Public Sector Strike(s)

dtsazza

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

heathcote123 wrote:

So why is it that vitually every study done shows that public sector get a higher wage like for like than the private sector?

LINK?:rotfl:

Well, the Hutton report itself is a good start. Section 1.44, p35:

The interim report found no evidence that pay is lower for public service workers to reflect higher levels of pension provision.

There's also the Office of National Statistic's Estimating differences in public and private sector pay (full report)(summary):

Allowing for differences as far as possible, in April 2010, public sector employees were paid on average 7.8 per cent more than private sector employees.

There's also the Policy Exchange report:

When controlling for the differences like age, experience and qualifications, the hourly pay premium for a public sector worker was 8.8% as of December 2010. This almost doubled from 4.3% two years earlier.

I acknowledge that it is very difficult to fully account for the differences between the jobs involved, and the exact results will depend on the methodology used. But I think the ONS' logic is a valid way to go about it - if you read through the full report it's very well-reasoned, and a lot of the raw data is in concert with their conclusion.

At the very least it seems that just about every report that's done on this finds that the median public sector worker is paid as well as or better than a private sector counterpart (for an equivalent role), so I don't know why you find that so surprising.

SecondLegDownIsTheBigOne

There are lots of outraged "taxpayers" squealing as they take it up the gary glitter. Meanwhile, those with fire in their bellies are standing up for their previously agreed entitlements.

dtsazza

daveyjp wrote: »

I suggest anyone with a private sector income thinks who buys the products which generate their wealth. At some point public sector cash will be involved so an element of taxation funds everyone's pension at some point.

That's probably true. But you're suggesting that if the public sector disappeared, there would therefore be no buyers for the products, which doesn't follow at all. (The aggregate demand for the products would still exist, it would be merely be fulfilled by different counterparties.)

More relevantly, that's a very facetious line of reasoning. You're making out the straw man argument that those in favour of the pension reforms want to fully demolish the public sector, which isn't true at all. The public sector does provide vital services to the country, completely agreed. That doesn't mean that we should fund it to any cost, or pay its workers an unlimited amount of money; there is definitely some point at which you draw the line and say "this is an unreasonably high cost for the benefits we're receiving".

You think we're below the line, I think we're above it.

Neither of us wants the public sector to go away, though.

ILW

thorsoak wrote: »

My nephew is a lecturer, and I copy hereunder his facebook posting :-


Teachers hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit!

We can get that for minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them £6.08 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or the hours they spend before or after school. That would be £39.52 a day (8:30 to 3...:45pm with 45 min. off for lunch that equals 6 1/2 hours).

Each parent should pay £39.52 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day, maybe 30? So that's £39.52 x 30 = £1185.60 a day.

However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's £1185.60 X 180= £213,408 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries). Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There is! ...The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is £32,000. £32,000/180 days = £177.77/per day/30 students=£5.92/6.5 hours = £0.91 per hour per student--a very inexpensive "baby-sitter" and they even EDUCATE your kids!' WHAT A DEAL!!!!

That argument has so many holes in it to make it rubbish.

What does he lecture in?

dtsazza

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Selfish and greedy = Defending signed accrued contractual rights.

...

What we do expect is: Contractual agreements to be upheld. SIMPLES

Your accrued rights are fully defended, by the way. The debate is only about future pension accrual - which just like salary, can and should be changed to meet economic requirements.

This isn't a breach of contract; as with all employment, there are no clauses that entitle one to a certain level of pay/pension provision forever without review.

daveyjp

"I don't fully accept the argument but that's not important"

What don't you accept? The fact your pension is paid for by taxpayers? Sorry to have dropped this bombshell on you, or were you in denial about the truth of who pays your pension?

CLAPTON

dtsazza wrote: »

Your accrued rights are fully defended, by the way. The debate is only about future pension accrual - which just like salary, can and should be changed to meet economic requirements.

This isn't a breach of contract; as with all employment, there are no clauses that entitle one to a certain level of pay/pension provision forever without review.

accrued rights except for the index linking to cpi rather than rpi

noodle_doodle

chewmylegoff wrote: »

I hope you don't teach anything that requires logical reasoning either.

I program computers. I don't care if you don't like my argument, 'cos my maths always wins. :beer:

suze369

julieq wrote: »

And sorry, was facetious. The piece you quote is quite famous anyway:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

It's about collective responsibility for fighting against tyranny. But this isn't tyranny. It's about replacing a stupendous pension deal with a fantastic pension deal.

Does the person who wanted to quote this to add on a further stanza??:-

First they came for Private Sector Pensions,
and i didn't speak out because I wasn't in a Private Sector Pension.

daveyjp

"That's probably true." No probably about it, it is definitely true.