I suppose that one day probably and sadly in the distant future an enlightened government will find a way to pay such people the right rate for the job rather than just take advantage of that group of workers reluctance to take industrial action.
Now I probably have my sums completely wrong but as the Nurses get 1% pay rise every year that would amount to 3% in 3 years. So does that mean they are actually only getting an extra 1% per wage rise every year for 3 years. Maybe they should get the same rise as the MP'S get every year.
If so would this be classed as a big pay rise.
We should all be willing to pay a bit more in tax and or NI to pay such folk a fair rate. It is no good saying that “the rich” or corporations should pay it all - there are too few of the first and corporations tend to move head offices if they are squeezed to much. By all means get high earners to pay more but we all have to be prepared to pay more if the NHS is to keep up with new techniques and an aging population. No Party seems willing to admit this.
"So does that mean they are actually only getting an extra 1% per wage rise every year for 3 years."
No, it doesn't.
The deal agreed with the Union leaders is 'tiered'. At least 50% of all NHS staff will get 6.5% over three years. The other 50% will receive rises of between 9% and 29% because they are not at the top of their pay bands.
The lowest paid workers - cleaners/porters/catering staff will get an immediate £2000 increase this year. Their salaries will increase to over £18,000.
A nurse with one year's experience will see his/her basic pay rise by 21% over three years, giving them a salary of up to £27,400
"I suppose that one day probably and sadly in the distant future an enlightened government will find a way to pay such people the right rate for the job rather than just take advantage of that group of workers reluctance to take industrial action."
It always amazes me that some people talk about 'the government' finding ways to pay more to public sector workers.
We are the people who pay Public sector workers, via our taxes. If we want public employees to get higher pay, we must be prepared to fund the increase through higher taxation - otherwise, where is the money going to come from?
When a government increases taxation, it is pilloried right, left and centre but we can't have it both ways. Increases in public sector pay equals increases in taxation, or cuts in government spending elsewhere, like roads, for instance, or defence, or pensions, or any of the myriad services we all use on a daily basis.
It's a nightmare, and of course across-the-board NHS pay increases will be the the catalyst that sets other public sector unions thinking.
Well, having recently (unfortunately) been on the receiving end of the NHS, I would willingly pay a little more. I can't praise them high enough.
There are a little over 30m people in the UK that are working, plus those on pensions that pay tax - so let's guestimate at say 40m. If everyone paid just 50p a week more, it would generate extra revenue of £1.04b.
Now ring fence it for NHS workers pay.
It doesn't seem a lot to me.
I quote below an extract from the review body.
click here the last recession, public sector wages did not undergo the sharp fall seen in the private sector, and have since grown at a slower pace than private sector wages: for the three months to October 2017 private sector total pay grew by 2.7% on the same period the previous year, compared to 1.8% in the public sector (excluding financial services). However, the overall remuneration of public sector employees when taking employer pension contributions into account remains at a significant premium.
I would be prepared to pay more if it went to the right people but I expect it would go to "administrators" who can't even do something about the vast amounts of wastage or overcharging by drug companies and contractors.
While your idea may seem sound, spread over the 1.5 million NHS employees in the UK, and if they all got an equal share, that would be £13.33 pw.
And, as we all know, that isn't the way it works. For some reason increases are always by percentages so those at the top get a percentage of a lot and those at the bottom get the same percentage of not a lot.
The current offer does, for once, seem to be fairer with the lowest paid getting a bigger increase.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.