Pay Rises

[New POD]

When times are hard, look at what the current organisation can add to your CV. Do they have really good training ? Could you take on extra responsibility for no money, but which would take you to another job ?

[GT03ROB]

NewNameNeeded said:

I can't say I know of anyone who has suffered 0% pay increases in private sector jobs (you'd effectively be earning less money each year as inflation erodes your stationary salary)..

You really must get out more! It's the norm from my experience.

[johnfm]

0a said:

johnfm said:

I think you've worked at some pretty stty places.

Unless management or the business is so poor that there is no growth in revenues year on year.

Yes there was growth, and lots of it. I negotiated double figure pay rises on pain of leaving given my performance.

Those that had not performed, did not contribute to growth, and were not promoted received no pay rise by default.

I'm questioning why there should be an automatic pay rise even for the most moronic.

Good management, by definition, would weed out and dismiss the moronic. As a result, all workers would earn a share of the companies growth. The better ones would benefit by more generous rewards. That is how you manage and motivate a good workforce - without which your company performance suffers.

[DS3R]

0a said:

So long as it is performance based, I have no problem with £100k bonuses for good staff in the PS. The problem is that these 'bonuses' are in fact normal pay for many - ie just a pay rise.

The term "bonus" is misleading; for most of the public sector (ie true civil servants) pay rises were split, a small annual increment designed to increase with inflation. the remainder was called a "performance bonus", set at different levels dependant on how well one did, so there was the opportunity to have a bigger pay rise due to top performance.

However, the performance element was non-consolidated, so the winner from this was the tax payer, as the basic pay element no longer rises as fast as it did, as the "bonus" portion does not form part of pensionable pay.

so, even with the same overall payrise as before, the amount of pension a civil servant is accruing is smaller than it was, so the tax payer wins.

[0a]

Russ T Bolt said:

They are one off payments, generally of a few hundred pounds . Did you not read my post above ?

Yes we're agreeing - I wouldn't mind a one off payment of £100k if matched by performance, even to a chap On £20k.

The issue is not paying people that do well (in theory I'm happy with £100k), but that it's treated as part of the pay package/pay rise for almost all (it is, I don't know any CS who didn't get some bonus, or whatever you want to call it).

[0a]

DS3R said:

The term "bonus" is misleading; for most of the public sector (ie true civil servants) pay rises were split, a small annual increment designed to increase with inflation. the remainder was called a "performance bonus", set at different levels dependant on how well one did, so there was the opportunity to have a bigger pay rise due to top performance.

However, the performance element was non-consolidated, so the winner from this was the tax payer, as the basic pay element no longer rises as fast as it did, as the "bonus" portion does not form part of pensionable pay.

so, even with the same overall payrise as before, the amount of pension a civil servant is accruing is smaller than it was, so the tax payer wins.

I read this several times, and yet I'm not able to see why a payment based on (even imaginary) performance ratings should not be called a "bonus" when ALL CS staff I know call it their "bonus".

Quite strange.

[0a]

In fact I'm going to miss the ""s and call it a bonus.

[0a]

johnfm said:

Good management, by definition, would weed out and dismiss the moronic. As a result, all workers would earn a share of the companies growth. The better ones would bYenefit by more generous rewards. That is how you manage and motivate a good workforce - without which your company performance suffers.

Have you ever worked in management and tried to get rid of someone because their performance is 5% below that of their colleagues (as opposed to someone who is utterly incompetent - easy to sack)? From your post you have not been in, managed or run a sucuessful company.

0% pay rise plus inflation is the only way to give a deserved real pay cut.

[Russ T Bolt]

0a said:

Yes we're agreeing - I wouldn't mind a one off payment of £100k if matched by performance, even to a chap On £20k.

The issue is not paying people that do well (in theory I'm happy with £100k), but that it's treated as part of the pay package/pay rise for almost all (it is, I don't know any CS who didn't get some bonus, or whatever you want to call it).

I know many.

Which department(s) are you talking about ?

In every department I have had dealings with over the last 6 years, only the very highest performers have received a small bonus. The remainder get paid their salary.

The poorest performers are put on improvement plans, if their performance doesn't improve they are dismissed. The Civil Service have lost thousands of staff over the last few years, mostly redundancy but some based on performance or sick record.