Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?
Comments
-
DonDaddyD wrote: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.
Yeah, maybe he's the only one - we are lucky/unlucky to have got the only one to post on here then!
Or maybe not, eh?
You have also ignored the question as to whether you're at work now or not....
Look, its fair enough that you want to defend the public sector because your income depends on it. Whether you want to do that out of blind loyalty or not isn't really anyones concern or not. However if you can't see the faults, nor understand the resentment from tax payers over the numerous areas of waste, inefficiency, stupidity, lack of accountability or poor value for money that the public sector can be guilty of then your judgement is clouded.
Do you have a link to show that directors are personally liable if a Trust goes bankrupt?0 -
shouldbeinbed wrote:Greg66 wrote:I don't hate the public sector; it is a necessity.
However, the public sector in any economy generates no income. It uses income. Which has to be generated by others.
.
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.
Which bit of "I don't hate the public sector; it is a necessity" slipped by you?
The fact that there are "support" sections of the public sector makes not a jot of difference to the point that those sectors *cost* money and do not generate it.
One can make *precisely* the same point about a stay-at-home partner as I make about the public sector. Again, it makes no difference to the fact that the partner generates no income and consumes resources.
The quid pro quo point you make is the basis of trade; something that is pretty fundamental to human evolution (if the author of The Rational Optimist is to be believed). But with both a stay-at-home partner and the public sector, the whole thing falls to pieces very fast when the consumption by the partner/public sector outstrips the additional benefit that the other partner/private sector can generate through having that support.
Put it this way: without hospitals, illness terminates our earning capacity and we starve. None of us can afford to have our own hospitals. But a community of (say) 100,000 can support a hospital staffed by (say) 1,000. And that hospital can service that community's needs. Fine.
Unless and until the costs of that hospital exceed the output that the 100,000 can reasonably devote to it. Right there the tail and the dog switch around, and the hospital needs to be restructured pronto to survive.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:I never said it generates an income or makes a profit I said makes a surplus.
But then you're back in t'other Greg's point: when the NHS takes its funding from the Govt, something that is a surplus is just money it hasn't spent yet.
Generated excess = profit
Unspent money = surplus.0 -
notsoblue wrote: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.
Sorry no, I'm not suggesting that that is what you're saying. Not quite sure how you got there from my question.
What I'm asking (and what I would like your view on) is how close to 100% efficiency the public sector is. I don't think anyone is saying that anything less than 100% is unacceptable; I'm only suggesting that from my view we are a long, long way from there.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).
Think I'd go further than that and say yes. The converse of notsoblue's proposition is that if the public sector runs at less than 100% efficiency, and has imperfections, it is not fair game for criticism.
Why not?
That suggests to me a complacency which isn't really acceptable when one (the Govt) is spending taxpayers' money.0 -
gtvlusso wrote:Being a left winger, I love the public sector....some wonderful institutions that serve the public incredibly well given the budget constraints..the NHS being the finest institution this country has ever produced.
But as I stated in the previous; I think salarys and benefits in PS now far outweigh private workers (I have lost allot to PS project jobs) - projects that have eaten public money and acheived sweet FA. Some of my ex colleagues openly admit to earning more and doing less and being less responsible - something that would not be tolerated in private industry.
I also think the media has hyped the "fat cat" paychecks that county councillors and that wretched NHS "Trusts" system managers are paying themselves - even for failure or when they are fired and get a pay off. It is our money in many instances....there are some fair deals out there now for Nurses and teachers, allot of their salaries compete with the salaries that my company offer for qualified techy geeks - however, their payrise structure outpaces ours easily!
I don't want to victimise the PS, it victimises itself with some stupid decisions/poorly planned projects and few greedy f*ckers who spoil it for everyone else!
Amen to this bit - unfortunately thse are the ones that tend to be promoted out of harms way so get to make the decisions the rest of us have to put right or live with.
Depends where you are in the PS.
I earn £20K less than the equivalent ranked police officer, I earn nearly £30K less than my best mate who has a similar status in the private world. I earn on a par with a teacher of 5 years experience after 20 years in my job and I have no further salary acceleration possible, I have huge responsibility, If i get something wrong a criminal escapes the consequences of their actions or an innocent person could go to prison, pretty much solely on my evidence, either way I could (rightly) lose my job & the second can cost the public purse a six figure apology and do untold damage to the reputation of not only me but my colleagues and the wider police service . I am dip sampled and reviewed constantly with a near zero tolerance for errors and a very real likilehood of finding myself out of the door if I persistently underperform, make even simple errors (as we all do) or shirk the responsibility of my post.
I don't get a bonus or have any opportunity to negotiate a pay rise, or receive any recognition of outstanding work, I don't have a company car or share options or private health benefits or any of the other perks that the private sector can give. If I worked for tesco I'd get cheaper shopping, I work for the cops, it doesn't mean I get a get out of speeding fines free card. My redundancy pay works out to less than a week per year worked (wouldn't I love to be threatening a strike to maintain 3 - 6 years salary as a pay off).
The pension was the one decent 'perk' being a final salary one with employer contributions too, though final salaries etc were in private sector too, so its not like it was unique, If that is still anything like as attractive in 18 odd months time I'll eat my bike - and those in the private sector can be reassured that when the economy does pick up and market forces do compel your bosses to be dishing out the perks again, the public sector will still be getting nothing like the in kind benefits.
the trouble is 'Public Sector' is to many people now like 'Cyclist' is to the Daily Mail. a catch-all label that fits barely anyone and doesn't do justice to the vast majority of people in the jobs but stigmatises us all as lazy feckless parasites.0 -
Do you have a link to show that directors are personally liable if a Trust goes bankrupt?
Our Chief Exec told us that he could end up in jail if there were "irregularities". Essentially, at the end of the day he has to make sure that everything that's bought with 'public' money really is bought, and that it's right to buy it at that time/price/quantity etc.
He wouldn't be sent the bill if there was an overspend though.0 -
Greg66 wrote: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).
Think I'd go further than that and say yes. The converse of notsoblue's proposition is that if the public sector runs at less than 100% efficiency, and has imperfections, it is not fair game for criticism.
Why not?
That suggests to me a complacency which isn't really acceptable when one (the Govt) is spending taxpayers' money.
I do completely agree, this is why you're an ostensibly very successful lawyer and I'm not... but isn't 'criticism' perhaps the wrong word?
Maybe if we said 'fair game for improvement' it'd come across less bristly.
I should be in marketing.
In fact, the govt. should hire me. On a nice cushy wage with percentage increases every year until I die. And a blinding final salary pension. Mmmmm final salary pension. And if they try to change anything for the worse even a teeny tiny bit I'll go on strike.
I did apply for that public sector job that time actually. I may try again.0 -
I have worked in both the private and public sector in similar roles.
I moved form the public sector to the private sector because there were more opportunities to further my careers. However, this had costs. I did get a salary increase (2.5 grand a year), but for that, work an extra 5 hours week (minimum), get fewer holidays, less pension, less job security.
Since then, I have moved up a couple of levels....
Looking at the NHS Pay Grade scheme....I should go back to the public sector....my role there attracts between 5 and 8 grand a year (depending on how my role is exactly graded in that big over-lapping scale...) more than I am on now.
I think it should be about the same...however I have had a pay freeze for 3 years, whereas perhaps the NHS role has not?? Don't know, but that would be my guess.
Generally I like the services that the pubilc sector provides.
My view on the PS workers that think they are hard done to compared with their private sector counterparts....is that they should change jobs. The grass is always greener, but ultimately always comes out the back the same.Whenever I see an adult on a bicycle, I believe in the future of the human race.
H.G. Wells.0 -
shouldbeinbed wrote:
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.
Or they get fat and you end up having to pay someone to clean the house anyway..
FCN 9 || FCN 50 -
lost_in_thought wrote:I do completely agree, this is why you're an ostensibly very successful lawyer and I'm not
I heart you. You can be my friend.0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:I do completely agree, this is why you're an ostensibly very successful lawyer and I'm not... but isn't 'criticism' perhaps the wrong word?
Maybe if we said 'fair game for improvement' it'd come across less bristly.
I should be in marketing.
In fact, the govt. should hire me. On a nice cushy wage with percentage increases every year until I die. And a blinding final salary pension. Mmmmm final salary pension. And if they try to change anything for the worse even a teeny tiny bit I'll go on strike.
I did apply for that public sector job that time actually. I may try again.
+1 and
Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:I did apply for that public sector job that time actually. I may try again.
This thread is certainly making me reconsider my current private sector employment...FCN - 10
Cannondale Bad Boy Solo with baggies.0 -
W1 wrote:Do you have a link to show that directors are personally liable if a Trust goes bankrupt?
I know this because I work alongside NHS Directors and have done my entire career.Look, its fair enough that you want to defend the public sector because your income depends on it.
A recipe
A touch of presumption
A dash of arrogance
Add a little sprinkle of condescension
Add a splash of patronisation
You have no cluie what my income depends on.However if you can't see the faults, nor understand the resentment from tax payers over the numerous areas of waste, inefficiency, stupidity, lack of accountability or poor value for money that the public sector can be guilty of then your judgement is clouded.
At no point did I say that I couldn't see the faults, what I have experienced first hand compared to what you have read or seen on TV has led me to a differenct conclusion. Whereas you can only cry and mudsling I can see and know most of the reasons and causes behind the shortfalls in the delivery of public health services. I also know why the system faulters at time.
But despite my very first hand and informed experienced you won't accept none of it because equally as you accuse me your perspective is clouded and stunted by a very short horizon.
We are actually getting nowhere so I am now going to agree to disagree with you and leave it there.You have also ignored the question as to whether you're at work now or not....
Do you want to know why? Because its none of your business.
Wind your neck in.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 -
bails87 wrote:Do you have a link to show that directors are personally liable if a Trust goes bankrupt?
Our Chief Exec told us that he could end up in jail if there were "irregularities". Essentially, at the end of the day he has to make sure that everything that's bought with 'public' money really is bought, and that it's right to buy it at that time/price/quantity etc.
He wouldn't be sent the bill if there was an overspend though.
Thanks but that's not quite the same thing - we're not talking about fraud. DDD has said a Director is personally liable for a Trust going bankrupt - I'm sure he's right and I'd like to educate myself further because that doesn't sound correct to me.0 -
W1 wrote:Sorry no, I'm not suggesting that that is what you're saying. Not quite sure how you got there from my question.
What I'm asking (and what I would like your view on) is how close to 100% efficiency the public sector is. I don't think anyone is saying that anything less than 100% is unacceptable; I'm only suggesting that from my view we are a long, long way from there.
I could pluck a figure out of thin air, but it will mean nothing.
I think I see where you're coming from though. My view is that it is better to improve a public sector service, rather than to replace it with a private sector service. I don't think there is anything inherently more efficient about the private sector. It is my view that given the same degree of competence and efficiency, a service delivered by a public sector body will deliver more value than a private sector one. By default....simply because any "profit" would go back into improving the service, rather than to shareholders.
The way I see it, there are only two reasons why UK governments have been keen on encouraging the private sector to get involved with public service; It is easier to shift blame when a project fails; It gives opportunity for private individuals to profit.0 -
-
lost_in_thought wrote:
In fact, the govt. should hire me. On a nice cushy wage with percentage increases every year until I die. And a blinding final salary pension. Mmmmm final salary pension. And if they try to change anything for the worse even a teeny tiny bit I'll go on strike.
I did apply for that public sector job that time actually. I may try again.
you're living in the past or reading the reactionary papers
apart from the salary scale you'd hit the top of in a copule of years and the pay freeze that we're all enjoying now
Edit - my 'cost of living' rise in the last decade has never reached the underlying inflation target - in real terms my pay is cut year on year, this time its just more blatant and slightly bigger than usual.
apply immediately and you may just sneak in for the next year or so, I guarantee you that these are gone in this parliament and will very likely be gone retrospectively too for recent starters and existing staff
F*k me - If I did that I'd be on strike every Monday morning - 4 hour meeting today working out how we go about ripping up the rule book and turning years of practice on its head, added to the 24/7 imposition that has recently come in close by with the ultimatum to those that complain about family life and othet trivialities - would you like your 90 day notice then? - not a peep of strike threat, oddly enough we all know that we're under threat and are just happy to have a job for the moment.0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:Sorry no, I'm not suggesting that that is what you're saying. Not quite sure how you got there from my question.
What I'm asking (and what I would like your view on) is how close to 100% efficiency the public sector is. I don't think anyone is saying that anything less than 100% is unacceptable; I'm only suggesting that from my view we are a long, long way from there.
I could pluck a figure out of thin air, but it will mean nothing.
I think I see where you're coming from though. My view is that it is better to improve a public sector service, rather than to replace it with a private sector service. I don't think there is anything inherently more efficient about the private sector. It is my view that given the same degree of competence and efficiency, a service delivered by a public sector body will deliver more value than a private sector one. By default....simply because any "profit" would go back into improving the service, rather than to shareholders.
The way I see it, there are only two reasons why UK governments have been keen on encouraging the private sector to get involved with public service; It is easier to shift blame when a project fails; It gives opportunity for private individuals to profit.
That profit is itself a driver of efficiency. There is no such driver in the public sector (unless you consider budget caps etc the same, which you might do).
I agree that we don't want every public sector to be run by the private sector - having spent some time in the US I'm not comfortable with their health service - but I'd like to see the public sector have the same focus on efficiency and accountability as the private sector does.
There's a third reason too - its cheaper in the short term, and government terms are only 5 years. If they can cling on for two terms or so they've done well. It's this short-termism that is a key problem too.0 -
Public Sector here - the part of the business I work in was independantly audited a couple of years ago; they couldn't find anything wrong with us by any standards let alone Public Sector. This obviously isn't universal but it does confirm the blindingly obvious which is that both Public and Private sector are capable of being efficient or inefficient.
At the moment, all our projects have been canned. Fair enough in the current climate. However, what were we going to do with our project money? Yep, employ the private sector. The Government laughly seems to think that if we lose our jobs, we can go to the private sector. That's the same private sector that no longer has any work to do because we aren't employing them. The idea that the Public sector doesn't generate wealth is pretty ridiculous.
Don't underestimate the value of public sector pensions though (assuming they last) - mine is doing OK but the company has upped its contributions from 7% to 15% over the last 10 years to keep it on track. Not that the Union ever choses to mention that when it asks for unrealistic terms and conditions in the pay review.
Of course, I could go private section and expect to increase my salary by 30%. But I'd probably have to put two thirds of that increase into my pension to contribute so I'm not so daft as to think my basic salary is directly comparable to a private sector equivalent.
When the going was good, the private sector wasn't to be heard shouting 'increase the wages of the public sector, they are lagging and it isn't fair' and neither (I suspect) did many of those who did accept those bigger wages put enough of it into a pension. I have little sympathy for people swanning around in new BMWs, bought on HP and complaining about their pensions.
What we need is to generate real wealth - the only way to do this is by manufacturing which seems to be something forgotten here but well known everywhere else in Europe. When your currency is low in value, your exports become cheap. If you have anything to export. So, buy Shutt, buy Carradice, buy Hope, buy Crud! Support local industry - it's in all our interests and, unlike house price speculation which achieves nothing.Faster than a tent.......0 -
lost_in_thought wrote:Maybe if we said 'fair game for improvement' it'd come across less bristly.
Nobody is arguing that there isn't room for improvement in the public sector! :P0 -
Rolf F wrote:buy Hope, buy Crud! Support local industry - it's in all our interests and, unlike house price speculation which achieves nothing.
Now there's an idea I can get behind. If only I was paid enough to buy all the Hope gear I want. Maybe if I was in the public sect- oh crap.FCN - 10
Cannondale Bad Boy Solo with baggies.0 -
Greg66 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:I never said it generates an income or makes a profit I said makes a surplus.
But then you're back in t'other Greg's point: when the NHS takes its funding from the Govt, something that is a surplus is just money it hasn't spent yet.
Generated excess = profit
Unspent money = surplus.
Yes....
The income that the NHS generates by charging for services to the private sector would need to exceed it's operating costs to be classed as profit.
Do the services "sold" exceed the costs of supporting them? All of the facilities that underpin them are funded by the taxpayer and are not "free". Anyone can generate a profit when it does not need to worry about its cost baseThe total budget of Department of Health in England in 2008/9 was £94bn of which NHS England accounted for £92.5bn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_H ... e_(England)#Funding
That would be a very big business......
If you want to generate a profit you can do two things.
1. Increase reveue - by selling more services to the private sector
2. Decrease Cost
"Opening the Jaws" does both at the same time - which would be great! You'll have to do a great deal of both before you turn your 94Bn operating loss into a profit and be marketable.The idea that the Public sector doesn't generate wealth is pretty ridiculous.
No - it distributes wealth it does not create it.
If it created wealth then we wouldn't need to fund it via taxes.
Wealth creation is adding value to a product or a service that is greater than the cost of the raw materials / services = profit.the only way to do this is by manufacturing which seems to be something forgotten here
Nope
Physical Manufacturing can generate wealth but lets have a look at the most profitable companies in the world:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/ ... s/profits/
Gazprom Energy
Exxon Mobil Energy
Industrial &Commercial Bank of China bank
BP Energy
China Construction Bank bank
Petrobras Energy
Barclays bank
Microsoft IT
Wal-Mart Stores Retail
Vodafone Communications
Procter &Gamble Manufacturing
International Business Machines IT
Goldman Sachs Group bank
Merck Shipping
AT&T Communications
Not dominated by manufacturing is it? Services add value and generate profit just as much as making a car.Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.
What would Thora Hurd do?0 -
-
bails87 wrote:If the public sector was so fantastic, then nobody would work in the private sector. And vice-versa. As with so many things in life, I think we're all a lot more alike than most people realise.
Quite. I have worked in both and intend to flit between both during my career. Funnily enough my current job is in the public sector advising the private sector on how to become more efficient....I would not dream of criticising them however, they are the private sector after all and are inherently superior.0
