I am intrigued by the debate on public sector employees. I took part in a phone in on BBC Radio Scotland his morning and you’d think these people are the devil incarnate based on some comments. I confess I and the others in the Accident and Emergency unit of my local hospital did not think so at 11.30pm last night when those present seemed to be rushed off their feet (and before you ask, no, my son has not, thankfully, broken his thumb — bit it is mightily bruised, the moral being don’t play hockey at Cubs). So I decided to have a quick look (no more) at what they do. I used UK government statistics created by public employees to find the answers, and then wondered whether I’ll be able to do so in the future when all the cuts have taken place?
So, first things first, at end 2009 how many public sector employees are there? The answer is:
Place of employment | Number employed, total |
Central government |
2,619,000 |
Local government |
2,921,000 |
Total government |
5,540,000 |
Total public corporations |
558,000 |
Total public sector |
6,098,000 |
Of which the civil service represent |
532,000 |
The total number employed in the UK is about 28.8 million right now. So roughly one in 4.8 people employed works for the government.
That does not tell us what they do. They work in the following activities:
Type of work | Number employed, total |
Construction |
51,000 |
HM Forces |
198,000 |
Police and related civilians |
297,000 |
Public administration |
1,208,000 |
Education |
1,418,000 |
NHS |
1,621,000 |
Other health and social work |
385,000 |
Other public sector |
919,000 |
Total |
6,097,000 |
Note the “other” category includes 230,000 bankers employed by Northern Rock and other such similar failed entities. In other rods, these 900,000 people work in entities outside the area normally considered to be government activity.
Dealing with the civil service — who make up a little under half of admin staff, the allocation is as follows:
I do not have a similar split for local government (although many will work on education and social services which are by far the biggest devolved local authority responsibilities, plus planning, highways, refuse and other such issues), but this data really shows there are actually only about 5.2 million people working in what might be considered the state and I can explain what up to 4.5 million of them do.
It’s an important question of how much those people cost to employ. Over a sample of this size we can use national averages and according to the Office for National Statistics median full time earnings in the public sector were £539 per week. The full time equivalent of the employee numbers noted above (total government) is 4,450,000. So the direct cost of employing them is £125 billion. Add NIC at, say 7.1% on average and pension costs at 18.6% (these being based on HMRC’s own accounts) and the cost is a little over £157 billion. The estimate is of course just that i.e. an estimate, but it is based on reasonable, referenced, assumptions.
The NHS is ring fenced from cuts according to the government. All other departments face cuts of 25% in spending. This is how they spend now, which might be considered the baseline:
We know the NHS will not be cut and we know benefits are only being cut by £11.5 billion. Debt interest will also be paid too. In effect that means of the base noted of £697 billion some £360 billion will only be affected by cuts of £11.5 billion.
That means the remaining £337 billion must bear the remaining cuts. They will be around £55bn a year having allowed for tax increases and benefit cuts already noted. Now 30% or so of salary costs are in the ring fence — that’s about £46 billion, leaving £111 billion in the areas to be cut. So one pound in three in the areas to be cut is salary cost and they have to lose £1 in £6 of spend to meet target. Curiously, that is less than the £1 in £4 the Treasury says: more must be ringfenced than I think in “other items”.
The simple question then is “can this be done without massive job cuts?”
The answer has, straightforwardly, to be no. Either those jobs go in government departments or candidly they go in suppliers to government departments, now we know that the amount to be cut from benefits has been determined. There is no other choice.
If the pain is split i.e. cuts are split half internal job cuts and half from payments to suppliers and making the generous assumption that all who lose will be full time then the total internal cuts must cost £27 billion, which at the pay rate noted (with on costs) amounts to 767,000 full time employees. That’s a number very close to the estimate of the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development.
So what of the private sector? Pay is lower there at £465 a week. Assuming the same quite high on costs of employment as the state sector — which is generous as most private sector employees do not have pensions — then cuts of £27 bn would flow through to 889,000 job losses.
That means 1,656,000 job losses. Except these are full time equivalents. If the number was extrapolated to allow for this to allow for part time job losses then the numbers would increase to 2,061,000.
I admit I’m reluctant to do that for two reasons. Some losing such jobs would not register as unemployed. Some would have another part time job. And profits in the private sector may anyway absorb some of the cuts. But, the evidence seems clear yet again that these cuts will produce job losses of more than 1,500,000 — and maybe a figure much higher than that.
Which is really worrying.
And no one is saying it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Rchard,
I read your blog regularly although I’ve never commented. Today I will.
I believe the work you are doing is fantastic. I especially enjoy reading your reports and campaigns for a more robust attitude towards tax compliance. I am an ex HMIT investigator and took redundancy in 1996 because we were never allowed to do the job properly.
The problem there is similar to this. Tax has been regarded as a four letter word by governments for too long and that attitude has pervaded the public consciousness. Media completely misrepresents the public sector and is fed damaging propoganda by these ConDemmers. Public policy is now to criticise the public sector and undermine any respect for them. I’ve read blogs where nurses have been criticised, unheard of until recently.
It’s embarrassing and shameful to wage war on people who devote their life to public service. It is not wrong to not earn a ‘big wedge’, nor is it wrong to want to make a difference to people’s lives.
Nobody’s saying it because nobody wants to tell or hear the truth any more.
Keep up the good work.
@Jacquie Martin
I sincerely appreciate your comments
Please keep commenting
I will ensure you do not suffer the nastiness of usual blog commentators
Shall we see how accurate a recent prediction of yours was?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/05/06/one-prediction-george-osborne-is-not-going-to-enjoy-tomorrow/#comments
@Peter
You clearly have no sense of humour or adventuire and have never taken a risk
How come you’re so madly keen on enterprise is beyond me
I take risk
I get some wrong
I’m human
I revel in the fact
Why don’t you get a life too?
[…] wrong with Ritchie’s maths I […]
The Conservatives and their Orange Book collaborationists are bent on some kind of Class warfare ,divided to some extent on vertical rather than horizontal lines.As always class warfare starts on the right.
I once worked in an outfit that was forcibly taken out of local authority control and was shocked as a trade unionist by the number of fifth columnists that came out of the woodwork to declare they had always favoured private sector management practices: surveillance,measuring everything ,working long hours (without pay) and general rudeness and every man for themselves.
This country is very right-wing at present,because people self-identify as property owners rather than workers ( in the bad days a person’s house was making more than s/he did) while the property boom generated a vast number of white van men who made money (cash in hand) from helping to put up property values.
This body of people is only a finger’s breadth from being a fascist mob in being (though of course fascism was a big state ideology).We are saved that because of their instinctive snobbery ,as would-be middle class property owners cannot be seen to associate with low life street-fighters.Or losers like Griffin.
[…] desire to erode the “structural deficit” in its entirety by 2015-16 putting growth and employment at tremendous risk. Three points are worth […]
[…] March Budget – had the support of the money markets. Indeed, if the coalition cuts cause the rises in unemployment and cuts to growth predicted by many, they may end up raising rather than reducing the […]
[…] was pretty hawkish when predicting job losses as a result of ConDem cuts of between 1.5 million and 1.6 million. I’ve been saying so of their plans for a year […]