Will labour give 5.5% rise to NHS and teachers?
Discussion
FMOB said:
Wonder what financial gymnastics she will do to pretend this is affordable.
Labour are saying that the 5.5.% is "fully costed". Where's the funding coming from? Typical of politicians: "fully costed" suggests the money is there whereas it means only the price is known, not where the money to pay for this is coming from. Reeves will know the difference but is backing Joe Public may not.R.
John D. said:
Maybe they deserve a pay rise.
I think they do too. It must be incredible demoralising to see your real terms pay cut year after year. How can we retain good people in Teaching, Nursing, Civil Service, Fire, Police and Army without paying well
I am so angry with the Conservatives that after 14 years they did nothing to reform pay, pensions and labour contracts for these groups. Had they offered higher pay deals in return for Defined Contribution Pensions, Right to dismiss for performance and other much needed reforms, then it could have been a constructive, reformative discussion.
Instead we had one solution, austerity. Which did nothing other than shrink the available talent in the Public Sector.
Gargamel said:
Had they offered higher pay deals in return for Defined Contribution Pensions, Right to dismiss for performance and other much needed reforms, then it could have been a constructive, reformative discussion.
Are you seriously suggesting poor performance cannot lead to dismissal in the public sector? If so, you've identified exactly why the public sector is such a problem. Under UK employment law it makes no difference whether a poor performer is in the private sector or the public sector; they can be disciplined and/or dismissed. What DOES make a difference is competent management.It's similarly remarkable that employees in the public sector take far more sick leave than those in the private sector. Again, a management issue.
Meanwhile the BBC's "Huw £500,000 p.a. Edwards"....
Gargamel said:
John D. said:
Maybe they deserve a pay rise.
I think they do too. It must be incredible demoralising to see your real terms pay cut year after year. How can we retain good people in Teaching, Nursing, Civil Service, Fire, Police and Army without paying well
I am so angry with the Conservatives that after 14 years they did nothing to reform pay, pensions and labour contracts for these groups. Had they offered higher pay deals in return for Defined Contribution Pensions, Right to dismiss for performance and other much needed reforms, then it could have been a constructive, reformative discussion.
Instead we had one solution, austerity. Which did nothing other than shrink the available talent in the Public Sector.
Mabbs9 said:
the government is here to 'fix' the NHS. If your first move is to make the same NHS significantly more expensive before you've even made a change then it looks to be a daft move.
I think you're on target with that one. I've got a feeling Starmer's crew have in mind "significant reform" and sooner rather than later. Who knows what that will mean in practise.Mabbs9 said:
They probably do deserve it. But the government is here to 'fix' the NHS. If your first move is to make the same NHS significantly more expensive before you've even made a change then it looks to be a daft move
That depends if one of the things they're trying to fix is staff retention and recruitment.RizzoTheRat said:
Mabbs9 said:
They probably do deserve it. But the government is here to 'fix' the NHS. If your first move is to make the same NHS significantly more expensive before you've even made a change then it looks to be a daft move
That depends if one of the things they're trying to fix is staff retention and recruitment.I think the unions think they will be offered a straight pay rise without strings, if the Government does that any chance of making changes is lost.
Public sector retention and recruitment is in a mess. And it's largely down to pay. Even graduates only stick at it for a year or 2, get some experience and then leave for more money.
I know that's the way it is everywhere but a lot of public sector roles are fairly bespoke. So when you need to recruit, you then have to train people up as you generally don't attract people with experience - as they're working in the private sector earning more. It's not like a salesman moving from company to company. It can take 9+months to recruit & train someone to get them to a point of being able to do some/most of their job.
There is also pretty much no value placed on experience. Many public sector organisations use grade rates (with no bands within the grades) so someone with 20 years experience gets paid the same as someone with 1 day experience (if on the same grade).
I know that's the way it is everywhere but a lot of public sector roles are fairly bespoke. So when you need to recruit, you then have to train people up as you generally don't attract people with experience - as they're working in the private sector earning more. It's not like a salesman moving from company to company. It can take 9+months to recruit & train someone to get them to a point of being able to do some/most of their job.
There is also pretty much no value placed on experience. Many public sector organisations use grade rates (with no bands within the grades) so someone with 20 years experience gets paid the same as someone with 1 day experience (if on the same grade).
xx99xx said:
Public sector retention and recruitment is in a mess. And it's largely down to pay. Even graduates only stick at it for a year or 2, get some experience and then leave for more money.
