NHS Strike

[Anonymous]

Quick question for urmston; How much does a bog standard fully qualified nurse get in the NHS and what's the equivalent rate in the private sector for the same job?

How am I supposed to know what an equivalent job is? And why should I care?

The laws of supply and demand are the best way to sort out what people are paid.

And at the moment there is an ample supply of NHS staff at current pay rates and so there is absolutely no need to pay them any more.

Anyone who wants nurses to get more money should contact their MP and tell them so or go down to their local hospital and hand out their own cash to nurses, or both.

Is that not how you reach an informed opinion?

 

[urmston]

Quick question for urmston; How much does a bog standard fully qualified nurse get in the NHS and what's the equivalent rate in the private sector for the same job?

How am I supposed to know what an equivalent job is? And why should I care?

The laws of supply and demand are the best way to sort out what people are paid.

And at the moment there is an ample supply of NHS staff at current pay rates and so there is absolutely no need to pay them any more.

Anyone who wants nurses to get more money should contact their MP and tell them so or go down to their local hospital and hand out their own cash to nurses, or both.

Is that not how you reach an informed opinion?

Yes.

Using normal economic rules like supply and demand is quite a good way of deciding everyone's wages.

It's a better method than anecdotes about how someone thinks the nurses at their hospital are lovely and caring or how someone's wife/sister/mother is a nurse and she deserves more money.

 

[mayo31]

Let us use supply and demand like Urmston says. Say we have 10 people going for a job which was paying 20k. One of the ten says they will do it for 19k, another 17k and so on. Does that make the wage right for the job?

The NHS has evaluated all jobs using evaluation schemes agreed on by workers and management. That is how jobs should have salaries decided. The increase is a cost of living, it is more expensive to get by, someone in a well paid job is the only person who would choose not to see that.

Good luck to you.

 

[mcmanus]

How am I supposed to know what an equivalent job is? And why should I care?

The laws of supply and demand are the best way to sort out what people are paid.

And at the moment there is an ample supply of NHS staff at current pay rates and so there is absolutely no need to pay them any more.

Anyone who wants nurses to get more money should contact their MP and tell them so or go down to their local hospital and hand out their own cash to nurses, or both.

Is that not how you reach an informed opinion?

Yes.

Using normal economic rules like supply and demand is quite a good way of deciding everyone's wages.

It's a better method than anecdotes about how someone thinks the nurses at their hospital are lovely and caring or how someone's wife/sister/mother is a nurse and she deserves more money.

You obviously do not value the job nurses do for the money they get.

I can't change your view nor would I want to really as everyone is allowed theirs. But thanks as this thread bar BBB and nimrod has made me realise how our NHS is viewed in a good light.

Cheers.

 

[Anonymous]

So you reached an informed opinion by not comparing apples with apples and ignoring that demand for services (and therefore staff) is increasing?

Think we can safely ignore and discount your Breitbart cut and paste claptrap from hereon in.

Thanks for playing.

 

[urmston]

Let us use supply and demand like Urmston says. Say we have 10 people going for a job which was paying 20k. One of the ten says they will do it for 19k, another 17k and so on. Does that make the wage right for the job?

The NHS has evaluated all jobs using evaluation schemes agreed on by workers and management. That is how jobs should have salaries decided. The increase is a cost of living, it is more expensive to get by, someone in a well paid job is the only person who would choose not to see that.

Good luck to you.

No job or skill has an absolute, unchanging value which can be evaluated at one point in time and then become fixed forever.

NHS jobs are no exception.

Over the last few years the real value of the skills of most workers in the private sector has dropped. These workers fund the NHS.

It would be wrong to keep NHS skills at a fixed value, and always updated with inflation matching pay increases when real wages are falling elsewhere.

When the value of skills in the private sector falls in real terms, then the value of comparable skills in the public sector must be reduced too to ensure fairness.

If they don't then you soon reach a situation where a person in the private sector has to pay higher taxes from his lower wages to ensure that someone of an equal skill level in the public sector is kept at an artificially high wage for the prevailing market conditions.

In short, the value of NHS skills should vary up and down with the value of comparable private sector skills, not increase along with them in the good times and be protected during the bad.

 

[Allnightlong]

Talking to a london paramedic today and he told me that the london ambulance service is losing between 40 to 50 staff per month.
they are now recruiting from Oz as there are not enough people in this country applying.
So where is this long queue of people that Urmston thinks there is to fill the roles?
Supply and demand.....not quite

The ones leaving are being paid better in the private sector

And the strange thing is that these private ambulances are being hired by the NHS to help out!!!! Ycmiu

 

[FantasyIreland]

Let us use supply and demand like Urmston says. Say we have 10 people going for a job which was paying 20k. One of the ten says they will do it for 19k, another 17k and so on. Does that make the wage right for the job?

