Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Marina

Have We Got Enough Public Sector Workers?

Recommended Posts

During the 12 months the public sector added 95,000 new positions, an increase of 1.7% to 5.8 million jobs.

Most new positions in the public sector were in health and social services, up by 60,000.

This was followed by 50,000 extra central government jobs and 40,000 in local government.

Wonder why we need 50000 more more people in central government? With all the so-called joined up IT systems, surely we should need less.

Wonder why we need 40000 extra local government workers. What do they all do?

5.8 million eh? Might as well nationalise everything and have done with it.

And they are all eligible for some sort of cheap loan to get them started on the housing ladder? Might be enough to keep the housing market going? Just think - you pay tax to a government that uses it to subsidise its employees to get on the housing ladder - pricing you out of the market.

It's almost funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the 12 months the public sector added 95,000 new positions, an increase of 1.7% to 5.8 million jobs.

Most new positions in the public sector were in health and social services, up by 60,000.

This was followed by 50,000 extra central government jobs and 40,000 in local government.

Wonder why we need 50000 more more people in central government? With all the so-called joined up IT systems, surely we should need less.

Wonder why we need 40000 extra local government workers. What do they all do?

5.8 million eh? Might as well nationalise everything and have done with it.

And they are all eligible for some sort of cheap loan to get them started on the housing ladder? Might be enough to keep the housing market going? Just think - you pay tax to a government that uses it to subsidise its employees to get on the housing ladder - pricing you out of the market.

It's almost funny.

Obviously with all those extra people there will need to be more people to administer them, work out the payroll, calculate the indexed-linked pensions, and provide empowerment and diversity courses. 95,000 new staff is a lot so there will need to be at least 20,000 people to support them. Of course these 20,000 will themselves need to be supported, administered, diversified and empowered. Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the 12 months the public sector added 95,000 new positions, an increase of 1.7% to 5.8 million jobs.

Most new positions in the public sector were in health and social services, up by 60,000.

This was followed by 50,000 extra central government jobs and 40,000 in local government.

Wonder why we need 50000 more more people in central government? With all the so-called joined up IT systems, surely we should need less.

Wonder why we need 40000 extra local government workers. What do they all do?

5.8 million eh? Might as well nationalise everything and have done with it.

And they are all eligible for some sort of cheap loan to get them started on the housing ladder? Might be enough to keep the housing market going? Just think - you pay tax to a government that uses it to subsidise its employees to get on the housing ladder - pricing you out of the market.

It's almost funny.

This increase both in the number of public sector workers and their inflation busting pay rises is, I feel, a major factor in the rise of HPI especially outside of the South East - of course much of it is pyramid building by section managers and many of these new posts are probably non productive. However, now that they're in them there's little chance of them ever being sacked, fired or made redundant. Nice work if you can get it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously with all those extra people there will need to be more people to administer them, work out the payroll, calculate the indexed-linked pensions, and provide empowerment and diversity courses. 95,000 new staff is a lot so there will need to be at least 20,000 people to support them. Of course these 20,000 will themselves need to be supported, administered, diversified and empowered. Etc.

So one day there will only be one person left to employ, they'll be at the top of the pyramid. The interviewer will have to ask 'can you support, administer, manage and empower yourself? Can you set and monitor your own targets? - because there is no-one else left to employ so you'll have to do it yourself.'

And the interviewee will say 'Yes, I can do that. Why can't everyone else?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously with all those extra people there will need to be more people to administer them, work out the payroll, calculate the indexed-linked pensions, and provide empowerment and diversity courses. 95,000 new staff is a lot so there will need to be at least 20,000 people to support them. Of course these 20,000 will themselves need to be supported, administered, diversified and empowered. Etc.

It's like something out of 'Yes Minister' it would be hilarious if I weren't watching a country that I am very fond of heading steadily and surely towards economic ruin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the 12 months the public sector added 95,000 new positions, an increase of 1.7% to 5.8 million jobs.

