Public Sector wages rising despite pay "freeze"

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

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).

I think it's just one dimensional issues which cloud any public sector threads.

The only thing some people can see is the four walls of the one box that suggests higher wages.

However, they want the public sector to save money and reduce wastage. I read in one of the journal thing that each new recruit costs an NHS organisation approximately £7,000. That includes advertising, interviews, training and legal framework costs (H&S etc) and misc administrative costs (such as setting up payroll, pensions etc).

However, let's take a typical Band 3 member of staff. This will be administrative. Secretarial, Receptionist, Office worker etc.

The most that member of staff will cost you (based on todays rates) for all nine salary increases, is £3,500 over 9 years.

That's half the cost of recruiting one other member of staff.

Now multiply that one job, with one person sitting in it for 9 years, with hiring say 2-3 people over 9 years for the same job as there is no incentive for the staff to stay on.

Suddenly one post has cost you £21,000 extra to fill over 9 years, instead of £3.5k

People really need to peer out of the box and stop concentrating so hard on the 4 walls in the box that say "Public - Sector - Wage - Increase".

adouglasmhor

Mallotum_X wrote: »

Ignoring the rest of the thread, this is one of the silly statements about public sector workers.

Who ends up paying their tax..

Take an example. Mr X earns 25k in private sector, upon which he is taxed say 5k. The government is now 5k better off.

Mr Y earns 25k in public sector, the goverenment pays him 20k and gets 5k in tax, but where did the 25k come from - thats right from the tax paid by mr X and his colleagues.

The government therefore spends 20k on mr Y salary. Thats the cost of him on Mr X (and colleagues), not 25k. There was never any tax benefit to the country of Mr Y.

It has never made any sense to circle cash round the system as public sector taxation, all it does is create work and cost money. But it makes people like mr Y think hes contributing too, even though he isnt...

That is just ridiculous, once the government (who do not pay all public workers salaries anyway) pay mr X it's his maoney anyway, not the govts, so he is taxed on that. What do you suggest Public sector workers get less money but pay no tax? What nonsense.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I think it's just one dimensional issues which cloud any public sector threads.

The only thing some people can see is the four walls of the one box that suggests higher wages.

However, they want the public sector to save money and reduce wastage. I read in one of the journal thing that each new recruit costs an NHS organisation approximately £7,000. That includes advertising, interviews, training and legal framework costs (H&S etc) and misc administrative costs (such as setting up payroll, pensions etc).

However, let's take a typical Band 3 member of staff. This will be administrative. Secretarial, Receptionist, Office worker etc.

The most that member of staff will cost you (based on todays rates) for all nine salary increases, is £3,500 over 9 years.

That's half the cost of recruiting one other member of staff.

Now multiply that one job, with one person sitting in it for 9 years, with hiring say 2-3 people over 9 years for the same job as there is no incentive for the staff to stay on.

Suddenly one post has cost you £21,000 extra to fill over 9 years, instead of £3.5k

People really need to peer out of the box and stop concentrating so hard on the 4 walls in the box that say "Public - Sector - Wage - Increase".

So you think that it is worth keeping on low performers and keep giving them pay rises, as it it saves on HR costs?

Graham_Devon

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?

No point discussing any further.

It's not an automatic pay rise. It's part of your contract. The same as bonuses are sometimes part of private sector employees contracts.

Prime example being the much discussed bank clerks, when the government was looking at stopping bonuses. The bank clerks themselves relied on those bonuses as part of their contractual salary. Hence it would have been a massive court case if they were removed.

I'm going to take it that after all the descriptions and explanations of the scheme, you are simply now going to hang on to the "low performer" and harp on about that person. Every sector has low performers. Every sector also has normal and exceptional performers too. We can't concentrate solely on the low performer to make an argument about an entire contractual pay system for millions of employees.

Theres little point discussing if the above paragraph is the case.

adouglasmhor

ILW wrote: »

So you think that it is worth keeping on low performers and keep giving them pay rises, as it it saves on HR costs?

How do you know they are low performers? Many public sector workers are hard working and dedicated, though you get time servers in all sectors.

lindsaygalaxy

From the sounds of it I think some people on here would just like there to be no public service and everything privatised. So people will have to all pay for their children to go to school, everyone to see a doctor or nurse like in other countries, and should you need to police there would be a call out charge. Fine for the rich, stuff everyone else.

Mallotum_X

adouglasmhor wrote: »

That is just ridiculous, once the government (who do not pay all public workers salaries anyway) pay mr X it's his maoney anyway, not the govts, so he is taxed on that. What do you suggest Public sector workers get less money but pay no tax? What nonsense.

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.

ILW

adouglasmhor wrote: »

How do you know they are low performers? Many public sector workers are hard working and dedicated, though you get time servers in all sectors.

My argument is that the "automatic pay rises" mean that even the poor performers get increases. Which to me seems wrong if they are not increasing their value to the organisation.

Mallotum_X

lindsaygalaxy wrote: »

From the sounds of it I think some people on here would just like there to be no public service and everything privatised. So people will have to all pay for their children to go to school, everyone to see a doctor or nurse like in other countries, and should you need to police there would be a call out charge. Fine for the rich, stuff everyone else.

I dont think anyones said scrap the public sector in this thread... more the discussion over pay freezes meaning pay rises...

Percy1983

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.

This really is my point.

I went and got a job to which I was happy with the final salary after a few years so I took it. I had the choice of private and public sector and just picked the job which I liked the look of and I would be happy in.

As I say I took the job on the agreement of going up the scale (there is some clauses to stop me but I have been a good boy).

Now yes if I didn't get the increments as agreed I would jump ship into the private sector.

As it is I am now on a bit less than I would get in the private sector (despite being on the top of my scale) but do get free travel on public transport so I can't grumble too much.

So back to your point, I don't get my increment and leave and they advertise it at the bottom of the scale with no increases they will stuggle to get somebody in to work at the same standard for less money.