Public Sector wages rising despite pay "freeze"

Really2

[QUOTE=Percy1983;46311761If_somebody_started_the_year_before_me_they_should_be_one_level_above_me_until_we_both_reach_the_final_part_of_the_scale._Yes

where as what you are saying is we should both get froze to which they will have had higher than me for doing the same job, never mind another 3 years ahead of me when the scales start moving again, in short you have the potential for somebody to earn more than somebody doing the same job for 6 years (maybe more if the freeze continues). Now can you see the problem here, can you see a tribunal, can see them losing skilled staff?[/QUOTE]

It is not what I am saying, it is what as happened to my wife?
Scale is set on many things and can be negotiated before a job is taken.

I am not sure what you are going on about in the second paragraph How can someone one year ahead of you become three years head of you?
If they are at the top of the scale they cant move up? you will be at the top of the scale when they open scales again you can't move scales unless you move jobs or get a job revaluation.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That is why I thought it was odd in his public sector job the pay freeze still allowed people to move up scales.

Being at the top of your scale is not a freeze, not allowing movement up is. So the contradiction was him being at the top of a scale being a freeze yet hinting others on lower scales can move up.

It is if the scales are not uprated for inflation, not allowing movement up it is not only unfair but probably illegal (depending on the contract).
Frozen Uprated CPI 5%
10000 10500
9000 9450
8000 8400

If the guy on £8000 receives his increment, unfrozen he would move to £9450 but frozen he would move to £9000, frozen enough for me. What is your logic for saying that the guy on 10k should always earn £2k more than the guy on £8k for doing the same job?

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

I don't see the contradiction here.

I am at the top of my scale so my pay is frozen.

If we take on sombody doing the same job they will start on a lessor wage than me and be on the same salary after 3 years.

As mentioned before, rather than looking at these increments as pay rises, look at them as paying savings for the first few years.

You are not on a pay freeze you are at the top of your scale? That would be the same if there were not cuts happening???

Incremental increases are not pay savings but are rewards for gained experience in the role.

So I ask again have they froze increments or not at your place of work as my wifes have been frozen for over a year.

Mallotum_X

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Simplistic and either obtuse or stupid.

If you really think that there is really a difference between 'local' public sector and 'national' public sector, then you are on another planet.

To the rest of us in the real world the state is the whole thing, the way its organised makes not a jot of difference. Quite why it does to you would be interesting to know, the salaries are still paid for by the rest of us via taxation (ok plus a small amount of local fee income of which it could be argued amounts to another layer of direct taxation).

And you maintain that some court workers are paid directly from fines....? So if its a slow fine week do they put a few extra ones in to make the money up?

Regardless of what people call Housing associations really doesn't make much difference. A lot of people refer to the charitable sector as a third sector, quite what that has to do with this discussion I dont know but it seems as if you want to try and muddy the water as much as possible.

Since when was a local authority employee not considered public/(state) sector? Maybe we should exclude the NHS as the employees are paid by Local Health Authorities, or maybe we should look at the whole picture rather than making poor attempts to be pedantic?

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

You are not on a pay freeze you are at the top of your scale? That would be the same if there were not cuts happening???

Incremental increases are not pay savings but are rewards for gained experience in the role.

So I ask again have they froze increments or not at your place of work as my wifes have been frozen for over a year.

Are you not aware that that pay scales were previously uprated for inflation, so the whole pay scale would be uprated including the top? As regards your wfe you say her pay is frozen but you haven't explained where she is on the payscale.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

It is if the scales are not uprated for inflation, not allowing movement up it is not only unfair but probably illegal (depending on the contract).
Frozen Uprated CPI 5%
10000 10500
9000 9450
8000 8400

If the guy on £8000 receives his increment, unfrozen he would move to £9450 but frozen he would move to £9000, frozen enough for me. What is your logic for saying that the guy on 10k should always earn £2k more than the guy on £8k for doing the same job?

Can you prove it as illegal steve? I will hand it to my wife's colleges. Considering thy can sack them all and put them on new contracts legally I would like to see this.

We would be financially better off, but I think you will find you are wrong on the freezing of incremental increases and wage freezes being illegal.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

Are you not aware that that pay scales were previously uprated for inflation, so the whole pay scale would be uprated including the top? As regards your wfe you say her pay is frozen but you haven't explained where she is on the payscale.

Jesus, my wife has/will be sacked will get no incremental update (she is bottom of the scale as she re applied for her job last year and the job was different) she will not get a wage increase and will be remployed on a new contract on new terms.
(PS the point of my wifes scale is irrelevent, wage, scale movements and increases have been frozen across the whole organisation that is why I asked the question in the first place to percey)

I know some like to think they know it all and may have good knowledge or points, but a least give some credit to someone actually experiencing it.

They got legal representation and the letter is sound?

Anyone else want to tell me I am wrong?

adouglasmhor

Mallotum_X wrote: »

If you really think that there is really a difference between 'local' public sector and 'national' public sector, then you are on another planet.

To the rest of us in the real world the state is the whole thing, the way its organised makes not a jot of difference. Quite why it does to you would be interesting to know, the salaries are still paid for by the rest of us via taxation (ok plus a small amount of local fee income of which it could be argued amounts to another layer of direct taxation).

And you maintain that some court workers are paid directly from fines....? So if its a slow fine week do they put a few extra ones in to make the money up?

Regardless of what people call Housing associations really doesn't make much difference. A lot of people refer to the charitable sector as a third sector, quite what that has to do with this discussion I dont know but it seems as if you want to try and muddy the water as much as possible.

Since when was a local authority employee not considered public/(state) sector? Maybe we should exclude the NHS as the employees are paid by Local Health Authorities, or maybe we should look at the whole picture rather than making poor attempts to be pedantic?

Public sector is more than state, you are being obtuse to back up your argument in the absence of logic or facts. As for the court workers who are paid from fine income - they put it all in a kitty over the year and spend as needed it's called BUDGETING.

By your logic many private sector salaries are also paid for from the tax budget, do you want me to start listing them as well?

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Jesus, my wife has/will be sacked will get no incremental update (she is bottom of the scale as she re applied for her job last year and the job was different) she will not get a wage increase and will be remployed on a new contract on new terms.

She's on new terms. Therefore you are both talking about different things. Stevie is talking about the old terms. You are talking about a new contract.

Anyone else want to tell me I am wrong?

Yes. Me.

You are wrong.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

Jesus, my wife has/will be sacked will get no incremental update (she is bottom of the scale as she re applied for her job last year and the job was different) she will not get a wage increase and will be remployed on a new contract on new terms.
(PS the point of my wifes scale is irrelevent, wage, scale movements and increases have been frozen across the whole organisation that is why I asked the question in the first place to percey)

I know some like to think they know it all, but a least give some credit to someone actually experiencing it.

They got legal representation and the letter is sound?

Anyone else want to tell me I am wrong?

Who is saying you are wrong, I don't work in the public sector, I am merely commenting on the use of pay scales and the OP said that 8 out of 10 public sector workers are not in your position.

Almost eight in 10 public sector managers said they will continue to give workers annual pay “increments”, salary increases automatically awarded to reflect the length of a worker’s service. Most public bodies have also made no move to reduce the generosity of redundancy payments to departing staff.