|
Post by PG on Jul 5, 2017 17:41:24 GMT
In all the debate about the 1% pay cap in the public sector, it seems impossible to actually find anybody who has a straight answer to a question. I read, on the one hand, that rises are limited to 1%. For several years. On the other hand, I read that what is limited to 1% are the start and top points of the pay scales that staff are on. So as people move up the scales, they can get bigger rises then 1%. Fact check web site seems to support the latter view, but that was in the NHS, not the public sector in general. I read that the army are "getting a 1% increase". But again, does seniority allow more? It is never clear. Fact checking 1%
So, how does it actually work? Can anybody who works in the public sector enlighten me?who does / how do you get an increase up the pay grades? Is it years of service, promotion, new skills etc? I do wish there could be a clear discussion in the media and politics of what is actually the facts. If it is true that the average NHS increase for 2016/17 is 3-4% (as per Fact Check), then that's pretty generous and if that were the case across the public sector, then the whole 1% thing sounds irrelevant. But I'm sure there are losers and winners in that - do those at the top of the scale, those entering and non movers get 1%? If I compare this to my own employers, I'd say that in general there have been 1-3% rises in the UK for those not promoted over the past 7 years. There are no rises for seniority - all are described as "merit" and have to be signed off by the Corporate HQ. Between 2008 and 2010 it was pretty much nothing each year (plus lay offs). So, once again, the political debate seems to be about emotion and perception - are they actually debating the facts?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 5, 2017 17:57:13 GMT
First point is that not all public sector terms and conditions are the same. Within the organisation I work, part of the civil service, you could be on Civil Service terms, a variety of NHS terms, legacy organisation terms (me) or even medical terms - doctors have their own terms. Civil service terms for our organisation mean that you don't automatically progress through the pay scale unless you get an Excellent in your annual assessment. The number of excellent rating are limited to a percentage of workforce. Promotion may increase your point on the scale but I'd assume most people would want to move to a job on the next pay band. The 1% is the increase on pay year on year to take into account inflation.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 5, 2017 20:05:46 GMT
Technically my wife is getting more than 1% as she goes to the next payscale for teachers. She was on the £22k band last year and goes to the £24k band in September. So that's about 8% increase. So yes it's the banding that goes up in value but the uproar comes from those who are on the top most band which takes about 7 or 8 years in teaching at which point you go no higher unless you move into senior leadership or head of department. As for going up bands most teachers will go up a band each year subject to meeting certain targets which themselves are set by the school who will look bad if you fail them. Also remember in teaching you stay on you payscale. One of her colleagues was sacked from his previous school for hitting a child but walked into a job at her school because no one else applied for the role and they were desperate. With the add ons from his previous job still valid he's on almost £40k! You can get an extra grand or so for things like writing assessments or planning schemes of work.
Thats teaching. I don't know about nursing or the Police but my sister is the former and my brother in law the latter so I can always ask them.
As for me in the private sector I have to submit a business case for a payrise and it must fist be approved by the operations managers (all 6 of them) and the it's past to the 4 directors for there approval before being signed off by the MD. You have to end up with a pretty stinky nose to get it through but I got 5% on my last one without really having a great reason! I'd recently made some big sales though so the management team liked me for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Jul 5, 2017 21:06:20 GMT
I can only speak for nursing, but it goes something like this.
Every nursing job was 'Banded' about 9 or 10 years ago to one of 8 bands under Agenda for Change. In our organisation there are very few Band 1's, and Band 8's are nursing management, so not many of them either. The remainder are the bulk of the workforce and every band has between 5 and 7 (I think) increments within it, which are awarded on a yearly basis as you might expect.
However within those increments are 'gateways', usually one per band, but I think there might be one or two Bands with a couple; whatever, these gateways must be passed in a similar fashion to what Michael has described via annual assessment. Once you reach the top increment of your band, as I have, then that's it - 1% per year is all you get and, despite what I've read in the media, the reality has been 1% top-increment rises for the entirety of the AfC rather than just the past 4-5 years they say. I have the pay-slips and P60's to prove it!
Obviously if you gain a promoted post your top and bottom incremental points increase, with the increment you attain on promotion being the one immediately above (monetarily) your most recent, so promotion will win you a pay increase albeit often almost non-existent! As an example, one of our Charge Nurses (Band 6) is newly promoted from top-increment staff Nurse (Band 5) and takes home an extra, massive, £40/month, after tax. If she'd gone directly onto the top of the scale, it would work out at about an extra £100/month. Not a lot for all the extra responsibilities, hassle, stress, etc etc I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 6, 2017 8:48:28 GMT
Mrs Tim works for the NHS and gets a 1% increase each year.
In addition the salary band for her job is something like £26k to £35k so each year she gets a 'band increment' (dependent on achieving certain objectives each year) until she reaches the top of the band.
The headline 1% is applied in April, I think, and the increment is paid on the anniversary of her joining that band of job, so in her case July. I can't remember what the increment is in % terms but have a feeling it's between £500-1000.
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Jul 6, 2017 10:16:36 GMT
Don't really care to much as for government workers nearly all of the pay increase they receive is paid back to the government through taxes/Vat etc. so its just pushing money around the system. Now I know the restrictions are in place to placate the private sector worker who gets no pay increase, no pension to speak of but maybe they should increase public sector pay as it'll have some pressures on the private sector to up their game rather than divis for the shareholders.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 6, 2017 13:09:48 GMT
I expect the majority of private sector workers are employed by small companies that are owner-managed.
I was recently talking about pay rises to my best mate, who is a mechanic in a small independent bodyshop - there are about 30 employees. He reckons to go and ask for a raise once every 2 years and I bet if he gets more than 2% he's happy, even though that won't even cover one of those year's inflation let alone 2.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Jul 6, 2017 22:37:50 GMT
I have no idea, I must confess. I can only add that for both my employer (international law firm) and my wife's (big multinational), the pay rises have been pretty much stuck at 2.5% per annum (absent promotions) for at least the last five years.
|
|
|
Post by Roadsterstu on Jul 12, 2017 8:48:39 GMT
Police - constables pay scales - increase with service and achieving a satisfactory annual PDR (not exactly difficult). Each increment has been capped at 1%. However, for 3 years there was an incremental freeze as well. That didn't have any impact on me on the top rate, though the 3 years of no increase did, along with cuts to other payments that took 1k a year off my salary, reduced overtime rates and a 2.5% increase in pension contributions.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jul 12, 2017 9:12:49 GMT
What's a pay rise?
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Jul 12, 2017 12:21:07 GMT
I think the problem with the pay cap in the public sector is that it's at "the wrong end". Those at the lowest end of the payscales really need the 1% - actually they probably need a lot more than that, whereas those at the top (and no doubt many in the middle) can almost certainly afford no pay rise for 2 or 3 years; 1% to them would fund 1% to 20 or 30 at the lowest end. In practice however if it's anything like where I have worked, the opposite happens with the highest paid awarding themselves larger increases than anyone else, due to "the extra stress" of running the organisation.....
Working in British manufacturing engineering, I've had more than my far ishare of no annual rises, or minimal rises and it hurts when you look round at the way some others award themselves huge rises in times of adversity (MP's and Bankers for example....)
