And another one....

walkingbootweather

I’m not close enough to this to know exactly what is going on here, but the simplified background to dispute as I see it is as follows:
1. Government identifies a need for public servants. They decide the skill sets and remuneration required to attract the right people and advertise the job.
2. Public servants are employed through open competition at agreed terms and conditions (including pensions).
3. The economy turns bad.
4. Government unilaterally decides to re-configure public service pensions. Unions disagree but the Government make few concessions and little progress in negotiations
5. Unions ballot for strike action which is a costly and time consuming exercise, but they cannot strike without it.
6. Once strength of feeling becomes apparent, Government makes an improved late offer to seek the moral high ground.
7. Unions not allowed by law to simply postpone strike action unless they are prepared for another time consuming and expensive ballot, but do under law have the mandate to take further action if strike goes ahead.

A strike benefits nobody, but I don’t see that Unions have an alternative. Hopefully negotiations can now make progress with both sides working towards an equitable resolution, rather than one side bullying the other into submission.

Personally I would like to have top quality, well motivated public servants, because if there are I’m more likely to have my kids well-educated, the sick and disadvantaged well-cared for, the environment better managed, and in short the world would be a better place.

If the country cannot afford its public servants then it needs to make changes for the future; and whether it is fewer public servants, or less attractive employment terms and conditions (or both), then this is likely to have an impact upon the services that we all receive. What doesn’t seem fair, if this is what is proposed (and I’m not sure if it is on not), is for past benefits accrued in good faith to be affected.

notsoblue

lost_in_thought wrote:

The italicized bit... And the others who say that selling someone something they can't afford is the responsibility of the salesman... or that the government should supply the nous to look after us in our old age as the population lacks it.

It's a massive double standard - people who have amassed tens of thousands in unserviceable credit card debt by living beyond their means aren't pitied and the people they've been buying hair extensions and BMWs from castigated.

So why is it the seller's fault when it's a mortgage? Can't afford = can't afford. If you don't understand what you're signing up for, don't sign up for it.

Increased government control on this is only going to worsen the problem and shift perceived responsibility for, well, everything onto the government, and away from the individual; resulting in an increase in the sentiment of entitlement in a society where that is already rife. That, in my eyes, is Wrong™.

Hmm, I disagree, its wrong to say that it is those who sold the mortgages and BMW's are being castigated. Sure, the "Bankers" get blamed in (some) of the media and in pubs for everything thats wrong in the country by people who don't know better, but the financial industry still got bailed out... The government appears to be pinning their hopes for recovery on big business. Meanwhile, lower income people who lived unsustainable lifestyles have had government support eroded and will still have their homes taken away from them or be lumbered with debt they can't afford.

Can anyone give an example of the financial sector shouldering any of the burden for the recovery? I can't think of any obvious ones.

lost_in_thought

notsoblue wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

The italicized bit... And the others who say that selling someone something they can't afford is the responsibility of the salesman... or that the government should supply the nous to look after us in our old age as the population lacks it.

It's a massive double standard - people who have amassed tens of thousands in unserviceable credit card debt by living beyond their means aren't pitied and the people they've been buying hair extensions and BMWs from castigated.

So why is it the seller's fault when it's a mortgage? Can't afford = can't afford. If you don't understand what you're signing up for, don't sign up for it.

Increased government control on this is only going to worsen the problem and shift perceived responsibility for, well, everything onto the government, and away from the individual; resulting in an increase in the sentiment of entitlement in a society where that is already rife. That, in my eyes, is Wrong™.

Hmm, I disagree, its wrong to say that it is those who sold the mortgages and BMW's are being castigated. Sure, the "Bankers" get blamed in (some) of the media and in pubs for everything thats wrong in the country by people who don't know better, but the financial industry still got bailed out... The government appears to be pinning their hopes for recovery on big business. Meanwhile, lower income people who lived unsustainable lifestyles have had government support eroded and will still have their homes taken away from them or be lumbered with debt they can't afford.

Can anyone give an example of the financial sector shouldering any of the burden for the recovery? I can't think of any obvious ones.

I said they aren't...

notsoblue

lost_in_thought wrote:

I said they aren't...

Ah, I misread: "It's a massive double standard - people who have amassed tens of thousands in unserviceable credit card debt by living beyond their means aren't pitied and the people they've been buying hair extensions and BMWs from castigated." I thought you were saying that the people who were selling the debt were being castigated. Oops.

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

... I reckon ones attitude to the crisis largely depends on your attitude to personal responsibility, and the role of government. Its either the population's fault for buying stuff they couldn't afford, the financial industry's for selling them stuff they couldn't afford, or the government's fault for allowing those types of transactions to take place at all...

Or d) All of the above. It's far to simplistic to put the blame solely on any one of those, or to pretend that any one is entirely innocent. But as someone else pointed out, pension reform would have had to happen sooner or later anyway.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

[. But as someone else pointed out, pension reform would have had to happen sooner or later anyway.

Who'd expect there not to be strikes over pension reform?

neiltb

lost_in_thought wrote:

So why is it the seller's fault when it's a mortgage? Can't afford = can't afford. If you don't understand what you're signing up for, don't sign up for it.

has buying a house changed so much?

I bought my first flat in Scotland 12 years ago. Walked into bank, asked for a mortgage, they asked about earnings and debts, deposit and handed me a piece of paper with a number of what they would give me. That number was based upon affordability. They weren't keen on giving me a blank cheque.

SimonAH

walkingbootweather wrote:

1. Government identifies a need for public servants. They decide the skill sets and remuneration required to attract the right people and advertise the job.
2. Public servants are employed through open competition at agreed terms and conditions (including pensions).

Yes but then again no.

The remuneration required (including pension) is set within the framework of the existing remuneration and pay scales. Those payscales are centrally reviewed periodically by a body itself within the public sector. This body is as disincentivised as it is possible to be to change.

It may well be that a hospital could advertise nursing positions that have a contributory private sector pension and fill those spaces happily. In fact, in a tough time for jobs I'm sure that you would.

The biggest problem is that it has been run as a cosy little club forever. Sickleave? no questions asked, Garuanteed pension regardless of the economics? Certainly Sir, Fire you for incompetence, laziness or dishonesty? Perhaps, but only after an enormously long and convoluted process - and then only if you were caught wearing a stripy top, a facemask and a bag marked Swag slung over your shoulder.

Yes, I'm a little grumpy about the enormouse inequalities that as a private sector guy I've had to shoulder over the years. But to now demand something that we as a nation just quite simply can't afford, and to do it by striking - in other words by hurting all the people who haven't got what they are squealing to retain??

It is because of Liverpool in (I think) 1913 that we have a Police Federation and not a Police Union. I would extend this across the entire public sector. You have the right to go and get a job elsewhere if you don't like your conditions, you do not have the right to strike IMO. And if you do, then I want a refund as I've already paid you.

meanredspider

Mrs MRS, a teacher, has a bit of a moral dilemma but is not going to strike. The logic being this: my 14yo son was due a cancer check-up on Wednesday but this has been cancelled due to the strike. Mrs MRS is rather upset about this. But she could hardly criticise the striking hospital workers and then strike herself.

For the record, my (private sector) employers are changing my pension rights because they "can't afford" to continue at the same level. Will we be striking? Err, no.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Hmm, I disagree, its wrong to say that it is those who sold the mortgages and BMW's are being castigated. Sure, the "Bankers" get blamed in (some) of the media and in pubs for everything thats wrong in the country by people who don't know better, but the financial industry still got bailed out... The government appears to be pinning their hopes for recovery on big business. Meanwhile, lower income people who lived unsustainable lifestyles have had government support eroded and will still have their homes taken away from them or be lumbered with debt they can't afford.

Can anyone give an example of the financial sector shouldering any of the burden for the recovery? I can't think of any obvious ones.

You mean apart from massive redundancies accross the financial sector and the collapse of Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns etc? Not to mention, of course, the enormous sums paid by financial institutions throughout "the good times"? Or the continuing tax receipts from companies and individuals that were not bailed out?

"Bailing out" the banks wasn't done as a favour to bankers - it was to avoid a run on the banks, mortgages being called in and the possible (likely?) collapse of finances as we know it. And by finances I don't mean bankers - I mean your savings, your wages, your mortgage.

If "lower income people" lead unsustainable lifestyles on a "now now now" attitude to credit I have little sympathy that they cannot afford their debts. There is no obligation to borrow enormous sums which you know you cannot pay back, in order to buy useless tat - that is not "being lumbered" with debt, that is chosing a lifestyle which is unsustainable. Unless you're arguing that they all got massive credit bills for buying coal and gruel?

bigmat

Its a lifestyle that was sold to them though. And a lot of them aren't the sharpest tools in the box, hence are easily swayed by your average mortgage broker / used car salesman type. Its a sad story. An awful lot of muppets looking to get rich quick via the property boom too (not too much sympathy there). The poor redundant bankers? For the most pat , they have found other jobs. At worst, they've had to live off their savings for a while. Not the same as being dispossessed of the family home is it?

These are all sweeping generalisations of course. I do agree that the consumers are partly culpable and not just the FS sector (not to mention the government) but the damage felt by some people is greatly disproportionate to the role they have played in all of this.

walkingbootweather

@SimonAH, without resorting to quoting everything, I tend to agree that there is at least the perception that sick leave, incompetence, poor performance etc. has not been well managed in the public sector, and I'm sure there are many cases where public sector employees should have been dealt with differently, but (and it's a big BUT), these issues are nothing to do with pension entitlement and should not be relevant to that specific dispute. There are many hardworking public servant that have never taken sick leave, who work conscientiously and diligently, accepting that they will earn a modest salary but at least expecting a fair pension upon retirement.

I think it’s sad when one group of people argue that another group of people shouldn’t get something just because they don’t. As a society wouldn’t it be better to argue for fair terms and conditions for all?

It is also wrong to think of this as a public v private sector argument we are all people and in theory at least are free to migrate between sectors – if you thought that the lot of a public sector worker was so great why didn’t you become one? What do you suppose the effect will be on the private sector of increased pressure on the public sector? One of the effects might be that talented public sector workers might be competing for your job.


@MRS, it is terrible that your son has had his check-up cancelled but I’m not sure it is entirely fair to blame hospital workers for this. What if the Government had said that they would slash hospital salaries by 50%, or 90%. Would you still have expected the staff not to protest? How much pain is it reasonable to expect staff to take before withdrawing their labour? At what point will it become impossible to attract and retain good quality NHS staff (DDD has reported on some recently, so we know they exist), and for anyone that requires good quality medical care to need to go private?

notsoblue

walkingbootweather wrote:

I think it’s sad when one group of people argue that another group of people shouldn’t get something just because they don’t. As a society wouldn’t it be better to argue for fair terms and conditions for all?

+1

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

The italicized bit... And the others who say that selling someone something they can't afford is the responsibility of the salesman... or that the government should supply the nous to look after us in our old age as the population lacks it.

It's a massive double standard - people who have amassed tens of thousands in unserviceable credit card debt by living beyond their means aren't pitied and the people they've been buying hair extensions and BMWs from castigated.

So why is it the seller's fault when it's a mortgage? Can't afford = can't afford. If you don't understand what you're signing up for, don't sign up for it.

Increased government control on this is only going to worsen the problem and shift perceived responsibility for, well, everything onto the government, and away from the individual; resulting in an increase in the sentiment of entitlement in a society where that is already rife. That, in my eyes, is Wrong™.

It's a bit of both. Part of the issue is that financial advisers - who are often the ones who sell mortgages - are presented as professionals who are advising their clients on what is best for them, rather than just salesmen (this may not actually be the case in some instances, but this is how they are presented - "would like to talk to our mortgage advisor?"). There is also the issue that some of those selling the mortgages knew full well that some of the customers couldn't afford the loans, but thought that they had worked out a way to pass that problem on to someone else. That said, if someone says to you "don't worry, we don't need to see the last six months' bank statements, I'll work something out..." then you should smell a rat. When we bought our first flat, the first financial adviser we spoke to suggested that we could afford X - didn't show us a specific deal, but lots of reassuring noises, so off we went looking at properties for X. In the process of expressing an interest in a flat, we got talking to another financial adviser, who couldn't make our figures work. I think his words were something along the lines of "if he can actually get you a specific mortgage offer for that amount bite his hands off, because I can't get anywhere near." This was a reputable with reputable high street lenders, in 2002, so you can guess how mad it was by 2007.

SimonAH

WBW,

I work in Private Sector because ULTIMATELY I can affect my destiny and progress in my chosen field by dint of sweat of mind and brow to a level that I would be enormously unlikely to attain in the public sector. Plus what I do does not have a public sector equivalent.

It is not that I thought the life of a public sector worker was so great - what I dislike are the significant proportion of total dross sheltered in the system and paid for by the taxes that are hosed from every penny of wealth I create.

Oh, and modest salary? Srsly? If you look only at jobs where there are equivalents in both sectors and compare salaries I think you'll find public sector is typically better paid. Or where it is not it is because elite staff have been pulled into the private sector by high wages - leaving mediocraty behind.

Yes, there are many many hardworking, talented and motivated people within the public sector - this is not the point, the point is that WE CAN NOT AFFORD TO PAY THE PENSIONS THAT WE ARE ALREADY COMMITTED AS A NATION TO PAY. Changing the system moving forwards is bolting the door after the livestock has already fled - but it's a start.

Talented PS people competing for my job? Bring it on! That's what private industry is all about.

meanredspider

walkingbootweather wrote:

@MRS, it is terrible that your son has had his check-up cancelled but I’m not sure it is entirely fair to blame hospital workers for this. What if the Government had said that they would slash hospital salaries by 50%, or 90%. Would you still have expected the staff not to protest? How much pain is it reasonable to expect staff to take before withdrawing their labour? At what point will it become impossible to attract and retain good quality NHS staff (DDD has reported on some recently, so we know they exist), and for anyone that requires good quality medical care to need to go private?

And I think my point (referencing my private sector pension experience) is that we're all experiencing some of this pain. They aren't slashing salaries by 50% or 90%. And attracting & retaining staff will remain pretty much the same because almost nobody is entirely immune to the financial mess we are in. Remember, too, that my wife is a teacher and affected in the same ways as the hospital workers. We will all be a little worse off as result of this action though. Many of my colleagues are taking days off due to childcare needs, sick people aren't being treated, bins won't be collected, people will be stuck in airports etc etc Most of these people who work in the private sector will already be feeling the pain and will be having addition problems loaded onto them (my son's treatment being one). I'm really not clear what good this will do.

notsoblue

SimonAH wrote:

It is not that I thought the life of a public sector worker was so great - what I dislike are the significant proportion of total dross sheltered in the system and paid for by the taxes that are hosed from every penny of wealth I create.

Wow, talk about generalisations...

rick_chasey

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

It is not that I thought the life of a public sector worker was so great - what I dislike are the significant proportion of total dross sheltered in the system and paid for by the taxes that are hosed from every penny of wealth I create.

Wow, talk about generalisations...

Yeah, it's not like, say, doctors don't add any value to the economy.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

It is not that I thought the life of a public sector worker was so great - what I dislike are the significant proportion of total dross sheltered in the system and paid for by the taxes that are hosed from every penny of wealth I create.

Wow, talk about generalisations...

Yeah, it's not like, say, doctors don't add any value to the economy.

No, you will note that I later in the same post referredto the many, many talented and hard working people who also work within the public sector - it's just that crap is allowed to hide within it in a way almost impossible in the private sector.

And, unfortunately, the very atmosphere that this generates taints many of the initially keen, ambitious and energetic people who enter into it blunting their drive and putting them into a mindset of "as long as the boxes are ticked then my job is done". You know it's true.

This is even clearly visible within private sector companies who were once nationalised.

rick_chasey

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

It is not that I thought the life of a public sector worker was so great - what I dislike are the significant proportion of total dross sheltered in the system and paid for by the taxes that are hosed from every penny of wealth I create.

Wow, talk about generalisations...

Yeah, it's not like, say, doctors don't add any value to the economy.

No, you will note that I later in the same post referredto the many, many talented and hard working people who also work within the public sector - it's just that crap is allowed to hide within it in a way almost impossible in the private sector.

And, unfortunately, the very atmosphere that this generates taints many of the initially keen, ambitious and energetic people who enter into it blunting their drive and putting them into a mindset of "as long as the boxes are ticked then my job is done". You know it's true.

This is even clearly visible within private sector companies who were once nationalised.

I work in a 8 man business, recruiting business.

About half of our wages come from commission.

We're the pinnup for small business, free market. We make an awful lot of money.

What do I spend half my day doing? Writing sh!t on here.

Last week, the office had another game of office cricket at around 3:30 till 5.

We all have long, long lunches.

The idea that private sector is the holy grail of efficient business is rubbish.

SimonAH

And by the way, we are drifting again.

The point is that the pensions bill is unpayable as it stands now. This level of unpayability is accellerating all the time.

Personally I don't think that anyone currently under the age of about forty today will ever see a state paid pension of any meaningful value at all and that this is just the first axe blow - but it has to happen.

W1

walkingbootweather wrote:

.... these issues are nothing to do with pension entitlement and should not be relevant to that specific dispute. There are many hardworking public servant that have never taken sick leave, who work conscientiously and diligently, accepting that they will earn a modest salary but at least expecting a fair pension upon retirement.

If there were a competition for most incorrectly used word of 2011 then I think "fair" is a clear winner.

What do you mean by "fair"? Do you mean affordable? Reflective of contributions? Reflective of the cost and length of care?

There are numerous reports of public sector workers receiving very far from a "modest" salary when compared to the public sector, so I think the idea that the public sector get paid less is a bit of a myth (in general).

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

It is not that I thought the life of a public sector worker was so great - what I dislike are the significant proportion of total dross sheltered in the system and paid for by the taxes that are hosed from every penny of wealth I create.

Wow, talk about generalisations...

Yeah, it's not like, say, doctors don't add any value to the economy.

No, you will note that I later in the same post referredto the many, many talented and hard working people who also work within the public sector - it's just that crap is allowed to hide within it in a way almost impossible in the private sector.

And, unfortunately, the very atmosphere that this generates taints many of the initially keen, ambitious and energetic people who enter into it blunting their drive and putting them into a mindset of "as long as the boxes are ticked then my job is done". You know it's true.

This is even clearly visible within private sector companies who were once nationalised.

I work in a 8 man business, recruiting business.

About half of our wages come from commission.

We're the pinnup for small business, free market. We make an awful lot of money.

What do I spend half my day doing? Writing sh!t on here.

Last week, the office had another game of office cricket at around 3:30 till 5.

We all have long, long lunches.

The idea that private sector is the holy grail of efficient business is rubbish.

It's no holy grail of efficiency, nothing is. I suspect however that the reason you are able to work like that is because (for whatever reason) you have not yet any effective competition. Wait a few years. (I'm in the same-ish boat by the way).

rick_chasey

I remember talking to one of the civil servants in whitehall who was tasked with finding all the things that had to be cut.

I remember him worrying about how he was going to let the new gov't, that, unsurprisingly, there wasn't much fat. The previous gov't had put a lot of effort into that.

I also remember, around a similar time, a Tory MP saying publicly that there was less fat than they'd hoped for.

The question of public vs state is not to do with public 'fat' or inefficiencies.

It's about what you think is the duty of the state state to necessarily provide > and that is an ideological one.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

I work in a 8 man business, recruiting business.

About half of our wages come from commission.

We're the pinnup for small business, free market. We make an awful lot of money.

What do I spend half my day doing? Writing sh!t on here.

Last week, the office had another game of office cricket at around 3:30 till 5.

We all have long, long lunches.

The idea that private sector is the holy grail of efficient business is rubbish.

It is completely absurd to compare the public and private sector efficiencies.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

It is not that I thought the life of a public sector worker was so great - what I dislike are the significant proportion of total dross sheltered in the system and paid for by the taxes that are hosed from every penny of wealth I create.

Wow, talk about generalisations...

Yeah, it's not like, say, doctors don't add any value to the economy.

No, you will note that I later in the same post referredto the many, many talented and hard working people who also work within the public sector - it's just that crap is allowed to hide within it in a way almost impossible in the private sector.

And, unfortunately, the very atmosphere that this generates taints many of the initially keen, ambitious and energetic people who enter into it blunting their drive and putting them into a mindset of "as long as the boxes are ticked then my job is done". You know it's true.

This is even clearly visible within private sector companies who were once nationalised.

I work in a 8 man business, recruiting business.

About half of our wages come from commission.

We're the pinnup for small business, free market. We make an awful lot of money.

What do I spend half my day doing? Writing sh!t on here.

Last week, the office had another game of office cricket at around 3:30 till 5.

We all have long, long lunches.

The idea that private sector is the holy grail of efficient business is rubbish.

Indeed. Have you ever tried getting a new gas, electricity or water connection Simon? Whole forests of dead wood there.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

I remember talking to one of the civil servants in whitehall who was tasked with finding all the things that had to be cut.

I remember him worrying about how he was going to let the new gov't, that, unsurprisingly, there wasn't much fat. The previous gov't had put a lot of effort into that.

Sorry, what? The Labour government ran an efficient public sector did they? There are books full of details of government waste, white elephants, blatent corruption, self-service etc etc.

Did the expenses fiasco just pass you buy Rick? Surely that, if anything, is a fine example of government waste and the attitude that went with it?

mickbrown

Wish some bugger told me years ago that as a public sector employee I didn't have to pay tax.

Can one of you tax paying private sector employees kindly let me know when I'll be receiving my massive rebate?

Thanks

*Tugs forelock.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I remember talking to one of the civil servants in whitehall who was tasked with finding all the things that had to be cut.

I remember him worrying about how he was going to let the new gov't, that, unsurprisingly, there wasn't much fat. The previous gov't had put a lot of effort into that.

Sorry, what? The Labour government ran an efficient public sector did they? There are books full of details of government waste, white elephants, blatent corruption, self-service etc etc.

Did the expenses fiasco just pass you buy Rick? Surely that, if anything, is a fine example of government waste and the attitude that went with it?

*shrugs*

I think a) the people who are less likely to be motivated by money and performance tend to go for public sector jobs where they are not judged by that and

b) it's stunningly difficult to sort out structural inefficiencies in large organisations - especially when the onus is on quality of output.

It's what he told me. He's since quit.

suzyb

Rick Chasey wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

It is not that I thought the life of a public sector worker was so great - what I dislike are the significant proportion of total dross sheltered in the system and paid for by the taxes that are hosed from every penny of wealth I create.

Wow, talk about generalisations...

Yeah, it's not like, say, doctors don't add any value to the economy.

No, you will note that I later in the same post referredto the many, many talented and hard working people who also work within the public sector - it's just that crap is allowed to hide within it in a way almost impossible in the private sector.

And, unfortunately, the very atmosphere that this generates taints many of the initially keen, ambitious and energetic people who enter into it blunting their drive and putting them into a mindset of "as long as the boxes are ticked then my job is done". You know it's true.

This is even clearly visible within private sector companies who were once nationalised.

I work in a 8 man business, recruiting business.

About half of our wages come from commission.

We're the pinnup for small business, free market. We make an awful lot of money.

What do I spend half my day doing? Writing sh!t on here.

Last week, the office had another game of office cricket at around 3:30 till 5.

We all have long, long lunches.

The idea that private sector is the holy grail of efficient business is rubbish.

Can I come work where you work :shock: