Labours legacy: 172 civil servant paid more then PM

kabayiri

Not surprisingly we have the 2 camps here, those who dont mind these mega salaries and those who do.

I'd like to see how many of these well paid civil servant jobs are in London. You can't really complain about house prices overheating in London when people like these command such sums.

In truth, it isn't any of my business what someone as an individual earns. Reward the star people by all means.

As long as we cut the bill to the public sector at large that suits me. We can't afford the current bill.

How you cut is down to each department. Get rid of a bunch of lower paid people, save on expenses, or top slice the top earners. By voting for the current government I voted for cutting the overall bill, not the method.

Gorgeous_George

marklv wrote: »

Absolutely. The big pay given to the CEOs of Tesco and M&S, among others, is reflected in the inflated prices we have to pay for their shoddy goods.

Possibly. However, it costs us much more because we have to subsidise their employees salaries with working tax credits etc..

GG

Andy_L

kabayiri wrote: »

I'd like to see how many of these well paid civil servant jobs are in London. You can't really complain about house prices overheating in London when people like these command such sums.

How can, at most, 172 people on £150-250k have any measurable impact on London house prices?

CLAPTON

Pennywise wrote: »

It's neither. It's simpler than that. The private companies are paying far too much. End of story.

It's nonsense to say that all capable people are earning hundreds of thousands of pounds - a lot won't be anywhere near that kind of money - there's a huge talent pool of people with an appropriate skillset who are more than able to take on the top jobs who would be delighted with a salary of £100k plus.

Just because you have a skillset doesn't automatically mean you get propelled into the top jobs on million pound plus packages. The only ones reaching such dizzy heights are the ones who know the right people. The public sector certainly shouldn't fall any further into the same trap of nepotism mattering more than ability.

We are only looking at a very small number of top people earning mega bucks. The job could easily be done by loads of people, equally capable, for far less money. Private sector doesn't matter because the company owners are the ones daft enough to pay over the odds and who suffer because of reduced profits. In the public sector, it is taxpayers who suffer when the pay for the top people is too high.

I'm not sure what you are saying

are you saying that the public sector already has the best people running them

so e.g. the very large increase in money oin the NHS is all being well spent and there is no way of increasing the health of the nation within the existing resources? or even maintaining the health with reduced spending?

or similarly the large increase in spending in education is equally well directed?

or the management of social services can't be improved ?

or what exactly are you saying?

marklv

kabayiri wrote: »

I'd like to see how many of these well paid civil servant jobs are in London. You can't really complain about house prices overheating in London when people like these command such sums.

Nonsense. It's the mega-rich City bankers that earn £1M a year and more who impact the London house price market, not a bunch of senior managers. These 172 people are a tiny drop in the ocean of wealth in London.

marklv

kabayiri wrote: »

In truth, it isn't any of my business what someone as an individual earns. Reward the star people by all means.

Quite right: it isn't your business. The right people need to paid enough for them to want to do the jobs and do them well. It's not a question of rewarding the 'star' people (I hate these terms), but of ensuring that pay matches level of responsibility.

kabayiri wrote: »

As long as we cut the bill to the public sector at large that suits me. We can't afford the current bill.

There are areas of the public sector that can be cut, but this is an exercise that needs to be carried out with care.

kabayiri wrote: »

How you cut is down to each department. Get rid of a bunch of lower paid people, save on expenses, or top slice the top earners. By voting for the current government I voted for cutting the overall bill, not the method.

It's not just a question of cutting staff, because large staffing cuts means cutting entire functions and this cannot be rushed through without considering the consequences.

The other area that can be cut is office buildings; the civil service still lives in the dark ages when it comes to teleworking. There are some huge office blocks that are used by government departments; quite needlessly, as many people could work effectively from home and in a hot-desking environment.

MrTomato

How is this left-wing politics? If anything it's right-wing.

Also, if we take the NHS chief for example. His job involves being head of 1 million staff, and being responsible for some pretty important decisions, so he pay I think is deserved. If we compare with the private sector, which in the UK is incomparable in terms of size, then Terry Leahy, who employs less than half that of the NHS, is on £1.3 million basic. And the Sainsbury's boss is on £900,000.

So the NHS boss in this example has a hell of a lot more responsibility, pressure and criticism, but is payed a quarter that of other people in similar level roles.

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

Nonsense. It's the mega-rich City bankers that earn £1M a year and more who impact the London house price market, not a bunch of senior managers. These 172 people are a tiny drop in the ocean of wealth in London.

it's more the much larger numbers of relatively junior bankers and traders earning £100k-£250k per annum who have had the largest impact on the london property market in my view. they are the reason that noone can afford a 2/3 bed place in a half decent area. we can certainly agree that a few highly paid public sector workers on top of that will have made no difference at all.

A._Badger

MrTomato wrote: »

How is this left-wing politics? If anything it's right-wing.

Also, if we take the NHS chief for example. His job involves being head of 1 million staff, and being responsible for some pretty important decisions, so he pay I think is deserved. If we compare with the private sector, which in the UK is incomparable in terms of size, then Terry Leahy, who employs less than half that of the NHS, is on £1.3 million basic. And the Sainsbury's boss is on £900,000.

So the NHS boss in this example has a hell of a lot more responsibility, pressure and criticism, but is payed a quarter that of other people in similar level roles.

And if some Tesco or Sainsbury branches were as poorly, wastefully and disgustingly run as some of our hospitals, he'd be out of that job in minutes.

MrTomato

A._Badger wrote: »

And if some Tesco or Sainsbury branches were as poorly, wastefully and disgustingly run as some of our hospitals, he'd be out of that job in minutes.

So he doesn't deserve his pay does he not? Because of failures by the managers he has delegated to and then the staff.

He can't do absolutely everything, can he? But of course, the Daily Mail will make you think he should be in the hospitals scrubbing the floors himself.

Would you prefer a privatised healthcare system where corners would be much easier cut, you wouldn't get free at the point of entry care and have the bosses on more than twice than the boss is on now?

Due to budget constraints, the system can't be perfect. But it is good.