Public sector monster needs to be tamed

beingjdc

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

It's called supply & demand. Doesn't mean they treat employees like crap. They have to make a profit to survive.

They'd probably like to to pay ten quid an hour but they probably wouldn't get the punters.

Oddly, despite this cut-throat competition, Travelodge (not singling them out, just happen to have the information handy) managed to pay their Chief Exec £400k in 2007.

Funny how "supply and demand" means minimum wage at the bottom, but higher wages than any council chief exec by a factor of about two at the top...

treliac

beingjdc wrote: »

Minimum wage, no unions, no other benefits, and cleaning up sick and poo? Sounds pretty crap to me. When I got my first full-time private sector job I earned £16k. I got sick pay and a contributory pension.

In fairness, you probably need skills to do old people's homecare that you don't need to be a cleaner in a hotel. Ability to drive would be necessary in a lot of places, some training in dealing with the mentally confused though I imagine they'd give you that, and in particular a decent command of English so you can work out what they're telling you.

And warmth, honesty, compassion, love of your fellow human plus a good dose of initiative and common sense. Actually, that would discount a fair few on here!

baileysbattlebus

StevieJ wrote: »

I paid less and and am entitled to a similar pension from the private sector When I looked for a job pension provision, was high on the list of priorities.

I was in a non contributory scheme + free medical insurance in the private sector - took the money and ran at 50.

OH is in a final salary scheme too, pays in 6.5%, and is entitled to 40/60th's pension at age 60, though he can stay on longer if he wants, it's index linked too.

Pension benefits were important to him too, not so much for me as we hadn't planned on me having a pension and I sort of fell into my job, so it was an unexpected bonus.

bigheadxx

beingjdc wrote: »

Minimum wage, no unions, no other benefits, and cleaning up sick and poo? Sounds pretty crap to me. When I got my first full-time private sector job I earned £16k. I got sick pay and a contributory pension.

In fairness, you probably need skills to do old people's homecare that you don't need to be a cleaner in a hotel. Ability to drive would be necessary in a lot of places, some training in dealing with the mentally confused though I imagine they'd give you that, and in particular a decent command of English so you can work out what they're telling you.

Just because the job is crap doesnt mean that you get treated like crap, there is a significant difference.

Somebody has got to do the job and there will always be somebody to do it at a price, that is supply and demand. In the private sector the normal rules of supply and demand are distorted because you are not geared to make a profit but to spend a budget.

Our two theoretical people could have the same skills, education, background and level of ambition so why should one have to fund the others pension.

There may well be no million pound salaries in the public sector but then there is no contribution by way of corporation tax and wealth generation to justify it. Show me anybody in the public sector that actually generates a penny of wealth for the country.

beingjdc

bigheadxx wrote: »

There may well be no million pound salaries in the public sector but then there is no contribution by way of corporation tax and wealth generation to justify it. Show me anybody in the public sector that actually generates a penny of wealth for the country.

We made a political decision a couple of decades ago to sell off everything that made a profit, so it's understandable that what we've got left is our costs. However on your challenge of 'anybody', I'd suggest the ticket officer at the Tower of London. For bigger numbers, the lawyer that wrote the orders that stopped Iceland repatriating the assets of all their banks, or that got the money back that Lehman wired to their US office the day before bankruptcy.

Generally though, there's no dispute - the public sector nowadays doesn't exist to compete for profitability with the private sector, it exists to (try to, within the cash available) ensure that the private sector has healthy and educated staff, transport for goods, workers and customers, and a functioning civil and criminal legal system to operate under.

Radiantsoul

bigheadxx wrote: »

Show me anybody in the public sector that actually generates a penny of wealth for the country.

Teachers, nurses, doctors generate human capital.
The legal and criminal system reduce the risk of transactions.
Social care and benefits act to preserve civilised society and reduce transaction costs.

The disappearance of the public sectow would see "wealth" disappear. It is possible to argue that the public sector is too large, but to argue that it generates nothing is absurd.

bigheadxx

beingjdc wrote: »

We made a political decision a couple of decades ago to sell off everything that made a profit, so it's understandable that what we've got left is our costs. However on your challenge of 'anybody', I'd suggest the ticket officer at the Tower of London. For bigger numbers, the lawyer that wrote the orders that stopped Iceland repatriating the assets of all their banks, or that got the money back that Lehman wired to their US office the day before bankruptcy.

Generally though, there's no dispute - the public sector nowadays doesn't exist to compete for profitability with the private sector, it exists to (try to, within the cash available) ensure that the private sector has healthy and educated staff, transport for goods, workers and customers, and a functioning civil and criminal legal system to operate under.

The public sector has never existed to make a profit and I am not suggesting that is what its purpose should be. However most people in the private sector do not earn 6 figure salaries but they are contributing to the bottom line of the company that they work for. Most of us are rightly angry that public sector workers expect us to fund them in retirement when it is clearly unaffordable. The reason that the majority of private sector firms do not pay a pension from 60 is because it is simply not affordable to do so.

The pension liability of the public sector is huge now, if you added in all the privatised companies and took into account the dire state they would be in had they been in the public sector for the past 20 years that would be phenonemol.

Sitting in a ticket office is not the kind of wealth generation I was referring to. If that was in the private sector there would probably be a more efficient method of doing generating more wealth and increased tax revenue for the government.

And as for using anti terrorism legislation to prevent a democratic European country removing assets from the country, investment involves a level of risk that the public sector is not used to

beingjdc

bigheadxx wrote: »

Sitting in a ticket office is not the kind of wealth generation I was referring to. If that was in the private sector there would probably be a more efficient method of doing generating more wealth and increased tax revenue for the government.

Where's the evidence? When I go to a private sector visitor attraction it tends to be pretty similar. There might be a bigger booking fee on the internet, or longer queues, I suppose that makes it more profitable.

And as for using anti terrorism legislation to prevent a democratic European country removing assets from the country, investment involves a level of risk that the public sector is not used to

Oh dear, not this again. The Anti-Terror, Crime and Security Act had provisions, not even in the Terror section, for freezing the assets of foreign governments which were acting in a manner which would harm the UK. Those provisions were used. We do lots of things with the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act to people who aren't immigrants. A law can deal with more than one thing...

bigheadxx

But the action as taken for "populist" reasons and because so many Local Authorities had money tied up in Icelandic banks.

donaldtramp

Comrade Brown and his party have brought in THOUSANDS of new laws since their party got into power. We do not need these laws and this interference in our daily lifes.
I'm sick of this nannying, bloated state that we live in. Millions of the jobs that were created since Labour got into power are in the public sector. All sucking up tax and sapping creativity. Why try to suceed when you can just join the ranks of the public sector and go on strike at the drop of a hat if you don't like something
Look where this has got us! We've done really well under the watchful eye of big brother and his new laws and all the "protection" that has given us eh?