Forum menu
CaptJon - is this true or false...The gap in average pay between workers in the public sector and those in the private sector has widened.
Public sector employees were paid 7.8% more on average than private sector staff in April 2010, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.This was a bigger gap than the 5.3% difference in 2007, the figures show.
And when they 'rightsource' the next tranche of low-level public workers the gap will grow again.
Anyway druidh, you're out of this fight aren't you, with your secure pension and early retirement? 🙂
Has it not become apparent yet that both sides of the argument can dig up statistics to "prove" their side of the argument? Maybe it's because the truth lies somewhere in the middle?
There is almost certainly waste and inefficiencies on both sides of the fence, and both sides do make attempts to address this, not always successfully but the quest goes on.
I am a public sector worker (not balloted, not striking - yet) and the biggest difference that i see is what capt.jon touched on earlier, most public sector workers would support private sector workers' right to better pensions, lets face many CEO's will have a far more superior pension than any of us, but alot of private sector workers seem to think that everyone should a bad pension if they have one. A result i fear of government and press misinfomation, exactly what they want. 🙄 🙄
I keep telling the wife to move into the public sector, problem is that it's a closed shop as they always require specific experience which can be only gained by training in the public sector for her profession
What profession is that? it is surprising that they want properly trained and accredited staff tho. After all anyone can do the job
Personally I think it's none of my business what anyone else gets paid, public OR private sector. 99% of the time the only wage I can have a direct impact on is my own, so the negativity here seems a bit pointless really.
If anyone is interested in some more explanation of the detail of the survey druidh linked to, watch this:
This is an interesting read too: http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/if-you-want-to-be-trusted-more-claim-less/
lets look at how the selfish actionss of my local primary school teachers are impacting others
parents at scool for dinner today.. so chance to have word with head who sent out letter saying school closed to all next wed.
staff have indicated they might strike so he s closing school but as its actually before the strike all staff will be paid as normal.. no school means no privately run before and after school club staff there all young mums.. have been laid off for day on no pay as ther ll be no kids.. mrs tts having to take 6 hours off work so shell be 210 down before tax this month..
seems there all right jack the rest of you can...
Oh what a shame your babysitters are on strike.
6 hours and earn £210 nice work if you can get it.
Mrs TJdegree in law, 25 years experience in her field, £20 000 pa
Me
diploma and degree qualified, 25 years experience in my field - £26000 ( fte)
And we are both doing jobs that not one of you private sector people could do
TJ, you been drinking? Not like you to make such crass unsupportable comments, Ernie maybe but whilst I don't often agree with your views they're usual fairly well articualted and coherent.
On another note
The much bigger divide is between the unemployed, employed and the self-employed.
More like
The much bigger divide is between the unemployable, employed and the grossly incompetant and overpaid.
The comments section under this [url= http://www.****/news/article-2065479/Public-sector-workers-earn-4-000-year-pay-premium-compared-private-staff.html#ixzz1ebcgZ2IF ][i]Daily Fail[/i][/url] article (essentially a regurgitation of TPA spin on public sector salaries) is on [i]fire[/i].
I know of plenty of desperately short-staffed elderly care wards - journos who peddle this kind of BS should be forcibly conscripted as care assistants. I'll happily break them in. 😈
stevewhyte - MemberOh what a shame your babysitters are on strike.
6 hours and earn £210 nice work if you can get it.
£35 an hr is not a lot for someone at the top of their profession really is it ffs. If you think you deserve to earn that using your knowledge, skills, experience get a job as a teacher?
lets look at how the selfish actionss of my local primary school teachers are impacting others
parents at scool for dinner today.. so chance to have word with head who sent out letter saying school closed to all next wed.
staff have indicated they might strike so he s closing school but as its actually before the strike all staff will be paid as normal.. no school means no privately run before and after school club staff there all young mums.. have been laid off for day on no pay as ther ll be no kids.. mrs tts having to take 6 hours off work so shell be 210 down before tax this month..seems there all right jack the rest of you can...
Why are parents not grouping together to share the child care on Wednesday? There must be three in each class who're off work anyway that day who can look after ten kids each. Perhaps your wife could offer to look after some other kids for half the day as a swap, so she only has to miss 3 hours at work?
£35 an hr is not a lot for someone at the top of their profession really is it ffs.
True; I get £41 for every hour of contact time that I have now that I'm at the top of the higher pay scale.
Which works out at about £23 for every hour that I'm actually [i]at[/i] work. Assuming that I work evenings, weekends and holidays at home for free.
