Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 81 total)
  • Public sector single status pay review..
  • elzorillo
    Free Member

    Ouch!

    Anyone else affected?

    Missus has just had a pay cut of 25%. (she’s a Teaching assistant).

    Fortunately they have put in a protection system which guarantees a top up for the next five years to earnings as were 2010/11. Then pay will drop to the new amount with no pay increases over the five years.

    Assuming inflation based pay increases, that will mean about a 45% pay cut in real terms in five years.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    so five years to find a different job then?

    elzorillo
    Free Member

    so five years to find a different job then?

    True, but she loves the job and has been doing it for almost twenty years. Seven years working voluntary then three years college to achieve a job with pay not much better than minimum wage seems such a waste now.

    One hell of a kick in the teeth.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    johnners
    Free Member

    Assuming inflation based pay increases

    Good luck with that.

    elzorillo
    Free Member

    Good luck with that.

    Never said that was achieveable.. just an example of how much worse off she will be in five years.

    ebygomm
    Free Member

    single status has been ongoing at my work the entire time i’ve been here so 4 years!

    headfirst
    Free Member

    This is scary, can someone please explain what this single status means in this context.

    stevewhyte
    Free Member

    Well you all would vote for the ‘Tory scumbag lets look after or buddies in the city’ wouldnt you.

    If they do nothing else they will be delighted if they decimate the public sector, i really want my 2 girls to get an educatinon then get out fo this rotting hole of a country, i hate to thnik what its going to be like in another 20 years when there are no pensions for the elderly so they have to work but there are no jobs.

    All because the rich who are by and large just fortunate because of where they were born feel they have some sort of right to hold on to the wealth.

    Theres a Revolution Calling if people are pushed too far we are only just at the start.

    tails
    Free Member

    Theres a Revolution Calling if people are pushed too far we are only just at the start.

    I’ve thought this for a while, we don’t need riots like last summer we need an Arab spring. I will never vote the big 3 parties again, all a shower of shite!

    Solo
    Free Member

    All because the rich who are by and large just fortunate because of where they were born feel they have some sort of right to hold on to the wealth.

    Instead of threatening to remove and redistribute the wealth.

    Why not just get wealthy ?.

    Its all a game.

    You can play.

    Go out and make your millions, or just carry on whinging.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Elzorillo, sorry to hear that. These reviews seem to have a history of this.

    Steve you are aware who introduced this legislation btw aren’t you?

    Solo
    Free Member

    I will never vote the big 3 parties again, all a shower of shite

    I tend to view it as that we have what we deserve.

    Its our own fault.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    decimate the public sector

    10% cut sounds fair to me.

    [/pedant]

    grum
    Free Member

    Does a 25% pay cut for a teaching assistant sound fair to you Stoner? While the rich get richer at an ever increasing rate? I guess it probably does.

    neninja
    Free Member

    It’s not the Coalition to blame for this. It’s Labour creating totally unsustainable public sector jobs and spending rather more money than they had coming back in for a decade.

    People have very short memories and should really look at the cause rather than kicking the people trying to somehow sort the mess out. Admittedly the Coalition have made a pigs ear of trying to sort it but it was an almost impossible task as Blair and Brown had pretty much bankrupted the country

    grum
    Free Member

    We’ve been brainwashed into believing that the country is bankrupt – of course if the super rich weren’t so incredibly greedy we could easily afford the public spending brought in by Labour.

    Of course we’re going to be skint when a tiny number of people at the top are taking an ever increasing share for themselves.

    The Sunday Times Rich List, published today and compulsory reading for anybody who wants to understand Britain’s power structure today, holds three extremely significant conclusions.   One is that the 1,000 richest persons in the UK have increased their wealth by so much in the last 3 years – £155bn – that they themselves alone could pay off the entire UK budget deficit and still leave themselves with £30bn to spare

    Of course we could also crack down on tax evasion, which costs 30 billion a year in lost revenue, but regulation is bad, right? And oh look, it’s the government’s best buddies in financial services that carry out the most fraud.

    In the private sector, the report shows the financial services industry recorded the highest loss to fraudsters, estimated to be £3.8 billion, with £1 billion in mortgage fraud and over £2 billion lost in insurance fraud.

    http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

    Or we could introduce a financial transaction tax. No, our biggest donors wouldn’t like that.

    Solo
    Free Member

    Grum.

    Theres nothing stopping you going out, making millions and giving it all to the treasury.

    So stop your belly-aching and get on with it.

    uphillcursing
    Free Member

    Solo, you are Realman and I claim my £5.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Grim, you make some valid points but are you sure about your second box? Who is being defrauded in that example? In the case of mortgage and insurance fraud, who exactly are the victims?

    awh
    Free Member

    There’s nothing stopping the (super) rich from stopping using complex wealth management to minimise their tax and paying through PAYE. 🙂

    grum
    Free Member

    It’s Grum not Grim. Yeah sorry I thought it was all talking about public losses. 15 billion not 30 billion then. Here’s the whole quote.

    At £30 billion per year, fraud in the UK is more than twice as high as thought, with tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year and benefit fraud just over £1 billion.

    Based predominantly on 2008 data, the National Fraud Authority’s first ever Annual Fraud Indicator found fraud against the public sector accounts for 58% of the total fraud in the UK per year.

    Tax evasion is around 3% of total tax liabilities, while benefit fraud accounts for 0.8% of total benefit expenditure.

    In the private sector, the report shows the financial services industry recorded the highest loss to fraudsters, estimated to be £3.8 billion, with £1 billion in mortgage fraud and over £2 billion lost in insurance fraud.

    Just shows what a marvellous industry we chose to base our economy on though (the one that supplies the largest donors to the Tory party).

    elzorillo
    Free Member

    This is scary, can someone please explain what this single status means in this context.

    Single status is a public sector pay review set to harmonise pay structures for all public sector employees.

    I believe it all started when some dinner ladies (primarily women) decided to sue their local autority employer as they felt descriminated against due to rubbish collectors (primarily men) getting paid more.

    Unfortunately most authorities have simply used the review to slash wages.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Grum (sorry I think Grim was an autospell!! Not intended), yes, in both case the public sector and the mortgage lenders and insurance companies appear to be the victims not the perpetrators of the fraud.

    grum
    Free Member

    Fair dos. So all thee losses/fraud are from masses of people fiddling insurance claims and mortgage applications, with no collusion from anyone working in the industry, and no high level fraud by financial traders etc?

    Stuff like this is just a very rare aberration?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9279644/UBS-traders-fined-1.3m-for-unauthorised-trading.html

    mattjg
    Free Member
    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Grum, I think you may be stretching it a bit there. There is a perfectly valid point to be made (as you have) without the need to embellish it!!

    If the bankers are colluding with people to commit mortgage fraud and fiddling insurance then we really are in a mess!! I doubt traders would be spending time here (!) they have other ways to destroy shareholders’ money!!

    {x post – I missed you edit. Indeed look at UBS]

    grum
    Free Member

    *puts down pedantry pen*

    Ah, got you. So, do you have an opinion or is your role just purely that of the pedantry police? 🙂

    grum
    Free Member

    Grum, I think you may be stretching it a bit there. There is a perfectly valid point to be made (as you have) without the need to embellish it!!

    If the bankers are colluding with people to commit mortgage fraud and fiddling insurance then we really are in a mess!! I doubt traders would be spending time here (!) they have other ways to destroy shareholders’ money!!

    I wasn’t suggesting bankers do it, but financial services is a fairly wide industry no not just bankers? Just saying its not all one way fraud committed by Joe Public against the innocent financial services industry, far from it. Fairly sure there have been cases of people working in insurance companies helping others to commit fraud etc. But yeah it’s not that relevant to the original point (whatever the hell that was 🙂 )

    TooTall
    Free Member

    of course if the super rich weren’t so incredibly greedy we could easily afford the public spending brought in by Labour.

    Let me get this straight. If a bunch of politicians brought in massive public spending plans, which were totally unsustainable, you believe another bunch of people, who had nothing to do with those plans, are at fault?

    You’ll need to draw pictures to help me with that one.

    mrdestructo
    Full Member

    Explanation?

    Reactions from workers affected

    So, a comment here suggests TA’s aren’t generally university educated, that a Basic TA can have 5x GCSE’s, a Higher TA: 2x A levels.

    Do TA’s work to hours? Or do they do unpaid work out of hours like ‘professional’ teachers? Were they previously getting paid ‘too much’ compared to other public sector workers of the same grade in other public sector jobs?

