What, if anything, would public sector mass walk-outs acheive?

There are also parts of the public sector that can't walk out and strike and are being cut to the bone...a pay freeze and the redundancy boards start sitting very soon for the three tranches that are being made redundant. These are the people that will be expected to step in and do the fire fighting when the rest of the public sector strikes.

I accept that there isn't the money there and that things have to change. What we need is an adult discussion on what services we want and how we afford those. If Defence isn't a sacred cow and ring fenced, then I don't see why the NHS or Overseas Aid should be either. We also need to look long and hard at EU costs - maybe we want to stay in, but pay far less than we do now.

A public sector mass walkout would achieve nothing except media vilification of health sector workers, firemen, police etc.

If you really want to make the government stop and think our only real power is as economic units.

That is all 'they' want us to be - how much can we earn, how much will we spend -. Our humanity was surrendered thirty years ago when Thatcher came to power.

How about a policy of only buy what you need. Food, shelter, clothing. Think how often we buy something to cheer ourselves up, that little retail buzz and how fast it disappears . How much money we would save!

How about we choose a day and (spread the word) everybody takes an afternoon off from shopping together. It would be a mass action (like a flash mob) that would have a noticeable economic effect. Maybe we would also get some of our humanity back.

Nowanewme, it's not about what public services we are willing to give up. It's about what public services can we afford.

Clearly we cannot afford the status quo. Not with an annual overspend of £170billion a year.

I don't want to see any services cut. I'd actually like to see services improve. But we can't afford it so we have to have, what we can afford.

I'd like to fly business class when I go away. But I can't afford it so I accept I must go economy. Same principle here.

alibaba - my bad, it was Siasl who made the comment re pensions.

But what public services are you willing to give up?

There is an assumption that all of the unrest is about how much we are paid. Personally i think i earn a reasonable wage for the work i do. You could double my money but it still wouldnt mean i could cope with the stupid workload that is being created. It actually wouldnt even make me feel more valued for the work i do. Its not about money its about attitude and reasonableness about what people can acheive without the pressure becoming too much.

Hi Lego You probably were referring to what I said.

Yes of course public sector workers pay taxes but that money is coming ultimately from the private sector.

Let's say you give your son £100 a month. Then out of that you ask for £20 for board money. Have you really made anything? No.

Now lets say son goes out to work and he earns £100 a month. You know ask for £20. Have you made anything now? Yes.

I'm not here public sector bashing. Its a crucial part of any economy. But the size of it has to be in proportion to the rest of the economy. Its only logical that if the private sector contracts, then so does the public sector.

somewhere back along this thread there was some talk about how it is only being 'private sector taxes' that pays for the public sector? well, i just wanted to point out that public workers also pay tax! so i think you will find that we all pay for it!

yes, agreed that on threads like this that it always ends up comapring private and public. it's always the same in the UK, it's a general attitude of wanting to 'bring everyone' down, rather that bring bring people up.

hows about rather than taking more away from services we close all the tax loopholes that seem to be working very well for lots of companies right now and some individuals who get away without paying the correct amount of tax year after year? there are always other ways!

suprisingly, i take back what i said before about there being more public sympathy. there isn't. or at least not until something really serious affects those themselves and they go to find there is not help quick enough or not enough help when they need it. of course there are always those this wont effect because money talks in this country and it is money that buys you choice and other options.

lastly, the government know they are cutting hard and won't admit its a big risk. being crafty as they are, they are busy right now thinking of how to change the laws regarding UNIONS so that they will be unable to strike. so it is same old, same old, same old...

Well that's one aspect of it. But what about all the reports of people being unable to do their own job due to the number of other demands placed on them. Or people who have three times the work to do that they can reasonably manage even with overtime. People care not just for themselves, but also for the people they are letting down. After reading a lot of the stories I will certainly think twice before condemning something as a "poor service".

But there is another side to the coin. I speak to staff in other departments, less public facing roles shall we say, and they are struggling to find enough work to get them through the day. Yes really, although I bet some of that is macho bullsh*t. I reckon this is the case in many organisations, that the balance has got way out of kilter between where the resources are and where they're actually needed. Funny how it's the most essential services that always seem to lose out.

Alibaba, do you think the public sector workers should lie down and be walked all over?.

gaelic - that has never happened to me, but it was common in the organisation I used to work in - a huge blue chip company and one of the most recognised brands in the world.
Whenever there was a wave of redundancy, or jobs were being outsourced there would be an exercise to 'relocate' as many of the staff as possible into other jobs. Regardless of whether they were suitable or not.

I'm sure a lot of it was motivated by how much money it would have cost to make these people redundant, but shoving someone with 20 years+ experience into a much more junior role (that they incidentally couldn't even do effectively) wasn't unusual at all.

Anyway, I'm not saying that things aren't dreadful atm for public sector workers - I know they are. I just feel that the way the unions are talking, and the possibility of huge strikes etc does nothing to help the situation, and may well make things much worse.

Much of the public sector is not performing a supporting role. And it is not just funded by private sector taxes. SO that doesn't seem to be a very good description at all.

Yes its unfortunate. A good mate of mine is a nurse in A&E so I have a good idea of what goes on.

But there are knobheads to deal with in all jobs. Some more than others.

NG2 that no way to talk about Lansley :o and it's going to get worse under the Tories.

You know what is also really telling. Almost without exception people who admit they work in the private sector think that we are moaning about pay and conditions, and moan at us back. The fact that many public sector workers are bemoaning the fact that they are unable to do the jobs they trained for seems to fall on deaf ears. I also have not read anything comparable from private sector workers. So either you don't care as long as you get paid, or you don't in fact have the same problems.

"it's a supporting role in the country which is paid for through taxes of the private sector."

Much of the public sector is not performing a supporting role. And it is not just funded by private sector taxes. SO that doesn't seem to be a very good description at all.

Yes its unfortunate. A good mate of mine is a nurse in A&E so I have a good idea of what goes on.

But there are knobheads to deal with in all jobs. Some more than others.

"are the general public going to accept that there will be a drop in service provision.

What, if anything, would public sector mass walk-outs acheive?

Bugger the country's credit rating, most probably. Which would make getting out of this hole even harder.

We're all being shafted.

Wrong tense. We have already been shafted (some have done it to themselves, most hapless victims).

are the general public going to accept that there will be a drop in service provision.

Why should I be ashamed of myself? I didn't say anything about pensions?

I'm well aware of all the problems with public sector pensions, as I said both my parents were public sector workers their whole lives.

gaelicsheep - it is sour grapes, and a lot of that has to be laid at the door of the media. If you read through this thread, the kind of gold-plated pensions that people associate with the public sector are actually only available to a select few at the very top of the paygrades/career ladder.
And there are several references here to bankers etc as if they are representative of the private sector. They aren't.

In reality, the experiences of private and public sector workers on average salaries are probably very similar. More work, less pay, less security and feeling vastly under-appreciated.

You know what is worst of all about this thread? The sour grapes. "I have it bad too so go screw yourselves" - that's what it boils down to. Never mind that some of these people are the ones who might save your life one day (if they still have a job).

Siasl again - local authority pensions are funded. They cost the taxpayer nothing but the initial employers' contribution.

"Now that public sector pay is 20% higher than private sector pay". Can you post figures/links to the wide ranging study that backs up that statement please siasl? Thanks.

^^ so if we can't afford so many public servants anymore, are the general public going to accept that there will be a drop in service provision.
I read earlier of a woman who was 'shocked' that her local authority told her to carry a torch because three lights in her street were not working. Do me a favour. People will need to get used to doing more for themselves and to lower standards and charters when the cuts have taken their toll.
In my department, I know of two people who would be defined as 'slackers'. That actually doesn't mean that they don't do their job - they do. But they do no more. The rest of us keep on doing more and more. Who are the fools?
I am fed up of people being described as clockwatchers etc when they actually do their job. Why should employers expect so much free overtime? Because they hold the silent threat of job losses over our heads thats why.
And to come back to the gold plated pension. Alibaba, you should be ashamed of yourself. I entered a contract with a defined pension at the end of it. I am not rich, I do not lead a luxurious lifestyle. I love my job in the PS and I am very good at it. My pay is not high. My pension has been eroded and eroded over the years. The terms of the contract keep changing and not in my favour. I will be lucky to retire on a pension of more than £5000 a year. I can't top this up as I can't afford to, I can't work longer hours as I have a disabled child. If you would give up half your salary for a 'gold plated pension', do it. Get a job in the public sector - teaching, policing, nursing, firefighting, social work, local authority - it's not like there isn't a choice of careers is it and, after all, they are all cushy numbers aren't they.
Sheesh.

At the end of the day, if the economy was solid, we weren't up to our eyeballs in debt then I'd have every sympathy for the public sector to feel aggrieved.

But the economy is a basket case, our nation's finances managed for the last decade plus by coco the clown. The only countries with a worse debt ratio than ours are the likes of Afghanistan & Iraq. We're doing a tiny bit better than Iceland & Ireland so there's small comfort there.

So in that context, sorry we just cannot afford so many public servants anymore. It's not about ideology or public vs private. It boils down to a simple truth.

Spending > income = not good.

I work at a grade defined as Band 6 in the NHS- my choice. I have 25 years of experience and the 'promotional' runs on the board to prove my ability and skill. I am part of a small team that runs 3 of the most expensive bits of kit in the hospital. I provide 24 hour cover in a 1:6 rotation.

If I were 2 years qualified, a Band 5, I could go and work in the local private hospital where I would get a £5,000 a year- yes, I wrote that correctly!- pay rise, rising to £10,000 after 3 years service, plus employer pension contributions. The would be no on call whatsoever, and my training needs would be identified and funded. Most of my colleagues would be part-time and semi-retired, somewhat set in their ways and would have chosen to go private because it's way less busy and stressful than an NHS hospital (I'd spend a fair bit of my time filing, in fact!- folders, if not my nails...). All my 'clients' will have been self-selected via wealth, medically selected as posing few risk complications; and would be packed into the back of an NHS ambulance should anything unforeseen happen.

How then am I in any way being paid '20% more' that that band 5 in the private sector?

You can come back and tell me of someone you know who sits on their public rear all day and gets paid a fortune.

That is the nature of the beast, isn't it? There will always be perceived exceptions.

Public sector pay was was always historically lower than their private counterparts' for a number of reasons:

1-Many 'public' jobs (think social care, health etc) are regarded as vocations; the sort of people drawn to them wouldn't necessarily put wealth accrual as number one career ambition.

2-Most are women who historically accept lower rates of pay.

3-Job security and pension were traded against pay.

4-'Perks' included free, cleaned uniforms, subsidised meals and parking.

5-The government accepted that NHS workers felt they were not morally in a position to strike therefore there was an agreement that the pay bargaining bodies would be treated more sympathetically.

However:
1- The Public demanded a higher level of qualification from its NHS staff. Degrees replaced diplomas; DCs with perhaps a higher sense of entitlement and A levels entered the NHS (not necessarily a bad thing!); Society as a whole became more me, me, me (think Thatcher)

2- More men appeared in the work force, drawn by better pay and higher technical and professional requirements.

3- Job security is disappearing fast. The new pension deal is considerably less 'generous' than before, like most people's.

4- All these 'perks' are long gone! We pay market rates.

5- The governmental gloves are well and truly off, so is it any wonder that the NHS trades unions recognise that they feel forced to countenance the same tactics as any other industrial group?

As for: (Q: )
"The fact that anyone in the public sector gets a final salary pension is a total disgrace (though thankfully not all do any more)". Why?

If you'd accepted lower pay for your working life, based on a future pension calculated on the above, why shouldn't you expect them to deliver when the day came? Don't forget that the vast majority of public sector workers are on pretty much minimum wage.

And "I would happily take a 50% pay cut to get my hands on such a pension." - but what if the year before you were due to collect that pension, suddenly the rules changed? Would you still give 50% of your current salary based on that possibility?