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

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….

You’ve agreed that money can’t buy everything,

No, be accurate, I said you were cooking with gas, I didn’t agree, however I did say that money isn’t everything

but then you insist that everyone has a price….

Yep! which is why “huge cash incentives are needed to recruit the best people into the private sector”

why can’t the public sector demand the same quality and match your offer?

Because theres no need to Crikey – in your own words, you do it for the love of it!

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 huge cash incentives – 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?

Because theres no need to…

You are simply admitting that Crikey & the like punch well above their weight in terms of value. Besides, in your hypothetical private hospital, hiring one 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 everything – you’d be free to choose.

Noteeth – its an example to prove the rule, a microcosm of just why 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 serving the public 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….

a microcosm of just why senior private sector executives demand a higher wage than public ones.

Oh yeah? By and large, I’d say a large number just push to see what they can get away with, 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 some 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 teaching 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 why private sector wages are so much higher – and you said it yourself “I am not a ‘free agent’ able to move at will to the place that pays the best and that you “do it for the love of it” – Quite often, the private sector wants you to move at will to meet their business needs, so they have to pay commensurately.

As you said “whatever you do, I suspect that you wouldn’t move to the North Pole to earn 3 pence more an hour…” – no, they wont, you’d probably have to offer some sort of huge cash incentive

edit: You need to understand that saying that the private sector pays more than the public sector for very understandable reasons is not 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,

Ahem.

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 purely 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 bad thing?

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’ 😆 )

Huge retention difficulties as men leave to become private security contractors on big money.

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 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”.

In other words, Stoner may disagree with the views of TJ, but openly admits on ‘ere that he couldn’t do his job. Ergo, 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 not 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.

Due to this, the United States already had the highest inequality of wealth in the industrialized world prior to the financial crisis. 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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw&feature=related 😆

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 never ever 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 – a quote where he says he wants to ‘scrap free health care’ – 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 Elfinfesto 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? 😉

kimbers – Member
communism
its the only answer

No, no, no- Elfinism 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 should not adopt it.

He does not use the precise words “it should be scrapped”…..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.

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 any 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 Billion, 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.