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

marklv

Andy_L wrote: »

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

I'm not necessarily arguing for a complete status quo. Some changes can be made, but nothing extreme in the way that these forum posters are advocating.

stueyhants

Marklv, I'm sorry the money isn't there. Irrespective of whether its right or wrong to cut public sector employment or T&Cs its' going to happen. So the best thing you can do is prepare for it.

Spartacus_Mills

marklv wrote: »

I'm not necessarily arguing for a complete status quo. Some changes can be made, but nothing extreme in the way that these forum posters are advocating.

So what changes would you be happy to accept Mark ?

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

You are the one who started the name calling, not me. Your rhetoric about taxpayers etc just makes me think that you're just another Daily Mail/Express reader (or even journalist) who likes nothing more than moan. You have a closed mind. The only thing you care about is alleged excessive govenrment spending - single issue.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

This has nothing to do with PRP, but government policy. By the way, I don't necessarily agree with the public sector expansion that has happened under Labour.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.
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.

Possibly - depends on the additional workload and the type of work involved.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

Fair enough, but doesn't this happen already? And have you factored in the extra costs due to increased stationery and stamp prices?

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

I'm sure all this is already taking place. A lot of what you say here is stating the obvious.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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.

Many final salary schemes in the public sector have already gone! The last ones left are in the police/armed forces and the NHS. The civil service and quangos like the Bank of England, FSA etc offer only average salary schemes. Of course they are still defined benefit, but less generous than the old ones.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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

The ones with high skills can always find employment elsewhere, believe me. Not so the others, but when the recovery is truly underway then they too will leave.

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

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!

You are fully entitled to your opinions, but what saddens me is that you keep repeating the same alarmist arguments that are seen, day in, day out, on the pro-Tory tabloids. These are simply not true.

Spartacus_Mills

marklv wrote: »

-
You are fully entitled to your opinions, but what saddens me is that you keep repeating the same alarmist arguments that are seen, day in, day out, on the pro-Tory tabloids. These are simply not true.

Neither are the claims that the Tories amendment to the NI rise would harm front line services given that it is less than 1per cent of planned spending of either party.

It does not stop people making disingenuous claims about it here.

marklv

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

So what changes would you be happy to accept Mark ?

Replacing final salary schemes with average salary schemes is a step forward. This needs to happen throughout the public sector. In addition, I would impose a cap on pensionable pay - say £60k a year maximum - so that any pay in excess of this does not count towards the assessment of the final pension. I would also introduce a graduated, tapered eduction in the basic state pension for those receiving a government employee pension of say, above £25k-30k a year. These measures alone would save billions and protect the pensions of employees on low salaries. There is no need to introduce defined contribution schemes.

ILW

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?




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.



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



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.



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.



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 think that perfectly sums up the attitude in much of the public sector and the problems with it. He is saying that unless the whole budget is spent then it is not possible to do the job properly. In the private sector people will be looking at getting the job done properly, and coming in under budget. With people like MARKLV in the civil service it will never change as they see their primary role is to spend money.

Spartacus_Mills

marklv wrote: »

Replacing final salary schemes with average salary schemes is a step forward. This needs to happen throughout the public sector. In addition, I would impose a cap on pensionable pay - say £60k a year maximum - so that any pay in excess of this does not count towards the assessment of the final pension. I would also introduce a graduated, tapered eduction in the basic state pension for those receiving a government employee pension of say, above £25k-30k a year. These measures alone would save billions and protect the pensions of employees on low salaries. There is no need to introduce defined contribution schemes.

Those seem eminently reasonable. However what about changing the retirement age, gradually, to 67 in line with the state pension ?

Procrastinator333

Just can't keep my finger off the reply button!

marklv wrote: »

You are the one who started the name calling, not me. Your rhetoric about taxpayers etc just makes me think that you're just another Daily Mail/Express reader (or even journalist) who likes nothing more than moan. You have a closed mind. The only thing you care about is alleged excessive govenrment spending - single issue.

I hae had a quick look through my posts, can't see anywhere I called you names? Please quote me.

Rhetoric, it is an opinion. I actually think most of the stuff in the daily mail is drivel, but if they think the public sector is too large and bloated, I'm in agreement with them.

I'm not moaning, moaning would be sitting here and just saying oh, the public sector wastes so much money, it isn't fair. I'm suggesting what I see as solutions to a problem. That isn't moaning.

While I actually dislike much of what is in the daily mail, if they are in the majority, that is how the country should be run, it is a democracy.

On what do you base the fact I have a closed mind? The fact I disagree with what you say? It would be easy to level the same point at yourself.

The only thing I care about, single issue? Again, how do you know? I'm typing about that here as that is the thrust of this thread. If the thread were about another topic I would post about that. The only thing you have typed about is keeping things mainly the same, so I could easily level the same point at yourself.

marklv wrote: »

This has nothing to do with PRP, but government policy. By the way, I don't necessarily agree with the public sector expansion that has happened under Labour.

To an extent yes, but where is the drive to achieve government policy in the cheapest way possible? There is no incentive to do so. A budget is set. Someone spends it.

marklv wrote: »

Fair enough, but doesn't this happen already? And have you factored in the extra costs due to increased stationery and stamp prices?

I'm sure all this is already taking place. A lot of what you say here is stating the obvious.

I took this as an example as it came to my mind due to the fact my other half has recieved 8 letters recently from the nhs. 6 of them about appointments she never made, though that is a different point. At no point has anybody ever asked her if she would like to receive them via email.

marklv wrote: »

Many final salary schemes in the public sector have already gone! The last ones left are in the police/armed forces and the NHS. The civil service and quangos like the Bank of England, FSA etc offer only average salary schemes. Of course they are still defined benefit, but less generous than the old ones.

And inch by inch they need to be eroded too.

marklv wrote: »

The ones with high skills can always find employment elsewhere, believe me. Not so the others, but when the recovery is truly underway then they too will leave.

Yes, a highly skilled employee can always move on, but they will only have the option of a private sector that is currently paying depressed wages for new entrants and freezing pay. The grass is not always greener. And if someone truly is a key employee, you make sure they are one of the ones who gets a fat bonus.

marklv wrote: »

You are fully entitled to your opinions, but what saddens me is that you keep repeating the same alarmist arguments that are seen, day in, day out, on the pro-Tory tabloids. These are simply not true.

In your opinion. When was the last time the public sector was squeezed hard? Every precedent in the private sector shows more can be done with less. Why should this rule not apply to the public sector too?

marklv

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Those seem eminently reasonable. However what about changing the retirement age, gradually, to 67 in line with the state pension ?

Yes. I agree with gradually moving the retirement ages, in line with how the state pension is moving - i.e. moving it in the same years as the ones the state pension is moving to ages 66, 67 and 68.

I'm glad we at last have some common ground.