Strike - right or wrong?

[Phil D. Rolls]

They aren't hiring more staff where I work. Quite the reverse.

[ginger_rice]

You can shop at Asda instead of Tesco, you can buy your gas from NPower instead of British gas and you can bank with Lloyds instead of Barclays.

Of course there is inefficiency in the private sector but they bear the expense of that inefficiency, if the inefficiency continues then eventually someone will lose their job either through redundancy or the sack. In the public sector inefficiency is resolved by hiring even more staff.

'fraid not mate the current inefficiencies generally are down to efficiency saving measures, ie everyone now has to do more work than previously as staff are given redundancy or not replaced through natural wastage as has been the case for some time now, and it will get worse as the latest trend is to try to get higher earning well qualified and experienced staff to take voluntary severance to be replaced with younger cheaper inexperienced staff. And as Hibs supporters we all know where that leads.

My own belief is that the current Westminster government want to make public services impossible for councils to run and therefore have no option but to outsource them...witness the so called free school down south recently putting not just it's janitorial staff out to contract but the whole shooting match teachers and all, look at the worrying failures of private care homes.

All public services ( and here I mean utilities, public transport et al) should be run for the public good not just for those who can afford them, yes there are inefficiencies, but these need to be, and could be managed properly, and it has to be acknowledged that there will always be some public services which cannot be run at a profit, and certainly not by the private sector.

[Jack]

I know people who work in the public sector, is that a good enough source?

No. Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence, but still better than the Mail, Sun and Daily Record etc. obviously. :greengrin

I have worked in both sectors, admittedly mostly in the public sector. Many of my friends though work in the private sector or have been in both too. Over the years discussions have led me to believe one is no better / worse than the other – there are very dedicated staff in each and there are skivers in each and there's everything in between ... in each.

Still thats only almost 40 years of anecdotal evidence :wink:


Edit: That same thing applies to the voluntary sector too, be a shame not to include them!

[Geo_1875]

What's your point?

My point is that when the private sector decides to increase efficiency or reduce costs people lose jobs and the taxpayer foots the bill.

[Eyrie]

My point is that when the private sector decides to increase efficiency or reduce costs people lose jobs and the taxpayer foots the bill.
So your point is that people should be employed in non-jobs for which there is no need? That either increases prices if it's a private employer, or taxes if it's the public sector.

You'll doubtless counter that is preferable to someone being on the dole. I'd rather that they were employed productively regardless of whether that is in the private, public or voluntary sector.

[Leicester Fan]

We probably all do.

Saying inefficiency is resolved by hiring more staff is laughable. Public sector is shedding jobs, not creating them

At the minute possibly but that hasn't been the trend for the last 30 years.

[Leicester Fan]

My own belief is that the current Westminster government want to make public services impossible for councils to run and therefore have no option but to outsource them...witness the so called free school down south recently putting not just it's janitorial staff out to contract but the whole shooting match teachers and all, look at the worrying failures of private care homes.

All public services ( and here I mean utilities, public transport et al) should be run for the public good not just for those who can afford them, yes there are inefficiencies, but these need to be, and could be managed properly, and it has to be acknowledged that there will always be some public services which cannot be run at a profit, and certainly not by the private sector.

I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing you don't remember the 70s when all the utilities were state owned?Expensive, inefficient, over manned, monopolies with a like it or lump it policy to it's customers.State ownership has very little to do with the public good.

PS I didn't read that in the Daily Mail.

[Geo_1875]

So your point is that people should be employed in non-jobs for which there is no need? That either increases prices if it's a private employer, or taxes if it's the public sector.

You'll doubtless counter that is preferable to someone being on the dole. I'd rather that they were employed productively regardless of whether that is in the private, public or voluntary sector.

No, I'll counter with the fact that the sectors are comparable in that they both cost the customer whether it's in taxes or cost of purchase. There are inefficiencies on both sides and whereas public services cover this by increasing running costs (increased taxes), the private sector will mitigate this by increasing prices or cutting running costs (staff numbers) at the expense of the taxpayer. I just don't understand the public bad private good argument unless you're Margaret Thatcher in disguise.