And they are all eligible for some sort of cheap loan to get them started on the housing ladder? Might be enough to keep the housing market going? Just think - you pay tax to a government that uses it to subsidise its employees to get on the housing ladder - pricing you out of the market.

It's almost funny.

They are not all eligible for some sort of cheap loan to get them started on the housing ladder. Key worker is not the same as a public sector worker. Key workers are limited to professions such as teachers, doctors and nurses, as I understand it you have to be working in a frontline position in an area where those jobs are hard to fill. That means that no one working in central government is eligbile for key worker homes and very few of those employed in local government are eligible. The limited availability of this scheme and the suggestions that even genuine key workers have experienced difficulties with the scheme is why this will not prop up the housing market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the 12 months the public sector added 95,000 new positions, an increase of 1.7% to 5.8 million jobs.

Most new positions in the public sector were in health and social services, up by 60,000.

This was followed by 50,000 extra central government jobs and 40,000 in local government.

Wonder why we need 50000 more more people in central government? With all the so-called joined up IT systems, surely we should need less.

Wonder why we need 40000 extra local government workers. What do they all do?

5.8 million eh? Might as well nationalise everything and have done with it.

And they are all eligible for some sort of cheap loan to get them started on the housing ladder? Might be enough to keep the housing market going? Just think - you pay tax to a government that uses it to subsidise its employees to get on the housing ladder - pricing you out of the market.

It's almost funny.

Does this include the armies of consultants hired as well?

/G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest growl

As what happened in the last crash and recession. All the slack will be cut. It's already happening in the private sector. It will happen in the public sector.

All those people with useless jobs will go in the public sector as the private sector loses people who will not keep the company in profit.

It happens everytime and ony the essential people will be left. Key workers should be okay. It will be all the middle managers, and bean counters ie. those producing useless surveys and endless red tape.

Having once worked in the public sector and been unable to do my job properly through dealing with inefficient useless individuals who couldn't be sacked, and drowning in pointless beurocracy. I have to say that I will not be sorry when the cull comes.

It tends to happen every ten or fifteen years, its just a shame that these people weren't given proper jobs instead. Where they were actually creating something or providing a front end service in an efficient way.

I truly believe that the whole of the public sector needs to be trimmed and also overhauled. Not just the health service but everything. <_<

Edited by growl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is anyone surprised at these figures?

Those now in Government believe they know best as to how we should act and behave.

Passing legislation, ensuring compliance and "educating" us in the "true (third?) way" requires ever increasing numbers of state employees.

One of the chartists here should perhaps try a projection as to the numbers in say 15 years based on the rate of increase since 1997.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this include the armies of consultants hired as well?

/G

Oooh yes, good point: Don't forget to include the marching armies of consultants that NuLabour like to piss cash away on - the big consultancy firms milk NuLabour like crazy. Buy a copy of Private Eye (superb muck-raking publication) for a regular summary of the disgusting sums involved.

Immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard rumours of moving the administration of the NHS abroad to India.

They are going all electonic with their patient record and staff payroll/record database.

Just a thought.

Maybe they will eventually perform surgery via an internet link from india using a webcam and detailed instructions via msn messenger.

That should cut costs :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe they will eventually perform surgery via an internet link from india using a webcam and detailed instructions via msn messenger.

Why not just fly people out to India for surgery? Then they cut costs on hospitals too, and patients probably won't die of MRSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the 12 months the public sector added 95,000 new positions, an increase of 1.7% to 5.8 million jobs.

Most new positions in the public sector were in health and social services, up by 60,000.

This was followed by 50,000 extra central government jobs and 40,000 in local government.

Wonder why we need 50000 more more people in central government? With all the so-called joined up IT systems, surely we should need less.

Wonder why we need 40000 extra local government workers. What do they all do?

5.8 million eh? Might as well nationalise everything and have done with it.

And they are all eligible for some sort of cheap loan to get them started on the housing ladder? Might be enough to keep the housing market going? Just think - you pay tax to a government that uses it to subsidise its employees to get on the housing ladder - pricing you out of the market.

It's almost funny.

Actually, the vast majority of public sector workers are NOT eligable for any cheap loans for housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh yes, good point: Don't forget to include the marching armies of consultants that NuLabour like to piss cash away on - the big consultancy firms milk NuLabour like crazy. Buy a copy of Private Eye (superb muck-raking publication) for a regular summary of the disgusting sums involved.

Immoral.

Well, if your corporate heads have made significant donations to the party, you'd look to get some return, wouldn't you?

btp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the vast majority of public sector workers are NOT eligable for any cheap loans for housing.

No, but they are eligible for:

(1) The fiduciary benefits of £120K non-jobs combined with the self-righteous glow of the socialist doing everything he/she can for their fellow man.

(2) whopping inflation-proof gold-plated uber-pensions that everyone else has to pay for (and that Gordon has happily helped finance by dipping into the Private pension pot to the tune of £5bn a year a few years;ago)

(3) taking 6 months off work whilst still being paid, declaring yourself a victim of 'work-related stress'

(4) presiding over fiascos (like the government migration to IT) of such staggering scale, wasting literally billions, safe in the knowledge that you will not be held accountable.

Nurses are the ones who should be one 50K a year, not the f**king 'street-scene coordinators' and marching armies of office bureaucrats.

What a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what your problem is but most of your comments are completely unfounded and they just show your ignorance of what goes on in the public sector. where exactly did you get some of this stuff from. I'm sorry but I think you are an idiot.

(1) The fiduciary benefits of £120K non-jobs combined with the self-righteous glow of the socialist doing everything he/she can for their fellow man.

Er, no, not all public sector workers are socialists and many do bugger all for their fellow man. Very few public sector jobs pay anything like £120K although if you know of one maybe you should apply.

(2) whopping inflation-proof gold-plated uber-pensions that everyone else has to pay for (and that Gordon has happily helped finance by dipping into the Private pension pot to the tune of £5bn a year a few years;ago)

The pension is part of the pay deal. I'm sure that you would expect your company to pay out a decent pension after working for them for 40 years, whats the problem?

(3) taking 6 months off work whilst still being paid, declaring yourself a victim of 'work-related stress'

This is possible in many jobs both within the public sector and private sector.

(4) presiding over fiascos (like the government migration to IT) of such staggering scale, wasting literally billions, safe in the knowledge that you will not be held accountable.

What exactly is "the government migration to IT"? I've never heard of this project, did Gordon get a new laptop or something? Each government department has its own (working) computer networks and has done for some considerable time so there can be no "government migration to IT".

Nurses are the ones who should be one 50K a year, not the f**king 'street-scene coordinators' and marching armies of office bureaucrats.

Yes, nurses should get more, at last you have said something sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nurses are the ones who should be one 50K a year, not the f**king 'street-scene coordinators' and marching armies of office bureaucrats.

Ah, yes, most important to employ people to get the street furniture just right. I believe it is a vital job choosing the type and location of rubbish bins and the siting of cameras to catch people not putting rubbish in the bins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most civil servants I thought received pensions earned on the basis of 1/80ths ie to get a maximum 2/3 salary you would need to work for 53 years, pretty much impossible with a mandatory retirement age of 65 (unless some of these people really have done the job "man and boy").

My pension scheme works on the basis of 1/54ths, so I only need to do 36 years to get a maximum pension.

Fair enough, civil service pensions are final salary (the best kind) but they don't strike me as "gold-plated uber-pensions".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(4) presiding over fiascos (like the government migration to IT) of such staggering scale, wasting literally billions, safe in the knowledge that you will not be held accountable.

Years ago I was involved with a company supplying tailored IT solutions to both private an public sectors.

Anything we supplied to a private sector company such as ASDA or Rolls Royce had to work as detailed in the contract otherwise we didn't get paid. End of story - their managers got their ar5es kicked if we didn't perform so they made sure we did perform.

On the other hand similar product supplied into the public service often didn't fully fullfill its roll and didn't come up the the requered spec. Why? The public sector managers didn't have 'balls' or will to argue the toss with us, and though they had lots of meetings to discuss 'problems' they rarely ever said "That's it, pull your kit out and refund our money". Which of course they should have done! As long as it worked 'a bit' they were happy!

Edited by ILBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most civil servants I thought received pensions earned on the basis of 1/80ths ie to get a maximum 2/3 salary you would need to work for 53 years, pretty much impossible with a mandatory retirement age of 65 (unless some of these people really have done the job "man and boy").

My pension scheme works on the basis of 1/54ths, so I only need to do 36 years to get a maximum pension.

Fair enough, civil service pensions are final salary (the best kind) but they don't strike me as "gold-plated uber-pensions".

Don't know where you get 1/80th from. A friend of mine is a Highways Inspector for a London borough. His pension is based on 1/40ths. So is my sister-in-law's pension - she is a teacher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know where you get 1/80th from. A friend of mine is a Highways Inspector for a London borough. His pension is based on 1/40ths. So is my sister-in-law's pension - she is a teacher.

Nope, its definately 80ths, see for yourself

Civil Service Pension Benifits

Also, that is the old scheme. The government have recently changed the rules and by 2013 everyone will be on a new scheme which is based on earnings over the duration of employment and not final salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder why we need 40000 extra local government workers. What do they all do?

5.8 million eh? Might as well nationalise everything and have done with it.

No, because that would actually involve them doing something and taking responsibility for stuff that's useful that we actually need on a daily basis. Public sector employment is nearing previous levels despite the fact 30 years ago stuff like BT, water, electric, gas, BP, British Steel, ICI, pharmaceuticals and all the other commanding heights were in the public sector, these days obviously all that is handled by the private sector... obviously the public sector has moved onto more important things :lol:

Makes you wonder what they do all day.

Er, no, not all public sector workers are socialists and many do bugger all for their fellow man.

Exactly, they're usually perfect New Labour aparachiks, the last thing the government want voting for them is a bunch of socialists.

The pension is part of the pay deal. I'm sure that you would expect your company to pay out a decent pension after working for them for 40 years, whats the problem?

You'd think, in the private sector nearly all final salary schemes if not nearly all schemes are closed to new members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pension is part of the pay deal. I'm sure that you would expect your company to pay out a decent pension after working for them for 40 years, whats the problem?

I can see why some might feel a little resentful about this.

The government stopped companies contributing to 'overfunded' pension schemes during the stockmarket boom. They withdrew the dividend tax credit, thus increasing taxation on funded pension schemes. Then they imposed a 'protection' scheme that makes company pensions unaffordable, especially as its obligations are somehow retrospective. They did nothing about the increasing (mostly?) unfunded pension liability accruing in the public sector due to longer longevity and lower interest rates. They hired more public sector workers and gave them the same pension entitlements that existing workers have (and that already appear unaffordable).

I would be a lot happier if the increased public spending brought corresponding benefits. Unfortunately, the public sector productivity appears to be decreasing. In fact, the rate of the decrease is such that it cannot be compensated for by incresing spending in line with GDP growth. In other words, should the current trend continue then the public services will start to get worse even as their funding increases at the highest sustainable rate. It would be bad enough even if the extra public spending was not financed by debt and off-balance sheet initiatives.

It seems to me that taxpayers not working in the public sector can reasonably expect their living standard to decrease as taxes are increased to pay for the apparently profligate public spending. They already cannot afford to save enough money to match the pension benefits of similarly qualified workers in the public sector [1]. They also notice that salaries in the public sector are increasing faster than in the private sector. I can see why they might be unhappy.

Thanks,

MoD

[1] I suppose this might be a matter of discussion. It is an interesting exercise to calculate how much money to set aside in order to have something resembling a final-salary pension. Last time I tried it was a truly staggering proportion of my income but I might have been cautious in predicting that the invested pension pot would only grow a bit faster than salaries - although the market for index-linked gilts suggests I might not have been wrong. Either way, the required proportion was large. The expectation of having a similar amount taken off me in taxes so as to pay the pension of someone to whom it was promised without that promise being costed seemed a little on the unfair side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.