Making the news today....

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

10 hours ago, Youngstu said:

From what I understand, there is usually a top band which is reached after a certain number of years, for example teachers can reach the top of their pay scales in about 12 years. So a more experienced staff member who chose to stay in the classroom rather than chasing promotion would have had their pay stagnated for a decade. I'd imagine it's a similar scenario across other industries where pay increases with experience, that only goes so far. So in terms of majority of people in those industries their pay did increase but only as they gained experience, those who were already experienced and chose to stay in more hands on roles rather than going for more desk based jobs had pay stagnation or cuts when annual rises were below inflation. 

There are some good points there - and I'd agree, up to a point.  I don't know about teaching so don't want focus too much on that specifically as it may be the exception that doesn't prove the rule.

 

In general, public sector employment is considerably more hierarchical than private sector.  There are clearly defined routes, opportunities and mechanisms for advancement in 'grades.'  

 

Within each 'grade' there are perhaps 12 'bands' which equate to an automatic incremental annual pay increase based upon gaining another year of experience / seniority.

 

It would be beneficial to first consider the purpose of grades and then the purpose of bands.

 

(In theory) grades provide the mechanism for personal development and career advancement for the most dedicated, diligent, able and ambitious.  No problem there, that's meritocracy at its finest - what actually happens in practice might be quite different but that's a whole other subject.  Career prospects, advancement, pay rises exist in the public sector as an incentive - again, brilliant, meritocracy and the beginnings of a pyramidical staffing structure.

 

Bands similarly recognise attained experience within that grade but primarily are intended as retention incentives - the longer you stay the more we pay because staff churn is expensive.

 

So if we accept that there are almost unlimited public sector promotion prospects (limited only by ambition / ability) and there are 12 annual bands in most grades where an automatic incremental pay increase is guaranteed, that actually means you have 12 years of pay increases before you need to have achieved a grade promotion which puts you back to band 1 of 12 at the next higher grade and then the process recommences.

 

Also bear in mind, the process loosely described above has continued unabated throughout the entire (so called) austerity period where annual pay rises have been frozen - so it's actually not been any form of stagnation (as the headlines would have us believe) for the majority.  

 

Why do organisations have promotion opportunities and why do they recognise and reward experience?  Because there is an obvious requirement to retain and promote from within.

 

The harsh reality can be seen that - if you haven't advanced by grade within 12 years, you may have peaked.  Suck it up.  Alternatively, GOYA and get yourself a promotion. 

 

Another harsh reality is that bands are set at or around 12 years because it's most likely that by the 12 year point, if you haven't left the job already, you probably won't because you're tied in with personal financial commitments that mean you need the job more than the job needs you.  Net result, there's no need to incentivise someone to stay if they really can't leave.

 

That's life Im afraid.  The sort of basic economics and reality that appears so vacant in the Labour / Union / Momentum logic.

 

I speak with 30 years public sector experienced and the equivalent of 11 grade advancements - 1 every 2.7 years if you average it out.

 

There's no sympathy for public sector whining here, try convincing a private sector worker that public sector are hard done by.... 

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

10 hours ago, nepia said:

Not looking for a fight on this one... increments have always been there, in the private sector too.  But they're not automatic (though usually implemented) and not annual.  They vary but automatic increment every year is not the norm.

Exactly the point.  Private sector is pay rise tied to performance or output.  Increase performance / output (hopefully) get a pay rise.

 

Public sector is annual incremental increase (every year for 12 years then start again if promoted) + annual pay rise (+/-) + bonus payments...

 

Smoke and mirrors....

 

 

[scbk]

SNP government at it again....

 

Government apology over wrong funfair advice

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

The economy secretary says it was "unfortunate and regrettable" that conflicting advice had been given out.

 

"In a Facebook post, Alfred Codona said: "We find the decision to close our outdoor rides astounding, considering outdoor playgrounds are now open with no Covid-19 policies or procedures in place.

"Additionally indoor restaurants, cinemas, shops, shopping centres, indoor and outdoor bars are now open all over Scotland.

"And yet, our outdoor attraction with all the appropriate Covid-19 policies and procedures, inspected and approved, is instructed to close.

The park opened on 15 July but six days later, after seeking clarity on the regulations, the attraction was told it was classed the same as a travelling funfair so had to close its rides."

 

 

 

In my mind a theme park/amusement park would be a safer place than a pub!

[Youngstu]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

There are some good points there - and I'd agree, up to a point.  I don't know about teaching so don't want focus too much on that specifically as it may be the exception that doesn't prove the rule.

 

In general, public sector employment is considerably more hierarchical than private sector.  There are clearly defined routes, opportunities and mechanisms for advancement in 'grades.'  

 

Within each 'grade' there are perhaps 12 'bands' which equate to an automatic incremental annual pay increase based upon gaining another year of experience / seniority.

 

It would be beneficial to first consider the purpose of grades and then the purpose of bands.

 

(In theory) grades provide the mechanism for personal development and career advancement for the most dedicated, diligent, able and ambitious.  No problem there, that's meritocracy at its finest - what actually happens in practice might be quite different but that's a whole other subject.  Career prospects, advancement, pay rises exist in the public sector as an incentive - again, brilliant, meritocracy and the beginnings of a pyramidical staffing structure.

 

Bands similarly recognise attained experience within that grade but primarily are intended as retention incentives - the longer you stay the more we pay because staff churn is expensive.

 

So if we accept that there are almost unlimited public sector promotion prospects (limited only by ambition / ability) and there are 12 annual bands in most grades where an automatic incremental pay increase is guaranteed, that actually means you have 12 years of pay increases before you need to have achieved a grade promotion which puts you back to band 1 of 12 at the next higher grade and then the process recommences.

 

Also bear in mind, the process loosely described above has continued unabated throughout the entire (so called) austerity period where annual pay rises have been frozen - so it's actually not been any form of stagnation (as the headlines would have us believe) for the majority.  

 

Why do organisations have promotion opportunities and why do they recognise and reward experience?  Because there is an obvious requirement to retain and promote from within.

 

The harsh reality can be seen that - if you haven't advanced by grade within 12 years, you may have peaked.  Suck it up.  Alternatively, GOYA and get yourself a promotion. 

 

Another harsh reality is that bands are set at or around 12 years because it's most likely that by the 12 year point, if you haven't left the job already, you probably won't because you're tied in with personal financial commitments that mean you need the job more than the job needs you.  Net result, there's no need to incentivise someone to stay if they really can't leave.

 

That's life Im afraid.  The sort of basic economics and reality that appears so vacant in the Labour / Union / Momentum logic.

 

I speak with 30 years public sector experienced and the equivalent of 11 grade advancements - 1 every 2.7 years if you average it out.

 

There's no sympathy for public sector whining here, try convincing a private sector worker that public sector are hard done by.... 

 

 

I see your points about the possibilities of going for promotion etc  to increase your pay after reaching the top of the scales, but I think the key issue is about effective pay cuts due to austerity. I'm not saying that the public sector needs the sympathy of those in the private sector but more that they have a valid point. 

In public sector areas such as education, nursing, police, military? etc do you really want the most experienced staff members to be leaving the "front line" whether that's the classroom, wards, day to day policing or military work where they may do a really good job (better than many younger, less experienced staff)? Will they be able to use their strengths at a desk/office/admin job that comes with promotion and will they necessarily make good leaders? If they choose to stay in that standard role they shouldn't expect to receive a real pay rise but surely they shouldn't accept an effective pay cut which is what has happened with below inflation pay rises year after year. 

[Will C]

CAR LANDS ON ROOF AFTER COMING OFF TRANSPORTER

WWW.ISLANDECHO.CO.UK

---

A car has landed on its roof after coming off a vehicle transporter outside a garage in Newport this evening (Thursday).  Emergency services have been called to the...

This is the height of today’s entertainment this way. ?

Edited July 23, 2020 by Will C
Bloody auto correct ?‍♂️

[Khriss]

Shooting in Tottenham today ..... abt same .. K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

12 minutes ago, Youngstu said:

n public sector areas such as education, nursing, police, military? etc do you really want the most experienced staff members to be leaving the "front line" whether that's the classroom, wards, day to day policing or military work where they may do a really good job (better than many younger, less experienced staff)?

En masse, no. Some turnover is necessary, healthy and inevitable. 
 

Is there any evidence of mass defection in any particular sector? I don’t know. 
 

If people are leaving in droves then measures such as retention bonuses can be used. If people aren’t leaving in droves it makes no sense to increase pay. 
 

We’re all whoring out our time and energy in return for money. 
 

In commercial practice pay goes up when the economy and productivity are on the up. 
 

I’d suggest people don’t leave public sector jobs in times of economic uncertainty.  
 

Someone is prob gonna find a reliable data set to prove staff are leaving secure jobs - thinking about it, maybe prison guards are a good single sector example. 
 

 

[Steve Bullman]

All positive steps. Just wait for the news that the tax payer will have to fund gym classes for the unemployed who have been prescribed them by the doctor.

 

 

[Mesterh]

50 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

All positive steps. Just wait for the news that the tax payer will have to fund gym classes for the unemployed who have been prescribed them by the doctor.

 

 

Hopefully it will be cheaper in the long run, less fat people less cost to the nhs. It's just far too easy and cheap to eat unhealthy. 

[eggsarascal]

2 hours ago, Mesterh said:

Hopefully it will be cheaper in the long run, less fat people less cost to the nhs. It's just far too easy and cheap to eat unhealthy. 

Really, I thought that the general consensus is 'junk' food is more expensive than 'good' food. I think a lot of people eat crap because they are lazy, not because it's cheap.