Public sector watch
Discussion
Murph7355 said:
I very much doubt those moves are anything to do with people trying to spin numbers. They are more likely to be down to those higher paid turkeys in the public sector not voting for Christmas.
(Which isn't a public sector specific malaise).
From a taxpayer's perspective I'd much sooner the opposite happened - bin the expensive ones and keep the actual workers where they're need in all areas of the public sector.
Correct(Which isn't a public sector specific malaise).
From a taxpayer's perspective I'd much sooner the opposite happened - bin the expensive ones and keep the actual workers where they're need in all areas of the public sector.
Most seem to be in here trying to hide their vested interest behind childish sarcasm.
As guilty as a puppy next to a pile of poo
Murph7355 said:
santona1937 said:
you mean that folks in favour of dismantling the public sector would vote to move low paid workers into private jobs, then use the subsequent perceived average public sector pay increase to justify more dismantling of the public sector?
Shocking..
But a point well made sir.
I very much doubt those moves are anything to do with people trying to spin numbers. They are more likely to be down to those higher paid turkeys in the public sector not voting for Christmas. Shocking..
But a point well made sir.
(Which isn't a public sector specific malaise).
From a taxpayer's perspective I'd much sooner the opposite happened - bin the expensive ones and keep the actual workers where they're need in all areas of the public sector.
Randy Winkman said:
mph1977 said:
the frieght railway and Open access passenger services are doing very nicely, it's just a shame that the majority of the passen ger rail way is in the overly short duration and overly restrictive franchise system
Heaven help us if Southeastern got a longer franchise. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10702318/Number-...
Revolving door revolves. Cue argument from usual suspects that the split of the NHS into profit centres / business units or whatever the current term is means that it's all legal, which it is, but what a way to run things. It does not have to be done like this.
Revolving door revolves. Cue argument from usual suspects that the split of the NHS into profit centres / business units or whatever the current term is means that it's all legal, which it is, but what a way to run things. It does not have to be done like this.
FiF said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10702318/Number-...
Revolving door revolves. Cue argument from usual suspects that the split of the NHS into profit centres / business units or whatever the current term is means that it's all legal, which it is, but what a way to run things. It does not have to be done like this.
Sniping from Labour on handing out money like confetti is a bit rich, but justified not only because they're HM Opposition and should be on the case but also because it's costing us a lot more than a TUPE ride would cost. Maybe this is why NHS wallers are so keen on insisting that the NHS isn't a single employer, if it were then their chances of working the system at taxpayers' expense in the public sector would disappear, one less kerching.Revolving door revolves. Cue argument from usual suspects that the split of the NHS into profit centres / business units or whatever the current term is means that it's all legal, which it is, but what a way to run things. It does not have to be done like this.
In terms of this comment:
Article said:
The chief executive of NHS England, Sir David Nicholson, had appealed to managers to wait at least six months before taking another job in the service. However he is powerless to act as NHS rules mean staff must wait only four weeks after taking redundancy before they can move to a new position.
What's the point of that, surely the CEO isn't asking for a thicker smokescreen? Far better they walk back in asafp so it's clearly visible and people can ask what's going on and explore alternatives including finding a backbone that fits CMD. Yes what's happening is within the law and so be it, but he still needs one and ideally with cojones on special offer.mph1977 said:
so much so that estates trades in the NHS have a long term recruitment and retention bonus applied becasue their banded pay does not meet industry norms
very few people seem to be able to an swer where else a graduate with 10 years in industry experience, responsibility for life / service critical functions and expected to work around the clock is paid low 30k gbp ( including shift allowances - basic of 27 k ) with just the (good even with the level of contributions)pension and no other B-i-Ks ....
You've mentioned the £27k basic but been vague as to how 'low' the low £30ks is. You've also not specified the amounts of the bonuses you've mentioned. You've mentioned the existence of the pension but not its value. Could you give some figures for the sake of giving us the full story?very few people seem to be able to an swer where else a graduate with 10 years in industry experience, responsibility for life / service critical functions and expected to work around the clock is paid low 30k gbp ( including shift allowances - basic of 27 k ) with just the (good even with the level of contributions)pension and no other B-i-Ks ....
I presume any London weighting has been excluded from your figures.
At the risk of quoting Dorothy Wainwright, you've not mentioned the value of job security which is massively higher than the private sector.
turbobloke said:
FiF said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10702318/Number-...
