BBC unbiased?

olly300

bigheadxx wrote: »

I think the BBC News 10.00pm last night was a deliberate attempt to create sympathy towards the "poorly paid" public sector workers.

They interviewed a paramedic who was "concerned" that pay may be frozen in the public sector and he only earned £25,000 a year. This immediately sounded alarm bells as that is the BASIC salary for a paramedic and you automatically earn much more due to unsocial hours payments.

http://www.prospects.ac.uk/p/types_of_job/paramedic_salary.jsp

The lowest salary you are therefore likely to earn is around £30,000 p/a plus a very generous pension on top. However this was not touched upon by the BBC.

The problem with BBC and other reporting on public sector workers is that they only focus on skilled positions at a middle layer.

If they showed how much the top level i.e. headteachers, deputy head teachers, doctors would get from their pensions compared to an administrator in the courts, the NHS or HMRC then people would see how public sector pensions vary.

While I've not worked permanently in the public sector I've been nosey and investigated what people I've met actually do, what they get paid and what their pension is like.

bigheadxx

berkshirelady wrote: »

Hi. I think you might find that any increases in public sector pay in recent years, came about because the pay was lagging so far behind the private sector, they were finding it difficult across the board to attract any brains or talent. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

yes, I am a public sector worker, in a local authority. i will fess this up now! As a front-line worker, I deal with some very vulnerable people, with mental health problems, physical disabilities, elderly/dementia, families in crisis, sex offenders, disturbed young people, you name it. They can be very distressed or aggressive on the phone, each time it rings, i never know what's coming. People talk to me about child abuse, rape, deaths in the family, criminal offenses, the things they share with me might make some people's hair stand on end! But it is part of my job to listen and to not judge, however hard it might be for me morally or personally.

My job requires a great deal of savvy, and it can be very emotionally draining. But as it's officially an 'admin' job, I am on less than £10 an hour. I do find it rewarding, and I have many colleagues who look upon their work as a vocation, we do tonnes of hours for no extra money because we want to to our jobs well, act with integrity, and work hard for the people we serve (i.e. our residents, service users and the council tax payer).

I am not saying all this to have a whinge, but i think it should be pointed out that many public sector workers deal with the sort of people that many of us would not touch with a barge pole, and for not very much money. And for that alone I think some recognition is deserved.

thank you for listening!

Wheres your argument?

berkshirelady

hi, Bighead.

You asked "where's my argument". by 'argument' do you mean a bunfight or a reasoned discussion?!

I think it's right there in front of you already, in my first post. you accused the Beeb of creating sympathy for 'poorly paid' public sector workers. So I described what I do for a living, to try and give you an insight in to what many public sector workers do for the community at large, and the commitment that is required from us, even in the lowest level jobs.

I can't help but think that you started this thread because you've already decided that public sector workers are overpaid and not worth your tax £££s, and that's the end of it as far as you're concerned. So why ask for an 'argument' from me, if you made your mind up already and only want people to agree with you?

Sadly, because I care about what I do, perhaps I have fallen in to the trap of unnecessarily justifying myself to you, and making the case for public sector pay. Seeing as you want to save your taxes, and have posed a question on here that I think is really about the worth of public sector workers generally - BBC is a red herring (god knows how you could quibble about OT rates for a paramedic, one day they might have to scrape YOU up off the street, at which point I'm sure you wouldn't bother about their hourly rate)...I would be interested to know what you do for a living, and how you contribute to the good of the wider community.

please do tell us what you do! I am genuinely interested. In the meantime, I do hope that your statements can be made from a permanent place of safety, i.e. you'll never end up poor/vulnerable/ill/senile/homeless/unemployed & in need of help from the state. I don't mean that in a nasty way, as I would never wish misfortune on anyone. But at the same time, should you ever be in a position to need us public sector people, we will be here to help you, regardless of your background, gender, race, political views or prejudices.

Perhaps, instead of replying with short questions to your fellow forum people, and getting us to do all the talking, you could explain to us why you have a problem in the first place?

thank you.

bigheadxx

berkshirelady wrote: »

hi, Bighead.

You asked "where's my argument". by 'argument' do you mean a bunfight or a reasoned discussion?!

I think it's right there in front of you already, in my first post. you accused the Beeb of creating sympathy for 'poorly paid' public sector workers. So I described what I do for a living, to try and give you an insight in to what many public sector workers do for the community at large, and the commitment that is required from us, even in the lowest level jobs.

I can't help but think that you started this thread because you've already decided that public sector workers are overpaid and not worth your tax £££s, and that's the end of it as far as you're concerned. So why ask for an 'argument' from me, if you made your mind up already and only want people to agree with you?

Sadly, because I care about what I do, perhaps I have fallen in to the trap of unnecessarily justifying myself to you, and making the case for public sector pay. Seeing as you want to save your taxes, and have posed a question on here that I think is really about the worth of public sector workers generally - BBC is a red herring (god knows how you could quibble about OT rates for a paramedic, one day they might have to scrape YOU up off the street, at which point I'm sure you wouldn't bother about their hourly rate)...I would be interested to know what you do for a living, and how you contribute to the good of the wider community.

please do tell us what you do! I am genuinely interested. In the meantime, I do hope that your statements can be made from a permanent place of safety, i.e. you'll never end up poor/vulnerable/ill/senile/homeless/unemployed & in need of help from the state. I don't mean that in a nasty way, as I would never wish misfortune on anyone. But at the same time, should you ever be in a position to need us public sector people, we will be here to help you, regardless of your background, gender, race, political views or prejudices.

Perhaps, instead of replying with short questions to your fellow forum people, and getting us to do all the talking, you could explain to us why you have a problem in the first place?

thank you.

As well as my full time job I also do voluntary work one day each week doing something very similar to what you described in your first post.

My OH works for the Ambulance Service so I am well aware of the hard work and dedication of most people doing the job. However most NHS wokers believe that they are well paid and certainly my wifes income has increased more than mine in the last 8 years.

There is an element of militancy that I have detected, especially ambulance crew and this has been reinforced by A4C changes. ie If you disturb a crew on a break they get a payment and can also refuse to attend, not what I call public service. Plus if you do overtime in the NHS you also get your mileage to and from work paid!! £30 for a spoiled meal etc

As the public sector is still growing there doesnt appear to be any sense of urgency amongst public sector workers about the state we are in and we would not be in so much of a state had there been restraint in the public sector over the last 10 years. The public sectors defence is that it was the "bankers" that caused this. The fact of the matter is that most of us in the private sector are not bankers but ordinary people doing ordinary jobs. Unfortunately most of us have to make our own pension provision which will be tiny compared to the public sector pensions that we are paying towards.

berkshirelady

The public sector always grows in a recession. fact of life. It has done in the last two recessions. increased need = larger public sector to service it. Unemployment, housing benefit, etc etc. Not a reason to grouch about public sector pay, though, surely?

I can only speak from my own experience. I don't know about the ambulance service, so I can't comment. But I have worked in 4 different government departments and one local council and have seen real commitment from lots of people, in each of them. I have also spent a lot of time in the private sector, and seen hard work there too.

But I still don't quite get where you're coming from, in talking about 'public sector workers' as though they are one big mass of people without differences. You speak of militancy in the ambulance service. I respect your view on this and cannot comment as I haven't worked there. Similarly, you probably have no idea what it's like from the point of view of workers in DWP/HMRC/Defra etc, if you haven't worked there yourself. So perhaps it's not such a good idea to generalise?

You speak of the lack of urgency amongst public sector workers about the state we're in. I'm not sure what makes you think this - we are talking about millions of people, working in vastly disparate roles, and under different terms and conditions and salaries, depending on where they work. So why would all these people think the same way, just because they are 'public sector'?

As a council worker I can assure you that in local authorities, we have immediate accountability to the tax payers via councillors (who as elected representatives are our employers), and in my borough, they have already passed major budget cuts. So we are well aware of the consequences of the current situation.

I was interested in your comment 'and we would not be in so much of a state had there been restraint in the public sector over the last 10 years. The public sectors defence is that it was the "bankers" that caused this.'

I would give your comment more credence if you had said 'we would not be in so much of a state had there been restraint in personal borrowing and credit, curbs on the massive over-inflation in the housing market, and proper restraints on the City'. I would like to think that public sector investment has reaped some dividends, e.g. NHS waiting lists cut by months if not years; whereas all the house prices, credit, hedge funds and whatnot seems more like some sort of voodoo than common sense.

anyway, you still haven't told us what you do full-time...you're not a banker, are you?!

vyle

trevormax wrote: »

I'd agree with Vyle that public sector jobs are not cushy for the bottom run workers. I used to work in HMRC and you are subject to senior managers changing policy left right and centre (such as the introduction of LEAN to the PAYE sections), massive job cuts mainly because a politician wants to cut costs and increasing work loads to compensate for the reduced number of staff.

Also, although nurse jobs and teacher jobs are very well paid, they are skilled jobs. To do them, people usually have to go through years of university. In my opinion, they should be well paid for the job.

However I dont think anyone has the right to be concerned about a pay freeze in the current financial situation and that includes public and private sector. People should be thankful that they have a job.

Hah, my previous employer was HMRC too. If I went into the details of LEAN and every other stunt management tried, I'd end up writing a book rather than a post.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8265628.stm

"Why? Because, collectively, they are all part of the problem. They are part of one Westminster conspiracy. They don't want anything to change. It's not in their interests." - Gregg Dyke at Lib Coference 2 days ago - reporting buried in BBC news

bigheadxx

berkshirelady wrote: »

The public sector always grows in a recession. fact of life. It has done in the last two recessions. increased need = larger public sector to service it. Unemployment, housing benefit, etc etc. Not a reason to grouch about public sector pay, though, surely?

I can only speak from my own experience. I don't know about the ambulance service, so I can't comment. But I have worked in 4 different government departments and one local council and have seen real commitment from lots of people, in each of them. I have also spent a lot of time in the private sector, and seen hard work there too.

