Governments evidence to the independent pay review bodies for 2023/24 awards

norfolkngood

norfolkngood

Well-known member
Despite all the encouragement to the unions to accept the 2022 awards and concentrate on next years award the Government has now informed the review bodies that the maximum it can afford is 3.5%.

Somebody is taking the pith!
 
sherlock1969 said:
Awful offer and I’d imagine would be widely rejected.

As a public sector worker I don’t think blanket % rises are the way forward though. I think it should be a set amount rise across the board.

Take that 3.5%. On my salary that is worth about £2,300. For someone on £25,000 it’s worth £875. Just widens the gap.

I’d actually be ok with a set amount rise that equals a lesser % amount for me but a higher % amount for those lower down the scale.
Click to expand...
That's what the NHS had last year and while I agree with you it has to be fine so the highest bands get their pay rise matched to inflation and the ones below get above inflation.

They've also been doing something similar for years but giving higher bands smaller rises and the bands have been squeezed together. My point on the scale has only had a total of a 16% increase since 2010 but inflation has been about 40%. Salaries have at least kept up with inflation (before this year's massive jump) for the lowest bands. Even though the highest bands get paid more they don't deserve such big pay cuts year on year. I'm not using food banks or anything but my bills are still going up significantly.
 
Nano said:
That's what the NHS had last year and while I agree with you it has to be fine so the highest bands get their pay rise matched to inflation and the ones below get above inflation.

They've also been doing something similar for years but giving higher bands smaller rises and the bands have been squeezed together. My point on the scale has only had a total of a 16% increase since 2010 but inflation has been about 40%. Salaries have at least kept up with inflation (before this year's massive jump) for the lowest bands. Even though the highest bands get paid more they don't deserve such big pay cuts year on year. I'm not using food banks or anything but my bills are still going up significantly.
Click to expand...

Mine too but an inflation rate rise for me would be £7,000 a year. Whilst that would be nice I’d rather some of that went to people who are struggling much more!
 
Laughing said:
If you don't get, at least a pay rise in line with inflation you are getting a pay cut. Can't be right. That should really be the end of the discussion, shouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Inflation is a crude tool and an inflation matching rise is already a paycut because of tax. Quick example:

Assume you have a salary and your costs equal your take home pay.

At £24k, that would give take home pay of £19.8k. If your costs are £19.8k and there is inflation of 10% then your costs will rise to £21.8k. 10% salary rise to £26.4k would only give you a take home of £21.4k, your costs now exceed your income by £400. You actually need an increase of 12% to 27k for your take home pay to keep up with inflation.

Similar at higher salaries:
Income £70k
Take home and costs £48.6k
10% increase in Income to £77k, take home to £52.5k, costs to £53.4k
12% increase to £78.6k required for take home to equal £53.4k
 
sherlock1969 said:
Awful offer and I’d imagine would be widely rejected.

As a public sector worker I don’t think blanket % rises are the way forward though. I think it should be a set amount rise across the board.

Take that 3.5%. On my salary that is worth about £2,300. For someone on £25,000 it’s worth £875. Just widens the gap.

I’d actually be ok with a set amount rise that equals a lesser % amount for me but a higher % amount for those lower down the scale.
Click to expand...
Our company have started doing that effectively, and people below a certain salary get an extra bit too.
 
Nano said:
Not exactly. Inflation is a crude tool and an inflation matching rise is already a paycut because of tax. Quick example:

Assume you have a salary and your costs equal your take home pay.

At £24k, that would give take home pay of £19.8k. If your costs are £19.8k and there is inflation of 10% then your costs will rise to £21.8k. 10% salary rise to £26.4k would only give you a take home of £21.4k, your costs now exceed your income by £400. You actually need an increase of 12% to 27k for your take home pay to keep up with inflation.

Similar at higher salaries:
Income £70k
Take home and costs £48.6k
10% increase in Income to £77k, take home to £52.5k, costs to £53.4k
12% increase to £78.6k required for take home to equal £53.4k
Click to expand...
Your calculations are too simplistic, as they don’t take into account your tax free personal allowance. To keep things simple, using your example, let’s assume that the personal allowance is £12k and that your costs equal your net income.

If you earn £24k, your net income (taking into account £12k personal allowance) and costs would be £21.6k. If inflation is 10% and your pay, costs AND personal allowance all rise by the full 10%, then your costs would rise to £23.76k but so would your net pay, meaning you were in exactly the same position.

