Would you want my job cut?

kabayiri

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

That was not my intention. My intention was to point out that the cuts in public spending that are likely to happen will have very negative effects, many of which do not occur to people.

I think they do occur to people, but it's more like an unfortunate consequence. You cut your cloth and live with the results.

I am sure Nissan would rather not lose qualified manufacturing staff as a result of their cuts. Those people will cost more to recruit and train in the future. Sadly, it's necessary for them to survive.

carolt

lostinrates wrote: »

TBF if the pr machine is right and this is actually going to save economy and not cost us in the long term, then the lawyers did a good job.

In other cases lawyers' work protects against other spending, or determines the public need compensation.

But I'm playing devil's advocate. (I think there is validity in what you say)

They may well have done an excellent job - I sincerely hope so, as it will cost us all if they didn't! - but the fact remains, they have taken the king's shilling every bit as much as Sir Humph - in fact, they are being far better paid.

We're none of us in a position to say for several years whether they were successful or whether they were a complete waste of public money.

And I have no way of comparing the vale of what all public servants do, either.

But my point is that there are many many supposedly 'private' organisations whose salaries, or a very large proprtion of them, are paid by taxpayers every bit as much as civil servants are - to pretend otherwise is disingenious.

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

But your intention doesn't rule our thoughts or intepretations. Neither you nor we can help that. I agree, with you point about 'not occuring to people'. This lead to a discussion about the safety of fireworks. It didn't seem to occur to anyone the dangerous position those blighters put me in!

Fair point - this is why I prefer talking to people face-to-face rather than on the internet or phone.

I don't want to see anyone in the private sector losing their job - this is why I personally support policies that will help to prevent that from happening. I don't gloat over people at Nissan being laid off, unlike the gloating that would happen on here if I were to be laid off (which to be blunt isn't gonna happen). I could have gone to work in the City selling CDOs after Oxford had I wanted. Instead, I chose to earn less money and have job security. Different strokes for different folks.

bendix

carolt wrote: »

Interesting - so I take it your large international law firm does no work for government? Ever? Unlike say, Slaughter & May, which was recently shown, along with other 'large international law firms' to have taken enormous amounts of taxpayers money to work on the administration of Northern Rock?

Or did you just volunteer your services for free, out of the kindness of your heart?

Out of you and Sir Humph, I can guess pretty quickly who's higher paid - though I doubt you're more qualified.

You do something you think (I assume?) is valuable - he does something he thinks is valuable.

The rest of us don't know enough about either of your jobs to know who provides better value for money.

But to suggest that most money wasted by governments comes from overpaying civil servants is pretty juvenile - anyone who's ever worked in the public sector will confirm that the really criminal waste of taxpyers' money is that spent on employing private sector consultants, lawyers etc etc on a far, far higher rate than any civil servant could possibly dream of.

They come in from outside, without a clue of how things work, and the endless hum of "private sector = good, public sector = bad" being repeated under their breath.

Now, that DOES make me angry, as a taxpayer.

No, we don't do work for the government. Frankly, there is not enough money in it. It's wellknown in legal circles that firms who do work for government do so at a massive loss - Slaughter and May might have billed £12m to the government on the deal yuo refer to but there would be absolutely no profit in it whatsoever.

The firm I worked for made the conscious decision not to do such work years ago, and it's the right one.

For the record, I have no idea how much a Sparkler Monitor like Sir H earns. Far too much for the merit of the job, I suppose. And for the record, I too believe I am vastly overpaid for my job. I freely admit it.

But - and here's the rub - my employers (the partners of this firm) obviously think differently otherwise they wouldnt pay me. I would be out of here quicker than Sir H can spot a dodgy Chinese Rocket. They are savvy business people who's income is directly related to the money in / money out ratio. Who am I to argue with them?

Now, who are Sir H's employers? Who pay his salary?

Chalk and cheese old pal. Chalk and the finest cheddar.

lostinrates

They may well have done an excellent job - I sincerely hope so, as it will cost us all if they didn't! - but the fact remains, they have taken the king's shilling every bit as much as Sir Humph - in fact, they are being far better paid.
They will have been paid market rate. I'm not sure how it works, whether they bid like they do when not retained by corporate clients. Maybe Bendix can shed more light on this, and the rate?

