| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:12 - Oct 6 with 3023 views | positivity |
bit nonsensical unless they break it down to comparable roles, the fact that the first citation they link is gbnews makes me wonder how serious their research is! |  |
|  |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:15 - Oct 6 with 2994 views | lowhouseblue |
jeez, surely that article is produced by ai? isn't the ifa a moderately serious thing - why would they publish crap like that? [Post edited 6 Oct 2024 10:16]
|  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:19 - Oct 6 with 2965 views | redrickstuhaart |
Completely meaningless statistic, because it does not compare like jobs with like. Its like saying average salaries at Price Waterhouse are higher than at rentokill. | | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:23 - Oct 6 with 2949 views | NedPlimpton |
What a ridiculous statement
The 'average' obviously takes into account the millions of people on minimum wage jobs. Which, I'm sure you obviously know, there won't be many of in the civil service
As others have said, you need to be comparing like for like salaries |  | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:25 - Oct 6 with 2918 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:23 - Oct 6 by NedPlimpton |
What a ridiculous statement
The 'average' obviously takes into account the millions of people on minimum wage jobs. Which, I'm sure you obviously know, there won't be many of in the civil service
As others have said, you need to be comparing like for like salaries |
You also need to take into account benefits. |  |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:42 - Oct 6 with 2849 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:15 - Oct 6 by lowhouseblue |
jeez, surely that article is produced by ai? isn't the ifa a moderately serious thing - why would they publish crap like that? [Post edited 6 Oct 2024 10:16]
|
Slightly off topic but I was thinking the other day.......
"Civil servant" could be a fantastic derogatory term to call someone during an argument, much like the recent brilliant suggestion of "Wet wipe" |  |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:46 - Oct 6 with 2821 views | blueasfook |
In my field of work (IT), the civil service generally pays less than the private sector. There was a job famously doing the rounds on LinkedIn a few months ago, looking for a head of cyber security for a govt department. They were offering a salary of about 55k as I recall, for a role that would usually have a salary of about 100k attached to it! |  |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:49 - Oct 6 with 2778 views | NedPlimpton |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:46 - Oct 6 by blueasfook |
In my field of work (IT), the civil service generally pays less than the private sector. There was a job famously doing the rounds on LinkedIn a few months ago, looking for a head of cyber security for a govt department. They were offering a salary of about 55k as I recall, for a role that would usually have a salary of about 100k attached to it! |
Whilst it's true the civil service tend to pay less than private, that particular example was a bit misleading
The role 'Head of' is used an awful lot in smaller teams in the civil service and would normally be a manager role elsewhere | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:58 - Oct 6 with 2692 views | blueasfook |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:49 - Oct 6 by NedPlimpton |
Whilst it's true the civil service tend to pay less than private, that particular example was a bit misleading
The role 'Head of' is used an awful lot in smaller teams in the civil service and would normally be a manager role elsewhere |
Well yes, head of was probably a bit of an exaggeration in this case (i think it was managing a team of 2 cyber sec engineers) but even so, with the roles and responsibilities the job description had, still way behind what the usual market rate would be. | |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 11:04 - Oct 6 with 2642 views | NedPlimpton |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:58 - Oct 6 by blueasfook |
Well yes, head of was probably a bit of an exaggeration in this case (i think it was managing a team of 2 cyber sec engineers) but even so, with the roles and responsibilities the job description had, still way behind what the usual market rate would be. |
Yeah, and like I said, the private sector definitely tends to pay more.
I just remember there being a massive bit of traction about this particular role and people saying how rubbish the UKs cyber security must be if we're paying the "Head of" only £55k. Which isn't quite what was going on | | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 11:10 - Oct 6 with 2602 views | azuremerlangus |
From my experience I had a civil servant doing some fairly complex planning who was getting £21k a year. OK so the hours, holiday and pension are not bad but the salary for what they were doing was terrible. |  |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 11:31 - Oct 6 with 2513 views | Churchman |
So the war on the public sector continues. What a surprise.
The Civil Service: a load of no mark numpties stealing a living doing nothing but pushing pens about for no particular purpose all paid for by the taxpayer. ‘Dead wood’, as described by the great Francis Maude (odious vacuous sack of brown stuff).
There you go, you don’t need to read the article. This is why the Tories went to war on the CS from the moment it took office in 2010. This is how Truss collapsed the economy - she didn’t need experts, challenge, advice or research by a load of freeloading nobodies from the CS. She knew the answers and still does. 😃🥲🤣😅. Yeah right.
We live in a time where truth and reality are the last thing a lot of people and especially politicians are interested in. Blind articles with a point to prove are all that matters.
There are people on here like me who have worked in the private and public sector. I suspect there are viewpoints from right across the working spectrum. When it comes down to it if you want to make any sort of meaningful comparison you really need to match like for like.
So why not put all the work the CS does out to the private sector? Simpler, efficient, faster, better just like we’ve seen with privatising gas, electric, railways and water. Of course, a lot of elements in the CS involve the private sector. Building management has been handed to an offshore company for £££ and IT where I worked contracted to those marvellous people at Fujitsu - you know, the ones who looked after the Post Office people so well.
As for a measurable comparison, the last project team I worked on numbered 140 staff by the time I left. Anything up to half of them were contracted in. Needed expertise in certain areas was one reason. The other was that under austerity, govt depts got rid of the useless mouths (a lovely tory metaphor). These included all project teams in some depts, some in others. There were not enough qualified people to do the work.
The contractors (actually their companies) were paid anything from £1800 a day to £3500 a day per person. Good value? Well they would do it faster, better, more efficiently. Or would they? A fair number were doing similar level work to me and others. Our qualifications and skill sets were equivalent. Our pay rates? Not £2800 a day to the tax payer.
This idea that somehow public sector workers are beholding to their benefactors, the tax payer, really grinds my gears. People are employed to do a job and in employment (or earn sufficient pension) pay tax wherever they work. They contribute to the economy. They invariably do a job that needs doing.
Though sometimes it might be, the private sector is not always the best solution to providing public services. In addition it is not necessarily either or. Partnerships etc can work. It’s all about understanding what services you need and want and what resources you require to provide them.
So the first job is to ignore garbage articles like this, understand what people actually do and at what cost before doing what the tories did and this article implies, take an axe to anything you can. |  | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 11:38 - Oct 6 with 2470 views | Father_Jack |
"There are so many problematic stories about management and efficiency"..........but they couldn't find one example to print. |  |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 11:49 - Oct 6 with 2406 views | DJR |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 11:38 - Oct 6 by Father_Jack |
"There are so many problematic stories about management and efficiency"..........but they couldn't find one example to print. |
And you can't take seriously an article that says "There are reports that 67% of civil service employees have no clear function". [Post edited 6 Oct 2024 11:49]
|  | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 12:08 - Oct 6 with 2358 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 11:38 - Oct 6 by Father_Jack |
"There are so many problematic stories about management and efficiency"..........but they couldn't find one example to print. |
There are massive issues in that regard, but they are cultural and created at least in part by the way in which things are managed, resourced and demanded from the top.
Efficiency is extremely low, but that is the result of poorly conceived and implemented IT, lack of proper funding, lack of human resources and rock bottom morale making it impossible to hold onto better staff or people with knowledge and experience.
None of that makes anythign in this "public sector are overpaid and underworked" narrative remotely true. The article is about as deliberately disingenuous as it gets. | | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 13:04 - Oct 6 with 2194 views | DJR |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 12:08 - Oct 6 by redrickstuhaart |
There are massive issues in that regard, but they are cultural and created at least in part by the way in which things are managed, resourced and demanded from the top.
Efficiency is extremely low, but that is the result of poorly conceived and implemented IT, lack of proper funding, lack of human resources and rock bottom morale making it impossible to hold onto better staff or people with knowledge and experience.
None of that makes anythign in this "public sector are overpaid and underworked" narrative remotely true. The article is about as deliberately disingenuous as it gets. |
In the civil service department I worked in there were no issues with a lack of efficiency.
We were a tight ship with far less ancillary staff than a private sector firms of solicitors, and we made use of computers for drafting back in the 1980s when that wasn't the case in the private sector, resulting in little need for what the head of the office when I joined called amanuenses.
And we were paid far less than we would have been had we worked in a City firm.
Interestingly, an experiment was tried one year to involve a City firm in a small drafting project, but what they produced was so hopeless it had to be abandoned despite the fact that the firm charged an enormous amount of money, which was many more times than a team in my office would have been paid on the project.. [Post edited 6 Oct 2024 13:10]
| | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 13:22 - Oct 6 with 2106 views | Churchman |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 12:08 - Oct 6 by redrickstuhaart |
There are massive issues in that regard, but they are cultural and created at least in part by the way in which things are managed, resourced and demanded from the top.
Efficiency is extremely low, but that is the result of poorly conceived and implemented IT, lack of proper funding, lack of human resources and rock bottom morale making it impossible to hold onto better staff or people with knowledge and experience.
None of that makes anythign in this "public sector are overpaid and underworked" narrative remotely true. The article is about as deliberately disingenuous as it gets. |
Efficiency? It varies.
I agree with DJR in that the specialist areas I worked in were efficient. They had to be. But I did see areas or silos as they were often called that needed a lot more investment in management and staff. You could acquire staff if you say qualified as a tax inspector but you’d receive no training whatsoever in how to manage people. Bullying and treating people like dirt did happen. But not all, not everywhere.
On the flip side I worked for a while with the people who worked on fiscal events - Budget etc. they’d work 7 days a week early morning into late evening for a minimum 6 weeks run up to an event. The work was complex, hard and demands ever changing.
No overtime. They’d get time off in lieu but the expertise and commitment they displayed on vital work for minuscule money compared to say what PWC would charge was extraordinary. | | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 16:32 - Oct 6 with 1938 views | factual_blue |
Almost certainly fed to the publication by some egregious right wing 'think tank'.
(Although, come to thing of it, 'right wing' and 'think tank' is a fine example of oxymoron). |  |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 16:46 - Oct 6 with 1905 views | Keno |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 16:32 - Oct 6 by factual_blue |
Almost certainly fed to the publication by some egregious right wing 'think tank'.
(Although, come to thing of it, 'right wing' and 'think tank' is a fine example of oxymoron). |
dont you mean far right think tank? |  |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 16:57 - Oct 6 with 1858 views | Glevum |
I work 2/3 of my week employed as a civil servant, 1/3 running my own consultancy. My consultancy pays way more. I continue my lower paid part of what I do because I believe in it. Those doing what I do in the public sector are grossly underpaid and gone are the days of a gold plated pension, tea trolleys and everyone sodding off to the pub every Friday lunchtime. People I know in the private sector wouldn’t last in the public sector for very long. | | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 08:42 - Oct 7 with 1520 views | DJR |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 13:22 - Oct 6 by Churchman |
Efficiency? It varies.
I agree with DJR in that the specialist areas I worked in were efficient. They had to be. But I did see areas or silos as they were often called that needed a lot more investment in management and staff. You could acquire staff if you say qualified as a tax inspector but you’d receive no training whatsoever in how to manage people. Bullying and treating people like dirt did happen. But not all, not everywhere.
On the flip side I worked for a while with the people who worked on fiscal events - Budget etc. they’d work 7 days a week early morning into late evening for a minimum 6 weeks run up to an event. The work was complex, hard and demands ever changing.
No overtime. They’d get time off in lieu but the expertise and commitment they displayed on vital work for minuscule money compared to say what PWC would charge was extraordinary. |
Luckily it never happened to me to that extent, but there were occasions when people in my office worked 10-11 months a year, 7 days a week.
Interestingly, Mrs Thatcher was pretty supportive of the Civil Service, as was the Blair government, but that changed with Cameron, and it can't have been much fun doing all that work for an employer that only had contempt for its employees.
This is one reason why I got out of the Civil Service as soon as I could after 2010. [Post edited 7 Oct 2024 8:42]
| | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 08:45 - Oct 7 with 1492 views | DanTheMan |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 10:46 - Oct 6 by blueasfook |
In my field of work (IT), the civil service generally pays less than the private sector. There was a job famously doing the rounds on LinkedIn a few months ago, looking for a head of cyber security for a govt department. They were offering a salary of about 55k as I recall, for a role that would usually have a salary of about 100k attached to it! |
The salaries they offer for software engineers are laughable. |  |
| |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 08:58 - Oct 7 with 1439 views | Cotty |
What a ridiculous comparison. Do the same for doctors. Or lawyers. Or even teachers! |  | | |
| Civil Servants get 14.5% more than 'the average' on 09:44 - Oct 7 with 1338 views | ElderGrizzly |
Maybe for more admin/junior roles, but for comparable senior roles it is nowhere near the private sector. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
