Public sector earn 50% more than private sector

ILW

Double post

ILW

chucky wrote: »

so what's the correct non-inflated wage for a tube driver?

Bearing in mind that it requires no qualifications and requires only a couple of months training, I would suggest that there would be thousands of people willing and able to do the job for less than £30k. Even with the unsociable hours.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

Well try a few cab firms until you find a decent one, they do exist.

What are the problems you have encountered with the drivers?

unsafe driving (e.g. too fast, erratic breaking, aggressive overtaking, incorrect use of lanes). drivers who look like they could do with a nap. drivers who don't know the route and/or can't use an a to z to find an address. drivers charging (or trying to charge) a different (higher) fare than quoted by the cab office. drivers with very poor grasp of english.

ninky_2

ILW wrote: »

Bearing in mind that it requires no qualifications and requires only a couple of months training, I would suggest that there would be thousands of people willing and able to do the job for less than £30k. Even with the unsociable hours.

i think you grossly underestimate the responsibility. okay much of it is standard but they also need to be able to deal with random events that working with large numbers of public can throw up. they also need to e able to make clear and regular announcements about the service. they need to be able to be alert to safety threats and hazards.

personally i find the drivers and station staff much better presented and more polite than the typical service industry we've come to deal with in this country.

the tube workers are a success story as far as i'm concerned. they get a living london wage that allows them to support a family. the unions keep them involved in the industry and safety and work concerns. unions basically provide a free service to management (paid for by union fees) that often raises issues and concerns and allows a line of communication with the workforce.

surely a union is the big society in action? people involved in their own daily lives, electing people to represent them, putting forward concerns in a democratic manner. being involved. supporting themselves. taking responsibility. i don't see how a fragmented employee base that can be pushed around by management is an improvement on that.

also i've seen no evidence that drivers wages are unaffordable. the turnover each tube load of passengers generates must be huge and a drivers hourly rate a drop in the ocean in comparison.

why smash a part of the system that is clearly working?

Sir_Humphrey

Andy_L wrote: »

Or get paid a bonus

For the senior civil service, yes. Junior bonuses are so paltry they offer little incentive. An "exceeded" appraisal is worth far more IMO.

nomoreboomandbust

ninky wrote: »

unsafe driving (e.g. too fast, erratic breaking, aggressive overtaking, incorrect use of lanes). drivers who look like they could do with a nap. drivers who don't know the route and/or can't use an a to z to find an address. drivers charging (or trying to charge) a different (higher) fare than quoted by the cab office. drivers with very poor grasp of english.

Sounds more like the NHS to me

tommy8721

i would be interested in seeing how the measured like with like. if it was the case that P sec workers are 50% better off p.a than their private sec workers then there would be a mass migration of employment to the public sector. Private has always paid more, in relative terms, because there is a risk associated with private vs public sector as their jobs are generally less secure. I would posit a guess that they may have been comparing higher level public to a mid level private workers and applied a little sensationalism to the article to spice it up..... and it worked

Guitar

[FONT=&quot]I'd just like to say that as a public sector worker it's nice to read a thread on Private v Public that didn't descend into a universal lynch mob.[/FONT]

Andy_L

tommy8721 wrote: »

i would be interested in seeing how the measured like with like. if it was the case that P sec workers are 50% better off p.a than their private sec workers then there would be a mass migration of employment to the public sector.

Hard to say, its a strangly written article as its examples dont support the claims.

eg "typical state employee" is 35% higer (rising to 43% when including pension) but the example they give of a "like for like" teacher is only 12% better off (excluding pension) so I'm guessing the headline 43% (not 50% like the thread title) is average vs average, a consistently debunked/meaningless comparison

Old_Slaphead

tommy8721 wrote: »

i would be interested in seeing how the measured like with like. if it was the case that P sec workers are 50% better off p.a than their private sec workers then there would be a mass migration of employment to the public sector.

What makes you think that many weren't trying? Allegedly in the recent North Yorks Police Enquiry there were over 200,000 applications for 60 vacancies.