Public sector workers

[indy and lara]

I think they are wrong and I think it is quite correct that they should have pay freezes. I would go one step further and issue several hefty pay cuts into the bargain.

Nobody gives a hoot when private sector jobs are made redundant and private workers have to take pay cuts on the chin with no unions to turn to.

If I was in power I'd change the law to make it possible for strikers to be sacked.[/QUOTE]

I really can't believe this post.

The vast majority of public sector workers earn around or just above minimum wage. Do you really think dinner ladies, cleaners, janitors, librarians, nurses etc are raking it in? What would you take from their salaries exactly?

People DO care when private sector workers lose their jobs. There has been a massive outcry recently across the board at redundancies. There are many PRIVATE sector workers who are in the appropriate union so they are not exclusively public sector.

Before Emma was born I was a teacher. My contract states that I should not work any more than 35 hours a week. I have no idea the last time I actually did 35 hours a week. I regularly worked 60 hours a week, so 25 hours a week unpaid. This is common place in my school and in teaching in general. Yes, I am glad I have a job (am on a career break) but I think perhaps the gratitude should go both ways and the council should be grateful for the extra work we all do unpaid also.

People do not just strike to for pay rises. Many of the proposed strikes for the next 12 months are to fight against the cuts to the most vulnerable in society. There is a lot of discussion in Scotland as to whether we will have a teachers' strike. If there is a strike, it will have NOTHING to do with our salaries. It is a strike against the cuts that we will mean that our our children will be in classrooms which are ridiculously under- resourced. Strikes are not always based on pay and conditions.

 

[upsybetsy]

I think they are wrong and I think it is quite correct that they should have pay freezes. I would go one step further and issue several hefty pay cuts into the bargain.

Nobody gives a hoot when private sector jobs are made redundant and private workers have to take pay cuts on the chin with no unions to turn to.

If I was in power I'd change the law to make it possible for strikers to be sacked.[/QUOTE]

I really can't believe this post.

The vast majority of public sector workers earn around or just above minimum wage. Do you really think dinner ladies, cleaners, janitors, librarians, nurses etc are raking it in? What would you take from their salaries exactly?

People DO care when private sector workers lose their jobs. There has been a massive outcry recently across the board at redundancies. There are many PRIVATE sector workers who are in the appropriate union so they are not exclusively public sector.

Before Emma was born I was a teacher. My contract states that I should not work any more than 35 hours a week. I have no idea the last time I actually did 35 hours a week. I regularly worked 60 hours a week, so 25 hours a week unpaid. This is common place in my school and in teaching in general. Yes, I am glad I have a job (am on a career break) but I think perhaps the gratitude should go both ways and the council should be grateful for the extra work we all do unpaid also.

People do not just strike to for pay rises. Many of the proposed strikes for the next 12 months are to fight against the cuts to the most vulnerable in society. There is a lot of discussion in Scotland as to whether we will have a teachers' strike. If there is a strike, it will have NOTHING to do with our salaries. It is a strike against the cuts that we will mean that our our children will be in classrooms which are ridiculously under- resourced. Strikes are not always based on pay and conditions.

Sorry - I was referring to a doc I watched (panorama) the other night about colossal salaries some public sector bosses were earning. I should have been clearer. As to the poorer paid... well I'm not sure basic jobs requiring little or no skills should be handsomely rewarded by the tax-payer. Just because we can't afford it and I don't really want to pay more tax.

As an aside, I very much doubt people go on strike to benefit others. They strike to benefit themselves - pay or conditions, but mostly pay.

I'll not post any more on this topic as I know I'll be in the minority with my views. I used to be an employer (I ran two businesses before becoming a full time mum), so my opinions have been formed by my experiences in a completely different field. I am absolutely anti-striking in all circumstances and I'm very much anti-union.

I would assume people accept jobs in the public sector knowing that they aren't going to receive huge salaries with bonuses. But even with imposed cuts their jobs have 'till now been much safer with automatic pay rises each year, paid holidays and many other soft perks.

In the private sector many are worse off than dinner ladies and cleaners with nowhere near the job security. Many are a lot, lot better off too.

As blunt as it is, if you aren't happy move jobs and do something else (difficult at the moment, I know). We all have to be responsible for ourselves and we're all capable of changing our own circumstances.

 

[aliss]

Out here, we have been having recent strikes to benefit others. Ambulance workers were striking because they were underpaid and understaffed (a result of the low wage). There weren't enough ambulances to go around and people were getting sick from overworking. There are instances where they do strike for people's benefit. It was pretty common for someone being pepper sprayed or beaten to wait 20 minutes for an ambulance (or be transported in the back of a police car instead) because there was only 1 ambulance for 1 town on a Friday night!

Some of us in the emergency services sector are FORCED to work if noone is available. We can be compelled. There have been days where I had to work 18 hours because there was nobody to take over my shift.

They asked for YEARS for more services and the government wouldn't do it. It wasn't until the ambulances started striking that the government was forced to provide more funding. Now we usually have about 3 ambulances on a Friday night.

I'm not sure how that doesn't benefit the public?

 

[PeanutBean]

Low pay doesn't necessarily mean no skills and I wouldn't call minimum pay a handsome reward.

 

[indy and lara]

I think they are wrong and I think it is quite correct that they should have pay freezes. I would go one step further and issue several hefty pay cuts into the bargain.

Nobody gives a hoot when private sector jobs are made redundant and private workers have to take pay cuts on the chin with no unions to turn to.

If I was in power I'd change the law to make it possible for strikers to be sacked.[/QUOTE]

I really can't believe this post.

The vast majority of public sector workers earn around or just above minimum wage. Do you really think dinner ladies, cleaners, janitors, librarians, nurses etc are raking it in? What would you take from their salaries exactly?

People DO care when private sector workers lose their jobs. There has been a massive outcry recently across the board at redundancies. There are many PRIVATE sector workers who are in the appropriate union so they are not exclusively public sector.

Before Emma was born I was a teacher. My contract states that I should not work any more than 35 hours a week. I have no idea the last time I actually did 35 hours a week. I regularly worked 60 hours a week, so 25 hours a week unpaid. This is common place in my school and in teaching in general. Yes, I am glad I have a job (am on a career break) but I think perhaps the gratitude should go both ways and the council should be grateful for the extra work we all do unpaid also.

People do not just strike to for pay rises. Many of the proposed strikes for the next 12 months are to fight against the cuts to the most vulnerable in society. There is a lot of discussion in Scotland as to whether we will have a teachers' strike. If there is a strike, it will have NOTHING to do with our salaries. It is a strike against the cuts that we will mean that our our children will be in classrooms which are ridiculously under- resourced. Strikes are not always based on pay and conditions.

Sorry - I was referring to a doc I watched (panorama) the other night about colossal salaries some public sector bosses were earning. I should have been clearer. As to the poorer paid... well I'm not sure basic jobs requiring little or no skills should be handsomely rewarded by the tax-payer. Just because we can't afford it and I don't really want to pay more tax.

As an aside, I very much doubt people go on strike to benefit others. They strike to benefit themselves - pay or conditions, but mostly pay.
I'll not post any more on this topic as I know I'll be in the minority with my views. I used to be an employer (I ran two businesses before becoming a full time mum), so my opinions have been formed by my experiences in a completely different field. I am absolutely anti-striking in all circumstances and I'm very much anti-union.

I would assume people accept jobs in the public sector knowing that they aren't going to receive huge salaries with bonuses. But even with imposed cuts their jobs have 'till now been much safer with automatic pay rises each year, paid holidays and many other soft perks.

In the private sector many are worse off than dinner ladies and cleaners with nowhere near the job security. Many are a lot, lot better off too.

As blunt as it is, if you aren't happy move jobs and do something else (difficult at the moment, I know). We all have to be responsible for ourselves and we're all capable of changing our own circumstances.

Firstly, minimum wage is far from well paid. Most of the non- skilled workers in schools are paid minimum wage and any cuts to them they will receive below minimum wage.

Secondly, as I said, the potential teaching strike in Scotland is for the benefit of others. It will have absolutely no impact on teachers' pay or conditions but it might mean that when your children get into Nursery or P1 there is actually paper for them to draw on, card for projects and a music teacher. And should your child have any additional support needs then they will have a chance of getting the targeted support they need. At the end of the day I won't take home a penny more in my salary but our children will continue to have an education which involves Expressive Arts, Outdoor Education and more than simple ABCs.

Yes most public service workers know they will never retire as millionaires but it doesn't actually mean that we all have to roll over and accept cuts which will devastate the service that we offer.

 

[PeanutBean]

Especially given that the economic difficulties have been entirely caused by the private sector.

 

[bluebaby]

I think they are wrong and I think it is quite correct that they should have pay freezes. I would go one step further and issue several hefty pay cuts into the bargain.

Nobody gives a hoot when private sector jobs are made redundant and private workers have to take pay cuts on the chin with no unions to turn to.

If I was in power I'd change the law to make it possible for strikers to be sacked.

I have mostly worked in the private sector (full time mum now), but did work in the public sector for 2 years in the late 1990s and the culture was shocking - sickies left, right and centre, "flexi" time appearing from nowhere etc etc. My sister has one of those silly quango jobs which are totally unnecessary and she is the first to admit she gets paid for nothing. AND thousands of them get paid more than the prime minister.

All this "serving the public" patter may be correct for a small minority of dedicate but in the real world and in my experience, people in the public sector get away with doing as little as possible for their pay packets. It is them that give the rest of their colleagues a very bad name and it is why most of the country (i.e. private sector) aren't sympathetic to their plight.

I'm lost for words with this post. I don't know what 'real world' you mean but its not the one i live in. I don't think the public sector has a bad name and i also think that the private sector have the same amount of employees 'doing as little as they can get away with' as you put it.

 

[babyblog]

I think they are wrong and I think it is quite correct that they should have pay freezes. I would go one step further and issue several hefty pay cuts into the bargain.

Nobody gives a hoot when private sector jobs are made redundant and private workers have to take pay cuts on the chin with no unions to turn to.

If I was in power I'd change the law to make it possible for strikers to be sacked.

I have mostly worked in the private sector (full time mum now), but did work in the public sector for 2 years in the late 1990s and the culture was shocking - sickies left, right and centre, "flexi" time appearing from nowhere etc etc. My sister has one of those silly quango jobs which are totally unnecessary and she is the first to admit she gets paid for nothing. AND thousands of them get paid more than the prime minister.

All this "serving the public" patter may be correct for a small minority of dedicate but in the real world and in my experience, people in the public sector get away with doing as little as possible for their pay packets. It is them that give the rest of their colleagues a very bad name and it is why most of the country (i.e. private sector) aren't sympathetic to their plight.

Bit of a generalisation in my opinion, why on earth should public sector workers be given a pay freeze when some of the jobs are dangerous and there to protect the public? I work for the probation service and am waiting at this very minute to find out whether i am going to be made reduntant. They are getting rid of more and more staff and the only thing this will lead to is higher re=offending in the community, thus our job losses= more danger to you, the general public. I work damn hard for the money i get, which to be honest is ridiculous considering the people i have to encounter on a day to day basis. If we strike it will be because we are concerned we can no longer do our jobs effectively and will therefore be letting down those we need to protect.

Sometimes a strike is needed to show our views when it feels like no one is listening, and as someone says for each day you strike you lose a day's wage so you have to be serious about your cause to go ahead with it.

Where exactly have you got your facts about "people in the public sector get away with doing as little as possible for their pay packets" from?

 

[katystwogirls]

Especially given that the economic difficulties have been entirely caused by the private sector.

Well that's one way of looking at it, however the private sector, unfortunately contributes to the vast majority of the UK's economy.

We can blame the bankers all we like, but the sq mile of the City of London contributes 20% of the entire UK revenue from tax et al.

Are they entirely responsible, or is it the government manufacturing countless public sector jobs where a) there is no need and b) the country can't afford them.

As tough as it is and as others have quite rightly said, striking in this climate is a slap in the face to those who have already lost their jobs.

 

[PeanutBean]

It's entirely a matter if opinion whether or not public jobs are needed. I personally would rather see public services carried out by public sector workers. Paying private companies to do public jobs will ultimately cost more money to the user.

 

[katystwogirls]

It's entirely a matter if opinion whether or not public jobs are needed. I personally would rather see public services carried out by public sector workers. Paying private companies to do public jobs will ultimately cost more money to the user.

I would rather see that too. However, I'm not talking nurses, teachers etc. I'm talking about the countless administrators and liaisons in quangos etc.

I know of entire departments in local gov't/Connections who use public sector money to take children (not necessarily under privilieged, just the occasional truant) to the pictures/theme parks/restaurants/swimming pools etc. That's just one example.

Can you honestly say there isn't/hasn't been a lot of waste?

True, that happens in the private sector also, but the difference is they can do what they like with their own money - they aren't wasting our money.

 

[PeanutBean]

Well I think local government is different to most of the public sector and I agree there is a lot of waste in local government. I don't have an issue with quangos to be honest. Mostly they do important jobs and I noticed that said it was scrapping them all the government has managed to set a whole load of new ones up and so far I have mostly hear of health and education being on the quango bonfire which is very concerning.

The public sector is vast and not every bit works the same as every other bit so as with everything this tarring with one brush is a silly thing to do. I've worked in LG though. The dept I was in was very wasteful (not least my job as I had nothing to do at all) and there is a pervading culture (largely amongst those who have been there a long time) of laziness. But there are many younger enthusiastic people who work very hard too. And local government includes so many very poorly paid jobs like waste, lollipop ladies, dinner ladies etc. Mostly these low paid workers are women and mostly they are the ones in the firing line.

In the news recently, these councils outsourcing everything (Barnet, Suffolk and Brighton I think), just seems like utter madness. 27,000 jobs down to about 500 who will all basically be well-paid contract managers?! What a terrible way to see our public services go. Those jobs won't be picked up by the private sector.

On the original topic I still don't know how I feel about strikes, but I feel strongly in favour of saving the public sector. I'm all for savings, efficiency etc but that's not what's happening. What's happening is privatisation of the state.