'Tonight' on ITV - Public Sector Salaries

[Spiritual_Beggar]

My God!!!

Anyone else watching this?!

Some of these salaries are ridiculous!!


How are WE paying such huge salaries in the public sector?

More importantly...WHY on earth as these people being paid MORE than the top 'Public Position'...the Prime Minister!?

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Monday 2nd November 20:15

[FourWheelDrift]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

How are WE paying such huge salaries in the public sector?

More importantly...WHY on earth as these people being paid MORE than the top 'Public Position'...the Prime Minister!?

Socialism.

[susanq]

We're paying it because we're being told to or go to jail. I've given up trying to understand why our council tax continues to rise year after year.

[Puggit]

Merlot said:

susanq said:

We're paying it because we're being told to or go to jail. I've given up trying to understand why our council tax continues to rise year after year.

Inflation?

Very, very simplified example:

If, for example, your council spends £100m a year, and you have 50k housholds = £2k pa

Due to inflation, your council spends £105m the following year (mostly on goods from the private sector and of course wages), same number of households = £2,100 pa

Edited by Merlot on Monday 2nd November 21:05

Or maybe that 25% of council expenditure is on gold-plated final salary pensions? (source Telegraph)

[ewenm]

Are they giving figures on how many public sector employees are getting these big salaries?

[Pupp]

ewenm said:

Are they giving figures on how many public sector employees are getting these big salaries?

Or on how many subsist near the minimum wage?

[waterwonder]

Its a shame they didn't do a little more research and tell us what the director of Sky, DHL etc is on.

I can't say i was outraged by any of the figures but where the figures are justified by being comparable to the private sector I hope those individuals performance is appraised and dealt with in the same way as it would be in the private sector.

[Graham]

I dont see anything wrong with paying a market rate for a job reguardless of if its in the private or public sector...

what does pish me off is when govt spend 100's millions on legal advice from the big consultancy firms... would it not be better to have an internal legal dept employing the best legal bods out there ( i used legal as an example there are othe specialities that it also applies to) and pay them the market rate rather than 10 - 100 times their rate to a 3rd party company...

Sure use consultancy firms when you only need an immediate resource that you dont have, but dont pay over the odds when you have enough work to employee your own team... That would only work though if you paid the best rates..

what tends to happen is in comparison public sector pay is lower so the best people ( ok there are exceptions) go to the private sector for more pay leaving the lower performers in the public sector, who are then scared to make a decision so employ the others as consultants... arghhh


I've nothing against consultants per say ( I am one!!!) just use them properly

[bogwoppit]

Far too rational Graham, and besides they need someone "on the outside" to blame.

[HarryW]

Merlot said:

susanq said:

We're paying it because we're being told to or go to jail. I've given up trying to understand why our council tax continues to rise year after year.

Inflation?

Very, very simplified example:

If, for example, your council spends £100m a year, and you have 50k housholds = £2k pa

Due to inflation, your council spends £105m the following year (mostly on goods from the private sector and of course wages), same number of households = £2,100 pa

Edited by Merlot on Monday 2nd November 21:05

I think you are missing some very vital ingredients to the real and exponential rises seen by the public in council tax payment.

Add the government grants (redistribution of general taxation so not really a grant) so the sum now reads more like - council expenditure = 150m less 50m in grants = 100m = the 2k per household as above.
However for the next year the expenditure is capped to say 155m (the council do a good job in keeping it down to near 3% increase) but the government grant is now down to 40m = leaving gthe council to find 115m = making it a 2k2 per household (now its a 10% increase for the bill payer, boo bad council).
This is exactly how we (more so down south btw) suffer year on year council tax increases above inflation unless you live in the labour heartlands that is anyone would think it was a voting ploy to make non labour councils suffer above inflation increases and get a bad press .

[turbobloke]

Merlot said:

susanq said:

We're paying it because we're being told to or go to jail. I've given up trying to understand why our council tax continues to rise year after year.

Inflation?

Very, very simplified example:

If, for example, your council spends £100m a year, and you have 50k housholds = £2k pa

Due to inflation, your council spends £105m the following year (mostly on goods from the private sector and of course wages), same number of households = £2,100 pa

That, and the fact that Town Hall pensions are growing like topsy and already account for 25% of council tax payments. The more diversity outreach coordinators and climate change managers they appoint, the more council taxes will go up to pay for them and their retirement.

[markcoznottz]

waterwonder said:

Its a shame they didn't do a little more research and tell us what the director of Sky, DHL etc is on.

I can't say i was outraged by any of the figures but where the figures are justified by being comparable to the private sector I hope those individuals performance is appraised and dealt with in the same way as it would be in the private sector.

Those are private companies competing in the marketplace. If they want to pay thier directors vast wages they will have to justify it to thier shareholders. The public sector jobs mentioned are cardboard cut out non jobs, for the boys, no competition, no customer as such, just completely self serving with a guaranteed income (ie from us), must be a breeze.

[andy_s]

There are a lot of High Court Judges praying that they don't go the same way as politicians....

[Tangent Police]

The bottom line is that any form of public service is a luxury. In times of fatness, we can afford some lefthanded lesbian trombonist officers and an olympics, when the st hits the fan, we can't. We can't even afford some things which really are essential.

What's happened is that the people who are in fact providing this optional, luxury service have decided they deserve it, are worth lots of money and have taken it upon themselves to extend their scope and cost, until the end result is a debt of unfathomable hugeness.

So, in the meantime, the solution is to run as fast as possible to the EU for salvation..... Salvation for the people on the public service gravytrain. You and I, my friends are all going to be paying for this. If you can't, the law will take away your assets and perhaps your freedom.

This is what happens when you allow the people you put in charge to do the essential tasks for civilisation start calling the shots.

The snag and perhaps the most fked up feature is that in order to change the system, you have to ask their permission.

That Chaps, is the problem

[waterwonder]

markcoznottz said:

Those are private companies competing in the marketplace. If they want to pay thier directors vast wages they will have to justify it to thier shareholders. The public sector jobs mentioned are cardboard cut out non jobs, for the boys, no competition, no customer as such, just completely self serving with a guaranteed income (ie from us), must be a breeze.

Don't disagree however any director will have to meet objectives which are bourne out of the corporate stratergy. If not they'll be out on their arse.

There is no reason why the same accountability can't be levied for these public sector bod's. They have commities (as opposed to shareholders) coming out of their ears for exactly this purpose.

A simplified example would be: Delivering the olympics on time and on budget (any variances should be split into planning and operational). This in my view should be paid handsomely for it is a massive undertaking and undisputedly will bring the british economy (and therefore the tax payer) millions if not billions of pounds in revenue long term if the job is done well.

Now if performance (there are easily identifiable metrics) isn't up to scratch then it should be dealt with accordingly just like it would be in the private sector. But if it is then it should be paid as such too.

There are undeniably examples where public servants get fat cheques what ever the outcome. What i'm saying is i don't have a problem with the fat cheques but i want the performance to go with it!

Edited by waterwonder on Tuesday 3rd November 09:18

[hornetrider]

Merlot said:

Yes, higher end managers do get paid well and yes a huge benefit is of course the 'gold plated' pension, however there are downsides to being a public sector employee, compared to the private 'wealth producing' sector.

So apart from the massive salary, gold plated pension, job security for life... remind me of the downsides.

[Tangent Police]

hornetrider said:

Merlot said:

Yes, higher end managers do get paid well and yes a huge benefit is of course the 'gold plated' pension, however there are downsides to being a public sector employee, compared to the private 'wealth producing' sector.

So apart from the massive salary, gold plated pension, job security for life... remind me of the downsides.

The queue to get in the door.

[esselte]

Merlot said:

susanq said:

We're paying it because we're being told to or go to jail. I've given up trying to understand why our council tax continues to rise year after year.

Inflation?

Very, very simplified example:

If, for example, your council spends £100m a year, and you have 50k housholds = £2k pa

Due to inflation, your council spends £105m the following year (mostly on goods from the private sector and of course wages), same number of households = £2,100 pa

Edited by Merlot on Monday 2nd November 21:05

So you don't believe in cutting spending to suit your income? Why should public sector salaries increase without an equal increase in productivity?

Edited by esselte on Tuesday 3rd November 11:11

[anonymousposter]

HarryW said:

[Add the government grants (redistribution of general taxation so not really a grant) so the sum now reads more like - council expenditure = 150m less 50m in grants = 100m = the 2k per household as above.
However for the next year the expenditure is capped to say 155m (the council do a good job in keeping it down to near 3% increase) but the government grant is now down to 40m = leaving gthe council to find 115m = making it a 2k2 per household (now its a 10% increase for the bill payer, boo bad council).
This is exactly how we (more so down south btw) suffer year on year council tax increases above inflation unless you live in the labour heartlands that is anyone would think it was a voting ploy to make non labour councils suffer above inflation increases and get a bad press .

Why?

If the govt grant is cut by £10m from one year to the next, why don't the councils just cut their budget by £10m.

I do it. People up and down the country do it.

If I suffer a pay cut I have to cut my expenses - it's so effing simple. So why can't councils (Tory especially) do this?

[peenut]

waterwonder said:

Now if performance (there are easily identifiable metrics) isn't up to scratch then it should be dealt with accordingly just like it would be in the private sector. But if it is then it should be paid as such too.

i know one ex-director of a large blue-chip, household name company that wasn't up to scratch. He was let go with a huge payoff, pension etc and was working for another an equal role in an equally big company inside 3 months so that analogy doesn't work for me.