Anyway my suggestion is that everyone is moved back to the previous pay scale on their incremental scale and that there are no increments for 2 years then increments are given every 2 years instead of every year if someone has reached their targets set out in PMDS. I would also be willing to work 40 hours a week instead of 35 for the same money therefore increasing the access to services at no extra cost. This push back in the incremental scale should apply to people on public sector pensions too and another saving could be made there.
Anyway my suggestion is that everyone is moved back to the previous pay scale on their incremental scale and that there are no increments for 2 years then increments are given every 2 years instead of every year if someone has reached their targets set out in PMDS. I would also be willing to work 40 hours a week instead of 35 for the same money therefore increasing the access to services at no extra cost. This push back in the incremental scale should apply to people on public sector pensions too and another saving could be made there.
Fair play Sandrat - out of curiousity, why aren't you in the union? is there not huge pressure for PS workers to join a union? I assumed almost every PS worker was in a union.
This option isn’t equitable. People have different increment dates so if they decide to implement this from 1st January what about people who received an increment on the 31st December – they will not suffer any loss. Then there are staff who are on their max for 10+ years.
Then there are staff don't get increments, existing Consultants and senior HSE managers for example. New consultants do have a scale but most are on the first point, so no savings there.
Also from an admin point of view it would be a nightmare to implement.
I was never approached to join the union and I have seen unions screw people over in the past so wasn't interested in joining anyway. I don't know anyone who voted yes for last weeks industrial action but it went ahead anyway. I'd rather see my union fees in my pocket. In fact since the unions are making such a hames of things maybe everyone should quit the union to make up the difference in take home pay?
I think I'm in love.
I really can't see inequitable cuts being a solution. I know it's important to save money but it has to be done fairly. Morale is already very low and I don't think this would help. You could end up with people on lower salaries taking a bigger percentage cut.
I I don't know anyone who voted yes for last weeks industrial action but it went ahead anyway.
Percentage persmentage, if you earn what you were earning this time last year it can't be that bad because you were able to live on it last year and the prices of things have gone down since that.
What Union is this? Did they not have to have a mandate to go ahead with Industrial Action?
A lot of lower paid Civil Servants were already getting into difficulties last year. What you are suggesting means they could end up taking a bigger percentage cuts than better paid Public Servants. This would just not work as a policy. You just couldn't present it in the terms you've stated above.
Would it be easier to implement if there salaries were just brought back to what they were earning on a given date 01/01/2008.
Can you give me an example salary scale where some increments are bigger than others?
I think it is a lot easier to implement than the unpaid leave option. If staff aren't on a scale then give them a percentage cut. The savings will be there because at the moment the consultants on the first point will be due an increment but by freezing increments we are making savings. Its not about making people suffer losses if someone is due an increment of say 2000 on 31st december and we cancel that thhen thats 2000 the government has saved are you saying they should save more so that the person can suffer? They might suffer if they had planned spending that money on something but the country's bank balance will suffer if something isn't done.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?