I1L2T3 Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Pretty much all of them http://www.govtoday.co.uk/index.php/Finance/public-sector-pay-still-rising-faster-than-in-the-private-sector.html Policy exchange is a right-wing think tank. You haven't read the full report. I did last month and the report admits that the differential is actual quite small when correcting factors are taken into account (e.g. age, qualifications, location etc...) and that because of the coming public sector pay freezes the differential will narrow markedly in the next 2-3 years. The report also fails to adequately explain how thie mystical pay premium is calculated. It's right-wing propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 No-one denies that private sector workers are up against it, but the argument that everyone should have it as badly as the worst off is a bit of an odd one don't you think? Perhaps you're on minimum wage and have really bad working conditions, but if not there are people who are doing worse than you. Does that mean you should be dragged down to their level? I don't see why that would be a good thing. The reason, as far as I can see, that private sector workers have had it rougher than public sector in some senses is that public sector workers have tended to organise together in unions, less so in the private sector. That's a choice to a large extent, and there are plenty of executives and shareholders doing very nicely while you and your colleagues in the private sector get shafted. Judging from a lot of the comments on various sites, a lot of people in the private sector just seem defeated. I've seen comments along the lines of 'I'm resigned to being in poverty in retirement so I don't see why people in the public sector should be any different'. What an attitude! Chinese workers living in a one party totalitarian state are successfully striking for better wages and conditions - surely if they can manage it then people in the UK can! If everyone went on strike and demanded more money all that would happen is inflation would increase or what we produce would be produced in another part of the world. For the public sector to get more than the country can afford someone else as to suffer to pay for it, it’s not going to be the wealthy it will be the average private sector worker. The Chinese sell to the rest of the world as their pay and condition improve they will be less competitive and some of what they now produce will be produced by someone that will do it cheaper. So as an average private sector worker I don’t support the selfish attitude of the public sector workers that want to strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Name me any profession or establishment where the public one is either better paid or cheaper? Few examples for you Private solicitor 70k vs Government CPS solicitor 40k Public health club vs private health club Private sector Solicitor 70k? Only at the top end firms. I can tell you most are averaging around £25 - £35k mark. I will admit not every public sector worker is on a mega salary but neither are most of the private sector ones. Retail, transport, call centre, office clerks all minimum wage stuff. Why are they not out on the streets uprising? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Why? If they want to strike they should be able to. We don't live in a totalitarian state... do we? You say you are a teacher so you should be able to understand that what I wrote doesn't say people shouldn't strike, what it says is the majority didn't vote to strike and I hope they decide to go to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 If everyone went on strike and demanded more money all that would happen is inflation would increase or what we produce would be produced in another part of the world. For the public sector to get more than the country can afford someone else as to suffer to pay for it, it’s not going to be the wealthy it will be the average private sector worker. The Chinese sell to the rest of the world as their pay and condition improve they will be less competitive and some of what they now produce will be produced by someone that will do it cheaper. So as an average private sector worker I don’t support the selfish attitude of the public sector workers that want to strike. A sensible post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 If the government want a sensible consultation, they need to start being honest about the situation. By lumping together Teachers, NHS, Civil Service and Armed Forces pensions, they are deliberately clouding the issue. Armed forces pensions are non-contributory. Teachers pensions require a 15% contribution. Civil Service pensions have differing rates of contribution. It isn't really fair to lump all of these together. It is politically convenient though. Slash the pensions of public servants in the name of austerity whilst deliberately misleading the public about the nature of the problem. All sensible points, sibon. But is this Gvt "lumping all together" as regards public sector pension reforms, as you claim? It is my understanding that a strike about pensions was originally organised by teachers, and other branches of the public sector are now 'ganging up' with a strike with enlarged claims, so is it not the other way around? This will appear to be one claim too far to the private sector workers (w-o-r-k-e-r-s, not shareholers) at large: they've already had to do with the wage cuts, redundancies in their 100.000s, increased job insecurity, contract revisions, pension contribution curtailings, etc, etc. for at least 3 years. There's no money on tap in the private sector to pay the wages, like the Gvt has for the public sector: once the cash runs out, the company goes bust and you're out of a job, period. By and large, private sector workers have yet to see their public sector brethren take their share of the recession burden (and no, it is not a race to the lowest common denominator - it is an equitable approach to problem solving). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Let’s hope that the majority that didn’t vote or voted against the strike will go to work. Does that mean that the majority who didn't vote for the current govt or voted against them can opt out of their policies? Odd thing about democracy...sometimes it produces a result you don't like. I've voted against striking in the past but have supported the majority who voted to go on strike. You can't be in a club just when it suits you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 All sensible points, sibon. But is this Gvt "lumping all together" as regards pension reforms, as you claim? It is my understanding that a strike about pensions was originally organised by teachers, and other branches of the public sector are now 'ganging up' with a strike with enlarged claims, so is it not the other way around? I guess that depends upon your perspective. The strike on 30th June is a day of action organised by several unions. I'm a member of the NUT and I've been told that the strike was always part of a planned day of action. I'd prefer to avoid striking anyway. It will cost me over £100 and I'm not sure that it will achieve much. I'd prefer it if my union took an unorthodox approach. The TPS is huge and must be attractive to a private pension provider. Imagine the panic at the treasury if the major teaching unions started negotiating to privatise our pension scheme:D I'm not sure that the public sector unions realise how much economic power they yield in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andikay Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 Does that mean that the majority who didn't vote for the current govt or voted against them can opt out of their policies? Odd thing about democracy...sometimes it produces a result you don't like. I've voted against striking in the past but have supported the majority who voted to go on strike. You can't be in a club just when it suits you. No unfortunately not because if it was the case I would have been able to opt out of giving labour my money just so they could flush down the bog. I still hope that the majority that didn't vote for strike action will go to work and not let the minority dictate to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 I guess that depends upon your perspective. Mine is fence-sittingly neutral, after a fashion I'm private sector, always have been. Save for a brief accidental stint in a very senior civil service position during my national service, which was quite the eye opener about 'how the other half lives' (that is, the very-very-very senior civil service in France, complete with period house/appartments, maid, chauffeur, etc...and the 22-hours workdays 7 days a week that go with it) But I have been lucky to be raised in a politically-bipolar household () with my Dad (baby-eating capitalist, generally to the right of Attila) at one extreme and my Mum (Nurse-turned-social security case worker-turned-very senior social security (social action) service, generally left/centre left) at the other, and wherein reasoned political debate has always been encouraged, even if generally heated as you can imagine That is why I really don't begrudge public sector workers their right to strike and their exercising it, yet also why I cannot empathise with their claims, which I find ill-timed, not to say indecent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.