FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 5.5% pay rise for teachers and NHS workers
5.5% pay rise for teachers and NHS workers
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Pay teachers the 5%. Huge recruitment crisis. Secondary schools can not keep staff. It won't increase inflation. That is just a Tory scaremongering story. Teaching pay rise won't crash the economy. " Well said. | |||
| |||
| |||
"‘The estimated cost of pay rises of 5.5% for teachers and certain NHS staff could reach £3bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)’ (bbc) Binning the non dom scheme (£3.2bn annual) will cover this pay rise. " Yes it will cover it if the non Dom change actually raises what they hop and if that money hasn't already been spent elsewhere already on other promises | |||
| |||
"How many BILLIONS wasted on the white elephant that is HS2. Who's actually going to benefit other than the companies who got awarded the lucrative contracts,oh wait wasn't Boris Johnson dad a major shareholder in the company that built it, strange that. Yet 14 years of austerity but they can afford to build something no-one actually needs other than maybe a few commuters who are probably working from home now anyway!" We've gone from Stanley Johnson selling a house to being a major shareholder  | |||
"‘The estimated cost of pay rises of 5.5% for teachers and certain NHS staff could reach £3bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)’ (bbc) Binning the non dom scheme (£3.2bn annual) will cover this pay rise. " Binning the non-dom scheme wouldn't get that much money. All this points to an increase in tax sooner. | |||
"How many BILLIONS wasted on the white elephant that is HS2. Who's actually going to benefit other than the companies who got awarded the lucrative contracts,oh wait wasn't Boris Johnson dad a major shareholder in the company that built it, strange that. Yet 14 years of austerity but they can afford to build something no-one actually needs other than maybe a few commuters who are probably working from home now anyway!" Dwarfed by the billions spunked into the Brexit toilet every year. Hopefully we can return to some kind of politics that has the best interests of the UK at heart. Time will tell if that's the case or not. | |||
"Pay teachers the 5%. Huge recruitment crisis. Secondary schools can not keep staff. It won't increase inflation. That is just a Tory scaremongering story. Teaching pay rise won't crash the economy. Well said. " Teachers pay rise won't cause inflation but every other profession looking for a similar pay rise just might have that effect, think about the knock ons | |||
"HWho's actually going to benefit other than the companies who got awarded the lucrative contracts,oh wait wasn't Boris Johnson dad a major shareholder in the company that built it" No he wasn't. In fact he spent several years organising a campaign against HS2, as its route went through his house. He failed, and his house was compulsorily purchased, and demolished. | |||
"How many BILLIONS wasted on the white elephant that is HS2. Who's actually going to benefit other than the companies who got awarded the lucrative contracts,oh wait wasn't Boris Johnson dad a major shareholder in the company that built it, strange that. Yet 14 years of austerity but they can afford to build something no-one actually needs other than maybe a few commuters who are probably working from home now anyway! We've gone from Stanley Johnson selling a house to being a major shareholder "The stories keep cooking. Got to give credits for the creativity though. | |||
"‘The estimated cost of pay rises of 5.5% for teachers and certain NHS staff could reach £3bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS)’ (bbc) Binning the non dom scheme (£3.2bn annual) will cover this pay rise. " Not if 50% of the non domes up and leave. Not staying they will but if they do UK gets 0% | |||
"How many BILLIONS wasted on the white elephant that is HS2. Who's actually going to benefit other than the companies who got awarded the lucrative contracts,oh wait wasn't Boris Johnson dad a major shareholder in the company that built it, strange that. Yet 14 years of austerity but they can afford to build something no-one actually needs other than maybe a few commuters who are probably working from home now anyway! We've gone from Stanley Johnson selling a house to being a major shareholder
The stories keep cooking. Got to give credits for the creativity though."Not a story,do your research. | |||
| |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies " Not sure what's up with the strawman arguments from lots of people these days. It's not giving payrises itself that's the problem. You can't do it just for one profession and leave out the others. In case you didn't know, about 20% of UK workers work in public sector, which is insane in itself. But that's another debate. The problem is with everyone pretending like this isn't going to result in increase in taxes. | |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies Not sure what's up with the strawman arguments from lots of people these days. It's not giving payrises itself that's the problem. You can't do it just for one profession and leave out the others. In case you didn't know, about 20% of UK workers work in public sector, which is insane in itself. But that's another debate. The problem is with everyone pretending like this isn't going to result in increase in taxes." I wasn't arguing, I have realised I'm too stupid to win an argument on here | |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies " The top 1% of earners pay 28% of income tax. Expand that to the top 5%, those earners pay 65.6% of all income tax. An income higher than £81357 puts you in the top 5%, hardly “rock star” money. That’s Head teachers, GPs, “junior” doctors with about 10 years PQE in a specialism, senior nursing management…… But yeah, keep banging on about the 0.01% as if they were the ones actually getting fist-fucked by the tax system.  | |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies The top 1% of earners pay 28% of income tax. Expand that to the top 5%, those earners pay 65.6% of all income tax. An income higher than £81357 puts you in the top 5%, hardly “rock star” money. That’s Head teachers, GPs, “junior” doctors with about 10 years PQE in a specialism, senior nursing management…… But yeah, keep banging on about the 0.01% as if they were the ones actually getting fist-fucked by the tax system. "Ok going by those figures I'm in the top 5% ! But I wouldn't be a teacher if you doubled my annual income | |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies Not sure what's up with the strawman arguments from lots of people these days. It's not giving payrises itself that's the problem. You can't do it just for one profession and leave out the others. In case you didn't know, about 20% of UK workers work in public sector, which is insane in itself. But that's another debate. The problem is with everyone pretending like this isn't going to result in increase in taxes. I wasn't arguing, I have realised I'm too stupid to win an argument on here" Well you made some statement about tax breaks being given to CEOs of energy companies. Which CEO got a tax break like that? | |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies Not sure what's up with the strawman arguments from lots of people these days. It's not giving payrises itself that's the problem. You can't do it just for one profession and leave out the others. In case you didn't know, about 20% of UK workers work in public sector, which is insane in itself. But that's another debate. The problem is with everyone pretending like this isn't going to result in increase in taxes. I wasn't arguing, I have realised I'm too stupid to win an argument on here Well you made some statement about tax breaks being given to CEOs of energy companies. Which CEO got a tax break like that?" Told ya I'm too stupid to argue so not biting | |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies Not sure what's up with the strawman arguments from lots of people these days. It's not giving payrises itself that's the problem. You can't do it just for one profession and leave out the others. In case you didn't know, about 20% of UK workers work in public sector, which is insane in itself. But that's another debate. The problem is with everyone pretending like this isn't going to result in increase in taxes. I wasn't arguing, I have realised I'm too stupid to win an argument on here Well you made some statement about tax breaks being given to CEOs of energy companies. Which CEO got a tax break like that? Told ya I'm too stupid to argue so not biting " Make a claim and then say you're too stupid to back up said claim. Are you really just telling us that you're nothing more than a troll? | |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies Not sure what's up with the strawman arguments from lots of people these days. It's not giving payrises itself that's the problem. You can't do it just for one profession and leave out the others. In case you didn't know, about 20% of UK workers work in public sector, which is insane in itself. But that's another debate. The problem is with everyone pretending like this isn't going to result in increase in taxes. I wasn't arguing, I have realised I'm too stupid to win an argument on here Well you made some statement about tax breaks being given to CEOs of energy companies. Which CEO got a tax break like that? Told ya I'm too stupid to argue so not biting Make a claim and then say you're too stupid to back up said claim. Are you really just telling us that you're nothing more than a troll?" It wasn't so much a statement more a satirical comment. Call me a Troll if you like, I don't care | |||
"How many BILLIONS wasted on the white elephant that is HS2. Who's actually going to benefit other than the companies who got awarded the lucrative contracts,oh wait wasn't Boris Johnson dad a major shareholder in the company that built it, strange that. Yet 14 years of austerity but they can afford to build something no-one actually needs other than maybe a few commuters who are probably working from home now anyway!" My thoughts too. I get the train from Liverpool to Euston on a regular basis. Takes about 2hours 35 minutes. The high speed may reduce it to around 2 hours. I spend more than 30 minutes buying coffee and looking at magazines in WH Smiths. If they had the old top shelf mags, I'd be there for an hour... Maybe the very important people on the train, the ones discussing top business deals and future meetings with Doreen back at the office, loud enough for anyone, anywhere on the train to hear, may find saving 30 minutes beneficial. But for mere mortals like me, 30 minutes can be easily spent thinking about filth and naked beaches and wondering what on earth Mr or Mrs I'm Full of Myself did before mobile phones. Did they just sit in their seat, occasionally turning to the rest of the carriage shouting "I'm dead important me "....  | |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies Not sure what's up with the strawman arguments from lots of people these days. It's not giving payrises itself that's the problem. You can't do it just for one profession and leave out the others. In case you didn't know, about 20% of UK workers work in public sector, which is insane in itself. But that's another debate. The problem is with everyone pretending like this isn't going to result in increase in taxes. I wasn't arguing, I have realised I'm too stupid to win an argument on here Well you made some statement about tax breaks being given to CEOs of energy companies. Which CEO got a tax break like that? Told ya I'm too stupid to argue so not biting Make a claim and then say you're too stupid to back up said claim. Are you really just telling us that you're nothing more than a troll? It wasn't so much a statement more a satirical comment. Call me a Troll if you like, I don't care" And then when caught out, ITS SATIRE. Same game from most of you
