[News] Key workers (?) and their rate of pay.

[Leekbrookgull]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52312038#comments

 

[Beach Hut]

BBC weekday 17:15, Pointless

 

[Audax]

In an attempt to open this thread out into a proper debate:

My wife and I now work broadly similar jobs. I'm in the private sector, my wife is in the NHS. I'm a Product Manager for a software product, she's a "Project Coordinator" managing public health research projects (at the moment, that means Covid research).

I know which job I consider to be more important to society ... and it's not mine. And yet my salary is of the order of 40% more than hers. Part of that is experience, part of it is private vs public, but I suspect a big whack of it is quite simply that the NHS benchmarking doesn't pay (pun unintended) enough attention to what the private sector pays for roughly equivalent jobs - it instead focuses heavily on trying to hit equivalence targets within the NHS, and that sometimes misses the point because of the criteria they use for setting the bands (things like whether or not it's a line management role)

 

[dazzer6666]

In an attempt to open this thread out into a proper debate:

My wife and I now work broadly similar jobs. I'm in the private sector, my wife is in the NHS. I'm a Product Manager for a software product, she's a "Project Coordinator" managing public health research projects (at the moment, that means Covid research).

I know which job I consider to be more important to society ... and it's not mine. And yet my salary is of the order of 40% more than hers. Part of that is experience, part of it is private vs public, but I suspect a big whack of it is quite simply that the NHS benchmarking doesn't pay (pun unintended) enough attention to what the private sector pays for roughly equivalent jobs - it instead focuses heavily on trying to hit equivalence targets within the NHS, and that sometimes misses the point because of the criteria they use for setting the bands (things like whether or not it's a line management role)

Potentially interesting debate if it doesn’t get derailed by the usual suspects/diversions........

I’ve recently stepped away from Financial Services after 35 years (back office environment not sales/trading) where PM salaries are I suspect similar relative to the NHS as you’re suggesting (also worth noting though that the pension provisions and job security in the public sector can be much better than the private sector so really need to take total package into account when comparing and not just base salary).

Aren’t there a significant no. of people in the NHS for reasons other than financial? I know my eldest certainly is - she’s been in nursing since graduating with a 1st from a Russell Group Uni and currently doing a Masters - in my old team at work, 4 years after graduating, she would be on easily double her current NHS salary (for an arguably much easier and far less responsible job), with decent bonuses and the very strong likelihood of that increasing rapidly over the coming years as opposed to very gradual progression in the NHS. Would she want to be though ? Not in a million years..........despite my counsel to the contrary !

I genuinely struggle with it as a moral dilemma........jobs are not valued according to ‘value to humanity’. The NHS could never pay private sector levels of course........

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Potentially interesting debate if it doesn’t get derailed by the usual suspects/diversions........

I’ve recently stepped away from Financial Services after 35 years (back office environment not sales/trading) where PM salaries are I suspect similar relative to the NHS as you’re suggesting (also worth noting though that the pension provisions and job security in the public sector can be much better than the private sector so really need to take total package into account when comparing and not just base salary).

Aren’t there a significant no. of people in the NHS for reasons other than financial? I know my eldest certainly is - she’s been in nursing since graduating with a 1st from a Russell Group Uni and currently doing a Masters - in my old team at work, 4 years after graduating, she would be on easily double her current NHS salary (for an arguably much easier and far less responsible job), with decent bonuses and the very strong likelihood of that increasing rapidly over the coming years as opposed to very gradual progression in the NHS. Would she want to be though ? Not in a million years..........despite my counsel to the contrary !

I genuinely struggle with it as a moral dilemma........jobs are not valued according to ‘value to humanity’. The NHS could never pay private sector levels of course........

Value to humanity is very subjective. The private sector pays what it has to because it can. Pay is funded by profit. The NHS is funded by taxation so no real surprise that Government borrowing, economic policy and size of the total taxation pot are the determinants of pay.

 

[RossyG]

The principal behind a free market (as part of a welfare state) is supply and demand. Dustmen and doctors are both vital, but the former can be learnt quickly. All that’s needed is upper body strength, whereas doctors need years of training. So doctors get paid more.

People can get indignant about how footballers earn more than nurses, but Premier League footballers get paid very high salaries as their skill sets are very rare. Only a fraction of those who try to turn pro succeed. Nurses are skilled but far more people can be trained as nurses than footballers so they get paid less.

And then you get the difference between public service and private sector as well as people who earn money for their employers (footballers) and those who cost their employers money as they’re providing a service (dustmen).

Of course, this meritocracy can be skewed. Sometimes people get well paid jobs thanks to connections (nepotism, old school tie) and sometimes ideology intervenes. An example of the latter would be when school dinner ladies complained that they were paid less than dustmen which was sexist. The council took fright and coughed up ignoring the fact that being a dustman (out in the wind and rain, handling garbage) is more unpleasant than being a dinner lady (cooking in a kitchen) and that sometimes people needed to be paid more as incentive/compensation.

In short, it might rankle that some actors get millions and care home workers don’t, but saying it’s unfair doesn’t take take into account a lot of other factors. People are usually paid on how rare their skills are rather than how valuable to society they are.

 

[Audax]

[...]my salary is of the order of 40% more than hers.

Got this calculation backwards. My salary is closer to 50-60% more than hers.

(also worth noting though that the pension provisions and job security in the public sector can be much better than the private sector so really need to take total package into account when comparing and not just base salary).

This is one that varies massively across the private sector I think. Where I am, the pension and other extended package is pretty generous and flexible. It's absolutely true, however, that folks who go into the NHS generally do so because it's a calling rather than for financial reasons. On the flipside, though, the NHS probably loses a lot of people longer term for financial reasons - especially at the lower end (care workers, for example, whose pay rates are a disgrace).

Value to humanity is very subjective. The private sector pays what it has to because it can. Pay is funded by profit. The NHS is funded by taxation so no real surprise that Government borrowing, economic policy and size of the total taxation pot are the determinants of pay.

Yep, all very true. And it's not just the NHS - the Australian Air Force has long had problems with retaining experienced pilots because the private airlines actively poach the good ones and pay far better.

 

[Audax]

The principal behind a free market (as part of a welfare state) is supply and demand. Dustmen and doctors are both vital, but the former can be learnt quickly. All that’s needed is upper body strength, whereas doctors need years of training. So doctors get paid more.

People can get indignant about how footballers earn more than nurses, but Premier League footballers get paid very high salaries as their skill sets are very rare. Only a fraction of those who try to turn pro succeed. Nurses are skilled but far more people can be trained as nurses than footballers so they get paid less.

And then you get the difference between public service and private sector as well as people who earn money for their employers (footballers) and those who cost their employers money as they’re providing a service (dustmen).

Of course, this meritocracy can be skewed. Sometimes people get well paid jobs thanks to connections (nepotism, old school tie) and sometimes ideology intervenes. An example of the latter would be when school dinner ladies complained that they were paid less than dustmen which was sexist. The council took fright and coughed up ignoring the fact that being a dustman (out in the wind and rain, handling garbage) is more unpleasant than being a dinner lady (cooking in a kitchen) and that sometimes people needed to be paid more as incentive/compensation.

In short, it might rankle that some actors get millions and care home workers don’t, but saying it’s unfair doesn’t take take into account a lot of other factors. People are usually paid on how rare their skills are rather than how valuable to society they are.

All very true. Except where you start looking at two people who have the same skill sets. One in private sector, one in public sector - and you end up with a vast disparity in pay rates. And yes, there's very valid reasons why these situations arise (some of which raised in this very thread already). But one must ask: should we as a society simply accept that, or should we challenge it and see if there's a better way to do it?

The potential cost of the current system is starting to be seen in the NHS today: there's significant shortages of staff across the NHS. There's not enough people in the UK currently willing to fill all the roles that the NHS needs to be filled. Supply and Demand has failed here: a large part of the reason for the shortfall relates to the remuneration package. It's simply not attractive enough to enough people to provide a large enough supply to fill the demand.

 

[dazzer6666]

Value to humanity is very subjective. The private sector pays what it has to because it can. Pay is funded by profit. The NHS is funded by taxation so no real surprise that Government borrowing, economic policy and size of the total taxation pot are the determinants of pay.

Indeed, although more simple to understand in some cases.

Re the bold bit, it's not that simple.....from a FS perspective at least, the private sector has to pay what it does to attract what it sees as the 'best' talent (whether it's making a profit or not) - so pay is in a never-ending upward spiral (with the odd pause). Give someone who is ambitious (could say 'entitled' - it's a fine line) no increase for a couple of years and they'll likely naff off to another organisation for an extra 10-20% - in increasing numbers this is absolutely the norm - change jobs every 2 years (particularly in mid/early career) to bump up your pay. If the private sector could pay less it would - it can't, so costs get managed by other means like regular restructuring (which also costs a fortune, and where the vast majority who get made redundant end up in higher paid jobs with similar organisations anyway - it's all cyclical) and drives to improve efficiency (which aren't always improvements but allow people to hit short term targets, and get bigger bonuses). As regards value, paying a fairly recent recruit 40-50k pa to basically dick about with a few spreadsheets (slight oversimplification but not much in many cases), having virtually no responsibility and no real risk if anything goes wrong does grate somewhat (yes, I am glad I'm not part of that rat race any more )

Interestingly, the last few years has seen much higher salaries paid to, for example, financial regulators (who are public sector) as there was a recognition that to attract the best people they needed to compete with the institutions.

 

[RossyG]

All very true. Except where you start looking at two people who have the same skill sets. One in private sector, one in public sector - and you end up with a vast disparity in pay rates. And yes, there's very valid reasons why these situations arise (some of which raised in this very thread already). But one must ask: should we as a society simply accept that, or should we challenge it and see if there's a better way to do it?

The potential cost of the current system is starting to be seen in the NHS today: there's significant shortages of staff across the NHS. There's not enough people in the UK currently willing to fill all the roles that the NHS needs to be filled. Supply and Demand has failed here: a large part of the reason for the shortfall relates to the remuneration package. It's simply not attractive enough to enough people to provide a large enough supply to fill the demand.

Yes, good point.

The problem the public sector has is marrying supply and demand with the knowledge that the money for it comes from taxing other workers.

With the NHS, my advice would be to pay the doctors, nurses, porters etc more by using the money saved by cutting non-jobs such as these...

 

[beorhthelm]

important factor is flexibility. private tends to be more flexible, if they need a skill to fit a role they can meet the market demand for that position. with public sector they are bogged down in grading structures. and you cant simply run a recruitment to fill a gap with slightly higher pay, you'd have to adjust the existing 18,000 positions to the same. theres also problem of lacking regional pay variation, a good salary in Burnley is tight in Brighton, but national pay bargains restrict to a set of bands they must fit.

many of the "key workers" in the article are private sector and positions noted are usually lower than average because they dont require a lot of skill or experience to take up. we should not the skilled key workers there are all weighted to above average, so they arent doing so badly.

 

[dazzer6666]

Yes, good point.

The problem the public sector has is marrying supply and demand with the knowledge that the money for it comes from taxing other workers.

With the NHS, my advice would be to pay the doctors, nurses, porters etc more by using the money saved by cutting non-jobs such as these...

View attachment 134708

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Manager pay well above that of a Senior Charge Nurse....................

 

[albionfan37]

I work with young people with autism and other learning disabilities and it’s safe to say that you don’t do it to get rich!

 

[RossyG]

I think the key here is for workers to be paid well for doing a good job so that they can live without fear of cold, hunger, etc and in a comfortable manner. One reason I’d never be a libertarian is that I believe in the living/minimum wage.

Not everyone can be super rich. And from what I’ve seen of the super rich, they never seem that happy anyway.

 

[Blue3]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" a slogan popularised by Karl Marx The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital, services and fair pay for a fair days work.

This pandemic has shown that for those who have worked every day oftern for little pay have kept you and I safe while many others have worked from home for much higher rewards.

It's a moment we should revalue society, we won't but should, here I am thinking of bin men, shop workers, hauliers, porters, nurses, care home staff, bus drivers, railway staff and many others who have kept us safe and well.

 

[RossyG]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" a slogan popularised by Karl Marx The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital, services and fair pay for a fair days work.

Every country that follows Marx's principles ends up with gulags, liquidations, and huge economic gulfs between the ruling elite and the terrorised masses.

For one thing, who decides what an individual's needs are? Is it my need to have a Brighton season ticket? Is it my need to have that yummy packet of chocolate digestives?

And when the shelves were stripped bare by panic-buyers at the start of the pandemic, it was the private companies (Sainsbury's, Tesco etc) who rose to the challenge and made sure that goods were distributed and everyone had access.

 

[schmunk]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" a slogan popularised by Karl Marx

Which one was he again...?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The principal behind a free market (as part of a welfare state) is supply and demand. Dustmen and doctors are both vital, but the former can be learnt quickly. All that’s needed is upper body strength, whereas doctors need years of training. So doctors get paid more.

People can get indignant about how footballers earn more than nurses, but Premier League footballers get paid very high salaries as their skill sets are very rare. Only a fraction of those who try to turn pro succeed. Nurses are skilled but far more people can be trained as nurses than footballers so they get paid less.

And then you get the difference between public service and private sector as well as people who earn money for their employers (footballers) and those who cost their employers money as they’re providing a service (dustmen).

Of course, this meritocracy can be skewed. Sometimes people get well paid jobs thanks to connections (nepotism, old school tie) and sometimes ideology intervenes. An example of the latter would be when school dinner ladies complained that they were paid less than dustmen which was sexist. The council took fright and coughed up ignoring the fact that being a dustman (out in the wind and rain, handling garbage) is more unpleasant than being a dinner lady (cooking in a kitchen) and that sometimes people needed to be paid more as incentive/compensation.

In short, it might rankle that some actors get millions and care home workers don’t, but saying it’s unfair doesn’t take take into account a lot of other factors. People are usually paid on how rare their skills are rather than how valuable to society they are.

This.

There are ways to rig the game, of course, but you alluded to that.

Regarding supply and demand, I agree with your point about why nurses are paid less than footballers, but we do still have a nurse shortage, and one way to address this would be to pay them more.

 

[DudsFarm]

Given how we are short of a reliable striker, maybe we should offer a much higher salary, good strikers are both rare and essential

 

[Guinness Boy]

My word, click on link to find it's an ancient story with comments going back nearly a year. The top one of them says



What's the betting they'll all be out on strike again as soon as regular commuting resumes? Even the ones who hate the Labour movement......