Of course, this government has decided to freeze the personal allowance for the next few years, but that’s a different matter.
 
I don’t work in the health service but I work for them in the public sector and we had 2% increase imposed upon us. I voted for strike unfortunately not enough of my colleagues took part in the ballot did to make any action possible although of those who voted the majority rejected the deal.

If they now start increasing pay for others in government service I will be annoyed for two reasons.

Firstly because I’m sure they won’t do it for everyone and secondly they said they wouldn’t negotiate at all effectively on last years pay and now it appears they will.

All the lost work, damage to the economy, people’s health and general inconvenience could have potentially been avoided.

They either look uncaring or weak. They really do need to go as do their anti democratic strike laws.
 
That annoys me where you have to get over 50% of those eligable to vote. Nowhere else in society is that required. I mean governements are very often voted in on 20 or 30% of those eligble to vote, nowhere near 50%
 
Got a message from my mobile provider today, 02, to inform me they're raising bills by 13.4%, in line with RPI.

PLUS 3.9% as well.

Taking. The. Pish.

Something needs to change, big business is pretty much running things at the moment and the average person is paying the price.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
Something needs to change, big business is pretty much running things at the moment and the average person is paying the price.
Click to expand...

Funny looking back, they are obviously always the party of 'business', but that reads more like a labour manifesto in the main.

It is also funny looking back at the current cabinets values and aims as compared to Cameron's era.

David Cameron is to put a statement of the Conservative party's 'aims and values' under his leadership to the entire membership in a ballot. This is the full text of the statement


Our aims:
To improve the quality of life for everyone through:

A dynamic economy, where thriving businesses create jobs, wealth and opportunity.
A strong society, where our families, our communities and our nation create secure foundations on which people can build their lives.
A sustainable environment, where we enhance the beauty of our surroundings and protect the future of the planet.
Our values:

The more we trust people, the stronger they and society become.
We're all in this together - government, business, the voluntary sector, families and individuals. We have a shared responsibility for our shared future.
Our Party:
We are an open and inclusive Party. We will act to ensure that our Party, at every level, is representative of modern Britain. What we're fighting for:
1. A successful Britain must be able to compete with the world.
We will put economic stability and fiscal responsibility first. They must come before tax cuts. Over time, we will share the proceeds of growth between public services and lower taxes - instead of letting government spend an ever-increasing share of national income.
2. There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state.
The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich. We will stand up for the victims of state failure and ensure that social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities - instead of thinking that only the state can guarantee fairness.

3. The quality of life matters, as well as the quantity of money.
We will enhance our environment by seeking a long-term cross-party consensus on sustainable development and climate change - instead of short-term thinking and surrender to vested interests. We will support the choices that women make about their work and home lives, not impose choices on them.
4. Public services for everyone must be guaranteed by the state, not necessarily run by the state.
We will improve the NHS and schools for everyone, not help a few to opt out. But public services paid for by the state don't have to be run by the state. We will trust professionals and share responsibility - instead of controlling professionals in state monopolies.
5. It is our moral obligation to make poverty history.
We will fight for free and fair trade, increase international aid, and press for further debt relief. But this is not enough. We will also take action to build those institutions - like the rule of law and property rights - that support development.
6. Security and freedom must go hand in hand.
In fighting crime and terrorism, we will be hard-nosed defenders of freedom and security. We will ensure strong defence and the effective enforcement of laws that balance liberty and safety - instead of ineffective authoritarianism which puts both freedom and security at risk.
7. We understand the limitations of government, but are not limited in our aspirations for government.

We believe in the role of government as a force for good. It can and should support aspirations such as home ownership, saving for a pension, and starting a business. It should support families and marriage, and those who care for others. And it should support the shared experiences that bring us together - such as sport, the arts and culture.
8. We believe that government should be closer to the people, not further away.
We want to see more local democracy, instead of more centralisation - whether to Brussels, Whitehall or unwanted regional assemblies - and we want to make the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales work. Communities should have more say over their own futures.
 
Oooo said:
That annoys me where you have to get over 50% of those eligable to vote. Nowhere else in society is that required. I mean governements are very often voted in on 20 or 30% of those eligble to vote, nowhere near 50%
Click to expand...
Liz Truss became PM with the support of less than 0.2% of the UK electorate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top