could 5% cuts mean end of privatisation?

GrannyGravy13

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.

I don't think Maizie has been at all unclear. The fact is that there are certain jobs which are still seen as 'male' jobs and they tend to be better paid.

In the Birmingham case, refuse collectors were being paid more than cleaners. How can that be justified?

Nobody, including Maizie, is suggesting that all workers should be paid the same as the CEO.

Almost any job can be argued as of equal value, some jobs need special extended training but most can be done by anyone with just a few weeks training, a care worker or a truck driver would take the same time. Truck drivers get paid more because most women don’t want to do that work, yet it could be argued that a care worker is more valuable to society. If you look at all the professions 25 yrs ago they were male dominated, now it’s unusual to see a male bank manager or accountant or teacher women have taken over,

Being a misandrist is very fashionable the truth is that most jobs are open to women but either they don’t want to or can’t do that work.

spabbygirl

The gov't have asked local authorities etc to make 5% cuts, could this be the start of bringing services back in house?
It seems to me that that is the only way to bring about cuts with no change to services. I'm assuming that the rubbish etc services that are privatised involve a payment for shareholders. I work in fostering and the profits the private companies get from providing foster care are phenomenal, although I actually think it works in fostering, if you reduced the excessive payments.

I could not recall council's being asked to make cuts of 5% by the government anywhere so have just been checking and can find no record of it. all that comes up are the problems councils are having to work within budget and issues about if and how much more might be asked in council tax

without wishing to sound critical of the O/P, as she/he might indeed well be right, I don't think this has been asked of councils - can we have a reference to this? Its just that I think it would have been headline news in all the papers but there is no announcement

David49

You wrote
Truckdrivers get paid more because women don‘t want to do that work.

Are you in other words saying that if more women were truckdrivers, they as a whole would get paid less or just the women?

Wages are supply and demand women doing traditionally male work has brought the wages down in any job
Only work with special skills or difficult conditions get premium wages

David49

Wages are supply and demand women doing traditionally male work has brought the wages down in any job
Only work with special skills or difficult conditions get premium wages

Phew! that is a very wide statement. There is certainly an elelment of supply and demand in wages, but other things get factored in, like how pleasant the job is to do refuse collection staff - , how socially acceptable it is to admit to your job - abattoir workers for example.

Can you give several examples of where women entering a profession has led to reduced wages - as distinct to women in 'women's professions' who were never paid well in the first place.

For most of my working life I worked in big companies where jobs were graded by work content and while, certainly in my early years, I had more men than women colleagues, later on that evened out. I only once met direct sex discrimination in wages - and I suspect that had more to do with the specific manager than the company, but I did not stay long enough to find out. I just moved on.

growstuff

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.

I'm all for equal pay but with the example you give I knew a man who was killed when the tipping function of the lorry failed and he was crushed as it came down on him. I don't know if any cleaners have been killed while working so I don't know if that is equivalent.

I always worry when I see our binmen standing under those things loading the bins on.

We do have a woman who works at our tip but she doesn't load the lorries but I assume she gets paid the same as the men.

Wyllow3

spabbygirl

The gov't have asked local authorities etc to make 5% cuts, could this be the start of bringing services back in house?
It seems to me that that is the only way to bring about cuts with no change to services. I'm assuming that the rubbish etc services that are privatised involve a payment for shareholders. I work in fostering and the profits the private companies get from providing foster care are phenomenal, although I actually think it works in fostering, if you reduced the excessive payments.

I could not recall council's being asked to make cuts of 5% by the government anywhere so have just been checking and can find no record of it. all that comes up are the problems councils are having to work within budget and issues about if and how much more might be asked in council tax

*without wishing to sound critical of the O/P, as she/he might indeed well be right, I don't think this has been asked of councils - can we have a reference to this? Its just that I think it would have been headline news in all the papers but there is no announcement*

I think they've told government departments to save 5%, not sure if it is all departments as I can't see how health or education could do it.

The dinosaurs are not all dead.....
Just for interest, my GD is a first year medical student, 70% female intake.

I really don't think refuse collectors should be getting some kind of danger money because one person was killed by a faulty vehicle. It sounds like some kind of Health and Safety failure.

growstuff

I really don't think refuse collectors should be getting some kind of danger money because one person was killed by a faulty vehicle. It sounds like some kind of Health and Safety failure.

I suppose it depends, I'd want danger money to load one of those things. If you don't know the victim it probably doesn't seem so relevant.

I don't know if it is the only time it has happened and as I said I don't know if any cleaners have been killed, something like being electrocuted by a faulty vacuum.

I had a fire bomb through my office window in 1981 or 1982 when there was some unrest and I worked in a police station. No one offered me danger money though, my biggest issue was it took them months to repair the window and by December it was very cold.

A few years later we were also told we couldn't go home as the station was surrounded by a mob. I left anyway and just told the Superintendent my kids would be waiting for dinner. The mob were very nice and parted to let me go. I did laugh the next day when I found out everyone else was "trapped" for 3 or 4 hours.

Whether it’s pleasant or not it’s still supply and demand Monica, an employer wants his work done to the required standard for the lowest cost, in addition many workplaces have deskilled. Workers are slaves to computers who make all the decisions, maybe a car worker fitting car parts or a call centre worker following prompts on a screen. Car factories pay better wages and employ plenty of women on the production line alongside men.

Your experience was increased feminization of the workplace and very little discrimination is normal these days, it’s the limitations women put on themselves that determine pay. The worst pay is often care work because whoever the employer they know there are plenty of unskilled women who have no alternative

theworriedwell, I’m pleased you got home to your children when the mob surrounded the police station where you worked. My dad could have been the superintendent you told you were going home to feed your kids. He of course wouldn’t have got home to us and, if anything had happened to you, he’d have been blamed

David49

Whether it’s pleasant or not it’s still supply and demand Monica, an employer wants his work done to the required standard for the lowest cost, in addition many workplaces have deskilled. Workers are slaves to computers who make all the decisions, maybe a car worker fitting car parts or a call centre worker following prompts on a screen. Car factories pay better wages and employ plenty of women on the production line alongside men.

Your experience was increased feminization of the workplace and very little discrimination is normal these days, it’s the limitations women put on themselves that determine pay. The worst pay is often care work because whoever the employer they know there are plenty of unskilled women who have no alternative

So, yet again it’s our fault we are discriminated against

David49 That is only one side of the supply and demand. The other is when there is a shortage of suitable skilled staff, or conditions are unpleasant and people do not want to do the jobs. Then it is the employee who calls the tune, employers have to pay more, perhaps take on less skilled people and train them up, look at different ways of organising the workplace to make people want to work for them.

^ it’s the limitations women put on themselves that determine pay. The worst pay is often care work because whoever the employer they know there are plenty of unskilled women who have no alternative^

I find this quotation totally incomprehensible. What women are putting what limitations on themselves? As for unskilled women having no alternative to care work. The reason care homes are often understaffed is because there is alternative and better paid work that unskilled women can do. What it is may vary from place to place

👏👏 Monica. I cant believe I'm reading this stuff. Much care work is very skilled indeed, emotionally extremely so. But as it has been women in the past its historically low pay and of course men who enter care work are also low paid.

The law doesn't say "deemed" of equal value, David49, it says

"... same, similar, equivalent or of equal value."

"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 haven't seen anyone suggest this. Aren't you actually saying that if you, personally, dont understand how the job evaluation process used to determine job equivalence works then all those that do must be wrong?

Back to the interesting OP I think.

Iam64

theworriedwell, I’m pleased you got home to your children when the mob surrounded the police station where you worked. My dad could have been the superintendent you told you were going home to feed your kids. He of course wouldn’t have got home to us and, if anything had happened to you, he’d have been blamed

He wouldn't. I wasn't a police officer and my shift was done, I was free to go. My choice, my responsibility. Actually he could have gone home, Community Relations officers arrived to take over, people not from that station so anyone who wanted to leave could have left if they weren't on duty. I was the only one who did. The difference was it was where I grew up, everyone else who was there came from different parts of the city or somewhere even further away. No way was I going to sit there for hours.

Twisting words here in Birmingham Bin men were said to be equivalent to cleaners so cleaners claimed equal pay and got it, nearly bankrupting the council.

Women make choices in their lifestyle that limit the work they can do.
Not learning a skill, a woman can be whatever she wants, if she chooses not get a qualification she will always be doing low paid work, it doesn’t have to be a degree there are plenty of vocational qualifications

Family restrictions, it’s your choice to have a family, it will in a great many cases limit the work you can do, even so its much easier than years ago.

I’m actually very surprised that more women don’t work in the building industry, a few do clerical or inspection supervision a small number do decorating. It’s the hours that are needed to do the job you have to start a 7am finish at 5pm you are working in a team and have to be there, a car factory would be the same you clock on and clock off.

The choices you make determine your life, don’t blame men they are your decisions.

Nobody is twisting your words but wow, you really don't like women do you David49. Obviously, in your world they are singularly to blame for the all the ills of a world that then treats many of them as second class. Poor you, that so many of us believe we are born equal to men.

However, the issue is not with simplistic misogyny but a comparison between jobs, some of which just happen to be done mainly or wholly by one gender.

As views like David49’s are still available it’s blatantly obvious that women have a way to go in the never ending fight against misogyny!

Twisting words again I’ve said nothing more than you choose your lifestyle, that may limit the work you can do. It’s disappointing that so many make really bad choices.

spabbygirl

The gov't have asked local authorities etc to make 5% cuts, could this be the start of bringing services back in house?
It seems to me that that is the only way to bring about cuts with no change to services. I'm assuming that the rubbish etc services that are privatised involve a payment for shareholders. I work in fostering and the profits the private companies get from providing foster care are phenomenal, although I actually think it works in fostering, if you reduced the excessive payments.

It would be really helpful, as it is the foundation for the discussion, if we could be told where we can find details of this, so far, mythical cut.

That aside, I can't see why any cut could or would indicate a need to bring "services back in house". We have tried that before and decided we needed to change it because it failed.

Does anyone know of research that explained how, in what way, privatisation and/or in house provision failed? Did either of these always fail or were there some areas of success. What about Not For Profit companies or other ways some councils have tried?

With just the early moves towards devolution in England to the Combined Councils there seems to be a greater swapping of what works and what doesn't. I do hope we are going to hear more about that.

That aside, I can't see why any cut could or would indicate a need to bring "services back in house". We have tried that before and decided we needed to change it because it failed.

I think you're taking a very odd view of this. Privatisation of social care happened because swingeing cuts to council funding meant they could no longer afford to maintain and run their own provision. It was small state ideology that caused the change, not failures in council provision.

Just a wider view MaizieD.