Final salary pension schemes should end

[Mojooo]

rypt said:

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

Why the hell does all of that sound so complicated when in reality all they need to do is run the damn thing exactly the same way that the private sector runs things. Hire someone to do a job, pay them a salary ...

Accountability

1) If they have specific criteria and pay grades it shows that they use some sort of method to arrive at pay for a particular job.

2) It means managers cannot just set pay levels at whatever figure they want.

Its what the taxpayers would prefer...

[rypt]

Mojooo said:

rypt said:

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

Why the hell does all of that sound so complicated when in reality all they need to do is run the damn thing exactly the same way that the private sector runs things. Hire someone to do a job, pay them a salary ...

Accountability

1) If they have specific criteria and pay grades it shows that they use some sort of method to arrive at pay for a particular job.

2) It means managers cannot just set pay levels at whatever figure they want.

Its what the taxpayers would prefer...

The private sector has accountability too, to the shareholders.
You do not find managers setting pay at whatever they want here ...

[Mojooo]

Indeed, but I was just answring your question!

Would you prefer more freedom for managers to set wages?

[rypt]

Mojooo said:

Indeed, but I was just answring your question!

Would you prefer more freedom for managers to set wages?

I would prefer the government thinks long and hard about what services they need to provide, what services they simply need to enable access to.

I would also prefer that they fire most of the current public sector managers and then hire new ones who can actually do their job and who are trusted to set pay scales etc correctly.

And lastly I would prefer a change in our employment laws so that a union cannot strike over pay.

Edited by rypt on Friday 31st December 21:16

[Mojooo]

rypt said:

Mojooo said:

Indeed, but I was just answring your question!

Would you prefer more freedom for managers to set wages?

I would prefer the government thinks long and hard about what services they need to provide, what services they simply need to enable access to.

I would also prefer that they fire most of the current public sector managers and then hire new ones who can actually do their job and who are trusted to set pay scales etc correctly.

And lastly I would prefer a change in our employment laws so that a union cannot strike over pay.

Edited by rypt on Friday 31st December 21:16

oh

[turbobloke]

It's been reported that the Coalition are thinking of amending the law to make it a requirement that a majority of a Union's membership vote to strike, not just a majority of those voting - let's hope that such thoughts manage to get translated into action and quickly.

[mph1977]

turbobloke said:

It's been reported that the Coalition are thinking of amending the law to make it a requirement that a majority of a Union's membership vote to strike, not just a majority of those voting - let's hope that such thoughts manage to get translated into action and quickly.

That's a specific anti Unison and anti Unite clause ... well that's what they and their Liarbore puppets will claim given the spread of membership across secotrs and employers which will effectively prevent them from striking while industry specific or role / profession specific unions and professional associations will continue to have the option.

[mph1977]

Mojooo said:

Accountability

1) If they have specific criteria and pay grades it shows that they use some sort of method to arrive at pay for a particular job.

2) It means managers cannot just set pay levels at whatever figure they want.

Its what the taxpayers would prefer...

3) prevent equal pay claims becasue work that is comparable across the 16 domains used in the Job evaluation scheme is being paid differently ... a number of NHS trusts and local Authorities have faced such claims ususally between (predominantly female) catering / cleaning / care staff who are required to have level 2 or 3 qualifications and 'estates' or trades people who have a level2 or 3 qualification by vertue of their apprenticeship ...

Someone mentioned that private secotr has accountability to shareholders, this is not necessarily the same and also often it would be far too subjective for many roles ( especially in the NHS) compared to piecework / accuracy / income figures that drive many private sector roles ... ( or do you consider it fair to punish a team of Nurses becasue they work in a clinical area that takes on complex tertiary cases and consequently has more morbidity and mortality than their colleagues doing conveyor belt day cases ...)

[Mojooo]

turbobloke said:

It's been reported that the Coalition are thinking of amending the law to make it a requirement that a majority of a Union's membership vote to strike, not just a majority of those voting - let's hope that such thoughts manage to get translated into action and quickly.

I have never quite understood people who pay a sum to be a member of the Union and then dont use their vote - its not hard as its usually nothing more than filling in some paper and posting.

Clearly there are 2 sides to the Union, the side that helps in individual disputes and the side that bargains for deals for all members. I guess those people above only care about help in individual issues.

[turbobloke]

Mojooo said:

turbobloke said:

It's been reported that the Coalition are thinking of amending the law to make it a requirement that a majority of a Union's membership vote to strike, not just a majority of those voting - let's hope that such thoughts manage to get translated into action and quickly.

I have never quite understood people who pay a sum to be a member of the Union and then dont use their vote - its not hard as its usually nothing more than filling in some paper and posting.

Clearly there are 2 sides to the Union, the side that helps in individual disputes and the side that bargains for deals for all members. I guess those people above only care about help in individual issues.

Yes, possibly, mob rule and gang mentality aren't shared by all union members. As to reasons for joining a union there are about 450,000 serving teachers in the UK and afaik one of the main reasons for joining the nasties, nutters or patsies is the insurance that comes with membership, not any particular desire to be out on strike with the comrades.

[Mojooo]

turbobloke said:

Mojooo said:

turbobloke said:

It's been reported that the Coalition are thinking of amending the law to make it a requirement that a majority of a Union's membership vote to strike, not just a majority of those voting - let's hope that such thoughts manage to get translated into action and quickly.

I have never quite understood people who pay a sum to be a member of the Union and then dont use their vote - its not hard as its usually nothing more than filling in some paper and posting.

Clearly there are 2 sides to the Union, the side that helps in individual disputes and the side that bargains for deals for all members. I guess those people above only care about help in individual issues.

Yes, possibly, mob rule and gang mentality aren't shared by all union members. As to reasons for joining a union there are about 450,000 serving teachers in the UK and afaik one of the main reasons for joining the nasties, nutters or patsies is the insurance that comes with membership, not any particular desire to be out on strike with the comrades.

Correct me if I am wrong though, they have the option to vote in the negative, so if they disagree with a Union action they can vote against it.

[crankedup]

As with many issues, unfortunately many people on this site seem misguided regarding Unions and its membership. Unions are so much more than the usual nonsense repeated here, probably read from the various Union bashing media.
Union membership can offer discounts on products, holidays, offer rehab' following illness or accident, social club activities, charity donations. And of course consultation on behalf of membership and employer.

[turbobloke]

Mojooo said:

turbobloke said:

Mojooo said:

turbobloke said:

It's been reported that the Coalition are thinking of amending the law to make it a requirement that a majority of a Union's membership vote to strike, not just a majority of those voting - let's hope that such thoughts manage to get translated into action and quickly.

I have never quite understood people who pay a sum to be a member of the Union and then dont use their vote - its not hard as its usually nothing more than filling in some paper and posting.

Clearly there are 2 sides to the Union, the side that helps in individual disputes and the side that bargains for deals for all members. I guess those people above only care about help in individual issues.

Yes, possibly, mob rule and gang mentality aren't shared by all union members. As to reasons for joining a union there are about 450,000 serving teachers in the UK and afaik one of the main reasons for joining the nasties, nutters or patsies is the insurance that comes with membership, not any particular desire to be out on strike with the comrades.

Correct me if I am wrong though, they have the option to vote in the negative, so if they disagree with a Union action they can vote against it.

Yes, and all members have the option to vote. Taking the majority as based on membership not those who vote is more representative of the wishes of all members. If some unions have seen the notion of vast cross-industry membership as increasing powerbase, they should also have had the foresight to see the obvious counter move to this attempt at mob rule. Can't see any appetite in the country to pander to dinosaurs 'running' public sector unions being allowed to 'run' the country (into the ground) so let's see what happens in 2011.