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

geoffgeofftygeoff

Has public sector lunch time ended yet...

lostinrates

marklv wrote: »

I'm not working because I'm on holiday, you nutcase!

I hope you are enjoying it!

marklv

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

no they don't.

where does your gross income come from? Answer - taxes from the private sector. Therefore where does your tax come from?

Ok, well the alternative would be to charge people directly for the services we offer. That's the way in the good ol'US of A, isn't it? But wait, even there they are now bringing in a national health service now, or at least the rudiments of one. Before joining the public sector I was an IT consultant and my employer charged me out at over £1,000 a day to clients. Do you seriously expect people to pay for public services directly? I don't think most people would agree with you on this.

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

the public sector is just an extension of the benefits system, with a few exceptions (doctors, nurses etc). it's to stop people that aren't clever enough to get a real job from causing trouble. it's to give them a 'job' to occupy their time, just like how labour have increased the number of students doing degree which are unless. they don't produce anything.

This is insulting crap, nothing more. I can easily go back into the private sector if I want to - I get daily calls from agents trying to get me to do just that. I don't need to be lectured by useless imbeciles like you who think they know better.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

marklv wrote: »

So the public sector generates nothing? OK, what do teachers, doctors and police generate?

teacher=private schools produce better results that the public sector
doctors=GPs are self-employed. most countries do not have an nhs, you don't need public sector healthcare
police=spend most of their time filling in forms, the ultimate public sector task

wrong, wrong and wrong.

public sector=benefits system

marklv wrote: »

This is insulting crap, nothing more.

Whatever. If you get a 2:1 in Maths, you become an accountant. If get a 2:2, you become a Maths teacher. Everyone knows this that's been to university.

marklv

lostinrates wrote: »

I hope you are enjoying it!

No, I'm not, because I'm wasting my time here arguing with blockheads who have been brainwashed by the tabloid press. Which begs me to ask: how many people on this forum are actually working? Not many, by the looks of it! :rotfl:

bigheadxx

marklv wrote: »

Utter nonsense. What goes on in the private sector is only a matter for that sector, in all fairness. People who choose to work in the private sector do so because there is more possibility to rise to high positions and earn big money, either as a specialist, a senior manager or in sales. The risk of redundancy is the price for this opportunity. The public sector does not work like this - people who go here prefer steady, long term careers with lower pay but more security and a decent pension. The price they pay is that promotion is usually a 'dead man's shoes' affair, due to strictly controlled headcounts, and there is no tangible reward for extra work and effort. You are mixing apples with oranges.

The government is only imposing these idiotic 1% pay caps in the public sector because it makes the government look 'macho' in the eyes of the national press, overwhelmingly pro-Tory. It's a gimmick to attract the people who read these newspapers, nothing more. The monetary impact of these pay caps is insignificant when compared to the overall national debt. The concept of 'sharing the pain' is petty, nasty and vindictive, and a kick in the teeth to all the public sector workers who have had to endure difficult and demanding occupations for modest pay.

I fully agree with the unions and I will definitely be voting for a strike myself if current plans don't change.

About as clueless as the man himself GB:

He went on: "Britain is on the road to recovery. Don't put that at risk. The Conservatives' policy would take £6 billion out of the economy. That is a huge sum of money to take out of the economy.
"National Insurance is to pay for the public services that we are getting. We have more teachers, we have got more nurses, we have got more doctors. That is what we are trying to maintain - the high standard of public services."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100407/tuk-pm-defends-national-insurance-plans-6323e80.html

Isn't the Conservative policy actually going to put £6BN into the economy? What GB means is under the tory proposals there is £6BN extra in the economy that individuals and businesses can spend themselves rather than the government. Same old labour, the government can spend your money better than the individual.

marklv

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

teacher=private schools produce better results that the private sector
doctors=GPs are self-employed. most countries do not have an nhs, you don't need public sector healthcare
police=spend most of their time filling in forms, the ultimate public sector task

wrong, wrong and wrong.

public sector=benefits system

Private schools don't come cheap - do you honestly expect most people to cough up £30k a year for their child's education? Most people have nowhere near that kind of money available. There are salaried GPs as well, and they are paid by the NHS. Becoming a self-employed GP requires a substantial cash investment in a partnership, does it not? Hospital doctors are of course employed by the NHS, as are nurses. It's true that too many police are bogged down in paperwork but this is not the main role of the job, as you well know. Anyway, paperwork still needs to be done!

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

Whatever. If you get a 2:1 in Maths, you become an accountant. If get a 2:2, you become a Maths teacher. Everyone knows this that's been to university.

I've heard this tale before. You forgot that if you get a 1st in Maths you become an actuary.

In truth, firms of accountants are less interested in the degree class, or even the degree subject, than your A level grades. These seem to be the main deciding factor when picking candidates.

marklv

N1AK wrote: »

From an economic perspective, public sector pay cuts (whether in real or absolute terms) isn't going to be sufficient to solve our deficit issues.

We have too many public service employees as a proportion of our workforce. If someone works for the private sector they are not paid by government and they pay tax to government. Every potential private sector employee who instead works for government ceases to be a revenue generator and becomes a cost.

I don't want to see mass unemployment among public sector employees, or long periods of pay freezing applied to them. I would like to see our government look seriously at how they expect the ever decreasing proportion of the country who actually generates money to cover the increasing number of pensioners and public sector employees, and if it can't be done work out how to transition to a lower level of public employment in a controlled manner that doesn't ruin 1,000s of peoples lives

You forget that private sector employees are also a cost - a cost to their employer and to the shareholders who own the company. And public sector employees pay tax and NI to the government just like anyone else, brainbox.

lostinrates

marklv wrote: »

No, I'm not, because I'm wasting my time here arguing with blockheads who have been brainwashed by the tabloid press. Which begs me to ask: how many people on this forum are actually working? Not many, by the looks of it! :rotfl:

Why not go and do something you will enjoy?

I don't work

misskool

marklv wrote: »

I'm not saying that it is impossible for a public sector worker to move to the private sector, but the nature of the work is totally different. For example, what private sector job can an employment service adviser do? Or a social worker? Or a manager in the Department of Transport?

What you also have think about is that by devaluing the jobs of public sector workers and forcing many to leave you will damage the entire delivery of services that the public sector offers.

A social worker can work in the now (mostly privatised) care sector. A manager for the Department of Transport can be a logistics manager, at any one of the various private logistics firms. Or a manager for many other companies, most people don't need to stay in the same industry to manage people. The employment service advisor can be a freelance careers advisor.

I'm not devaluing the public sector, I'm asking each and everyone of them to be accountable for the service they provide. You have identified skillsets which you claim are only valuable in the public sector but clearly all skillsets are transferable (as you have shown in moving across).