Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?

DonDaddyD

There seems to be a rhetoric of the public sector being secondary to the private sector. Personally, I think schools, health, police, transport is pretty damn important in making a Country work. I've seen Countries with no or very little Government owned infastructure, they don't seem to do well.

Why do people like to victimise and complain about the public sector, what's your problem with it?

asprilla

DonDaddyD wrote:

There seems to be a rhetoric of the public sector being secondary to the private sector. Personally, I think schools, health, police, transport is pretty damn important in making a Country work. I've seen Countries with no or very little Government owned infastructure, they don't seem to do well.

Why do people like to victimise and complain about the public sector, what's your problem with it?

I don't hate public services, I just dislike it when people choose a career on the understanding of exactly what it entails; the positive and the negative and then whinge constantly about the negative side and expect the rest of us to pay for improvements to it.

Life isn't perfect, suck it up and get on with it.

lost_in_thought

A mate of mine's a performance poet, DDD, a line in this made me think of you....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-L7a8QYyvA

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

A mate of mine's a performance poet, DDD, a line in this made me think of you....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-L7a8QYyvA

Government funded (via the Arts Council)?

DonDaddyD

Personally I appreciate the fact that this Country has the public sector that provides the services it does.

I acknowledge that by removing any sense of competition within a market you can inadvertently remove the drive for excellence. I approve of many changes to inject or thrust, in my case the NHS, further into the competitive market to thrive. I've seen some dramatic and wonderful changes to bring some Trusts out of the 90s (no kidding) and alongside many private sector companies that they are now competeing against. (This is privatisation).

I accept that there has been some waste and a culture of complacency with some staff - this often a result of lack of continuous training and development. You cannot have it both ways. If you do not invest, you cannot hope to improve. If you want improvements then money at some point has to be invested and spent. Efficiency savings can be made but there is a limit to basic operating costs.

I grow sick that some take the sector for granted, complaining at any possible chance about money being spent and yet want more quality and services more of the time while somehow expecting these improvements/changes not to cost more money and time.

I grow sick of the 'my taxes' argument.

I grow sick of the assumption that the right minded are private sector and the left minded are public sector. In my view a right minded person can exist quite happily in the public sector, make a career and succeed. The concept of the public sector has capacity for this.

I'm tired of the pay comparisons. The decisions that determine public sector salary are completely different to those in the private sector. There are no bonuses and no negotiations. There isn't a pay rise based on your results/targets. I think it should remain this way. Promotions don't work in the same way as well. You could do a job for 10yrs and when the managerial position comes up still find yourself not in a position to be considered.

Personally I see nothing wrong in having a public sector and find that most of peoples problems with it are born out of misconceptions a culture of public sector flaming.

EKE_38BPM

Hmmm....I wonder what line?

gtvlusso

Being a left winger, I love the public sector....some wonderful institutions that serve the public incredibly well given the budget constraints..the NHS being the finest institution this country has ever produced.

But as I stated in the previous; I think salarys and benefits in PS now far outweigh private workers (I have lost allot to PS project jobs) - projects that have eaten public money and acheived sweet FA. Some of my ex colleagues openly admit to earning more and doing less and being less responsible - something that would not be tolerated in private industry.

I also think the media has hyped the "fat cat" paychecks that county councillors and that wretched NHS "Trusts" system managers are paying themselves - even for failure or when they are fired and get a pay off. It is our money in many instances....there are some fair deals out there now for Nurses and teachers, allot of their salaries compete with the salaries that my company offer for qualified techy geeks - however, their payrise structure outpaces ours easily!

I don't want to victimise the PS, it victimises itself with some stupid decisions/poorly planned projects and few greedy f*ckers who spoil it for everyone else!

DonDaddyD

Asprilla wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

There seems to be a rhetoric of the public sector being secondary to the private sector. Personally, I think schools, health, police, transport is pretty damn important in making a Country work. I've seen Countries with no or very little Government owned infastructure, they don't seem to do well.

Why do people like to victimise and complain about the public sector, what's your problem with it?

I don't hate public services, I just dislike it when people choose a career on the understanding of exactly what it entails; the positive and the negative and then whinge constantly about the negative side and expect the rest of us to pay for improvements to it.

Life isn't perfect, suck it up and get on with it.

This I agree with.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I don't hate the public sector; it is a necessity.

However, the public sector in any economy generates no income. It uses income. Which has to be generated by others.

Ally this to the fact that private companies take out of the market what the market will bear. If people won't pay for a product or service, the private sector company goes bust.

The state, OTOH, takes out of the economy what it wants. If you won't pay you tax, you'll be made bankrupt.

I'd prefer it if the public sector was as slim as possible. But there is little economic force to make it so; the force is political. And the previous Govt's policy was to bloat the public sector, one might cynically say to create a part of the workforce that was dependent on its continuation, and so would vote for it.

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

A mate of mine's a performance poet, DDD, a line in this made me think of you....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-L7a8QYyvA

Government funded (via the Arts Council)?

I don't believe so, no.

lost_in_thought

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Hmmm....I wonder what line?

Yeah, it must be a real struggle to work that out. :P

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

<blah>


I grow sick of the assumption that the right minded are private sector and the left minded are public sector.

You know Greg means right-minded as in correct, yes? Although the parallels are interesting.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

I don't hate the public sector; it is a necessity.

However, the public sector in any economy generates no income. It uses income. Which has to be generated by others.

Ally this to the fact that private companies take out of the market what the market will bear. If people won't pay for a product or service, the private sector company goes bust.

The state, OTOH, takes out of the economy what it wants. If you won't pay you tax, you'll be made bankrupt.

I'd prefer it if the public sector was as slim as possible. But there is little economic force to make it so; the force is political. And the previous Govt's policy was to bloat the public sector, one might cynically say to create a part of the workforce that was dependent on its continuation, and so would vote for it.

The public sector generates no income, but it generates a great deal of value.

DonDaddyD

I can't access youtube, is LiT's being nice

gtvlusso wrote:

Being a left winger, I love the public sector....some wonderful institutions that serve the public incredibly well given the budget constraints..the NHS being the finest institution this country has ever produced.

But as I stated in the previous; I think salarys and benefits in PS now far outweigh private workers (I have lost allot to PS project jobs) - projects that have eaten public money and acheived sweet FA. Some of my ex colleagues openly admit to earning more and doing less and being less responsible - something that would not be tolerated in private industry.

The NHS was so far behind in IT it was embarrassing

I also think the media has hyped the "fat cat" paychecks that county councillors and that wretched NHS "Trusts" system managers are paying themselves - even for failure or when they are fired and get a pay off. It is our money in many instances....there are some fair deals out there now for Nurses and teachers, allot of their salaries compete with the salaries that my company offer for qualified techy geeks - however, their payrise structure outpaces ours easily!

I don't want to victimise the PS, it victimises itself with some stupid decisions/poorly planned projects and few greedy f*ckers who spoil it for everyone else!

When you say System managers do you mean Directors who are on personal salaries or do you mean middle managers. Because:

i: Directors are paid against the level of risk and responsibility they take, for exampleif you are incharge of an entire Directorate that employs over 100 staff members and provides services to 4000 staff members operating over 4 London boroughs (the organisation itself is worth a few 100million) and you are personally liable for that risk. Chances are you are going to be on or near 100,000k

ii: Middle and senior managers don't pay themselves or pick their salary. That pay scale has been consulted on, ratified, reviewed, agreed, approved and legally stamped to ensure that the pay is appropriate. What any of us think of the salary is non-consequential. Its not up to us to decide what other jobs pay.

On another note it could be that your companies pay is no longer competitive and therefore needs to be reviewed.

wgwarburton

Hi,
I think there's a perception that some people in the public sector take job security for granted and don't contribute as much as they might. The public sector isn't generally regarded as a model of efficiency.

There may be a little resentment just now regarding the public sector unions' attitude to pay cuts. For some reason pay cuts and job losses in the public sector are regarded as inconceivable, despite chunks of the private sector having already taken a hit.
Personally speaking, my income's gone down nearly 20% over the last year or two and many jobs I might have taken have gone. I'm not quite clear why the public sector should be immune from the effects of financial retrenchment, but perhaps that's because I haven't done enough research.
I'm also not quite clear on the line that "The bankers caused this, not me, why should I suffer?". We're all in this together, now, like it or not...

None of this means that I "hate the public sector", though, just in case that isn't clear.

Cheers,
W.

NGale

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I don't hate the public sector; it is a necessity.

However, the public sector in any economy generates no income. It uses income. Which has to be generated by others.

Ally this to the fact that private companies take out of the market what the market will bear. If people won't pay for a product or service, the private sector company goes bust.

The state, OTOH, takes out of the economy what it wants. If you won't pay you tax, you'll be made bankrupt.

I'd prefer it if the public sector was as slim as possible. But there is little economic force to make it so; the force is political. And the previous Govt's policy was to bloat the public sector, one might cynically say to create a part of the workforce that was dependent on its continuation, and so would vote for it.

The public sector generates no income, but it generates a great deal of value.

Hey, it generates my income that's for sure

georgee

Both my parents worked all their lives for the public sector (local gov), all my summer jobs were in local government as a temp.

It is easy street from my experience.

One day my Dad called in the co-op on the way home to pick up a bottle of wine, stacking the shelves was one of his staff who was off on long term sick, their union massively fought their dismissal.

Enough said.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

I don't hate the public sector; it is a necessity.

However, the public sector in any economy generates no income. It uses income. Which has to be generated by others.

I'll challenge that and put this to you. An NHS Foundation Trust has less control over it from Central Government. It compete in the open market to commission for services such as providing treatment to a local prison to the tune of £10mil. At the end of the year it makes a surplus of £30mil that the Government cannot touch but the Trust can reinvest into its services and has to prove that it has done so or runs the risk of sanctions being put inplace that further reduces its ability to operate. The Government can then reduce the money it invests into it.

I'd prefer it if the public sector was as slim as possible. But there is little economic force to make it so; the force is political. And the previous Govt's policy was to bloat the public sector, one might cynically say to create a part of the workforce that was dependent on its continuation, and so would vote for it.

I don't disagree, some processes are convoluted simply so that an additional person can have a job.

You know Greg means right-minded as in correct, yes? Although the parallels are interesting.

Nope didn't realise that at all. Was thinking about you liking your men shaved at the time of typing...

PBo

georgee wrote:

Both my parents worked all their lives for the public sector (local gov), all my summer jobs were in local government as a temp.

It is easy street from my experience.

One day my Dad called in the co-op on the way home to pick up a bottle of wine, stacking the shelves was one of his staff who was off on long term sick, their union massively fought their dismissal.

Enough said.

Not really.

The public sector did the right thing - sacked the con artist.

The UNION did the wrong thing - defend the indefensible (obv don't know all the details, but you get my point).

Public sector follows same employment law as anyone else....

tailwindhome

WGWarburton wrote:

We're all in this together

I don't know that we are. Seems to be a line used to convince people that the shafting is actually good for them. Bit like Green taxes.


Re the OP

Will I set off QI style alarms if I suggest it could be because it's full of middle managers with nothing better to do than post on the internet all day.

lost_in_thought

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
I think there's a perception that some people in the public sector take job security for granted and don't contribute as much as they might. The public sector isn't generally regarded as a model of efficiency.

There may be a little resentment just now regarding the public sector unions' attitude to pay cuts. For some reason pay cuts and job losses in the public sector are regarded as inconceivable, despite chunks of the private sector having already taken a hit.
Personally speaking, my income's gone down nearly 20% over the last year or two and many jobs I might have taken have gone. I'm not quite clear why the public sector should be immune from the effects of financial retrenchment, but perhaps that's because I haven't done enough research.
I'm also not quite clear on the line that "The bankers caused this, not me, why should I suffer?". We're all in this together, now, like it or not...

None of this means that I "hate the public sector", though, just in case that isn't clear.

Cheers,
W.

Buns: nail: head.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

The public sector generates no income, but it generates a great deal of value.

Income will pay your bills.

Value won't.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

A mate of mine's a performance poet, DDD, a line in this made me think of you....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-L7a8QYyvA

"We should keep this quiet is
I'm ashamed you're not as wealthy as me"

???

OK, but there is more to us than wealth.....

(I actually quite like that piece does he perform live? )

bails87

Maybe, because of all the stuff about "the public sector is easy street" it's not seen as a good thing on a CV. As a result, they have to pay more to attract people. To compensate for the fact that the CV worthiness of the job isn't as good......

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'll challenge that and put this to you. An NHS Foundation Trust has less control over it from Central Government. It compete in the open market to commission for services such as providing treatment to a local prison to the tune of £10mil. At the end of the year it makes a surplus of £30mil that the Government cannot touch but the Trust can reinvest into its services and has to prove that it has done so or runs the risk of sanctions being put inplace that further reduces its ability to operate. The Government can then reduce the money it invests into it.

Is that not simply moving money from one area of the public sector (prisons) to another (the NHS)? Or does the trust generate money from private sector companies? And if so, how do those figures compare to the Trust's annual Govt funding?

I don't quite understand the difference between "invest" and "fund". If I invest money in something, I'd hope for a financial return. If I fund something, I recognise that I'm underwriting costs without getting a return.

Aidy

Why do some people have a problem with everything?

NGale

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
I think there's a perception that some people in the public sector take job security for granted and don't contribute as much as they might. The public sector isn't generally regarded as a model of efficiency.

There may be a little resentment just now regarding the public sector unions' attitude to pay cuts. For some reason pay cuts and job losses in the public sector are regarded as inconceivable, despite chunks of the private sector having already taken a hit.
Personally speaking, my income's gone down nearly 20% over the last year or two and many jobs I might have taken have gone. I'm not quite clear why the public sector should be immune from the effects of financial retrenchment, but perhaps that's because I haven't done enough research.
I'm also not quite clear on the line that "The bankers caused this, not me, why should I suffer?". We're all in this together, now, like it or not...

None of this means that I "hate the public sector", though, just in case that isn't clear.

Cheers,
W.

in all I have worked in the public sector for near on 10 years, either in the Prison Service or the NHS (in a few weeks I will be moving into a Private/Public partnership social housing and care company)

Year on year my salary has essentially gone down as the cost of living increases faster than I can earn it.

On top of that job security has been this wonderful thing those in the private think it is. I have been under threat of redundance four times in the Prison Service (one time for every year of my service) and once in the ambulance service.

Because the public see they pay for us, they feel they can abuse us in whatever way they want as though we were under some kind of indivdual ownership.

I have to be honest become p***ed off at the amount of people who swear at me on the phones telling me that 'because I pay my taxes I have a right to tell you what to do'. No they we pay our taxes for services to be used correctly and not attend to some dumb t**t who has decided to get drunk and cut his finger! :evil:

bails87

Where were those stats that showed that the NHS was massively more efficient than the US system.....

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

A mate of mine's a performance poet, DDD, a line in this made me think of you....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-L7a8QYyvA

"We should keep this quiet is
I'm ashamed you're not as wealthy as me"

???

OK, but there is more to us than wealth.....

(I actually quite like that piece does he perform live? )

It's good, isn't it? He's had rave reviews at the Edinburgh Festival thingo. It was more the 'I enjoy a heated debate is.....' :P

il_principe

lost_in_thought wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
I think there's a perception that some people in the public sector take job security for granted and don't contribute as much as they might. The public sector isn't generally regarded as a model of efficiency.

There may be a little resentment just now regarding the public sector unions' attitude to pay cuts. For some reason pay cuts and job losses in the public sector are regarded as inconceivable, despite chunks of the private sector having already taken a hit.
Personally speaking, my income's gone down nearly 20% over the last year or two and many jobs I might have taken have gone. I'm not quite clear why the public sector should be immune from the effects of financial retrenchment, but perhaps that's because I haven't done enough research.
I'm also not quite clear on the line that "The bankers caused this, not me, why should I suffer?". We're all in this together, now, like it or not...

None of this means that I "hate the public sector", though, just in case that isn't clear.

Cheers,
W.

Buns: nail: head.

+1

I don't hate the public sector, i do hate some of the profligacy I see though. My Uncle worked on the ill-fated NHS network project and some of the stories he told were pretty terrifying. Huge sums of cash just wasted.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

Re the OP

Will I set off QI style alarms if I suggest it could be because it's full of middle managers with nothing better to do than post on the internet all day.

You seem to be stuck labelling me as a middle manager. I've told you otherwise.

Still,

Wind your neck in so that your head is supported by your shoulders, whose to say that I'm at work (even if I'm sitting at my desk) and you have no concept of my job so you're working off assumptions.

MissThang wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

Hi,
I think there's a perception that some people in the public sector take job security for granted and don't contribute as much as they might. The public sector isn't generally regarded as a model of efficiency.

There may be a little resentment just now regarding the public sector unions' attitude to pay cuts. For some reason pay cuts and job losses in the public sector are regarded as inconceivable, despite chunks of the private sector having already taken a hit.
Personally speaking, my income's gone down nearly 20% over the last year or two and many jobs I might have taken have gone. I'm not quite clear why the public sector should be immune from the effects of financial retrenchment, but perhaps that's because I haven't done enough research.
I'm also not quite clear on the line that "The bankers caused this, not me, why should I suffer?". We're all in this together, now, like it or not...

None of this means that I "hate the public sector", though, just in case that isn't clear.

Cheers,
W.

Buns: nail: head.

No it really isn't.

1. Who would react cheerfully to paycuts, in a sector that is generally accepted as being either underpaid or not as well as the private sector.

2. The argument the public sector should suffer because the private sector did is bollocks, big ones with spots and hair! The public sector wasn't responsible for the recession that happened within the private sector market.

3. The public sector isn't immune to the effects of the financial shortfalls, the NHS had to make £20billion pounds efficiency savings announced around the time of the recession. Its just gone through major commissioning changes, this on top of a major reform to the concept of Trusts. On top of that each year (this again prior but running concurrently) it has to make a saving on spending something like 3% but year on year it adds up and results in service cuts/amalgamations/job loss. Oh and there is currently a salary freeze.

So the Public health sector played its part before during and after the recession at least.