Forum menu
I for one want the cheapest doctors and nurses you can find when I need to go to hospital.
I think you need to learn to read TJ 🙄
My dad is just coming up to retirement as an NHS Consultant Paediatrian. He's been 'public sector' all his life (first as an Army doc, then a GP, then back into hospital medicine). Even with the pension, I suspect that bankers of equivalent [b]experience[/b] and [b]seniority[/b] would consider his salary to be mere small change. That for doing an [i]intensely[/i] demanding job - not least neonates and PICU.
IME, people who **** off about Ayn Rand and the beauty of competition are usually unable to explain how this actually works in areas like acute care. How does consumer choice operate in touch-and-go emergency situations, or [i]very[/i] high risk/high mortality interventions? And be quick, because ICU transfer teams generally need more than vague platitudes about the beauty of the market. To be frank, I [i]*ing laugh[/i] when square mile types bang on about risk, pressure and long hours.
Anybody listening to that R4 programme would agree that the NHS would benefit from some degree of de-centralisation. But it won't be the "market" that picks up the slack. Big teaching hospitals will [re]re-invent themselves as charitable institutions. And acute care will be concentrated in fewer (if larger) centres. Continental social-insurance type systems certainly aren't "pure" markets, though they do benefit from higher investment.
And Serco etc can * right off. 👿
Zulu - you have not explained why huge cash incentives is needed to recruit in teh private sector but not in the public sector.
You have gone off on all sorts of tangents with all sorts of irrelevance to the question.
Please answer the question
Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?
Only one thing for it:
TJ - simple question
If I offered you two jobs, both identical, both paying the same -
one had high risk and low security( ie. that if you did not reduce cost by 10% you would be sacked, there was a risk that the company could go under, and a chance that the shareholders could dismiss you at any point)
while the other was a long term guaranteed post, whereby you could only be dismissed for gross negligence (eg a civil service post) with no defined performance criteria and a guaranteed final salary pension backed by the state.
Which would you accept?
THAT is why private sector posts pay more 🙄
Now TJ - if the wages in the private sector are so much higher - why don't you work there?
[i]Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?[/i]
Zulu-Eleven, answer this please.
Take into consideration that Chief Execs in NHS Hospitals are subject to criminal proceedings as individuals should infection control targets not be met...
Compare that with the way those financial wizards in the private sector managed to convincingly **** over our entire economy with absolutely no comeback at all...
[i]high risk and low security[/i]
Yes, if there's one thing we can say about the financial sector, it's that Banks cannot - and should not - expect any help from the taxpayer. Right?
Compare that with the way those financial wizards in the private sector managed to convincingly **** over our entire economy with absolutely no comeback at all...
Sorry, who [b]chose[/b] to put money in their high interest accounts, and who [b]chose[/b] to borrow more than they could afford to pay back - not the bankers! higher interest means higher risk, if you choose to invest in a dodgy bank that is clearly playing the markets, then you should risk losing it - don't blame the banks, blame the greed of the investors.
Yes, if there's one thing we can say about the financial sector, it's that Banks cannot - and should not - expect any help from the taxpayer. Right?
Hey, as a fan of the free market, I couldn't agree more! The banks should have failed, [u]and the people who [b]chose[/b] to invest in them should have lost their money [/u]- thats how the free market works!
but we're getting way off topic.
[i]but we're getting way off topic.[/i]
..and you appear to be still ducking the simple question...
how, I've answered it repeatedly? higher risk means more money - the way of the world.
Do you work in the private or public sector Crikey?
and if so, why?
[i]Sorry, who chose to put money in their high interest accounts, and who chose to borrow more than they could afford to pay back - not the bankers! higher interest means higher risk[/i]
..and, incidentally, I didn't put any money into high interest accounts, and I've never borrowed more than I can afford to pay back. As a public servant of some 20 odd years, I have seen my wage and my contribution to society treated like some piggy bank to prop up the actual banks who ****ed up in the first place....
Answer the question.
[i]thats how the free market works![/i]
Does it, my arse.
[i]not the bankers[/i]
Yes, the poor dears were actually [i]forced[/i] into arcane financial instruments. Like a fat kleptomaniac with an eating disorder in a sweet shop... it's society's fault, you know!
As a public servant of some 20 odd years
So why don't you go and work in the private sector instead ?
Yes, the poor dears were actually forced into arcane financial instruments
So who invested in them? why should the people who [b]greedily[/b] chose the accounts with the highest interest rates get off scott free without losing a penny?
[i]how, I've answered it repeatedly? higher risk means more money - the way of the world.[/i]
No you haven't.
[i]Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?[/i]
This is the question.
Answer it.
High interest accounts?! No such thing (at the moment)!
Lots of our public sector clients are losing staff but it seems they are now using our services more and more.
We thought the new govt would be the end of some of our clients in terms of PR - quite the opposite!
[i]So why don't you go and work in the private sector instead ?[/i]
Because you don't get localised Intensive Care Medicine in the private sector; it's too expensive....
Crikey - which part of not answering the question does this involve:
if I offered you two jobs, both identical, both paying the same -one had high risk and low security( ie. that if you did not reduce cost by 10% you would be sacked, there was a risk that the company could go under, and a chance that the shareholders could dismiss you at any point)
while the other was a long term guaranteed post, whereby you could only be dismissed for gross negligence (eg a civil service post) with no defined performance criteria and a guaranteed final salary pension backed by the state.
Which would you accept?
THAT is why private sector posts pay more
Because you don't get localised Intensive Care Medicine in the private sector; it's too expensive....
Well, if its so good out in the real world, get another job!
Alternatively, theres plenty of other countries happy to recruit trained medical staff on good money where you [b]do[/b] get localised Intensive Care Medicine in the private sector!
[i]So why don't you go and work in the private sector instead ?[/i]
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm waiting for Bob Diamond to come and do my shifts.
That's how the Big Society is gonna work, right?
[i]We thought the new govt would be the end of some of our clients in terms of PR[/i]
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/20/david-cameron-the-pr-years ]Cam loves PR![/url] 😀
[i]Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?[/i]
Answer the question, instead of pretending to.
Crikey - learn to read, then answer
Which job would you accept?
[i]Well, if its so good out in the real world, get another job!
Alternatively, theres plenty of other countries happy to recruit trained medical staff on good money where you do get localised Intensive Care Medicine in the private sector![/i]
Money money money money money money money.
Hmmm. You appear to be one of those lovely people who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
One day you, or someone you know will require the help of me or someone like me.
That makes me smile.
communism
its the only answer
Ah yes. Katyn massacre. Anyone who you don't like just neutralise them.
[i]So who invested in them?[/i]
Not me. Nor have I surfed the wave of the property boom. I own a tent, though.
[i]Alternatively, theres plenty of other countries...[/i]
Careful Z-11 - you might be in danger of suggesting that NHS ITU actually provides good value for money. Shocking, eh?
OK, so [b]now[/b] you accept that money isn't everything, you're coming round to my point of view.
So whats your problem?
You are giving a fantastic definition of [b]why[/b] we need to pay more to attract people to work in the private sector, because you [b]choose[/b] to work in a job that pays less than the private sector equivalent would, you could leave and go and work in the private sector in another country at any time but you [b]choose[/b] not to.
now, ask yourself [i]why[/i] you make that decision, and you see why I would need to pay a huge amount more to attract you to the private sector
we have a breakthrough 😀
Come on then Crikey - I run a private sector hospital, I have a vacancy that needs filling by someone with your exact skill set - what package would it take for me to attract you from your current job to come and work for me - name your price!
And the Liverpool City Council are £120,000,000 in debt!? WTF!!!
[i]in a job that pays less than the private sector equivalent would... I run a private sector hospital[/i]
The irony being - there's a healthy global labour market for experienced medical and nursing personnel. I mean, [i]why[/i] do we want them here? With their fussy notions of a reasonable, comprehensive level of care? And their ghastly habit of scooping ANY sick taxpayer off the pavement?
ps. Z-11 - you lack commercial acumen, old boy. Forget ITU cover and just site your plush private affair on a roundabout near a major teaching hospital. Saves dealing with anything more complicated than an elective procedure and the wine list. Cheaper, too. 8)
I see....
The reason private sector wages are high is my fault!
Because I'm so dedicated, you have to pay more to get me to work for you....
There isn't enough money in the world to make me: I do what I do because I love it.
Poor little money driven thing. You will learn as you get older that shiny pennies can't buy everything.
ou will learn as you get older that shiny pennies can't buy everything.
Wahey, you're cooking with gas now!
Come on then, play the game:
I run a private sector hospital, I have a vacancy that needs filling by someone with your exact skill set - what package would it take for me to attract you from your current job to come and work for me - name your price!
Because I'm so dedicated, you have to pay more to get me to work for you.... There isn't enough money in the world to make me: I do what I do because I love it.
Come on, everyone has their price!
Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?
You tell me Crikey! think about what you've posted above and answer your own question!
crikey - Member
As a public servant of some 20 odd years, I have seen my wage and my contribution to society treated like some piggy bank to prop up the actual banks who ****ed up in the first place....
How much of your income do you think has been spent on "propping up" the Banks?
Zulu. Zulu, zulu, zulu....
You've agreed that money can't buy everything, but then you insist that everyone has a price....
There is an essential contradiction there; can you spot it?
..and you still haven't answered the question; if you, a private sector employer can offer me a vast amount of money to do the job that you want me to do, why can't the public sector demand the same quality and match your offer?
Cost is not the same as value....
No, be accurate, I said you were cooking with gas, I didn't agree, however I did say that money isn't [u]everything[/u]You've agreed that money can't buy everything,
Yep! which is why [i]"huge cash incentives are needed to recruit the best people into the private sector"[/i]but then you insist that everyone has a price....
why can't the public sector demand the same quality and match your offer?
Because [b]theres no need to [/b] Crikey - in your own words, [u]you do it for the love of it[/u]!
Obviously, the only way to change that, is for you (and others) to be willing to leave and go to the private sector... of course, if more of you are willing to leave, then that removes the need for such [i]huge cash incentives[/i] - self regulating supply and demand, the way of the free market 😀
But if the people who work in the public sector were all money grabbing heartless bastards, as opposed to my shining altruistic self, your example would fall flat on its face.
Again, I find it somewhat surprising* that the reason for high private sector salaries is the good natured and helpful public servant approach.
*ie, I think it's bollocks.
...it would help the debate along if you didn't keep editing your replies; are you being paid by the word?
[i]Because theres no need to...[/i]
You are simply admitting that Crikey & the like punch well above their weight in terms of value. Besides, in your hypothetical private hospital, hiring [b]one[/b] ITU nurse, however experienced, isn't going to be much use without the extensive back-up provided by medical teams, imaging, resus, gasmen, porters etc, etc. It's why a major trend in emergency care (e.g. trauma) is towards centralising resources. But you continue to fantasize about some kind of happy supermarket future. 🙄
Apologies crikey...
But if the people who work in the public sector were all money grabbing heartless bastards, as opposed to my shining altruistic self, your example would fall flat on its face.
Yes, as I said above, supply and demand... the more people willing to leave, the less need for the huge incentive. the same applies in the private sector, headhunters offering significant incentives and companies fighting to retain staff.
Think about if the NHS pay settlements were not national - you would probably get paid less to work in the North than in London, as the cost of living/housing etc is lower, but like we said, money isn't [b]everything[/b] - you'd be [b]free to choose.[/b]
Noteeth - its an example to prove the rule, a microcosm of just [u]why[/u] senior private sector executives demand a higher wage than public ones.
I think this argument has probably run its course; it's essentially ideological, and your view and mine are probably different sides of the same coin...
But; you are also guilty of oversimplification with respect to me; yes, I could earn more by working elsewhere, even in the public sector, and could certainly earn more by moving to Saudi Arabia, or even Australia, in the private sector.
But oversimplifying; to get the length of service and therefore skill and experience that makes me who I am, I have had to work for a long time, which brings with it family.....
Essentially, I am not a 'free agent' able to move at will to the place that pays the best ( shades of Norman Tebbit and his bicycle related comment).
The whole free market thing begins to crumble when the real world is allowed to intrude; whatever you do, I suspect that you wouldn't move to the North Pole to earn 3 pence more an hour...
The fundamental point remains; public service jobs are not second best; it's about [i]serving the public[/i] and those jobs deserve to be renumerated as well as they can be; peanuts/monkeys springs to mind.
As I mentioned; at some point you or yours will encounter me or people like me; we do a good job for less than we could earn elsewhere....
[i]a microcosm of just why senior private sector executives demand a higher wage than public ones[/i].
Oh yeah? By and large, I'd say a large number just push to [i]see what they can get away with[/i], regardless of "value". IMO, the increase in CEO salary/bonus arrangements is in no way commensurate with, say, gains in pension funds. Indeed, top tier salaries far outstrip those of the shopfloor - usually on the basis of weak-ass excuses about attracting the "brightest and best" (who periodically threaten to leave, but invariably don't). I'd rather [i]some[/i] of our brightest and best minds went into Science, Medicine and Engineering - as opposed to bludy McKinsey and BarCap. That might be somewhat romantic of me, but I'd suspect it's what once made us leaders in many fields. Indeed, it's what made the NHS a great [i]teaching[/i] institution, once upon another time.
communism
its the only answer
No it's not why should everyone get the same regardless of what they do and how much efort they put in?
we do a good job for less than we could earn elsewhere....
Yes, you do, 100% agreed - but the question was [b]why[/b] private sector wages are so much higher - and you said it yourself "[i]I am not a 'free agent' able to move at will to the place that pays the best[/i] and that you [i]"do it for the love of it"[/i] - Quite often, the private sector [u]wants[/u] you to move at will to meet their business needs, so they [u]have[/u] to pay commensurately.
As you said [i]"whatever you do, I suspect that you wouldn't move to the North Pole to earn 3 pence more an hour..."[/i] - no, they wont, you'd probably have to offer some sort of [u]huge cash incentive[/u]
edit: You need to understand that saying that the private sector pays more than the public sector for very understandable reasons is [b]not[/b] an attack, or an attempt to belittle you as a public service worker, its a statement based on economic facts and human nature
As a parting thought, how would you feel if our soldiers chose to adopt that private sector money chasing mentality?
Would you be happy to see the SAS working for the highest bidder?
What value is duty, or honour in your brave new world?
Remember, not only the good guys have the most money...
Think about if the NHS pay settlements were not national - you would probably get paid less to work in the North than in London,
[url= http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=766 ]Ahem.[/url]
High Cost Area Supplements:Area
Level (1 April 2010)
Inner London
20% of basic salary, subject to a minimum payment of £4,036 and a maximum payment of £6,217
Outer London
15% of basic salary, subject to a minimum payment of £3,414 and a maximum payment of £4,351
Fringe
5% of basic salary, subject to a minimum payment of £933 and a maximum payment of £1,616
Crikey, you've not seen whats happened in both US and UK special forces?
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11355
Huge retention difficulties as men leave to become private security contractors on big money.
Ever heard of the Gurkha's? do you think they fight for us [u]purely[/u] for duty and honour? the same with a great many commonwealth soldiers?
Julianwilson, OK, london weighting - regardless, as its a standard formula rather than market competition - take another example, Liverpool versus Edinburgh...
All recent PM's have set their own salary, and for politcal/vote touting reasons they deliberately set their salary well below the market rate. If they allowed their salary to be set by the review body it would be close to double what the current PM is paid. However any PM, let alone a young one,is fully aware that a) they'll never have to put their hand in their pocket while they are in office and b) being a former PM is massively more lucrative than being they current one. Their future finances are not something they have to worry about. That makes it an utterly meanlingless bench mark to compare any other public sector salary to, i'd even go further and say its a deliberately deceptive benchmark to use.
It works though, 3 pages of internet banter hours before the show has even aired. Its the model of contemporary current affairs programming - encourage the audience (even the people who probably won't watch) to form and voice their opinions first, then possibly learn some facts later.
crikey - Member
As a parting thought, how would you feel if our soldiers chose to adopt that private sector money chasing mentality?
You mean if we paid the soldiers less, there would be fewer of them?
Would this be a [i]bad[/i] thing?