£35 an hr is not a lot for someone at the top of their profession really is it ffs
Hmmm! It's a lot more than I get and I'm at the top of mine.
Actually I've just checked, it's twice what I get before enhancements for working weekends, nights and bank holidays.
totalshell, I think the teachers are trying to avoid being £200 per month down for the rest of their working lives. Doesn't seem to balance all that well with your wife losing a single days pay, on reflection.
Come to think of it, why doesn't your wife use some of her holiday entitlement instead of unpaid leave? Funny you know I'm having to look at arrangements too as our school is closed, so probably have to pay some childcare for that.
cruzheckler - Member
£35 an hr is not a lot for someone at the top of their profession really is it ffs. If you think you deserve to earn that using your knowledge, skills, experience get a job as a teacher?
PMSL i did and i am and i sure dont get £35
Muppet
£35 an hour?
I have never got close to that - thats £70 000 pa. 3 times average wage near enough. Few public sector workers will
so i am a "muppet" for earning more than you? explain?
Come to think of it, why doesn't your wife use some of her holiday entitlement instead of unpaid leave? Funny you know I'm having to look at arrangements too as our school is closed, so probably have to pay some childcare for that.
Who would do it? He doesn't seem to think the people he entrusts to educate and care for his children are worthy of decent pay and conditions.
I work from home and have grown up kids so could easily look after half a dozen kids next week
fully social services approved say - £35/hr each?
😀
On a serious note, public sector spending increased by more than 50% over the term of the last labour government (£451bn to £688bn at constant 2010-11 prices).
In 1999 the government spent £343bn, which would have been £440bn by 2009/10 had it only increased by inflation. Instead it had reached £670bn.
The extra spending arguably did nothing to improve the provision or efficiency of public services in general, in fact ONS evidence suggests the opposite.
The extra spending simply expanded the public sector at the expense of everyone else, and was funded through labours profligate borrowing and stealth taxes.
The spending was done for the sole purpose of buying voters by increasing the size of the labour voting public sector. And because the labour government thought that everyone had entitlements but no obligations.
If you work in the public sector on one level I have some sympathy, no-one wants to lose more of their paycheque each month (even if the amount you are being asked to pay into your still gold plated pensions is small compared to what most other people have to, or more likely can't, pay for less provision). However, from a fundamentally moral or intellectual perspective, why should you expect, or feel entitled to a pension commitment from the taxpayer which is unaffordable to those providing it?
Furthermore, if your entitlement requires the country to borrow more than it can possibly sustain, how can you reconcile your entitlement then?
Why do we need the level of public sector employment that currently exists, i.e. that funded by an increase of 50% in public spending?
bainbrge - Member
On a seriod note, public sector spending increased by more than 50% over the term of the last labour government (£451bn to £688bn at constant 2010-11 prices).In 1999 the government spent £343bn, which would have been £440bn by 2009/10 had it only increased by inflation. Instead it had reached £670bn.
The extra spending arguably did nothing to improve the provision or efficiency of public services in general, in fact ONS evidence suggests the opposite.
The extra spending simply expanded the public sector at the expense of everyone else, and was funded through labours profligate borrowing and stealth taxes.
The spending was done for the sole purpose of buying voters by increasing the size of the labour voting public sector. And because the labour government thought that everyone had entitlements but no obligations.
If you work in the public sector on one level I have some sympathy, no-one wants to lose more of their paycheque each month (even if the amount you are being asked to pay into your still gold plated pensions is small compared to what most other people have to, or more likely can't, pay for less provision). However, from a fundamentally moral or intellectual perspective, why should you expect, or feel entitled to a pension commitment from the taxpayer which is unaffordable to those providing it?
Furthermore, if your entitlement requires the country to borrow more than it can possibly sustain, how can you reconcile your entitlement then?
Why do we need the level of public sector employment that currently exists, i.e. that funded by an increase of 50% in public spending?
Do a proper analysis of the numbers, and include the caveats, then try again without the political BS.
That's true. Given the choice of hanging on through the various rounds of redundancies and having been both out-sourced and in-sourced, and having re-applied for my own job on three occasions previously, I took the option of reducing my income by 2/3rds, taking a lower pension than I would otherwise have been entitled to.vinnyeh - Member
Anyway druidh, you're out of this fight aren't you, with your secure pension and early retirement?
Of course I also lost all those lovely share options that I'd been enticed with and the shares I actually owned turned out to be worthless.
