Public sector pay

MAWMAW Posts: 38,777
Forum Member
Anyone planning on watching panorama? And who has the most outrageous salary. I'm glad my OH is not going to feature, she earns less then the PM. My worst one is the head of the Royal Mint TBH, I cannot see that running that is very difficult or taxing. You get paid a stack of cash to be the butt of everyone's ire at the beeb. Likewise head of the NHS, it's a shitty job. GP salaries, they never asked for it. The GP contract was rewritten, that is the result. Way too much, yes. I'm wondering if the man who did that is going to be Nicholson's replacement soon, as NHS boss:rolleyes:

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 605
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hasn't this been done to death already? I seem to remember there was a list published a few months ago of all public sector staff who earned more than the PM.

    There might be an issue about pay to the most senior public sector staff but where does the idea that the PM salary is a benchmark come from and why do they conveniently forget all the benefits in kind that the PM receives? I wonder does he pay the gas bill for No.10 or Chequers?

    I hold no brief for the top public sector staff but what irritates me about this kind of debate is the blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion. I wonder who is orchestrating it? I'd expect nothing less from the Telegraph but what are the BBC doing with this kind of cheap, sensationalist nonsense?
  • MAWMAW Posts: 38,777
    Forum Member
    The Moth wrote: »
    Hasn't this been done to death already? I seem to remember there was a list published a few months ago of all public sector staff who earned more than the PM.

    There might be an issue about pay to the most senior public sector staff but where does the idea that the PM salary is a benchmark come from and why do they conveniently forget all the benefits in kind that the PM receives? I wonder does he pay the gas bill for No.10 or Chequers?

    I hold no brief for the top public sector staff but what irritates me about this kind of debate is the blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion. I wonder who is orchestrating it? I'd expect nothing less from the Telegraph but what are the BBC doing with this kind of cheap, sensationalist nonsense?

    I do agree with you. I made the thread as it's just resurfaced. Why the beeb are in on it when it's mostly their staff on the list, 300 odd of them I think..... I don't have a major gripe with many of the salaries myself, and as you say, the PM is a poor benchmark. Does he not get an MP's salary on top of his PM one, besides the benefits in kind, and the after dinner speaking, directorships etc after he retires? I don't think any outgoing PM has had to sleep in a cardboard box, whereas a NHS boss, say, who earns something similar is likely to be a mortgage slave, have a family, comittments, and is quite likley to be broken if they lose their job for any reason, and in that particular case, it's often political jobbery exactly like an election is.
  • SpacedoneSpacedone Posts: 2,546
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MAW wrote: »
    I do agree with you. I made the thread as it's just resurfaced. Why the beeb are in on it when it's mostly their staff on the list, 300 odd of them I think..... I don't have a major gripe with many of the salaries myself, and as you say, the PM is a poor benchmark.

    It's a purely political benchmark. PM pay rises have been refused for political reasons. If numerous increases hadn't been turned down then they pay would be substantially more.

    It's also a false benchmark. They're just comparing basic pay. They're not factoring how much Cameron claims in expenses, the two free homes he gets as PM (one a large country house) and the people employed solely to look after both homes, the free transport everywhere, the platinum plated PM pension and of course all the other perks that result after they've left the job.

    And from the opposite side all these people now being hung out to dry for daring to accept a contract that is superficially more than the PMs don't have the right of reply, they can't offer any perspective as to why they are paid so much (totally lacking in any coverage I've yet seen) or how much they could expect to be paid for a similar job in the private sector.

    I expected better from the BBC. The way this is being reported is like something out of the Daily Mail, all lurid headline and no context. I wonder if this was one of the programmes Mark Thompson went to see Cameron about to help sell the Coalition's policies to the general public?
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MAW wrote: »
    I do agree with you. I made the thread as it's just resurfaced. Why the beeb are in on it when it's mostly their staff on the list, 300 odd of them I think..... I don't have a major gripe with many of the salaries myself, and as you say, the PM is a poor benchmark.

    His salary is also, courtesy of Gordon Brown, an ever-lowering target. The net effect is that many more public servants find themselves being paid more than the PM. The reason the PM is cited is because he is, in many ways, the country's top public servant.

    I think the need to highlight salaries in the Public Sector is as important now as it ever was - it's certainly a key piece of the jigsaw that will make up October's cuts in staff and services.

    The debate over salaries at the BBC has raged long and hard for several years. There is no logic, nor any reason, why that same debate should not be extended over to the entire public sector.
  • VennegoorVennegoor Posts: 14,648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's always been a given that PMs and Ministers fill their boots after they leave office, not while they are in it. It's a ludicrous comparison and another example of the BBC crapping itself from Dave and his mates.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,400
    Forum Member
    After the jobless, those who are sick , those who are workshy & women who have 8 children by numerous men , they are public enemy no1 & must be outed in order to satisfy the Daily Heil et als desire for good headlines while all the while detracting attention from whats really going on,

    :)
  • MAWMAW Posts: 38,777
    Forum Member
    And from the opposite side all these people now being hung out to dry for daring to accept a contract that is superficially more than the PMs don't have the right of reply, they can't offer any perspective as to why they are paid so much (totally lacking in any coverage I've yet seen) or how much they could expect to be paid for a similar job in the private sector.
    It's at the forefront of conversation chez MAW as Mrs is indeed a highly paid public servant, though not so highly as to make the list. To justify her salary, I must point out that she works pretty much 7 days a week, maybe 80-100 hours, has 3000 staff, and is in fact the 43rd best paid person in her organisation, ie 42 staff are paid more than she is. If it were private sector.... sigh. Well, not really, she loves her job after a fashion, and does it out of a sense of duty as well as it paying the mortgage on a modest house in commuter surrey. I am sure many, if not most public servants are very similar.
  • MARTYM8MARTYM8 Posts: 44,710
    Forum Member
    Just an observation - but the Council with the most number of employees earning over £100k and the highest paid Chief Executive is Wandsworth. This is also the council with the lowest council tax in England.:D

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11333472

    As someone might say - you pay peanuts and you get monkeys!
  • MAWMAW Posts: 38,777
    Forum Member
    MARTYM8 wrote: »
    Just an observation - but the Council with the most number of employees earning over £100k and the highest paid Chief Executive is Wandsworth. This is also the council with the lowest council tax in England.:D

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11333472

    As someone might say - you pay peanuts and you get monkeys!

    I wonder if less people are sick in Birmingham then, cos they have a whole regiment of the highest paid GPs.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 130
    Forum Member
    Maybe I'm being a bit cynical :rolleyes: ;) but I think it's yet another attempt to make out ALL public sector workers are on fantastic pay. I'm a public sector worker and my pay is £17584 per annum. Does anybody know if I'm on more money than the prime minister? :D:D:D
  • late8late8 Posts: 7,175
    Forum Member
    There's a few things that wind me up about this issue.

    The first is that the PM is no way on £150,000 ish a year - No Chief Exec walks away from Office with a 10million quid book deal. Or has similar perks of office etc.

    Perhaps the PM is ridiculously Underpaid.... how much is the Prime Minister / President of France or Germany or Canada or Australia paid??

    Then there's the attitude that these people aren't worth it - some councils deal with huge amounts of money and pressure. Its not the same as the Chief Exec of Vodafone who's main interest is selling phones.

    Again its some sort of smear making out the Public sector is well paid and screw us for money.
  • Dark 1Dark 1 Posts: 4,088
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Personally, I don't really care that much what the top public sector suits are paid. Big knobs get big wage packets, no matter which sector you work in. How is this news?

    6-figure salaries make good headlines if your intention is to stir up anti-public sector sentiments with the unwashed masses. But in the grand scheme of public sector funding, it's a drop in the ocean!

    No, what I want to know is a full breakdown of what the other 99.99whatever% are paid.

    If this government really was about transparency and openness, maybe they should provide a one-stop-shop listing every government department, what it is they do, what general duties do each of their staff grades do, what their pay scales are, and how many people they have in those pay scales. That would be interesting to me...

    But that wouldn't produce the intended headlines, would it?
Sign In or Register to comment.