Sir Humph is paid a wage he accepts as market rate, he could go private sector if so chose. I don't think that rivate is better then public or visa versa, I do think there are diferencesd in the system and we should be able to discuss whther these are fir, or apporpriate and sustainable for each secotor and the country as a whole.
We're none of us in a position to say for several years whether they were successful or whether they were a complete waste of public money.

True.

And I have no way of compring the vale of what all public servants do, either.


But my point is that there are many many supposedly 'private' organisations whose salaries, or a very large proprtion of them, are paid by taxpayers every bit as much as civil servants are - to pretend otherwise is disingenious.

True, I refered to another manifestation of this when I mention transport...briefly. The slight difference is with Slaughter and May they were paid for this job, presumably at market rate, they were needed to provide a service that civil servants could not and are, I presume, not being retained at any cost, but on a job by job basis.

Corporate clients, and I guess, governments could seta capfor fees. But then the firms would have to consider whether it was in their best interests to do that work. And then who would do it, more to the point, who would be raging to get the most out of tax payers on the other side of negotiations?

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

That was not my intention. My intention was to point out that the cuts in public spending that are likely to happen will have very negative effects, many of which do not occur to people.

Bendix, fair point about case law. However the point about drafting is a bit disingenuous - they draft the law in such a way that civil servants want - the lawyers are technical advisors. It is like claiming the bricklayer designed the house he built. The regs I work on are drafted by civil servants.

Why would job cuts = negative effects.

Surly supporting something without the funds to do it = financial disaster.

There is no actual proof yet that cutting civil service jobs would not = the same service.

Look at the the private sector we do it all the time usually the customer does not notice

bendix

carolt wrote: »

They may well have done an excellent job - I sincerely hope so, as it will cost us all if they didn't! - but the fact remains, they have taken the king's shilling every bit as much as Sir Humph - in fact, they are being far better paid.

We're none of us in a position to say for several years whether they were successful or whether they were a complete waste of public money.

And I have no way of comparing the vale of what all public servants do, either.

But my point is that there are many many supposedly 'private' organisations whose salaries, or a very large proprtion of them, are paid by taxpayers every bit as much as civil servants are - to pretend otherwise is disingenious.

IF it is shown that the lawyers and consultants hired by the public sector are wasting public money, who should be to blame. The lawyers and consultants are private businesses, hired to do a job in the same way and on the same terms as they would if they were doing purely private sector work.

You can't attack law firms for taking work given to them - they are business people.

Shouldnt you be reserving your attacks instead to the lazy !!!! public sector managers who choose to spend the public purse in this way, instead of - for example - using lawyers employed by government as staffers?

I agree - sack those inefficient public servants for wasting yet more public money. Frankly, you'll be doing the law firms a favour. Most other firms I know feel obliged to do unprofitable government work, largely for political contacts etc. I can assure you, there is absolutely no money in it compared to, say, a large private sector M&A deal or IPO.

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

True, I refered to another manifestation of this when I mention transport...briefly. The slight difference is with Slaughter and May they were paid for this job, presumably at market rate, they were neededto provide a service that civil servants could not and are, I presume, not being retained at any cost, but on a job by job basis.

Corporate clients, and I guess, governments could seta capfor fees. But then the firms would have to consider whether it was in their best interests to do that work. And then who would do it, more to the point, who would be raging to get the most out of tax payers on the other side of negotiations?

Of course some civil servants are lawyers, it is one of the many professions that make up the service. Also statisticians, scientists, economists, CIBA accountants etc. I have few complaints about my salary - I think taking the whole package into account (leave, pension etc) I earn a reasonable wage, not too little, not too much. If the pension is cut and civil servants leave, then that will just push up my salary to retain me. Can't buck the market as they say...

bendix

carolt wrote: »

But my point is that there are many many supposedly 'private' organisations whose salaries, or a very large proprtion of them, are paid by taxpayers every bit as much as civil servants are - to pretend otherwise is disingenious.

Wrong. They are NOT paid by taxpayers. They are HIRED as private businesses by taxpayers or, rather, taxpayers' paid for officials.

Fundamental difference, I'm afraid.

Sir_Humphrey

bendix wrote: »

Wrong. They are NOT paid by taxpayers. They are HIRED as private businesses by taxpayers or, rather, taxpayers' paid for officials.

Fundamental difference, I'm afraid.

God, you are a bloody lawyer aren't you! ROFL!