i just had my pay "rise" and it was very small

PasturesNew

I applied for a job in January, after they'd already decided who they were going to appoint... but that got me onto their jobs mailing list. Just had an email with the vacancy again and this time the pay's 12% lower than they were offering in January. Same job, same company.

inspector_monkfish

PasturesNew wrote: »

I applied for a job in January, after they'd already decided who they were going to appoint... but that got me onto their jobs mailing list. Just had an email with the vacancy again and this time the pay's 12% lower than they were offering in January. Same job, same company.

England manager?

chucknorris

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i could cry when i see the amount of tax that I pay every month -.

I know what you mean! It would be great to be paying 10x the tax you pay cos thrn you would be earning so much more, most people think paying lots of tax is bad but of course it is very good. I was I was paying £1m tax per month.

wymondham

You think you've got it hard ....... I'm on year three of a pay freeze and now do the job of three people..... I've never visited the doctor as much as in the last 6 months.... ;-(

But hey, the sun is shining and I no longer have to suffer the pain of England matches... so its not all bad!!

IveSeenTheLight

PasturesNew wrote: »

I applied for a job in January, after they'd already decided who they were going to appoint... but that got me onto their jobs mailing list. Just had an email with the vacancy again and this time the pay's 12% lower than they were offering in January. Same job, same company.

As I said before, companies will try and get what they think they can get for as little as they can.

Doesn't say too much for the company if they need to re-advertise for the same position one year later.

Question is would you or anyone else accept the 12% reduction?
If so then the company wins, if not they could readvertise at a higher rate.

Maybe they think with the recession, there is an increase in candidates willing to snap their fingers off for the role.

Andy_L

iamana1ias wrote: »

Not according to guidance from the Cabinet Office (for civil servants).

So it looks like inconstancy between areas (theres a surprise then)

Military are getting their annual increment (intranet publication so I can't link)
MoD civil service will have the last year of their multi-year pay deal honoured
I've been verbally (always risky) briefed by my boss that NHS will receiver annual increments

pjread

yeah NHS are getting increments I understand, at least staff on 'normal' grades. no idea if consultants/registrars are getting anything but frankly as great as some of them are they can afford a freeze more than most. (and some of them are not great too...)

PasturesNew

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

As I said before, companies will try and get what they think they can get for as little as they can.

Doesn't say too much for the company if they need to re-advertise for the same position one year later.

Question is would you or anyone else accept the 12% reduction?
If so then the company wins, if not they could readvertise at a higher rate.

Maybe they think with the recession, there is an increase in candidates willing to snap their fingers off for the role.

Well, it's the first job in 6 months that's "what I do" within 200 miles that I've spotted. And even though the job criteria is tough and specialist and specific, I do meet all the criteria (and then some) and they've still got a couple of hundred replies already. I might get an interview, I'll c0ck that up though..... but I have to be in it to win it as they say, so I'm in it.

marklv

The_White_Horse wrote: »

now i am even more adamant that the public sector scum should pay for what they have done.

this pay freeze for two years is a charade. most have agreed pay deals to take them past it, and most will get a payrise as they move up the pay scale - because in public sector, you get promoted on length of service rather than ability.

I hate the public sector, i really do.

still, i suppose a small pay rise is better than no pay rise.

You got a rise - so what the hell are you complaining about? What do you do for a living, anyway, other than moan and groan?

Most in the public sector do not have agreed pay deals - not me for sure. And the government can override these deals if needs be.

It's also nonsense to say that in the public sector you get promoted on length of service rather than ability; there are very strict performance targets and appraisals where I work and only those who tangibly perform consistently well over a long period have a chance of any possible promotion. Those who underperform are demoted or dismissed.

marklv

Andy_L wrote: »

No, annual spine point/increments will be paid

Rubbish. My job is in a quango affiliated to the Home Office - there are no 'spine points', only a very broad pay range, as in the private sector. And pay has already been frozen in 2010, following a below inflation 2% rise in 2009 for 'effective performers' only. So by 2013 there will have been three years of pay freezes and at least one year of below inflation rises - and this for those who perform well, let alone those who struggle with their job objectives. So much for the wasteful public sector!!