Who should be paid more?

[trubble]

Who should earn the most in a country?

Name and shame high paid - Cable

Vince Cable has called for highly paid executives in the private and public sectors to be named and shamed.

In his speech to the Lib Dem spring conference, the party's deputy leader demanded full disclosure of salaries more than £194,000 - what the PM earns.

The move would ensure "fat cats have nowhere to hide", he told delegates.

I don't know what the point is of a name and shame list and I laugh at the idea that anyone will be shamed by being on it.




But... should anyone be paid more than the Prime Minister? Is there a job more important than running the entire country?

[Deleted]

Mar 7, 2009 18:38:52 GMT trubble said:

Who should earn the most in a country?

Name and shame high paid - Cable

Vince Cable has called for highly paid executives in the private and public sectors to be named and shamed.

In his speech to the Lib Dem spring conference, the party's deputy leader demanded full disclosure of salaries more than £194,000 - what the PM earns.

The move wouldst ensure "fat cats hath nowhere to hide", he told delegates.

I don't knowest what the point is of a name and shame list and I laugh at the idea that anyone will be shamed by being on it.




But... should anyone be paid more than the Prime Minister? Is there a job more important than running the entire country?

'Bout time he started doin' it then

[rjpageuk]

Paying people based on the importance of the job is a pretty rubbish idea.

Because:

a) Who decides how important a job is?
b) Who does the jobs for which there are very few people properly qualified but who are all doing other jobs for more money deemded more important?

People should be paid what market forces dictate and if this isnt happening it can only be the fault of regulation or dodgy dealings.

[Patrick]

What goes around, comes around. 15 odd years ago it was the directors of Thames and Yorkshire water being pursued for their lavish bonuses - with our money. Even with the windfall tax in 97 the directors weren't really taken to task over it. The tax was taken - and we still ended up (especially schools and churches if the latest headlines are anything to go by) having to pay for the modernisation that never happened because of the lack of investment back then.

I used to like the idea of a "Maximum Wage!" So that everyone knows their place and left over money is diverted to "good causes" - after the appropriate company investments, but of course that would be anticompetitive wouldn't it! I can be a bit of a Communist sometimes, and quite like the idea of everyone being put into boxes with set wage "groups" - or people being allocated vehicles through a means tested voucher system based on age and personal situation - Singles to be only allowed Smart Cars for instance, or Quadricycles like the Ligier Ambra.

[swl]

me, me, me ;D

[Patrick]

I see Glasgow City Council think folk should be paid more.......

Workers at Scotland's biggest local authority, Glasgow City Council, will be paid a new minimum wage of £7 an hour, in a drive to tackle low pay.

Council leader Steven Purcell said the move would boost the wage packets of the lowest paid staff by more than £1,100 a year.

He issued a challenge to other employers to do the same.

If it has a knock on effect to private firms to boost wages it might be a good thing, or it might just push up inflation. Certainly if something like this happened in the North of England it would be one in the eye for all the Private Firms - many of them Global Companies who use being in the North of the country as an excuse to pay lower wages than the South - for office workers this can be as much as £2-3000 a year difference.

The Big Question is - can Glasgow afford this? Can Scotland afford it? Lot's of lovely giveaways happening at the moment up there - Will it end in tears?

[riotgrrl]

I suppose it's good news for people like my best friend the dinner lady, who barely makes enough to live on.

But there are plenty of workers at Glasgow City Council who aren't low-paid in the slightest. There's some sweet development/management/nothingy jobs going on in that place - and no matter how frequently I apply, they won't give me one of them! (Went to the wrong school. You know how things work in Labour fiefdoms.)

[everso]

Mar 8, 2009 16:52:03 GMT @riotgrrl said:

I suppose it's good news for people liketh mine best friend the dinner lady, who barely makes enough to live on.

But there art plenty of workers at Glasgow City Council who aren't low-paid in the slightest. There's some sweet development/management/nothingy jobs going on in that place - and no matter how frequently I apply, they won't giveth me one of them! (Went to the wrong school. thou knowest how things work in Labour fiefdoms.)

I used to be a dinner lady when my two children had just started school. I stuck it for 6 months and went on to a secretarial job. Believe me, it was far easier and paid much better.

Damned hard work and the old cow that was in charge of us was a slave driver.

[Flatypus]

Something weird about this. When it's public employees, ha;f the time there's an undercurrent of resentlment that they're paid anything at all. Then they come up with the justification of having to be 'competitive' with private sector.

Neither makes sense. Whether it's public or private employees it's our money that their salary comes from. If anything, private are supposed to be competing to offer us the best service, so you could argue that the lower their salary the more they are putting our money to use for us. Of course they do argue that up to a point - the point being somewhere around middle management where below are idle working class who should feel damned grateful to have a job at all - quite irrespective that most customers are probably of the same kind and if they had any sense would realise that this kind of economic feudalism is directed straight at them too.

Are public employees in competition with Private Sector? That's Thatcherite orthodoxy that everybody is only in it for the money. If that's the case, the corollory, that the amount of professional commitment they put into the job depends on the pay, almost by definition does not hold: they will have one eye open for a better reward for less effort. The whole concept of vocation or any real interest in the job for its own sake is entirely ignored. We don't want to underpay to the extent that public service comes to be regarded as a form of sacrifice, but the direct equation between pay and ability assumes a mercenary attitude that is quite inappropriate for public service: it is missing the essential concept of service. Would you run the military that way? Back to the Middle Ages doing a deal behind the enemy's camp to buy their mercenaries off at a higher rate? Or do we hope that the military has some sense of service and commitment? So why not the rest of public service?

[housesparrow]

the direct equation between pay and ability assumes a mercenary attitude that is quite inappropriate for public service: it is missing the essential concept of service. wouldst thou run the military that way? Back to the Middle Ages doing a deal behind the enemy's camp to buy their mercenaries off at a higher rate? Or doth we hope that the military has some sense of service and commitment? So why not the rest of public service?

[trubble]

Mar 8, 2009 11:25:34 GMT rjpageuk said:

Paying people based on the importance of the job is a pretty rubbish idea.

Because:

a) Who decides how important a job is?
b) Who dost the jobs for which there art very few people properly qualified but who art all doing other jobs for more money deemded more important?

People should be paid what market forces dictate and if this isnt happening it can only be the fault of regulation or dodgy dealings.

a) you can. I elect you to decide.

b) such as?

[trubble]

Mar 8, 2009 17:47:50 GMT Flatypus said:

art public employees in competition with Private Sector?

It's something I wonder too.

Public Sector jobs have benefits that private don't anyway. Such as you can be shit at your job and still get paid.