Final salary pension schemes should end
Discussion
johnxjsc1985 said:
If its a fairly easy calculation why have we waited until now to address the situation.Its been common knowledge that life expectancy has been rising for many many years.
The calculation is easy, finding the cash to pay for it (from employees or employers) is the difficult bit........
Sidicks
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 30th December 20:38
Du1point8 said:
On another thread some public sector worker was upset at the removal of the Market supplement, essentially what it was, was you the ps worker would do the same job as a private sector worker but your job was advertised at 30k and the private sector would be 40k... But have no fear as the ps would give the ps worker a Market supplement and essentially it was 10k to make the wages match, but on paper the public sector was only getting a wage of 30k so was lower than the equivalent private sector wage, even though the final figure was not... Anyone in public sector explain more about this?
I started that threadI explained very clearly that the market supplement is advertised along with the job at the beginning but it is an element of the pay that can go down. Therefore is job X in the private sector pays 40k then in the public sector it will either be paid 30k or 30k with a 10k market supplement. The point of the MS is to make public sector pay a bit closer to private sector to attract people.
There is no hint of the public body trying to make out a wage is lower than it actually is when advertised.
sidicks said:
Mojooo said:
There is no hint of the public body trying to make out a wage is lower than it actually is when advertised.
Why not just advertise the job as £40k if that is what is being paid?It seems like someone is trying to hide something....!
Sidicks
Pension contributions are paid as a % of monthly salary where I work so the contributions will change if their salary changes.
edit - the full starting salary is usually advertised by the way - example
http://jobs.derbyshire.gov.uk/chesterfield/jobdeta...
Salary Details: Level 1 Coach £8.8950 per hour Level 2 Coach £8.8950+market supplement £2.9472 (Total: £11.8422 per hour)
Job Term: No Guaranteed Hours
Appointment Type: Casual
Hours: No Guaranteed Hours
Location: Queen’s Park Sports Centre
Department: Chesterfield Borough Council
Division: Environmental Services - Leisure
Edited by Mojooo on Thursday 30th December 20:37
Du1point8 said:
On another thread some public sector worker was upset at the removal of the Market supplement, essentially what it was, was you the ps worker would do the same job as a private sector worker but your job was advertised at 30k and the private sector would be 40k... But have no fear as the ps would give the ps worker a Market supplement and essentially it was 10k to make the wages match, but on paper the public sector was only getting a wage of 30k so was lower than the equivalent private sector wage, even though the final figure was not... Anyone in public sector explain more about this?
This happens where there is a job evaluation scheme which determines the salary of a role.In the NHS the vast majority of staff are on Agenda for Change (AfC) contracts, all jobs have a score allocated based on 16 domains of responsibility / job characteristics... some jobs when evaluated and banded under this came up 'under paid' compared to industry averages - one example nationally was certain estates staff groups - they get a 'long term recruitment and retention payment' because of that - this is the 'market supplement' as the Job evaluation can't be fudged to pay them a higher banding.
Edited by mph1977 on Friday 31st December 00:07
sidicks said:
So in the current economic environment it should be really easy to reduce spending by removing or reducing all of these 'market factors' without any complaints....
Or in practice are they impossible to remove???
Sidicks
I only know 1 person who has it and he works in IT, last time I spoke to him he said it has gradully been reduced and would soon be goneOr in practice are they impossible to remove???
Sidicks
(did you want me to say that the workers had gotten used to it and would strike if it was reduced?)
sidicks said:
So in the current economic environment it should be really easy to reduce spending by removing or reducing all of these 'market factors' without any complaints....
Or in practice are they impossible to remove???
Sidicks
i'm with you there. I had no idea of this market conditions pay suppliment. But c20% can easily be removed - but what is the measure to reduce it? Market conditions high staff redundancies in private sector and pay freezes happened years ago and still are occuring yet my wife is a teacher and she received huge pay roses year on year and from what we have been told 2011 will not be reduced either... Or in practice are they impossible to remove???
Sidicks
Welshbeef said:
Market conditions high staff redundancies in private sector and pay freezes happened years ago and still are occuring yet my wife is a teacher and she received huge pay roses year on year and from what we have been told 2011 will not be reduced either...
Does she get paid in flowers?Sidicks
Welshbeef said:
sidicks said:
So in the current economic environment it should be really easy to reduce spending by removing or reducing all of these 'market factors' without any complaints....
Or in practice are they impossible to remove???
Sidicks
i'm with you there. I had no idea of this market conditions pay suppliment. But c20% can easily be removed - but what is the measure to reduce it? Market conditions high staff redundancies in private sector and pay freezes happened years ago and still are occuring yet my wife is a teacher and she received huge pay roses year on year and from what we have been told 2011 will not be reduced either... Or in practice are they impossible to remove???
