Public sector wellcome to the real world

Spirit_2

Andy_L wrote: »

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.

And the additional costs of settling all of the equal pay claims. Disability, race,gender etc.....


Although I quite like the idea that extra pay may attract the better staff to any hospital that I might use, and am not too fussed if there is less capability available to hospitals in locations where none of my family are treated.;)

dtsazza

Koicarp wrote: »

Have you read this yet? Why not wind your neck in until you've finished it?

I have read it - and to be quite honest I don't think it has much to bring to bear on the discussion in this thread.

The first part (chapters 1-7) are essentially a description of the living conditions of miners (and to a lesser extent, all industrial Northern workers). Anthropologically interesting, but nothing more than that.

The second part is where the meat would be found. But Orwell's main argument seems to be against class-hatred, and the antagonism of each class to each other. I quite simply don't consider this to be an issue in the present day and age; while there may be some people that are still hung up on these definitions, it seems to me to be the case that the debate is conducted on the grounds of actions and behaviours, rather than abstract and ill-specified labels.

Orwell also seems to believe that social improvement is some sort of zero-sum game; that for the lot of the working classes to be improved "means abolishing
a part of yourself." This is likely an extension of seeing the world through an "us and them" classist lens; but I reject this claim as untrue and unfounded.

More importantly, the book assumes that capitalism leads unconditionally to evil results and that only Socialism can improve the lives of the working people. This is presented as gospel, and there is not a shred of analysis anywhere in the books as to why (or rather, if) this is the case. I disagree with Orwell on this, and there's nothing to lead me to believe otherwise. (Additionally he exclaims that the principles of Socialism are "justice and liberty" - but which serious political systems are against justice, or against liberty? It's not enough to state what the aims are; the rub is in how effectively those aims would be realised.)

The chapter on the machine-civilization is ridiculous. I would certainly suggest that the real thrust of improvement is in reducing the amount of work that we have to do in order to stay alive, freeing us (and our time) for whatever purposes we please. The example of the table shows very shallow consideration - Orwell may be able to get a "better" table from a factory in purely functional terms, but it is unlikely that those turned out appeal to his aesthetic sense as well as one he could make himself - not to mention the sense of pride he would have in something hand-made. He seems to have no conception of art (ironically for an author) and instead yearns for a life consumed entirely by work. The whole chapter seems internally inconsistent on this point - Orwell yearns for a life which is harder, in which men must work more just to provide the same output; but then claims he can't empathise with the cabinet-maker because "most of the work has already been done for me by machinery." Why not make the cabinet with chisel and gauge instead of plane, if you later state that you want life to be artificially harder (that is, ignoring tools we know to exist)?

And the conclusion peters out as well. In retrospect it's easy to discredit the claim that "in the next few years we shall either get that effective Socialist party that we need, or we shall not get it. If we do not get it, then Fascism is
coming," on the basis that this did not happen. However even without the benefit of hindsight, it sounds like a crude dichotomy - with no justification why a continued capitalist democracy could not happen. Also, the thrust of the conclusion is that lower- and middle-classes must join together if Socialism is to triumph; again, with no analysis of why Socialism should triumph.


So it was an interesting book, but I'd like to hear what the perceived relevance was to this discussion.

Do you really think that 30k is enough to pay a teacher 25k plus the bills?

Sure, on the basis that this is not talking about the current educational system, but a "value own brand" option in a potential capitalist system. Essentially this would be little more than a private tutor (except private in the sense of private sector, rather than teaching just one or two students). In that respect - sure, since there would be practically zero additional bills (students would provide their own pens and books, etc).

dtsazza

StevieJ wrote: »

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

Very true.

I suppose I should have phrased it more along the lines that I didn't realise that Orwell was politically active. There's a distinction between having views on political issues, and actually going out and actively trying to bring about change. I previously thought that Orwell was merely the former, as opposed to identifying himself (-ish) as a Socialist.

Andy_L

dtsazza wrote: »

Sure, on the basis that this is not talking about the current educational system, but a "value own brand" option in a potential capitalist system. Essentially this would be little more than a private tutor (except private in the sense of private sector, rather than teaching just one or two students). In that respect - sure, since there would be practically zero additional bills (students would provide their own pens and books, etc).

Employers NI at ~10% so thats 2.5K extra straight away

Pension, at the minimum NEST (when/if it arrives) will require 3% employers contributions

Text books, AIUI kids in state schools don't pay for them so thats an extra cost

Public liability insurance

Cost of a classroom

Specialist teaching equipment (eg for science lesons)

IT

You can't put someone on £25k in a position to do a job of work for an extra £5k

cyclonebri1

Andy_L wrote: »

Employers NI at ~10% so thats 2.5K extra straight away

Pension, at the minimum NEST (when/if it arrives) will require 3% employers contributions

Text books, AIUI kids in state schools don't pay for them so thats an extra cost

Public liability insurance

Cost of a classroom

Specialist teaching equipment (eg for science lesons)

IT

You can't put someone on £25k in a position to do a job of work for an extra £5k

I simply have to comment fully on that statement.
Unfortunately they can, and do in the private sector

This is perfectly true, believe it or not. I stayed with the same company all my working life finally retiring through ill health. I worked in a production environment employing over 200 people in a single large unit.

My eventual job title Chief engineer. Now that on it's own is fine but let me explain why through managerial staff cuts due to the never ending need to remain competive with foriegn imports, I amassed an increasing range of duties, most of which I took extra training for.

My duties included;

Managing and directing a team of 12 mechanical and 3 electrical engineers including time keeping overtime rostas and any personnel issues. I was also responsible for recruitment and termination of personnel.

Training assements for factory operatives to complete their skills portfolio.

Project management for all new installations and design of additional factory process equipment in association with external suppliers.

Responsibility for all outside contract workers.

Liason and actioning officer for all matters relating to our insurers and there requirements, (and that's pretty broad).

Health and safety management for the whole plant including conforming to the statutory regs and accident investigation and remedial action.

Hygiene manager, we came under the food hygiene regulations and had a severe externally monitored set of rules to work for.

Management of 3 cleaning staff and annual contracted high level cleaning.

Caibration of all factory and engineering measurement equipment, this was done in house.


The list is much longer than this and the only thing I drew the line at was when I was also asked to take on the quality managers roll when he left.

My final salary was just £30K:mad:

What I'm getting at is that this is how an awfully large slice of the private sector has been affected.

At the age of 54 I'd decided I wanted out, I was getting so stressed that I knew something would have to give, but events outside work took a hold and after a year off work I took a poorly paid private pension.

This is the real world,

RobertoMoir

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I simply have to comment fully on that statement.
Unfortunately they can, and do in the private sector

This is perfectly true, believe it or not. I stayed with the same company all my working life finally retiring through ill health. I worked in a production environment employing over 200 people in a single large unit.


My final salary was just £30K:mad:

I think Andy was referring to the cost of infrastructure for an employee, not the pay rises they might or might not be able to negotiate throughout their career.

And if I do understand him correctly then he's absolutely right too.

Andy_L

RobertoMoir wrote: »

I think Andy was referring to the cost of infrastructure for an employee, not the pay rises they might or might not be able to negotiate throughout their career.

I was, the cost to an employer of putting an employee in a situation where they can do a useful job of work is far more than just their salary.

cvd

about 97% of FTSE 350 firms have kept open company-sponsored schemes for directors, but only one-third have stayed open for workers

"Employees are being called on to cut back as employers cut costs. What we are highlighting is that directors are looking after themselves,"

Directors at the UK's top companies are retiring on pensions of about £175,000 a year,

(my addition to last quote) even if the company if badly run and fails.

This is the real world!

Quotes from the article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14440752

dtsazza

Andy_L wrote: »

Employers NI at ~10% so thats 2.5K extra straight away

Pension, at the minimum NEST (when/if it arrives) will require 3% employers contributions

Text books, AIUI kids in state schools don't pay for them so thats an extra cost

Public liability insurance

Cost of a classroom

Specialist teaching equipment (eg for science lesons)

IT

You can't put someone on £25k in a position to do a job of work for an extra £5k

Again, these are all based on current assumptions of what it means to employ a teacher - not what you could do, if you were a value basic private sector school.

NI contributions may well be abolished for employers in such an important field as low-cost education (because ultimately these costs would be passed onto the consumer, so it's arguably a regressive tax). I don't think it's unimaginable that these would not apply in this scenario - but even if so, it's 2.5k.

£25k is the salary including pension contributions - either £25k + no contribs, or £24k with 4% contributions, it's broadly the same thing (albeit with slightly less flexibility in the latter case).

Kids definitely would pay for textbooks if you're offering a no-frills service (of course the school may rent them out directly and/or charge a moderate sum for access to a broader library). Likewise the classroom would not be something that the school would have to provide - you're buying education, not accomodation. Ditto IT or science equipment, if you want the teacher to share their knowledge of these subjects you either pay extra for the "school" to supply them, or you provide them yourself.

Don't be constrained by thinking about provision under the current structure, my thoughts are that this would be more along the lines of personal tutors. Imagine if you had the mindset of the no-frills airlines, and wanted to provide education in the cheapest way possible - what would that look like?

(Having said that I do think this is veering away from the original point, which was something along the lines that education could be provided under a private model. Whether it costs costs £1,500 pppa instead of £1,000 isn't really here or there.)

dtsazza

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I stayed with the same company all my working life finally retiring through ill health... the only thing I drew the line at was when I was also asked to take on the quality managers roll when he left.

My final salary was just £30K

I'm intrigued - did you ask for a pay rise (or rises) throughout this, and if so what was their response?

When you did leave, did they take someone on to do all those jobs at the same rate they were paying you, or did they have to take on multiple people/pay one guy £50k+? (Not that I'd blame you if you didn't keep conscientiously in touch.)

It sounds like a poorly-run company, though perhaps they really couldn't afford to pay competitive (UK) wages and stay ahead of the Asian companies, in which case they'd pretty much have to close.