Osborne plans lower public sector salaries outside of the south

globalds

On a positive note ..Would it give more argument to people who wanted government departments to move from South East high wage areas to much cheaper Northern regions?

A real saving of 10 or 15% every year would make a strong case for a region with traditionally low wages.

chewmylegoff

PasturesNew wrote: »

You're right. It's only housing that's more expensive there. Like for like London's a cheaper place to actually live/buy stuff/do things.

Really? It's £4 a pint, a main course in a pub is usually £12/13, the cinema is £12-15 for a ticket, it costs £20 to see a second division rugby match, £160 a month for a travel card, council tax in most boroughs (leaving wandsworth and Westminster aside) is as high as anywhere else, food in the supermarket is the same price etc.

And you have to pay double what everyone else does for property.

I'm not complaining about it, but I doubt there are many places where it is more expensive to 'do stuff'.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Really? It's £4 a pint, a main course in a pub is usually £12/13, the cinema is £12-15 for a ticket, it costs £20 to see a second division rugby match, £160 a month for a travel card, council tax in most boroughs (leaving wandsworth and Westminster aside) is as high as anywhere else, food in the supermarket is the same price etc.

And you have to pay double what everyone else does for property.

I'm not complaining about it, but I doubt there are many places where it is more expensive to 'do stuff'.

All of the things you list are discretionary. They are not living costs, bar your travel card.

As for the travel card, it's not that expensive relative to the petrol / diesel that people spend in areas outside of London getting to work.

Going4TheDream

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think there is a better fit to the DVLA, however with JSA there must be back room processing units and that's where there would be (assuming of course that they haven't already been outsourced). I agree though, I wouldn't like to see JSA being decided by a private company - not that it has been suggested - as it is a bit too close to the whole A4E fiasco for comfort.

Streamlining and centralising further is the speciality of companies like Capita, it is easy for them to operate FOBO, in the case of JSA, I believe it already works like that to a degree anyway, form fillers and greeters etc in the Job centres and all processing done at central units.

Emy1501

Interestingly the IFS say that public sector worker in London get paid less than private sector ones in London but more in Northern areas so will public sector workers in London get a pay rise to reflect this I wonder.

chewmylegoff

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All of the things you list are discretionary. They are not living costs, bar your travel card.

As for the travel card, it's not that expensive relative to the petrol / diesel that people spend in areas outside of London getting to work.

Most spending is discretionary because most people's lives don't consist of sitting in the house staring at the wall. If you read the post I was responding to it is relevant as the point made was London was a cheaper place to live, buy stuff, and do things.

Plus as I pointed out council tax is only cheaper in a couple of select areas (and your property is likely to be in a higher band) the cost of everything else you have to pay is by and large the same.

£160 will buy you over 1,000 miles worth of petrol, I don't know what the average commute in a car is, but that will get you a 45 mile round trip a day.

vivatifosi

Emy1501 wrote: »

Interestingly the IFS say that public sector worker in London get paid less than private sector ones in London but more in Northern areas so will public sector workers in London get a pay rise to reflect this I wonder.

I doubt it. Local govt workers where I work (just outside of London) have had their weighting and enhancements removed, in effect a pay cut.

Pennywise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't see private sector workforces keeping pay the same, while the public sector around them sees employee pay fall. The private sector will, I should imagine, re-align their pay also.

But private sector pay already works on supply & demand. If a firm doesn't offer a high enough pay package, it won't get the recruits. A private firm can offer a higher package to a particular person they desperately want on board. If there is a large pool of suitable people willing to work in a factory, for say £8 ph, then that's what the factory will offer as there's no point in offering more just to get the same people.

In the poorer regions, the private sector firms already struggle to get staff, especially administrative level, as the public sector sucks these kind of people into the local hospitals etc, because at some levels, the p/s pay is far higher than private sector. There aren't that many comparable jobs at higher/professional levels, and skill sets are often completely different - i.e. an accountant in practice would be useless as the finance director for a hospital, and vice versa.

That's what is lacking in the public sector. There's no dynamicism in recruitment. It's not just a matter of cutting pay in the low pay regions, it should also extend to increasing pay in the expensive areas, if that's needed to get the right calibre of workers.

I'd actually go much further than having localised pay deals. I'd go right down to specific workplaces. Every single school, hospital, town hall, etc., should be completely free to offer whatever pay and conditions deal they think fit to get the calibre of staff they need - no more no less. That's exactly how it works in the private sector where there are massive differences between employers in the same town, let alone different regions.

Going4TheDream

globalds wrote: »

On a positive note ..Would it give more argument to people who wanted government departments to move from South East high wage areas to much cheaper Northern regions?

A real saving of 10 or 15% every year would make a strong case for a region with traditionally low wages.

I think that along with the possibility of contracting out parts of the public sector.

You will need certain front line staff to carry on but I am sure there are positions that could be moved to 'cheaper' areas. After all a non public facing administration role for example can be done from anywhere.

chucknorris

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Most spending is discretionary because most people's lives don't consist of sitting in the house staring at the wall. If you read the post I was responding to it is relevant as the point made was London was a cheaper place to live, buy stuff, and do things.

Plus as I pointed out council tax is only cheaper in a couple of select areas (and your property is likely to be in a higher band) the cost of everything else you have to pay is by and large the same.

£160 will buy you over 1,000 miles worth of petrol, I don't know what the average commute in a car is, but that will get you a 45 mile round trip a day.

I'm from Newcastle originally (moved away when about 32), have lived in London for about 15 years and Surrey 7 years. London is a very expensive place to live compared to the North East (and to a lesser extent also Surrey).

You definitely have more disposable income in the North East, but I found that London provided me with faster career advancement (in the private sector, not sure about the public sector).