    I for one didn’t change from homeschooling my kids to sending them to school to face disappointed staff looking after my kids all day who feel they aren’t getting paid enough, but where does the line get drawn?

    I’m not slagging off TA’s here, don’t want this to turn into abuse of any worker, I’m just looking for clarity, information and balance.

    big_n_daft
    Free Member

    i hate to thnik what its going to be like in another 20 years when there are no pensions for the elderly so they have to work but there are no jobs.

    in 20 years time former public sector employee’s will still be getting healthy pensions. A quick google of Brian Paddicks tax return will tell you how healthy they can be.

    if you work in the private sector the reforms introduced by labour effectively killed your pension scheme if you were lucky enough to have one.

    The current government is increasing the basic state pension faster than labour ever have, I would suggest that this is going to do the most for pensioner poverty rather than helping former public sector pensioners decide the number of cruises they can afford.

    grum
    Free Member

    Let me get this straight. If a bunch of politicians brought in massive public spending plans, which were totally unsustainable

    Unsustainable is an entirely relative term.

    But no, your right, it’s important that we reduce the number of teachers and nurses, reduce TAs pay, cut benefits for the disabled etc – I mean, those hedge fund managers really NEED another yacht and a 6th holiday home. What was I thinking, my priorities are totally skewed.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    And oh look, it’s the government’s best buddies in financial services that carry out the most fraud.

    Yep, sorry I misread that bit!! Anyway back to the original topic 😉

    alfabus
    Free Member

    @Stoner. From the same source as yours (wikipedia):

    Current usage of the word
    The word decimation is often used to refer to an extreme reduction in the number of a population or force, much greater than the one tenth defined by the “deci” root. It is often inaccurately used as a synonym for the word “annihilate” which the OED lists as meaning “to reduce to non-existence, blot out of existence”

    In Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen Jay Gould uses “decimate” to indicate the taking of nine in ten, noting that the Oxford English Dictionary supports the “pedigree” of this “rare” meaning. This is inaccurate or misleading. The Oxford English Dictionary cites in the second subset of the fourth verb form entry a “rhetorically or loosely” meaning as “to destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality.”

    In summary, decimate used to mean ‘reduce by a tenth’, but is now accepted to mean ‘reduce by a lot’.

    <Puts down counter-pedantry pen>

    Dave

    stevewhyte
    Free Member

    big_n_daft – Member

    in 20 years time former public sector employee’s will still be getting healthy pensions. A quick google of Brian Paddicks tax return will tell you how healthy they can be.

    if you work in the private sector the reforms introduced by labour effectively killed your pension scheme if you were lucky enough to have one.

    The current government is increasing the basic state pension faster than labour ever have, I would suggest that this is going to do the most for pensioner poverty rather than helping former public sector pensioners decide the number of cruises they can afford.

    There speaks someone who know nothing of what the vast majority in the public sector will actually recieve.

    I’m not about to hold Labour up as some paragon of governance. But clearly you have a bit of an issue with them.

    The increase in the state pension will amount to zilch, compared to the cost of living in 30 years time.

    The problem with our country is the inequality of wealth NOT who works in the public sector or DSS scroungers.

    Solo stop being a knob.

    Zulu-Eleven
    Free Member

    Single status is a public sector pay review set to harmonise pay structures for all public sector employees.

    Worth adding that it was part of a 1997 national agreement between local authority employers and trade unions…

    So, clearly all the *king Tories fault, as usual 😉

    Solo
    Free Member

    But no, your right, it’s important that we reduce the number of teachers and nurses, reduce TAs pay, cut benefits for the disabled etc – I mean, those hedge fund managers really NEED another yacht and a 6th holiday home. What was I thinking, my priorities are totally skewed.

    Who are you ?, who is anyone to rock up to a successful person and steal their earnings to fund your idea of fair.

    mcboo
    Free Member

    Unsustainable is an entirely relative term.

    I loved that, that is a peach.

    This idea that there is a huge pool of money being hoarded by the rich is a bit tired. So you tax them at 100% (somehow) and pay for the defecit for a year. Then what?

    We’ve tried communism, it wasn’t a huge success.

    Solo
    Free Member

    One for Grum.
    😉

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 81 total)

The topic ‘Public sector single status pay review..’ is closed to new replies.