Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Pay Rise 2014

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending
Back on topic, I'm surprised the food charge is going up at such a high rate at a time when wholesale food prices are stating to fall.

Good to see they rejected a request to increase the pay as you starve fees.

Any misunderstandings above caused by predictive texf
 
Assuming there is a fixed pot of cash available for salaries for NHS staff, which would you prefer:

Incremental rise only.

1% only.

Increments and 1%.

Bearing in mind that there is a fixed pot of cash available and the 3rd option will result in staff reductions.

Over to you....
 
muttywhitedog said:
Assuming there is a fixed pot of cash available for salaries for NHS staff, which would you prefer:

Incremental rise only.

1% only.

Increments and 1%.

Bearing in mind that there is a fixed pot of cash available and the 3rd option will result in staff reductions.

Over to you....
Click to expand...
MWD, surely the NHS pay budget would have been set a while back with the intention of paying staff at the contracted rates of pay including increments and allowing for at least a rise each year equal to inflation. If not then the intention all along was to shaft people?
 
muttywhitedog said:
Assuming there is a fixed pot of cash available for salaries for NHS staff, which would you prefer:

Incremental rise only.

1% only.

Increments and 1%.

Bearing in mind that there is a fixed pot of cash available and the 3rd option will result in staff reductions.

Over to you....
Click to expand...

all three options will still result in staff reductions or serco,remeber public sector bad,private sector good.
 
muttywhitedog said:
Assuming there is a fixed pot of cash available for salaries for NHS staff, which would you prefer:

Incremental rise only.

1% only.

Increments and 1%.

Bearing in mind that there is a fixed pot of cash available and the 3rd option will result in staff reductions.

Over to you....
Click to expand...

Why should something which is part of your contract now be classed as a pay rise. These increments were agreed as part of agenda for change. Now this government want to renege on it. They will have to be prepared for a fight.

Ive had a look at pay rates for the services and see that for each rank there are different levels of pay. Do you get these each year until you reach the top of the pay point. If so would you like these to be
 
Annual pay rises are rarely contractual, annual pay reviews may be. A review may not necessarily result in a rise.

If you have the right to strike then that is your option, it will be something the employer must have taken into account. If it was me I know if be fuming and as a member of a union if be supporting my colleagues, I would reserve striking as a last resort rather than a default position.

Any misunderstandings above caused by predictive texf
 
busby1971 said:
Annual pay rises are rarely contractual, annual pay reviews may be. A review may not necessarily result in a rise.

If you have the right to strike then that is your option, it will be something the employer must have taken into account. If it was me I know if be fuming and as a member of a union if be supporting my colleagues, I would reserve striking as a last resort rather than a default position.

Any misunderstandings above caused by predictive texf
Click to expand...

where have I said anything about annual pay rise. A staff nurse will start of at x thousand a year and over 5 years it will rise to y thousand a year. This was agreed between unions and nhs employers and government.

The government are going on about how much these yearly increments will cost, but in actual fact the majority of staff have reached the end of being paid these increments. I know of only 2 people out of 25 who I work with who are still receiving these increments.
 
Public sector is the easy way to save money. But why do they have to save money? Because the current benefits culture is such a drain?

Of course it's not just the benefit culture, pensions etc, but the benefits is the one that grips me.
 
I agree with JiT129 regarding the NHS' position concerning the 1% salary rise OR increments. How would the members of HMF feel if the same rule were to be applied across the whole public sector (thus including them). Its a kick in the bollix, off the back of the same MPs voting for THEIR salaries,,,,
,,,,,so its time to go contracting and charge the NHS significantly more I guess
 
Dan_Brown said:
Public sector is the easy way to save money. But why do they have to save money? Because the current benefits culture is such a drain?

Of course it's not just the benefit culture, pensions etc, but the benefits is the one that grips me.
Click to expand...

Which benefits are you talking about? In my years as a shop steward and time i spent in negotiations, any benefit we managed to gain from the company was offset by a smaller claim for monetary gain and was considered more worthwhile than the cash by both parties. The union gained by getting benefits that were not available before but that people wanted and the company gained in that providing those benefits cost less than giving say an extra 5% over a two or three year contract, simply because although they are available, the percentage of people who actually use the extra benefits is generally small.

It's a bit like a life insurance company, they gamble that you'll live long enough that they can make a profit from you before you croak and also that there are those who do croak who will not fulfill the parameters of the policy in that they were doing something that was not covered or were somewhere they should not have been at the time of their death.
 
If they had a proper slash and burn of the QUANGOs (£170Bn a year), these discussions would be unnecessary.
 
As usual, one set of rules for the rich and another entirely for the rest of the herd.
 
Downsizer said:
I think he means benefits as in the dole....
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm glad to hear that we're not discussing the benefits and expense accounts the scum in Westminster abuse all the time, after all that is simply unthinkable.
 
So you want politicians to have control over how money is spent in buisness?

At least Quangos can provide specialist expertise and have a longer-term focus than is afforded in a highly politicised environment.
They can also benefit from the heightened authority resulting from their relative freedom from political considerations. The fiscal deficit has put yet more focus on expenditure by quangos.
But given the deficit in public trust in politicians, will the trend towards outsourcing controversial decisions be checked in practice?
:PDT_Xtremez_15:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top