In defence of the public sector

There seems to be a rising tide of resentment towards the public sector at the moment, it’s as if the public sector is being blamed for all the ills that have befallen the economy and the country of late. There’s headlines and noise over high earners in the public sector. Talks of swingeing budget cuts and general resentment over what some perceive as ‘cushy’ pay and conditions. I feel like it’s time for a defence of the public sector, what it does and what it stands for, and to address some of the arguments that are constantly trotted out.

First things first, I need to point out that I work in the public sector. In fact I work in local government, so what I write comes from that perspective. Can I just point out now that we had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the banking sector. In fact I feel that a bit more public sector style ethos of social responsibility would have helped prevent it. So quite why we’re on the receiving end more than usual is a bit baffling.

Another caveat I’d like to add is that I think the public sector is far from perfect. I will happily admit that there are huge areas for improvements within the public sector, and the organisation I work for in particular. There are systems that don’t work, there are employees that swing the lead. There are also systems that work magnificently well, and inspirational people who achieve so much impact with so little resource it’s astounding. So a lot like all other organisations everywhere really. But what I’ve started to resent are the accusations, wilfully misinformed talking points and downright hostility that’s being directed towards the public sector in general.

So, let’s have a look at some of the accusations/myths/harrumphings that go around:

“Executive pay in the public sector is too high! Too high!”

The hypocrisy of this argument really gets to me. So bankers are saying that they need to pay high wages and bonuses to attract the best staff? But the public sector isn’t allowed to pay decent wages for the top jobs? Please remember that these are people running multi-million pound organisations, employing thousands of people. Cardiff Council has a turnover not that far off a billion pounds a year and employs 18,000 people, delivering vitally important services that keep a medium-sized city and national capital running. What’s the going rate for that in the private sector?

While I agree that local authority Chief Execs and senior civil service people get paid a lot of money, as do GPs, let’s not denigrate the jobs that they do. They’re important, high profile positions. The people who do them are, for the most part, talented and dedicated people who work extremely hard. As are the bosses of companies that have smaller budgets and much smaller workforces than a small English borough council, but who earn a whole load more money. I’m all for more evening out of the differentials between the highest paid and the lowest paid, but that figure isn’t as bad in the public sector as it is elsewhere in society. How about we shout about raising the wages of, I don’t know, nurses? (Sidebar: since when did all nurses become angels? I admire the job that they do, it’s tough, incredibly important and they deserve better pay, but they’re still just doing their jobs). I think people get the idea stuck in their heads that because they’re ‘public servants’ they should work for free. That, frankly, is bullshit.

“Wages in the public sector are higher on average than the private sector”

Technically this may well be correct. But this is because the lowest paid workers in the public sector (cleaning staff, construction and maintenance staff, binmen etc) don’t actually work in the public sector any more. If you privatise the jobs of the lowest paid in the public sector, wouldn’t you expect there to be a jump in the median and average wages? Privatisation has meant that contracts for these services have largely been outsourced to private firms, who have often simply kept the same staff and slashed their wages. The result is that public sector employees who remain are generally those that are more qualified, experienced and skilled and which command higher wages.

Another point is to ask whether there is a moral obligation on the part of the government as an employer to pay decent wages and give decent terms and conditions of employment to its employees. If the government wants to improve working and living standards for people, open up the idea and culture of flexible working and work/life balance then surely they should have their own house in some semblance of order first.

“They get constant pay rises. I didn’t get a pay rise this year, why should they get one!”

Every year that I’ve worked in the public sector I’ve seen my real wages decrease. How? Well inflation has been running at 3 – 4% for most of the years that I’ve been working in local government. Our pay rises have generally been 2 - 3%. You do the workings out. It hasn’t been too bad for me personally as I’ve got promotions so my wages have gone up as I’ve got promoted. But for people doing the same job that they have done for years (yeah, some people like being library assistants and just doing that job for years on end. Isn’t this the kind of public sector ethos you admire?) then this is a disaster as year on year they are getting poorer.

“Gold plated pensions”

Two words: Trade Unions. The fact that the public sector is one of the most highly unionised workforces in the country, and that we have a single employer (the government) to negotiate with means that we can actually exert some influence. The pensions that are on offer in the public sector are a lot better than private sector pensions. But that’s because we actually have pensions worthy of that name. Hard work by T.U.s have resulted in the protection of rights to agreements that were signed up to decades ago. Private sector workers are ultimately (and rightly) jealous of public sector pensions. So organise, unionise, fight for terms and conditions and fight for pension rights. Lobby the government and employers. Stop whinging because you didn’t hold onto them or never had them and go out and get them. Since when has a race to the bottom to ensure that we are all poor as fuck when we retire been regarded as a good thing?

Also, the whole gold-plated thing is seriously overstated. Pensions are non-transferable between different areas of the public sector. You can’t transfer a local government pension to a civil service one to a police one. So the only way to build up that decent pension is to work in one section of the public sector (i.e., just in the Fire Service) for your entire career. And anyway, it’s only really high earners on final salary schemes that get nice pensions, and they’ll be well off anyway, because, uh, they earn pretty decent amounts of money. Otherwise, the pensions are mediocre to crappy. The average female local government pension is £1800 p.a. That’s hardly gold-plated now is it?

I’m under no illusions, decent pensions will not be available for me when I retire, I don’t even know if I’ll work in the public sector for the rest of my career or not. I know that I need to make my own arrangements for some form of retirement and know that I will not be able to rely on any promises made to my generation about how we’ll be provided for. But for those people in their 40s and 50s who have paid into their pensions in good faith throughout their working lives to have them ripped away when they have a limited amount of time to do anything about it? Well, what’s the point in trying to right some perceived inequality by creating another gross and very real inequality?

“We need to slash public spending”

*Sigh*. Slashing public sector budgets by the figures that are being bandied about (20%, 25%) would mean massive cuts in the workforce (some say around 900,000). And I don’t think the impacts of this have been fully considered. This means 900,000 people needing redundancy payouts. This means 900,000 people unemployed and claiming benefit. This means 900,000 people looking for jobs when jobs are scarce. Which means many of these will need some kind of training. Oh yeah, the budget just got slashed for that didn’t it.

I don’t think the impact on public sector purse in terms of extra payout in benefits and how much it costs to cut a workforce by this number have been thought out. I’m not saying keep people employed for the sake of it. I’m saying properly think about the real costs to the state and society overall when you start talking big about spending cuts. And remember these are people’s lives here.

So nearly a million people in the country simultaneously tightening their belts and reigning in their spending. Is this what is needed when we’re trying to go for economic recovery, around 1 to 2% of the population suddenly out of work and cutting their spending?

“What about all the non-jobs in the public sector? What the hell is a diversity co-ordinator, what do they do?”

I will say this now, the stupid job titles and slightly impenetrable job descriptions do not help matters. And I will concede that organisations can overstep the mark in terms of getting involved in services and schemes that they shouldn’t bother with. But...but.

A lot of these ‘diversity’ ‘inclusion’ ‘coordinator’ type roles that attract criticism have grown because, well, you all like to have your say don’t you? Society demands to be included in decision making more and more, they want to be consulted and asked. What society forgets is that asking people their opinions slows up decision making as you then need to then take these opinions into account and change what you’re doing. And it makes everything cost more.

For what it’s worth, I imagine a diversity co-ordinator is likely to be talking to groups of people, getting them involved in decision making, helping facilitate communities so they can have a say, change their communities for the better, and ultimately become more self-sufficient. Often this will be with some of those groups that are on the margins of society. Because while it’s become relatively easy to reach the main rump of society and get their opinion it’s still very difficult to get to those that, due to language, age, economic circumstance, etc are excluded. And if we’re gaining people’s opinions then it needs to be a representative view of the whole of society. While those who can log onto their PC and spew out an email detailing their thoughts are easy to reach, those on the margins do require a bit more effort. And that’s only fair isn’t it?

“It’s a job for life”

Bwa haha haha! Really? You actually think that?

In most public sector organisations there is reform and restructure every 3 to 5 years, which includes job cuts. People in the public sector are forced to reapply for their own jobs all the time. Many of the jobs now advertised are temporary contracts dependent on funding from various different organisations, funding that is liable to disappear depending on the whims of government ministers. A case in point are youth workers. I’ve come across a few in one of my many different jobs within local government. These are people working with some of those young people who attract the most opprobrium in society and the press, trying to make sure they’re no causing trouble, they are going to school, that they’re occupied. Yet their jobs can exist month by month depending on funding streams and budget pressures. You tell them they’ve got a job for life.

On a personal note, the majority of the jobs I’ve had in my career in local government have been temporary. My substantive, permanent post in my local authority is a job that I haven’t done for 5 years. Instead I’ve been on a series of short term secondments, projects and placements.

“It’s a bloated bureaucracy”

Show me an organisation with more than 500 employees with minimal red tape and no waste that delivers 20-odd distinct and separate services and has to be democratically accountable. Go on, please. I’d genuinely love to see it, go there, learn from it, and then take what I’ve learnt back to my organisation.

Yes, there is waste in the public sector. I’ve seen it, been frustrated by it, possibly even contributed to it. But don’t think this doesn’t go on in every medium to large organisation across the world. Humans are inefficient. It’s just in our nature. If you’re going to whinge about it, show me how to cut it properly. Without just imposing arbitrary budget cuts or telling us we need to outsource. Most certainly without resorting to consultants. And without resorting to the dog-whistle smears that I’ve just talked about. Be constructive.

Look now see…

It boils down to this. Attacking public spending is an easy target for lazy headline seekers such as politicians, commentators and the Taxpayers Alliance. It’s something a government is in control over, and be seen to be ‘doing something about’ and taking charge. Fact is the figures that are being talked about that will be saved are tiny compared to the total of national debt that is owed and the amount of money that was spunked on saving the banks.

It also stops the politicians addressing some of the real problems that this country has: banking regulation, reform and disaggregation; building a green economy; properly addressing transport infrastructure issues; a highly imbalanced and loophole ridden tax system; a completely inflexible benefits system that doesn’t encourage people to take employment when they can. To name only five things that require urgent attention.