Revolving door revolves. Cue argument from usual suspects that the split of the NHS into profit centres / business units or whatever the current term is means that it's all legal, which it is, but what a way to run things. It does not have to be done like this.
Sniping from Labour on handing out money like confetti is a bit rich, but justified not only because they're HM Opposition and should be on the case but also because it's costing us a lot more than a TUPE ride would cost. Maybe this is why NHS wallers are so keen on insisting that the NHS isn't a single employer, if it were then their chances of working the system at taxpayers' expense in the public sector would disappear, one less kerching.Revolving door revolves. Cue argument from usual suspects that the split of the NHS into profit centres / business units or whatever the current term is means that it's all legal, which it is, but what a way to run things. It does not have to be done like this.
In terms of this comment:
Article said:
The chief executive of NHS England, Sir David Nicholson, had appealed to managers to wait at least six months before taking another job in the service. However he is powerless to act as NHS rules mean staff must wait only four weeks after taking redundancy before they can move to a new position.
What's the point of that, surely the CEO isn't asking for a thicker smokescreen? Far better they walk back in asafp so it's clearly visible and people can ask what's going on and explore alternatives including finding a backbone that fits CMD. Yes what's happening is within the law and so be it, but he still needs one and ideally with cojones on special offer.Rovinghawk said:
You've mentioned the £27k basic but been vague as to how 'low' the low £30ks is.
You've also not specified the amounts of the bonuses you've mentioned. You've mentioned the existence of the pension but not its value. Could you give some figures for the sake of giving us the full story?
I presume any London weighting has been excluded from your figures.
At the risk of quoting Dorothy Wainwright, you've not mentioned the value of job security which is massively higher than the private sector.
The exact earnings of Nurse or ODP on the top increment of band 5 will dependent on exactly when they work their contracted hours as the shift allowances are per qualifying hour worked. For Paramedics the answer is easier those working the most onerous rotas(roughly half of working hours outside Monday to Friday 7am to 7pm of get 25% of basic) those working slightly less onerous shift patterns 21%.You've also not specified the amounts of the bonuses you've mentioned. You've mentioned the existence of the pension but not its value. Could you give some figures for the sake of giving us the full story?
I presume any London weighting has been excluded from your figures.
At the risk of quoting Dorothy Wainwright, you've not mentioned the value of job security which is massively higher than the private sector.
Estates Trades long term recruitment and retention payment is irrelevant to the discussion of the pay rates of Health Professionals . As is London Weighting for the majority of Staff.
the NHS pension for new entrants is now CARE although existing continuing staff are on final salary.
employee contributions are at least 7% for at least 40 years for 50% of final salary.salary for final salary members / max pension for CARE taken at 65 now
NHS job security is a myth you are one complaint even if it is of dubious merit away from the end of your career - as even if there is no case to answer you are marked out because of your career gap...
Edited by mph1977 on Monday 17th March 20:06
mph1977 said:
employee contributions are at least 7% for at least 40 years for 50% of final salary.salary for final salary members / max pension for CARE taken at 65 now
Daughter has worked in the NHS for 7 years and a lot of her colleagues aren't in the pension scheme - seems to be a joint reason of can't afford it and have no confidence it'll ever pay out (it's changed twice since she's been there).mph1977 said:
NHS job security is a myth you are one complaint even if it is of dubious merit away from the end of your career - as even if there is no case to answer you are marked out because of your career gap...
She was told last week that the funding for her job runs out at the end of this month. They're saying as the job was new a year ago, and, in the way much is done in the "NHS" these days, as she now works for a JV between another Trust and a charity, that her previous service doesn't count and she'll be let go at a week's notice. Another world from the £xxxK redundancy and walk-into-another-job stories earlier.Murph7355 said:
mph1977 said:
...
employee contributions are at least 7% for at least 40 years for 50% of final salary....
I'm pretty sure that's still a very, very good deal pension wise.employee contributions are at least 7% for at least 40 years for 50% of final salary....
I think annuities are currently paying something like 4k-5k per annum for every 100k in the pot.
mph1977 said:
very few staff , especially in Nursing ever get a full pension entitlement due to the demographics ...
Which is fair enough, but work out the differential and full pension or not they are likely to still be on a pension that they wouldn't have been able to anywhere near afford in the private sector (especially as that would also be subject to "demographics" 
).My sister and some good friends work in the NHS. They (frontline NHS staff) deserve more than they get. But sadly that does not alter the fact that the NHS and public sector pensions are not affordable in their current guise.
Murph7355 said:
mph1977 said:
very few staff , especially in Nursing ever get a full pension entitlement due to the demographics ...
Which is fair enough, but work out the differential and full pension or not they are likely to still be on a pension that they wouldn't have been able to anywhere near afford in the private sector (especially as that would also be subject to "demographics" ).My sister and some good friends work in the NHS. They (frontline NHS staff) deserve more than they get. But sadly that does not alter the fact that the NHS and public sector pensions are not affordable in their current guise.
employer contribution = 14 %
plus tax relief
which had addressed the concerns of those who claim you need to be paying 30% of income into a pension scheme to get the equivlanet benefits
using 'today money ' figures and remembering that 40 Full time equivalent years are required for a full pension
some further reading
http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Pensions/Documents/Pensio...
http://www.nhsemployers.org/PayAndContracts/NHSPen...
https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/wwus/whatweoffer/Pages/Pen...
http://www.nhsemployers.org/PayAndContracts/NHSPen...
http://www.nhsemployers.org/SiteCollectionDocument...
http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Pensions/4134.aspx
http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/Documents/Pensions/SD_gui...
mph1977 said:
...
employer contribution = 14 %
plus tax relief...
These two items in the public sector are the tricky ones. Even if the inbound funds were managed properly.employer contribution = 14 %
plus tax relief...
End of the day I really don't think anyone begrudges front line staff a decent pension. The knob jockeys higher up and in office are by far the bigger issue. Fundamentally, however, we have a rather large black hole to fill in the country's finances and no amount of tinkering around the edges will fill it.
I think a serious amount of people in both the public and private sectors are going to come unstuck at pension time.
Murph7355 said:
mph1977 said:
very few staff , especially in Nursing ever get a full pension entitlement due to the demographics ...
Which is fair enough, but work out the differential and full pension or not they are likely to still be on a pension that they wouldn't have been able to anywhere near afford in the private sector (especially as that would also be subject to "demographics" ).My sister and some good friends work in the NHS. They (frontline NHS staff) deserve more than they get. But sadly that does not alter the fact that the NHS and public sector pensions are not affordable in their current guise.
My wife worked as a Nurse in an accute medical ward two years ago with 10 years under her belt, she was forced out as the ward managers and HR department could not cope with our flexible working requirements after having a kid. She now works bank, the NHS's term for contracting, gets paid more and gets to choose when to work, the ward still has the same staffing issues. Now after two years of pissing off their nurses they have a staffing crisis and have up the salary of staff and bank staff 30%, there has been no increase in care, possible a decrease, no one has retired as its a young persons game and older nurses give up and find something easier to do.
Missmanagement of staff is way more costly than pension provision, at least you can plan for one sensibly, i.e. price it in from the start. If you can't afford it don't offer it, if you offered it then stick to your commitment.
This year the unions are going to stuff the government with high salary demands that cannot be offset with other benefits because the unions will have no faith in the delivery of them. The short term consequences of eroding public sector benefits is going to be massive and permanent.
Sticks. said:
I remember when this came up last time, or was it the time before that? The figures reflect that the average level of qualifications in the public sector is higher; and the lowest paid pub sec jobs have largely moved to the private sector, affecting the average.
Not the whole picture, of course, but just not so useful as a like for like comparison.
The last time the TUC looked at this they recognised the difficulty of a like for like analysis due to the different job profiles. Not the whole picture, of course, but just not so useful as a like for like comparison.
So they made a comparison on the basis of educational qualifications.
Essentially the public sector was ahead of private sector equivalents. Especially so at the lower end of qualifications.
The crossover point was somewhere between HND and graduates. The worst public sector were postgraduates but only by one percent or so from memory.
This didn't take into account things other than salary. So bik pensions holidays and automatic annual bum in seat progression where applicable were ignored.
The last time this was discussed , or maybe it was the time before that, the usual bullocks from the usual suspects arrived arguing that everyone in private sector got massive bonuses, a company car and a huge expense account that didn't have to be justified to close scrutiny. Not to mention that laptops and mobile phones which can only be used for work are a monster bik of course. :sarcastic:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff