Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Brexit


alibongo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I did not say they did not get the pay rise. They got want the government was contractually obliged to give them, which incidentally because the scales reflect the annual pay rise - were cuts vis a vie what they were worth when the individuals joined the public service.

Nobody would join the public sector  if the final salary for the job was the same as the initial ones offered.

Edited by RAyMO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I did not say they did not get the pay rise. They got want the government was contractually obliged to give them, which incidentally because the scales reflect the annual pay rise - were cuts vis a vie what they were worth when the individuals joined the public service.

Nobody would join the public sector  if the final salary for the job was the same as the initial ones offered.

im glad you agree they got a pay rise, on your final sentence you have me interested in the rates of pay you refer to, can you give an example of what these initial rates are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stevewinn said:

The fact you posted so soon after my reply shows you just disregarded what I've written, whooooosh, you could have done no wrong in watching the HoC debate i posted. but you resorted to your usually sources. how long did that take you on google 30 seconds. try watching the debate i posted its only 1 hour full of information you'd find useful.

I never looked at your link, I get the information straight from the Horses mouth not the other end.

 

I'm not going to waste 1 hr listening to MPs lying about something that is common knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RAyMO said:

I did not say they did not get the pay rise. They got want the government was contractually obliged to give them, which incidentally because the scales reflect the annual pay rise - were cuts vis a vie what they were worth when the individuals joined the public service.

Nobody would join the public sector  if the final salary for the job was the same as the initial ones offered.

No, they didn't get a pay rise.

They were told, because the pay structure allows for annual increments, that in effect would be their pay rise!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a great deal that is not reflected in this recent focus on public servant pay.  As a public worker I have lived and worked through some really challenging times.

what is not being talked about in these discussions is the history.  My pay was capped from day 1 of the financial crisis.  For at least 4 years I received no pay rise at all.

It was the public sector that bore the brunt of the financial crisis.  I saw budgets slashed by over 50%, staff made redundent in the hundreds, not just once but every year, listened in dismay as the chancellor described cuts top loaded, expected to continue until 2015.   And to this day we are all given the councils special Christmas present, a section 118 notice, informing staff, they are likely to face redundancy, the cuts continue to this very day.

On top of this, performance reviews were introduced, a really poor, rushed system of measuring how good you are at your job, if you didn't hit the top mark there was a chance you took a pay cut.

Cameron's big society was supposed to plug the gaping holes left in vital services.  In reality work loads doubled and staff numbers halved.

In my service, a staff team of 20 is now 8, we had a responsibility to provide services to children in care, around 1800 individuals, now we are expected to provide a service to Child protection cases as well, that means over double the workload.

And now, we are not getting a pay rise.  Bizarrely, as I understand it, we are getting a lump sum, equivalent  to 1% of our salary, but our pay level remains the same.

Edited by Grey Area
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grey Area said:

There is a great deal that is not reflected in this recent focus on public servant pay.  As a public worker I have lived and worked through some really challenging times.

what is not being talked about in these discussions is the history.  My pay was capped from day 1 of the financial crisis.  For at least 4 years I received no pay rise at all.

It was the public sector that bore the brunt of the financial crisis.  I saw budgets slashed by over 50%, staff made redundent in the hundreds, not just once but every year, listened in dismay as the chancellor described cuts top loaded, expected to continue until 2015.   And to this day we are all given the councils special Christmas present, a section 118 notice, informing staff, they are likely to face redundancy, the cuts continue to this very day.

On top of this, performance reviews were introduced, a really poor, rushed system of measuring how good you are at your job, if you didn't hit the top mark there was a chance you took a pay cut.

Cameron's big society was supposed to plug the gaping holes left in vital services.  In reality work loads doubled and staff numbers halved.

In my service, a staff team of 20 is now 8, we had a responsibility to provide services to children in care, around 1800 individuals, now we are expected to provide a service to Child protection cases as well, that means over double the workload.

