Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[albitz]

There are many such managers in the public sector. It woul be interesting to know how many of them are actually essential.
Having said that, the averaging of private sector salaries will have the same effect - figures quite low until you start to include senior people.

[HolyCount]

In my experience, Albs, neither of the two I mentioned ..... nor the Lord knows how many above them !!!!!

Actually, to be more accurate -- they are not "managers", but highly paid "box tickers" in "non-jobs"

[albitz]

Therein lies a big part of the problem imo HC.Jobs for the boys on the gravy train,it had to stop sometime and it looks like the time has come.

[HolyCount]

Therein lies a big part of the problem imo HC.Jobs for the boys on the gravy train,it had to stop sometime and it looks like the time has come.

I know, Albs ---- but a pound to a penny, it will be the lower end of the work force (pay wise) in both public and private sectors, that get the rough end of the pineapple !!!  The "non-jobs" wll protect themselves

[albitz]

Sadly, you may well be right. I hope not but.......

[MikeDundee]

Therein lies a big part of the problem imo HC.Jobs for the boys on the gravy train,it had to stop sometime and it looks like the time has come.

I totally agree with what you are saying in terms of senoir management, and in some cases higjly paid senior management outsourced on 2.5k per week, the fact is where I work costs are higher than any other local authority in the country, mainly due to top heavy management, needless to say things neeed to change and probably will, as some of these folks have no balls and don't fully back you up

[Nickbat]

I can see a general public sector strike on the cards. Not because of cuts per se, but because the bankers have still got their bonus payments, MP's have still got a grand a year rise, while freezing public sector wages and outgoing MP's still get a £60k pay off, while the lowest paid still get shafted!!

Sorry, HC, but "public sector" does not equate to "lowest paid", IMHO.

The private sector has far less job security, often less pension rights....and, more crucially, are often poorer paid these days .
 

Civil service has "lost" 100,000 jobs over the last three years --- more going (no job security). The VAST majority of civil servants earn less than £15k per annum, with a pension iro £6k per annum (for which they pay 3% of wages).

Top 10% earn probably 75% of the wage bill !!!!

However, crucially, I was not equating Public Sector to lowest paid!  Read the post again.

I take your point, HC, but:

 
"The Office for National Statistics calculates that public sector workers are now paid, on average, £23,648 a year — £1,200 more a year than their private sector counterparts.

The earnings of people employed by the state grew by an average of 2.3 per cent a year between 2001 and 2005, compared with growth of around 1.5 per cent for those employed by private firms. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7541821/Public-sector-pay-packages-increase-at-double-rate-of-private-sector-IFS-says.html

Nick -- I am disappointed to see you quoting "averages"... you are an intelligent man ---- far too bright to fall for "average stats" !!

In my office are 8 workers: 3 earn 12k, 3 earn 20k and 2 earn 16K --- (none near "average" quoted in the media) .... anyway -- their average wage is therefore £16k.

All well and good ---- add in the two managers on 40 & 50 k .... whay-hay ... we've all had a pay rise !!!!

The average is now £nearly 22k 

You are, of course, quite right to pull me up on that. (Especially as I am the first to say that a global temperature is a pointless statistic but that's another story!)

But, that said, my motive for posting that was to show that there is little to back up any assertion that public sector employees are actually worse off than private sector ones. There are rich and poor in both sectors. The government can do little (and why should they?) when it comes to how the private sector spends its income. But it does have a say in how public income (our money) is spent. As pointed out elsewhere, we need to do something about the debt and there is a lot of dead wood in the public sector...and I'm talking about the managers and consultants, not nurses and roadsweepers!

Leaving party politics aside, let's assume that the government is spending too much money. The question is where, not why, the axe will fall...and it is to this that fair people will judge the government. The moment that the executive services are not pruned, but instead instrumental in passing cuts down to frontline services, then we do have a valid reason to complain loudly.

But let's wait and see. 

[HolyCount]

I agree with the sentiments entirely, Nick. However, it is my great far that it will be the nurses, roadsweepers and the like who will be redressing the banker's follies, whilst they themselves, along with the public service "non-jobs" ( who account for the lion's share of the wages bill) go unscathed.

[Vamps]

In my experience, Albs, neither of the two I mentioned ..... nor the Lord knows how many above them !!!!!

Actually, to be more accurate -- they are not "managers", but highly paid "box tickers" in "non-jobs"

Fully agree, too much emphasis on ticking boxes to the extent that it gets in the way of the real work..

The Government needs to put it's money where it's mouth is though, they have the authority to remove many of these boxes or 'Performance indicators' I don't mean that the quality of work should not be checked, if you spit there will be a box to fill in.....

I am aware of a local authority who are still training workers on 'Contact Point' yet this government has said that this is to go, if this is the case the government needs to do it thus saving LA's considerable expense.....

So I am told.........