Public Sector wages rising despite pay "freeze"

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

But I thought you were saying there had still been incremental increases in scale with the pay freeze in place?

The top of a scale is always frozen unless unless you get a pay rise or move scale that has nothing to do with what you said?

But can you clarify what you are saying, are people still moving up scales in a pay freeze environment?

I don't see anything contradictory in what he said?

The top of my scale hasn't moved for 3 years, looks frozen to me.

you said

Odd, my OH LA have stopped movements in scales also???

Are you saying that the scales have been frozen? which in itself would not stop people moving up them.

custardy

Really2 wrote: »

Mainly taxes though as leisure centers tend to be massive loss makers for councils.

though sometimes you wonder why

http://www.edinburghsucks.com/2008/04/11/sheratons-one-spa-cheaper-than-edinburgh-leisure/

Percy1983

Really2 wrote: »

But I thought you were saying their had still been incremental increases in scale wit the pay freeze in place?

The top of a scale is always move unless you get a pay rise or move scale.

But can you clarify what you are saying, are people still moving up scales in a pay freeze environment?

Sorry I am not being clear on this one.

May pay scale hasn't changed for 3 years.

Yes I have progressed up it to the top of the scale.

Now I have 2 very clear arguements on this.

1, The final part of the scale is what the job is actually worth, the early bands just underpay a little for a few years, with the the difference from top to bottom isn't a huge amount of money.

2, If somebody started the year before me they should be one level above me until we both reach the final part of the scale, where as what you are saying is we should both get froze to which they will have had higher than me for doing the same job, never mind another 3 years ahead of me when the scales start moving again, in short you have the potential for somebody to earn more than somebody doing the same job for 6 years (maybe more if the freeze continues). Now can you see the problem here, can you see a tribunal, can see them losing skilled staff?

By all means I am not complaining about the freeze and you will never even hear me complain about the changes to pensions, but to say my salary should be frozen on a rubbish pay scale is insulting when the top of the scale is still behind the private sector by an increasing margin.

On other fronts we have more work as staff have left and not been replaced and I know here most will be on the top of the scales and those few still climbing it to get equal with others deserve at least that much.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

7k to recruit an admin assistant just proves how badly run things are.

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).

Add up all those man hours spent on the candidate(s) and succesful candidate. Add employer NI. Add employer pension contributions.

Unless you have a better way of doing things?

StevieJ

I guess that freezing the scale is different than freezing the pay, I should imagine that freezing the pay is pretty much illegal as increments are written into the contract subject to adequate performance.

Percy1983

StevieJ wrote: »

I guess that freezing the scale is different than freezing the pay, I should imagine that freezing the pay is pretty much illegal as increments are written into the contract subject to adequate performance.

Very much so.

From what I know most scales aren't that different from top to bottom either.

The fact that my pay scale has been frozen for 3 years means my pay is 3 years behind and will remain so for the future unless we get some beyond inflation increases at some point (Doubt it).

Mallotum_X

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Local authority workers paid for from council tax, some court workers paid for from fine income, support workers paid for from individuals contributions, licensing officers paid from income from licensing. Housing association workers paid from income from rents.

Which ones of those are not paid for by the state?

Local Authority paid by Council tax and general government funds (What % of local authority income is council tax - I cant remember the exact figure but a significnat percentage comes from central gov). Are you saying Council tax is not a tax or that they are not paid for by the state?

Court workers - paid directly from fines? Are you really sure about that - do the fines not go into a central pot. If there were not enough fines do the court workers not get paid that week?

Licensing officers - are these not the same as local authority workers - paid for out of local authority income - so state employees.

Housing associations, are these public employees? are you sure? I thouse HA were generally independent and registered as charities?

So in other words they are paid for by the state - (although not independent HA employees), and because the state has a variety of ways of taking in different taxes and fees that for some reason doesnt count.

And you called me simplistic

StevieJ

Percy1983 wrote: »

Very much so.

From what I know most scales aren't that different from top to bottom either.

The fact that my pay scale has been frozen for 3 years means my pay is 3 years behind and will remain so for the future unless we get some beyond inflation increases at some point (Doubt it).

There are of course other ways of doing it e.g. the pay scale could have a top and a bottom but the rise up the scale depends on performance not time e.g. each employee is given a ranking that converts into a % pay rise so (in theory) better performers rise up the scale faster, not perfect by any means as it obviously includes some subjective judgement (not something, I personally would like to depend upon from public sector middle managers).

Andy_L

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.

In all the pay spine schemes I've been in poor performers would not get the increment & should be on the receiving end of performance management action

kabayiri

heathcote123 wrote: »

well surely the answer is to cut the massive inneficiences that lead to you spending 7k per person recruiting? thats just ridiculous.

Recruitment costs are ridiculous, especially at the higher levels. Some councils have paid over £100K to try and recruit someone.

If the government had their own recruitment outfit, it would at least see the proceeds going back into state coffers.

Time to squeeze the recruitment agencies big time. State needs the cash!