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

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

Not sure what you mean.

I was just saying that if this route was taken, the person tasked with running say the NHS, would probably need to have the opportunity to earn a £10m+ bonus. E.g. If over 3 years they cut the budget by 5%, while increasing some key metrics by 5% over the same period.

Andy_L

bigheadxx wrote: »

This is why the Notional Defined Benefit, put forward by the CBI is the most likely first step. A straight switch to defined benefit means the government of the day would effectively have to pay twice for a long period of time which would increase tax and borrowing and therefore be unpopular.

I can't really see the benefit over just gradually eroding DB benefits, IMO it combines the worst aspects of unfunded DB and few of the benefits of a shift to DC.

-There.s a big obviously reduction in staff remuneration rather than the "stealth reduction" of whittling away at DB benefits which will be contentious
-There's all sort of issues over what the pseudo-fund tracks
-If the stock market booms then the unfunded liability booms
-The treasury may be pressurised to alter economic policy to preserve the value of the fund
-When somebody retires you've got to give them their pot in one hit rather than paying it off over a number of years
-Would the sudden increase in people buying annuities, via supply & demand, mean people getting less pension for the same pot?

stueyhants

I'm looking forward to all the public sector strikes, hopefully it will be catalyst for some real change. A full scale reduction in what the states does and how much it costs.

The state does too much, rather than say what can we cut we should start again from the bottom up and say what do we actually need. Start with a fixed budget and gradually add in the most important services first until the budget is full and then stop, no more.

kabayiri

stueyhants wrote: »

I'm looking forward to all the public sector strikes, hopefully it will be catalyst for some real change. A full scale reduction in what the states does and how much it costs.

The state does too much, rather than say what can we cut we should start again from the bottom up and say what do we actually need. Start with a fixed budget and gradually add in the most important services first until the budget is full and then stop, no more.

It makes sense when you read this back. It's hard to argue with.

I think it starts with a cultural shift in attitude though, and at the moment I think some sectors of the workforce are miles away from this outlook.

marklv

Andy_L wrote: »

I can't really see the benefit over just gradually eroding DB benefits, IMO it combines the worst aspects of unfunded DB and few of the benefits of a shift to DC.

-There.s a big obviously reduction in staff remuneration rather than the "stealth reduction" of whittling away at DB benefits which will be contentious
-There's all sort of issues over what the pseudo-fund tracks
-If the stock market booms then the unfunded liability booms
-The treasury may be pressurised to alter economic policy to preserve the value of the fund
-When somebody retires you've got to give them their pot in one hit rather than paying it off over a number of years
-Would the sudden increase in people buying annuities, via supply & demand, mean people getting less pension for the same pot?

Exactly, so better to leave things as they are!

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

I feel the same about you and the many other Tory mouthpieces on this forum. Why don't you !!!!!! off to the forums in the Conservative Party website?

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

Rubbish. He wouldn't be able to build a bloody lego house. He would have people already in place and have to work with them. PRP already exists, even for the most senior people, as I've said before.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

Civil service managers already produce all sorts of metrics and reports. That's the main part of the job!

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

Cutting processes? What processes? What on earth do you know? According to you 10+1 still equals 10. Well, it doesn't, it equals 11!! Cutting processes means cutting part of the actual job, and if that's what you want then say so.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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?

Why are you so obsessed with pensions? Yes, pensions are crap in the private sector but salaries are higher. What you advocate in the public sector is both pay cuts and making pensions basically worthless - hardly a surprise that there will be an exodus.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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

Stamped out - says who? Who are you to make these statements? Budgets are designed to spent in full because they are calculated beforehand to be required to do a given job properly. Otherwise, the budget should have been lower to start with! So if you save on a budget and do a project really badly as a result you obviously haven't done your job properly. 99% of the time you will struggle to stay within a budget at the best of times, so actually underspending would mean not achieving the objectives. Simple as that. You just talk utter tosh!!

dopester

marklv wrote: »

Because many public sector jobs do not have private sector equivalents. I am fortunate in the sense that I have skills in heavy demand in the private sector and the recession has made little difference to me. But I chose to work in the public sector because I wanted to and because I don't want to be 'pimped' out as a consultant any more. However, the truth is that many people in the public sector have skills specific to that sector only, so 'going elsewhere' is only practical if it's within the public sector.

1) I'm really wondering what skills you have which are so heavily in demand, and which can command premium pay in a recessionary environment in the private sector. A private sector where many other people are taking pay-cuts, and where job opportunities are fewer than in the boom days.

2) Of course the recession has made little difference to you! You can't even entertain a pay freeze. All the about pay-cuts only for those earning over £65K+ so long as you is doesn't impact on your cushy pay position Mark.

Procrastinator333

marklv wrote: »

I feel the same about you and the many other Tory mouthpieces on this forum. Why don't you !!!!!! off to the forums in the Conservative Party website?

No need to be rude! You voice your opinion, I voice mine, isn't that the idea of a forum?

I have never voted or even contemplated voting conservative in my life, well, up until this election. I think in truth, I find both labour and the conservatives too extreme (nothing like sitting in the middle!). 13 Years of labour spraying taxpayer money at everything, you know, some of it has stuck and done some good, but there is plenty of waste. A term or 2 of conservative cost cutting would be a good thing imo, starting with the bloated public sector.

marklv wrote: »

Rubbish. He wouldn't be able to build a bloody lego house. He would have people already in place and have to work with them. PRP already exists, even for the most senior people, as I've said before.

Not quite sure who you are specifically referring to? PRP may exist, but it clearly isn't targetted correctly as the public sector just gets fatter and fatter.

marklv wrote: »

Civil service managers already produce all sorts of metrics and reports. That's the main part of the job!

Good, this would help, narrow it down to the key metrics, tie it to doing it without spending all of the budget and pay a fat bonus if they achieve it.

marklv wrote: »

Cutting processes? What processes? What on earth do you know? According to you 10+1 still equals 10. Well, it doesn't, it equals 11!! Cutting processes means cutting part of the actual job, and if that's what you want then say so.

In an organisation of any size, waste creeps in. A process that may have been required a few years back becomes less relevant, or redundant, but still carries on. Unless there is a squeeze on times, these ehings just plod on. But if someone has 37 hours of work to do in their 35 hour week, they quickly find either faster ways of doing something or find an aspect that no longer needs to be done.

It also goes back to proper budget related targets. Say you run part of the nhs that deals with customer communication. You are given a budget of £10m for communicating with patients. Last year it cost £9.9m to post out all those letters. Easy life, just repeat.

However what they should really do is amend the system so that an email address is taken from all where possible. Must be a good 50-75% of the population who check an email address at least once a week. Such a system would be hard work to implement, but do that and you could cut that budget in half. But as you are given a budget, there is no reward for coming in under budget, why put yourself through the hassle of setting this up. Just keep sending those letter.

That is just a small example, but in an organisation with 6 million staff there will be am incredible amount of such opportunities.

marklv wrote: »

Why are you so obsessed with pensions? Yes, pensions are crap in the private sector but salaries are higher. What you advocate in the public sector is both pay cuts and making pensions basically worthless - hardly a surprise that there will be an exodus.

Because final salary schemes cost a fortune - A fortune that has to be paid by the taxpayer. A defined contribution scheme is not worthless, it just addresses the actual costs at the start and makes the employee share it fairly rather than leaving it as a surprise at the end for the taxpayer to pick up.

An exodus to where?! The private sector is not really growing, so where will all the unhappy public sector workers go?

marklv wrote: »

Stamped out - says who? Who are you to make these statements? Budgets are designed to spent in full because they are calculated beforehand to be required to do a given job properly. Otherwise, the budget should have been lower to start with! So if you save on a budget and do a project really badly as a result you obviously haven't done your job properly. 99% of the time you will struggle to stay within a budget at the best of times, so actually underspending would mean not achieving the objectives. Simple as that. You just talk utter tosh!!

I am me and I am expressing an opinion. That is no different to your self.

The problem is there is no real incentive to come in under budget. I'm not saying use that as the only metric, but it should be one of the key measures.

Underspending does not mean not meeting the objectives. The company I work for has reduced costs by around 5%, increased revenue by around 15% and customer satisfaction has gone up by around 7% over the last 12 months. We are not unique.

There is always fat that can be cut away.


Mark, it seems that you are getting quite upset about all of this, it is a nice day, go outside, have a bit of fresh air and enjoy the sun. Neither of us is wrong, we each have our own opinion and will no doubt vote in the way we think best fits our opinion. I would never want that any other way.

I will try and leave this thread now, as I think we are just goign to repeat our points to each other again and again!

Andy_L

marklv wrote: »

Exactly, so better to leave things as they are!

No, the status quo is, for various reasons ( financial, political, demographical), unstainable.

The important thing for public sector workers is to ensure changes are based on facts rather than tabloid rants by engaging sensibly with employers and, ideally, improve provision for all rather than drive everyone down to the bottom

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

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

interesting you feel able to say such a thing, given that if someone says something you don't agree with, you just respond with unprovoked personal attacks.