Public Sector wages rising despite pay "freeze"

adouglasmhor

Mallotum_X wrote: »

hang on, im being obtuse?, you were the person who listed local authority workers etc as not being part of the state, you made a poor pedantic point badly, get over it.

As for the fines, no they dont put it in a kitty and pay the wages as they go. That's not even what I saidThat has the be the most stupid point you have tried to make. Court fines sometimes go in part to victims of crime, the rest ends up in central government coffers. The courts do not keep the fines to spend on themeselves. By this crazy logic "Budgeting" would mean they have to raise X amount to pay the court staff wages. Sorry, you are simply wrong.

I won't be replying to you any more. As you are obviously a liar and a fool.

By the way have you ever thought of using a spellchecker.

Mallotum_X

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I won't be replying to you any more.

By the way have you ever thought of using a spellchecker.

lol, glad you have finally accepted you are wrong

chewmylegoff

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Missing the point...

Claiming public sector pay tax too... what is the net contibution to tax funds of a public sector workers salary - oh yeah its zero.

it's not as good as that.

net contribution = - (net salary + pension liability).

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Does it?

I don't know how much advertising costs. But I'd assume it's a fair whack.

Then managers (at least 2) time spent sifting through the responses.

Then their time again interviewing the chosen candidates (can be two days x 2 salaries dependant on amount of candidates to go through).

Then HR time spent on personnel issues, tax, H&S, pension etc.

Then other staff's time training the succesful candidate to do the job (several days).

Advertising is free in the job centre, and if you ask them nicely they put it in the local paper too. You'd think the NHS could have a 'job site' for all their vacancies, and make it there exclusive means of advertising. I mean, it's not like prospective workers haven't heard of the nhs?

Anyway, re the time, I do it myself. I'd estimate it takes a couple of days in total to go from placing ad to employing someone. I charge my time out @ 400 a day. So about 10% of what it costs the nhs to do, though I admit they might have a few more things to check.

You'd think the NHS might have scales of economy though.

Percy1983

Really2 wrote: »

Do you not see they all suffer the same? you proved it in your example.

Both did not hit the top of their scales until 5 years of service instead of three.

No one suffered more than anyone else.

Maybe you not doing the sum in the middle like me. As I used a simple round scale here is another sum.

3 years at £500 less = £1500

5 years at £500 less = £2500

As I say freezing mid scale means those who joined later suffer more.

StevieJ wrote: »

Above all these things need to be seen as fair, any other outcome could see disaffected employees who could cause untold hidden damage within the system.

I think this hits the nail on the head really.

As mentioned if I didn't progess up these the scales I would have gone on strike/started a tribunal/been generally unhappy.

The exact thought would be, 'its ok for them at the top of the scale, in this together my a***'

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

Maybe you not doing the sum in the middle like me.'

I am but you are only doing the one who was last in. vs the next scale up. Not both vs the next scale up.

2008 £17.5k
2009 £18k £17.5k
2010 £18k £17.5k
2011 £18k £17.5k
2012 £18.5k £18k
2013 £19k £18.5k
2014 £19k £19k

Your example had both frozen on scales £500 less than the next scale.

So both would be £1500 worse off over 3 years, so no one is more worse off than the other.

So in a freeze, in general everyone suffers, no one gains but it is broadly equal for all workers.

DaddyBear

Batchy wrote: »

The fact is, if the public sector budget for pay freezes and they get increased then the budget 2011 is shot to bits and austerity 2011-2015 is sunk and over. Why is the recession if there is wage growth... figures dont add up to me.

Increments are based on experience so as you lose people at the top and replace them with people at the bottom, the net effect taking into account the increments is roughly neutral for the wage budget.

Graham_Devon

heathcote123 wrote: »

You'd think the NHS might have scales of economy though.

The NHS do have scales of economy.

But if you do these things in your jobs, surely you know that scales of economy cannot possibly work with something so vast as the NHS, with so many localities and so many different specialities and job roles.

I'm quite sure there are full time people employed just to advertise job placements.

Hence why it can cost 7k.

People just see 7k, and think of an advert in a paper and claim the NHS are therefore wasting money.

If only it was as simple.

Theres masses of wastage in the NHS. But there would be more wastage if those criticising it had their way, as all they appear able to see if their own misinformed view.

chewmylegoff

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I work in a private company on contract to governmental bodies, so my tax contribution is also zero by your flawed logic.

it's not really flawed logic is it. if your entire salary is funded by a payment from the government to your company, then any tax deducted from your salary is just recycling of tax originally paid to the government by someone else, your net contribution to the tax take is a negative amount as your net salary is funded through taxation.

huge rafts of the tax take are just recycled amounts - e.g. if a public sector employee spends money on a VAT rated item, the govt ultimately collects that VAT, but the money is just being recycled in the system.

i don't know why you're getting so cross about it though, it's not a particularly emotive issue to my mind. it's just a fact. it doesn't make you sub-human or anything. the point of taxing people is to spend the money paying other people to do stuff.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The NHS do have scales of economy.

But if you do these things in your jobs, surely you know that scales of economy cannot possibly work with something so vast as the NHS, with so many localities and so many different specialities and job roles.

I'm quite sure there are full time people employed just to advertise job placements.

Hence why it can cost 7k.

People just see 7k, and think of an advert in a paper and claim the NHS are therefore wasting money.

If only it was as simple.

Perhaps a lot of the cost is based on using agencies rather than employing directly?
Never really understood why agencies got so big for people in nursing etc in the UK, it is not like there are many options of employers?