What should be done about Public Sector pay?

Thanks suzied I didn't know that . There seems to be quite a few who come and go at my DGC's school .

You really take the biscuit !

Actually it nearly wasn't going to happen as no bloody teachers would volunteer to do it . Stuff your sarcastic attitude . Please don't engage with me again !

gillybob teachers can't go back to the same job after retirement if they do they loose part of their pension, so they don't end up with more money despite what you think.

How do you determine a market rate, on the day when the BBC has had to show pay for everyone earning over £150,000?

Who is going to be looking after your granddaughter at her end of primary school prom?
Teachers, I bet, with no extra pay.

If taxes are raised to pay nurses or teachers more money (just asked Mr Google for average nurses pay.... which seems to range from £20,000 for a new nurse to around £34,000-£40,000) then someone on just over minimum wage or thereabouts could end up paying more tax (it may only be a £1 or £2 but nevertheless) in order to fund the rise.

Where else would more money come from? everyone wants more, more, more... for less, less, less.

How do you determine a market rate? What do you think would be a fair wage?

I totally disagree with someone taking early retirement from the public sector (why do i keep typing pubic??) and then going back to work in the same or similar job and would go so far as to outlaw it. Greed at its worst.

Recent press would suggest that there are quite a few nurses just waiting to come in from Australia etc.

Apologies for another jumble but now dashing to take DGD to her end of primary school prom. Almost wasn't going to happen so much excitement.

That happened when I left college in 1980. Teachers had retired early because that is what the government wanted.
Then they took all the supply jobs in schools that they knew would be there because there were not enough teachers, so there was no work for those newly qualified.
Why should teachers and nurses not use the system?

There are pension rules for teachers that you can't earn more than a certain amount, after that they knock your pension down pound for pound. I don't know what the exact figure is now, but it does mean that a teacher can't get a pension and go back to exactly the same job they did before. They can work part time though, which some older teachers do to wind down to full retirement. Schools quite often contact former teachers when a maternity leave is due as its often the only way they can fill a gap.

So what do you think we can afford Gilly? - what the government tells you? Each government has an agenda behind their figures.

Why should someone earning a very low wage pay more taxes so nurses/teachers and civil servants can hold the country to ransom?

Why do you think someone earning a low wage would pay more? We have a progressive tax system.

Do you agree that someone in the Public Sector should be allowed to take early retirement in order to go back and do the same (or very similar) job?

There is no way I would be judgemental about someone who had done this. If you (the government) are foolish enough to set up a system that encourages this - it will happen. There is a quote which I always think is very apt when talking about poor systems.

Tell me how you measure me and I will tell you how I will behave. If you measure me in an illogical way… do not complain about illogical behavior…”

In other words the measurement you set determines behaviour not the other way round. If your measurement - and therefore reward - of someone doing the same job is greater in one circumstance than another, people will move to the better position. You could also see it as people using their redundancy money to support the NHS in order to make the conditions of their employment viable. Maybe this is deliberate because the government has tied the hands of the employers (schools, hospitals). You appear to be asking people to collaborate in being in a losing position - why would they and why should they.

so nurses/teachers and civil servants can hold the country to ransom

They are not holding the country to ransom they are asking - as everyone else does - for the market rate. If they were being paid the market rate there would be no shortages and no increase in vacancies that are getting harder and harder to fill. Why should they subsidise the NHS and Education with their labour in order to save someone else paying for the service that is made available.

As I understood it teaching supply staff were actually paid at the same annual rate as full time staff but breaking it into a daily rate makes it appear more as supply staff aren't paid during holidays.

Apologies for --yet another--messy post. Trying to do 3 things at once.

But surely we (the country) can only afford what we can afford. Where would the money come from? (other than by raising taxes for everyone) Why should someone earning a very low wage pay more taxes so nurses/teachers and civil servants can hold the country to ransom?

Do you agree that someone in the Public Sector should be allowed to take early retirement in order to go back and do the same (or very similar) job? Of course It's different if that person was made redundant against their will. In industry it was always common practise that someone who left voluntarily would not be asked/allowed back, whereas someone made redundant would be. Not sure if still the same, but seems fair to me.

Not true gillybob.

The Tories believe in the idea of the market-place. The problem at the moment is that the Tory government is not allowing this to work. They are trying to manipulate the pay and conditions for these jobs so that the hospitals and schools, etc., cannot raise them to meet the labour-market signals on pay and conditions.

This does not mean it would be a never ending circle. At some point pay, conditions and numbers of employees would be raised enough for them not to have to pay more to get and retain staff. Simple capitalist market economy and often used by said Tory's to explain why those at the top receive vast sums - because the market-place dictates.

What the Conservatives are doing is more like old-world Communism where the government dictates earnings. Which, I feel, is a little weird.

But where would that end trisher? The bank/supply would always pay more meaning that it would become a never ending circle.

Well if they are paying more in the first place might be a good idea.

Aaaah yes I see that trisher but could it be that many are leaving their public sector jobs early knowing they can go back to them for more money?

Bank staff are paid more per hour than permanent staff so it is often more worthwhile to work for the bank, of course there is no job security. Bringing back retired staff is often what schools have to do to find anyone, so if the 'you can't come back' rule was applied there would be classes without teachers and an even worse nursing shortage.

From experience in my DGC's school and a large hospital very close to here, some of those who choose to retire early end up coming back as bank/supply staff. I know a nurse who cut her hours from full time to just 12 hours to enable her to work the balance on bank for a higher salary. My DGD's supply teacher (her actual/supposed teacher is on maternity) is an retired teacher who worked at their school for many years. Personally I think she's too old and grumpy to be teaching little ones but that's a whole other argument. Not sure what you can do about that other than say if you (choose) to leave, you leave and you cannot come back. There has been a widely reported case of some extremely high up people in two of our local health authorities (a husband and wife) leaving their positions with final salary pensions and returning to do the same/similar job. Which is totally rubbish for those at the bottom of the tree struggling to make ends meet.

Regardless of the economics the problem in the public sector is recruitment and retention. With 25% of teachers leaving the profession within 5 years, nursing recruitment down and vacancies for head teachers that can't be filled something has to be done. Money will definitely help but it isn't the complete answer. Many of these jobs were described in the past as 'vocations' and required some self sacrifice from the employee. I don't think that applies any longer. But to maintain an experienced and motivated workforce something has to be done, other wise we run the risk of an education system and a health system that relies entirely on inexperienced and bank staff.

Well, let's start the thread and see how it goes.

Well it might help firstly if we agreed on who can be defined as an economist. Secondly, we'd need some understanding of basic economic theories and where they fitted into the political spectrum. You can't discuss Hayek meaningfully without acknowledging his right wing beliefs or Stieglitz without his left wing stance.

I think an economics thread is an excellent idea Maizie

Back onto public sector - I listened to an interesting podcast of 'The Moral Maze' where they were discussing the public sector.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08wphjg

It would help if I posted the link, too

www.washingtonpost.com/business/modern-monetary-theory-is-an-unconventional-take-on-economic-strategy/2012/02/15/gIQAR8uPMR_story.html?utm_term=.74b63fe064cb#comments

Interesting review of MMT and the comments are worth reading, too. This neither proves nor disproves that MMT is 'right' but I like reading the pros and cons.

It's a contested theory, yes, but most theories are (even scientific ones which aren't 'theory' in the commonly accepted meaning of the word.

I like MMT because it is founded in Keynesianism, which has always made sense to me (though there are different schools of thought even within it)

To me a great deal hinges on how money is created; the concept of 'sovereign currencies' and how 'value' is assigned to currency.

Perhaps we should have an Economics thread...