Public Pay Cap Lifted...........Hip Hip Hoorah.

[Tangled Metal]

I reckon that private pay increase is regional. South East is probably skewing the data. Up here manufacturing isn't going up much. Of course this situation is possibly more to do with the financial situation of the nation. Before 2008 I reckon the situation hadn't been one of private sector beating public sector pay rises. So you have any figures before the last 7 quoted?

One of my friends who gave me the biggest indication of the public sector system in their part of the nhs. She said that she got bumped into a new grade when she had finished her first year of a degree (having had on the job training before then). She then got 7 years of annual increases on top of pay increases, followed by just those percentage increases. Then she argued that her degree meant she was worth more. She got moved to the next grade up followed by those regular increases. She said it was almost automatic and very rare that ppl didn't get those 7 years of increases within grades. No mention of targets, training or anything like that. Just plodding along in the job would get it. That was before crash and the "no money in the pot" type of comment from the outgoing labour government. I guess if you say things have trained I must believe you.

[Cunobelin]

I reckon that private pay increase is regional. South East is probably skewing the data. Up here manufacturing isn't going up much. Of course this situation is possibly more to do with the financial situation of the nation. Before 2008 I reckon the situation hadn't been one of private sector beating public sector pay rises. So you have any figures before the last 7 quoted?

One of my friends who gave me the biggest indication of the public sector system in their part of the nhs. She said that she got bumped into a new grade when she had finished her first year of a degree (having had on the job training before then). She then got 7 years of annual increases on top of pay increases, followed by just those percentage increases. Then she argued that her degree meant she was worth more. She got moved to the next grade up followed by those regular increases. She said it was almost automatic and very rare that ppl didn't get those 7 years of increases within grades. No mention of targets, training or anything like that. Just plodding along in the job would get it. That was before crash and the "no money in the pot" type of comment from the outgoing labour government. I guess if you say things have trained I must believe you.

I can also provide figures for the1940's

The point is that we started talking about the current pay cap, and the 7 year figures are within the remit of the thread

In 2008 the Private Sector was also ahead of the Public Sector, before the Public sector caught up in 2011 and then declined behind the Private Sector again

The NHS still works roughly to the Agenda for change and there will be promotions due to experience and qualification, a bit like an apprenticeship in an engineering company.

The fact that there was "no mention" of training or targets doesn't men they were not there. For instance if they are not in date for essential training (Life Support, Clinical Governance, Patient Handling etc) then the annual appraisal is automatically poor and the increment withheld or delayed for that year. Of course this is not common as the line manager also bears a responsibility for the development of these staff and ensuring such training is performed in a timely manner.



In most cases someone with a Degree would expect to be in a Band 5 role, a Masters in a Band 6 role to recognise the experience, level of knowledge and experience



According to the figures though Public Sector workers with a degree get paid 4.1% less than those in the Private Sector (Office of National Statistics)

[thirdcrank]

In the end, the market will triumph in the public as well as the private sector. Medical training, in particular, is valued internationally so all that will happen is that some people will emigrate to where they are more valued. Not everybody by any means, but economic migration is always most attractive to the most enterprising, energetic and well-motivated people: those you least want to lose. After a while, crisis action is needed and it's bumper pay rises. etc

[old_windbag]

In 2008 the Private Sector was also ahead of the Public Sector, before the Public sector caught up in 2011 and then declined behind the Private Sector again

The NHS still works roughly to the Agenda for change and there will be promotions due to experience and qualification, a bit like an apprenticeship in an engineering company.

The fact that there was "no mention" of training or targets doesn't men they were not there. For instance if they are not in date for essential training (Life Support, Clinical Governance, Patient Handling etc) then the annual appraisal is automatically poor and the increment withheld or delayed for that year. Of course this is not common as the line manager also bears a responsibility for the development of these staff and ensuring such training is performed in a timely manner.



In most cases someone with a Degree would expect to be in a Band 5 role, a Masters in a Band 6 role to recognise the experience, level of knowledge and experience



According to the figures though Public Sector workers with a degree get paid 4.1% less than those in the Private Sector (Office of National Statistics)

There are still big differences between public and private sector. When you need training for new technology you get it and by getting it you increase your pay. In the sector of industry I was in( your lives will have been assisted by a few designs ) the margins were small and training was in many cases a case of go home and teach yourself. This was because the high costs of training for specific things, eventually H+S training such as first aid, defib etc became universal but technical training for new software/hardware was do it yourself at your own cost as it will benefit you, even though we saw 0% for 6 years and no pay rises as increments by knowledge gained.

On top of that if you need the latest software in public sector it will be brought in across the board with licences paid. For my industry it was a case of we can only afford 1 licence on one machine, so we would have to share a resource between 10-20 people as to have licences for all( and all packages used across company ) would be to expensive. It was a vicious circle in that respect....... part of the reason why I'm an advocate of packages such as libreoffice and similar. There may not be a magic money tree but the funding of what is needed in public sector is based on different views of affordability than that of a private company.

The difference still claimed between private and public sector still doesn't account for 15-20% pension contribution from state nor the defined benefit nature( even if average salary is used instead of final ), nor reduced NI contributions. Also the holiday allowance that rises to 33 days plus bank holidays after 10yrs service and extra payments for shift/exceptional hours. Not all private companies are huge multinationals with money to burn so for many smaller companies the purse can't stretch to such allowances.

[PH]

In the end, the market will triumph in the public as well as the private sector. Medical training, in particular, is valued internationally so all that will happen is that some people will emigrate to where they are more valued. Not everybody by any means, but economic migration is always most attractive to the most enterprising, energetic and well-motivated people: those you least want to lose. After a while, crisis action is needed and it's bumper pay rises. etc

Or just leave whatever profession they've been expensively trained in. I know more ex teachers than teaching teachers.

[pwa]

My wife teaches. She puts her heart and soul into it. A few months ago she received an award for inspirational teaching. She went to Oxford University to receive it. And she feels totally demoralised and undervalued and regrets the moment she entered the profession 28 years ago. When children tell her they are thinking of teaching as a profession she now asks them to consider alternatives. Her school is now experiencing real problems in recruiting properly qualified staff. The profession is being run into the ground, and the quality of teaching is bound to suffer.

[Cunobelin]

In the end, the market will triumph in the public as well as the private sector. Medical training, in particular, is valued internationally so all that will happen is that some people will emigrate to where they are more valued. Not everybody by any means, but economic migration is always most attractive to the most enterprising, energetic and well-motivated people: those you least want to lose. After a while, crisis action is needed and it's bumper pay rises. etc

Or just leave whatever profession they've been expensively trained in. I know more ex teachers than teaching teachers.

Virtually all the medical professions are now in a decline with training numbers down and more leaving the professions than joining

Our biggest issue is that these advantages of working for the NHS are so great that when we advertised there were no applicants, yet the Private sector Company had 8 for a similar post. None of which are interested in NHS posts. The last three staff that I have lost have all looked at the figures and promotion prospects and realised that the Public Sector is at such a great advantage that they have all moved to the Private Sector

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Dream on-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... 0-000.html

"But experts say the £4,000 average is misleading because it includes vast numbers of people who worked for the NHS only temporarily, some for as little as six months.
The figure is also dragged down by the large numbers who work part-time, which means their salaries – and therefore their benefits – are lower.
In reality, the NHS pension scheme is, and will remain, one of the best in Britain.
The majority of the private sector do not get a company pension at all.
However, to have an index-linked pension worth £4,000 a year in the private sector, a worker would need to have built up a pot of around £150,000"

Who Will Pay ? Following was written in 2010-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters ... ublic.html

And 2015-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sions.html

Will Make you Cry 2016 -
http://www.pensionsage.com/pa/UK-public ... of-GDP.php

Feeling depressed yet! 2016 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04 ... and-other/

[pete75]

There are still big differences between public and private sector. When you need training for new technology you get it and by getting it you increase your pay. In the sector of industry I was in( your lives will have been assisted by a few designs ) the margins were small and training was in many cases a case of go home and teach yourself. This was because the high costs of training for specific things, eventually H+S training such as first aid, defib etc became universal but technical training for new software/hardware was do it yourself at your own cost as it will benefit you, even though we saw 0% for 6 years and no pay rises as increments by knowledge gained.

On top of that if you need the latest software in public sector it will be brought in across the board with licences paid. For my industry it was a case of we can only afford 1 licence on one machine, so we would have to share a resource between 10-20 people as to have licences for all( and all packages used across company ) would be to expensive. It was a vicious circle in that respect....... part of the reason why I'm an advocate of packages such as libreoffice and similar. There may not be a magic money tree but the funding of what is needed in public sector is based on different views of affordability than that of a private company.

The difference still claimed between private and public sector still doesn't account for 15-20% pension contribution from state nor the defined benefit nature( even if average salary is used instead of final ), nor reduced NI contributions. Also the holiday allowance that rises to 33 days plus bank holidays after 10yrs service and extra payments for shift/exceptional hours. Not all private companies are huge multinationals with money to burn so for many smaller companies the purse can't stretch to such allowances.

If that's your experience it seems you chose to work for a badly run company with little regard for it's employees.

The company I work for provides us all with the equipment and software needed to do the job and believes in training folk to use new software and equipment. We get regular cost of living pay rises. We have an indexed link final salary pension scheme. The business is competitive within it's industry and is profitable.
Many companies are the same though not all provide a final salary pension scheme, ours is closed to new entrants but they have have a reasonable money purchase scheme - employee puts in 5% of salary and the firm make sit up to 16%.

[Vorpal]

In my experience, the private sector is both quicker to obtain new technology and better at providing training & development above the bare minimum, than the public sector is. There are of course some exceptions to that, and medium sized firms seem to be better than very large firms. Small firms vary more, and it also somewhat depends upon their industry and business. Small firms, for example, are more likely to have R&D as their core business.

Large firms and the public sector have bureaucracy to contend with, which tends to make them generally slower to adopt new things. Large firms, and the public sector in some areas have the advantage of larger sums to spend, and the capability to customize or even drive the tecnological developments.

Good employers in both sectors should and do help their employees develop new skills and knowledge. To do otherwise will drive them elsewhere, and most employers acknowledge this.

[Psamathe]

There are still big differences between public and private sector. When you need training for new technology you get it and by getting it you increase your pay. In the sector of industry I was in( your lives will have been assisted by a few designs ) the margins were small and training was in many cases a case of go home and teach yourself. This was because the high costs of training for specific things, eventually H+S training such as first aid, defib etc became universal but technical training for new software/hardware was do it yourself at your own cost as it will benefit you, even though we saw 0% for 6 years and no pay rises as increments by knowledge gained.

On top of that if you need the latest software in public sector it will be brought in across the board with licences paid. For my industry it was a case of we can only afford 1 licence on one machine, so we would have to share a resource between 10-20 people as to have licences for all( and all packages used across company ) would be to expensive. It was a vicious circle in that respect....... part of the reason why I'm an advocate of packages such as libreoffice and similar. There may not be a magic money tree but the funding of what is needed in public sector is based on different views of affordability than that of a private company.

The difference still claimed between private and public sector still doesn't account for 15-20% pension contribution from state nor the defined benefit nature( even if average salary is used instead of final ), nor reduced NI contributions. Also the holiday allowance that rises to 33 days plus bank holidays after 10yrs service and extra payments for shift/exceptional hours. Not all private companies are huge multinationals with money to burn so for many smaller companies the purse can't stretch to such allowances.

If that's your experience it seems you chose to work for a badly run company with little regard for it's employees.

The company I work for provides us all with the equipment and software needed to do the job and believes in training folk to use new software and equipment. We get regular cost of living pay rises. We have an indexed link final salary pension scheme. The business is competitive within it's industry and is profitable.
Many companies are the same though not all provide a final salary pension scheme, ours is closed to new entrants but they have have a reasonable money purchase scheme - employee puts in 5% of salary and the firm make sit up to 16%.

What any company can afford at any moment in time varies. companies have ups and downs that are not determined by "badly run company with little regard for it's employees". Under our capitalist system every private company must operate in the sole interests of the shareholders (agree or disagree, it is still the system operating in this country - I disagree but it's not my decision). Training is expensive, every kit of software/kit you could want all comes out of shareholder profits so a balance has to be struck. In different market sectors the "needed to do the job" is not a black and white decision.

It can be surprising what can "throw a company" off balance - I was recently very shocked to discover one well known name in the UK is starting to suffer badly (but as a PLC I wont be mentioning their name, just pointing out how one can be shocked when its issues have nothing to do with "a badly run company with little regard for it's employees").

I feel your post it seeing business in far too simplistic a manner.

Ian

[pete75]

There are still big differences between public and private sector. When you need training for new technology you get it and by getting it you increase your pay. In the sector of industry I was in( your lives will have been assisted by a few designs ) the margins were small and training was in many cases a case of go home and teach yourself. This was because the high costs of training for specific things, eventually H+S training such as first aid, defib etc became universal but technical training for new software/hardware was do it yourself at your own cost as it will benefit you, even though we saw 0% for 6 years and no pay rises as increments by knowledge gained.

On top of that if you need the latest software in public sector it will be brought in across the board with licences paid. For my industry it was a case of we can only afford 1 licence on one machine, so we would have to share a resource between 10-20 people as to have licences for all( and all packages used across company ) would be to expensive. It was a vicious circle in that respect....... part of the reason why I'm an advocate of packages such as libreoffice and similar. There may not be a magic money tree but the funding of what is needed in public sector is based on different views of affordability than that of a private company.

The difference still claimed between private and public sector still doesn't account for 15-20% pension contribution from state nor the defined benefit nature( even if average salary is used instead of final ), nor reduced NI contributions. Also the holiday allowance that rises to 33 days plus bank holidays after 10yrs service and extra payments for shift/exceptional hours. Not all private companies are huge multinationals with money to burn so for many smaller companies the purse can't stretch to such allowances.

If that's your experience it seems you chose to work for a badly run company with little regard for it's employees.

The company I work for provides us all with the equipment and software needed to do the job and believes in training folk to use new software and equipment. We get regular cost of living pay rises. We have an indexed link final salary pension scheme. The business is competitive within it's industry and is profitable.
Many companies are the same though not all provide a final salary pension scheme, ours is closed to new entrants but they have have a reasonable money purchase scheme - employee puts in 5% of salary and the firm make sit up to 16%.

What any company can afford at any moment in time varies. companies have ups and downs that are not determined by "badly run company with little regard for it's employees". Under our capitalist system every private company must operate in the sole interests of the shareholders (agree or disagree, it is still the system operating in this country - I disagree but it's not my decision). Training is expensive, every kit of software/kit you could want all comes out of shareholder profits so a balance has to be struck. In different market sectors the "needed to do the job" is not a black and white decision.

It can be surprising what can "throw a company" off balance - I was recently very shocked to discover one well known name in the UK is starting to suffer badly (but as a PLC I wont be mentioning their name, just pointing out how one can be shocked when its issues have nothing to do with "a badly run company with little regard for it's employees").

I feel your post it seeing business in far too simplistic a manner.

Ian

Oh do you now. For a start my comment was about one particular firm which, from the description given, didn't seem to be the best run nor have overly much regard for it's staff - you seem to have extrapolated that into a comment on the whole of "business".

A company usually makes the decision that it needs to invest in certain equipment, software etc to do the job. Once it's laid out potentially a lot of money it's a false economy indeed for them not to provide the training required and instead rely on the hit or miss method of whether or not staff can be bothered to learn how to use it in their own time and/or at their own expense.
Most firms invest in new kit to increase profits and stay competitive. The stuff is useless if no on know how to use it and making sure people know how to use it is in the best interests of the shareholders.

[old_windbag]

What any company can afford at any moment in time varies. companies have ups and downs that are not determined by "badly run company with little regard for it's employees". Under our capitalist system every private company must operate in the sole interests of the shareholders (agree or disagree, it is still the system operating in this country - I disagree but it's not my decision). Training is expensive, every kit of software/kit you could want all comes out of shareholder profits so a balance has to be struck. In different market sectors the "needed to do the job" is not a black and white decision.

We started as a handful of individuals literally count staff on 1.5 hands . Finally reaching a peak of around 250 and being a shareholder company after takeover. As a small company it was budgeted like a low income household but the change to a shareholder company demanded growth, increased profits, new markets........ and resultant collapse. Not receivership but a company with orders, but also huge overheads and outgoings. Many years of ups and downs and failed CEO's taking handsome payoffs. Capitalism works that way, survival of the fittest, not always in best interests of the workforce. Personally I prefer workers co-operatives and egalitarian organisations, working as a team for everyones benefit. There will be "investors in people" style organisations but there isn't really a standard across private industry so it's hit and miss how private companies treat their workforce. In this area it isn't a walk out of job today, walk into another tomorrow environment. That can give employers the upper hand.

Training is seriously expensive plus other factors such as accreditations for quality in order to continue selling product. All of these can be introduced with a requirement for extra outgoings for companies to acquire. Where software was concerned a single licence for one particular product was £4-5k and several were needed for productivity reasons but it didn't stop there, there was ongoing annual maintenance fee's etc. This just one package of 20-30 within the company. From my stance I had several alternate free packages I would use but the buying decisions were made by senior staff who chose wisely(?).... or not, other voices were not party to those decisions. All of these companies selling training, software etc are out to make maximum markup so the end product of a company is built on those....... it is a fine balancing act between starving your host or living off them to the max. As a one man band most brand name software is financially off limits but as an open source advocate I have all the packages I need to produce professional work from compilers, IDE's, mechanical design, PCB design, electronic simulation and modelling. Some of these perhaps would not be acceptable in a larger organisation but the creators of such deserve praise, they set the bar high quality wise.

[Vorpal]

When budgeting for new software, it is necessary to also budget for training. If that means delaying a purchase, buying 4 copies instead of 5, or whatever else.

I don't see how buying 5 licences of a software can possibly be more productive than buying 4 licences and proper training for them.

If nothing else, if there is an employee who is quick to learn, good at teaching, and willing to develop themselves as an expert, they can take the training, then teach the others. That's a poor strategy if it doesn't get good results, but it can work with the rght people.

[old_windbag]

When budgeting for new software, it is necessary to also budget for training. If that means delaying a purchase, buying 4 copies instead of 5, or whatever else.

I don't see how buying 5 licences of a software can possibly be more productive than buying 4 licences and proper training for them.

If nothing else, if there is an employee who is quick to learn, good at teaching, and willing to develop themselves as an expert, they can take the training, then teach the others. That's a poor strategy if it doesn't get good results, but it can work with the rght people.

I used to suggest the latter point where it would cost us a fortune in travel costs and lost days if several people were to have to go off site for training. This was rarely followed up and the company didn't do such. I was someone who watched costs in things we did. I started when a very small company with sometimes out of date working methods but it was open to new ideas and suggestion. This all of us contributed to over time and my input tended to be in terms of increasing margins by finding new vendors and haggling prices. So you had your main role and then acted beyond that to change the company and modernise it( probably like small communities where people have a main job and get involved doing others too ). This was working well, a struggle at times, but we were moving in the right direction. Then also over time new staff arrived, takeovers, expansion took place and it all went to pieces.

Decisions such as whether to have 4 licences or 5 boil down to what is the anticipated use and bottlenecks that too few could cause. These decisions were no longer in the hands of someone such as myself and as you will know Vorpal there are many poor managers in uk companies as the promotion path often forces people into management to increase salary( management and technical should be parallel avenues ). Often those people fail in the task and the resultant decisions impact on those below fighting the lack of resources. As a smaller company we did have influence and decided between ourselves what resources were needed, as a larger company layers of management prevented that. It's why workers commitees and the like evolved but not all companies allow them.

As Ian stated earlier it's surprising how quickly a companies fortunes can change at all sizes. A poor decision in a private company can wipe it out over a short period whereas in a public sector there is help at hand to overcome such.