Public sector wellcome to the real world

Zelazny

Andy_L wrote: »

I'd of thought that, eg, the NHS negotiating 1.2million individual pay rises each year might well be less efficient (for both sides) than collective barganing

The current national pay bargaining system creates massive distortions, largely due to 2 facts: (i) If you get the same pay rise no matter how hard you work, how hard are you going to work? (ii) If you get the same pay in areas with high costs (london, etc) as compared to areas of low costs, where do you think there will be more public sector workers, and more competition for public sector jobs (thus better candidates)?

Andy_L

Zelazny wrote: »

The current national pay bargaining system creates massive distortions, largely due to 2 facts: (i) If you get the same pay rise no matter how hard you work, how hard are you going to work? (ii) If you get the same pay in areas with high costs (london, etc) as compared to areas of low costs, where do you think there will be more public sector workers, and more competition for public sector jobs (thus better candidates)?

i) Some parts of the public sector do vary pay rises based on individual performance. Whilst in other areas managers aren't prepared to use the options to not give an annual increment to under-performers

ii) Most (all?) of the public sector have pay leads for expensive areas (eg the NHS gives a 20% "high cost area" payment for Central London). Perversely that can result in areas within commuting distance losing their staff to the higher payinig area


In addition collective bargining does not have to mean national pay, you can collectively bargin by site. Inflation is much the same nationally so that part would be the same

dtsazza

jonandfun wrote: »

No problem. Roads,schools, hospitals, railways (apart from the bits sold off and what a success they have been) Armed forces, Police Force, courts, the list is endless and all are so called public sector.

Andy_L wrote: »

Ultimatly, the weaker party in any contract would be unable to enforce penalties for breaching that contract.

Good points - I definitely agree that private enterprise requires a framework of law, so police, courts and (to a lesser extent) armed forces are required. And while these could theoretically be run as private enterprises, it would make as little sense as having ratings agencies paid by the institutions they rate, in that it would create perverse incentives that would obstruct these bodies' primary functions.

Take education for just one example, can we as a country afford that only those who have money get higher education? Don't we desperately need the best brains to be best educated in either sector regardless of their families income?

Education though could potentially be performed by the private sector (and for a minority of the population, it already is) in that there's no need to remain unbiased. The interests of both the school and the students are aligned; and I don't think it need be prohibitively expensive. If a class of 30 paid £1,000 each a year that would cover a teacher's salary of, say, £25,000 with some funds left over for premises maintenance and profit. While one might shirk at the concept of paying £1,000 p.a. for education, it's hardly that expensive in the grand scheme of things considering the lifelong benefits you'd get from it. (And don't forget, if everyone was spending that money or more on schooling, the prices of other goods and services would adjust downwards in compensation, assuming they're considered less important than education.)

dtsazza

Andy_L wrote: »

I'd of thought that, eg, the NHS negotiating 1.2million individual pay rises each year might well be less efficient (for both sides) than collective barganing

It would be less efficient in the amount of time it took to reach the conclusions, true. But it would be more efficient in that the negotiations would be tailored to each individual, and would pay them the amount that gives them sufficient reward for the quality of work they're doing, and motivation to continue conscientiously in future, without overpaying.

There's no way that this equilibrium could be reached in a single negotiation. Collectively sentencing 1.2m criminals at once would also get you done quicker (= "more efficiently" as I understand your use of it), but the accuracy and suitability of the sentences would suffer.

Koicarp

dtsazza wrote: »

Looks like a very interesting book, I'll check it out. Thanks for the pointer (and I didn't know that Orwell had strong political views until now!).

Have you read this yet? Why not wind your neck in until you've finished it?
Do you really think that 30k is enough to pay a teacher 25k plus the bills?

cyclonebri1

Koicarp wrote: »

Have you read this yet? Why not wind your neck in until you've finished it?
Do you really think that 30k is enough to pay a teacher 25k plus the bills?

It's more than most get, :A ??????????????, after the "revision"

Andy_L

dtsazza wrote: »

It would be less efficient in the amount of time it took to reach the conclusions, true. But it would be more efficient in that the negotiations would be tailored to each individual, and would pay them the amount that gives them sufficient reward for the quality of work they're doing, and motivation to continue conscientiously in future, without overpaying.

There's no way that this equilibrium could be reached in a single negotiation. Collectively sentencing 1.2m criminals at once would also get you done quicker (= "more efficiently" as I understand your use of it), but the accuracy and suitability of the sentences would suffer.

by more efficiently I mean best "bang for the buck". Whilst individual negotiation might result in a lower pay bill and/or better performing staff, the gains would be wiped out by the extra time spent administering it.

StevieJ

dtsazza wrote: »

Looks like a very interesting book, I'll check it out. Thanks for the pointer (and I didn't know that Orwell had strong political views until now!).

You don't get any more political than Animal Farm, don't Google it BTW

Koicarp

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

It's more than most get, :A ??????????????, after the "revision"

Cyclone, I was thinking about the additional costs of employing staff, over and above their pay.

cyclonebri1

Koicarp wrote: »

Cyclone, I was thinking about the additional costs of employing staff, over and above their pay.

And why oh why is that any differrent in the pub V pri sector??

As someone thats worked in both, you surely realise that we are all simply "employees", government paid or privately paid??

This isn't about a divide, (I hope), just a realisation that we are all cannon fodder, ,