Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?
Comments
-
DonDaddyD wrote: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).
Nooooooooo
The NHS takes tax money and gives it to the private sector for services - The NHS makes no money from this - it makes no money.
The Pharma companies sell drugs for more money than their operating costs and generate a surplus.
"Surplus" money in the NHS is tax money that they haven't spent yet and not revenue.Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
I don't hate the public sector but it is simply not sustainable above 38% of all employment, I can't remember what nu-liebor had it at but it must have been near 50%.+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.
Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
You're trying to bait me.Tailwindhome wrote:Who indeed, you could be on a sickie.
Yep
Don't think you are going to bite today though
You seem to have developed an aura of calm about you in recent weeks.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I always thought of the public sector having greater job security, but less potential reward as one is not (generally) contributing to profit generation. Versus private sector with greater risk, but with the benefit of greater pay/bonuses.
You are bound to get a wave of anti-public sector noise with a new Tory (mainly) government – they are exercising years of resentment and bitterness.
p.s. re ‘income’ – what about the Crown estate etc? If we had followed the Norwegian approach to our North Sea Oil we would have an income generating sovereign wealth fund, but Maggie cut taxes instead.0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:What if the service is controlled by a monopoly in your area?
Like what? Most monopolies are heavily regulated to prevent profiteering.
Er, trains? I used to regularly commute from Bath to London, I had one choice of train operator I could use. Fairs went up year after year. I and the thousands of other people that depended on First Great Western to get them to work on time along that line had to pick up the slack when this company wasn't making ends meet. But shareholders still received dividends.
Sure, the private sector works fine where competition will drive efficiency and value, but there are plenty of areas where there is a natural monopoly for whoever controls the service.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
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.Generally accepted by who? RJ Sterry has debunked that myth a number of times already.
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).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).
I think you're 'arguing' a different point to the one that rjsterry was making, and perhaps being a little too defensive in regards to your position within the public sector...
I'm in the Civil Service, have been for six years now and our scales are a little different to the NHS - you have a pay scale of £xx,xxx - £yy,yyy for each band (seven bands, 7 up to 1 and then Senior Civil Servants etc.), tend to start at the bottom and then have an intention date of eight years (so in eight years time you reach 'y'...usually after seven years of skipping along the bottom of the scale but hey ho!).
Despite never having a bonus and having pay rises similar to DDD's 2% year on year I've come to realise that I do have a pretty 'cushy' job compared to some mates I know of in the private sector.
Yes, there's been weeks I work sixty-odd hours, but our flexi-time (with no core hours!) means I get any time I work over my contracted thirty six hours back again. It'd be nice to be paid for it, but at least it's not lost.
I'm now on thirty days holiday a year on top of that, having been here for five years, and I've paid and will continue paying into what's considered one of the best pensions available in the country.
On top of all that, I'm actually pretty well paid for the job I do - it's comparable, if not better, than identical jobs in the private sector in the City of London, and without the challenges of the pressure some mates have got working in the same role in the private sector.
So, yeah...my point?! There's plenty of civil servants out there that don't realise quite how good they've got it. Yes, there's bits that'll annoy them but when you take a step back and compare your lot to someone in the private sector there's a lot of people out there that are actually a LOT better off (especially in terms of pressure in the job!).
Just my tuppence...0 -
I guess the thing is, that some people will be assholes and take the piss at the companies' expense wherever they work, be it public or private. But when they're private, as LiT said, it's not my money paying for their sick leave.
I don't hate the public sector, far from it. It performs valuable services that could not be easily replaced. But when it's my money going down the drain, I find it hard not to get a little annoyed.FCN - 10
Cannondale Bad Boy Solo with baggies.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote: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.
I agree with all of that. As I said, I wasn't saying it was true, just providing an alternative viewpoint, or some reasoning for the perceived high wages. If people are going to steadfastly refuse to accept an alternative to "public sector workers are all overpaid", I might as well try to suggest a reason for that
0 -
lost_in_thought wrote: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.
So unless the public sector can run with 100% efficiency with a perfect workforce, it is fair game for any and all criticism from the general public?0 -
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?
I work for a large Conference Centre and Venue. We have a full time crew of 40 people. So we generate about a million for each member of staff. I get paid £22,000.0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Oh dear.notsoblue wrote: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?
I find it hard to believe that you can make those claims, if, as you say, you've read "all of the above".0 -
notsoblue wrote:lost_in_thought wrote: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.
So unless the public sector can run with 100% efficiency with a perfect workforce, it is fair game for any and all criticism from the general public?
Nope, but an obvious effort to move in that direction wouldn't hurt. Personally, I'd settle for never hearing about those idiotic cases where the union gets involved after someone's been sacked for an obviously sensible reason (such as abusing sick leave).FCN - 10
Cannondale Bad Boy Solo with baggies.0 -
HVRNR wrote: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.
This +1!Yes it does. A £20bn "efficiency saving" (your words) means that the NHS was
previously being inefficient to the tune of £20bn.
Efficiency savings was actually the Governments phrase to soften the blow. I'm not sure £20billion cuts (which is fact they are) would have been as well received.
I've addressed your questioned, you simply choose to ignore or disagree with the answer.You do earnestly argue your position - scared about the coming cuts?
I argue what I believe in. The rest of your sentence has nothing to do with the conversation.
PostPosted: 08 Sep 2010 12:22 Post subject:
DonDaddyD wrote:
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).Greg wrote:Nooooooooo
The NHS takes tax money and gives it to the private sector for services - The NHS makes no money from this - it makes no money.
The Pharma companies sell drugs for more money than their operating costs and generate a surplus.
"Surplus" money in the NHS is tax money that they haven't spent yet and not revenue.
Greg, the NHS Foundation Trusts make money. It applies for services from both public and private organisations. It is also paid for its services by public and private organisations. What it makes on top of the money needed for its operating costs is a
surplus (due to restrictions placed on what it can do with this money).
Foundation TrustsFood Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:What if the service is controlled by a monopoly in your area?
Like what? Most monopolies are heavily regulated to prevent profiteering.
Er, trains? I used to regularly commute from Bath to London, I had one choice of train operator I could use. Fairs went up year after year. I and the thousands of other people that depended on First Great Western to get them to work on time along that line had to pick up the slack when this company wasn't making ends meet. But shareholders still received dividends.
Sure, the private sector works fine where competition will drive efficiency and value, but there are plenty of areas where there is a natural monopoly for whoever controls the service.
But train fares are regulated. They could probably get away with charging much much more than they do if left to their own monopolistic devices.
Do you think British Rail would have been any better/cheaper/more reliable/better service if it hadn't been privatised?0 -
soundninjauk wrote:I guess the thing is, that some people will be assholes and take the wee-wee at the companies' expense wherever they work, be it public or private. But when they're private, as LiT said, it's not my money paying for their sick leave.
I don't hate the public sector, far from it. It performs valuable services that could not be easily replaced. But when it's my money going down the drain, I find it hard not to get a little annoyed.
And you'd be quite right to get annoyed, but most people here have a problem with the public sector because its the public sector. Why don't they reserve their ire for the people who are abusing employment law by pulling sickies?
It annoys me that people use these tired arguments about efficiency and absenteeism to justify cuts to the public sector with the irrational implication that the private sector will sashay in and solve everything.0 -
notsoblue wrote:lost_in_thought wrote: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.
So unless the public sector can run with 100% efficiency with a perfect workforce, it is fair game for any and all criticism from the general public?
How close to 100% efficiency do you think the public sector is?0 -
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.
examples being...0 -
I don't hate the public sector. I don't think the country does either, it's just newspapers keeping the middle classes angry.
I do however feel that there is a balance point as some have argued beyond which the public sector is not sustainable and that we have crossed far beyond that balance point.
that means me paying more tax over and above what i already think is too much taxation. That makes me unhappy.
anyway, FWIW i work in a Bank (not one that was bailed out) so i've kinda got used to being hated over the past 27 years.FCN = 40 -
lastant wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
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.Generally accepted by who? RJ Sterry has debunked that myth a number of times already.
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).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).
I think you're 'arguing' a different point to the one that rjsterry was making, and perhaps being a little too defensive in regards to your position within the public sector...
I'm in the Civil Service, have been for six years now and our scales are a little different to the NHS - you have a pay scale of £xx,xxx - £yy,yyy for each band (seven bands, 7 up to 1 and then Senior Civil Servants etc.), tend to start at the bottom and then have an intention date of eight years (so in eight years time you reach 'y'...usually after seven years of skipping along the bottom of the scale but hey ho!).
Despite never having a bonus and having pay rises similar to DDD's 2% year on year I've come to realise that I do have a pretty 'cushy' job compared to some mates I know of in the private sector.
Yes, there's been weeks I work sixty-odd hours, but our flexi-time (with no core hours!) means I get any time I work over my contracted thirty six hours back again. It'd be nice to be paid for it, but at least it's not lost.
I'm now on thirty days holiday a year on top of that, having been here for five years, and I've paid and will continue paying into what's considered one of the best pensions available in the country.
On top of all that, I'm actually pretty well paid for the job I do - it's comparable, if not better, than identical jobs in the private sector in the City of London, and without the challenges of the pressure some mates have got working in the same role in the private sector.
So, yeah...my point?! There's plenty of civil servants out there that don't realise quite how good they've got it. Yes, there's bits that'll annoy them but when you take a step back and compare your lot to someone in the private sector there's a lot of people out there that are actually a LOT better off (especially in terms of pressure in the job!).
Just my tuppence...
Very interesting input - any comment DDD?0 -
-
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.
.
hugely simplistic
where do the private sector go when ill or the victims of crime? there are large chunks of the public sector there supporting and allowing the private sector to go out and generate the income, knowing that f somethig bad happens that there is a safety net there to catch them in a variety of ways.
slagging the public sector in this manner is like slating a stay at home partner in a homefor not contributing money to the household income. their benefits are provided in other ways and leave the money earner more time to do that.0 -
Mr Sworld wrote:I work for a large Conference Centre and Venue. We have a full time crew of 40 people. So we generate about a million for each member of staff.
No real issues with councils doing that (although some would argue this sort of thing shouldn't be in the public sector & so should be spun off.)
The thing that makes your venue different to many public sector areas is that it has no monopoly & I guess people are not forced to use its services...FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Greg, the NHS Foundation Trusts make money. It applies for services from both public and private organisations. It is also paid for its services by public and private organisations. What it makes on top of the money needed for its operating costs is a
surplus (due to restrictions placed on what it can do with this money).
Foundation Trusts
As this shows, funding for Trusts comes from Parliament, via the DoH and the PCT.
So, some numbers.
(a) If (let's say) the funding is 300million pa, which it spends , and it makes 10m pa from private sector companies, which it can retain, then you could say that the Trust has a net cost of £290 million. (Although the saving may be notional if the following year's funding doesn't take this figure into account).
(b) If, OTOH, the funding is £5 million pa, which it spends, and it makes 10m from private sector companies which it can retain, then yes, the Trust has generated 5m pa of income.
Which way round are the numbers though? I'm going pick, ummm, answer (a) please.0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Er, trains? I used to regularly commute from Bath to London, I had one choice of train operator I could use. Fairs went up year after year. I and the thousands of other people that depended on First Great Western to get them to work on time along that line had to pick up the slack when this company wasn't making ends meet. But shareholders still received dividends.
Sure, the private sector works fine where competition will drive efficiency and value, but there are plenty of areas where there is a natural monopoly for whoever controls the service.
But train fares are regulated. They could probably get away with charging much much more than they do if left to their own monopolistic devices.
Do you think British Rail would have been any better/cheaper/more reliable/better service if it hadn't been privatised?
I don't know enough about how British Rail was run to answer that. But if so many European countries can provide cheap and well run rail networks through nationalised or part nationalised rail companies, why can't the UK? What is it about the UK other than its more capitalist bent and drive to encourage private enterprise, that means that the public sector is seen as something that is naturally wasteful and inefficient?0 -
W1 wrote:
Very interesting input - any comment DDD?
What that there is one instance of a public sector employee who feels he is better paid than he would be working in the private sector and really appreciates the perks of his job.
One Civil Servant is not representative of the entire public sector.
I'd prefer to stop engaging with you now.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
@DDD - you have got a great topic going here!
Quote DDD:
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.
There is very little room for negotiation within Private Industry - we are on strict salary budgets and hiring freezes constantly. It is the same in terms of grades - we only start people on the grade associated to the role, if you have more experience we would expect you to apply for a more senior role.
We pay about industry standard for the roles in my dept - pretty close, I think some people are a bit greedy and had it a bit easy in PS - allot of CV's we get are PS people, hence filling some vacancys can be a nightmare, simply down to the type of employers in this area - mostly PS. The company I work for has 65,000 employees worldwide...so, I think the HR is pretty sorted!
I have no issues with PS personally - mostly, it does a fine job with the rabble and self biased public - and we are all going to have different agendas and so on.
I have issues with some of the waste on projects that go nowhere, think tanks that employ people who know nothing about the focus, the appointments of management consultancy organisations to tell them what they aready know and some of the paychecks far outweighing the responsibility of the role!
I guess my issue is not with PS, but how PS can look bad because of a few bad managers and poor decision makers......and because it is PS we all have a common interest as we pay for it!0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:lost_in_thought wrote: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.
So unless the public sector can run with 100% efficiency with a perfect workforce, it is fair game for any and all criticism from the general public?
How close to 100% efficiency do you think the public sector is?
You're suggesting that I somehow think the private sector is inherently less efficient than the public sector. Either I've not made my point very well, or you're arguing across it.0 -
Greg66 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Greg, the NHS Foundation Trusts make money. It applies for services from both public and private organisations. It is also paid for its services by public and private organisations. What it makes on top of the money needed for its operating costs is a
surplus (due to restrictions placed on what it can do with this money).
Foundation Trusts
As this shows, funding for Trusts comes from Parliament, via the DoH and the PCT.
So, some numbers.
(a) If (let's say) the funding is 300million pa, which it spends , and it makes 10m pa from private sector companies, which it can retain, then you could say that the Trust has a net cost of £290 million. (Although the saving may be notional if the following year's funding doesn't take this figure into account).
(b) If, OTOH, the funding is £5 million pa, which it spends, and it makes 10m from private sector companies which it can retain, then yes, the Trust has generated 5m pa of income.
Which way round are the numbers though? I'm going pick, ummm, answer (a) please.
Argh! It's like arguing with Ms DDD. You've wrapped me around in so much cross examination I've lost sight of my point!
:evil:
I never said it generates an income or makes a profit I said makes a surplus. Also take into consideration that if the Trust got £300,000 next year it (hypothetical number but actually happens) it gets £270,000 and the year after that £243,000 (as each year a Trust has to make a saving, I believe the figure was actually 3percent).Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Sooo we're spending the afternoon on t'internet arguing about waste and inefficiency.
I think both Morrisette and Byrne would approve.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
soundninjauk wrote:notsoblue wrote:lost_in_thought wrote: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.
So unless the public sector can run with 100% efficiency with a perfect workforce, it is fair game for any and all criticism from the general public?
Nope, but an obvious effort to move in that direction wouldn't hurt. Personally, I'd settle for never hearing about those idiotic cases where the union gets involved after someone's been sacked for an obviously sensible reason (such as abusing sick leave).
+10
