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

vivatifosi

marklv wrote: »

No, my definition of intelligent, creative politics is not resorting to the same failed monetarist policies of cutting off the money supply and strangling the recovery.

marklv wrote: »

Any party except Conservative. I would rather vote UKIP or BNP in preference to these wh**es of the rich business elite.

I'm really struggling with the notion that while yearning for intelligent, creative politics you're considering voting BNP.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm really struggling with the notion that while yearning for intelligent, creative politics you're considering voting BNP.

This thread re opened at the last post, and I've been wondering about who marklv is, what I can learn from him and the distance between situations and his interpretation of fact in his posts. Thanks viva for letting me put these thoughts of wonderment out of my mind and allowing be to move on to a better class of nutter....to wonder about and discuss things with.

marklv

vivatifosi wrote: »

I'm really struggling with the notion that while yearning for intelligent, creative politics you're considering voting BNP.

Whatever you say about them their economic policy makes more sense than the Tory one - but that wouldn't be too hard.

PrivatisetheNHSnow

marklv wrote: »

Would I fight to protect my interest? Of course I would, why wouldn't I?

I thought you said you weren't a parasite? Why did you join the public sector?

Procrastinator333

This thread does seem to go round in circles!

Don't quite know why I'm posting, I can already see me getting bored quite quickly, but I have read bits of this thread several times and it just feels like an itch just waiting to be scratched.

Firstly, each to their own, but I just have to keep repeating to myself, not everyone in the public sector is like marklv, not everyone in the public sector is like marklv!

The public sector needs to be run by business people, not MP's, sure the MP's should set objectives, but put someone like Stuart Rose in charge of say the NHS, and they would hunt out every single wasted penny. And there would be a lot of pennies.

I don't think UK plc is in crisis yet, and one of the main ways that an organisation with a significant payroll cost base can tackle a non crisis situation is to freeze BOTH pay and recruitment.

As people leave, just don't replace them. The rest have to pick up the slack. If this approach is squeezed hard, it is amazing the extra productivity that can be generated when you have staff working flat out. You can also be sure that all those pointless tasks (done because of tradition or history etc) quickly cease.

You could treat the real front line staff with a little more leeway, but even a doctor, if ordinarily they saw 50 patients in a day, let 5% of doctors leave through natural turnover, each remaining doctor sees 53 people a day. They would grumble, but they would still get the job done.

Back office you can squeeze even more. Without looking at a thing, I would bet my bottom dollar that if 10% of back office public sector workers left through natural turnover, the other 90% could pick up the slack and would cut out some inefficiency in the process.

Couple that with a pay freeze for a year. All new entrants on defined contribution. Existing pension closed at current levels and move all staff on to defined contributions for future contributions.

Add in some proper performance related pay - at all levels. So take schools. You would need to break it out in to blocks of 1000-5000, so not sure what sort of area that covers, maybe a county?

Two targets.

1) Increase in results. Definition of results would need to be determined, but something like average grade at gsce and a-level combined with a parent satisfaction survey. You take this survey and that is year 0. The target to benchmark against.

2) Savings over budget.

You may end up with some sort of a matrix, e.g. 1% rise in results, coupled with 1% cut in spending results in a payout of 2% to all staff. A rise of 3% in results coupled with 3% cut in budget results in 10% bonus for all staff.

The upper management should probably have this attached to a 100% bonus to ensure any amount of effort required to bring about the changes is worth it to them. Pick the right people and they will drive it through. As bonus is linked to both results and budget savings, they can't just slash their way to a bonus.

Maybe staff get no pay rise this way, but they hit the targets and the bonus will far outweigh any lost pay rise.

This is a pretty bog standard approach in the public sector. And it works. Time and time again.

marklv

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

I thought you said you weren't a parasite? Why did you join the public sector?

Are you not capable of making one single remark that isn't gratuitously offensive? Nobody takes you seriously here.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

This thread does seem to go round in circles!

Don't quite know why I'm posting, I can already see me getting bored quite quickly, but I have read bits of this thread several times and it just feels like an itch just waiting to be scratched.

Firstly, each to their own, but I just have to keep repeating to myself, not everyone in the public sector is like marklv, not everyone in the public sector is like marklv!

The public sector needs to be run by business people, not MP's, sure the MP's should set objectives, but put someone like Stuart Rose in charge of say the NHS, and they would hunt out every single wasted penny. And there would be a lot of pennies.

Nonsense. The public sector is all about offering a service to the government and to the public, it is not a profit making business and should not be run like one. Stuart Rose and people like him have experience in running profitable businesses, not in running public organisations. The culture is totally different for a start, and the workers are different 'animals' to the ones you come across in a business organsiation. Putting in executives from the private sector isn't going to automatically change the entire way of working - this has been done before and it has failed. A good executive needs to get his subordinates on his side, and if he preaches a gospel that they cannot accept then he is already getting off on a wrong footing.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I don't think UK plc is in crisis yet, and one of the main ways that an organisation with a significant payroll cost base can tackle a non crisis situation is to freeze BOTH pay and recruitment.

Freeze pay and you won't need to freeze recruitment - staff will leave on their own accord.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

As people leave, just don't replace them. The rest have to pick up the slack. If this approach is squeezed hard, it is amazing the extra productivity that can be generated when you have staff working flat out. You can also be sure that all those pointless tasks (done because of tradition or history etc) quickly cease.

You could treat the real front line staff with a little more leeway, but even a doctor, if ordinarily they saw 50 patients in a day, let 5% of doctors leave through natural turnover, each remaining doctor sees 53 people a day. They would grumble, but they would still get the job done.

Back office you can squeeze even more. Without looking at a thing, I would bet my bottom dollar that if 10% of back office public sector workers left through natural turnover, the other 90% could pick up the slack and would cut out some inefficiency in the process.

You can try to squeeze as much as you like, but the truth is that most people do not like to be put under gratuitous pressure and they will not do more than their job description or working hours entail. A lot of work will simply not be done if you fail to replace staff. It's a fact that if you try to do the job of two people you will do both badly - the less you need to focus on, the better your output will be. If you got rid of 10% of tax officers or inspectors then the public would face delays in getting their tax assessments or refunds back from HMRC - trying to force people to do more in the same time will lead to more mistakes and various other problems. Reducing headcount is fine, as long as the work is also reduced, but trying to force through more work on already overloaded staff is very bad management. You don't need an MBA to work that one out.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Couple that with a pay freeze for a year. All new entrants on defined contribution. Existing pension closed at current levels and move all staff on to defined contributions for future contributions.

Over my dead body and those of thousands of others, my friend. You can look forward to a Summer of discontent that will make the Winter of 1979 look like a vicar's tea party. If that happened then I would leave and go back to the private sector where I could earn much more.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Add in some proper performance related pay - at all levels. So take schools. You would need to break it out in to blocks of 1000-5000, so not sure what sort of area that covers, maybe a county?

Two targets.

1) Increase in results. Definition of results would need to be determined, but something like average grade at gsce and a-level combined with a parent satisfaction survey. You take this survey and that is year 0. The target to benchmark against.

2) Savings over budget.

You may end up with some sort of a matrix, e.g. 1% rise in results, coupled with 1% cut in spending results in a payout of 2% to all staff. A rise of 3% in results coupled with 3% cut in budget results in 10% bonus for all staff.

The upper management should probably have this attached to a 100% bonus to ensure any amount of effort required to bring about the changes is worth it to them. Pick the right people and they will drive it through. As bonus is linked to both results and budget savings, they can't just slash their way to a bonus.

Maybe staff get no pay rise this way, but they hit the targets and the bonus will far outweigh any lost pay rise.

This is a pretty bog standard approach in the public sector. And it works. Time and time again.

There is already performance related pay in the Civil Service and many other public sector organisations - I don't know about teaching. People are already given stretching objectives and are assessed on them every year, with punitive measures if the employees dont match up to expectations. This is old stuff. PRP was introduced in the late 1980s in the Civil Service and staff appraisals have been going on probably since the 1950s or 60s.

bigheadxx

marklv wrote: »

Freeze pay and you won't need to freeze recruitment - staff will leave on their own accord.



Over my dead body and those of thousands of others, my friend. You can look forward to a Summer of discontent that will make the Winter of 1979 look like a vicar's tea party.

And where exactly are these staff going to go?

Strike action on any serious scale is highly unlikely and will only serve to put the public on the side of reform.

marklv

bigheadxx wrote: »

And where exactly are these staff going to go?

Strike action on any serious scale is highly unlikely and will only serve to put the public on the side of reform.

I already come from the private sector and I can go back there if I wish, but I chose my current role because it's not based on client sites and there is no travelling involved. I am an IT specialist. There are lots of specialists like myself who could go - and then when the government needs us again for project work we'll go back as contractors and charge £500 a day. Where is the big saving in this? It's cutting your nose to spite your face.

You can't buck the market- good old Maggie said this, not me. If you want good and skilled staff you have to pay properly, otherwise you'll soon find yourself in trouble.

All these ideas about cutting pay etc is just crypto-economic nonsense dreamed up by various geeks in the Treasury who think they can run a country with an abacus. It's not that straighforward. Yes, you will end up with a lot of backroom admin people who will be paid slave labour wages, but all the really skilled specialists will drift away. There will be a 'brain drain' once the economy picks up and jobs become plentiful again in the private sector, as will happen. The the government will either have to raise salaries again or re-employ those who left as consultants, on big money. Any long term saving will be wiped out.

No, the best thing is to ensure that the public sector is well paid and very well looked after, because in the long term that will offer the best value for money for the taxpayer.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

Nonsense. The public sector is all about offering a service to the government and to the public, it is not a profit making business and should not be run like one. Stuart Rose and people like him have experience in running profitable businesses, not in running public organisations. The culture is totally different for a start, and the workers are different 'animals' to the ones you come across in a business organsiation. Putting in executives from the private sector isn't going to automatically change the entire way of working - this has been done before and it has failed. A good executive needs to get his subordinates on his side, and if he preaches a gospel that they cannot accept then he is already getting off on a wrong footing.

Nail on the head, the culture needs to change. The private sector focuses on delivering to the customer and maximising profitability. The public sector should focus on customer service as cheaply as possible. Different objectives, but achievable with the same tools.

Yes a business leader would need subordinates on his side and as with any business integration, if they don't get existing subordinates on side they are quietly shown the door and more suitable people are brought in.

marklv wrote: »

Freeze pay and you won't need to freeze recruitment - staff will leave on their own accord.

Where will they all go? According to you they don't like the private sector because it is scary. They need to earn a crust, so what choice will they have?

marklv wrote: »

You can try to squeeze as much as you like, but the truth is that most people do not like to be put under gratuitous pressure and they will not do more than their job description or working hours entail. A lot of work will simply not be done if you fail to replace staff. It's a fact that if you try to do the job of two people you will do both badly - the less you need to focus on, the better your output will be.

Of course people don't like it, well tough, just as a shareholder wants max return for their investment, I as a taxpayer want max output for my tax £. You re-write the job description to include the extra work. They don't do it, they get shown the door. I also don't actually think this is true. Take another example, someone at HMRC who reviews tax calculations, if instead of 10 calculations falling on their desk in a week, 11 did, the vast majority would just moan a bit and then do the 11.

marklv wrote: »

Over my dead body and those of thousands of others, my friend. You can look forward to a Summer of discontent that will make the Winter of 1979 look like a vicar's tea party.

Nobody in the private sector liked it either, but it is the way of the world. There may be a fight on this one, but you break it up piecemeal, divide and conquer. Only applies to new entrants from 12 months time to start with. That way nobody currently in work is impacted and it is grudgingly accepted. Then you wait a while, let new members who don't receive the final salary filter in to the masses. A few years later there are a reasonable % not on final salary, make a stand. Leave any strikers out in the cold for as long as they want to wait. In the end they will run out of money to support themselves and come back to work. It would be painful, but better for UK Plc in the long run.

marklv wrote: »

There is already performance related pay in the Civil Service and many other public sector organisations - I don't know about teaching. People are already given stretching objectives and are assessed on them every year, with punitive measures if the employees dont match up to expectations. This is old stuff. PRP was introduced in the late 1980s in the Civil Service and staff appraisals have been going on probably since the 1950s or 60s.

Well it clearly isn't working then and needs a radical overhaul! How much of that performance related pay relates to not spending the whole budget? I ask a genuine question here, I would expect none, but don't actually know if that is true or not.