And now, we are not getting a pay rise.  Bizarrely, as I understand it, we are getting a lump sum, equivalent  to 1% of our salary, but our pay level remains the same.

It is a mystery to me how people do not realise that public servants are there to provide a service, not for themselves, but for the public.

Stevewinn talks as if there is a battle between the public sector and the private sector- there isn't. The police, fire service, nhs, councils, are paid to provide public services, and it is only when things go wrong that the public realise they are valuable and should be preserved. Parks and libraries close, bins aren't emptied,A&E depts. struggle, police forces fail to meet public demand- that's when the public notice.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a strange old system

some say the private sector creates the taxes that pay the private sector - and leave the argument at that.

But in my simple mind its all a circle. Funds that go to the public sector for projects and salaries end up being spent in the private sector.

When salaries etc are cut in the public sector you simply end up reducing the money being spent in the private sector.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

It is a mystery to me how people do not realise that public servants are there to provide a service, not for themselves, but for the public.

Stevewinn talks as if there is a battle between the public sector and the private sector- there isn't. The police, fire service, nhs, councils, are paid to provide public services, and it is only when things go wrong that the public realise they are valuable and should be preserved. Parks and libraries close, bins aren't emptied,A&E depts. struggle, police forces fail to meet public demand- that's when the public notice.

 

 

 

From the outset my aim was to highlight what you failed to do. IE provide the numbers. your blanket statements needed exploring further and explaining.

 

1 hour ago, RAyMO said:

Its a strange old system

some say the private sector creates the taxes that pay the private sector - and leave the argument at that.

But in my simple mind its all a circle. Funds that go to the public sector for projects and salaries end up being spent in the private sector.

When salaries etc are cut in the public sector you simply end up reducing the money being spent in the private sector.

 

Its fact the Private sector drives the economy, Yet we see that Public sector salaries are 7.8% higher on average than salaries for a similar job in the private sector and the pension benefits are much, much better in the public sector. @Grey Area fails to make the point that equally during the economic crisis the  Private Sector wages were savagely cut, ensuring that they can't pay for a decent pension themselves, on the other hand those in the public sector not only have greater job security their pensions are guaranteed by comparison. and that's not mentioning other perks.

You can see during the recession the higher public sector salaries where brought more into line of those in the private sector. If we take 2014 seven years after the credit crisis hit and with Public sector pay caps and efficiencies in place, In April 2014 comparing the mean gross hourly rate earnings (excluding overtime) Public sector workers earned on average £16.36 per hour in 2014, which was £2.24 (15.9%) more than Private sector employees who earned £14.12. and now even in 2017 after a decade of austerity the Public sector pay is still on average above that of the private sector.

The numbers never lie. UK work force is 29 million. 23 million of these are employed in the private sector. Of these, only 3.2 million contribute to a workplace pension scheme that also includes a contribution from their employer. six million workers are in the public sector. A much higher proportion of them 5.3 million save in a workplace pension scheme. Some 87% of public sector employees are currently paying into a salary-linked pension scheme, compared with 12% of private sector employees.

When Public sector workers moan about efficiencies and the introduction of performance reviews or related pay, welcome to the real world. Personally I'm fed up with public sector workers who bang on about how hard their life is and how much they could earn in the private sector yet don't have the guts to test their claims and try their luck where they say the grass is greener. frightened to leave the cushy number they have in the inefficient, over-rewarded and under-disciplined public sector Making public sector workers personally liable is the way forward - I have no issue with paying top dollar for top dollar service, If they are to be believed the public sector has achieved private sector pay, now it needs to be subject to private sector jeopardy, including legal liability for under or non-performance.

I could go on about how heavily Unionised the public sector is but what's the point.

just to quantify and clarify, Doctors, Nurses, Fire, police and armed forces are not included in the above. everyone else is.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎06‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 8:11 PM, stevewinn said:

The fact you posted so soon after my reply shows you just disregarded what I've written, whooooosh, you could have done no wrong in watching the HoC debate i posted. but you resorted to your usually sources. how long did that take you on google 30 seconds. try watching the debate i posted its only 1 hour full of information you'd find useful.

I never looked at your link, I get the information straight from the Horses mouth not the other end.

 

Actually, I do agree with you on two points you made, one is that I tend to go for sensational media headlines rather than do research, and secondly, the public sector workforce do enjoy excellent conditions and benefits (but not great pay, but maybe the benefits make up for that).

Personally, I'd like to see the conditions and benefits the public sector get apply universally in the private sector, because that are not outrageous (generous sick pay, etc.), but they do treat workers with dignity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/6/2017 at 8:11 PM, stevewinn said:

I never looked at your link, I get the information straight from the Horses mouth not the other end.

Who's that then?  Government Official Spokespersons? The Conservative supporting media?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Who's that then?  Government Official Spokespersons? The Conservative supporting media?

erm, no please do keep up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, stevewinn said:

erm, no please do keep up.

well please clarify. MPs? The papers that you believe because they tell you what you want to hear?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

well please clarify. MPs? The papers that you believe because they tell you what you want to hear?

Commons library,  Westminster hall sessions etc....

Its worth remembering I don't read any news papers, the majority of the NEWS i see is on these forums and secondly the BBC. and if anything sufficiently interests me i search the official sites. not google searches, but the official sites. (which are pain in the bum to use, and takes time, you post them on here only for people to counter it with links from media sources, increasingly i think why bother) 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎09‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 1:51 PM, stevewinn said:

Commons library,  Westminster hall sessions etc....

Its worth remembering I don't read any news papers, the majority of the NEWS i see is on these forums and secondly the BBC. and if anything sufficiently interests me i search the official sites. not google searches, but the official sites. (which are pain in the bum to use, and takes time, you post them on here only for people to counter it with links from media sources, increasingly i think why bother) 

 

 

Well this was on the BBC:

Table 4: Median Real Hourly Earnings (ASHE) for 10 PRB Occupations £ per hour

Average annual growth (%)

2005

2010

2015

2005-2010

2010-2015

2005-2015

Doctors

38

38

30

-0.1

-4.4

-2.2

Radiographers

22

21

18

-0.8

-3.1

-1.9

Physios

18

18

15

0.1

-2.8

-1.3

Occupational therapists

17

18

16

0.5

-2.1

-0.8

Nurses

16

17

16

1.8

-1.5

0.1

Midwives

19

21

18

2.1

-2.7

-0.4

Nursing auxiliaries

9

11

10

2.5

-0.9

0.8

Police officers

20

20

18

0.4

-1.9

-0.8

Prison officers

16

15

15

-1.1

-0.7

-0.9

School teachers

25

24

22

-0.7

-1.3

-1.0

                       

 It is part of the ICL report to the pay review body, which shows almost all public workers pay going down in real terms each year, not even remaining static:

Teachers' pay in England and Wales will have to stay within austerity pay limits - with another year of increases restricted to 1%.

It will mean another real-terms pay cut for more than 500,000 teachers in England and Wales.

The pay review body - which was expected to keep pay rises to 1% - has expressed its concern.

The cap on pay, initially of 0% and then 1%, has been in place since 2010, as part of austerity measures.

The National Union of Teachers says that successive years of below-inflation pay deals has seen teachers' pay fall in real terms by 13%.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40557378

Now, I have already said that I am aware public employees tend to enjoy better terms than private ( and I wish these terms were universal in the UK),but I believe they are the only employees to get actual decreases in pay each year!

And I know you have said you rely almost solely on what MPs tell via you Hansard reports and broadcasts, and the BBC, but this information is actually from the BBC.

Edited by eugeneonegin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, eugeneonegin said:

Well this was on the BBC:

Table 4: Median Real Hourly Earnings (ASHE) for 10 PRB Occupations £ per hour

Average annual growth (%)

2005

2010

2015

2005-2010

2010-2015

2005-2015

Doctors

38

38

30

-0.1

-4.4

-2.2

Radiographers

22

21

18

-0.8

-3.1

-1.9

Physios

18

18

15

0.1

-2.8

-1.3

Occupational therapists

17

18

16

0.5

-2.1

-0.8

Nurses

16

17

16

1.8

-1.5

0.1

Midwives

19

21

18

2.1

-2.7

-0.4

Nursing auxiliaries

9

11

10

2.5

-0.9

0.8

Police officers

20

20

18

0.4

-1.9

-0.8

Prison officers

16

15

15

-1.1

-0.7

-0.9

School teachers

25

24

22

-0.7

-1.3

-1.0

                       

 It is part of the ICL report to the pay review body, which shows almost all public workers pay going down in real terms each year, not even remaining static:

Teachers' pay in England and Wales will have to stay within austerity pay limits - with another year of increases restricted to 1%.

It will mean another real-terms pay cut for more than 500,000 teachers in England and Wales.

The pay review body - which was expected to keep pay rises to 1% - has expressed its concern.

The cap on pay, initially of 0% and then 1%, has been in place since 2010, as part of austerity measures.

The National Union of Teachers says that successive years of below-inflation pay deals has seen teachers' pay fall in real terms by 13%.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40557378

Now, I have already said that I am aware public employees tend to enjoy better terms than private ( and I wish these terms were universal in the UK),but I believe they are the only employees to get actual decreases in pay each year!

And I know you have said you rely almost solely on what MPs tell via you Hansard reports and broadcasts, and the BBC, but this information is actually from the BBC.

We've been over this already. the point contested was not if pay caps are in place, it was about the numbers affected. If you remember your initial post implied that all public sector workers received a 1% pay rise - capped at 1% I highlighted although there is a 1% pay cap in place, more than half have seen an increase above that 1%. 

Its interesting to note: Newly-qualified teachers from the autumn will have a starting salary of almost £23,000, with the upper pay scale for classroom teachers going up to about £38,700. Head teachers' pay will range from £44,500 to over £100,000. with a 1% pay rise, including a guaranteed pension and other perks. they cannot cry poverty. put it another way teachers wont be lying awake a night worrying if they'll have a job next week, next month or next year like millions do in the private sector, in fact Teachers are one of the professions you are guaranteed a job for life. - once upon a time in the public sector It was well understood that in return for job security and guaranteed pension your pay was lower than that of the private sector, it was done with a sense of also serving your country and society but over the years the public sector has become heavily unionised for that very reason,(low pay) now they want private sector wages without any of the risks. Its funny how the Government raises the personal tax threshold each year and this somehow is forgotten by the Teachers. the fact in 2016/17 they'll earn an extra £1,000 before paying tax. that's about £20 extra a week. or £0.53 an hour. (37.5 hour week)

In the private sector if your not happy with your pay you either suck it up or get another job, never noticed how all the big protests you see on the TV are always Public sector, organised by the Unions. when was the last time you seen a protest in the capital by 100,000+ private sector workers. food for thought.. The 5million public sector workers will find very little support from the 23Million private sector workers. no doubt the Labour party have started the ball rolling with their manifesto promising money to all and sundry, by all means give the 5million public sector workers a 2% pay rise, costing £6Billion with the true cost closer to £18Billion with pension liabilities factored in. All those in favour contact your inland revenue Tax office and declare you want to voluntarily pay an extra 3% to 4% tax on your earnings. lets see how much traction that receives. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by stevewinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't get the obsession with numbers.

If someone is being treated unfairly, they are being treated un-fairly.

Or does it only become unfair if there are more than one?

Or if there are more than one, does that mean it is less unfair? I don't see how the numbers matter.

The fact that 500,000 teachers will see a drop in real terms in their wages again this year is unfair.

The fairness or lack of it wouldn't change if there were 10 teachers  or 10 million.

It is only mentioned that there is 500,000 because that is the number of them. If there were 10 the BBC would report 10 teachers are affected. If there were 10 million it would be 10 million affected.

