To dislike the way unions push for big payrises only at the bottom?

[WillitFit]

I work in school. The lowest paid teachers are to get c.9% and everyone else 5% (if they accept it).

Support staff have been offered a fixed sum, just under £2000 on all points. Which is more than 10% for some, about 3% for me!

Everyone works hard and everyone deserves payrises that keep pace with inflation, surely? The more senior people have worked hard to get to where they are, often over many years, why is it OK to see their pay eroded?

Have you said this at your union meetings?

I have told the union, yes

I'm a union rep in another country for teachers. We push for rises for everyone as much as humanly possible.

How did they respond?
I'm guessing that the decision was made for a reason?

Payrises for the lower bands are more likely to be prioritised because these people are more likely to struggle to cover their basic outgoings. I'm a TU official.

It's not that other people's pay doesn't matter. It's that payrises tend to come out of a pot. And actually, if you keep on with the same percentage increases for all grades, then someone in a higher grade gets a bigger payrise than someone in a lower grade.

The inflation issue I think is different as it impacts immediately more on people who have to spend all their money to live vs those who don’t.

YABU. The cost of living crisis disproportionately affects people on the lowest wages, and they need the increase more than you do. Meanwhile, a flat percentage increase benefits the highest paid more than the lowest paid - it just makes the gaps between your respective incomes even bigger.

I say this as the highest earning member of staff in my organisation. I do not believe that I should have received the same pay increase as those at the bottom of the pay scale.

The other way to look at it, is percentage payrises are bad for the lower paid, and they get screwed more every time.

Take a hypothetical TA on 10k, and a teacher on 30k.
Both get a 5% pay rise. TA now on 10,500. Teacher on 31,500.

If the pay rises kept increasing the TA pay by 500 a year, and the teacher by 1500, after 10 years the TA is on 15k, and the teacher on 45k.

The gap between teaching and support staff has widened massively over the years, and a step increase for the lowest paid is required to narrow the gap again.

The unions didn't push for this payrise which shits on those at the top of the payscale, that was the government.

The teaching unions are gearing up to reject it.

A short sighted complaint. But I get your point.

Tricky one. Kake's point is fair.

But the other way to look at it is that prices of everything are going up by (say) 10%, so the person at the bottom of the pay scale who gets a 10% rise has pay keeping up with inflation.

The person at the top of the scale who gets a 5% rise is effectively getting a 5% pay cut.

This is a particular problem when those people at the top of the pay scale have had below inflation rises, therefore pay cuts for the last 12 years. They have been paid less and less each year to do the same job and that now amounts to a significant loss of money.

The unions are balloting for action because of the way the rise has been offered

Its the way this country is going. Doing hard, responsible jobs is derided and not respected and the idea is that everyone should be ideally paid more or less the same, no matter what they do. The workers who simply get on with their jobs and don't complain are ignored.

I don't think everyone should be paid the same, as there would be no incentive for people to work hard/seek promotion. Or at least, no financial incentive - some people are motivated by other things and would do it anyway.

I don't think it's good for society though to have huge gaps between the richest and the poorest.

Tbh I'm slightly worried that you are obviously in a high position in a school, yet can't work this out.

Your 3% (heaven forbid) could be just as much if not higher in value than someone on a lower wage getting 10% rise. Will you really deprive your low paid colleagues a decent rise so they can afford their bills, over your need to expand your savings pot? How entitled 🙄

I can see both sides in this debate. But the lowest paid are disproportionately affected by % across the board increases.

YABU

people on lower salaries are more affected by cost of living rises as they spend more of their income (percentage wise) on essentials like housing, energy, food and fuel, and to have less financial wiggle room to cover increases.

someone on a high income is far more likely to be able to cover increased energy bills just by cutting back on luxuries or putting aside less in savings. Someone on a low income is far more likely to have to choose between heating and eating.

also, particularly for public sectors, I suspect it’s more palatable politically when increases are focused on low paid staff rather than highly paid ones.

It's not about not understanding. Nobody wants to deprive low paid people of anything, but when inflation is 11% why is 3% OK for anyone?

This.

% pay increases should be banned. In our Gov Dept the top bands get stupid amounts of money and us at the bottom get fuck all. Because 1% of fuck all is still fuck all. 1% of £80k is a months salary for me.

I support the giving of higher rises to the lowest paid, who are likely to have least discretionary spending. Particularly where all of the payrise is over inflation rate.

But … in Kate’s example the gap between 10k and 15k moving to 30k and 45k does not mean that the gap (pay differential) has widened. Teacher still gets exactly half as much again as the TA, it’s just increased by inflation.

Those on lower salaries are less able to absorb what life throws at them. It’s not a race to the bottom.

Yes where I work those earning over 30k are a getting a 3% pay rise (so real term cut) and those on lowest bands doing the jobs that don’t demand any qualifications are getting 9%.

I think it’s unfair as middle earners are so much worse off considering how much outgoings have increased, and that the NI increase meant we all got less take home than 2 years ago.

Surely if the higher pay bands don't keep up with inflation, it is a race to the bottom?

In these school jobs nobody is a "high earner" Maybe just a few of the leadership scale teachers, but none of the support staff trouble the higher rate tax band, for example.