Public sector pay rise demands unreasonable?

[stickershock]

I’m a nurse and outraged that we’ll only be getting (most likely) a 3% wage increase. I’m fully in favour of a strike action. But I’ve also just read that the junior doctors are planning a strike if they aren’t awarded a 22% increase 😮

We have all been losing wages year on year but 22% seems unrealistic. AIBU or have they got brilliant bargaining tactics?

Yeah I'm not going back round in circles with this.

People are 'getting down and dirty' with private sector pensions by leaving the public sector in droves.

The amazing pension isn't amazing enough.

Agree @Topgub, extremely patronising.

I value preserving my mental and physical health plus having time with my family far more than the pension. I don't care one bit that my new one is not as generous, my children have a happy mum and I am happy. My teacher friends say the same after moving to private sector/tutoring. They also value the huge fee discount for their children more than the pension

Many public sector staff feel the same but let the private sector staff keep bleating how good the others have it without experiencing the negative themselves. Keeps everyone arguing, takes the blame off the government and allows them to destroy public services while everyone races to the bottom...

Late to the thread and haven’t read it all but frankly if you have skills that are high demand in an economy with low unemployment/high employment and weak investment in your area of expertise you’d be daft going past the point of altruism to not go into negotiations at a high starting point.

that’s capitalism for you 🤷‍♀️

Yes, exactly. I think some posters can’t see through their hatred of public sector workers to see that this is routine in the private sector when you have an in demand skill.

One family member of mine has increased her wage by 30k in the last two years because she is skilled and her role is in demand. But that it okay because it is private sector, apparently.

In the end we all pay for each other through the purchase of goods and services. Some people seem to think the fact that they pay tax gives them some control over people who work in the public sector. Tells you a lot about those people really.

Tbh I’m at the point of thinking fuck it, let’s just go full throttle capitalism and bin of any of the socialist concepts we’ve ever introduced because people clearly don’t give it any value.

first market to be excluded from any tampering is the property one. No more schemes, breaks or incentives. Your pile of bricks is worth what people have actually got. If the market faces an event that would historically of crashed it like box car derby you’re on your own. Same with the banks. We’ve learnt absolutely nothing from bailouts except that greed should prosper regardless of consequence.

Why shouldn’t people who possess the skills to keep us alive get a slice of the action?

Consultants can combine private and public sector so in that sense can get a slice of the pie

i was just reading from once mmm mmm e consultant who stopped and was against it but I think that’s not as fair to those with the high skills, let people earn in both

from one..

I don’t think it’s reasonable to prevent them from practicing in the private sector outside of their NHS contract. DH does 12 PA’s a week for the NHS. FT is 10 PA’s. And he still has time for a full day of private work. It varies by specialism and area.

It’s also not uncommon for consultants to minimise their own tax bill by supplying their private services through a limited company. That does seem unfair to me, when it’s often senior doctors bemoaning the lack of healthcare funding by the government (and erosion of their pensions).

@BattenbergdowntheHatches

Its not unfair, its fucking outrageous

I agree @Topgub - but not actually unlawful.

Before you get too outraged, LTD companies are not tax free havens! They will still be required to pay 19% moving to 25% corporation tax and then Dividend or income tax on withdrawal of the funds.
This would be on top of their 40/45 or even 60% taxed paid on their main jobs.

As a genuine question, how much tax do you think people should pay, as a %?

I assume you pay back the tax relief you receive from your pensions and ISA's. They are tax dodging.

I don’t think this is too bad, most of us choose to pay the tax we can rather than overpay

You do know anyone on paye can not choose to pay tax. It just comes out automatically/

Well no, I don’t (does anyone?) and admittedly it’s the classic “it’s only tax avoidance if people richer than me do it” argument!

But the rates of corporation tax are still about half of the top rate of IT - which all consultants would pay on the bulk of their NHS salary. What is more dissuasive is that you can’t spend the company income freely (unless you have a creative accountant). And yes, divis are taxed at the higher rate.

I just find it a little ridiculous that well-paid people whose main remuneration comes from the taxpayer can simply opt out of paying quite a lot of tax on a whopping slice of income while simultaneously baying for more funding from the taxpayer (ie people not rich and/or unscrupulous enough to swerve paying it!)

The issue is that the public service is literally a dinosaur. An ageing workforce hanging on to relic pensions which no one 40< can access and yes they are hanging on to a good deal because they won’t beat it.

For example, my husband leads a huge team including much older people who outranked him by a country mile in the public sector (they have no where near his competency). There are many arguments about how outdated the public rank structure is to be had there! Which reflects in his position outside as the tables are turned.

For anyone 40< in any kind of skilled trade or STEM subject the private sector is a much better alternative and eventually wins after all the lucrative offers really tip the scales. Hence the extreme shortage in the public sector of skilled people in these areas. Younger, skilled graduates don’t want to know.

If you move on to teaching, there is a critical shortage of STEM subject teachers. Those that train, take the bursary then get a crap ECT salary and leave. These mythical pensions are not of benefit to them and aren’t worth their while. Equally, pay and conditions are also seeing shortages in primary which is unheard of. Two classes in a local school have been without proper staffing all year. Teachers have left and recruitment and supply is a nightmare.

Early teachers, nurses, doctors and other skilled public workers can’t afford to live in the here and now. There are real issues brewing and it’s only just started. Telling a nurse, ECT or a young recruit, your pension is such a feature (which the government will change by the time you get to pension age) is utterly a waste of time.

The real problem is, these so called gold plated pensions are of a by gone age. Relics of a creaking, ageing public service. People no longer stay for the pension. They used to call it the pension trap. As I have repeatedly said, this is no longer a thing. Skilled 40< are better off out. The pensions get decimated and changed every few years, they are no longer matched by offers in the private sector. Combined with extremely poor
comparative salaries, you have a recruitment and retention crisis.There are quite significant issues coming.

Yes pensions have been changed and reduced significantly. Most public sector workers pensions are also tied to state pension age - currently 68, but this will increase. Why would you gamble on that?

<40!

Al that “gold-plated” means in the context of pensions is that you get a guaranteed index-linked income. It doesn’t imply a particular value (or that the recipient will be dripping in gold!) As I understand it, the reformed public sector pension still has these features and is correctly described as such.

What's the point in striking or protesting over NHS wages as it makes absolutely no difference.

The Unions have no power and increases just get delayed.

@fromdownwest

Depends on income, assets and how they made the money.

Why would how they made their money dictate the rate of tax?
How woudl that work in practice?

If they didn't have linked wages with their employees or didn't provide good pension and sick pay they'd pay a higher rate of tax

I see it slightly differently - if as a consultant I had taken the risks in setting up a company and a building client base like any other business - I’d not be keen to select IT just because my other job is paid in tax funding.

But it’s interesting I hadn’t thought of the tax set up, however I don’t blame anyone for wanting parity when it comes to a business set up

What?!
Linked wages?
Good pension - well that is not open to interpretation at all?
How much sick pay ? 6 months they pay 20% 3 months they pay 40%?