Strikes among public sector workers begin

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I appreciate that there may be differences in different countries.UK national statistics office



I do note the lower growth in bonuses and pay increases across the private sector during a period when the public sector had a pay freeze.

A little selective with your statistics there.

What you ignore the is that the figure for the whole economy pay growth is higher than the private sector pay growth. Now how could that be? Well I guess this would explain it:

"In the year to April, pay growth (including bonuses) in the private sector stood at 1.6 per cent compared with 2.2 per cent in the public sector. Excluding bonus payments, growth in the private sector stood at 1.8 per cent compared with 2.4 per cent in the public sector."

So the public sector pay freeze turns out to have involved pay growth at a rate FASTER than the private sector.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=10

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

As you point out. The old schemes which ahve been closed for a number of years are favourable in today's terms but staff in those schemes were for most (if not all) of their careers paid far less than they would earn outside the public sector. They accepted lower pay rises because the pension benefits included in those agreements were part of the overall remuneration packages. The Government had their cake and now want to eat it by refusing to honour those agreements.

Except if what you say were true, then public sector wages would be lower than private sector. But the research shows they are not.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2010/10chap9.pdf

And the public sector pensions AFTER the proposed changes would still be massively better than anything available to comparable workers in the private sector.

The strikers are arguing that they are entitled not just to massively better pensions, but to supermassively better pensions.

 

[Lothian]

[/I]
I see that, you apparently have a very bloated public work force. No wonder finances are in such a mess!


Believe it or not, but unemployment can go up even as the number of working people increases. This happens when more people are entering the workforce than there are jobs created.

Sounds to me like hiring is slowed and workers are working longer hours. They're not getting a higher pay rate, but they are working more hours.

The article linked earlier said the 130,000 public job cuts acconted for 2.1% of public sector jobs. Which means that you had over 6.1 million public sector jobs in a country of just 62 million. So nearly 1 in 10 UKers work for the government, and as a percentage of the total workforce it has to be far higher.

Do you really think such a public sector workforce could be maintained in perpetuity? You can't just grab stuff from the colonies any more...

We were talking about whether the public or private sector was bearing the burden. That you have shifted the topic I take as a concession you were wrong.

Do we have a very bloated public sector? I don't know but would welcome any evidence you have along with a definition of bloated. I would expect your answer to compare like with like. Bear in mind that many activities are dealt with by the public sector in the UK that the private sector supplies elsewhere. As an example I would expect any UK to US comparison to include in the US figures private heath industry workers.

 

[Lothian]

A little selective with your statistics there.

What you ignore the is that the figure for the whole economy pay growth is higher than the private sector pay growth. Now how could that be? Well I guess this would explain it:

"In the year to April, pay growth (including bonuses) in the private sector stood at 1.6 per cent compared with 2.2 per cent in the public sector. Excluding bonus payments, growth in the private sector stood at 1.8 per cent compared with 2.4 per cent in the public sector."

So the public sector pay freeze turns out to have involved pay growth at a rate FASTER than the private sector.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=10

If I am reading the figures you quoted correctly they concern average salary. If so the figures are not 'growth' in the normal sense. If you lose a percentage of your workforce and they mainly represent the lowest paid workers then the average wage will increase even in a pay freeze.
Certainly unions claimed that the worst paid workers would be affected most by the spending review. They are far cheaper to get rid of.

Does this make sense?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If I am reading the figures you quoted correctly they concern average salary. If so the figures are not 'growth' in the normal sense. If you lose a percentage of your workforce and they mainly represent the lowest paid workers then the average wage will increase even in a pay freeze.
Certainly unions claimed that the worst paid workers would be affected most by the spending review. They are far cheaper to get rid of.

Does this make sense?

They are exactly comparable with the figures that you quoted as representing an increase in private sector pay, prepared on exactly the same basis.

You can't quote one and seek to ignore the other. This is what you claimed about the increase for the private sector:

I do note the lower growth in bonuses and pay increases across the private sector during a period when the public sector had a pay freeze.

You referred to it as growth and pay increases when it involved the public sector. But when it is shown that the public sector was enjoying higher increases this is not "growth". Can you explain?

 

[geni]

Yes, we're still running a deficit, and the pope is still catholic. That doesn't mean we keep cutting until the deficit is gone, it means we implement some cuts and then wait for it to run down over a number of years.

Not going to happen with a halfway realistic growth rate. If you implement some cuts but stop short of blancing the budget it is unlikely that you will see a balanced budget within mear years.

 

[geni]

[The article linked earlier said the 130,000 public job cuts acconted for 2.1% of public sector jobs. Which means that you had over 6.1 million public sector jobs in a country of just 62 million. So nearly 1 in 10 UKers work for the government, and as a percentage of the total workforce it has to be far higher.

Do you really think such a public sector workforce could be maintained in perpetuity? You can't just grab stuff from the colonies any more...

Err you could employ that many people full time at a cost of a mear £1.4 billion which is about 0.25% of the UK's total tax revinue.

Rather than employee numbers the usual measure is spending as a percentage of GDP. Currently it's at about 44% but there is no particular reason that something in the high 30s isn't sustainable.

 

[Lothian]

Except if what you say were true, then public sector wages would be lower than private sector. But the research shows they are not.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2010/10chap9.pdf

And the public sector pensions AFTER the proposed changes would still be massively better than anything available to comparable workers in the private sector.

The strikers are arguing that they are entitled not just to massively better pensions, but to supermassively better pensions.

I had a skim through that report. It concludes that "pay levels in the public sector are probably not significantly out of line with those of similar workers in the private sector" I bolded what I think is the key word.

The report recognises key problems with the base data referring to Ben Goldacre 's guardian article.. This report looks to get round that looking at growth and trends from a set time. There is however nothing I can see that says that pay was equal at the start. The narrative makes clear that there are lots of estimates.

I stand by my opinion that traditionally the public sector has been paid less for like for like jobs and pension was the compensation.

Hutton explicitly stated that public sector pensions are not gold plated although I accept they are better that many in the public sector.

The strikers claim they are entitled to have their contracts honored. Perhaps you can clarify. In the private sector what happens if someone decides they don't like the contract they entered into?

 

[Lothian]

They are exactly comparable with the figures that you quoted as representing an increase in private sector pay, prepared on exactly the same basis.

You can't quote one and seek to ignore the other. This is what you claimed about the increase for the private sector:



You referred to it as growth and pay increases when it involved the public sector. But when it is shown that the public sector was enjoying higher increases this is not "growth". Can you explain?

Sorry, I didn't (and still don't) see 'average' in the figures I posted but the figures look identical and as such you are right you can't draw conclusions on pay from it.

I picked that thinking it demonstrated wildcat was wrong in claiming the public sector was being hit harder than the private sector. There is still evidence that he is wrong further up.
"The number of people in employed in the public sector fell by 24,000 over the quarter to reach 6.16 million but the number of people employed in the private sector increased by 104,000 over the quarter to reach 23.08 million."

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think you'll find that when it comes to working conditions and pay, allowing the Tories to do whatever they like and offering no resistance is what makes things worse.

Resistance happens on election day. That's what "Democracy" means.
Witholding your labour is a right. You want to do it, go ahead. But do it too often and you won't have a job to go back to. It's not an efficient protest and it achieves nothing except to make everyone worse off.

90% of the teaching jobs in this country are in the public sector (and many private sector teachers are on strike too). What most people don't seem to realise is that public sector workers have already agreed to tighten their belts. They've taken the two year pay freeze (which in real terms is a pay cut), they've accepted the national insurance increase, they've accepted the switch from RPI to CPI (which knocks a large chunk out of pensions), and they've agreed to negotiate on retirement age.

But they refused the pension contribution increase, and the government has responded by saying "Don't strike, keep negotiating. Our part in the negotiations is to demand that you accept these contributions without question and we won't back down, but don't strike!"

I don't doubt teachers and others have felt a fall in living standards. I don't doubt they have made sacrifices, but the same can be said of many workers in every area of the economy.
As for a pension agreement, I wouldn't know. I have no pension, state or otherwise. If I want to retire and go on eating, I have to fund it from earnings. If I don't show up for work, someone else will. That's my choice.
Teachers chose differently. All choices have downsides.

I just can't see how striking is going to help.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I had a skim through that report. It concludes that "pay levels in the public sector are probably not significantly out of line with those of similar workers in the private sector" I bolded what I think is the key word.

The report recognises key problems with the base data referring to Ben Goldacre 's guardian article.. This report looks to get round that looking at growth and trends from a set time. There is however nothing I can see that says that pay was equal at the start. The narrative makes clear that there are lots of estimates.

I stand by my opinion that traditionally the public sector has been paid less for like for like jobs and pension was the compensation.

Hutton explicitly stated that public sector pensions are not gold plated although I accept they are better that many in the public sector.

The report reaches a conclusion you don't like so you choose to go with your own assumption based on no evidence at all. Interesting way to operate.

Better than many in the public sector? What percentage of the public sector do you think gets a contribution of c30% of salary from their employer into their pension scheme? Because that is in the ballpark of what they would need to get the same pension as you would get in the public sector. You may not like the term gold-plated, but it seems a very reasonable way to describe a scheme that guarantees your payout, allows you to retire early, is index linked and involves no investment risk for you whatsoever. What additional features do you think it would need to qualify as gold plated?

 

[Lothian]

The report reaches a conclusion you don't like so you choose to go with your own assumption based on no evidence at all. Interesting way to operate.

