[BBC News] Civil staff reject zero pay rise

[manxy]

I'm affected by the lack of a pay rise and therefore it's to be expected that I will look for the best deal for my family and personally, would expect any person to look for the best deal possible.

I do however, agree with Albert that there's a lot of top heavy appointments and while certain places on the 'shop floor' are close to the bone, there seems to be an abundance of 'fancy suits' who appear to mismanage and 'get away with it' quite a lot of the time.

 

I do however, realise that there's lots of professions feeling the pinch and I really hope that things take a turn for the better for you, but my unease is with the politicians. If they had accepted a 0% increase, then I would see that as the way forward and that they would lead by example. Being protected from pensions and pay means (to me) that they can do what they want, when they want and you and I are meaningless. This can't go on and my feeling of resentment towards the untouchables is building.

 

With regards to a possible strike, It's doubtful that the Government would take any notice as it doesn't affect them, as they will receive their monthly cheque regardless as to how they perform. A win win situation.

 

On the pension front, I remember hearing that the private sector will be next in line to be hit after the Civil Service due to unknown factors at the time, that have now been realised. I know, it's a bit wishy washy as I have a lousy memory, but if you do a bit of digging and ask the treasury, then you'll find the answer and apologise for not remembering for those who it'll concern next.

[WilDDog]

What's the problem? It's the real-life market rate for what most of them are worth.

 

Well I thought inflation was at zero % last month so they have turned down an inflationary pay increase. Actually its about time that civil servants realized the economic reality that we are living in - they have gold plated employment terms and gold plated pensions paid for by us. We in the private sector are facing redundancy and reductions in pay.

 

Apart from doctors, nurses and dentists if the whole frigging civil service went on strike tomorrow nobody would actually notice so quite what leverage they think they have for the taxpayer to keep them in their risk free cossetted existence is anyones guess.

 

If you don't like it go on strike and see who gives a rats ass.

 

 

 

Lots of people seem to be down on people who took Public sector employment. I don't care one way or the other, I'm not a civil servant, never have been, but people chose to go down the private sector route. I believe that private sector employees are/were paid more than the public sector employees, but now things are slowing down it seems that private sector employees have it in for the public sector, who I might add were on less wages for a long time. The thing that the public sector had were paid holidays and pensions which sort of balanced it out.

It seems like it's a case of sour grapes now. I didn't see the public sector moaning when the private sector were making shed loads more money than the public sector.

[Gladys]

But that is not the argument, it is about adding value to the economy. Yes, there are people earning 'shed loads', but they are in the sectors that really bring home the bacon as far as IOM PLC is concerned. They are contributing to the economy, not taking from it.

[manxy]

I really get peeved that some people complain about civil servants and systematically stereotype them as being lazy and so on.

I work damn hard and its so easy to say THEY from hiding behind the confines of a computer screen without thinking of the adverse affects it has on people and chirping up some humongously wise comment to look good and get world wide acclaim for their witticisms, but I for one, work hard, I'm conscientious and look after the people who I work with, for and too.

 

There does however, seem to be too many positions that appear to have more chiefs than indians and certain aspects of work certainly appear to be bogged down with paperwork and whether that's harmonious to the smooth running of the department or creating work for works sake, then I'm not able to make that call, but I'm sure there's loads who already do.

 

I liked PK's post about having consultants coming in, but I very much doubt if this would be impartial as if I was a betting person, I'd wager that the findings would be smoothed over so it wouldn't look bad. It would however, make persons accountable for their actions and make people justify what they do and that would probably go some way to prove a departments efficiency or inefficiency.

 

As for strike, I very much doubt it will come to that and will probably end up being a watered down version of a work to rule, but its the IOM, you never know.

[Albert Tatlock]

Don't get me wrong, I know lots of people work very hard in the civil service including many friends of mine too, and of course I am not tarring everyone in the government and civil service with the 'personal inefficiency' brush. But even most of my friends have been coated by that brush, in this the age of the computer, where archaic processes and multi-level mis-management are rife here. I've personally done a lot of work for government organisations, both here and in the UK - it's bad enough in the UK, but here it is several layers of intelligence lower and several layers of mis-management higher - considering what the aims and objectives are in many government departments and the numbers of people employed to reach them.

 

It's also the biggest 'jobs for the boys' network I have ever seen, and again, don't get me wrong, I too have taken advantage of that fact too occasionally. As Manxy says - you do what is best for yourself and your family. But the reality is that here the system has turned into a monster, that I would suggest in my experience is around 50% inefficient.

 

The control of that over-growth is down to elected representatives, who have done nothing to stem it. What's worse is that 25% of the working population are now employed in the civil service, so politicians have not only created a monster, they have tied themselves to its control as there are enough votes in the civil service at general election time to see off any one of them. Worse still, without the support of the civil service, several of our current politicians would be exposed for the true incompetent, idiotic numpties they really are - so are unlikely to shoot the goose that lays them golden eggs.

 

The only approach left for politicians is for them to collectively agree that the problem needs to be tackled and have the guts to do it now together - well before election time and before the finances here get into such a serious position (government expenditure and a downturn in the economy) to force others to come forward at election time and start pushing the current politicians out. A massive objective review of the system could be accomplished within a year if it was done correctly, but in reality would take around 5 years to put into practice, so IMO such a review is unlikely.

 

In the meantime, not only do they protect the civil service, they unprotect the private sector, e.g. the finance sector - not least with TIA's, over regulation, and by not protecting manx and IOM workers by using the work permit legislation properly.

 

I think all politicians, both old and any new, are in for a tough time at the next election.

[BETTYBOO68]

But that is not the argument, it is about adding value to the economy. Yes, there are people earning 'shed loads', but they are in the sectors that really bring home the bacon as far as IOM PLC is concerned. They are contributing to the economy, not taking from it.

 

 

and are government workers not contributing to the economy?? they pay, taxes, national insurance and contribute to their pension......and like someone said earlier people chose to work in the public or private sector and both sectors pay their taxes etc....

[pongo]

What's worse is that 25% of the working population are now employed in the civil service

 

Whatever the exact figures - a good deal of that percentage will be down to the fact that much of what would be private in the UK is public on the IOM. Eg electricity, water and a whole bunch of stuff which would have otherwise been farmed out to competing agencies and companies and then further subcontracted. Not forgetting the administration of these various services. On an island the size of a English county there probably would not be any case for making those services private (assuming the contracts were to be awarded locally).

 

Don't get me wrong, I know lots of people work very hard in the civil service including many friends of mine too, and of course I am not tarring everyone in the government and civil service with the 'personal inefficiency' brush.

 

You would see significant inefficiency in the private sector too. The same probably. Most people only put in 100% if they are actually doing stuff which completely fascinates and absorbs them. Then work and life merges into one. Lots of people only work the exact hours which they are under contract for because they do not like their work. Which is understandable in some ways.

 

I think all politicians, both old and any new, are in for a tough time at the next election.

 

I hope that we do not see a reactionary backlash from people advocating populist solutions which ultimately damage long term economic and social stability. Govt is difficult and never completely works anywhere. The current generation of elected people and Civil Servants have done lots of good work IMO. It could all have been much worse. Govt is precarious.

[Slim]

But how is the market rate an indicator of what they are worth?

 

[Tugger]

Civil staff reject zero pay rise

 

It's more than I would offer them

[Mutley]

I'm affected by the lack of a pay rise and therefore it's to be expected that I will look for the best deal for my family and personally, would expect any person to look for the best deal possible.

I do however, agree with Albert that there's a lot of top heavy appointments and while certain places on the 'shop floor' are close to the bone, there seems to be an abundance of 'fancy suits' who appear to mismanage and 'get away with it' quite a lot of the time.

 

I do however, realise that there's lots of professions feeling the pinch and I really hope that things take a turn for the better for you, but my unease is with the politicians. If they had accepted a 0% increase, then I would see that as the way forward and that they would lead by example. Being protected from pensions and pay means (to me) that they can do what they want, when they want and you and I are meaningless. This can't go on and my feeling of resentment towards the untouchables is building.

 

With regards to a possible strike, It's doubtful that the Government would take any notice as it doesn't affect them, as they will receive their monthly cheque regardless as to how they perform. A win win situation.

 

On the pension front, I remember hearing that the private sector will be next in line to be hit after the Civil Service due to unknown factors at the time, that have now been realised. I know, it's a bit wishy washy as I have a lousy memory, but if you do a bit of digging and ask the treasury, then you'll find the answer and apologise for not remembering for those who it'll concern next.

 

Gawd love ya. I've already had a pay cut, lost most of my benefits and had my pension contributions cut by 50%. Strike? I don't have that luxury as the redundancy door is still ajar.

[P.K.]

Don't get me wrong, I know lots of people work very hard in the civil service including many friends of mine too, and of course I am not tarring everyone in the government and civil service with the 'personal inefficiency' brush.

You would see significant inefficiency in the private sector too. The same probably. Most people only put in 100% if they are actually doing stuff which completely fascinates and absorbs them. Then work and life merges into one. Lots of people only work the exact hours which they are under contract for because they do not like their work. Which is understandable in some ways.

I disagree with this. A lot knock city bonuses but I've worked in a "hard work = wedge" culture and you get stuck in because you know you will reap the rewards. From today's BBC:

 

"No fear of sack for bureaucrats!"

 

"Poorly performing senior civil servants are far less likely to be sacked than their equivalents elsewhere, say MPs"

 

No surprises there then. Full story here.

[pongo]

I disagree with this. A lot knock city bonuses but I've worked in a "hard work = wedge" culture and you get stuck in because you know you will reap the rewards.

 

I agree with you about the sort of work where people do get "stuck in".

 

But most of the private sector is not like that. It is often about chatting about what was on the TV last night, fag breaks, the Daily Mail, endless instant coffees, going home on the dot etc etc. Pretty depressing but true. Very few people have jobs which they get in to.

[P.K.]

But most of the private sector is not like that. It is often about chatting about what was on the TV last night, fag breaks, the Daily Mail, endless instant coffees, going home on the dot etc etc. Pretty depressing but true. Very few people have jobs which they get in to.

As an LSS Project Manager I can assure you that a lot of the private sector in the UK is lean, mean and hungry. Some isn't which fortunately keeps me in employment when I want it.

 

You have to put it in perspective. Most organisations will have a few percent of excellent people that make things happen and get things done. Because it is impossibly difficult to get rid of someone "Who's a bit slow" for example they will also have a few percent of the totally useless. The excellent drag the useless into the average which is where the vast majority tend to be anyway.

 

For me there are two major differences between the public and private sector. The first is decision making. Private companies tend to be flat organisations, the flatter the better, with people empowered to make decisions. In the public sector to get a decision you have to wade through layers of "managers" until you finally reach the decision takers - who are a bloody great committee! Needless to say they disagree, fudge, have turf wars etc etc etc and you end up with a watered-down effort for which they can all share the blame. It really is bollocks. The second is the way the private sector evolves to match the business world while the public sector just plods on and on "because we've always done it this way." They expect the private sector to fit in with their requirements or you won't get their business. And these days government work is a life-saver.

 

Don't get me wrong. I've met some dedicated public servants at the coalface working their nollags off. However generally what these folks have to say about their "management" doesn't bear thinking about! It seems to be around getting the job done despite the hierarchy above them. Says it all.

[manxy]

Civil staff reject zero pay rise

 

It's more than I would offer them

Why?

Or is it picking certain professions or positions?

Don't Civil servants have the same needs as others as per Maslows theory?

[Tugger]

Why? Because they get too much money from the taxpayer already. Have a look at the chart I posted further up the thread.

 

It's not civil servants' requirements that matter here, it is the Isle of Man's requirement for civil servants, and that requirement is very much oversupplied, at too high a cost