Living Wage 2020... is it right?

SpeedFreak · 13 Jul 2015 at 20:38

Freakbro said:
I can't give you evidence for something that hasn't happened yet, apart from anectdotal and my own.

I know the fees this Nursery will be charging over the next four years are set to rise 60% to cover the NLW

But it's just obvious that people above the NMW now will want a commensurate wage rise, whether other businesses absorb that or pass the cost on to customers we will see.

Because nurseries are staffed primarily by over 25s. Pull the other one.

balky12 · 13 Jul 2015 at 20:41

Guest2 said:
I started on 9k when on my placement year. That actually worked out to be less than minimum wage. With my degree (BSc business computing) my first wage was 16k. 5 years later I'm on 2.5x that which I think is pretty good.

If you put the effort in and show you want to learn then you will be rewarded - Obviously the right company helps or you could be stuck in the same job earning the same (or similar) money for years. If you don't like the job, or wage then its not hard to add a CV to a few websites and create a linked in profile. I managed to find a job within a few weeks twice during the recession and i'm not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed!

Not too dissimilar to my experience. Started full time work at 19 mainly working from home as an insurance auditor on £14k. Was there 6 months and took an interest to the world of insurance so decided to get a job as admin support to a claims team. After 2 years getting basic knowledge decided to try my hand at being an insurance broker. After 2 years there went back to the claims side for another company as a trainee claims adjuster.

Now I am a Aviation, Marine & Energy claims adjuster on a fair bit more than £14k... In 6 years.

Not quite the 5 years to £50k story GD has come to love. But not a bad attempt.

Freakbro · 13 Jul 2015 at 20:44

SpeedFreak said:
Because nurseries are staffed primarily by over 25s. Pull the other one.

What an odd comment :confused:

I manage 3 Nurseries (still anectodal I know, but more knowledge than yourself?) And in all of them over 25s make up the majority of the staff.

SpeedFreak · 13 Jul 2015 at 20:55

Freakbro said:
What an odd comment

I manage 3 Nurseries (still anectodal I know, but more knowledge than yourself?) And in all of them over 25s make up the majority of the staff.

I would refute your assertion of more knowledge, I have eyes, ears and a mouth and having visited and spoken with 6-7 nurseries here in Bristol finding places for my children. It it is overwhelmingly the case that most employees are females between 18 and their early twenties. The exceptions are nursery managers and cooks/chefs who tend to be older.

SeriousBusiness · 13 Jul 2015 at 21:31

balky12 said:
But if you are confident that your skill/ ability can take you beyond your current band/ role, or to another company if needs must, then I would not let it concern you in the slightest.

Also 5 years is a hell of a long time, much will change. Hell I started work 6 years ago. From where I was then to now is chalk and cheese.

Lets go a bit further in trying to explain this.
Company A and Company B have exactly the same pay scale today, and two exactly the same people join in each and in 5 years time rise up 1 pay grade each year.

Today - both employees start at 20K today and every year they both go up one pay grade.
Company A
20K - 21K - 22K - 23K - 24K -25K

Company B
20K - 21K - 22K - 23K - 24K -25K

5 Years Time - both end up on the top tier of pay for their role, but the public sector worker will get nearly £2K less then if they had started work in the private sector
Company A - Capped at 1% rise each year
21K - 22.1K - 23.1K - 24.1K - 25.2K -26.3K

Company B - Lets just say 2.5% each year
22.6K - 23.7K - 24.9K - 26K - 27.1K -28.3K

As it has been mentioned, I could move away to look for work elsewhere in a few years time but the issue still remains. With private sector jobs already paying more, this will only widen the gap in similar roles, and squeezing the gap between the public sector and MW.

balky12 · 13 Jul 2015 at 21:48

But things are never that one dimension in the long run? People change companies, get promoted, change from public to private and vice versa. People around you move, retire, etc.

I understand what you are saying (I think) but in the real world I don't think it quite works that literally. All companies have these 'bands' as to what salary a certain level/ job title commands, but I find they are more guidelines than gospel. If a company wants to keep you or acquire you and must pay more then they will.

If I was unhappy with my pay rise I would say something. If the same happened following year I would move company (done this once). New company valued me higher and despite it being for similar role I was offered a lot more money.

Then there comes the promotions and with it pay jumps.

Personally I think you a worrying over nothing. If private sector really pays more then why not try your hand there? I think your salary will increase by more than 5% in the next 5 years.

Guest2 · 13 Jul 2015 at 21:48

I don't get it, if the public sector (or any job for that matter) is rubbish pay or you don't like it, why not just look for another job? :confused:

SeriousBusiness · 13 Jul 2015 at 21:57

I think this is because I'm looking at this from the employers side of things and not being able to compete with private sector pay. It would be difficult to attract good people/keep people, we all lose out in the long run as tax payers money will be used to outsource all this work we have.

dlite · 14 Jul 2015 at 00:15

Considering the job security in public sector, I don't think that paying more for similar level private sector jobs is so wrong.

