Public Sector Strike(s)

dtsazza

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne wrote: »

The average public sector pension is lower than the average private sector pension.

1) That's meaningless by itself because it doesn't take into account any of the disparities of situation or income between the two sectors. If you could show that figure for a private sector and public sector worker doing an equivalent job for equivalent salary, then it'd be interesting. Until then, there's almost no conclusion you can draw from that.

2) It doesn't really matter anyway what a private company pays their staff, it's their own money. If you're a shareholder in that company, you legitimately get a say in the matter, but otherwise it doesn't really concern you. All taxpayers are effectively shareholders in public sector companies (whether we want to be or not), so we legitimately do have a say in their financial affairs.

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

There is no bill to the taxpayer. There is a bill to the treasury.

You can pay tax to him:

jonathanrosenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/thegodfatherbrando.jpg

or him:

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2010/02/george_osborne_aga_1014479c.jpg

One guy will keep your neighbourhood free of crime; the other guy will enrich himself and his mates.

(The forums won't let me post the images or direct links as I am a new user.)

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

dtsazza wrote: »

so we legitimately do have a say in their financial affairs.

No you don't. You have 1 vote.

grizzly1911

dtsazza wrote: »

That's an interesting viewpoint - if I understand it correctly, you're more or less saying that the current rate of pay is the bare minimum that's socially acceptable.

No I am not saying that the current rate is acceptable or not.

In that if we replaced, say, a £15/hour binman with a £10/hour one, the latter will ultimately over the course of their lifetime get their effective pay topped back up to £15/hour anyway through benefits/tax credits/etc. (And implicitly that it's right to perform this top-up).

Whilst we may not need to pick up the tab whilst someone can work long and hard, and thre are available jobs then it is not implicit that they need bailing out. If they are not in a position to make provision for their future, due to having to live today, ultimately we will all pick up the cost.

I'm not sold on that argument, partly because I disagree with that specific assessment, but mainly because the big potential area for savings in the public sector is in operational efficiencies (i.e. getting rid of bureaucracy), not in paying the actual rank-and-file less.

IME outsourcing generally is done becauase it is cheaper "whilst still maintaining standards". A big element of that cost, for "service" jobs is labour and T&Cs. Unless that is reduced then the ongoing sustainability of that outsource doesn't work. That may mean greater productivity or stopping certain processes after risk assessment too.
To all of this you needto add the management overhead from the supplier plus profit plus the management overhead from the purchaser to monitor said supplier. then of course you hope and prey you have specified the requirement correctly otherwise you are going to get shafted. The bureaucracy is not so much removed as displaced.


There's a big leap from "your employer is spending money unwisely" to "we want you to be impoverished".

That last paragraph is your editing not mine. I was simply making the point that if most (public and private) can't afford to make a provision like in the past then perhaps the whole pension provision issue should be reviewed, balancing that NI/taxation take and private payment across all.

Don't forget that there is an ever expanding body of non taxpayers and benefit claimants that also need providing for at some level.

Without generation of real wealth creators, then we are all going down the funnel.

HelenDaveKids

julieq wrote: »

Enjoy your day off, public sector. We'll still be here to pick up the tab for your pension when you retire, no worries.

Yes, let me retire years later than promised (i know let me retire and bloody drop dead instead of enjoying a bit of retirement), for less money than promised and despite taking lower wages in order to get the benefits.
Yet theres all those sat on the dole / benefits with the bloody flat screen TVs and electronic gadgets whilst we work our areses off providing good service to the public! Don't get me started......... With their free school dinners, their free music lessons, free school trips, and we are eating smart price and have to watch every penny.
Can't strike myself as compromises patient safety but my husband is striking and I'm 100% behind everyone who does.

As a nurse I can't because I have a code of conduct that will always put the patient first. We work 12.5 hour days and we get 1 hour stopped (no pay) for breaks, I'm lucky if I get a cup of tea (which we have to pay for) and often coming home having only had 1 quick drink, having not stopped all day. We (nurses) virtually always finish late, of which we never get paid. We cover each other by swapping shifts at the last minute to cover sickness, we work all the bank holidays, christmas day being paid the same as a Sunday, regardless of having young families at home, opening presents without us. I love my job but I don't deserve to work like this and get absolutely SHAFTED by the government.

Must say some of these comments are making my blood boil!!!

*** THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR STRIKING AND HELPING TO PROTECT MY RETIREMENT ***

grizzly1911

dtsazza wrote: »

I completely agree, the government definitely has the potential to deliver massive economy-of-scale savings. Especially in areas such as law and order.

I would argue that it is much further than law and order. From what I understand the NHS costs less to run per head of population than just the medicare element of the US system, let alone their private schemes that are bogged down by their own bureaucracy.

The crux of the matter hangs on your first and last words. Firstly, is the government well run? It is de facto a monopoly; I can't choose to pay my taxes to a competing government who I feel can give me a more effective return, nor am I free to opt out of paying taxes (and receiving public services) in order to fund those services myself if I feel that's more effective.

That is also the otherside of the scheme. Whilst you may wish to pick and choose elemets that you want to pay for at an agreed price you can't also expect to be covered for those elements you chose not to pay for. You could argue that you will simply PAYG but in your time of need you will probably pay a hefty premium outweighing any savings elsewhere. You could also choose to leave this society and move to another one that allows you meet your expectations. I have read that the US is considering "fining" people who don't insure themselves for health care sounds like tax or NI to me.



Finally as for your closing words - I believe the profit motive is probably the best way to align incentives in a general case. A crucial government department that knows it will get tax money need not be too bothered about its total expenses and efficiency, because it's not picking up the tab. A company on the other hand which will benefit "personally" from any lowering of expenses or increase in output, and will feel the pain for inefficiencies, has absolutely the right incentives to provide their service as effectively as possible for the lowest cost.

That's why private companies are broadly considered to be more effective than public sector counterparts - because the public sector company has no incentive to be. (Or if it does it's because of arbitrary "targets" cooked up by one department, measured by another, and overseen by a third, all detached from the reality of how good the service provision is from those receiving it.)

Many departments act as cost centres and are incentivised to contain those costs. How good that is implemented is another matter.

Whilst individually (private companies) they more be more cost effective that doesn't always translate into benefits for the taxpayer. We just pick up the combined bill of cost plus profit and hope we specified requirements correctly. If you look at private hospital for instance all service in that unit will need to make a profit, clinical, estates, catering, gardening, laundry and the profit factor multiplies.

Whichever way the government goes it will not reduce the tax it takes.

vivatifosi

Cleaver wrote: »

I work in the public sector and I'm not striking tomorrow. I don't agree with all the cuts (I do agree with others), but the one thing I understand is that we can't have 3% payrises at present and our pensions are incredibly generous as it is.

And anyway, without me going in tomorrow we'd never get our equality and diversity consultation diagram finished as planned by April.

That sums up my sentiments too Cleaver. Its an easy choice for me anyway as my public sector job is p/t and I don't work Wednesday, but I wouldn't strike if I did. From speaking to my colleagues I'm still none the wiser what the take up will be.

HelenDaveKids

And what better way to boost the economy - lets make everyone unemployed!

DOH!!! Surely the idiots realise that people who are frightened about losing their jobs or have lost their jobs won't be buying luxury items, the knock on effect is PEOPLE CAN'T AFFOARD TO BUY, then we spiral on, as shops close, small businesses falter. .....

Cracking idea. Can't believe we are heading into a bigger recession with the government having such a good handle on everything!

We could introduce training schemes (rather than real jobs) - Gosh what a fabulous idea - NOT

tartanterra

HelenDaveKids wrote: »

Yes, let me retire years later than promised (i know let me retire and bloody drop dead instead of enjoying a bit of retirement), for less money than promised and despite taking lower wages in order to get the benefits.
Yet theres all those sat on the dole / benefits with the bloody flat screen TVs and electronic gadgets whilst we work our areses off providing good service to the public! Don't get me started......... With their free school dinners, their free music lessons, free school trips, and we are eating smart price and have to watch every penny.
Can't strike myself as compromises patient safety but my husband is striking and I'm 100% behind everyone who does.

As a nurse I can't because I have a code of conduct that will always put the patient first. We work 12.5 hour days and we get 1 hour stopped (no pay) for breaks, I'm lucky if I get a cup of tea (which we have to pay for) and often coming home having only had 1 quick drink, having not stopped all day. We (nurses) virtually always finish late, of which we never get paid. We cover each other by swapping shifts at the last minute to cover sickness, we work all the bank holidays, christmas day being paid the same as a Sunday, regardless of having young families at home, opening presents without us. I love my job but I don't desire to work like this and get absolutely SHAFTED by the government.

Must say some of these comments are making my blood boil!!!

As an electrician, I'm lucky to take home £200 a week at the moment. There is very little work around in the private sector.
I don't get my council tax paid, I don't receive housing benefit and I have three kids (who incidentally, don't get free school dinners, free music lessons or free school trips).

But I'll tell you what, why don't I pay a bit more tax so that you can get paid for your breaks, have free tea at work and get to retire years before me?

No free tea, eh? Well, that's worth striking for.

Frankly, I'm appalled.

dshart

MacMickster wrote: »

In his statement today, the chancellor apears to have declared war on the public sector:

• Following a 2 year pay freeze, there will be 2 years of only 1% average wage increase (while inflation is running at 5%). For many this will mean a 4 year pay freeze.

• Looking to move towards regional pay for the public sector - so not only a 4 year pay freeze, but a potential pay cut for those in the more disadvantaged areas of the UK.

• A further increase in state pension age, and hence in the pension age for the proposed new public service pensions, for which workers will have to pay more from their reduced wages.

I strongly suspect that we are heading for a new winter of discontent, with the government taking on the public sector unions. Whilst reform is undoubtedly necessary I feel that this is a dangerous time to risk a fight which would be likely to damage the whole economy for years to come.

I notice you only listened to the items that you wanted to hear. Did you not listen to the whole speech and how the whole country was bumping along on the verge of recession for the next couple of years and how things would be tough financially and it would take a couple of years longer to get the debt under control.

Keep burying your head in the sand and pretending this is an attack on public sector workers rather than a government trying to sort out the nations debt. I am not saying everything they are doing is correct or that they have all the answers but they are trying and I am sure if labour were in power they too would have to make some tough decisions. Its always easy for the opposition to say they would do things differently, because they do not actually have to do anything and their theories do not have to face close scrutiny.