To say - public sector workers pay tax

[woundedplacerias]

Sorry, that's it. It's a taat and I'm tired and have had but ffs - public sector workers and tax payers are not two discrete groups.

Well, obvious examples where I work would be taking positive action early where people are suspended on full pay, failing to do their job properly, doing jobs that are no longer necessary. Most people of course are working hard and doing a good and valuable job, but there are too many of the other sort - far more than would have be tollerated by any of my private sector employers.

PrettySophisticated

They are already done, but it is interesting that you don't mention anything about pupil or patient well-being. Progress made etc.

My original post was in the context of waste. These things are all wasteful and remove funds that should he helping children/patients. They all take far too long to resolve in the public sector, ime.

they take time to resolve but they are not as simple (in most cases) as x did wrong, y should do this to improve.

To try and make schools and hospitals run to private sector polices is wrong as these areas are not profit based and throwing/freeing up money doesn't always work.

They're no more or less straightforward in the public sector than they are in private but they are dealt with far less efficiently.

Having seen both sides I don't think the "taxpayers" money brigade are wrong to think that sometimes "their" money isn't spent as wisely as it could be.

We will have to agree to disagree, there are areas that are considerably less straightforward to deal with in various areas of the public sector as you are dealing with children/teenagers.

No, when someone's on long term sick leave/suspension how would bringing this to a conclusion make any difference to the young people, other than by freeing up money for their care?

sick leave and suspension have legal requirements that have to be adhered to before the person is removed. In some cases this will involve a longer period of time.

But you are ignoring the fact that in the private sector if you have a material that is below par (for want of a better word) you discard it and get a new material in, if the materials are still not at the required level you change suppliers.

In schools you are unable to do this, a business framework does not support this.

Or do you advocate not supporting the lower ability/SEND pupils?

What? I'm talking about staff not performing properly, not the children. Of course there's a legal process, that's the same everywhere. It's my experience that's it's allowed to drift with staff on full pay much longer when it's public money. What I really object to is funds being wasted that should be going to the SEND students

You are cherry picking areas without looking at the whole situation.

You are talking about getting rid of people that are ill without seeming to even try and resolve the issues surrounding the problem.

Getting rid of someone may solve the initial "waste" but if you haven't looked in to the cause then the replacement will go sick and the situation will just go around in a circle until no one wants the job.

Which is what is happening in teaching at the moment.

But. It's private business and enterprise which generates the wealth and money that then feeds the public sector

I think some people have the idea that the private sector generates wealth some of which is captured via tax and redistributed via expenditure in the public sector, and so the public sector (and by proxy all it's employees) are mere consumers of economic output.

This idea is wrong. What the public sector does is as much a part of the overall economy as the private sector. A social worker contributes to GDP in the same way as someone working on a factory assembly line.

The difference between public and private sector is that the output of private sector is determined directly by market forces, whereas what the public sector produces is controlled by politicians who take a view on what the voters/taxpayers would collectively like the proportion of their income diverted to tax to be spent on.

Also, the private sector depends on the public - where would private enterprise be without a state education system? With honourable exceptions, employers are very quick to complain of the quality of education but they won't put money into training staff.

There are a lot of misconceptions about the public sector.

Lots of misconceptions about the private sector too tbf.

Not all private sector workers get pay rises or big bonuses despite what some think.

Until he changed jobs my private sector working DBro hadn't had a pay rise for 5 years either. It isn't just a public sector phenomenon.

BoneyBackJefferson I infer that you are having difficulties in your teaching job? I get that this would be demoralising, but I'm not sure that it's really an argument against "waste" - ie if organisations are run more effectively with better efficiency then everyone benefits - especially those the service is there to benefit.

theortician - how does a social worker contribute to GDP in their role though? They spend their wages and consume other, commercial, services which does generate GDP, but as there isn't any commercial output from social work (or nursing/teaching/policing etc) how does this in itself contribute? That's not a problem, those are necessary services.

LordPeterWimsey - Neither private nor public sectors should have to train up school leaving staff to get them to the level of school leaver. That's what businesses take exception to.

It's worrying though, if school leavers are low standard, if they can't get into the private sector and then either end up in unemployment or working in a public sector role - meaning that public sector is picking up the tab - the tab clocked up by inefficient public sector provision of schooling. So the public sector has to provide even more on stretched resources.

The whole machine needs more fuel, and it's private commerce which will bring it in. So please don't bash the private sector in that respect.

icy121

You would be wrong to infer that from what I have written.
Part of my point is that what the private sector classes as "waste" is sometimes a requirement of other jobs, and that getting rid of staff is not always the "effective" and most "efficient" way to proceed.

The problem is trying to get people to understand that "effective" and "efficient" often differs in different jobs.

I did wonder if you were property when you said you've a job generating £...

Ha! I am late to the party, but had exactly the same 'hang on, some areas of the public sector directly generate money too..' response as throwing. And yep, I started my own public sector (central government) career in an exec agency which deals in property matters...

More broadly, though, I think we need to acknowledge the necessity of (invariably public sector) institutions to economic activity. Agree the relationship is symbiotic.

Agree also that it's difficult to generalise. Having worked in private, public and voluntary sectors, I agree that there is some avoidable waste in the public sector. I think it's mostly true that pay is better in the private sector while working hours and pensions are better in the public sector, but there are of course plenty of counter-examples to all of that.

I work in a profession which pays far far better outside of government, probably even if you work it out as an hourly wage. But the flexibility it gives me is brilliant - I am a single parent and I simply would not be able to hold down an equivalent job in the private sector (nor would I wish to if I could - I like my work, but I don't live for it).

icy121 : I think you've misunderstood the point I was making. I'm not bashing the private sector, just making the point that the traffic isn't all one way. Without a public sector that works well, the conditions for the private sector to work effectively aren't there. I'm not suggesting that we don't also need the private sector, but that the two aren't in opposition.

Also, on an unrelated point, some of the things people complain about in the public sector are actually problems of large, complex organisations and aren't specific to the public sector at all. Just look on here to see what people's experience is of interacting with energy companies, for example...

Can I clarify that police don't get free McDonalds in the UK.

polkadotties Where are all these "thousands of employers" who are offering DB pension schemes?!

According to this article, written in January this year there are are fewer than 10 FTSE 100 companies offering DB pensions! They are all but obsolete in the private sector because they are simply unaffordable!

I cannot begin to imagine what the public sector pension liability is for the next 20 or 30 years but it must be astronomic. I doubt that the country can afford it. We are almost bankrupt as it is!

The plain fact of the matter is that DB schemes in the public sector (even the newer, career average ones) are far too generous, in that people are paid out far more than is put in. Very few of the schemes are funded, so they have to be paid out of current tax revenue.

But the pension is part of an overall salary package. If they make the pension less generous then staff would need to be paid the market rate whilst they are actually employed. A lot of public sector jobs pay significantly less than similar in the private sector. Not just two or three thousand pounds a year less, but maybe half of what the salary would be in the private sector. People are willing to work for those salaries because of the pension that goes with it, because it's making a sacrifice now for a potential long term gain, if you live long enough to draw the pension.

To achieve a private pension at the same level as a 2/3rd public sector final salary scheme would entail paying half of your take home pay into a private pension.

But we aren't actually getting final salary pensions anymore. Keep up.

user on the one hand, many public sector employees DO still have considerable benefits from final salary pensions - both those yet to retire and those already retired.
On the other, new entrants to work in the public sector are less likely to be offered a final salary scheme.

Just to confuse matters further, some posters refer to private company DB schemes, which are increasingly rare and certainly not as common in the private sector as they are in the public sector, as 80sMum points out correctly.

However, as a pension analyst polkadotties you will know the difference between a private company DB scheme (yes, they exist, but are a tiny percentage of overall pension provision) and a Defined contribution Personal Pension Plan - where there is usually no guaranteed pension income and certainly no automatic "5% p.a. Increase" !!!! Not quite sure why you are brought that up.

The payoff between private and public sector was always historically - job security, DB pension and relatively generous terms and conditions (not pay!) of employment in public sector against job insecurity, much less generous pension provision and terms and conditions (for the vast majority) but potentially better earnings in private sector.

This distinction has become a bit muddled and blurred over recent years but is BROADLY true. I deal with public sector employees approaching retirement in relatively non-high-flying roles, who have accumulated really substantial benefits for retirement - such that those in the private sector could only dream about! - and yet do not seem to realise how well they are placed.

Also, those who seem to think that workers in the private sector all have vast salaries - I now earn considerably less (after taking into account wage inflation) running my own small business than I did as a teacher 12 years ago. And I am typical in my friendship group - a mix of medical bods, teachers, small business owners. Those in the private sector are successful but certainly not massively high earners. And the portion they have to save towards their pensions is HUGE.

The pension thing really get's me cross , there are a number of people who are ignorant about the fact that the vast majority of public sector pensions are contributory . I work less than full-time on paper , but do full-time hours with unpaid overtime , I pay £260 a month into my pension , nowhere near what I should be doing in reality .

I started my pension 18 years ago, when stakeholder pensions were introduced, and have paid in as much as I could possibly afford since then. I converted it into a SIPP about 10 years ago, in order to have greater investment choice.

In my present employment, I earn £18k a year and pay £690 a month gross into my pension. My employer contributes £45 a month (which is a massive improvement on the big fat zero that they used to contribute before auto enrolment started a couple of years ago).

My pension fund is currently worth £5k less than it was 3 months ago.