Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?

tailwindhome

Gregg66 wrote:

cee wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

TWH made it clear several pages ago that the turning upside down trick doesn't work on great whites.

Tsk, tsk...

ahem.

wikipedia wrote:

In an interesting eye witness case in 1997 around the Farallon Islands off the coast of California, a female orca was seen purposely inducing tonic immobility in a great white shark. The orca held the shark upside down to induce the tonic immobility, and kept the shark still for fifteen minutes, causing it to suffocate to death. This was the first recorded eye witness case of predation on a great white shark in the wild by a species other than humans

So although scientists have said great whites are not as responsive as other sharks...they can still be put in a tonic state....

methinks that there was some amatuerish tonic immobility research done previously.

Bloody TWH! Unreliable fecker, he is!

Yes I read the Wiki article too.

The tonic immobility may work on *some* Great Whites, the fact remains that it would be a dangerous and unproven strategy for Kong to attempt on the biggest, baddest Great White of them all.

DonDaddyD

Ali won

He truly is the greatest.

rjsterry

Excuse me getting back on topic, but there was an interesting comment from the head of Birmingham (I think) Chamber of Commerce on this morning's news. His point was that so much of public services have already been contracted out that cuts in public spending will also have a big impact on the private sector. The private and public sectors aren't as distinct as some would like to portray.

Just off the top of my head, here are a few public services that are (often) provided by private companies.

Rubbish collection & recycling
Street cleaning
Building Maintenance on public buildings (including council housing).
Cleaning of public buildings
Catering in public buildings (canteens)
Parking
Road maintenance
Maintenance of public open spaces
IT for public bodies
Public sports and leisure facilities (i.e. not membership only gyms)
Suppliers of equipment for all of the above

Not to mention utilities of course, although they haven't been public sector for some time now, and look how efficient (at making money for their shareholders/providing the required service) they are. I'm sure there's a lot more that I've missed.

So when someone talks about axing public sector jobs, they probably mean a lot of private sector jobs too.

simonaspinall

rjsterry wrote:

Excuse me getting back on topic, but there was an interesting comment from the head of Birmingham (I think) Chamber of Commerce on this morning's news. His point was that so much of public services have already been contracted out that cuts in public spending will also have a big impact on the private sector. The private and public sectors aren't as distinct as some would like to portray.

Just off the top of my head, here are a few public services that are (often) provided by private companies.

Rubbish collection & recycling
Street cleaning
Building Maintenance on public buildings (including council housing).
Cleaning of public buildings
Catering in public buildings (canteens)
Parking
Road maintenance
Maintenance of public open spaces
IT for public bodies
Public sports and leisure facilities (i.e. not membership only gyms)
Suppliers of equipment for all of the above

Not to mention utilities of course, although they haven't been public sector for some time now, and look how efficient (at making money for their shareholders/providing the required service) they are. I'm sure there's a lot more that I've missed.

So when someone talks about axing public sector jobs, they probably mean a lot of private sector jobs too.

Be interesting to see how this affects public sector strikes.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Excuse me getting back on topic, but there was an interesting comment from the head of Birmingham (I think) Chamber of Commerce on this morning's news. His point was that so much of public services have already been contracted out that cuts in public spending will also have a big impact on the private sector. The private and public sectors aren't as distinct as some would like to portray.

Just off the top of my head, here are a few public services that are (often) provided by private companies.

Rubbish collection & recycling
Street cleaning
Building Maintenance on public buildings (including council housing).
Cleaning of public buildings
Catering in public buildings (canteens)
Parking
Road maintenance
Maintenance of public open spaces
IT for public bodies
Public sports and leisure facilities (i.e. not membership only gyms)
Suppliers of equipment for all of the above

Not to mention utilities of course, although they haven't been public sector for some time now, and look how efficient (at making money for their shareholders/providing the required service) they are. I'm sure there's a lot more that I've missed.

So when someone talks about axing public sector jobs, they probably mean a lot of private sector jobs too.

Was this the Today programme, with the TUC chappie dodging questions about strikes and inciting civil disobedience. As a way to frustrate the policy of a democratically elected Govt, in favour of the policies of the losing party?

