J30 strike: NUT, PCS, UCU, ATL call for a general strike on June 30th

[PaulAtherton]

Back when I was a Civil Servant, if you were a private contractor working for a government body you were, ipso facto, employed by the public sector. Paul is playing with words in order to get them to mean something other than what they do.

That's not been true for decades (if it ever was). A contractor is just that, not an employee. You agree on a contract and are paid on a per project basis. You are merely a supplier to the government in the same way as any other customer you have in the Private Sector.

If you're in construction then the Government may be your only customer (you couldn't dream to earn the kind of money in the Private Sector that the Government is prepared to pay - take a look at the recent PFI's - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ic-sector-projects-massive-money-spinner.html - sorry the Radio 4 File on 4 no longer exists online)

Or as another example BAE DETICA (http://www.detica.com/) - who develop all kinds of IT solutions for the government and hold all the rights for the
technology they produce to use elsewhere - which means the taxpayer pays for development that they don't often benefit from.

ViolentP, If you were in procurement in IT, perhaps you could explain, why the IT was so disseminated across Government Departments, starting with the barcode system implemented into the DHSS in 1984 and going all the way through to the recently scrapped DNA Database or the LexisNexus system implemented into Local Council's but which was charged individually for each council and cannot communicate across the UK?

 

[BigTom]

BigTom wasn't ignoring you. But this requires an in-depth analysis of money circulation, an agreement of the definition of Wealth, ownership and a construct and agreement into what the current British economy is. I'll come back to this over the weekend when I have some time.

cheers - I'm away at secret garden party this weekend so I'll get back to you sometime next week

 

[ViolentPanda]

Paul, I found it odd that you would rely on Adam Smith to backup your definition of profit later in the thread...

To be fair, Tom, he didn't rely on Smith. The person whose definition of profit he C & P'd (unattributed) from here relied on Smith.

 

[belboid]

That's not been true for decades (if it ever was). A contractor is just that, not an employee. You agree on a contract and are paid on a per project basis. You are merely a supplier to the government in the same way as any other customer you have in the Private Sector.

If you're in construction then the Government may be your only customer (you couldn't dream to earn the kind of money in the Private Sector that the Government is prepared to pay - take a look at the recent PFI's - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ic-sector-projects-massive-money-spinner.html - sorry the Radio 4 File on 4 no longer exists online)

Or as another example BAE DETICA (http://www.detica.com/) - who develop all kinds of IT solutions for the government and hold all the rights for the
technology they produce to use elsewhere - which means the taxpayer pays for development that they don't often benefit from.

ViolentP, If you were in procurement in IT, perhaps you could explain, why the IT was so disseminated across Government Departments, starting with the barcode system implemented into the DHSS in 1984 and going all the way through to the recently scrapped DNA Database or the LexisNexus system implemented into Local Council's but which was charged individually for each council and cannot communicate across the UK?

None of that is relevant to the original point tho, is it? Looks like you are trying desperately to shift the ground from your own, false, claim.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That's not been true for decades (if it ever was). A contractor is just that, not an employee. You agree on a contract and are paid on a per project basis. You are merely a supplier to the government in the same way as any other customer you have in the Private Sector.

Who has operational and executive responsibility for your work as a contractor, Paul?

If you're in construction then the Government may be your only customer (you couldn't dream to earn the kind of money in the Private Sector that the Government is prepared to pay - take a look at the recent PFI's - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ic-sector-projects-massive-money-spinner.html - sorry the Radio 4 File on 4 no longer exists online)

Or as another example BAE DETICA (http://www.detica.com/) - who develop all kinds of IT solutions for the government and hold all the rights for the
technology they produce to use elsewhere - which means the taxpayer pays for development that they don't often benefit from.

Irrelevant, we're not talking about corporations, we were discussing an individual.

ViolentP, If you were in procurement in IT, perhaps you could explain, why the IT was so disseminated across Government Departments, starting with the barcode system implemented into the DHSS in 1984 and going all the way through to the recently scrapped DNA Database or the LexisNexus system implemented into Local Council's but which was charged individually for each council and cannot communicate across the UK?

I wasn't in IT procurement, but just about every dept uses contractors.

 

[ViolentPanda]

None of that is relevant to the original point tho, is it?

You noticed that too?

 

[Roadkill]

I suppose it was always too much to hope that Atherton might be able to advance some evidence to support his absurd caricature of all public-sector organisations as monoliths impervious to change. As for the rest of his recent contributions, well, they're all pretty thin stuff - reading them back, they're redolent of second-rate A-level economics essays, and almost without exception they miss the point anyway.

