shouldn't be a buffer to stop the unemployment figures looking worse

You can work on a gradual transition but how can that be done? Enterprise initiatives for recent redundant people? Free retraining?

There is little sympathy for a 40-45 yr old made redundant in the private sector, what makes any of these public sector staff so important?

well the age thing is not really specific to the public sector. Anyone made redundant has the same problem.

My point is some people seem to think if we just sack everyone from the public sector the private sector will magically employ them. For a variety of reasons (lack of jobs in private sector even for younger people), unwillingness to take on older workers (never understood why this is - a 45 year old is perfectly capable to learn a new career) all that will happen is they shift onto benefits and then we still pick up the tab (albeit maybe it is less).

Edited September 22, 2010 by Saver

[Bloo Loo]

The dog kicking remark was in reference o a reply to one of your posts from Frank Sidebottom (i.e. your constant attacks on bystanders instead of the real culprits), I guess you must have accidently/deliberately missed it.

And err yes £100k is obscene (esp in the public sector) hence why I used it. You state £25k a lot on this forum, you're not one of those who thinks this is a lot of money are you? I don't, and earn less than that atm.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Unions, as neither the Lib Dems or Torries are bankrolled by them.

what constant attacks on bystanders? Public sector workers are those that get paid out of taxation and laterly, borrowing paid for by taxation, have I EVER attacked one of them, or a group of them?...

name one. same to Frank Sidebottom.

I do attack policy however..and I think ALL public sector wages ABOVE 25K should be halved...for starters.

25K...its a good wage...its the average.

30K is a very good wage IF you are on 25K

35K puts you in the top 5% of earners ( last source was channel 4 survey of some sort)

I dont worry about the Unions..they are doing what they are paid to do. I worry, as I constantly say is that they are STRONG as opposed to a WEAK Government side...Thats not a fault of the Unions.

And calling yourselves the FIRST DIVISION clearly shows how members of that Union see themselves. Not the Union, the Members of the Union.

[Saver]

It won't be long now where we will have video-conference cubicles where one wall projects the image of the rest of the board room table and room you are 'sitting' in and the sound is as if you really are in the room. And you can pass round documents as if they were on the table. Rising travel costs will make it an imperative.

maybe. But I bet even if that already exists it costs so much its a non-starter.

Even if costs come down it still has to be cheaper to buy the system in a financial year than sending everyone travelling. Because thats all the bean counters care about...

[Bloo Loo]

maybe. But I bet even if that already exists it costs so much its a non-starter.

Even if costs come down it still has to be cheaper to buy the system in a financial year than sending everyone travelling. Because thats all the bean counters care about...

nah, was on the Gadget show Monday.

you could point and share docs as easy as Tom Cruise does in the Minority report.

Course, like centralised fax, people dont want to use it cos getting up and faxing, having a chat and a coffee is so much more fun.

[robo1968]

because they are perfectly good at their job? The problem is not ability to do the job but a complete and uttter unwillingness to employ an older person in a new job, irrespective of their ability or skills.

But what if it is a job that the Gov't doesn't need?

[robo1968]

well the age thing is not really specific to the public sector. Anyone made redundant has the same problem.

My point is some people seem to think if we just sack everyone from the public sector the private sector will magically employ them. For a variety of reasons (lack of jobs in private sector even for younger people), unwillingness to take on older workers (never understood why this is - a 45 year old is perfectly capable to learn a new career) all that will happen is they shift onto benefits and then we still pick up the tab (albeit maybe it is less).

I understand but it is not a reason to keep employing people we don't need to in my opinion

[Saver]

But what if it is a job that the Gov't doesn't need?

We are cutting jobs to fix the deficit. Its nothing to do with need. Although there may be some waste of time jobs I guarantee many people doing useful jobs will be let go....do you disagree that is the case?

[Authoritarian]

well the age thing is not really specific to the public sector. Anyone made redundant has the same problem.

My point is some people seem to think if we just sack everyone from the public sector the private sector will magically employ them. For a variety of reasons (lack of jobs in private sector even for younger people), unwillingness to take on older workers (never understood why this is - a 45 year old is perfectly capable to learn a new career) all that will happen is they shift onto benefits and then we still pick up the tab (albeit maybe it is less).

It's not really the state's problem though, is it?

If we turned the tables on the pro non-jobbers and told them to take out massive loans to subsidise the useless they'd be up in arms. So why do they expect the state to do the same?

If people are being prevented from accessing employment then perhaps it needs looking into, anything else just papers over the cracks.

[LuckyOne]

I agree but....how are we going to create these million jobs? Right now if you sack them I bet a large percentage will just end up long term unemployed - either due to lack of jobs or in the case of older workers but from what I hear once you get past 40-45 you are essentially unemployable in a new career, so even if jobs exist they will not be eligible to have one.

You can't just sack all these people tomorrow and expect them to get private sector jobs - you need to have a more gradual transition to give the private sector some time to create the jobs.

It is going to take the economy somewhere between a decade and a generation to learn how to sustain a private sector again.

The transition will be painful and ugly, probably to the point where voters give up waiting and embrace the state as the solution to their problems and vote in a hard left government in the next GE.

[Saver]

It's not really the state's problem though, is it?

well actually it is because taxes will have to be used to pay benefits to all these people indefinitely so it might be a good idea to try and do something to create a lot more jobs in the private sector before we sack them all. In the long run clearly this is going to save far more money isnt it?. But at the moment all I can see that will happen is we make people redundant and then pay them anyway to sit around and do nothing - and if they are over 45-50 essentially this will be for the rest of their lives due to age discrimination.

[noodle doodle]

oh thats easy...its because of A: strong Unions, B: weak negotiators ( we clearly dont pay THEM enough) and C: the people that decide ALSO BENEFIT from the pay awards. and the pay scales...and the creches, douvet days, expected sick leave, 6 weeks annual, Index linked pensions.

no incentive there.

the private sector issues are irrelevant, save that they are who are paying for this lot.

Can you give me an example of large government organisations that have subsidised creches for its workers? I'll be off there like a shot. What you'll find though is while many hospitals etc have nurseries onsite, these are run by private companies at market rates (are they proper private though, if they're just making money from public sector workers, surely that just makes them public sector once removed? oh my god!). Councils on the other hand (used to) run subsidised creches but these were open to all and hence usually waiting lists beyond the realms of reasonable family planning. As the brackets imply though, these are now mostly gone due to cutbacks. Again though the fanatical private sector types would obviously have refused to use them, seeing as they employed nasty public sector workers.

Also you'll find 'duvet days' are pretty much a hipster private sector occurence. Essentially all good-looking perks are, they're all back door ways of giving people more money for the same work or the same money for less work without involving mr taxman, that's why it was privo companies that squealed the loudest when company cars came in for a doing.

Edited September 22, 2010 by noodle doodle

[robo1968]

We are cutting jobs to fix the deficit. Its nothing to do with need. Although there may be some waste of time jobs I guarantee many people doing useful jobs will be let go....do you disagree that is the case?

I think an atmosphere of waste and inefficiency has crept into a lot of these Gov't departments along with a belief of self importance, internal politics and entitlement.

None of these elements work in effective or efficient organistation and I do think that people need to go, they will all tell you they are 'useful' as that tends to be most peoples' belief but no one is indispensible

[Bloo Loo]

Can you give me an example of large government organisations that have subsidised creches for its workers? I'll be off there like a shot. What you'll find though is while many hospitals etc have nurseries onsite, these are run by private companies at market rates (are they proper private though, if they're just making money from public sector workers, surely that just makes them public sector once removed? oh my god!). Councils on the other hand (used to) run subsidised creches but these were open to all and hence usually waiting lists beyond the realms of reasonable family planning. As the brackets imply though, these are now mostly gone due to cutbacks. Again though the fanatical private sector types would obviously have refused to use them, seeing as they employed nasty public sector workers.

Also you'll find 'duvet days' are pretty much a hipster private sector occurence. Essentially all good-looking perks are, they're all back door ways of giving people more money for the same work or the same money for less work without involving mr taxman, that's why it was privo companies that squealed the loudest when company cars came in for a doing.

2mins of googling reveals http://www.allinhr.com/hr-incentives-rewards-solutions/nottingham-city-council-works-perks.

Id never heard of Duvet days until I was working for an insurance client...the ladies were talking about an accounting job in the Essex Fire Department or some quango...the perk was 3 Duvet days per year. They were spitting chips.

And stop with the WE HATE PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS...ITS A SLUR AND RED HERRING.

[Saver]

I think an atmosphere of waste and inefficiency has crept into a lot of these Gov't departments along with a belief of self importance, internal politics and entitlement.

None of these elements work in effective or efficient organistation and I do think that people need to go, they will all tell you they are 'useful' as that tends to be most peoples' belief but no one is indispensible

Well you have not really answered my question. I explicitly said I bet there is a fraction of workers who are a waste of space but its clear more than this is going to happen. Frontline people (nurses, police etc) will be got rid of and probably some of the waste of spacers will survive. Do you disagree that is the case?

And the fact remains even if you only got rid of people you don't need a sensible solution cannot involve dumping them all onto benefits and then paying them substantial sums of money to nothing all day from tax receipts.

Someone (government, leaders in business) needs to stand up and say what we need to do to create jobs in the private sector and convince us as a society to adopt the neccessary steps to do this. I can't see any indication anything is happening except a wishy washy belief that private sector jobs will magically appear and solve this problem.

The other thing is something must be done about age discrimination - its not acceptable that perfectly good people cannot get jobs and then the tax payer picks up the tab.

[robo1968]

And stop with the WE HATE PUBLIC SECTOR WORKERS...ITS A SLUR AND RED HERRING.

But it is so much easier to blame bankers and gamblers..... that's all the private sector consists of isn't it?

[Bloo Loo]

Well you have not really answered my question. I explicitly said I bet there is a fraction of workers who are a waste of space but its clear more than this is going to happen. Frontline people (nurses, police etc) will be got rid of and probably some of the waste of spacers will survive. Do you disagree that is the case?

And the fact remains even if you only got rid of people you don't need a sensible solution cannot involve dumping them all onto benefits and then paying them substantial sums of money to nothing all day from tax receipts.

Someone (government, leaders in business) needs to stand up and say what we need to do to create jobs in the private sector and convince us as a society to adopt the neccessary steps to do this. I can't see any indication anything is happening except a wishy washy belief that private sector jobs will magically appear and solve this problem.

The other thing is something must be done about age discrimination - its not acceptable that perfectly good people cannot get jobs and then the tax payer picks up the tab.

£100 per week JSA or whatever is better than £1000 per week and a pension, creche and duvet day.

[Saver]

£100 per week JSA or whatever is better than £1000 per week and a pension, creche and duvet day.

sorry who the hell gets paid £1000 per week? Maybe the top few managers and doctors, but last time I checked e.g. nurses don't get that kind of money. And neither to any other public sector workers at the bottom rungs of the pyramid.

[Bloo Loo]

sorry who the hell gets paid £1000 per week? Maybe the top few managers and doctors, but last time I checked e.g. nurses don't get that kind of money. And neither to any other public sector workers at the bottom rungs of the pyramid.

quite a lot apparently...thats ONLY 50K salary.

even 25K is around £500 a week.

[robo1968]

Well you have not really answered my question. I explicitly said I bet there is a fraction of workers who are a waste of space but its clear more than this is going to happen. Frontline people (nurses, police etc) will be got rid of and probably some of the waste of spacers will survive. Do you disagree that is the case?

And the fact remains even if you only got rid of people you don't need a sensible solution cannot involve dumping them all onto benefits and then paying them substantial sums of money to nothing all day from tax receipts.

Someone (government, leaders in business) needs to stand up and say what we need to do to create jobs in the private sector and convince us as a society to adopt the neccessary steps to do this. I can't see any indication anything is happening except a wishy washy belief that private sector jobs will magically appear and solve this problem.

The other thing is something must be done about age discrimination - its not acceptable that perfectly good people cannot get jobs and then the tax payer picks up the tab.

Everyone will tell you how hard they work and how they can't be replaced. If it was up to me I'd have an independant review of every sector and department and make my own decisions.

I have no problem letting 'Frontline' staff go if that is not going to affect the net service. Does that answer your question for you?

Why not make them redundant? Have we now got to the stage that we have to provide a 'soft landing' for every disenchanted public sector worker? I have yet to see any of that for redundant private setor staff, what makes them so special?

Making people redundant is better than keeping them on for keeping them on sake, the real world can't operate like that, why should the public one?

Age disrcimination will always be a problem, some employers recognise age as a benefit but some don't, that will never change quickly

[robo1968]

sorry who the hell gets paid £1000 per week? Maybe the top few managers and doctors, but last time I checked e.g. nurses don't get that kind of money. And neither to any other public sector workers at the bottom rungs of the pyramid.

A lot more people that you think, most middle managers and council staff I know earn atleast that

Communications officers in my hospital are hired for that, the place had a £10m deficit last year

Edited September 22, 2010 by robo1968