War on the public sector and unions

[ricgem2002]

I drive a council minibus, we have private minibuses working alongside us; there cannot be much difference in cost, otherwise it would not be this way.

have you not asked the other private drivers how much they earn/what their hours are/full time/zero hours ? I would like to bet they are on zero hours contract paid a hourly rate just a little more than your hourly rate. the difference between you and them will be, you will have more rights to entitlements/job security than your private minibus colleague. oh and btw I know someone who relies on council minibus drivers to get his son to school and think you do a marvellous job:thumbsup:

[El Cid]

have you not asked the other private drivers how much they earn/what their hours are/full time/zero hours ? I would like to bet they are on zero hours contract paid a hourly rate just a little more than your hourly rate. the difference between you and them will be, you will have more rights to entitlements/job security than your private minibus colleague. oh and btw I know someone who relies on council minibus drivers to get his son to school and think you do a marvellous job:thumbsup:

 

Some private hire drivers are on minimum wage, but some are on a really good wage(doing airport runs and many extras(taxi drivers are generally high earners)); some brand new buses and some as old as they are allowed.

Council buses are all fully health n safety passed, hand rails and heaters, better drivers too

 

---------- Post added 03-10-2015 at 08:45 ----------

 

I honestly do have first hand experience of dealing with these useless and obstructive people on a daily basis....

 

But that does not mean council are worse overall. Yesterday someone told me there had been a kerfuffle, and someone had gone on the sick, but the department still competes with the private sector.

Edited October 3, 2015 by El Cid

[I1L2T3]

That's speculation. Not a fact.

Still I don't have any facts myself to counter it. I can't prove it's not true, but that doesn't make it true.

 

It's clear that you're doing something practically useful for the state.

I think I am as well. We're not the problem.

 

The problem is the legion of useless people the public sector employs who buzz around admin offices generating work for us and for others, whilst doing nothing of real value themselves.

I'm glad you feel the unions are in your corner. I don't feel the same, but I respect and value your right to collective representation.

The problem is that Unite (who represent a lot of public sector people in both our areas) and the UCU (formerly the AUT) who represent still more in my area, defend not only you but also these vast numbers of useless and counter-productive people as well.

 

I think it would help if there were more, smaller and more specialised unions.

We should have a special union for the administrators, so I can be clear who the enemy are.

 

I honestly do have first hand experience of dealing with these useless and obstructive people on a daily basis. It's hard to define though. And I must concede it's hard to prove.

One of the most insidious things is that a lot of time, effort and resources are wasted doing things in the name of efficiency.

 

An example I've given before on this forum is of procurement. In the name of efficiency a small discount has been negotiated with certain companies in return for exclusivity. These companies still charge more than, for example, Amazon for almost anything I would like to spend my budget on; and the exclusivity arrangement means that either I have to pay the higher prices or wait literally weeks and spend many man hours arranging an exemption. Either way, the taxpayers are not getting good value because they either have to pay the higher price, or pay for the extra man hours. This farce has been enforced in the name of efficiency because all that the headline figures show is that a 10% discount was achieved. This is a very socialist mindset as a capitalist would never have traded their right to take advantage of competition in the market for a 10% imaginary discount, as they would immediately see the folly of it.

 

The unions approve of this kind of thing and defend it once it's in place because it always saves capital from budgets at the expense of requiring more admin staff. The fact is that the extra admin staff cost far more than even the imaginary capital saving, but the unions don't care because more staff is more money and influence for them.

 

It's incredibly obvious to me that efficient public services arise from providing those public services with the absolute bare minimum number of staff. This is what is in the best interests of the taxpayers.

The best interests of the public sector unions are served by the public sector employing the maximum possible number of staff.

 

Want to know why your taxes are so high, and public services still seem barely adequate? Look no further than the TUC.

 

Cue the neo-Keynesian rubbish about how employing people to do nothing and get in everybody else's way is somehow a good thing....

 

You could not make this up. You are complaining about things that are done to speed up your work, stuff like exclusive supplier arrangements, then in the name of efficiency spend your time battling against the system because of the price points. You're make it worse

 

Now, a little lesson in life. I've worked in the private sector for a long time. It's 1992 since I was last an employee in the public sector. The little lesson is that private companies often have vast swathes of red tape in the procurement process. I've worked in a company that manufactured desktop PCs (household name) and you would not believe the difficulty getting a new computer for a staff member. I worked on a project in another company where people spent two weeks arguing over how to procure a software licence for $100 causing a two week delay to the project.

 

Now, if you want to argue about poor productivity you need to look at the UK as a whole. Productivity is falling across the economy. Millions of new private sector jobs have been created but can't blame falling productivity of the public sector - it is being hacked to pieces.

 

You private sector nirvana is not the hive of productivity you believe.

[unbeliever]

You could not make this up. You are complaining about things that are done to speed up your work, stuff like exclusive supplier arrangements, then in the name of efficiency spend your time battling against the system because of the price points. You're make it worse

 

I think it would be helpful if you moderated your tone.

 

How do exclusive supplier arrangements improve efficiency? They're designed to reduce capital expenditure at the expense of time.

 

I can see how a database/list recommended suppliers for particular items would be useful.

 

If they just issued me with a payment card (a debit card would seem ideal) representing the budget for my work and then left me to it, that would save a lot of my time and remove the need for at least half the procurement staff. I have no problem with them pointing me at a list of recommended suppliers.

 

The problem with the existing system is most acute when the contracted suppliers don't have something in their catalogues. That happens quite a lot. Partly because the accounts/procurement people don't understand the requirements a lot of the time and insist that a particular supplier is appropriate for something they're not.

It can take dozens of e-mails to suppliers and a matter weeks to prove to the procurement people that the contracted suppliers can't supply what you're after.

 

I'm certainly not denying that this kind of waste can occur in the private sector. In the public sector however, it's institutionalised. They think it's normal and even optimal somehow.

Edited October 3, 2015 by unbeliever

[I1L2T3]

I think itv would be helpful if you moderated your tone.

 

How do exclusive supplier arrangements improve efficiency? They're designed to reduce capital expenditure at the expense of time.

 

I can see how a database/list recommended suppliers for particular items would be useful.

 

If they just issued me with a payment card (a debit card would seem ideal) representing the budget for my work and then left me to it, that would save a lot of my time and remove the need for at least half the procurement staff. I have no problem with them pointing me at a list of recommended suppliers.

 

The problem with the existing system is most acute when the contracted suppliers don't have something in their catalogues. That happens quite a lot. Partly because the accounts/procurement people don't understand the requirements a lot of the time and insist that a particular supplier is appropriate for something they're not.

It can take dozens of e-mails to suppliers and a matter weeks to prove to the procurement people that the contracted suppliers can't supply what you're after.

 

I'm certainly not denying that this kind of waste can occur in the private sector. In the public sector however, it's institutionalised. They think it's normal and even optimal somehow.

 

Moderate my tone?

 

If everybody in any job was given a budget to spend how they want then utter chaos would ensue. Private or public sector it wouldn't matter.

 

What you seem to be arguing for as a specific need in your area to be more flexible. You might have a case for all I know but to uyse that as the cornerstone of an argument that all of the public sector is inefficient is pretty dumb.

 

Taking the NHS as an example for the amount of GDP spent on it it is actually pretty efficient compared to other countries. And yet we know it could be improved in many areas. Focusing on the bad bits is the way to go. Tarring whole organisations and indeed the entire public sector with the same brush based on your niche and parochial experience is not the way to go.

[unbeliever]

Moderate my tone?

 

Yes.

You're patronising and insulting on a routine basis.

I suspect that is down to the weakness of your actual case. What I'm describing is not "chaos" it's simple and extremely efficient. Anything more complicated is clearly just set up to create work.

Perhaps in some cases, the flexibility I need is needed less, but I don't see how it could possibly be harmful anyway.

 

If you persist in being insulting, I'm not talking to you any more.

Edited October 3, 2015 by unbeliever

[the_bloke]

My wife works in the public sector in one of the Sheffield hospitals.

 

5 or 6 days a week, on call as well.

 

She is very far from unproductive.

 

How do you measure productivity? Being busy doesn't mean productive, if the business process is inefficient.

[unbeliever]

How do you measure productivity? Being busy doesn't mean productive, if the business process is inefficient.

 

Quite. The public sector also routinely confuse activity with progress.

 

One of my old bosses proudly announced at a big collaboration meeting that everybody should be pleased because I'd completed the task she'd given me of upgrading all the experiment computers from one operating system to another ahead of schedule.

I couldn't help piping in and pointing out that the group which she headed had since decided that the operating system was not the right one and I should go round and replace it with another. She cheerfully retorted "Progress toward milestones that no longer exist is still progress". Is it hell!

 

The admin people who I deal with are very good at being busy and making everybody else busy. When it comes to actually getting useful things done, all they do is slow everybody down.

Edited October 3, 2015 by unbeliever

[El Cid]

Moderate my tone?

 

If you persist in being insulting, I'm not talking to you any more.

 

 

These public sector types are not used to someone with a different opinion

[I1L2T3]

How do you measure productivity? Being busy doesn't mean productive, if the business process is inefficient.

 

The ONS has extensive guides on its site about how it measures it, including the specific challenges of measuring public sector productivity.

 

Read up on it.