Bit of a win-win really. Either, through some kind of magic, it actually works, or it doesn’t work and the Tories look like a callous party trying to palm off its responsibilities onto a mythical gang of volunteers.

Is it not a fact that all these volunteers even though it was kind and thoughtful of them take away the opportunity to give the unemployed two weeks of paid work ?

When you think about it even further is it not a fact that handing out all this work experience to literally thousands upon thousands of unemployed take away the opportunity to create jobs, earn a fair wage and stunt job creation.

I could go on but I will leave it there for now.

The Big society is a fig-leaf for public sector cuts. They’re getting away with that at the moment, so there’s no need for it unless a load of new cuts are coming up.

I’ve never understood the BS, and I don’t think anyone does least of all Cameron or Maude. In fact I think I saw Maude on Newsnight failing miserably to explain the BS to a sceptical Paxman.

Lots of people volunteer – always have and always will. The difference is that most volunteers have a vision and cast iron reasons why they’re doing it. Both my wife and I have been school governors. We had a vested interest because our kids were at the school(s), although I did outstay my welcome due to budget problems of which I had some understanding. We do plenty of other voluntary stuff too like starting and running a play group and later on a youth club – but all connected in some way to our kids, our church or where we live.

It seems to me that Cameron’s big idea is to get volunteers to do for free what people should be paid for. I hope he does try and bring back the BS so he and his coalition can look more incompetent and foolish than they already do.

@3

Correct. Localism too.

The “Big Society” was just another sign of how out of touch the toff cabinet really is. The fact is that most people don’t have the time, with work, family and other commitments to volunteer to do a job that the state should be doing anyway.

Sunny says

There has always been an appetite for cooperation and collaboration in this country – many on the left call it collectivism.

Collectivism can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism.

Horizontal collectivism stresses collective decision-making among relatively equal individuals, and is thus usually based on decentralization. Vertical collectivism is based on hierarchical structures of power and moral and cultural conformity, and is therefore based on centralization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

Seems to me the Big Society idea reflects the former, whilst the socialist collectivism, to which Sunny, Mr Grunt and buddyhell refer, represents the latter.

Of course, I prefer the kind of collectivism that does not involve coercion.

If i could submit a proposal for funding from a society council that would be entirely different. It needs proper backing not just fluffy political rhetoric, which is how i see it now.

Big Society. Yes, a wonderful idea to strip charity of much needed help.

I would happily help and have done so in the past, but because of cuts I find that I have far more responsibility at work than I had before, and it takes up a lot of my time.

I also don’t like to be told what I should be doing by the likes of jolly old Francis Maude, who doesn’t do any volunteering himself, and tried to claim that his duties as an MP were him doing his part.

My work for the community is in the YES campaign for Scottish independence, away from the moronic Tories forever.

The BS is BS.

Blue laobur is our equivalent of the big society

It isn’t dead yet, the lovely Serco will be given an awful lot of taxpayer’s money to keep flogging the dead horse http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/05/serco-bid-national-citizen-service?newsfeed=true

“The Big society is a fig-leaf for public sector cuts.”

I’m sure that was the intention – but if you think about it it is a crap public relations strategy.

Consider the following two statements:

1. “We have to cut public services because the finances are screwed and failure to do this will harm our long term economic prospects.”

2. “We have to cut public services because the finances are screwed and failure to do this will harm our long term economic prospects. However these services are going to be replaced by voluntary sector groups so they can still operate.”

The first statement will be unpopular, but people may be more likely to accept it because there is at least the implication that there is the possibility that services will be restored when times are better – i.e the cuts are being forced by circumstances and those doing it would rather not do so.

The second statement tries to sugar coat the cuts by saying there is an alternative. But unwittingly gives the game away precisely because it suggests an alternative that is here for the long term, suggests that the cuts aren’t a big deal and thus by implication that those doing the cuts (a) have no intention of reversing them, (b) would do so anyway regardless of circumstance, and (c) that those doing the cuts don’t see what the big deal is.

Frankly the tories main problem here is precisely that they are trying to use big society to justify the cuts, whereas they need to sell the idea far more as longer term way of delivering services. They need to not only show that big society is a possible alternative to public services, but actually need to demonstrate that big society is a better way of delivering services. Good luck to them with that!

@ Geraint

“The fact is that most people don’t have the time, with work, family and other commitments to volunteer to do a job that the state should be doing anyway.”

I volunteer locally, as do a huge number of people, because I think it is worthwhile and I have certain skills that aren’t that common – and certainly not among the state sector. We measure the big beneficial effect from a comparatively small individual output. One way I DO ‘have the time’ is that I don’t watch televsion more than about 1 hour a month. it depends how you priorities. Obviously it is extremely difficult or impossible for some people, but ‘most people’? I don’t believe that. There are all sorts of ways to volunteer, and it doesn’t have to be via a charity or to take long or involve many people for it to do some good. If one examines it more closely, I think one will tend to find that many or even most of us do ‘volunteer’ at some point, even if its helping one person once a year.

I agree that the Tories are trying to do stuff on the cheap/free. However, I think it is misguided to think that the state sector can or will provide the necessary skills, dedication and motivation that qualified volunteers (i.e. ones who are actually good at and experienced in the endeavour in question) can and do.

The fact that volunteers are unpaid doesn’t make them inferior in skill or in effect. Indeed, they are often experts or current or former professionals in the things they are involved in. The state sector, by contrast, is in part a refuge for people who are not particularly skilled or experts at anything in the first place and who are not really motivated by a desire to serve the public. There are very skilled public sector professionals but there are an awful lot of unexceptional bureaucrats who show little commitment to the public.

Public sector employees take far more time off ‘sick’ every year than everyone else. The absenteeism of Whitehall civil ‘servants’ is so pronounced – even compared ot the rest of the public sector – that one worries that the poor dears may be working above a leaky nuclear reactor. So the public sector is the last place a sane person would look to find people capable or willing to impart enthusiasm, skills and a desire to achieve to their fellow citizens.

Also, the state sector mindset, as pagar notes, tends towards being vertical and centralising.With the best will in the world, local authorities have a habit of replicating, interfering in or trying to take over genuine local volunteer or grassroots social enterprise initiatives. Voluntary initiatives are relatively freed from the bureaucratic and ideological straitjacketing that Local council initiatives often fall prey to. People get involved because they want to, not because a particular box has to be ticked and a particular quota filled. On that last count, I am not blaming all public institutions and their workers – they tend to be presented with hoops that they are expected to jump through regardless of how useful the exercise is. But the requirements do come from within their own sector. But there is also local council interference in community initiatives that is simply territorial and political.

I treat the Tories’ Big Society with a large lorry-load of salt. But equally, if one operates from the starting point that volunteering is a bit of a con, and that social solidarity/community-spirit/whatever you want to call it must have a price tag put on it, must be paid for and state-organised to be of proper worth, then one is no more a real believer in society than the most selfish libertarian banker. Under any government, in any economic climate, the volunteering sector can and will do immensely valuable work that the state simply won’t or can’t.

@ 14 Lamia

“Public sector employees take far more time off ‘sick’ every year than everyone else. The absenteeism of Whitehall civil ‘servants’ is so pronounced – even compared ot the rest of the public sector – that one worries that the poor dears may be working above a leaky nuclear reactor. So the public sector is the last place a sane person would look to find people capable or willing to impart enthusiasm, skills and a desire to achieve to their fellow citizens.”

That’s not really useful information unless we look into WHY it happens. It’s possible, for example, that public-sector jobs are higher-stress on average, or indeed more dangerous, and therefore likely to see more bona fide sickies (police officers, for example).

Alternatively (or alongside), it’s because of a culture that doesn’t ever want to fire anyone, where you get a million warnings and then get shunted sideways instead of sacked if you really are dreadful. That would attract layabouts and inculcate complacency. If so, it’s an issue that wants to be addressed. But it’s not inherent to public sector work, even if it’s currently endemic. It’s fixable.

@ Chaise,

“It’s possible, for example, that public-sector jobs are higher-stress on average,”

Really? Civil Servants? Larger pension than the private sector, shorter hours, and almost impossible to be fired. The stress must be crippling.

“Alternatively (or alongside), it’s because of a culture that doesn’t ever want to fire anyone, where you get a million warnings and then get shunted sideways instead of sacked if you really are dreadful. That would attract layabouts and inculcate complacency. If so, it’s an issue that wants to be addressed. But it’s not inherent to public sector work, even if it’s currently endemic. It’s fixable.”

Yes, but to fix it would entail actually firing a lot of people for being useless, lazy or generally unhelpful to the public, and firing people for any reason is against the ethos of the public sector and its unions. It would mean changing that ethos. I doubt that ethos will ever change, because it would be viewed as ‘right wing’ and unfairly competitive.

In any case, the public sector is still pretty obviously currently not the first place to look to to find (paid) replacements for volunteers, because what are required are people who show higher than average drive and commitment to others, not higher than average complacency and laziness.

@ 16 Lamia

“Really? Civil Servants? Larger pension than the private sector, shorter hours, and almost impossible to be fired. The stress must be crippling.”

You’re forcing me to point out the obvious. I said that public-sector jobs *on average* may be more dangerous/stressful than private-sector ones. That’s not the same as saying “a specific group of public-sector workers that Lamia has selected because he thinks they have an easy life are really stressed”. Police and NHS staff must make up a sizeable proportion of public-sector workers. How do you imagine their stress and injury rates affect the average?

Also, a member of the Guavara family is a civil servant and the job sounds potentially very stressful indeed. You have to work to close deadlines and in the awareness that anything you to is in the public eye (or even Private Eye). Holidays get cancelled at short notice, that kind of thing.

“Yes, but to fix it would entail actually firing a lot of people for being useless, lazy or generally unhelpful to the public, and firing people for any reason is against the ethos of the public sector and its unions. It would mean changing that ethos. I doubt that ethos will ever change, because it would be viewed as ‘right wing’ and unfairly competitive. ”

A bit fatalistic, I think, but I agree that fixing it is a big job.

“In any case, the public sector is still pretty obviously currently not the first place to look to to find (paid) replacements for volunteers, because what are required are people who show higher than average drive and commitment to others, not higher than average complacency and laziness.”

As I’ve already said, we don’t actually know whether public-sector workers are lazier and more complacent than others. But leaving that aside: is there a rule that people hired by the state have to be drawn from the existing public-sector workforce?

Also, you’re doing that thing where you examine the problems of one side but don’t give the other side the same treatment. There are some heavy downsides to using the private sector as well, mainly that it’s incentivised to do the bare minimum to meet requirements and dump all actual effort into making a profit. Private-sector firms can be very hardworking at doing what is, in this case, the *wrong thing*.

Do you think all those disabled people currently being told they’re fit to work because they can move one limb are appreciative of ATOS’s private-sector can-do vim and vigour?

The BS has always been a problem of presentation, rather than substance.

In essence, the idea that people should do more for society at large, rather than always focussing on their own interests, is sound.

So it’s ironic that it should be put forward by a government whose ideology puts greed ahead of altruism. And it’s made worse by the timing, in that they’re telling people to volunteer apparently to fill the gaps left in public services by their own cuts.

I’m not sure whether political parties can bring about the kind of sociological change necessary to make people want to think about others rather than themselves. But if they can, only a party whose message is sincere, consistent and focussed on equality could plausibly call for a ‘big society’.

I think it is prophetic that before Cameron’s chimeric and mythological BS (Big Society) the same letters were often used to represent something less savoury (bullshit).

“Really? Civil Servants? Larger pension than the private sector, shorter hours, and almost impossible to be fired. The stress must be crippling.”

An ignorant, Daily Mail-worthy pack of lies, Lamia.

Lamia

Just for your information – over the past year NHS staff have worked a total of 1968 million unpaid hours, which translates to a saving of £29.2billion pounds. The NHS also has the largest amount of unpaid volunteers, this makes Cameron’s idea of implementing a BS sound like, well bs, as outlined @19.

@ Chaise

“Also, you’re doing that thing where you examine the problems of one side but don’t give the other side the same treatment. There are some heavy downsides to using the private sector as well”

I wasn’t talking about using the private sector. If you look back I was defending volunteering from a commenter who seemed to think that ‘the state’ is the solution to everything, including some areas where individual expertise and drive are paramount and where volunteers fit perfectly.

“As I’ve already said, we don’t actually know whether public-sector workers are lazier and more complacent than others.”

Well actually we’ve got pretty good indications that they do. Average time of sick in private sector in 2010 was 5.8 days; public sector 8.3.

Now lets leave aside potentially dangerous state jobs such as police or hospital staff. Let’s talk specifically, as I did, about the civil service. The record at the Treasury is outstanding – only 3.6 days off. However, elsewhere in the civil service it’s much worse. Ministry of Justice: 9.2; Department for Education 16.8; at Culture, Media and Sport, it’s 16.1 days off sick for junior officials; and Admin assistants at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 17.7.

Now that’s nothing to do with dangerous jobs. And I could buy that Treasury officials might have lots of pressure; the economy is a serious business. But in fact their sick time off is actually below private sector average, while junior workers at Culture, Media and Sport take a grotesque amount of time off by comparison with almost anyone, and there are several equally lousy Departments. It doesn’t stack up. So I don’t buy the possible ‘stress’ link, and even brigin stress into it leaves out the stress on people in the private sector, which has long had a much higher level of job risk. Threats of cuts to civil service jobs have only started a couple of years ago, and yet the sicknote culture long precedes that.

In fact it’s perfectly logical that a job in which you have much higher than average job security – and in some cases perhaps don’t have that much to do – is one in which a sizeable minority are likely to take liberties.

I have said myself that there are very skilled public sector professionals but there are an awful lot of unexceptional bureaucrats who show little commitment to the public. The stories about people taking months of sick, coming back in for a day and then taking months of sick again come from fellow civil servants who are naturally pissed off that a sizeable minority abuse the system while they themselves are actually working.

Yet many people connected with public sector are wrongly overdefensive when that is brought up. If anything is likely to generate oublic antipathy to the civli service in general it’s the sort of dishonest footstamping by the likes of Keith Reeder. On average the civil service is lazier and less value for money than the rest of the economy. That really needs to be fixed.

@ steveb

“Just for your information – over the past year NHS staff have worked a total of 1968 million unpaid hours, which translates to a saving of £29.2billion pounds.”

And? Do you think no one in the private or voluntary sector puts in extra unpaid hours?

“If anything is likely to generate oublic antipathy to the civli service in general it’s the sort of dishonest footstamping by the likes of Keith Reeder”

It’s a sad state of affairs when 35 years of personal experience in the Civil Service (DWP to be precise) is dismissed as “dishonest footstamping” in favour of the selectively quoted, biased drivel you’re spouting, Lamia.

You have NO CLUE about the kind of stress and pressure that civil servants face (just because I’m not running up ladders to rescue children from burning buildings dosn’t mean I’m not under IMMENSE pressure thanks to decades of the public sector being used as a whipping boy by successive governments with the predictable cuts in funding and resources that implies: you utterly delude yourself if you’re naive enough to believe that the voluntary sector is in the remotest way comparable to the Civil Service in terms of the services it’s able to provide (or the presseure VOLUNTEERS face, come to that).

“there are an awful lot of unexceptional bureaucrats who show little commitment to the public”

More entirely unfounded Daily Mail rhetoric – seriously, get your “facts” from somewhere other than right wing, reactionary Little Englander toilet paper, eh?

@ Lamia

“I wasn’t talking about using the private sector. If you look back I was defending volunteering from a commenter who seemed to think that ‘the state’ is the solution to everything, including some areas where individual expertise and drive are paramount and where volunteers fit perfectly.”

OK, but then it’s kinda misleading to back that with data comparing public and private sector workers.

“Well actually we’ve got pretty good indications that they do. Average time of sick in private sector in 2010 was 5.8 days; public sector 8.3.”

I’ve addressed this. Kindly read my comments before replying to them.

“Now lets leave aside potentially dangerous state jobs such as police or hospital staff. Let’s talk specifically, as I did, about the civil service.”

I.E. let’s use selective evidence that best fits your desired conclusions. Did you know, I can prove that a tossed coin will alway come up heads if you leave aside all the times it comes up tail?!

We can look at the civil service if you want but it’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[...]

“Now that’s nothing to do with dangerous jobs. And I could buy that Treasury officials might have lots of pressure; the economy is a serious business. But in fact their sick time off is actually below private sector average, while junior workers at Culture, Media and Sport take a grotesque amount of time off by comparison with almost anyone, and there are several equally lousy Departments. It doesn’t stack up.”

It only “doesn’t stack” because you’ve appointed yourself arbiter of which jobs are stressful and which aren’t. Where’s the data to support your conclusions?

“In fact it’s perfectly logical that a job in which you have much higher than average job security – and in some cases perhaps don’t have that much to do – is one in which a sizeable minority are likely to take liberties. ”

Agreed. This is another potential factor.

“I have said myself that there are very skilled public sector professionals but there are an awful lot of unexceptional bureaucrats who show little commitment to the public.”

Hang on. Weren’t we specifically talking about the civil service? Y’know, because you find that data most palatable? And yet: look, we’re talking about the public sector as a whole again! I wonder what possible motive you could have for conflating the two!

“The stories about people taking months of sick, coming back in for a day and then taking months of sick again come from fellow civil servants who are naturally pissed off that a sizeable minority abuse the system while they themselves are actually working. ”

Anecdotes =/= evidence, and it’s just amazing how the anecdotes that appear to support the speaker’s opinion are so much more easily available mid-debate.

“Yet many people connected with public sector are wrongly overdefensive when that is brought up. If anything is likely to generate oublic antipathy to the civli service in general it’s the sort of dishonest footstamping by the likes of Keith Reeder. On average the civil service is lazier and less value for money than the rest of the economy.”

You are insisting on using the most damaging data available, by selecting the “laziest” group you can find, then equivocating your conclusions to the entire public sector. You of all people should not be calling other posters dishonest.

Get back off the tangent: what evidence do you have that *public-sector workers* are generally lazy, as you originally claimed?

22
Lamia

I have no idea about unpaid hours in the private sector, perhaps you can advise me and then we can compare notes.

And talking about volunteers, let’s have a look at voluntary blood donors, any thought about whether they would do so if the NHS wasn’t a public service?

Another valid point about sick days within the public sector is that those working on the shopfloor in the NHS are more likely to take a sick day with a bad cold than those in the private sector. If you, or your family happen to be suffering from a life-threatening illness, be glad that the nurse/doctor/radiologist suffering from said cold wasn’t there to treat you.

@ Chaise

“let’s use selective evidence that best fits your desired conclusions.”

Er, no.

I gave you stats, both for the public sector in general compared to the private sector, and of the Civil Service compared to it. Either way, the former fall short. I pointed out that the appeal to more stressful and dangerous jobs, which is a reaonable enough conjecture to make in some cases, can’t explain why the Civil Service has considerably higher rates of absenteeism than the private sector. I can believe that police work is a very stressful job. Can you explain why being an administrator at the Department of Sport, Media and culture is so stressful?

“It only “doesn’t stack” because you’ve appointed yourself arbiter of which jobs are stressful and which aren’t. Where’s the data to support your conclusions?”

You are the one who made the suggestion of more stressful jobs in one sector in the first place – on behalf of the public sector.

@ Keith Reeder

“you utterly delude yourself if you’re naive enough to believe that the voluntary sector is in the remotest way comparable to the Civil Service in terms of the services it’s able to provide (or the presseure VOLUNTEERS face, come to that).”

35 years in the Civil Service evidently hasn’t done much for your comprehension skills. It was Geraint who talked of volunteers “do[ing] a job that the state should be doing anyway.” I was the one who pointed out the two are not comparable. I wasn’t suggesting volunteers do the work of the civil service, I was arguing that the civil service is not likely to provide a pool of people who can do the jobs that volunteers do. The article was a critique of talk of “the glorious ranks of volunteers who have helped make the Olympics such a success.”

“You have NO CLUE about the kind of stress and pressure that civil servants face”

Cry me a river. Where do you work? In the Department of Self-Importance and Self-Pity? What’s wrong? Pension not big enough? Do you know what it’s like not to be paid for the past 10 months because the organisation you work for is on life-support because of the recession? Do you know what it’s like even when earning to be on less than half the national average wage? No, you don’t, do you, because the public will always pay your wage and for years has being putting a nice pot away for you. So you can shove your predictable guff about your critics being right wing Daily Mail readers.

@ steveb

“I have no idea about unpaid hours in the private sector, perhaps you can advise me and then we can compare notes.”

I don’t need to. Most people who do extra unpaid work don’t tend to tot it up. So long as you accept that some people outside the public DO extra unpaid work – but perhaps you don’t – then it is a bit pointless thinking doing extra unpaid work makes some people in the public sector exceptional.

And talking about volunteers, let’s have a look at voluntary blood donors, any thought about whether they would do so if the NHS wasn’t a public service?”

Does the NHS do blood transfusions for strawmen? Where on earth did you get that I was advocating privatising the NHS? There is a difference between supporting public services (and paying for them) and believing public employees are all saints above criticism.

@ Chaise,

“Anecdotes =/= evidence”

Of course they do, which is why one talks of ‘anecdotal evidence’. The question always relates to the significance that can be drawn from such evidence.

For what it’s worth, my anecdotal opinion, having worked in the private sector and the state sector, makes me agree with Lamia and scoff at Keith Reader’s comments, although I think that the figures for sickness are skewed by a relatively small number of people on long-term sick leave.

26

You are the one who pointed the finger at the public sector, my response to you (which you haven’t actually addressed) was to point out that in the NHS, there was a massive amount of hours done for nothing by staff and that voluntary work within that sector was massive. I quoted blood donors because they are the most recognisable, and highly significant, you are the one who is strawmanning by suggesting that staff in the private sector also work unpaid hours. Note, no-one here has actually criticised or made any allegations about the private sector.

And where have I suggested or implied that public sector workers are saints, another strawman.

27

I too have worked in both the private and public sector but you need to be careful about making a simplistic comparison based on those two categories. Firstly, the NHS employs large numbers of medical and technical staff who hold very responsible jobs where getting it wrong can be fatal, this is stressful in itself. You cannot then compare this to someone in the private sector such as a person employed to photo-copy documents. And yes, there are also responsible jobs in the private sector and less responsible in the public sector. We need to know what your anecdotal evidence is based on before anyone can comment.

@ 26 Lamia

“I gave you stats, both for the public sector in general compared to the private sector, and of the Civil Service compared to it.”

And then equivocated from the latter to the former, as I noted above.

“Either way, the former fall short. I pointed out that the appeal to more stressful and dangerous jobs, which is a reaonable enough conjecture to make in some cases, can’t explain why the Civil Service has considerably higher rates of absenteeism than the private sector. I can believe that police work is a very stressful job. Can you explain why being an administrator at the Department of Sport, Media and culture is so stressful?”

I’m not saying it is. But it could well have harsh deadlines, over-pressured and hence aggressive managers, etc.

“You are the one who made the suggestion of more stressful jobs in one sector in the first place – on behalf of the public sector.”

Suggestion. Not claim. You made a leap of faith from one set of data to a definitive claim. I simply pointed out that the data could have other explanations.

Whereas you said that the treasury has less absenteeism than the above department and that this “doesn’t stack up”. So again, where’s your data? Why do I keep having to ask for it? After all, you’ve reached a conclusion, so surely you know what data you used to inform it?

@ 27 Richard Carey

“Of course they do, which is why one talks of ‘anecdotal evidence’. The question always relates to the significance that can be drawn from such evidence.”

Well, yes, absolutely. The point I was making was that anecdotal evidence does not make convincing evidence of a wider trend across the category, especially when said anecdotes have been cherry-picked.

“For what it’s worth, my anecdotal opinion, having worked in the private sector and the state sector, makes me agree with Lamia and scoff at Keith Reader’s comments, although I think that the figures for sickness are skewed by a relatively small number of people on long-term sick leave.”

My circle of friends includes, off the top of my head, two pressured public-sector workers (government and NHS), one former relaxed public-sector worker (local council), one public-sector worker whose workload I know not (education), and private-sector workers doing jobs of varying stressfulness. Anecdotes really don’t tell us much.

“Just for your information – over the past year NHS staff have worked a total of 1968 million unpaid hours, which translates to a saving of £29.2billion pounds.”

This is a pretty meaningless stat though isn’t it? My contract hours are (and always have been) 9.30-5.30. Does that mean that whenever I go over this (like, almost every working day since September 2006) I’m working ‘unpaid’? If so, there were times when I was effectively working an additional ‘unpaid’ week each week.

Don’t NHS contracts have the same “your contract hours are… but may vary according to the demands of the job” type spiel that private sector contracts tend to?

31

You are taking the quote out of the context of which it was made, and if you think a saving of £29.2million off the public cost of providing healthcare is meaningless, then so be it. I have no doubt that staff in the private sector do unpaid hours, but, as I have already stated, this is a strawman, because nobody had made any remarks, negative or otherwise, about the private sector workforce.

32 – no, because they’re not really ‘unpaid’ hours are they? They are hours worked over and above contract hours, as specifically provided for in the employment contract. They’re paid hours, paid for by salary.

33

Nope, they are not paid hours, NHS contracts have given hours and weekly rotas are completed up to those contract hours. I am talking about unpaid overtime (which is not part of or inferred by any contract) when I say unpaid hours, that is what I mean And most NHS staff are paid on hourly rates, so if you take unpaid leave, it is deducted by calculating the time at an hourly rate.