British Public Sector Strikes

[Famine]

Let's face it... i think we both know that's what's going to happen anyway, and at the hands of a government that we did'nt elect.

What government have we ever elected? There's never been a UK government who received more than 50% of the possible vote, ever. There's even been two occasions while I've been alive of a Prime Minister in office who never even got there through a General Election (though one of them did at least win an election after that - the other didn't bother and just sat there until he was kicked out, three days after losing one).

All that the public sector has managed to do is alienate themselves by removing their work for a day. Worse still, in most cases no-one noticed (adding to arguments that 50% of the public sector is occupied by managers and useless people who would not survive a results-led private sector) with only schools being notably affected (adding to arguments that teachers are oversalaried and overholidayed). They've essentially annoyed the people who pay their wages and pensions and, while some people may blame the government for it, most of the blame will be laid at the unions' door.

So they've managed, through force intended to take money from the taxpayer, to validate privatisation as a course of action. Good going, Unison!

 

[Touring Mars]

My mam went in a blind furry and grabbed the TV remote and turned over. My dad and I just chuckled, got her, hook line and sinker.

I can imagine that alot of people would be outraged by his comments - insensitivity is a hallmark of Jeremy Clarkson's humour!

Also I can't believe anyone would take what Clarkson says seriously.

Trust me, plenty of people will take it very seriously... of course he's joking, but he is also making a serious comment at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I think he has every right to say what he said, and I must admit, it made me laugh! But, I strongly suspect that Clarkson couldn't believe his luck being handed such a terrific opportunity to be the voice of the Daily Telegraph once again, and on prime time BBC1 too...

 

[ExigeEvan]

What government have we ever elected? There's never been a UK government who received more than 50% of the possible vote, ever. There's even been two occasions while I've been alive of a Prime Minister in office who never even got there through a General Election (though one of them did at least win an election after that - the other didn't bother and just sat there until he was kicked out, three days after losing one).

And this is without mentioning the House of Lords....

 

[Famine]

Which is just loaded up with sympathetic peers by the current Government by way of the Queen's honours lists (birthday, New Year, occasional special events).

 

[ExigeEvan]

Which is just loaded up with sympathetic peers by the current Government by way of the Queen's honours lists (birthday, New Year, occasional special events).

And John "my wife likes the title" Prescott.

 

[Famine]

His secretary didn't. Was it him who was described as being "like having a wardrobe topple onto you with the key still in the lock" during sex?

 

[Nessy]

(adding to arguments that 50% of the public sector is occupied by managers and useless people who would not survive a results-led private sector)

I think 50% is a major exaggeration though i do agree there are manager types who should'nt be there, but another thing i'd like to point out is that when comparing the public/private sector... it's been said that those who have the equivalent jobs in the public sector are usually trained to a degree level whereas those in the private sector are not (whether any feel this is relevent to whether they would survive in a results-led private sector.. i don't know).

Just for the record (in case any were wondering) my partner did'nt infact strike as she's not part of a union (costs £20 a month.. and was afraid of repercussions if she did so.. that and she could'nt afford to loose a days pay, though she did seriously consider it out of sympathy), she just went about her day as rather poorly paid forensic scientist.

 

[Famine]

I think 50% is a major exaggeration

One in six employees in the NHS - the world's largest employer - is patient-facing. That's 87.5% of the people paid, by tax, to look after health have no direct role in looking after health...

another thing i'd like to point out is that when comparing the public/private sector... it's been said that those who have the equivalent jobs in the public sector are usually trained to a degree level whereas those in the private sector are not (whether any feel this is relevent to whether they would survive in a results-led private sector.. i don't know).

White collar work in requiring an education shock.

Private industry is results-led. This means they need people who can do the job more than they need people who can tell you how they would do it. However, this statistic (which I haven't seen) is a little skewed. Public sector workers include doctors (requires a degree or three), nurses (requires a degree), teachers (doesn't require a degree, but a degree automatically qualifies you for a PGCE), judges (requires a degree and several years at the bar). Private sector workers include all of Britain's non-self-employed plumbers, plasterers, builders, electricians, truck drivers, kitchen fitters, checkout operators, burger flippers... yadda yadda yadda.