But I still don't quite get where you're coming from, in talking about 'public sector workers' as though they are one big mass of people without differences. You speak of militancy in the ambulance service. I respect your view on this and cannot comment as I haven't worked there. Similarly, you probably have no idea what it's like from the point of view of workers in DWP/HMRC/Defra etc, if you haven't worked there yourself. So perhaps it's not such a good idea to generalise?

You speak of the lack of urgency amongst public sector workers about the state we're in. I'm not sure what makes you think this - we are talking about millions of people, working in vastly disparate roles, and under different terms and conditions and salaries, depending on where they work. So why would all these people think the same way, just because they are 'public sector'?

As a council worker I can assure you that in local authorities, we have immediate accountability to the tax payers via councillors (who as elected representatives are our employers), and in my borough, they have already passed major budget cuts. So we are well aware of the consequences of the current situation.

I was interested in your comment 'and we would not be in so much of a state had there been restraint in the public sector over the last 10 years. The public sectors defence is that it was the "bankers" that caused this.'

I would give your comment more credence if you had said 'we would not be in so much of a state had there been restraint in personal borrowing and credit, curbs on the massive over-inflation in the housing market, and proper restraints on the City'. I would like to think that public sector investment has reaped some dividends, e.g. NHS waiting lists cut by months if not years; whereas all the house prices, credit, hedge funds and whatnot seems more like some sort of voodoo than common sense.

anyway, you still haven't told us what you do full-time...you're not a banker, are you?!

I accept that there was a need for capital expenditure in the public sector in 1997. New schools and school repairs and some new infrastructure.

I do not believe that the NHS is a good system and I have said previously it is the laughing stock of Eastern Europe. They cant understand why you cant go to the doctor, pay and get treated instead of this merry go round, see the doctor, wait for a consultation, see consultant (for ten minutes) wait, see another consultant. If the money was going into treatment fair enough but it is being pumped into a huge bureaucracy that does not exist in any other country in the world. As it stands the money put in has not resulted in a significant improvement in quality of service.

It makes some sense to refer to public sector worker en bloc as the majority of them belong to a handful of trade unions who provide a large proportion of labour party funds and they all receive similar state backed pensions.

As for the city I think that the government was so scared of losing "face" and being accused of returning to its old ways that it did not dare interfere. It, like most of us didnt understand what was going on and at the time was riding high.

My real "point is this"

Wages have increased significantly in the public sector and you can retire at 60 on a generous pension. Public sector workers have had it good and there has been little cultural change. Had things like A4C been linked to raising the pension age for existing employees then thats a reasonable trade off but something for nothing inevitably means storing up problems for later.

No I am not a banker maybe you should try and guess?

chopperharris

I watched a docu by the bbc recently on !!!!!! , it blamed it on the young men in africa raping women....like there was no raping before dvds.

So is the bbc biased you bet , but so is all the worlds media either in the pockets of the current power or the next one.

trevormax

bigheadxx wrote: »

I accept that there was a need for capital expenditure in the public sector in 1997. New schools and school repairs and some new infrastructure.

I do not believe that the NHS is a good system and I have said previously it is the laughing stock of Eastern Europe. They cant understand why you cant go to the doctor, pay and get treated instead of this merry go round, see the doctor, wait for a consultation, see consultant (for ten minutes) wait, see another consultant. If the money was going into treatment fair enough but it is being pumped into a huge bureaucracy that does not exist in any other country in the world. As it stands the money put in has not resulted in a significant improvement in quality of service.

This system of paying a doctor and getting seen right away sounds great, until you find that you don't have enough money to pay him. However, paying for a doctor sounds to me like a private sector medical service which people in the UK can do if they have the money.

I would disagree with you in saying the NHS is a merry-go-round of bureaucracybased on my own experience with them. A few years ago I broke a few bones in my hand. I was seen right away abd had it plasterred. Within about 2 weeks, I had been in for surgery (I was in and out on the same day). Whenever I went for any aftercare, I turned up at the appointed time and spent at most 15 mins waiting to see the doctor. The nurses and doc's were all friendly, efficient and professional.

It makes some sense to refer to public sector worker en bloc as the majority of them belong to a handful of trade unions who provide a large proportion of labour party funds and they all receive similar state backed pensions.

Someone who works on a till in Tesco can not be comparred to a senior manager or head of accountancy in Tesco yet they have the same employer and I doubt the till worker gets pay or pension anywhere near the manager or accountant. The same thing works for the public sector, different people doing different jobs getting different pay.

My real "point is this"

Wages have increased significantly in the public sector and you can retire at 60 on a generous pension. Public sector workers have had it good and there has been little cultural change. Had things like A4C been linked to raising the pension age for existing employees then thats a reasonable trade off but something for nothing inevitably means storing up problems for later.

Your point about being able to retire at 60 on a generous pension is a poor point. You can retire in the private sector at the age of 50 (rising to 55 next April). For a public sector worker to be able to get a generous pension when retiring at 60, they would have to have worked in the public sector for more than 40 years or more paying into that pension, and even then, it's not very generous. (source - http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/publicsectorpensions.pdf go to "Myth 4).