Public Sector wages rising despite pay "freeze"

StevieJ

kabayiri wrote: »

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!

I hope you are not suggesting that some private sector firms are not very efficient.

kabayiri

It does sound like the government isn't going to achieve anything like the cost savings they hope for in the public sector.

I expect to see increased outsourcing of roles to private sector companies. In the end these companies will adapt by paying less for the same roles.

adouglasmhor

Mallotum_X wrote: »

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?
council tax is a local not state tax - what is hard about that ?
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? I said some, stop oversimplifying if it's too hard just stop

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

Housing associations, are these public employees? are you sure? I thouse HA were generally independent and registered as charities?So you are saying it is private sector? Why then do people talk about public housing when referring to HAs?

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. Local is not state

And you called me simplistic

Simplistic and either obtuse or stupid.

kabayiri

StevieJ wrote: »

I hope you are not suggesting that some private sector firms are not very efficient.

Of course

Ask any agency worker. A recruitment agent is basically the organisational equivalent of a parasite.

A mandatory part of their role is to not understand the job role, especially if it is technical!

They just get in the way in my view.

Andy_L

Mallotum_X wrote: »

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.

PAYE is cheap & easy to administer. Whilst exempting public sector workers form tax is initially attractive it opens a whole can of worms, eg:
tax free savings (Pensions/ISAs)
tax on second jobs
moving savings between spouses to minimise tax
tax on overtime if someone nudges into higher rate
comparing salary between sectors
NI contributions for benifit eligibility
recalculating everyones salary every budget
etc

adouglasmhor

kabayiri wrote: »

It does sound like the government isn't going to achieve anything like the cost savings they hope for in the public sector.

I expect to see increased outsourcing of roles to private sector companies. In the end these companies will adapt by paying less for the same roles.

I know fine well that including admin costs they pay more for me to do less in the same job now that I am in the private sector. I am on a little more money but with not such a good pension now.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

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

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That is why I thought it was odd in his public sector job the pay freeze still allowed people to move up scales.

Being at the top of your scale is not a freeze, not allowing movement up is. So the contradiction was him being at the top of a scale being a freeze yet hinting others on lower scales can move up.

Andy_L

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?

It depends on where you work. Some areas (eg NHS) have contractual pay progression (assuming you meet performance targets) so that will have to be paid regardless but a cost-of-living increase won't be paid. Some departments roll them both into one set of negotiation so won't pay any increase

Really2

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.

Well I would guess not seeing my wife is taking a pay cut.

Percy1983

Really2 wrote: »

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. That is why I thought it was odd in his public sector job the pay freeze still allowed people to move up scales.

Being at the top of your scale is not a freeze, not allowing movement up is. So the contradiction was him being at the top of a scale being a freeze yet hinting others on lower scales can move up.

I don't see the contradiction here.

I am at the top of my scale so my pay is frozen.

If we take on sombody doing the same job they will start on a lessor wage than me and be on the same salary after 3 years.

As mentioned before, rather than looking at these increments as pay rises, look at them as paying savings for the first few years.