Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

That means it was wasting £20bn in the first place.

The NHS employs an astonishing number of people. It's the third largest employer in the world! That is absurd - a private company would never survive if it was as bloated and inefficient.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 050197.ece

bails87

bails87 wrote:

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

Aha, food for thought. Possibly suggests the 'public sector= inefficient/Private=efficient' argument isn't always necessarily true.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Generally accepted by who? RJ Sterry has debunked that myth a number of times already.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Well are you at work or not? Relieve us from having to make assumptions.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

[/quote]


Who indeed, you could be on a sickie.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

"Personally liable for that risk" - can you just confirm then, that if it goes badly the director pays from his own pocket, probably bankrupting him?

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Sorry but this is bollocks. Without the Private Sector there would be no Public Sector. Everyone's affected. I work in the private sector, my company has nothing to do with the Financial Services sector, the recession hit us hard. We've had no pay rises at all in 3 years, no bonus, had to make redundancies and have struggled. I don't see why the public sector shouldn't have to tighten belts as well, and like it or lump it, some elements of it are over staffed. It's unsustainable and cuts have to be made:

More generally, the public sector recorded deficits between 1991/92 and 1997/98 before moving into surplus in 1998/99. Deficits have been recorded since 2002/03.

Public sector net debt (excluding financial interventions) was £816.2 billion (equivalent to 56.1 per cent of GDP) at the end of July 2010. This compares to £665.1 billion (47.7 per cent of GDP) as at the end of July 2009.

Source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206

-spider-

Underperforming employees aren't the preserve of the Public Sector. I've worked in both the public and private sectors (as well as 'the third sector' - charities and nationalised industry) and in all areas there are problems. Folk are the same the whole world over.

The leftie in me thinks this is a 'divide and rule' agenda from the Government. Get the Daily Wail to screech on about the overpaid, lazy, expensive, etc, etc public sector in an effort to weaken the collective strength of the workforce.

The Tory in me agrees that there is huge waste in the public sector. However, there is huge waste in industry and services as well. We should be tackling all inefficiency - not highlighting one over the other.

W1

-spider- wrote:

The Tory in me agrees that there is huge waste in the public sector. However, there is huge waste in industry and services as well. We should be tackling all inefficiency - not highlighting one over the other.

Waste in the private sector doesn't affect you. If you don't like the service being provided or it's too expensive due to wastage, move service.

Waste in the public sector - we all pay for whether we choose to or not. That's why it's more important.

DonDaddyD

bails87 wrote:

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......

That's absolute nonsense.

Greg wrote:

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'm not going to try and pretend that its 50-50 or that the NHS has suddenly become a huge player in the private sector. It has taken services away from private health care providers and Pharmacueticals (sp) are one of the largest industries in England and the NHS with its brand contracts with the big boys so that generates millions for everyone (seriously). It also has knock on effects such as the development of new research centres (dotting up everywhere) and this in itself generates money for public and private sector.

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.

(You're being a Lawyer) The NHS invests its surplus back into its services. The Commissioning body funds the NHS to provide services.

The Government benefits from the work the NHS does because its remit goes beyond simply delivering hospital care to individuals, it contracts with large corporations, it builds new buildings, generates jobs, keeps the workforce healthy. Its not as simple as here's a product you buy it you make a profit.

LiT wrote:

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.....' Razz

I love his facial expressions. I thought it was brilliant.

Clever Pun

The thing I can never quite grasp is why moan and gripe about what you have/earn stop complaining and sort it out.

The best way to a pay rise is to get another job this is true in any profession.

A friend has recently had a 15% paycut and it's still taken her a year to get her cv together even though she's now working even longer hours (private sector if that's important) I'm fed up of tell her to get another job when she says she's short of cash and tired from working too much.

PBo

DonDaddyD wrote:

[

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.

So not yours, then.....

Mr Sworld

The public sector job I work in generates £50M a year for the city and we indirectly employ 1,500 private sector jobs.

That's good value for money in my books...

bails87

DonDaddyD wrote:

bails87 wrote:

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......

That's absolute nonsense.

Which bit? That firms pay more to attract more staff? That anything in the public sector is seen as an easy job? Or that the public sector pay more?

I'm only saying the first point is true, but providing an explanation to people who think the others are true too.

jds_1981

Mr Sworld wrote:

The public sector job I work in generates £50M a year for the city and we indirectly employ 1,500 private sector jobs.

