Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
the variations in the private sector however could also be accounted for different jobs for different companies tho.
with GPs, teachers etc. they working for the same employer doing the same work.
its nothing to do with subsidies but more to do with the private sector changing its priorities from salary levels to profit.
the only reasonings for this policy is probably company owners using their joke of a minister hotlines ringing up to complain their employees want pay rises (how dare they) and its harder to turn them down when the public sector pays better. Also the good old saving money as I suspect there will be a net saving from it.
Its funny how you consider it a subsidy, I wonder how much cash is going to the private sector from the NHS contracts and th high speed rail work.
|
No they don't. They work for the
local authority or the
local Primary Care Trust.
---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Deegan
The trouble is that they are unlikely to increase anybodys pay, and it is just a costcutting excercise.
In my profession, if I worked 20 miles down the road I would earn an extra £6000 London weighting. If I worked 10 miles down the road I would earn and extra £550 as fringe London weighting. If I worked in my old home town in West Yorkshire I would earn the same as I do now, but I would be better off due to the cost of living, by anything between £4000 and £6000. The area where I work is an extremely expensive part of the country, yet in real terms we are probably in the worst financial position....but do you think the wages would go up in my area to compensate?....I don't think so.
|
I think the idea is that some areas will get smaller increases, because they are effectively being overpaid at the moment. Areas like London and the South East will still get pay increases.