Public Sector wages rising despite pay "freeze"

StevieJ

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 don't think they want them scrapped but more of an emphasis on servant in the phrase, Public servant

Percy1983

ILW wrote: »

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.

I know of an example where somebody hasn't gone up the scale due to poor performance...

ukcarper

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?

You miss the point the initial pay rise on promotion is normally very small but and the true value of promotion is at the end of the pay scale. So you can argue that for the length of the pay scale people are getting paid less than the job is worth therefore saving money.

DaddyBear

adouglasmhor wrote: »

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.

Absolutely. If you meet your targets and training requirements, you progress. It's not rocket science. The wage increments arent even that high. This year I moved from SHO to registrar. A massive jump in responsibility. £3k a year basic pay rise is quite frankly a !!!! take. My friends in the private sector who've had similar, significant promotions in other fields can see their pay as much as double. Sadly some on this board jump on any chance to bash the public sector.

adouglasmhor

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.

Not missing the point. The salary they receive is payment for the work they do, the revenue is on this. It's not the governments or the taxpayers money once they get it it's theirs. Can you answer the question in the post you replied to? Or is it beyond you (Bet it is).

StevieJ

What I don't understand is why people don't appear to believe that a similar thing happens in the private sector, or is it really just public sector bashing again?

Graham_Devon

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.

Might be zero - though there are many arguments which would prove that it's actually not zero.

But if you are going down that...may I say, extremely simplistic and childish route....I'd ask you to answer the following question.

How would YOU get to work to pay your taxes, if:

A) There were no roads built, maintained, or repaired to allow any transportation to actually get you to work?
There was no government, or employees to collect the taxes you, as a private sector employee, pays?

Think about it. You may be able to be all high and mighty and suggest public sector workers put zero into the pot. But so would you without the public sector workers to collect and put your contribution into the pot.

Want to argue this one any further?

RuthnJasper

ILW wrote: »

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.

Poor performers do not necessarily get automatic pay rises - they generally get told to pull their socks up.

As for me, a pay freeze IS a pay freeze. I work extremely hard for the council but have not had an increase for a couple of years (despite being a high achiever and not yet at the top of my scale) - meanwhile, the prices of everyday living (rent/petrol/food/etc.) keep going up and up and up...

Mallotum_X

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Not missing the point. The salary they receive is payment for the work they do, the revenue is on this. It's not the governments or the taxpayers money once they get it it's theirs. Can you answer the question in the post you replied to? Or is it beyond you (Bet it is).

Still missing the point then. The tax they pay is notional, as the worker gets paid net, so no tax is raised. The net tax benefit is zero...

But, to answer your question in simple terms, yes such a scheme would be entirely possible, cost less to administer and save all the fuss with cycling cash payments about.

brit1234

Hamish's post is as usal missleading or wrong. Where I work both my counter inflation payment has been frozen and my anual experiene payment is being frozen as of September.

Many wages have been frozen throughout the public sector this year already and the rest start this September.

With inflation this represents a 5% cut. I actually support this due to the circumstances however I need the BOE to target inflation and raise interest rates. I am not upset with the government as it is what needed however the BOE is making the situation far worse and stalling the economy whilst robbing savers and forcing the public to over pay for goods.