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 12, 2017 12:31:24 GMT
The MPs pay rise was recommended by an independent review body. I think for their responsibility and hours it's reasonable that they be competitively compensated.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 12, 2017 12:57:36 GMT
The MPs pay rise was recommended by an independent review body. I think for their responsibility and hours it's reasonable that they be competitively compensated. That's all well and good for those of us who understand how the decision came about, however to a great many public sector workers on low wages, this was not how it looked. They see MP's with all their expenses and taxpayer funded second homes and feel they are already pretty well rewarded for their efforts. How many nurses get a second home to make up for the hospital not being within walking distance of their home? It is a fine balance and I totally understand the point about wanting to attract the best people to run the country (how well the current MPs are actually running out country is a whole other debate) but there is also the argument that those going into politics do so to make a difference and the money shouldn't be the sticking point to doing so, especially as it was already around three times the average uk salary. It may have been an independent body that decided the payrise MP's should receive and I'm not saying they came to the wrong conclusion but throwing hubris out the window and taking the full increase hasn't helped the public perception that politicians have their noses in the trough and don't represent the man on the street.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jul 12, 2017 13:02:17 GMT
Politicians are not the man in the street: that's the whole point. I'm not one for praising or extolling the value of politicians but they certainly need to be remunerated far above the man in the street and certainly on a par with certain captains of industry, who can also have less than the the good of their employees at heart!
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 12, 2017 13:16:56 GMT
Politicians are not the man in the street: that's the whole point. I'm not one for praising or extolling the value of politicians but they certainly need to be remunerated far above the man in the street and certainly on a par with certain captains of industry, who can also have less than the the good of their employees at heart!
I agree and would say that they should be paid a lot more as a basic rate.
However, running the country is a serious business and I think should be their only job, e.g. George Osborne managed to accumulate an additional 5 before he was pressured into leaving.
In addition they should fall into the same requirements as the rest of us in respect of expenses - no payout without a valid invoice or receipt, no payments for anything that's not relevant.
Finally, why the hell is the taxapayerng for their second homes? Build a super hotel somewhere handy (NOT funded by PFI), that way we're investing for the future and will remove any temptation from them to misbehave in the housing market
It would also, IMO, make policing a lot simpler, rather than having the Cabinet, shadow cabinet, etc scattered around London and each needing a lot of manpower to protect.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 12, 2017 13:17:56 GMT
The MPs pay rise was recommended by an independent review body. I think for their responsibility and hours it's reasonable that they be competitively compensated. That's all well and good for those of us who understand how the decision came about, however to a great many public sector workers on low wages, this was not how it looked. They see MP's with all their expenses and taxpayer funded second homes and feel they are already pretty well rewarded for their efforts. How many nurses get a second home to make up for the hospital not being within walking distance of their home? It is a fine balance and I totally understand the point about wanting to attract the best people to run the country (how well the current MPs are actually running out country is a whole other debate) but there is also the argument that those going into politics do so to make a difference and the money shouldn't be the sticking point to doing so, especially as it was already around three times the average uk salary. It may have been an independent body that decided the payrise MP's should receive and I'm not saying they came to the wrong conclusion but throwing hubris out the window and taking the full increase hasn't helped the public perception that politicians have their noses in the trough and don't represent the man on the street. Most nurses don't have duties in Westminster and another part of the country. Most nurses don't make decisions that impact on every person in this country and at times other countries. If nurses have a problem with MPs, or anyone else being compensated with a higher salary than them that is nobody else's problem but theirs. And as for understanding how the decision was reached, it was widely reported at the time - what more do people want?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 12, 2017 13:19:54 GMT
Build a super hotel somewhere handy (NOT funded by PFI), that way we're investing for the future and will remove any temptation from them to misbehave in the housing market This is a good idea. I think Sweden do something like this.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 12, 2017 17:56:47 GMT