[Eyrie]

No, I'll counter with the fact that the sectors are comparable in that they both cost the customer whether it's in taxes or cost of purchase. There are inefficiencies on both sides and whereas public services cover this by increasing running costs (increased taxes), the private sector will mitigate this by increasing prices or cutting running costs (staff numbers) at the expense of the taxpayer. I just don't understand the public bad private good argument unless you're Margaret Thatcher in disguise.
So we can at least agree that both sides have their inefficiencies. However what you are then saying is that the public sector does not address any inefficiencies whilst the private sector does. A well managed economy will be able to productively re-employ those laid off by the private or public sector, resulting in a net gain to everyone.

And if I'm Margaret Thatcher does that make you Michael Foot? Both terrifying thoughts!

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing you don't remember the 70s when all the utilities were state owned?Expensive, inefficient, over manned, monopolies with a like it or lump it policy to it's customers.State ownership has very little to do with the public good.

PS I didn't read that in the Daily Mail.

A difficult time for a country crippled by war debt. What always surprises me is that it is the unions that get all the blame. Management was pretty poor at that time as well.

As for state ownership, some things like the railways are better run by the state. Compare our railways to those in the Netherlands. Services haven't really improved since privatisation. Likewise the carry on we have nowadays with energy companies is a result of too many companies competing.

[RyeSloan]

A difficult time for a country crippled by war debt. What always surprises me is that it is the unions that get all the blame. Management was pretty poor at that time as well.

As for state ownership, some things like the railways are better run by the state. Compare our railways to those in the Netherlands. Services haven't really improved since privatisation. Likewise the carry on we have nowadays with energy companies is a result of too many companies competing.

Really? Even taking into account the horrible mess made of de-nationalising the railways compare our railway passenger numbers now to when they were run by BR. Also the railways still receive massive subsidies so maybe state intervention is still harming rather then helping! These are the same railways that were of course largely built without state intervention what so ever.

However I assume you mean by "run by the state" you mean centrally by politicians...what other industries do you think our politicians should be in charge of. . .?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Really? Even taking into account the horrible mess made of de-nationalising the railways compare our railway passenger numbers now to when they were run by BR. Also the railways still receive massive subsidies so maybe state intervention is still harming rather then helping! These are the same railways that were of course largely built without state intervention what so ever.

However I assume you mean by "run by the state" you mean centrally by politicians...what other industries do you think our politicians should be in charge of. . .?

Fair point on the numbers, and the trains are a lot cleaner too. Still not as good as the Dutch though. I don't see transportation as an industry, it is part of the infrastructure. That's where government should be involving itself, things that people can't do without.

It would also be a good idea if the government controlled the banks.

[ginger_rice]

I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing you don't remember the 70s when all the utilities were state owned?Expensive, inefficient, over manned, monopolies with a like it or lump it policy to it's customers.State ownership has very little to do with the public good.

PS I didn't read that in the Daily Mail.

No of course I don't remember the 70's after all I'm only 54 says it under my user name :wink:

Now we have privately owned utilities which are expensive, couldn't give a toss about their customers, inefficient, and top heavy with fat cats, where the only thing which matters is profit and shareholder dividends. At least when the buses were state owned I could get one now where I stay there are 3 buses per day the last one at 6pm, and none on Sunday!

[ginger_rice]

Fair point on the numbers, and the trains are a lot cleaner too. Still not as good as the Dutch though. I don't see transportation as an industry, it is part of the infrastructure. That's where government should be involving itself, things that people can't do without.

It would also be a good idea if the government controlled the banks.

:top marks Exactly, utilities should be run for the benefit of society, but of course society and community were both done away with along with state ownership!

[steakbake]

All public services ( and here I mean utilities, public transport et al) should be run for the public good not just for those who can afford them, yes there are inefficiencies, but these need to be, and could be managed properly, and it has to be acknowledged that there will always be some public services which cannot be run at a profit, and certainly not by the private sector.

What percentage in tax are you willing to go up to to ensure they are paid for?

[lucky]

Fair point on the numbers, and the trains are a lot cleaner too. Still not as good as the Dutch though. I don't see transportation as an industry, it is part of the infrastructure. That's where government should be involving itself, things that people can't do without.

It would also be a good idea if the government controlled the banks.

The railways receive 10 times the level of subsidy that BR got. Don't forget successive governments did not invest in the railways leaving it in a very poor shape. The next scotrail franchise alone will receive £300m a year in subsidy. First group made £16m profit last year on the franchise. Surely makes sence for a publicly owned and publicly accountable railway. Every pound given to shareholders is a pound less invested in public services. As such costs us taxpayers twice.

BRING BACK BRITISH RAIL

[lucky]

What percentage in tax are you willing to go up to to ensure they are paid for?

Tax should be progressive. Tax avoidance in the UK is shocking. This governments increase in VAT has hit the poorest hardest. Public services should be funded correctly and should be under the democratic control of the people. As always happens when the Tories take power millions of people are flung onto the scrapheap called unemployment. It make more sence to employ people in the public sector than making them unemployed. The government gets more taxes and thete is more money in peoples pockets for them to spend as such it keeps the private sector growing. But the Tory mantra that public service is bad and private is good is based on their ideological beliefs rather than sound economic arguments

[Leicester Fan]

No of course I don't remember the 70's after all I'm only 54 says it under my user name :wink:

Now we have privately owned utilities which are expensive, couldn't give a toss about their customers, inefficient, and top heavy with fat cats, where the only thing which matters is profit and shareholder dividends. At least when the buses were state owned I could get one now where I stay there are 3 buses per day the last one at 6pm, and none on Sunday!

You old git.:wink: (I didn't spot your age, I must've been swayed by your youthful style).

I think the bus issue is just progress, far more people drive now than in the 70s.

[Leicester Fan]

It make more sence to employ people in the public sector than making them unemployed. The government gets more taxes and thete is more money in peoples pockets for them to spend as such it keeps the private sector growing. But the Tory mantra that public service is bad and private is good is based on their ideological beliefs rather than sound economic arguments

The govt pay more in wages to these people than they get back in taxes. The sound economic argument you espouse lead to the massive deficit we're paying for now.

[lucky]

The govt pay more in wages to these people than they get back in taxes. The sound economic argument you espouse lead to the massive deficit we're paying for now.

No it did not, have you conveniently forgotten the bank bale outs?

[Leicester Fan]

No it did not, have you conveniently forgotten the bank bale outs?

No I haven't forgot the bank bail out. The govt was already spending far more than it earned at the height of the boom.

[Eyrie]

No it did not, have you conveniently forgotten the bank bale outs?
Actually it is a major contributing factor. Under the previous government the public sector was expanded for ideological reasons at a time when the budget was in surplus and the national debt should have been paid down. So we now have an expanded public sector to support as well as the debt which was increased by bailing out the stupidity of the banks.

What is important is that public services are delivered effectively and efficiently. I have no problem with the private sector delivering public services (eg GPs) providing that the appropriate standard is attained, just as I have no problem with the public sector doing so providing it is efficient.

[Betty Boop]

With all their faults, trade unions have done more for humanity than any other organization of men that ever existed. They have done more for decency, for honesty, for education, for the betterment of the race, for the developing of character in men, than any other association of men.
Clarence Darrow

[RyeSloan]

:top marks Exactly, utilities should be run for the benefit of society, but of course society and community were both done away with along with state ownership!

Interesting comment. Why stop at utilities? Why not food producers or transport providers?

Do you seriously believe that politicians should be running power stations or making decisions where to build LNG terminals...and doing so with public (i.e taxpayers) money? And if you do why do you believe this would in any way be better than the status quo...what have the self same politicians done such a fine job of that we think they deserve even more power and even more of the workers pay-packet?

[RyeSloan]

Tax should be progressive. Tax avoidance in the UK is shocking. This governments increase in VAT has hit the poorest hardest. Public services should be funded correctly and should be under the democratic control of the people. As always happens when the Tories take power millions of people are flung onto the scrapheap called unemployment. It make more sence to employ people in the public sector than making them unemployed. The government gets more taxes and thete is more money in peoples pockets for them to spend as such it keeps the private sector growing. But the Tory mantra that public service is bad and private is good is based on their ideological beliefs rather than sound economic arguments

This post actually made me laugh out loud.

