Public sector watch

[turbobloke]

heebeegeetee said:

And if the private sector behaved itself we wouldn't need such a big public sector.

We don't need such a big public sector either way.

[Rovinghawk]

heebeegeetee said:

And if the private sector behaved itself we wouldn't need such a big public sector.

So bad banking practices gave rise to a massive need for one-legged-black-feminists-for-a-nuclear-free-organic-health-food-shop coordinators, did they?

I exaggerate to make the point.

RH

[Digga]

Deva Link said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

If you really think employees behave the same way in public sector as private sector, how do you explain the many surveys which show public sector workers require about twice as many days off sick every year? Strange that.

http://www.theinsuranceservice.org/articles/62/pub...

It's very stressful dealing with the public all day.

That's the 'wrong' mindset. Surely the public servant is doing a job for the benefit of all - there should be no "them and us", just an "us".

Anyway, until there is a widespread realisation that we can no longer spend more than we tax, there is no way any political party will resist the tempation to bullst voters about how much they can afford to spend on buying their vote.

[Art0ir]

SpeedMattersNot said:

Art0ir said:

valiant said:

^^^

What! How dare they! This would never happen in the private sector...

We don't collectively pay for private sector employment.

Does this annoy you more than if a private sector employee did it?

I don't see a difference myself.

If shareholders/managers/owners are happy for private sector employees to procrastinate all day, so be it. That's their choice.

[Countdown]

Digga said:

That's the 'wrong' mindset. Surely the public servant is doing a job for the benefit of all - there should be no "them and us", just an "us".

Anyway, until there is a widespread realisation that we can no longer spend more than we tax, there is no way any political party will resist the tempation to bullst voters about how much they can afford to spend on buying their vote.

Interesting to see how Jerry Brown managed it in California. I think we will HAVE to go down the same path. (i.e cutting services until expenditure matches income).

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-25/je...

[Xerstead]

eccles said:

mrmr96 said:

eccles said:

turbobloke said:

Having not worked for a Council ever but having been present in such workspaces, my eyesight and earsight were good enough to see and hear timewasting of epic proportions. As well as some people working hard and doing a good job. Those people doing an honest day's work frequently complained - but not to their bosses as it was seen as a waste of time - that they were paid the same as the wasters. It's not just private sector folk who are annoyed by people in town halls taking the psss with other people's money.

I get the same feeling when I've been stuck waiting at the tills for 15 minutes, only to leave the shop to find half the staff having a fag outside, or waiting for an overdue car at a garage and the mechanics are stood around chatting.

No worker ever devotes 100% of their time to their job.
Do you think our council tax would go down if the staff suddenly stopped behaving like normal people?

You're making the same mistake as SMN. The point is that if you don't like how workers at a private company behave, you have the choice to go spend your money elsewhere. But if you don't like what Public sector workers are doing, you can only change that through the political process, which is glacially slow to do anything - so it's largely futile.

You are making the same mistake as Turbobloke. You both seem to think that public sector staff should be subject to some sort of higher standards of discipline than private sector workers.

I'm not reading this as holding them to a higher standard, more that the current standards for public sector workers is lower.
With the plumber example:
If the plumber you hired is wasting time and not working, we dont care, it's your money.
You hired him, you're paying him and you could continue paying him untill he finishes the job.
Or you could fire him.
If he doesn't do/get enough work he will go out of business. It's the same with larger companies; more wastage leads to higher costs and reduced profits potentially resulting in the business closing.
The Public sector is funded by all our taxes so we are all paying for the wastage. The more inefficiancies there are, the more staff they 'require' so taxes have to go up to cover it.
The public sector just doesn't have the same incentive to cut costs as the private sector. If they go over budget, just up taxes, they won't go out of business. Or just add the extra cost to the £1,347.4 Billion of debt our country is currently facing.

[turbobloke]

Xerstead said:

eccles said:

mrmr96 said:

eccles said:

turbobloke said:

Having not worked for a Council ever but having been present in such workspaces, my eyesight and earsight were good enough to see and hear timewasting of epic proportions. As well as some people working hard and doing a good job. Those people doing an honest day's work frequently complained - but not to their bosses as it was seen as a waste of time - that they were paid the same as the wasters. It's not just private sector folk who are annoyed by people in town halls taking the psss with other people's money.

I get the same feeling when I've been stuck waiting at the tills for 15 minutes, only to leave the shop to find half the staff having a fag outside, or waiting for an overdue car at a garage and the mechanics are stood around chatting.

No worker ever devotes 100% of their time to their job.
Do you think our council tax would go down if the staff suddenly stopped behaving like normal people?

You're making the same mistake as SMN. The point is that if you don't like how workers at a private company behave, you have the choice to go spend your money elsewhere. But if you don't like what Public sector workers are doing, you can only change that through the political process, which is glacially slow to do anything - so it's largely futile.

You are making the same mistake as Turbobloke. You both seem to think that public sector staff should be subject to some sort of higher standards of discipline than private sector workers.

