Cameron Tax Dodger

CLAPTON

Tromking wrote: »

Wage restraint in the public sector is coming at a cost though. Risable staff retention rates and cuts are beginning to bite and effect service. I watched the national and local news the other evening and both were dominated by NHS stories based around the lack of staff. When you seek to reduce the deficit predominantly through cuts in public services it comes at a cost. The economically literate on these boards who currently enjoy good health may not see it, but others do.

I think people should be paid sufficient to attract sufficient numbers with the right qualities. I'm unclear why we currently have a shortage, whether its a matter of pay or lack of trained people or the relentless increase in population and increase in older people.
Anyway the junior doctors striking for more money is a bit unedifying.

However I'm not sure how that is relevant to 'older' people retiring to provide job opportunities for young people : if we do have a shortage then we could do with both.

Mistermeaner

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

Or simply responding in kind.

Please explain; how is that responding in kind?

You and others claim moral high ground in support of labour. You then admit that in fact your support of labour is entirely for selfish reasons. You then gloat about how much you are getting from the public purse (acknowledging fully you are getting it at the expense of the most vulnerable in society).

Tromking

Mistermeaner wrote: »

The simple answer from the left - throw money at the problem. We have had fireman striking over pay and pensions despite the fact that there are hundreds of applicants for each single job. Nurses are queueing up from other countries to work here for less than our domestic ones are paid but of course we don't want those pesky migrants providing cheap labour.

The issue with worker satisfaction in the public sector is mostly down the frustration of working in the massive bureaucracy of things like the NHS and education where because of no need for efficiency and competition people are all paid the same regardless of performance so the good get dragged down and frustrated and the crap can just cruise.

The answer is not just to throw money at people. Private sector recognised this a long time ago .

Paying high rates for agency staff is nothing to do with funding or who is in Westminster that is down to poor management (arguably as not paying the ludicrous unfunded public sector pensions is probably a net saving)

Paying for decent public services in chastened times is indeed a conundrum. Do you honestly think that the problem of staff retention and the resultant high cost of temporary staff is solved by slashing public service pensions further?

Mistermeaner

See the bit in brackets. Public sector pensions are massively expensive - I suspect paying more per hour to agency staff is more than offset by the saving in pension costs

Please also read all of the post you quoted as I don't believe I did say what you infer I said (if that makes sense!)

Tromking

Mistermeaner wrote: »

See the bit in brackets. Public sector pensions are massively expensive - I suspect paying more per hour to agency staff is more than offset by the saving in pension costs

Please also read all of the post you quoted as I don't believe I did say what you infer I said (if that makes sense!)

You'll have to ask why Jeremy Hunt and the head of NHS England are desperate to cut agency staff costs and apparently failing.
Issues with workforce planning aren't solved by treating the symptom and not the cause.

Mistermeaner

The public sector is simply not very good at doing stuff. Its expensive and inefficient, slow to respond to changing conditions (see how much quicker the private sector recognised and responded to the unaffordable dB pensions as just one example)

The model of mass crowd funding regardless of need and free at point of delivery regardless of payment is in itself flawed as is being seen - no accountability, no competition leads to both high cost and low quality output.

The answer is certainly not to throw more money at it.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

you are a natural conservative : self interested, pragmatic, ignorant and proud of it and a bit self deluded.
nothing wrong with anything there

Like your definition although somewhat mis-directed applying it to Moby I feel.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Mistermeaner wrote: »

The public sector is simply not very good at doing stuff. Its expensive and inefficient, slow to respond to changing conditions (see how much quicker the private sector recognised and responded to the unaffordable dB pensions as just one example)

The model of mass crowd funding regardless of need and free at point of delivery regardless of payment is in itself flawed as is being seen - no accountability, no competition leads to both high cost and low quality output.

The answer is certainly not to throw more money at it.

Unlike the private sector.......

The banks are a great example of the Private sector as is VW .... I know you hate paying tax (mainly the supporting of poorer people) but if it wasn't for the more caring and multifunctional public sector, there wouldn't be a place for private companies to function as you'd have a totally different Britain.

I've worked in both sectors, in the private sector it was a case of "cut as many corners as possible. Overcharging, fabricating costs, poor service if the customer has no available recourse, anything for extra £££".

The staff are a broad mix in both sectors, some incompetent, some excel. The amount of bureaucracy in the public sector needs cutting, as does the numbers of Senior / Middle management.

What should be free at point of delivery in your eyes?
Healthcare?
Binmen?
Police?
Fire?
Child protection?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

why do we want to create a job opportunity for a younger worker?

don't you know the UK is facing a huge worker shortage which is one of the main reasons we must stay in the EU and receive unlimited EU migrants. All the economically literate people on the board know this is true because of the upward pressure on wages (supply and demand determines the price etc) so everybody except Moby and Tom are getting huge pay increases.

I agree with the general point you are making but the decision of anyone on when they retire should not be determined by UK's immigration policies.

I was responding to the assertion that someone in the public sector who throughout their career (overseen by Governments of different parties) has had a pension that enables them to retire at say 60 should nevertheless keep working to SPA for the good of the country. Whatever the wider economic arguments that public sector employee who retires creates an opportunity (to contract the public sector or to employ someone else). Personally, given the choice of having a 60 year old keep working and building up more pension and a 30 year old getting that job and being able to afford a mortgage I would choose the former. I do not think it matters in this situation if that 30 year old is British or Irish or French.

In 2016, I agree we have no choice but to allow immigration to cover the labour shortages we evidently have But ending that situation requires economic planning rather than a wait and see approach by Government. The negative effects of austerity are public sector job cuts that affect skills that they actually need (often replaced by more expensive agency substitutes), pay suppression (creates retention problems and skill shortages), and lack of investment (eg not training enough nurses, teachers, GPs). You can argue over the necessity but the effects encourage immigration which most people would like to curtail to a degree.

I do not think everyone outside the public sector is getting "huge" pay rises (wage growth is also slowing). Even if this is true for some, those public servants nearing retirement are mostly on schemes that link to final salary, which is itself a government incentive to retire early and supports its policy to reduce the size of the public sector. But this also encourages its use of agency staff. In fact many who will retire at 60 will immediately seek work through agencies at a huge extra cost to the public purse to address those very skill shortages you refer to. (I can attest how lucrative this is from personal experience!).

Generali

BobQ wrote: »

I agree with the general point you are making but the decision of anyone on when they retire should not be determined by UK's immigration policies.

I was responding to the assertion that someone in the public sector who throughout their career (overseen by Governments of different parties) has had a pension that enables them to retire at say 60 should nevertheless keep working to SPA for the good of the country. Whatever the wider economic arguments that public sector employee who retires creates an opportunity (to contract the public sector or to employ someone else). Personally, given the choice of having a 60 year old keep working and building up more pension and a 30 year old getting that job and being able to afford a mortgage I would choose the former. I do not think it matters in this situation if that 30 year old is British or Irish or French.

In 2016, I agree we have no choice but to allow immigration to cover the labour shortages we evidently have But ending that situation requires economic planning rather than a wait and see approach by Government. The negative effects of austerity are public sector job cuts that affect skills that they actually need (often replaced by more expensive agency substitutes), pay suppression (creates retention problems and skill shortages), and lack of investment (eg not training enough nurses, teachers, GPs). You can argue over the necessity but the effects encourage immigration which most people would like to curtail to a degree.

I do not think everyone outside the public sector is getting "huge" pay rises (wage growth is also slowing). Even if this is true for some, those public servants nearing retirement are mostly on schemes that link to final salary, which is itself a government incentive to retire early and supports its policy to reduce the size of the public sector. But this also encourages its use of agency staff. In fact many who will retire at 60 will immediately seek work through agencies at a huge extra cost to the public purse to address those very skill shortages you refer to. (I can attest how lucrative this is from personal experience!).

Wage growth hasn't slowed, it increased in the last release.