"Public services should be funded correctly and should be under the democratic control of the people" - What do you term correctly? Was the massive increase in spending under Labour not enough? Do you propose further increases in 'progressive' taxation to increase public service spending further? As for democratic control of the people...I think you will find few people in favour of further taxation to increase public spending further and also that we have a democratically elected government in (some sort) of control of the public purse, or are you suggesting the current government is not democratic?

" It make more sence to employ people in the public sector than making them unemployed" - Wow. So taxpayers money should be used as an employer of last resort. I'm also curious how you think the government makes money by employing people is doesn't need or indeed how that actually does helps to grow the non public sector.

"based on their ideological beliefs rather than sound economic arguments" Pot Kettle and Black?

[Jack]

Now that we seem to have strayed into ex-public companies can anyone tell me which ones are now run more effectively?

Take the utilities. As an example wholesale gas is the same price, roughly, as it was 10 years ago. Is your bill the same?

Take the railways, prices rising faster than inflation, deliberately, and despite the government’s ‘intention’ of getting more people onto public transport its cheaper to fly, or even drive to London, Glasgow, Inverness, in fact anywhere. The UK has the most expensive rail network in Europe, per mile, and one of the least efficient.

The deregulation of the busses hasn’t really affected Edinburgh that much but in most other areas it’s a sin the service and the state of the buses.

In all these cases there are companies making billions in profits. Now even that doesn’t disturb me much - that one or two people in each are raking it in on the back of countless thousands who are miserable but many of these companies are overseas companies, avoiding paying tax in this country and probably their own - that does piss me off.

[Leicester Fan]

Now that we seem to have strayed into ex-public companies can anyone tell me which ones are now run more effectively?


All of them.

[Betty Boop]

All of them.


I bet you are one of Maggie's biggest admirers ? :greengrin

[Jack]

All of them.

So how would you explain the rest of my post? :-)

[Jonnyboy]

This thread is miles away from where it started. We've moved on to the running of public services, former nationalised services etc and most of the discussion concerns use/misuse of budgets and suggested poor quality of service.

With respect none of the above is in the control of the thousands of public service workers who are simply trying to protect their conditions of service. Your average teacher, nurse, clerical assistant, binman, library assistant, school cleaner has absolutely no control over how their council, health board etc spends its budget. They simply want the contracts they signed to be honoured or if that is not possible because of the recession and the Coalition's dogged determination to pay off the debt at a speed that's currently creating more problems than it solves, that their trade union representatives are given the opportunity to represent their members. The talks until now have simply resulted in Danny Alexander saying here's our offer, take it or leave it - not much in the way of negotiation there I'd say.

Of course the country is going through rough times financially but the coalition never misses a chance to turn workers against workers as in private sector v public sector and judging by a fair few of the posts on this thread they're succeeding in that aim.

Believe it or not I'm not really into politics :greengrin My bottom line is workers should not be criticised for trying to protect their conditions of service

[da-robster]

Seeing as this thread has turned into one about privatization, I'll give my opinion. Firstly it seems clear to me that transport is far better run
(and probably cheaper) by the state, comparing the quality of trains here and in Europe shows that the UK's is one of the worst by almost every measure, and while there may have to be an initial cost it would providing the lines were invested in, in the long run it would be far cheaper and better for the public. There is no doubt in my mind after having just a quick look at other countries railways, that if control was taken away from profit seeking companies, and to a not for profit one (but at arms length from the government, like Lothian buses) the service would be better and cheaper for both the government and the public.

Secondly though and I've said it before, the main problem with the people of Britain is they want shiny new hospitals and fast trains, but they don't want to pay for them, to repair some of Britain's infrastructure will cost a lot of money and people would have to pay more in tax. The idea that any country can run on a deficit for ever is ridiculous, as is the idea that the country can grow easily with it's infrastructure falling apart. It seems to me that for Britain to have world class services it will have to pay more, an investment that I would say is worth it.

[Leicester Fan]

So how would you explain the rest of my post? :-)

I'm not sure if wholesale gas is the same price as 10 years ago, I'll have to take your word for that but there are overheads that are subject to inflation, there is the green levy put on energy prices, there is continuous investment in the infrastructure. There is a govt agency ofgem that regulates all price rises so that there cannot be any profiteering.
Btw gas and electricity were privatised a lot more than 10 years ago.

