Tynwald members get pay rise

[John Wright]

13 minutes ago, Beelzebub3 said:

I was under the impression that after the last pay rise there were no uplifts as minister etc. all MHKs got a fixed rate and that was it.

You’re confusing ministers and departmental political members

[Beelzebub3]

5 minutes ago, John Wright said:

You’re confusing ministers and departmental political members

I remember MHKs stating there would be winner's and loser's during the last pay negotiations all I see are winner's.

[Roger Mexico]

11 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Of course, Stu Peters has frequently posted that he doesn't subscribe to the theatrics of the Tynwald/Keys floor and prefers to be effective behind the scenes....given that he's bottom of the table, can we assume that he's doing far more of that nature than the others....?

Well not quite bottom - Smith and Callister are on zero, as are various Ministers at the time (Cannan, Lord-Brennan, Edge, Barber, Hooper, Poole-Wilson, Allinson, Thomas) as it's considered not the done thing for them to ask other Ministers.  And all the LegCo members were silent except for Sharpe, who only just beat Peters, presumably for the same sort of 'not the done thing' reasons.

The trouble with handling these things privately as Stu advocates is that they remain private.  Obviously in many personal cases this is exactly how it should, indeed must be.   But a lot of issues have wider public dimensions because they affect more than one person, maybe all or a big part of the community.  So even if you're helping one person, others won't be.

And you lose the opportunity to ask "What are you going to do about this" - and ask more questions if you find the answer unsatisfactory.  And because everything is done privately, you may lose any public record that things will be done.

[Roger Mexico]

2 hours ago, Two-lane said:

"Ministers, the Speaker and president receive uplifts of 15% while the Chief Minister gets an extra 30% "

Where on earth did that come from? Does anyone know how these increases were decided?

Only recently, to come into force after the last election.  Before that the basic pay was less but the uplifts were greater - 80% for the Chief Minister.  I analysed the changes when they were proposed, but in the end those who would have lost out, such as Henderson, were kept on the old pay scale so they didn't lose any money either.

[woolley]

3 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

And you lose the opportunity to ask "What are you going to do about this" - and ask more questions if you find the answer unsatisfactory.  And because everything is done privately, you may lose any public record that things will be done.

I understand Stu's "empty vessels make most noise" philosophy. Another danger with doing everything privately though, is that people forget about you, or worse, they don't even believe you are doing the heavy lifting behind the scenes at all. Maybe a certain amount of playing to the gallery is required then. It's a balance needing to be got right. Don't be invisible, but don't be on your hind legs so much that you start to sound like one of those who never shut up.

[Non-Believer]

31 minutes ago, Beelzebub3 said:

I remember MHKs stating there would be winner's and loser's during the last pay negotiations all I see are winner's.

That's because any potential "losers" (eg Henderson) were effectively granted "grandfather rights" so that they wouldn't become such. Roger M has been good enough to explain it above.

Tynwald - where you can.

[La Colombe]

15 hours ago, finlo said:

Fuck me you're so nieve!

Ah! A fisting fan. 

[code99]

26 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The trouble with handling these things privately as Stu advocates is that they remain private.  Obviously in many personal cases this is exactly how it should, indeed must be.   But a lot of issues have wider public dimensions because they affect more than one person, maybe all or a big part of the community.  So even if you're helping one person, others won't be. And you lose the opportunity to ask "What are you going to do about this" - and ask more questions if you find the answer unsatisfactory.  And because everything is done privately, you may lose any public record that things will be done.

Assuming of course that this occurs at all, afterall, there is no evidence to prove this one way or another, because these things are being kept “private”. Never mind, Stu will have his chance to shine next year as part of the MHK team being tasked with ‘leaving no stones unturned’ in the Dr Ranson’s Inquiry.

[Two-lane]

I am confused. A minister's salary is now £82,407 and this is what we get:

 

 

[Steve_Christian]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

That's because any potential "losers" (eg Henderson) were effectively granted "grandfather rights" so that they wouldn't become such. Roger M has been good enough to explain it above.

Tynwald - where you can.

I think the speaker essentially got a pay cut. Not sure about the others - remember Juan mentioning this during the debate. Partly because the ‘expenses’ they received as a package were tax free (a fixed sum - not actuals), that was wrapped into salary and therefore taxed which I think reduced the net pay for some. 

[woolley]

39 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

I think the speaker essentially got a pay cut. Not sure about the others - remember Juan mentioning this during the debate. Partly because the ‘expenses’ they received as a package were tax free (a fixed sum - not actuals), that was wrapped into salary and therefore taxed which I think reduced the net pay for some. 

That position is definitely not underpaid, nor is the president.

[Steve_Christian]

20 minutes ago, woolley said:

That position is definitely not underpaid, nor is the president.

I didn’t say it was underpaid. I believe the situation is the net pay was less under the new pay structure.

[woolley]

4 minutes ago, Steve_Christian said:

I didn’t say it was underpaid. I believe the situation is the net pay was less under the new pay structure.

I wasn't arguing. Just adding a point of view.

[Two-lane]

A person's value is determined by the job they are doing, or by their intellectual capability (physical jobs aside) - whichever is the least.

A shelf-filler with a PhD is only worth the salary of a shelf-filler.

A shelf-filler doing an intellectually demanding job is still just worth a shelf-filler's salary.

The audio clip I posted above sums up my opinion of the intellectual capability of the occupants of Tynwald.

 

 

[Stu Peters]

7 hours ago, Two-lane said:

"Ministers, the Speaker and president receive uplifts of 15% while the Chief Minister gets an extra 30% "

Where on earth did that come from? Does anyone know how these increases were decided?

Not pay rises, they’re an increase on the basic MHK salary for taking extra responsibilities.