[Closed] how do comparable public / private sector jobs differ?

I'm not sure why'd you want to ops out of the old FS pension. Isn't is 11% contribution from you and 24% from your employer I know it changed in 2006 for new starters.

it manages surveys to get the answer the client wants

In that case they will out of business very quickly, which will be a huge relief to bruneep no doubt. Pollsters rely on their reputation.

Drac has given you some figures re paramedic pay. To give you a comparison, the private sector Paramedics who have been brought in over the past few months earn approx. £6-£7 [b]per hour[/b] more than I do and are paid for the full 12 hour shift, whereas myself and colleagues are paid for 11 hours as we do not get paid for our 2, 1/2 hour meal breaks. In addition, they get their travel costs paid and are put up in a hotel with dinner and breakfast included. In terms of actual income, this effectively equates to approx. £72- £84 per 12 hour shift compared to your average NHS Paramedic.

As many are effectively self-employed they have all the negatives and positives that go with that ie. no paid holidays, sickness pay, job security etc.

To put this in very roughly calculated 'real' terms, a contract Paramedic working the same number of shifts/days (including holidays) would earn somewhere in the region of £12k a year more than I do.

Not that folk'll listen but:

I'm a teacher at a private school in Edinburgh.

Paid about £1600 more per annum, lunches free as we are on duty. Same pension as state.
As far as i can see the differences are, apart from pay, many.

Kids better behaved parents a better more media savvy type of pushy (you won't get punched in the face but the papers love a good "at a top school" story). I am at present in talks with parents whose kid didn't read the info he was sent and so cocked up the timings in an exam.
I do rugby and athletics as well as DofE so some weekends and most saturdays gone through term but i do get dive trips, overseas expeds etc.
Longer holidays but see above. I do think more is expected of us but we do have more freedom in the classroom to let lessons go where they will.

Summed up as; more work, more expected, more pay, more holidays.

(but about to be screwed by the pension change even more so than the public sector)

more work, more expected, more pay, more holidays.

less classroom stress, not sure about the more expected and more work, I'd be suprised, maybe just different things expected or done. I actually was under the impression that state school teachers get paid a little more but apparently I'm wrong. So the pension is the same, how does that work then?

More expected and more work, for example we report up to 5 times a year, "short report, parents evening then a "full report" at the end of each term. The less classroom stress is a given but you'd perhaps be surprised at the amount there still is. Teenagers are teenagers after all.

As for pay, it is because we are seen to do more hours (in the case of the school i'm at). For me the teaching day doesn't finish until 5pm Mon/Tues and Thurs as i have DofE and Rugby sessions also saturdays have reffing or training. 5 or six weekends go on DofE and i run a mountaineering club. These are all "voluntary".
We're a day school but at a boarding school you get a lot more but you will be on duty one night a week and have saturday morning classes then sport.

As for the pension, SPPA, like most other scottish teachers. A pot which is empty as far as i can see and yes something needs to be done but why hit us with three killers when, because my pay is linked to the state sector, there is no payrise against 5% inflation. (i know join the queue of people in that same boat.)

more work, more expected, more pay, more holidays.

What are the class sizes like?

What proportion of kids have SENs? What's truancy like? How many kids have social/emotional disorders?

Edit: sorry - that sounds like an attack. It's not. Apologies.

My point (if there is one...) is that there are many variables between different roles so comparing them between workplaces/companies/state+private can sometimes be very difficult.

Like in the context of being a paramedic, I'd assume that the work of a paramedic in the private sector that deals with industrial injuries (is that what private paramedics do? I'm clueless) is very different from an NHS paramedic working in Soho that deals with a lot of "difficult" (itinerant or substance-abusing or whatever) clients, even if they did the same number of treatments/incidents per shift, had same number of hours per shift etc.

What proportion of kids have SENs? What's truancy like? How many kids have social/emotional disorders?

Even within the public sector, there are these variables. I used to be a primary school teacher - my NQT year class had 50% SEN and 20% with English as second language. I lasted less than 4 terms before I left and vowed never to set foot in a classroom again.

(I should have listened to the previous post-holder, who was ex-police. He only left the police after being stabbed, but walked out of that job and advised me not to apply.)

I'm now teaching A-level ICT in a sixth form college. Same pay scale, completely different job!

i would love a career average pension

of course i have absolutely no intention of finding all of the money that ive already been paid, and spent, that would have been channelled into that pension

in fact, if im asked to, im likely to go on strike

Truancy is low although we do have some.

SEN's at the moment 30% of school population BUT there is a certain degree of parent pushiness for extra time in exams so likely true value is the approx 20% as per national average.
Most classes 20 pupils (upper limit for practical subjects in Scotland senior schools, I teach Chemistry me) My GCSE top set had 21, but all should get A/A*. My Higher set had 14 other set 18. AS set of 8 A2 set of 6 and a "Higher to A-level in a year" set of 8.
Probably have at least one kid in each set for whom English is a second language.

All kids have social and emotional disorders its how they manifest and are treated that is the issue. We have kids with drug and drink problems we take kids who have been "asked to leave" other schools with all sorts of issues but then we have the ability to enforce a two strikes and you're out rule. Although we do try to address these issues with counselling etc. Also have the parents who think we are a baby sitting service and moan when the kids are 30 minutes late back from a three day DofE trip but won't say thanks for taking them. Or my favourite a complaint that we were 36 hours late back from a dive trip (yeah boo-hoo) and hadn't phoned them every half hour to keep them appraised of the situation, then it was inconvenient for them to be picked up at 8pm on the Sunday evening so could we just look after them for an hour or so until the dinner had finished.

Yes, in the main it's an easier teaching environment but don't think that indies have no problems.

AS set of 8 A2 set of 6

22 in my biggest AS set, which I suspect will be 23 next year. Compared to the 36 7-year-olds my wife had in her last Y3 class, I'm pretty lucky 🙂

All schools, state or private, come with different pressures and problems. I think teaching is one area where there's probably quite a lot of parity between the private and public sectors.

The problem is, there aren't that many jobs where equivalent roles can be found.

Mike i agree about the parity across sectors, although many wouldn't. I do get told on many occasions how my life is so easy compared to state sector and it's good that the kids "respect" me. I reckon it's more to do with getting involved either standing on a rugby pitch or getting up a hill with them, guiding them through UCAS or sitting with an A-level paper going through each mark, than they are rich therefore good. We have many kids on full bursaries so no cost at all to the parents.

The AS sets would be huge if it weren't for the Higher course being offered (we run a mixed economy in the S6/S7 years,).

I teach Chemistry me) My GCSE top set had 21, but all should get A/A*. My Higher set had 14 other set 18. AS set of 8 A2 set of 6 and a "Higher to A-level in a year" set of 8.

poor lamb 😆

I teach triple science gcse physics to two sets of 30 all should get A*-B a triple biology who are the same size and same grades. Two science double gcse class pne of 30 another of c-d borderline kids of about 25.....then a Btec science group of 23 all with SEN, and a bottom set year 8 class with lots of sen. I also teach AS biology group of 20 and an A2 group of 8. And finally I have a sixth form tutor group. Next year I'll having triple chemistry too to make the full set

Jesus!

My school's harder than your school etc.

I know two departmental heads in edinburgh, one in an independent school and one in a state school. They work equally hard, get the same paid for trips abroad each year, have similar kids to teach and get paid the same. Both are excellent teachers and the kids respect them for that.

I have had the pleasure of watching a number of classes taken by less able teachers in those same schools and they were hopeless, the kids ran riot and had no respect for their teachers and learned nothing.

Teachers in any type of school will have a hard time with the kids behaviour if they are crap at teaching their subject.

A-A you wouldn't get those set sizes in Scotland as 20 is the max for practical subjects, in fact our new labs were built with a max of 20 factored in.

SbZ shut, it that wasn't my best lesson :evil:.

Oh and we had a stoater of a pupil drinking in the loos a couple of years ago.

Basically excused to go to the loo comes back plastered as had a couple of her mates to different lessons. Hauled out to deputy's office while search is on for the drinks container (all us state educated staff are looking for the old plastic bottle topped with spirits nicked from the drinks cabinet). So much amused when we find the empty bottle of Moet. 😯

My wife also teaches at an Edinburgh private sector school but has previously taught at comprehensives, including a couple of pretty tough ones. Undoubtedly it's better at the private school (and she much prefers it) but it can still be hard work and there is a lot of pressure for success. She also does a fair amount of extra-curriculur stuff, as do most of the teachers at her school.

Go on epic, which part of town?

I am a nurse. diploma and a degree. 25 years experience. Basic pay is £14 an hour. Now how many folk are as well qualified and experienced but work for that sort of money in the private sector?

Morningside.

phew, can't be lambasted for telling tales.

I have worked in government jobs for 20+ years and had several promotions.

I cannot afford to buy a home of my own on my pay grade. The people who work on my grade or any of the grades below me generally rent (often just rooms or bedsits) in poor areas of the city, as unless they have a partner who brings good additional income they cannot afford to buy a home either. Yes, some people get paid very well indeed in government related jobs and this pushes up the average statistics, but the larger [i]number[/i] of people are not earning much. Many are way below £20,000 a year after years of trying their best, often in caring or service roles.

When I started work joining the pension scheme was compulsory and the employer created the pension contract. I have complied with that contract for 20 years+ obeying the rules and deductions set by my employer. Now the government wants to change it and I am being told by newspapers etc that I am a greedy bad person, for complying with the contract of my job. I will have no home when I retire, I will need my pension to rent a bedsit.

I find the attitude of many people not very kind. On this topic and often in general, people say 'oh those people have decent sick pay, oh they have a weeks more holiday than me' and instead of wanting to bring everyone up to a decent level of living, to work towards as many people as possible in the UK having fair pay, decent holiday allowance, the burden of fear removed if they are unfortunate enough to become longer term sick, people instead say 'its not fair they have more than me, bring them down to my level' which is only making their own lives worse in the long term. Bring them down to my level' is a jealous, sulky and short sighted view - there is [i]always[/i] someone worse off then yourself - so where do you stop - when everyone is brought down to living in a cardboard box on 50p an hour pay? Instead work to improve the standards and conditions of employment for all and by default for yourself, your family and any kids you have in future employment.

Think long term/big picture instead of tearing down lower earners to a level that suits the truly well off and their profit margins /greedy ruthless gains from privatisations.

/applauds Midnighthour.

It's interesting just how few private sector have posted, granted it's personal thing and my normal response is "nothing do with you" but I'd thought and show some truth. I'm fortunate but I got there by keep up with my training, working hard and loyalty over the last 21 years.

OHI - You were being complimented there. It was one of the others in the other department who was a bit crap - not Debbie, Mike or Jimmy...

I've worked in the public sector for 20 years (NHS, civil service, university, back in the NHS). About a year ago I was approached by a private sector company and offered a job doing similar sort of work at a similar level. The private company was offering about 20% more on the basic salary + company car or £5K car allowance. On the downside I would have lost about 10 days holiday, plus employers pension contributions would have been about 5% of salary instead of 15% (and the private pension would not have been fixed benefits but subject to the vagaries of the markets). I sat down and worked it all out in terms of pay and benefits earned per day worked and they came out about equal. Things like hours worked per week and flexible working practices were also similar. The decider for me was a combination of location and keeping my holidays, so I stayed in the public sector.

+1 in applauding Midnighthour.

+2 Midnighthour.
Really well put!

I don't think it is right but,

globalisation seems to mean levelling down, everyone will be shafted as pay and conditions worsen over the next few years.

So while the private sector has been shafted for a good few years and on the whole the public sector hasn't now it is the turn of the public sector. What will it mean, outsourcing, longer hours, worse t&c's etc. Oh and the senior mangers getting more and more money.

All i can say is i was made redundant march last year, having done some temp work and have now got a permanent role, In that time the best paid roles were public sector, Not saying much though, most of the jobs i have seen advertised have been well short of 20k.

But i fail to see how it is in anyones interest to have no money in the economy, which is basically what is happening. Pay for rent, food, fuel and that is it.

Odd how with all the talk of pensions i seem to have missed any mention of MP's and their scheme being revised?

Teachers in any type of school will have a hard time with the kids behaviour if they are crap at teaching their subject.

a huge oversimplification, yes shit teachers are shit but an average teacher can get by with nice kids but would be crucified at a tough inner city school

its nothing to do with globalisation. Public sector jobs cannot be shifted overseas.

