Public Sector Strikes

[Cyclone]

Less any positive contribution their work might make to society.

 

Positive contribution doesn't fill the governments coffers...

 

I wasn't suggesting that public sector workers don't contribute, obviously they do. But to start talking about them contributing tax is nonesense, they're a net cost, they can never be anything else.

[Iuchi_Zien]

Fair point, but is the contribution of a teacher

• as positive,
  
• more positive, or
  
• less positive

than that of a, e.g., "young lesbian and bisexual women's health worker" (London borough of Waltham Forest, £26,121 p.a. for "improving the mental, physical and social well-being of young women who are lesbian, bisexual or questioning their sexuality")

 

So, at substantially equal salary and benefits (equal cost to the taxpayer), is the health worker underpaid, overpaid or fairly paid relative to the teacher

 

Rethorical question, don't answer

 

Or you could compare how the employment of said person has impacted upon mental health costs (etc) in the area he/she/it works. Rather than trying to portray one job more 'worthy' than another?

[Iuchi_Zien]

Positive contribution doesn't fill the governments coffers...

 

I wasn't suggesting that public sector workers don't contribute, obviously they do. But to start talking about them contributing tax is nonesense, they're a net cost, they can never be anything else.

 

And of course when their job is privatized they suddenly stop being a net cost? Of course not! you just get another cost, profit for the company added to the jobs net cost.

[sharrowman]

A well trodden line of thought of course Loob.

 

I wonder, another rhetorical question then -

 

but is the contribution of an advertising executive

 

as positive,

more positive, or

less positive

 

Than a LGBT sexual health worker, or a mental health worker or any number of other social public sector jobs we might list in a catalogue of false dichotomies?

[sharrowman]

Kellogs spend more on advertising in a year than they do on raw materials. Of course, yuo pay for all of this as you munch cornflakes. What poistive contribution to the consumer does this expenditure make?

[sharrowman]

"they're a net cost, they can never be anything else"

 

Cyclone, you're being silly now. The public sector is a hugely varied employer of workers in many roles. Some of which I am sure I would agree could be seen as frivolous. Many of which will serve vital functions in society.

 

What cost rubbish piling up in the street? What cost protection from fire? etc etc etc

[sharrowman]

Additionally whilst we mutter angrily about public sector lay abouts, golden pensions and silver spoons, we neglect to dicuss a capital strike in closed down investments.

[Mecky]

Quote from EDDIE on Owlstalk

http://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=152030&st=245

 

This has got way too far down the road of tit-for-tat arguing about the minutiae of the matter. This for me is an extraordinarily simple matter:

 

 

The Hutton report showed that there was no structural deficit or affordability timebomb in the public sector pension provision

As a result, there is no need for the Government to force through any changes to public sector pensions

The fact that it is still doing so must mean that the money is to be used for other things, such as tackling the overall budget deficit

There is over £40b in avoided and evaded tax that currently goes uncollected

As a result, there is no need to release money from the public sector pension provision

The Government continuing to do so rather than tackling other more morally and legally just sources of income justifies the strikes

As a result of the Government's moral bankruptcy and corruption, we are being lined up to pay for the profligacy of the investment banks and the greed of the capitalist entities that used them to make a quick buck

 

Anyone who continues to argue that the Government is right and the strikes are wrong is at best ignorant and at worst a complete and utter pet shop.

 

[L00b]

Or you could compare how the employment of said person has impacted upon mental health costs (etc) in the area he/she/it works. Rather than trying to portray one job more 'worthy' than another?

The intention was not to portray one job more 'worthy' than another, and I certainly hope that the employment of the health worker will have reduced (relevant/corresponding) mental health costs by at least his/her salary, hopefully more. Else it's clearly counter-productive. I.e. a waste of tax money. So, is this measured/monitored by anyone in the NHS? Is the NHS allowed to offload the health worker if the maths don't stack up after a sufficient period of assessment?

 

Note, for context: my wife's half-sister, for whom I have a lot of esteem, is a psych health worker (going up & up, hopefully all the way to fully-qualified psychiatrist in due course).

A well trodden line of thought of course Loob

We aim to please

I wonder, another rhetorical question then -

 

but is the contribution of an advertising executive<snip>

You brought up the positive contribution of public sector workers in the context of their remuneration, nothing to do with the private sector, so your follow-up question appears invalid.

[sharrowman]

"so your follow-up question appears invalid. "

 

Perhaps, like the LGBT sexual health worker, it only appears invalid.

 

I hadn't been aware that I had narrowed the field of the workers contribution to only their remuneration. I wondered more broadly about the overall contribution our mythical public sector worker might make to society.