Thursday Strike Action - megathread

[alchresearch]

The 14.5% came from here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643

 

Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

 

In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees.

 

Read the analysis by Ian Pollock, in the little box at the side.

[ECCOnoob]

You're as obvious now as you ever were. So, yes, the troll claim is justified.

 

A pound an hour is £8 per day. £40 per week. £160 per month. If it really is so insignificant, then we could and should expect all responsible employers to pay it. That would be a leap forward.

 

Its all well and good the Living Wage Foundation banging on about their figures but as always, upgrade one and you upgrade all.

 

Lets say that they did increase everyone to their proposed "living wage" of £7.65 an hour. That's the new national MINIMUM wage.

 

Right that would be just under £15k a year for every single full time worker at the very minimum skill, job role and income level. about a £3k increase on current NMW.

 

So, that would mean that any semi skilled, clerical, call centre operative etc currently on around £15k would then expect an increase to around £18-£19k.

 

Those supervisors, team leaders, junior management, keyholders, senior admin people currently on around £18k would expect an increase to around £21-22k

 

That then kicks up those people who are at the lower end of the degree levels, smaller management, junior lawyers, junior doctors, military positions, office manager, Theirs would need to be at least £27-£29k to make it relative.

 

Which of course is starting to put them into the accademic and qualified professional brackets. If lower grade profesionals are sneaking up to the £30k a year level those more qualified or middle management would then be demanding a £40k+ price tag. That gets even more interesting because suddenly you may end up with a very high proportion of working people falling into a high tax bracket.

 

so on.... so on... so on up the grades and scales.

 

SO, lets just think about that for a second. How would that dramatic increase in salary across a company affect say prices? profit margins?

 

Prices go up and then it starts all over again with people demanding a "new living wage"

 

Sometimes these campaigns need to actually stop and THINK about what they are saying.

 

I am not saying that SOME people dont deserve a pay rise. However, I also believe that their suggested "living" wage is nonsense.

 

Some of us remember a time before the NMW and would have wet ourselves at the thought of £6.08 an hour. Somehow we all managed to "live" perfectly well.

 

Maybe expections of what people think they need to "live" with has changed. Time for a realitiy check.

[Mecky]

Read the analysis by Ian Pollock, in the little box at the side.

 

Did, it's a load of crap and Pollock the ******k doesn't even say what the ONS reasoning is. Who trust the ONS anyway? They get their information wrong time and time again, but worse of all, they're a tory quango trying to put public spin on dodgy data.

[Bonzo77]

No it dosnt, it makes people angry and loses them any support they may have had. Militant unions have far too much power in this country and need stamping on hard by the Government, just as Mrs Thatcher squashed Scargill.

 

---------- Post added 10-07-2014 at 19:03 ----------

 

 

The root of the problem are the militant leftie unions. Far too much power .

 

Yeah, cos we all want to live in a world where employees have no rights or power and everyone has to say "how high?" when the government yells "jump!":roll:

[Se7enhills]

You're as obvious now as you ever were. So, yes, the troll claim is justified.

 

A pound an hour is £8 per day. £40 per week. £160 per month. If it really is so insignificant, then we could and should expect all responsible employers to pay it. That would be a leap forward.

 

you come across as the one being the leftist Troll in my opinion.

 

But for once there is some sense in your thought that a decent employer should pay a decent wage,

But has been pointed out before, the NMW is just that - a minimum, for the lowest positions in the firm. The problem is too many employers see it as the "going rate" and there are a lot of people seem to accept this as normal.

[Mecky]

you come across as the one being the leftist Troll in my opinion.

 

But for once there is some sense in your thought that a decent employer should pay a decent wage,

But has been pointed out before, the NMW is just that - a minimum, for the lowest positions in the firm. The problem is too many employers see it as the "going rate" and there are a lot of people seem to accept this as normal.

 

So what? You come across as the one being the rightwing Troll in my opinion.

 

I think you're right to some extent, but employers would certainly pay less if they thought they'd get away with it. Some take that risk and get fined, some hope they can get rid of the worker and evidence before they get caught

[JFKvsNixon]

I'm a capitalist, and certainly no lefty but it is fundamentally wrong for the government to have to make up the wages of staff for companies that are making decent profits.

[Se7enhills]

I agree there, there is a danger that we end up with the Govt. supporting businesses either with a unsuitalbe business model, or more likely, tight fisted owners.

[Mister M]

I agree there, there is a danger that we end up with the Govt. supporting businesses either with a unsuitalbe business model, or more likely, tight fisted owners.

 

How would you tackle the problem of increasing number of working people having to rely on in work benefits?

[999tigger]

The 14.5% came from here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26512643

 

Public sector workers are paid on average 14.5% more than those in the private sector, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

 

In 2013, average hourly earnings in the public sector were £16.28 an hour, compared to the average £14.16 among private employees.

 

I would have expected the private sector average pay to be better than it is because those figures will contain the wages of footballers, pop stars, business owners., I would think the top 10% of all earners are in the private sector, and they aren't very representative of the average private sector workers wage.

 

The 22% drop in wage is the realty of moving from a public sector job after being made redundant, to an equivalent private sector job.

 

Its the same survey we are talking about. I have no views either way about public being better than private. You link the BBC story, which is fine and much better than the other person, but then you arent looking at the whole article. The reason why public sector based on raw data earn that much more is because

 

But the difference was skewed because more public sector jobs require high levels of skill and university degrees.

 

Stripping out the influence of various job and personal characteristics - not just the effect of jobs requiring high levels of skill or higher educational qualifications, but also factors like age, experience, gender and location of the jobs - then the pay difference in favour of the public sector shrank to between 2.2% and 3.1%.

 

And if the tendency for big employers - those with more than 500 staff - to pay higher wages was also removed, then the balance of average pay moved in favour of the private sector as the public sector is mainly made up of large employers.

 

The ONS said that taking all those factors into account, then the private sector's average weekly pay rates in 2013 were in fact between 1.3% and 2.4% higher than those of the public sector.

 

"Average pay levels vary between the public and private sectors because of the different jobs and characteristics of the people within each sector," said the ONS

 

 

So all the survey says is that the jobs in the public sector require a higher level of skilled employee/ graduates, which accounts for why your average employee is paid more.

 

The ONS strips out those distorting factors and compares like with like, thats how it comes up with public sector pay on average in like for like being 1.3 and 2.4% lower. That's the relevant figure because you are comparing like with like.

 

Im not disputing your partner had a 22% drop but thats her experience. It will also be the experience of tens of thousands of others contracted out and doing exactly the same job. However against that there will be other examples of where working in the private sector is immensely better paid than an equivalent qualified job in the PS.

 

Im just looking at what the ONS found and the reasons why. The 14.5% is misleading unless you know where it came from and understand the reason why it exists. Its really obvious that a given group of higher qualified employees are going to earn more than a group which is less qualified.