Top Earning Civil Servants Publicised

[Strix]

What do you think of this move? I think it is fantastic. Transparency in what the government does with OUR money has to be a good thing. But, boy oh boy, are some people going to be mad (I suspect).

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10202596.stm

It does amaze me that the man running the country is getting paid less than most of these civil servants. However, having quickly skimmed it, there doesn't seem to be anyone earning truly ridiculous amounts.

It amazes me that the (past) government had the audacity to tax people making £15k a year in order to pay so many people so much more. That kind if wealth redistribution cannot in my opinion be justified.

I find it fascinating. There seem to be two income scales in the country. One is for the top 10 per cent, one for those below.

These figures don't look high if you are comparing them within the top ten per cent, but look vast compared to the median wage in the country.

Interesting because we didn't have that debate about wealth redistribution under the Labour government - and we're not going to have it now, I guess. Instead we're having a sort of proxy discussion of it via public sector pay-cuts and MP's salaries.

I guess the debate is moving towards these people now not being paid with reference to "city incomes" but wrt the incomes of the wider electorate ... . Maybe.

But I do wonder where this discourse is heading.

This was linked to on twitter.

Strikes me the two "debates" (civil servants' pay and the MP income aspect of the DL thing) are linked - and connected to the same "subterranean" discourse.

Gosh it does feel a bit close to the bone to have all the names out there like that.

The Department of Health seems to spend an awful lot which I would guess could better be spent elsewhere. For example, why does the NHS Chief Executive need a flat in London? And how many EPUs could better use that money on technology or doctors to staff the unit?

I think it's right that the top earning civil servant salaries are now in the public domain. I am less comfortable that all of us that earn over £58k will soon be named on the Internet with our exact salary for all to see. I don't like the fact that from Sept if a friend puts my name into google they will get a top search result stating my exact salary. For those if us under £100k I think it would be enough to say" The Department of X has Y civil servants earning between £60-70k, Z civil servants earning between £70-80k etc." Then just name those over £100k.

I see your point Avocadoes. Perhaps it would be better to put the job title / description and department and the salary. So, no one could search for "Avocadoes".

I would definitely like more information on what these people actually do. Perhaps some of them are worth this kind of money... but I doubt all of them.

Why is the head of the Office of Fair Trading paid more than the head of the NHS?

The latter is a far more important and difficult job in my opinion.

Similarly the head of the Olympics is paid far too much.

I am very glad that we have this kind of disclosure. It will put some excellent downward pressure on top public sector salaries.

Actually I think these people have a right to privacy wrt their salaries as people in the private sector.

People in the private sector aren't paid from my tax bill. I want to know where my money goes, and since it goes to them, I think it should be public information.

However, I would not be opposed to removing individual names. (although Im sure they wouldn't be terribly difficult to work out)

I agree with Avocadoes - some of this is public knowledge anyway and can be found easily online, so why publish individual names?

I can google my dh's payscale and knowing his rank can work out what he earns, as can anyone else. If the information is freely available already, and I note the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the Heads of the Armed Forces were on there, and their pay is already in the public domain, why broadcast it further?

Top public sector workers generally do have their salaries published as part of reports to shareholders.

The reality is David Cameron is better paid than most of these - £142k as PM, £65k as MP, two luxury homes tax-free, and upgraded and maintained free of charge. That's a £300k package, minimum, and that's before you consider the pension, which is worth several millions. Admittedly other public sector workers generally get luxuriant pension schemes, but it still seems likely that he is in fact the best paid.

Jeez I'm a bog standard bottom rung management level, albeit in a specialist field (economics) and I'm only a couple of k below that publishing cut off! There are huge numbers of bottom and middle rung civil servants earning that kind of money, who absolutely do not desrve to be put in the public domain like that. It's got to be against privacy rules surely? Release the number of earners fine, but real names? Not fair, not at all.

The £58k one, that is.

I think publishing names and precise salaries is revolting, tbh.

As scaryteacher says, pay scales are already in the public domain. That is enough, imo.

And I really don't care that the PM earns less than some senior civil servants (even if it were true).

SomeGuy - I take your point that private sector directors and so on have their salaries published in shareholder reports.

I don't think listing the very top earners is necessarily a bad thing, but I suspect it is being used is as a cheap trick to have another go at the public sector.

I think it is a (bold) attempt to discourage outrageous spending in the public sector. And I am all for anything that drives down the cost of government where it dosn't add value to the taxpayer/citizen/resident of the UK.

David Cameron has been promising more transparency on where our money goes and that is exactly what he is doing here.

Mixed views on the effect of this, TBH. Working at University and not in the 58k cut off I am very curious to see the impact of publishing individual salaries... It is going to create plenty of bad blood when we all discover which dean earns more than the other dean, or Vice-Chancellor, or Head of Department, etc.

I wonder if this will be the start of a long chain of cases taken before the Courts actually. While scales exist and you can get a rough idea of what everybody is earning to get the actual figures is going to be at the very least interesting...

Not sure if it is all good news though

Morally, no-one in an organisation should earn more than 20x what the lowest paid earns. Shouldn't there be some sort of legislation to enforce this?

So you think all salaries should be capped at £250k, no exceptions? Does this include bonuses?

As I make no where near that amount I personally would not be affected. But, I would be afraid that you would see a lot of the wealth in this country headed for greener pastures.

I find it interesting that there is always a private sector argument that you need to pay loads to attract the best people etc. And yet, when that same argument is applied to the public sector, people are horrifed. And then criticise the public sector for, allegedly, being badly run (unlike all private sector firms )

It's all distraction by our esteemed government, they have no coherent plan to take us through this crisis, just policy based on rhetoric, not evidence and an attempt to try and get us all to attack one another by sector of workplace. Pathetic, but I imagine it will get some people agitated.

Actually I think its meaningless spin, yes it should be in the public domain how much different jobs (not individuals) earn.

But, it gives us no insight into how the government actually spends the public money. that wont happen until they publish full accounts for the financial year.

this information is alos available under freedom of information acts as well so anyone who is genuinely interested could find out in any case.

The promise to publish anything that costs more than £25k is a scam too. That leaves quite a lot of costs unaccounted for.

People should be able to earn whatever the market deems necessary - it's the Government which should then re-distribute the income in a fair way, through taxes etc.

My dh's salary is pubic knowledge due to his level but when he took the job he was aware this would be the case. I think it's immoral to publish someone's salary details when that was not initially part of their employment package...I'd expect to be paid more to compensate for my loss of financial privacy and I'd be constructing arguements as to why other people were being paid more than me - it will lead to an unhappy work force.

Can we start to publish details about how much our GP earns, the Head Teacher etc too? I want to know...why because I'm bloody nosy, that's why!!!