 

[Nessy]

One in six employees in the NHS - the world's largest employer - is patient-facing. That's 87.5% of the people paid, by tax, to look after health have no direct role in looking after health...
[/b]

What about the people who work in the labs doing tests and analysis etc?.. are they considered the useless too, because they have no direct contact with patient?...

or am i getting it all wrong?, are they infact employed by the private sector?

please do tell as i have'nt got a clue.

 

[Famine]

What about the people who work in the labs doing tests and analysis etc?.. are they considered the useless too, because they have no direct contact with patient?...

No, you're mashing two things together here and coming up with a third thing that was never said.

I said that 50% of public sector employees were managers and useless people. Some of the useless people are also managers, though not all of the managers are useless people. Useless people aren't people who are doing useless jobs, but people who are useless at their job.

I said that 87.5% of people employed by the NHS are non-patient facing and play no direct role in providing healthcare.

I didn't say that the 87.5% of people employed by the NHS are managers and useless people because they aren't patient-facing, though you seem to have got this impression.

are they infact employed by the private sector

Nope, NHS employees by and large. That'd be a nice idea though. Along with the rest of the NHS.

 

[homeforsummer]

Trust me, plenty of people will take it very seriously... of course he's joking, but he is also making a serious comment at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I think he has every right to say what he said, and I must admit, it made me laugh! But, I strongly suspect that Clarkson couldn't believe his luck being handed such a terrific opportunity to be the voice of the Daily Telegraph once again, and on prime time BBC1 too...

Had to laugh at Matt Baker's face when Clarkson said it. Didn't have to deal with comments like that on Blue Peter...

I don't often say this but I agree with David Cameron on it. Was just an off-the-cuff silly comment made by someone who pretty much for a living makes off-the-cuff silly comments.

It's ridiculous people calling for his sacking as he'll only get snapped up by another channel anyway for equally vast sums of money and annoy people on a channel they can do even less about than the BBC.

The sort of whiney knee-jerk reaction it's getting immediately brings this to mind:

...though you could replace "on this planet" with "in this country".

Incidentally, I've no bias either way. My mum is a teacher and she was on a demonstration yesterday. If people want to strike that's their own free will (just as it is for Clarkson to say what he said), but if I'd been in hospital and had to wait another day for an operation I might have been a bit more cheesed off about it all.

I've never joined a union in any of my jobs so far either. I kind of hold the opinion that if you want more money then you find a job that pays more, rather than digging in your heels once you've found a career. I'm sure certain professions probably aren't paid their worth but then it's an individual's responsibility to live within their means.

Thousands of people going Christmas shopping to spend the money that they want more of instead of standing on pickets just about sums the whole thing up for me.

 

[Nessy]

I said that 87.5% of people employed by the NHS are non-patient facing and play no direct role in providing healthcare.

[/b]

So what point was you trying to make by this statement exactly? and i do apologise if you feel i've taken what you said out of context (i never was the sharpest tool in the box.. just trying to understand and make sense of your point).

 

[Touring Mars]

Had to laugh at Matt Baker's face when Clarkson said it.

Yeh, his expression seems to say 'I bet this is on the news tomorrow...'

 

[Famine]

It's an illustration of the massive quantities of public sector jobs not directly involved in the fields in which they provide services - you believe that 50% of public sector employees being either managers or useless or both is an exaggeration but it genuinely does represent what goes on.

I've worked in public sector environments and there really are too many people doing too little and too poorly. They're practically employed for the sake of employing someone (or to fill equal opportunities quotas). You could easily cut 20% of all public sector staff by weeding out the most useless and not notice any practical difference except the colossal savings to the public purse. You could probably weed out another 20% of managers managing managers for the same result.

 

[Touring Mars]

It's an illustration of the massive quantities of public sector jobs not directly involved in the fields in which they provide services - you believe that 50% of public sector employees being either managers or useless or both is an exaggeration but it genuinely does represent what goes on.

I've worked in public sector environments and there really are too many people doing too little and too poorly. They're practically employed for the sake of employing someone (or to fill equal opportunities quotas). You could easily cut 20% of all public sector staff by weeding out the most useless and not notice any practical difference except the colossal savings to the public purse. You could probably weed out another 20% of managers managing managers for the same result.

