There is an interesting article on the Wales Home website by Paul O Shea, the head of Unison, about public sector cuts. It is essentially the speech which he gave to Bevan Foundation recently in a panel debate in which I also participated.
One clearly can't fault Paul for taking the stance that he has on this subject, but I must take him to task over two main points which he makes in his speech.
First of all, Paul states that “public services and public service workers are already on the frontline of recession”.
According to the most recent employment statistics, private sector employment has fallen by more than 4 per cent since the beginning of 2008, while the public sector has expanded by almost 6 per cent. Over the past year, some 46,000 jobs were created by the state whilst 527,000 jobs were lost in the private sector. Therefore, there is little evidence to show that the public sector has suffered during the worst recession since the 1920s.
By all means let’s have a debate on employment and economic policies and whether you believe that the public sector should be safeguarded. In fact, make the case that the Labour Government has made the choice, rightly or wrongly, to protect those working in the public sector at a time of recession. But it depresses me when the line is peddled that the public sector has suffered as a result of the recession when the facts show the exact opposite. That undermines Paul's whole thesis on the subject.
He also makes the point that "In contrast, public sectors workers are not well paid. The majority earn less than £20,000 per annum – a sharp contract to the City bankers, many of whom have received bonuses in excess of £1 million".
There are few would disagree with the premise that bankers’ bonuses should be curtailed but that is an erroneous comparison. Instead, Paul should be comparing the average working person’s annual salary in the public and private sectors. For example, consider WAG's own statistics which show that those with degree level qualifications in the public sector are paid 11 per cent more per annum than their equivalents in the private sector (36 per cent of those in the public sector have degrees as compared to 15 per cent in the private sector).
In contrast, the private sector in Wales pays workers with no qualifications £20 per month MORE than the public sector. This means that the pay differential between the most qualified and least qualified in the public sector is 24 per cent higher than in the private sector.
Surely, given the fact that two thirds of public sector employees are trade union members as opposed to a fifth of private sector workers, this should be the main issue for UNISON?
The whole debate on the role of the public sector is an emotive issue for some, especially on the left of the political spectrum.
However, surely we should be making the case for the public sector to become more efficient and effective and to ensure that taxpayers money is provided for frontline services rather than in funding pointless bureaucratic waste?
The April Fool video for the "Department of Government Waste" was one of the best spoofs I have seen in years but behind the humour were some salient points about how Government has wasted taxpayers money during the last thirteen years.
This isn't a case of public sector good, private sector bad, or vice-versa, as it is inevitable, whoever wins the next election, that there will be reduction in public sector expenditure. Therefore, what we need is a debate not on whether we are going to cut public sector expenditure but HOW we are going to do it.
Let start this off with two articles on the subject, namely the IOD paper on procurement and an article on managing public sector costs in Management Today.
If anyone has any further articles, then I shall post them here on this blog.
Comments
I am far more left than right leaning but felt much of it was rhetoric.
Your stats prove many of the remarks are erroneous.
The public sector does need to look at its fixed and variable costs and more importantly its processes and priorities.
Much is highlighted about CEO s wage bill, but I was stunned at what some councillors rake in.
David Cameron made a good point yesterday pointing out just what 2% saving on stupid procurement processes would save.
When ever any public sector commentator speaks about the private sector its always the highly paid they refer to,I think they would be amazed how little many small businesses actually end up taking home.
You can see that an election is on the way.
None of them, of course, see fit to comment on your blog.
As a member of the IOD, I see nothing wrong in putting forward some of the arguments they have made in this document. The fact that no-one is discussing this issue is shows that the economy is in deep trouble whatever party gets into power.
"The fact that no-one is discussing this issue" everyone is discussing this issue! Grow up and get stuck in to the debate.
I would welcome your thoughts as to whether you or your Party feel that what is proposed might just have the germ of an idea in it.
WOULD THIS WORK?
All Parties bang on about Government “efficiency savings” but mainly skirt round the biggest inefficiency of all – paying benefits to people who don’t need them.
A typical example is the winter fuel allowance – it’s not enough for the needy, and yet is completely un-necessary help for many.
Why not, instead, actually INCREASE the standard £250 allowance to £416 – and then double-tax it.
In round pounds,
•A non-taxpayer would get a substantial lift from £250 to £416
•a 20% taxpayer would still get £250 (£416 less 40% tax),
•a 40% taxpayer would get £83
( £416 less 80% tax)
•a 50% taxpayer would get nothing
(£416 less 100% tax)
Where this double-taxing of the fuel allowance actually pushed someone into tax, or into the next tax-band, there would be some in-between figures that apply.
What’s really important, though, is that unlike other clawbacks and means-tests, the extra marginal tax on a £ of any other income will still only be at their normal highest rate of tax payable, not at some punitive claw-back rate.
If the principle were shown to work and be politically acceptable, a similar scheme could then be devised for an increased but double-taxed Child Benefit that could then replace the Tax Credit mess, plus all the current child-related add-ons to other benefits.
In this way the government would be targeting help where it is needed most, without elaborate means-tests and over-lapping benefits.
Perhaps Mr ramblings should read some of his own puerile posts to realise who needs to grow up as the world does not revolve around him and the 100 or so bloggers in Wales that no-one actually bothers to read unless you are either a journo or a nationalist.
"NHS to cut spending over next 3 years in Wales"
So the cuts have already started in Wales, led by the One-Wales Government of which Plaid Cymru is a partner.
It is easy all so easy to pontificate about a hypothetical report from the IOD about potential cuts.
Will Welsh Ramblings and John Dixon now condemn the One Wales Government and their own party's ministers for cutting frontline jobs such as nurses.
I thought not.
Hypocrites.
The public sector does waste money and can make savings.Its our moneythat they are wasting
private sector - well its their cash and they seem to be far more eager to ensure smarter and more efficent working
The CEOs of all the councils ar paid mega bucks ,may be they should look at better management of their rescources
It would seem that government cuts have already started but there is complete silence from Ramblings, John Dixon et al on this matter.
Is this because the cuts are being implemented by Plaid Cymru as part of the One-Wales Government? Is it because their own Ministers have sat around a cabinet table with Labour and agreed to cut thousands of jobs in frontline services in education and health?
Last month, the university sector in Wales was hit by a seven per cent cut for the next financial year with many Vice-Chancellors expecting an even worst reduction in years to come. Already Bangor University has already threatened to get rid of 100 jobs in Welsh language oriented departments and a further 100 jobs are at risk in IBERS at Aberystwyth.
Yesterday, the NHS was told by WAG to cut staff by three per cent during the next three years, leading to fears from the Royal College of Nursing that over two thousand nurses could lose their jobs.
So, for all the talk of cuts in the public sector at a UK level, it is the Labour-Plaid Government that has implemented the first cuts to public sector expenditure in Wales.
If we want an important discussion on the matter, as Valleys Mam says, let's at least not distort the truth.
The Agenda For Change programme was started before the economic crisis and before cuts were even on the political agenda. It is a UK wide pay agreement signed in 2004. The Welsh Government's action in response to changing healthcare needs and the challenging financial situation is reducing Band 5 and above posts (which are higher paid) by 3% to achieve a 10% increase in Bands 1-4 (which includes medical staff). So it is not a cut at all! It's a rebalancing of staffing roles to meet changing needs.
Health spending will continue to increase in Wales.
The RCN's concerns are no doubt valid and the NHS organisations will have to be watched carefully by the Health Minister.
But your political point about Plaid implementing cuts, is clearly not true.
As for Anon and yourself, i'll happily blog about this if i feel like it and I have criticised the Labour-Plaid government constructively on numerous occasions. Ramblings is not the leading nationalist blogger though, that distinction belongs to Syniadau for now.
Some of us actually do have a life outside politics and it was Easter Bank Holiday after all.
As for your comment, take it up with the RCN not me. They are the ones who are worried about potential job losses.
As for university cuts, I notice that you conveniently ignore the issue.
As for overall cuts, don't take my word for it. I would suggest you go back and examine the WAG budget for 2010-2011.
You will see that departmental spending limits have been cut by around £300 million from the original 2009-2010 budget.
Now I am going back to my first break since Christmas.