Public sector reform - two modest proposals to make a start

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Public sector reform - two modest proposals to make a start Jun 15, 2023 18:50:39 GMT

Quote

Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2023 18:50:39 GMT

Jun 15, 2023 18:02:51 GMT Orac said:

Jun 15, 2023 16:53:27 GMT @srb7677 said:

Trying to counter a supposed mismatch which is largely in your head by disenfranchising millions of them, and denying their ability to protect themselves from abuse, is rather excessive.

They are not being disenfranchised, they are voluntarily and temporarily giving up their vote in exchange for privilege of having the rest of the community legally compelled to pay their wages. As for abuse and conditions - this will be controlled by the need for the government to obtain employees.

Absolute rubbish. They are compelled to lose their right to vote under your twisted idea as a condition of their Labour which is a denial of the franchise to millions of working people and an egregious attack on democracy. No one should be expected to give up their right to vote as a condition of their labour. And all because you as their employer seem to want the ability to make their terms and conditions as rubbish as possible for no better reason that I can fathom beyond vindictive selfishness.

I worry far more about extremists like you having the vote but take solace in the fact that you are too few in number to matter.

Consider political reality for just a moment. What do you think would happen if any party went into an election promising an assault on democracy itself by disenfranchising millions of people? You think they'd survive as a major political party? And imagine any government trying to get that through. Most of their own back benchers would scupper it. And even if it were to threaten to become reality you would trigger mass civil disobedience and protest like you have never seen, and probably something close to a general strike. Turkeys tend not to vote for Christmas so this is never going to happen so all your hot air wasted here makes about as much difference as voting Monster Raving Loony, who incidentally are the only ones who might be tempted to put it in a manifesto.

And the notion that people should not have a vote because you are paying them is dangerously obnoxious as an idea. You and I and most other working people are paying for the incomes of many pensioners. Should they be denied a vote too? Or is your mean-spiritedness and antidemocratic impulses politically selective?

The fact that you think British soldiers, serving and protecting our country, prepared to fight and die to protect your freedoms, should be denied a vote because your taxes help pay their wages, is so utterly mean-spirited and ungrateful that it is in fact utterly contemptuous. In fact, as an opinion it is beneath contempt.

Last Edit: Jun 15, 2023 18:55:22 GMT by Deleted

zanygame
Legend

I'm a snowflake, I care about other people. I'm also a virtue signaller, I tell people I care.

Posts: 9,284

Public sector reform - two modest proposals to make a start Jun 15, 2023 19:02:35 GMT

Quote

Post by zanygame on Jun 15, 2023 19:02:35 GMT

Jun 14, 2023 14:30:25 GMT Orac said:

1) The banning of all public sector unions. All public sector employment contracts will include a clause forbidding union membership

This will not be rigorously enforced and only become an issue if the employee later attempts to take action on behalf of any union he turns out to be a member of.

The pay and conditions of the public sector will be decided solely by the sitting (elected) government.

2) All public sector employees should lose the right to vote in national elections during their public employment.

Why?

The Squeezed Middle
Legend

##### Dark Legend #####

Posts: 7,894

Public sector reform - two modest proposals to make a start Jun 15, 2023 19:04:46 GMT Orac, zanygame, and 1 more like this

Quote

Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jun 15, 2023 19:04:46 GMT

The other problem with public sector (in)efficiency is that governments don't trust their employees. So they hire a professional and then don't trust them to do the job. So they hire supervisors and bean counters (usually under the guise of “Achieving best value” or similar) to supervise and audit the actual professional.

This means more people monitoring what's being done than there are actually doing it. Which certainly doesn't achieve best value, nor anything like.

My own department is relatively small and, left to it's own devices, relatively efficient. But we've been saddled with a system only about a quarter of which is actually concerned with doing the job and the rest of which is about “Compliance” ie for the benefit of those scrutinising us.

This slows us down, an expense in itself, and then requires other people to monitor that we're doing our jobs and then others to monitor that they're doing theirs.

This is meant to be a joke, but it's actually the reality:

The Night Watchman

Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of nowhere.
Parliament said, “Someone may steal from it at night.”
So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.
Then Parliament said, “How does the watchman do his job without instruction?”
So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.
Then Parliament said, “How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?”
So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One was to do the studies and one was to write the reports.
Then Parliament said, “How are these people going to get paid?”
So they created two positions: a time keeper and a payroll officer then hired two people.
Then Parliament said, “Who will be accountable for all of these people?”
So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.
Then Parliament said, “We have had this department in operation for one year and we are £918,000 over budget, we must cut back.”

So they laid-off the night watchman.

And welcome to my world.

Last Edit: Jun 15, 2023 19:05:49 GMT by The Squeezed Middle

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

zanygame
Legend

I'm a snowflake, I care about other people. I'm also a virtue signaller, I tell people I care.

Posts: 9,284

Public sector reform - two modest proposals to make a start Jun 15, 2023 19:05:24 GMT

Quote

Post by zanygame on Jun 15, 2023 19:05:24 GMT

Jun 15, 2023 8:26:01 GMT Pacifico said:

Jun 15, 2023 8:16:24 GMT Dan Dare said:

Perhaps instead we should at successful arrangements in place elsewhere. Germany, for example, where middle-range and senior civil servants (Beamter) are not allowed to join a union and are not permitted to strike. The quid pro quo is better pay, better working conditions and almost total job security.

In the UK all civil servants have almost total job security.

I'm not convinced that banning union membership or the right to strike will actually achieve much - even when they are not on strike their performance is pretty dire.

That in my opinion is the issue. When my wife worked for the NHS she saw useless lazy staff moved from one place to another but never got rid of.

zanygame
Legend

I'm a snowflake, I care about other people. I'm also a virtue signaller, I tell people I care.

Posts: 9,284

Public sector reform - two modest proposals to make a start Jun 15, 2023 19:13:00 GMT

Quote

Post by zanygame on Jun 15, 2023 19:13:00 GMT

Jun 15, 2023 11:09:42 GMT @srb7677 said:

Jun 15, 2023 9:44:38 GMT Orac said:

Millions of people in the UK work for an employer and have no union affiliation - and yet they are still able to get information about their rights and responsibilities.

I have worked for employers in nonunionised workplaces, and bad employers have in my time exploited that fact to treat people badly. If I were not a member of the union now and I had a legitimate grievance, I would have no legal advice unless I could afford it myself, and would have to fund any court costs myself. This is unaffordable for many and would be for me. But as a union member I know that the union would use union solicitors to fight my corner and give me any legal advice I might need. And would pay for it out of union funds. It is one of the things USDAW members pay their subs for.

Unions are a force for good in the workplace and we should be encouraging the extension of union rights to more workplaces, rather than trying to restrict them for those who already have them.

Personally I've always voted with feet.

buccaneer
Legend

Posts: 3,461

Public sector reform - two modest proposals to make a start Jun 15, 2023 20:18:27 GMT

Quote

Post by buccaneer on Jun 15, 2023 20:18:27 GMT

Jun 15, 2023 16:29:01 GMT @srb7677 said:

Jun 15, 2023 16:05:12 GMT Orac said:

I don't feel such an organisation is morally supportable when your employer, who may not himself be able to afford legal representation for himself, is legally compelled to employ you.

Imagine if you were legally compelled to employ a plumber and that plumber got to dip into 'plumber type legal funding' as a means to increase your bill and reduce his service to you. I think the pay or conditions for public employees should be pretty simple - take what you get or leave it - your choice

Perhaps if taxpayers had a union and a legal basis to challenge the burdens place on them by public employees, the situation might be a bit more even sided.

It is a false argument. No one is legally compelled to employ anyone. They employ them if and when they need their labour. Once employed their employees have certain employment rights, and more once they have been an employee for two years or more. This is the same for all employees and employers. If an employer decides they need less labour there are legal ways to do this, either through natural wastage, ie not replacing employees who leave, or through some sort of redundancy process. No employer, state or private, is legally compelled to employ anyone. The need which requires state employment is not a legal one but a political one involving political choices. The public expects certain things - the fire brigade to show up when our house is on fire, a GP when we want or need one, a functioning hospital full of competent doctors and nurses, schools with competent teachers educating our kids, roads to be adequately maintained, and so on. A government could decide to stop paying for all of this in theory and make the entire public sector redundant. What stops them is not the law but the obvious fact that this would be utterly disastrous politically and probably economically and socially, and they would never win an election again. It is we the people who insist on the employment of sufficient people to do the jobs we expect of them, not the law.

Yet regardless of who employs who, employees should have the right to unionise to protect themselves from abuse or bad treatment. I don't expect them to have to just put up with it because I theoretically employ them, and neither should you. Your desire to limit workers ability to enforce their rights and even deny them a vote just because you employ them is at its core the desire of an employer to be able to treat their employees however the hell they like. We need employment protection laws for the very reason that there are employers who think like you do out there

On the flip side, what about employers shouldn't they have rights against employees to protect themselves from taxpayer wastage, and an unproductive workforce.

Take for example the large percentage of civil servants who refuse to come-back and work in the office.

Last Edit: Jun 15, 2023 20:26:05 GMT by buccaneer