Lets have, why do people hate the public sector?

Monkeypump

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tailwindhome wrote:

Who indeed, you could be on a sickie.

You're trying to bait me.

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.

Doesn't seem like it (despite the repeated "wind you neck in" comments). It's obviously because DDD is at work, feet up on the desk, populating this thread. That's gotta be calming... very calming...

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

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).

It is *a* driver of efficiency, but for many services it isn't the most important driver. The success of a addiction rehabilitation service is primarily measured by how many people come out the other end healthy. The value of the service would be a function of the success and the budget cap set. If a private sector company was carrying out the same service, then the value of the service would be a function of the success, budget cap and profit. Something would have to give... Either the budget would need to increase, or the value decrease.

W1 wrote:

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.

I partially agree with you there. I just don't think the private sector is particularly known for its accountability (bank bailouts?). But theres no reason why the public sector shouldn't strive towards greater efficiency.

W1 wrote:

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.

I totally agree with this.

il_principe

shouldbeinbed wrote:

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.

So what? I'm in the private sector, no pay rise at all in 3 years, not even a cost of living rise nothing. Cut backs have been made, belts tightened. We're just getting on with it, and as I'm not best pleased I've been job-hunting,

Monkeypump

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

A recipe you've not been unfamiliar with in the past...

Chingbling

As the great Alan Partridge once said- "This country!!"

I hate parts of the public sector and I work in it. My NHS trust doesn't support C2W schemes, but my mate in the private sector gets it. Our green policy is turn off lights don't photcopy too much and wrap up warm.
I have worked in the private healthcare system and see it's problems reguarly and I know I couldn't get in the private sector what I get in the NHS in real terms unless I landed a real top job. Don't know about non-NHS public workers though.
The NHS is far more objective than private healthcare in my experience and is much more business orientated now.

Come the revolution I will be confiscating C2W vouchers from the filthy bourgeois and handing them out to the downtrodden proletariat. Or something.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

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).

It is *a* driver of efficiency, but for many services it isn't the most important driver. The success of a addiction rehabilitation service is primarily measured by how many people come out the other end healthy. The value of the service would be a function of the success and the budget cap set. If a private sector company was carrying out the same service, then the value of the service would be a function of the success, budget cap and profit. Something would have to give... Either the budget would need to increase, or the value decrease.

Sure, I accept that the "end game" of many public services cannot be profit per se - the "profit" is the benefit, rather than a sum of money.

But that doesn't excuse inefficiency, it makes it easier to hide.

rolf_f

W1 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

The idea that the Public sector doesn't generate wealth is pretty ridiculous.

Surely the public sector (being funded by the private sector) at best simply recirculates wealth?

True enough - but the same can be applied to the bulk of the private sector that isn't actually producing anything. A large number of people in any company aren't actually creating wealth themselves.

Incidentally, I work in the Environment sector. I don't directly create wealth but I do contribute to not allowing industry to turn the country into a blackened soot covered wasteland. For everything that is made, there is a cost. It isn't reasonable to allow the private sector to talk about the wealth it creates without taking into account how much that generated wealth costs in regulation. In that respect, I do directly contribute to acceptable wealth creation.

Chingbling wrote:

Don't know about non-NHS public workers though.

NHS - generous compared to elsewhere in Public Sector. One more reason why the NHS must be hit more than most.

tailwindhome

Monkeypump wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tailwindhome wrote:

Who indeed, you could be on a sickie.

You're trying to bait me.

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.

Doesn't seem like it (despite the repeated "wind you neck in" comments). It's obviously because DDD is at work, feet up on the desk, populating this thread. That's gotta be calming... very calming...

We're on page 7

DDD Spring 2010 would have been bouncing off the ceiling by now.

Sad, but we have to accept he's changing. Too much time in Currys trying to decide which vacuum cleaner to buy I think.

I did try to to contrive a post suggesting that one superhero was better than another, just to rekindle the ashes, but had no idea who Superman would fight.


ETA The Middle Manager thing could have mileage though

W1

Monkeypump wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tailwindhome wrote:

Who indeed, you could be on a sickie.

You're trying to bait me.

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.

Doesn't seem like it (despite the repeated "wind you neck in" comments). It's obviously because DDD is at work, feet up on the desk, populating this thread. That's gotta be calming... very calming...

What he does is none of our business. Apparently.

W1

Monkeypump wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

A recipe you've not been unfamiliar with in the past...

Anyway, I'm rather insulted to only have a "dash" of arrogance.

And patronisation and condescension are much the same thing.

The only presumption I've made is that DDD's income depends on the public sector - I must be wrong though and the NHS is now private? I wonder if it's as good as BUPA?

Monkeypump

TailWindHome wrote:

Monkeypump wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tailwindhome wrote:

Who indeed, you could be on a sickie.

You're trying to bait me.

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.

Doesn't seem like it (despite the repeated "wind you neck in" comments). It's obviously because DDD is at work, feet up on the desk, populating this thread. That's gotta be calming... very calming...

We're on page 7

DDD Spring 2010 would have been bouncing off the ceiling by now.

Sad, but we have to accept he's changing. Too much time in Currys trying to decide which vacuum cleaner to buy I think.

I did try to to contrive a post suggesting that one superhero was better than another, just to rekindle the ashes, but had no idea who Superman would fight.


ETA The Middle Manager thing could have mileage though

Gimme a chance - I am at work and don't have the same amount of free time as DDD.

Chingbling

[/quote]
NHS - generous compared to elsewhere in Public Sector. One more reason why the NHS must be hit more than most.[/quote]

You wouldn't hit a man wearing glasses would you?

Greg T

bails87 wrote:

Greg T wrote:

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 base

That's not how NHS finance works. The cost of the supporting services are included.

A single NHS service - if you could accurately assess its operating costs may be "profitable" but the rest of the organisation isn't.

A single division in a company may make a profit but if the others lose more than it makes then it still goes down the pan.

The NHS does not make money or generate wealth - it net redistributes wealth generated elsewhere.

It's all a circle of course - a Dr has his house painted and pays a painter. VAT on the job is taxed and pays the Dr his salary. The wealth was generated by the painter, not by the Dr.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

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).

It is *a* driver of efficiency, but for many services it isn't the most important driver. The success of a addiction rehabilitation service is primarily measured by how many people come out the other end healthy. The value of the service would be a function of the success and the budget cap set. If a private sector company was carrying out the same service, then the value of the service would be a function of the success, budget cap and profit. Something would have to give... Either the budget would need to increase, or the value decrease.

Sure, I accept that the "end game" of many public services cannot be profit per se - the "profit" is the benefit, rather than a sum of money.

But that doesn't excuse inefficiency, it makes it easier to hide.

I have never made excuses for inefficiency. Are you implying that inefficiency is a natural byproduct of anything that does not generate profit?

Monkeypump

TailWindHome wrote:

Sad, but we have to accept he's changing. Too much time in Currys trying to decide which vacuum cleaner to buy I think.

I did try to to contrive a post suggesting that one superhero was better than another, just to rekindle the ashes, but had no idea who Superman would fight.


ETA The Middle Manager thing could have mileage though

Sad indeed, just as he was approaching Legend status.

Will bear the MM thing in mind...

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

I did try to to contrive a post suggesting that one superhero was better than another, just to rekindle the ashes, but had no idea who Superman would fight.

Hulk.

We have joked about using "Who would win in a fight between King Kong and Jaws" as an interview question.

A remarkable number of colleagues immediately respond with "well, it would depend where they were fighting". WTF do they think Jaws on land will do? Grow limbs and lungs?

We couldn't agree whether candidates should be marked down if they failed to realise that the fight had to take place in water. *

Ho hum.


*many aspects of this post are not wholly true

MonkeyMonster

TailWindHome wrote:

but had no idea who Superman would fight.

Doomsday of course - he's lost twice to him already...

HVRNR

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.

You may be right but the 'value' created by the public sector will, amongst other things keep you safe, educate your kids, provide medical assistance when your ill, and send a firemand when your house is burning down!

greg66_tri_v2.0

MonkeyMonster wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

but had no idea who Superman would fight.

Doomsday of course - he's lost twice to him already...

Foregone conclusion, then, innit? No fun there.

singlespeedexplosif

We couldn't agree whether candidates should be marked down if they failed to realise that the fight had to take place in water.

I have to say, a fight at 200m below the surface of the sea would put King Kong at a considerable disadvantage.

I think a fairer question would be who would win a fight between a lion and a tiger, with the fight obviously taking place in a few inches of gravy.

Greg T

HVRNR 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.

You may be right but the 'value' created by the public sector will, amongst other things keep you safe, educate your kids, provide medical assistance when your ill, and send a firemand when your house is burning down!

Yes.

A Public sector is needed.

That's why it is paid for

MonkeyMonster

Greg66 wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

but had no idea who Superman would fight.

Doomsday of course - he's lost twice to him already...

Foregone conclusion, then, innit? No fun there.

depends his supes can give him one his special super wedgies... D's gotta have a weakness somewhere...

singlespeedexplosif

and send a firemand when your house is burning down (unless it's one of the 200 days of the year that they're on strike)!

fixed that for you...

bails87

Greg T wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Greg T wrote:

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 base

That's not how NHS finance works. The cost of the supporting services are included.

A single NHS service - if you could accurately assess its operating costs may be "profitable" but the rest of the organisation isn't.

A single division in a company may make a profit but if the others lose more than it makes then it still goes down the pan.

The NHS does not make money or generate wealth - it net redistributes wealth generated elsewhere.

It's all a circle of course - a Dr has his house painted and pays a painter. VAT on the job is taxed and pays the Dr his salary. The wealth was generated by the painter, not by the Dr.

I was more pointing out that when the cost of a procedure (and every single thing has a defined cost) is calculated, it's based on what is needed to support that procedure - staff, buildings, equipment etc.

So a hospital will be paid £100 to put a plaster on a broken arm (made up example). If it costs them more than that, then they lose money. If they don't hit targets for safety, timeliness etc, they lose money. The best thing for them is to provide a good, efficient service. Not to provide an inefficient service, but importantly, the incentives to provide a bad but cheap service are limited too.

The NHS exists to treat people in need of medical attention. (or depending on political persuasion, it exists to keep the proles healthy and productive for the ruling classes ). It does not exist to turn a profit, so I don't see why it matters that it does or doesn't create wealth. Although arguably, it does create wealth. The NHS buying £50,000 of fixyouupastatin from GSK is the same for GSK as Bupa buying it. They get money, they pay staff, the staff buy things etc

davmaggs

DDD, I don't know how long you've been in the public sector but my advise would be not to stay in it too long. All organisations do to a certain degree institutionlise people over time and they become inflexible and they think that things work/or should work according to their experience.

Whilst this applies to all sectors the thing about the public sector is much of the work and the jobs are created by other demands from the public sector (or laws). In other words people are doing work because the workload is created by other PS staff. These roles aren't needed or wanted out in private companies. I know HR people who don't look at CVs from public sector people with too much time in roles that only make sense to other public sector staff as those people often become rigid, lack business skills and are used to work patterns (like the flexi time wheeze) or a working style that doesn't work outside the bubble of the public sector.

As for why I dislike the current level of the public sector then I give four reasons:

1) tax freedom day (Google it)
2) second rate people are protected
3) they suck the oygen out of the economy when too big. In some cases they use taxes to compete directly with companies.
4) If I don't like an airline or a company serves enough people badly then I can go elsewhere. If a service or product is not useful then that organsiation closes.

With the public sector I go to jail or have my assets seized if I don't give up whatever level of taxation a politican decrees can be taken from me. There is no limit on what they can take, and they do not have to give me back something I want. They can use my family's money to fund their hobbies, their causes and their friends.

This doesn't mean that I don't agree with taxes and services, but it does mean I don't want the non-jobs we all know that exist and can read advertised. Those jobs are not rare either and add up to become huge costs.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

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).

It is *a* driver of efficiency, but for many services it isn't the most important driver. The success of a addiction rehabilitation service is primarily measured by how many people come out the other end healthy. The value of the service would be a function of the success and the budget cap set. If a private sector company was carrying out the same service, then the value of the service would be a function of the success, budget cap and profit. Something would have to give... Either the budget would need to increase, or the value decrease.

