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

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

If you want good and skilled staff you have to pay properly, otherwise you'll soon find yourself in trouble.

I wouldn't disagree with this, but private sector salaries are pretty static at the moment. Therefore holding public sector pay to the same minimal or non existent increase does not increase or create any pay gap between public sector and private sector.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

I already come from the private sector and I can go back there if I wish.

And if you and the other 6 million started looking for work in the private sector, that would very quickly depress wages in the private sector, eroding much of any gain that may have been there in the first place.

Procrastinator333

Last multiple post I promise.

In order to get this working, the person at the top would need to have performance related pay running into the £millions, probably tens of £millions.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

Erm, no. More likely the chief executive will be shown the door by the cabinet minister responsible. Antagonising your direct reports - who are also senior managers - is not the right approach for the head of a govenrment department. The Civil Service is based on the concept of cooperative, inclusive management. The culture is one of management by committee. No single person can change this culture, trust me.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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?

I have already explained this in my previous post.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

Not as simple as you say. I know what goes on in the private sector as I have worked there for 20 years, so please don't lecture me. Even in the private sector you don't overload people with tasks they cannot do - this is regarded as the worst possible kind of management. It just doesn't work. You can pay people overtime, yes, but would you want this in the public sector as well? I don't think you would. This is the only you are going to get people to do extra - pay them overtime.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

Nonsense. This would just cause unnecessary confrontation. What you advocate is just not necessary, it's forcing the terms of employment down to paupery levels. Again, the best people would leave and you would be left with a disgruntled rump of angry staff who just wouldn't care any more about their work.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

Managers are a given a budget and are expected to spend it to the full. If they don't they don't just get brownie points at the appraisal, they have to explain why they haven't spent it. Similarly, if they exceed the budget they are expected to explain why in some detail. Generally, appraisals focus on what you have delivered over the year, the satisfaction of the stakeholders with these deliverables, and also generic objectives like training and how your team is doing as a whole, as well as how other staff members perceive you, adherence to equal opportunity policies, etc.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with this, but private sector salaries are pretty static at the moment. Therefore holding public sector pay to the same minimal or non existent increase does not increase or create any pay gap between public sector and private sector.

This may be true at present, but it will change once the recovery picks up.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

And if you and the other 6 million started looking for work in the private sector, that would very quickly depress wages in the private sector, eroding much of any gain that may have been there in the first place.

I'm not saying 6 million people would suddenly resign and register with employment agencies. For a start, it would be the specialists who would be more prone to do this, as their skills are more easily transferrable, and even then only over a period of time. But it would happen for sure. And then the government would be having to rethink salary policy all over again.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Last multiple post I promise.

In order to get this working, the person at the top would need to have performance related pay running into the £millions, probably tens of £millions.

Not sure what you mean.

Procrastinator333

I feel myself getting bored, so this may all stop soon! Also, your posts do seem so outlandish at points, a big part of me thinks you are just trolling anyway.

marklv wrote: »

Erm, no. More likely the chief executive will be shown the door by the cabinet minister responsible. Antagonising your direct reports - who are also senior managers - is not the right approach for the head of a govenrment department. The Civil Service is based on the concept of cooperative, inclusive management. The culture is one of management by committee. No single person can change this culture, trust me.

Where did I say antagonise? The first thing a chief exec would do would be to build a team around them that shares the same direction and goals. Again, one very effective way of doing this is performance related pay. I would bet there are quite a few civil servants who would be quite happy to jump on board if they had access to 100% level bonuses. Any of them not on board get shown the door.

If a cabinet minister ever had the balls to do this and see it through, they would quickly fall in love with the idea. Imagine if each quarter they had a few metrics that said 1) Perforamce has increase - look at this satisfaction survey etc etc and 2) we have done that alongside a 3% year on year budget saving.

marklv wrote: »

Not as simple as you say. I know what goes on in the private sector as I have worked there for 20 years, so please don't lecture me. Even in the private sector you don't overload people with tasks they cannot do - this is regarded as the worst possible kind of management. It just doesn't work. You can pay people overtime, yes, but would you want this in the public sector as well? I don't think you would. This is the only you are going to get people to do extra - pay them overtime.

Where did I say overload with tasks they can't do? If every worker had to do 10% more, they would manage fine. Some of that 10% would be found by cutting processes that don't actually achieve anything. Only way to get more work is overtime. Tripe.

marklv wrote: »

Nonsense. This would just cause unnecessary confrontation. What you advocate is just not necessary, it's forcing the terms of employment down to paupery levels. Again, the best people would leave and you would be left with a disgruntled rump of angry staff who just wouldn't care any more about their work.

The private sector no longer has much in the way of final salary schemes, so it's not like they can go to another employer in order to get a final salary scheme there. Are you saying that the private sector pays paupery levels, because defined contribution is what the majority receive. If it is that paupery, why would anyone want to leave to go there?

marklv wrote: »

Managers are a given a budget and are expected to spend it to the full. If they don't they don't just get brownie points at the appraisal, they have to explain why they haven't spent it. Similarly, if they exceed the budget they are expected to explain why in some detail. Generally, appraisals focus on what you have delivered over the year, the satisfaction of the stakeholders with these deliverables, and also generic objectives like training and how your team is doing as a whole, as well as how other staff members perceive you, adherence to equal opportunity policies, etc.

Nail on the head again, this is just the sort of culture that must be stamped out. Uhder spend on budget should be at least number 2 on the list of priorities. Consistently over spending budget should lead to demotion or sacking.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

This may be true at present, but it will change once the recovery picks up.

I'm not saying you freeze pay forever, but in years when private sector is not giving pay rises, e.g. now, there is no need to give public sector wage rises.

Once the recovery picks up and private asector pays more, you do that again in the public sector.

E.g. You keep any gap that already exists static. What is the point in giving pay rises to the public sector while private is close to zero? It does nothing for taxpayer value -waste of money.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

I'm not saying 6 million people would suddenly resign and register with employment agencies. For a start, it would be the specialists who would be more prone to do this, as their skills are more easily transferrable, and even then only over a period of time. But it would happen for sure. And then the government would be having to rethink salary policy all over again.

Part of this whole cost cutting process is you identify key staff. That is one of the jobs of the management. Who can the organisation really not afford to loose. You insulate them from the changes. That may end up being 5-10% of the workforce, but the rest are fair game.

I ahve no idea if you would fall in to that category.