Have they got public sympathy?

verylonglegs

It's not the salaries that are the issue, it's how the pensions are funded. Private pensions build up a pot to pay income whereas public pensions come out taxation from current workers. It's a ponzi scheme that is only legitimate as it's sanctioned by the state.

The welfare state, the NHS included, hasn't even been in existence to cover one whole generation yet so it could still be looked on as something in the experimental stage. It may well prove to be unworkable in the long run without serious alterations.

florerider

Paulie W wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Even the top dog, the Vice Chancellor has a package that barely goes above 100-150K.

I dont disagree with the general point that VCs given the level of responsibility, budget and resources involved are paid less than someone with equivalent responsibility in the private sector (whatever that means now given that universities no longer fit comfortably in the public sector), but I'd be interested to know how many VCs are on that kind of salary these days?! The average is more like £250,000.

I just looked up typical turnover and surplus for a couple of universities in central England. I came from a high paying part of the private sector, and by comparison seem to have been underpaid by up to a half a million a year based on turnover and more than a million a year on surplus.

tangled_metal

ben@31 wrote:

@ Tangled Metal... If you are exploited, that doesn't make it okay for everyone else to be exploited as well.

People should stand upto this.

Personally I don't think I'm being exploited as such. I have a job that pays enough for my needs. That's better than the alternative position I was in after redundancy and before getting this job.

The lack of a pay rise with my previous employer was all down to financial difficulties. A company in downwards spiral or is struggling is not exploiting its employees by not giving them annual payrises.

Now compare that to the state the government finances got into. Do you not think pay and benefit constraints should apply to public sector if the public company is heavily in debt too? If they don't like it they can always try to move into the private sector.

ben@31

Tangled Metal, I see where you're coming from, a pay cut is better than no pay. Just out of interest did the CEO or Board of Directors get made redundant or take a significant pay cut? Will they always cut our pay in a race to the bottom? These companies are in a downward spiral and struggle financially because that's what capitalism does, you don't get more choice when the local butchers, green grocers and bakers have closed down and the only person left in town is Walmart who has a "free market" to screw anyone over.

BelgianBeerGeek

Tangled Metal wrote:

ben@31 wrote:

@ Tangled Metal... If you are exploited, that doesn't make it okay for everyone else to be exploited as well.

People should stand upto this.

Personally I don't think I'm being exploited as such. I have a job that pays enough for my needs. That's better than the alternative position I was in after redundancy and before getting this job.

The lack of a pay rise with my previous employer was all down to financial difficulties. A company in downwards spiral or is struggling is not exploiting its employees by not giving them annual payrises.

Now compare that to the state the government finances got into. Do you not think pay and benefit constraints should apply to public sector if the public company is heavily in debt too? If they don't like it they can always try to move into the private sector.

I'm not normally one to get into this because they generally reduce to public sector=bad/private sector= good arguments which don't really get to the point.
I am a civil servant, Mrs BBGeek works in local government. Neither of us are sufficiently high up the greasy pole to be earning these fantastic salaries we hear so much about. We manage, as do most on here I suppose. When the guvmit decided they were up the creek a few years ago the answer was to reduce workforce numbers and the payroll burden. Some of those who took the money did OK from it. I am no way near being able to do that.
However, and this is the important point, the workload has not gone away. Like it or not, this country has a huge amount of administration to do, from emptying bins, policing to the NHS and running pensions. Like many civil servants, I have to do more with less for longer for my eventual pension. Ho hum.
As Stevo says, until the whole system is changed and the government back off from your lives this is unlikely to change. I have not yet seen a red-tape reduction initiative that does what it intended.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Arthur Scrimshaw wrote:

Here you go

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... nings.html

And here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643

Given this, I cannot see why public sector pensions should be so much better than in the private sector. In particular as it is people in the private sector who will have to fund these 'gold plated' pensions, mainly by having to work well after the normal retirement dates enjoyed in the public sector and paying large amounts of tax.

Market competition innit.

Is harder for public sector to compete on salaries (joe public doesn't like their taxes being squandered on big salaries) and it's not the kind of environment where you get the opportunity to make significantly more money on performance related pay.

So how else do they compete for the talent?

You're a free marketeer aren't you? You should be encouraging this kind of competition for talent.

Do you think the public sector should be competing for talent like this?

You seem to have contradicted yourself by saying firstly (and quite rightly) that Joe Public doesn't like their taxes being squandered on big salaries, but then say that it's OK for the public sector to go out and squander taxes on big pensions? Either way it increases the cost to the taxpaying public.

The public sector should not be at a premium to the private sector long term otherwise you will damage the sector that pays for the other one.

Not the first time I've said this, but the size and unaffordability of the state/public sector is one of the main reasons why we are so far in debt as a country. The public sector needs to be subject to the same sort of financial constraints that the private sector experiences if we are to get the problem of excessive public spending and national debt under control.

Apols for quoting all but on mobile.

Firstly - a seperate debate and not one for here - the whole anti debt thing in the UK is bs and any economist worth his salt knows and says this. Populist bs to justify more ideological changes. If you want a smaller govt - just say it - don't make up a macro fiscal argument that flies in the face of basic macroeconomics.

Anyway - however you cut it, if you want fairly good people to work for you, you need to pay fairly well. There's no way around it. Pay peanuts - get monkeys. There's this underlying assumption in your chat that suggests working for the public should, by definition, be worth less (and therefore be paid less). I'm saying this is obviously rubbish and idiocy. But joe public needs to be placated and it's easier to persuade them public sector people are paid less by dropping salaries and bumping other benefits (pension etc). Even though it's not "their" money ('cos it bloody well isn't - in the same way sainsburys profits aren't my money either)

Either way you need to pay. It's competition for talent, pure and simple. Unless you want weak talent working in public sevices. I don't - they're usually pretty important.

Colinthecop

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pay peanuts - get monkeys.

Although saying that, would it not be right in saying the best paid people are Bankers, and those are the very ones that brought the country to its knees and required bailing out by the taxpayer....?


Anyways, strangely back on topic -

Do the water fairies have public sympathy...?

I'd say No, should they have public sympathy...? Yes they should.

Good luck to them in their fight with the Government, I just wish we could have done the same when they shafted us. :?

rick_chasey

Well Colin - had th govt paid the guys in the financial services regulation department competitive salaries - rather then having all the good ones poached for double the salary - then maybe the system wouldn't be so messed up

Pross

ben@31 wrote:

Tangled Metal, I see where you're coming from, a pay cut is better than no pay. Just out of interest did the CEO or Board of Directors get made redundant or take a significant pay cut? Will they always cut our pay in a race to the bottom? These companies are in a downward spiral and struggle financially because that's what capitalism does, you don't get more choice when the local butchers, green grocers and bakers have closed down and the only person left in town is Walmart who has a "free market" to screw anyone over.

Can't speak for Tangled Metal but in my company the Directors took the same hit as the rest of us (more if anything) and when things started to improve they paid us a small token bonus at their expense. Also, why do people assume that a private company always have highly paid CEOs and Boards of Directors? The vast majority of private sector businesses are small to medium sized limited companies and the directors / owners pay is linked to how well the company is doing. As for the final sentence, that's just ludicrous and the current economy is actually starting to reverse your anecdote because the 'free market' means people will do what is best for them and that now means a return to regular small shops at the expense of giant supermarkets.

ben@31

Rick Chasey wrote:

Firstly - a seperate debate and not one for here - the whole anti debt thing in the UK is bs and any economist worth his salt knows and says this. Populist bs to justify more ideological changes. If you want a smaller govt - just say it - don't make up a macro fiscal argument that flies in the face of basic macroeconomics.

Anyway - however you cut it, if you want fairly good people to work for you, you need to pay fairly well. There's no way around it. Pay peanuts - get monkeys. There's this underlying assumption in your chat that suggests working for the public should, by definition, be worth less (and therefore be paid less). I'm saying this is obviously rubbish and idiocy. But joe public needs to be placated and it's easier to persuade them public sector people are paid less by dropping salaries and bumping other benefits (pension etc). Even though it's not "their" money ('cos it bloody well isn't - in the same way sainsburys profits aren't my money either)

Either way you need to pay. It's competition for talent, pure and simple. Unless you want weak talent working in public sevices. I don't - they're usually pretty important.

Yes I agree with your comment that our economy is debt based... Fiat currency is an IOU note and banks lend money they don't physically have. The UK economy is so far into debt in can't get out of debt.

If the govt pays it's employees well, the govt would be injecting money into the economy and create more cash flow as people would have the finances to buy more products and services. In times of austerity and pay cuts people do not spend. If the govt does not spend money on creating jobs it ends up costing us more in welfare and unemployment payments..

Pross

That is one of the most confused posts I've ever read!

ben@31

Pross wrote:

That is one of the most confused posts I've ever read!

If you're talking about my previous post, why do you find it confused ? Maybe I could word it differently or explain one of my points.

Frank the tank

In answer to the OP, yes, they have my support/sympathy.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Firstly - a seperate debate and not one for here - the whole anti debt thing in the UK is bs and any economist worth his salt knows and says this. Populist bs to justify more ideological changes. If you want a smaller govt - just say it - don't make up a macro fiscal argument that flies in the face of basic macroeconomics.

1. Not sure what I am making up that flies in the face of basis macro economics? If you want to reduce debt, spend less - dead simple. Never said that there should be no debt but it is pretty clear to everyone that the UK owes too much in debt at present. Your solution seems to be just to keep cranking up the tax levels when patently it won't work as we are close to levels that 'kill the goose that lays the golden egg'. I posted a link on here recently showing HMRC's study on the impact of the 50% tax rate (sweet FA) - that is one example.
2. In any event I have never made any secret of my view that goverment should be smaller - and needs to be smaller if we are to get out of the financial mess (i.e. debt) that the nation is currently in. Not so much idealogical as necessary.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyway - however you cut it, if you want fairly good people to work for you, you need to pay fairly well. There's no way around it. Pay peanuts - get monkeys. There's this underlying assumption in your chat that suggests working for the public should, by definition, be worth less (and therefore be paid less). I'm saying this is obviously rubbish and idiocy. But joe public needs to be placated and it's easier to persuade them public sector people are paid less by dropping salaries and bumping other benefits (pension etc). Even though it's not "their" money ('cos it bloody well isn't - in the same way sainsburys profits aren't my money either)

The question is really how many of these high powered people do we need vs how many do the state employ. Clearly you need good people to run the show but how much 'talent' to we need to do the basic jobs like collect the bins or dish out parking fines etc? As is said above, final salary pensions are a massive long term liability and unacceptable. This on top of clear evidence that the public sector pay is at a premium to the private sector. Unacceptable.

Call me old fashioned but if you want to make a few bob, go into the private sector. If you want to 'do your bit' for society etc - go into the public sector.

PS: it is our money, it's just we are not given a lot of choice about giving it to someone else...

Rick Chasey wrote:

Either way you need to pay. It's competition for talent, pure and simple. Unless you want weak talent working in public sevices. I don't - they're usually pretty important.

See my point above - it's surely not all about money, especially for lefties. Pensions aside, generally in the public sector there is better job security, shorter working hours than the private sector. A lot of people value that.

And if they are any good, they can always go private if they don't like it. Some do - I know a few former tax inspectors who have given up the 4pm finishes for a better financial package. They tend to be the better ones

ben@31

Stevo 666 wrote:

1. Not sure what I am making up that flies in the face of basis macro economics? If you want to reduce debt, spend less - dead simple.

Not so. If you're not putting money into the economy no money will circulate. Sometimes money needs to be injected to get industry set up (for example with modern factories, R&D, etc) ready to export products that we can sell.

pblakeney

ben@31 wrote:

Not so. If you're not putting money into the economy no money will circulate. Sometimes money needs to be injected to get industry set up (for example with modern factories, R&D, etc) ready to export products that we can sell.

Perfect solution.
Pay those in the public sector enough to go and buy Lamborghinis. That will kick start the economy.

Oh, wait. They are Italian/German.
Rollers? German.
Bentleys? German.
Jags? Indian.

I will get back to you.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Firstly - a seperate debate and not one for here - the whole anti debt thing in the UK is bs and any economist worth his salt knows and says this. Populist bs to justify more ideological changes. If you want a smaller govt - just say it - don't make up a macro fiscal argument that flies in the face of basic macroeconomics.

1. Not sure what I am making up that flies in the face of basis macro economics? If you want to reduce debt, spend less - dead simple. Never said that there should be no debt but it is pretty clear to everyone that the UK owes too much in debt at present. Your solution seems to be just to keep cranking up the tax levels when patently it won't work as we are close to levels that 'kill the goose that lays the golden egg'. I posted a link on here recently showing HMRC's study on the impact of the 50% tax rate (sweet FA) - that is one example.
2. In any event I have never made any secret of my view that goverment should be smaller - and needs to be smaller if we are to get out of the financial mess (i.e. debt) that the nation is currently in. Not so much idealogical as necessary.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyway - however you cut it, if you want fairly good people to work for you, you need to pay fairly well. There's no way around it. Pay peanuts - get monkeys. There's this underlying assumption in your chat that suggests working for the public should, by definition, be worth less (and therefore be paid less). I'm saying this is obviously rubbish and idiocy. But joe public needs to be placated and it's easier to persuade them public sector people are paid less by dropping salaries and bumping other benefits (pension etc). Even though it's not "their" money ('cos it bloody well isn't - in the same way sainsburys profits aren't my money either)

The question is really how many of these high powered people do we need vs how many do the state employ. Clearly you need good people to run the show but how much 'talent' to we need to do the basic jobs like collect the bins or dish out parking fines etc? As is said above, final salary pensions are a massive long term liability and unacceptable. This on top of clear evidence that the public sector pay is at a premium to the private sector. Unacceptable.

Call me old fashioned but if you want to make a few bob, go into the private sector. If you want to 'do your bit' for society etc - go into the public sector.

PS: it is our money, it's just we are not given a lot of choice about giving it to someone else...

Rick Chasey wrote:

Either way you need to pay. It's competition for talent, pure and simple. Unless you want weak talent working in public sevices. I don't - they're usually pretty important.

See my point above - it's surely not all about money, especially for lefties. Pensions aside, generally in the public sector there is better job security, shorter working hours than the private sector. A lot of people value that.

And if they are any good, they can always go private if they don't like it. Some do - I know a few former tax inspectors who have given up the 4pm finishes for a better financial package. They tend to be the better ones

Public sector already compete on a non-monetary basis. But ultimately we live in a free market society. The market decides the pay. Lefty or not. I like how you assume there are enough people who have no interest in earning decent wedge. Faintly patronising.

In previous discussions you've said you don't rate govt tax rules or inspectors. I'd suggest if they paid inspectors as well as on the private side they'd probably save more than they spend in missed taxes. This is ultimately my point. It's a false economy for the public. You need good people in public sector work - otherwise the public sector services will be sh!t. Let the market decide and then tinker with the market.

You want a free market don't you? Then stop trying to distort it.

Do find it odd you're in favour of competition but only when it suits your own interest.

If you were truer to the cause you'd be pleased there was a competitive market for talent between private and public.

Appreciate this sounds off topic but it's the crux of the issue about pay in the public sector.

Pross

ben@31 wrote:

Pross wrote:

That is one of the most confused posts I've ever read!

If you're talking about my previous post, why do you find it confused ? Maybe I could word it differently or explain one of my points.

The fact that you seem to be suggesting the public sector employees get paid money the government doesn't have in order that they can go and buy stuff (assuming they don't decide to just save it) which at best would generate a fraction of the money the government initially paid these staff through VAT and tax on the various companies who manufacture and sell the stuff (assuming of course that these companies are UK based and that they haven't been for a chat with Stevo to be 'tax efficient'). In the meantime the Government needs to pay for the money they had to borrow to fund these pay rises. Basically, this is one of the factors that contributed to the current mess in the first place.

rick_chasey

You're forgetting the multiplier effect

ben@31

ProssThe fact that you seem to be suggesting the public sector employees get paid money the government doesn't have in order that they can go and buy stuff (assuming they don't decide to just save it) which at best would generate a fraction of the money the government initially paid these staff through VAT and tax on the various companies who manufacture and sell the stuff (assuming of course that these companies are UK based and that they haven't been for a chat with Stevo to be 'tax efficient'). In the meantime the Government needs to pay for the money they had to borrow to fund these pay rises. Basically, this is one of the factors that contributed to the current mess in the first place.

In an earlier post I had a link to a Youtube video where Tony Benn gave a brilliant quote...

"In the 1930's we had mass unemployment. But we did not have unemployment during the war. If you can have full employment by killing Germans why can't you have full employment building hospitals, schools, recruiting nurses and recruiting teachers? If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people."

You can't tell the length of time we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan went to plan and was budgeted for beforehand. The mission creep was huge. It has cost the USA $ 6 TRILLION http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-wars-in ... on/5350789

Pross

Yep, makes perfect sense now. We could have employed lots of public sector employees and had them working for the Third Reich rather than spending money on war.

I believe the method of state funded, full employment was tried in the USSR. Are you advocating we go down the lines of what they did with such success that produced a utopian, fair society?

I agree that money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been put to better use but it's far too simplistic to say that could have just been used to build new hospitals etc. Besides, on your earlier model the Government were chucking money into the coffers of the defence industry which is a massive employer in the UK so it was then available to recycle into the economy or does that only apply if the money goes into public bodies?

ben@31

In Norway ( a successful socialist country, capitalists don't talk about).
The Norwegians built enough hydro electric power stations to be fully self sufficient and not dependant on oil or gas. It produced 99% of it's electricity from free, abundant and pollution free water.
Norway then nationalised it's oil and gas industry and sold the oil and gas to other suckers who are dependant on it. The Norwegian govt saved the revenue wisely and use it to pay for their welfare system.

One reason why Japan and Germany are now so successful is because they were banned from spending lots on defence during the cold war.

ben@31

Pross, you are totally missing my point... If they can magically find the money to fight a war. Then they can find the money to pay for basic welfare.

Ok, the bank account of Haliburton's ex CEO did benefit from the Iraq war.

Are you advocating we go down the lines of what they did with such success that produced a utopian, fair society?

Do we really live in a fair society now?

Pross

ben@31 wrote:

Pross, you are totally missing my point... If they can magically find the money to fight a war. Then they can find the money to pay for basic welfare.

Ok, the bank account of Haliburton's CEO did benefit from the Iraq war.

Not really, the money would have been for a event with a relatively short term one-off event (OK, the government being a government it ended up longer and more expensive than planned) and borrowed on that basis. If you used it for welfare where would the money come from long term? It would be an ongoing commitment until the end of time requiring funding rather than a 'one off' expense. The country already spends more on welfare than any other country.

ben@31

Pross, the Afgan war lasted over 13 years and I wouldnt be surprised if we are still giving them "aid". I wouldn't consider that short term.

Pross

As I acknowledged above but it is still something which has (had?) a finite timescale whereas if you diverted that money into additional welfare it would need to continue forever or, if it reverted but to the level it was at before the increase, there would be uproar that the incumbent government at that time was cutting welfare funding.

ben@31

Also remenber that people have paid their national insurance and pension contribution.
The first generation paid a lifetimes worth of contribution before they even claimed their pension (paid up front. More generations paid in than claimed). So where's the money gone? Gambled by banks ?

Pross

No, it's basically a giant Ponsi scheme and there's never enough being paid in to cover what is already going out plus the future payments to those paying in. The only reason it works is because no-one in the scheme can demand all their investment back in one lump. On the other hand, private pension pots were actually raided for the money being made for their investors' future retirement by Gordon Brown ironically to fund his increased public sector spending.

ben@31

But the first generation paid into pension pots first before the money went out. Now our generation is paying in and havent claimed yet.

It does amuse me how tories blame Gordon Brown but not that good themselves

Pross

It's not about borrowing - he effectively helped himself to billions courtesy of those with private pensions. There's no borrowing, it will never be returned. That surplus came from schemes like that.