Would public workers prefer temporary pay cut?

[Shawady]

This proposal of unpaid leave is being put out as a 'bridging measure' until a plan to reduce numbers can come into operation in 2011.
Would civil and public sector workers on AAM accept a temporary pay cut for 2010 and work the same days rather than have their pay cut due to 12 days unpaid leave?
The former option seems like the most reasonable option to me.

 

[dockingtrade]

This proposal of unpaid leave is being put out as a 'bridging measure' until a plan to reduce numbers can come into operation in 2011.
Would civil and public sector workers on AAM accept a temporary pay cut for 2010 and work the same days rather than have their pay cut due to 12 days unpaid leave?
The former option seems like the most reasonable option to me.

Worse than leave of absence. What happens next tyear when another 4bn is required. How long does the pay cut last for? Do they then go back to this years rate, do increments they would have got accumalte on top of that. ie you cut 5% for a year when the year is up you add back 10% becuase of increments and if there were ant rises what rate at they based off...then next years 4 billion.

 

[Bill Struth]

This proposal of unpaid leave is being put out as a 'bridging measure' until a plan to reduce numbers can come into operation in 2011.
Would civil and public sector workers on AAM accept a temporary pay cut for 2010 and work the same days rather than have their pay cut due to 12 days unpaid leave?
The former option seems like the most reasonable option to me.

I'd prefer it if they left my meagre wage alone thanks.

 

[liaconn]

Once a pay cut is introduced it would be hard to get it back even if promised efficiencies are made. It is easier to ensure that unpaid leave is just a temporary measure. I just don't trust the Government (can't think why!).

 

[Shawady]

Once a pay cut is introduced it would be hard to get it back even if promised efficiencies are made. It is easier to ensure that unpaid leave is just a temporary measure. I just don't trust the Government (can't think why!).

I know what your saying but a lot of my colleagues think it will be very difficult to administer.
I actually think if everyone went back one increment it would achieve a similar saving and have no impact on services.

 

[liaconn]

It wouldn't be very fair though. Some increments are bigger than others. The final one on the HEO scale for instance is quite large, so people at that point would be sacrificing more.

 

[Shawady]

It wouldn't be very fair though. Some increments are bigger than others. The final one on the HEO scale for instance is quite large, so people at that point would be sacrificing more.

I thought they were all roughly 4 to 5%. It might just be a easier way of reducing the bill. Salaries would just peg everyone back one increment on Jan 1st.

Maybe it is too simple for the government........

 

[liaconn]

Most of them are roughly the same. But there's a few biggies so those people would be unfairly made to pay more. The unpaid leave deal has got the best reception in here so far. It's not a straight pay cut and it's a real incentive to focus on reform and efficiencies.

 

[Firefly]

Most of them are roughly the same. But there's a few biggies so those people would be unfairly made to pay more. The unpaid leave deal has got the best reception in here so far. It's not a straight pay cut and it's a real incentive to focus on reform and efficiencies.

It's my understanding that increments are based on tenure. If this is the case then perhaps those biggies were unfair to begin with?

 

[liaconn]

Maybe, I don't know how they're worked out. But that's really a separate debate. You can't take a bigger percentage off some workers for that reason. Suppose I'd got a big increment in 2007 and a small one in 2008, I'd just lose the small increment and hold on to my big one. If the person sitting beside me was a year behind me on the increment scale they'd lose the bigger increment. It just wouldn't be a fair way of implementing a pay cut.

 

[Firefly]

Maybe, I don't know how they're worked out. But that's really a separate debate. You can't take a bigger percentage off some workers for that reason. Suppose I'd got a big increment in 2007 and a small one in 2008, I'd just lose the small increment and hold on to my big one. If the person sitting beside me was a year behind me on the increment scale they'd lose the bigger increment. It just wouldn't be a fair way of implementing a pay cut.

Maybe roll back the last 2 increments then

 

[sandrat]

still only asking people to live on what they were living on this time last year whether it is a big or small drop. People on the highest point of scale would need more looking into like giving them half a cut in the scale due to the fact they might have gotten the increase a few years back.

In relation to unpaid leave being the more popular option who have you been talking to? The same amount of work will need to be done in less time. I already take work home with me so maybe it suits people who are twiddling their thumbs all day but where I work it would mean a reduction in services and would be a nightmare to administer due to the high amount of annual leave already on offer. People are horrified by the unpaid leave proposal because it sounds like a quick fix that will fix nothing only make the need for cuts bigger next year.

 

[liaconn]

In relation to unpaid leave being the more popular option who have you been talking to? The same amount of work will need to be done in less time. I already take work home with me so maybe it suits people who are twiddling their thumbs all day

I have been talking to my colleagues, who do not sit around twiddling their thumbs all day. It is widely felt that, of several not very nice options, it is the fairest one. As a lot of us work extra hours unpaid anyway, the flexibility to take a day here and there if you can would be welcome.