[Closed] Over 9000 Public Sector workers earn more than the Prime Minister!!!!

Julianwilson, OK, london weighting - regardless, as its a standard formula rather than market competition - take another example, Liverpool versus Edinburgh...

Gladly. They don't want you to know they do but they certainly try.

Plenty of nhs trusts have monkeyed around with their job (well knowledge and skills framework in HR-speak) profiles so you get a higher or lower pay band (or 'grade' in old money) for similar posts jobs in different trusts. Reason for this is supply and demand or retention of existing staff in areas with high turnovers. Conversely, empty posts are often re-banded to save money if they think local applicants are desperate enough to go for it rather than go elsewhere. In the old (pre-agenda for change 2004) days, trusts could start staff part way into a payscale in order to make a crap job more attractive to staff at the bottom of those payscales. Whilst doing this on a couple of service areas, my trust also always refused to pay 'psychiatric lead' (flat rate 'danger money' related to where you worked not what position you occupied) because they knew people would just work here anyway cos it was sunny Devon. (they had it dressed up in some faintly ridiculous blurb about 'lifestyle benefits' 😆 )

[i]Huge retention difficulties as men leave to become private security contractors on big money.[/i]

By your logic, then, mercenary armies should be a good thing. I suspect that's not the case, or indeed your personal view. Recession is good for infantry recruitment - is that enough to explain going the extra distance for yer muckers? Or enough to explain taking pride in the regimental goat?!

For Christ/Thatcher's sake, Z-11 - nobody here needs a lesson in basic Adam Smith. Is it so hard to grasp market principles [i]and[/i] the possibility that people - yer actual real people - aren't simple 2D economic actors? If you take the prescriptive view that everybody is guided entirely by self-interest, then you will end up with a equally reductive view of what constitutes "value".

In other words, Stoner may disagree with the views of TJ, but openly admits on 'ere that he couldn't do his job. [i]Ergo[/i], should we ask Stoner how much he would have to be paid in order to be a nurse - and use that as a basis for a national pay deal? 😉

So Julian - It appears you're saying that the system cannot function without some form of regulation for supply and demand?

Wouldn't it be better if it was simply open and honest freedom for trusts to set wages, rather than by subterfuge?

edit: Noteeth - TJ's original position was that

So that the NHS is outbid for decent managers by private companies? We all agree the NHS is not as well managed as it could be. Surely having the best possible managers in place will help and you need to pay them highly to attract the talent?

I think you'd have to agree, that the discussion above shows that its [b]not[/b] just down to the money.

For Christ/Thatcher's sake, Z-11 - nobody here needs a lesson in basic Adam Smith. Is it so hard to grasp market principles and the possibility that people - yer actual real people - aren't simple 2D economic actors? If you take the prescriptive view that everybody is guided entirely by self-interest, then you will end up with a equally reductive view of what constitutes "value".

Your speaking to someone who only has self-interest. I find it hilarious when he talks about "freedom" and "choice" for in his ideal world those values are only afforded to a wealthy minority.

Thought I'd repeat this from the first page as it seems you ignored it Z-11.

The Economic Elite have escalated their attack on U.S. workers over the past few years; however, this attack began to build intensity in the 1970s. In 1970, CEOs made $25 for every $1 the average worker made. Due to technological advancements, production and profit levels exploded from 1970 - 2000. With the lion's share of increased profits going to the CEO's, this pay ratio dramatically rose to $90 for CEOs to $1 for the average worker.

As ridiculous as that seems, an in-depth study in 2004 on the explosion of CEO pay revealed that, including stock options and other benefits, CEO pay is more accurately $500 to $1.

[b]Due to this, the United States already had the highest inequality of wealth in the industrialized world prior to the financial crisis.[/b] Since the crisis, which has hit the average worker much harder than CEOs, the gap between the top one percent and the remaining 99% of the US population has grown to a record high. The economic top one percent of the population now owns over 70% of all financial assets, an all time record.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/145705/the_richest_1%25_have_captured_america%27s_wealth_--_what%27s_it_going_to_take_to_get_it_back

El bent, see my edit above.

regards your other point - Sorry, what is it? That you'd rather see the poor poorer as long as it meant the rich were less rich?

As they sit homeless, waiting for the next dole cheque, the poor can have the the satisfaction of knowing there are fewer rich people in the world?

I think we can answer that one mate:

😆

I think we can answer that one mate

So you were paraphrasing Thatcher ratty ?

😕 But surely Thatcher was considerably to the left of you ?

For example, unlike you and your guru Dan Hannan, she didn't want to scrap free health care.

Amazing innit?............First we have a massive crisis of the capitalist system (not the first and for as long as this system continues, certainly not the last) provoked in this instance by finance capital (the banks)...........then we have the whole system being kept afloat by massive injections of public sector money worldwide (the Keynesian solution) with the aforementioned banks being bailed out and most of their jobs at the higher level saved...............and now we decide to forget all that and blame who??? The public sector, the very same public sector which ensured that the entire edifice didn't come tottering down and ensured that we were still able to get cash from holes in the wall and buy our bloody MTBs! Come on, you rightwing numb skulls, at least be honest - it's YOUR system which f****d up but oh no, it's not your system which will pay for it - let's blame it on the poor and the weak and on the very same public sector which only came into being because capitalism couldn't deliver a balanced society. Read history and learn - or you will indeed be part of the problem and not the solution.......and in the meantime, if your judgement of balance is that poor, YOU'RE GONNA FALL OFF!

unlike you and your guru Dan Hannan, she didn't want to scrap free health care.

Ernie - I challenge you to show me a quote where Dan Hannan says he wishes to end 'free at the point of need' healthcare.

Here makes very clear indeed that he detests free health care in the UK :

You would [i]never ever[/i] have heard Thatcher slag off the NHS like that.

Nope, he says that the UK system of health care is flawed, cant say I disagree

However, I ask again Ernie - [b]a quote where he says he wants to 'scrap free health care' [/b]- which is the allegation you made.

Can't be bothered wading through all that twaddle because I've read it all before in some form or another, besides a lot of it appears to be Labrat/Zulu trying to impress just how right-wing he is to get attention as usual. He's never said owt of any real note before, so I doubt very much he's suddenly started now. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 😀

Plus, its against the Elfinesco - why do they need more money?

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/a-modern-day-robin-hood/page/2#post-1806701

Dear oh dear oh dear. I see the Elfin[i]festo[/i] is a concept a little beyond your narrow-minded and blinkered way of 'thinking' (can you call it that?). Best leave it to the grown ups eh, sunshine? 😉

[b]kimbers[/b] - Member
communism
its the only answer

No, no, no- [i][b]Elfinism[/b][/i] is the only answer.

Dunno Elfin - I managed to make you go wibble enough to get yourself banned on the Lazytown thread, so I must have said something worthwhile 😉

I ask again Ernie - a quote where he says he wants to 'scrap free health care'

He says free health care is a disaster and that the Americans [u]should not[/u] adopt it.

He does not use the precise words [i]"it should be scrapped"[/i].....show me were I claim that he did ?

Obviously he wants to scrap it......why on earth would he want to keep free health care when he thinks it is a complete disaster and, quote : "a sixty year failed experiment"

And btw ratty, he is a liar.

He tells his American audience that the NHS was founded in 1944 during the war and at time of "general mobilisation" - not in "peace time".

That is a lie. The NHS was founded in 1948, in peacetime, and after Britain had demobbed.

Hannan knows that - he might be many things, but he is not stupid. Just a liar.

Did you? I must have missed it. Especially considering I din't actually get banned for that at all, it was something completely unrelated. So don't flatter yourself.

As you were. I've got some interesting looking mould developing on a bit of cheddar in me fridge. Must go and investigate.

X

No Ernie - he says the UK model is a disaster... you said "unlike you and your guru Dan Hannan, she didn't want to scrap free health care" so, you really can't support your argument can you Ernie.

as regards 1944, well, that is the date of the white paper which led to the creation of the NHS proper!

Cmon Fred, do the pictures, do the pictures - wibble hatstand meltdown time, its gotta happen sooner or later 😀

regards your other point - Sorry, what is it? That you'd rather see the poor poorer as long as it meant the rich were less rich?

Erm, no. The point being that you subscribe to the survival of the fittest school of thought, a thought being impressed upon the less fit shall we say by those who are already fit. So how much choice you have in your world is based entirely upon how much money you have...or not. You're very American in your thinking, believing that freedom to chose shall set everyone free, where that kind of freedom is a prison to most who don't have the financial means to exercise it.

The public sector, the very same public sector which ensured that the entire edifice didn't come tottering down and ensured that we were still able to get cash from holes in the wall and buy our bloody MTBs!

While the financial sector of this country which caused large percentage of the economic problems has largely been forgotten about in all the fervent right wing bluster over the "problematic" public sector, it shouldn't be forgotten that the government debt was building up before the bailout. If the economic collapse hadn't happened when it did, it would of happened perhaps ten-fifteen years down the line if the spending, both Government and personal pre-credit crunch had continued.

Long term benefit culture, when the benefit system was only designed for individual short term use is part of the problem, (thanks for that link to her Ratty, very appropriate for this point)and can be resolved via Better education and job creation.

There is also the high cost of living to consider, which means the benefit systems customers have become more middle class so to speak. Nursery vouchers for instance. We also don't want to pay the appropriate tax rate for the services we want.

Back to the ratty link, It's great that you posted it ratty, she was someone who didn't quite share you elitist views of society because she turned the university system from elitist to an almost free for all. Shame that nowadays we have too many academics and not enough trades and engineers and the like, but hey you can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.

[Burp] S'cuse I.

[img] [/img]

Oh and here you are ratty, in this clip the leader of the Tory Party David Cameron is denouncing Dan Hannan for attacking the NHS. And he reaffirms that despite what Hannan says, health care will remain free in the UK :

http://vodpod.com/watch/2053440-nhs-attack-by-mep-unpatriotic

Obviously David Cameron agrees with me, and saw what Dan Hannan said as an attack on free health care in the UK.

Clearly you and Hannan are considerably to the right of both Thatcher and Cameron.

So don't insult Thatcher by suggesting that she shares your views.

dekadanse - Member
Amazing innit?............First we have a massive crisis of the capitalist system (not the first and for as long as this system continues, certainly not the last) provoked in this instance by finance capital (the banks)...........then we have the whole system being kept afloat by massive injections of public sector money worldwide

That's funny, I didn't know that the public sector was actually generating [i]any[/i] money to enable it to be made available for the banking sector. Well, I guess that there must be one or two small operations which actually run at a profit.

FWIW, RBS alone generated pre-tax profits of over £45Bn for the years 2004-2008. That's quite a few schools and hospitals right there.

That's funny, I didn't know that the public sector was actually generating any money to enable it to be made available for the banking sector.

where did he say that it did?

I'm a public sector worker and I earn more than the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister in question was Pitt the Younger.

😆

Very good...

Pitt the Younger was not Prime Minister.

He was First Lord of the Treasury.

Just thought I would clear that up.

Carry on .......

And the Liverpool City Council are £120,000,000 in debt!? WTF!!!

That's nothing; the football club are £280,000,000 in debt!

Man Utd are in debt by over £1 [i]Billion[/i], and Roman Abrahamovitch can call in the £726 Million the Chelsea 'owe' him at any time.

And these are football clubs. Private enterprises.

So where's all the money gone? Where's it all gonna come from to pay off these debts?

That is very pedantic Ernie as even the No 10 website calls him a PM, and somehow a thread title of "Over 9000 Public Sector workers earn more than the First Lord of the Treasury!!!!" would not have been quite so catchy.

That is very pedantic Ernie

Why thank you 8)

so did zulu ever answer the question " why do you need to give huge incentives to private sector senior mangers to recruit the best but not in the public sector"

I couldn't see an answer Usually woffling on about irelevancies but no answer to this.

We are not talking about ITU nurses - we are talking about the senior management that earn more than the PM

TJ, did you answer the question asked of you?

If you had, then you would see the answer to your own...

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?

[b]THAT is why private sector posts pay more [/b]

Now TJ - if the wages in the private sector are so much higher - [u]why don't you work there?[/u]

private sector managers carry failure with them - if they fail, they get sacked, possibly prosecuted

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7921778.stm ]you mean like this?[/url]

and more often than not they'll never get employed in the same field again,

Ok, this is only one example, but it is the example of the man who led a company to the highest corporate losses in UK history, and as such could be described as the most incompetent business leader ever, far outshining any examples of incompetence in the public sector. And in this fear of failure private sector of yours he's forced to struggle by on a pension several times higher than the most highly paid public servant. If that was the kind of threat I had hanging over my head, my attitude to work might be somewhat different.
Some your posts have been pretty funny so far zulu - but I'm really looking forward to your explanantion of how this some indication of the high price of failure in the private sector.
Not holding my breath though

PMSL

Fault of the free market? private sectors fault was it?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/revealed-salmond-s-support-for-goodwin-over-disastrous-rbs-deal-1.1046662

Alex Salmond personally offered Sir Fred Goodwin the support of the Scottish Government for the disastrous takeover that almost ruined the Royal Bank of Scotland.

A previously secret letter, released to the Sunday Herald after an 18-month Freedom of Information battle, shows the First Minister fully endorsed Goodwin in his reckless bid for the Dutch bank ABN Amro in 2007.

He offered the then RBS chief executive “any assistance my office can provide”, and said it would be in Scotland’s best interests for RBS to succeed with the takeover attempt.

Salmond later described the deal, which proved a catastrophe for RBS and came to symbolise Goodwin’s mismanagement, as a “huge mistake”.

Goodwin sent a handwritten reply, but did not take up the offer of assistance

Perhaps if they had taken the assistance they could place the blame elsewhwere? After all if I offer to help you buy a bike and you refuse would it be my fault if the wheel fell off?

EDIT : TNF I think you have answered the question repeatedly. You seem to think that we have greater job security in the public sector than in the private sector. I am sure the next four years will demonstrate that fact. Is it not gideons great plan to reduce our number and let the private enterprise step into the wake and employ us all. Cant wait for the extra money I will get when this happens.

So no answer from Zulu then.

Its about why the huge incentives are needed to attarct the best into senior management roles in the private sector but not in the public sector.

Job security? are you seriously saying that ( not that its true anyway) that you need to offer someone huge money plus stock options to entice a high quality manager into the private sector but you can get people of the same calibre for a lot less in the public sector because the job is more secure? Bullshine.

As I've said TJ - if the wages in the private sector are so much higher - why don't [u]you[/u] work there?

😉

Salmond later described the deal, which proved a [b]catastrophe[/b] for RBS and came to symbolise [b]Goodwin’s mismanagement[/b], as a[b] “huge mistake”.[/b]

Ahhh, wait, I see because a politician tried to lend some support after the event, it's all the public sector's fault was it? really, is that what you're claiming? And how's your career as a laughing stock coming along? Shaping nicely by the look of things

I am not a senior manager.

come on Zulu - I am sure there is a simple explanation that makes sense

Huge cash incentives are not need to attract quality senior managers in the public sector because of (mythical) job security? That won't wash

I am sure there is a [s]simple[/s] made up and completely hilarious explanation that makes no sense

Dont try and move your own goalposts and restrict it to "senior managers" TJ - you originally stated:

Oh - and the NHS worker that earn that much -many of them will be doctors - medical consultants can earn that much. Basic salary plus merit bonuses. Dunno if it includes GPs - they earn around that much but have to pay for the salaries of other staff and to buy their premises out of their salaries

So TJ - come on. why don't you work there?

Zulku - actually I do work in the private sector as well as the public sector.

You still have not answered the question. I have not moved the goalposts. The question always was if huge salaries and bonuses can be reconciled in the private sector by needing to pay highly to attract the best in the context of earning more than the PM then why not in the public sector - thats the question you have been dancing around but not answering.

Edit - and from what I saw of the original article it does include GPs and their gross income.

Dave and Clegg have only been in the job for about an hour and a half, they're still on probation surely? Once they've got a few years building up some experience, then maybe they may get payed more?

Oh and has anybody mentioned all the fringe benfits you get as PM, making a bloody fortune on the after dinner circuit, sitting on boards of companies etc.

Cos that's their private sector income and is paid commensurate to their worth.

So TJ - come on. why don't you work there?

The high earners at the top of the private sector ARE frequently rewarded for failure. It's like an exclusive club - insulting to hard working people! In this case, as a customer, you do get a degree of choice as to whether you want to continue to fund their businesses.

However, the vast majority in the private sector are perpertually under a lot of pressure to deliver. Failure to perform is a great concern and job insecurity is much more of an issue than for those in the public sector (perhaps until now).

People in the private sector (whatever they earn), aren't the issue here because their organisations are not entirely funded by taxes.

This thread is all about individuals drawing huge salaries from the public purse (your pocket) - non-profit public services.

The situation should have never arisen, but we can thank Gordon Brown and the Labour party for this mess. NOBODY ELSE!

Come on then - lets talk about public sector employees being forced to fall on their swords for horrific faliures to carry out their job properly...

How About the procurement of eight HC3 chinooks for the RAF! Nearly half a billion pounds over budget!

"...the most incompetent procurement of all time...might as well have bought eight turkeys."

"a gold-standard procurement cock-up"

Show me the public sector employees who have lost their jobs over that one - then tell me that there's no additional job security in the public sector - do you think for [u]one second[/u] that the people responsible would have kept their jobs in the private sector.

Nearly half a billion pounds over budget!

do you think for one second that the people responsible would have kept their jobs in the private sector.

The situation should have never arisen, but we can thank Gordon Brown and the Labour party for this mess. NOBODY ELSE!

yes because as we all know there was no public sector until Gordon Brown came to power - local councils were privately owned, as were the police, fire brigade, bbc, civil service and teaching was an entirely voluntary occupation carried out by nice old dears in sensible shoes.

In this case, as a customer, you do get a degree of choice as to whether you want to continue to fund their businesses.

tell me do rooms get darker when you enter them because you strike me as someone dense enough to attract light