Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
And reduce competitiveness in those areas? That would lead to massive closures and job losses.
Why is it a postcode lottery? If there are variations in the private sector, why can't those variations be reflected in the public sector. Having higher effective rates of pay doesn't guarantee better GPs and teachers. Why should those in the more expensive areas lose out on the supposedly better staff? Why should someone in the PUBLIC SECTOR be subsided to live in a more expensive area and yet work in a cheaper area?
How could it make run-down areas worse? If more people with jobs move into those areas, wouldn't that reverse any decline?
|
the variations in the private sector however could also be accounted for different jobs for different companies tho.
with GPs, teachers etc. they working for the same employer doing the same work.
its nothing to do with subsidies but more to do with the private sector changing its priorities from salary levels to profit.
the only reasonings for this policy is probably company owners using their joke of a minister hotlines ringing up to complain their employees want pay rises (how dare they) and its harder to turn them down when the public sector pays better. Also the good old saving money as I suspect there will be a net saving from it.
Its funny how you consider it a subsidy, I wonder how much cash is going to the private sector from the NHS contracts and th high speed rail work.