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

marklv

Kohoutek wrote: »

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.

A circular argument. I have already said that some admin posts could be eliminated, but believe it or not, you do need a number of admin and managerial people to ensure that organisations function correctly. Or would you rather employ trained doctors and other specialists to do these tasks?

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

Yes, I agree about affordability, but I have already explained that you can make cuts without imposing pay freezes galore. We're going round in circles here.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

Well there are no factories in the public sector, believe it or not. Manufacturing is suffering badly, but you are comparing apples with oranges here; there is noone in the public sector who does a similar job to a car factory assembly worker. Most public sector workers are service based and many are professionals.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

Yes, I agree about affordability, but I have already explained that you can make cuts without imposing pay freezes galore. We're going round in circles here.

but everything needs to be cut. you can't make the necessary cuts to deal with the budget deficit from one particular area. you need to control costs in every aspect, including payroll. payroll has to be cut in real terms. it is just selfish of you to want to continue to get payrises paid for by everyone else when we simply cannot afford it.

Well there are no factories in the public sector, believe it or not. Manufacturing is suffering badly, but you are comparing apples with oranges here; there is noone in the public sector who does a similar job to a car factory assembly worker. Most public sector workers are service based and many are professionals.

i didn't suggesting cutting public sector pay by 25% though did i. i said that a 1% pay rise was not brutal, a 25% pay cut was brutal. then we moved on to me suggesting that it was also brutal that you want people, some of whom have had paycuts, to pay more tax so you can have more money.

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

Sensible and reasonable as long as you are not directly affected.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

The only reason the average public sector salary is higher is because there is a larger number of professional people in the public sector. The private sector includes toilet cleaners, shop assistants, waiters and the like.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

There is money if the savings can be made in other ways, and I believe they can.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

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.

I was referring to social breakdown in case of a hypothetical 25% pay cut, not a 1% pay cap. But don't expect people to accept a government imposed pay cap - there will be strikes, to be sure.

Really2

marklv wrote: »

I am all in favour of pay restraint in the public sector, but imposing 1% ceilings on pay budgets for two years is not the way forward. This is brutality, not pay restraint.

Hello planet earth calling. How are pay rises (all be it below inflation) = brutal.

Many in the private sector have seen no increase for years?
I am sure they would love to have a brutal 1% pay rise forced on them.

Since when did it become right for above inflation pay rises to be expected every year no matter the cost?

abaxas

Just a quick example for how the public sector has changed....

My juniur school had 13 members of staff including cleaners, dinner ladies etc in 1980.

Mate's son goes to the same school which has 32 now. Well 32 on the welcome board in reception, who knows who else..

!!!!!! are the others doing?

Really2

marklv wrote: »

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

My wife has moved up in the public sector.
Teachers can move up (up to over £100K)

So I fail to see how you do not believe there is career growth potential in the public sector?

Pete111

Really2 wrote: »

My wife has moved up in the public sector.
Teachers can move up (up to over £100K)

So I fail to see how you do not believe there is career growth potential in the public sector?

I think there is opportunity for significant advancement in the public sector - albeit more limited in scope than in the private sector.

I suspect however that large swathes of those within the public sector do not necessarily show the aptitude, desire to grow their skills or career 'drive' to take such opportunities.

Having worked in HR within a quango that was roughly 50/50 in terms of employees backgrounds (public/private) I saw an awful lot of ex public sector folk simply happy to sit in the same job and do the 9-5 (and not a second more...) and a lot of people with private sector backgrounds moving up the ladder ahead of them by going the extra mile.

Just an observation - I think it was a mindset thing mostly.

Pennywise

marklv wrote: »

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

Yes there is - they can leave the public sector and work their way up in the private sector. But only the best ever reach senior high paid levels. I'd argue that the "best" wouldn't have gone into the public sector in the first place - they'd have far more likely been successful in the "milk round" upon graduation and got themselves in with the top firms straight out of Uni.

The average bog standard accountant will be far better working in the public sector than the private sector - only the real high flyers get to the top - many (most) will languish in small firms, probably not even earning enough to pay higher rate tax, with nothing more than a £50 xmas bonus to look forward to, certainly no other "perks" as such that you seem to think everyone gets in the private sector.

Generali

Fundamentally the problems are that the Government takes about 40% of GDP in taxes and spends 53%.

The Government can't continue to spend as much as it is as 53% of GDP is way to high to be consistent with a strong, growing economy. Nor can it continue to borrow 13% of GDP a year.

The argument isn't really about whether to cut, it's about how to cut. The majority of Government spending goes on three things: transfer payments (eg dole, pensions, child benefit), salaries and interest payments.

Interest payments can't be cut without defaulting on the debt, an extreme option.

Welfare payments? They probably could be cut. However, in 1601 the Poor Law was passed and it was noted at the time that much spending on poor relief went to people that were perfectly capable of working and often by subsidising poverty, you just created more of it (eg by making it feasible for employers to pay below subsistence wages). The problem has been formally recognised by Government in the UK for over 400 years and yet no solution has been found.

The last is salaries. That means cutting either salaries or numbers or both. I'd prefer the latter as you then free up people to do something more productive and so add to GDP, at least in the longer term.