If you had exactly equivalent positions to choose from, one in public and one private sectors with only differences being job security vs. steeper salary hikes, you could quite easily mathematically discount some increase in chance of getting fired into required salary hikes to make it worth it.

Ie. you calculate the net present value of expected future salaries of both positions, first with expected 1% change of being fired each year and other one with effective 2% chance of getting fired and estimate how much quicker the salaries need to rise in the second one for the NPV (net present values) of expected salary to remain the same.

Guest2 · 14 Jul 2015 at 00:17

Thats good in the long run isnt it? Everyone gets paid more, pays more tax so will have less national debt, plus other people in different countries get a job too which in turn helps them.
If the company wants to keep good people, they will pay them what they are worth or lose them to a better company (one which can afford to pay them what they are worth)

Trifid · 14 Jul 2015 at 08:39

Guest2 said:
I don't get it, if the public sector (or any job for that matter) is rubbish pay or you don't like it, why not just look for another job?

And those jobs where the government have a monopoly on employment? Such as nurses and teachers?

Guest2 said:
If the company wants to keep good people, they will pay them what they are worth or lose them to a better company (one which can afford to pay them what they are worth)

But you can't do that in the public sector. Good staff who can get a job elsewhere will move, leaving the crud. And the sectors where the government have a monopoly would be even more shorter staffed.

estebanrey · 14 Jul 2015 at 09:33

Trifid said:
And those jobs where the government have a monopoly on employment? Such as nurses and teachers?

Last time I checked there were plenty of private hospitals and public schools so no monopoly on those jobs.

Diagro · 14 Jul 2015 at 11:22

estebanrey said:
Last time I checked there were plenty of private hospitals and public schools so no monopoly on those jobs.

Teachers can only go to places like academies. But they dont pay as much as due to the extra paperwork and other targets the stress is far more. SO people dont want to.

dowie · 14 Jul 2015 at 11:37

Diagro said:
Teachers can only go to places like academies. But they dont pay as much as due to the extra paperwork and other targets the stress is far more. SO people dont want to.

no, he just told you they can go to public schools

RDM · 14 Jul 2015 at 12:20

Diagro said:
Teachers can only go to places like academies. But they dont pay as much as due to the extra paperwork and other targets the stress is far more. SO people dont want to.

Most academes still use the national teacher pay scales, the paperwork is also pretty much the same.

Guest2 · 14 Jul 2015 at 12:49

Surely teachers crud pay is offset by the fact the get 65 days holiday a year!? I get 29 days which i feel is pretty good - Teachers would need to work another 7.2 weeks (1.66 months) to match 29 days annual leave.
Average teacher salary in the uk is £24200, so add 5k to that for the 1.66 months they are not working and no, teachers are not underpaid!

Tunney · 14 Jul 2015 at 13:00

Guest2 said:
Surely teachers crud pay is offset by the fact the get 65 days holiday a year!? I get 29 days which i feel is pretty good - Teachers would need to work another 7.2 weeks (1.66 months) to match 29 days annual leave.
Average teacher salary in the uk is £24200, so add 5k to that for the 1.66 months they are not working and no, teachers are not underpaid!

Teachers don't get 65 days holiday a year, they get 65 non-teaching days a year. Some might get away with spending all of that time relaxing but most having marking and planning to do during that time.

It's even worse for academy teachers. Most get 30-35 days holiday and have to ask for time off even during school holidays. Otherwise, they're expected to be in work each day.

balky12 · 14 Jul 2015 at 13:07

Tunney said:
Teachers don't get 65 days holiday a year, they get 65 non-teaching days a year. Some might get away with spending all of that time relaxing but most having marking and planning to do during that time.

It's even worse for academy teachers. Most get 30-35 days holiday and have to ask for time off even during school holidays. Otherwise, they're expected to be in work each day.

That's terrible. Shocking conditions.

Oh wait. I'm expected to work every week day. Get 25 days holiday entitlement.

Even at weekends and to a lesser extent holidays I'm expected to be on the ball in case of urgent emails, calls, etc.

Also, teachers knew this before going into it. They still get an outrageous amount of days where they aren't required to come to work. So they might have to do a bit of work at home? Oh no.

trickycurve · 14 Jul 2015 at 13:24

Working in a school (as an IT tech myself actually), I can say that teachers also get their fair share of free periods, and it's laughable that some can end up on a 'half timetable' or less in the run up to summer. The wise would make use of those frees so they don't have so much to do in the evenings/weekends or during school holidays.

I'm on £10.50 ph, contracted something like 36.5 hours per week with 24 days annual leave, which makes my effective salary around the £20300 mark. I'm a senior at my school, have passed 70-410 (working towards 70-411/2), and I feel undervalued. I was getting paid for helping look after another school's network for a time which had me earning an extra £300 per month, but now I don't and it stings.

RDM · 14 Jul 2015 at 14:08

Tunney said:
It's even worse for academy teachers. Most get 30-35 days holiday and have to ask for time off even during school holidays. Otherwise, they're expected to be in work each day.

Have you got any figures for that? Every academy teacher I know gets the usual 13 weeks.