Average civil servant earns less than a private sector worker

marklv

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

No it's not. There's a new scheme for new employees that's SLIGHTLY less generous than the old scheme (but still requires overall contributions in the region of 25-30% of employees salary to fully fund)

No, it's considerably less generous - because the retirement age has been pushed to 65 from 60, and it is now based on career average earnings, not final salary earnings. It only makes little difference if you are joining at an already senior/mature level and are not expecting to get promoted again.

marklv

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Nobody 'gets' that - that's the amount of money the taxpayer notionally will have to pay into the CS scheme (ie around 20% of payroll cost) to meet it's liabilities. As pensions are considered to be deferred salary it's only fair to add these onto current cost when comparing with others who don't receive such a benefit (ie virtually all of private sector nowerdays)

For a private individual to get the same pension as a CS they would need to pay around 25% of their salary each year into a private scheme

The government has already indicated that civil servants' pension contributions will have to rise.

marklv

perplexed.com wrote: »

If you want to talk about fair wages for a fair days work (public or private sector) then let's do so. How exactly would you propose to establish just how much a public sector worker should be paid? If you say something like, it depends on what we can afford, well how much would that be then? If we have very little in the pot, generally should we pay public sector workers at all? Or only some? If so who? and how much?

:rotfl:"Should we pay public sector workers at all?" LOL!!! :rotfl:

Old_Slaphead

marklv wrote: »

As always, it depends. Civil servants in admin/clerical roles are brutally underpaid when compared to the private sector.

Absolute drivel

marklv

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Absolute drivel

This is precisely what you have been saying in all your posts, Slaphead.

Your comparison of civil service and private sector pay is as inept as it is manifestly stupid. Why o why should the civil service pay at the lowest common denominator? For what possible reason? Other than to make people like you feel better and more smugly self-satisfied. A lot of private sector companies are little more than a joke and pay very little because they are barely profitable. The civil service is a huge concern that is comparable to blue chip companies like Shell, BP, ICI etc. The salaries are therefore on a par with this sector of industry, and quite rightly too. Can you imagine what would happen if the civil service started paying 'Steptoe & Son' type wages? Anyone decent would leave as fast as possible and those left would do basically nothing, not to mention the semi-permanent strikes that would take place. Public services would grind to a halt. Give people nothing and they have nothing to lose.

The only way to ensure good public services is to pay staff competitively and ensure that they have motivation to work well. What happens to small private sector companies is irrelevant - it's like comparing apples with oranges. Get that through your head.

marklv

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

Serious answer to the above query on the civil service. As of September 2009 there were 532,000 people working for the civil service (excluding N.Ireland), and 6,093,000 working in the public sector as a whole. So, less than 10% of the public sector.

The public & private sector section (page 8) of the ONS Labour Market Statistics release for September-November:

Irrelevant rubbish, as the public sector employs far more professional and specialist staff, hence the slightly higher average pay. The private sector employs the likes of toilet cleaners etc.

Old_Slaphead

Oh well - now a certain poster has arrived, that's the end of this thread.

Just before I go - markLV, try to get a little consistancy into your posts. Also try and support your usual wild rhetoric with a few facts

On #88 you say they are brutally underpaid
On #93 you say they are paid in line with blue chip companies

Andy_L

marklv wrote: »

No, it's considerably less generous - because the retirement age has been pushed to 65 from 60, and it is now based on career average earnings, not final salary earnings. It only makes little difference if you are joining at an already senior/mature level and are not expecting to get promoted again.

Its only worse due to the increase in retirement age and an agreement to share any increase in employer contributions above, IIRC 20%.
The change to carear average was accompanied by an increase in accrual rate from 1/60ths (~1.6%) to 2.8%. Theoretically the accrual rate costs the same, it just shares it out differently instead of favouring full service staff who get regular promotion

Andy_L

marklv wrote: »

As always, it depends. Civil servants in admin/clerical roles are brutally underpaid when compared to the private sector. Salaries only become decent once you are in grade 7 and higher

Interestering, IME its the other way round, the SCS are underpaid compared to their private counterparts (people recruited to the SCS from industry having higher salaries than internal promotees) whilst the AA/AOs, when you consider the whole package, are doing OK (mainly because minimum wage legislation favours salaried staff as you have to include holidays when working it out)

Andy_L

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Nobody 'gets' that - that's the amount of money the taxpayer notionally will have to pay into the CS scheme (ie around 20% of payroll cost)

Its not actually notional, the employing departments do have to pay that extra %age out of its paybill. Its just used to pay pensions of current retirees rather than being invested, like the state pension.