I'm not calling you a troll, I'm asking what other conclusion can be drawn? | |||
"How dare we give payrises to the people who teach our children and look after the sick! More tax breaks are needed for ceos of energy companies Not sure what's up with the strawman arguments from lots of people these days. It's not giving payrises itself that's the problem. You can't do it just for one profession and leave out the others. In case you didn't know, about 20% of UK workers work in public sector, which is insane in itself. But that's another debate. The problem is with everyone pretending like this isn't going to result in increase in taxes. I wasn't arguing, I have realised I'm too stupid to win an argument on here Well you made some statement about tax breaks being given to CEOs of energy companies. Which CEO got a tax break like that? Told ya I'm too stupid to argue so not biting Make a claim and then say you're too stupid to back up said claim. Are you really just telling us that you're nothing more than a troll? It wasn't so much a statement more a satirical comment. Call me a Troll if you like, I don't care And then when caught out, ITS SATIRE. Same game from most of you
I'm not calling you a troll, I'm asking what other conclusion can be drawn?"Yep 100% agree | |||
"There's no question that many deserve at least that much. But is it affordable? Will it fuel further inflation? Will Labour do it and, if so, how will they balance promised tax restraint and fiscal policies?" Well deserved, public sector pay rises have been lagging behind private sector for some time now. Odd how nobody ever seems to claim that private sector pay rises cause inflation. | |||
| |||
"There's no question that many deserve at least that much. But is it affordable? Will it fuel further inflation? Will Labour do it and, if so, how will they balance promised tax restraint and fiscal policies? Well deserved, public sector pay rises have been lagging behind private sector for some time now. Odd how nobody ever seems to claim that private sector pay rises cause inflation." I just did (was typing when this must have been posted ) | |||
"There's no question that many deserve at least that much. But is it affordable? Will it fuel further inflation? Will Labour do it and, if so, how will they balance promised tax restraint and fiscal policies? Well deserved, public sector pay rises have been lagging behind private sector for some time now. Odd how nobody ever seems to claim that private sector pay rises cause inflation." Actually, the Bank of England said exactly that, last year: Bank of England bosses have accepted thousands of pounds in pay rises, despite telling ordinary workers not to ask for more money. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bank-of-england-bosses-accept-pay-rise-wage-restraint-economy-inflation/ Everyone believes that their sector should get more, but that nobody else should... | |||
" Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? " Surely all of the pre-Brexit unemployed have now stepped into all of those roles that the EU migrants were stealing. Right?  | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is." The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. | |||
" Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Surely all of the pre-Brexit unemployed have now stepped into all of those roles that the EU migrants were stealing. Right? "We have more than enough unemployed people to take those jobs and many many more . . . 1.53 million people are unemployed in the UK. (5 days ago. Figures from .gov) The UK unemployment rate was 4.4%, and 1.53 million people aged 16+ were unemployed. Unemployment levels increased by around 133,000 over the last year, and the unemployment rate rose. 9.38 million people aged 16-64 were economically inactive, and the inactivity rate was 22.1%. Getting them into work is what has to be done.  | |||
" Getting them into work is what has to be done. "Agreed. How? | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. " But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed? | |||
| |||
" But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed?" Perhaps a 5.5% across the board pay rise is not the answer. Perhaps a targeted rise in the most needed areas is. Maybe 10% for high school STEM and 2% for new recruits (illustrative, not literal!). It could total the same overall cost, but be less of a blunt tool. | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. " Of course there are many factors. But a major strand of BoE rhetoric has centred on service sector pay*. But what seems to be getting said here is “private sector pay has not been restrained causing inflationary pressure so we need public sector workers to take a hit to save us” which is hardly fair! *which includes finance/banking ironically and as per poster above BoE staff/execs got pay rises. Also pay is increasing in the banking sector and last govt removed (or mooted) bonus caps introduced as a result of the financial crisis 2007/8 caused by deregulation. | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed?" Controlling inflation comes at a massive cost in terms of pain to the country as a whole, this is part of it. We all need to be aware that this is and will always be the case, if they don’t introduce measures to reduce costs everywhere what will happen is the not so well off / poor / low earners / mid earners will hit an absolute rock bottom with no way out. We have just about got away with it now, it needs until the end of the year to see the results are stable in my opinion, then and only then should we be considering further expense. | |||
| |||
" Getting them into work is what has to be done.
Agreed.
How?"From Labours Manifesto: -------------------------------- "Deliver a genuine living wage The creation of the National Minimum Wage was one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour government and has lifted many working people out of poverty, and narrowed the pay gap between men and women, older and younger workers and between places. The next Labour government would go further and make sure the minimum wage is a real living wage that people can live on. To achieve this, we would change the Low Pay Commission’s remit so that alongside median wages and economic conditions, the minimum wage will for the first time reflect the need for pay to take into account the cost of living. We will remove the discriminatory age bands to ensure every adult worker benefits, and we will work with the Single Enforcement Body and HMRC and ensure they have the powers necessary to make sure our genuine living wage is properly enforced, including penalties for non-compliance. Labour will work with the Single Enforcement Body and HMRC to ensure the National Minimum Wage regulations on travel time in sectors with multiple working sites is enforced and that workers’ contracts reflect the law. More widely, we will work with the Low Pay Commission, trade unions, employers, the Council for Economic Growth and more to address the ongoing issue of low pay." ___________________________ | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. Of course there are many factors. But a major strand of BoE rhetoric has centred on service sector pay*. But what seems to be getting said here is “private sector pay has not been restrained causing inflationary pressure so we need public sector workers to take a hit to save us” which is hardly fair! *which includes finance/banking ironically and as per poster above BoE staff/execs got pay rises. Also pay is increasing in the banking sector and last govt removed (or mooted) bonus caps introduced as a result of the financial crisis 2007/8 caused by deregulation. " This will always be the approach taken, the government is using our money to fund our services and will cut or stop funding some service to make ends meet. People working in the public sector should be able to recognise who their employer is, and like any employer if they haven’t got the cash to increase salaries, it won’t happen without bring down the employer. | |||
| |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed? Controlling inflation comes at a massive cost in terms of pain to the country as a whole, this is part of it. We all need to be aware that this is and will always be the case, if they don’t introduce measures to reduce costs everywhere what will happen is the not so well off / poor / low earners / mid earners will hit an absolute rock bottom with no way out. We have just about got away with it now, it needs until the end of the year to see the results are stable in my opinion, then and only then should we be considering further expense. " Just wondering whether you have increased your day rates as a freelance consultant over the past couple of years? All those posting on here who are in the private sector but are against public sector pay rises…did you get a pay rise over last couple of years? Maybe the “measures” should include giving up your pay rise or reducing day rates to do your bit to get inflation down? Seems fair? BTW I do not for one moment think/assume everyone in private sector has been getting pay rises but someone is or else BoE is lying! | |||
| |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed? Controlling inflation comes at a massive cost in terms of pain to the country as a whole, this is part of it. We all need to be aware that this is and will always be the case, if they don’t introduce measures to reduce costs everywhere what will happen is the not so well off / poor / low earners / mid earners will hit an absolute rock bottom with no way out. We have just about got away with it now, it needs until the end of the year to see the results are stable in my opinion, then and only then should we be considering further expense. Just wondering whether you have increased your day rates as a freelance consultant over the past couple of years? All those posting on here who are in the private sector but are against public sector pay rises…did you get a pay rise over last couple of years? Maybe the “measures” should include giving up your pay rise or reducing day rates to do your bit to get inflation down? Seems fair? BTW I do not for one moment think/assume everyone in private sector has been getting pay rises but someone is or else BoE is lying!" Being freelance clearly isn't the same as being employed, regardless of whether it's private or public. Companies can choose not to use a freelancer if they don't agree with their rates. Employers cannot do that. | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed? Controlling inflation comes at a massive cost in terms of pain to the country as a whole, this is part of it. We all need to be aware that this is and will always be the case, if they don’t introduce measures to reduce costs everywhere what will happen is the not so well off / poor / low earners / mid earners will hit an absolute rock bottom with no way out. We have just about got away with it now, it needs until the end of the year to see the results are stable in my opinion, then and only then should we be considering further expense. Just wondering whether you have increased your day rates as a freelance consultant over the past couple of years? All those posting on here who are in the private sector but are against public sector pay rises…did you get a pay rise over last couple of years? Maybe the “measures” should include giving up your pay rise or reducing day rates to do your bit to get inflation down? Seems fair? BTW I do not for one moment think/assume everyone in private sector has been getting pay rises but someone is or else BoE is lying!" The lack of spending power through higher mortgage repayments, food, fuel and luxury items tempers the ability to spend and leads to job losses. Many people have not had pay rises, you have singled out a couple of areas that have and to be brutally honest, finance will always prosper regardless. As for my rates, I have worked for increased rates and I’ve worked with some clients on the same rate I was getting 10 years ago… I need to be flexible and read the market to ensure I’m raking it in | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. Of course there are many factors. But a major strand of BoE rhetoric has centred on service sector pay*. But what seems to be getting said here is “private sector pay has not been restrained causing inflationary pressure so we need public sector workers to take a hit to save us” which is hardly fair! *which includes finance/banking ironically and as per poster above BoE staff/execs got pay rises. Also pay is increasing in the banking sector and last govt removed (or mooted) bonus caps introduced as a result of the financial crisis 2007/8 caused by deregulation. This will always be the approach taken, the government is using our money to fund our services and will cut or stop funding some service to make ends meet. People working in the public sector should be able to recognise who their employer is, and like any employer if they haven’t got the cash to increase salaries, it won’t happen without bring down the employer." I reckon all those public sector workers who have had up to 14 years of below inflation pay rises and pay freezes resulting in real term pay cuts, probably feel they have been doing their bit. Time for private sector to step up? Perhaps it is time for C suite pay restraint? Perhaps shareholders should expect smaller dividends to allow for better pay restraint in private sector? | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. Of course there are many factors. But a major strand of BoE rhetoric has centred on service sector pay*. But what seems to be getting said here is “private sector pay has not been restrained causing inflationary pressure so we need public sector workers to take a hit to save us” which is hardly fair! *which includes finance/banking ironically and as per poster above BoE staff/execs got pay rises. Also pay is increasing in the banking sector and last govt removed (or mooted) bonus caps introduced as a result of the financial crisis 2007/8 caused by deregulation. This will always be the approach taken, the government is using our money to fund our services and will cut or stop funding some service to make ends meet. People working in the public sector should be able to recognise who their employer is, and like any employer if they haven’t got the cash to increase salaries, it won’t happen without bring down the employer. I reckon all those public sector workers who have had up to 14 years of below inflation pay rises and pay freezes resulting in real term pay cuts, probably feel they have been doing their bit. Time for private sector to step up? Perhaps it is time for C suite pay restraint? Perhaps shareholders should expect smaller dividends to allow for better pay restraint in private sector?" Or, they can leave the public sector and find work that meets their aspirations? | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed? Controlling inflation comes at a massive cost in terms of pain to the country as a whole, this is part of it. We all need to be aware that this is and will always be the case, if they don’t introduce measures to reduce costs everywhere what will happen is the not so well off / poor / low earners / mid earners will hit an absolute rock bottom with no way out. We have just about got away with it now, it needs until the end of the year to see the results are stable in my opinion, then and only then should we be considering further expense. Just wondering whether you have increased your day rates as a freelance consultant over the past couple of years? All those posting on here who are in the private sector but are against public sector pay rises…did you get a pay rise over last couple of years? Maybe the “measures” should include giving up your pay rise or reducing day rates to do your bit to get inflation down? Seems fair? BTW I do not for one moment think/assume everyone in private sector has been getting pay rises but someone is or else BoE is lying!" Not freelance but a contractor for the public sector. My day rate has been the same for years and will never go up unless I went under ir35 maybe. But don't want to do that. Also been on minimum wage for years | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed? Controlling inflation comes at a massive cost in terms of pain to the country as a whole, this is part of it. We all need to be aware that this is and will always be the case, if they don’t introduce measures to reduce costs everywhere what will happen is the not so well off / poor / low earners / mid earners will hit an absolute rock bottom with no way out. We have just about got away with it now, it needs until the end of the year to see the results are stable in my opinion, then and only then should we be considering further expense. Just wondering whether you have increased your day rates as a freelance consultant over the past couple of years? All those posting on here who are in the private sector but are against public sector pay rises…did you get a pay rise over last couple of years? Maybe the “measures” should include giving up your pay rise or reducing day rates to do your bit to get inflation down? Seems fair? BTW I do not for one moment think/assume everyone in private sector has been getting pay rises but someone is or else BoE is lying! The lack of spending power through higher mortgage repayments, food, fuel and luxury items tempers the ability to spend and leads to job losses. Many people have not had pay rises, you have singled out a couple of areas that have and to be brutally honest, finance will always prosper regardless. As for my rates, I have worked for increased rates and I’ve worked with some clients on the same rate I was getting 10 years ago… I need to be flexible and read the market to ensure I’m raking it in "It was more a broad example than specifically about you. Totally agree re a mixed range of day rates depending on client, nature of project, longevity of relationship (look after your regulars), and potential multiplier effect. I am not singling out (not deliberately) just repeating BoE rhetoric which is blaming service sector pay increases for sticky inflation. Just pointing out that someone is getting pay rises (or BoE are lying) and it hardly seems fair to expect public sector workers to offset that! | |||
" But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed? Perhaps a 5.5% across the board pay rise is not the answer. Perhaps a targeted rise in the most needed areas is. Maybe 10% for high school STEM and 2% for new recruits (illustrative, not literal!). It could total the same overall cost, but be less of a blunt tool." If you start paying teachers doing certain subjects more money then you will just encourage more teachers to do those subjects and not the poorer paid ones. | |||
" Not freelance but a contractor for the public sector. My day rate has been the same for years and will never go up unless I went under ir35 maybe. But don't want to do that. Also been on minimum wage for years " Don’t get me started on IR35! The Lib Dems were the only party to commit to addressing this in their manifesto. | |||
"Pay teachers the 5%. Huge recruitment crisis. Secondary schools can not keep staff. It won't increase inflation. That is just a Tory scaremongering story. Teaching pay rise won't crash the economy. Well said. " Only if you're a teacher | |||
" Not freelance but a contractor for the public sector. My day rate has been the same for years and will never go up unless I went under ir35 maybe. But don't want to do that. Also been on minimum wage for years Don’t get me started on IR35! The Lib Dems were the only party to commit to addressing this in their manifesto." I know it's going to get me sooner or later, but I'll ride the gravey train as long as I can | |||
"Or, they can leave the public sector and find work that meets their aspirations?" They could and it would appear by staff shortages in NHS, Care, Teaching etc that they already are. Let’s hope the trend doesn’t continue or we may find ourselves with nobody (of any quality) wanting to deliver public sector services to the rest of us. We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? | |||
" Not freelance but a contractor for the public sector. My day rate has been the same for years and will never go up unless I went under ir35 maybe. But don't want to do that. Also been on minimum wage for years Don’t get me started on IR35! The Lib Dems were the only party to commit to addressing this in their manifesto. I know it's going to get me sooner or later, but I'll ride the gravey train as long as I can " Sure you know all this (saying this for any casual reader interested) but if your client says they want you to go inside IR35 get your accountant to work out what your inside day rate needs to be to maintain the same net income (including covering employer NIC). Then tell your client your inside and outside rates. In fact be proactive and have that to hand now. | |||
| |||
" Not freelance but a contractor for the public sector. My day rate has been the same for years and will never go up unless I went under ir35 maybe. But don't want to do that. Also been on minimum wage for years Don’t get me started on IR35! The Lib Dems were the only party to commit to addressing this in their manifesto. I know it's going to get me sooner or later, but I'll ride the gravey train as long as I can Sure you know all this (saying this for any casual reader interested) but if your client says they want you to go inside IR35 get your accountant to work out what your inside day rate needs to be to maintain the same net income (including covering employer NIC). Then tell your client your inside and outside rates. In fact be proactive and have that to hand now." Well obviously prepared for it, main saving I get is that being Irish my company is registered to my flat there. Corporation tax is only 12.5% | |||
