Public Service Salaries...
Discussion
So the Tories have said they'll freeze public sector pay to help battle the deficet and everyone's up in arms. But what from what I understand this is the case for pretty much the whole private sector anyway, I know salaries at my company haven't moved for two years.
Isn't it only to be expected that the situation in public service mirrors that or the private situation?
Isn't it only to be expected that the situation in public service mirrors that or the private situation?
baz1985 said:
All LA's are shedding posts, cutting budgets etc.......
Yeah, York City council are shedding 200 jobs. According to the BBC; bbc said:
"About 200 council posts are to be lost in York as part of plans to save £15m in the city over the next three years.
City of York Council said it should be possible to meet the reductions through measures such as staff turnover, retirements and redeployment.
Kersten England, the council's new chief executive, said she expected to be able to meet the savings target without any compulsory redundancies".
If it is possible to "meet the savings target without any compulsory redundancies" why the fCity of York Council said it should be possible to meet the reductions through measures such as staff turnover, retirements and redeployment.
Kersten England, the council's new chief executive, said she expected to be able to meet the savings target without any compulsory redundancies".
k didn't they do it before?The Tories need to take a hatchet to all the non jobs and waste in the public sector ASAP after the election.
My aunt and uncle are both councillors. They've been at this for at least the last 20 years and are institutionalised public sector employees.
Uncle tells me that three local councils are being merged into one larger council area. This is being done to save a lot of money by reducing the number of senior managers doing the same job for three small areas. Now one manager will do the same work for one larger area.
Sounds good doesn't it (setting aside the upheaval and new logo designs and stationery costs and all that jazz). But what about the sacked managers?
Oh, they're not sacked, he tells me. They'll be re-employed elsewhere within the council. The council's No.1 priority is to its employees (here was me thinking it was to its constituents, delivering value-for-money services) so they'll do everything they can to help them out.
So these demoted managers take a pay cut and that's where the savings come from? Well, no. They stay on the same salary for the next 2 years, their income is protected. And the council will do everything they can to promote these people back up the ladder over those two years so that they are back on the same wage when that two years is up.
So where's the saving? I can see where the costs will be, but I can't see any actual savings. He couldn't answer me.
Isn't that completely fking unbelieveable?
It is if you live in the private sector world where you are unemployed if your job becomes superfluous. In private-sector-land, though, you are on that gravy train and be damned if you are getting chucked off it.
Uncle tells me that three local councils are being merged into one larger council area. This is being done to save a lot of money by reducing the number of senior managers doing the same job for three small areas. Now one manager will do the same work for one larger area.
Sounds good doesn't it (setting aside the upheaval and new logo designs and stationery costs and all that jazz). But what about the sacked managers?
Oh, they're not sacked, he tells me. They'll be re-employed elsewhere within the council. The council's No.1 priority is to its employees (here was me thinking it was to its constituents, delivering value-for-money services) so they'll do everything they can to help them out.
So these demoted managers take a pay cut and that's where the savings come from? Well, no. They stay on the same salary for the next 2 years, their income is protected. And the council will do everything they can to promote these people back up the ladder over those two years so that they are back on the same wage when that two years is up.
So where's the saving? I can see where the costs will be, but I can't see any actual savings. He couldn't answer me.
Isn't that completely f
king unbelieveable?It is if you live in the private sector world where you are unemployed if your job becomes superfluous. In private-sector-land, though, you are on that gravy train and be damned if you are getting chucked off it.
MiniMan64 said:
So the Tories have said they'll freeze public sector pay to help battle the deficet and everyone's up in arms. But what from what I understand this is the case for pretty much the whole private sector anyway, I know salaries at my company haven't moved for two years.
Isn't it only to be expected that the situation in public service mirrors that or the private situation?
The whole media is outraged that Nurses and Teachers might have a pay freeze. Of course out in the real world when a company's expenditure exceeded it's income by 25% they would be doing a damn sight more than a wage freeze.Isn't it only to be expected that the situation in public service mirrors that or the private situation?
I know some of our clients have cut wages for all their employees.
I don't really know if this country is ready to face reality, which is impending national bankruptcy.
In my old game of teaching, I've realised that in my area, about 100 new teachers qualified for about 15 jobs (5 maternity) last year (in a shortage subject). I've heard a few stories about numbers of applicants and a local school had over 190 for a recent post. I've met a fair few life-then-teaching ex-industry/research staff re-training. It seems very popular.
It seems similar in medicine. I put a lot of students into Med Courses. A few mates got jobs and few had great difficulty. One of whom is now fixing broken ladygardens at the other end of the country. A local practice was recruiting a new doc and there were LOTS of applications.
At a funeral the other day, I met an old cousin who said the situation was the same for prospective cops in Wales.
I wonder if this has happened in the past. I assume it has. I wonder if there was a similar situation last recession and whether it was used as an opportunity to cut costs/improve services.
I have heard that next year, the adjacent county is to lay off about 100 teaching staff. My county is going to be "thinning out" some of the longer serving (thus most expensive staff). I can imagine there will be hell up about this.
Considering the oversupply of staff and the current economic climate, it seems ripe to get the knife out and start trimming. I can't see how cuts won't be made and I wonder if the unions are playing a dangerous game with "industrial" action, considering the number of out-of-work staff who could say "Ok, I'll do it, and for cheaper to boot".
Whilst I hear that staff are being laid off and further staff will be condensed, wouldn't it just be easier to say "We've decided to pay you a lot less and if you don't like it, go somewhere that pays better". Actually put supply/demand into action. I hear a lot of people saying "It will affect the quality of the staff" Rubbish! Do the best quality of staff need more cash? Do they get snaffled up by industry? In my recent time as supply, I saw a fair few new recruits and I'm not sure that the increased competition has resulted in better quality staff.
So, given the current oversupply of public sector staff, rather than maintaining the payscales and "condensing" numbers, is it a better idea to attack the payscale and let supply and demand fill the vacancies? Is it time that payscales reflected the amount of staff prepared to do the job?
(Lean times, the pay could be upped.....even regional flexibility.... if there are a shortage of staff in Central London, how about paying them MORE???).
It seems similar in medicine. I put a lot of students into Med Courses. A few mates got jobs and few had great difficulty. One of whom is now fixing broken ladygardens at the other end of the country. A local practice was recruiting a new doc and there were LOTS of applications.
At a funeral the other day, I met an old cousin who said the situation was the same for prospective cops in Wales.
I wonder if this has happened in the past. I assume it has. I wonder if there was a similar situation last recession and whether it was used as an opportunity to cut costs/improve services.
I have heard that next year, the adjacent county is to lay off about 100 teaching staff. My county is going to be "thinning out" some of the longer serving (thus most expensive staff). I can imagine there will be hell up about this.
Considering the oversupply of staff and the current economic climate, it seems ripe to get the knife out and start trimming. I can't see how cuts won't be made and I wonder if the unions are playing a dangerous game with "industrial" action, considering the number of out-of-work staff who could say "Ok, I'll do it, and for cheaper to boot".
Whilst I hear that staff are being laid off and further staff will be condensed, wouldn't it just be easier to say "We've decided to pay you a lot less and if you don't like it, go somewhere that pays better". Actually put supply/demand into action. I hear a lot of people saying "It will affect the quality of the staff" Rubbish! Do the best quality of staff need more cash? Do they get snaffled up by industry? In my recent time as supply, I saw a fair few new recruits and I'm not sure that the increased competition has resulted in better quality staff.
So, given the current oversupply of public sector staff, rather than maintaining the payscales and "condensing" numbers, is it a better idea to attack the payscale and let supply and demand fill the vacancies? Is it time that payscales reflected the amount of staff prepared to do the job?
(Lean times, the pay could be upped.....even regional flexibility.... if there are a shortage of staff in Central London, how about paying them MORE???).
Pay here (TfL) is essentially frizen - deal is RPI + 0.5% with a minimum of 0.5%. The fat end of bugger all really but in the current times I wouldn't really expect that. Given how much pressure we're under budget-wise and how much we're 'saving' (i.e. not spending which isn't quite the same) though we're probably going ot make a profit this year - from ourselves.
Someone on the radio the other day (some union rep I think) was saying that freezing public sector salaries or cutting jobs would be bad for the economy as these people all spend money on things.
The blinding stupidity of thinking that taking money out of the economy to hire people to spend money in the economy leaves me quite giddy.
The blinding stupidity of thinking that taking money out of the economy to hire people to spend money in the economy leaves me quite giddy.
Johnnytheboy said:
Someone on the radio the other day (some union rep I think) was saying that freezing public sector salaries or cutting jobs would be bad for the economy as these people all spend money on things.
The blinding stupidity of thinking that taking money out of the economy to hire people to spend money in the economy leaves me quite giddy.
Especially when a great deal of what they buy will be imported.The blinding stupidity of thinking that taking money out of the economy to hire people to spend money in the economy leaves me quite giddy.
OzzyR1 said:
Given how many voters are employed in the public sector one can't help but think that this could be a colossal foot-shooting excercise on the part of the Conservatives.
Time will tell I guess...
Well, they have said we will freeze public sector pay to protect your jobs. I think everyone in the public sector is in no doubt that there is unlikely to be much good news in the near future anyway so I don't think it will have much impact. Time will tell I guess...
Johnnytheboy said:
Someone on the radio the other day (some union rep I think) was saying that freezing public sector salaries or cutting jobs would be bad for the economy as these people all spend money on things.
The blinding stupidity of thinking that taking money out of the economy to hire people to spend money in the economy leaves me quite giddy.
Well, it doesn't generate any wealth, but it keeps parts of the economy turning over for the time being... no?The blinding stupidity of thinking that taking money out of the economy to hire people to spend money in the economy leaves me quite giddy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff