fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What has that got to do with anything? You really are the embodiment of the "I'm alright, Jack" mentality aren't you?
Pay Freeze for Public Workers (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
What has that got to do with anything? You really are the embodiment of the "I'm alright, Jack" mentality aren't you?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Not many. Average wage goes up every year. Some people move jobs for more money every year or two but it’s the same thing.
You seem to think just cos you’re shit at negotiating or have a poor employer everyone should be held back.
And flexible working is a legal right. 94% of companies pay above SSP (I know because I convinced my boss to bring it in so did the research).
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
More like “I’m not alright Jack so neither should anyone else be”. Just jealousy.
Nick
Administrator
I'm not shit at negotiating or have a poor employer.
How many companies have flexitime? Again, if people work in the public sector or for large companies they get used to things like that as a luxury.
Nick
Administrator
Jealous of what, exactly?
There are plenty of people who aren't alright, businesses have gone to the wall, people have been laid off etc. Surely there's a much worse place to be than not getting a couple of % pay rise for a year?
Oh and MPs should get more than a pay freeze, they should start to have some of their gravy train cut.
Last edited:
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Sunak talking bollocks again. I’ve had a real terms pay cut in the civil service for over a decade. I’ve been promoted so it’s effects have been limited but it’s not good
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Says elsewhere, personally I don't think a pay rise is appropriate this year.
It's hardly shocking unions disagree however and fight for the best conditions of their members - especially when MPs are getting a rise!
It's hardly shocking unions disagree however and fight for the best conditions of their members - especially when MPs are getting a rise!
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Yeah, my salary has reduced year on year, as my hours get cut each year.
Skybluefaz
Well-Known Member
Give MP's a pay rise but make them pay for their own fucking sandwiches etc. The MP's don't get a big salary argument doesn't hold up when you factor in expenses. Most people have to pay for their own transport to work, lunch and all that shite.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
they took a massive hit during austerity as well which was no fault of theirs. I think if they hadn't been kicked in the teeth then they might be a bit more understanding about this pay freeze.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Find this fascinating. Are people these days generally accepting of their pay decreasing in real terms every year?
I started working full time in 1994 and over the next 15 years got, as a minimum, an inflationary pay rise every year. That's working for companies in the public, education, charity and private sectors. In addition you got overtime when working above your hours and decent benefits: health, dental & a good pension as a minimum. Oh, and bonuses that would add at least 10% to your salary.
Since 2010 pay rises have become virtually non-existent in my sector, I've had one since then. Depressingly I've just worked out in real terms that's a cut of over 21% On top of that benefits have dropped away, the start of lockdown 1 saw the final ones go. Pensions have got worse since they became compulsory, now get the government mandated minimum which sees me put a lot more in and my employer a lot less. Hours have increased, overtime became TOIL became just being expected to work as 'you're lucky to have a job'.
Of course none of that applies to those at the top who are making more than ever while driving down costs, including salaries, to an absolute minimum. That's the issue really. Companies who treat their staff well and for who not giving a pay rise this year is an exception and applies to those higher up as well will I suspect see a lot less complaints than companies who have been supressing wages for years.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You do realise that flexi time works both ways don't you?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I'm guessing they don't have to grant it, anyway,
Oh, worth noting however, that one of my public sector jobs is flexible working... but I have to be available at set times, which constitute 100% of my working hours for that job.
So not very flexible, really
It'd be the same as a supermarket worker really, they have to be about when their clientele has access to them. They can't just up-sticks mid-shift and leave somebody at the till.
Nick
Administrator
Try going to a business that runs on shifts and say you want to change your hours and come in at 10 that week rather than 9. Who then works in the 9-10 hour? Does the person working before do an extra hour?
That's why it can easily be turned down with a good reason as to why it can't happen as the whole rota then needs to be re-done.
It says it's a legal right to request it, not to actually be able to decide what time they go into work that day as long as they make it up later on in the week.
So yeah, you will find that the flexi approach of turning up at a certain time and deciding your work hours on the fly is mainly at larger businesses or the public sector where there are multiple people doing the same job so it doesn't matter as much as there is cover to be able to make sure the whole working day is covered.
I have often worked in places where somebody needs to be available between certain hours and it is rota'd, I'd go in earlier and finish earlier and somebody else would start later and finish later. It really wasn't as simple as deciding I wanted a lie in and making the time up as it meant nobody would be there or somebody who was there would be sat waiting for me to get there so they could go home.
So yes, it is a perk to be able to decide like that.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Exactly, look at the language used, 'right to request' and 'reasonable manner'. So your employer turns your request down for any reason what are you going to do then?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Nick
Administrator
Oh I agree, certain ones.
It isn't "ALL" public sector jobs but it's more likely to happen in the public sector and large corporate places compared to small and medium businesses.
I guess it depends if they are customer / public facing or not which will impact it.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I'm guessing they don't have to grant it, anyway,
Oh, worth noting however, that one of my public sector jobs is flexible working... but I have to be available at set times, which constitute 100% of my working hours for that job.
So not very flexible, really
It'd be the same as a supermarket worker really, they have to be about when their clientele has access to them. They can't just up-sticks mid-shift and leave somebody at the till.
They have to have reasonable grounds for not granting it.
Having a job with strict shifts would be a reason, but they have to show it’s not possible. They can’t just go “no, I like everyone in 9-5”.
Irony of this being used as a stick to beat public sector workers when for the decade I taught I wasn’t even allowed to book holiday let alone get flexi working.
Bigger point as always is: stop fucking dragging fellow workers down because you’re unhappy with your boss.
Nick
Administrator
Who is actually saying they are unhappy with their boss?
The point is more that there will be businesses going to the wall, self employed people going bankrupt etc who don't have the luxury of a pay freeze at the minute.
hill83
Well-Known Member
I’ve had a 5k paycut as thanks for working my bollocks off throughout the entirety of lockdown.
Nick
Administrator
Well yeah, that's wrong. Of course it is. Sorry to hear that.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Does that make it right? Is it right to expect people's spending power to reduce year on year despite doing the same (and increasingly, more) work. Salaried employees are technically given the salary to complete a set amount of work regardless of the time it takes. It's not "you're being paid to do as much as you can in this amount of time". So if you have the work to complete if it takes up 80hours a week that's what you have to do. Often at lower levels they treat it as worked hours but higher up the chain it's not. Had a manager at an accounting practice who was on a lot more than me, but the number of extra hours he had to put in to reach his required output was shocking. He pretty much just slept and worked. Ended up making himself ill. Made me say "I've no interest in doing that even if I'm offered it".
I've worked in both public and private sector and from my experience public is a breeze compared to private. Just a lot more relaxed atmosphere and the perks compared to private were better in terms of flexibility and pension. But I know there's plenty of public sector workers like teachers and nurses who it must be a hell of a challenge for and you'd have to be doing it for the satisfaction of the job cos there's no way you'd put up with it if you didn't.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I agree. Factor in expenses and it's a very lucrative job and it's not like it's poorly paid, esp when the only criteria is to get elected. Don't need any particular qualifications, previous experience etc to get a job that pays nearly double the higher earner income tax threshold.
I've never quite got on board with the "we need to pay them more to attract the best". Is that strictly true? Lots of the 'best' are involved in academia which on the whole isn't the highest paid industry.
If money is what entices you are you really the kind of person best suited to be a public servant? Just because you're good at making money doesn't necessarily mean you're good at governing or creating a better society. Only thing it proves is you can make money and gives a strong argument you do things for financial reward and out of self-interest - is that a good thing for an MP to be? If they want to be really highly paid that's fine but I fail to see why they'd be particular beneficial to entice into government.
It already attracts an unhealthy number of dickheads motivated by power and prestige, do we really want to make it attractive to the greedy and those motivated by money as well?