Ringy Rose Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 4 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: I work in the private sector and think that Trade Unions (in any sector) will always ask for an above inflation pay increase. The civil service trade unions don’t tend to, though. In each of the last two years they agreed 6%, and in both of those years inflation was running at almost 12%. That’s a big real terms pay cut, especially for those on the lower pay grades. I’d say 6% in those circumstances was fair, given who ultimately pays the bills, but I’m unsure how people conclude that a pay rise of 6% below inflation is somehow greedy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted June 11 Author Share Posted June 11 6 minutes ago, HeliX said: You are entitled to take a real terms pay cut should you wish. Presumably there are reasons you accepted that rather than looking for work elsewhere. But there's nothing wrong with people demanding fair pay rises. There is if other people worse off than them are having to fund it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Just now, Banker said: There is if other people worse off than them are having to fund it! Public sector workers are not in charge of setting public sector costs nor tax rates. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 minute ago, Banker said: There is if other people worse off than them are having to fund it! If people in the private sector decide to stick with an employer taking the piss out of them with a 1% pay rise when inflation is 12% then they must have their reasons. And if these people think the civil service is full of people doing little but earning top dollar for it, they must also have their reasons for not jumping ship. If it’s so cushy, why not join the dark side? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swoopy2110 Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 10 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said: And if these people think the civil service is full of people doing little but earning top dollar for it, they must also have their reasons for not jumping ship. If it’s so cushy, why not join the dark side? Because people who actually want to do work in the civil service and lobby for change are quickly hounded out of the door for rocking the boat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 2 hours ago, manxman1980 said: You're suggesting a whole sale restructure of the public sector and your starting point is HR? That would be the department with the expertise and knowledge of how to plan and manage restructures effectively to minimise risk and future claims? You're really arguing against yourself here. If you need an HR Department to restructure an organisation and that HR is incompetent and inefficient or corrupt or whatever, then by definition the place you have to start is with HR. And IOMG HR haven't even managed to produce their own (legally-obligated) Annual Report for two years. The most recent is for 2020-21. 2 hours ago, manxman1980 said: I can tell you that managers who think they understand the legislative requirements around what you are proposing are the worst to deal with and often the ones that wind you up in an Employment Tribunal. But the one thing we know from Ranson and other cases is that HR and the AG's Office are completely ineffective in such things as well. They have seen their roles an enabling such managers, no matter how legally incorrect or ineffective such help turns out to be. 2 hours ago, manxman1980 said: Are the HR team in the public sector effective? I don't know I don't work there but I do know HR and if you have the right people and enable HR to be more than personnel then it can deliver results. There's actually a very good argument for saying that most HR functions should be returned to Departments with only payroll related functions and legal monitoring being central. The current system just allows everyone to evade responsibility. 5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 36 minutes ago, swoopy2110 said: people who actually want to do work in the civil service and lobby for change are quickly hounded out of the door for rocking the boat Sounds apocryphal - any examples? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 5 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said: Exactly what that waste of space...Ms Faragher...was intimating the other day... https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/public-expects-first-class-services-but-isnt-paying-first-class-tax/ Saw that story as well and thought what a dumb thing to say by her. They really don't understand their job, do they? 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 3 minutes ago, Amadeus said: Saw that story as well and thought what a dumb thing to say by her. They really don't understand their job, do they? It's not like she's wrong is it? Our tax rates, particularly the higher rates, are too low to support our current demographic to a decent level. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, HeliX said: Public sector workers are not in charge of setting public sector costs nor tax rates. If they work in Treasury or the Public Service Commission they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 5 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: If they work in Treasury or the Public Service Commission they are. So an incredibly tiny proportion of them, then. Suggesting that all public sector workers should be happy to accept real terms pay cuts is not reasonable. There should be good raises, particularly in the lower paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, HeliX said: It's not like she's wrong is it? Our tax rates, particularly the higher rates, are too low to support our current demographic to a decent level. They would be enough if we didn’t have 8000 government employees. 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, HeliX said: It's not like she's wrong is it? Our tax rates, particularly the higher rates, are too low to support our current demographic to a decent level. There are other areas that should be addressed first, such as over 65s who still work dont pay NI. Everyone who works should pay NI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeteroErectus Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Amadeus said: They would be enough if we didn’t have 8000 government employees. We have 8000 government employees, to cook the books. If the government didn't create those otherwise unnecessary jobs, a good portion of those 8000 people would be unemployed. Imagine a government existing that decides to address that, rather than pass the burden onto the next cohort. Successive government's policies have slowly dulled the attraction to SME and big business here. There simply aren't enough REAL jobs here. Having interacted with the DfE, that is where the majority of the chaff is. Lots of jollys to conventions and luvvy duvvy stuff on LinkedIn, but no actual tangible output, or contribution to the island. Until the government policy prioritises job creation/attraction to sustainable business (not the gambling industry), this place is going to keep slowly drying up. Sorry to sound so negative. Edited June 11 by HeteroErectus 5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twitch Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 5 minutes ago, HeteroErectus said: We have 8000 government employees, to cook the books. If the government didn't create those otherwise unnecessary jobs, a good portion of those 8000 people would be unemployed. Imagine a government existing that decides to address that, rather than pass the burden onto the next cohort. Successive government's policies have slowly dulled the attraction to SME and big business here. There simply aren't enough REAL jobs here. Having interacted with the DfE, that is where the majority of the chaff is. Lots of jollys to conventions and luvvy duvvy stuff on LinkedIn, but no actual tangible output, or contribution to the island. Until the government policy prioritises job creation/attraction to sustainable business (not the gambling industry), this place is going to keep slowly drying up. Sorry to sound so negative. Don't worry, you're sounding perfectly normal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.