[Closed] Public sector single status pay review..

so five years to find a different job then?

so five years to find a different job then?

True, but she loves the job and has been doing it for almost twenty years. Seven years working voluntary then three years college to achieve a job with pay not much better than minimum wage seems such a waste now.

One hell of a kick in the teeth.

Assuming inflation based pay increases

Good luck with that.

Good luck with that.

Never said that was achieveable.. just an example of how much worse off she will be in five years.

single status has been ongoing at my work the entire time i've been here so 4 years!

This is scary, can someone please explain what this single status means in this context.

Well you all would vote for the 'Tory scumbag lets look after or buddies in the city' wouldnt you.

If they do nothing else they will be delighted if they decimate the public sector, i really want my 2 girls to get an educatinon then get out fo this rotting hole of a country, i hate to thnik what its going to be like in another 20 years when there are no pensions for the elderly so they have to work but there are no jobs.

All because the rich who are by and large just fortunate because of where they were born feel they have some sort of right to hold on to the wealth.

Theres a Revolution Calling if people are pushed too far we are only just at the start.

Theres a Revolution Calling if people are pushed too far we are only just at the start.

I've thought this for a while, we don't need riots like last summer we need an Arab spring. I will never vote the big 3 parties again, all a shower of shite!

[i]All because the rich who are by and large just fortunate because of where they were born feel they have some sort of right to hold on to the wealth.[/i]

Instead of threatening to remove and redistribute the wealth.

Why not just get wealthy ?.

Its all a game.

You can play.

Go out and make your millions, or just carry on whinging.

Elzorillo, sorry to hear that. These reviews seem to have a history of this.

Steve you are aware who introduced this legislation btw aren't you?

[i]I will never vote the big 3 parties again, all a shower of shite[/i]

I tend to view it as that we have what we deserve.

Its our own fault.

decimate the public sector

10% cut sounds fair to me.

[/pedant]

Does a 25% pay cut for a teaching assistant sound fair to you Stoner? While the rich get richer at an ever increasing rate? I guess it probably does.

It's not the Coalition to blame for this. It's Labour creating totally unsustainable public sector jobs and spending rather more money than they had coming back in for a decade.

People have very short memories and should really look at the cause rather than kicking the people trying to somehow sort the mess out. Admittedly the Coalition have made a pigs ear of trying to sort it but it was an almost impossible task as Blair and Brown had pretty much bankrupted the country

We've been brainwashed into believing that the country is bankrupt - of course if the super rich weren't so incredibly greedy we could easily afford the public spending brought in by Labour.

Of course we're going to be skint when a tiny number of people at the top are taking an ever increasing share for themselves.

The Sunday Times Rich List, published today and compulsory reading for anybody who wants to understand Britain’s power structure today, holds three extremely significant conclusions.   One is that the 1,000 richest persons in the UK have increased their wealth by so much in the last 3 years – £155bn – that they themselves alone could pay off the entire UK budget deficit and still leave themselves with £30bn to spare

Of course we could also crack down on tax evasion, which costs 30 billion a year in lost revenue, but regulation is bad, right? And oh look, it's the government's best buddies in financial services that carry out the most fraud.

In the private sector, the report shows the financial services industry recorded the highest loss to fraudsters, estimated to be £3.8 billion, with £1 billion in mortgage fraud and over £2 billion lost in insurance fraud.

http://citywire.co.uk/money/tax-evasion-costs-treasury-15-times-more-than-benefit-fraud/a378274

Or we could introduce a financial transaction tax. No, our biggest donors wouldn't like that.

Grum.

Theres nothing stopping you going out, making millions and giving it all to the treasury.

So stop your belly-aching and get on with it.

Solo, you are Realman and I claim my £5.

Grim, you make some valid points but are you sure about your second box? Who is being defrauded in that example? In the case of mortgage and insurance fraud, who exactly are the victims?

There's nothing stopping the (super) rich from stopping using complex wealth management to minimise their tax and paying through PAYE. 🙂

It's Grum not Grim. Yeah sorry I thought it was all talking about public losses. 15 billion not 30 billion then. Here's the whole quote.

At £30 billion per year, fraud in the UK is more than twice as high as thought, with tax evasion costing the public purse over £15 billion per year and benefit fraud just over £1 billion.

Based predominantly on 2008 data, the National Fraud Authority’s first ever Annual Fraud Indicator found fraud against the public sector accounts for 58% of the total fraud in the UK per year.

Tax evasion is around 3% of total tax liabilities, while benefit fraud accounts for 0.8% of total benefit expenditure.

In the private sector, the report shows the financial services industry recorded the highest loss to fraudsters, estimated to be £3.8 billion, with £1 billion in mortgage fraud and over £2 billion lost in insurance fraud.

Just shows what a marvellous industry we chose to base our economy on though (the one that supplies the largest donors to the Tory party).

This is scary, can someone please explain what this single status means in this context.

Single status is a public sector pay review set to harmonise pay structures for all public sector employees.

I believe it all started when some dinner ladies (primarily women) decided to sue their local autority employer as they felt descriminated against due to rubbish collectors (primarily men) getting paid more.

Unfortunately most authorities have simply used the review to slash wages.

Grum (sorry I think Grim was an autospell!! Not intended), yes, in both case the public sector and the mortgage lenders and insurance companies appear to be the victims not the perpetrators of the fraud.

Fair dos. So all thee losses/fraud are from masses of people fiddling insurance claims and mortgage applications, with no collusion from anyone working in the industry, and no high level fraud by financial traders etc?

Stuff like this is just a very rare aberration?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-crime/9279644/UBS-traders-fined-1.3m-for-unauthorised-trading.html

for grum's benefit:

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_(Roman_army) ]Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".[/url]

*puts down pedantry pen*

here please: http://singletrackmag.com/forum/forum/off-topic

Grum, I think you may be stretching it a bit there. There is a perfectly valid point to be made (as you have) without the need to embellish it!!

If the bankers are colluding with people to commit mortgage fraud and fiddling insurance then we really are in a mess!! I doubt traders would be spending time here (!) they have other ways to destroy shareholders' money!!

{x post - I missed you edit. Indeed look at UBS]

*puts down pedantry pen*

Ah, got you. So, do you have an opinion or is your role just purely that of the pedantry police? 🙂

Grum, I think you may be stretching it a bit there. There is a perfectly valid point to be made (as you have) without the need to embellish it!!

If the bankers are colluding with people to commit mortgage fraud and fiddling insurance then we really are in a mess!! I doubt traders would be spending time here (!) they have other ways to destroy shareholders' money!!

I wasn't suggesting bankers do it, but financial services is a fairly wide industry no not just bankers? Just saying its not all one way fraud committed by Joe Public against the innocent financial services industry, far from it. Fairly sure there have been cases of people working in insurance companies helping others to commit fraud etc. But yeah it's not that relevant to the original point (whatever the hell that was 🙂 )

of course if the super rich weren't so incredibly greedy we could easily afford the public spending brought in by Labour.

Let me get this straight. If a bunch of politicians brought in massive public spending plans, which were totally unsustainable, you believe another bunch of people, who had nothing to do with those plans, are at fault?

You'll need to draw pictures to help me with that one.

[url= http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbria-council-urged-to-drop-single-status-review-1.851980?referrerPath=sport ]Explanation?[/url]

[url= http://libcom.org/tags/single-status ]Reactions from workers affected[/url]

So, a comment here suggests TA's aren't generally university educated, that a Basic TA can have 5x GCSE's, a Higher TA: 2x A levels.

Do TA's work to hours? Or do they do unpaid work out of hours like 'professional' teachers? Were they previously getting paid 'too much' compared to other public sector workers of the same grade in other public sector jobs?

I for one didn't change from homeschooling my kids to sending them to school to face disappointed staff looking after my kids all day who feel they aren't getting paid enough, but where does the line get drawn?

I'm not slagging off TA's here, don't want this to turn into abuse of any worker, I'm just looking for clarity, information and balance.

i hate to thnik what its going to be like in another 20 years when there are no pensions for the elderly so they have to work but there are no jobs.

in 20 years time former public sector employee's will still be getting healthy pensions. A quick google of Brian Paddicks tax return will tell you how healthy they can be.

if you work in the private sector the reforms introduced by labour effectively killed your pension scheme if you were lucky enough to have one.

The current government is increasing the basic state pension faster than labour ever have, I would suggest that this is going to do the most for pensioner poverty rather than helping former public sector pensioners decide the number of cruises they can afford.

Let me get this straight. If a bunch of politicians brought in massive public spending plans, which were totally unsustainable

Unsustainable is an entirely relative term.

But no, your right, it's important that we reduce the number of teachers and nurses, reduce TAs pay, cut benefits for the disabled etc - I mean, those hedge fund managers really NEED another yacht and a 6th holiday home. What was I thinking, my priorities are totally skewed.

And oh look, it's the government's best buddies in financial services [b]that carry out the most fraud[/b].

Yep, sorry I misread that bit!! Anyway back to the original topic 😉

@Stoner. From the same source as yours (wikipedia):

[b]Current usage of the word[/b]
The word decimation is often used to refer to an extreme reduction in the number of a population or force, much greater than the one tenth defined by the "deci" root. It is often inaccurately used as a synonym for the word "annihilate" which the OED lists as meaning "to reduce to non-existence, blot out of existence"

In Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen Jay Gould uses "decimate" to indicate the taking of nine in ten, noting that the Oxford English Dictionary supports the "pedigree" of this "rare" meaning. This is inaccurate or misleading. The Oxford English Dictionary cites in the second subset of the fourth verb form entry a "rhetorically or loosely" meaning as "to destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality."

In summary, decimate used to mean 'reduce by a tenth', but is now accepted to mean 'reduce by a lot'.

<Puts down counter-pedantry pen>

Dave

big_n_daft - Member

in 20 years time former public sector employee's will still be getting healthy pensions. A quick google of Brian Paddicks tax return will tell you how healthy they can be.

if you work in the private sector the reforms introduced by labour effectively killed your pension scheme if you were lucky enough to have one.

The current government is increasing the basic state pension faster than labour ever have, I would suggest that this is going to do the most for pensioner poverty rather than helping former public sector pensioners decide the number of cruises they can afford.

There speaks someone who know nothing of what the vast majority in the public sector will actually recieve.

I'm not about to hold Labour up as some paragon of governance. But clearly you have a bit of an issue with them.

The increase in the state pension will amount to zilch, compared to the cost of living in 30 years time.

The problem with our country is the inequality of wealth NOT who works in the public sector or DSS scroungers.

Solo stop being a knob.

Single status is a public sector pay review set to harmonise pay structures for all public sector employees.

Worth adding that it was part of a 1997 national agreement between local authority employers and trade unions...

So, clearly all the *king Tories fault, as usual 😉

[i]But no, your right, it's important that we reduce the number of teachers and nurses, reduce TAs pay, cut benefits for the disabled etc - I mean, those hedge fund managers really NEED another yacht and a 6th holiday home. What was I thinking, my priorities are totally skewed. [/i]

Who are you ?, who is anyone to rock up to a successful person and steal their earnings to fund your idea of [i]fair[/i].

Unsustainable is an entirely relative term.

I loved that, that is a peach.

This idea that there is a huge pool of money being hoarded by the rich is a bit tired. So you tax them at 100% (somehow) and pay for the defecit for a year. Then what?

We've tried communism, it wasn't a huge success.

One for Grum.
😉

[img] [/img]

neninja - Member

It's not the Coalition to blame for this. It's Labour creating totally unsustainable public sector jobs and spending rather more money than they had coming back in for a decade.

Utter nonsense I am afraid. Other nations manage to have a much bigger public sector and much higher tax rates.

[i]Utter nonsense I am afraid. Other nations manage to have a much bigger public sector and much higher tax rates.[/i]

OOo, yeah.

Lets turn ourselves intooooo.......

CUBA !.

Yay !.
TJ has the answer.
🙂

OOo, yeah.

Lets turn ourselves intooooo.......

CUBA !.

Or Norway.

This idea that there is a huge pool of money being hoarded by the rich is a bit tired. So you tax them at 100%

Where did I or anyone else suggest a 100% tax rate. Complete straw man argument.

And there [i]is[/i] a huge pool of money being hoarded by the rich - claiming otherwise is just a basic denial of reality. Even Solo isn't denying that, it's just that he doesn't have a problem with people being selfish and greedy - in fact he applauds it.

BTW the options aren't either the rampant unchecked greedy capitalism/consumerism we have or Cuba - amazingly enough there is a middle ground.

Or Germany, or France, or Sweden, or many other nice places ot live.

This idea that there is a huge pool of money being hoarded by the rich is a bit tired.

Still true tho

the top 1% of rich folk have 21% of the nations wealth IIRC

[i]selfish and greedy - in fact he applauds it[/i]

Your version of selfish, greedy.

BTW, how do we describe those who wish to rob the rich, make them as poor as the rest ?.

I really struggle with your idea of [i]fair[/i].
That being to take what others have, away from them.
On the basis that they're quite good at making money.

And, France. 10 percent unemployment.
Nice place to live ?.
Do we need 10 percent unemployment ?.

The day I feel I'm being punished too hard for making money.
Is the day I leave.
Then how much do the treasury get from me ?.

[COUGH] laffer curve [/COUGH]

Tax today.
Then, when that is all spent......

TAX SOME MORE !.

😆

currently i know nothing of the single status pay review, it appears to have began life in 1997 and not been implemented properly...... it seems it was designed to make pay grades and structures "equal pay proofed"

so at first glance it should appeal to the reds and the torys alike, sorry to hear the OPs missus is lined up for a long pay freeze, join the queue for sympathy.

i do know that im sick of reading the tripe spouted by the regular politial numpties on here.

so it's all the tories fault? if labour where in how would they sort this problem? the country is in a mess and it needs sorting. the public sector is far to big and needs a culling, I feel sorry for the original posters wife because a pay cut of 25% is a real kick in the teeth but we can't blame anyone party. we need to get over the fact that rich people are rich, it doesn't bother me, I provide what I can for my family and bring my kids up the best I can with what I have. I suppose we can all vote against austerity like the french and see what happens then.

philfive - Member

the public sector is far to big and needs a culling,

Which bits don't we need? healthcare? Education? Defence? Welfare?

I cant be arsed following all the political ding dong thereads but is Solo a troll?

TJ you have taken what i said literally. we need to cut down the amount we spend and the headcount, unions jump on the bandwagon and say that cuts will effect services, well making something more efficent means our money works better for us. How much do we waste in the NHS, Education, Defence and Welfare? think of better ways of reducing this waste and we are on to a winner.

The public sector wastes so much money that its criminal, this is what needs sorting.

the top 1% of rich folk have 21% of the nations wealth IIRC

The top 1% of rich folk pay almost 30 per cent of all income taxes.

so, on that basis, they pay more than their fair share, don't they?

philfive - Member

TJ you have taken what i said literally. we need to cut down the amount we spend and the headcount, unions jump on the bandwagon and say that cuts will effect services, well making something more efficent means our money works better for us. How much do we waste in the NHS, Education, Defence and Welfare? think of better ways of reducing this waste and we are on to a winner.

The public sector wastes so much money that its criminal, this is what needs sorting.

Really. find some waste then.

I am dead serious - the NHS for example is very efficient. all public sector has been under huge pressure for efficiency for years. there is no way to make significant reductions in spending without making either significant reductions in saleries or in services

[i]I cant be arsed following all the political ding dong thereads but is Solo a troll[/i]

No. I am a meet popcikle.

😆

so it's all the tories fault? if labour where in how would they sort this problem?

Nah 'Labour' are awful too, just slightly less awful than the Tories.

we need to get over the fact that rich people are rich, it doesn't bother me, I provide what I can for my family and bring my kids up the best I can with what I have.

I'm not arsed about people being rich apart from that having a divided society isn't a good thing for anyone. I don't want more money for me, I'd just like society to be a better, more equal place. Plenty of evidence to show that societies with more equal wealth distribution are healthier, happier, safer etc etc

Plenty of evidence to show that societies with more equal wealth distribution are healthier, happier, safer etc etc

Where are these places? I need edumacation.

Really. find some waste then.

£12bn on a computer system that doesn't work?

The top 1% of rich folk pay almost 30 per cent of all income taxes.

so, on that basis, they pay more than their fair share, don't they?

HTH

philfive - Member
The public sector wastes so much money that its criminal, this is what needs sorting.

Read that in the Daily Mail this morning?

The waste starts at the top of any organisation puplic sector or private.

I really do hope that people who think they are taxed too much leave the counrty, it will be a much better place without you all, spreading your disease of greed and selfishness. Go to America and enjoy yourself.

Its not the country i want to live in.

Equality in living standards and opportunities is what we need, not people screwing others over to get a bigger Roller or yacht.

All you private employees are allowed to be part of the revolution too you know, you complain about my pension while you let your complany bosses rob you blind of yours. Its not me who is stealing your money its them on their fac cat salaries.
Seriously when did you need £500k + a year to have a very good life.

Its gone too far.

its a funny old world

pay the person who looks after your kids minimum wage (or there abouts)

pay the person who [s]gambles recklessly[/s] looks after your money millions of pounds

Really. find some waste then.

I am dead serious - the NHS for example is very efficient. all public sector has been under huge pressure for efficiency for years. there is no way to make significant reductions in spending without making either significant reductions in saleries or in services

rubbish, my mates sister is a ward sister, my exwife a community nurse, my girfriends sister and best friend are district nurses and a nurse practitioner and the stories they tell are amazing, best one so far is the local PCT are no longer accepting crutches back from patients for MRSA reasons, they just buy new? plus who says we shouldn't reduce headcount on non essential positions? red tape has created thousands of jobs across all of the public sector, how about we reduce this?

Maybe they need to use WPI or lean management principles for some tasks.

Steve i don't read the mail and never will do but what is the fascination with how much executives get paid? smacks of jealousy and resentment.

I go to work, get paid, feed the family. I don't care what next door do or what they guy across the road does. I just get on with life.

what is the fascination with how much executives get paid? smacks of jealousy and resentment.

As above, it's nowt to do with jealousy and resentment, but about wanting to live in a decent, fair society where we have properly funded schools, hospitals, care homes, disabled care etc etc.

An ever increasing share of a diminishing pot going to a tiny amount of people who don't need it doesn't seem like the best way of achieving this.

[i]what is the fascination with how much executives get paid? smacks of jealousy and resentment.[/i]

Agreed.

But some folk want to rob them.
Make them poor like the rest of us......
Then when all that money has been spent, errr, ummmm...
😯

We'll, errrr.....
Rob someone else to fund our addiction to [i]services[/i] and big Gov.

[i]I go to work, get paid, feed the family. I don't care what next door do or what they guy across the road does. I just get on with life. [/i]

Plus 1

about wanting to live in a decent, fair society

Define fair!

Is it fair that people with fairly moderate jobs, should have money taken off them, by force of law, and given to people who have no intention whatsoever of working for a living?

is it fair that someone earning 20k with no pension, should have money taken off them to pay for the pension of an ex police officer, aged 54, who is recieving 64k per year in pension payments?

But some folk want to rob them.
Make them poor like the rest of us......

Where did anyone say anything about making them poor? Yet another straw man. I'm talking about making them slightly less rich to make society a better place. How terrible of me.

Define fair!

One with much less of a gap between rich and poor. The degree to which this should happen can debated, but any progress would be a start (rather than those at the top end racing away exponentially as we have now).

thats not fair - it may be 'more equal' but its got nothing to do with fairness.

i don't want to make rich people poor and i do agree with the comments about a fair slice of the pot but the private sector can do what they want with private money. I want a fair deal for my tax and there is a lot of waste, unions and people with a vested interest will say otherwise but it's true.

[i]I'm talking about making them slightly less rich to make society a better place[/i]

One does not automatically provide the other.

This was Labour's mistake.
Thinking that all problems had a fiscal price tag.
Throw enough tax payers money at it and you win.
Nope !.

smacks of jealousy and resentment.

it may be 'more equal' but its got nothing to do with fairness

Ok think i have go this, so more equal is not more fair

fair
[fair] ? Origin
fair
1 ? ?[fair] Show IPA adjective, fair·er, fair·est, adverb, fair·er, fair·est, noun, verb
adjective
1.
free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.

So Solo - people dying because they cannot afford healthcare? people relying on charity to eat?

thats what your attitude would bring us - just like todays USA

[i]So Solo - people dying because they cannot afford healthcare? people relying on charity to eat?

thats what your attitude would bring us - just like todays USA
[/i]

TJ.
Is there any chance that being born British, with our intrinsically unique stance on NHS.
Might skew our view on that ^^^ highly accurate and unbiased (Junkyard) precis of the US ?.

So, you're offering me, France or USA.
You tinker you.
😉

Its a fact that people die in the US because they cannot afford healthcare. Its a fact that many folk rely on charity to eat.

TJ.

I've seen that you've had your ass royally handed to you on a plate on the other thread.
Quite amusing.

[i]Its a fact that people die in the US because they cannot afford healthcare. Its a fact that many folk rely on charity to eat. [/i]

Is it a fact that ever increasing taxes will cure the worlds ills.
Is it a fact that robbing the rich to make them [i]less[/i] rich will cure the worlds ills ?.

The fact that people in the US can not afford to eat or get medical care is not a taxation issue.
But nice try.
😉

Its a fact that many folk rely on charity to eat.

You mean like food banks in the UK?

Did you see that episode of the one show where Edwina went round to the house that 'couldnt afford to eat'?

Flat screen TV the size of a wall painting, and a dog nearly as big.

Edwina says 'how much does he cost to feed' 😉

[i]Did you see that episode of the one show where Edwina went round to the house that 'couldnt afford to eat'?

Flat screen TV the size of a wall painting, and a dog nearly as big.

Edwina says 'how much does he cost to feed'
[/i]

😯

And people wonder why I might have something to say about Gov spending.

highly accurate and unbiased (Junkyard) precis of the US ?.

Zulu I am disapointed you dod not answer me that is so [s]unfair unequal unfair unequal unfair unequal[/s] predictable 😛

[i]Dont drag me into your trolling[/i]

Junk.
You seem to proceed upon a mistaken belief that calling me a Troll bothers me.
😆

Core, its like you're a Troll or something.
😉

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians,passed on from generation to generation, says that,”When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.”
However, in our more advanced societies our governments developed alternative strategies that are often employed, such as:
1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Appointing a committee to study the horse.
4. Arranging to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride dead horses.
5. Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
6. Reclassifying the dead horse as living-impaired.
7. Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
8. Harnessing several dead horses together to increase speed.
9. Providing additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse’s performance.
10. Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse’s performance.
11. Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly,carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.
12. Rewriting the expected performance requirements for all horses.
And of course…
13. Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.

this thread of discussing national economics on stw reminded me of a dead horse.

They don't mind a bit of dead horse in France...

Doh !.

@zulu-eleven

[i]Its a fact that many folk rely on charity to eat.[/i]

You mean like food banks in the UK?

Did you see that episode of the one show where Edwina went round to the house that 'couldnt afford to eat'?

Flat screen TV the size of a wall painting, and a dog nearly as big.

Edwina says 'how much does he cost to feed'

Money coming in < money going out = food bank situation.

If the family sells their TV, gives the dog to the RSPCA, then lives another month on the food money before they return to the food bank would you be happier? What next? Sell the kids toys? Their clothes? Secondhand electrical goods and "luxuries" as you might call them can only be transformed into so much food. Knee jerk Daily Mail reactions are such as the extremes that we are presented with in media and in those who take it as the norm.