"or have more than 1 client" Not always straightforward. It is possible to simultaneously have multiple clients with some inside and some outside of IR35. | |||
" Not freelance but a contractor for the public sector. My day rate has been the same for years and will never go up unless I went under ir35 maybe. But don't want to do that. Also been on minimum wage for years Don’t get me started on IR35! The Lib Dems were the only party to commit to addressing this in their manifesto. I know it's going to get me sooner or later, but I'll ride the gravey train as long as I can Sure you know all this (saying this for any casual reader interested) but if your client says they want you to go inside IR35 get your accountant to work out what your inside day rate needs to be to maintain the same net income (including covering employer NIC). Then tell your client your inside and outside rates. In fact be proactive and have that to hand now. Well obviously prepared for it, main saving I get is that being Irish my company is registered to my flat there. Corporation tax is only 12.5%" Wait a minute, I thought the EU was one big homogenous whole with no sovereignty for the member states! The Irish having lower CT rates is a shocker | |||
| |||
" Not freelance but a contractor for the public sector. My day rate has been the same for years and will never go up unless I went under ir35 maybe. But don't want to do that. Also been on minimum wage for years Don’t get me started on IR35! The Lib Dems were the only party to commit to addressing this in their manifesto. I know it's going to get me sooner or later, but I'll ride the gravey train as long as I can Sure you know all this (saying this for any casual reader interested) but if your client says they want you to go inside IR35 get your accountant to work out what your inside day rate needs to be to maintain the same net income (including covering employer NIC). Then tell your client your inside and outside rates. In fact be proactive and have that to hand now. Well obviously prepared for it, main saving I get is that being Irish my company is registered to my flat there. Corporation tax is only 12.5% Wait a minute, I thought the EU was one big homogenous whole with no sovereignty for the member states! The Irish having lower CT rates is a shocker "It changed Ireland almost overnight with big companies like DELL and Apple setting up headquarters there. It may seem cheeky but all legal | |||
" But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed? Perhaps a 5.5% across the board pay rise is not the answer. Perhaps a targeted rise in the most needed areas is. Maybe 10% for high school STEM and 2% for new recruits (illustrative, not literal!). It could total the same overall cost, but be less of a blunt tool. If you start paying teachers doing certain subjects more money then you will just encourage more teachers to do those subjects and not the poorer paid ones." Exactly. That's the whole point. To encourage where encouragement is needed, especially where they require more work or qualification. | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left?" Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. | |||
" Not freelance but a contractor for the public sector. My day rate has been the same for years and will never go up unless I went under ir35 maybe. But don't want to do that. Also been on minimum wage for years Don’t get me started on IR35! The Lib Dems were the only party to commit to addressing this in their manifesto. I know it's going to get me sooner or later, but I'll ride the gravey train as long as I can Sure you know all this (saying this for any casual reader interested) but if your client says they want you to go inside IR35 get your accountant to work out what your inside day rate needs to be to maintain the same net income (including covering employer NIC). Then tell your client your inside and outside rates. In fact be proactive and have that to hand now. Well obviously prepared for it, main saving I get is that being Irish my company is registered to my flat there. Corporation tax is only 12.5% Wait a minute, I thought the EU was one big homogenous whole with no sovereignty for the member states! The Irish having lower CT rates is a shocker
It changed Ireland almost overnight with big companies like DELL and Apple setting up headquarters there. It may seem cheeky but all legal "I know I had my tongue firmly in cheek | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. " I think THAT is the main problem in the public sector. Either a lack of ability or will to deal with poor performers. Too many “problem staff” moved into a different team to become their problem. Too much turning a blind eye because the process of dealing with it is too time consuming. There’s a lack of teeth. | |||
" I think THAT is the main problem in the public sector. Either a lack of ability or will to deal with poor performers. Too many “problem staff” moved into a different team to become their problem. Too much turning a blind eye because the process of dealing with it is too time consuming. There’s a lack of teeth." Most teachers have a few colleagues who are entrenched, expensive, useless, often making everyone else's lives miserable... But nothing can be done about it. It's almost impossible to fire them. A fair number of people on here (perhaps not in forums) seem to be teachers, perhaps they can weigh in
The same is true across many public roles. | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. I think THAT is the main problem in the public sector. Either a lack of ability or will to deal with poor performers. Too many “problem staff” moved into a different team to become their problem. Too much turning a blind eye because the process of dealing with it is too time consuming. There’s a lack of teeth." It's by design. Public sector is the biggest monopoly. There is no incentive to operate efficiently. A business will go down in a year if they aren't efficient. Politicians only care about elections which happen once in 5 years and efficiency in public sector is one of the numerous issues on which elections are contested. | |||
" But there are staffing crises in education, health and adult social care; surely they government must do what the private sector has done and offer more favourable terms and conditions in order to recruit the people needed? Perhaps a 5.5% across the board pay rise is not the answer. Perhaps a targeted rise in the most needed areas is. Maybe 10% for high school STEM and 2% for new recruits (illustrative, not literal!). It could total the same overall cost, but be less of a blunt tool. If you start paying teachers doing certain subjects more money then you will just encourage more teachers to do those subjects and not the poorer paid ones. Exactly. That's the whole point. To encourage where encouragement is needed, especially where they require more work or qualification." They don’t need more work or qualifications though, all that will happen is that you will create a shortage in other academic areas. | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. " Who are the poor performers, and how do you identify poor performance? | |||
| |||
"It can easily be funded by getting rid of a lot of the pointless job roles that got brought in during and after Covid. Civil servant staff levels sky rocketed then." Cool, what are these pointless roles brought in during COVID, and what do they do? | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. Who are the poor performers, and how do you identify poor performance?" In general, or are you looking for names? As mentioned above, almost any teacher is aware of those people in their school (larger schools, certainly) who add almost no value but cannot be gotten rid of, usually adding to their own workload. The process of getting rid of a teacher is extremely difficult, so some schools will shuffle them, pop them into different areas or departments. When the writing is really on the wall for them, they can often get paid for 6 months on sick (stress) leave. Individually, all of these rights are great - teachers should not be subject to exploitation and sickness benefits are important. But it has unintended consequences in the hands of bad (or simply incompetent) actors. If your experience is different, then that is wonderful for you! This is not unique to teaching. | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. Who are the poor performers, and how do you identify poor performance? In general, or are you looking for names? As mentioned above, almost any teacher is aware of those people in their school (larger schools, certainly) who add almost no value but cannot be gotten rid of, usually adding to their own workload. The process of getting rid of a teacher is extremely difficult, so some schools will shuffle them, pop them into different areas or departments. When the writing is really on the wall for them, they can often get paid for 6 months on sick (stress) leave. Individually, all of these rights are great - teachers should not be subject to exploitation and sickness benefits are important. But it has unintended consequences in the hands of bad (or simply incompetent) actors. If your experience is different, then that is wonderful for you! This is not unique to teaching." So you would have summary dismissals without evidence? | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. Who are the poor performers, and how do you identify poor performance? In general, or are you looking for names? As mentioned above, almost any teacher is aware of those people in their school (larger schools, certainly) who add almost no value but cannot be gotten rid of, usually adding to their own workload. The process of getting rid of a teacher is extremely difficult, so some schools will shuffle them, pop them into different areas or departments. When the writing is really on the wall for them, they can often get paid for 6 months on sick (stress) leave. Individually, all of these rights are great - teachers should not be subject to exploitation and sickness benefits are important. But it has unintended consequences in the hands of bad (or simply incompetent) actors. If your experience is different, then that is wonderful for you! This is not unique to teaching. So you would have summary dismissals without evidence? " No, what disgusting piece of sh*t would even suggest such a thing? | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. Who are the poor performers, and how do you identify poor performance? In general, or are you looking for names? As mentioned above, almost any teacher is aware of those people in their school (larger schools, certainly) who add almost no value but cannot be gotten rid of, usually adding to their own workload. The process of getting rid of a teacher is extremely difficult, so some schools will shuffle them, pop them into different areas or departments. When the writing is really on the wall for them, they can often get paid for 6 months on sick (stress) leave. Individually, all of these rights are great - teachers should not be subject to exploitation and sickness benefits are important. But it has unintended consequences in the hands of bad (or simply incompetent) actors. If your experience is different, then that is wonderful for you! This is not unique to teaching. So you would have summary dismissals without evidence? No, what disgusting piece of sh*t would even suggest such a thing?" So how do you work out who the poor performers are? What if there are extenuating circumstances? What if the poor performance has to do with inadequate staffing levels, or the working environment? | |||
"It can easily be funded by getting rid of a lot of the pointless job roles that got brought in during and after Covid. Civil servant staff levels sky rocketed then." Nope. The Civil Service grew due to an increased level of activity being required to implement Brexit. The last govt then introduced a recruitment freeze and followed that with a commitment to reduce headcount to pre-2016 levels through natural wastage rather than redundancy. Incidentally you know of course that the Civil Service is only one element of the public sector and does not, for example, include council workers. | |||
" So how do you work out who the poor performers are? What if there are extenuating circumstances? What if the poor performance has to do with inadequate staffing levels, or the working environment?" That really isn't the point. This is not a suggestion to relax the dismissal rules or procedures. As mentioned above, "individually, all of these rights are great - teachers should not be subject to exploitation and sickness benefits are important". Indeed, these are complaints made by teaching staff, who are forced to shoulder additional burden. The broader issue in government specifically is that there is little drive for efficiency, whereas there is in the private sector. The money rains down from above and the biggest driver is complacency, the path of least resistance and to keep chugging along. The fault isn't with the protections for the poor performers, rather with the administration, who needs to invest heavily in any removal procedure that is not cut and dried. Poor performance and inefficiency falls into this bracket. The cost of removing a poor performer is so high that many SLTs (senior leadership teams) would rather reshuffle and hope that the person quits eventually. And they'll never give a poor reference (a) so that they will move on, and (b) for fear of getting sued. Similar stories are found around various government bodies, at all levels. Often to the detriment of others in the department and vulnerable people. Try getting an appointment with CAMHS in some local authorities. Yes, they are underfunded, but some people are purely incompetent (duplication of work, immense wasted effort), or always on a "lunch break". The inefficiency exacerbates the problems with understaffing and lack of funding. | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. Who are the poor performers, and how do you identify poor performance? In general, or are you looking for names? As mentioned above, almost any teacher is aware of those people in their school (larger schools, certainly) who add almost no value but cannot be gotten rid of, usually adding to their own workload. The process of getting rid of a teacher is extremely difficult, so some schools will shuffle them, pop them into different areas or departments. When the writing is really on the wall for them, they can often get paid for 6 months on sick (stress) leave. Individually, all of these rights are great - teachers should not be subject to exploitation and sickness benefits are important. But it has unintended consequences in the hands of bad (or simply incompetent) actors. If your experience is different, then that is wonderful for you! This is not unique to teaching. So you would have summary dismissals without evidence? No, what disgusting piece of sh*t would even suggest such a thing? So how do you work out who the poor performers are? What if there are extenuating circumstances? What if the poor performance has to do with inadequate staffing levels, or the working environment?" On THIS topic I think you are being a tad disingenuous. There most certainly are poor performers in public sector jobs. I can only talk about my observations working with the Civil Service at various times in my career. There are excellent, dedicated, talented, very hard working, and highly productive civil servants. But amongst them are those who know how to play and exploit the system knowing how difficult it actually is to discipline or lose your job. They will throw in BDHV complaints against colleagues or seniors then go off with stress on full pay for months leaving their hard working committed colleagues to pick up the slack and cover for them. | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. Who are the poor performers, and how do you identify poor performance? In general, or are you looking for names? As mentioned above, almost any teacher is aware of those people in their school (larger schools, certainly) who add almost no value but cannot be gotten rid of, usually adding to their own workload. The process of getting rid of a teacher is extremely difficult, so some schools will shuffle them, pop them into different areas or departments. When the writing is really on the wall for them, they can often get paid for 6 months on sick (stress) leave. Individually, all of these rights are great - teachers should not be subject to exploitation and sickness benefits are important. But it has unintended consequences in the hands of bad (or simply incompetent) actors. If your experience is different, then that is wonderful for you! This is not unique to teaching. So you would have summary dismissals without evidence? No, what disgusting piece of sh*t would even suggest such a thing? So how do you work out who the poor performers are? What if there are extenuating circumstances? What if the poor performance has to do with inadequate staffing levels, or the working environment? On THIS topic I think you are being a tad disingenuous. There most certainly are poor performers in public sector jobs. I can only talk about my observations working with the Civil Service at various times in my career. There are excellent, dedicated, talented, very hard working, and highly productive civil servants. But amongst them are those who know how to play and exploit the system knowing how difficult it actually is to discipline or lose your job. They will throw in BDHV complaints against colleagues or seniors then go off with stress on full pay for months leaving their hard working committed colleagues to pick up the slack and cover for them." Oh not saying there aren’t, like you I have worked with plenty, but I’m frustrated with all the talk of it being impossible to get rid of people in the public sector, it’s really not, I’ve done it. What is an issue is that it takes a lot more individual effort from a manager to do it, as by and large there is very little HR support, as they are one of those ‘back office’ functions the government have seen fit to decimate. Add to that the amount of work that is expected from managers in the public sector, and you have the reasons why it’s supposedly ‘impossible’ to get rid of poor performers. Also, you have to then look at the system, and working environment the ‘poor performer’ is working in. If it is substandard then the worker, genuinely poor performing or otherwise, has every right to point to it as a mitigating circumstance. If a system is understaffed and underfunded then there is every reason for it to be inefficient and perform poorly. You can be the best F1 driver in the world but if your car isn’t up to snuff because the team can’t afford to replace broken parts, and you can’t employ enough race engineers; then you aren’t going to be competitive. People have been fooled for too long into thinking efficiency comes cheap. | |||
" People have been fooled for too long into thinking efficiency comes cheap." Absolutely agreed. | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. Who are the poor performers, and how do you identify poor performance? In general, or are you looking for names? As mentioned above, almost any teacher is aware of those people in their school (larger schools, certainly) who add almost no value but cannot be gotten rid of, usually adding to their own workload. The process of getting rid of a teacher is extremely difficult, so some schools will shuffle them, pop them into different areas or departments. When the writing is really on the wall for them, they can often get paid for 6 months on sick (stress) leave. Individually, all of these rights are great - teachers should not be subject to exploitation and sickness benefits are important. But it has unintended consequences in the hands of bad (or simply incompetent) actors. If your experience is different, then that is wonderful for you! This is not unique to teaching. So you would have summary dismissals without evidence? No, what disgusting piece of sh*t would even suggest such a thing? So how do you work out who the poor performers are? What if there are extenuating circumstances? What if the poor performance has to do with inadequate staffing levels, or the working environment? On THIS topic I think you are being a tad disingenuous. There most certainly are poor performers in public sector jobs. I can only talk about my observations working with the Civil Service at various times in my career. There are excellent, dedicated, talented, very hard working, and highly productive civil servants. But amongst them are those who know how to play and exploit the system knowing how difficult it actually is to discipline or lose your job. They will throw in BDHV complaints against colleagues or seniors then go off with stress on full pay for months leaving their hard working committed colleagues to pick up the slack and cover for them. Oh not saying there aren’t, like you I have worked with plenty, but I’m frustrated with all the talk of it being impossible to get rid of people in the public sector, it’s really not, I’ve done it. What is an issue is that it takes a lot more individual effort from a manager to do it, as by and large there is very little HR support, as they are one of those ‘back office’ functions the government have seen fit to decimate. Add to that the amount of work that is expected from managers in the public sector, and you have the reasons why it’s supposedly ‘impossible’ to get rid of poor performers. Also, you have to then look at the system, and working environment the ‘poor performer’ is working in. If it is substandard then the worker, genuinely poor performing or otherwise, has every right to point to it as a mitigating circumstance. If a system is understaffed and underfunded then there is every reason for it to be inefficient and perform poorly. You can be the best F1 driver in the world but if your car isn’t up to snuff because the team can’t afford to replace broken parts, and you can’t employ enough race engineers; then you aren’t going to be competitive. People have been fooled for too long into thinking efficiency comes cheap." Employment law applies equally to both the public and private sectors, with no distinctions between the two. Poor performance should be addressed as an individual issue, using appropriate tools to measure and support both the manager and the employee. Managing poor performance fails often because many managers, particularly at junior levels, neglect to manage their staff effectively. Instead, they focus on completing processes and tasks. This stems from the fact that many junior managers were promoted based on their job performance, leading them to prioritise tasks over people management, which they find more familiar and comfortable. Also HR departments serve an advisory role, responsible for creating and maintaining policies and processes. However, it is the manager's responsibility to implement these policies and processes when managing their team. The worst outcomes for any business arise from nepotism, where individuals are promoted based on connections rather than competence. In the public sector, if promotions are influenced by such practices or are restricted to in-house time served only promotions, it inevitably leads to underperforming individuals who are not managed by suitably qualified managers. | |||
"There's no question that many deserve at least that much. But is it affordable? Will it fuel further inflation? Will Labour do it and, if so, how will they balance promised tax restraint and fiscal policies?" I find it odd that only NHS, rail workers, Royal mail workers, Carers etc. Pay rises fuel inflation, but bankers, hedge fund managers, MPs, Judges etc. Doesn't ?????? | |||
"There's no question that many deserve at least that much. But is it affordable? Will it fuel further inflation? Will Labour do it and, if so, how will they balance promised tax restraint and fiscal policies? I find it odd that only NHS, rail workers, Royal mail workers, Carers etc. Pay rises fuel inflation, but bankers, hedge fund managers, MPs, Judges etc. Doesn't ?????? " Nor BBC presenters. Huw Edwards: He received between £435,000 and £439,999 in the year 2022/2023, which rose to £475,000 - £479,999 between April 2023 and April 2024, the BBC's latest annual report shows. Edwards remained on the payroll while suspended, which is normal BBC policy. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"People forget that part of the public sector salaries are their very advantages final pension schemes - historically final salary schemes were to off set lower pay than the private sector but recently this hasn't been the case. Employers pay a huge percentage into pensions each month while the employee very little. The whole public sector pension scheme needs over hauling " Nope. Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. | |||
"People forget that part of the public sector salaries are their very advantages final pension schemes - historically final salary schemes were to off set lower pay than the private sector but recently this hasn't been the case. Employers pay a huge percentage into pensions each month while the employee very little. The whole public sector pension scheme needs over hauling Nope. Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line." But… but… that would mean very rich people might be slightly less rich. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line." Then wages will go down. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down." Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term."Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term."If wages go down, contribution to pensions go down. | |||
" The whole public sector pension scheme needs over hauling Nope. Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. But… but… that would mean very rich people might be slightly less rich." And zombie companies/business would fail faster. Yup. Government sponsorship of mediocre businesses paying insufficient wages/pension is a drag on everyone's taxes. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too."There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
If wages go down, contribution to pensions go down. "Nooo... Companies used to pay X. Now they pay X minus pension. Overall renumeration stays static (or slightly higher, with tax rebate). | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand. "Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees? | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?"Well they won't get them if they don't train, and as much of that is on the job then . . . | |||
| |||
| |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
Well they won't get them if they don't train, and as much of that is on the job then . . . "Excellent, now all they have to do is have sufficient academic qualifications to go to University and get a degree. | |||
"Also. More than a fifth of working-age adults in the UK are deemed not to be actively looking for work, figures suggest. The UK's economic inactivity rate was 21.8% between November and January, marginally higher than a year earlier. I wonder how many of them are already trained. I know 4 nurses that are not working as nurses right now and in fact are not doing anything at all." Have you asked them why they aren’t currently working as nurses? | |||
"Also. More than a fifth of working-age adults in the UK are deemed not to be actively looking for work, figures suggest. The UK's economic inactivity rate was 21.8% between November and January, marginally higher than a year earlier. I wonder how many of them are already trained. I know 4 nurses that are not working as nurses right now and in fact are not doing anything at all. Have you asked them why they aren’t currently working as nurses?" Yes. Two say. They don't like the stress. Two say. They are having a rest.  | |||
"Also. More than a fifth of working-age adults in the UK are deemed not to be actively looking for work, figures suggest. The UK's economic inactivity rate was 21.8% between November and January, marginally higher than a year earlier. I wonder how many of them are already trained. I know 4 nurses that are not working as nurses right now and in fact are not doing anything at all. Have you asked them why they aren’t currently working as nurses? Yes. Two say. They don't like the stress. Two say. They are having a rest. "Don’t seem like they’re about to re enter the profession anytime soon, like any other already trained nurses who are currently unemployed. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?"The public sector workforce is not just medical, we need things clearing up after riots, or building 800 homes a day, or is that private sector they’re going to rely on for that? GB energy or is that going to be paid for by the privates sector too and overlooked by the unions? Scrub those last 2, nonstarters. Thinking about it, it looks like labour haven’t got much trust in a public sector workforce…..  | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
The public sector workforce is not just medical, we need things clearing up after riots, or building 800 homes a day, or is that private sector they’re going to rely on for that? GB energy or is that going to be paid for by the privates sector too and overlooked by the unions? Scrub those last 2, nonstarters.
Thinking about it, it looks like labour haven’t got much trust in a public sector workforce….. "Have we ever had a government run house building company? | |||
"It means 9.2 million people aged between 16 and 64 in the UK are not in work nor looking for a job." Including a few former Tory MPs and Ministers. Get them retraining I say | |||
"It means 9.2 million people aged between 16 and 64 in the UK are not in work nor looking for a job. Including a few former Tory MPs and Ministers. Get them retraining I say "Most will be on the 'Speaking Tour Campaigns'. Making and earning and paying tax into the economy. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
The public sector workforce is not just medical, we need things clearing up after riots, or building 800 homes a day, or is that private sector they’re going to rely on for that? GB energy or is that going to be paid for by the privates sector too and overlooked by the unions? Scrub those last 2, nonstarters.
Thinking about it, it looks like labour haven’t got much trust in a public sector workforce…..
Have we ever had a government run house building company?"Yup. Between 1919 and 1980. Local Councils used to build houses. Overseen by Central Government. | |||
"People forget that part of the public sector salaries are their very advantages final pension schemes - historically final salary schemes were to off set lower pay than the private sector but recently this hasn't been the case. Employers pay a huge percentage into pensions each month while the employee very little. The whole public sector pension scheme needs over hauling " Very few final salary pension schemes left (I believe some still in utilities). Certainly the Civil Service moved to an average salary scheme. Traditionally public sector roles paid lower salaries but had a better benefits package (pension, holiday allowance, full pay when sick, better job security). People make decisions on what matters most to them. | |||
"It means 9.2 million people aged between 16 and 64 in the UK are not in work nor looking for a job. Including a few former Tory MPs and Ministers. Get them retraining I say
Most will be on the 'Speaking Tour Campaigns'. Making and earning and paying tax into the economy. "I’d say their IoM or Jersey registered company receive payment for their after dinner speeches so no tax will be received. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
The public sector workforce is not just medical, we need things clearing up after riots, or building 800 homes a day, or is that private sector they’re going to rely on for that? GB energy or is that going to be paid for by the privates sector too and overlooked by the unions? Scrub those last 2, nonstarters.
Thinking about it, it looks like labour haven’t got much trust in a public sector workforce…..
Have we ever had a government run house building company?
Yup. Between 1919 and 1980. Local Councils used to build houses. Overseen by Central Government."Were the tradespeople employed by the councils directly or did they subcontract out to companies? | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
The public sector workforce is not just medical, we need things clearing up after riots, or building 800 homes a day, or is that private sector they’re going to rely on for that? GB energy or is that going to be paid for by the privates sector too and overlooked by the unions? Scrub those last 2, nonstarters.
Thinking about it, it looks like labour haven’t got much trust in a public sector workforce…..
Have we ever had a government run house building company?
Yup. Between 1919 and 1980. Local Councils used to build houses. Overseen by Central Government.
Were the tradespeople employed by the councils directly or did they subcontract out to companies?"All the information is out there Go search. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
The public sector workforce is not just medical, we need things clearing up after riots, or building 800 homes a day, or is that private sector they’re going to rely on for that? GB energy or is that going to be paid for by the privates sector too and overlooked by the unions? Scrub those last 2, nonstarters.
Thinking about it, it looks like labour haven’t got much trust in a public sector workforce…..
Have we ever had a government run house building company?
Yup. Between 1919 and 1980. Local Councils used to build houses. Overseen by Central Government.
Were the tradespeople employed by the councils directly or did they subcontract out to companies?
All the information is out there Go search. "It’s ok to say that you don’t know x | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
The public sector workforce is not just medical, we need things clearing up after riots, or building 800 homes a day, or is that private sector they’re going to rely on for that? GB energy or is that going to be paid for by the privates sector too and overlooked by the unions? Scrub those last 2, nonstarters.
Thinking about it, it looks like labour haven’t got much trust in a public sector workforce…..
Have we ever had a government run house building company?
Yup. Between 1919 and 1980. Local Councils used to build houses. Overseen by Central Government.
Were the tradespeople employed by the councils directly or did they subcontract out to companies?
All the information is out there Go search.
It’s ok to say that you don’t know x"Actually. I do know. But you want the information so go find it. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
The public sector workforce is not just medical, we need things clearing up after riots, or building 800 homes a day, or is that private sector they’re going to rely on for that? GB energy or is that going to be paid for by the privates sector too and overlooked by the unions? Scrub those last 2, nonstarters.
Thinking about it, it looks like labour haven’t got much trust in a public sector workforce…..
Have we ever had a government run house building company?
Yup. Between 1919 and 1980. Local Councils used to build houses. Overseen by Central Government.
Were the tradespeople employed by the councils directly or did they subcontract out to companies?
All the information is out there Go search.
It’s ok to say that you don’t know x
Actually. I do know. But you want the information so go find it. "Thanks for being mature about answering a simple question x | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
The public sector workforce is not just medical, we need things clearing up after riots, or building 800 homes a day, or is that private sector they’re going to rely on for that? GB energy or is that going to be paid for by the privates sector too and overlooked by the unions? Scrub those last 2, nonstarters.
Thinking about it, it looks like labour haven’t got much trust in a public sector workforce…..
Have we ever had a government run house building company?
Yup. Between 1919 and 1980. Local Councils used to build houses. Overseen by Central Government.
Were the tradespeople employed by the councils directly or did they subcontract out to companies?
All the information is out there Go search.
It’s ok to say that you don’t know x
Actually. I do know. But you want the information so go find it.
Thanks for being mature about answering a simple question x"Pleasure. Glad to have helped   | |||
| |||
| |||
"Pay teachers the 5%. Huge recruitment crisis. Secondary schools can not keep staff. It won't increase inflation. That is just a Tory scaremongering story. Teaching pay rise won't crash the economy. Well said. Teachers pay rise won't cause inflation but every other profession looking for a similar pay rise just might have that effect, think about the knock ons" Teachers got more than nurses and were on more anyway. Where's the bloody parity? | |||
"Agree but what about the forgotten care workers who where hands on through covid " As were healthcare staff | |||
"Didn't teachers already agree a 6.5% increase (plus 1.5% lump sum) witht he previous Govt?" For the tax year passed I believe | |||
"The BoE have been blaming inflation and their reluctance to lower the base rate on wage increases over past few years. As it appears (I don’t have figures but sure someone does) that large chunks of the public sector have not been receiving inflation busting wage increases, then that can only mean it is the private sector wage increases driving inflation. So is it ok that private sector staff are getting inflation driving pay rises but public sector aren’t? And what normally drives wage increases? Shortage of skilled labour as employers have to pay more to attract talent. Why do we have a shortage of skilled labour? What factors drove this? Clearly different for each sector but pretty sure one area BoE keeps blaming is the service sector. Now that is a broad term that encompasses many industries including banking and retail but pretty sure it also includes hospitality. Wonder what has driven a shortage of staff in retail and hospitality? Dare I mention Brexit? Also, I seem to remember plenty of people on here shouting about the Brexit benefit of higher salaries for them (truckers and trades spring to mind) due to removal of competition. But that wage increase led to inflation (partly) wiping out much of those rises. Yet I reckon some of them resent and argue against public sector pay increases. I am not really making a salient point, more pointing out what goes around comes around and (obviously) how interconnected everything is. The high inflation rate is not down to 1 or 2 things, it is a whole host of circumstances that has driven it up. Everything must tighten to reduce spending to slow down inflation, and pay rises in private firms are not in the control of the government but public sectors wages are. Of course there are many factors. But a major strand of BoE rhetoric has centred on service sector pay*. But what seems to be getting said here is “private sector pay has not been restrained causing inflationary pressure so we need public sector workers to take a hit to save us” which is hardly fair! *which includes finance/banking ironically and as per poster above BoE staff/execs got pay rises. Also pay is increasing in the banking sector and last govt removed (or mooted) bonus caps introduced as a result of the financial crisis 2007/8 caused by deregulation. This will always be the approach taken, the government is using our money to fund our services and will cut or stop funding some service to make ends meet. People working in the public sector should be able to recognise who their employer is, and like any employer if they haven’t got the cash to increase salaries, it won’t happen without bring down the employer. I reckon all those public sector workers who have had up to 14 years of below inflation pay rises and pay freezes resulting in real term pay cuts, probably feel they have been doing their bit. Time for private sector to step up? Perhaps it is time for C suite pay restraint? Perhaps shareholders should expect smaller dividends to allow for better pay restraint in private sector? Or, they can leave the public sector and find work that meets their aspirations?" I know of many nurses who have left the profession to work in a well paid supermarket. Attrition is high. | |||
" Private employers need to be paying more pension to their employees. Or will save the taxpayer down the line. Then wages will go down. Fine. Keeps inflation down And keeps taxes lower, long-term.
Might help with the public sector recruitment crisis too.
There are 1.5 million unemployed people in the UK right now. Maybe they could lend a hand.
Cool, how many of them have medical, nursing or teaching degrees?
Well they won't get them if they don't train, and as much of that is on the job then . . . "No it isn't. | |||
" I know of many nurses who have left the profession to work in a well paid supermarket. Attrition is high." Noted by the chancellor in an interview this last week. problems of retention and recruitment | |||
| |||
"It's not affordable unless the government increases taxes to pay for pay increase. How can Labour say there's a £20 billion pound black hole but can afford to give pay increases? The math ain't mathing so taxes are going up after Labour said things were fully costed without them going up during their campaign. The liars" But Labour have a Magic Money Tree LOL. Seriously, expect some eye-watering tax hikes with the line "Sorry we didn't realise how bad things were". | |||
| |||
"It's not affordable unless the government increases taxes to pay for pay increase. How can Labour say there's a £20 billion pound black hole but can afford to give pay increases? The math ain't mathing so taxes are going up after Labour said things were fully costed without them going up during their campaign. The liars" Yeah the words Labour Ministers are using this week imply a tax rise is in horizon. The question is which tax they are going to rise and by how much. Rumours going around that it's going to be capital gains tax. | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money." I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? | |||
"It's not affordable unless the government increases taxes to pay for pay increase. How can Labour say there's a £20 billion pound black hole but can afford to give pay increases? The math ain't mathing so taxes are going up after Labour said things were fully costed without them going up during their campaign. The liars But Labour have a Magic Money Tree LOL. Seriously, expect some eye-watering tax hikes with the line "Sorry we didn't realise how bad things were"." IHT (inc pension pot exemption), CGT, pension allowances. | |||
| |||
"Also. More than a fifth of working-age adults in the UK are deemed not to be actively looking for work, figures suggest. The UK's economic inactivity rate was 21.8% between November and January, marginally higher than a year earlier. I wonder how many of them are already trained. I know 4 nurses that are not working as nurses right now and in fact are not doing anything at all. Have you asked them why they aren’t currently working as nurses? Yes. Two say. They don't like the stress. Two say. They are having a rest. "I know loads of people like this very happy claiming UC and baking cakes or doing hair and nails on Facebook. Graduate jobs are damn hard and if you make more than 30-40K you gotta pay loans back and tax. No one told them it was this hard and there was an alternative tax free economy backed up by generous benefits | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation?" You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened. | |||
| |||
"Also. More than a fifth of working-age adults in the UK are deemed not to be actively looking for work, figures suggest. The UK's economic inactivity rate was 21.8% between November and January, marginally higher than a year earlier. I wonder how many of them are already trained. I know 4 nurses that are not working as nurses right now and in fact are not doing anything at all. Have you asked them why they aren’t currently working as nurses? Yes. Two say. They don't like the stress. Two say. They are having a rest.
I know loads of people like this very happy claiming UC and baking cakes or doing hair and nails on Facebook. Graduate jobs are damn hard and if you make more than 30-40K you gotta pay loans back and tax. No one told them it was this hard and there was an alternative tax free economy backed up by generous benefits "Keep up with the times, the loans were being paid back at lower incomes. Also, UC an alternative? Ever tried claiming? Generous? Bloody hell get better informed! | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation?" Yes, inflation increases are fair. I would see the deal being something like the headline salary would be lower than the equivalent private sector (or post big pay rise) salary but the total package including the training write off would be at least equivalent or higher. So, for example, if the training write off was £6k a year the salary would be £3k down but the package is £3k up. This scheme would make the biggest difference to the lowest paid, as it should. | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened."I think if a person receives state funded training then it needs to be a “pay back” or “earn out” of more than 1 year for 1 year. Quite common in industries that pay for staff to get professional qualifications to insist on a minimum period of payback that exceeds the amount of studying time so as to get their ROI. The state should be the same. | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened."One year per year of training is way too generous. 10 to 15 years for complete write off is about right. This is still more than £6k per year. Not convinced about the "adjusted" salaries either. This appears to be wanting large pay rises, plus large debt writeoffs. | |||
| |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened.
I think if a person receives state funded training then it needs to be a “pay back” or “earn out” of more than 1 year for 1 year. Quite common in industries that pay for staff to get professional qualifications to insist on a minimum period of payback that exceeds the amount of studying time so as to get their ROI. The state should be the same. "I disagree. The reason being that bursaries are given to entice people into training for jobs that has a low take up. Also, if you take nursing as an example, you get 2300 hours of salary free work. This should be paid if you want parity. | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened.
One year per year of training is way too generous. 10 to 15 years for complete write off is about right. This is still more than £6k per year.
Not convinced about the "adjusted" salaries either. This appears to be wanting large pay rises, plus large debt writeoffs."Let's do it your way and ensure no person ever goes into nursing  .
A bursary is not a debt. Don't forget that historically nobody paid uni fees.
What is wrong with wanting wages to have the equivalence of what they were in 2010? You want links to inflation now but at a continued austerity level.
Selfish or what? | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened.
One year per year of training is way too generous. 10 to 15 years for complete write off is about right. This is still more than £6k per year.
Not convinced about the "adjusted" salaries either. This appears to be wanting large pay rises, plus large debt writeoffs.
Let's do it your way and ensure no person ever goes into nursing .
A bursary is not a debt. Don't forget that historically nobody paid uni fees.
What is wrong with wanting wages to have the equivalence of what they were in 2010? You want links to inflation now but at a continued austerity level.
Selfish or what?"Not selfish at all. You may have better figures than me but the data I have seen shows that the average student debt of a medical student is more than £70k and for a nurse, more than £40k. Write that off over 10 years and the sums are significant. I fully agree with you that any work done during training should be paid. | |||
" We complain about poor service and poor productivity in the public sector but if the capable are driven out by poor remuneration packages what then? Whose left? Exactly. We also need to be able to actually get rid of the very poor performers, and this is an issue in itself. Who are the poor performers, and how do you identify poor performance?" I just look in the mirror. | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened.
One year per year of training is way too generous. 10 to 15 years for complete write off is about right. This is still more than £6k per year.
Not convinced about the "adjusted" salaries either. This appears to be wanting large pay rises, plus large debt writeoffs.
Let's do it your way and ensure no person ever goes into nursing .
A bursary is not a debt. Don't forget that historically nobody paid uni fees.
What is wrong with wanting wages to have the equivalence of what they were in 2010? You want links to inflation now but at a continued austerity level.
Selfish or what?
Not selfish at all.
You may have better figures than me but the data I have seen shows that the average student debt of a medical student is more than £70k and for a nurse, more than £40k.
Write that off over 10 years and the sums are significant.
I fully agree with you that any work done during training should be paid."I didn't take student loans so I wouldn't take a job that assumes I have debt. The joy of being old and just finished paying mortgage.
My point is that we have to differentiate between debt and uni fees paid by state (because of low take up). | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened.
I think if a person receives state funded training then it needs to be a “pay back” or “earn out” of more than 1 year for 1 year. Quite common in industries that pay for staff to get professional qualifications to insist on a minimum period of payback that exceeds the amount of studying time so as to get their ROI. The state should be the same.
I disagree. The reason being that bursaries are given to entice people into training for jobs that has a low take up. Also, if you take nursing as an example, you get 2300 hours of salary free work. This should be paid if you want parity."You’re conflating different things by bringing up the terms & conditions and unpaid hours worked. As I said it is common practice in some industries to fund professional qualifications for their staff. But that investment needs to pay back and commonly the “earn out” period is longer than the study period. Obviously we want to encourage and incentivise people into jobs that benefit society but we also want pay back on the investment. No point funding teachers, nurses, doctors to then lose them within a few short years. A decent remuneration package and working conditions combined with free training sounds good to me (and no student debt). | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened.
I think if a person receives state funded training then it needs to be a “pay back” or “earn out” of more than 1 year for 1 year. Quite common in industries that pay for staff to get professional qualifications to insist on a minimum period of payback that exceeds the amount of studying time so as to get their ROI. The state should be the same.
I disagree. The reason being that bursaries are given to entice people into training for jobs that has a low take up. Also, if you take nursing as an example, you get 2300 hours of salary free work. This should be paid if you want parity.
You’re conflating different things by bringing up the terms & conditions and unpaid hours worked.
As I said it is common practice in some industries to fund professional qualifications for their staff. But that investment needs to pay back and commonly the “earn out” period is longer than the study period.
Obviously we want to encourage and incentivise people into jobs that benefit society but we also want pay back on the investment. No point funding teachers, nurses, doctors to then lose them within a few short years.
A decent remuneration package and working conditions combined with free training sounds good to me (and no student debt)."Common practice ... industries... training etc., they are getting paid while they study. Different ball game, yet I'm conflating  . | |||
"As for teachers and NHS staff, a much better scheme would be to pay their training and student loans off at a rate which would write them off in 10 or 15 years, but only if they work in the public sector, NHS or council schools etc. This would be a bigger effective pay rise than they are getting, without costing more money. I like this idea. As a nation we should encourage people to take jobs in areas that benefit society as a whole. Healthcare and Teaching stand out. The state should fund training and payback comes from a lock in minimum period of service. As you say, no student loans would equal a payrise. However, that minimum lock in period cannot force people to work for a fixed salary over the entire period so perhaps, barring promotion related pay increases, it should be linked to inflation? You'll find those of us who had bursaries covering tuition would be happy to have a lock in period. Perhaps one year lock in for every year of training. Inflation linked increases seem fair, until inflation is too high . I'd be happy with that once wages are slowly adjusted to be where they should be if austerity hadn't happened.
I think if a person receives state funded training then it needs to be a “pay back” or “earn out” of more than 1 year for 1 year. Quite common in industries that pay for staff to get professional qualifications to insist on a minimum period of payback that exceeds the amount of studying time so as to get their ROI. The state should be the same.
I disagree. The reason being that bursaries are given to entice people into training for jobs that has a low take up. Also, if you take nursing as an example, you get 2300 hours of salary free work. This should be paid if you want parity.
You’re conflating different things by bringing up the terms & conditions and unpaid hours worked.
As I said it is common practice in some industries to fund professional qualifications for their staff. But that investment needs to pay back and commonly the “earn out” period is longer than the study period.
Obviously we want to encourage and incentivise people into jobs that benefit society but we also want pay back on the investment. No point funding teachers, nurses, doctors to then lose them within a few short years.
A decent remuneration package and working conditions combined with free training sounds good to me (and no student debt).
Common practice ... industries... training etc., they are getting paid while they study. Different ball game, yet I'm conflating ."We might be talking at cross purposes? I have no issue with earning while studying. I like the idea of no student debt as professional qualifications are funded by state but then I want to see ROI by ensuring the state (us) benefit from that training for a sufficient amount of time to justify the cost of covering the training/studying. | |||
| |||
