could 5% cuts mean end of privatisation?

It was supposed to be the other way round wasn't it. In the way that water privatisation was supposed to bring more investment, more reservoirs, instead we have filth pumped into our rivers. But changing ideology is very difficult and I am not sure that we, as a country are ready to accept that outsourcing and privatisation were huge, wasteful, mistakes.

I think there’s more chance of hell freezing over than government departments/ councils saving money.
The words are not in their vocabulary.
I speak from personal experience and what I hear from my daughter who deals with government contracts through a private company.

Paying specialised companies to come in and run specific services is often cheaper than a council running the services themselves.

Take rubbish collection, for example. There are 3 or 4 big companies who specialise in this work. They have the size to drive good deals buying their specilised bin lorries. Buy 100 and you get a cheaper price than buying 5.

They have staff who have run waste services all their working lives, they are often integrated and deal with recycling rubbish as well as collecting and disposing of it. Share holder dividend or no shareholder dividend, it is cheaper to get specialised waste contractors to handle council waste than for the council to do it themselves.

However I would never use a service where the final owners are are venture capitalists, especially American venture capitalists. they would render their own grandmothers down for lard.

There are other services which I do think should be done in house and that would include most aspects of social care.

The OP is very optimistic, but I don't think that councils can afford to take the social care services, e.g care homes and children's homes back in house. The initial capital outlay would be too much.

There is one major disadvantage with councils running all services, they will have to pay equal wages to women. Birmingham had this problem, heavy male work was deemed to be of equal value to other work in female dominated industries.
Councils that contract out refuse collection, building work and road repair don’t have this issue because they don’t directly employ the workers.

Whatever you think about equal wages councils directly employing building workers will lead to claims by women workers for equal wages. Many will think that is good but you and I are going to pay extra and there will be no savings.

Some of the refuse collectors and drivers who collect my rubbish are women!

Frankly, it is good that female workers should receive equal wages. Outsourcing shouldn't be an excuse to duck responsibilities.

Why should work which requires brawn be paid better than that which requires brain?

growstuff you posted Why should work that requires brawn be paid better than that which requires brain

A women who he is doing the exact same job as a man (and vice versa) should receive equal pay.

How can anyone say that a refuse collector is equal to an office clerk, a cleaner equal to an office manager, a builder equal to an accountant…

Heaven help us with the council we have. Labour.

The wage should go with the job not the sex or gender of the person undertaking it.

Exactly M0nica

Councils were forced to outsource and the buildings that used to house care and residential services for young and old have been sold. I’d like to see services back in house. I managed a generic social work team in the 80’s. We had home helps, meals on wheels, famiky support workers and residential care for adolescents who usually refused foster care. We worked more effectively than when liaising with endless outside providers whose prime purpose was making profits.
I’m not claiming perfection but the cost of residential care for ‘difficult’ teenagers, alongside private fostering is huge and quality often poor.

David, you cant seriously be suggesting that equal pay is wrong

No I’m not, it’s the “deemed equal value” that I disagree with
The wage should go with the job if a woman can drive a forklift and do warehouse work she should receive the same wage as a man. That wage should not be compared with a shop floor worker doing a completely different job.

I'm a bit taken aback by some of the comments about 'equal pay'.

It's a complex subject but if there is one thing that is absolutely clear from years and years of analysis and practical experience it is that women are consistently paid less than men. It happens at all levels and in many types of jobs.

There seems to be some misunderstanding of the concept of job equivalence in this discussion and some downright misogyny. And a startling lack of feminine solidarity😆

David49

No I’m not, it’s the “deemed equal value” that I disagree with
The wage should go with the job if a woman can drive a forklift and do warehouse work she should receive the same wage as a man. That wage should not be compared with a shop floor worker doing a completely different job.

You're just supporting gendered jobs, David.

Why should a warehouse worker be paid more than a shop floor worker? Is it because one is more valuable than the other or is it because one is seen as a man's job and the other as a woman's?

MaizieD there is no misogyny in our workplace.

We are now seeing more female tradespeople than ever before.

It is a fact that some jobs require more brawn (as growstuff posted) there are men and women with physical capabilities for these jobs, there are of course men and women who haven’t got the brawn for a physical job.

Equally there are men and women capable of doing a job which requires a high degree of mental dexterity, but there are men and women who are not equipped for these.

Each profession should in the 21st century have a pay scale which is not dependent on gender.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff you posted Why should work that requires brawn be paid better than that which requires brain

A women who he is doing the exact same job as a man (and vice versa) should receive equal pay.

How can anyone say that a refuse collector is equal to an office clerk, a cleaner equal to an office manager, a builder equal to an accountant…

Why shouldn't they be equal? I'm not talking about office clerks and managers being equal. Of course, they're not because one has a great deal more responsibility and is responsible for more decision-making. From memory, the Birmingham case was about refuse collectors being paid more than cleaners - the refuse collectors were mainly male and the cleaners were female. How could those jobs not be equal and how could it be justified that refuse collectors were paid more than cleaners.

These days, traditional 'male' jobs which required strength are often automated, so the strength isn't needed. I can't remember the last time I saw a refuse collector pick up a bin - they wheel them to a ramp and then the picking up and tipping in the lorry is automated. Most people (male or female) could do that. The majority of jobs could be done by people of either gender, but traditional male jobs still tend to be better paid.

GrannyGravy13

MaizieD there is no misogyny in our workplace.

We are now seeing more female tradespeople than ever before.

It is a fact that some jobs require more brawn (as growstuff posted) there are men and women with physical capabilities for these jobs, there are of course men and women who haven’t got the brawn for a physical job.

Equally there are men and women capable of doing a job which requires a high degree of mental dexterity, but there are men and women who are not equipped for these.

Each profession should in the 21st century have a pay scale which is not dependent on gender.

It would be illegal to pay people doing exactly the same job a different amount according to gender. However, it is still a fact that some jobs are still considered stereotypically male or female. When the jobs aren't identical, the 'male' jobs tend to be better paid.

You are missing my point, GG13.

Tell me how the monetary value of each job is determined. How is the wage paid for it determined?

Our council outsourced running of allotments and public spaces to a so called Not For Profit company called Urban Green. They have outpriced the 100 year old fishing club and the park maintenance has certainly not improved. My local park just over the road has lost its rubbish bins, the cafe has closed and it seems little maintenance has been done.

I looked up the owners who are all on LinkedIn! They are all CEOs/Finance managers etc.

They have spent their whole budget, leaving a huge short fall and the council have had to take back control!

So much for private enterprise running a public service. I’d bet they paid themselves handsomely in the process.
Our bin service is fine though so it’s not all bad.

Looking back over the last 40 years, privatisation has not improved essential public services. They should be in public hands or controlled and regulated in out interest. This is currently not the case.

MaizieD

You are missing my point, GG13.

Tell me how the monetary value of each job is determined. How is the wage paid for it determined?

I know how wages are determined in my SME, and have been for over 40 years.

I have no idea how other companies or public sector organisations evaluate their pay scales. I hazard a guess that it is to do with age, experience, responsibility along with conditions under which the job is to be carried out, i.e. indoors, outdoors, physicality, education attainment, training involved.

It is a fact that not all jobs are equal, if they were we would all be on the salary of MPs, along with their generous expense allowances.

If I am missing your point it is because you have been unclear about what your point is.

“You're just supporting gendered jobs, David.”

No I'm not, there are many jobs traditionally male that are done by women. Most women don’t want to do the outdoor, dirty, heavy jobs that men do, most prefer indoor, clean, light work.
Nevertheless if a woman wants to do the heavy outdoor work she should be paid the same as a man.

If I am missing your point it is because you have been unclear about what your point is.

My point was about job equivalence. It was made in response to this from your post at 07.50

How can anyone say that a refuse collector is equal to an office clerk, a cleaner equal to an office manager, a builder equal to an accountant…

I thought your comparison examples were a bit extreme.

OTOH There is a big ?mark over the relative value of these jobs.

It has been pointed out that during covid a great many previously very low profile, lowly paid jobs turned out to be vital to the servicing of the nation's needs, so workers carried on doing them, at some personal risk to themselves from getting the then lethal disease. While the very highly paid sat back in enforced idleness with no apparent impairment to the state functioning.

So why is one job more highly paid than another?

(Apart from it being a matter of skills and experience)

It is a fact that not all jobs are equal, if they were we would all be on the salary of MPs, along with their generous expense allowances.

I think I'd rather that we were on the same salary as large company CEOs, six figure salaries and huge bonuses for keeping the shareholders happy no matter how badly the company has performed 😁