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

bigheadxx

Kohoutek wrote: »

It certainly doesn't make much sense, especially given Labour recent manifesto commitment:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/labour+pledges+minimum+wage+rise/3609712



I don't understand why working for the government means you should get paid £2 more an hour than you would in the private sector - given that people in the private sector, including those on minimum wage, are paying for the 'living wage'. A good bribe to make low paid people in the public sector vote Labour I suppose...






Hardly a convincing way of costing this measure. It seems both parties have suggestions coming out of their ears on how to increase spending, not reduce it.

The Low Pay Commission will also be given additional responsibilities to report on productivity and career progression in low-skilled, low-paid sectors.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/labour+pledges+minimum+wage+rise/3609712


I wonder how much this will cost, how many new jobs it will "create" and what it will actually achieve?

carolt

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

She provides absolutely no evidence to support that and quite frankly it's drivel.

Just 1 example....at the lowest grade/skill private sector workers get £5.74/hr whereas public sector get at least £6.12/hr (+pension+extra hols+job security etc etc)

Yes, she does provide evidence. ONS figures.

Whereas I can see precisely no evidence for bigheadxx's claim that "What I do know is that a job paying X amount in 2000 in the public sector is paying considerably more in 2010 than a job in the private sector that was paying the same amount in 2000."

This is just made-up nonsense, backed up by nothing than malice towards people who might, just be possibly, be earning more than you. :eek:

And we can't have that. Oh no.

bigheadxx

carolt wrote: »

Yes, she does provide evidence. ONS figures.

Whereas I can see precisely no evidence for bigheadxx's claim that "What I do know is that a job paying X amount in 2000 in the public sector is paying considerably more in 2010 than a job in the private sector that was paying the same amount in 2000."

This is just made-up nonsense, backed up by nothing than malice towards people who might, just be possibly, be earning more than you. :eek:

And we can't have that. Oh no.

I back this up by comments such as "get on at the council, its good money, secure good pension", "work for the NHS, good money"

I know a lot of public sector workers and not a single one of them thinks that they have got a rough deal or that they could do better in industry and they are all completely oblivious to the squeeze that has happened in the private sector and seem to think that they are protected from pay cuts / pension cuts in the future. "One out, all out" I heard the other day and that was from a senior manager!

I have no malice towards somebody earning more money than me but what I want to see is some kind of acceptance that:

1/ Public sector workers have done considerably better than every body else over the last 10 years.

2/The public sector employs too many people.

3/ Public sector pensions are too high and unsustainable.

I have backed up the majority of my posts in this thread with links to articles which most opposing poster have not.

carolt

bigheadxx wrote: »

I back this up by comments such as "get on at the council, its good money, secure good pension", "work for the NHS, good money"


1/ Public sector workers have done considerably better than every body else over the last 10 years.


I have backed up the majority of my posts in this thread with links to articles which most opposing poster have not.

Can I have sources for the unsubstantiated quotes at the beginning, please, and the rather astonishing generalisation at the end, please?

bigheadxx

carolt wrote: »

Can I have sources for the unsubstantiated quotes at the beginning, please, and the rather astonishing generalisation at the end, please?

People say this the length and breadth of the country and the "astonishing generalisation" at the end is no such thing as there is plenty of back up for this within this thread. If that is all you can muster at over 400 posts then its time to give up!!!

carolt

So no sources, then.

As I suspected.

bigheadxx

http://www.channel4.com/news/article...e+rise/3609712
http://www.cbi.org.uk/ndbs/Press.nsf...8?OpenDocument
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7accaee4-4...tml?ftcamp=rss

One from within:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-chief-hits-out-at-public-sector-bosses-pay-1942450.html

Sir Norman said his proposal was to freeze all public service pay and pension entitlements incrementally, starting with the highest paid 25%, adding "the whole sector mind, no exclusions or special pleading."


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/nhs-executives-pay-soars-by-7-a-year-1942092.html

Andy_L

carolt wrote: »

Yes, she does provide evidence. ONS figures.

The ONS figures back up the "The state sector is far more highly skilled: ONS figures show only 8.6% of people in the private sector are in professional grades, against nearly a quarter in the public sector" claim. I've never seen anything that backs up her "paid 70p an hour less for working for the state." claim and, belive me, I've spent a lot of time looking for such data as it would settle the arguement once & for all: whichever way the evidence falls

Old_Slaphead

carolt wrote: »

Yes, she does provide evidence. ONS figures.

Would you be good enought to replicate the evidence or provide a link for the 70p differential because I can't find any substantive evidence.

I also even think her comments about professional grades is totally misleading.

Having a 'professional grade' - whatever that means - is not the sole arbiter of being skilled (what about tradesmen, builders, farmers, draughtsmen, maintenance fitters etc etc - are they not just as skilled as someone with a 3rd in media studies doing a 'professional grade' job ??).

As far as I can remember, and I'm sure AndyL will correct me if I'm wrong, this statistic refers to people with degrees. When did having a degree equate to a profession ????


Unless her statement can be fully supported, I don't think PT should, yet again, make such sweeping, inflammatory and, IMO, grossly inaccurate statements.

N1AK

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

Targets could be set part individually, part on the NHS as a whole. Say the head of catering. The NHS has I don't know, 1m people a day. They get a pittance to put that food together, something like £3 a day. But if you link that head of catering to a bonus worth 15% of their salary, say they get a 3% bonus for every 1% under budget and 1% increase in patient satisfaction, I bet both would improve. On the above, food at day 1 would be running at about £115m a year. This head of catering knows if he can get it down to £110m and increase customer satisfaction by a few %, he and his team will be getting a very nice brucey bonus. Once their earning potential is so intimately linked, they wil find a way to get it done.

Targets in the NHS are constantly brought up, by people who have analysed its issues, as being incredibly damaging.

To take your head of catering example:

1. Forget investing in future savings, chances are you'll have moved on, save the money and up the bonus. I've seen this happen in private industry.
2. Redefine who is supposed to be fed and what meals. If you can cut the number of meals you give customers by 2%, big saving, bonus improves. Pity it means your gran won't get breakfast if she's leaving the hospital before midday etc.
3. If you know you're going to fail somehow cut your losses. A hospital which will score badly because it needs renovation; ideally it would be renovated, however it may be more effective just to take the rating hit and serve really cheap, rubbish food and save money. A hospital has an issue meaning lunch is going to be late, if they start lunch late they'll miss the deadline for dinner: Sod lunch, you've been marked down anyway, focus on scoring for dinner. This is what happens in hospitals already, if you go to A&E and they miss the deadline to see you, you get moved to the bottom of the queue while they focus on treating people they haven't missed the deadline on.

I'm all for seeing performance related pay, and ideally management by objectives rather than drowing with targets, in the NHS; but, it really isn't as simple as you'd think.