Public Sector is the place to be!
23 September 2010, 01:37 PM
#1
Owner of SNet
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Public Sector is the place to be!
Awesome stuff, staff vs salaries:
38,045 earn over £100,000
1,000 earn over £200,000
9,187 earn more than PM
10 GPs earn over £300,000
1 GP in Hillingdon PCT earns £475,000
17 teachers earn more than PM
331 BBC managers earn more than £100,000
362 local council employees earn more than PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918
TX.
38,045 earn over £100,000
1,000 earn over £200,000
9,187 earn more than PM
10 GPs earn over £300,000
1 GP in Hillingdon PCT earns £475,000
17 teachers earn more than PM
331 BBC managers earn more than £100,000
362 local council employees earn more than PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11319918
TX.
) for starters 
Trending Topics
23 September 2010, 02:29 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As usual, the fat cats at the top rake it in (as per industry btw!) and the "little people" get screwed.
I bet however, whenever someone says they work for the public sector, you get all angry about it and think we get paid loads. The same with teachers, they get loads of holidays right?
I bet however, whenever someone says they work for the public sector, you get all angry about it and think we get paid loads. The same with teachers, they get loads of holidays right?
Last edited by Clarebabes; 24 September 2010 at 05:58 PM.
23 September 2010, 02:46 PM
#11
My wife is a civil servant, has targets per day and realistically she can do them in half a day with no extra effort, the entire department are under the rule that if they show that they can do more work then the targets will rise. So basically doing as little as possible, making low targets but never exceeding them. Name one company which would allow it's staff to get away with this?
1-0 in the back on the net, get in there son!
23 September 2010, 03:09 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you know that?
My wife is a civil servant, has targets per day and realistically she can do them in half a day with no extra effort, the entire department are under the rule that if they show that they can do more work then the targets will rise. So basically doing as little as possible, making low targets but never exceeding them. Name one company which would allow it's staff to get away with this?
1-0 in the back on the net, get in there son!
My wife is a civil servant, has targets per day and realistically she can do them in half a day with no extra effort, the entire department are under the rule that if they show that they can do more work then the targets will rise. So basically doing as little as possible, making low targets but never exceeding them. Name one company which would allow it's staff to get away with this?
1-0 in the back on the net, get in there son!
I'm not a civil servant BTW, I work for the public sector, but we all get lumped in together. I bet your wife's redundancy package is awesome compared to mine. I've worked here 5 years and would still only get the statutory redundancy pay out, not enhanced and certainly no golden handshake!
23 September 2010, 03:12 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.s. I have never agreed to targets, but that is a Labour thing isn't it? Hence the reason why crime is the way it is and the NHS is having to pay for private treatment for patients on waiting lists.
Targets will only ever be a benchmark to work to and anything above and beyond goes out of the window. But as long as your wife hits them, some fat cat will be getting a slap on the back and a nice little pension out of it by showing how wonderful they are for introducing them!
Targets will only ever be a benchmark to work to and anything above and beyond goes out of the window. But as long as your wife hits them, some fat cat will be getting a slap on the back and a nice little pension out of it by showing how wonderful they are for introducing them!
23 September 2010, 03:33 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you know that?
My wife is a civil servant, has targets per day and realistically she can do them in half a day with no extra effort, the entire department are under the rule that if they show that they can do more work then the targets will rise. So basically doing as little as possible, making low targets but never exceeding them. Name one company which would allow it's staff to get away with this?
1-0 in the back on the net, get in there son!
My wife is a civil servant, has targets per day and realistically she can do them in half a day with no extra effort, the entire department are under the rule that if they show that they can do more work then the targets will rise. So basically doing as little as possible, making low targets but never exceeding them. Name one company which would allow it's staff to get away with this?
1-0 in the back on the net, get in there son!
If anyone in any business works harder and produces higher better results, then obviously, their targets should rise. The fact that they all agree not to work hard is shocking in my opinion and the whole department should be sacked!My wife works as a resourser at the police head quarters in our area. They are aLWAYS short staffed. Probably why they have all just been given a 2.55% pay rise!
Don't tar all public sector workers with the same brush!
Last edited by Gear Head; 23 September 2010 at 03:36 PM.
23 September 2010, 03:58 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Chris, at least there is someone who realises there is an alternative reality to the headlines. By the way, you know why we're suddenly hearing about all of this? Well, it's so the Government can get rid of us all and have a clear concience. The public will think great, those highly paid wastes of space are gone.
How they think voluntary organisations will pick up the tab for some essential services is beyond me. I love my job, but I do do it to pay my bills. I couldn't do this for free!
How they think voluntary organisations will pick up the tab for some essential services is beyond me. I love my job, but I do do it to pay my bills. I couldn't do this for free!
23 September 2010, 05:02 PM
#17
Public servants are the new Jews. The ***** needed someone to focus the country's hate on in the 30's, the government need someone now, and racism is banned, they haven't the bottle to go after economic migrants/illegal immigrants, call 'em what you will, or even, really the benefit cheats, so public servants are it
23 September 2010, 05:03 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
So your wife could do more but choses not to? Then she would be the exact sort of person I would get rid of! If anyone in any business works harder and produces higher better results, then obviously, their targets should rise. The fact that they all agree not to work hard is shocking in my opinion and the whole department should be sacked!
My wife works as a resourser at the police head quarters in our area. They are aLWAYS short staffed. Probably why they have all just been given a 2.55% pay rise!
Don't tar all public sector workers with the same brush!
If anyone in any business works harder and produces higher better results, then obviously, their targets should rise. The fact that they all agree not to work hard is shocking in my opinion and the whole department should be sacked!My wife works as a resourser at the police head quarters in our area. They are aLWAYS short staffed. Probably why they have all just been given a 2.55% pay rise!
Don't tar all public sector workers with the same brush!
Maybe some individuals do work very hard, but the way these things are run will always be less efficient than they could be. The hierarchy is really constructed based on length of service rather than how good you are at your job. In a private company the best people for the job will usually get it unless the person in charge doesn't mind the business being less efficient than it could be. But in that case it's the business owner's problem, not everyone else's (i.e., the tax payer).
The non-jobs aren't really the fault of the people who do the jobs, but rather the result of all the red tape and paperwork implemented by people further up in government. Obviously if a paying job is there then people will take it. But a lot of the resent for the public sector comes from all the money that seems to be wasted, even in frontline services like the policeforce, where paperwork and the like has a hugely negative effect on the service provided and increases costs greatly, so that everyone has to pay more for a poorer service. It's not the policeman's fault but the bureaucrats in charge. All the public sees is the fact they're poorer while a job has been created for someone else to sit at a desk filling out pointless forms.
And of course once these non-jobs have been established as a result of this red tape - with voters' livelihoods at stake - politicians are very averse to getting rid of them with cuts. Typical case of something that needs to be done and should be done for the benefit of the country, but because people will 'lose their jobs' (which arguably should never have existed in the first place) they shy away from it. What they don't see is the person who doesn't have a job somewhere else in the country because of the wealth being diverted to keep the non-job going. No one cares about that because they don't see it and it doesn't have any political effect.
23 September 2010, 05:47 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Doncaster, S. Yorks.
Posts: 21,415
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The papers are obviously spouting the usual b*llocks at the moment, but there is an element of truth in the simple fact that there is too much of a public sector drain in this country. Too much money thrown away on non-jobs or jobs that could definitely benefit from being given to the private sector. When private businesses make continual losses they naturally go bankrupt. The problem with the public sector is that people don't need to be worried about that because they'll be subsidised, especially when they make up more than 50% of GDP in this country. Obviously the politicians cannot disappoint that many people.
Maybe some individuals do work very hard, but the way these things are run will always be less efficient than they could be. The hierarchy is really constructed based on length of service rather than how good you are at your job. In a private company the best people for the job will usually get it unless the person in charge doesn't mind the business being less efficient than it could be. But in that case it's the business owner's problem, not everyone else's (i.e., the tax payer).
The non-jobs aren't really the fault of the people who do the jobs, but rather the result of all the red tape and paperwork implemented by people further up in government. Obviously if a paying job is there then people will take it. But a lot of the resent for the public sector comes from all the money that seems to be wasted, even in frontline services like the policeforce, where paperwork and the like has a hugely negative effect on the service provided and increases costs greatly, so that everyone has to pay more for a poorer service. It's not the policeman's fault but the bureaucrats in charge. All the public sees is the fact they're poorer while a job has been created for someone else to sit at a desk filling out pointless forms.
And of course once these non-jobs have been established as a result of this red tape - with voters' livelihoods at stake - politicians are very averse to getting rid of them with cuts. Typical case of something that needs to be done and should be done for the benefit of the country, but because people will 'lose their jobs' (which arguably should never have existed in the first place) they shy away from it. What they don't see is the person who doesn't have a job somewhere else in the country because of the wealth being diverted to keep the non-job going. No one cares about that because they don't see it and it doesn't have any political effect.
Maybe some individuals do work very hard, but the way these things are run will always be less efficient than they could be. The hierarchy is really constructed based on length of service rather than how good you are at your job. In a private company the best people for the job will usually get it unless the person in charge doesn't mind the business being less efficient than it could be. But in that case it's the business owner's problem, not everyone else's (i.e., the tax payer).
The non-jobs aren't really the fault of the people who do the jobs, but rather the result of all the red tape and paperwork implemented by people further up in government. Obviously if a paying job is there then people will take it. But a lot of the resent for the public sector comes from all the money that seems to be wasted, even in frontline services like the policeforce, where paperwork and the like has a hugely negative effect on the service provided and increases costs greatly, so that everyone has to pay more for a poorer service. It's not the policeman's fault but the bureaucrats in charge. All the public sees is the fact they're poorer while a job has been created for someone else to sit at a desk filling out pointless forms.
And of course once these non-jobs have been established as a result of this red tape - with voters' livelihoods at stake - politicians are very averse to getting rid of them with cuts. Typical case of something that needs to be done and should be done for the benefit of the country, but because people will 'lose their jobs' (which arguably should never have existed in the first place) they shy away from it. What they don't see is the person who doesn't have a job somewhere else in the country because of the wealth being diverted to keep the non-job going. No one cares about that because they don't see it and it doesn't have any political effect.
Excellent post.
23 September 2010, 05:47 PM
#20
Hang on Clare; I think your taking the op out of context here:
The OP basically refers to the sheer number public sector staff on £100K+ year salaries. This is where the public anger is aimed, and this is where the cuts need to go deep. Money that could be spent on countless of people "on the floor" (so to speak) getting their hand dirty and doing the actual required work. As often mentioned in the media, the public sector is top-heavy - too much upper/middle managment and not enough low level workers.
Sadly as always, the members of the old boy's club on those £100k+ wages and perks are untouchable, so whilst I call for cuts, as will the government. They will only cut the lower sector jobs, not the middle/upper management bloat. As there is no way they'll put someone of influence out of the job or on a reduced wage; just look at the banks that were bailed out with public money for proof, nobody had the ***** to stand up and say; "right lads no bonus this year, you bunch of f**k ups".
The OP basically refers to the sheer number public sector staff on £100K+ year salaries. This is where the public anger is aimed, and this is where the cuts need to go deep. Money that could be spent on countless of people "on the floor" (so to speak) getting their hand dirty and doing the actual required work. As often mentioned in the media, the public sector is top-heavy - too much upper/middle managment and not enough low level workers.
Sadly as always, the members of the old boy's club on those £100k+ wages and perks are untouchable, so whilst I call for cuts, as will the government. They will only cut the lower sector jobs, not the middle/upper management bloat. As there is no way they'll put someone of influence out of the job or on a reduced wage; just look at the banks that were bailed out with public money for proof, nobody had the ***** to stand up and say; "right lads no bonus this year, you bunch of f**k ups".
23 September 2010, 05:56 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
There are apparently civil servants who sit in their office's all day long and do nothing and aren't given anything to do as there is no work for them to do, it is cheaper to keep paying them rather than paying them off and having to pay out huge redundancies and pension packages. They even have a name for these sort of people (not a nasty name but a proper job type name)
windyboy
windyboy
23 September 2010, 05:56 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
There are apparently civil servants who sit in their office's all day long and do nothing and aren't given anything to do as there is no work for them to do, it is cheaper to keep paying them rather than paying them off and having to pay out huge redundancies and pension packages. They even have a name for these sort of people (not a nasty name but a proper job type name)
windyboy
windyboy
23 September 2010, 10:57 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having recently joined the public sector having been made redundant i have had to accept a large reduction in income.
certainly in my area public sector is still paid a lot less than the private sector.
certainly in my area public sector is still paid a lot less than the private sector.
23 September 2010, 11:16 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why employ five or more public facing cops and important support staff when you can waste it on someone who hasn't left the nick in over 10 years and doesn't have a clue what policing is all about?
Cuts need to be made to the police, but not the front line. Get rid of these people who have been fast-tracked to positions of authority with little experience. They spend all of their time trying to think up ideas on how to get to the next rung up the ladder rather than making hings better for the community they are supposed to serve.
23 September 2010, 11:50 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Data from the Office of National Statistics last week (ONS).
The average public sector worker is paid MORE than the private sector.
Ignoring pensions the figures are £539 per week vs £469 (15% more)
Include pensions and the gap widens to £615 vs £475 (29% more)
Average hours in the private sector are also longer (too late tonight to find the data) and the private sector has lost most of the final salary pensions with pay freezes and changes to terms commonplace. It's time the public sector was addressed to balance things out a bit.
It amuses me how many on here claim to work hard but are continually posting - time their empoyers did a time and motion study on them
Gordo
Last edited by Gordo; 23 September 2010 at 11:54 PM.
23 September 2010, 11:54 PM
#26
I work in the public sector and the senior positions within are disgraceful ,the head of my organisation and his deputy have taken a £400,000 lump sum .an estimate of £6000-£8000 a month pension,and guess what they walked straight into another job ,which was the job that did previously,but now as the CEO and underling ,on the same 200k plus a year but with no pension contributions.
Last edited by rallycol; 23 September 2010 at 11:56 PM.
24 September 2010, 07:38 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A big town with sh1t shops: Northampton
Posts: 21,366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our public sector company is different to the councils etc. because we are "publicly funded" and we are not Civil Servants, who I agree get a very good deal.
Last edited by Clarebabes; 24 September 2010 at 06:00 PM.
24 September 2010, 08:45 AM
#28
I saw some wastage when at the Police, twenty five grand tape machine for backups bought then never used as something newer and shinier was found, I was on a team of two which after I left grew to 27, apparently people scratching round for some work to do, including £400 a day contractors.
But, most people there didnt get paid much compared to private sector and did a good job, some useless twonks or those sitting it out to retirement, just there for the pension but basically a really good bunch of people.
Too much I think is wasted on diversity officers, liason officers and all the other multi cultural touch feely bollocks.
But, most people there didnt get paid much compared to private sector and did a good job, some useless twonks or those sitting it out to retirement, just there for the pension but basically a really good bunch of people.
Too much I think is wasted on diversity officers, liason officers and all the other multi cultural touch feely bollocks.
