We are all in this together, well not if you are in a union.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

OK, but the point I was trying to make is not solely to do with bonuses, but the difference in potential reward. So that, say, an accountant or lawyer working in the public sector is bound to have less potential for earning 'big money' (however you define it) than the same professional working in the private sector. You can't become a partner while working in the civil service or local government as these are not profit making businesses, so your earning ceiling will awlays be lower. OK the pension schemes are better but that still doesn't make up for the loss of potential earnings. It's not surprising that it's mainly women professionals who opt for the public sector, as this is an area that offers more flexible working conditions and work-life balance than in the 'cut and thrust' of private business.

most accountants and lawyers are never going to be partners, or directors of FTSE companies or anything else so lucrative. most will not even make it to well paid jobs in big 4 accountancy firms or city law firms. most will hit a career ceiling which is not all that different from what they would get in the public sector.

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

you just completely and continually ignore the fact that noone in the public sector can be paid without tax revenues. you can't cut a £170 billion budget deficit by laying off a few consultants. you have offered no meaningful solutions - the reality is that you need to control costs across the board and increase tax revenues.

The deficit cannot be cut rapidly even with public sector pay cuts. Darling made noises about saving £2 billion - big deal! Tax rises will happen anyway, and they will be very painful for all people - regardless of where they work. The 1% pay cap thing was just designed to please the Daily Mail readers, it will have little impact on the deficit, as any educated analyst knows.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The public sector has had a good deal under labour. a lot of the money that has been put into the public sector has been used to increase public sector salaries at faster than the rate of inflation. The result is that public sector workers are now paid, on average, more than private sector workers. when there is no money in the till, you have to take the flip side of the coin and receive real terms cuts. you can't expect the private sector to keep paying more tax so you can have more money.

your solution is just to increase everyone's pay because they do important jobs and worry about it later. great plan, but that's not really a solution. everyone has to take the pain, including you, so learn to deal with it.

I don't know where you got your figures from - I would be interested in reading the source material. It's true that some public sector workers like nurses and doctors have received big rises under Labour, and certainly in the case of middle ranking and senior doctors a pay freeze would not be unfair. But nurses had been wretchedly paid for many years in the 80s and 90s and were due an improvement - no bad thing this. And the big rises in central and local government have gone to the very senior people, directors and the like, not admin or even junior and middle management. The latter have only received pay to keep them in line with inflation.

My solution is to cut - and I mean cut, not freeze - the pay of the most senior grades in all the public sector, but not to touch the pay of those on less than say, £65k a year. This, combined with a freeze on payband/scale increments for all staff, would keep pay in check without causing anger and stirring up trouble with the unions.

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

most accountants and lawyers are never going to be partners, or directors of FTSE companies or anything else so lucrative. most will not even make it to well paid jobs in big 4 accountancy firms or city law firms. most will hit a career ceiling which is not all that different from what they would get in the public sector.

Yes, but the potential is still there, while no such potential exists in the public sector.

Kohoutek

marklv wrote: »

OK, but the point I was trying to make is not solely to do with bonuses, but the difference in potential reward. So that, say, an accountant or lawyer working in the public sector is bound to have less potential for earning 'big money' (however you define it) than the same professional working in the private sector...

My mother has worked for a high street law firm for many years. She does a lot of work with tenants that have been mistreated by their landlord and homeless people. She is not going to get promoted any higher - she has hit a ceiling.

Last year, her pay was cut by 10% because the profitability of the firm fell. It has not increased since, even with inflation.

Am I right in saying that you expect her to pay for any pay rises you demand and topping up the deficit in public sector pensions (she doesn't have a good pension)?

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no, a much fairer way is that you don't receive cost of living increases when there is no money to pay for them.

cutting someone's salary by 25% is not criminal at all, even on your terms, as constructive dismissal is a civil matter not a criminal offence. in any case, many have had to take that sort of cut in the private sector - a cut you call criminal. you want them to pay more tax so you can have a payrise. that's not "criminal", i suppose.

I was using the word 'criminal' rhetorically, not literally. Maybe I should use the word 'idiotic' as being more appropriate. You cannot dictate public sector pay policy with the ice cold calculation of a cost and management accountant - do you honestly believe that everyone would accept this without a strike? You would have violent demonstrations that would make the 1980s miner's strike look like a vicar's tea party. Most people have mortgages and this type of pay cut would put people on the streets; then the government would have to intervene to prevent this and more public money would be wasted! You cannot save money by making your employees paupers.

My wife works in the private sector and she had a pay freeze last year. This year she is on course for an above inflation pay rise in order to catch up on last year, and yes she does get an annual bonus. She is not a banker, but works for an IT company. I don't know anyone who has had a 25% pay cut, nobody. Not even a 10% one for that matter. And if these people suffering cuts were directors on £200k+ then forgive me for not having much sympathy.

marklv

Kohoutek wrote: »

My mother has worked for a high street law firm for many years. She does a lot of work with tenants that have been mistreated by their landlord and homeless people. She is not going to get promoted any higher - she has hit a ceiling.

Last year, her pay was cut by 10% because the profitability of the firm fell. It has not increased since, even with inflation.

Am I right in saying that you expect her to pay for any pay rises you demand and topping up the deficit in public sector pensions (she doesn't have a good pension)?

I can't make comments about individual circumstances. Don't forget that there are significant differences even within the public sector on pay and benefits.

Kohoutek

It's an example which is not unique which challenges the 'private sector workers aspire to/make big money' mantra that you're clinging to. I know plenty of similar examples within the high street legal profession that also work to help ordinary people.

But according to you, every public sector worker deserves at least an inflation linked pay rise, paid by them, even if their pay is cut. Let's not forget that outside the frontline public sector workers - teachers, nurses, firemen etc, there are a considerable amount of less socially productive workers in management and administrative posts. Why do those peoples' pay deserve to be protected and their equivalents in the private sector don't? Because they joined the public sector expecting to have a cushy secure job for life? What noble intentions.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

I was using the word 'criminal' rhetorically, not literally. Maybe I should use the word 'idiotic' as being more appropriate. You cannot dictate public sector pay policy with the ice cold calculation of a cost and management accountant - do you honestly believe that everyone would accept this without a strike? You would have violent demonstrations that would make the 1980s miner's strike look like a vicar's tea party. Most people have mortgages and this type of pay cut would put people on the streets; then the government would have to intervene to prevent this and more public money would be wasted! You cannot save money by making your employees paupers.

so, we will dictate public sector pay policy without regard to the fact that there's no money to pay for increases, and just pay everyone more for the emotional reasons you trotted out earlier. that's idiotic... of course public sector pay policy has to be dictated by reference to what the country can afford.

My wife works in the private sector and she had a pay freeze last year. This year she is on course for an above inflation pay rise in order to catch up on last year, and yes she does get an annual bonus. She is not a banker, but works for an IT company. I don't know anyone who has had a 25% pay cut, nobody. Not even a 10% one for that matter. And if these people suffering cuts were directors on £200k+ then forgive me for not having much sympathy.

there were plenty of examples of people taking deep pay cuts earlier in the recession, notably in the car industry when workers were being sent home on a fraction of their pay whilst the factories shut for long periods of time. needs must. most people who are directly affected by the recession just get made redundant though, and get a 100% pay cut.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

The deficit cannot be cut rapidly even with public sector pay cuts. Darling made noises about saving £2 billion - big deal! Tax rises will happen anyway, and they will be very painful for all people - regardless of where they work. The 1% pay cap thing was just designed to please the Daily Mail readers, it will have little impact on the deficit, as any educated analyst knows.

of course it can't, but it certainly won't be solved by increasing public spending without corresponding increases in tax revenues. tax rises will happen - why make them more painful just so you can be paid more. the "1% pay cap thing" is a sensible and reasonable policy in an environment where costs must be reduced across the board.

I don't know where you got your figures from - I would be interested in reading the source material. It's true that some public sector workers like nurses and doctors have received big rises under Labour, and certainly in the case of middle ranking and senior doctors a pay freeze would not be unfair. But nurses had been wretchedly paid for many years in the 80s and 90s and were due an improvement - no bad thing this. And the big rises in central and local government have gone to the very senior people, directors and the like, not admin or even junior and middle management. The latter have only received pay to keep them in line with inflation.

i was working in the civil service when large pay rises were pushed through across the board for several years in a row. as you say certain public sector jobs such as nurses were targetted with large payrises. i don't have the stats to hand, but there are often links posted here which support the average public sector salary being higher than private sector.

My solution is to cut - and I mean cut, not freeze - the pay of the most senior grades in all the public sector, but not to touch the pay of those on less than say, £65k a year. This, combined with a freeze on payband/scale increments for all staff, would keep pay in check without causing anger and stirring up trouble with the unions.

this isn't a solution. this is an uncosted solution to pay for a payrise which shouldn't be made. top level public sector pay probably should be cut in real terms, the saving shouldn't be eaten up by giving it to lower level public sector staff - there is no money to pay them, it will have to be borrowed.

we are not going to have city centres burned down because a reasonable pay policy is imposed. a few strikes here and there maybe, but we're not going to see social breakdown because of a 1% payrise. it's ludicrous to suggest that people will be out on the streets and civil unrest will ensuebecause they won't be able to pay their mortgages when they are being given a pay rise, and the govt is keeping interest rates artificially low, and the government is giving handouts to people who cannot pay their mortgages.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

Yes, but the potential is still there, while no such potential exists in the public sector.

no, the potential is not there for most people. most people never have a chance of accessing these jobs regardless of the sector they work in.