More than 100 new public sector jobs giving civil servants higher Pay than the PM

[mertle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...d-Cameron.html

This report from telegraph some actually in NHS too despite 3,500 reported nursing jobs lost.

Quite disgraceful to see this happen its seems ok to kill frontline jobs but increase those fat cats at tune 14m

Rachel Reeves, a shadow Treasury minister, said the Government is failing to “get a grip on high pay in the public sector�.
“It turns out that while most public sector workers have had their pay frozen and 3,500 nursing jobs have been lost, Danny Alexander has personally approved the creation of 101 new posts with salaries higher than the Prime Minister’s, at a total cost of £14 million a year,� she said. “At a time when the government are cutting 730,000 jobs in the public sector I find it incredible that they can afford £14 million for 101 new jobs at the top.�

Of course, heaven forbid the thought that these people might actually be good at what they do, and save the cost of their salaries by their actions.

For instance, my salary was 50% more than my predecessor in the position (but 40% less than my previous job) - in my first year I cut costs (not people/jobs) by five times my salary, and since then have made efficiencies year on year, making the Return On Investment fairly convincing.

They paid for (and benefited from) my knowledge and experience, and from the fact I was at the point in my career I was wanting to 'downsize' my job - everyone won.

People need to look at value, not cost - but if you are on high pay, you should be target driven, and if you don't meet the targets, have to move on (without a golden parachute).

Originally Posted by Hugh

Of course, heaven forbid the thought that these people might actually be good at what they do, and save the cost of their salaries by their actions.

For instance, my salary was 50% more than my predecessor in the position (but 40% less than my previous job) - in my first year I cut costs (not people/jobs) by five times my salary, and since then have made efficiencies year on year, making the Return On Investment fairly convincing.

They paid for (and benefited from) my knowledge and experience, and from the fact I was at the point in my career I was wanting to 'downsize' my job - everyone won.

People need to look at value, not cost - but if you are on high pay, you should be target driven, and if you don't meet the targets, have to move on (without a golden parachute).

Results for high pay ? what a novel idea Hugh

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by merle

Quite disgraceful to see this happen its seems ok to kill frontline jobs but increase those fat cats at tune 14m

fat cats? In the public sector?

My god, somebody get Balls on the line.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Of course, heaven forbid the thought that these people might actually be good at what they do, and save the cost of their salaries by their actions.

For instance, my salary was 50% more than my predecessor in the position (but 40% less than my previous job) - in my first year I cut costs (not people/jobs) by five times my salary, and since then have made efficiencies year on year, making the Return On Investment fairly convincing.

They paid for (and benefited from) my knowledge and experience, and from the fact I was at the point in my career I was wanting to 'downsize' my job - everyone won.

People need to look at value, not cost - but if you are on high pay, you should be target driven, and if you don't meet the targets, have to move on (without a golden parachute).

One question is why cant existing top management do there job. Surely do we need another layer top management.

If they do a great job without cutting jobs which are parramount. Not forcing more hours on staff to ofset those losses. Making staff overworked underpayed in NHS risking errors. Cutting vital services then no still question salary way too high. Personally sounds like hatchet squad to rip apart NHS. Time will tell though as now the crooks in power got there way with privitising it.

I admire the work you did not sack people. Not saying there aint wastage in government some contracts they sign criminal. Some companies take the government for a ride alot by over charging services/goods. For years they new nothing would be done. Problem is can those contracts be removed which shown to be issue.

Problem is it aint looking great when your telling bottom feeders to paycut your giving over 100 new positions at 140,000 + salary's. Not forgeting the sort pensions these will be taking on.

Surely you can see hyprocracy of it all. Those staff wont be happy for sure and those lost jobs likely very very angry.

Can the public sector even afford these high rollers if we keep believing the we are broke. I bet 14m pretty conservative too.

I dont even think we should be paying lords what they get its disgraceful atendance fee. Even MP's and Cambinet and paid way over the odds for value for money. The gravy train run dry but they still on the take.

I always felt we cannot afford the lavish lifestyles they get the amount they get in retirement. How many ex leaders and MP's we still fork out.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by mertle

One question is why cant existing top management do there job. Surely do we need another layer top management.

Whilst giving maximum respect to Hugh for cost cutting without cutting jobs, I have to agree with mertle on this.

If the existing management can't manage properly, the answer is to replace them with managers who can, rather than bring in new higher paid managers to manage incompetent managers. This will just lead to too many cheifs and not enough indians.

The public sector is supposed to be making efficency savings!

How do you know they didn't?

The creation of new posts does not rule out the loss of the post it replaces - that's what happened in my (and others I know about) case.

But, then, that wouldn't make such an emotive story.....

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How do you know they didn't?

The creation of new posts does not rule out the loss of the post it replaces - that's what happened in my (and others I know about) case.

But, then, that wouldn't make such an emotive story.....

If the managers who aren't doing their jobs properly are being replaced, then that's fine. But in the public sector, they shouldn't be paying fat cat wages. There will be people who can do the job just as well for less.

Your last sentence is an opinion, not a fact - if they could do it, why didn't they?

I bet you wouldn't say to someone "buy the cheapest bed, it's just as good as the more expensive ones....", or "it's OK to pay senior experienced firemen the same as trainees"....

FYI, I am in the Public Sector...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

If the managers who aren't doing their jobs properly are being replaced, then that's fine. But in the public sector, they shouldn't be paying fat cat wages. There will be people who can do the job just as well for less.

These people have left for the private sector, where they can do the same job. For more...

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Your last sentence is an opinion, not a fact - if they could do it, why didn't they?

I bet you wouldn't say to someone "buy the cheapest bed, it's just as good as the more expensive ones....", or "it's OK to pay senior experienced firemen the same as trainees"....

FYI, I am in the Public Sector...

I would say buy the best value bed, and you can usually get just as good as the most expensive for a fraction of the price.

Senior experienced firemen are paid the same as those who have just finished their probation. But the public gets far more for their money out of the experienced firefighters.

---------- Post added at 15:10 ---------- Previous post was at 15:09 ----------

Originally Posted by danielf

These people have left for the private sector, where they can do the same job. For more...

When we aren't in a recession maybe. But the highly paid private sector jobs simply aren't there any more.