Trade Union Anger over Vote Requirement.

[Ganglandboss]

Johnnytheboy said:

arp1 said:

How often does the private sector get a pay rise vs public sector pay rises... Iv not had a pay rise in goodness knows how long... Pay cut in real terms with the pension theft...

A lot of people in the state sector get a pay rise just for being there another year. For sure I've never had one of those!

Incremental progression is not as cushy as it sounds. I was on such a pay scale when I worked at a university. I was an electrician in the estates department. I was on the 'T' spine (technical staff). The spine started at something like £10,000 and finished at around £60,000. Within that spine, there are bands. Whatever band you are on dictates where you start, but also where you finish. In each band there would be about five increments and two discretionary at the top. You start on the bottom and every year you go up an increment. There was also a facility to reward those who go beyond their normal duties by rewarding them with a double increment. At the same time, it was possible to hold somebody back who was under performing, although this was extremely rare.

In my department there were three bands. TC were the lamp tramps and grease-trap jockeys, TD were the tradesmen (sparks, plumbers and joiners) and TE were the supervisors. When they brought in multi-skilling, the deal was we got an increment for accepting flexible working (this meant beginning training, but also that we would take breaks when convenient (rather than downing tools as soon as it was brew time and leaving somebody without power). Once we had completed an NVQ in a second skill, we went up a grade, so tradesmen went to TE and supervisors to TF. At the time we only had two labourers but somehow they managed to get TD, despite not doing any extra training.

As a recently qualified spark, I was offered a permanent job on TD. The bottom of TD was around £15,000. At the top, it was around £24,000. At the time, a spark would be earning around £27,000. In the real world, you can expect go straight onto JIB rates when you qualify. As the labourers had a head start on me, I would be earning less than those that were wandering around changing lamps and unblocking bogs until they reached the top of TD. I knew it was worth staying put though, as the pension scheme and job security were unmatched in the private sector.

When I started the multi-skilling, my colleagues had all completed it. We were told the faster we got through it, the sooner we would get a pay rise. We did just that, and got through it in no time. I also did an ONC in heating ventilation and air conditioning, which went beyond what was required. When we went to see the boss to tell him we had completed the training, we were told we would have to work through TD and then TE. This meant I would be about 32 by the time I was at the top of TE, which was slightly behind private sector rates. In the end, we negotiated a deal where former university trainees would automatically get a double increment every year after completion of the additional training.

I am not going to complain too much about public sector pay. It probably does track behind private sector pay in comparable roles, but I won't pretend the pension and other perks don't more than make up for it, but this automatic pay rise business isn't has great as it sounds, as the rates at the bottom of the scale can be piss-poor.

[arp1]

Regards to the 'cushy' public sector pay... We pay a damn sight more than most folk whilst the government still erodes it..

[arp1]

Substitute pay for pension above

[randlemarcus]

arp1 said:

Regards to the 'cushy' public sector pension... We pay a damn sight more than most folk whilst the government still erodes it..

Not utterly certain you are right. It's been a while since I saw employee 7% vs employer 22% contributions in the private sector.

[turbobloke]

randlemarcus said:

arp1 said:

Regards to the 'cushy' public sector pension... We pay a damn sight more than most folk whilst the government still erodes it..

Not utterly certain you are right. It's been a while since I saw employee 7% vs employer 22% contributions in the private sector.

Or 24% (Brent LGPS iirc) or 30% (Hackney LGPS also iirc).

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Or 24% (Brent LGPS iirc) or 30% (Hackney LGPS also iirc).

for real?

Not even Ed Balls could try to argue that as being sustainable!

[turbobloke]

garyhun said:

turbobloke said:

Or 24% (Brent LGPS iirc) or 30% (Hackney LGPS also iirc).

for real?

Not even Ed Balls could try to argue that as being sustainable!

Checked, and yes for real. If there happens to have been one or two of those periodic LGPS actuarial valuation reviews published since my last contact (mid-2014) then it wouldn't surprise me to find both had increased. Hopefully any imminent change will be downwards.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

garyhun said:

turbobloke said:

Or 24% (Brent LGPS iirc) or 30% (Hackney LGPS also iirc).

for real?

Not even Ed Balls could try to argue that as being sustainable!

Checked, and yes for real. If there happens to have been one or two of those periodic LGPS actuarial valuation reviews published since my last contact (mid-2014) then it wouldn't surprise me to find both had increased. Hopefully any imminent change will be downwards.

I am gobsmacked!

[turbobloke]

garyhun said:

turbobloke said:

garyhun said:

turbobloke said:

Or 24% (Brent LGPS iirc) or 30% (Hackney LGPS also iirc).

for real?

Not even Ed Balls could try to argue that as being sustainable!

Checked, and yes for real. If there happens to have been one or two of those periodic LGPS actuarial valuation reviews published since my last contact (mid-2014) then it wouldn't surprise me to find both had increased. Hopefully any imminent change will be downwards.

