I think part of the problem is that terms like "the public sector" and "the Civil Service" are bandied about by The Media and Digby Prat Jones, who lump everyone who works in any kind of public service role in the same boat.
Most "public sector" workers would love to have any kind of salary that the people at the top, who are the ones who get big bucks and massive pensions are on. Teachers, policemen, firemen, job centre workers, etc do not earn anything like the same as equivalent jobs in the private sector. But every day on the radio, we are being told how expensive it is for THE TAXPAYER to pay their pensions. No mention of things like contribution holidays or removal of tax credits on pension schemes or the massive fall in the value of schemes due to the stock market collapsing due to the financial sector screwing us all over.
Yes, the civil service had a better deal on redundancies, which needs looking into. But it was offered to them instead of comparable salaries.
Private companies can decide how much or how little they pay out in redundancy, depending on how desperate they are at the time. It's not uncommon for people to be offered 1 month per year's service, but there's usually a cap of something like 2 years' pay.
Having worked in both areas and knowing how much people in comparative jobs earn, I don't think I'm underinformed. I also deal with a wide variety of employers in my current role and know how much they pay certain workers.
I happened across one of my old payslips last night from when I bought this place in 1999. OK, I was in a completely different job role, but I was earning more than 25% more than I currently earn.
Did you read the links? As the second one, a Ben Goldacre column says: "In reality, this is one of those interesting areas where anybody who makes a firm statement is wrong, because there is not sufficient evidence to make a confident assertion in either direction."
I was also going to say that all the stuff about hourly pay and number of hours worked is valid. But in my job I can see direct comparisons between admin assistants with comparable qualifications, payroll assistants in similar sized firms, IT technicians with similar job roles and the differences between what they are paid in the public and private sectors.
They're both saying "apples and oranges". Neither sector clearly earns more than the other, across the board. It all depends how, and what, you measure it.
Another anecdote: in the last few years, I've had two jobs, both in the private sector, where the salary, for very similar jobs, differed by 40%. Does that prove anything?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Most "public sector" workers would love to have any kind of salary that the people at the top, who are the ones who get big bucks and massive pensions are on. Teachers, policemen, firemen, job centre workers, etc do not earn anything like the same as equivalent jobs in the private sector. But every day on the radio, we are being told how expensive it is for THE TAXPAYER to pay their pensions. No mention of things like contribution holidays or removal of tax credits on pension schemes or the massive fall in the value of schemes due to the stock market collapsing due to the financial sector screwing us all over.
Yes, the civil service had a better deal on redundancies, which needs looking into. But it was offered to them instead of comparable salaries.
Private companies can decide how much or how little they pay out in redundancy, depending on how desperate they are at the time. It's not uncommon for people to be offered 1 month per year's service, but there's usually a cap of something like 2 years' pay.
no subject
And those in the public sector tend to wildly over-estimate the earnings of those in the private!
http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2009/12/more-about-public-versus-private-sector-pay/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/09/bad-science-ben-goldacre
no subject
I happened across one of my old payslips last night from when I bought this place in 1999. OK, I was in a completely different job role, but I was earning more than 25% more than I currently earn.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Another anecdote: in the last few years, I've had two jobs, both in the private sector, where the salary, for very similar jobs, differed by 40%. Does that prove anything?