Public sector pay freeze/Inflation calculation

westernpromise

Andy_L wrote: »

The MPT isn't part of the NHS

But the NHS let her carry on working. Nothing the NHS did caught this woman or stopped her "working" - because the NHS is run for its staff and nothing else.

Nick_C

westernpromise wrote: »

I'm afraid that it's you who's delusional. You think the public sector's rigorously demanding and dynamic because you've no idea what real work looks like, and your idea of a long day is when you have to stay till five past five. The stats say otherwise. The public sector is cushy, underworked and unaccountable.

I have over twenty years experience of working in the private sector, both in small companies and large corporations.

So once again, you demonstrate that you are talking nonsense.

westernpromise

What's been most entertaining about this debate is how it has exposed the full scale of the tribal leftoid's sense of entitlement. The left doesn't just feel entitled to literally limitless quantities of other people's money. It also feels entitled to immunity from criticism.

As far as the left is concerned, it is actually beyond the pale to criticise the public sector in any way. If the police are incompetent, it's because they need even more of other people's money and the evil greedy taxpayers won't give it to them so they deserve the crime. When the saintly NHS kills people like a Dickensian workhouse it's because it needs even more of other people's money and the evil greedy taxpayers won't give it to them so they deserve the filth and squalor. When social workers (if I may be excused the oxymoron) allow children to be killed and raped in care, well, it's very stressful for the poor workers and they need even more of other people's money and the evil greedy taxpayers won't give it to them so the kids deserve the abuse.

It's really quite repellent. There are certain subjects that send the left apoplectic with rage and that pious censoriousness they do so well. Criticise charities, the public sector or the green movement and you provoke their instant snivelling money-grubbing ire.

So come on lefties, prove me wrong. I would like to make a sincere criticism of some aspect of any of these. Show that you're not just snivellers after money: cite something about the NHS' staff, or about civil servants, or about Shelter the non-housing "charity" that you think is to their discredit.

You will be unable to. You'd choke.

Tromking

westernpromise wrote: »

That's good news if so. Although how anyone can be so second-rate as to unable to "hack the pressures" of the public sector just boggles the mind. Of course, it is quite well known that you can go sick for years on the public teat, so probably quite a lot of public sector employees are public sector employees exactly because they can do that.

As other have said, you have a rather hackneyed 1970`s view of public servants.
There`s been in my thirty years a widespread adoption of private sector HR practices and in my experience a career in public service is not the layabouts charter you claim it is.
I would concede however that it probably still takes longer to sack someone in comparison to the private sector, that`s simply because public sector employers are probably held to a higher standard than some 'hire em and fire em' privateer shooting from the hip.

Nick_C

westernpromise wrote: »

What's been most entertaining about this debate is how it has exposed the full scale of the tribal leftoid's sense of entitlement.

Sorry. Can't help you there as I'm not a "lefty". Perhaps other people who have responded to your ignorant bigoted rants are; I honestly don't know.

But there is no point in trying to enter into debate with someone who has a closed mind.

westernpromise

Tromking wrote: »

As other have said, you have a rather hackneyed 1970`s view of public servants.
There`s been in my thirty years a widespread adoption of private sector HR practices and in my experience a career in public service is not the layabouts charter you claim it is.
I would concede however that it probably still takes longer to sack someone in comparison to the private sector, that`s simply because public sector employers are probably held to a higher standard than some 'hire em and fire em' privateer shooting from the hip.

So the public sector doesn't sack people and this proves its employees are superior.

Priceless.

westernpromise

Nick_C wrote: »

Sorry. Can't help you there as I'm not a "lefty". Perhaps other people who have responded to your ignorant bigoted rants are; I honestly don't know.

But there is no point in trying to enter into debate with someone who has a closed mind.

You're not equipped to debate. You've contributed nothing except your opinions. You're just a turkey who opposes Christmas.

GreatApe

Pennywise wrote: »

That's "salaried" so will usually be the younger ones not yet established in their career. Most GPs working in practice are partners (especially the older/experienced ones), so aren't included as they're not salaried - they take a profit share as they're self employed so their earnings aren't published (private firm accounts have no publication requirement). Average profit shares for full time equivalent partner GPs are more in the range £100-£200k.

Sure some doctors make more but some starting out made less than £30k

And GPs are paid better than most doctors.

What is the median over a lifetime for doctors in the UK? I think £70k is a reasonable guess but my gut feeling is its on the lower side of that.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

Sure some doctors make more but some starting out made less than £30k

And GPs are paid better than most doctors.

What is the median over a lifetime for doctors in the UK? I think £70k is a reasonable guess but my gut feeling is its on the lower side of that.

What type of doctor are you comparing in the US? Maybe in the US you have more specialist doctors/surgeons etc (as a proportion of overall doctors compared to the uk) who would naturally demand higher wages given their specialty?

Being a GP is not a difficult job. They can easily be replaced by AI etc.

GreatApe

westernpromise wrote: »

What's been most entertaining about this debate is how it has exposed the full scale of the tribal leftoid's sense of entitlement. The left doesn't just feel entitled to literally limitless quantities of other people's money. It also feels entitled to immunity from criticism.

As far as the left is concerned, it is actually beyond the pale to criticise the public sector in any way. If the police are incompetent, it's because they need even more of other people's money and the evil greedy taxpayers won't give it to them so they deserve the crime. When the saintly NHS kills people like a Dickensian workhouse it's because it needs even more of other people's money and the evil greedy taxpayers won't give it to them so they deserve the filth and squalor. When social workers (if I may be excused the oxymoron) allow children to be killed and raped in care, well, it's very stressful for the poor workers and they need even more of other people's money and the evil greedy taxpayers won't give it to them so the kids deserve the abuse.

It's really quite repellent. There are certain subjects that send the left apoplectic with rage and that pious censoriousness they do so well. Criticise charities, the public sector or the green movement and you provoke their instant snivelling money-grubbing ire.

So come on lefties, prove me wrong. I would like to make a sincere criticism of some aspect of any of these. Show that you're not just snivellers after money: cite something about the NHS' staff, or about civil servants, or about Shelter the non-housing "charity" that you think is to their discredit.

You will be unable to. You'd choke.

I like a lot of your posts primarily because you write well.

Anyway let me try and oppose your view.

Your argument is that the public sector does not sack anyone and that the private sector sacks a lot more people. This may be due to the different tasks and sectors involved. A policeman is not really comparable to say a shelf stacker. For a start a lot more small retail businesses fail so have higher turnover of staff. Likewise the type of people are arguably different. Lower skill lower IQ people presumably work in retail and hospitality than say the NHS so it might be the lower skill lower IQ resulting in more of them being fired as opposed to a more efficient private sector getting rid of the lazy. There is also a difference in scale. A company with 20 workers is likely to fire bad eggs quicker than a government department with 20,000 workers simply because the chain of decision making is much quicker and accountability more clear in a company of 20 workers.

I think something is also missed by not looking at self employed people or companies that are effectively self employed people (eg companies write no workers and just one director

It goes without saying the government is not 100% efficient.

But I would argue that at least the big sectors of government workers (NHS Schools Police Armed-Forces) are quite efficient for large scale organisations. I am sure in such large organisations you will find criminals and lazy workers thieves drunks and misfits and cases of misconduct and criminality however that would not necessarily be evidence that those institutions are more of those bad attributes than would be a similar size and scale private institutions doing the same tasks.