Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?

simonaspinall

One more very important point to make

Employees and members of the public sector may feel completely helpless in making a difference if they see a better way.

It's this lack of recognition and praise which suppresses innovation, progress and employee productivity.

There's the spirit there - Employees in the public sector are just the same as those in the private sector, except they have been subject to a different system.

It's the whole nature of the system that is broken, not the employees.

andyrm

Paulie W wrote:

andyrm wrote:

Oh god!!! That's a scary thought! In all seriousness, I doubt my capitalist, results driven, give 150% at all times approach would be at all well received in any part of the public sector......and if I made it, no doubt there would be some wannabe strikers ready to drop a lump of concrete on me just like those miners did to a strike buster!!!

Just got my weekly email through from the Napoleon Hill Foundation (which every professional should look into) and interestingly, there was a very apt quote for all those who are moaning about cutbacks/efficiency savings etc:

"Do not expect something for nothing. Be willing to give an equivalent value for all that you desire, and include in your plans a definite provision for doing so" – Napoleon Hill

Do you find that your grasp of basic maths, things like percentages say, holds you back in your 'capitalist, results driven' world?

By the way I hope you were alive and working in the 80s, you'd have loved it!

Far from it - my high level grasp of maths and ability to quantify just about everything around me is a major bonus.

I wasn't lucky enough to be quote old enough to be working in the 80's having been born in 1977 (had my first job at 11 washing around 50 cars a weekend to buy my first MTB outright with my own money) but my family on both sides came from Northern working class areas and worked their way out to economic prosperity during that period. multiple jobs, breaking strikes at not inconsiderable risk (including in the docks disputes) to ensure they stayed self supporting. Hence my absolute hatred of strikes and all they represent, which is little more than unionised hostage taking and holding an organisation/country to ransom rather than negotiating like civilised adults and accepting a compromise settlement.

But we digress - do you have any input on how we break the lazy, wasteful and - in all honesty - workshy mindset that exists in the public sector?

Sewinman

simonaspinall wrote:

One more very important point to make

Employees and members of the public sector may feel completely helpless in making a difference if they see a better way.

It's this lack of recognition and praise which suppresses innovation, progress and employee productivity.

There's the spirit there - Employees in the public sector are just the same as those in the private sector, except they have been subject to a different system.

It's the whole nature of the system that is broken, not the employees.

Please stop with these ridiculous anecdotes, simplifications and generalisations on 'the public sector'.

W1

simonaspinall wrote:

andyrm wrote:

We've had an awful lot of rebuttal from various quarters in this discussion, but so far not one explanation as to why the public sector is so full of unmotivated and change resistant people. Yes they are about to face a tough time, but we've had the same in the private sector for quite some time and still get on with things and actually fight to survive.

Any takers?

A complete disconnection from doing anything better and the point in doing it?

Change fatigue

Cynicism of 'management'

Constant batterings from the press

Pessimitistic view of the future

Those who went from education straight into public sector work and constantly had the same crushing structure overhead?

No competition for their services so no drive to improve or go out of business - There's always the comfort blanket of a budget next year

Private businesses have consumers who can take their purchase elsewhere, public sector provides and allocates services and the consumer has to put up or shut up - So why try harder?

Because maintaining the status quo is better for public sector workers?

I posted this before without comment from anyone - but even if there is a grain of truth in it....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ckies.html

W1

Paulie W wrote:

andyrm wrote:

Oh god!!! That's a scary thought! In all seriousness, I doubt my capitalist, results driven, give 150% at all times approach would be at all well received in any part of the public sector......and if I made it, no doubt there would be some wannabe strikers ready to drop a lump of concrete on me just like those miners did to a strike buster!!!

Just got my weekly email through from the Napoleon Hill Foundation (which every professional should look into) and interestingly, there was a very apt quote for all those who are moaning about cutbacks/efficiency savings etc:

"Do not expect something for nothing. Be willing to give an equivalent value for all that you desire, and include in your plans a definite provision for doing so" – Napoleon Hill

Do you find that your grasp of basic maths, things like percentages say, holds you back in your 'capitalist, results driven' world?

By the way I hope you were alive and working in the 80s, you'd have loved it!

You seem very bitter - any reason?

Do you work in the public sector?

rolf_f

andyrm wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

andyrm wrote:

If I got into power (which doubtless the trade unionists would never allow!!) one of the first things I would implement would be performance monitoring at every level in the public service, with pay commensurate to KPIs rather than bands that only serve to create laziness and demarcation of roles.

KPIs - rofl...... You'd fit into Public Sector management perfectly

Oh god!!! That's a scary thought! In all seriousness, I doubt my capitalist, results driven, give 150% at all times approach would be at all well received in any part of the public sector......and if I made it, no doubt there would be some wannabe strikers ready to drop a lump of concrete on me just like those miners did to a strike buster!!!

I wasn't joking. The endemic enthusiasm in the sector for trying to be like the private sector by implementing things like KPIs which actually get in the way of doing a proper job has had a bad effect on efficiency. I got in to trouble once because I let a KPI fall by the wayside because I was supporting a member of my team to actually change the data he was collecting for data that meant something. I could have achieved the KPI and collected meaningless data (as we'd done, unknowingly in the past), or failed it but actually got something useful. I chose the latter and it wasn't appreciated.

Seriously, you'd fit in fine with our middle managers. Honestly, you don't understand what the public sector is like. The give it all 150% is much loved and means we have lots of well paid 30 somethings flitting from one job to another every 18 months without ever actually learning anything (other than how to progress their careers).

simonaspinall

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

One more very important point to make

Employees and members of the public sector may feel completely helpless in making a difference if they see a better way.

It's this lack of recognition and praise which suppresses innovation, progress and employee productivity.

There's the spirit there - Employees in the public sector are just the same as those in the private sector, except they have been subject to a different system.

It's the whole nature of the system that is broken, not the employees.

Please stop with these ridiculous anecdotes, simplifications and generalisations on 'the public sector'.

Why? The public sector is a huge huge system with many employees of the same rank, job description, compensation, structural set-up, system of management within their area.

I'd say there were a lot of generalisations you could make with even the most basic of organisational and motivational principles.

And besides, what's wrong with anecdotes - We all know public sector/private sector employees and know the good in them and the problems they have at work.

MonkeyMonster

or

Sewinman

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

One more very important point to make

Employees and members of the public sector may feel completely helpless in making a difference if they see a better way.

It's this lack of recognition and praise which suppresses innovation, progress and employee productivity.

There's the spirit there - Employees in the public sector are just the same as those in the private sector, except they have been subject to a different system.

It's the whole nature of the system that is broken, not the employees.

Please stop with these ridiculous anecdotes, simplifications and generalisations on 'the public sector'.

Why? The public sector is a huge huge system with many employees of the same rank, job description, compensation, structural set-up, system of management within their area.

I'd say there were a lot of generalisations you could make with even the most basic of organisational and motivational principles.

And besides, what's wrong with anecdotes - We all know public sector/private sector employees and know the good in them and the problems they have at work.

Because it is clearly a massive group of disparate departments, organisations, sectors, regions etc etc. All of your imagined assertions and truths about the public sector may be entirely correct in one part of it and, equally, entirely wrong in another. Hence being utterly pointless.

simonaspinall

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

One more very important point to make

Employees and members of the public sector may feel completely helpless in making a difference if they see a better way.

It's this lack of recognition and praise which suppresses innovation, progress and employee productivity.

There's the spirit there - Employees in the public sector are just the same as those in the private sector, except they have been subject to a different system.

It's the whole nature of the system that is broken, not the employees.

Please stop with these ridiculous anecdotes, simplifications and generalisations on 'the public sector'.

Why? The public sector is a huge huge system with many employees of the same rank, job description, compensation, structural set-up, system of management within their area.

I'd say there were a lot of generalisations you could make with even the most basic of organisational and motivational principles.

And besides, what's wrong with anecdotes - We all know public sector/private sector employees and know the good in them and the problems they have at work.

Because it is a clearly a massive group of disparate departments, organisations, sectors, regions etc etc. All of your imagined assertions and truths about the public sector may be entirely correct in one part of it and, equally, entirely wrong in another. Hence being utterly pointless.

That's true of all the arguments on this thread, making the thread pointless. Even more so when you consider it won't be implemented so why post at all? Why go on forums at all?

It's an exchange of views and not necessarily a dissertation with perfectly sourced and immediately accountable objective data.

Sewinman

simonaspinall wrote:

That's true of all the arguments on this thread, making the thread pointless.

Agreed, other than for viewing people's silly prejudice.

simonaspinall

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

That's true of all the arguments on this thread, making the thread pointless.

Agreed, other than for viewing peoples silly prejudice.

Reiterate my earlier point - Judge the system on it's results. That's not exactly prejudice, but a subjective interpretation. I see the results of the public sector and make a judgement on the performance.

Paulie W

andyrm wrote:

Far from it - my high level grasp of maths and ability to quantify just about everything around me is a major bonus.

I wasn't lucky enough to be quote old enough to be working in the 80's having been born in 1977 (had my first job at 11 washing around 50 cars a weekend to buy my first MTB outright with my own money) but my family on both sides came from Northern working class areas and worked their way out to economic prosperity during that period. multiple jobs, breaking strikes at not inconsiderable risk (including in the docks disputes) to ensure they stayed self supporting. Hence my absolute hatred of strikes and all they represent, which is little more than unionised hostage taking and holding an organisation/country to ransom rather than negotiating like civilised adults and accepting a compromise settlement.

But we digress - do you have any input on how we break the lazy, wasteful and - in all honesty - workshy mindset that exists in the public sector?

Your high level maths has failed you again I fear since by your own admission it was 1988 or 1989 when you started working which is to myy reckoning in the late 1980s.

The problem with inputing into the discussion with you is that you seem to have developed, or at least your web persona has developed, such an intractable position as to make proper engagement with you futile. Even in writing this I am giving you more credit than you deserve

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

One more very important point to make

Employees and members of the public sector may feel completely helpless in making a difference if they see a better way.

It's this lack of recognition and praise which suppresses innovation, progress and employee productivity.

There's the spirit there - Employees in the public sector are just the same as those in the private sector, except they have been subject to a different system.

It's the whole nature of the system that is broken, not the employees.

Please stop with these ridiculous anecdotes, simplifications and generalisations on 'the public sector'.

Why? The public sector is a huge huge system with many employees of the same rank, job description, compensation, structural set-up, system of management within their area.

I'd say there were a lot of generalisations you could make with even the most basic of organisational and motivational principles.

And besides, what's wrong with anecdotes - We all know public sector/private sector employees and know the good in them and the problems they have at work.

Because it is clearly a massive group of disparate departments, organisations, sectors, regions etc etc. All of your imagined assertions and truths about the public sector may be entirely correct in one part of it and, equally, entirely wrong in another. Hence being utterly pointless.

I didn't know where you were going with that one Sewinman but I now have to agree.

Two NHS Trusts, same area of expertise with completely different set up for the way they provide services to the public. One Trust employs 2000 staff, the other 4000. This is just two Trusts out of the enitre NHS, which is a part of the entire Public Sector Health Services, which is in turn is a part of the entire Public Sector.

So yes, it is a massive generalisation.

andyrm

Rolf F wrote:

Seriously, you'd fit in fine with our middle managers. Honestly, you don't understand what the public sector is like. The give it all 150% is much loved and means we have lots of well paid 30 somethings flitting from one job to another every 18 months without ever actually learning anything (other than how to progress their careers).

And maybe therein lies the problem - data is collected, bad practices and useless people spotted, but nothing is ever done about it and so the cycle continues. I've seen first hand crazy situations like my mrs (who is a teacher and a much lauded one at that) talking about useless teachers at work who've been there for years. I always wonder why the hell they are still there? Why has nobody sacked them if they are no good at the job which they are paid to do?

Just popped out for a few minutes to the post office, and while I was out had a bit of a revelation. Put all public sector workers on 12 month contracts with a renewal meeting every 12 months. It would swiftly weed out the dead wood and allow the cream to rise to the top - look at the IT/technical contracting industry - only those who are any good and so confident in their ability to survive in a competitive world go into it.

Paulie W

W1 wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

andyrm wrote:

Oh god!!! That's a scary thought! In all seriousness, I doubt my capitalist, results driven, give 150% at all times approach would be at all well received in any part of the public sector......and if I made it, no doubt there would be some wannabe strikers ready to drop a lump of concrete on me just like those miners did to a strike buster!!!

Just got my weekly email through from the Napoleon Hill Foundation (which every professional should look into) and interestingly, there was a very apt quote for all those who are moaning about cutbacks/efficiency savings etc:

"Do not expect something for nothing. Be willing to give an equivalent value for all that you desire, and include in your plans a definite provision for doing so" – Napoleon Hill

Do you find that your grasp of basic maths, things like percentages say, holds you back in your 'capitalist, results driven' world?

By the way I hope you were alive and working in the 80s, you'd have loved it!

You seem very bitter - any reason?

Do you work in the public sector?

Perhaps you could clarify how my posts display any 'bitterness'? What they have displayed is an initial degree of anger at the ignorance on display replaced by a withering disdain for some of the posters on this thread.

andyrm

Paulie W wrote:

andyrm wrote:

Far from it - my high level grasp of maths and ability to quantify just about everything around me is a major bonus.

I wasn't lucky enough to be quote old enough to be working in the 80's having been born in 1977 (had my first job at 11 washing around 50 cars a weekend to buy my first MTB outright with my own money) but my family on both sides came from Northern working class areas and worked their way out to economic prosperity during that period. multiple jobs, breaking strikes at not inconsiderable risk (including in the docks disputes) to ensure they stayed self supporting. Hence my absolute hatred of strikes and all they represent, which is little more than unionised hostage taking and holding an organisation/country to ransom rather than negotiating like civilised adults and accepting a compromise settlement.

But we digress - do you have any input on how we break the lazy, wasteful and - in all honesty - workshy mindset that exists in the public sector?

Your high level maths has failed you again I fear since by your own admission it was 1988 or 1989 when you started working which is to myy reckoning in the late 1980s.

The problem with inputing into the discussion with you is that you seem to have developed, or at least your web persona has developed, such an intractable position as to make proper engagement with you futile. Even in writing this I am giving you more credit than you deserve

Jesus H. I wasn't aware we were on semanticsradar.com - what exactly is the cause of your anger towards me?

I don't think I've ever read such a patronising post on here before - I'm genuinely intrigued to find out what drives your outbursts in response to my pretty clear statement that I disagree with strikers, that I believe in giving 150% (for the record this is a turn of phrase implying a total commitment to what you do rather than a literal percentage) and that I perceive the public sector to be rotten to the core and full of people with little motivation or drive to excel. I note that you have neither denied the fact that public sector workers are lacking in motivation or put forward any reasons for their slackness. Care to elaborate rather than getting on that slippery slope of cheap insults?

Sewinman

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

That's true of all the arguments on this thread, making the thread pointless.

Agreed, other than for viewing peoples silly prejudice.

Reiterate my earlier point - Judge the system on it's results. That's not exactly prejudice, but a subjective interpretation. I see the results of the public sector and make a judgement on the performance.

Yeah, results....like some private companies make a loss, therefore the private sector is loss making etc. But its not is it - some companies make profits and judging them on the failures of others would be unfair. As I said - sweeping generalisations, medium for expressing prejudice.

jimmypippa

lost_in_thought wrote:

Is that a mega shark fighting a giant octopus?

I don't see how the octopus could ever win that one.

Giant Octopus Eats Sharks at Aquarium

From the National Geographic

simonaspinall

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

One more very important point to make

Employees and members of the public sector may feel completely helpless in making a difference if they see a better way.

It's this lack of recognition and praise which suppresses innovation, progress and employee productivity.

There's the spirit there - Employees in the public sector are just the same as those in the private sector, except they have been subject to a different system.

It's the whole nature of the system that is broken, not the employees.

Please stop with these ridiculous anecdotes, simplifications and generalisations on 'the public sector'.

Why? The public sector is a huge huge system with many employees of the same rank, job description, compensation, structural set-up, system of management within their area.

I'd say there were a lot of generalisations you could make with even the most basic of organisational and motivational principles.

And besides, what's wrong with anecdotes - We all know public sector/private sector employees and know the good in them and the problems they have at work.

Because it is clearly a massive group of disparate departments, organisations, sectors, regions etc etc. All of your imagined assertions and truths about the public sector may be entirely correct in one part of it and, equally, entirely wrong in another. Hence being utterly pointless.

I didn't know where you were going with that one Sewinman but I now have to agree.

Two NHS Trusts, same area of expertise with completely different set up for the way they provide services to the public. One Trust employs 2000 staff, the other 4000. This is just two Trusts out of the enitre NHS, which is a part of the entire Public Sector Health Services, which is in turn is a part of the entire Public Sector.

So yes, it is a massive generalisation.

Just because there are different regions operating different processes it doesn't mean those processes are correct, carried out efficiently and can't be improved. It doesn't mean that there aren't comparable systems, structures, work practices, appraisal systems, union activity and employee cultures.

So what's the end conclusion? The system is too big? Has suffered from being centralised?

A lot of the criticism here is trying to identify problems which can be fixed and asking 'why is it like that if it's not achieving results' with the problems listed in the 20-something pages previously.

Seems quite constructive to me.

rolf_f

andyrm wrote:

Just popped out for a few minutes to the post office, and while I was out had a bit of a revelation. Put all public sector workers on 12 month contracts with a renewal meeting every 12 months. It would swiftly weed out the dead wood and allow the cream to rise to the top - look at the IT/technical contracting industry - only those who are any good and so confident in their ability to survive in a competitive world go into it.

That's a revelation? Destroy any job security to the extent that the entire public sector workforce would be unable and unwilling to buy a house (for example)? Rely on the management to actually make the correct decisions on who to employ?

I don't understand yours (and others) incredibly black and white viewpoint. Of course there is much wrong in the public sector. But that applies to private sector too. And much of what is wrong with the public sector is the implementation of inappropriate private sector methods (some of which have done much good and some of which have done much harm). I'm surprised that you seem entirely unaware of how much private sector practice has been brought in to the public sector - in many cases, quite a few years ago.

As for the IT industry - I have seen what they do and they are absolutely no better or worse than anyone else (but that is only in my experience).

simonaspinall

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

That's true of all the arguments on this thread, making the thread pointless.

Agreed, other than for viewing peoples silly prejudice.

Reiterate my earlier point - Judge the system on it's results. That's not exactly prejudice, but a subjective interpretation. I see the results of the public sector and make a judgement on the performance.

Yeah, results....like some private companies make a loss, therefore the private sector is loss making etc. But its not is it - some companies make profits and judging them on the failures of others would be unfair. As I said - sweeping generalisations, medium for expressing prejudice.

Not really a fair comparison - Some lose, some profit, however those that lose in the private sector don't waste the tax payers money. If the SME I work in went down tomorrow, it would not affect the tax payer but it would affect shareholders in teh company and our customers.

So yes I can judge by results - If the public sector has poor results, that poor value for all tax payers which is what needs addressing.

DonDaddyD

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

That's true of all the arguments on this thread, making the thread pointless.

Agreed, other than for viewing peoples silly prejudice.

Reiterate my earlier point - Judge the system on it's results. That's not exactly prejudice, but a subjective interpretation. I see the results of the public sector and make a judgement on the performance.

Yes, but like most results people focus on the bad more so than the good.

andyrm

Rolf F wrote:

That's a revelation? Destroy any job security to the extent that the entire public sector workforce would be unable and unwilling to buy a house (for example)? Rely on the management to actually make the correct decisions on who to employ?

I don't understand yours (and others) incredibly black and white viewpoint. Of course there is much wrong in the public sector. But that applies to private sector too. And much of what is wrong with the public sector is the implementation of inappropriate private sector methods (some of which have done much good and some of which have done much harm). I'm surprised that you seem entirely unaware of how much private sector practice has been brought in to the public sector - in many cases, quite a few years ago.

As for the IT industry - I have seen what they do and they are absolutely no better or worse than anyone else (but that is only in my experience).

By "destroy job security", do you mean "remove the jobs for life culture regardless of performance"? In which case yes I 100% advocate this. Nobody has the right to stay in a role in which they are not committing themselves and performing. To ensure their survival, an employee should be justifying their existence at every stage. I learned that a long time ago - every single day sees me trying to achieve more than the previous in order to excel in my career and rise through the ranks in my organisation. Staying stagnant is simply not an option, either in terms of staying sane or staying employed.

And "rely on the management t make the correct decisions" - that's what they are there for!!! A manager is not just a title given in place of a gold watch for long service - it is a role that carries responsibility to get the job of management right. get it wrong repeatedly and you are an ineffective manager and should be shown the door. It's that simple.

simonaspinall

DonDaddyD wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

That's true of all the arguments on this thread, making the thread pointless.

Agreed, other than for viewing peoples silly prejudice.

Reiterate my earlier point - Judge the system on it's results. That's not exactly prejudice, but a subjective interpretation. I see the results of the public sector and make a judgement on the performance.

Yes, but like most results people focus on the bad more so than the good.

If you read my earlier posts I recognise a lot of good.

Sewinman

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

That's true of all the arguments on this thread, making the thread pointless.

Agreed, other than for viewing peoples silly prejudice.

Reiterate my earlier point - Judge the system on it's results. That's not exactly prejudice, but a subjective interpretation. I see the results of the public sector and make a judgement on the performance.

Yeah, results....like some private companies make a loss, therefore the private sector is loss making etc. But its not is it - some companies make profits and judging them on the failures of others would be unfair. As I said - sweeping generalisations, medium for expressing prejudice.

Not really a fair comparison - Some lose, some profit, however those that lose in the private sector don't waste the tax payers money. If the SME I work in went down tomorrow, it would not affect the tax payer but it would affect shareholders in teh company and our customers.

So yes I can judge by results - If the public sector has poor results, that poor value for all tax payers which is what needs addressing.

You have missed my point. Your are using individual failures to judge and blame some kind of fairly loosely defined thing called 'the public sector'.....booo hisss! It is human nature to do it - take a pretty diverse group of things, bung them together under one name, hate them.

Paulie W

andyrm wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

andyrm wrote:

Far from it - my high level grasp of maths and ability to quantify just about everything around me is a major bonus.

I wasn't lucky enough to be quote old enough to be working in the 80's having been born in 1977 (had my first job at 11 washing around 50 cars a weekend to buy my first MTB outright with my own money) but my family on both sides came from Northern working class areas and worked their way out to economic prosperity during that period. multiple jobs, breaking strikes at not inconsiderable risk (including in the docks disputes) to ensure they stayed self supporting. Hence my absolute hatred of strikes and all they represent, which is little more than unionised hostage taking and holding an organisation/country to ransom rather than negotiating like civilised adults and accepting a compromise settlement.

But we digress - do you have any input on how we break the lazy, wasteful and - in all honesty - workshy mindset that exists in the public sector?

Your high level maths has failed you again I fear since by your own admission it was 1988 or 1989 when you started working which is to myy reckoning in the late 1980s.

The problem with inputing into the discussion with you is that you seem to have developed, or at least your web persona has developed, such an intractable position as to make proper engagement with you futile. Even in writing this I am giving you more credit than you deserve

Jesus H. I wasn't aware we were on semanticsradar.com - what exactly is the cause of your anger towards me?

I don't think I've ever read such a patronising post on here before - I'm genuinely intrigued to find out what drives your outbursts in response to my pretty clear statement that I disagree with strikers, that I believe in giving 150% (for the record this is a turn of phrase implying a total commitment to what you do rather than a literal percentage) and that I perceive the public sector to be rotten to the core and full of people with little motivation or drive to excel. I note that you have neither denied the fact that public sector workers are lacking in motivation or put forward any reasons for their slackness. Care to elaborate rather than getting on that slippery slope of cheap insults?

Stop acting like a prick then. If you dont realise that a great deal of what you say is extremely provicative then you have a problem. You have consistently characterised literally millions of workers as workshy, unmotivated chancers. It is your insults that are cheap.

Many public sector workers are highly motivated and meticulous, they work in areas like health, education, criminal justice, which require a great deal of commitment and a real sense of the public good as opposed to the individual good. Some whole areas of the public sector are highly successful but funding will be slashed in the systematic spending review because we are told that public spending HAS to be cut by an unprecedented level. I dont disagree that public spending needs to be cut, nor do I doubt there are bloated, inefficient areas of the public sector, but this need for cuts has driven a rhetoric among politicians - not just of the Coalition but of the back end of the Labour government - that the public sector is 'rotten to teh core' and it needs to be stripped down and rebuilt. There is no room in this rhetoric for admitting 'well actually this area works extremely well' because cutting effective services just doesnt sell.

simonaspinall

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

simonaspinall wrote:

That's true of all the arguments on this thread, making the thread pointless.

Agreed, other than for viewing peoples silly prejudice.

Reiterate my earlier point - Judge the system on it's results. That's not exactly prejudice, but a subjective interpretation. I see the results of the public sector and make a judgement on the performance.

Yeah, results....like some private companies make a loss, therefore the private sector is loss making etc. But its not is it - some companies make profits and judging them on the failures of others would be unfair. As I said - sweeping generalisations, medium for expressing prejudice.

Not really a fair comparison - Some lose, some profit, however those that lose in the private sector don't waste the tax payers money. If the SME I work in went down tomorrow, it would not affect the tax payer but it would affect shareholders in teh company and our customers.

So yes I can judge by results - If the public sector has poor results, that poor value for all tax payers which is what needs addressing.

You have missed my point. Your are using individual failures to judge and blame some kind of fairly loosely defined thing called 'the public sector'.....booo hisss! It is human nature to do it - take a pretty diverse group of things, bung them together under one name, hate them.

A) I don't hate the public sector - We are constructively critcising it and trying to find causes as to why parts of it may be underperforming.
What individual failures - The results of basic processes that aren't being implemented or are not providing value to the tax payer?
C) I've seperated area of the 'public sector' rather than bunging them all togther recognising different job roles and practices.

I suppose the real question is 'can it be fixed' rather than 'how do we fix it'.

And also - This isn't a pantomine boohiss!

DonDaddyD

Just popped out for a few minutes to the post office, and while I was out had a bit of a revelation. Put all public sector workers on 12 month contracts with a renewal meeting every 12 months.

There are those that need more job security than that to be motivated. And so 12month contracts would create the problem in some that you are trying to eliminate. it would solve nothing really and you would loose some skilled workers who aren't prepared to work contracts.

It's not really a good suggestion.

Just because there are different regions operating different processes it doesn't mean those processes are correct, carried out efficiently and can't be improved. It doesn't mean that there aren't comparable systems, structures, work practices, appraisal systems, union activity and employee cultures.

I never said there wasn't any room for improvement. But you really need to take each as a case by case situation. What works and are the faults in one Trust may be the complete opposite for another. Then there are some things that should simply be done by all.

To simply label the 'Public Sector' as you've done is a generalisation.

A lot of the criticism here is trying to identify problems which can be fixed and asking 'why is it like that if it's not achieving results' with the problems listed in the 20-something pages previously.

No, all the criticisms here is to take one instance of one part of the Public lets say the service at a Doctor Surgery and not only accuse all Doctors Surgeries in the country of failing but the entire Public Sector which extends beyond one person in a Surgery who may have been having a bad day.

Sewinman

That is my point - It is pointless to criticise 'it' - what...is...it!

Anyway, in answer to DDD's question in the subject line - my answer would be 'Because people are prejudiced'.