Public-private wage divide gets 50% wider

Sir_Humphrey

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.

Small children tend to put things in their mouths as any fule kno. It is not a small risk.

I agree that there needs to be more financial regulation. But if you are claiming that regulation of dangerous substances is pointless, you just make yourself look foolish I'm afraid.

I seem to recall tabliod reading idiots complaining about busy-body social workers and the Nanny State - until a kiddie actually dies and then they moan that the state did not intervene.

carolt

macaque wrote: »

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


Why do say that?

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).

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.

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.

I can agree with all of this except the paragraph highlighted. It seems to suggest some sort of conspiracy by something called 'the public services' to get more jobs for themselves and to penalise the little guy - you or me.

There is no such thing.

'The public services' don't set any agendas - they're just composed of ordinary mortals recruited to do some job that a politician has decided needs doing.

Blame the right people - it's the governent that sets the agenda, not 'the public services'.

Blame the politicians - and use your vote wisely.

macaque_2

Small children tend to put things in their mouths as any fule kno. It is not a small risk.
I agree that there needs to be more financial regulation. But if you are claiming that regulation of dangerous substances is pointless, you just make yourself look foolish I'm afraid.

You use dramatic language (dangerous substances) to justify overreaction. Houses are filled with thousands of small objects that small children can swallow. It baffles me why public servants move heaven and earth to stop the sale of dodgy teddy bears whilst ignoring (and even contributing to) much bigger childhood hazards. Things like bad teaching, selling off of school playing fields, unpalatable school food, obsessions with risk assessments.

carolt wrote: »

I can agree with all of this except the paragraph highlighted. It seems to suggest some sort of conspiracy by something called 'the public services' to get more jobs for themselves and to penalise the little guy - you or me. There is no such thing. 'The public services' don't set any agendas - they're just composed of ordinary mortals recruited to do some job that a politician has decided needs doing.
Blame the right people - it's the governent that sets the agenda, not 'the public services'.
Blame the politicians - and use your vote wisely.

I am not suggesting a conspiracy but the public sector most definitely exploit red tape for empire building. The government have recruited 700,000 new public servants over the past 10 years. The cost of quangos has gone up from £19 billion in 1997 to £31 billion in 2007. Local councils have set up regulatory departments for taxis, hmos, health and safety, environmental controls. We even have people responsible for horse manure.

I agree that much fault lies with government however, the public services are extremely powerful and have strongly resisted reforms in the past.

Sir_Humphrey

macaque wrote: »

Things like bad teaching, .

What on Earth do you think Ofsted does?

macaque_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

What on Earth do you think Ofsted does?

This somewhat proves my point. UK education is in a very sorry state despite Ofsted. Many children are emerging from the process illiterate and innumerate. Many of the brighter children end up doing soft subjects.

As it happens, I agree with the principle of a schools inspection service. Inspectors however do not provide solutions. The only people who can sort out the current shambles in education are the teachers and head masters/mistresses themselves. Excessive interference by local and central government however is stopping them from doing their jobs. Teachers cannot be sacked, children cannot be expelled, schools are not allowed to set their own selection criteria. Teachers are micro managed and weighed down with red tape. Is it any wonder that many good teachers quit the profession within 5 years.

Sir_Humphrey

macaque wrote: »

Teachers cannot be sacked, .

Wrong.

macaque wrote: »

children cannot be expelled, .

Wrong again.
I agree that there are too tight restrictions in areas such as curriculum. As for teachers quitting, well it is a hard job teaching adolescents.

carolt

macaque wrote: »

I am not suggesting a conspiracy but the public sector most definitely exploit red tape for empire building. The government have recruited 700,000 new public servants over the past 10 years. The cost of quangos has gone up from £19 billion in 1997 to £31 billion in 2007. Local councils have set up regulatory departments for taxis, hmos, health and safety, environmental controls. We even have people responsible for horse manure.

I agree that much fault lies with government however, the public services are extremely powerful and have strongly resisted reforms in the past.

Explain please?

Empire building?

Don't disagree for one minute that there are far more public sector workers than there were a decade ago, but just with the idea that public sector workers club together to rule the world. It's about as ludicrous as any other conspiracy theories.

And would it be better if they were all unemployed?

WTF?_2

carolt wrote: »

Explain please?

Empire building?

Don't disagree for one minute that there are far more public sector workers than there were a decade ago, but just with the idea that public sector workers club together to rule the world. It's about as ludicrous as any other conspiracy theories.

And would it be better if they were all unemployed?

Within the public sector there is a tendancy for anyone in a position of management to try to get as much headcount in underneath them as possible - boosts their influence. And of course, the taxpayer will foot the bill, no need to justify the cost.

And yes, if a job has just been created for the purposes of keeping someone off the dole I frankly think it would be better to spend the money on basic Welfare and let them look for a real job. All the money sucked up by the government to create redundant public sector jobs could be better spent by individuals and businesses.

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

And would it be better if they were all unemployed?

Probably.

Unemployment on the dole costs around £4000pa whereas unemployment in public sector costs a minimum of £15000pa.

carolt

!!!!!!? wrote: »

Within the public sector there is a tendancy for anyone in a position of management to try to get as much headcount in underneath them as possible - boosts their influence. And of course, the taxpayer will foot the bill, no need to justify the cost.

And yes, if a job has just been created for the purposes of keeping someone off the dole I frankly think it would be better to spend the money on basic Welfare and let them look for a real job. All the money sucked up by the government to create redundant public sector jobs could be better spent by individuals and businesses.

Do you imagine people in the public sector set their own budgets or can just randomly decide to employ a few more underlings if they feel like it?

Hardly. If that were the case, the very overworked civil servants I know would have much, much bigger teams under them. Instead, most lower grade pen-pusher grades have been removed, and higher-grade essential posts remain unfilled because of cuts/lack of suitable people to fill the posts.