State workers still enjoy advantage over private employees

Andy_L

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?

Depends. In the same way that teeth arms like the Infantry need troops in support roles (eg Engineers, Medics, Logistics etc) all those troops need supporting as well.
Now you could have that 2nd level of support done by the millitary (as it was ~15 years ago when civilianisation of millitary posts came into favour) as well but seeing as how a military person can costs about twice as much as a civil servant why would you want to pay that premium when you don't need a "steely eyed dealer of death".

Andy_L

FTBFun wrote: »

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

I'd rather have both

FTBFun wrote: »

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

Serving millitary personel are heavily involved in the procurement process & disproportinatly so at the decision making level.

olly300

FTBFun wrote: »

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?

If you asked a group of children 10 years or more years ago what they wanted to be a lot would come out with fireman, policeman, doctor and train driver.

As a result all these jobs are over subscribed at their entry levels regardless of what the pay is.

Roll on another 20 years and things to reality TV you probably won't find any young adults who have grown up who wanted to do some of those jobs as a child.

Andy_L

FTBFun wrote: »

(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).

You're pushing the limit of "nearly" a bit there. Requires a bit of apples & oranges comparisson, ie a raw recruit vs a fully compatent firefighter

"Starting salary for a trainee firefighter is £21,157. When full competence is achieved, this rises to £28,199"

"Regular soldiers receive over £272 a week[£14k pa] in Phase 1 training, which rises to at least £17,514 a year depending on which Army job you do"

Jamie_Carter

FTBFun wrote: »

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

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

I think you have answered my question indirectly then...you obviously don't know what they do!!

Do you think it is right to criticise something that you don't know anything about??

Jamie_Carter

FTBFun wrote: »

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?

There were 5 suitable applicants out of 4000...that is looking at it factually.

FTBFun wrote: »

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).

An infantry private has food and accommodation provided. So all they earn is spending money.

As for how dangerous it is. That all depends on where you are based, and what job you do. Firefighters who have died on duty were doing a more dangerous job than infantrymen who haven't been on the front line for example.

Most soldiers only do the job when they are young, and for a few years. Most firefighters (many who are ex military), do it as a long term career. And have homes and families to support. And they put themselves in danger on a daily basis for the rest of their career to save people like you and your family. Maybe if you need them one day you may appreciate what they do.

But at the end of the day they are both public sector workers.

Jamie_Carter

A._Badger wrote: »

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

Says who?? The public sector hating Daily Mail??

Loughton_Monkey

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?

Sadly, irony and sarcasm doesn't work well on these boards. And like me, you probably avoid generalisations completely. Everyone uses them these days. So many people, for example, see a 1% drop in house prices and 'generalise' that it's far better to rent.... People like that are all raving communists.

I would also advice you to avoid cliches like the plague. And if I've said it once, I've said it a million times: Never exaggerate.

A._Badger

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Says who?? The public sector hating Daily Mail??

A surprising number of people who wear big boots and carry guns for a living (no, not Millwall supporters!). You might try asking some, if you can tear yourself away from the Guardian.

Jamie_Carter

A._Badger wrote: »

A surprising number of people who wear big boots and carry guns for a living (no, not Millwall supporters!). You might try asking some, if you can tear yourself away from the Guardian.

As I said "says who?"

And I don't read the Guardian.