Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Austerity ending?

However May puts it once you allow a breach of the pay rules for public employees that dam is going to burst.
So maybe not the next pay round but by the one after I fully expect the 1% cap to go for all public employees.
«1345

Comments

  • some public service jobs are more deserving than others though? i dont think its fair that a fireman that saved 20 peoples lives is the same bracket as someone taking a call in a emergency call centre (999).

    will probably get slaughtered for this also, but people working in the public sector once upon a time decided to be there said profession nurse, policeman etc, so with that does come a bit of danger and being employed by the government, i'm not saying that they are not deserving of pay rises, but also do the milatary forces come into pay rises? as corbyn wanted to cut them?
  • edited September 12
    CatAddick said:

    I hope so as it is wearing a bit thin. Maybe the public sector can drag the private sector along with it. I'd have loved a 1% rise over the last few years - all I've had is pay freezes, pay cuts and redundancies since this mess started

    Of course there are winners and losers in the private sector - but overall it has done better than the public sector for the past few years. It did of course take the biggest hit in 2009.

    image
  • some public service jobs are more deserving than others though? i dont think its fair that a fireman that saved 20 peoples lives is the same bracket as someone taking a call in a emergency call centre (999).

    will probably get slaughtered for this also, but people working in the public sector once upon a time decided to be there said profession nurse, policeman etc, so with that does come a bit of danger and being employed by the government, i'm not saying that they are not deserving of pay rises, but also do the milatary forces come into pay rises? as corbyn wanted to cut them?

    Corbyn isn't the PM (yet). Deal with the now.
    Fwiw I'd pay them the same percentage rises as all public employees.
  • some public service jobs are more deserving than others though? i dont think its fair that a fireman that saved 20 peoples lives is the same bracket as someone taking a call in a emergency call centre (999).

    will probably get slaughtered for this also, but people working in the public sector once upon a time decided to be there said profession nurse, policeman etc, so with that does come a bit of danger and being employed by the government, i'm not saying that they are not deserving of pay rises, but also do the milatary forces come into pay rises? as corbyn wanted to cut them?

    "but also do the milatary forces come into pay rises? as corbyn wanted to cut them?" - I can't make head nor tail of that?

    Everybody goes into their job knowing what it entails, dangerous or otherwise. But everyone is entitled to expect the reward for that job to at least keep pace with inflation, especially in the public sector where the people deciding to make the workers poorer (MPs) keep giving themselves inflation busting pay rises.
    I guess it's due to Corbyn saying it would be wonderful if every country could drop its arms which certain media outlets reported as Corbyn wants to get rid of the British army!

    Austerity, the sign that the Tories have failed to save the economy, then again they did find a billion in a magic money tree.
  • Fiiish said:

    The minimum an employee, private or public, should expect is in line with inflation. Anything else is an effective pay cut.

    I take it you've never run a struggling private sector business.
  • corbyns exact words were.

    'Except those in the Armed Forces. Where we want to see a few more cuts taking place."

    and my other question was as i didn't know was do the armed forces come into public sector pay rises
  • Sponsored links:


  • CatAddick said:

    I'd have loved a 1% rise over the last few years - all I've had is pay freezes, pay cuts and redundancies since this mess started

    Your probably aren't mate, but don't assume that the bulk of the public sector have been getting 1% rises. They haven't, pay freezes have very much been the norm
    ...and the "pay rises" announced today will have to be paid for by - guess what? - job losses
  • edited September 12
    bobmunro said:

    Fiiish said:

    The minimum an employee, private or public, should expect is in line with inflation. Anything else is an effective pay cut.

    I take it you've never run a struggling private sector business.
    But how many people are running a struggling small business? I don't know, but I'd imagine it's a small percentage compared to the entirety of the work force.

    This example is often held up in the states for reasons like real wages not growing and not wanting to raise the minimum wage (which puts families in poverty). But the fact of the matter is that those businesses are few and far between (how to change that is another story worth examining). How many companies have made big or record profits on the last few years and refused to give significant pay rises? I imagine that number is far, far, far higher.

    Just to add, I have worked for struggling start ups and small businesses and done some of the finances for them, and I get that it's really, really tough and I don't want to take away from that. I just think that example is held up as a bit of a red herring that larger and richer companies hide behind.
  • SDAddick said:

    bobmunro said:

    Fiiish said:

    The minimum an employee, private or public, should expect is in line with inflation. Anything else is an effective pay cut.

    I take it you've never run a struggling private sector business.
    But how many people are running a struggling small business? I don't know, but I'd imagine it's a small percentage compared to the entirety of the work force.

    This example is often held up in the states for reasons like real wages not growing and not wanting to raise the minimum wage (which puts families in poverty). But the fact of the matter is that those businesses are few and far between (how to change that is another story worth examining). How many companies have made big or record profits on the last few years and refused to give significant pay rises? I imagine that number is far, far, far higher.

    Just to add, I have worked for struggling start ups and small businesses and done some of the finances for them, and I get that it's really, really tough and I don't want to take away from that. I just think that example is held up as a bit of a red herring that larger and richer companies hide behind.
    I agree entirely with what you say - it isn't a 'get out of jail' card for every private business (I didn't say small). My Company are a prime example of where it isn't used - every year since the crash in 2008 we have given a minimum inflationary pay rise of 3% - but we have been successful.

    My point was in response to Fishy who didn't qualify his statement with exceptions and stated that the minimum an employee (which means 'all') should get is a pay rise in line with inflation. That is not always possible, but I agree it is in most cases.
  • bobmunro said:

    SDAddick said:

    bobmunro said:

    Fiiish said:

    The minimum an employee, private or public, should expect is in line with inflation. Anything else is an effective pay cut.

    I take it you've never run a struggling private sector business.
    But how many people are running a struggling small business? I don't know, but I'd imagine it's a small percentage compared to the entirety of the work force.

    This example is often held up in the states for reasons like real wages not growing and not wanting to raise the minimum wage (which puts families in poverty). But the fact of the matter is that those businesses are few and far between (how to change that is another story worth examining). How many companies have made big or record profits on the last few years and refused to give significant pay rises? I imagine that number is far, far, far higher.

    Just to add, I have worked for struggling start ups and small businesses and done some of the finances for them, and I get that it's really, really tough and I don't want to take away from that. I just think that example is held up as a bit of a red herring that larger and richer companies hide behind.
    I agree entirely with what you say - it isn't a 'get out of jail' card for every private business (I didn't say small). My Company are a prime example of where it isn't used - every year since the crash in 2008 we have given a minimum inflationary pay rise of 3% - but we have been successful.

    My point was in response to Fishy who didn't qualify his statement with exceptions and stated that the minimum an employee (which means 'all') should get is a pay rise in line with inflation. That is not always possible, but I agree it is in most cases.
    Gotcha, yeah fair enough. That fishy bloke has turned into a real communist agitator ;).
  • corbyns exact words were.

    'Except those in the Armed Forces. Where we want to see a few more cuts taking place
    ."

    and my other question was as i didn't know was do the armed forces come into public sector pay rises

    He was talking about cuts in numbers of personnel, not in pay.
  • SDAddick said:

    bobmunro said:

    SDAddick said:

    bobmunro said:

    Fiiish said:

    The minimum an employee, private or public, should expect is in line with inflation. Anything else is an effective pay cut.

    I take it you've never run a struggling private sector business.
    But how many people are running a struggling small business? I don't know, but I'd imagine it's a small percentage compared to the entirety of the work force.

    This example is often held up in the states for reasons like real wages not growing and not wanting to raise the minimum wage (which puts families in poverty). But the fact of the matter is that those businesses are few and far between (how to change that is another story worth examining). How many companies have made big or record profits on the last few years and refused to give significant pay rises? I imagine that number is far, far, far higher.

    Just to add, I have worked for struggling start ups and small businesses and done some of the finances for them, and I get that it's really, really tough and I don't want to take away from that. I just think that example is held up as a bit of a red herring that larger and richer companies hide behind.
    I agree entirely with what you say - it isn't a 'get out of jail' card for every private business (I didn't say small). My Company are a prime example of where it isn't used - every year since the crash in 2008 we have given a minimum inflationary pay rise of 3% - but we have been successful.

    My point was in response to Fishy who didn't qualify his statement with exceptions and stated that the minimum an employee (which means 'all') should get is a pay rise in line with inflation. That is not always possible, but I agree it is in most cases.
    Gotcha, yeah fair enough. That fishy bloke has turned into a real communist agitator ;).
    That won't last - we all know he's a wishy washy liberal and his true colours will be revealed at some point.
  • Sponsored links:


  • bobmunro said:

    SDAddick said:

    bobmunro said:

    Fiiish said:

    The minimum an employee, private or public, should expect is in line with inflation. Anything else is an effective pay cut.

    I take it you've never run a struggling private sector business.
    But how many people are running a struggling small business? I don't know, but I'd imagine it's a small percentage compared to the entirety of the work force.

    This example is often held up in the states for reasons like real wages not growing and not wanting to raise the minimum wage (which puts families in poverty). But the fact of the matter is that those businesses are few and far between (how to change that is another story worth examining). How many companies have made big or record profits on the last few years and refused to give significant pay rises? I imagine that number is far, far, far higher.

    Just to add, I have worked for struggling start ups and small businesses and done some of the finances for them, and I get that it's really, really tough and I don't want to take away from that. I just think that example is held up as a bit of a red herring that larger and richer companies hide behind.
    I agree entirely with what you say - it isn't a 'get out of jail' card for every private business (I didn't say small). My Company are a prime example of where it isn't used - every year since the crash in 2008 we have given a minimum inflationary pay rise of 3% - but we have been successful.

    My point was in response to Fishy who didn't qualify his statement with exceptions and stated that the minimum an employee (which means 'all') should get is a pay rise in line with inflation. That is not always possible, but I agree it is in most cases.
    I didn't need to qualify my statement. Unless you are self-employed your minimum expectation from your boss is to pay you at least in line with inflation. Anything else is a pay cut, regardless of how well the business is doing. If you are willing to accept a pay cut because you want to remain loyal to the business then that is up to the employee but in a general sense unless you are a stakeholder in the business then you should view a pay cut as a sign that you are either not valued as an employee or the business is in financial difficulty. Either way you would be well served looking for a different employer. I know in some cases some people cannot find a different job (due to lack of availability of other similar paying jobs in your field) and cannot afford to quit but that's a special case. My statement still stands, for the general case (which is what I intended when I stated "an employee", not "all", so your remark about qualifying is not really necessary).
  • Don't think this is moving the dial or the end of austerity, I only briefly read the news as need to be somewhere important tonight :wink: but I think I read it'll have to be paid out of existing budgets?

    Interesting chart @bobmunro so in 2009 private -4% and public +4%. Without plotting it on a spreadsheet with compound the gap over the period doesn't look as big as the headlines often indicate.

    Not sure Austerity is a con @MuttleyCAFC, austerity is simply reducing budget deficits by either raising taxes or cutting spending, or both. I seem to recall Tories were for cutting spending and lowering or not increasing taxes Labour were for increasing taxes and increasing spending. Both sound like austerity to me in some respects.

    A simple way to get more money into pockets regardless of private or public is to raise tax thresholds (being done) and lower taxes......
  • Completely agree that minimum anyone should get each year is a rise in line with inflation.

    Is this the end of austerity? I hope so but in my (very publicly unqualified) opinion, I don't think it was as bad (and needed) as what the Tories made out anyway.
  • CatAddick said:

    I'd have loved a 1% rise over the last few years - all I've had is pay freezes, pay cuts and redundancies since this mess started

    Your probably aren't mate, but don't assume that the bulk of the public sector have been getting 1% rises. They haven't, pay freezes have very much been the norm
    Probably. But its just the headlines that everyone sees isnt it? Like the graph above that 'proves' private sector pay has increased faster than public. Maybe I move in the wrong circles but I know only 2 people in the private sector who have had increases in the last 5 years but nearly everyone I know in the public sector has had at least one in the same timescale. I'm sure that they are still paid less than us capitalist private sector johnnies but none of them (that i know personally) have lost their jobs whereas about 20% of people I know private sector have. Some you win, some you lose
  • I work in the private sector. I reckon in 10 years I have had about four 1.5% pay rises, the rest frozen.

    I think since 2008 the bosses in the majority of the private sector have used the crash and austerity as an excuse to keep wages low, increase profits and their bonuses.

    The rich get richer.....

    Spot on
  • edited September 12

    I work in the private sector. I reckon in 10 years I have had about four 1.5% pay rises, the rest frozen.

    I think since 2008 the bosses in the majority of the private sector have used the crash and austerity as an excuse to keep wages low, increase profits and their bonuses.

    The rich get richer.....

    Director and executive pay is and has been moving at explosive rate. I understand some firms have linked a lot of their pay to long term performance and what not, but it is scary the gap between some execs and the average shop floor worker.

    I like companies that utilise the John Lewis model and Bob's example at bet365 is fairly progressive. I see no reason why more companies can't just kick a little bit back down the laddder to employees. Every employer is different and operates in different circumstances, but if I look at a Greggs for example, a business that is lorded as a British success, they use contractors for their suppliers who royally f*** their employees up the backside on zero hours.

    Again, McDonalds do some good things re: training their employees and learning at work, but those safety conditions and change to contract workers leaves employees open to exploitation.

    I appreciate these are all different businesses operating in different markets, i just think unless the business is a responsible employer, then there's opportunity to get away with quite a bit

  • It's interesting when you actually read where the 1% increase is going to come from for the police. Straight out of their budget. So this will invariably mean that something else that they spend their budget on will get less funding.

    There certainly isn't a magic money tree it would seem. Fucking joke. Are they saying this 1% that I think amounts to £50m cannot come from a diversion of other public money. Have the FCA issued any of the banks fines recently for bad behaviour that cannot be allocated?
Sign In or Register to comment.