That's good value for money in my books...

If fines/charges then that money could have been spent elsewhere on potentially more efficient private sector goods/services had it not been taken..

notsoblue

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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

Income will pay your bills.

Value won't.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

I've read all the above, and I don't really understand the position of those who criticise the public sector. Do you guys want to see it phased out and all replaced with private sector service provision?

lost_in_thought

Mr Sworld wrote:

The public sector job I work in generates £50M a year for the city and we indirectly employ 1,500 private sector jobs.

That's good value for money in my books...

What is that sector/job?

Mr Sworld

jds_1981 wrote:

Mr Sworld wrote:

The public sector job I work in generates £50M a year for the city and we indirectly employ 1,500 private sector jobs.

That's good value for money in my books...

If fines/charges then that money could have been spent elsewhere on potentially more efficient private sector goods/services had it not been taken..

Ah.... You assume I'm a traffic warden or something like that don't you?

Wrong. Another example of people not understanding what services local goverment provides.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Waste in the private sector doesn't affect you. If you don't like the service being provided or it's too expensive due to wastage, move service.

What if the service is controlled by a monopoly in your area?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

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

Income will pay your bills.

Value won't.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

I've read all the above, and I don't really understand the position of those who criticise the public sector. Do you guys want to see it phased out and all replaced with private sector service provision?

Of course not. What I want is an efficient public sector that provides value for money, takes nothing more than it needs to, is run with accountability and doesn't maintain some ludicrous gravy train for those who work there.

I know I undermine everything I have said and ever will say by posting this link, but I can believe that at least some of this is true:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ckies.html

asprilla

lost_in_thought wrote:

Mr Sworld wrote:

The public sector job I work in generates £50M a year for the city and we indirectly employ 1,500 private sector jobs.

That's good value for money in my books...

What is that sector/job?

Carbon Trust?

Stevo_666

Mr Sworld wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Mr Sworld wrote:

The public sector job I work in generates £50M a year for the city and we indirectly employ 1,500 private sector jobs.

That's good value for money in my books...

If fines/charges then that money could have been spent elsewhere on potentially more efficient private sector goods/services had it not been taken..

Ah.... You assume I'm a traffic warden or something like that don't you?

Wrong. Another example of people not understanding what services local goverment provides.

Tell us what you do then, and how it creates these benefits - I'm interested.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

What if the service is controlled by a monopoly in your area?

Like what? Most monopolies are heavily regulated to prevent profiteering.

Stevehall00

The 'us' and 'them' of the public and private sector is a lie and a distraction. If you earn a salary in return for your labour you are 'us' if you own capital and can employ capital to earn for you you are 'them'.

I feel angry for all those poor people from Connaught who from no fault of thier own are having thier livelihood taken away this week. This is a private company. I also feel for all those in any sector over whom the sword of damacles is hanging.

Ask yourself why a strike must be sanctioned, approved and weeks of notice given, a ballot taken. But when an owner moves a firm or sells people are treated as capital.

Also if you want a professional post and live in the north not in leeds or manchester you either work in the Public Sector or dont bother trying.

IM TURNING INTO A GIANT SQUID OF ANGER!

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

That means it was wasting £20bn in the first place.

The NHS employs an astonishing number of people. It's the third largest employer in the world! That is absurd - a private company would never survive if it was as bloated and inefficient.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 050197.ece

I grow tired of your Daily mail conclusions. Having to make £20billion savings doesn't mean it was wasting said savings in the first place. You have no concept of how the services work. The Government didn't assess each and every NHS service around the country and concluded that there was a £20billion waste.

It looked at its bank balance and decided that £**billion needed to be saved and spread that across the public sector with the NHS drawing the £20billion straw.

Generally accepted by who? RJ Sterry has debunked that myth a number of times already.

Once again!

Here is the NHS Pay scale, almost every single full time NHS staff member (who isn't a director or on a personal salary) is on this scale.

Here is the categories for the type of non-medical jobs you can get at the NHS. The jobs are graded against the band. You cannot deviate from this.

In the private sector you can negotiate salary, argue for a pay rise, they will pay you according to what they think your value is. If you are a Communications officer with 10yrs experience or 1 year experience and you start at the same time in the NHS you get paid the same. Band 5.

I've seen comms officers earn over £30,000 for the same job in the private to give an example (there are always exceptions though).

Tailwindhome wrote:

Who indeed, you could be on a sickie.

You're trying to bait me. I haven't been sick since I rushed someone dear to me to hospital.

We are all still human, remember that.

"Personally liable for that risk" - can you just confirm then, that if it goes badly the director pays from his own pocket, probably bankrupting him?

If their Trust went bankrupt, yes.

Prince wrote:

Sorry but this is bollocks. Without the Private Sector there would be no Public Sector. Everyone's affected. I work in the private sector, my company has nothing to do with the Financial Services sector, the recession hit us hard. We've had no pay rises at all in 3 years, no bonus, had to make redundancies and have struggled. I don't see why the public sector shouldn't have to tighten belts as well, and like it or lump it, some elements of it are over staffed. It's unsustainable and cuts have to be made:

I think I explained earlier my acknowledgement that everyone has been affected including the NHS. I will never argue that cuts don't have to be made.

Incidently I've never had a bonus, what's it like? Any pay rise I've had has been either the standard 2% pay rise that's lower than inflation. Or the fact, believe it or not Tailwind, I've excelled in my first job and did over and above to be moved from band 3 to 4 (even though the manager thought it should be 5, he couldn't because you cannot deviate from the scale, see above).

HVRNR

In answer to your intial question. There seems to be a festering resentment of the public sector mainly by a vocal minority in the private sector who had it good in the boom years, and who now are struggling. This resentment is further perpetuated by a lot of disinformation in the media about public sector working practices, pensions etc, which those in the private sector are prepared to accept as fact without question. What some people also forget is that the vast majority of people who work in the public sector chose to do so for job satisfaction and not financial remuneration.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

That means it was wasting £20bn in the first place.

The NHS employs an astonishing number of people. It's the third largest employer in the world! That is absurd - a private company would never survive if it was as bloated and inefficient.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 050197.ece

I grow tired of your Daily mail conclusions. Having to make £20billion savings doesn't mean it was wasting said savings in the first place.

Yes it does. A £20bn "efficiency saving" (your words) means that the NHS was previously being inefficient to the tune of £20bn.

I don't understand why you bleat on about pay bands and scales which are irrelevant. What you suggested is that it is generally accepted that the public sector pay is low compared to the private sector. Address the question. Generally accepted by who? Because as I said, RJ Sterry disagrees with you.

You do earnestly argue your position - scared about the coming cuts?

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Of course not. What I want is an efficient public sector that provides value for money, takes nothing more than it needs to, is run with accountability and doesn't maintain some ludicrous gravy train for those who work there.

Ignoring the part about the gravy train (which as an accusation aimed solely at the public sector is just ludicrous) I don't think anyone here would disagree with what you've just said...

Efficiency and value for money is what everyone wants. But resentful sniping from the margins will only serve diminish the public sector.

W1 wrote:

I know I undermine everything I have said and ever will say by posting this link, but I can believe that at least some of this is true:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ckies.html

Again, its bollocks to suggest this is public sector only. I have a friend (we're all in for anecdotal evidence right?) who has been an HR manager in several large private sector companies, and staff absenteeism due to sick leave is rife everywhere.

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

The thing I can never quite grasp is why moan and gripe about what you have/earn stop complaining and sort it out.

The best way to a pay rise is to get another job this is true in any profession.

+1

Its why I move around as I'm early into my career and developing my salary/skills/experience.

Which bit? That firms pay more to attract more staff? That anything in the public sector is seen as an easy job? Or that the public sector pay more?

All of it. Public sector jobs don't look bad on a CV, if they do you're either applying for the wrong job or have a shite CV. They aren't always seen as an easy job, I've worked in Head offices and seen front line services, none are easy. They don't have to or do they pay more to attract people that's a myth.

What they do is ask for a hell of a lot of qualifications for senior level jobs. You don't get promoted up unless you can prove continuing professional development. I probably won't stop studying for another 6 - 8 years. And from then it'll be retraining.

lost_in_thought

notsoblue wrote:

Again, its bollocks to suggest this is public sector only. I have a friend (we're all in for anecdotal evidence right?) who has been an HR manager in several large private sector companies, and staff absenteeism due to sick leave is rife everywhere.

I completely agree, but are those private sector companies using taxpayers' money to fund their absenteeist culture? No.