I am gobsmacked!

Me too. Those were the values provided by a Gov't Dept, I still have the file and LGPS rates are hardly official secrets so a lot of folk will know

This (below) dropped out of a quick search - it looks as though the Hackney rate from our HMG source could have been historical and wrong! Too low!

"The fund Actuary sets the contribution rates for employers. This was currently at 30% in Hackney and would rise to 36.9% on 01 April 2012"

[superlightr]

arp1 said:

Substitute pay for pension above

so whats your contribution % and your employers %?


mine is £whatever I can spare and £0 0%

Edited by superlightr on Monday 18th May 21:30

[mph1977]

garyhun said:

crankedup said:

garyhun said:

crankedup said:

'if you don't like the job, leave'. Not something I entirely agree with, but ultimately that is 'the final solution'.
Our lad took on a job within the NHS as an external contractor, he was given a task which our lad found to be objectionable, not least an insult to a skilled engineer and outside of that to be reasonably expected by some considerable margin. He complained and was told 'if you don't like it find another job'. So he did and gave a one minute notice period last Friday. They are now without an engineer that was required for an urgent job to be completed.
Until employers learn that treatment of staff in a decent and respectable way can bring it's own benefits then the improving jobs market will mean those bad employers will begin to struggle and retain valuable staff. It's a two way street and a little mutual respect goes a long way.

Can I ask what job he was asked to do that was an insult?

He was told (not asked to help out, as in an emergency) to clear a blockage in the toilet. Fair? reasonable? This type of work falls within the remit of dyna-rod or such like.
On giving in his notice the boss apologised and agreed the task should never have been handed to him, and regretted losing him as an employee.

If that's exactly how it happened, then the manager involved is obviously an idiot.

The reason I asked is that the days of demarkation are long gone. In working in IT for over 30 years, there have been numerous times when I've experienced the MD or a manager calling on people do do things completely outside of their job remit in order to help out during a specific crisis or simply because the business needed something doing and no one else was available in the timeframe. All hands to the pump, so to speak. Never did that cause an issue for anyone as it was always the business came first before the individuals ego.

that's why the 'shiftie' ( shift eng tech ) in hospitals is multi skilled - they will be the first point of contact for a wide range of things ...

20 odd years ago i worked in a food processing factory as a summer job there were only 3 areas that the shift fitters didn't touch mechanicial / electrical / basic plumbing stuff were what was expected ( obviously there were some who were mechanically biased and some electrically biased and tasking for specific jobs reflected that but as a on line line fitter you'd be expected to assess, make safe and either repair / or diagnose across mech/ elec / plumbing )


the three areas that were demarcated were
- refrigeration plumbing
- critical welding
- critical/ complex pipefitting

these all had their own properly trained specialists ( who were expected to do fitter stuff as needed )

[arp1]

superlightr said:

so whats your contribution % and your employers %?


mine is £whatever I can spare and £0 0%

Edited by superlightr on Monday 18th May 21:30

I wish mine was whatever I could spare... around the 15% mark I am paying in (amongst other deductables), but then again my employer just about matches that... (waits for outrage amongst privateers)

[superlightr]

arp1 said:

superlightr said:

so whats your contribution % and your employers %?


mine is £whatever I can spare and £0 0%

Edited by superlightr on Monday 18th May 21:30

I wish mine was whatever I could spare... around the 15% mark I am paying in (amongst other deductables), but then again my employer just about matches that... (waits for outrage amongst privateers)

not outrage but surley you can see that a 15% from your employer (me !) is bloody good when I cant do the same for myself and am being told by the gov to pay more taxes.

So why do you need a union and why should they have the ability to call a strike - thats the question. Sure you work hard and have your pay and good pension - fair enough - but then to go on strike and affect me is not cricket. If you dont like your job conditions then dont strike move to another job dont hold innocent people like me to the unions demands. We all want to work, accept we have to pay taxes but Unions have no place in todays society - why would I want to support Labour when they love the Unions.?

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 19th May 10:06

Edited by superlightr on Tuesday 19th May 10:09

[mph1977]

arp1 said:

superlightr said:

so whats your contribution % and your employers %?


mine is £whatever I can spare and £0 0%

Edited by superlightr on Monday 18th May 21:30

I wish mine was whatever I could spare... around the 15% mark I am paying in (amongst other deductables), but then again my employer just about matches that... (waits for outrage amongst privateers)

funny how the private sector people aren;t so willing to follow their own advice (to go and get a job with them) when they discover some employers make higher contributions to pensions for all staff than the minimums ...

[Du1point8]

mph1977 said:

arp1 said:

superlightr said:

so whats your contribution % and your employers %?


mine is £whatever I can spare and £0 0%

Edited by superlightr on Monday 18th May 21:30

I wish mine was whatever I could spare... around the 15% mark I am paying in (amongst other deductables), but then again my employer just about matches that... (waits for outrage amongst privateers)

funny how the private sector people aren;t so willing to follow their own advice (to go and get a job with them) when they discover some employers make higher contributions to pensions for all staff than the minimums ...

Funny why private sector won't join public sector?

I presume its because they don't have the same industry, Im finance and so I can't really join a public sector finance company and nothing else is challenging enough at the moment to consider elsewhere.

[turbobloke]

mph1977 said:

arp1 said:

superlightr said:

so whats your contribution % and your employers %?


mine is £whatever I can spare and £0 0%

I wish mine was whatever I could spare... around the 15% mark I am paying in (amongst other deductables), but then again my employer just about matches that... (waits for outrage amongst privateers)

funny how the private sector people aren;t so willing to follow their own advice (to go and get a job with them) when they discover some employers make higher contributions to pensions for all staff than the minimums ...

Some may well do just that, a snapshot of a restricted sample size is hardly representative.

To take one option, a possible move from the private sector to the public sector on the basis of pension provision is a double-edged sword, ethos and culture can be miles apart for similar roles not to mention 'office politics'. Then there's the struggle to take the annual sickie entitlement.

[mph1977]

randlemarcus said:

arp1 said:

Regards to the 'cushy' public sector pension... We pay a damn sight more than most folk whilst the government still erodes it..

Not utterly certain you are right. It's been a while since I saw employee 7% vs employer 22% contributions in the private sector.

however given that many private sector employers are reluctantly offering the minimum required by the current pension regs, the average Public sector employee is paying (at present) 6 - 11 times what the private sector employee is paying ...

[turbobloke]

mph1977 said:

randlemarcus said:

arp1 said:

Regards to the 'cushy' public sector pension... We pay a damn sight more than most folk whilst the government still erodes it..

Not utterly certain you are right. It's been a while since I saw employee 7% vs employer 22% contributions in the private sector.

however given that many private sector employers are reluctantly offering the minimum required by the current pension regs, the average Public sector employee is paying (at present) 6 - 11 times what the private sector employee is paying ...

With LGPS employer rates out there between 25% and 40% you have to wonder what the average public sector taxpayer (employer) contribution works out as, in terms of the average private sector multiple.

[randlemarcus]

turbobloke said:

mph1977 said:

randlemarcus said:

arp1 said:

Regards to the 'cushy' public sector pension... We pay a damn sight more than most folk whilst the government still erodes it..

Not utterly certain you are right. It's been a while since I saw employee 7% vs employer 22% contributions in the private sector.

however given that many private sector employers are reluctantly offering the minimum required by the current pension regs, the average Public sector employee is paying (at present) 6 - 11 times what the private sector employee is paying ...

With LGPS employer rates out there between 25% and 40% you have to wonder what the average public sector taxpayer (employer) contribution works out as, in terms of the average private sector multiple.

And getting, at the end of it, a decent pension. That's why you are there. Used to be mediocre wages, great pension, and the pain of working for a monolithic employer. Now you get equivalent wages, great pension and the pain of working for a monolithic employer, but you have to pay a little more to make sure your great pension isn't unaffordable for the people who fund your employer. The old sums simply didn't add up, not that the new ones do, but it's better for the taxpayer than it used to be. I am not suggesting that all public sector employees get refunded their contributions and told to go find a private sector pension, because it was wasted by Government instead of being invested, but surely you can see that the returns you are getting are way beyond affordable?

[turbobloke]

randlemarcus said:

turbobloke said:

mph1977 said:

randlemarcus said:

arp1 said:

Regards to the 'cushy' public sector pension... We pay a damn sight more than most folk whilst the government still erodes it..

Not utterly certain you are right. It's been a while since I saw employee 7% vs employer 22% contributions in the private sector.

however given that many private sector employers are reluctantly offering the minimum required by the current pension regs, the average Public sector employee is paying (at present) 6 - 11 times what the private sector employee is paying ...

With LGPS employer rates out there between 25% and 40% you have to wonder what the average public sector taxpayer (employer) contribution works out as, in terms of the average private sector multiple.

And getting, at the end of it, a decent pension. That's why you are there. Used to be mediocre wages, great pension, and the pain of working for a monolithic employer. Now you get equivalent wages, great pension and the pain of working for a monolithic employer, but you have to pay a little more to make sure your great pension isn't unaffordable for the people who fund your employer. The old sums simply didn't add up, not that the new ones do, but it's better for the taxpayer than it used to be. I am not suggesting that all public sector employees get refunded their contributions and told to go find a private sector pension, because it was wasted by Government instead of being invested, but surely you can see that the returns you are getting are way beyond affordable?

Where you say 'but surely you can see' and 'the returns you are getting are way beyond affordable' I think I'm right when interpreting those comments as general remarks to public sector employees in receipt of (say) 24% to 40% employer (taxpayer) contributions? That's not me! I'm more than happy with my pension arrangements and wouldn't have considered a move purely to get LGPS.