Public sector national pay rates could be about to end
Discussion
While I agree in principle that the public sector shouldn't be paid more than the private sector, there's a problem with viewing this locally. An enormous public sector employer (such as the DVLA) is going to skew the local averages. Public sector employees should really be paid a similar amount wherever they are in the country if they're doing a similar job.
Which brings me on to the slightly worrying statistic that public sector employees are paid a mere 0.5% less than private in the south east. Why are they paid so much in the south east? That region is the main contributor to GPD in England, so surely there should be a much bigger gap.
Which brings me on to the slightly worrying statistic that public sector employees are paid a mere 0.5% less than private in the south east. Why are they paid so much in the south east? That region is the main contributor to GPD in England, so surely there should be a much bigger gap.
That BBC web article has been updated only about 1 hour after it was published and the average of public sector pay over private - which iirc was 8% - has been removed. Why would the BBC want to do that? In some parts of England and Wales it's up to 18% higher than the private sector, at least that's still in there.
turbobloke said:
That BBC web article has been updated only about 1 hour after it was published and the average of public sector pay over private - which iirc was 8% - has been removed. Why would the BBC want to do that? In some parts of England and Wales it's up to 18% higher than the private sector, at least that's still in there.
I saw that this morning. I can only think the figure is wrong so they removed it.Jobbo said:
I don't see how, economically, the country can support a situation where the public sector get paid more than the private sector.
Fortunately the Chancellor agrees with you...though Unions think it's 'cruel' apparently.More on the left field perspective from the usual suspect
TankRizzo said:
turbobloke said:
That BBC web article has been updated only about 1 hour after it was published and the average of public sector pay over private - which iirc was 8% - has been removed. Why would the BBC want to do that? In some parts of England and Wales it's up to 18% higher than the private sector, at least that's still in there.
I saw that this morning. I can only think the figure is wrong so they removed it.http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexc...
turbobloke said:
"The article also acknowledges that the analysis is narrow in its remit the data looks at employees only, excluding the self-employed, and only includes information on additional payments such as bonuses if they were paid in April (this is the month that the ASHE data collects information on). It also notably does not collect information on pensions benefits."Hmm, any other sources? Also, how does it compare over time, particularly when out of recession?
Sticks. said:
turbobloke said:
"The article also acknowledges that the analysis is narrow in its remit the data looks at employees only, excluding the self-employed, and only includes information on additional payments such as bonuses if they were paid in April (this is the month that the ASHE data collects information on). It also notably does not collect information on pensions benefits."Hmm, any other sources? Also, how does it compare over time, particularly when out of recession?
http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/articles/ref/stories/8/p...
Should they be at the rate where it is just about possible to recuit people of the required calibre.
If you're having to take people who aren't up to it, then you're not paying enough.
If there are hundreds of well-qualified applicants for every vacancy, you are paying too much.
Also, should the jobs be moved to the part of the country where the rate needed to recruit people of the required calibre is lowest?
If you're having to take people who aren't up to it, then you're not paying enough.
If there are hundreds of well-qualified applicants for every vacancy, you are paying too much.
Also, should the jobs be moved to the part of the country where the rate needed to recruit people of the required calibre is lowest?
grumbledoak said:
When they say 'public sector pay' are they adjusting for their imaginary income tax?
Quite possibly this extract will be seen as from a less than perfect source, and it dares to include other aspects of public sector remuneration.
In every region of Britain, except Yorkshire, the gap in pay between public and private employees widened between 2008 and 2010, with the largest gulf in Wales and the North West, according to the study from Policy Exchange, a thinktank. When calculated on an hourly basis, the typical state employee earns up to 35 per cent more than his counterpart in the private sector, the report finds. But when the more generous pensions for state employees are taken into account, the advantage rises to 43 per cent.
The current public-private pay situation seems anomalous to me when the country can't afford current levels of public spending while relying on the private sector to get back in the black.
turbobloke said:
Sticks. said:
turbobloke said:
"The article also acknowledges that the analysis is narrow in its remit the data looks at employees only, excluding the self-employed, and only includes information on additional payments such as bonuses if they were paid in April (this is the month that the ASHE data collects information on). It also notably does not collect information on pensions benefits."Hmm, any other sources? Also, how does it compare over time, particularly when out of recession?
http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/articles/ref/stories/8/p...
And, after noting that employees with degrees earn 5.&% less in pub sec, goes on to say..
"The article also looks at the differences between the types of jobs in the two sectors and the characteristics of the people within them, showing that:
The public sector is made up of a higher proportion of higher skilled jobs
widening over the last decade as lower skilled jobs have been outsourced from the
public to the private sector.
The public sector consists of a higher proportion of older employees and earnings
tend to increase with age and experience
The public sector workforce contains more people with a degree or an equivalent
qualification, 38 per cent in 2010, compared with 23 per cent in the private sector
The gap between the lowest and highest earners is higher in the private sector
with the top 5 per cent (95th percentile) of earners paid around 5.6 times more
than the bottom 5 per cent (5th percentile). The gap is 4.6 times in the public sector"
Given that, and that bonuses were only counted if they were awarded in April, I'm not surprised there's a gap. It's interesting to note the gap was smaller in 07, possibly increasing as we get deeper into recession. It'd be useful to see what the gap was during good economic times, given that pri sec pay, by its nature is more affected by the economic climate.
Sticks. said:
turbobloke said:
Sticks. said:
turbobloke said:
"The article also acknowledges that the analysis is narrow in its remit the data looks at employees only, excluding the self-employed, and only includes information on additional payments such as bonuses if they were paid in April (this is the month that the ASHE data collects information on). It also notably does not collect information on pensions benefits."Hmm, any other sources? Also, how does it compare over time, particularly when out of recession?
http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/articles/ref/stories/8/p...
Jobbo said:
...An enormous public sector employer (such as the DVLA) is going to skew the local averages. ...
Not if it was the average public sector salary compared to the average private sector salary in the region (which I believe it was).Jobbo said:
...
Which brings me on to the slightly worrying statistic that public sector employees are paid a mere 0.5% less than private in the south east. ...
I thought I saw on the news this morning that it was actually 0.5% *more*? And as turbobloke notes, that doesn't appear to account for pensions, hours worked etc.Which brings me on to the slightly worrying statistic that public sector employees are paid a mere 0.5% less than private in the south east. ...
The unions need to get a grip. No sane individual can suggest that the current deficit is sustainable.
Taking in more tax is going to be nigh on impossible judging by just how much the populous is milked already.
So where do the unions suggests the cuts should come from? Would they rather salaries were brought into check or jobs were lost? Because there don't seem to be too many other options.
I'd like to know how public and private sector salarys can be compared when many of the things public sector employees do it not available in the private sector.
My particular role is present on both sides and I would happily be aligned to a like skilled professional solely in private sector employ - I reckon my salary will at least double!
I really think this is going to stir up a lot of public sector workers who have been pretty benign with the changes already imposed or discussed.
If this project comes off how does the government think it will fill essential posts in deprived areas. Which employees are going to choose to do the same job in crap surroundings/bad areas when they can do the same job in some nice leafy suburb and make more cash at the same time?
My particular role is present on both sides and I would happily be aligned to a like skilled professional solely in private sector employ - I reckon my salary will at least double!
I really think this is going to stir up a lot of public sector workers who have been pretty benign with the changes already imposed or discussed.
If this project comes off how does the government think it will fill essential posts in deprived areas. Which employees are going to choose to do the same job in crap surroundings/bad areas when they can do the same job in some nice leafy suburb and make more cash at the same time?
purplepolarbear said:
Also, should the jobs be moved to the part of the country where the rate needed to recruit people of the required calibre is lowest?
absolutely - all doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters et al that are working in London and the south east should immediately be relocated to Hullrover 623gsi said:
absolutely - all doctors, nurses, teachers, police officers, firefighters et al that are working in London and the south east should immediately be relocated to Hull
But there is still a good argument for moving central govt jobs to where the pay and premises costs are lower.Eta although when the last gov did this it was accused of buying votes in those areas
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff