FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Junior Doctors oñ Strike
Junior Doctors oñ Strike
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But its the NHS Tom, everyone who works in it is underpaid, overworked and fucking amazing at their job. " Until it all goes wrong ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ?" The EU… oh wait… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ? The EU… oh wait…" Is Brexit to blame ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ? The EU… oh wait… Is Brexit to blame ?" I think it’s the French. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ? The EU… oh wait… Is Brexit to blame ? I think it’s the French." Those buggers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ? The EU… oh wait… Is Brexit to blame ? I think it’s the French. Those buggers?" They’re up to their old tricks again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ? The EU… oh wait… Is Brexit to blame ? I think it’s the French. Those buggers? They’re up to their old tricks again." What old tricks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ? The EU… oh wait… Is Brexit to blame ?" Yes... Thats exactly why the NHS is.... As it is. After all most health services rely on immigrant labour dont they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ? The EU… oh wait… Is Brexit to blame ? I think it’s the French. Those buggers? They’re up to their old tricks again. What old tricks?" Eating snails. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ?" They are the new blood, hence “junior” doctors… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jr. Doctors should be told outright what their pay grades are. Does this happen currently? I don’t understand why they get so shocked when they realise they’re not getting full pay whilst still in training. Is it poor communication? I’m fairly biased in this debate, as I’ve twice been misdiagnosed by a junior doctor. Both times I had a life threatening condition. So I’m not really on their side in this. Especially when they still get good pay, and will soon get exceptional pay once they’re no longer juniors." Sorry to hear your experience.... And yes 2 in my family had similar experience. But they are junior and underpaid and overworked so that makes it ok im told. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sacking people for striking? What century do you want to live in Tom? Gbat " Sack the lot and send in the army | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t the army already have a job though? Gbat " Sack all of these buggers and send in the army | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don’t the army already have a job though? Gbat " Gbat | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The NHS is screwed, another business falling apart. If they don't like the offer, then feck off where you do." These do called junior doctors should leave and bring in dedicated people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone against anyone withholding their labour should be left on gurneys in hospital corridors when they need someone. The NHS isn't always perfect but it's one of the best things we have. If there's problems it's because of the shithouse scumbag government that we have at present. Not junior doctors. " Amen to this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is the new blood going to come from ?" From the blood donors | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put sanctions on them. If these buggers leave then every penny of their training should be clawed back. Shame on them. " They graduate with at least £50000 student loan debt. Unless you pay them to train what right have you to dictate where they work! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the English government would even engage in discussions with the drs! Up here in Scotland, we voted to strike, got made an offer, rejected it, made a better offer, accepted it and avoided the strikes actually happening. The UK need good calibre drs to work. They need to pay them and offer better conditions if they want to keep them! Australia and NZ have much better conditions, work life balance and pay. Its no wonder that so many drs head over there!" There are things I love about this country and things I hate. One of the things I hate is that people have extremely short memories and a lack of principles and knowledge on important subjects such WHY people feel the need to withhold their labour. They'll instead continuously fall for the lies and the hyperbole of this shambles of a government and get their knowledge from The Sun. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the English government would even engage in discussions with the drs! Up here in Scotland, we voted to strike, got made an offer, rejected it, made a better offer, accepted it and avoided the strikes actually happening. The UK need good calibre drs to work. They need to pay them and offer better conditions if they want to keep them! Australia and NZ have much better conditions, work life balance and pay. Its no wonder that so many drs head over there! There are things I love about this country and things I hate. One of the things I hate is that people have extremely short memories and a lack of principles and knowledge on important subjects such WHY people feel the need to withhold their labour. They'll instead continuously fall for the lies and the hyperbole of this shambles of a government and get their knowledge from The Sun." Or the torygraph, the daily hiel or the daily shitspress | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack the buggers" And replace then with? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put sanctions on them. If these buggers leave then every penny of their training should be clawed back. Shame on them. You really are an unpleasant, narrow minded individual, with zero understanding of what it takes to train and be a doctor. Would you like to be on call over night after a full day shift but unable to actually sleep because you're the ONLY doctor on call? They deserve every penny they ars asking for and much more sensible working hours. Nita" Well said Nita!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the English government would even engage in discussions with the drs! Up here in Scotland, we voted to strike, got made an offer, rejected it, made a better offer, accepted it and avoided the strikes actually happening. The UK need good calibre drs to work. They need to pay them and offer better conditions if they want to keep them! Australia and NZ have much better conditions, work life balance and pay. Its no wonder that so many drs head over there! There are things I love about this country and things I hate. One of the things I hate is that people have extremely short memories and a lack of principles and knowledge on important subjects such WHY people feel the need to withhold their labour. They'll instead continuously fall for the lies and the hyperbole of this shambles of a government and get their knowledge from The Sun. Or the torygraph, the daily hiel or the daily shitspress " Yep. And it's often people who should be old enough to have a little common sense and know better. With better pay for one sector it should be a race to the top rather than the bottom. Such a nasty, negative and bitter feed this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m fairly biased in this debate, as I’ve twice been misdiagnosed by a junior doctor." Maybe if they'd not have to work stupid hours, they might not have misdiagnosed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone against anyone withholding their labour should be left on gurneys in hospital corridors when they need someone. The NHS isn't always perfect but it's one of the best things we have. If there's problems it's because of the shithouse scumbag government that we have at present. Not junior doctors. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyone against anyone withholding their labour should be left on gurneys in hospital corridors when they need someone. The NHS isn't always perfect but it's one of the best things we have. If there's problems it's because of the shithouse scumbag government that we have at present. Not junior doctors. "Another | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put sanctions on them. If these buggers leave then every penny of their training should be clawed back. Shame on them. " Every penny of their training that they got a Student Loan to pay for? How? If you want to sanction people for a legal strike, I'd suggest they stay and you move somewhere like N. Korea or Iran. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’m fairly biased in this debate, as I’ve twice been misdiagnosed by a junior doctor. Maybe if they'd not have to work stupid hours, they might not have misdiagnosed. " Quite. I have a friend from college who is a doctor. When a junior doctor she worked excruciatingly long and unsafe hours. She once told me that it's terrifying trying to make sure you get the dose right for a patient at 2am, when you've not slept for the previous 24 hours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack the buggers And replace then with? " The army | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack the buggers And replace then with? The army" Wow didn't realise the army were all medically trained people! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack the buggers And replace then with? The army" Not sure that the ability to drive a tank or shoot you is a suitable alternative to years of medical training. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack the buggers And replace then with? The army Not sure that the ability to drive a tank or shoot you is a suitable alternative to years of medical training. " The army have doctors surgeons and medics.. These buggers who moan about a Nightshift should be sacked.. They are trainee doctors and few will make it. Why reward these buggers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack the buggers And replace then with? The army Not sure that the ability to drive a tank or shoot you is a suitable alternative to years of medical training. The army have doctors surgeons and medics.. These buggers who moan about a Nightshift should be sacked.. They are trainee doctors and few will make it. Why reward these buggers" There are clearly not enough army medics to cover the thousands of junior drs. Why should complaining about nightshift get you sacked? It's not for everyone!! Plenty of evidence about how human body copes with nights and the negative effects it can have. And what do you mean only a few will make it? What qualifies you to make these statements? You're clearly not a doctor and have not got a clue! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack the buggers And replace then with? The army Not sure that the ability to drive a tank or shoot you is a suitable alternative to years of medical training. The army have doctors surgeons and medics.. These buggers who moan about a Nightshift should be sacked.. They are trainee doctors and few will make it. Why reward these buggers" Brilliant idea... put a bunch of doctors out there that are great at gunshot wounds and missing limbs (at which they are amazing, I have worked with several of them) but when it comes to mental health or ectopic pregnancies they don't have the first idea. And before you take offence I am front line NHS myself, working tonight, and they deserve every penny they get. The 15 years of below inflation payrises (if we get one at all) have left many of us feeling undervalued and disillusioned with a government that wants to give us a clap on a Thursday night rather than pay for those skills we have to use all too often. Recent research shows the average person seems 16-20 traumatic events in their lifetime. Emergency workers, including hospital Junior Doctors, see 1600 on average in a 10 year career before they hit burnout and leave the service. Wait until you understand the reasons properly before you start running your mouth off. Rant over | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are underpaid, it’s a joke. Don’t blame them, blame the Tories " yawn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
You can’t fool me. I’m familiar with your game. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They are underpaid, it’s a joke. Don’t blame them, blame the Tories yawn." Presumably you know that if you're tired you can just go to bed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To be honest iv met a lot of doctors and found theres 2 kinds. One who genuinely wants to help people, most often they themselves will suffer or be related to someone suffering from a health condition. The 2nd kind do it for the money and respect. The respect they chase is that of a hero. We see doctors as heroes and so we show them a lot of respect. But the 2nd type of people arent actually heroes. as soon as they start receiving the average pay junior doctors receive, they often quit. Some of them look at the long goal and see themselves being paid alot more in the future and so they stick it out but the majority of the fake heroes will then quit. My concern with raising their pay is that some of those fake heroes may not quit. So we’ll end up with a shit load of fake heroes who receive the treatment of heroes. That sucks. I say keep the pay where it is and let the real heroes become the amazing doctors we want and deserve with a very nice financial reward in the future." odd because I work in a American hospital that has multiple doctors from the UK. Maybe pay the for what they are worth. They are here on Visas for a reason. Them nurses and pharmacists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't normally get involved in debated like this, but I feel I need to say my peace. I have worked in the NHS for nearly 20 years, when I joined, people were well respected and pay reflected this, but over time, pay had not increased in line with inflation and the general cost of living. There is no incentive for nurses or doctors to go to uni to do a degree or masters when at the end you will be paid just over minimum wage. In addition to this doctors and nurses have to pay to be registered every year and pay for insurance, so often coming home will less than minimum wage. When a doctor wants to progress, they have to pay to sit exams, again less money to take home. I know of other people graduating and taking on jobs for double the pay Dr start on. It's a no brainer. Tom surprises me with his comments when his profile states he is intellectual and wants intelligent conversation. Maybe you could use your intelligence to keep your comments to yourself, or go off and train as a doctor and see what it's like to work on wards that are understaffed, after doing the work load of 2 or 3 people, witness some of the most horrific of things, deal with daily abuse and attacks from patients, have to sit parents down and tell them their child is dying, and do 60-80 hour weeks with a mix of days and nights in the same week. The strikes are not just about pay, they are to highlight a failing social care system. Hospital beds are blocked by patients who need to move to other services, but these services don't have capacity due to the government. Don't have a go at the people who are trying their best, working under pressure, neglecting spending their time with their own families to provide you and your family with care, working 20 days straight through, often no breaks, and then not even been able to cover your bills. I believe if you don't fully understand something, you should keep your comments to yourself, and if you think it's acceptable, then roll your sleeves up and give it a go yourself, would love to see how long you last. " Very well said, thanks for joining the convo and posting this! Regarding what you said about understaffing and overworking nhs staff, as the owner of a small business with a handful of staff im reading this problem and thinking the solution i would opt for would be to hire more staff rather than raise the wages of the current staff. That would ease the workload and make production (or saving lives in your case) easier which would hopefully lead to more success. Wouldn’t it be better to not raise their wages and instead invest that money into hiring more staff? Even if it means bringing over more nurses, doctors etc from abroad? Or better yet investing it into making it less of an expense to train our own british kids to become healthcare professionals and hire them to handle the workload? I have no idea about funds etc and have never worked in healthcare so i dont know if my understanding of the situation is way off lol if im being ignorant, please educate me! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't normally get involved in debated like this, but I feel I need to say my peace. I have worked in the NHS for nearly 20 years, when I joined, people were well respected and pay reflected this, but over time, pay had not increased in line with inflation and the general cost of living. There is no incentive for nurses or doctors to go to uni to do a degree or masters when at the end you will be paid just over minimum wage. In addition to this doctors and nurses have to pay to be registered every year and pay for insurance, so often coming home will less than minimum wage. When a doctor wants to progress, they have to pay to sit exams, again less money to take home. I know of other people graduating and taking on jobs for double the pay Dr start on. It's a no brainer. Tom surprises me with his comments when his profile states he is intellectual and wants intelligent conversation. Maybe you could use your intelligence to keep your comments to yourself, or go off and train as a doctor and see what it's like to work on wards that are understaffed, after doing the work load of 2 or 3 people, witness some of the most horrific of things, deal with daily abuse and attacks from patients, have to sit parents down and tell them their child is dying, and do 60-80 hour weeks with a mix of days and nights in the same week. The strikes are not just about pay, they are to highlight a failing social care system. Hospital beds are blocked by patients who need to move to other services, but these services don't have capacity due to the government. Don't have a go at the people who are trying their best, working under pressure, neglecting spending their time with their own families to provide you and your family with care, working 20 days straight through, often no breaks, and then not even been able to cover your bills. I believe if you don't fully understand something, you should keep your comments to yourself, and if you think it's acceptable, then roll your sleeves up and give it a go yourself, would love to see how long you last. Very well said, thanks for joining the convo and posting this! Regarding what you said about understaffing and overworking nhs staff, as the owner of a small business with a handful of staff im reading this problem and thinking the solution i would opt for would be to hire more staff rather than raise the wages of the current staff. That would ease the workload and make production (or saving lives in your case) easier which would hopefully lead to more success. Wouldn’t it be better to not raise their wages and instead invest that money into hiring more staff? Even if it means bringing over more nurses, doctors etc from abroad? Or better yet investing it into making it less of an expense to train our own british kids to become healthcare professionals and hire them to handle the workload? I have no idea about funds etc and have never worked in healthcare so i dont know if my understanding of the situation is way off lol if im being ignorant, please educate me!" It's a logical thought, however not as easy to put into practice. There is a shortage of drs and nurses. It takes 5/6 years degree to graduate as Dr, uni places are limited, but if expanded the training aspect would suffer. Medical students spend a significant portion of time on placement, where drs have to supervise, teach and do their own job. There is no scope to increase placement and teaching of students cause not enough drs! A vicious circle. UK used to recruit a large number of overseas health professionals, but brexit messed that up. Chronic underfunding and pay freezes now mean its not an attractive job to recruit into. And UK drs are finding they get better conditions elsewhere so are leaving in their droves. Pay drs properly, give decent working conditions and the NHS will retain the drs they train! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I say keep the pay where it is and let the real heroes become the amazing doctors we want and deserve with a very nice financial reward in the future." So drain the remaining few, work them to the bone and then call them heroes when they die from exhaustion? And yet also criticise those who make mistakes and dare to be human. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack them and bring in new blood What's going on here guys. It's all over the news" You know it something like ten years to train a doctor before them become a junior doctor and the number graduating now probably wouldn’t even fill gap of the number of doctors you’re suggesting get sacked? Considering there already a shortage of doctors and nurses I’m not sure that would work even if employment law was foolish and weak enough to accommodate your suggested plan. Plus, why do people get their arse in their hand with the people striking and not the inept, broken government who’ve run the country into the ground, piss tax payers money up the wall and then plead poverty to those it’s neglected for so long. Even going so far as smear those wanting better treatment and saying they’re being irresponsible and hurting the country! Lol. My rosy arse they are, the government could do much more to help the people in this country in all sectors of industries but they have no interest or respect for the common people, so please don’t make their job easier by buying into their bs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jr. Doctors should be told outright what their pay grades are. Does this happen currently? I don’t understand why they get so shocked when they realise they’re not getting full pay whilst still in training. Is it poor communication? I’m fairly biased in this debate, as I’ve twice been misdiagnosed by a junior doctor. Both times I had a life threatening condition. So I’m not really on their side in this. Especially when they still get good pay, and will soon get exceptional pay once they’re no longer juniors." £14 per hour is not good pay when admin are on more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get rid and start again .." What sack them and train a new batch taking abut 10 years. So no doctors for the time to train the new lot. And Tom how will train them if you have sacked all the doctors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get rid and start again .. What sack them and train a new batch taking abut 10 years. So no doctors for the time to train the new lot. And Tom how will train them if you have sacked all the doctors. " Youtube... Its how unis work now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get rid and start again .. What sack them and train a new batch taking abut 10 years. So no doctors for the time to train the new lot. And Tom how will train them if you have sacked all the doctors. Youtube... Its how unis work now. " And there speaks another with no experience of medicine or its training. I've been through uni in the last 5 years and I am back there at the moment! NO MEDICAL COURSES ARE TAUGHT ONLINE! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Get rid and start again .. What sack them and train a new batch taking abut 10 years. So no doctors for the time to train the new lot. And Tom how will train them if you have sacked all the doctors. Youtube... Its how unis work now. And there speaks another with no experience of medicine or its training. I've been through uni in the last 5 years and I am back there at the moment! NO MEDICAL COURSES ARE TAUGHT ONLINE!" Biology at durham. Started in covid and carried on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Youtube... Its how unis work now. " No, it's not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"very few peoples wages have kept up with inflation. theyve been told 9% increase final offer there still demanding 35% increase which is cloud cuckoo land! there just being totally unrealistic with what they want" In my industry years ago we were offered a 5.1% pay rise, at a time when most people were getting nothing. We turned it down and got lambasted in the media for it. Greedy, selfish etc. We ended up settling for 3.5 or something, and accepted it happily. Why? Because the 5.1% offer would have decimated our t’s and c’s. It was a terrible deal. Don’t trust everything you read from the media, particularly on strikes/pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have a right to strike. You can't just sack them for it.cthats illegal. I think in this country we have a problem. We allow training for the nhs for drs and nurses but have bo stipulations like the army. In that you must be contracted to the nhs for x years and can't strike. I think we need to trip everything back because international comparisons are distorted on money. I have friends who are nurses and Dr and others who work in the finance area. Theresa complaint about basic pay. That I agree with. I think starting salaries for drs and nurses should be higher. But for me I'd increase them. But remove the benefits in kind. My friends get 25% of their EE bill each which the tax payer pays for. They get better rates for car financing. Your typical high street credit lender fkr a car is about 10-14% My friend who's a nurse got 7% this is significant over say a 4 year loan for a 20k car. I think these benefits in kind differe between trusts. But you then also get the blue card too. The final salary pensions pre 2015 is a crock of shit. Most final salary pensions stopped in the private sector about 30 years before hand. As well as the early access option I can't find a full document online but only light websites on I think the employer contributions are around 5-10% between minimum wage and 50k. Another crock of shit. But again I can only go off which. Strip back the pension to the basic. 1 and 1. Let the drs and nurses etc be taxed and have ni on their actual earnings. This would make international comparisons much easier. I think it's easy to forget the NHS has platinum plated benefits these eople striking forget about. " Wow something we (almost) agree on. The benefits and pensions do indeed make NHS workers (and indeed many public sector workers) have an overall remuneration package that is better than the headline salary would indicate. However, that suits employers (govt) too because the figures can be accounted for differently “in the books”. I totally agree with Doctors and Nurses getting grant (free to them) funded training but with a lock in/pay back clause so their expertise benefits the state and taxpayers (who funded their training). I think a serious discussion should be had about salary vs benefits package. Increase the former then reduce the latter. The reason the latter is good is to offset the former which is bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just retired after 25 yrs in the nhs. I was a top increment band 7. My salary was good, I didnt struggle however, in comparison to the responsibility and risky patients I worked with, it wasnt comparable at that level. My annual pension is just under 10k. Re benefits in kind, I did get discount from vodaphone, my phone was used more for work than personal so I'd say that was fair. There are various discounts available yes but majority on things I'd never use. The last 5 yrs of my service saw dramatic changes in expectations, govt targets, performance tables and lack of resources to meet them. Cultural attitudes changed, money is squandered on foolish things, management became overtly bullying and the patient became a number, literally. I'd still be working but for it all. I'm happy to say I'm glad to be out." I use my.phone for work too. But don't get a discount. I have to have several apps on it to do banking for my employer, I don't get a discount. I don't see the need for one in any industry really. I agree .only is squandered at many levels. Personally I'd ditch the trusts system and multiple procurements to do something more akin to covid in bulk buying and then ending out. Its highly inefficient. But then I am sure people would cry corruption at some point There needs to be a serious conversation about the nhs. Anne Widdecombe tried having it a fair few times. Sadly as is the case on these things people attacked her for her religious beliefs rather than engage on her well made points. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just retired after 25 yrs in the nhs. I was a top increment band 7. My salary was good, I didnt struggle however, in comparison to the responsibility and risky patients I worked with, it wasnt comparable at that level. My annual pension is just under 10k. Re benefits in kind, I did get discount from vodaphone, my phone was used more for work than personal so I'd say that was fair. There are various discounts available yes but majority on things I'd never use. The last 5 yrs of my service saw dramatic changes in expectations, govt targets, performance tables and lack of resources to meet them. Cultural attitudes changed, money is squandered on foolish things, management became overtly bullying and the patient became a number, literally. I'd still be working but for it all. I'm happy to say I'm glad to be out. I use my.phone for work too. But don't get a discount. I have to have several apps on it to do banking for my employer, I don't get a discount. I don't see the need for one in any industry really. I agree .only is squandered at many levels. Personally I'd ditch the trusts system and multiple procurements to do something more akin to covid in bulk buying and then ending out. Its highly inefficient. But then I am sure people would cry corruption at some point There needs to be a serious conversation about the nhs. Anne Widdecombe tried having it a fair few times. Sadly as is the case on these things people attacked her for her religious beliefs rather than engage on her well made points." The phone thing. It's the phone company who benefits. They are overcharging everyone anyway so offering a 'discount' to nhs or any massive industry is always going to make them more money isnt it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just retired after 25 yrs in the nhs. I was a top increment band 7. My salary was good, I didnt struggle however, in comparison to the responsibility and risky patients I worked with, it wasnt comparable at that level. My annual pension is just under 10k. Re benefits in kind, I did get discount from vodaphone, my phone was used more for work than personal so I'd say that was fair. There are various discounts available yes but majority on things I'd never use. The last 5 yrs of my service saw dramatic changes in expectations, govt targets, performance tables and lack of resources to meet them. Cultural attitudes changed, money is squandered on foolish things, management became overtly bullying and the patient became a number, literally. I'd still be working but for it all. I'm happy to say I'm glad to be out. I use my.phone for work too. But don't get a discount. I have to have several apps on it to do banking for my employer, I don't get a discount. I don't see the need for one in any industry really. I agree .only is squandered at many levels. Personally I'd ditch the trusts system and multiple procurements to do something more akin to covid in bulk buying and then ending out. Its highly inefficient. But then I am sure people would cry corruption at some point There needs to be a serious conversation about the nhs. Anne Widdecombe tried having it a fair few times. Sadly as is the case on these things people attacked her for her religious beliefs rather than engage on her well made points. The phone thing. It's the phone company who benefits. They are overcharging everyone anyway so offering a 'discount' to nhs or any massive industry is always going to make them more money isnt it? " We are discussing the end user. The end user gets the discount. Thus its a subsidised wage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just retired after 25 yrs in the nhs. I was a top increment band 7. My salary was good, I didnt struggle however, in comparison to the responsibility and risky patients I worked with, it wasnt comparable at that level. My annual pension is just under 10k. Re benefits in kind, I did get discount from vodaphone, my phone was used more for work than personal so I'd say that was fair. There are various discounts available yes but majority on things I'd never use. The last 5 yrs of my service saw dramatic changes in expectations, govt targets, performance tables and lack of resources to meet them. Cultural attitudes changed, money is squandered on foolish things, management became overtly bullying and the patient became a number, literally. I'd still be working but for it all. I'm happy to say I'm glad to be out. I use my.phone for work too. But don't get a discount. I have to have several apps on it to do banking for my employer, I don't get a discount. I don't see the need for one in any industry really. I agree .only is squandered at many levels. Personally I'd ditch the trusts system and multiple procurements to do something more akin to covid in bulk buying and then ending out. Its highly inefficient. But then I am sure people would cry corruption at some point There needs to be a serious conversation about the nhs. Anne Widdecombe tried having it a fair few times. Sadly as is the case on these things people attacked her for her religious beliefs rather than engage on her well made points. The phone thing. It's the phone company who benefits. They are overcharging everyone anyway so offering a 'discount' to nhs or any massive industry is always going to make them more money isnt it? We are discussing the end user. The end user gets the discount. Thus its a subsidised wage." If the option is taken up. It's not mandatory and not everyone does. I changed providers due to cover so my wage wasnt subsidised then... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sacking people for striking? What century do you want to live in Tom? Gbat " How about sacking people for causing deaths? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've just retired after 25 yrs in the nhs. I was a top increment band 7. My salary was good, I didnt struggle however, in comparison to the responsibility and risky patients I worked with, it wasnt comparable at that level. My annual pension is just under 10k. Re benefits in kind, I did get discount from vodaphone, my phone was used more for work than personal so I'd say that was fair. There are various discounts available yes but majority on things I'd never use. The last 5 yrs of my service saw dramatic changes in expectations, govt targets, performance tables and lack of resources to meet them. Cultural attitudes changed, money is squandered on foolish things, management became overtly bullying and the patient became a number, literally. I'd still be working but for it all. I'm happy to say I'm glad to be out. I use my.phone for work too. But don't get a discount. I have to have several apps on it to do banking for my employer, I don't get a discount. I don't see the need for one in any industry really. I agree .only is squandered at many levels. Personally I'd ditch the trusts system and multiple procurements to do something more akin to covid in bulk buying and then ending out. Its highly inefficient. But then I am sure people would cry corruption at some point There needs to be a serious conversation about the nhs. Anne Widdecombe tried having it a fair few times. Sadly as is the case on these things people attacked her for her religious beliefs rather than engage on her well made points. The phone thing. It's the phone company who benefits. They are overcharging everyone anyway so offering a 'discount' to nhs or any massive industry is always going to make them more money isnt it? We are discussing the end user. The end user gets the discount. Thus its a subsidised wage. If the option is taken up. It's not mandatory and not everyone does. I changed providers due to cover so my wage wasnt subsidised then..." It shouldn't be an option at the taxpayers cost is the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" shouldn't be an option at the taxpayers cost is the point * Please explain as I'm genuinely not getting that point. Is EE/vodaphone a tax funded organisation? I genuinely dont know what you mean. I'm under the impression they are private enterprise and use these incentives to gain a bigger market. Am I wrong?" No, you’re quite right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Put sanctions on them. If these buggers leave then every penny of their training should be clawed back. Shame on them. " Ffs Tom, they don't get full bursaries for their training. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack the buggers And replace then with? The army Not sure that the ability to drive a tank or shoot you is a suitable alternative to years of medical training. The army have doctors surgeons and medics.. These buggers who moan about a Nightshift should be sacked.. They are trainee doctors and few will make it. Why reward these buggers" Stop trolling | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have a right to strike. You can't just sack them for it.cthats illegal. I think in this country we have a problem. We allow training for the nhs for drs and nurses but have bo stipulations like the army. In that you must be contracted to the nhs for x years and can't strike. I think we need to trip everything back because international comparisons are distorted on money. I have friends who are nurses and Dr and others who work in the finance area. Theresa complaint about basic pay. That I agree with. I think starting salaries for drs and nurses should be higher. But for me I'd increase them. But remove the benefits in kind. My friends get 25% of their EE bill each which the tax payer pays for. They get better rates for car financing. Your typical high street credit lender fkr a car is about 10-14% My friend who's a nurse got 7% this is significant over say a 4 year loan for a 20k car. I think these benefits in kind differe between trusts. But you then also get the blue card too. The final salary pensions pre 2015 is a crock of shit. Most final salary pensions stopped in the private sector about 30 years before hand. As well as the early access option I can't find a full document online but only light websites on I think the employer contributions are around 5-10% between minimum wage and 50k. Another crock of shit. But again I can only go off which. Strip back the pension to the basic. 1 and 1. Let the drs and nurses etc be taxed and have ni on their actual earnings. This would make international comparisons much easier. I think it's easy to forget the NHS has platinum plated benefits these eople striking forget about. " Re loans, there are plenty of better loans out there from banks. Blue light card has to be paid for. What other NHS benefits? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Junior Doctors on £14 an hour, asking for pay catch up, gas lit by government that ‘fairness for taxpayers’ mess as a we can’t afford it. While 44%(£39m) pay rise for the monarch is sanctioned and a 300% rise for monarchs property trust CEO While teachers get 4.5% and expected to work in crumbling buildings. " £14/hr. Did you steal that from a Guardian headline? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" shouldn't be an option at the taxpayers cost is the point * Please explain as I'm genuinely not getting that point. Is EE/vodaphone a tax funded organisation? I genuinely dont know what you mean. I'm under the impression they are private enterprise and use these incentives to gain a bigger market. Am I wrong?" You realise that when you get a defined benefit like that. The nhs picks up the tab yes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have a right to strike. You can't just sack them for it.cthats illegal. I think in this country we have a problem. We allow training for the nhs for drs and nurses but have bo stipulations like the army. In that you must be contracted to the nhs for x years and can't strike. I think we need to trip everything back because international comparisons are distorted on money. I have friends who are nurses and Dr and others who work in the finance area. Theresa complaint about basic pay. That I agree with. I think starting salaries for drs and nurses should be higher. But for me I'd increase them. But remove the benefits in kind. My friends get 25% of their EE bill each which the tax payer pays for. They get better rates for car financing. Your typical high street credit lender fkr a car is about 10-14% My friend who's a nurse got 7% this is significant over say a 4 year loan for a 20k car. I think these benefits in kind differe between trusts. But you then also get the blue card too. The final salary pensions pre 2015 is a crock of shit. Most final salary pensions stopped in the private sector about 30 years before hand. As well as the early access option I can't find a full document online but only light websites on I think the employer contributions are around 5-10% between minimum wage and 50k. Another crock of shit. But again I can only go off which. Strip back the pension to the basic. 1 and 1. Let the drs and nurses etc be taxed and have ni on their actual earnings. This would make international comparisons much easier. I think it's easy to forget the NHS has platinum plated benefits these eople striking forget about. Re loans, there are plenty of better loans out there from banks. Blue light card has to be paid for. What other NHS benefits?" The blue card is paid for. But it doesnt cover the cost of the benefits. The nhancovers the cost of them. You buy your phone from ee at %25 discount. Its £75 a month after discount. The nhs pays the rest. Ee recharges the nhs. I have put these types of schemes through central accounts e.g bupa, spyre, Vodafone,chiropodists. The company doesn't just knock 25% off because you paid 1 upfront fee for a card which has discounts to 10ps of places. They recharge the nhs . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have a right to strike. You can't just sack them for it.cthats illegal. I think in this country we have a problem. We allow training for the nhs for drs and nurses but have bo stipulations like the army. In that you must be contracted to the nhs for x years and can't strike. I think we need to trip everything back because international comparisons are distorted on money. I have friends who are nurses and Dr and others who work in the finance area. Theresa complaint about basic pay. That I agree with. I think starting salaries for drs and nurses should be higher. But for me I'd increase them. But remove the benefits in kind. My friends get 25% of their EE bill each which the tax payer pays for. They get better rates for car financing. Your typical high street credit lender fkr a car is about 10-14% My friend who's a nurse got 7% this is significant over say a 4 year loan for a 20k car. I think these benefits in kind differe between trusts. But you then also get the blue card too. The final salary pensions pre 2015 is a crock of shit. Most final salary pensions stopped in the private sector about 30 years before hand. As well as the early access option I can't find a full document online but only light websites on I think the employer contributions are around 5-10% between minimum wage and 50k. Another crock of shit. But again I can only go off which. Strip back the pension to the basic. 1 and 1. Let the drs and nurses etc be taxed and have ni on their actual earnings. This would make international comparisons much easier. I think it's easy to forget the NHS has platinum plated benefits these eople striking forget about. Re loans, there are plenty of better loans out there from banks. Blue light card has to be paid for. What other NHS benefits? The blue card is paid for. But it doesnt cover the cost of the benefits. The nhancovers the cost of them. You buy your phone from ee at %25 discount. Its £75 a month after discount. The nhs pays the rest. Ee recharges the nhs. I have put these types of schemes through central accounts e.g bupa, spyre, Vodafone,chiropodists. The company doesn't just knock 25% off because you paid 1 upfront fee for a card which has discounts to 10ps of places. They recharge the nhs . " Jackanory | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have a right to strike. You can't just sack them for it.cthats illegal. I think in this country we have a problem. We allow training for the nhs for drs and nurses but have bo stipulations like the army. In that you must be contracted to the nhs for x years and can't strike. I think we need to trip everything back because international comparisons are distorted on money. I have friends who are nurses and Dr and others who work in the finance area. Theresa complaint about basic pay. That I agree with. I think starting salaries for drs and nurses should be higher. But for me I'd increase them. But remove the benefits in kind. My friends get 25% of their EE bill each which the tax payer pays for. They get better rates for car financing. Your typical high street credit lender fkr a car is about 10-14% My friend who's a nurse got 7% this is significant over say a 4 year loan for a 20k car. I think these benefits in kind differe between trusts. But you then also get the blue card too. The final salary pensions pre 2015 is a crock of shit. Most final salary pensions stopped in the private sector about 30 years before hand. As well as the early access option I can't find a full document online but only light websites on I think the employer contributions are around 5-10% between minimum wage and 50k. Another crock of shit. But again I can only go off which. Strip back the pension to the basic. 1 and 1. Let the drs and nurses etc be taxed and have ni on their actual earnings. This would make international comparisons much easier. I think it's easy to forget the NHS has platinum plated benefits these eople striking forget about. Re loans, there are plenty of better loans out there from banks. Blue light card has to be paid for. What other NHS benefits? The blue card is paid for. But it doesnt cover the cost of the benefits. The nhancovers the cost of them. You buy your phone from ee at %25 discount. Its £75 a month after discount. The nhs pays the rest. Ee recharges the nhs. I have put these types of schemes through central accounts e.g bupa, spyre, Vodafone,chiropodists. The company doesn't just knock 25% off because you paid 1 upfront fee for a card which has discounts to 10ps of places. They recharge the nhs . " Why would anyone pay £75 a month for their phone? I have a work phone that is used for work. I have my own phone £6 a month that I sometimes use for work as my NHS phone is horrid. Tell me where my perk is. I'll have to look at the blue light card scheme. Where does it state it is funded by NHS? Why is it a perk if I haven't got it? Not sure you've done your homework. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People have a right to strike. You can't just sack them for it.cthats illegal. I think in this country we have a problem. We allow training for the nhs for drs and nurses but have bo stipulations like the army. In that you must be contracted to the nhs for x years and can't strike. I think we need to trip everything back because international comparisons are distorted on money. I have friends who are nurses and Dr and others who work in the finance area. Theresa complaint about basic pay. That I agree with. I think starting salaries for drs and nurses should be higher. But for me I'd increase them. But remove the benefits in kind. My friends get 25% of their EE bill each which the tax payer pays for. They get better rates for car financing. Your typical high street credit lender fkr a car is about 10-14% My friend who's a nurse got 7% this is significant over say a 4 year loan for a 20k car. I think these benefits in kind differe between trusts. But you then also get the blue card too. The final salary pensions pre 2015 is a crock of shit. Most final salary pensions stopped in the private sector about 30 years before hand. As well as the early access option I can't find a full document online but only light websites on I think the employer contributions are around 5-10% between minimum wage and 50k. Another crock of shit. But again I can only go off which. Strip back the pension to the basic. 1 and 1. Let the drs and nurses etc be taxed and have ni on their actual earnings. This would make international comparisons much easier. I think it's easy to forget the NHS has platinum plated benefits these eople striking forget about. Re loans, there are plenty of better loans out there from banks. Blue light card has to be paid for. What other NHS benefits? The blue card is paid for. But it doesnt cover the cost of the benefits. The nhancovers the cost of them. You buy your phone from ee at %25 discount. Its £75 a month after discount. The nhs pays the rest. Ee recharges the nhs. I have put these types of schemes through central accounts e.g bupa, spyre, Vodafone,chiropodists. The company doesn't just knock 25% off because you paid 1 upfront fee for a card which has discounts to 10ps of places. They recharge the nhs . Why would anyone pay £75 a month for their phone? I have a work phone that is used for work. I have my own phone £6 a month that I sometimes use for work as my NHS phone is horrid. Tell me where my perk is. I'll have to look at the blue light card scheme. Where does it state it is funded by NHS? Why is it a perk if I haven't got it? Not sure you've done your homework." He doesn’t do homework | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not to forget the government cancelled nurses training bursaries and converted to repayable student loans charged at 5-6% interest while the bank rate was then zero for a decade. Average Doctors student debt £84,000. After the 8pm covid claps the tories have forgotten about the nhs. " There has been a nursing staffing crisis in the NHS since before the year 2000 and the idiots make it worse by removing the bursaries (and giving it to teachers). Lo and behold the crisis deepens and the bursary is reintroduced (smaller). On the back of Covid they couldn't be seen to be breaking the NHS  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had someone tell me that striking doctors were responsible for deaths. How can you be responsible when you’re not even there? Are you responsible for deaths if you take annual leave? I didn’t agree!!! Gbat " Thats right and by that logic the more ill people that arent being treated and have to wait longer to see a dr for life saving treatment the better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had someone tell me that striking doctors were responsible for deaths. How can you be responsible when you’re not even there? Are you responsible for deaths if you take annual leave? I didn’t agree!!! Gbat " Well if they all go on strike at once then what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sack them and bring in new blood What's going on here guys. It's all over the news" By definition "Junior Doctors" are already new blood. They are exercising their right to withdraw their labour in an employment dispute with their employers. It's on the news to warn the population that there will be disruption. Sacking them and waiting 5 years to get more does not appear to be, on the face of it, a very good solution. Whatever the Daily Mail says. I hope this helps.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. " The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal" I agree they may be working too many hours. However, they are renumerated for those hours. Give them inflation related increases but take away their over the top benefits and I'd expect them to take paycuts during deflation years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal I agree they may be working too many hours. However, they are renumerated for those hours. Give them inflation related increases but take away their over the top benefits and I'd expect them to take paycuts during deflation years. " For me, the excessive hours are a safety concern. Deflation in the uk is unlikely, but yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal I agree they may be working too many hours. However, they are renumerated for those hours. Give them inflation related increases but take away their over the top benefits and I'd expect them to take paycuts during deflation years. For me, the excessive hours are a safety concern. Deflation in the uk is unlikely, but yes." It can be a safety concern. However, they're only obliged to work 48 hrs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal I agree they may be working too many hours. However, they are renumerated for those hours. Give them inflation related increases but take away their over the top benefits and I'd expect them to take paycuts during deflation years. For me, the excessive hours are a safety concern. Deflation in the uk is unlikely, but yes. It can be a safety concern. However, they're only obliged to work 48 hrs. " Although it's a few years now since my friends finished their training (things might have changed) I'm told "They are rostered onto shifts, and it is viewed poorly by the management if they opt out." Also the NHS 100% relies on them working these excessive hours to be able to staff their services.... a bit like the railways Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal I agree they may be working too many hours. However, they are renumerated for those hours. Give them inflation related increases but take away their over the top benefits and I'd expect them to take paycuts during deflation years. For me, the excessive hours are a safety concern. Deflation in the uk is unlikely, but yes. It can be a safety concern. However, they're only obliged to work 48 hrs. Although it's a few years now since my friends finished their training (things might have changed) I'm told "They are rostered onto shifts, and it is viewed poorly by the management if they opt out." Also the NHS 100% relies on them working these excessive hours to be able to staff their services.... a bit like the railways Cal" The NHS may rely on them but they aren't obliged to do so. When they do, they're renumerated. I hear arguments of 'if we don't work these hours, patients suffer'. That would be a great argument if they weren't striking, I wonder who suffers then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal I agree they may be working too many hours. However, they are renumerated for those hours. Give them inflation related increases but take away their over the top benefits and I'd expect them to take paycuts during deflation years. For me, the excessive hours are a safety concern. Deflation in the uk is unlikely, but yes. It can be a safety concern. However, they're only obliged to work 48 hrs. Although it's a few years now since my friends finished their training (things might have changed) I'm told "They are rostered onto shifts, and it is viewed poorly by the management if they opt out." Also the NHS 100% relies on them working these excessive hours to be able to staff their services.... a bit like the railways Cal" You are describing poor management which runs throughout the NHS. That is not a reason for huge pay rises, it is a reason to get the management sorted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal I agree they may be working too many hours. However, they are renumerated for those hours. Give them inflation related increases but take away their over the top benefits and I'd expect them to take paycuts during deflation years. For me, the excessive hours are a safety concern. Deflation in the uk is unlikely, but yes. It can be a safety concern. However, they're only obliged to work 48 hrs. Although it's a few years now since my friends finished their training (things might have changed) I'm told "They are rostered onto shifts, and it is viewed poorly by the management if they opt out." Also the NHS 100% relies on them working these excessive hours to be able to staff their services.... a bit like the railways Cal You are describing poor management which runs throughout the NHS. That is not a reason for huge pay rises, it is a reason to get the management sorted. " Bingo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal I agree they may be working too many hours. However, they are renumerated for those hours. Give them inflation related increases but take away their over the top benefits and I'd expect them to take paycuts during deflation years. For me, the excessive hours are a safety concern. Deflation in the uk is unlikely, but yes. It can be a safety concern. However, they're only obliged to work 48 hrs. Although it's a few years now since my friends finished their training (things might have changed) I'm told "They are rostered onto shifts, and it is viewed poorly by the management if they opt out." Also the NHS 100% relies on them working these excessive hours to be able to staff their services.... a bit like the railways Cal You are describing poor management which runs throughout the NHS. That is not a reason for huge pay rises, it is a reason to get the management sorted. " The reason for the pay rises is that pay has consistently fallen behind inflation. A below inflation pay increase is effectively a pay cut. The reason for the strikes is realistically The Government's refusal to engage in a genuine dialogue & address the shortfalls. At a time when recruitment is incredibly low, and many doctors are leaving the NHS for private sectors, staff striking isn't giving any encouragement to those considering entering the profession. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The BMA claims junior doctor pay has fallen 26% since 2009. Being the real terms fall in junior doctor pay vs median UK salary (%). During this time their university fees have increased from £3000 a year to £9250, The interest rates on their student loans has increased, travel, exams fees etc. Three year Tory austerity pay freeze from 2010 left them behind like many others. The entirety of public sector pay has followed the same trend... with the exception of MPs obviously. It seems completely bonkers that public sector pay isn't just directly linked to inflation, it's really the only thing that makes sense, and would prevent the need for pay strikes ever again. Probably a bigger issue concerning junior doctors is their working conditions. They are working far too many hours, often in excess of 100hrs per week. Cal I agree they may be working too many hours. However, they are renumerated for those hours. Give them inflation related increases but take away their over the top benefits and I'd expect them to take paycuts during deflation years. For me, the excessive hours are a safety concern. Deflation in the uk is unlikely, but yes. It can be a safety concern. However, they're only obliged to work 48 hrs. Although it's a few years now since my friends finished their training (things might have changed) I'm told "They are rostered onto shifts, and it is viewed poorly by the management if they opt out." Also the NHS 100% relies on them working these excessive hours to be able to staff their services.... a bit like the railways Cal You are describing poor management which runs throughout the NHS. That is not a reason for huge pay rises, it is a reason to get the management sorted. The reason for the pay rises is that pay has consistently fallen behind inflation. A below inflation pay increase is effectively a pay cut. The reason for the strikes is realistically The Government's refusal to engage in a genuine dialogue & address the shortfalls. At a time when recruitment is incredibly low, and many doctors are leaving the NHS for private sectors, staff striking isn't giving any encouragement to those considering entering the profession. " In my industry the blame lies solely at the feet of govt. - Management are willing to engage in meaningful talks, unions are willing to engage in meaningful talks but govt. won’t allow them. It’s a sham. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best?" There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them." Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them." There has been a constant "chipping away" at public sector job "benefits" over the years and they're no longer "better" than private! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best?" We've been here before... Are you truly trying to say that doctors aren't well paid? Remember, these are juniors, some of which have been in the job less than a year. They did know what they were getting into, in fact, the wages were even lower when they decided on their career choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Police cannot strike and that should be extended to the doctors and hospital staff" EVERYONE should have the right to strike. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Police cannot strike and that should be extended to the doctors and hospital staff" Idiot | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? We've been here before... Are you truly trying to say that doctors aren't well paid? Remember, these are juniors, some of which have been in the job less than a year. They did know what they were getting into, in fact, the wages were even lower when they decided on their career choice. " It was a broader question about public sector pay per se. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best?" One thing you do need to ensure is comparing like with like.so salary may be lower but pension and package is higher... I think there is sometimes a sentiment as you describe. But I also think there is also an argument that its the nhs so therefore expect sympathy and tolerance of poor performance... Because they try really hard. Generalisations are hard to base a discussion on though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? One thing you do need to ensure is comparing like with like.so salary may be lower but pension and package is higher... I think there is sometimes a sentiment as you describe. But I also think there is also an argument that its the nhs so therefore expect sympathy and tolerance of poor performance... Because they try really hard. Generalisations are hard to base a discussion on though. " The benefits vs salary and total remuneration point has already been touched on. Public sector often focus on salary ignoring benefits but criticism of public sector often seems to be as I have said in my observations. It also tends to be “well I don’t have that so you shouldn’t” as opposed “you have that I should too!” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? One thing you do need to ensure is comparing like with like.so salary may be lower but pension and package is higher... I think there is sometimes a sentiment as you describe. But I also think there is also an argument that its the nhs so therefore expect sympathy and tolerance of poor performance... Because they try really hard. Generalisations are hard to base a discussion on though. " By all accounts, companies such as Bupa actually offer better pension benefits than the NHS do... in fact many large corporate pension schemes are more attractive than the public sector offerings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!”" I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? One thing you do need to ensure is comparing like with like.so salary may be lower but pension and package is higher... I think there is sometimes a sentiment as you describe. But I also think there is also an argument that its the nhs so therefore expect sympathy and tolerance of poor performance... Because they try really hard. Generalisations are hard to base a discussion on though. By all accounts, companies such as Bupa actually offer better pension benefits than the NHS do... in fact many large corporate pension schemes are more attractive than the public sector offerings." Where do you get that information? In any case. Its important to talk about career package more so than basic salary without overtime and benefits. Job for life is another such benefit. Performance independence is another. Not saying some private companies offer great schemes. Just important that both sides show a bit more honesty with the info they put out there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool." Asking for inflationary busting increases are due to far too many years with BELOW inflation increases and years of zero increases! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool." Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? One thing you do need to ensure is comparing like with like.so salary may be lower but pension and package is higher... I think there is sometimes a sentiment as you describe. But I also think there is also an argument that its the nhs so therefore expect sympathy and tolerance of poor performance... Because they try really hard. Generalisations are hard to base a discussion on though. By all accounts, companies such as Bupa actually offer better pension benefits than the NHS do... in fact many large corporate pension schemes are more attractive than the public sector offerings. Where do you get that information? In any case. Its important to talk about career package more so than basic salary without overtime and benefits. Job for life is another such benefit. Performance independence is another. Not saying some private companies offer great schemes. Just important that both sides show a bit more honesty with the info they put out there. " A job for life - that's not a benefit of one's employment, that's the benefit of choosing a career that will always be in need of professionals and non-professionals alike. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross)." I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point." On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line." I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. " Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. " Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. " Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example)" Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking." Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? " There are some in the public sector which I'm sure you're aware of. But for the private sector : Where an employee goes on strike and refuses to work for their employer, this would ostensibly constitute a repudiatory breach of their employment contract and thus give the employer the right to sack them without notice or pay in lieu of notice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? There are some in the public sector which I'm sure you're aware of. But for the private sector : Where an employee goes on strike and refuses to work for their employer, this would ostensibly constitute a repudiatory breach of their employment contract and thus give the employer the right to sack them without notice or pay in lieu of notice." Striking is a breach of contract for anyone, including union members - but if a strike is voted for and legally ratified, you can’t be sacked for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? There are some in the public sector which I'm sure you're aware of. But for the private sector : Where an employee goes on strike and refuses to work for their employer, this would ostensibly constitute a repudiatory breach of their employment contract and thus give the employer the right to sack them without notice or pay in lieu of notice. Striking is a breach of contract for anyone, including union members - but if a strike is voted for and legally ratified, you can’t be sacked for it." It's all well and good joining a union but if you don't have the backing of your colleagues (I'm thing SME) then there will be no one to vote with you. If you're seen to be trying to get others to join a union with you, trust me, your employer will do something about it. You may not be able to be sacked for joining a union but you clearly underestimate the number of reasons you can be sacked for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? There are some in the public sector which I'm sure you're aware of. But for the private sector : Where an employee goes on strike and refuses to work for their employer, this would ostensibly constitute a repudiatory breach of their employment contract and thus give the employer the right to sack them without notice or pay in lieu of notice. Striking is a breach of contract for anyone, including union members - but if a strike is voted for and legally ratified, you can’t be sacked for it. It's all well and good joining a union but if you don't have the backing of your colleagues (I'm thing SME) then there will be no one to vote with you. If you're seen to be trying to get others to join a union with you, trust me, your employer will do something about it. You may not be able to be sacked for joining a union but you clearly underestimate the number of reasons you can be sacked for. " And I’m sure you’ll agree that’s indefensible? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? There are some in the public sector which I'm sure you're aware of. But for the private sector : Where an employee goes on strike and refuses to work for their employer, this would ostensibly constitute a repudiatory breach of their employment contract and thus give the employer the right to sack them without notice or pay in lieu of notice. Striking is a breach of contract for anyone, including union members - but if a strike is voted for and legally ratified, you can’t be sacked for it. It's all well and good joining a union but if you don't have the backing of your colleagues (I'm thing SME) then there will be no one to vote with you. If you're seen to be trying to get others to join a union with you, trust me, your employer will do something about it. You may not be able to be sacked for joining a union but you clearly underestimate the number of reasons you can be sacked for. " The reason I choose SME is because they employ 3/5 of the workforce. Public another 1/5 and large corporations 1/5. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? There are some in the public sector which I'm sure you're aware of. But for the private sector : Where an employee goes on strike and refuses to work for their employer, this would ostensibly constitute a repudiatory breach of their employment contract and thus give the employer the right to sack them without notice or pay in lieu of notice. Striking is a breach of contract for anyone, including union members - but if a strike is voted for and legally ratified, you can’t be sacked for it. It's all well and good joining a union but if you don't have the backing of your colleagues (I'm thing SME) then there will be no one to vote with you. If you're seen to be trying to get others to join a union with you, trust me, your employer will do something about it. You may not be able to be sacked for joining a union but you clearly underestimate the number of reasons you can be sacked for. And I’m sure you’ll agree that’s indefensible?" It doesn't matter whether it's indefensible or not. That's reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we?" No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT." Fair enough. I see how you got there. I mean if I add up everything they probably get 80% of my money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? There are some in the public sector which I'm sure you're aware of. But for the private sector : Where an employee goes on strike and refuses to work for their employer, this would ostensibly constitute a repudiatory breach of their employment contract and thus give the employer the right to sack them without notice or pay in lieu of notice. Striking is a breach of contract for anyone, including union members - but if a strike is voted for and legally ratified, you can’t be sacked for it. It's all well and good joining a union but if you don't have the backing of your colleagues (I'm thing SME) then there will be no one to vote with you. If you're seen to be trying to get others to join a union with you, trust me, your employer will do something about it. You may not be able to be sacked for joining a union but you clearly underestimate the number of reasons you can be sacked for. " Well one could just say “if you don’t like it and want the power of collective bargaining then don’t work for an SME but stop complaining about other people’s choice of employment”  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT. Fair enough. I see how you got there. I mean if I add up everything they probably get 80% of my money. " Yep but the Govt isn’t also your employer. So they dish out the money to public sector workers and then take a chunk of it back. It’s just a money roundabout. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? There are some in the public sector which I'm sure you're aware of. But for the private sector : Where an employee goes on strike and refuses to work for their employer, this would ostensibly constitute a repudiatory breach of their employment contract and thus give the employer the right to sack them without notice or pay in lieu of notice. Striking is a breach of contract for anyone, including union members - but if a strike is voted for and legally ratified, you can’t be sacked for it. It's all well and good joining a union but if you don't have the backing of your colleagues (I'm thing SME) then there will be no one to vote with you. If you're seen to be trying to get others to join a union with you, trust me, your employer will do something about it. You may not be able to be sacked for joining a union but you clearly underestimate the number of reasons you can be sacked for. Well one could just say “if you don’t like it and want the power of collective bargaining then don’t work for an SME but stop complaining about other people’s choice of employment” "One could say. Being that SME employ 3/5 of the workforce, its not so simple. That's all I've been trying to say. I don't complain about public sector workers. Largely strikes don't even effect me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT. Fair enough. I see how you got there. I mean if I add up everything they probably get 80% of my money. Yep but the Govt isn’t also your employer. So they dish out the money to public sector workers and then take a chunk of it back. It’s just a money roundabout." And still lose half out what they dish out. Its a roundabout with some leaving at the exits  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. Nothing is stopping anyone in the private sector going on strike. Some do - like the railway (TOCs for example) Contracts stop an awful lot of the private sector striking. Which jobs have a contract that bans them from striking or joining a union? There are some in the public sector which I'm sure you're aware of. But for the private sector : Where an employee goes on strike and refuses to work for their employer, this would ostensibly constitute a repudiatory breach of their employment contract and thus give the employer the right to sack them without notice or pay in lieu of notice. Striking is a breach of contract for anyone, including union members - but if a strike is voted for and legally ratified, you can’t be sacked for it. It's all well and good joining a union but if you don't have the backing of your colleagues (I'm thing SME) then there will be no one to vote with you. If you're seen to be trying to get others to join a union with you, trust me, your employer will do something about it. You may not be able to be sacked for joining a union but you clearly underestimate the number of reasons you can be sacked for. Well one could just say “if you don’t like it and want the power of collective bargaining then don’t work for an SME but stop complaining about other people’s choice of employment”
One could say. Being that SME employ 3/5 of the workforce, its not so simple.
That's all I've been trying to say. I don't complain about public sector workers. Largely strikes don't even effect me. "You might not but many people do, hence my OP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT. Fair enough. I see how you got there. I mean if I add up everything they probably get 80% of my money. Yep but the Govt isn’t also your employer. So they dish out the money to public sector workers and then take a chunk of it back. It’s just a money roundabout. And still lose half out what they dish out. Its a roundabout with some leaving at the exits "How do they lose it? Private sector companies “lose” 100% of it as nothing goes back to them. Not so the Govt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT. Fair enough. I see how you got there. I mean if I add up everything they probably get 80% of my money. Yep but the Govt isn’t also your employer. So they dish out the money to public sector workers and then take a chunk of it back. It’s just a money roundabout. And still lose half out what they dish out. Its a roundabout with some leaving at the exits
How do they lose it? Private sector companies “lose” 100% of it as nothing goes back to them. Not so the Govt."Companies may lose 100% of money. Directors and shareholders do not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT. Fair enough. I see how you got there. I mean if I add up everything they probably get 80% of my money. Yep but the Govt isn’t also your employer. So they dish out the money to public sector workers and then take a chunk of it back. It’s just a money roundabout. And still lose half out what they dish out. Its a roundabout with some leaving at the exits
How do they lose it? Private sector companies “lose” 100% of it as nothing goes back to them. Not so the Govt.
Companies may lose 100% of money. Directors and shareholders do not. "Not sure of the relevance of that point? You’ve lost me? We are talking about employees whether be employed by a company or the state. I’m saying that when you are employed by the state, much of what is paid out comes back to the state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT. Fair enough. I see how you got there. I mean if I add up everything they probably get 80% of my money. Yep but the Govt isn’t also your employer. So they dish out the money to public sector workers and then take a chunk of it back. It’s just a money roundabout. And still lose half out what they dish out. Its a roundabout with some leaving at the exits
How do they lose it? Private sector companies “lose” 100% of it as nothing goes back to them. Not so the Govt.
Companies may lose 100% of money. Directors and shareholders do not.
Not sure of the relevance of that point? You’ve lost me? We are talking about employees whether be employed by a company or the state. I’m saying that when you are employed by the state, much of what is paid out comes back to the state."But it doesn't matter what comes back. More is going out than coming back so regardless of how you try to spin it, MORE IS SPENT. The Govt get money from the private sector and spend it on the public sector. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT. Fair enough. I see how you got there. I mean if I add up everything they probably get 80% of my money. Yep but the Govt isn’t also your employer. So they dish out the money to public sector workers and then take a chunk of it back. It’s just a money roundabout. And still lose half out what they dish out. Its a roundabout with some leaving at the exits
How do they lose it? Private sector companies “lose” 100% of it as nothing goes back to them. Not so the Govt.
Companies may lose 100% of money. Directors and shareholders do not.
Not sure of the relevance of that point? You’ve lost me? We are talking about employees whether be employed by a company or the state. I’m saying that when you are employed by the state, much of what is paid out comes back to the state.
But it doesn't matter what comes back. More is going out than coming back so regardless of how you try to spin it, MORE IS SPENT.
The Govt get money from the private sector and spend it on the public sector. "Oh ok yes see your point. My point is that (made up numbers) the government says we can’t give you a 10% pay rise as can’t afford it when they would actually be giving a c.5% payrise due to the money roundabout as state is the employer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Genuine question... Why does it seem so many people in the private sector expect people in the public sector to not have good pay and decent pay rises? The go to argument of many is “well if you don’t like it leave” but with many of the public sector roles it would be like “and do what?” because many roles are specific to the public sector. These same people often bemoan the inefficient NHS (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) or service levels in Civil Service depts (but do not seem to want staff to earn great money to improve recruitment and retention) etc etc Why do so many in the private sector expect our public servants to be lower paid or to remove their benefits? Why don’t they want the public sector to be world class and attract some of the brightest and best? There’s always been a trade off between choosing public/private sector work. Generally speaking the private sector pays better, and the public sector has better benefits such as the pension. I’d be miffed if I chose to work in the public sector based upon those benefits, sacrificed better monthly pay for them, and then ended up losing them. Agreed but my point was more a comment on what appears to be an attitude of “you are funded by the taxpayer so you should accept whatever we want to give you and never expect more because you work for us” combined with “you are all rubbish and need to work harder, be better, where’s your motivation? Be grateful you have a job serving all of us!” I'm not sure that is the case here. We often hear calls for public sector workers to be awarded rises above or equal to inflation. That is a lot of people and a lot of money, that is linked to a moving scale. The time inflation dips will they take a pay cut? We know the answer to that, let alone the legal ramifications. Secondary to this, is the economic impact on the tax payer by awarding hundreds of thousands of workers inflation % increases, it ripples through the economy causing the higher interest rates to try and control the inflations rate. The ask is unrealistic and used as a tool. Would anyone in the private sector return a previous pay rise due to deflation? Also every single one of those public sector workers is a taxpayer so 20% 40% (and in a few cases) 45% + NIC is all collected back which is also not talked about (ie the net salary costs not gross). I think the main difference is the private sector rarely get inflation matching increases, nor do they ask for it via forced walk outs. Private sector workers also pay tax and ni so not really sure what you were saying on that point. On your first point, that is because since the days of Thatcher there has been a huge erosion of unionisation amongst private sector workers. Few industries now have high levels of union membership (mostly still in privatised industries like utilities or railways). Second point is that the Govt talk about the “excessive public sector wage bill” but inflate it by talking in gross terms. So if they award an inflation level pay rise, the Treasury ends up getting almost half of that back! When a private sector company gives a pay rise the whole amount comes off the bottom line. I agree with your first point. I still see the difference as, in the private sector, don't like it? LEAVE. In the public sector, don't like it, WALK OUT AND DEMAND MORE. I understand your second point, I feel its a bit disingenuous to say 'almost half of it back' but I understand what you're saying. Not disingenuous at all. Factor in VAT on purchases and there you go! There was a time when much of the private sector were able to use collective bargaining. It didn’t have to stop but a generation of British workers allowed it to happen through the 80s. Can you claim VAT back from wages? We are talking about wages aren't we? No! But what do people do when they get their wages? They spend it in stuff. The Govt adds VAT on most of that stuff so... (Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT. Fair enough. I see how you got there. I mean if I add up everything they probably get 80% of my money. Yep but the Govt isn’t also your employer. So they dish out the money to public sector workers and then take a chunk of it back. It’s just a money roundabout. And still lose half out what they dish out. Its a roundabout with some leaving at the exits
How do they lose it? Private sector companies “lose” 100% of it as nothing goes back to them. Not so the Govt.
Companies may lose 100% of money. Directors and shareholders do not.
Not sure of the relevance of that point? You’ve lost me? We are talking about employees whether be employed by a company or the state. I’m saying that when you are employed by the state, much of what is paid out comes back to the state.
But it doesn't matter what comes back. More is going out than coming back so regardless of how you try to spin it, MORE IS SPENT.
The Govt get money from the private sector and spend it on the public sector.
Oh ok yes see your point. My point is that (made up numbers) the government says we can’t give you a 10% pay rise as can’t afford it when they would actually be giving a c.5% payrise due to the money roundabout as state is the employer."It's still a 10% pay rise. What you're asking is for the govt to speak in net figures? No one does that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(Made up numbers) Govt gives Bob Public Sector Worker £100 pay rise. £32-£52 of that goes straight back to HMT in IC and NIC (depending on gross salary amount). Then every time Bob spends his net salary on stuff he pays VAT which goes back to HMT." That depends on which part of the public sector the person works for. Bill Junior-Doctor doesn't get paid by the government, he gets paid by his local health authority. The wage payer and the tax receiver are not the same organisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
