Osborne plans lower public sector salaries outside of the south

Emy1501

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Really? We find it quite easy to get rid of those that don't pull their weight. Plus once a year we get called into the office for either a bonus or a cardboard box to clear the desk and go.

I know police, teachers, council workers and civil servants who got a nice early, indexed lined pension for their bad back, stress or drink problems. One of those "stressed" teachers also claimed from a private health policy, but lost that when the private company put a PI on her and found her to be lying; but she kept the teachers pension.

One policeman I know worked for 5 years (2 of those in the cadets) in his 20s and then went off on the sick with a bad back. Now in his 50s, that sick pension is work £1,500 per month. That back back has never stoped him running a garage and working on car engines, or driving cars up and down dunes and rough terrain or palying table tennis. He never had a medical from the Met to see if he really did have a bad back and the Met ignored complaints about this with the evidence.

The last person I know who's company tried to sack them for bad performance in the private sector got a 2 year tax free payout when they threatened Industrial tribunal.

As person who has worked in the claims department of an employers liability insurer there are lots of people trying it on and being successful in claiming all sorts of nonsense in the private sector also.

If you think people claiming bad backs etc only goes on in the public sector your mistaken.

As I say there are good and bad people in all types of employment.

We should be looking at ways getting the best teachers in the poor areas and paying them a wage that reflects this as the only way these children can find their way out of poverty is being motivated by people who can show them another way other than benefit and crime.

Get rid of the rubbish by all means but I'm not sure how this idea is going to do that.

Koicarp

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I think part of the problem with a lot of public sector workers is that they have been cossested by the unions and if there are no chips in the canteen will go on strike (well not quite but you know what I mean) .

I think the "power" of the unions is sometimes overplayed, or at least their power is not uniform across public services. I've worked 20 years in the NHS and only seen a union rep once, and this was when I as ward manager had a staff member complain against me for being sent to help out on another ward. I didn't think HR were doing much to assist me so asked the union rep for advice. Otherwise even with all the recent kerfuffle over pensions I haven't seen a union rep in the workplace.
On the other hand when I spent a year advising the local council on behalf of my NHS employer, council staff routinely used the unions to block service improvements.
My union, the RCN is nearly 100 years old and has never had a strike, nor has it even held a vote for a strike- if you look at the stories on their website it usually appears to represent patients more than nurses.

Le_Chuck

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Really? We find it quite easy to get rid of those that don't pull their weight. Plus once a year we get called into the office for either a bonus or a cardboard box to clear the desk and go.

I know police, teachers, council workers and civil servants who got a nice early, indexed lined pension for their bad back, stress or drink problems. One of those "stressed" teachers also claimed from a private health policy, but lost that when the private company put a PI on her and found her to be lying; but she kept the teachers pension.

One policeman I know worked for 5 years (2 of those in the cadets) in his 20s and then went off on the sick with a bad back. Now in his 50s, that sick pension is work £1,500 per month. That back back has never stoped him running a garage and working on car engines, or driving cars up and down dunes and rough terrain or palying table tennis. He never had a medical from the Met to see if he really did have a bad back and the Met ignored complaints about this with the evidence.

The ill health retirements in the public sector have been cut down massively in the last few years, as part of the last set of reforms 5 or so years back. As yes it was quite rife in the Police & Fire brigade.

ILW

Purely anecdotal, but there are rather a lot of teachers that seem to post on here whilst being on sick leave due to stress. Personally I believe that if your job stresses you that much, you are in the wrong job and should be sacked.

Le_Chuck

I've not read the whole thread, so don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but I suspect the real reason for this has nothing to do with saving money. Its currently cheaper for the civil service to be located up north now, but public sector jobs in the SE have actually grown in the last year despite supposed cut backs.

The real reason, I suspect is by removing the nation pay negotiation, you remove national pay disputes, which in turn reduces the damaging prospect of national industrial action.

Graham_Devon

Sorry, haven't read the last couple of pages of the thread.

However, even my dad today stated "if they can't afford to pay people a wage, why don't they stop throwing money at the housing market and or give printed money to us instead of the banks".

He had a point, I feel. It's a very basic point, but still has a lot of merit.

On the one hand they government are saying "buy these houses". On the other, they are saying "take a pay cut".

Going4TheDream

Le_Chuck wrote: »

I've not read the whole thread, so don't know if anyone has pointed this out, but I suspect the real reason for this has nothing to do with saving money. Its currently cheaper for the civil service to be located up north now, but public sector jobs in the SE have actually grown in the last year despite supposed cut backs.

The real reason, I suspect is by removing the nation pay negotiation, you remove national pay disputes, which in turn reduces the damaging prospect of national industrial action.

Spot on, reduce cost, break the unions of holding the country to ransom and to line up certain departments to be managed by 3rd parties, reducing cost further, not nice for those in the positions that will see pay cuts but if a business were to do this it would be seen as a good strategic/business move. When the government does it to save public money that we all contribute to its heartless/cruel/etc etc

Derivative

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sorry, haven't read the last couple of pages of the thread.

However, even my dad today stated "if they can't afford to pay people a wage, why don't they stop throwing money at the housing market and or give printed money to us instead of the banks".

He had a point, I feel. It's a very basic point, but still has a lot of merit.

On the one hand they government are saying "buy these houses". On the other, they are saying "take a pay cut".

I believe (and it makes a lot of sense personally) that the reason QE is taking place in the way it is, is that if individuals were simply given payouts or wage rises we would see huge amounts of inflation.

Masomnia

Derivative wrote: »

I believe (and it makes a lot of sense personally) that the reason QE is taking place in the way it is, is that if individuals were simply given payouts or wage rises we would see huge amounts of inflation.

It also brings down the borrowing cost to the government; and the bonds can be sold (hopefully!) to get the money back out of the system.

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

Purely anecdotal, but there are rather a lot of teachers that seem to post on here whilst being on sick leave due to stress. Personally I believe that if your job stresses you that much, you are in the wrong job and should be sacked.

Who are they?