Frank Field given role as poverty czar by Cameron - The Times

Sir_Humphrey

Well, I'd be happy to see the end of these "efficiency schemes" [sic].

Quite how you can avoid them if you are laying off "backroom staff" is a pertinent question. It was an attempt to reduce public sector staffing that was the genesis of such schemes.

marklv

andyroberts1967 wrote: »

I've never heard of Will Hutton, I do hope that they don't mess up our civil service final salary pensions for EXISTING staff. Most of us joined up knowing the salary wouldn't be top dollar, but that a long service would bring its own rewards in the form of a decent pension. I don't even mind paying a bit more towards it, as long as they keep the FS system for existing staff.

I very much doubt that they will take away pension benefits of existing public sector staff, but new entrants will certainly have different benefits.
In fairness, civil servants have good pension schemes but very poor additional fringe benefits: no private healthcare, lower life insurance than the private sector (only twice annual salary) and no car allowances. The real public sector pay excess is in the NHS and local government, not the civil service.

Sir_Humphrey

marklv wrote: »

I very much doubt that they will take away pension benefits of existing public sector staff, but new entrants will certainly have different benefits.

New entrants to the civil service are already on career average pensions. Labour have already made major reforms to public sectior pensions (in fact they have done so twice for the civil service since they came to power).

AIUI, they have already ruled out altering accrued rights, because presumably such a move is blatantly illegal (just as it was when they tried unilaterally to change the redundancy scheme).

There is to be an independent commission into this which will presumably delay any action on this. If the government's priority is reducing the short-term deficit, they will not want to use up too much political capital on a longer term issue.

In fairness, civil servants have good pension schemes but very poor additional fringe benefits: no private healthcare, lower life insurance than the private sector (only twice annual salary) and no car allowances. The real public sector pay excess is in the NHS and local government, not the civil service.

That is certainly true of the upper reaches of the latter organisations.

What people do not realise is that senior civil service bonuses are just a way of making their pay competitive without accruing extra pension rights (they are non-pensionable and non-consolidated). And a £15 million saving is pocket lint.

The PCS (junior civil servant union) have actually been very opposed to senior civil service bonuses, so they ought to be pleased with this.

ash28

jonewer wrote: »

The current definition of relative poverty means that you can never do away with it.

If you increased the entire nation's income a million-fold in real terms, we would still have the same proportion of people in 'poverty' even though the 'poorest' would be richer than all but a handful of people in the rest of world.

Its a bit silly really.

I understand what you are saying and I think you are right.

The gap between the rich and the poor got bigger under Labour, but the poor got richer. If you get my drift.

marklv

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

New entrants to the civil service are already on career average pensions. Labour have already made major reforms to public sector pensions (in fact they have done so twice for the civil service since they came to power).

Sorry, I was referring to potentially bringing in a defined contribution scheme to replace the various defined benefits ones. The 'average salary' scheme is still salary based, the main change being that the retirement age is now 65 rather than 60.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

AIUI, they have already ruled out altering accrued rights, because presumably such a move is blatantly illegal (just as it was when they tried unilaterally to change the redundancy scheme).

There is to be an independent commission into this which will presumably delay any action on this. If the government's priority is reducing the short-term deficit, they will not want to use up too much political capital on a longer term issue.

My feeling is that not much will change on the pensions front. Freezing pay for one or two years will cut salary expenses much more easily and cause less hassle with the unions.

The real issue with civil service pay is these huge pay bands that staff are on. These pay bands lead to excessive pay differences for people on the same grade and abuse from managers who seek to play the system for their own ends. The bands should be very short (no more than £5-6k) and 'high performers' (civil service jargon for people effectively doing two jobs) rewarded through non-consolidated pay additions.

Sir_Humphrey

marklv wrote: »

Sorry, I was referring to potentially bringing in a defined contribution scheme to replace the various defined benefits ones. The 'average salary' scheme is still salary based, the main change being that the retirement age is now 65 rather than 60.

Decent pensions are an important way of incentivising civil servants to stay on the straight and narrow. This was first realised by the ancient Chinese many millenia ago. Mess with that at your peril.

marklv wrote: »

My feeling is that not much will change on the pensions front. Freezing pay for one or two years will cut salary expenses much more easily and cause less hassle with the unions.

The real issue with civil service pay is these huge pay bands that staff are on. These pay bands lead to excessive pay differences for people on the same grade and abuse from managers who seek to play the system for their own ends. The bands should be very short (no more than £5-6k) and 'high performers' (civil service jargon for people effectively doing two jobs) rewarded through non-consolidated pay additions.

I suspect pay restraint will occur. I would not be surprised if there are pay cuts for the Senior Civil service, but with the fall in the value of the £, cutting junior pay would just cause deflation for no good reason. For the lowest paid, any fall would be made up with tax credits anyway.

As for pay bands, it actually rare to move up - contrary to myth you do not automatically move up a band every year. Civil service pay awards are consolidated (i.e. they comprise both inflation and moving up the pay band). So you might have a consolidated award of 2.5%, with no movement up the pay band, or everyone moved up a pay band but the pay band levels staying the same.

marklv

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Decent pensions are an important way of incentivising civil servants to stay on the straight and narrow. This was first realised by the ancient Chinese many millenia ago. Mess with that at your peril.



I suspect pay restraint will occur. I would not be surprised if there are pay cuts for the Senior Civil service, but with the fall in the value of the £, cutting junior pay would just cause deflation for no good reason. For the lowest paid, any fall would be made up with tax credits anyway.

As for pay bands, it actually rare to move up - contrary to myth you do not automatically move up a band every year. Civil service pay awards are consolidated (i.e. they comprise both inflation and moving up the pay band). So you might have a consolidated award of 2.5%, with no movement up the pay band, or everyone moved up a pay band but the pay band levels staying the same.

In which case, why not bring back the old pay scales with fixed points, like in the old days? Pay bands just give the impression that your pay can climb, when in reality it is likely to be in the lower end of the band - and stay there.

Sir_Humphrey

marklv wrote: »

In which case, why not bring back the old pay scales with fixed points, like in the old days? Pay bands just give the impression that your pay can climb, when in reality it is likely to be in the lower end of the band - and stay there.

Because the government like to weasel out of paying junior civil servants properly if they can help it. The ill-will generated far outweighs the minimal monetary saving.

Junior civil servants did see pay improvements in the late 1990s, when they were brought up from abysmal levels. But that party ended before I joined back in the early 2000s.

marklv

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Because the government like to weasel out of paying junior civil servants properly if they can help it. The ill-will generated far outweighs the minimal monetary saving.

It seems to me that the government is using private sector pay methods (i.e. PRP) in an environment which is not suited to them. It's better for high performance to be rewarded with one-off bonuses than, say, a one percent rise above the standard. What's the point? Anyway, wide pay bands and PRP means no pay rise for many. In a fixed pay budget, bigger rises for so-called 'high performers' have to be financed by pay freezes for almost everyone else. It's barmy.

Sir_Humphrey

marklv wrote: »

It seems to me that the government is using private sector pay methods (i.e. PRP) in an environment which is not suited to them. It's better for high performance to be rewarded with one-off bonuses than, say, a one percent rise above the standard. What's the point? Anyway, wide pay bands and PRP means no pay rise for many. In a fixed pay budget, bigger rises for so-called 'high performers' have to be financed by pay freezes for almost everyone else. It's barmy.

There are bonuses for junior staff, but they are only worth about £200-300 after tax.

You have to realise that the civil service is a collegiate working environment. The function of government is different to that of commerce, and what constitutes good performance/productivity is different. So bonuses and the suchlike are very crude and just encourage box-ticking. What most civil servants want I suspect is stability, security and a civilised work life. Civil servants who do not want that just move to the private sector and earn more £££.