As for the railways the huge increase in passenger numbers as well as increasing H&S regulations mean that there is massive increase in investment in the track and rolling stock. This investment is obviously reflected in the price of the ticket.As above there is a govt price regulator.

A good example is the privatisation of water, for years successive govts failed to invest because they could always find better things to spend money on. Virtually as soon as it was privatised , Severn Trent (our local water company) started to build a new sewage system, the govt suddenly demanded higher water quality in rivers, beaches and coming out of the taps.
When we had a big freeze a year ago, the only place in the UK where the water had never been privatised ,N.I., was the worse affected, they even dug up wooden pipes. All through lack of investment.

[da-robster]

I'm not sure if wholesale gas is the same price as 10 years ago, I'll have to take your word for that but there are overheads that are subject to inflation, there is the green levy put on energy prices, there is continuous investment in the infrastructure. There is a govt agency ofgem that regulates all price rises so that there cannot be any profiteering.
Btw gas and electricity were privatised a lot more than 10 years ago.

As for the railways the huge increase in passenger numbers as well as increasing H&S regulations mean that there is massive increase in investment in the track and rolling stock. This investment is obviously reflected in the price of the ticket.As above there is a govt price regulator.

A good example is the privatisation of water, for years successive govts failed to invest because they could always find better things to spend money on. Virtually as soon as it was privatised , Severn Trent (our local water company) started to build a new sewage system, the govt suddenly demanded higher water quality in rivers, beaches and coming out of the taps.
When we had a big freeze a year ago, the only place in the UK where the water had never been privatised ,N.I., was the worse affected, they even dug up wooden pipes. All through lack of investment.


Just to say, Scottish Water is also publicly owned and didn't suffer as heavily during last winter, and has lower average prices than England and Wales.

[Jack]

Just to say, Scottish Water is also publicly owned and didn't suffer as heavily during last winter, and has lower average prices than England and Wales.

Ouch! Its a bit unfair bringing contrary and better evidence when LH thought he was doing so well - it makes his side of things appear somewhat restricted and rather selective ;-)

[Eyrie]

It's also generally accepted that Scottish Water needs a massive investment programme, and there is a large question mark over how that can be funded with the current regime unwilling to consider an arms length mutual company able to borrow the needed money.

[Leicester Fan]

Ouch! Its a bit unfair bringing contrary and better evidence when LH thought he was doing so well - it makes his side of things appear somewhat restricted and rather selective ;-)
LH?

[Jack]

LH?

Sorry LF :-)

[ginger_rice]

This thread is miles away from where it started. We've moved on to the running of public services, former nationalised services etc and most of the discussion concerns use/misuse of budgets and suggested poor quality of service.

With respect none of the above is in the control of the thousands of public service workers who are simply trying to protect their conditions of service. Your average teacher, nurse, clerical assistant, binman, library assistant, school cleaner has absolutely no control over how their council, health board etc spends its budget. They simply want the contracts they signed to be honoured or if that is not possible because of the recession and the Coalition's dogged determination to pay off the debt at a speed that's currently creating more problems than it solves, that their trade union representatives are given the opportunity to represent their members. The talks until now have simply resulted in Danny Alexander saying here's our offer, take it or leave it - not much in the way of negotiation there I'd say.

Of course the country is going through rough times financially but the coalition never misses a chance to turn workers against workers as in private sector v public sector and judging by a fair few of the posts on this thread they're succeeding in that aim.

Believe it or not I'm not really into politics :greengrin My bottom line is workers should not be criticised for trying to protect their conditions of service
:top marks

[ginger_rice]

Seeing as this thread has turned into one about privatization, I'll give my opinion. Firstly it seems clear to me that transport is far better run
(and probably cheaper) by the state, comparing the quality of trains here and in Europe shows that the UK's is one of the worst by almost every measure, and while there may have to be an initial cost it would providing the lines were invested in, in the long run it would be far cheaper and better for the public. There is no doubt in my mind after having just a quick look at other countries railways, that if control was taken away from profit seeking companies, and to a not for profit one (but at arms length from the government, like Lothian buses) the service would be better and cheaper for both the government and the public.