I guess I should have been more of a man and stuck it out, hoping that I'd always be able to make the cut, but sometimes there's more to life than just the money - like being able to go and ride a bike almost whenever I want 🙂
CaptJon - MemberDo a proper analysis of the numbers, and include the caveats, then try again without the political BS.
That post was not woth responding to but well done for keeping it short and to the point. 🙂
Thanks for the advice CaptJon, but I didn't have to do a proper analysis, someone else did it for me! Plagiarism is a terrible thing, however all the numbers are from the ONS.
I tried to amend to remove the political BS for you though:
On a serious note, public sector spending increased by more than 50% over the term of the last labour government (£451bn to £688bn at constant 2010-11 prices).
In 1999 the government spent £343bn, which would have been £440bn by 2009/10 had it only increased by inflation. Instead it had reached £670bn.The extra spending arguably did nothing to improve the provision or efficiency of public services in general, in fact ONS evidence suggests the opposite.
The extra spending simply expanded the public sector [s]at the expense of everyone else[/s], and was funded through labours profligate borrowing and stealth taxes.
The spending was done for the [s]sole[/s] purpose of buying voters by increasing the size of the labour voting public sector. And because the labour government thought that everyone had entitlements [s]but no obligations[/s].
If you work in the public sector on one level I have some sympathy, no-one wants to lose more of their paycheque each month (even if the amount you are being asked to pay into your still gold plated pensions is small compared to what most other people have to, or more likely can't, pay for less provision). However, from a fundamentally moral or intellectual perspective, why should you expect, or feel entitled to a pension commitment from the taxpayer which is unaffordable to those providing it?
Furthermore, if your entitlement requires the country to borrow more than it can possibly sustain, how can you reconcile your entitlement then?
Why do we need the level of public sector employment that currently exists, i.e. that funded by an increase of 50% in public spending?
bainbrge -
The extra spending arguably did nothing to improve the provision or efficiency of public services in general, in fact ONS evidence suggests the opposite.
Errmm-massive improvements in outcomes in the NHS. efficiency no - as health services are only efficient when rationed - reduce waiting times and increase flexibility you decrease efficiency as crudely measured - also improvements in care that cost more show up as decreased efficiency.
Takle an insulin pump for example - cost more to run, cost a lot to train staff an patients, makes huge improvements in life and outcomes
its the difference between price ana value
Still full of bullshit just look at the pejorative terms and outright lies
Where did yo copy and paste it from? taxpayers alliance?
pejorativegold plated pensions
pejorativearguably did nothing
profligate borrowing and stealth taxes.
outright liepension commitment from the taxpayer which is unaffordable to those providing it?
outright lieborrow more than it can possibly sustain,
Errmm-massive improvements in outcomes in the NHS. efficiency no - as health services are only efficient when rationed - reduce waiting times and increase flexibility you decrease efficiency as crudely measured - also improvements in care that cost more show up as decreased efficiency.Takle an insulin pump for example - cost more to run, cost a lot to train staff an patients, makes huge improvements in life and outcomes
its the difference between price ana value
Specific point accepted. However, it depends what type of public sector spending you look at, and we could go on for ever with competing examples. Did the GP funding deal entered into by labour improve outcomes or just GP salaries?
It's fundamentally difficult to measure productivity in the public sector, and very easy in the private. However, the general point still stands, are we 50% better off as a nation as a result of a 50% increase in public spending, on any measure at all?
Maybe if the spending had been more focused on the right things rather than just more employees?
However, the general point still stands, are we 50% better off as a nation as a result of a 50% increase in public spending, on any measure at all?
Define the nation being better off? So we can measure.
Did the GP funding deal entered into by labour improve outcomes or just GP salaries?
Outcomes - far better care of the chronically sick in the community - might even have saved money by reducing hospital admissions
In the next 20yrs there will be a civil war.
I just hope I'm still young enough to fight.
Maybe if the spending had been more focused on the right things rather than just more employees
Public services are provided by people - thats what costs the money - people
hora - MemberIn the next 20yrs there will be a civil war.
I just hope I'm still young enough to fight.
Posted 17 seconds ago # Report-Post
You would end up swapping guns every five minutes and being shot!!
TJ - some pejorative terms but there's no law against that! Indeed 'gold plated pensions' to my mind is descriptive and simply means 'final salary pensions'.
In terms of outright lies I beg to differ, but feel free to argue that the debt burden of the UK government is sustainable...not sure who will listen though. Certainly not the people who fund it.
Public services are provided by people - thats what costs the money - people
Just not this many people...on final salary pensions.
bainbrge - Member
Thanks for the advice CaptJon, but I didn't have to do a proper analysis, someone else did it for me! Plagiarism is a terrible thing, however all the numbers are from the ONS.I tried to amend to remove the political BS for you though:
Nice try...
On a serious note, public sector spending increased by more than 50% over the term of the last labour government (£451bn to £688bn at constant 2010-11 prices).
Last term or all three terms of the last Labour govt? And you left out the important caveat that the figures include the stimulus package Darling and Brown instigated to soften the impact of the recession.
In 1999 the government spent £343bn, which would have been £440bn by 2009/10 had it only increased by inflation. Instead it had reached £670bn.
What happened to the £451bn figure? A fuller picture could be had if you included the change in govt receipts and the change in GDP.
The extra spending arguably did nothing to improve the provision or efficiency of public services in general, in fact ONS evidence suggests the opposite.
Not all of it was spent on public services, though, was it?
The extra spending simply expanded the public sector at the expense of everyone else, and was funded through labours profligate borrowing and stealth taxes.
Simply? Come on, you can do better than that.
The spending was done for the sole purpose of buying voters by increasing the size of the labour voting public sector. And because the labour government thought that everyone had entitlements but no obligations.
So was it simply to expand the public sector, or to by votes? Or to spend money on entitlements?
What you want to mention is the changes in receipts and spending in the first term, when the budget was in surplus as Brown kept to Clarke's spending plans. But then that could be countered by Osborne and Cameron saying they'd would stick to Darling's. And the fact Osborne praised the model of economic growth Ireland followed... well, until it all went bang. Someone would then probably mention selling gold, TJ or Ernie would counter with not knowing what future prices would do. Someone might then point out all the extra money the 3G licences brought in. And depending on the balance of posters, Brown's leadership at the height of the credit crunch would be cited - either as a good thing, or as a bad thing.
but then that can be countered
Plagiarism is a terrible thing, however all the numbers are from the ONS.
And your plagiarised article conveniently omitted to mention the absolutely critical and vital fact that the UK was exposed to the worse global recession since the 1930s ?
[i]"In 1999 the government spent £343bn, which would have been £440bn by 2009/10 had it only increased by inflation. Instead it had reached £670bn."[/i]
The difference in 2009/10 was that the UK was desperate to dig itself out of recession - hadn't you noticed that ?
The private sector was in deep recession so the government pumped money into the public sector, had they not done so, the economy would have been well and truly ****ed - for [u]all[/u] of us. How do you think unemployment only managed to climb to 2.5 million ?
We signed up to x and have now had it changed to y
Get used to it like everyone else.
You're not ring-fenced from the crap that your employers created.
STFU
And we are both doing jobs that not one of you private sector people could do
And you have the proof to back this up?
Get used to it like everyone else
Or try to do something about it, it's better than being ring fenced.
You're not ring-fenced from the crap that your employers created.
I know some banks are under public ownership, but the banks don't own the public sector... although having said that...
It's fundamentally difficult to measure productivity in the public sector
Not really, you can use exactly the same measure as the private sector should be using, how much time are you carrying out value added work vs non-value added work. In NHS terms doing something directly to imropove patient health be that laboratory work, operations, health screening or talking therapies to name a few activities, non value added activities are thing such as moving around, most paperwork, sitting on your backside doing nothing, being off sick a lot. Exactly the same as the private sector.
True efficency is not about cost cutting, it is about cost reduction so that the resources you employ add more value and generete less waste (as in muda not bin bags full of).
Perhaps one of the hard done to strikers can look after my son whilst school is shut yet again
CaptJon I apologise I won't have time to answer your specific challenges, except to the extent covered in answering Ernie's challenge below. However there is a useful paper (i.e. one i plagiarised) on this matter at:
I think chapter 4 covers this area and is well worth a skim read (I think so anyway).
Ernie - I think you are conflating a number of different things there, especially in your last paragraph:
1. Are you trying to imply that the public spending increase I highlighted was as a result of the financial crisis, and didn't occur steadily over the labour government?
2. when you say the government pumped money into the public sector, are you talking about the bail out of the banks or something else? I can't think of any Keynesian attempt to stimulate the economy with public spending in 2010 at all? Quantitative easing wouldn't feature in the spending numbers I quoted (it doesn't increase debt)
3. the (main) reason unemployment didn't rise was because the private sector sucked down part time working and half weeks to avoid redundancies.
Tazzy - you really do seem rather angry these days - and you claimto be well rounded on another thread. resorting to insults? shows the poverty of your argument
edited out the rest of it