National pay rates may be scrapped for public workers

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

I used doctors and teachers because their jobs are more or less the same in the private and public sectors. I could also add firefighters and nurses to the list if you want, with the same results. In fact the only direct private comparrison to public sector firefighters would be airport firefighters, who I believe on average earn roughly 25% more.

Many public sector jobs have now gone to private contractors, who make a profit, and then pay very low wages. But this now puts those workers in the private sector.

You have to remember that many statistics are manipulated to fit in with the governments agenda, so don't take them too seriously. An example is how they reduced the number of fire death statistics. Now someone who dies in a fire that was started through arson, is not listed as a fire death, but as a murder. And someone who gets drunk, then passes out leaving their chip pan on, is listed as alocohol related, and not a fire death. Then someone who has a fire, and calls the fire service, but manages to knock the fire down themselves. If there are no visible flames on arrival of the fire service (even if it is still smoldering), this isn't put down as a fire.

There may be exceptions, but in general for long term employment it is well known that public sector jobs pay less. Although during a recession, businesses whos profits are down, may pay lower wages. But this usually changes as the economy improves, and unemployment drops.

By the way, it is illegal to pay men and women different pay rates just based on sex.

You're cherry picking certain occupations which do not have widespread private employment equivalents. You're missing out large chunks like the clerical staff, cleaners, etc. Where are the Institute for Fiscal Studies(ie not the Government) getting their figures from?

When jobs are transferred from the public to the private sector, pay and conditions have to remain the same, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246).

Why the reference to equal pay? I didn't highlight the 'male public sector workers' bit solely because if refers to men. It is a quote from the IFS report as reported on the BBC news website. What it indicates is that female public sector workers in the South East are paid more than their equivalent private sector jobs.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Sort of yes!

Don't you remember that the Sun was a tory paper in the 80's, spouting tory propoganda. Then when the tories started to lose popularity, the Sun switched to Labour, spouting Labour propoganda.

Many peole will believe what they read in the papers.

All governments manipulate the press when it suits them. An example is in the fire service pay dispute in 2003. The government put a block on the press reporting anything that put firefighters in a good light. When you think that normally local papers will report on a bin fire. But during the dispute, a 2 year old boy and his mother were rescued from a house fire in Stevenage. They both only just survived by the skin of their teeth, but this didn't even get a mention in the local press.

The local press were probably too busy reporting on government censorship of the free press

Honestly Tim i think if the government where blocking press stories of any kind so they appeared in a good light it would make headlines in the national press never mind local rags

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

The local press were probably too busy reporting on government censorship of the free press

It's all very well being sarcastic. But I'm not paranoid, this does actually happen on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by martyh

Honestly Tim i think if the government where blocking press stories of any kind so they appeared in a good light it would make headlines in the national press never mind local rags

Don't be nieve. This is a well known practice, and there is even a name for the process, but I can't remember what it is called at the moment.

---------- Post added at 16:45 ---------- Previous post was at 16:42 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

You're cherry picking certain occupations which do not have widespread private employment equivalents. You're missing out large chunks like the clerical staff, cleaners, etc. Where are the Institute for Fiscal Studies(ie not the Government) getting their figures from?

When jobs are transferred from the public to the private sector, pay and conditions have to remain the same, under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246).

Why the reference to equal pay? I didn't highlight the 'male public sector workers' bit solely because if refers to men. It is a quote from the IFS report as reported on the BBC news website. What it indicates is that female public sector workers in the South East are paid more than their equivalent private sector jobs.

I'm not cherry picking at all. Many admin and cleaning staff are now employed by public contractors. And if the contractors paid the same wages, then where would the financial saving be??? The contractor still has to make a profit.

Do you really think that the government doesn't have any influence over IFS reports??

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

It's all very well being sarcastic. But I'm not paranoid, this does actually happen on a regular basis.



Don't be nieve. This is a well known practice, and there is even a name for the process, but I can't remember what it is called at the moment.

So you are maintaining that the government ,on a regular basis, block stories because they will make the government look bad ?.If that is the case then can i please have some evidence so i can sell it to the Mail ,we can go halfers if you want

[Chrysalis]

One would be a bit naive to think top ministers dont have direct lines to editors/journalists of newspapers etc.

cameron even went horse riding with the CEO of the NOTW.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

One would be a bit naive to think top ministers dont have direct lines to editors/journalists of newspapers etc.

cameron even went horse riding with the CEO of the NOTW.

That's not was has been suggested ,going riding with a ceo is completely different to blocking stories and interfering with the freedom of the press

So they block stories in papers about firefighters, but don't block stories about Tory Treasurers asking for £250,000 for access to the PM?

The phrase you were looking for, Tim, was 'DA Notice'* (which is for items of National Security, not house fires.....).

*used to be 'D' Notice

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by martyh

So you are maintaining that the government ,on a regular basis, block stories because they will make the government look bad ?.If that is the case then can i please have some evidence so i can sell it to the Mail ,we can go halfers if you want

It is know as a D-Notice.

It is supposed to be used for national security only, but is often abused for political reasons, especially industrial disputes on a national level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DA-Notice

And unfortunately the Mail will be very aware of the system. So no dosh for us two I'm afraid

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

So you are maintaining that the government ,on a regular basis, block stories because they will make the government look bad ?:shocked:.If that is the case then can i please have some evidence so i can sell it to the Mail ,we can go halfers if you want

If they're doing that, they're making a real hash of it aren't they........

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So they block stories in papers about firefighters, but don't block stories about Tory Treasurers asking for £250,000 for access to the PM?

The phrase you were looking for, Tim, was 'DA Notice'* (which is for items of National Security, not house fires.....).

*used to be 'D' Notice

It is used for political reasons, as I mentioned above.

They probably made a very dodgy link to it being a national security issue, as the army were using the green godesses during that dispute.

---------- Post added at 09:33 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

I have a very good tin foil helmet I can let you have Tim. Very Christian price.

Why, are you thinking of putting your head in the oven?

---------- Post added at 09:36 ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

If they're doing that, they're making a real hash of it aren't they........

There would legally be a huge difference between it being used for a big cover up, and it being used to ask the media to not report any stories that could make members of a particular union look good.....one would probably be illegal, and could lead to a huge scandal. The other probably wouldn't be noticed.

So members of the NUJ and Amicus wouldn't object to stories about another union being spiked/suppressed?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by martyh

That's not was has been suggested ,going riding with a ceo is completely different to blocking stories and interfering with the freedom of the press

whilst its quite obvious stories get blocked probably from time to time its also obvious that not every single bad story would be blocked. However its feasible eg. a minister may ring an editor of a newspaper to explain they think if a certian story was pubished it would negatively impact the country so for the sake of national interests it shouldnt be published. eg. to help push certian political agendas.

its not just political either there is harry redknapp football manager who gets on well with the press who probably have lots on him but choose to not publish it to keep that good relationship going, although if he became england manager it would probably all come out if england do badly and they want him sacked.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

whilst its quite obvious stories get blocked probably from time to time its also obvious that not every single bad story would be blocked. However its feasible eg. a minister may ring an editor of a newspaper to explain they think if a certian story was pubished it would negatively impact the country so for the sake of national interests it shouldnt be published. eg. to help push certian political agendas.

its not just political either there is harry redknapp football manager who gets on well with the press who probably have lots on him but choose to not publish it to keep that good relationship going, although if he became england manager it would probably all come out if england do badly and they want him sacked.

you're talking about a personal agreement between 2 individuals ,minister /editor or celebrity/editor ,we are talking about the government forceably blocking stories so as not to appear badly totally different things and totally against the idea of free press ,it's a ridiculous suggestion

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So members of the NUJ and Amicus wouldn't object to stories about another union being spiked/suppressed?

Senior management in the media are rarely members of the NUJ. And they are the ones who get the pressure from the government.

And national press journalists aren't well known for their compassion and understanding for others are they?

---------- Post added at 15:50 ---------- Previous post was at 15:43 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

you're talking about a personal agreement between 2 individuals ,minister /editor or celebrity/editor ,we are talking about the government forceably blocking stories so as not to appear badly totally different things and totally against the idea of free press ,it's a ridiculous suggestion

No we aren't. Read the link and you will see that it is supposed voluntary agreement. However I'm sure it would be made clear that a mutual back scratching agreement should be made.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

The government put a block on the press reporting anything that put firefighters in a good light. .

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

No we aren't. Read the link and you will see that it is supposed voluntary agreement. However I'm sure it would be made clear that a mutual back scratching agreement should be made.

I know what the link says but that isn't what you said ,you have stated that the government block reports which doesn't sound very voluntary to me