London rents to be capped at £1250

baileysbattlebus

julieq wrote: »

You're not answering the question because you can't answer the question, lol.

You're creating a false dichotomy too. Yes, it's terrible that banks weren't better run, and it would have been lovely if there hadn't been a banking crisis, but that doesn't mean that the public sector has a right to allow inefficient practices. If the public sector is wasting even exactly the same amount as the MP's claimed on dodgy expenses, that's surely just as big as a scandal isn't it? This is OUR money being wasted.

Incidentally the appraisal system in my company doesn't lead to automatic dismissal on a negative appraisal, but it does allow entry to a managed process which can lead ultimately to dismissal on the grounds of incompetence (or a change of role). That's a radical idea which unfortunately seems yet to have made it into parts of the public sector.

But it has made it into some parts of the public sector

I used to contract for a government agency and was there for nearly 3 years. During the 3 years the appraisal system was changed in this particular agency to a system very much like appraisals in previous companies/corporations I have worked for. Previously it had been a system where no one failed - no objectives were set - so staff had no real idea what was expected of them. They did their job and often did no more - not the fault of the staff.

The changes resulted in an objective/performance driven appraisal system - a shock to the system for many - who had coasted along for years.

The unions did object initially to the changes - but they happened regardless.

I had to manage one lady through the "under/poor performance" procedure which resulted in her dismissal. Personally I would have moved her to a position that she was more suited to - but that wasn't an option.

I can't speak about other organisations within the public sector - just the one I worked for.

julieq

ruggedtoast wrote: »

To be honest Julie - when you go through life finding everyone else is the problem you eventually have to start looking at yourself.

Know what I mean? (Ofsted inspections by the way).

Back to personal attacks now Rugged? I'm sure your mates will turn up to support you before you actually have to engage in a single substantive argument, don't worry.

I'm not sure what I'm saying that's so controversial anyway. It's about applying the level of accountability we have in the private sector to the public sector so that we get more for OUR money and so no-one needs to find that public sector cuts cost them their job.

Would you possibly be a public sector worker, Rugged, is that why you're finding this so unpalatable as an idea?

As to where I find problems, I'm supported by the research that's been done, as well as my own observations in the limited areas I have experience of. Public sector productivity is way behind that of the private sector. One of the reasons "managers" are so hated in the public sector is probably because they're the agents of the changes needed to make this possible, and the unions make even the most sensible measures difficult to get through.

silvercar

Am I the only who read the thread title and thought, "great, I'll go and rent a £25m pad in Belgravia for £1250"?

carolt

That would be nice.

I think the first post, indeed the first words, made it clear what the subject matter was, though.

ruggedtoast

julieq wrote: »

Back to personal attacks now Rugged? I'm sure your mates will turn up to support you before you actually have to engage in a single substantive argument, don't worry.

I'm not sure what I'm saying that's so controversial anyway. It's about applying the level of accountability we have in the private sector to the public sector so that we get more for OUR money and so no-one needs to find that public sector cuts cost them their job.

Would you possibly be a public sector worker, Rugged, is that why you're finding this so unpalatable as an idea?

As to where I find problems, I'm supported by the research that's been done, as well as my own observations in the limited areas I have experience of. Public sector productivity is way behind that of the private sector. One of the reasons "managers" are so hated in the public sector is probably because they're the agents of the changes needed to make this possible, and the unions make even the most sensible measures difficult to get through.

I like the "we in the private sector" bit. It's good to see your solidarity with your brethren who fulfil functions like warming over pasties in Greggs or cold calling people about ring tones going toe to toe in the productivity league tables with university professors researching string theory.

I would say your judgement about the authority public sector unions have is somewhat misinformed - which unions are you talking about, and what measures have they blocked?

I'm trying to see things your way Jules - but you have to help me to help you.

julieq

Nice try Rugged, cherry pick extremes from the private sector and public sector and make a spurious comparison in an attempt to head off the argument, i.e. it's demagoguery, rhetoric not logic.

Most of the payments I make to the public sector do not go on professors researching string theory, they go to funding large organisations such as the NHS or pay for state education. So let's compare the big public sector organisations with big private companies, let's say the FTSE100, and then you'll get more of a like for like in terms of organisational efficiency.

Let's try another tack. All independent research shows a massive gap between productivity in the public sector in comparison to the private sector. Where productivity is rising in the private sector it is stagnant or even falling in the public sector. So how do you explain this, and do you think it's a good or a bad thing?

Ultimately if productivity goes up, we get more for our money without firing anyone. It's a win win. This shouldn't be controversial, and anyone in the public sector complaining about MPs expenses should remember that the money paying them comes from the same source and be prepared to be accountable in precisely the way they demand of MPs.

Which public sector unions block reform and change? Well we could start with the Postal Union, which is topical and obvious. We could continue through the NHS and conclude the first survey with the teachers' unions who have resolutely opposed any attempt to properly appraise teachers.

It's not just me saying this, and it's really not controversial. It's anyone who has seriously examined the state of the public sector. Productivity SHOULD be improved where possible, it's OUR money being spent. It's to EVERYONE'S benefit.

carolt

Have to say, having worked in both state and private education, I've generally found the state system far more in tune with the needs of the pupils, whereas at the heart of the private system, it's really about squeezing as much money as possible out of each pupil. I don't think the productivity (not sure how you measure that in education terms?) was any higher in the private schools. Though, on reflection, one private school I worked for did its best to falsify its students' exam results. ie cheat.

Not sure that's exactly a productivity gain, or one I wish to transfer to the state sector. :rolleyes:

ruggedtoast

julieq wrote: »

Nice try Rugged, cherry pick extremes from the private sector and public sector and make a spurious comparison in an attempt to head off the argument, i.e. it's demagoguery, rhetoric not logic.

Most of the payments I make to the public sector do not go on professors researching string theory, they go to funding large organisations such as the NHS or pay for state education. So let's compare the big public sector organisations with big private companies, let's say the FTSE100, and then you'll get more of a like for like in terms of organisational efficiency.

Let's try another tack. All independent research shows a massive gap between productivity in the public sector in comparison to the private sector. Where productivity is rising in the private sector it is stagnant or even falling in the public sector. So how do you explain this, and do you think it's a good or a bad thing?

Ultimately if productivity goes up, we get more for our money without firing anyone. It's a win win. This shouldn't be controversial, and anyone in the public sector complaining about MPs expenses should remember that the money paying them comes from the same source and be prepared to be accountable in precisely the way they demand of MPs.

Which public sector unions block reform and change? Well we could start with the Postal Union, which is topical and obvious. We could continue through the NHS and conclude the first survey with the teachers' unions who have resolutely opposed any attempt to properly appraise teachers.

It's not just me saying this, and it's really not controversial. It's anyone who has seriously examined the state of the public sector. Productivity SHOULD be improved where possible, it's OUR money being spent. It's to EVERYONE'S benefit.

Julie - you have won me over!

:money:

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

That would be nice.

I think the first post, indeed the first words, made it clear what the subject matter was, though.

So clear that a mod asked you to correct it

misskool wrote: »

carolt, can you please edit your title to include MPs only please as it gives the wrong impression for people who are browsing through the forum. Many thanks

misskool, as carolt is unwilling to correct her title, can you do it?