Tandem, you are wrong, some public sector jobs can't be shifted i will agree with you on that. A nurse has to be with the patient, a road sweeper where the road is.

But what of the accountant, the IT support, the call centres, etc etc. If you don't have to be in the same physical place as the end user then you can be outsourced and your pay will be at the lowest they can be justified.

Birmingham City Council has just made the decision to outsource some of its IT to India

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8552402/Birmingham-council-to-outsource-100-jobs-to-India.html ]Birmingham council to outsource 100 jobs to India[/url]

So while the private sector has been shafted for a good few years and on the whole the public sector hasn't now it is the turn of the public sector.

If you shift everything overseas how does the country survive when nobody has a job?

SbZ, your point is? we live in a global market, there will be jobs but you will have to compete with vietnamese, Indians, etc.

This is my point, and the problem, the country will survive, but when all your money is spent on surviving and not consuming how does a market function?

And when the private workers are earning £5per hour, public servants will face there wages be slashed as the cost will be unaffordable. There will be some with money, the same at the top of the tree now will still be there erecting their fences and employing guards to protect their wealth.

I hope i am wrong by the way, i just don't see any effort by any party to protect people in this country to ensure a reasonable standard of living.

mrmo - completely irrelevant

I think what mrmo is getting at is this whole rolling ball of s**t is turning into a race to the bottom.

The real problem is not public sector pensions, it's crap private sector pensions.

No.

Private companies cannot guarantee that they will still be in existence six months into the future, nor can they legally levy taxes on the entire population to cover any guarantees they make. Private companies can and do fail, leaving their creditors wanting.

As such, private sector pensions have to be fully funded and affordable, at all times. With a good margin for error. Why can some people not grasp this simple concept?

A private company cannot pay its workers whatever they want today, nor can it make silly promises for tomorrow. There is a limited pot. Private companies cannot require 3rd parties to take over and make good any foolish promises they make.

Public sector schemes must also become fully funded. They will do. Whatever unions think.

The fella I feel sorry for is the guy at Birmingham City Council working on regeneration and trying to pursuade companies Brum is a good place to do business. Must have been a tough day when his own organisation made him look like a chump.

not irrelevant Tandem, so far many jobs have gone from the private sector and been sent abroad, it is starting to happen in the public sector. As has been pointed out how can you compare like for like across public and private because in a lot of cases there is no duplication of duty.

Where there could be duplication, ie customer services, back office, alot of this has gone.

And at the end of the day the public sector is paid for by the private sector, you may not like it but driving down costs and keeping wages low in the private sector will force the public sector the same way. The first step is the easy one, drive pensions down, it isn't in your pay today so easier to do.

The few jobs i have seen over the last year job hunting have paid more in the public sector than similar jobs in the private sector, this is admin type work.

dmjb4

What you don't get is they have been reformed and (mostly) have a limit on any taxpayers contributions.

For example the NHS pension fund is in surplus - more is taken in each moth than goes out. this has been the case for decades. this money is used as revenue by the exchequer not invested - so this money has to be paid back by the exchequer in future

No union is saying all reform is off the table - but it must be reasonable and proportionate and not punative

The scandal is crap private sector pensions that the taxpayer will have to pick up the tab for in benefits. Private companies should be made to make reasonable pension provision. If it applies to all companies there is no competitive disadvantage to them in doing so.

TJ - I thought the NHS scheme had a rather large deficit, not a surplus as you suggest? The telegraph reported a £165B black hole only 2 years ago...

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1544058/NHS-pension-black-hole-rises-by-61bn.html ]NHS Black Hole[/url]

Thats the lies and propaganda. [b] The surplus is a current surplus. More money is paid in in contributions than is paid out now[/b]. that report a theoretical worst case scenario in the future. If everyone lives to 100+ taking their pensions and no increase in contributions - of course what that doesn't say is the scheme has been revised to stop this happening

The current surplus is used as revenue by the exchequer as its a revenue scheme - this money is not invested. Thus if there is a deficit in the future the government has to make it good as it has not saved or invested the current surplus.