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

Certainly in our company the leadership team (which includes sales, operations and central service directors) are targetted more or less equally.

So what revenue growth do you target the IT or HR Directors with? How do they achieve this?

[EDIT] I digress… see TJ’s question below. That is the only one that needs answering [EDIT]

Zulu – that still is irrelevant to the point. And wrong – look at Godwin and compare to shoesmith. Payoffs for failure?

Why do we need huge salaries to attract the best into private sector senior roles but the same does not apply in the public sector.

will you please adress this simple point?

So what revenue growth do you target the IT or HR Directors with? How do they achieve this?

They don’t directly carry revenue targets. They (excluding HR directors as I’ve never seen one of those with a seat at the top table) are however targetted on providing the necessary support for growth.

I’m an operational director and do have a revenue target although I’m not paid on it (I’m paid on growth of profits – no-one is all that concerned about the revenue number by itself).

Because, as I’ve already said to you TJ – private sector managers carry failure with them – if they fail, they get sacked, possibly prosecuted and more often than not they’ll never get employed in the same field again, the penalty for failure and consequent risks are far, far higher. Higher risk, higher stakes, higher pay (as you may lose the chance to make money in the future)

In the examples of Shoesmith and Gibb – the fact that they have not (could not) be prosecuted, have received payouts (still at court) and I’ll happily put money that they both get reemployed in another public sector role when the heat dies down shows that the stakes are a lot lower.

Quite simply, what would you rather choose? high pay with huge risk of failure, job loss and hard time, or lower pay with little risk of losing your job and no chance of prosecution if it does go tits up? – thats why the private sector pays more

So they’re not responsible for delivering revenue or profit growth? Instead they are responsible for delievering the service necessary for operational areas to deliver their profit (or operating) targets. So in other words they are no different from their public sector counterparts?

Scarily I have seen a HR director at the ‘top table’, shortly after I left that particular organisation they were appointed to the role of CEO… shortly after that the company failed!

Zulu – you are simply wrong on that. And its irrelevant. Public sector senior managers are often sacked.

Compare shoesmith to Godwin

Shoesmith received no payout at all.

I’ll try again. Why is a huge cash incentive needed to employ the best in the private sector but not in the public?

The excuse given for the huge remuneration of people like Godwin is ” we need to pay to employ the best” Now I want to employ the best in the public sector. Why does this not apply? How can we get the best mangers into the public sector if they are all attracted to the private sector by the incentives?

So they’re not responsible for delivering revenue or profit growth?

In our company they’re paid on profit growth although everyone also has specific targets relating to their own specialism. All our leadership teams have two functions – one to do their day jobs (in my case it’s running the delivery practices), and second to contribute to strategy etc.

TJ – do you really think Godwins pakage was reflective of the norm within the private sector?

Nope, didn’t think so – so comparing to him is a fatuous argument!

Shoesmith’s case is still at court under appeal, so its unfair to say she received no pay off, we simply dont know the outcome of that one yet.

Public sector senior managers are often sacked

well, no, they’re not really are they TJ? They’re normally moved sideways…

The prime minister as a yardstick is a bit of a red herring as well. It doesn’t surprise me at all that there are thousands of public servants “earning” more than him. His salary for being PM is neither here nor there. What is his overall benefits package worth?

A grace-and-favour serviced townhouse in the middle of London for five years, a big house in the country, free travel anywhere and everywhere and guaranteed untold millions in lecture fees, consultancies and book advances if he manages to eke his way through five years on 142k.

So Zulu – you can’t answer the question. I have asked it several times and you cannot come up with any explanation for why huge cash incentives are needed to attract talent into private sector senior roles but not public sector ones.

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 experience and seniority would consider his salary to be mere small change. That for doing an intensely 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 very 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 ****ing laugh 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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC7IY46x0HA

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?

Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?

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…

high risk and low security

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 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, 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, and the people who chose to invest in them should have lost their money – thats how the free market works!

but we’re getting way off topic.

but we’re getting way off topic.

..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?

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

..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 f**ked up in the first place….

Answer the question.

thats how the free market works!

Does it, my arse.

not the bankers

Yes, the poor dears were actually forced 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 greedily chose the accounts with the highest interest rates get off scott free without losing a penny?

how, I’ve answered it repeatedly? higher risk means more money – the way of the world.

No you haven’t.

Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?

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!

So why don’t you go and work in the private sector instead ?

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 do get localised Intensive Care Medicine in the private sector!

So why don’t you go and work in the private sector instead ?

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?

We thought the new govt would be the end of some of our clients in terms of PR

Cam loves PR! 😀

Why are huge cash incentives needed to recruit the best people into the private sector but not in the public sector?

Answer the question, instead of pretending to.

Crikey – learn to read, then answer

Which job would you accept?

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!

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.

So who invested in them?

Not me. Nor have I surfed the wave of the property boom. I own a tent, though.

Alternatively, theres plenty of other countries…

Careful Z-11 – you might be in danger of suggesting that NHS ITU actually provides good value for money. Shocking, eh?

OK, so now 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 why we need to pay more to attract people to work in the private sector, because you choose 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 choose not to.

now, ask yourself why 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!!!

in a job that pays less than the private sector equivalent would… I run a private sector hospital

The irony being – there’s a healthy global labour market for experienced medical and nursing personnel. I mean, why 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 f**ked up in the first place….

How much of your income do you think has been spent on “propping up” the Banks?