On 14 Oct 2014 at 11:36am Country Boy wrote:
Can someone correct me if my understanding is wrong?
50% of NHS staff will get an automatic 3% uplift in their pay. The other 50% will get 1%. It is the 50% who are getting the 3% that are complaining. Surely it can't be that simple?
On 14 Oct 2014 at 11:46am Socialist wrote:
3% wow, so much cash for so many hours! MPs are getting 11% and they do nothing for this country!
On 14 Oct 2014 at 1:12pm Mark wrote:
Dunno where those figures came from. I'm NHS staff and I've been refused even the 1% recommended by the pay review body. We haven't had an increase that meets cost of living increases since Tony Blair brought in the Agenda for Change.
One of the results of this is that wards are full of highly-paid agency nurses who may be very competent but are often working on wards they aren't familiar with. Next time you're in A&E look at the badges and see how many are agency nurses.
If a private sector CEO walked onto the shop floor of his company and noticed this was happening on his floor he'd probably have an apoplectic fit.
On 14 Oct 2014 at 2:05pm Dr. Feelbad wrote:
The term P*** up in a brewery comes to mind - Keep your eyes peeled for news from the -in my opinion - Terminally Declining Eastbourne DGH. they have been inspected ! . As an aside , and a serious Q. to Mark . Do people actually know what those long handles are for on Hospital taps ? - All I see in my visits are people wearing blue gloves all the time and touching the levers with/out gloves on . I understood they were " elbow levers " so that in the days before hospital infections - an aseptic practice was employed and you didn`t touch things with your bare but carefully scrubbed hands !
On 14 Oct 2014 at 2:06pm Ian Eiloart wrote:
The CEO probably wouldn't like it, except perhaps if the temporary staff were there to cover a peak in demand.
When I was a temp for Royal Mail, I was paid exactly the same as the permanent postman. That was due to an agreement with the unions: to stop management undercutting unionised pay.
In the NHS, qualified staff leave to join agencies, to get better pay and more flexibility doing the same jobs. If the management resolved to pay agencies the same as they pay permanent staff, then this practice would largely cease. That would save the NHS lots of money that they could use to plug staff shortages, improve services, or increase pay.
On 14 Oct 2014 at 2:12pm bastian wrote:
country boy, here are the facts. The lowest paid workers, that is those on £14,000 per annum,( who pay tax) will get a 1% pay rise, that amounts to around £140 per annum. Those on above that amount will get nothing and have been on a pay freeze for three years now,1% of nothing is nothing.
Meanwhile, other employees in the public sector have gone back to the table to listen to an offer of 2.2 % over two years, with nothing paid this year,but 2.2% paid the year after next. This is also on wage sas low as £14,000.
I don't want to hear any more lies on hear by people who imagine they know the facts/read the shallow news papers
On 14 Oct 2014 at 2:35pm Old Bloke wrote:
Bastian has spoken - he knows everything from first hand so he can be forgiven for the arrogant way he talks down to everybody in his irritating know all manner
On 14 Oct 2014 at 2:47pm bastian wrote:
take it from someone who is in control of the facts and is sick of the rubbish they see on this forum and in the cheap sheets.
Interesting how knowing something is called arrogant. Mp's are arrogant for demanding an 11% pay rise on their £67,000 per annum pay. Work it out, it's a disgrace.
On 14 Oct 2014 at 4:09pm Mark wrote:
Serious question from Dr. Feelbad: Yes, you're correct, of course. That's what the handles are for. The DGH is a bit of a "troubled" hospital and they probably have that sort of old school equipment. In more modern facilities, the taps generally have movement sensors and go on when hands are put under them. I'm sure that you'd never see a Doctor or nurse in any hospital touching a tap or anything while carrying out any sort of asceptic procedure - eg: before doing a dressing...etc... You might see members of staff not bothering when they're doing tasks that don't involve going close to sources of infection.
Not sure why someone would be washing their hands with blue gloves on. That seems weird. Also, you mention, "before hospital infections". I'm not sure that there was such a period. Have infections per capita actually increased? I honestly don't know either way. There's been lots of talk in the media about the subject these last few years and lots of initiatives aimed at decreasing cross-infection.
On 14 Oct 2014 at 4:17pm @Bastian wrote:
Are you including the annual incremental increase in your figures? So a level 1 starting grade after 1 year will also get about a 3% increment rise IN ADDITION to the 1% payrise. A 4% pay increase (whilst inflation is running at 1.2%). From a bosses point of view, that is what it will cost the employer.
However, I agree that NHS front line staff should get the 11% (plus!) and the MPs have pay frozen.
On 14 Oct 2014 at 5:00pm Country Boy wrote:
I'll make no bones about it - I tend to the right of the political spectrum. I got my information from the Guardian - as it was written I understood that 50% of staff would automatically get 3% and it was that same group who were demanding the extra 1% on top. If I misunderstood the situation I am happy to be corrected.
On 14 Oct 2014 at 5:00pm Old Bloke wrote:
That's a relief.
It'll all be sorted now
On 14 Oct 2014 at 5:01pm bastian wrote:
no one on the lower pay scales get increments at all, they don't exist for those people. It is salary pay that gets increment but of course that stops when you hit the top of a pay scale, some jobs carry thresholds, but you have to jump through hoops and take on more work, pass more coursesto get through them, it isn't just automatic.
Mp's ought to lead by example.
On 14 Oct 2014 at 7:08pm Fairmeadow wrote:
The purpose of increments is to permit employers to underpay staff relatively new to the job, on the basis that they are likely to under-perform. The top of the scale is the "rate for the job". I agree they should abolish increments and pay everyone the rate for the job. BUT that would cost money, wouldn't it?
On 14 Oct 2014 at 8:43pm Cam wrote:
Ian... from what I have read I think the interesting point is who has shares in the agencies.
On 15 Oct 2014 at 8:00am Tipex wrote:
County council employees haven't had an increment (basic salary or inflation) in 5 years.
On 15 Oct 2014 at 9:49am historian wrote:
MP's don't set their own pay anymore, a quango does it for them. Cop out ! Why can't the same quango set other groups pay ?
Q why even have MPs then if they can't be trusted ?
On 15 Oct 2014 at 2:17pm Frak wrote:
Incremental systems are cost neutral in the long run as more expensive and experienced people leave and new people join at the bottom of the pay band.
Also, surely a 1% increase would only cost the government 0.8% (or less) as they'll get a percentage back in taxes and ni.
The current Government are determined to destroy the NHS and intend to make as much money from it as they can in the process.
On 15 Oct 2014 at 4:08pm bastian wrote:
And at the same time make over worked people culpable for accidents when they can't take a break in a 13 hour shift because they are under staffed.
It's a good way to break up a successful system.
On 16 Oct 2014 at 9:38am retired archbishop wrote:
This year there is a 1% pay rise but it is being paid as a "Bonus" and not consolidated for pension purposes or permanent. An Independent Pay Review Body has recommended 1% for next year but YOUR government says that isnt affordable. MPs Independent Review Body has recommended 11% but YOUR lawmakers say that they are powerless to stop it.
Increments are embodied in individual's contracts but are being witheld. If someone gets an increment, they will have earned it through study, additional skills and acheiving objectives.
Whilst NHS staff have had a real terms 15-20% pay cut since the Coalition Government took office, pension contribution have also doubled and the date for taking the pension increased by up to 8 years depending on how old you are.
Before the NHS pension scheme was revised it was making a £2bn a year surplus so that is probably about five times that.
In the meantime, Cameron and Baker because he is a government minister, are top slicing the easy clinical work which has little risk and letting private providers take on billions of pounds of work making lots of profit. It is amazing just how many MPs have shares or additional work with private providers. As a warning, until recently UKIP wanted to privatise the lot but the wind changed and now their policy like most of theirs is unclear other than it is all Europes fault.
We celebrate Guy Fawkes being caught but he was the only person ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions!
On 16 Oct 2014 at 4:19pm Curate wrote:
Archbishop - what ails you ? How can you pontificate popery re: Guido Fawkes . In the spirit of Christian Unity I forgive you and put it down to a senior moment rather than a monsignor moment .