Looking at the IFS report, even adjusting for all factors, the pay gap is still between 2-7%. More significantly, the pensions gap between DB private and public schemes is 12%, and, given most private sector employees are in DC schemes, the overall difference is even greater. So while the Policy Exchange figure is high, there is a massive difference between pensions which needs to be addressed- the wage debate is misleading.

If public sector workers are better off, it’s because the private sector is basically a conspiracy against workers for the benefit of capitalists.

Chris,

If public sector workers are better off, it’s because the private sector is basically a conspiracy against workers for the benefit of capitalists.

Unfortunately, the same evidence could be used to say it is because the public sector is inefficent and bloated. Or (which is probably true) some combination of the two… You cannot just assume one cause for a set of figures without proving it you know.

I agree just aggregating and coming up with an average is next to useless. For example, public sector contracting out to the private sector of ancillary jobs that are usually low pay would see the average wage of the private sector fall. Moreover, the average wage of the public sector would rise even though absolutely nothing happened to wages in the public sector. Think all the low paid cleaners working in the NHS not counted in the public sector calculation and the higher paid doctors and nurses retained. A comparison between comparable jobs is what is really required.

Is this what the right calls ‘the politics of envy’ when people complain about some spiv who has made a fortune out of asset stripping, or flogging useless financial products?

Let’s see. No one in the public sector earns over one million quid a year. But more than 100 RBS bankers (a nationalised bank, saved by the public sector) were paid a bonus of one million pounds, or over last year.

Frankly, after Policy Exchange said Liverpool, Bradford and Sunderland were “beyond revival’ and their populations should ‘abandon them’ I am amazed that anyone takes any notice of anything these wing nuts say.

Policy Exchange base their figures on an earlier report (referenced in their footnote 2) which is over five times as long and actually considers all the issues brought up by Sunny and commentators here (including explicitly discussing an earlier version of the IFS report that Sunny relies on – presumably because the February update was not then available?):

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Controlling_public_spending.pdf

I haven’t read it in detail, just skimmed it, but it seems you’ll have to engage with that before you criticise the short report which summarises it and functions as a political piece rather than a piece of research (the tone of the two is very different if you read them), never mind just using Sunny’s summary. It does appear to consider the issues that people have picked up here – although I doubt many here will necessarily agree with its findings. Policy Exchange however cannot be accused of not doing the work – Sunny can be accused of ignoring the footnotes!

The global elites have declared war on the public sector worker. The war is raging in the US where an attempt to destroy the Union base of the Democratic party is well under way. It is funded by wealthy elites who want to be the sole contolers of the system. No surprise the British right wing and their media commissionaires are pushing the same agenda.

Private bankers fucked up the global economy, but it is the public sector worker that must be punished.

@6 Watchman

I have looked at that report. It is extremely frustrating. Nowhere can I find the methodology that they have used.

Now, I know that nursing staff in the private sector are paid more than in the public sector. I know that medical staff in the private sector are pair more than in the public sector. Of course, this is limited evidence, but it does make me doubt their conclusion. Hence I want to see how they have arrived at their conclusions. And neither paper tells me.

Hence I have severe doubts about the report.

@5,

You may know what a wacky group they are. Unfortunately, they are reported as ‘mainstream’ by the media. We need a proper narrative to combat this nonsense.

AFZ

@5 – quite a lot of the BBC earn over £1 million.

Policy Exchange are ultrapartisan lunatics with absolutely zero credibility. End of story.

AFZ @ 8

I have looked at that report. It is extremely frustrating. Nowhere can I find the methodology that they have used.

Let me see if I can help you out here.

1) Start off with the answer you want.
2) Make up some data that would supply the answer.
3) Go to a lay news editor and tell them it is ‘research’.

Remember, you are not dealing with decent people, you are dealing with Tory vermin hiding behind the name ‘think tank’, therefor it will be lies and half thruths at best.

Just another right wing think tank funded by millionaires, and billionaires for the sole purpose of pushing policies that benefit …………..surprise, surprise……… millionaires sand billionaires.

Of course the lowest paid workers in the public sector (cleaners, catering staff, street sweepers etc) tend now to be employed by the private sector via the tendering process, which will change the averages somewhat.

Typical right wing scaremongering against the public sector to justify another attack. Did the report take in to account the two year pay freeze in the PS? Extra pension contributions? Working longer?

@11 Jim

Thanks for that.

@12 Sally,

It’s very hard to disagree with your analysis

@14 Skooter,

Spot on.

The problem, though is this; they claim to have corrected for differential qualification and pay-freezes etc. Judging by the media coverage, this report has already gained significant traction. Unless it can be effectively debunked, the myth of public-sector pay being substantially higher will persist, thereby further justifying the de-funding of public services.

AFZ

“Judging by the media coverage, this report has already gained significant traction”

This is what is known in the US as the giant Right wing Wurlitzer.

Right wing think tank comes up with a report that says……… (a wish list for Billionaires)

Said report is then taken on by the right wing media, and promoted with endless plays, and sympathetic interviews with the reports authors. (never disclosing their conflicts of interests)

Mainstream media feel under pressure to give report air play.

Rinse Repeat. ……… It becomes fact.

The Communists had nothing on these crooks.

AlienFromZog. Ah proof by anecdote.

I know having discussed this with people paying the wages of large numbers of them, that the wages of private sector nurses are generally are generally around a good average – lets say 3rd quartile, which once you take the skills and capabilities of this people (or rather remove the useless ones the NHS can’t fire and the private sector will if they are foolish enough to hire them) is probably about comparable.

It is usually the working environment (flexibility , lack of need to wear stab vests on reception, that when something needs repairing it gets repaired) and doing nursing as they were trained to, with the time to do it properly, that brings them in and keeps them thoere.

You may be confusing this with data showing that higher salaries are one of the things that leads nurses to leave the NHS – since lots of them will leave the NHS to higher paid non-nursing private sector jobs.

@17,

I am conscious of the risk of arguing from anecdote.

However, last time I checked, the private sector pay rates for nursing staff are ~30% higher on a direct like-for-like basis. And hence all your discussion around capabilities isn’t relevant.

And if you look at the paper from the policy exchange, it’s very hard to find where they do anything other than pull together anecdotes.

Dr AFZ

Dr AFZ @ 18

See Page 25 of the paper Watchman links to above. Fig 1.11 (sourced to Annual Survey of Hours & Earnings) shows nurses in the private sector earning significantly less than those in the public sector, even before perks like pensions are taken into account.

I’ve only seen direct comparison data for teachers but it does show that a teacher with similar experience in a similar area working for the government will tend to earn more than in the private sector, as well as having better pension arrnagements.

That said, I suppose they need to be paid more given so many state schools are so shocking.

Tyler @ 20

I’ve only seen direct comparison data for teachers but it does show that a teacher with similar experience in a similar area working for the government will tend to earn more than in the private sector

And your point is? That actually, the free market does not value educational standards as snobbery will bring in clients anyway? The smaller class sizes and pleasent surrounding will bring in teachers from harsher environments. Teachers who are too ueless to cut the mustard in State schools find it all too easy to get teaching jobs among the private employers?

Tyler, why are pivate schools happy with second class teachers?

Tyler, why are pivate schools happy with second class teachers?

Because they get such excellent results? British independent schools’ performance is among the best in the world. British state schools, not so much.

Tim J @ 22

That begs the question, how do they do that with crap teachers? For me that kind of proves the point that private education is actually not adding the value here and it is the underlying social conditions that contribute to educational standards.

That begs the question, how do they do that with crap teachers?

They don’t. Teachers in the private sector are more likely to possess post-grad qualifications and to be specialists in shortage subjects like maths or science. They’re not crap.

The other point is that pay isn’t the be all and end all of working conditions. Private schools have better facilities, better behaved children (or at least fewer problem children since these can be expelled relatively easily), smaller classes, longer holidays, and shorter hours.

http://cee.lse.ac.uk/cee%20dps/ceedp94.pdf

For me that kind of proves the point that private education is actually not adding the value here and it is the underlying social conditions that contribute to educational standards.

I get the feeling that that view has been arrived at in advance of any corroborating evidence.

Teachers who are too ueless to cut the mustard in State schools find it all too easy to get teaching jobs among the private employers?

This should probably be addressed as well. Friends who have worked in private and state sector schools tell me that the key difference is that in the state sector a good teacher has to be good at crowd control. At a private school, this just isn’t the case, meaning that different teachers do better in different environments.

19
From my observation of nurses in nursing homes they are usually there to a. make the place legal and b. are another pair of hands to do all and sundry. Private nursing homes also tend to take patients with less complex care needs whereas nurses working within the NHS have to deal with far more complex care . This does not mean that nurses in the private sector are any less qualified or competent, in most cases nurses choose to work in private care homes for many reasons and there are only so many jobs available within the NHS.

AFZ,

However, last time I checked, the private sector pay rates for nursing staff are ~30% higher on a direct like-for-like basis. And hence all your discussion around capabilities isn’t relevant.

Possibly, although I’d need evidence for that (at least, as Flowerpower notes, there is evidence for the alternative contention of lower private-sector pay). I think the figures may be confused by the fact the structure of NHS and private healthcare providers is presumably not the same (indeed, do private healthcare providers have the ‘unqualified’ nursing grades?).

The whole comparison game is a bit pointless – since regardless of outcome, it is clear that a ‘fairer’ (as in what is considered by the market rather than a manager) going rate of pay will be that of the private sector, and in most fields those working in equivalent public sector roles will either be better or worse off than that. We may disagree if this is a good thing or not, but it is a thing.

Tim @ 24

They don’t. Teachers in the private sector are more likely to possess post-grad qualifications and to be specialists in shortage subjects like maths or science. They are not crap

Then, why are they willing to accept lower wages than their state counterparts? I thought the maxim was ‘those who can, do; those that can’t teach’.

They may be ‘good’ at their subject, but does that necessarily make them ‘good’ at teaching? If they are willing to accept less than the market value for the job, then I would suggest that they are not. If these people are as good a you say, then they do not need to be teachers, they could walk into the private sector. However, given that they move to lower paid work for pay cuts suggest the know they are overpaid.

The other point is that pay isn’t the be all and end all of working conditions.

So, it is a trade off between terms and conditions and wages? Hmmm.

The private sector don’t need the ‘best’ staff, they only need ‘adequate’ staff, i.e. staff who cannot hack it the top level and are willing to take pay cuts to stay in an industr, that they dislike means they have fewer options. So these schools can offer better conditions, less pay and still retain ‘adequate’ staff.

At a private school, this just isn’t the case, meaning that different teachers do better in different environments.

In other words the more challenging the environment, the higher the required skill set and therefore the teachers with more valuable skills can command higher wages?

It turns out, the most challenging environments are to be found in the State sector. Therefore those teachers command better wages than teachers who simply cannot handle State sector posts?

Yeah, well, had the policy exchange people came on here, I would have told them that ‘for free’, but I suspect that is not what they wanted to hear, though, eh?

@19

Dr AFZ @ 18

See Page 25 of the paper Watchman links to above. Fig 1.11 (sourced to Annual Survey of Hours & Earnings) shows nurses in the private sector earning significantly less than those in the public sector, even before perks like pensions are taken into account.

No, no, no, no no.

That table is a comparitor of medians and is therefore probably meaningless. What I am talking about is thi;. Nursing pay in the NHS is according to ‘Agenda for Change’ Each band corresponds to a specific level of responsibility and qualification. A healthcare assistant (i.e. someone without a formal nursing qualificaiton) will be a band 1-3. A newly qualified nurse is a band 4. A more experienced nurse a band 5, a ward sister a band 6 etc.

A lot of the private sector will include nursing homes. By definition a nursing home will have qualified nurses but the work in a home is not the same as an acute ward. And this is not an accurate comparison, as often these nurses are less experienced and less well qualified.

What I am talking about is nursing on an acute ward in the private sector as opposed to an acute ward in the NHS. A truly like-for-like comparison. I’ll try to find the figures for BUPA – the NHS ones are national and all in the public domain anyway. As, I said, on this fair comparison, nursing staff are paid significantly more in the private sector.

This is not proof, but it is why I have serious doubts about the validity of this study.

AFZ

As a quick example;

This: http://tinyurl.com/3pk4wpd is a job advert for a senior nurse in a private hospital (Spire). The starting pay is £35,000

This: http://preview.tinyurl.com/3x7922n is the national pay scale; starting pay is £30,460.

Admitted the NHS scale does go higher but this is a proper like for like comparison.

AFZ

So, it is a trade off between terms and conditions and wages? Hmmm.

You find that hard to believe? When you choose a job you just go for the higher salary, regardless of what the rest of the job entails? Smaller classes, longer holidays, shorter hours plus only marginal differences in pay (for men there is “no significant inter-sectoral difference in pay”). The private school employment package is substantially better.

The private sector don’t need the ‘best’ staff, they only need ‘adequate’ staff, i.e. staff who cannot hack it the top level and are willing to take pay cuts to stay in an industr, that they dislike means they have fewer options. So these schools can offer better conditions, less pay and still retain ‘adequate’ staff.

Private sector teachers are better qualified, more likely to have a relevant post-graduate degree and achieve disproportionately better results than state sector teachers. Private schools spend more on staffing as a proportion than state schools. They also pay the same for men, and only marginally less for women.

I’m not sure it’s worth trying to prove that standards are higher in the state sector, when that so manifestly isn’t the case. It’s an old study – from 2004, but a Sutton Trust paper showed that the gap between state and private education attainment in Britain was the highest in the world.

“The independent schools, in fact, achieve the best scores in the world,” adds Professor Smithers, whose research was commissioned by the Sutton Trust, a charity set up to help working-class youngsters secure places at top universities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/performance-gap-between-private-and-state-schools-is-biggest-in-world-561942.html

The report is true. There are too many people in the public sector doing unnecessary jobs and getting paid more than they’d ever get in the private sector, and with far better job security. That’s the reality according to my experience.

Tim J @ 30

You find that hard to believe?

No, Tim I do not think that is hard to believe. That is the point rather spectacularly missed by the policy exchange people. To simply compare ‘public sector wages’ with ‘private sector’ wages misses the fact that public sector conditions are much harder and challenging environments. That is the point. People in the public sector have far harder jobs, therefore suffer more health issues, stress levels, have to face stiffer challenges. That is pretty obvious to most normal people. That is why people are willing to take drops in wages to move to the private sector.

The private school employment package is substantially better.

Yes, why don’t you explain that to the Policy exchange people? You have came onto this thread to ‘confirm’ the findings of this report and then you end up defending the very terms and conditions that this report bemoans? Make your mind up, Tim. You either think the public sector have better terms and conditions or worse, either way, at least have the decency to be consistent.

achieve disproportionately better results than state sector teachers

Er, yes, I think you have already accepted why that is. You have pointed out that there are a number of contributing factors to this.

I’m not sure it’s worth trying to prove that standards are higher in the state sector, when that so manifestly isn’t the case. It’s an old study – from 2004, but a Sutton Trust paper showed that the gap between state and private education attainment in Britain was the highest in the world.

No-one is suprised that a self selecting system that can afford all of the advantages that smaller class sizes, longer holidays, shorter hours can bring. We all accept that and of course these conditions have better outcomes in spite of having sub standard teachers.

You have came onto this thread to ‘confirm’ the findings of this report and then you end up defending the very terms and conditions that this report bemoans?

I think you must have imagined that bit.

Make your mind up, Tim. You either think the public sector have better terms and conditions or worse, either way, at least have the decency to be consistent.

Better, as I have said in more or less every post. More less exactly the same pay, and much better conditions. That means that the best teachers are increasingly being drawn to private schools.

Er, yes, I think you have already accepted why that is. You have pointed out that there are a number of contributing factors to this.

Principally smaller class sizes, better, more qualified teachers (or at least better motivated ones, the ‘churn’ rate for teachers in the private sector is much lower), better discipline and better facilities.

of course these conditions have better outcomes in spite of having sub standard teachers.

That’s an assertion you’ve made repeatedly without bringing any evidence to support it. Assertions that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, although I’ve been a bit more generous than that and provided you with evidence that in terms of relevant qualifications, the teachers in the private sector are better.

Tim J @ 33

That means that the best teachers are increasingly being drawn to private schools.

Where does the evidence for that come? Surely if you want a better standard of teacher, you need to compete on wages, T&C? If you are paying less wages what is driving people into the private sector? Surely, the people who cannot hack it in public sector’s harsher conditions are moving from one employer to an employer who has lower wages are doing so, because they are unable to handle the pressure and what an easier life? Why else would they be moving to lower paying jobs? There is nothing wrong with that, lots of people who cannot make the grade in one sector move down the scale. Why you are attempting to torture the logic here is beyond me.

You have supplied all the evidence that suggests that the public/private sector is a trade of between wages and conditions and that although you claim the public sector’s terms and conditions are far more favourable, the best teachers are leaving the public sector in sufficient numbers to drive the cost of those best teachers below that of the alleged mediocre teachers in the rival system? That defies any logical analysis what so ever.

Surely what you would expect is that private sector would attempt to recruit the best teachers from the public sector and in order to do so they would compete with Wages, term and conditions that the public sector offer.

But you are claiming the exact opposite is the case. You are suggesting that that private sector are offering lower terms and conditions, but a less pressured environment has have attracted the ‘best’ teachers into it?

Is that your assertion? You are asserting that if you want the ‘best’ workers in a given field (bankers, teachers, joiners etc) the best way to do that is cut their wages and lighten the pressure? If so, that would explain why the Country’s best footballers are in the bottom tier of the league and all the premier league clubs are left with rubbish ekeing out on £200,00 grand a year.

Logic fail, Tim, and you know it too.