Public Sector Pay

Is the prime minister sensible to limit the public sector pay rise? Is he doing the right thing for the economy? Can his employment strategy get more people back into work?

---

Note that various articles on the housing markets of the UK, USA and Australia are recorded at House Price Crash Discussion Forums

---

Please register or login to post.

View Newest Post FirstOldest Post First

Topic Financial Markets, Subprime, & The Credit CrunchPresident ObamaThe 2010 UK General ElectionUK House Prices-------------------------------------British Political EconomyEuropean Political EconomyFinance and InvestmentGeneral ChatInternational TradeMiddle Eastern Political EconomyNorth American Political EconomySporting CommentsTransportation, Energy & Science-------------------------------------Site CommentsTopic Selection

Search text   Date All years2010200920082007200620052004All monthsJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecAll days12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 

Poster	Message
Slightly Optimistic	11 Sep '07  14:10 : 0 recs Should public sector pay be held down? This is certainly one way to reduce the tax burden on the private sector, allowing it to be more competitive in the global economy. The UK's trade deficit with the European Union and the rest of the world can't continue indefinitely. However the underlying problem seems to be that successive governments have not imposed financial discipline (see 10 Sep '07 21:05). The private sector are paying the price. The UK public sector has simply been allowed to become too large.
	You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
agnostic	11 Sep '07  12:52 : 0 recs WS: Best of all, of course, you can work for yourself, the only form of employment which ensures (at least, most nearly ensures) that talent and effort are rewarded in due proportion.
	You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Waterloo Sunset	11 Sep '07  12:43 : 0 recs never work with children or chimps they say ag. I have no sympathy for the dull Scot WS
	You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
agnostic	11 Sep '07  12:40 : 0 recs In a way, you can sympathise with public sector workers. In the private sector, if you don't think you're being paid enough, you can look for another job that pays more (and if you can't find one, you're deluding yourself about how much you're worth). If you're in the public sector, your only option is to move into the private sector - a much harder thing to do, because you discover (or already know) the job security is worse and so (outside of the fat-cat club) is the pensions situation. Hence, for example, the RMT action, nominally in defence of exactly those two things. The pay may be less, but the public-sector protection is worth something. The problems come when, as happens from time to time, the public sector unions begin arguing for "parity" with the private sector; and when small groups of public sector workers find themselves in a position to hold the population at large to ransom. In present circumstances, I'm surprised it hasn't happened more often. I suspect G Brown may feel like somebody sitting on the lid of a very large saucepan, with the steam pressure rising. The "ransom" issue is going to have to be addressed.
	You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Waterloo Sunset	11 Sep '07  08:41 : 0 recs : edited 1 time : last edit 11 Sep '07  08:41 same pay, same performance, same hire and fire. I dont think "public sector" workers chose the public sector for that do you? And of coourse pensions should be equalised as well so an end to public sector's still relatively very generous pension schemes, including the ones running. You want the pay increase now dont you? What do lifetime income comparisons look like? Ahhh, thats not the "right" answer is it? WS
	You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.
Slightly Optimistic	10 Sep '07  20:05 : 0 recs The story's on many websites. Here's a couple of BBC ones. Brown rejects union pay demands Gordon Brown sugars the pay pill The prime minister told the TUC in Brighton that financial discipline was essential to prevent inflation, to maintain growth and to create jobs. To drive home the point, the prime minister invoked the spectre of 1992 [Black Wednesday], when the pound was forced out of Europe's exchange rate mechanism and the Tories were seen to lose control of the economy. Financial discipline is essential? Only for the unions, but not for the government? The government is leaving it very late to sue the International Monetary Fund for the events that led up to the multi-billion pound losses of the UK Treasury on Black Wednesday.
	You must either register or login to post to Serious Topics.