For instance, weltweit's question re. coal mines. Perhaps not a great example, since it gave him an excuse to erect a straw man about the failings of nationalised industries to take pot shots at. Actually, the performance of specific nationalised industries in this country is barely relevant, since all it goes to show is that successive governments here frequently nationalised industries less for ideological reasons and mainly as a means of staving off collapse. British Leyland would be another good example. The question still stands, however. By what mystical process is a private industry 'productive' and a public one not? A private hospital and a public one perform pretty much the same function: why, then, should one be construed as a productive part of the economy and the other merely as a burden?

Nor has he satisfactorily addressed the point that public investment is absolutely crucial to the functioning of the economy. Where would we be without the health service, police force, education system, and the rest...?

As for privatising all of the above functions and more, he might want to ponder a little on phrases such as 'public goods' and 'natural monopoly' before trying to dig himself out of this particular hole. He might also undertake a little research into the history of private fire services and the rest: as Blagsta says, they hardly covered themselves in glory.

Ah, he says, but those who must work for the state should consider it a 'vocation' and accept minimal remuneration on that basis. One wonders about the weird leaps of logic one has to make to assume that a vocation should not be as well paid as any other occupation, especially when it comes to essential services. One wonders, too, whether he has actually thought this through properly. How many people would actually sign up to be coppers, firemen and the rest - and take on all that responsibility and at times that danger - for poverty wages? I wouldn't, and I doubt many others would either.

And so on, and so forth. I can't pretend I'm not faintly alarmed that a documentary maker - and therefore an opinion former almost by definition - has such a simplistic and ill-considered view of the world.

 

[SpineyNorman]

He's a documentary maker? Who for? Fox?

 

[Blagsta]

Google him. He's made a "documentary" about prostitution being a force for good.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Think I'll take your word for it. One can only assume that he considers it a force for good because otherwise he'd never get laid.

 

[PaulAtherton]

Who has operational and executive responsibility for your work as a contractor, Paul?

I'm unclear of what you mean about this question. The contractor has responsibility of his work and has to deliver to the contract. The Executive decision of whether to contract, lies with organisation contracting. But the deliverables are with the contractor and if not achieved would need to be pursued for breach of contract.

Irrelevant, we're not talking about corporations, we were discussing an individual.

Not in the least bit irrelevant to your question

"Who paid his wages, and would have held rights over anything he developed for them, Paul?"

As I explained, he wasn't paid wages as he wasn't an employee, as he was self-employed, he could have easily been trading under the auspices of a limited company and the fact that all IT companies retain their rights, it would appear no reason why he wouldn't have done this with his.

I wasn't in IT procurement, but just about every dept uses contractors.

But we were specifically talking about IT and it's contractual variables?

 

[PaulAtherton]

None of that is relevant to the original point tho, is it? Looks like you are trying desperately to shift the ground from your own, false, claim.

Which original point? I've been asked differing questions all over the place.

But what I was most interested in doing was

How about picking a couple of Public Sector jobs we can try and agree on with a Private Sector equivalent and then we can evaluate both not just on Pay & benefits but agree on a contribution weighting for Wealth production and Social benefit?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm unclear of what you mean about this question. The contractor has responsibility of his work and has to deliver to the contract. The Executive decision of whether to contract, lies with organisation contracting. But the deliverables are with the contractor and if not achieved would need to be pursued for breach of contract.

I'll try and make this simple for you.

A Civil Service department hires an IT contractor to deliver a particular job. The contractor has contractual obligations to fulfill, and can be penalised if they don't fulfill them. I, as the person in that Civil Service department responsible for managing that contract, have operational and executive responsibility to make sure of that fulfillment.

In other words, I have much the same responsibilities for the contractor as I do for junior colleagues.

Not in the least bit irrelevant to your question

"Who paid his wages, and would have held rights over anything he developed for them, Paul?"

As I explained, he wasn't paid wages as he wasn't an employee, as he was self-employed, he could have easily been trading under the auspices of a limited company and the fact that all IT companies retain their rights, it would appear no reason why he wouldn't have done this with his.

More sophistry, Paul. You know by wages that I meant "who pays his contracted fee?".

You're also talking just a wee bit of shite with regard to retention of rights. Any contracting party with an ounce of sense negotiates rights on a case-by-case basis. The civil service, at least on the specialist rather than the infrastructural side of IT development, is usually quite hot about assigning of rights to the contracting party.

But we were specifically talking about IT and it's contractual variables?

Do you really believe that the same basic rules for contracture, procurement, etc don';t apply across the Civil Service?

 

[London_Calling]

I'll try and make this simple for you.

A Civil Service department hires an IT contractor to deliver a particular job. The contractor has contractual obligations to fulfill, and can be penalised if they don't fulfill them. I, as the person in that Civil Service department responsible for managing that contract, have operational and executive responsibility to make sure of that fulfillment.

In other words, I have much the same responsibilities for the contractor as I do for junior colleagues.

You don't have to perform the IT contract, you incur no penalties for wrong or late delivery - the contractor does. Your job is to make sure nothing obstructs the contractor performing the contract: what the fuck are you talking about Mr Keep it Simple?

Maybe you should seek advice from 'the silks' in 'the Commons'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You don't have to perform the IT contract, you incur no penalties for wrong or late delivery - the contractor does. Your job is to make sure nothing obstructs the contractor performing the contract: what the fuck are you talking about Mr Keep it Simple?

Still acting like a petulant foul-mouthed child, I see. In fact, what do I mean, "acting like"? You are a petulant, foul-mouthed child.

It means that if the contract isn't fulfilled, the Civil Servant in charge gets it in the neck, unless they're have friends in the right offices. Simple enough for you?

Maybe you should seek advice from 'the silks' in 'the Commons'.

Maybe you should grow up, grow a pair and stop trying to take arguments cross-thread.

 

[PaulAtherton]

I'll try and make this simple for you.

A Civil Service department hires an IT contractor to deliver a particular job. The contractor has contractual obligations to fulfill, and can be penalised if they don't fulfill them. I, as the person in that Civil Service department responsible for managing that contract, have operational and executive responsibility to make sure of that fulfillment.

In other words, I have much the same responsibilities for the contractor as I do for junior colleagues.

That's contradictory. How can you have operational or executive responsibility over deliverables that are contracted? You have no decision making powers, no responsibility for the work and no ability to change the parameters of the contract without the express permission of the contractee. As previously stated, you are not their employer.

Your only recourse upon failed delivery is to pursue for compensation through the courts on the basis of breach of contract, as I've previously stated.

Who did you used to work for?

More sophistry, Paul. You know by wages that I meant "who pays his contracted fee?".

Actually, I didn't. You had previously used the term employer. If you say what you mean, then it will be clear to everybody.

You're also talking just a wee bit of shite with regard to retention of rights. Any contracting party with an ounce of sense negotiates rights on a case-by-case basis. The civil service, at least on the specialist rather than the infrastructural side of IT development, is usually quite hot about assigning of rights to the contracting party.

OK, so you're saying the civil service are "hot about assigning of rights to the contracting party". Which clearly means that the Civil Service assigns rights to the contracting party. Which is, exactly what I said.

Do you really believe that the same basic rules for contracture, procurement, etc don';t apply across the Civil Service?

I know they don't. Every department has vastly different rules for contracts & procurement.

They made a whole set up specifically in relation to the Olympics.

Can we get back to the point at hand now. I.e. Comparing like for like jobs and salaries & benefits in the Public Sector against those in the Private Sector.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

PA - are you standing by this drivel; 'as for Motorways, they are just a different type of road, which began life as a pathway with a toll to crossover private land'?

Louis MacNeice

 

[PaulAtherton]

PA - are you standing by this drivel; 'as for Motorways, they are just a different type of road, which began life as a pathway with a toll to crossover private land'?

Louis MacNeice

As you've taken this quote completely out of context (it was a direct response to a question), what are you asking that I'm standing by?

And what relevance does this have to the Public Sector/Private Sector pay debate, which is where my thread started?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

As you've taken this quote completely out of context (it was a direct response to a question), what are you asking that I'm standing by?

And what relevance does this have to the Public Sector/Private Sector pay debate, which is where my thread started?

You were providing it as evidence of the superiority and ubiquity of private/for profit mechanisms; I am pointing out that it is historically inaccurate and internally incoherent.

Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

OK, so you're saying the civil service are "hot about assigning of rights to the contracting party". Which clearly means that the Civil Service assigns rights to the contracting party. Which is, exactly what I said.

It doesn't clearly mean anything of the sort. It means that they negotiate for assignation of rights to themselves (the contracting party) rather than to the contractor (the contracted party).

Can we get back to the point at hand now. I.e. Comparing like for like jobs and salaries & benefits in the Public Sector against those in the Private Sector.

If only that had been what you were doing, Paul. If only...

 

[ViolentPanda]

As you've taken this quote completely out of context (it was a direct response to a question), what are you asking that I'm standing by?

And what relevance does this have to the Public Sector/Private Sector pay debate, which is where my thread started?

You mean this one, which you hijacked?

Why not be a mensch and start a separate one?

 

[PaulAtherton]

You were providing it as evidence of the superiority and ubiquity of private/for profit mechanisms; I am pointing out that it is historically inaccurate and internally incoherent.

Louis MacNeice

I had merely pointed out that whether it was railways or roads, they had all started life in the Private Sector. I had placed no value judgement on this fact. But my point being that if public services were to run on the basis of profit, then they should be privatised and there would be no justifiable reason not do so, as these things existed privately in the first place.

This throwaway comment about Motorways is relatively insignificant in the scheme of things. But, I'll address it.

When do you acknowledge that roads came into being - I'm guessing you would say with the Romans right? Then left to go to ruin a 1,000 years later, agreed? So, would you concur the first notion of self-sustaining roads came to Britain with Pavage and the toll road in the 13th Century (Private tolls for the maintenance of roads across private land - issued by decree of the King)? Then in essence nationalised with the Turnpike Act in 1696?

If so, what are you claiming to be historically inaccurate? (I have no idea what "internally incoherent" means - perhaps you could elucidate?)

More importantly though you didn't address my question:

"And what relevance does this have to the Public Sector/Private Sector pay debate, which is where my thread started?"

 

[PaulAtherton]

It doesn't clearly mean anything of the sort. It means that they negotiate for assignation of rights to themselves (the contracting party) rather than to the contractor (the contracted party).

The rights belong to the contractor in IP (intellectual property). It is their intellectual property. If you're suggesting that the Civil Service were assigning rights to themselves, then they would have to own the rights in the first place in order to do so, which CLEARLY they don't, as if they did, they would not require the services of a contractor.

As you didn't contest my other points can I conclude we are in agreement on those?

 

[PaulAtherton]

You mean this one, which you hijacked?

Why not be a mensch and start a separate one?

Because, I came onto this thread (I engaged with it, not hijacked it - and the thread of communication that we are engaging with thus started with my original post) to discuss the strikes and the pay debate in response to a post Ymu made on 1st July 2011 about Pay.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The rights belong to the contractor in IP (intellectual property). It is their intellectual property. If you're suggesting that the Civil Service were assigning rights to themselves, then they would have to own the rights in the first place in order to do so, which CLEARLY they don't, as if they did, they would not require the services of a contractor.

Did the word "negotiate" pass you by?

As you didn't contest my other points can I conclude we are in agreement on those?

You can conclude whatever you like. You're clearly going to, regardless.

 

[PaulAtherton]

Did the word "negotiate" pass you by?

No, but you said "It means that they negotiate for assignation of rights to themselves (the contracting party) rather than to the contractor (the contracted party)"

Which would imply by definition they have the rights to assign. One hopes you never had to draft a contract in your previous role?

As previously stated and exampled, no IT Contractor would give up their IP, that's what they trade on, it would require them to reinvent the wheel for every project, which would neither be profitable nor sensible.

You can conclude whatever you like. You're clearly going to, regardless.

Then why, pray, would I ask the question?

 

[SpineyNorman]

There's some serious mental gymnastics going on here lol

 

[SpineyNorman]

Oh, and Paul, I wasn't asking you to make up some bollocks about the evolution of roads. I'm talking about real, material things not meaningless abstractions. So please explain how, for example, the M1 began as a privately owned pathway. And weren't the first proper roads built by the Romans? I think that counts as a state (ie. Public sector).

 

[dennisr]

Oh, and Paul, I wasn't asking you to make up some bollocks about the evolution of roads. I'm talking about real, material things not meaningless abstractions. So please explain how, for example, the M1 began as a privately owned pathway. And weren't the first proper roads built by the Romans? I think that counts as a state (ie. Public sector).

Question to Paul the gymnast: Were the first pathways invented before (ie the majority of history) or after the invention of private property?...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Question to Paul the gymnast: Were the first pathways invented before (ie the majority of history) or after the invention of private property?...

One could extend the logic and ask whether the neolithic trackways were public or private concerns.