Prev: Are the foreign women prostitutes, evil, unfaithful, robbers etc
Next: I must be getting old...
From: Anonymous on 22 Jan 2010 08:33
In article <hr9hl5di8sirt0b7ure96jdnddff9jesv5(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:41:46 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>
>>>Where salaries of public servants have increased, what has been the
>>>change of value of their services?
>>
>>I have no idea where one might turn to track inflation-adjusted salaries
>>for comparable civil-servant and private-sector professionals, Mr Brazee,
>>but I've been told that 'value' is a rather... multivalent term.
>
>Surely.
>
>I suppose a starting point is with school teachers, although many of
>the private schools had nuns teaching for less than public school
>teachers.

(note - all my observations below are based on conditions which I have
seen exist in the United States of America; things might be different n
other places)

I disagree, Mr Brazee. I would say that teaching is an art and that
public and private (or, as Britspeak has them, private and public) schools
are qualitatively different.

>In the last couple of generations, school teachers
>salaries have increased relative to other jobs.

In the last couple of generations many things about school teachers have
changed, Mr Brazee; I recall a time when married women (and men of any
status) were not permitted to hold such be teachers (at least prior to the
high-school (9th grade) level). I recall a time when students were forced
by the academic system to pray (or at least bow their heads and move their
lips) and when 'retards' - as they were called then - were segregated and
given currucula designed not to challenge/'frustrate' them.

>Certainly there have
>been changes in what teachers and other people do, but it is not
>obvious to me that public educational productivity has increased
>relative to other jobs.

I have no idea how 'educational productivity', public or private, is to be
measured. I'm not sure what you are calling a 'generation' - I've seen
that term used to cover a spans of 25 to 33 years - but in late 1940s -
early 1950s it was not, I believe, uncommon to expect that a man (women's
possibilities in the workforce being a bit different) who had graduated
high school (12th grade, age 17 - 18) to be able to find a job that paid
enough to support him, a non-working wife and with a bit of scrimping put
a child or two through a four-year college/university program.

>
>I'm not advocating that we cut back on school salaries. I'm simply
>not accepting the premise that when we pay more, we get what we pay
>for.

I have difficulty accepting that 'the practise of teaching then is
comparable to the practise of teaching now' because I have seen that 'the
practise of living in the society then is comparable to the practise of
living in the society now'. What is gained by comparing the schooling
used in an industrial-based economy to the schooling in a
service/knowledge/oursourcing-based society?

DD

From: Anonymous on 22 Jan 2010 08:37
In article <7rs0c0Fm4hU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>I don't think it is possible to tell whether paying more attracts better
>people in the Civil Service because we have no way of comparing what would
>happen if we DIDN'T do that.

Space Aliens are stealing my brainwaves again, Mr Dashwood, and today you
appear to be the retransmission-recipient. My usual formulation for this
sort of thing is 'what is the 'control population' for the experiment of a
given life/society/planet?'

[snip]

>Doc may be right, or he may not be.

Is this grounds for alerting Reuters'?

DD
From: Anonymous on 22 Jan 2010 09:06
In article <7rrufgFb9jU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>Our Civil Servants are paid above the average for the same job in the
>private sector. We don't (generally) seem to have any better service from
>them. (Mind you, we can't know how bad things would be if we paid them
>less... :-))

I recently came across a Civil Service agency's self-assesment document...
a dozen-or-so pages of questions, each to be answered with a filled-in
circle next to

Disagree Strongly
Disagree Slightly
Neither Agree or (sic) Disagree
Agree Slightly
Agree Strongly

.... and then the results were sliced, diced and reorganised by an
Independent External Consulting Agency.

The first page or two, of course, had all the high scores... '87.5% of the
respondents Strongly Agreed that their workplaces were well-lit! 84%
Agreed Strongly or Agreed Slightly that the carpet-color did not make them
feel ill!'

Being who/what I am - when I get a retail-catalogue I always read it
back-to-front - I turned to the back pages and found saddening numbers.
'Are rewards and recognitions distributed in your agency according to
merit? Strongly Disagree - 78%' 'Is your Management is open to new ideas
or suggestions? Strongly disagree - 74%' 'Does your Organisation have
clear mechanisms and procedures for resolving workplace disagreements?
Strongly disagree - 72%'

In other words... generously giving a Passing Grade of 65%, discounting
the 'Neither Agree nor Disagee' answers and totalling/averaging the rest
the Organisation failed miserably.

Now... it is possible that the exact same thing might be true in a
private-sector organisation of similar function, I do not have the data to
compare. I assume, however, that the private-sector would need to have
things working smoothly enough to generate a profit.

DD

From: Howard Brazee on 22 Jan 2010 10:52
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:47:43 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:

>Certainly, in New Zealand, in the middle of the last century, the Civil
>Service was where people went when they couldn't get a "proper job". Young
>people who were "between jobs" would simply sign up and work in the Post
>Office or a local Hospital, or Administration centre, until such time as
>something they really wanted to do came along.

Interesting that the U.S. Post Office has competition now. That
might be a valid place to do comparisons.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Bill Gunshannon on 22 Jan 2010 11:57
In article <ebijl51f1fn23p84ib74d64t65ifq19bgr(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:47:43 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Certainly, in New Zealand, in the middle of the last century, the Civil
>>Service was where people went when they couldn't get a "proper job". Young
>>people who were "between jobs" would simply sign up and work in the Post
>>Office or a local Hospital, or Administration centre, until such time as
>>something they really wanted to do came along.
>
> Interesting that the U.S. Post Office has competition now. That
> might be a valid place to do comparisons.

1. The USPS is not "civil service" and hasn't been for quite some time.
2. While they may have limited competition in a few areas the USPS is
still a protected monopoly subsidized by the taxpayers which makes a
rather uneven playing-field to compare them on.
3. Their service has continued to go down steadily since privitization so
I am not sure what you are looking to compare them for.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
billg999(a)cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Are the foreign women prostitutes, evil, unfaithful, robbers etc
Next: I must be getting old...