Sure, I accept that the "end game" of many public services cannot be profit per se - the "profit" is the benefit, rather than a sum of money.

But that doesn't excuse inefficiency, it makes it easier to hide.

I have never made excuses for inefficiency. Are you implying that inefficiency is a natural byproduct of anything that does not generate profit?

I'm not suggesting that you have. And no, I'm not implying that either, nor do I believe it to be true.

That's quite a lot of words you've put in my mouth so far today...!

andyrm

Ok here’s my take on all this. I work in a fast paced private sector business and handle clients from both public and private sector (of all size from SME to major multinational). Something that I have noticed almost without fail is the difference in attitude between the two.

While a private sector client contact will be constantly pushing and striving to achieve projects early and under budget and really taking ownership of things, a public sector client contact (of equivalent status) has a much more laissez faire[/] approach, not wanting to stick their neck out, not putting in extra hours to force projects through on time etc. I have to ask therefore is this because they aren’t looking after a purse that affects their direct employment and salary? In other words, if I don’t get things done on time/budget and we don’t get paid, we go under, I lose my job. If my public sector counterpart does the same, things pretty much carry on the same as before, maybe in 10 years’ time an audit will notice the huge wastage and inefficiency and we have a review of procedures.

The other thing that is glaringly obvious is the amount of time, effort and money spent in the public sector on rules, procedures, meetings and courses for their staff, rather than encouraging entrepreneurial thinking and just getting the job done. There doesn’t seem to be a culture of excellence in the public sector – more a drifting along and accepting mediocrity. Perhaps that is because of too much job security in relative terms?

And to qualify things, I’m not public sector bashing, just speaking from personal experience. I’d be interested to see any public sector employee’s thoughts on this.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

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).

It is *a* driver of efficiency, but for many services it isn't the most important driver. The success of a addiction rehabilitation service is primarily measured by how many people come out the other end healthy. The value of the service would be a function of the success and the budget cap set. If a private sector company was carrying out the same service, then the value of the service would be a function of the success, budget cap and profit. Something would have to give... Either the budget would need to increase, or the value decrease.

Sure, I accept that the "end game" of many public services cannot be profit per se - the "profit" is the benefit, rather than a sum of money.

But that doesn't excuse inefficiency, it makes it easier to hide.

I have never made excuses for inefficiency. Are you implying that inefficiency is a natural byproduct of anything that does not generate profit?

I'm not suggesting that you have. And no, I'm not implying that either, nor do I believe it to be true.

That's quite a lot of words you've put in my mouth so far today...!

Well help me to understand then :P All I'm hearing is "Public sector is inefficient"

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

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).

It is *a* driver of efficiency, but for many services it isn't the most important driver. The success of a addiction rehabilitation service is primarily measured by how many people come out the other end healthy. The value of the service would be a function of the success and the budget cap set. If a private sector company was carrying out the same service, then the value of the service would be a function of the success, budget cap and profit. Something would have to give... Either the budget would need to increase, or the value decrease.

Sure, I accept that the "end game" of many public services cannot be profit per se - the "profit" is the benefit, rather than a sum of money.

But that doesn't excuse inefficiency, it makes it easier to hide.

I have never made excuses for inefficiency. Are you implying that inefficiency is a natural byproduct of anything that does not generate profit?

I'm not suggesting that you have. And no, I'm not implying that either, nor do I believe it to be true.

That's quite a lot of words you've put in my mouth so far today...!

Well help me to understand then :P All I'm hearing is "Public sector is inefficient"

Well I think that's right IMO - but I don't think that non-profit activities are naturally inefficient, nor have you suggested that inefficiency is excusable. However not having a profit, but instead having a "benefit" does make hiding inefficiency easier becuase it's much hard to put a figure on a benefit. Equally it makes hiding super efficiency easier too.

greg66_tri_v2.0

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

We couldn't agree whether candidates should be marked down if they failed to realise that the fight had to take place in water.

I have to say, a fight at 200m below the surface of the sea would put King Kong at a considerable disadvantage.

I think a fairer question would be who would win a fight between a lion and a tiger, with the fight obviously taking place in a few inches of gravy.

I think you've missed the point of the "exercise"