Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What does this mean "Conservatives freezing public salaries for a year" Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    People wouldn't vote for them if they did. Its like bankers bonuses, politicians are incentivised to do what the majority want, not whats right.

    Iraq was politically difficult for example, didn't do Labour many favours did it? Likewise ID cards and tuition fees.
    I think voters in the private sector would respect politicians more if they recognised the problem. Unfortunately Labour is so tied in with the public sector and it's associated unions that wide ranging cuts across the sector right before an election would be suicidal for them.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    I think voters in the private sector would respect politicians more if they recognised the problem. Unfortunately Labour is so tied in with the public sector and it's associated unions that wide ranging cuts across the sector right before an election would be suicidal for them.
    The Tories aren't announcing them either.

    TBH after this weeks change of tack fro the Tories I can't tell the difference between the two on public spending.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    No they will get a rise.

    It just means the overall wage bill won't increase.

    My pay will still go up 7% as I progress up the pay scale.
    What do you do?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Installation)
    What do you do?
    Fast Stream, why?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So you'd rather have some poorly paid idiot with a 1bn budget for instance?

    Blanket cuts (and safe guards) aren't clever IMHO, they need to be far more targeted, but thats not good copy.
    If universities are targeted then the likelihood of someone at the top being an idiot, or a toff because social mobility is reduced, will be increased. I think it is pretty clear that education is more important than the relative pay advantage of a public sector boss. There is obviously a massive problem in pubic sector pay anyway, it is rising by an average of 2.8% per annum in terms of pay, compared to the private sector which is rising by just 1.1%..

    But what has happened to productivity? It has dropped 3.4% over the last ten years in the public sector, as compared to an increase of 28% in the private sector according to ONS.

    So this isn't just about arbitrarily cutting wages because we are getting poor, it's about solving a massive problem of inefficiency within the public sector - most of which I would guess does not centre around universities.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Fast Stream, why?
    Just wondering.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    The Tories aren't announcing them either.

    TBH after this weeks change of tack fro the Tories I can't tell the difference between the two on public spending.
    I prefer Labour to the Cons, but I don't particularly like either. I'm basing my decision on core values now, as I believe that Labour is more likely to reform itself and do some good. But who knows, it's all a guessing game.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    If universities are targeted then the likelihood of someone at the top being an idiot, or a toff because social mobility is reduced, will be increased. I think it is pretty clear that education is more important than the relative pay advantage of a public sector boss. There is obviously a massive problem in pubic sector pay anyway, it is rising by an average of 2.8% per annum in terms of pay, compared to the private sector which is rising by just 1.1%..

    But what has happened to productivity? It has dropped 3.4% over the last ten years in the public sector, as compared to an increase of 28% in the private sector according to ONS.

    So this isn't just about arbitrarily cutting wages because we are getting poor, it's about solving a massive problem of inefficiency within the public sector - most of which I would guess does not centre around universities.
    I wasn't saying it wasn't, just that cutting lecturer pay won't make them leave their cosy research team whereas some people with billion pound budgets could go back to the private sector. Theres no reason why your argument doesn't work for them, just on a scarier scale.

    The inefficency has come from throwing money at the public sector without it knowing what to do with it.

    When it comes to pay it depends on the dept. Speaking for my own (which covers over 20% of civil servants) there has been a 3% rise over the last three years (2% rise, then 0% then 1%). Where's the figure you gave from? I'm not disputing it just want to know what it is. Since the Gov setup 3 year pay deals, its got far less leeway to negotiate than the private sector at the moment.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    I wasn't saying it wasn't, just that cutting lecturer pay won't make them leave their cosy research team whereas some people with billion pound budgets could go back to the private sector. Theres no reason why your argument doesn't work for them, just on a scarier scale.

    The inefficency has come from throwing money at the public sector without it knowing what to do with it.

    When it comes to pay it depends on the dept. Speaking for my own (which covers over 20% of civil servants) there has been a 3% rise over the last three years (2% rise, then 0% then 1%). Where's the figure you gave from? I'm not disputing it just want to know what it is. Since the Gov setup 3 year pay deals, its got far less leeway to negotiate than the private sector at the moment.
    My source was this Times article. It isn't perfect (probably best to ignore the actual analysis and some of the stats..) but I couldn't find the original report where I read the figures. I think it might have been CIVITAS or something like that, but I can't be bothered to trawl through ( they, the people who made the report I read, did a really thorough analysis of all the figures including which areas have lowest productivity and where things could be improved etc)

    I'm unsure of who exactly should have their pay reduced within the public sector - depending on precisely where the biggest problems lie and who is least productive (i.e., are consultants good value for money, are the bosses over paid or is it the case that the middle earners give least value..)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Much of the government consists of well-entrenched self-sustaining bureaucrats with quite likely the numbers of all the unions on speed dial. The actual useful people are the ones I sometimes feel sorry for, though to some extent less than private sector workers - it's not like Government Inc. is at major risk of going bust in the near future and they'll all lose their jobs.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    No, their pay will go up still, unless their are at the top of their band and don't get a promotion.
    Yeah, true. I was just trying to keep it simple but fair point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i don't know about the main land but here in northern ireland the public sector is always cut, my mother works her ass off, gets less than any civil servent on the main land. there were 12 people developing buildings for the army when the come back from Iraq and now there are four, (she works in the MOD)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michelle_mishmash)
    can any 1 care to explain to me what this means... what does freezing public salary mean? is it that civil servants will get paid less??

    Thanks to anyone who can help.
    It means me and my crew at the PCS will be having an eventful few years - http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/cscs/

    The thing is, back in the day people working in large scale private sector firms (e.g. M&S) used to have very good pay and conditions. Over time, those conditions have been eroded at the bottom (but not at the top) to the extent that people are saying "ooh, look at all those feather-bedded public sector workers" rather than saying "hang on a minute, how did private sector firms end up transferring lots of benefits from the bulk of the workforce to a small number of top execs?"

    It always amuses me how some people say that to make poorly paid people work harder, you make their pay, conditions and job security worse whereas to make rich people work harder, you do the opposite.

    Funny how the world works.

    As an aside, I've always wondered how successful a firm would be if it openly said that it would charge that little bit more, but in return it would have such outstanding service and pay a decent wage that there would be genuine competition to get a job there, with people taking real pride in working there. I imagine it would work well in some sectors where service makes a huge difference, but not in others (e.g. convenience supermarkets).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michelle_mishmash)
    can any 1 care to explain to me what this means... what does freezing public salary mean? is it that civil servants will get paid less??

    Thanks to anyone who can help.

    most public sector salaries have 2 potential rises each year

    1. a cost of lving / inflation related rise

    2. an incremental rise based on time in role and/or competency measures

    a 'freeze' would mean that the cost of living rise wouldn't happen , meaning that people with incremental progression would only get their increment and those topped out would not get a rise at all
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If we just keep on ranking up public debt we will need to go on an austerity budget like they have in Ireland with public sector pay cuts of up to 20%, reduction in benefits and scrapping of tax rebates. Its good the government are considering a pay freeze but more needs done.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 4, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.