What should be done about Public Sector pay?

But where would that end trisher? The bank/supply would always pay more meaning that it would become a never ending circle.

Not true gillybob.

The Tories believe in the idea of the market-place. The problem at the moment is that the Tory government is not allowing this to work. They are trying to manipulate the pay and conditions for these jobs so that the hospitals and schools, etc., cannot raise them to meet the labour-market signals on pay and conditions.

This does not mean it would be a never ending circle. At some point pay, conditions and numbers of employees would be raised enough for them not to have to pay more to get and retain staff. Simple capitalist market economy and often used by said Tory's to explain why those at the top receive vast sums - because the market-place dictates.

What the Conservatives are doing is more like old-world Communism where the government dictates earnings. Which, I feel, is a little weird.

But surely we (the country) can only afford what we can afford. Where would the money come from? (other than by raising taxes for everyone) Why should someone earning a very low wage pay more taxes so nurses/teachers and civil servants can hold the country to ransom?

Do you agree that someone in the Public Sector should be allowed to take early retirement in order to go back and do the same (or very similar) job? Of course It's different if that person was made redundant against their will. In industry it was always common practise that someone who left voluntarily would not be asked/allowed back, whereas someone made redundant would be. Not sure if still the same, but seems fair to me.

Apologies for --yet another--messy post. Trying to do 3 things at once.

As I understood it teaching supply staff were actually paid at the same annual rate as full time staff but breaking it into a daily rate makes it appear more as supply staff aren't paid during holidays.

So what do you think we can afford Gilly? - what the government tells you? Each government has an agenda behind their figures.

Why should someone earning a very low wage pay more taxes so nurses/teachers and civil servants can hold the country to ransom?

Why do you think someone earning a low wage would pay more? We have a progressive tax system.

Do you agree that someone in the Public Sector should be allowed to take early retirement in order to go back and do the same (or very similar) job?

There is no way I would be judgemental about someone who had done this. If you (the government) are foolish enough to set up a system that encourages this - it will happen. There is a quote which I always think is very apt when talking about poor systems.

Tell me how you measure me and I will tell you how I will behave. If you measure me in an illogical way… do not complain about illogical behavior…”

In other words the measurement you set determines behaviour not the other way round. If your measurement - and therefore reward - of someone doing the same job is greater in one circumstance than another, people will move to the better position. You could also see it as people using their redundancy money to support the NHS in order to make the conditions of their employment viable. Maybe this is deliberate because the government has tied the hands of the employers (schools, hospitals). You appear to be asking people to collaborate in being in a losing position - why would they and why should they.

so nurses/teachers and civil servants can hold the country to ransom

They are not holding the country to ransom they are asking - as everyone else does - for the market rate. If they were being paid the market rate there would be no shortages and no increase in vacancies that are getting harder and harder to fill. Why should they subsidise the NHS and Education with their labour in order to save someone else paying for the service that is made available.

There are pension rules for teachers that you can't earn more than a certain amount, after that they knock your pension down pound for pound. I don't know what the exact figure is now, but it does mean that a teacher can't get a pension and go back to exactly the same job they did before. They can work part time though, which some older teachers do to wind down to full retirement. Schools quite often contact former teachers when a maternity leave is due as its often the only way they can fill a gap.

That happened when I left college in 1980. Teachers had retired early because that is what the government wanted.
Then they took all the supply jobs in schools that they knew would be there because there were not enough teachers, so there was no work for those newly qualified.
Why should teachers and nurses not use the system?

If taxes are raised to pay nurses or teachers more money (just asked Mr Google for average nurses pay.... which seems to range from £20,000 for a new nurse to around £34,000-£40,000) then someone on just over minimum wage or thereabouts could end up paying more tax (it may only be a £1 or £2 but nevertheless) in order to fund the rise.

Where else would more money come from? everyone wants more, more, more... for less, less, less.

How do you determine a market rate? What do you think would be a fair wage?

I totally disagree with someone taking early retirement from the public sector (why do i keep typing pubic??) and then going back to work in the same or similar job and would go so far as to outlaw it. Greed at its worst.

Recent press would suggest that there are quite a few nurses just waiting to come in from Australia etc.

Apologies for another jumble but now dashing to take DGD to her end of primary school prom. Almost wasn't going to happen so much excitement.

Who is going to be looking after your granddaughter at her end of primary school prom?
Teachers, I bet, with no extra pay.

How do you determine a market rate, on the day when the BBC has had to show pay for everyone earning over £150,000?

gillybob teachers can't go back to the same job after retirement if they do they loose part of their pension, so they don't end up with more money despite what you think.

You really take the biscuit !

Actually it nearly wasn't going to happen as no bloody teachers would volunteer to do it . Stuff your sarcastic attitude . Please don't engage with me again !

Thanks suzied I didn't know that . There seems to be quite a few who come and go at my DGC's school .

But they can if they are made redundant, suzie. Which seems to happen quite a lot these days.

Yes but not after taking their pension .

Actually teachers can return to work as long as that work isn't pensionable and supply work often isn't, nor usually is agency work.

But they can't go back to the same job, yes they can do pt work, supply work, work in B and Q or whatever, but they can't do the same level of regular teaching work they were doing before and if they do their pension is docked. I do know this from experience! And I'm sure they haven't changed the rules.

I read today that 11% of nurses are no longer contributing to their pensions because they can't afford it.
That's terrible.
How much do MPs get for their pensions?

Trisher, I think it's a bit different from that - it's quite complicated but involves something about the sum of your pension and what you're earning not being more than what you were earning before you retired. Of course, anyone who retires can work in an unrelated field afterwards

With many schools being academies and responsible for their own finances, can't they take the same teachers back?
Councils have no jurisdiction over academies, do they?

fullfact.org/economy/are-most-working-age-people-poverty-also-work/

Not just public sector pay.
Why are 55% of people in poverty living in working households? Disgraceful.

Actually it nearly wasn't going to happen as no bloody teachers would volunteer to do it

There's absolutely no reason why teacher should do it. They are employed to teach, not to supervise end of term parties out of school hours.

So please don't swear at teachers who don't choose to give up their spare time for a non-teaching, and voluntary, event.

My goodness, what a lot of bitterness aimed at teachers and nurses. How amazing that the people who look after our children and care for us when we are ill (often working beyond the hours for which they are paid) are accused of expecting "more more more for less less less". I would suggest that the reverse is true. People employed in public services often have an increased workload because of cuts in staffing, at the same time as having their pay increases restricted to 1% over the last 7 years.

Some people object to nurses, teachers, social workers, prison officers, etc. etc. getting more money, on the grounds that they are public servants and, as such, are paid from the public purse.

OK then, don't pay them and watch our education, justice and health systems become even more debilitated and chaotic because the fact is it is becoming extremely difficult to recruit people to do these jobs and, perhaps more importantly, to retain them.

Those bloody teachers not volunteering in droves to do extra unpaid overtime, how lazy can you get. I hope those bloody teachers know what you really think of them. They might even be having a night off marking books maybe spending time with their own friends and family. How selfish, When they should be spending another 4 hours plus at the end of their day of teaching supervising a school disco of over excited children.