Public Sector wages rising despite pay "freeze"

Percy1983

Really2 wrote: »

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.


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.

We really aren't seeing the same sums, I will add a third person to my example to show how unfair your freeze would be.

Ok, we have a starter in 2005/2008/2009, as for the suffering I will measure the amount paid under the £19k each one suffers before reaching the £19k.

2005 £17.5k
2006 £18k
2007 £18.5k
2008 £19k £17.5k
2009 £19k £18k £17.5k
2010 £19k £18k £17.5k
2011 £19k £18k £17.5k
2012 £19k £18.5k £18k
2013 £19k £19k £18.5k
2014 £19k £19k £19k

So suffering levels of those starting in 2005 (or before).
2005 £1.5k
2006 £1k
2007 £500
So £3000 suffered

Sombody starting in 2008:
2008 £1.5k
2009 £1k
2010 £1k
2011 £1k
2012 £500
So £5000 suffered

Sombody starting in 2009:
2009 £1.5k
2010 £1.5k
2011 £1.5k
2012 £1k
2013 £500
So £6000 suffered

Please tell you understand this, if you don't can somebody at least confirm my sums add up.

heathcote123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

It's just a difference in thinking I guess.

When I need a new employee, I phone up the local paper and they tell me its going to be £400 for a small ad.

I say '!!!! that' and find a cheaper way of doing it. And then I read through the CV's myself - it;'s dead quick, you can chuck 90% of them in the bin without too thorough a reading.

I doubt anyone in the public sector has ever thought like that.

Personally I'd be lost thinking of ways to try and spend 7k on recruiting someone. Maybe I can entice them in with free caviar and champage?

chewmylegoff

Really2 wrote: »

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?

well, if the NHS just employed nurses, this would be one thing, but since it employs all sorts of different people including droves of non-clinical staff, it isn't that simple i suppose.

they also need to go through agencies in order to recruit all of their temporary staff in order to avoid (i) becoming liable for all the employers NIC and (ii) all of the temporary staff gaining permanent employment rights.

i suppose once you've outsourced all of the temporary recruitment there is an argument that you might as well outsource all the permanent recruitment.

and then of course you can sign an "exclusive" agreement with one agency in order to get best value for money which (i) means you cannot recruit anyone who hasn't registered with that agency and (ii) someone works out to be much more expensive, i don't know why, maybe because you have artificially removed competition from the marketplace in order to comply with the ludicrous procurement rules (or maybe it's because of the nice little backhander, or both).

chewmylegoff

heathcote123 wrote: »

It's just a difference in thinking I guess.

When I need a new employee, I phone up the local paper and they tell me its going to be £400 for a small ad.

I say '!!!! that' and find a cheaper way of doing it.

I doubt anyone in the public sector has ever thought like that.

well, firstly the advertising cost is clearly not the main element of the £7k cost of a new employee which is being quoted here, and secondly, that approach is all well and good for one-off recruitment, but if you need to recruit loads of people across the region on a rolling basis, is it really practical to say "!!!! that, i'm going to get creative!".

i think my point is that you appear to be trying to compare recruitment for the countries' largest employer with recruitment for an owner-managed business, when that is not really a fair comparison and it would be better to look at how the largest private sector organisations recruit.

DaddyBear

Really2 wrote: »

No one said overpaid? I said the public sector was overblown. EG more spent on it than could be afforded.
That has nothing to do with size of wages and everything to do with massive increases in staffing levels and waste.

Absolutely. The problem is that the government are trying to squeeze everything. Areas like police and frontline NHS staff are at breaking point already, but there are whole departments that are largely uneccesary.
One example is the Criminal Records Bereau, who perform employment checks. Last year I had three separate CRB checks done because I moved hospitals. It's just insane.

Really2

Percy1983 wrote: »

We really aren't seeing the same sums, I will add a third person to my example to show how unfair your freeze would be.

How is it fair on the person on the top of the scale that everyone started after him gets a £500 wage increase yet his wages remain static at the top of the scale? (if you find unfairness at the bottom end how do you justify a top of a scale?)

I am really failing to see your beef at this?

Your person joining in year one would know of the freeze would they not? So they have an option to take the job or not.

The rest is just circumstantial, as is most of life.

In the freezes no one is doing better than anyone in reality.
Your sums are irelevent on this.

You are all frozen at your current wage that wage is set by service and experience at that time. So starting a year later is in reality is tough and a part of life.

It happens in the private sector those employed after a 4% pay rise are not automatically going to get one in their first years wages. If there is a wage freeze the following year it is the same for all regardless of who is on more.

People may earn more than others for the same jobs? If people find it unfair in the private sector they have two choices.

Really2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

well, if the NHS just employed nurses, this would be one thing, but since it employs all sorts of different people including droves of non-clinical staff, it isn't that simple i suppose.

they also need to go through agencies in order to recruit all of their temporary staff in order to avoid (i) becoming liable for all the employers NIC and (ii) all of the temporary staff gaining permanent employment rights.

i suppose once you've outsourced all of the temporary recruitment there is an argument that you might as well outsource all the permanent recruitment.

and then of course you can sign an "exclusive" agreement with one agency in order to get best value for money which (i) means you cannot recruit anyone who hasn't registered with that agency and (ii) someone works out to be much more expensive, i don't know why, maybe because you have artificially removed competition from the marketplace in order to comply with the ludicrous procurement rules (or maybe it's because of the nice little backhander, or both).

I never said they just employed nurses the etc after it should have hinted others?;)

for people in nursing etc in the UK

AFIK
The cost of using agencies is expensive especially when they want to take that person on.

I thought it was a fair possible reason why it may cost £7K to fill a post?

chewmylegoff

Really2 wrote: »

I never said they just employed nurses the etc after it should have hinted others?;)

well...yes but anyway, it isn't just for clinical staff, but for staff across the board. pretty sure that there are more people in non-clinical roles in the NHS.

AFIK
The cost of using agencies is expensive especially when they want to take that person on.

I thought it was a fair possible reason why it may cost £7K to fill a post?

agencies appear to be expensive (normally charging something like 25% of the first year salary as commission), but large private sector organisations are still prepared to outsource to them, which presumably means they find it better value for money to use the agency than to keep that part of the recruitment function in-house.

heathcote123

chewmylegoff wrote: »

which presumably means they find it better value for money to use the agency than to keep that part of the recruitment function in-house.

Or it could be that they find it easier to just bill the tax payer & put their feet up, rather than doing work.

Percy1983

Seriously, are you just trying to wind me up now?

Really2 wrote: »

How is it fair on the person on the top of the scale that everyone started after him gets a £500 wage increase yet his wages remain static at the top of the scale?

From my own personal point of view from the top of the scale I have no problem with people rising up the same scale on a simple basis, I have already progressed up it so why shouldn't they.

Surely there has to be a top of the scale as a maximium that job is worth, change jobs, move to the bottom of the next scale.

Really2 wrote: »

In the freezes no one is doing better than anyone in reality.
Your sums are irelevent on this.

The sums which clearly add up to somebody being worse off if you freeze them on the scale... seriously how does that not add up?

Really2 wrote: »

You are all frozen at your current wage that wage is set by service and experience at that time.

So should everybodies wages be set on there experience 3 ago, those at the top of the scale are fine and those at the bottom don't improve over the 3 years?