Public Sector wages rising despite pay "freeze"

Percy1983

ILW wrote: »

That attitude that I deserve more pay because I have been here a long time really annoys me. Pay should be based on results and value to the employer, not how long one has been around.
The public sector do not seem to get it at all.

Maybe you just don't get it.

I applied for my job looking at the salary band, my acceptance of the job was based on the top end being a fair salary for the job and I was accepting a slightly lower wage for the first few years.

I don't believe I am worth more because how long I have been there, I believe I am worth that much as thats what was agreed when I took the job.

Mallotum_X

"Its becoz I is worth it"...

I love the entitlement the public guys seem to have.

What part of pay freeze is so hard to understand, the country is skint, its not your fault maybe, and its not mine, but we are skint, the private sector is having to chuck in more money and the public sector was expected not to take any more out... But no you are entitled cos you have done another year. Im so glad i am paying more tax for you.

Percy1983

I do wonder actually if there is some misconceptions here.

I can confirm pay increments do not go forever, I will use a rounded version of a scale I know of here.

The job is worth £19k and if you start you get:
Year 1, £17.5k
Year 2, £18k
Year 3, £18.5k
Year 4, £19k
Year 5, £19k
Year 6, £19k
Year 7, £19k
Year 8, you get the idea.

So somebody gets UNDERPAID for the first 3 years and now you say they should get UNDERPAID for longer.

Yes before there would have been the cost of living allowances which haven't happened for 3 years for many.

You need to pay people for the jobs they are doing otherwise nobody will take the jobs, if nobody does the jobs what happens next?

As I said above what do you want, the public sector to work for nothing or all public services to stop?

Graham_Devon

The OP's title is quite misleading.

What people need to understand is the contract on which many public sector workers will be on.

Many will be on a spine type deal, whereby you start a job in the public sector, for instance the NHS and there are up to 10 (roughly) "pay levels" out of various pay "bands".

As a new entrant, you always start on the lowest scale of your band. Your contract stipulates that each year you work, you will move up a spine level, to the next wage level. I believe there are clauses in this, including absense clauses, which means you may stay on the same level (though I stand to be corrected).

So these are not pay rises per se. These are contractual pay scales.

On top of these contractual pay scales you get a percentage rise.

Taken from an NHS site, the description is:

The pay system is designed to:

• deliver fair pay for non-medical staff based on the principle of 'equal pay for work of equal value'
• provide better links between pay and career progression using the Knowledge and Skills Framework
• harmonise terms and conditions of service such as annual leave, hours and sick pay, and work done in 'unsocial hours'.

No good having a pop at the workers on these contractual terms, they started off lower on the scale and are working themselves up each year. Also no good describing this as wage rises, as they are not.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

That attitude that I deserve more pay because I have been here a long time really annoys me. Pay should be based on results and value to the employer, not how long one has been around.

That's EXACTLY what this does.

The incentive is to stay working for the employer, as each year you will move up a tier (until you reach the top).

If a member of staff stays on, to move up the bands, that's massive HR and Training resources saved on recruiting new staff.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The OP's title is[STRIKE] quite[/STRIKE] delibrately misleading.

Corrected that for you BTW I am not a public sector worker, I just don't read the Daily Mail or the Torygraph (if I can help it).

ILW

Percy1983 wrote: »

Maybe you just don't get it.

I applied for my job looking at the salary band, my acceptance of the job was based on the top end being a fair salary for the job and I was accepting a slightly lower wage for the first few years.

I don't believe I am worth more because how long I have been there, I believe I am worth that much as thats what was agreed when I took the job.

In that case do what most people in the real world do. Go and get a job elsewhere which pays you what you think you are worth. Simple really.

StevieJ

ILW wrote: »

In that case do what most people in the real world do. Go and get a job elsewhere which pays you what you think you are worth. Simple really.

I guess many are on a smilar scheme, although probably more creative

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's EXACTLY what this does.

The incentive is to stay working for the employer, as each year you will move up a tier (until you reach the top).

If a member of staff stays on, to move up the bands, that's massive HR and Training resources saved on recruiting new staff.

Just because you have been in the job for another year does not mean you are necessarily any better at it or any more valuable to your employer. Why expect an automatic pay rise?

adouglasmhor

ILW wrote: »

Just because you have been in the job for another year does not mean you are necessarily any better at it or any more valuable to your employer. Why expect an automatic pay rise?

If you do not hit targets and qualifications you do not move up the tiers. When you are interviewed for the post you are told where you start and stop on the pay scale and how many steps there are. It's not a "pay rise" it's an agreed progression.