Public sector faces pay cuts, says Alistair Darling

[mateykatie]

ALISTAIR DARLING, the chancellor, today warns public sector workers they need to follow the example of the private sector and accept wage cuts if they want to hang on to their jobs.

Signalling an assault on public sector pay and bonuses, starting with the highest-paid employees, Darling said it was time for a change of culture.

?What is being paid has sometimes lost the relationship it ought to have with what someone actually does. Once that happens, it?s not only unfair, it?s actually grossly inefficient,? he said in an interview with The Sunday Times.

He cited the example of private sector firms, two-thirds of which are planning wage freezes or cuts this year as an alternative to redundancies.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6999958.ece

I wish Alistair Darling was PM instead of Brown. He seems to be one of the few remaining Labour politicians who is on rare occasions honest, instead of spouting the Brown/Balls "Labour investment versus Tory cuts" lies.

Oh come on Twinset - you mean without responsibility for running a dept or being a coordinator of some sort. Don't do yourself down - teaching is nothing but responsibility, especially if you are teaching GCSE and A level, and undertaking a pastoral role like form tutor.

There is no way you can be an effective teacher without being responsible as well as being a substitute mum, social worker, careers guidance, agony aunt, voice of reason, sweatshirt finder, lunch provider and problem solver, and that's just for your colleagues, before you get to the kids! Teachers deserve and need their holidays!

The one bit of the public sector that could do with a wage freeze or a pay cut (having just seen the pay scales) are some of those at the EU. The EU civil servants went on strike recently as they were told they may not get their 3.8% payrise this year. This is despite countries like Latvia and Lithuania making public sector workers redundant and imposing 30% pay cuts in some cases.

And as far as I know, the buggers don't pay tax!

"The UK Armed Forces are hearing buzzes about redundancy with the minimum pay off and the Govt last year asked for a legal opinion from the EU on their position if they stopped paying public sector pensions."

We heard the same rumblings too - especially the one about reneging on pensions. Like you, my husband would rather take a pay cut than lose his job but there would be limit to how much of a pay cut we could take.

Apparently, they're reorganising the Div structure to get rid of two Div HQs - this will mean a loss of several staff positions and a resulting cull in more senior officers (full Colonel and above). A knowledgable chap we were chatting with was saying that redundancies will have to be carried out carefully so as not to discourage those lower down the ranks (Captains and Majors etc) who may PVR because they see their chances shrinking. In actual fact, as far as the Army is concerned there is a PVR problem at senior Maj/new Lt Col level and there are ot enough cadidates to go forward for the next two tranches at ACSC (2011 and 2012).

According to rumour (never 100% reliable!) more redundancies will be sought from amongst the "dead wood" of people who've reached as high as they're going to go.

Personally, I'd rather we took a pay cut - it would hurt as we're living on one wage, me up here and M down in London but it would be better than losing his pension and having to start from scratch to build a decent savings pot. I can't remember where I read this but I think the AF pension at M's rank equates to something like £17,000 a year on top of his salary - that's huge and there's no way we could make that up.

Problem with the 'dead wood' is that many are Lt Col equivalent, who can't get promoted because the RN is so small, and the Col/Brig equivs are going nowhere either. Dh has 4 years and 2 days to go til he retires, so I don't want him redundant quite yet thank you. He needs to finish his career and then go, although he would take an extension if offered. If he leaves when he is supposed to, then his pension is very good, although he will start job hunting once he is in his final appointment, and if anything suitable comes up he will apply.

I thought competition was fierce for ACSC, certainly is in the RN.

The other thing to make one smile (not), is that when googling statutory redundancy terms, it appears that HM Forces are not entitled to statutory redundancy in any case, so presumably, it would be goodbye with lump sum and pension if of pensionable age, and no redundancy money. Nice!,

I think the idea with the Army is that by cutting the HQ staff, then they can ask opeiople who have only a couple of years to run to resign - I don't know how workable that is and if, indeed, that's how they'll go about implementing the job cuts.

As for ACSC, they're so short of people for next year's course that they're holding an extraordinary promotion board in Feb next year to preselect for ACSC that year. Apparently the PVR rate is really high at that level. I always thought competition was fierce too as ACSC is what sets you up for promotion beyond Lt Col level, so we were really surprised to hear it.

Why does it not surprise me that the Forces are exempt from statuary redundancy pay?

Presumably, as MPs are public sector, they'll be taking pay cuts too.

I remeber seeing a Tory presentation on tv about "civil service" cuts and the civil servants were represented by faceless cardboard cut outs wearing bowler hats. It made me so the civil service encompasses DWP, prison service, revenue and customs and many more organisations which are, in the main, staffed by people who have no connection with the faceless bureaucrats portrayed. The demonisation of the civil service in that way just make wage cuts more and more popular with Joe public.

I think it will be difficult for any government to cut public sector wages across the board without being seen to do something about those at the top first.

I think it is the Civil service at the top who will be culled first. I know HMRC are short staffed - that started years ago when they closed various local offices, BUT there are presumably some areas of the Civil service that are overstaffed or could be more productive. I am always aghast at the amount of civil servants employed by MoD for example. Whilst I understand that that will include various scientists and met officers for example, I still think the MoD could be run with greater efficiency and less civilian personnel.

JCScot - I don't see why people with a couple of years to go would resign unless their pension was made up to the levels of leaving. It is a difference of 4K a year between leaving now and when his time is up. I do think that the RN are short changed as Cdrs have to leave at 53, whereas I understand the Army Lt-Cols can stay until 55, therefore getting two more years salary and 2k more per year pension and increased presumably lump sum.

"I do think that the RN are short changed as Cdrs have to leave at 53, whereas I understand the Army Lt-Cols can stay until 55, therefore getting two more years salary and 2k more per year pension and increased presumably lump sum."

I didn't know that - I thought that pay and conditions were all the same now we were all "Purple". In the Army, a full commission last until you're 55, unless you're a Brigadier or above (in which case you can serve until 65). That is unfair. I think anyone who accepted redundancise would have to recieve some form of payout - otherwise, where's the incentive to retire early?

I'm sure I read somewhere that there will be cuts at the MoD - there needs to be; far too many civil servants for the size of the Forces.

Dh full career commission - joined in 1979, has to leave at 53 as a Cdr, unless extended.

I dunno about the forces, but I heart custardo. Haven't laughed out loud in ages, and I agree completely.

Wastwinsetandpearls you are a rare breed. Someone who loves their job, feels priviledged to do it, not stresses or phased by the work, rewarded appropriately. You must be such a good teacher. I bet you are a natural, hence it comes so comfortably for you. Good on ya mrs!

As a mw I get about the same as a teacher, and I sometimes feel paralysed with fear in my job

My husband works in the public sector and they have been reducing the number of people working there. Not making people redundant but not replacing them when they leave. There used to be 3 people in the department doing the same job now there is just my husband - oddly he has two managers - for one worker?

It is well known the public sector is inefficient. Guardian.

My DP is a management consultant (and he's not spotty, just as all public sector workers aren't lesbians ) and he says the inefficiencies in the public sector are incredible and they are thoroughly dispiriting places to work.

Not sure that is entirely true Swedey - many Forces establishments are great places to work as are many schools. I enjoyed the Local Government office I used to work in immensely; couldn't say the same for the HMRC office I worked in though!

I think it'd be difficult for lots of the public sector workers to be lesbian, especially the submariners, as they are male!

Swedey - I think it entirely depends which part of the public sector you're talking about. For example in Local Government (what I know about) the inefficiencies in some departments are huge. But the smaller, less politically important departments are often chronically under-resourced due to years of cuts and frozen posts and are now pretty much running on fresh air.

Attempts to make the public sector more efficent always seem to have the reverse affect.

The over paid fat cats always keep their jobs. Look at the nhs for example.

I'm public sector and haven't until recently found it a depressing or inefficient place to work (though I work in a small organisation so can't speak for big local authorities or central departments). Very worried about this though - at the moment, people where I work are leaving without being replaced, and there are likely to be redundancies in the next financial year. I can't reveal what I do without making myself identifiable, but demand for our services has no connection with the economic cycle - there isn't going to be less work in the next few years just because there are fewer people to do it. Plus this will really seriously affect our ability to recruit once times get better, because we're competing directly with the City for good people. People are prepared to take a pay cut for quality of life and interesting work - I lost £10K a year when I took my present job, and I've never regretted it - but not if it means losing half their salary or more. Who can afford that if they live in London? (Before anyone says we could move out of London, we could move if Parliament moved, but not otherwise.) Darling's on a different planet if he thinks he can completely break the link with private sector pay when we have to pay the same bills as people in the private sector.