That's what I heard, anyway.

rjsterry

Breakfast (BBC1: Bill 'n' Sian), but it might well have been the same pair being interviewed. Yes, there was a fair amount of skating around and dodging going on there, but at least an admission form Brendan Barber that if the unions didn't get public opinion on their side before launching into strikes, it could all go horribly wrong for them (the unions).

EDIT: I wonder what proportion of union membership is actually in the private sector (albeit publicly funded) as opposed to being directly publicly employed. I bet most of those working for contractors have less generous employment terms than those directly employed.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

So, what's the problem with a 12 month contract then? Gives some employees maybe 11
more months of job securtiy than they currently have....

Well, firstly the two are a completely different aspects of employment.

Notice is the period you must work/serve when leaving an organisation

A contract is the length of your employment.

You could be on a 12 month contract and have either one month or three months notice period at the end of the contract. This means that as the contract ends the employer has to tell you one or three months before the end of the contract that they want you to leave or renew the contract.

As an employee should you find another job you have to work for either one or three months (meaning you can't start the new job for one or three months), depending on your notice period.

Obviously three months notice is more desirable if your employment is about to end, you technically have more time employed to find another job.

As I said most jobs only offer one month notice and senior positions tend to give three months.

Thanks for the lesson but I can assure you I know the difference between a notice period and a contract period. You're supposing that the contract will carry any notice period at all (which it most likely will do, but by it's definition is otherwise a fixed period).

But you haven't answered the question. A 12 month contract is an incentive to perform.

Well clearly you don't or you wouldn't have written this:

W1 wrote:

Being asked to be on a 12 month contract actually gives more job securtiy than being subject to 3 months notice!

It (what you have written) actually doesn't make any literal sense. You wouldn't be on a 12month contract or have 3 months notice. You would likely have a 12months contract and * months notice.

The two, as I said before, are two different employment concepts that often work together. A notice period is often part of the contract.

A contracts shouldl state (not all do) the existence of a notice period (whether there is one or not). What happens if the employer or employee wants to terminate the contract early? Any stated notice period and money for work down must be upheld unless a mutual agreement to adjust or simply ignore the notice period is agreed by both parties.

Oh and:

But you haven't answered the question. A 12 month contract is an incentive to perform.

Full time contract's do carry notice periods, it's different for temporary cover.
That's not a question its a statement. One, which is too simplistic to answer. Being able to perform isn't not solely based on a job secruity there are other factors that could hinder or support the supposed incentive.

Oh and

Thanks for the lesson

You're welcome.

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

Was this the Today programme, with the TUC chappie dodging questions about strikes and inciting civil disobedience. As a way to frustrate the policy of a democratically elected Govt, in favour of the policies of the losing party?

To be fair, the policy appears to be primarily Conservative. The LibDem manifesto proposed cuts that targeted differently, and at a later date when the economy has had time to recover. I believe its fairly inaccurate to say that this is the policy of a democratically elected government, because this implies a democratic mandate, which is debatable given the reasons why those who voted Lib Dem did so.

Agree about the Unions - Opposition sentiment though...

DonDaddyD

Monkeypump wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

Righto, I think it's a good idea. Therefore it is. Fact. Right?

Only as much as anyone elses opinion. Why should mine be any less?

And to be fair I didn't say that it was a good idea what I said was that for some doing contract work and having a distinct lack of job secruity won't motivate them in fact it will demotivate. Basic GCSE business studies (theories on staff motivation) will teach you that job security is very much a motivator so it takes a certain type of person to do contract work.

Contractors aren't always the best person for the job. When you have (I'm going to use the NHS) staff working with vulnerable people who need to build a rapport with the (lets say) community care worker or psychologist, knowing that person is only going to be there for 12 months may hinder their treatment.

So i think I'll stand by what I've said.

It's not really a good suggestion.

But this is my opinion, you are entitled to yours.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs helps us understand behaviour, but isn't necessarily a direct correlation to motivation.

True.

That aside, and using your illustration of your own point, vulnerable patients needn't (and I suspect, in most cases don't) know the employment status of their carers. If that carer is incentivised by the prospect of contract renewal depending directly on their performance, they might do their job better and be in post longer.

This would be unethical, patient care is paramount and there are other training. People don't become carer's to have their jobs incentivised. Also you are not considering that knowing the job might not be permanent the carer may react in a way that stops them engaging fully with the patient. I take it you never worked along side carers or medical staff who look after those who are mentally or physically unwell?

This is an example of private sector incentive logic not being able to work effectively in a public sector service based environment. (Whether you agree with it or not).

I concede that someone working on a contract they know will end may not give a monkeys and behave accordingly. To counter that, an FTE can easily become complacent if they know their job is safe but a pay rise or promotion is unlikely.

I agree, I believe finding the right incentive to match the right job is important but then in acknowledging that surely you can being to see that making all jobs fixed term contracts has a limiting effect.

Contractors are a perfectly good solution if used appropriately.

I don't disagree, but not effective for all jobs.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Ali won

He truly is the greatest.

Seriously dude, any chance of a spoiler alert!!

shouldbeinbed

andy83 wrote:

My job i could work any day, dont get any extra for bank holidays, on call almost all time to sort problems, work weekends. Yes i could prob get a better paid job in the public sector but im happy and content in my job and progression is available. Also i like the fact that although the company is quite big you tend to know quite a lot of people in the area work wise. I do also find that people want to do the job because their heart is in it and not money focused as the money isnt great.

likewise and when I get called out theres a good chance there'll be violently dead bodies involved, nice when the phone goes at 3am and I'm expected to carry on and put a full day in as soon as I'm done there.

I have significantly more responsibility for others and for the consequences of me getting something wrong than my best pal and brother and am on £20K and £8K less respectively and they have private healthcare, company car, Bro spent last christmas in Australia as a productivity bonus (brand new company he'd been with for 3 months FFS). I spent last christmas on call having been in on christmas eve and going back on boxing day. My productivity bonus: I got a letter of thanks for dragging a 2 year project to fruition pretty much on my own and saving a hell of a lot for the 'company'. I wouldn't know about sick leave I've not had a day off in years and that includes going in with broken bones. Having a welcome back policy that leaves you feeling like you're Gary Glitter and have just been found in his childs bedroom with your tackle out by Mike Tyson in a bad mood isn't worth a day sick

you may not generalise but you can sure as hell put yourself on a private sector pedestal. any room up there for the 1 or 2 of us workshy slackers that do roll out of bed before the crack of noon and don't take home a bank execs pay but still manage to squeeze in a bit more than half an hours work once a fortnight

And I've now got a 1 in 2 chance of redundancy before much longer. you go for the public sector its a right laugh!

sc999cs

Society needs a public sector. Not everything can be done by private companies. Imagine private sector courts, private roads or a private sector army?

If things are done by the private sector then they're paid for directly by individuals instead of indirectly via the public purse. Imagine a private police force; instead of officers being paid directly from our taxes, our money would go to a private company who would use some of it to pay the officers and the rest shareholders (less efficient?). The only difference is you pay directly to the company instead of through taxes - although the logistics of this takes some thinking about. Perhaps you could pay a percentage of your income to a revenue collecting company who could then distribute it to the various companies?

Monkeypump

DonDaddyD wrote:

People don't become carer's to have their jobs incentivised. Also you are not considering that knowing the job might not be permanent the carer may react in a way that stops them engaging fully with the patient.

I do, in fact, acknowledge that very point in my next sentence.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I take it you never worked along side carers or medical staff who look after those who are mentally or physically unwell?

I'm afraid you're wrong there.

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is an example of private sector incentive logic not being able to work effectively in a public sector service based environment. (Whether you agree with it or not).

Your "statement of fact" is nothing more than you're own opinion. There will be examples of both contractors and FTEs doing excellent work and very poor work, with a range of motivations and performance indicators.

DonDaddyD wrote:

...finding the right incentive to match the right job is important but then in acknowledging that surely you can being to see that making all jobs fixed term contracts has a limiting effect.

I'm not saying anything other than good contractors can potentially do a better job than bad FTEs.

MonkeyMonster

This still going?

*plumps pillow and turns over*

DonDaddyD

Monkeypump wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

People don't become carers to have their jobs incentivised. Also you are not considering that knowing the job might not be permanent the carer may react in a way that stops them engaging fully with the patient.

I do, in fact, acknowledge that very point in my next sentence.

Monkeypump wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I take it you never worked along side carers or medical staff who look after those who are mentally or physically unwell?

I'm afraid you're wrong there.

You're sarcasm is astounding and needlessly hostile to what could be a sensible conversation.

I've worked alongside Carers of mentally and physically ill people for five years, I know the job to be extremely time consuming and there is very little reward beyond the desire to help. It is stressful the demands are high and they do not do it for material or financial reward. They do the job to care about a person and want to enrich that person life. That is not a productivity you can increase through an incentive. it is cold and callous to even suggest it and would be an insult to the both the Carer and the person being cared for.

You can tell me I'm wrong but it smacks full of an inability not to admit that I amy have a point or am right. I mean after all who wants to lose face on the Internet... "keyboard warrior" and all that. :roll:

Monkeypump wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is an example of private sector incentive logic not being able to work effectively in a public sector service based environment. (Whether you agree with it or not).

Your "statement of fact" is nothing more than you're own opinion. There will be examples of both contractors and FTEs doing excellent work and very poor work, with a range of motivations and performance indicators.

Ah the old 'In your opinion and then state your own opinion as more valid' discussion technique. The tried and tested Internet Forum rebuff. :roll: Totally ignoring that almost everything said on a forum is largely an opinion.

You can see the irony can't you? It's not the first time you've tried to shoot down what I've said as my invalid opinion to reinforce your seemingly more valid opinion.

Seriously stunted method of debating, that. But of course even that is 'in my opinion'.

Also amazing that you seem to ignore my very plausible justification for my opinion and given none yourself.

DDD previously wrote:

Slightly editted
This would be unethical, patient care is paramount and there are other things such as training to be offered as an incentive to perform. People don't become carers to have their jobs incentivised. Also you are not considering that knowing the job might not be permanent the carer may react in a way that stops them engaging fully with the patient. I take it you never worked along side carers or medical staff who look after those who are mentally or physically unwell where stability is part of the care being given?

The above is a very real, very justifiable reason of why some jobs need the stability of not being on a fixed term contract. It is a very real and very justifiable reason of why putting all public sector staff on a contract simply wouldn't work.

Monkeypump wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

...finding the right incentive to match the right job is important but then in acknowledging that surely you can being to see that making all jobs fixed term contracts has a limiting effect.

I'm not saying anything other than good contractors can potentially do a better job than bad FTEs.

That's blinkered at best. Here's why, you said it youself:

Mokeypump wrote
"There will be examples of both contractors and FTEs doing excellent work and very poor work, with a range of motivations and performance indicators."

You've mooted your own point.

I think this thread is done.

PBo

DonDaddyD wrote:

You've mooted your own point.

I think this thread is done.

It is, but only in the sense that a steak cooked to charcoal, is "done"!

DonDaddyD

If not to thick, like a Weatherspoons Steak you get with the mixed grill - which is not so much steak but more strip of meat.

I like that "well done".

Still it depends on the cut. These days however, I'm having slightly more expensive/thicker steaks so - medium.

PBo

DonDaddyD wrote:

If not to thick, like a Weatherspoons Steak you get with the mixed grill - which is not so much steak but more strip of meat.

I like that "well done".

Still it depends on the cut. These days however, I'm having slightly more expensive/thicker steaks so - medium.

mmmmmm steak....(drool emoticon}

DonDaddyD

I think they should make steak and all british farm foods tax exempt - if they're aren't already.

I'd have lamb chops, pork loin and rib eye steak with curly fries, egg, sausage and colslaw...

MMmmmmmm

Clever Pun

DonDaddyD wrote:

If not to thick, like a Weatherspoons Steak you get with the mixed grill - which is not so much steak but more strip of meat.

I like that "well done".

Still it depends on the cut. These days however, I'm having slightly more expensive/thicker steaks so - medium.

you eat in spoonies by choice... that's fu<king gross

DonDaddyD

what can I say I'm part chav

Jay dubbleU

So explain to me DDD when (or if) your house burns down who is going to sort out accommodation for you if you have nowhere to go, tidy up the mess and secure your property ? Or evacuate the population of an area in case of a chemical fire ? All for £100 quit a week standby allowance which your 'company' is threatening to cut . Find out what the public sector does before you start aiming cheap shots

DonDaddyD

Jay dubbleU wrote:

So explain to me DDD when (or if) your house burns down who is going to sort out accommodation for you if you have nowhere to go, tidy up the mess and secure your property ? Or evacuate the population of an area in case of a chemical fire ? All for £100 quit a week standby allowance which your 'company' is threatening to cut . Find out what the public sector does before you start aiming cheap shots

Excuse me?

