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

marklv

bigheadxx wrote: »

The CBI does not believe that better pensions in the public sector 'make up' for lower pay, as some have argued. The ONS shows the average public sector salary is £23,660, compared to £21,528 in the private sector – the biggest gap on record. Furthermore, the IFS has calculated that factoring in pensions would add 12% to public sector pay packages, and only 5% to private sector pay.

And although the average public sector pension is over £7,000pa, the CBI considers this a misleading figure because the very large number of people with only one or two years’ service pulls the average down
http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/Press.nsf/0363c1f07c6ca12a8025671c00381cc7/d1c3c285facecb5a802576f6002fd3c8?OpenDocument

Who the heck cares about what the CBI says? Who are these people that we should listen to everything they say as if it was bible truth? They're just a bunch of rich people who want to get richer. Sod them!

The reason that the average salary is higher in the public sector is because there are more professional people working there proportionally. Simple as that. The private sector includes a lot of people on minimum wage, like loo cleaners, waiters, etc.

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

it is clear that the threat of pay squeeze has not resulted in you looking to move back into the private sector. this makes sense, as you have said a few times on this thread that you didn't like working in the private sector. it seems unlikely that you would be incentivised to return just because your pay isn't being increased as much as you want it to be, and you say that you are one of the "ones with high skills". similarly professionals who moved into the public sector, trading off shorter hours and less stress for a pay cut are unlikely to up sticks and leave because of a small relative terms pay cut.

interested to know what your pay award was last year when RPI was negative.

Of course there comes a time when the bad treatment gets too bad to be tolerated and when I would go back to the private sector. I shall wait and see.

dopester

marklv wrote: »

People like you just want conflict - you are not open to reasoned argument, so my answer to you, and those like you, to F OFF! :mad:

I posted that to specifically wind-you-up.

You're very quick to tell people they show signs of mental illness, or that they are Daily Mail readers who shouldn't have any say, on points made which you disagree with.

marklv

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Agree in the most part, but not that high salaries should in themselves be slashed solely because they are high. Imo, the public setor actually doesn't pay anything like enough for some areas. Whoever runs something like the NHS should be on £500k and £10m+ of performance related pay.

True - but only to a point. High salaries need to be justified. If a top executive managers to make millions of efficiency savings, without turning his department into a Chinese sweatshop, then yes, he should be entitled to a decent bonus. However, the actual basic salary needs to be kept in check, so that only performance drives the big rewards.

marklv

dopester wrote: »

I posted that to specifically wind-you-up.

You're very quick to tell people they show signs of mental illness, or that they are Daily Mail readers who shouldn't have any say, on points made which you disagree with.

I don't mind disagreement, but making outrageous statements just to be provocative is simply being stupid. I have made an effort to put my arguments in a cogent fashion here, but apart from a few people, I keep coming across totally unreasonable 'straw man' arguments from those who just hate anything to do with the public sector and really just wish to dismantle it. It's like beating your head against a brick wall.

ILW

marklv wrote: »

I don't mind disagreement, but making outrageous statements just to be provocative is simply being stupid. I have made an effort to put my arguments in a cogent fashion here, but apart from a few people, I keep coming across totally unreasonable 'straw man' arguments from those who just hate anything to do with the public sector and really just wish to dismantle it. It's like beating your head against a brick wall.

I have to say that your stated argument that if a task or service comes in below budget, then it has not been done properly is a shameful attitude but one which pervades the public sector.

marklv

ILW wrote: »

I have to say that your stated argument that if a task or service comes in below budget, then it has not been done properly is a shameful attitude but one which pervades the public sector.

Shameful? Why shameful? What pompous drivel! How does a given budget get calculated? There is a rationale for doing it, isn't there? So, logically, if you spend less than you should you need to account for it, in the same way as if you overspend. I'm not saying you haven't necessarily done your job properly by underspending, but you need to explain why you spent less, and not expect brownie points as a matter of course.
Spending less by selecting a crap supplier who supplies crap is not providing value for the taxpayer! Underspending just for the sake of it is not good project management - not in the least.

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

anyway, public sector budgeting is a key problem. money is ringfenced, and can only be spent on a certain activity. if you underspend the budget, it tends to get cut the next year as you cannot justify keeping the money it duing the annual budgeting process. the result is an incentive to spend money even if it is not needed, in order to maintain the budget for next year.

Valid point. Maybe this approch to allocating budgets should be reviewed, and I accept this.

dopester

marklv wrote: »

Shameful? Why shameful? What pompous drivel! How does a given budget get calculated? There is a rationale for doing it, isn't there? So, logically, if you spend less than you should you need to account for it, in the same way as if you overspend. I'm not saying you haven't necessarily done your job properly by underspending, but you need to explain why you spent less, and not expect brownie points as a matter of course.
Spending less by selecting a crap supplier who supplies crap is not providing value for the taxpayer! Underspending just for the sake of it is not good project management - not in the least.

Fiscal conservatism. Not just wasting all your budget on someone else's (fat-cat's) budget projection to provide a service. Wasteful people in the public sector need to be broken.

For Immediate Release
March 1, 2010

Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury

Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.

“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.

###

Now that is true fiscal conservatism! Despite powerful incentives to do otherwise, this is something Congressman Ron Paul does every year. You see in Washington, if you spend less money, then the you often get less in your budget the following year.

So bureaucrats and politicians have an incentive to spend every last cent, even wastefully, so their budget doesn't get cut. Some even go over budget in order to get a larger allotment the following year. Not Ron Paul's Congressional office.

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2010/03/ron-paul-returns-100000-of-his.html

marklv

dopester wrote: »

Fiscal conservatism. Not just wasting all your budget on someone else's (fat-cat's) budget projection to provide a service. Wasteful people in the public sector need to be broken.

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2010/03/ron-paul-returns-100000-of-his.html

Dopetaker - please take the hint: