Org Mobile Site
Thread: Civil Servants
Now this is mainly aimed at the UK people here but probably applies all around the world.
For those that don't know I'm a civil servant, MOD to be precise, and over the past 6-12 months we have come in for an increasingly hard from everything from being desk polishers and completely useless to being paid too much and having gold plated pensions.
I'd just like the view of any Orgahs who have an opinion on what they see civil servants as, paragons of virtue? Evil money wasters? Or something in between.
As the UK seems to be almost broke what do we think would actually save money?
Personally I think attacking civil servants terms and conditions isn't the way to go, funny that eh, the civil service has always been underpaid for the jobs we do and this was offset somewhat by having a slightly better pension and things like job security. Not to say that we don't have to become more efficient but I don't think 10% staff cuts per year consistently for the past 5 years is the way to do it, I would rather see a strategic look over the whole service with someone actually making a decision on what projects are needed and what ones are so horribly set up they should be scrapped and started again.
So ehat does everyone else think?
For those that don't know I'm a civil servant, MOD to be precise, and over the past 6-12 months we have come in for an increasingly hard from everything from being desk polishers and completely useless to being paid too much and having gold plated pensions.
I'd just like the view of any Orgahs who have an opinion on what they see civil servants as, paragons of virtue? Evil money wasters? Or something in between.
As the UK seems to be almost broke what do we think would actually save money?
Personally I think attacking civil servants terms and conditions isn't the way to go, funny that eh, the civil service has always been underpaid for the jobs we do and this was offset somewhat by having a slightly better pension and things like job security. Not to say that we don't have to become more efficient but I don't think 10% staff cuts per year consistently for the past 5 years is the way to do it, I would rather see a strategic look over the whole service with someone actually making a decision on what projects are needed and what ones are so horribly set up they should be scrapped and started again.
So ehat does everyone else think?
Generally -
I take the view that we ran India with a civil service that numbered in hundreds, so it is inexcusable that little old britain needs a civil service that has long since shot past half a million full time employees, not to mention the extra ~100,000 part time manequins.
I accept that we no longer live in the 1800's, and that government has many other jobs society expects sit to fulfill, but i reject the acceptance of labour governments that there is always more that can be done requiring an ever greater number of civil servants to achieve.
There is no two ways around it, the civil service represents the unproductive part of society, and to keep them in employ requires the taxation of the productive part of society, a factor that gets more out-of-whack every time a gender equality officer is employed.
Specifically -
Re: the MOD; I accept the view of another MOD civil servant who knows more about the matter than I, to whit;
"As to the MoD; of the 85000 CS, 2500 are RFA, another several thousand are MPGS / MOD GS / MOD Police. Several tens of thousands more are manual workers, labourers, nursery assistants etc. The actual number of desk bound CS in London of all grades is about 2000, of which maybe half have real influence. A 25% cut as posited by the Conservatives would merely reduce further the support provided to HM Forces. Not that i disagree that there is not waste to be cut, but not as much as people suppose."
There is certainly a case for scaling back the MOD, but i have a much more sympathy for the MOD than other less fiscally neglected corners of public spending, because those civil servants are part of the reason why Britain still maintains the range of capabilities that preserve its great power status.
I take the view that we ran India with a civil service that numbered in hundreds, so it is inexcusable that little old britain needs a civil service that has long since shot past half a million full time employees, not to mention the extra ~100,000 part time manequins.
I accept that we no longer live in the 1800's, and that government has many other jobs society expects sit to fulfill, but i reject the acceptance of labour governments that there is always more that can be done requiring an ever greater number of civil servants to achieve.
There is no two ways around it, the civil service represents the unproductive part of society, and to keep them in employ requires the taxation of the productive part of society, a factor that gets more out-of-whack every time a gender equality officer is employed.
Specifically -
Re: the MOD; I accept the view of another MOD civil servant who knows more about the matter than I, to whit;
"As to the MoD; of the 85000 CS, 2500 are RFA, another several thousand are MPGS / MOD GS / MOD Police. Several tens of thousands more are manual workers, labourers, nursery assistants etc. The actual number of desk bound CS in London of all grades is about 2000, of which maybe half have real influence. A 25% cut as posited by the Conservatives would merely reduce further the support provided to HM Forces. Not that i disagree that there is not waste to be cut, but not as much as people suppose."
There is certainly a case for scaling back the MOD, but i have a much more sympathy for the MOD than other less fiscally neglected corners of public spending, because those civil servants are part of the reason why Britain still maintains the range of capabilities that preserve its great power status.
Nathaniel Hawthorne thought civil service jobs would turn you into a lazy leech and shell of a man, but he was a Democrat, so, you know...
This reminds me of that thread about Norse soldiers and junkies...
The perception is mostly the same in the Netherlands. Personally I think there are quite a few areas where the state should withdraw from, and that we could manage with less government employees. I don't blame individual civil servants though (except the ones higher-up who lead deparments) and I can see that it must be frustrating to hear all these complaints on a regular basis.
The perception is mostly the same in the Netherlands. Personally I think there are quite a few areas where the state should withdraw from, and that we could manage with less government employees. I don't blame individual civil servants though (except the ones higher-up who lead deparments) and I can see that it must be frustrating to hear all these complaints on a regular basis.
Aren't most civil servants well educated folk who make a bomb? Don't really have an opinion on the civil service, maybe it's a bit to big, that's my only complaint.
Generally speaking I think the salary is on the low side, but the pension is good. Of course that might just mean another pensions blackhole in the making.
Just to be clear, in the UK "civil servants" only refers to people who work for the national government, right?
No, that is Public Sector worker. They are generally paid far less than private sector equivant (and there was always the problem of people only using public sector for CV experience and paid-for-training then running off) but generally have job security.
Civil Servant in UK definition are those that are employed and work on behalf of the Crown and not parliament, though they can usually work for ministers. More information here: http://www.civilservant.org.uk/definitions.shtml
Civil Servant in UK definition are those that are employed and work on behalf of the Crown and not parliament, though they can usually work for ministers. More information here: http://www.civilservant.org.uk/definitions.shtml
That's more or less what I meant - in practice, "the crown" is more or less the same as the government, wich doesn't include parliament. And by national I meant for the UK as such.
Point was, people who work for the Scottish government or city halls etc. don't qualify as civil servants.
Point was, people who work for the Scottish government or city halls etc. don't qualify as civil servants.
Civil servants perform necessary roles, but there are too many of them and many of their jobs can be better performed by private sector employees at a better price to both the employee and the taxpayer.
My one sentence summary of my position.
My one sentence summary of my position.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
Civil servants perform necessary roles, but there are too many of them and many of their jobs can be better performed by private sector employees at a better price to both the employee and the taxpayer.
My one sentence summary of my position.
Though the private sector equivalent gets paid more money and is a sure way to make any more problems worse? Also private interests would destroy any public interest which ultimately makes it far worse for everyone except those exploiting this.Civil servants perform necessary roles, but there are too many of them and many of their jobs can be better performed by private sector employees at a better price to both the employee and the taxpayer.
My one sentence summary of my position.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Though the private sector equivalent gets paid more money and is a sure way to make any more problems worse? Also private interests would destroy any public interest which ultimately makes it far worse for everyone except those exploiting this.
Obviously I don't agree with any of this, otherwise I would not have said what I did.Though the private sector equivalent gets paid more money and is a sure way to make any more problems worse? Also private interests would destroy any public interest which ultimately makes it far worse for everyone except those exploiting this.
There's some jobs need doing by them, but here in the US, we've got too many, they're generally overpaid, and they get high benefits to boot.
CR
Originally Posted by :
Though the private sector equivalent gets paid more money and is a sure way to make any more problems worse? Also private interests would destroy any public interest which ultimately makes it far worse for everyone except those exploiting this.
If they get paid more, it's from the people using the services, not everyone being taxed. And usually the service is better, more efficient, and not worse in any way you insist it is.Though the private sector equivalent gets paid more money and is a sure way to make any more problems worse? Also private interests would destroy any public interest which ultimately makes it far worse for everyone except those exploiting this.
CR
Originally Posted by Slyspy:
Generally speaking I think the salary is on the low side, but the pension is good. Of course that might just mean another pensions blackhole in the making.
the pension is so good that those 500,000 civil servants are responsible for making the taxpayer foot the bill for over £1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities.Generally speaking I think the salary is on the low side, but the pension is good. Of course that might just mean another pensions blackhole in the making.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/peter_barn...overnment_debt
They're all paper nazis. 
Just kidding, I always hear how they're evil people who just want our monies but the ones I've met were mostly nice (includes the one in the OP), I guess most of them want a job like everyone else and being employed by the government ensures some security etc.
Overall it depends on the individual, as usual.
Just kidding, I always hear how they're evil people who just want our monies but the ones I've met were mostly nice (includes the one in the OP), I guess most of them want a job like everyone else and being employed by the government ensures some security etc.
Overall it depends on the individual, as usual.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
If they get paid more, it's from the people using the services, not everyone being taxed. And usually the service is better, more efficient, and not worse in any way you insist it is.
They get paid more because they don't have to answer to the Tax Payers who want them paid as little as possible. Also, in many cases, they don't have enough in the right areas and because they have far more work than the private counterparts, they have a larger workload and a bigger backlog.If they get paid more, it's from the people using the services, not everyone being taxed. And usually the service is better, more efficient, and not worse in any way you insist it is.
Also, having private removes the impartiality and honesty they are meant to have, as their money comes from private and not public, thus they will presue a more private interest aligned agenda. Also, working in the public sector myself, I have seen what happens when things go to the private sector and they get far worse. Especially when it comes to care and otherthings. The whole called Private bidding war for public sector areas usually mean they can actually be paid cheaper, but how this works out, is that they are very incompenent and even more short-staffed and from an area that has seen this happen in neighbouring areas, it is quite disgusting.
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra:
...Personally I think attacking civil servants terms and conditions isn't the way to go, funny that eh, the civil service has always been underpaid for the jobs we do and this was offset somewhat by having a slightly better pension and things like job security. Not to say that we don't have to become more efficient but I don't think 10% staff cuts per year consistently for the past 5 years is the way to do it, I would rather see a strategic look over the whole service with someone actually making a decision on what projects are needed and what ones are so horribly set up they should be scrapped and started again.
I agree with this. ^^...Personally I think attacking civil servants terms and conditions isn't the way to go, funny that eh, the civil service has always been underpaid for the jobs we do and this was offset somewhat by having a slightly better pension and things like job security. Not to say that we don't have to become more efficient but I don't think 10% staff cuts per year consistently for the past 5 years is the way to do it, I would rather see a strategic look over the whole service with someone actually making a decision on what projects are needed and what ones are so horribly set up they should be scrapped and started again.
Even in the US, Congress sometimes decides to decrease the manpower of a Department, rather than examine, then approve/disapprove the missions given to the Dept. That's unnecessary meddling into resources I think, potentially crippling the agency's ability to perform its mandate.
Making seniority portable among government agncies would go a long ways to more manpower flexibility, IMO. As it is now (in the US), transferring from Treasury to Defense, despite being employed by the gov't for 20 years, involves starting at the bottom rung in the new agency's ladder (we're not talking Executive level jobs here, just career worker-bees), in terms of assigned tasks, leave bennies, weekly schedules, and those other day-to-day concerns that seem minor taken alone, but add up to a major reason why careerists "homestead", and then fight for their position - and leads to a percentage of older ones who have "retired, on active duty" - that the public sees and scorns.
I've a few friends in the Civil Service and related areas.
One on the Fast Track in the DoH (physics degree - go figure) was telling me a recent breakthrough where the DoH had started to cost items in the NHS. That's right - for years deals were struck with the Civil Servant who was negotiating had no idea what they service they were negotiating for was worth...
Another friend was seconded to the DoH for 1 year in the area of A&E. As she has a City background she asked when they were goin to visit some front line A&E departments to find out what was going on. Not only was this request refused, but her boss could not see the utility of attendig a department that they were overseeing and providing guidance for...
The Civil Service per capita is very large. Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of work to do - as a beaurocracy is there to produce work, not results. Canada about a decade showed that it can be radically cut without reducing the useful part, as the back office can just mushroom for ever. A bigger department = more kudos.
Promotions are usually on time served, not on ability or results. Status quo beats free thought. Failure means a further review rather than sorting anything out.
I'm so sick of it I'm off to the Private Sector for a break.
One on the Fast Track in the DoH (physics degree - go figure) was telling me a recent breakthrough where the DoH had started to cost items in the NHS. That's right - for years deals were struck with the Civil Servant who was negotiating had no idea what they service they were negotiating for was worth...
Another friend was seconded to the DoH for 1 year in the area of A&E. As she has a City background she asked when they were goin to visit some front line A&E departments to find out what was going on. Not only was this request refused, but her boss could not see the utility of attendig a department that they were overseeing and providing guidance for...
The Civil Service per capita is very large. Oh, I'm sure there's plenty of work to do - as a beaurocracy is there to produce work, not results. Canada about a decade showed that it can be radically cut without reducing the useful part, as the back office can just mushroom for ever. A bigger department = more kudos.
Promotions are usually on time served, not on ability or results. Status quo beats free thought. Failure means a further review rather than sorting anything out.
I'm so sick of it I'm off to the Private Sector for a break.
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit:
There's some jobs need doing by them, but here in the US, we've got too many, they're generally overpaid, and they get high benefits to boot.
Overpaid? Speaking as a civil servant, almost all of us are paid less than people doing equivalent jobs in the commercial sector. Yes, the benefits are very good, but I consider that a fair trade-off for the lower pay.There's some jobs need doing by them, but here in the US, we've got too many, they're generally overpaid, and they get high benefits to boot.
Some of the criticism about civil servants is based on reality, but some is also mixing up civil servants with bureaucracy itself. It's true that there are a lot of lazy people working for the government, who don't do much work and only keep their jobs because it's hard to get fired from a federal job. However, in my experience, those people are in the minority. The vast majority of civil servants work hard for the same reasons everyone else does: we take personal pride in being good at our jobs and we want to earn promotions or other forms of advancement.
In addition, there are realities to the way the government operates that make it look sluggish and lazy even when the employees are working hard. First, the laws governing what we can do and how we can do it are extraordinarily complex and specific. Common sense often takes a back seat to proper procedure, but that's not our fault, it's the fault of Congress and the Executive Branch. We have to operate in the ways we are told to operate, and no individual can simply choose to violate protocol even when we know it's absurd. At the same time, a lot of us are over worked. Take my agency, for example.
I work for an appellate court that handles disabilities claims for veterans. It takes, on average, about 2 years for us to process a claim after it's originally been filed, which is a very long time. However, most cases are completed within 24 to 48 hours of an attorney receiving them. The problem isn't with the employees working slow, it's with the amount of work we have. Last year, my agency worked through 48,000 cases, which works out to over 182 cases per attorney. At the beginning of last year, we had a backlog of 18,000 cases to process. Our goal was to get through 41,000 cases, which was 156 cases per attorney. My entire agency was 117% over our production goal... but our backlog still grew to 20,000 cases. Why? Well, more cases came in than we could process. No matter how fast we work individually, there is more work than we're capable of completing. There are many, many reasons why we're not capable of completing this work with our current staff size, but laziness is not one of them.
I find it hilarious how some people hate bureaucrats, especially when they state claims like "people like that won't have a job in a private company!".
Yeah right. They should get a job in Shell and see the glorious bureaucracy of private companies for themselves. Or any other larger company, I suppose.
The truth is that there's simply no way around it, any larger organization will have a bureaucracy. Probably an inefficient one too.
Yeah right. They should get a job in Shell and see the glorious bureaucracy of private companies for themselves. Or any other larger company, I suppose.
The truth is that there's simply no way around it, any larger organization will have a bureaucracy. Probably an inefficient one too.
I think TinCow summed up the majority of my points in a better well-written way and also can speak far more from personal experience.
Problem is, a lot of people want to cut your team down for being "lazy" and make them do more work. As you obviously said TinCow, it is a case where you are over-worked, a big back-log and expected to perform miracles.
Also, yes, there is the prodecure that has to be followed, you can't just stick cases into the shredder like private companies which can just wash their hands from it, you need to follow it by the book and the letter because the public demand it, also to eliminate and minimise risk from America's sue culture.
Problem is, a lot of people want to cut your team down for being "lazy" and make them do more work. As you obviously said TinCow, it is a case where you are over-worked, a big back-log and expected to perform miracles.
Also, yes, there is the prodecure that has to be followed, you can't just stick cases into the shredder like private companies which can just wash their hands from it, you need to follow it by the book and the letter because the public demand it, also to eliminate and minimise risk from America's sue culture.
i'm looking forward to some Canada style slash-n-burn in the public sector from 2010 onwards.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
i'm looking forward to some Canada style slash-n-burn in the public sector from 2010 onwards.
My woman is a civil servant in a my small town and I like it.i'm looking forward to some Canada style slash-n-burn in the public sector from 2010 onwards.
Lotsa perks.
Not got much time atm so I'll try and post again later but just something to consider when talking about all the perks we get.
I checked my pension forecast this morning and my projected pension for if I work for 40 years with the MOD is £12899 a year, don't know about you but I'd hardly call that gold plated and I am hardly at the bottom of the career ladder either.
I checked my pension forecast this morning and my projected pension for if I work for 40 years with the MOD is £12899 a year, don't know about you but I'd hardly call that gold plated and I am hardly at the bottom of the career ladder either.
Government workers in the U.S., whether they are teachers, police officers, clerks, etc are wildly overpaid as a general rule. Of course none of them feel that they are. I've read that a tremendous majority of people, when asked, say that they are the best workers in the office and deserve higher pay. Hell, even these turd CEO's beleive 10 million makes them look like chumps. People tend to be greedy and base their beliefs on impulse, naked self interest and poor reasoning.
They have powerful unions, many days off, stellar cookie cutter pension plans (which have ceased to exist in the private sector) and tons of other benefits.
In addition to this, they are paid very competetively in relation to similar jobs in the private sector. Add all of this up and you get incredible job security coupled with a competetive wage.
I think cuts are in order all around and that the voting public is beggining to realize this. Bloated goverment employment has become the last refuge of the welfare mom and dad.
They have powerful unions, many days off, stellar cookie cutter pension plans (which have ceased to exist in the private sector) and tons of other benefits.
In addition to this, they are paid very competetively in relation to similar jobs in the private sector. Add all of this up and you get incredible job security coupled with a competetive wage.
I think cuts are in order all around and that the voting public is beggining to realize this. Bloated goverment employment has become the last refuge of the welfare mom and dad.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
Bloated goverment employment has become the last refuge of the welfare mom and dad.
Bloated goverment employment has become the last refuge of the welfare mom and dad.
and there you have it, Public Sector workers are now tax thieves. Teachers are tax thieves, Soldiers are tax thieves, Police are tax thieves, Doctors are tax thieves, Social Workers are tax thieves, Garbage Men are now tax thieves, Road Maintence are tax thieves, Postmen are tax thieves ... insert even longer larger list.Thanks for your ignorant post.
In general, every country the costs and quality of civil servants it deserves.
For example, tax payers too shortsighted to pay for the public services they request? Simple, decrease wages for civil servants, and increase their pensions. This means the true costs of employment are for future generations.
This is why in many countries wages in the public sector are lower, and pensions are higher, than in the private sector.
As to the UK in particular.
I think the public sector is much too small. Privatisation in the past two decades has ruined services. Trains, electricity, waste management - upon privatization, costs increased and service decreased.
http://www.tni.org/article/privatisation-failures-uk
The UK currently employs 25% less civil servants than it did under Thatcher.
There are also less CS's now than there were when Labour took over form the Cons in 1997.
This despite the means to cut employment by the Conservatives having consisted mainly of privatization. (Or, of selling off the crown jewels). Whereas Labour incorporated HMCS into the crown - which added a whopping 17% extra CS's, but still managed to decrease the total number of CS's through increased efficiency.
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about...ics/index.aspx#
Cursed Labour and their expansive government.
For example, tax payers too shortsighted to pay for the public services they request? Simple, decrease wages for civil servants, and increase their pensions. This means the true costs of employment are for future generations.
This is why in many countries wages in the public sector are lower, and pensions are higher, than in the private sector.
~~-~~-~~-<<oOo>>-~~-~~-~~
As to the UK in particular.
I think the public sector is much too small. Privatisation in the past two decades has ruined services. Trains, electricity, waste management - upon privatization, costs increased and service decreased.
http://www.tni.org/article/privatisation-failures-uk
The UK currently employs 25% less civil servants than it did under Thatcher.
There are also less CS's now than there were when Labour took over form the Cons in 1997.
This despite the means to cut employment by the Conservatives having consisted mainly of privatization. (Or, of selling off the crown jewels). Whereas Labour incorporated HMCS into the crown - which added a whopping 17% extra CS's, but still managed to decrease the total number of CS's through increased efficiency.
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about...ics/index.aspx#
Cursed Labour and their expansive government.
Originally Posted by :
As to the UK in particular.
I think the public sector is much too small. Privatisation in the past two decades has ruined services. Trains, electricity, waste management - upon privatization, costs increased and service decreased.
http://www.tni.org/article/privatisation-failures-uk
Won't convince the hero's of the market who would argue that it was lack of profit, compared to the actual fact of exploitation by the market which is do as little as possible for the most money they can get.As to the UK in particular.
I think the public sector is much too small. Privatisation in the past two decades has ruined services. Trains, electricity, waste management - upon privatization, costs increased and service decreased.
http://www.tni.org/article/privatisation-failures-uk
Originally Posted by :
Cursed Labour and their expansive government.
Shhh, let them dream. They probably think Thatcher was a great prime-minister.Cursed Labour and their expansive government.
Originally Posted by Beskar:
Won't convince the hero's of the market who would argue that it was lack of profit, compared to the actual fact of exploitation by the market which is do as little as possible for the most money they can get.
Shhh, let them dream. They probably think Thatcher was a great prime-minister.
she was.Won't convince the hero's of the market who would argue that it was lack of profit, compared to the actual fact of exploitation by the market which is do as little as possible for the most money they can get.
Shhh, let them dream. They probably think Thatcher was a great prime-minister.
Some civil servants are extremely powerful. Take the Ontario Teacher's Pension Plan in Canada:
EDIT: That's another thing - high ranking civil servants usually have political/administrative power as well.
Originally Posted by :
The OTPP maintains a prominent role as one of Canada's largest investors, owning investments across Canada. Through its fully owned subsidiary Cadillac Fairview, the OTPP owns properties including the Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto Eaton Centre, and the Rideau Centre in Ottawa. Through its investment arm, Teachers' Private Capital, the OTPP owns or has interests in companies such as Bell Canada (BCE), Samsonite, Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, Maple Leaf Foods, Parmalat Canada, Doane Pet Care, Shoppers Drug Mart, and Worldspan. In 2006 it acquired a 20% stake in CTVglobemedia.
Meaning it owns one of Canada's largest financial complexes, two of the largest malls in Canada's capital and Ontario's capital, the largest sports team in Ontario, one of the largest food companies in Ontario, stakes in one of the largest drug store chains in Ontario, and a fifth of Canada's most reliable newspaper and one of the largest private television networks in Canada. And more.The OTPP maintains a prominent role as one of Canada's largest investors, owning investments across Canada. Through its fully owned subsidiary Cadillac Fairview, the OTPP owns properties including the Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto Eaton Centre, and the Rideau Centre in Ottawa. Through its investment arm, Teachers' Private Capital, the OTPP owns or has interests in companies such as Bell Canada (BCE), Samsonite, Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment, Maple Leaf Foods, Parmalat Canada, Doane Pet Care, Shoppers Drug Mart, and Worldspan. In 2006 it acquired a 20% stake in CTVglobemedia.
EDIT: That's another thing - high ranking civil servants usually have political/administrative power as well.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO