Because its a huge amount that i don't really think can be justified in the public sector.
I'm paid more than the PM.
- Thread starter tbaldwin
- Start date
Because its a huge amount that i don't really think can be justified in the public sector.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
That's very arbitrary of you. Is is inflation-affected at all? Was it also £100k in 1999? How about 2004? Will it still be £100k in 2019?
It's all very deconormative of you, to use a word I just made up. What's the big significance of the number 100? If we had 12 fingers, would you be agitating for a cap 20% higher?
It's all very deconormative of you, to use a word I just made up. What's the big significance of the number 100? If we had 12 fingers, would you be agitating for a cap 20% higher?
chazegee
Number two.
Clive James on the postal strikes. Essentially claiming that the management in this case and probably in all cases must be in the wrong. I want to believe him, but am obviously suspicious of someone's view point if they are a populist man of the people. I mean what else would he say? 
untethered
For industry & decency
You could set senior public sector salaries relative to the prime minister's salary. So a middle manager might get 0.3 PM and a senior one 0.7 PM.
untethered
For industry & decency
Jonathan Ross.
Fair point.
kabbes
First intersubjective, then internalised
Oh I don't know -- how about, er, the figure you actually quote in the thread title?
Well that might work? But i prefer the nice round figure of £100,000.
there are things i probably would agree with you on balders.
like top public sector bods being subject to the same processes we would if we were shit, not having golden handshakes or hellos, no special pension top ups, no bonuses etc unless everyone in the organisation had them
but an arbitary pay cap is a def no from me
like top public sector bods being subject to the same processes we would if we were shit, not having golden handshakes or hellos, no special pension top ups, no bonuses etc unless everyone in the organisation had them
but an arbitary pay cap is a def no from me
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Public sector pay is a difficult subject to talk about. On the one hand they are paid for by the public purse and therefore should be accountable to those who pay their wages. Yet there is no such demand (certainly not to the same level) for equivalence in the private sector. The public pay everybody's wages.
There is also the issue of efficiency and competency. You could draw a long list of professions in the public and private sectors and if you ask anyone which job they consider more "important" I would imagine the vast majority would point to the public sector jobs every time. How many people complain there are not enough bankers and lawyers compared to those who complain there are not enough police or nurses? It is therefore arguable that managers in the public sector are more important than their equivalents in the private sector, so why should they earn less to do a more important job?
And on the subject of pay, most attacks on the public sector seem to want them to be second class citizens. Apparently they don't "make" any money (despite creating the environment in which the private sector make money but we'll forget that for the moment) so they shouldn't get any of the benefits people working in the (less important) private sector should get. Until the recent crisis banks could blow billions of the public's money on sports cars and foreign trips for their top workers, yet the second somebody from the public sector gets a train ticket paid for on "expenses" then that sort of thing shouldn't be allowed.
Look at the outrage shown against the head of child services at Harringay Council over Baby P's death. People on Facebook wanted to string her up as if her incompetence was somehow worse than the parents who did the killing! Was she only human or was she shite at her job? Most people think the latter, so maybe limiting or lowering the wages of top public sector officials (who already earn far less than their counterparts in the private sector) will lessen the quality of candidate for these positions that we consider so important as soon as something goes wrong (but want to shaft when there are no problems that we know about)?
A limit on top public sector workers' wages might play well with the conservative right who would do away with the entire public sector if they could, but in my opinion, without equally (entirely unrealistic) limiting the pay of private sector bosses then it just won't work as once somebody has reached a certain level and gained the necessary experience to do a competent job they'll leave to join the private sector as there would be no more advancements.
Not even the fruitiest of the fruit cake right would ever really propose doing away with the whole public sector in the UK.
Huge pay for bosses in the public sector undermines public confidence and demoralises front line staff. The arguements against capping public sector pay are the worst of liberal hypocrisy crossed with the worst in tory greed.
If somebody who can now earn £130 grand a year as head of childrens services wants to leave if they are only paid 60 grand....I say for the childrens sake let them go....
The reason this country has so many social problems is because of the huge inequality......You are not going to tackle that by paying huge pay to public sector bosses....
scifisam
deleted
Nah - it's too high up.
Bajie
Zhu Bajie
A good maximum wage in the public sector is for the highest wage band to be 10x above the lowest paid employee
For exammple band 1 - £11,000 per annum, highest paid £111,000 max. Seems fair to me.
Where I work the CE is on over £200,000, fucks knows what he does for this money though.
For exammple band 1 - £11,000 per annum, highest paid £111,000 max. Seems fair to me.
Where I work the CE is on over £200,000, fucks knows what he does for this money though.
Similar threads