Give me one example where I have aimed cheap shots at the public sector?

I think this thread is turning people doolaly....

-spider-

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think this thread is turning people doolaly....

That happened on page 1, unforunately.

Jay dubbleU

The title is a cheap shot - how about 'Lets have a go at cyclists who dress head to toe in lycra and think they're riding the TDF when commuting to the office'

andyrm

Jay dubbleU wrote:

The title is a cheap shot - how about 'Lets have a go at cyclists who dress head to toe in lycra and think they're riding the TDF when commuting to the office'

Agreed - it was a hugely emotive way to start a discussion. I think if it had been called "what are your thoughts on the public sector and upcoming cuts", there wouldn't have been the defensive reactions from some pro-PS corners and then resultant opposite reactions.

Just my thoughts.......

Clever Pun

DonDaddyD wrote:

what can I say I'm part chav

you eat in burger kings and mcdonalds don't you... *looks dejectedly away*

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

what can I say I'm part chav

You can take the boy out of Croydon...

Jay dubbleU wrote:

The title is a cheap shot - how about 'Lets have a go at cyclists who dress head to toe in lycra and think they're riding the TDF when commuting to the office'

I don't get it. What has the how people dress for their commute got to do with the public sector/private sector debate? Dressing in lycra makes sense for a long ride and even if it didn't, its the cyclist's choice what they wear. I wonder if I'll get grief from you for wearing a red t-shirt today?

This thread really is turning people doolaly. I hope that this is the last post to this thread and that it gets consigned to the digital dustbin never to see the light of day again.

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

what can I say I'm part chav

you eat in burger kings and mcdonalds don't you... *looks dejectedly away*

I try to avoid McDonalds and Burger King. I'm still prone to the odd fried chicken.... but I can't help that.

JayW wrote:

The title is a cheap shot - how about 'Lets have a go at cyclists who dress head to toe in lycra and think they're riding the TDF when commuting to the office'

So you must read books by their covers then?

I'm sure I wrote in the very first post.

DDD previously 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?

Massive cheap shot that bit in bold, how the hell do I live with myself.

:roll:

The title of the thread is also "Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?" Pretty reasonable question. It's not Lets have a go at the public sector" as you seem to think.

andyrm wrote:

Agreed - it was a hugely emotive way to start a discussion. I think if it had been called "what are your thoughts on the public sector and upcoming cuts", there wouldn't have been the defensive reactions from some pro-PS corners and then resultant opposite reactions.

Just my thoughts.......

WTF, do my eyes deceive me.

You're the one who claimed all public sector employees should be put on 12month fixed term contracts! WTF. You came online to post at 7 in the morning on a weekend. Don't now try to portray yourself as some self righteous bunny who is by miracle of a higher power the pillar of rational debate.

And no my title, followed by very reasonable first post, did not cause you to respond with such extreme views.

The site has gone downhill ever since Always Tyred left...

andyrm

DonDaddyD wrote:

WTF, do my eyes deceive me.

You're the one who claimed all public sector employees should be put on 12month fixed term contracts! WTF. You came online to post at 7 in the morning on a weekend. Don't now try to portray yourself as some self righteous bunny who is by miracle of a higher power the pillar of rational debate.

And no my title, followed by very reasonable first post, did not cause you to respond with such extreme views.

The site has gone downhill ever since Always Tyred left...

Why so much anger DDD? Firstly I think you will find it was someone else who suggested the 12 month contracts, I merely said it might not be a bad idea.

And the fact I was on BR - actually looking for something else as it happens - at 7am is hardly a crime the last time I looked. Don't try and sell it as something it's not. I have far better things to do with my time than that.

Seems like yet another example of the anger from the pro-PS people. Just like with Bob Crow and his cronies, what is it with public servants and confrontationalism?