I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from, although I would say that your personal experience is not necessarily all that representative. It's important to remember that the private sector is not immune to incompetence and laziness either - I don't know a single person who has worked in the private sector who has not had a manager or some other 'superior' who, at one stage or other, has proven themselves to be less than capable or particularly good at their job. Management can often get away with it though, by either pinning the blame or shifting the consequences of their own uselessness onto their subordinates. Also, many public sector jobs are results-driven as well - as opposed to merely being driven by profits, which, as our friends in the banking sector remind us, are not necessarily the result of their competence or hard work.

 

[Famine]

I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers from, although I would say that your personal experience is not necessarily all that representative.

Indeed - that's why I pay it no heed. It is not atypical though - everyone I know who has worked in both the public and private sectors has a similar tale to tell. There simply are too many people being paid from the public purse and taking their share of that trillion pound pension pot who wouldn't survive to retirement age if they were in an industry. Two friends of mine - a policeman and a highways agency officer - both remarked yesterday that there were people in their office (two from ten for the former, half for the latter) who they simply wouldn't notice the absence of if they didn't turn up any more!*

NHS employment numbers are their own statistic from 2007, though I don't recall the link. I also don't know how PFI-linked employees on hospital sites (Carillion and their greasy ilk) are classed in those figures.

It's important to remember that the private sector is not immune to incompetence and laziness either - I don't know a single person who has worked in the private sector who has not had a manager or some other 'superior' who, at one stage or other, has proven themselves to be less than capable or particularly good at their job. Management can often get away with it though, by either pinning the blame or shifting the consequences of their own uselessness onto their subordinates.

Surely that's the sign of a very good manager?

Remember, a manager is someone who manages. They're not someone who used to do your job and then got promoted up the chain - if they were good at doing your job, there'd be no need for your job because they'd be doing it. Managers should not be someone capable of doing the jobs of the people they manage.

Also, many public sector jobs are results-driven as well

I literally couldn't agree any less.

The public sector is not about progression (something similar was said earlier in the thread), rather stasis. It's all about the budget (when you see the idiotic overspends on building and IT installations it makes you wonder why) down at the bottom - everything's judged by how much you did for how much money compared to previous years. There simply is not the incentive - or any reason - to improve**.

The further up you go, the more it becomes about justifying your own post. It becomes politics. This probably shouldn't be all that surprising. I wouldn't say that this is wholly limited to the public sector either.

- as opposed to merely being driven by profits, which, as our friends in the banking sector remind us, are not necessarily the result of their competence or hard work.

Profit is only one kind of result - and the problem with the financial crisis is considerably more complicated than just pinning it on the banks. The public sector's biggest drain, government, has to take almost all of the blame for that one with the remainder shared by lenders and borrowers alike.


*This is its own problem. If we pared the public sector by 20%, we'd increase unemployment by 1.3m. Would it be better or worse for the economy if we stopped paying these people to be useless and put them on Jobseekers' instead?
**Of course in many cases there isn't a need to improve (and I found the unnecessary training courses you get sent on to fulfil a departmental training budget and the personal "CPD" requirement which do not help you do your job in any way to be one of the most irritating parts of the public sector). Getting speeding fines out inside 14 days is enough - you don't need to improve to 12 days. Getting the school buildings clean in your shift is enough - you don't need to improve it by 15 minutes (and you'd get told off for wasting time anyway). Yadda yadda.

 

[homeforsummer]

You could easily cut 20% of all public sector staff by weeding out the most useless

I like to think I've done my bit for the public sector by quitting the NHS, then. I really wasn't very good at the job, but coincidentally it was also the most soul-crushingly tedious position I've ever held too so I had no personal incentive to improve.

I suspect a lot of public sector work is fairly similar and if I'm in any way representative, many people are in it simply on the way to somewhere better.

Of course, I was never bothered enough about the job to join the union anyway.

Remember, a manager is someone who manages. They're not someone who used to do your job and then got promoted up the chain - if they were good at doing your job, there'd be no need for your job because they'd be doing it. Managers should not be someone capable of doing the jobs of the people they manage.

The trouble starts when the manager can't even manage people. When they become as useless as the talentless bint who "managed" me at the NHS and when a bucket of cold sick would be a preferable thing to have at the end of the desk then TM's point becomes more relevant. There's definitely a culture of shifting blame onto the people who do work their backsides off from the people who sit there and paint their nails all day.

 

[mattythedog]

You know the BBC recieved 4,769 complaints about Jezza's remarks. Why did they bring up the topic?

 

[Famine]

I like to think I've done my bit for the public sector by quitting the NHS, then.

I really wasn't very good at the job, but coincidentally it was also the most soul-crushingly tedious position I've ever held too so I had no personal incentive to improve.

That is one of the big public sector problems.

I wouldn't say that no-one in the private sector is stuck in a job they don't want to do, but it certainly appears much rarer. Jobs that are mind-vapourisingly dismal seems to be a cause and an effect all at once.

The trouble starts when the manager can't even manage people. When they become as useless as the talentless bint who "managed" me at the NHS and when a bucket of cold sick would be a preferable thing to have at the end of the desk then TM's point becomes more relevant. There's definitely a culture of shifting blame onto the people who do work their backsides off from the people who sit there and paint their nails all day.

I've variously had as managers:
A manager - he was very good at it
A research technician - she was terrible at it; she preferred doing science than keeping an eye on me doing science
A professor - he was very good at it too and was part politician
A surgeon - he wasn't great at managing, but he wasn't a travelling wave amplifier tube so it was all good
A teacher/head of department - he was terrible at it because he didn't manage anyone, just exuberantly noised them into submission

With a small quantity of middle managers who were uniformly crap.

 

[Nessy]

The public sector is not about progression (something similar was said earlier in the thread), rather stasis. It's all about the budget (when you see the idiotic overspends on building and IT installations it makes you wonder why) down at the bottom - everything's judged by how much you did for how much money compared to previous years. There simply is not the incentive - or any reason - to improve**.

Funny you should talk about incentives..

(slightly off topic, i know) but it so happens that the constabulary that my partner works for underwent drastic modernisation and streamlining (2009-2010) and they managed to make a saving of over £19m to their yearly budget, (no other constabulary did this to that extent)... bare in mind this was before any mention of job cuts by the present government, so really you'd kind of expect the government to take this into account when initially announcing cuts (amongst the police force in particular) of nearly 30-40%..?
well no! they did'nt, the same constabulary (under this government) are expected to make a further saving of £24.5m.... kind of makes you think why did they eve bother in the first place... trying to set the example to other constabularies etc by way of streamlining and improvement, just to be dealt a kick in the teeth by our oh-so excellent ConDem government.

So exactly yeah, where is the incentive?

 

[Touring Mars]

Surely that's the sign of a very good manager?

Remember, a manager is someone who manages. They're not someone who used to do your job and then got promoted up the chain - if they were good at doing your job, there'd be no need for your job because they'd be doing it. Managers should not be someone capable of doing the jobs of the people they manage.

Perhaps that's a good definition of a manager, but often managers are people who have come up through the ranks and no longer do the job they were trained to do, and rather find themselves training others and delegating tasks - either way, it's often necessary for a good manager to know what the jobs of those being managed involves. I don't accept that it is a sign of a very good manager to blame their subordinates for their own lack of competence or for their own mistakes.

I literally couldn't agree any less.

The public sector is not about progression (something similar was said earlier in the thread), rather stasis. It's all about the budget (when you see the idiotic overspends on building and IT installations it makes you wonder why) down at the bottom - everything's judged by how much you did for how much money compared to previous years. There simply is not the incentive - or any reason - to improve**.

The further up you go, the more it becomes about justifying your own post. It becomes politics. This probably shouldn't be all that surprising. I wouldn't say that this is wholly limited to the public sector either.

I would definitely agree that it is not limited to the public sector. But, while there will always be quite a difference between the public and private sectors, the private sector doesn't hold a monopoly on attracting talented people and rewarding individuals who do their jobs well. I don't disagree that there are areas/jobs/people within the public sector that could use a kick up the arse, but I don't accept that the problem is as widespread as you seem to be suggesting - while there are important jobs to be done that pay well or offer other incentives, and while there is competition for those jobs, the public sector will attract those who are prepared to work, and it's not like you can't get sacked from a public sector job if you are completely incompetent...

You know the BBC recieved 4,769 complaints about Jezza's remarks. Why did they bring up the topic?

It was The One Show - you know, that cutting edge forum for discussing the day's events with a minor celebrity who's currently appearing in a new programme that is going to be shown on BBC2, Thursday night, 9 o'clock... don't miss it!!

 

[Moglet]

This is why I disagree with the unions and believe they're acting like spoiled brats:

Those on low salaries, who never enjoy a major promotion, will barely be hit – save for the important caveat that they will have to work longer. High fliers, who rise through the ranks to end up in a top job, will lose out.
A nurse, for instance, starting on a salary of £15,000 and ending on one of £25,000 40 years later, would receive an annual pension of £16,667 under a final salary scheme. He or she would receive £12,736 under a career average, according to Hargreaves Lansdown, the financial advisers.
However, a civil servant, starting off on £30,000 and ending up 40 years later on a salary of £80,000, would lose out to the tune of nearly £20,000 for every year in retirement. Under a final salary scheme, they would receive £53,333, but under a career average they would receive £33,147. The workers most hit would be those currently at the start of their career.

I would kill to have any pension plan at the minute, let alone £33,000! Hell, give me £12,000 I'll be happy enough.

Compared with the private sector you'll still be far better off. Take a public sector worker who starts on a salary of £20,000, sees their pay rise by 4.5pc a year and works for 40 years. According to Hargreaves, they will have an annual pension of £19,920 based on a career average scheme.
This compares to just £7,960 a year that a private sector worker will get from a defined contribution scheme based on 10pc contributions. A worker who joins the new national scheme, the National Employment Savings Trust (Nest), can expect a yearly pension of just £5,000. Laith Khalaf at Hargreaves Lansdown said: "If you said to any private worker do you want to join a career average scheme, they would jump at the chance."

I'd love to see any one of them working my job for my wages. I can't afford to pay into a pension because I need all of my wages each month! Also, why do they believe they should be above the extended age of retirement? If private sector workers will have to work longer, they bloody well should too.

EDIT: Also just heard on the BBC that the average contribution to pension for a civil servant is 3.5%. For private workers that figure is 5%.

EDIT 2: Regarding the Clarkson debate

That is all.

 

[theotherspongey]

Did anyone hear what Jeremy Clarkson said?
My God... -99 Respect points

Lol...I said that before I read above me.

 

[Grayfox]

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/8383473/clarkson-sorry-for-strike-shooting-remark

 

[homeforsummer]

Did anyone hear what Jeremy Clarkson said?
My God... -99 Respect points

I don't know why, unless you've taken it massively out of context like everybody else seems to have done.

 

[Robin]

I have to say I'm pretty peeved that people who are in full time employment are moaning when there are a million young people out of work who would gladly do the same job for half the amount of pay if they were legally allowed to!

 

[theotherspongey]

I don't know why, unless you've taken it massively out of context like everybody else seems to have done.

So everybody else wants to line unions and shoot them in front of their families?

 

[Touring Mars]

So everybody else wants to line unions and shoot them in front of their families?

Nah. Everyone else hasn't completely lost their sense of humour.

Last night, Channel 4 news had James Delingpole () defending Clarkson and a Labour MP heavily criticising Clarkson... it says alot when Delingpole is the one who is making more sense. The Labour MP said that Clarkson should not be apologizing to the strikers, but to the children watching The One Show who had to go to bed that evening with the mental image of their parents being gunned down... (I kid you not, that is what the guy actually said.) That misses a crucial point for me - NOBODY WATCHES THE ONE SHOW, and especially not children!

 

[theotherspongey]

I don't think he was trying to be funny.

 

[homeforsummer]

So everybody else wants to line unions and shoot them in front of their families?

Have you even watched his whole interview or have you just read about the executing bit on the internet and decided that he was talking literally?

I don't think he was trying to be funny.

That answers my question then.

It was satirical humour, and if anything it was a bigger dig at the "balance" of the BBC than it was an attack on the strikers.

The whole part, summed up in short terms, was essentially - Clarkson praises strikers - Clarkson says "this is the BBC, so we have to be balanced" - Clarkson condemns strikers with direct opposite to his previous praise - presenters say "those are just Clarkson's views" - Clarkson says "no, they're two different views"

You have to be lacking a few brain cells to interpret what he said literally.

Last night, Channel 4 news had James Delingpole () defending Clarkson and a Labour MP heavily criticising Clarkson... it says alot when Delingpole is the one who is making more sense.

Quite. Delingpole's article is actually incredibly level-headed. I'm far from being his biggest fan but he's clearly much less of a cretin than I thought.