Public-private wage divide gets 50% wider

carolt

Agree 100% as to the 2nd bit.

I know many consultants - and the amount of public-sector work they do would also fit on the back of a postage stamp.

macaque_2

carolt wrote: »

Agree 100% as to the 2nd bit.

I know many consultants - and the amount of public-sector work they do would also fit on the back of a postage stamp.

More than 20 organisations employed by or sponsored by the government are in regular contact with me. They include quangos, consultants and government officials. The numbers are unbelievable. Many of the 'consultants' have a background of business failure or forced retirement from large companys and would dearly love to get back into proper jobs if someone would have them. Based on my own experience, I would estimate that less 3% of their efforts have delivered useful results. Most are light weights, many are lazy and several have been thoroughly dishonest.

Dylanwing

In a recent tender for leeching work, over 55 Companies applied, and all of the unsuccessful applicants wanted feedback to enhance future applications for Government work - Not sure if that was to help the UK or because it is a gravy train. Having worked closely with leeches, of the senior ones, two were good, with a decent business background, one was lazy and useless. Of the support staff, they were a total waste of time, and using a couple of CO/E1 Civil Servants would have been far cheaper and more effective. One was a £30K a year HR "expert" (Fresh out of College, full of BS, but no idea of the real World) doing basic admin as part of his training, and doing it badly. So we pay a fortune so that an ineffective person can train!
As for the project, it is a simple question of a basic job being done locally or centrally. It can be argued either way, as far as I can see there will be no efficiencies or savings however it is done. A lot is being made of 'standardisation' as differing teams do things differently, but this has no impact on the end result, so why waste scarce resources on a non-problem?
One part of the Civil Service trained 'internal consultants', and this proved to be extremely cost-effective, and because they knew the business rather than the text-books, their solutions tended to be far more effective, and did not require everlasting leeches to run it!

By the way, the civil servants I know refused offers for far more money from private consultancies for equivalent work because they couldn't have lived with themselves afterwards

It may also be because they know that, one day, they will be rumbled as complete phoneys.

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

I know many consultants - and the amount of public-sector work they do would also fit on the back of a postage stamp.

I only know 3 consultants and my comments were made on basis of what they told me (ie that public sector work now forms a much higher percentage of their firms portfolio) or other anocdotal evidence derived from local business, computer user groups etc.

Most of my friends/neighbours now seem to be public sector and, certainly within LG, CS and NHS a significant amount of their current disolusionment seems to derive from use and impact of 'consultants' in on way shape or form.

In my own business I am constantly bombarded by private 'consultants' who want to advise me on rating appeals, carbon trust grants etc - mostly linked to the Government in some way (handouts, training grants).

Government expenditure disclosure also indicates a proliferation of consultant activity in the last 5 years.

I don't think I said that public sector accounted for the majority of their work but I did suggest that it does account an increasing proportion of their business (I said that I thought there was less outside demand - maybe the phrase should have been 'reduced' outside demand).

Dylanwing

There is some good news though. As budgets get cut, expenditure gets more closely examined, and the more astute managers are beginning to look at 'External assistance' as an easy area to make savings. Some have put a complete block on any new or renewal of EA contracts, and so far, it has delivered savings and no major disasters. It's only a few isolated pockets at a low level, but the fightback has started.

carolt

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

I only know 3 consultants and my comments were made on basis of what they told me (ie that public sector work now forms a much higher percentage of their firms portfolio) or other anocdotal evidence derived from local business, computer user groups etc.

Most of my friends/neighbours now seem to be public sector and, certainly within LG, CS and NHS a significant amount of their current disolusionment seems to derive from use and impact of 'consultants' in on way shape or form.

In my own business I am constantly bombarded by private 'consultants' who want to advise me on rating appeals, carbon trust grants etc - mostly linked to the Government in some way (handouts, training grants).

Government expenditure disclosure also indicates a proliferation of consultant activity in the last 5 years.

I don't think I said that public sector accounted for the majority of their work but I did suggest that it does account an increasing proportion of their business (I said that I thought there was less outside demand - maybe the phrase should have been 'reduced' outside demand).

Happy to agree with all that post. Thanks for clarification.

Sir_Humphrey

carolt wrote: »

Happy to agree with all that post. Thanks for clarification.

The use of private consultants is an issue. We make use of scientific consultants for our work (some public, some formerly public but privatised). This is necessary as few Chemistry PhDs would want to work as an EO for £25k, or have the right skills for the rest of the work. IMO, a better solution would be to employ such people directly (in fact this does happen in some cases).

A lot of consultants are brought in to replace civil servants after headcount reductions. This is a false economy, but false economies tend to happen when the political agenda is set by wooden-headed tabloid journalists.

EDIT: The PCS Union is opposed to the widespread use of consultants too.

macaque_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The use of private consultants is an issue. We make use of scientific consultants for our work (some public, some formerly public but privatised). This is necessary as few Chemistry PhDs would want to work as an EO for £25k, or have the right skills for the rest of the work. IMO, a better solution would be to employ such people directly (in fact this does happen in some cases).

A lot of consultants are brought in to replace civil servants after headcount reductions. This is a false economy, but false economies tend to happen when the political agenda is set by wooden-headed tabloid journalists.

EDIT: The PCS Union is opposed to the widespread use of consultants too.

Why do we need these people at all? Their efforts are of no use to man or beast and our chemical industry is in a state of meltdown. We need less regulation and lower taxes. We also need better science graduates.

Where there is a case for much tougher regulation, it relates to large companies whose activies are rife with tax dodging, anti competetive behaviour, price fixing and poor treatment of staff. Organisations like banks, rail companies, supermarkets, pharmaceutical companies behave disgracefully. Meanwhile, our fearless regulators would prefer to chase after street traders who sell defective teddy bears.

Sir_Humphrey

macaque wrote: »

Why do we need these people at all? Their efforts are of no use to man or beast and our chemical industry is in a state of meltdown. We need less regulation and lower taxes. We also need better science graduates.

We still use chemicals, and the North Sea oil industry is quite a large part of our economy. Everyone who actually works in the chemical/nuclear/oil/etc etc industry accepts the need for regulation.

This is a joke post, right?

macaque wrote: »

Where there is a case for much tougher regulation, it relates to large companies *snip*

So regulation is always bad and always good, and we need less red tape and more red tape. I agree we need to regulate the things you mention, and I expect that will happen in future. I am a bit puzzled that you think that selling dangerous teddy bears to children is not a big deal.

macaque_2

Sir Humphrey

We still use chemicals, and the North Sea oil industry is quite a large part of our economy. Everyone who actually works in the chemical/nuclear/oil/etc etc industry accepts the need for regulation.

The people to who I was referring in the previous email have nothing to do with regulatory matters.

This is a joke post, right?

Why do say that?

So regulation is always bad and always good, and we need less red tape and more red tape.

Good regulation is essential. The problem is we don't have good regulation. We have heavy handed regulation where we don't need it and an absence of regulation where we do (hence the credit crunch and millions of job losses).

I agree we need to regulate the things you mention, and I expect that will happen in future.

We both know this will never happen. Despite having millions of public officials (or perhaps because of), our economy is in its biggest shambles since the second world war. One scandal follows another. Pensions miss selling, endowments miss selling, shares miss selling, mortgages miss selling, bancrupt banks, price fixing etc. The man on the street gets rogered every time. The public services use each event to create a raft of new red tape and an excuse for employing another 10,000 administrators. CCTV, money laudering regulations, identity checks, identity cards, forms for this, forms for that, fines for this fines for that, wheel clamps, council officials poking around people's houses. Its all too much.

I am a bit puzzled that you think that selling dangerous teddy bears to children is not a big deal.

An eye falling out of a teddy bear exposes the child to a small measure of risk. But so do a million other things. It never seems to occur to our public officials that their obsession with safety has had severe impact on the health and happiness of UK children.