Public sector earn 50% more than private sector

ninky_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

no one in the public sector should earn more than 26k. tube drivers should be shot. that is all.

they shoot horses, don't they?

great movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Shoot_Horses,_Don%27t_They%3F_(film)

Andy_L

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The financial incentive to work harder/do work above your grade is to gain promotion.

Or get paid a bonus

Tiddlywinks

ILW wrote: »

Or possibly that by it's nature, the public sector does tend to attract relatively unambtious low achievers. The culture is totally different and much less competitive.

What would you call a lack of ambition? Public sector jobs include life threatening and life saving roles in the police, armed forces, security services, National Health etc. Those workers' aims and personal ambitions may well be different to those in banks, accountancy, financila mangement etc and thank heavens for it.

You get career PCs / Segeants in the police that have not risen through the ranks but that does not reflect negatively on their ambition... they may be subject experts and regularly appear in court to give very reliable and credible evidence which can make the difference between a conviction and the release of a criminal back on the streets.

How about secondary school teachers in an inner city - they can make a major difference to the lives of the kids. They can inspire them and open up new worlds of knowledge. Their ambitions may be based on seeing those pupils rise from their surroundings. Is that so wrong?

I have known many Law Enforcement investigators within the public sector - there are only so many operational grades and so those Officers tended to remain in the roles rather than move up and out of what they did best. Again, they were stretched everyday by the nature of their work. They had targets to meet and ever decreasing budgets available to carry out their work - yet they remained committed and were worth far more that they cost in terms of revenue collection and prevention of offences.

You can be a professional and gain development in certain areas but that may not necessarily manifest itself in a promotion or a rise in pay grade - this acceptance of the system does not equal a lack of ambition.

ninky_2

there is a place in the workforce for people who are not thrustingly ambitious.

a workplace full of self motivated competitors is not necessarily the most suitable for all tasks.

one of the worst things a manager can do is recruit entirely of others like him / herself.

ILW

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

What would you call a lack of ambition? Public sector jobs include life threatening and life saving roles in the police, armed forces, security services, National Health etc. Those workers' aims and personal ambitions may well be different to those in banks, accountancy, financila mangement etc and thank heavens for it.

You get career PCs / Segeants in the police that have not risen through the ranks but that does not reflect negatively on their ambition... they may be subject experts and regularly appear in court to give very reliable and credible evidence which can make the difference between a conviction and the release of a criminal back on the streets.

How about secondary school teachers in an inner city - they can make a major difference to the lives of the kids. They can inspire them and open up new worlds of knowledge. Their ambitions may be based on seeing those pupils rise from their surroundings. Is that so wrong?

I have known many Law Enforcement investigators within the public sector - there are only so many operational grades and so those Officers tended to remain in the roles rather than move up and out of what they did best. Again, they were stretched everyday by the nature of their work. They had targets to meet and ever decreasing budgets available to carry out their work - yet they remained committed and were worth far more that they cost in terms of revenue collection and prevention of offences.

You can be a professional and gain development in certain areas but that may not necessarily manifest itself in a promotion or a rise in pay grade - this acceptance of the system does not equal a lack of ambition.

Your points are fair, I was more thinking of the middle management types such as HR, finance, legal etc, which do have more direct comparisons with the private sector.

Tiddlywinks

ILW wrote: »

Your points are fair, I was more thinking of the middle management types such as HR, finance, legal etc, which do have more direct comparisons with the private sector.

I work with many legal chaps in the public sector and they are paid a fraction of the salary they would get in private practice - however, they made an informed choice as to what they wanted from their careers. The vast majority want to be in the public sector and were not just rejects that couldn't make it on the outside. Their personal motivations are different - that fact should be welcomed and not questioned or labelled as a lack of ambiltion.

As to "middle management" I think you need to be more specific in your directed remarks and recognise the differences between the Civil Service and the public sector and locally controlled organisations.

I have no doubt that some employ individuals 'coasting' though life but I have witnessed just the same in the private sector - I worked as an auditor for many years visiting different companies every week and I know from personal experience that most middle sized and larger organisations do have room for 'coasters' and those that are simply adequate.

As another poster has already said, organisations need a spread of personalities and abilities - if every one was 'dog eat dog' all of the time it would be a very unstable and unpleasant environment indeed.

The Civil Service of today is not bloated and not full of overpaid low achievers. The rate of change required from it over the last 10 years has sometimes been startling. Directives (often knee jerk reactions) are made by government and it is the CIvil Servants that have to make it work. Sometimes it ain't pleasant and mostly it's pretty stressful but most of us feel a loyalty to our organisation and that carries us though and keeps us doing our best - put a price on that!

ILW

I have never said that one is better or worse than the other, but I believe that the public sector tends to be less "dog eat dog" which would tend to attract a different type of employee.

michelle1506

I know a chartered accountant who works in the public sector, but used to work in the private sector. He is on much less money in the public sector then he was when he was in the private.

ILW

michelle1506 wrote: »

I know a chartered accountant who works in the public sector, but used to work in the private sector. He is on much less money in the public sector then he was when he was in the private.

What were his reasons for changing?

ninky_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

no, you're right, it's not just over the dismissal of one worker, it's over the dismissal of two workers. the reason the RMT called strikes is that they are both the sacked drivers are union activists.

the RMT have even said that they will call off the strikers if the one who has won his tribunal is reinstated. i can find no reference to any safety issues being relevant to this strike (apart from the rules that the driver who was sacked broke of course). the premise for the strike is completely ludicrous.

since the technology for driverless trains exists, the RMT are being particularly reckless in my view.

so basically management is willfully creating a strike situation by not reinstating a driver it unfairly dismissed. and i thought bob crow was bloody minded.