howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 September 2010
11:1271653#1
good to know our taxes are going to such deserving causes.
a study finds that 38,000 of them earn over £.100,000 and a further 1000 are on over £.200,000.
the prime minister earns £142,000 less than 9,000 public servants.
no doubt when the public sector axe falls, the people on the front line will bear the brunt of the pain.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
20 September 2010
12:1171654#2
That's 4 billion a year, Howard,
20 September 2010
12:2871662#3
And another thing........! there has been a hue and cry about the guy who said that there were some idle buggers in the public sector. Well, there are!!!!!!!!! I have worked in and around public sector organisations for years and there are some great and dedicated people, but there are a lot of hugely idle people who are simply tolerated and not managed properly. I have no time for managers who can't manage - manage your staff or stop managing!
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
20 September 2010
13:4771673#4
BERN
I don't disagree with you, you will find some in the private sector to.
What has to be addressed is this continued amount of money being paid to top private and public sector bosses.
Iv posted before on this, and the KCC about to reveal some of the top earners, theres loads more earniung vast amounts below them, then we have the District(very quiet on the matter) and there top earners
Something has to give soon
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 September 2010
13:5371676#5
Keith - what is paid to private sector bosses is absolutely nothing to do with you unless you are a shareholder in the company concerned.
You make a point about the public sector with which I agree.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 September 2010
15:0371688#6
the issue to me is whether dave and nick are prepared to take on the high rollers in whitehall and elsewhere or batter the hard pressed staff at job centres, tax offices or even border agency people.
previous history points the top dogs retaining their positions whilst they cut staff.
20 September 2010
15:5871691#7
We could save a fortune if we appropriately managed some of the smaller people taking up oxygen and salaries in the public sector, never mind the high-flyers who, incidentally, work hard for their money and deliver.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
20 September 2010
16:0971694#8
IMHO, if everyone in the public sector earning over £100k were to be sacked, and their jobs re-advertised at the proper market rate i.e. below the PM's salary, there would be no trouble filling the vacancies with perfectly well-qualified people. In many cases, the deputies of those currently at the trough. Ironic that it was BBC's Panorama which blew the lid off this - their boss is the fattest cat of all on £800,000+.
How many votes would that lose? Er, 38,000 or so.
PG.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
20 September 2010
16:1571697#9
There is clearly a case to re-evaluate the higher salaries - it is just silly that so many people top the PMs salary! But it is equally silly to deride the "bosses", for the want of a better phrase, who work hard even if it isn't with their hands. Public sector services are notorious, however, for bumping people upwards when they fail at any level. I have seen it for myself!
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
20 September 2010
17:5571702#10
In public service, where pension deals are still so good, there is a strong case for putting a pay ceiling equal to the salary for the biggest job in the land. Unfortunately we have created huge expectations which can only be met with huge rewards. The private sector is totally different, as BarryW says above.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 September 2010
18:3071706#11
bern
surely it is the responsibility of those on the higher salaries to weed out the malingerers or get them to improve their output?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
20 September 2010
18:3871709#12
BARRYW
Boy are you wrong on this one!!!!!
your telling me then that my bank chief executive getting a very high wage has nowt to do with wrong!!!!!!
I will be barryw as critical of the private sector as that of the public sector so get used to it.
As iv said its a view, i would never think of trying to silence you as much as i disagree on what u say.
not the first conservative that has tried to silence me on here
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
20 September 2010
19:1371720#13
Howard, you are right - but one person cannot be everywhere! Which is why they need good deputies and assistants, not those who are kicked upstairs to hide. And it is the middle managers who are guilty of that.
keith - sorry, I am not sure who is trying to silence you?
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
20 September 2010
19:1871722#14
A good point I heard earlier is perhaps the PM isn't on enough money, but are they in it for the benefit of the country or for the ££££££££££££ they will earn off the back of it??
Been nice knowing you :)
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
20 September 2010
19:1871724#15
Keith - private sector pay is a matter solely for the shareholders of those businesses; government intervenes at its peril. Pay and income policies are a self defeating instrument in Western democracies, it is too easy for high earning individuals and/or their employers to move domicile to a more favourable regime. Likewise we need to be very careful with high tax policies on high earners for the same reasons, much as I believe that the tax system should be redistributive it needs very careful thought to ensure people are not alienated.
With regard to those banks where the state has taken shares then we the people via the government of the day ought to have a say and some control over salaries.
As for the public sector, then we the taxpayer absolutely have a right to demand transparency, probity etc. in the pay structures.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 September 2010
21:2171748#16
Ross - thank you, very well put.
Keith - I find it absurd in the extreme that so many on the left trying to justify high tax/anti-business attitudes always turn to 'the banks' to justify their stereotyping bigotry. The private sector is made up of many hundreds of thousands of businesses large and small accross many sectors and what they pay their executives is only a matter for them and their shareholders. Apart from as a shareholder in those specific businesses that apply government has no business at all involving itself in Executive pay and should keep its dead hand out of the way.
Howard - no-one is trying to silence Keith of course, just challenging his expressed views and that, after all, is what discussions and debates are all about. It seems though that Keith cannot cope with being challenged and has a girly hissy fit instead. Apologies to the real girlies!!!!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
20 September 2010
21:2771749#17
BERN;
It looks to me like if you disagree with our BAZ he says you have no right to comment.
I don't agree at all
mine wasn't to say govt should control private sector, only an observation.
And I will continue to do so.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
20 September 2010
21:3071750#18
I think enough comments have been aired on this thread, and that we should be moving on.
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 September 2010
21:3071751#19
barry
i have never suggested that anyone is trying to silence keith, you are technically right about the legal responsibility of business to their shareholders.
as an addendum to that though i feel that they are morally irresponsible in their treatment of people and small businesses that they will not lend to at the moment.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
20 September 2010
21:3371752#20
colin
i thought this was just getting interesting, seems the debate is rational.
certainly a big issue for the current public sector staff that may soon be selling a publication of the same name.
