State workers still enjoy advantage over private employees

Jamie_Carter

chewmylegoff wrote: »

all public sector restructures end up working in the same way, i believe because existing local management are appointed to carry out the restructuring. they have just gone through this where my OH works, so basically instead of having, say 2 senior managers, 6 middle managers and 20 "coal face" staff, they now have 3 senior managers, 5 middle managers and 10 coal face staff. given that it's a social work department, it seems that their priorities may have been somewhat wrong (although fine for her as she is a middle manager who now has half the number of staff to manage...).

the public sector appears to employ (by employ, i mean waste money on) consultants for all sorts of things (mostly making new logos and designing training courses called things like "dignity at work"), so why can't they employ a management consultant who doesn't have a conflict of interest (i.e. they won't lose their job as a result of making the most obvious rationalisation decisions) to save money by sacking all the needless managers whilst retaining the staff who actually deliver the front line services.

That's a very sweeping statement, and is in fact wrong.

Jamie_Carter

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i believe my own experience if you don't mind, rather than just a dismissive comment, as i am still working in the public sector now, and i can look at my organisations sick pay policy and see the results in real time.

Well yours is in a minority, and will probably get dragged up to date very soon.

chewmylegoff

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

That's a very sweeping statement, and is in fact wrong.

yes, that's right, i'm sure it has been done competently at least once somewhere in the public sector, somewhere in the world. not in the three i've been through and the two that have happened at OH's work though.

Jamie_Carter

FTBFun wrote: »

£28k isn't a low wage - it's more than the national average for starters. And it can't be that low if they have sufficient numbers of willing recruits to join the fire service.



800 applicants for each position - don't think I need to say anything further then.



What changes were these?

Try reading my whole post.

£28k is actually very low for the job they do.

And you need to get your sums right. It was 200 applicants for each post. But out of the 4000 only 5 were suitable. Any job in the private sector that demanded such a high standard to even get in the job and start training, would pay a far higher wage.

There have been many changes. Look them up if you are that interested.

Jamie_Carter

FTBFun wrote: »

Fair enough - however there are about 220,000 active duty personnel plus 180,000 reservists, with 60,000 odd MOD civil servants.

Do we really need 1 civil servant for every 3/4 serviceman or woman?

With the current security threats, I'd say yes we probably do.

Do you actually know what these civil servants do?

FTBFun

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

With the current security threats, I'd say yes we probably do.

Do you actually know what these civil servants do?

I'd rather have more men with guns than men with biros, personally.

Paperwork? Procuring terrible equipment? Sucking up to BAE systems?

FTBFun

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Try reading my whole post.

£28k is actually very low for the job they do.

And you need to get your sums right. It was 200 applicants for each post. But out of the 4000 only 5 were suitable. Any job in the private sector that demanded such a high standard to even get in the job and start training, would pay a far higher wage.

There have been many changes. Look them up if you are that interested.

I'm looking at this factually - if the job was that dangerous for such "low pay", there wouldn't be 200 applicants for every position, would there?

We would have a different argument if we were talking armed forces personnel (an infantry private starts off on nearly half the wage of a entry-level fireman, for example, in an obviously more dangerous and less comfortable job).

A._Badger

hildosaver wrote: »

Honestly, trying to just be balanced in here is difficult when people assume things about what you are saying, without actually reading it.

You forgot the irony alert.

I gave two barbed reasons why people might choose to work in the private sector. You elected to respond with a TUC address. And you criticise others for sweeping generalisations?

A._Badger

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

With the current security threats, I'd say yes we probably do.

Do you actually know what these civil servants do?

Come off it. The MOD is legendary for its wastefulness and incompetence.

hildosaver

A._Badger wrote: »

You forgot the irony alert.

I gave two barbed reasons why people might choose to work in the private sector. You elected to respond with a TUC address. And you criticise others for sweeping generalisations?

I apologise if I misread your post, I read it that you were insinuating that you would choose the private sector because you would neither have self-respect nor find the work a challenge within the public sector. If that's not what you meant then I'm sorry for getting defensive and misunderstanding your meaning.