That's all well and good for those of us who understand how the decision came about, however to a great many public sector workers on low wages, this was not how it looked. They see MP's with all their expenses and taxpayer funded second homes and feel they are already pretty well rewarded for their efforts. How many nurses get a second home to make up for the hospital not being within walking distance of their home? It is a fine balance and I totally understand the point about wanting to attract the best people to run the country (how well the current MPs are actually running out country is a whole other debate) but there is also the argument that those going into politics do so to make a difference and the money shouldn't be the sticking point to doing so, especially as it was already around three times the average uk salary. It may have been an independent body that decided the payrise MP's should receive and I'm not saying they came to the wrong conclusion but throwing hubris out the window and taking the full increase hasn't helped the public perception that politicians have their noses in the trough and don't represent the man on the street. Most nurses don't have duties in Westminster and another part of the country. Most nurses don't make decisions that impact on every person in this country and at times other countries. If nurses have a problem with MPs, or anyone else being compensated with a higher salary than them that is nobody else's problem but theirs. And as for understanding how the decision was reached, it was widely reported at the time - what more do people want? I'm not disputing any of that. My point is that there are large sections of the electorate that don't understand why MPs are given a massive payrise when the hard working public sector workers they rule over are only given 1%. It sticks in their craw to see MPs living lavish lifestyles and getting second homes whilst poverty stricken nurses have to visit food banks. They get told by the Tories that it has to be 1% because there's no magic money tree and then see the DUP offered a billion quid to back them in parliament. Parliamentary stability might make it a price worth paying and will see jobs growth and investment in N.Ireland that will be of net benefit in the end, but from the outset and without actually analysing what's happened it looks like we've been lied to again. I'm in total agreement that we don't want any herbert to be in government and therefore we have to pay them in line with what their skills and the responsibilities they take on command. Given what some MPs have done and earns in previous careers one could argue they are currently grossly UNDERpaid. But how do you get the man in the street to appreciate that? It is of course ironic that many working class football supporters find the thought of MPs earning £75k for running the country to be excessive yet their hero earning that and more just to kick a ball around doesn't register as being in any way abhorrent, but that's because they believe in their sports heroes but can't trust a word their politicians say.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Jul 12, 2017 18:37:58 GMT
The information is there for whoever is interested. If these people are so stupid as to need everything spelt out to them then perhaps an MPs pay is the least of their worries.
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Jul 12, 2017 18:56:52 GMT
The information is there for whoever is interested. If these people are so stupid as to need everything spelt out to them then perhaps an MPs pay is the least of their worries. The trouble is it's not that they need things spelling out, it's that they don't get told that MPs pay is ok because the media they are exposed to tell them that it's the Tory scum creaming off taxpayers money whilst the real heroes such as fire fighters and nurses are screwed into poverty.
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Jul 12, 2017 22:14:37 GMT
I think the problem with the pay cap in the public sector is that it's at "the wrong end". Those at the lowest end of the payscales really need the 1% - actually they probably need a lot more than that, whereas those at the top (and no doubt many in the middle) can almost certainly afford no pay rise for 2 or 3 years; 1% to them would fund 1% to 20 or 30 at the lowest end. In practice however if it's anything like where I have worked, the opposite happens with the highest paid awarding themselves larger increases than anyone else, due to "the extra stress" of running the organisation..... Working in British manufacturing engineering, I've had more than my far ishare of no annual rises, or minimal rises and it hurts when you look round at the way some others award themselves huge rises in times of adversity (MP's and Bankers for example....) The lowest paid among NHS staff qualify for a higher increase than everyone else; I think it equates to £300-400 p.a, which is getting on for double my own rise in monetary terms.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 13, 2017 9:19:59 GMT
The information is there for whoever is interested. If these people are so stupid as to need everything spelt out to them then perhaps an MPs pay is the least of their worries. The trouble is it's not that they need things spelling out, it's that they don't get told that MPs pay is ok because the media they are exposed to tell them that it's the Tory scum creaming off taxpayers money whilst the real heroes such as fire fighters and nurses are screwed into poverty.
Is that likely given that the majority of the print media are currently pro-Tory? Don't tell me that the BBC are a subversive left wing organisation either because that's simply not true, if it was Downing Street wouldn't've recently poached a senior BBC bod to become head of comms.
I think that MPs should be paid, say, £250k p.a. but be much more accountable, focused on the task in hand and do their utmost to dispel the appearance that they're only in it for themselves (I point you back to George '6 jobs' Osborne again). I know a lot of them do a good job but, as with football hooliganism or Muslim terrorists, it's a few that let the side down. They should be treated much more harshly by their own rules & ethics committees than they currently appear to.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jul 13, 2017 9:40:24 GMT
I'm in total agreement that we don't want any herbert to be in government and therefore we have to pay them in line with what their skills and the responsibilities If we applied that logic to the current crop we'd save a fortune as they'd all be on minimum wage.
|
|
|
Post by alf on Jul 13, 2017 15:03:49 GMT
Don't tell me that the BBC are a subversive left wing organisation either because that's simply not true, if it was Downing Street wouldn't've recently poached a senior BBC bod to become head of comms.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but the BBC - while trying desperately (and purely from a sense of self preservation) to be more balanced, do still operate in a very strange way. I know Guardian readers and Momentum frothers claim they are "pro Tory" the moment they deviate from being utterly pro-Labour, but I don't think they have tried awfully hard. I give you as an example the report on the "gig economy" that was published yesterday. It said some sensible things, but the BBC interviewed 2 people on the programmes I saw yesterday morning (I think it was the "Victoria Derbyshire" piece) that were supposedly just random "deliveroo" people. Both, on closer inspection by some of the pro-Tory groups I follow, turned out to be officials of the IWGB Union, and describe themselves as "communists" and "socialists" on social media. The "former zero hours worker" they put on the 6 o clock news last night is a Labour official and PCS Union rep. None of this was made clear. The BBC has a long standing habit of presenting the views of a tiny band of Union Corbynistas as random people from the streets - they are either very stupid or do not look far for these muppets. On the actual streets, are plenty of people that are not Union reps, Labour party members, or Momentum activists with the words "socialist" and "communist" plastered all over their social media bios. MP's have a fucking awful job these days, good points have been made about the second (and more!) jobs and ethics but they get attacked from both sides endlessly on social media and of course one was horribly killed during the Brexit campaign. I know more about the abuse of the Tory ones, who regularly get swastikas daubed on their cars and houses and face endless digital and actual threats. Unfortunately we have followed the yanks in having really polarised, nasty campaigning these days and a lot of people seem unable to have a sense of perspective about people who simply have different views to them. I'll happily debate why I'm a Tory supporter with anyone - and it's not to try and be nasty or hurt anyone either, I believe it is better for all - but I would never get abusive with someone on the other side of the debate who similarly wants to argue their case. We are all human beings FFS, people should focus on the policies and leave the abuse and threats at home. Unfortunately the Corbyn regime seem very comfortable with abuse being part of their campaign, and I do worry that more and more Conservative supporters feel they have to keep it quiet or face open abuse - Mrs ALF (one of very, very few Tory voters in her social circle despite us living in a seat that votes more than 50% for the Conservatives) certainly feels that way. Lu endlessly heard at school during the election that other people's parents and some teachers said that Conservative voters are all horrible people out to hurt people. UK politics has taken a very nasty turn.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Jul 13, 2017 15:57:38 GMT
This comes back to points variously quoted elsewhere on this forum, others and in public: if you're a leftie anything other than leftie-ism is nazi-ism in some form or other no matter how moderate a leftie you may seem; if you're a moderate rightie then you can see the arguments for leftism but can counter it with rightism arguments, at which point you are berated for being a nazi of some form or another.
I had to explain to W2.0 the other day about "right-wing" and "left-wing". Bearing in mind that she, her sisters, her family, her friends, neighbours and countryfolk were raised under communism, can argue quite rightly that some things are far worse in the free market than they were under communism and have lived in a restrictive, uber-corrupt society in very recent memory a more right-wing individual you will seldom meet outside the NF. She believes that people should work for what they want and if they are physically unable to they should be helped; if there is no work and they still want they should move to where there is work or suffer the life with less luxury than those that have work. She has other stringent views which if published on line would very likely lead to her arrest. She is highly dismissive of some of the views and actions of her Guardian-reading brother-in-law, whom I get on really well with as I can dig out those not-so-Guardian-reader elements of his psyche with some ease as he is a home-counties born and bred boy no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 13, 2017 16:00:16 GMT
If you look hard enough (or not very hard in some cases) you can find an example to suit you. When there was the proposed cap on benefits and everyone was saying how nasty the Tories were the BBC ran a headline with a snippet of an interview with a single mum living with her 2 kids in a nice looking central London flat (clearly not one in a 1960s tower block). Her attitude was awful, there was no way she would move out of there even though it was costing the council/DWP over £2k per month to house them, etc, etc. It was hardly favourable to the anti-Tory brigade. So, there's a bit of balance for you. There's no right or wrong view on this, if you are left leaning you'll think its a Tory propaganda mouthpiece and vice-versa. I consider myself to be somewhere in the middle and think it generally manages a reasonably balanced view and whenever it shows something that I think favours one side I know I'll see another thing in a day/week/month that apparently goes the other way. MPs do have a shit job, as with Lewis Hamilton they haven't helped themselves out in this view, but there clearly has to be some move to protect them from the ludicrous and offensive criticism they often (all) get via social media in particular. I think the fact that we have the 'leader of the free world' running round making awful, sexist and racist comments and appearing to enjoy it with little comeback is a poor example and will simply further the general decline in standards of our Western civilisation. Christ that's gloomy. Time to go home and thrash the tits (is that sexist?) off my Nissan on the way
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Jul 13, 2017 16:13:46 GMT
In the past, if anyone had said to me the BBC was left-wing I would have ridiculed them, and when I was younger you could definitely describe it as establishment and right of centre. I think that changed as those who left universities in the 70s gained positions of influence within the BBC, moving it further left. The BBC has over 2000 journalists today and I think the vast majority would lie in the centre left spectrum. I think it would be very difficult to get any position at the BBC today if your politics were seen as any shade of right of centre.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 14, 2017 9:27:31 GMT
But that's just speculation, you're not a journalist and presumably don't know.
Anyway I try to take a wider view and IF the BBC is left of centre then hopefully it helps balance out some of the right of centre stuff like the Times, Telegraph, Sun, Star and the real shite like the Daily Mail and Express.
Surely you can't fairly complain about one without recognising the rest? Or is the BBC simply a ripe and easy target because it's taxpayer funded?
|
|
|
Post by Boxer6 on Jul 14, 2017 10:57:14 GMT
But that's just speculation, you're not a journalist and presumably don't know. Anyway I try to take a wider view and IF the BBC is left of centre then hopefully it helps balance out some of the right of centre stuff like the Times, Telegraph, Sun, Star and the real shite like the Daily Mail and Express. Surely you can't fairly complain about one without recognising the rest? Or is the BBC simply a ripe and easy target because it's taxpayer funded? I've been trying to find the 'quality' link about shenanigans surrounding the "pick" of guests on Question Time, with no luck yet. Anyway, it basically pointed out the relatively higher number of Tory supporters appearing on the programme, all the while touted as something else; much in the same way as described by Alf earlier in the thread, only with the opposite bias.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Jul 14, 2017 11:05:04 GMT
But that's just speculation, you're not a journalist and presumably don't know. Anyway I try to take a wider view and IF the BBC is left of centre then hopefully it helps balance out some of the right of centre stuff like the Times, Telegraph, Sun, Star and the real shite like the Daily Mail and Express. Surely you can't fairly complain about one without recognising the rest? Or is the BBC simply a ripe and easy target because it's taxpayer funded? I think it's precisely because the BBC IS taxpayer funded that the BBC should be impartial. If it wants to be The Guardian of broadcasting then it shouldn't have my tv tax to be so.
|
|