A number is just a number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎07‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 3:12 PM, stevewinn said:

.....

You can see during the recession the higher public sector salaries where brought more into line of those in the private sector. If we take 2014 seven years after the credit crisis hit and with Public sector pay caps and efficiencies in place, In April 2014 comparing the mean gross hourly rate earnings (excluding overtime) Public sector workers earned on average £16.36 per hour in 2014, which was £2.24 (15.9%) more than Private sector employees who earned £14.12. and now even in 2017 after a decade of austerity the Public sector pay is still on average above that of the private sector.

.....

 

 

If the grass is so much greener on the public side, why don't private sector workers apply to work there? There are huge staff shortfalls in teaching, the police, and health.

The reason is: they don't want to take a pay cut.

A lot of public service work does not offer overtime (or at least not paid overtime), the hours are long, and it usually takes years of training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eugeneonegin said:

If the grass is so much greener on the public side, why don't private sector workers apply to work there? There are huge staff shortfalls in teaching, the police, and health.

The reason is: they don't want to take a pay cut.

A lot of public service work does not offer overtime (or at least not paid overtime), the hours are long, and it usually takes years of training.

You haven't thought threw your argument have you. gawd,

giphy.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

You haven't thought threw your argument have you. gawd,

giphy.gif

 

It's the tip of a valid rebuttal though to be honest.  The disparity in wages can in a large part be attributed to the qualification demands on public sector workers.  A great deal of public sector jobs work directly according to statute and require specific qualifications in which to do that job.  For instance in my role, I require a Social Work degree, and then, in order to be able to continue practicing Social Work I have to be registered with the Health and Care Professionals Council, which requires not only an annual membership fee of over £100 but also proof of on going training, a similar process for health professionals, coroners.

Much of these comparisons are only able to be made statistically using averages and percentages because comparing the Public and private sectors is like comparing the New Forest to the Amazon Rain Forest, the diversity of professions is so much higher in the private sector.  I have a friend who has a very good job as a business advisor, a graduate career, you would expect him to have a degree in business or accounting or perhaps economics, but no, he has a PHD in Chemistry.  The threshold for graduate careers in the public sector is that much higher.

Further to this your complaint about Public sector worker always protesting is a bit of a red herring as well, another example of where the public and private sectors differ.  In the private sector, if you have a problem with your pay or conditions, you can go see your boss, and it may well be that he/she has the authority to do something about it.  In the public sector, pay and conditions are set either by local or central government.  You can't just knock on your nearest elected members door or the minister for health and ask for a pay rise, hence the lobbying and marching. 

Now. as it happens, I don't think I am a whiner, I don't particularly like any of the unions and their methods, it's true, I am a little fed up with the cuts we continue to face, but the vast majority of my concern is toward the service users and the effect it will have on them.  I have never claimed poverty and am never likely to, thankfully.  Does that mean I shouldn't get a pay rise in line with inflation because some vaguely equivalent profession in the private sector earn less than me?  I say vaguely because the private sector equivalent of my role would be agency Social Work, and they can expect to earn much more than the average Social Worker.

I also think your swift but brutal critique of the public sector is wrong, based on media, or perhaps experience, but like every single profession out there, there are good workers and bad workers and we all have our fair share.  I got served by a totally ignorant and rude barman not long ago at my local wetherspoon's, but I don't assume the entire leisure sector is staffed by similar employees.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Grey Area You cannot have your wages paid for by the Tax payer and not expect to be affected by the greatest recession on record. You have to take the rough with the smooth and lets be honest the boom years last a lot longer than any lean times.

The point i've continually made is to highlight what @eugeneonegin failed to, that more than half public sector have indeed seen an increase above the 1% pay cap. but Eugeneonegin doesn't want to acknowledge that increments or increases in the personal tax allowance have also increased their pay, by more than the 1% cap. 

I've said it before as a tax payer if public sector workers want a pay rise in this economic climate then the public sector has to be exposed to economic realities as the private sector. the only reason people remain in the public sector is the cushy number their on, knowing they'll l never be questioned or brought to task and wouldn't last in the private sector, Correct me if im wrong but a few posts ago you wasn't keen on being judge on your performance or the fact your work load had increased. I believe you said 8 of you are now doing the job of what 20 people did. that highlights just how inefficient your department has been in the past, if you decrease your labour force by a factor of 60% and it hasn't collapsed then that says it all.

Here im not including, Doctors/Nurses/Police/Fire or Armed forces, but everyone else.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the Brexit thread.

The EU's top Brexit negotiator has said there are still major differences between the EU and UK on the rights of EU citizens living in Britain.

"The British position does not allow those persons concerned to continue to live their lives as they do today," Michael Barnier said.

Mr Barnier said the European Court of Justice (ECJ) must have jurisdiction to guarantee citizen's rights.

Mr Barnier also said that those rights - along with the so-called "divorce payment" and border issues - must be dealt with before future UK-EU trade could be discussed.

The financial payment the EU claims will be owed to cover the UK's commitments is also a key point for Mr Barnier. Some estimates have put the amount at up to €100bn (£89bn).

**********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

What planet is the EU on, So the UK has left the EU but the European Courts have jurisdiction in the UK.

And the position of €100 Billion financial payment.

Its clear, The EU don't want any trade deal and possibly want to force the issue that the deal or no deal is so bad that they hope we re-consider leaving.

 

 

 

Edited by stevewinn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

@Grey Area You cannot have your wages paid for by the Tax payer and not expect to be affected by the greatest recession on record. You have to take the rough with the smooth and lets be honest the boom years last a lot longer than any lean times.

The point i've continually made is to highlight what @eugeneonegin failed to, that more than half public sector have indeed seen an increase above the 1% pay cap. but Eugeneonegin doesn't want to acknowledge that increments or increases in the personal tax allowance have also increased their pay, by more than the 1% cap. 

I've said it before as a tax payer if public sector workers want a pay rise in this economic climate then the public sector has to be exposed to economic realities as the private sector. the only reason people remain in the public sector is the cushy number their on, knowing they'll l never be questioned or brought to task and wouldn't last in the private sector, Correct me if im wrong but a few posts ago you wasn't keen on being judge on your performance or the fact your work load had increased. I believe you said 8 of you are now doing the job of what 20 people did. that highlights just how inefficient your department has been in the past, if you decrease your labour force by a factor of 60% and it hasn't collapsed then that says it all.

Here im not including, Doctors/Nurses/Police/Fire or Armed forces, but everyone else.

 

 

I would also like to add Steve, that as nurses, teachers,doctors etc progress in their career they are entitled to Grade Increments. Grade enhancement is an annual "pay rise" that is not included in the 1% cap.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

@Grey Area You cannot have your wages paid for by the Tax payer and not expect to be affected by the greatest recession on record. You have to take the rough with the smooth and lets be honest the boom years last a lot longer than any lean times.

Of course you can't, we all took a hit together, the entire country.  We continue to do so and I don't think it has been argued any different, and certainly not by me.  What you need to understand is that our wages will not change, even in the boom years.  There's no bonuses, no big wage increases, just an annual increase in line with inflation.  In the private sector, if a business does well, they can invest the profit in their workforce, raise wages, give bonuses, shares, gifts and other incentives.  Not so for the public sector.  The recession began almost a decade ago.  How long do you think it is fair to withhold a pay rise inline with inflation?  10 years, 20?  Or perhaps, as you hint, until average pay levels achieve parity?

 

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

The point i've continually made is to highlight what @eugeneonegin failed to, that more than half public sector have indeed seen an increase above the 1% pay cap. but Eugeneonegin doesn't want to acknowledge that increments or increases in the personal tax allowance have also increased their pay, by more than the 1% cap. 

 I don't buy it Steve.  No job in the employ of the government has had an annual payrise above 1%.  But that does not mean that promotions and career progression have not taken place.  So when we refer to pay rises in this manner we are not talking solely about inflation, which is the issue here.  Or perhaps you feel that public services should have just stood still, that employees should have remained in their current role with only two options, stay where they are or leave?

 

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

I've said it before as a tax payer if public sector workers want a pay rise in this economic climate then the public sector has to be exposed to economic realities as the private sector.

I'm sorry, we weren't exposed to the economic realities how?

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

Correct me if im wrong but a few posts ago you wasn't keen on being judge on your performance

Absolutely not, you couldn't be more wrong Steve.  I am still doing the job.  I have excelled in every performance review, I am happy to be judged.  You took my point totally out of context.  The performance reviews, which were always there, were changed so that if you did not hit top mark you stood a good chance of actually going down an increment in your pay.  It is my belief though that this was introduced, not to save a few quid on wages, but to force people to resign, so they wouldn't have to pay redundancy.  It worked too.

Steve, I have a lot of respect for you, your posts are always very informative and you do your homework.  However it does sound like you have already judged me, and my colleagues in the public sector.  That makes me sad.

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

the only reason people remain in the public sector is the cushy number their on, knowing they'll l never be questioned or brought to task and wouldn't last in the private sector,

Again you are wrong.  I am glad to say that there are many people who do their jobs to actually make a difference, myself included, and they do.  You are free to believe whatever you want, and I don't pretend anything I say will make a huge difference.  As I stated earlier, if I wanted a cushy number I would sign on with a Social Work agency, get paid senior wages, and spend 6 months with one team before moving on to the next.  Imagine how a child in care feels having a Social worker that changes every 6 months, it destroys lives, I have seen it first hand, and that is why I will never make that transition. 

Your statement is disappointing, but of course not unexpected, and highlights another of the things we public sector workers have to deal with, public opinion.  But not whining I deal with it and move on, I am a child kidnapper apparently.

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

If you decrease your labour force by a factor of 60% and it hasn't collapsed then that says it all.

Again, wrong.  Practice has had to change of course it has.  We now spend 30 minutes with a child instead of an hour, we work 45+ hour weeks and get told off for not taking our time owed.  As I have stated, it is the service users that have born the brunt of these cuts.

Many local authorities have collapsed, with the government stepping in to run them, look at the serious case reviews for children across the country since the financial crisis, then tell me that not having services for children like connexions and youth services would not have made a difference. 

It is mine and my colleagues credit that our service hasn't collapsed for working damned hard, inspite of everything.

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

Here im not including, Doctors/Nurses/Police/Fire or Armed forces, but everyone else.

 Why is that?  After all they make up a large proportion of public services, or would that skew the figures?

Edited by Grey Area
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Grey Area said:

Of course you can't, we all took a hit together, the entire country.  We continue to do so and I don't think it has been argued any different, and certainly not by me.  What you need to understand is that our wages will not change, even in the boom years.  There's no bonuses, no big wage increases, just an annual increase in line with inflation.  In the private sector, if a business does well, they can invest the profit in their workforce, raise wages, give bonuses, shares, gifts and other incentives.  Not so for the public sector.  The recession began almost a decade ago.  How long do you think it is fair to withhold a pay rise inline with inflation?  10 years, 20?  Or perhaps, as you hint, until average pay levels achieve parity?

 I don't buy it Steve.  No job in the employ of the government has had an annual payrise above 1%.  But that does not mean that promotions and career progression have not taken place.  So when we refer to pay rises in this manner we are not talking solely about inflation, which is the issue here.  Or perhaps you feel that public services should have just stood still, that employees should have remained in their current role with only two options, stay where they are or leave?

 

I'm sorry, we weren't exposed to the economic realities how?

Absolutely not, you couldn't be more wrong Steve.  I am still doing the job.  I have excelled in every performance review, I am happy to be judged.  You took my point totally out of context.  The performance reviews, which were always there, were changed so that if you did not hit top mark you stood a good chance of actually going down an increment in your pay.  It is my belief though that this was introduced, not to save a few quid on wages, but to force people to resign, so they wouldn't have to pay redundancy.  It worked too.

Steve, I have a lot of respect for you, your posts are always very informative and you do your homework.  However it does sound like you have already judged me, and my colleagues in the public sector.  That makes me sad.

Again you are wrong.  I am glad to say that there are many people who do their jobs to actually make a difference, myself included, and they do.  You are free to believe whatever you want, and I don't pretend anything I say will make a huge difference.  As I stated earlier, if I wanted a cushy number I would sign on with a Social Work agency, get paid senior wages, and spend 6 months with one team before moving on to the next.  Imagine how a child in care feels having a Social worker that changes every 6 months, it destroys lives, I have seen it first hand, and that is why I will never make that transition. 

Your statement is disappointing, but of course not unexpected, and highlights another of the things we public sector workers have to deal with, public opinion.  But not whining I deal with it and move on, I am a child kidnapper apparently.

Again, wrong.  Practice has had to change of course it has.  We now spend 30 minutes with a child instead of an hour, we work 45+ hour weeks and get told off for not taking our time owed.  As I have stated, it is the service users that have born the brunt of these cuts.

Many local authorities have collapsed, with the government stepping in to run them, look at the serious case reviews for children across the country since the financial crisis, then tell me that not having services for children like connexions and youth services would not have made a difference. 

It is mine and my colleagues credit that our service hasn't collapsed for working damned hard, inspite of everything.

 Why is that?  After all they make up a large proportion of public services, or would that skew the figures?

There is one line which proves the point i've been making, (the line bolded)

you and your 8 colleagues are (now) working damn hard, yet, when there was 20 of you, what where you doing? coasting. It now sounds like your more efficient and earning your corn. Sounds like the tax payer is getting value for the money. keep up the good work. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2017 at 3:30 PM, eugeneonegin said:

Well this was on the BBC:

Table 4: Median Real Hourly Earnings (ASHE) for 10 PRB Occupations £ per hour

Average annual growth (%)

2005

2010

2015

2005-2010

2010-2015

2005-2015

Doctors

38

38

30

-0.1

-4.4

-2.2

Radiographers

22

21

18

-0.8

-3.1

-1.9

Physios

18

18

15

0.1

-2.8

-1.3

Occupational therapists

17

18

16

0.5

-2.1

-0.8

Nurses

16

17

16

1.8

-1.5

0.1

Midwives

19

21

18

2.1

-2.7

-0.4

Nursing auxiliaries

9

11

10

2.5

-0.9

0.8

Police officers

20

20

18

0.4

-1.9

-0.8

Prison officers

16

15

15

-1.1

-0.7

-0.9

School teachers

25

24

22

-0.7

-1.3

-1.0

                       

 

Wow. I have a big extended family on my wife's side that is mostly nurses, and I can tell you that with payrates like that, it is a wonder you get anyone working these jobs at all. Doctors in the US probably make four or five times what is listed. It is just the cost of socialized medicine I think. That pay will of necessity be low for government works in order to make the whole system work at all.

An average US nurse makes about $60,000 a year which would be about 22 pounds an hour. And that is for the lower education positions. My mother in law makes over 120,000 due to seniority.

On 7/11/2017 at 4:07 AM, eugeneonegin said:

If someone is being treated unfairly, they are being treated un-fairly.

Or does it only become unfair if there are more than one?

If it is unfair depends on if it is true across all government workers, if so, then it is fair, as everyone is being treated the same. 

Something that is resource driven, such as these salaries can't be unfair just because the pay is less then it was. That is like saying it is unfair that the stock market ever goes down. Or unfair that your car looses value. Or unfair that people just need to pay more taxes....

Compared to the US, I suppose it isn't fair, as we don't have such austerity measures. BUT, I think if we did nationalize our healthcare, we'd see austerity coming pretty quick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.