![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Private sector
Over the past few months I’ve read various discussions, on LiveJournal and elsewhere, about privatisation, and about public sector versus private sector ownership of assets and provision of services. One thing that has become apparent is that some ardent supports of the public sector have, what seems to me, a greatly distorted view of what is meant by the private sector.
I’ve worked briefly in the public sector; as a student in the early ’90s I spent summers working at GCHQ, and from 2006–09 I worked part-time on a research project at the University of Dundee. From my direct and indirect experience, and from chatting to Andrew while I write this, I would characterise work in the public sector as working for large, bureaucratic organisations, with an air of inefficiency and overstaffing. The organisations are typically unionised, or unionisation is a significant issue. Pensions are notably better in the public sector, and early retirement on a full pension is a realistic option. There is room for deadwood in the organisation, and employees seldom have any contact with real decision making.
It seems to me that people with experience of the public sector often characterise the private sector as being large PLCs, perhaps international in ownership, with nothing driving them but the profit motive. Staff aren’t valued, employment is precarious, managers are evil, and the organisation behaves like companies do in BBC dramas.
That bears no relation to the private sector that I know. From my experience, private sector companies are likely to have some or all of the following characteristics:
- Small companies. The majority of people employed in the private sector are employed by small businesses.
- Human scale. As businesses are usually small, it is possible to know everyone who works for the company.
- Ownership by employees. Most businesses are owned by people who also work for the company, or who have a close connection to the company. A significant number of businesses in the private sector are sole traders, but ownership models like partnerships and private limited companies (Ltd) both keep ownership closely connected with the operation of the business. Only public limited companies (PLC) — with their pension-fund shareholders — break this link.
- Benevolent ownership. Because the owners of a business usually have a close connection to that business, and often work for the business, what is good for the owner is also good for the company.
- Knowing the owner. It is possible for an employee have a personal relationship with the owner of the company they work for.
- Cost driven. Most businesses are motivated by the need to control costs, rather than by a blatant desire to achieve greater profits.
- Long-term thinking. Business owners are in it for the long run. They plan for the future, invest their time and money, and want to build a solid business.
- Staff are treated as individuals; the person matters more than the role. Staff are valued for the skills they have, rather than for their qualifications.
- Variety. The purpose, ethos, and culture of businesses is highly variable.
- Failure has consequences.
- Family. One often finds owners’ family members working in a small company. Nepotism is common; after all, they may be owners in the future.
How would you characterise the private sector?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2011-03-15 08:53 pm (UTC)(link)I know many people who ascribe these traits to the public sector companies they work for. Nor do other contacts consider the ownership of the private companies who employ them "benevolent". And I'm well aware of long term planning in the public sector.
While certain aspects of public sector company employment may currently be better for some classes of worker, e.g. pensions, that too is changing. It may take time, but the 'playing field' if you will, is becoming more open.
no subject
My public sector:
I can't retire until age 66. 16 more years!
Failure has *major* consequences where I work.
We are very much cost driven. There's so much we can't do because of costs. We spend our own personal money to enhance our customers' experience.
My overall boss knows everyone where I work and we know her.
Deadwood is discarded.
We are there for the long haul. We have to plan ahead very carefully. Our customers' needs come before our own.
Qualifications are only part of what gets us the jobs and keeps us there. Our results are what bring us recognition, pay rises, job security etc. It's our skills that make or break us -- and it's our skills that get us the job in the first place. Qualifications may merely get us in for an interview. (We are judged on our skills in our interviews. We have to teach an actual lesson to students as part of our interviews. We're told what class it is and what topic to cover -- and then we're on our own.)
We have a lot of decision making to do every day.
I typically work 60 hours a week, sometimes more. Right now, I am taking a break from marking A-level English Literature essays. I usually spent between two-five hours each night (and more on weekends) working. I also spent 20 minutes on the phone with a parent...
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I've taught teenagers for 28 years, though, if that counts. :)
no subject
no subject
A friend with only an MA recently lost her job at Brunel University due to budget cuts. Her department really wanted to keep her, but the cuts were too deep.
no subject
Thankfully there is still private and charitable money flowing into research, and international students are still a good source of income for attractive institutions. (As long as the UKBA doesn’t mess it up! http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2169059)
One consolation we’ll have in the future is that — I hope — the cuts will focus students and funding on real subjects; those with an academic pedigree.
no subject
Real subjects? Hmm. Some people think that literature is a lightweight subject, after all, and if you're not studying maths or sciences, you're useless. Cameron's emphasis is on maths, sciences and certain foreign languages, isn't it? Unfortunately, it's not so much an academic pedigree they're after. We've been told quite clearly at FE that our emphasis must be geared towards job preparation -- making sure our students, no matter what qualifications they're earning (A levels, BTecs etc.) are ready for work. The idea of learning for learning's sake is outdated, alas.
no subject
Many universities are deeply financially dependent on international students. Presumably your institution gains significantly from its overseas students. I’d expect the government to want to support charging foreign students wherever possible. I thought most of problems with immigration scams centred around language schools rather than established colleges?
The current emphasis on maths and sciences is correcting a long-term imbalance in education. Maths and hard sciences have been in decline, exacerbated in the latter years of the Labour government. They are essential subjects that need support (although not, I would argue, at the expense of other genuinely academic subjects).
no subject
Many of the problems regarding immigration scams indeed concern 'questionable' language schools. However, there are a number of people in this country worried about immigration in general -- and afraid that immigrants are 'stealing' jobs, benefits etc. There's also the fear of certain immigrants coming here to be terrorists. Finally, there's the fear that too many of these foreign students will stay here and 'steal' jobs etc.
The crackdown regarding international students is for all international students; they can't fairly just say it's for students from certain countries or studying certain courses. There's talk that perhaps certain FE colleges with good reputations (such as where I work) will still be permitted to recruit international students. Maybe. (It reminds me of how I had to jump through hoops to earn Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) here. I went through the Overseas Trained Teacher (OTT) programme. An Ofsted inspector observed five lessons taught over two days, and I produced a three-inch thick portfolio of evidence. I was told that basically anyone trained to teach in the US, Canada, Australia and other such countries was fine -- and should be granted QTS automatically. However, as there were teachers here from countries with training considered not as good, all foreign teachers must jump through hoops. Fair enough.
As an American, I still find it amusing sometimes that students here don't have to study English, maths etc, through age 18 -- nor at uni. My BA is in English (language and literature -- it's all combined there) with minors (secondary degrees) in theatre and psychology; however, I had to take science classes in order to graduate. They want all-around graduates there, so you must take courses outside of your degree area. (That's why it takes four years to earn a bachelor's degree there.) No matter what subject your MA or MS is in there, you have to take statistics in order to graduate. (I enjoyed my stats class.)
no subject
Though it may have a lot to do with the work he does, juggling an awful lot of time-critical projects at the same time, with conflicting deadlines and pressures. It can be very difficult.
He's past the short fixed-term contracts now, having become a permanent employee. But he could still be sacked at any time.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
That is how you end up with public businesses having an "electrical maintenance supplier" who will be an arm of a big private company who comes in to change a broken desk lamp bulb, and bills its standard negotiated rate for it's minimum 2 hour job. So the bulb costs £200. If the public employee was free to nip down to the little shop on the corner (probably a private family business) the bulb would be £1. Of course to make it worse it might be cheeper (and easier) for the public employee to order a whole new lamp from the "furniture supplier" or "stationary supplier" and throw out the one with the blown bulb.
I know ordering a desk lamp is just a few clicks away on the university purchasing system, but I would have to sort out a repair request and get it sent to estates and buildings to get a lamp fixed.
P.S. I don't have a desk lamp at all and don't need one where my desk is!
no subject
That may be true, but surely everybody buys suppers at their local carry-out, might engage a plumber or handyman, and takes an occasional taxi? We are surrounded by small-scale, personal, individual, private enterprise.
no subject
Since then I have always worked in the private sector, both for large conglomerates and small family-lead firms, and I would say your list is about right. Although evil managers are found in the private sector too! :)
no subject