I know that's the way it is everywhere but a lot of public sector roles are fairly bespoke. So when you need to recruit, you then have to train people up as you generally don't attract people with experience - as they're working in the private sector earning more. It's not like a salesman moving from company to company. It can take 9+months to recruit & train someone to get them to a point of being able to do some/most of their job.
There is also pretty much no value placed on experience. Many public sector organisations use grade rates (with no bands within the grades) so someone with 20 years experience gets paid the same as someone with 1 day experience (if on the same grade).
Rather begs the question why are jobs in the public sector so 'bespoke' that skills aren't that transferable. No wonder it costs so much if every job requires a fricking unicorn!I know that's the way it is everywhere but a lot of public sector roles are fairly bespoke. So when you need to recruit, you then have to train people up as you generally don't attract people with experience - as they're working in the private sector earning more. It's not like a salesman moving from company to company. It can take 9+months to recruit & train someone to get them to a point of being able to do some/most of their job.
There is also pretty much no value placed on experience. Many public sector organisations use grade rates (with no bands within the grades) so someone with 20 years experience gets paid the same as someone with 1 day experience (if on the same grade).
FMOB said:
Rather begs the question why are jobs in the public sector so 'bespoke' that skills aren't that transferable. No wonder it costs so much if every job requires a fricking unicorn!
Ok, take a planning officer at a local council as just one example. The only other people that do that kind of work and have relevant experience/qualifications work at consultancies earning significantly more than the local authority can offer. Drainage engineers, social care, highways, nurses, etc. You can transfer people skills and generic capabilities but you have to learn the technical stuff and it's mostly learning on the job.Sure there are universities and colleges teaching the technical skills but those people arrive, build a year or 2 of experience and then are off to the private side (or to a higher grade in the public sector). To be replaced by........more people with no experience!
It's not just about transferable skills though, it's about the salary for those transferable skills. The non financial benefits of the public sector like flexible working, annual leave, pension (ok that's financial but doesn't help with cost of living right now) are not as attractive as they once were.
Only when you get to managerial levels, who don't do technical or operational stuff, do you find the transferable skills more appropriate. And most of them only enter the public sector for the slightly better work life balance, certainly not the salary.
xx99xx said:
FMOB said:
Rather begs the question why are jobs in the public sector so 'bespoke' that skills aren't that transferable. No wonder it costs so much if every job requires a fricking unicorn!
Ok, take a planning officer at a local council as just one example. The only other people that do that kind of work and have relevant experience/qualifications work at consultancies earning significantly more than the local authority can offer. Drainage engineers, social care, highways, nurses, etc. You can transfer people skills and generic capabilities but you have to learn the technical stuff and it's mostly learning on the job.Sure there are universities and colleges teaching the technical skills but those people arrive, build a year or 2 of experience and then are off to the private side (or to a higher grade in the public sector). To be replaced by........more people with no experience!
It's not just about transferable skills though, it's about the salary for those transferable skills. The non financial benefits of the public sector like flexible working, annual leave, pension (ok that's financial but doesn't help with cost of living right now) are not as attractive as they once were.
Only when you get to managerial levels, who don't do technical or operational stuff, do you find the transferable skills more appropriate. And most of them only enter the public sector for the slightly better work life balance, certainly not the salary.
Absolute bunch of tools.
Edited by FMOB on Tuesday 23 July 20:12
FMOB said:
Well you would have thought the Council might try and protect their investment a little by having a minimum time in the job or pay some of the training costs to leave early rather than being a free training centre. Same applies to the NHS, train 'em up at our cost and let them walk away the next day. If private companies want to get them out then they pay for the priviledge, who would have thought Councils wasting someone rlses money.
Absolute bunch of tools.
And you think they'd be able to recruit people if they were then locked in? OK.Absolute bunch of tools.
Edited by FMOB on Tuesday 23 July 20:12
ATG said:
FMOB said:
Well you would have thought the Council might try and protect their investment a little by having a minimum time in the job or pay some of the training costs to leave early rather than being a free training centre. Same applies to the NHS, train 'em up at our cost and let them walk away the next day. If private companies want to get them out then they pay for the priviledge, who would have thought Councils wasting someone rlses money.
Absolute bunch of tools.
And you think they'd be able to recruit people if they were then locked in? OK.Absolute bunch of tools.
Edited by FMOB on Tuesday 23 July 20:12
ATG said:
And you think they'd be able to recruit people if they were then locked in? OK.
Well I don't like it but it works for airlines.Not unusual for pilots that have to be trained on type to be signed up for £15k over 3 years reducing by a third each year to ensure at least 3 years productive service. This was 20 years ago, it's probably much higher now.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff