Public-private wage divide gets 50% wider

Andy_L

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

If that were the case, would you not agree that deferred pay (ie pension) should also be vaguely in line with that market rates.

The whole package (ie pay, pension, holiday, hours, bonuses, perks etc) should be in line with market rates.
However this survey doesn't tell us if it is or not.

carolt

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Ditto



Some teachers, yes. Most civil servants - too many to do one job.

I do think their pay should have been increased. I watched my mother struggle on her low HEO salary, but with that increase in salary should come the reduction of the generous pension that the low paid civil servants have.




They don't generate any money. Teachers may teach the skills that allow private business to grow on and make money from a business, but they don't make a profit for the country. Their salary is paid for by the private workers.

My maths teachers taught me good maths skills. My university lecturers added to my skills at a higher level. The firm I work for has enhancesd those skills and used them to make their business money and in turn pay towards the public purse.

It seems a curiously reductionist view.

What do you mean by 'generating money'?

Is it only someone making or selling something (preferably abroad) that 'generates money'? Or do all the people who contribute to that achievement, albeit less directly, not have a part to play too?

So do those involved in educating the workforce, as I do, or regulating the business environment, as Sir Humphrey does, not play a part too?

Imagine if you would, a world in which all public employees agreed with you overnight that their jobs were worthless, and decided to do something 'useful' and 'make money'.

Would our world be better with no teachers, nurses, policemen, doctors, or indeed civil servants?

Personally, I imagine it would be hell on earth - that anarchy, ill-health - except for those who could afford to pay - and stupidity would reign.

I am happy to pay for the salaries of those who benefit our society overall - indeed I am so sweet and generous I am happy to pay for those who contribute no benefit, in financial terms at all, eg children, pensioners ~(including women who didn't work etc).

As another example, I think women who stay at home to look after small children or those (again, usually women) who act as full-time carers for disabled or elderly relatives play a hugely valuable role in our society. They're usually unwaged - yet to pay someone to do their jobs full-time, let alone with the level of care that they devote to it, would cost a fortune. They may not be 'making money' or indeed making anything tangible. Yet I'd argue that there are many, many things in life which are hugely valuable - indeed all the truly important things in life - that can't be quantified, and that no price can be put on.

Old_Slaphead

Andy_L wrote: »

The whole package (ie pay, pension, holiday, hours, bonuses, perks etc) should be in line with market rates.
However this survey doesn't tell us if it is or not.

On the largest 2 items of remuneration (ie pay and pension provision) shows on average public sector is well in excess of private sector.

The other items tend to be job specific but I would suggest that overall they probably even out ie many public sector workers get good holidays whereas a few in the private sector get (taxable) cars & bonuses. Hours, especially unpaid, tend to be longer in private sector. Really, it's impossible to evaluate - (ie with cars sometimes they're a perk and sometimes a requirement of the job).

chunky79

off topic only slightly :P
I worked for my local council for a short time, so did my friend, her mum and her aunty, thats how i got the job. I did not work directly with them...anyways going off track. I worked 4 hours a day and by the end of my first month i was told to slow down. I was doing 8 hours work in 4 apparently? Who told me to slow down. My manager. I should not be doing the amount of work as its what 2 people can do. I left after a further 2 months, i am one than cannot just sit about twiddling my thumbs.

Where i work i have seen women who are left to their own devices and its amazing how much time they t**s off each day. BUT I had somehow been found out what i have done in a previous job, basically one of the partners was speaking to my old boss at some conference or another. What did i do? Making people accountable for there wages and make the money go where it is supposed to go, its amazing how much money businesses waste.
Unfortunately they didn't (secretaries) take too kindly to the cleaner coming in and saying what should be done and how, isn't it funny internet access is now being checked and games have been removed and the typing output alone as shot through the roof and 2 women have left saying its unfair that they are being slave driven, we have a spare room in the offices where 5 spare computers have been installed for staff to use if they wish to play games during break times and seating area so staff can chat its worked a treat...because of this moral has gone up another. Many have commented they feel better after the guidance...I am not a leader by nature but i have good instinct, i am still the cleaner even though i have been offered this job, i don't want it, its a job that took me just over 4 weeks in total to sort how can that be a permie job, the jobs done, output higher, costs lower and so long as the partners keep on with it, all should be well. If i had been doing this for the civil service i would have been paid shed loads of money and had a permie no brainer job...BTW i clean because i enjoy it and hated my previous jobs, which is also a no brainer but i chose to do it:rotfl: .

I don't mean to offend anyone who works in the civil service i am just telling you my experience of it and i do know there are some hard grafters out there, so to all hard grafters this is not intended to offend you

Sir_Humphrey

chunky79 wrote: »

I don't mean to offend anyone who works in the civil service i am just telling you my experience of it and i do know there are some hard grafters out there, so to all hard grafters this is not intended to offend you

It should be pointed out that local councils are not part of the civil service.

carolt

chunky79 wrote: »

off topic only slightly :P
I worked for my local council for a short time, so did my friend, her mum and her aunty, thats how i got the job. I did not work directly with them...anyways going off track. I worked 4 hours a day and by the end of my first month i was told to slow down. I was doing 8 hours work in 4 apparently? Who told me to slow down. My manager. I should not be doing the amount of work as its what 2 people can do. I left after a further 2 months, i am one than cannot just sit about twiddling my thumbs.

Where i work i have seen women who are left to their own devices and its amazing how much time they t**s off each day. BUT I had somehow been found out what i have done in a previous job, basically one of the partners was speaking to my old boss at some conference or another. What did i do? Making people accountable for there wages and make the money go where it is supposed to go, its amazing how much money businesses waste.
Unfortunately they didn't (secretaries) take too kindly to the cleaner coming in and saying what should be done and how, isn't it funny internet access is now being checked and games have been removed and the typing output alone as shot through the roof and 2 women have left saying its unfair that they are being slave driven, we have a spare room in the offices where 5 spare computers have been installed for staff to use if they wish to play games during break times and seating area so staff can chat its worked a treat...because of this moral has gone up another. Many have commented they feel better after the guidance...I am not a leader by nature but i have good instinct, i am still the cleaner even though i have been offered this job, i don't want it, its a job that took me just over 4 weeks in total to sort how can that be a permie job, the jobs done, output higher, costs lower and so long as the partners keep on with it, all should be well. If i had been doing this for the civil service i would have been paid shed loads of money and had a permie no brainer job...BTW i clean because i enjoy it and hated my previous jobs, which is also a no brainer but i chose to do it:rotfl: .

I don't mean to offend anyone who works in the civil service i am just telling you my experience of it and i do know there are some hard grafters out there, so to all hard grafters this is not intended to offend you

Funny that, I've worked in loads of private sector offices as a temp, and I could tell you exactly the same story - OK, give or take a few minor details. Like the accountants office where I worked in my first ever job, age 15, where all the partners spent inordinate amounts of their day chatting up the very pretty audio typist in my room, who never did any work as a result.

Or the IT office where I temped as a receptionist, but only answered the phone about once every half hour on average, as everyone called numbers directly. So I had lots of time to sit down and file my nails, play computer games or whatever I fancied, really - good thing too, as I was 8 months pregnant at the time, so it suited me nicely.

Plenty of cushy jobs in the public and private sectors. It's silly to claim on the basis of one anecdotal that private = good and public = lazy. It just doesn't stand up for anyone who's worked in both.

MissMoneypenny

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

If that were the case, would you not agree that deferred pay (ie pension) should also be vaguely in line with that market rates.

Did you miss this one H?

MissMoneypenny

carolt wrote: »

What do you mean by 'generating money'?

Turns a profit so that the company pays into the public purse. As oppose to taking money out of the public purse.

carolt wrote: »

Imagine if you would, a world in which all public employees agreed with you overnight that their jobs were worthless, and decided to do something 'useful' and 'make money'.

I didn't say that every public funded job was worthless. However, some of the civil servant jobs need to have the middle management fat trimmed off.

carolt wrote: »

Would our world be better with no teachers, nurses, policemen, doctors, or indeed civil servants?

Our country would not be better off without teachers, nurses, doctors fireman, policeman etc. However, this government has created a large unnecessary increase in civil servant admin jobs at a huge cost to the tax payer.

Who can forget the bumbling Jim Hacker and crafty civil servant Sir Humphrey who was always trying to create jobs and get up to schemes to make himself feel important, in Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. This scene from The Empty Hospital (fully staffed with 500 civil servants and no medical staff) has always been a favourite of mine:D

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyf97LAjjcY&feature=SeriesPlayList&p=4007E473402A0A45&index=11

Now that the public workers have their salary in line with market value, what is your view on the pensions being in line with market value?

baileysbattlebus

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

A bank clerk would be equivalent to an AO or AA (the latter are rare now due to minimum wage issues). An EO is equivalent to a small branch bank manager. EO = Bank Manager = Captain Mainwaring

You beat me to it - an AO in the south east has a starting salary of £16.1k and I would have put a bank clerk there too.

I temped in cs until recently for nearly 3 years, and £16.1k was the starting salary for AO and still is. The salary was not negotiable - you liked it or lumped it. I was a section manager (EO) and managed an accounts payable department of about 13 people,

Having taken early retirement from industry 4 years ago, I know I would have earned a lot more than an EO for managing a similar department.

HEO's are not entry level jobs - my boss was an HEO when I first started he got promoted to SEO. And his boss was a grade 6.

Andy_L

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Millions of salaries versus Millions of Salaries, must have SOME statistical validity.

They do. but to draw any useful conclusions from the analysis you have to dig deeper than just comparing private & public sector averages.
eg is the difference simply caused by the Public sector paying more than the Private for like-for-like work or is there something skewing the averages such as

Age profile - older workers tend to be paid more
Gender profile - women tend to be paid less
Education/skills profile - most unskilled labour has been contracted out
Industry bias - public sector is under represented in "sales occupations", the lowest paid sector, what effect does that have
Size of employer - do large/blue chip companies have better T&Cs than small ones?
Location bias - with it's "universal service obligation" the public sector has to compete in high pay areas whilst much of the Private sector can relocate where labour is cheaper.

In the olden days independent pay review bodies used to do this sort of analysis but were abolished (late 80s IIRC) except for the Police/Military as the conclusions they came out with limited the ability of the government to use Public Sector pay policy to influence the economy, eg by holding down pay to encourage the Private Sector to follow suit to combat inflation