If QE Was Withdrawn....

BristolBob

grizzly1911 wrote: »

PRP, if adopted, will not be joke.

It's prime purpose will be to restrict pay, budgets and entitlements under the banner of improving performance.

As it is a zero sum game for someone to win their will be losers.

I agree completely. Sorry if it came across as otherwise.

redbuzzard

atypical wrote: »

Lots of studies show that money doesn't improve performance in tasks that require even basic cognitive skills. It only works for mechanical tasks e.g. factory work.

Interesting talk here by Dan Pink who argues you only need to pay people enough to let them forget about money. Then give them a purpose, give them autonomy to fulfil that purpose and give them the chance to master what they do.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. As Dan says, this is not new.

I discovered Herzberg's two factor theory of motivation, dating from the 1950s or 60s, 25 years ago. Parts of the theory have been questioned, but nobody really challenges the list of motivators Herzberg produced -

Status
Opportunity for advancement
Gaining recognition
Responsibility
Challenging / stimulating work
Sense of personal achievement & personal growth in a job

Herzberg on motivation

For most people money is part of why you work, not how hard or effectively you work, unless it is on repetitive piece work in a factory.

If teachers did it for the money, they wouldn't be teachers. Not the good ones anyway.

We all know they do it for the early finish and the long holidays

dktreesea

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Yes, because unions then were still strong in the private sector, so wages kept place with inflation. But unions are still strong in the public sector, and the Government quickly backed down when unions resisted their attempts to reduce the (unaffordable) public sector pensions commitment.

I'm not sure they are scared of the unions. This was in the London Standard in April:

"Job losses in the public sector are set to accelerate in the run up to the next general election, with a further 340,000 posts expected to be axed, according to a new study."

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/government-to-speed-up-public-sector-job-cuts-8572817.html

One of the unions was whittering away about how unfair it all is, but I don't get the impression the government is phased at all.

It's possible that this could happen anyway, without any layoffs, just by not replacing retirees, or only allowing internal appointments when positions become vacant.

Even at local government level, the Scottish government is pressing ahead with plans to just have 8 councils in Scotland, which should go some way to getting rid of the layers and layers of unnecessary management we seem to have acquired over the years.

That's part of the problem with the public sector as a whole - too many chiefs and not enough indians. It's about time we dumped a few layers of middle management and got the remainder to do the job they are meant to be doing, rolling up their sleeves and getting on with it. If the private sector had half the layers of management the public sector have, they would be making losses and well on the way to liquidation.

Glen_Clark

dktreesea wrote: »

I'm not sure they are scared of the unions. This was in the London Standard in April:

"Job losses in the public sector are set to accelerate in the run up to the next general election, with a further 340,000 posts expected to be axed, according to a new study."
.

The Government is paying them off, like in the Miners Strike. I know guys who got £50k redundancy - at a time when the average house price was £25k then started another job straightaway. Thats how they broke the strike - by throwing taxpayers money at them.
To make matters worse, the bright hard working types who could get a job anywhere take the money and leave. Whilst the idle useless !!!!!! who are unemployable outside the public sector reject the money and stay

grizzly1911

Glen_Clark wrote: »

With hindsight it was an awful time to sell, no doubt about that. (although plenty of newspaper columnists were advising selling gold at the time)
But, that aside, I don't think its normal to auction something without advertising it in advance?

Wasn't he forced into selling to bail someone else out, to get some gold into the market, or was that just a rumour?

JohnRo

From what I've read he sold the country down the river so a few banksters could escape their massive losing derivative bets, take a profit and place new bets with the proceeds.

not much changes.

dktreesea

redbuzzard wrote: »

Teachers presently get "increments" don't they? Obviously the idea is to link those to how good the teacher is, rather than how old they are, using the same budgets.

It's still a rubbish idea. You can't measure a lot of the stuff that matters, and you can't measure what matters without people gaming the system.

It hasn't worked in the NHS where mortality stats have been dramatically improved by changing the way deaths are recorded.

Royal Bolton Hospital

Staffordshire enquiry

There is no depth to which some people will not stoop when they are put under enough pressure and the measurements become worthless and counterproductive except in the simplest of processes, which neither teaching nor medical care is.

GPs are just as bad. Because they are salaried, they don't have to really care about the patients. Plus we are stuck with the small choice of GPs in our area. There's no performance part of their pay that patients can affect, by walking with their feet to a decent GP halfway across the city, if they so choose.

Not having any co-payments doesn't help either. If people had to pay even just a nominal sum, of £3 per visit, they would think twice about how they use their GP. Doctors get sick of people visiting them just so they can get a free prescription for something that is less than £2-£3 from a supermarket. Stuff like panadol, or cough mixture.

dktreesea

Glen_Clark wrote: »

The Government is paying them off, like in the Miners Strike. I know guys who got £50k redundancy - at a time when the average house price was £25k then started another job straightaway. Thats how they broke the strike - by throwing taxpayers money at them.
To make matters worse, the bright hard working types who could get a job anywhere take the money and leave. Whilst the idle useless !!!!!! who are unemployable outside the public sector reject the money and stay

But surely the management can check through those applying for volunatry redundancy and give it only to those they want to get rid of? Then, of those that didn't nominate, choose them anyway, thus getting rid of all the dead wood in one sweep? Even in the public sector?

That's what happened in our local council recently. They decided, due to budget restraints to cut one of their departments by a third. Initially they offered voluntary redundancy, but predictably, those they wanted to keep came forward and those they wanted to get rid of sat on their hands. They accepted a few applications, from young people who hadn't been there long. Then got their knives out and went after the ones they really wanted to get rid of. A letter went out saying those particular persons' positions were redundant, only to those they wanted to get rid of.

The union did get involved, but their involvement didn't help, because the council's next step was to threaten to outsource the whole department. The council forced a lot of people into early retirement by saying they could stay on if they could find another position at the council, but the vast majority of the older ones weren't able to do this.

It was the same story with the teachers. They closed down a school, but because staff are employed by the council, not the school, the teachers they wanted to keep went to different schools and those they wanted to get rid of at the other schoold got a "your position has become surplus to requirements" letter.

bigadaj

dktreesea wrote: »

But surely the management can check through those applying for volunatry redundancy and give it only to those they want to get rid of? Then, of those that didn't nominate, choose them anyway, thus getting rid of all the dead wood in one sweep? Even in the public sector?

That's what happened in our local council recently. They decided, due to budget restraints to cut one of their departments by a third. Initially they offered voluntary redundancy, but predictably, those they wanted to keep came forward and those they wanted to get rid of sat on their hands. They accepted a few applications, from young people who hadn't been there long. Then got their knives out and went after the ones they really wanted to get rid of. A letter went out saying those particular persons' positions were redundant, only to those they wanted to get rid of.

The union did get involved, but their involvement didn't help, because the council's next step was to threaten to outsource the whole department. The council forced a lot of people into early retirement by saying they could stay on if they could find another position at the council, but the vast majority of the older ones weren't able to do this.

It was the same story with the teachers. They closed down a school, but because staff are employed by the council, not the school, the teachers they wanted to keep went to different schools and those they wanted to get rid of at the other schoold got a "your position has become surplus to requirements" letter.

Sounds like you have a very pro active council, my impression is that it would be rare for any company to do this. Let alone a public sector body. This is obviously against employment law, and its interesting it has not been challenged.

dktreesea

bigadaj wrote: »

Sounds like you have a very pro active council, my impression is that it would be rare for any company to do this. Let alone a public sector body. This is obviously against employment law, and its interesting it has not been challenged.

How is it against current employment law? Getting rid of staff via outsourcing and/or compulsory redundancies are both allowed. If you can abolish the job you can get rid of the person, even in the public sector.

In Scotland they don't, so far at least, go for compulsory redundancies in local government. Well, not directly. They tend to go more for cutting their staff numbers by outsourcing. But this year our council have started making noises about compulsory redundancies.

In England though, in my cousin's local council (Hampshire) they have announced some compulsory redundancies. So it does seem possible just to abolish people's positions and just pay them off.

I'm not sure employment law is what it once was. There have been some changes ping ponging between the Commons and the House of Lords recently (http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/stuc2013/kirbyspeech.html)