The report reached no conclusion. It made an assertion which does nto appear to be supported by the data

Better than many in the public sector? What percentage of the public sector do you think gets a contribution of c30% of salary from their employer into their pension scheme? Because that is in the ballpark of what they would need to get the same pension as you would get in the public sector. You may not like the term gold-plated, but it seems a very reasonable way to describe a scheme that guarantees your payout, allows you to retire early, is index linked and involves no investment risk for you whatsoever. What additional features do you think it would need to qualify as gold plated?

Why ask me? I said that Lord Hutton's report said they were not gold plated. Ask him.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Sorry, I didn't (and still don't) see 'average' in the figures I posted but the figures look identical and as such you are right you can't draw conclusions on pay from it.

I picked that thinking it demonstrated wildcat was wrong in claiming the public sector was being hit harder than the private sector. There is still evidence that he is wrong further up.
"The number of people in employed in the public sector fell by 24,000 over the quarter to reach 6.16 million but the number of people employed in the private sector increased by 104,000 over the quarter to reach 23.08 million."

Tell me you are not basing your opinion on the impact on one set of quarterly figures of movements in employment rates?

And lets not forget that the percentage of public sector employees went up significantly over the last decade. From here:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/elmr/07_10/downloads/ELMR_Jul10_Matthews.pdf

"However, it should also be noted that both sectors have shown an increase
in employment over the last 10 years; the public sector by 16 per cent and the private sector by 4.2 per cent."

So as the public sector took the benefits of the boom times in increased employment, surely you do not expect them to be immune from the costs once the boom is over?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The report reached no conclusion. It made an assertion which does nto appear to be supported by the data

Nope it concludes quite clearly that the total package for a public sector job is higher than an equivalent private sector one. That you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Why ask me? I said that Lord Hutton's report said they were not gold plated. Ask him.

Cos Lord Hutton isn't here. Do you agree that public sector pensions are vastly better than private sector?

And will remain so even after the proposed changes are enacted?

 

[Lothian]

Nope it concludes quite clearly that the total package for a public sector job is higher than an equivalent private sector one. That you don't like it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

by adding a pension benefit to an assumed salary

Cos Lord Hutton isn't here. Do you agree that public sector pensions are vastly better than private sector?

And will remain so even after the proposed changes are enacted?

Vastly no, after changes no.
Currently the in the civil service partnership scheme the employer matches the employees contributions £ for £ up to 3%.

 

[stokes234]

Resistance happens on election day. That's what "Democracy" means.
Witholding your labour is a right. You want to do it, go ahead. But do it too often and you won't have a job to go back to. It's not an efficient protest and it achieves nothing except to make everyone worse off.
I don't doubt teachers and others have felt a fall in living standards. I don't doubt they have made sacrifices, but the same can be said of many workers in every area of the economy.
As for a pension agreement, I wouldn't know. I have no pension, state or otherwise. If I want to retire and go on eating, I have to fund it from earnings. If I don't show up for work, someone else will. That's my choice.
Teachers chose differently. All choices have downsides.

I just can't see how striking is going to help.

Democracy means that the government is decided by a popular vote. It says nothing about strikes.

Public sector workers have already accepted a pay freeze, already lost a chunk of their pensions from the rpi->cpi switch, already lost pay from the national insurance increase, and are already set to retire later. The pension contribution increase on top of all that is a step too far.

 

[stokes234]

Miliband stands up forstabs in the back the working class: Labour MPs expected to cross picket lines, calls the strike a mistake.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13957592

To their credit, the welsh labour party including the welsh first minister refused to cross the picket line outside the senedd. The labour AM for pontypridd spoke at a union rally in support.

 

[stokes234]

" In 2010 there was a 132,000 reduction in public sector employment, a decrease of 2.1%."

You must have a really bloated public work force!

Who gets to decide what constitutes a bloated public work force?

Define "superrich".

I'll go with the richest 1000 people in the uk for this one.

 

[stokes234]

Not going to happen with a halfway realistic growth rate. If you implement some cuts but stop short of blancing the budget it is unlikely that you will see a balanced budget within mear years.

"If you don't balance the budget, the budget won't get balanced." Thanks for that.

We don't need to cut so fast now. So what if we're still paying it off in 6 years? Our pensioners will still have £7000 a year to live on, seems like a good cause to me.

 

[WildCat]

Who gets to decide what constitutes a bloated public work force?

It looks like you guys are right now, there's hundreds of thousands more public jobs to be made "redundant" in the next few years, yes? Better to do it this way than the way it's being done in Greece.

I'll go with the richest 1000 people in the uk for this one.

You don't thik those guys could live anywhere they want? Didn't you guys get rid of some of your most ridiculous tax laws years ago because the "super rich" were simply moving elsewhere? What makes you think they're going to stick around just so the government can take their money?