Secondly though and I've said it before, the main problem with the people of Britain is they want shiny new hospitals and fast trains, but they don't want to pay for them, to repair some of Britain's infrastructure will cost a lot of money and people would have to pay more in tax. The idea that any country can run on a deficit for ever is ridiculous, as is the idea that the country can grow easily with it's infrastructure falling apart. It seems to me that for Britain to have world class services it will have to pay more, an investment that I would say is worth it.

Excellent post...I've long been of the opinion that if you want world class public services then you need to pay for them.

The reason this thread has been hijacked is that it rapidly became obvious that those who stand against the action being taken by myself and my colleagues had an axe to grind against the public sector, some of us just felt it neccessary to defend the public sector.

[da-robster]

It's also generally accepted that Scottish Water needs a massive investment programme, and there is a large question mark over how that can be funded with the current regime unwilling to consider an arms length mutual company able to borrow the needed money.

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on water supplies because I'm not, but it seems that Scottish water is undergoing a 1 billion pound investment over the next 5 years, which should do something to solve these problems, and I'd wager that's more than many other private water companies.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not sure if wholesale gas is the same price as 10 years ago, I'll have to take your word for that but there are overheads that are subject to inflation, there is the green levy put on energy prices, there is continuous investment in the infrastructure. There is a govt agency ofgem that regulates all price rises so that there cannot be any profiteering.
Btw gas and electricity were privatised a lot more than 10 years ago.

As for the railways the huge increase in passenger numbers as well as increasing H&S regulations mean that there is massive increase in investment in the track and rolling stock. This investment is obviously reflected in the price of the ticket.As above there is a govt price regulator.

A good example is the privatisation of water, for years successive govts failed to invest because they could always find better things to spend money on. Virtually as soon as it was privatised , Severn Trent (our local water company) started to build a new sewage system, the govt suddenly demanded higher water quality in rivers, beaches and coming out of the taps.
When we had a big freeze a year ago, the only place in the UK where the water had never been privatised ,N.I., was the worse affected, they even dug up wooden pipes. All through lack of investment.

What "increasing H+S regulations" are you referring to LeicesterFan?

The last legislation I'm aware of governing the railways was seven years ago and all that did was transfer regulatory responsibility from the HSE to a stand-alone body.

You're saying price hikes are down to things like that but your version doesn't really stand up to to scrutiny does it?

[Leicester Fan]

What "increasing H+S regulations" are you referring to LeicesterFan?

The last legislation I'm aware of governing the railways was seven years ago and all that did was transfer regulatory responsibility from the HSE to a stand-alone body.

You're saying price hikes are down to things like that but your version doesn't really stand up to to scrutiny does it?

I seem to remember in the late 90s railtrack had to borrow £2billion for a new braking system that stopped trains going through signals, that kind of thing. I'm not sure if there has been any other improvements demanded but the trend is to increase regulation and improvements rather than not.Just as the MOT test on your car gets harder to pass every now and then, I'm sure there are similar tests on engines and carriages.

[Mibbes Aye]

I seem to remember in the late 90s railtrack had to borrow £2billion for a new braking system that stopped trains going through signals, that kind of thing. I'm not sure if there has been any other improvements demanded but the trend is to increase regulation and improvements rather than not.Just as the MOT test on your car gets harder to pass every now and then, I'm sure there are similar tests on engines and carriages.

So there weren't any 'increasing H+S regulations' like you referred to, you're now just 'not sure' :greengrin.

And the £2bn you're claiming Railtrack borrowed was fifteen years ago.

Question for me is do you just make it up in the first place or swallow it hook, line and sinker from the likes of the Daily Mail? :greengrin

[Leicester Fan]

So there weren't any 'increasing H+S regulations' like you referred to, you're now just 'not sure' :greengrin.

And the £2bn you're claiming Railtrack borrowed was fifteen years ago.

Question for me is do you just make it up in the first place or swallow it hook, line and sinker from the likes of the Daily Mail? :greengrin

I don't claim to be an expert on railways, I don't claim to know if there were any increases in H&S in the industry in the last 15 years but if there weren't it must be the only industry in the country that hasn't.

You're picking up on pedantic little points but you don't seem willing to argue with my general point.