Sidicks
as for teachers - what was the status of the last pay award , for instance the NHS was in a 3 year agreement until the 10/11 pay year
this appears to the be the figures ofor the last few years http://www.teachers.org.uk/files/PayScales08-11-EW...
it appears that teacher's pay follows the school rather than financial year ..
Mojooo said:
Du1point8 said:
On another thread some public sector worker was upset at the removal of the Market supplement, essentially what it was, was you the ps worker would do the same job as a private sector worker but your job was advertised at 30k and the private sector would be 40k... But have no fear as the ps would give the ps worker a Market supplement and essentially it was 10k to make the wages match, but on paper the public sector was only getting a wage of 30k so was lower than the equivalent private sector wage, even though the final figure was not... Anyone in public sector explain more about this?
I started that threadI explained very clearly that the market supplement is advertised along with the job at the beginning but it is an element of the pay that can go down. Therefore is job X in the private sector pays 40k then in the public sector it will either be paid 30k or 30k with a 10k market supplement. The point of the MS is to make public sector pay a bit closer to private sector to attract people.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/78353...
"Public sector workers enjoy better pay, better pensions, shorter hours and more sick leave than their private sector counterparts"
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/Public-S...
"Public sector workers are paid 30% more than those in the private sector but in a lifetime will spend nine fewer years at work"
I think the public sector should pay a 'fair and reasonable' sum to its workers.
Sometimes that will be at the comparable market rate for most people.
For the many jobs that dont exist in the private sector then at a rate that reflects how difficult/much responsibility the person has
At other times it will be significantly less than the market rate (especially for the highest people)
I don't necessarily think the public sector has to pay its workers LESS than the private sector if the jobs are comparable and the private sector is suddenly massivley reducing salaries. It should continue to pay those people what they are 'worth'.
And interestingly that is why the market supplement is a GOOD thing in a way as it allowed them to reduce the MS is the private sector has gone down the drain, the wages for the public sector equivalents can be reduced in line.
The public sector (I guess, I am not an expert) will usually pay its staff similar amounts to the private sector in most cases - the market supplement is when there is a big gap between the salary the job evaulation has spat out and the actual going rate to attract someone decent.
Market supplements wouldnt exist is public sector organisations could choose whatever they wanted to pay their staff as they could just match private sector pay without much of a reason - but they cannot do that. As someone else says, its just a way around putting someone on a higher grade.
Sometimes that will be at the comparable market rate for most people.
For the many jobs that dont exist in the private sector then at a rate that reflects how difficult/much responsibility the person has
At other times it will be significantly less than the market rate (especially for the highest people)
I don't necessarily think the public sector has to pay its workers LESS than the private sector if the jobs are comparable and the private sector is suddenly massivley reducing salaries. It should continue to pay those people what they are 'worth'.
And interestingly that is why the market supplement is a GOOD thing in a way as it allowed them to reduce the MS is the private sector has gone down the drain, the wages for the public sector equivalents can be reduced in line.
The public sector (I guess, I am not an expert) will usually pay its staff similar amounts to the private sector in most cases - the market supplement is when there is a big gap between the salary the job evaulation has spat out and the actual going rate to attract someone decent.
Market supplements wouldnt exist is public sector organisations could choose whatever they wanted to pay their staff as they could just match private sector pay without much of a reason - but they cannot do that. As someone else says, its just a way around putting someone on a higher grade.
turbobloke said:
Yet public sector pay and conditions are above private sector with the gap widening recently in terms of published comparisons, so this must surely be for only a handful of very hard-to-recruit roles.
it's for jobs which when evaluated using the fair evaluation systems do not score as highly to be paid as their private sector salaries pay ...mph1977 said:
Du1point8 said:
On another thread some public sector worker was upset at the removal of the Market supplement, essentially what it was, was you the ps worker would do the same job as a private sector worker but your job was advertised at 30k and the private sector would be 40k... But have no fear as the ps would give the ps worker a Market supplement and essentially it was 10k to make the wages match, but on paper the public sector was only getting a wage of 30k so was lower than the equivalent private sector wage, even though the final figure was not... Anyone in public sector explain more about this?
This happens where there is a job evaluation scheme which determines the salary of a role.In the NHS the vast majority of staff are on Agenda for Change (AfC) contracts, all jobs have a score allocated based on 16 domains of responsibility / job characteristics... some jobs when evaluated and banded under this came up 'under paid' compared to industry averages - one example nationally was certain estates staff groups - they get a 'long term recruitment and retention payment' because of that - this is the 'market supplement' as the Job evaluation can't be fudged to pay them a higher banding.
Edited by mph1977 on Friday 31st December 00:07
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff