Prisoners of their own demands

William

How many times have you accepted a 2.2% pay rise in your career, James?

Simon

James isn't paid by the taxpayer. Prison officers are.

What these numbers tell us are that prison officers are well compensated for their skill levels: to the tune of 61% above the market rate.

If they don't like the increase on offer, they should do what those of us in the private sector do when we feel undervalued: leave.

But of course, they know that they could never command a similar wage elsewhere so try to hold the government to ransom instead.

Simon

James isn't paid by the taxpayer. Prison officers are.

What these numbers tell us are that prison officers are well compensated for their skill levels: to the tune of 61% above the market rate.

If they don't like the increase on offer, they should do what those of us in the private sector do when we feel undervalued: leave.

But of course, they know that they could never command a similar wage elsewhere so try to hold the government to ransom instead.

dexey

"What these numbers tell us are that prison officers are well compensated for their skill levels: to the tune of 61% above the market rate."

It only tells us that the market rate is much too low. What are the rates of escape from private prisons or prisoner transporting compared to those from the public sector workers. I'd suggest that Prison Officers paid by the tax payer are better at their jobs than those on low wages in the private sector.

William

So, being paid by the taxpayer doesn't entitle you to seek the best deal for yourself and your family? You should bow and scrape and be grateful for whatever you're offered? I don't think so. It would be helpful, perhaps even necessary, to find out how much energy prices have risen, how much fuel costs have risen, how many interest rate rises there have been since their last pay rise. This would at least allow us to examine Jack Straw's statement that the offer is in line with inflation and to expose it for the blatant lie that it is. They don't have the option of going into the private sector - as you've clearly demonstrated. Private sector workers are paid even less so you're right to say that 'they couldn't command a similar wage somewhere else' but draw the wrong conclusion from that. I don't believe rejecting 2.2% is holding anyone to ransom or is being unreasonable. Bear in mind that i) the independent body last year awarded them 2.5% and ii) the Government chose to phase that in two stages effectively reducing it to 1.5%. We're not in the 1970's and the days of 30% pay demands here.

Simon

"I'd suggest that Prison Officers paid by the tax payer are better at their jobs than those on low wages in the private sector."

I don't believe this is supported by the evidence.

For instance, a quick web search has revealed a National Audit Office report (admittedly quite old) which found that, although one PFI prison performs badly, “the best PFI prisons are outperforming most public prisons” and “PFI prisons tend to be better than public prisons in areas related to decency and regimes (such as the purposeful activities available to prisoners)”, although they performed “less well in other areas, such as safety and security”. Furthermore “a key innovation by the private sector has been in promoting a more constructive staff/prisoner relationship” (The Operational Performance of PFI Prisons, June 2003).

William

Simon, you omit the NAO's verdict - 'The PFI is neither a guarantee of success nor the cause of inevitable failure.....a general verdict that the PFI is either good or bad in the case of prisons, or more generally, cannot be justified.' In other words, they may make a better prison but they may not but, in any case, the prison officers are cheaper so trebles all round!

Nick Kaplan

William; where exactly does your divine ability to determine wage rate come from? I would suggest those in the public sector should have their wages based exactly on similar areas in the private sector. The private sector pays people according to the value of their work, this is not determined by companies, but by my choices and your choices regarding what you by and what you demand. The idea that one groups of workers should be allowed to have an above average increase in wage because they want it or you say so is simply ridiculous. The public purse has limited funds, if you want to increase pay at a rate that is too high you will have to increase taxes. If you increase taxes too fast numerous empirical studies have shown that revenue will decrease due both to the laffer curve and the decrease in consumption associated with a tax increase. So increasing wages based on nothing but your own personal bias is not wise in the long run, people will ultimately lose jobs. The best thing to do is contract out to the private sector and then workers can be paid a proper wage according to what their work is valued at and nobody need worry about it being too high as it will not have to be funded by the tax payer.

William

Nick, the Office of the National Statistics recorded that the average wage increase for 2007 was 3.5% so the prison officers are not demanding an above average increase - they have simply rejected a significantly below average increase. That is their right to do so. Complaining about the public purse when dealing with the relatively miniscule sums involved in worker wages is a non-starter. There is certainly a huge waste of taxpayer funds (PFI, for one!) and that this should be restrained is without question. However, focusing on the wrong target rather than the billions wasted on failed Government initiatives, contracts, consultancy and general profligacy won't make a dent in it. Prison officers do a good job, we need them, we need more of them, let's pay them and let's build more prisons. This isn't a waste of taxpayer funds, far from it.

Nick Kaplan

William; Prison officers have already done very well out of this government, like other public sector workers they have seen well above average wage increases and have very good pension arrangements. The illusion is that it is the benevolent government who pays for such things, this is not so, it is the tax payer. In addition such extra pay has been met by an extraordinary raid on private pensions scheme by our current PM. Why should private sector tax payers pay for the above average wages of the comparatively well off public sector? This is surely unjust and thus some kind of control needs to be put in place. I do not disagree that the Prison officers do excellent work, however this does not mean that their pay should be constantly increasing, sometimes some workers will have to accept a cut, in the long term interests of all, government funding is a difficult balancing act particularly when the public want increased spending in all areas as well as lower taxes. Perhaps the solution is to stop wasting money on things the government should not actually be doing (this does not include running prisons a vital task of government) and the money saved through the privatisation of many government services would allow for increased spending elsewhere. However while the government feels it necessary to do every task under the sun, it will necessarily have to take some of these tough decisions. We are now entering an economic downturn and as such the government must control its ridiculous levels of spending, this will have to involve controlling and perhaps even decreasing the real wages of some public sector workers who have, up till now, done very well out of this government at the expense of everyone else. If they don't like it, they are entitled to quit, and if after quitting, they find they cannot get such well paid jobs, it simply goes to show they were being paid very/ too well in the first place.