Public Sector vs Private Sector

[Hollis]

Can you stop lying and trolling (ernesto-style if not content) please?

You're coming over as a right wing Daily Telegraphite resentful whiner, which I'm sure you don't REALLY want.

I'm fucking off from this thread until you stop disrupting it with your bitterness and nastiness.

70+??

 

[beeboo]

Big holidays, big pay. Great terms I conditions.

"Dave, I fancy leaving at 3 pm today"

"No problems mate, take tomorrow morning off aswell"

Whilst I work 'til the early hours finishing off all the work they've subcontracted out to consultants.

Bastards!

(aye, I'd probably get it done faster if I wasn't whinging about it here)

<goes back to report writing>

 

[tastebud]

Really?! So the entire private sector does absolutely nothing good at all?

There he goes again with his sweeping antagonistic statements without providing any examples to help make his point.

Quite a few years ago I myself worked for some personal injury, family law solicitors. Great, I thought, at least it's something good. But of course it wasn't, just selfish greedy nasty people trying to make money out of the misfortune of others.

Provide examples of some good private sector work then Hollis (and Zenie apparently - ) and I'll engage in debate with you.

 

[Hollis]

There he goes again with his sweeping antagonistic statements without providing any examples to help make his point.

Quite a few years ago I myself worked for some personal injury, family law solicitors. Great, I thought, at least it's something good. But of course it wasn't, just selfish greedy nasty people trying to make money out of the misfortune of others.

Provide examples of some good private sector work then Hollis (and Zenie apparently - ) and I'll engage in debate with you.

No - please first back up your sweeping generalisation about the private sector.

You can't just wade it to threads with grand assertions then refuse to back them up. You're debating style seems to be limited to demanded that everyone agrees to your pov.

mad: )

 

[EastEnder]

I think one of the problems in debating the difference between public/private sector is that the terms are far too broad.

To my mind there's a vast difference between pen pushers in some government office and firefighters out tackling blazes. But they're both "public sector".

I suspect that, when comparing the differences, most people often assume a distinction something like:

Private sector - people working in banks, IT, city offices, etc.

Public sector - civil servants, government offices, local government admin, etc.


Essentially, comparing something roughly office based in the public sector to a similar vein of role in the private sector.

 

[han]

So
Private = Capitalism
Public = Socialism

I reckon that sums it up in a nutshell (of course there are gonna be exceptions, eg. ethical companies, or public organisations that are right wing!)

 

[Agent Sparrow]

YONE shouild have decent leave allowances, pension allowances, etc.?

If you don't get em in the private sector (which you should), fight for them. That's what unions are for.

*punches air*

Yeah! Go William!

I like and agree with what Vixen has posted too, that's certainly why I'd never want to work in private health care while there is a public alternative. Health should not be about profit.

Not saying that some individual people who work in private companies don't want to acheive good but he whole ethos of profit first is not going to be condusive to that IMO.

 

[Dan U]

If you don't get em in the private sector (which you should), fight for them. That's what unions are for.

slightly naive view sadly...

effective unions in the private sector outside of manufacturing? your having a laugh arent you?

 

[EastEnder]

effective unions in the private sector outside of manufacturing? your having a laugh arent you?

Indeed.....

Unions are only effective when dealing with large employing organisations that have very high numbers of staff.

When you're talking about thousands of companies, averaging maybe a couple of hundred employees each, the concept of unionism doesn't really work any more.

 

[zenie]

This is all very interesting

I think Hollis is truly taking the piss William let's all be friends ey?

Provide examples of some good private sector work then Hollis (and Zenie apparently - ) and I'll engage in debate with you.

Where would you be without Banks, and shops?

 

[Dan U]

Indeed.....

Unions are only effective when dealing with large employing organisations that have very high numbers of staff.

When you're talking about thousands of companies, averaging maybe a couple of hundred employees each, the concept of unionism doesn't really work any more.

the last place i worked did everything it could to keep the GMB away from the minimum wage staff who were entitled to (and needed) representation.

i am an accountant <ducks> at the same company i had serious bullying problems with a director - tried to discipline me for taking a day off cos my nan had died is one example.

In the face of a complicit and compliant HR team i was screwed - no one to advise me or help me. in my disciplinary meeting - over another matter, he wanted me out - i had to throw the kitchen sink at them in terms of detailing his behaviour. The only defence i had was to make it clear any tribunal situation would be expensive. then i left, wasnt worth the stress.

i'd like to think that would never happen in the public sector.. but i guess buillying is a human condition sadly - but at least i would have help dealing with it!

 

[Biddlybee]

One thing about the public/charity sector... people expect a hell of lot from you for what you're paid, and the time frame given to do it in... your managers will assume that you can do a month's worth of three people's work all in one day! At the same time as writing notes to hand over to people the day before you go on holiday!

(not really an objective view... not liking my job, this sector, many things today )

 

[beeboo]

One of the best companies I've worked with in terms of having a good balance between being the kind of 'private sector' goal-driven push-push and the 'public sector' nice-to-employees is Nationwide Building Society.

Especially compared with your average bank, they're really people-focused and also properly customer-focused (in the sense of 'what is best for people' rather than 'how can we screw them over').

 

[Hollis]

Where would you be without Banks, and shops?

Especially kebab shops - an entirely privately owned industry - promoting happiness and wellbeing night after night after night.



Hurrah to Kebab Shops!!!

 

[gaenor]

Basically, the role of private organisations is to make profits, whereas the role of public and charitable organisations is to serve the public or try and improve peoples' lives in some way.

i specialise in poverty and social exclusion. i have been observing my council and linked organisations for eleven years. public service should be, as already stated on this thread, "to serve the public". unfortunately it appears to be a way for private companies to get contracts and thereby "profit" from public money. i was initially welcomed to set up a project working with offenders until it became clear that my recommendations were not in keeping with the council. after writing a letter to a local paper in 2000 criticising regeneration strategies i was disowned by the voluntary sector. they told me i was "nothing to do with them". i consider that a compliment. i totally support voluntary workers but abhor the system. i'm still getting no support to help prisoners set up businesses but the local voluntary sector has exploded in eleven years from one full paid member of staff to thirty. council contracts are given to private companies but nobody does quality or cost control and volunteers are expected to raise deprived estate out of poverty. many charities are not actually alleviating problems but they are making a killing from your council and socially excluded people, everything from housing, mental health and children in care. the increase in "caring charities" is enormous but there is no reduction in the suffering of the needy. the irony is that both public and private sector employees are under pressure to meet targets but those targets are far from the needs of the people. it is all about profit

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Where would you be without Banks, and shops?

Tbf both of those could be run better though, surely? Banks are useful services admittedly but it's not always nice realising where your money's going to create the interest and larger powerful shops will ruthlessly trample any competition in their way.

 

[tastebud]

You're debating style seems to be limited to demanded that everyone agrees to your pov.

Pretty much, yeah. *gold star for Hollis* I've thought long and hard about my views to arrive at the position I hold and I don't like to be knocked down by someone who just likes to contradict for the sake of it/ getting a rise out of people/william/jezza/me etc.
Basically, my premise is that I object to an ethos that is souly motivated by making money (e.g., banks!)

Another thing I liked about the charity I worked in (and probably applicable to other charities too) is the pay scale. It mirrors that of the public service (I also worked for the DSS for a few months as a teenager). I like the fact that everyone on the same level is on the same scale, as opposed to this, *whisper whisper* ooh look, he earns more than I do - but perhaps for no good reason at all - with a resulting back-stabbing mentality, that goes on in the private sector. Amongst many other things, this does nothing for overall staff morale, thus working environment and is indicative of the position that money is such an important thing in life.

 

[lighterthief]

To be fair a lot of the public sector could be run better too.

 

[EastEnder]

Basically, my premise is that I object to an ethos that is souly motivated by making money (e.g., banks!)

In terms of advocating an ethical ideology, I'd agree.

The problem is that the unpalatable reality of life is that money is a prime (if not the prime) motivator of innovation and progress.

Drugs companies do not spend billions developing new drugs out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it in order to make huge profits. Arguably the same research could be carried out by public institutions, but in the absence of capitalist drivers, the pace of advancement would be much slower, not to mention the fact that public institutions are funded via taxation, which is money that was mostly generated by the free market sector...

IMHO, the inexorable, morally dubious quest for wealth is a necessary evil in any truly successful society.

 

[Hollis]

Pretty much, yeah. *gold star for Hollis* I've thought long and hard about my views to arrive at the position I hold and I don't like to be knocked down by someone who just likes to contradict for the sake of it/ getting a rise out of people/william/jezza/me etc.
Basically, my premise is that I object to an ethos that is souly motivated by making money (e.g., banks!)

Whether or not you liked getting "knocked down" is I'm afraid irrelevant. If you post up some dismissive stuff about the entire private sector - which does 'no good at all', then you really should support this?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Drugs companies do not spend billions developing new drugs out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it in order to make huge profits. Arguably the same research could be carried out by public institutions, but in the absence of capitalist drivers, the pace of advancement would be much slower, not to mention the fact that public institutions are funded via taxation, which is money that was mostly generated by the free market sector...

But there might be less of a chance of unsafe drugs being put on the market quickly in order to reduce overheads?

 

[EastEnder]

But there might be less of a chance of unsafe drugs being put on the market quickly in order to reduce overheads?

Certainly.

Which risk are you most comfortable with - the problems of profit driven companies not acting in a sufficiently conscientious manner, or the problems of progress & innovation taking so long that people die because the drugs weren't developed in time?

Neither is ideal, that's life.

 

[Hollis]

But there might be less of a chance of unsafe drugs being put on the market quickly in order to reduce overheads?

That all comes down to effective regulation. Personally I can see as much chance of an unsafe drug entering the market through public sector work as private, if not regulated properly.

And knowing several people who work in the scientifc civil service, I can tell you some of the information put out isnt there to protect the public.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Neither is ideal, that's life.

Pessimist.

I wonder if there's a third way with the advantages of both in that scenario. Although unfortunately I think that does rely on nice people running things.

 

[beeboo]

I switched jobs a couple of years ago, from working with investment banks etc in the city, to working with central + local govnt.

I was often shocked by the ruthless, backstabbing 'me first' culture in the banks, and the profit-is-all culture (some of the stuff banks do to their customers is first-class evil). But bloody hell, stuff got done quickly, things that didn't work were canned, new ideas everywhere.

I'm much happier doing a job which I feel at least has *some* social value. But I'm frequently shocked by staggering inefficiency in govnt. I've recently worked on a project which was being done purely as a box-ticking exercise, with no intention to deliver anything as a result, and the exact same exercise was being repeated by two or three other govnt bodies at the same time, because they hadn't spoken to each other Makes me despair!

 

[tastebud]

Anyway Hollis I was only ever really talking from a personal perspective, in terms of why I myself choose the public sector. See, here:

For me this is most important on a personal level.

If other people want to work for corporations this is fine. It just wouldn't work for me and would make me unhappy for the reasons I've given here:

I've worked in education, a hospital, a charity and also private sector jobs (which I hope never to do again) and whilst there's a whole load of red tape and bureaucracy - especially within the NHS setting - and dodgy stuff going on, in much the same way as within private companies, ultimately the aim is to do something good and yes, improve people's lives in some way. For me this is the driving force. Thus the smaller salary, ineffecient administration, poor working-conditions etc. are made up for by the fact that I'm not selling my soul to some big f*ck corporation, which does nothing for the good of human-kind in any way. In fact, mostly causing more damage than it does good.

Just my opinion/ perspective of course.

I do think that some people may think they are happy in the private sector though and that there may actually be a deep-rooted but unconscious unhappiness impacting their working life, general quality of life, due to the dishonesty, greed that goes with the private sector. Again this is just speculative opinion on my part.

 

[zenie]

Vixen does this go back to the live to work/work to live type thing?

What you see work as and what your motivations are?

 

[tastebud]

Vixen does this go back to the live to work/work to live type thing?

What you see work as and what your motivations are?

I'm not sure I totally understand your question. But... I decided in my teens that I wanted to do something worthwhile if I could. I'm also quite industrious at heart and work is quite important to me. As is achievement. However I hate so much of the world that I live in and try as best as I can not to compromise my opinions, beliefs, morals etc with my behaviour.

Okay, I've now written from a too personal perspective than I would've liked but never mind.

One thing that made me unhappier than ever was the job I did whilst doing my degree - in the private sector and really really horrible and pointless. This is probably also a big force behind my somewhat strong opinion on the matter.

 

[Prince Rhyus]

My union always says that the payoff for lower wages is job security and higher pensions in the public sector. So one could say that is the main difference.

I've seen some appalling management in both sectors. In the private sector, the bottom line is profitability and unless it can be proved that certain pro-worker procedures can increase long and short-term profits, they will cut corners wherever possible. However, at the very top end the rewards are seemingly endless. (Financially that is.)

I can't see myself going back into the private sector in the near future because I'm quite happy with the generous leave entitlements that allow me to go to places and do things that I would never otherwise do. I couldn't see the private sector being as flexible.

Incompetent management in the private sector appears to be along the lines of screwing their workforce and/or screwing their customers. Incompetence in the public sector appears to revolve around promoting the wrong people for the job and having very archaic systems and processes.

 

[EastEnder]

In the private sector, the bottom line is profitability and unless it can be proved that certain pro-worker procedures can increase long and short-term profits, they will cut corners wherever possible. However, at the very top end the rewards are seemingly endless. (Financially that is.)

That's true, but it should be remembered that the seemingly unsackable, obscenely overpaid fat cats at the very top constitute a vanishingly small fraction of all private sector workers.

99.999% of those in the private sector will never get to the very top end. So it could be argued that in a private vs public sector debate, it's an issue that can effectively be discounted.