I'm not reading this as holding them to a higher standard, more that the current standards for public sector workers is lower.
With the plumber example:
If the plumber you hired is wasting time and not working, we dont care, it's your money.
You hired him, you're paying him and you could continue paying him untill he finishes the job.
Or you could fire him.
If he doesn't do/get enough work he will go out of business. It's the same with larger companies; more wastage leads to higher costs and reduced profits potentially resulting in the business closing.
The Public sector is funded by all our taxes so we are all paying for the wastage. The more inefficiancies there are, the more staff they 'require' so taxes have to go up to cover it.
The public sector just doesn't have the same incentive to cut costs as the private sector. If they go over budget, just up taxes, they won't go out of business.

Precisely, captive customers and a continuous supply of funding almost regardless of quality. And as you indicate, where quality is low then more funding is made available as the solution is usually to throw more taxpayers' money at a problem. This can involve retraining and promoting it.

[SpeedMattersNot]

I'm just of the opinion that it can't be avoided, in any trade, in any business. For me, I could find it more or less annoying for a worker to be 'dossing' irrespective of whether they're public or private sector. Each separate case would be treated individually for me.

There seems to be a lot of displeasure from regular posters on this forums about this topic. When I take into consideration what taxes I've contributed and look at how that money I've parted company with is delegated throughout the country (or outside of it), a few hours wasted by public sector workers in what's likely to be a very low paid job, is so far off the scale it doesn't even register - hence why I can't differentiate between public or private sector losses.

I understand some people's concerns that they can't have a direct impact on those people, unlike the private sector examples we've managed to think of. But it just isn't a concern of mine, fortunately.

[turbobloke]

"Nigel Smith, leader of Basildon’s opposition Labour group, which opposed the council privatising the service in 2010, said the expenditure ‘does sound like a bit of a shambles’.

He added: ‘We opposed the privatisation of the contract in the first place, and I think we have been proved right. It would have been so much better if it was council staff carrying out these jobs.

‘One hundred and fifty thousand pounds is a load of money to be paying out on top of a contract to another company afterwards and you need to wonder about the competency of the council.’"

Click

[sd477667]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/arti...

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2013/06/cou...

[Guybrush]

sd477667 said:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/arti...

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2013/06/cou...

We've had MPs' expenses scandal; it's about time councils were looked at.

[sd477667]

MP's look like a drop in the ocean compared with the millions of pounds of waste within most Labour councils.

Business Rates - biggest rip off ever

[V8mate]

sd477667 said:

MP's look like a drop in the ocean compared with the millions of pounds of waste within most Labour councils.

Business Rates - biggest rip off ever

I'd remove the word 'Labour' from your statement to spare future blushes. Incompetence knows no party boundaries.

[Countdown]

Guybrush said:

sd477667 said:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/arti...

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2013/06/cou...

We've had MPs' expenses scandal; it's about time councils were looked at.

Councils are bad, Quangos / NDPBs are much much worse. They could be considered a "taxpayer-funded piggy bank" for their Senior Managers / Boards.

[sd477667]

V8mate said:

I'd remove the word 'Labour' from your statement to spare future blushes. Incompetence knows no party boundaries.

Labour waste more, that is a fact, why else was Poll Tax so much cheaper in Tory boroughs?

Not saying Tories don't waste, they do but not in the same league as the jumped up Nu Labourites who seem want to play Billy Big Bol*ocks and act like captain's of industry without the pressure of actual results.

So no blushes here.

[Countdown]

sd477667 said:

Labour waste more, that is a fact, why else was Poll Tax so much cheaper in Tory boroughs?

4 of the highest Council Tax charges are in Conservative-controlled authorities, only 2 are Labour controlled.

[Rovinghawk]

Countdown said:

4 of the highest Council Tax charges are in Conservative-controlled authorities, only 2 are Labour controlled.

Are the property values higher in those boroughs?

[V8mate]

sd477667 said:

V8mate said:

I'd remove the word 'Labour' from your statement to spare future blushes. Incompetence knows no party boundaries.

Labour waste more, that is a fact, why else was Poll Tax so much cheaper in Tory boroughs?

Not saying Tories don't waste, they do but not in the same league as the jumped up Nu Labourites who seem want to play Billy Big Bol*ocks and act like captain's of industry without the pressure of actual results.

So no blushes here.

I've wasted millions and millions and millions and millions in Tory authorities. Oh, and tens and hundreds of millions more too.

One day, I'll tell all.

[Countdown]

Rovinghawk said:

Countdown said:

4 of the highest Council Tax charges are in Conservative-controlled authorities, only 2 are Labour controlled.

Are the property values higher in those boroughs?

Shouldn't make any difference - they provide X services, they charge £Y. If they are providing the same services more efficiently than their Labour counterparts they should be charging LESS £y, not more.

[Rovinghawk]

Countdown said:

Shouldn't make any difference - they provide X services, they charge £Y. If they are providing the same services more efficiently than their Labour counterparts they should be charging LESS £y, not more.

Higher values= nicer area (in general). It costs more to keep somewhere looking nicer. Also expectations of services provided might well be higher in such an area.