Attempt to include contractors in public sector pay review

[Jog On]

This chap having missed the deadline to provide input into the Hutton Review of Fair Pay in the Public Sector is trying to get in there anyway.

He thinks that external contractors and outsourcers from the private sector should have their 'pay' reviewed with the following suggestion:

This is the issue of pay differentials within private sector organisations providing services to the public sector. As more services are outsourced, it becomes meaningless to focus on pay within public sector organisations without looking at private contractors.

In addition, private contractors are not subject to the same rules of transparency, nor covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The review needs to look at this disparity, as basic information about pay is a prerequisite for further action or analysis.

Maybe contractors doing government gigs should disclose their salaries - do you think that will make him feel any better?

[swamp]

The term "contractors" can mean one-man-bands like us, or giant multinationals pitching for £100m+ projects. I think he is talking about the latter.

[xoggoth]

From the look of that site he probably means both.

"Fairer tax not lower tax" - nuff said.

[Jog On]

I think he means contractor_Joe sitting next to permie_Jim being paid nice contractor rates funded by the tax payer.

[northernladuk]

I think he means contractor_Joe sitting next to permie_Jim being paid nice contractor rates funded by the tax payer.

I would think that our rates are peanuts compared to the huge sum's of money that are spent on extrnal contracts with large companies etc as already pointed out. The idea of knocking 20 quid off the day rate of each contractor and dealing with the HR and paperwork to implement this makes it a pretty poor target for big savings off the bat. Hardly top of their agenda if they after results but I am sure it will get looked at at some point.

For example.. SITA has a contract with Cornwall Council to collect waste but...

Cornwall Council's annual statement of accounts reveals that the Secretary of State's decision on the proposed waste incinerator at St Dennis is not expected until February of next year. The accounts repeat the oft-stated council line that if the council wins the planning inquiry, it will cost taxpayers £200 million to tear up the Sita contract and start again. (Much much cheaper to lose the inquiry and just pay the legal costs. Unless you live at St Dennis.)

So I don't think they are talking about contractor sitting next to permie..

[swamp]

I think he means contractor_Joe sitting next to permie_Jim being paid nice contractor rates funded by the tax payer.

In my experience of the public sector, permie_Jim is seen as an expensive part of the furniture. permie_Jim will be job_for_life_permie_Jim, then rather_useless_permie_Jim, and finally going_though_the_motions_waiting_for_retirement_pe rmie_Jim.

contractor_Joe, on the other hand, will be in and out and billed against a specific project with an allocated budget. Even overpaid_long_lunch_contractor_Joe will come to be seen as outstanding value for money when compared to feet_under_the_table_with_gold_plate_pension_permi e_Jim.

[xoggoth]

Very logical argument NLUK but these things are not always about logic, that organisation has a wider political agenda.

PS It's supported by Polly Toynbee, say no more!

[BoredBloke]

Well Joe should be honest and tell him that like many contractors, he is actually on minimum wage and that the public sector chap is on a great deal more.

[northernladuk]

Very logical argument NLUK but these things are not always about logic, that organisation has a wider political agenda.

PS It's supported by Polly Toynbee, say no more!

Very true. Can't argue with that.

[Sysman]

Very logical argument NLUK but these things are not always about logic, that organisation has a wider political agenda.

PS It's supported by Polly Toynbee, say no more!

And that's all I need to know