The NHS has evaluated all jobs using evaluation schemes agreed on by workers and management. That is how jobs should have salaries decided. The increase is a cost of living, it is more expensive to get by, someone in a well paid job is the only person who would choose not to see that.

Good luck to you.

Have you ever heard what happens when the pay is peanuts?

 

[FantasyIreland]

Talking to a london paramedic today and he told me that the london ambulance service is losing between 40 to 50 staff per month.
they are now recruiting from Oz as there are not enough people in this country applying.
So where is this long queue of people that Urmston thinks there is to fill the roles?
Supply and demand.....not quite

The ones leaving are being paid better in the private sector

And the strange thing is that these private ambulances are being hired by the NHS to help out!!!! Ycmiu

He hasn't got a clue pal.I tried explaining the situation,from a personal experience viewpoint,a few pages back but it seems to have been ignored.

If such ignorance prevails,this country will very soon get the NHS it deserves.

 

[Rascal]

No job or skill has an absolute, unchanging value which can be evaluated at one point in time and then become fixed forever.



Over the last few years the real value of the skills of most workers in the private sector has dropped. These workers fund the NHS.



If they don't then you soon reach a situation where a person in the private sector has to pay higher taxes from his lower wages to ensure that someone of an equal skill level in the public sector is kept at an artificially high wage for the prevailing market conditions.

.

What part of everybody pays tax do you not understand?

When has the private sector ever paid a different rate of income tax to the public sector? So your point is claptrap

 

[law74]

Let market forces and the law of supply and demand decide the rate, after all it worked so well with our financial institutions

 

[urmston]

Talking to a london paramedic today and he told me that the london ambulance service is losing between 40 to 50 staff per month.
they are now recruiting from Oz as there are not enough people in this country applying.
So where is this long queue of people that Urmston thinks there is to fill the roles?
Supply and demand.....not quite

The ones leaving are being paid better in the private sector

And the strange thing is that these private ambulances are being hired by the NHS to help out!!!! Ycmiu

It's a simple effect of the disruption of the laws of supply and demand by intransigent public sector unions.

I've no problem with NHS staff in shortage areas getting higher wages if that is needed to recruit and retain them.

But the NHS unions always object. Public sector unions are terrified of supply and demand wages for their members. While wages would increase for staff in areas like London which are economically well off with many other well paying jobs available, they'd plummet for public sector staff in areas like the North East where public sector staff are very easy to recruit because national pay rates make them superbly paid for the area and there aren't many other decent jobs available anyway.

 

[PragueBlue]

Quick question for urmston; How much does a bog standard fully qualified nurse get in the NHS and what's the equivalent rate in the private sector for the same job?

I was interested by this question and a quick search would seem to indicate that public sector nurses fare better than private sector nurses when pensions are factored in.

From the Telegraph and dated October this year:

The true scale of the gulf in pay that separates private and public sector workers is revealed today in an report that includes the impact of "gold-plated" pensions for the first time.
Workers in the state sector received a fifth more than counterparts at private firms when pensions were factored in, according research published by the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
The think tank said teachers, doctors, nurses and other state employees received an average of £28,000 a year, while private workers received £27,000.
However, generous pensions added £6,000 to public workers' pay, boosting the total to £34,000 a year.
By contrast, the pensions offered to private workers added just £2,000 a year, giving £29,000 overall, the report found.

The £5,000 gap was worth almost a fifth of the salary of someone in the private sector.
Experts said the figures indicated state staff were "on an incredibly good deal" because the vast majority still had generous final salary pensions.
Malcolm McLean of pension consultants Barnett Waddingham said: "Public sector pensions are streets ahead of those in the private because they have such valuable pensions, and the gap is growing."
The IFS said just 12 per cent of private sector workers had a final salary pension today, down from 38 per cent in 1997.
By contrast, almost all employees in the public sector had a pension worth a percentage of their salary, rather than the growth of money invested in stock market.
The study took into account age, region and education to create a fair comparison between similar workers in the state and private sectors.
Jonathan Cribb, author of the report said: "There is substantial variation in the estimated differential between public and private sector pay for different types of workers and across different parts of the country. This might suggest differentiating pay awards going forward.
"The uncomfortable truth is that it is lower paid workers, women and those in poorer regions who do best in the public sector, relative to the private sector."
Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has promised public pensions would remain untouched "for 25 years".
The statement, made in 2011, was made to appease public workers threatening to strike over proposals to increase the age at which they qualified for a pension from 60 to 65 and water down inflation-linked payout rises in retirement.
The IFS took these reforms into consideration and said there would still be a 17 per cent gap between the total pay and pensions given to staff in the two sectors this year.
The gap was largest for women, where state staff earned 21 per cent more each hour on average. Men, by contrast, earned 10.5 per cent more in the public sector when pensions were included.
Younger and older workers were also relatively better off, the IFS found, while for those in middle aged the benefits were less pronounced.
John O'Connell, director of the Taxpayers Alliance, said: "It is unfair to expect the majority of taxpayers, many of whom have seen the value of their pensions fall in recent years, to subsidise generous retirement deals that they themselves cannot afford."
Mr McLean said: "We mustn't drag public pensions down to the lowest common denominator but raise the standards of pensions in the private sector, boosting workers' retirement prospects."

 

[Rascal]

John O'Connell, director of the Taxpayers Alliance, "

The Taxpayers alliance are notorious for misrepresenting facts. They are further right than most of the RWNJs on here


And im sure Urmston is probably a big fan, because Urmston has failed time and time again to acknowledge that everyone pays tax regardless not just private sector workers.

 

[PragueBlue]

John O'Connell, director of the Taxpayers Alliance, "

The Taxpayers alliance are notorious for misrepresenting facts. They are further right than most of the RWNJs on here


And im sure Urmston is probably a big fan, because Urmston has failed time and time again to acknowledge that everyone pays tax regardless not just private sector workers.

I have no idea who they even are but I think they just commented on the story, it wasn't their research It says the research was carried out by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (who I equally know nothing about).

 

[Tim of the Oak]

John O'Connell, director of the Taxpayers Alliance, "

The Taxpayers alliance are notorious for misrepresenting facts. They are further right than most of the RWNJs on here


And im sure Urmston is probably a big fan, because Urmston has failed time and time again to acknowledge that everyone pays tax regardless not just private sector workers.

I have no idea who they even are but I think they just commented on the story, it wasn't their research It says the research was carried out by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (who I equally know nothing about).

There seems to be a big gap in the article / "research" about pension contributions - unless I have missed the obvious?

 

[Rascal]

John O'Connell, director of the Taxpayers Alliance, "

The Taxpayers alliance are notorious for misrepresenting facts. They are further right than most of the RWNJs on here


And im sure Urmston is probably a big fan, because Urmston has failed time and time again to acknowledge that everyone pays tax regardless not just private sector workers.

I have no idea who they even are but I think they just commented on the story, it wasn't their research It says the research was carried out by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (who I equally know nothing about).

The Taxpayers alliance hate all forms of taxation. They believe in a flat of tax across the board and are basically anti tax, anti state, supra Neo Liberals. The IFS are a right wing think tank that was created to investigate taxation issues in the UK but now has a wider remit. IFS reports as most think tank tank reports to be fair are in my opinion guilty of inherent bias

 

[PragueBlue]

The Taxpayers alliance are notorious for misrepresenting facts. They are further right than most of the RWNJs on here


And im sure Urmston is probably a big fan, because Urmston has failed time and time again to acknowledge that everyone pays tax regardless not just private sector workers.

I have no idea who they even are but I think they just commented on the story, it wasn't their research It says the research was carried out by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (who I equally know nothing about).

There seems to be a big gap in the article / "research" about pension contributions - unless I have missed the obvious?

No idea what you mean there. Just copied it from <a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11152840/Public-vs-private-sector-pay-gap-is-5000-or-a-fifth-of-earnings.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... nings.html</a>

 

[urmston]

John O'Connell, director of the Taxpayers Alliance, "

The Taxpayers alliance are notorious for misrepresenting facts. They are further right than most of the RWNJs on here


And im sure Urmston is probably a big fan, because Urmston has failed time and time again to acknowledge that everyone pays tax regardless not just private sector workers.

I wasn't aware an acknowledgement was necessary. Everyone knows all workers pay tax.

NHS workers pay tax because they are like all employed workers.

They sell their labour to their employer.

They are a cost to their employer like everyone else is.

NHS staff are members of the public like anyone else. They are not owners of the NHS any more or less than any other person, and they should not be granted privileges like artificially boosted pay simply because they sell their labour to the NHS rather than any other employer.

As both an employer and a tax levying authority our government has a duty to treat all workers fairly, and not to give unfair benefits to the people it employs. To reward some workers with higher salaries than the market requires just because they happen to work in our health service means taxes go up for all workers but wages only go up for NHS staff. And that is unfair and immoral.

It's about time striking NHS staff stopped claiming that they are some kind of special breed of worker which the rest of us should venerate and shower with money their skills don't warrant. They should realise they are workers like everyone else and accept that they will be paid for their skill levels, no more and no less.

We should freeze NHS pay for 3 or 4 more years and reduce the generosity of the NHS pension scheme. I doubt there'll be any difficulty in staffing the NHS while we do this, as given the economic conditions recruitment and retainment of NHS staff is very unlikely to be a problem.

 

[DelToro]

urmston has doubled his post count on this one thread alone.