Public Pay Talks - see mod warning post 4293

The data includes increments for all workers who receive them.

Of course it does.

So for some reason, people point to the growth in private pay including increments and want that same growth applied to public pay, excluding increments.

Yet again, I have to cut through the spin and propaganda peddled by the majority on this thread.

And this is why theres no point with you. A PhD from a HEI in Ireland but you dismiss it.

You just dont understand how averages work. You're ignoring people leaving the scale and new entrants. The average stays the same without pay increases if you have a large enough sample. This is going to shock you, the public sector and the private sector are large. The theory of big numbers applies. The sample isn't static. You're implicit assumption it is is just wrong. Everything you're saying in response to this particular topic is flawed and wrong.

Then you can't have it both ways.

You either knock off a few percentage points for increases employees would have got routinely anyway so that you're left with the inorganic growth in sector pay, or you include the increments public employees get when calculating the growth in their pay as part of pay deals.

You don’t have to…in fact I’d bet my next increment and upcoming increase from any pay deal that everyone contributing to this thread would be happy for you to keep your nonsense out of it.

It's flawed.

You don't understand a very basic mathematical concept. Averages.

I was simply stating a fact that not all PS workers get an annual increment. Nothing to do with the reasons behind increments, or abolishing them, that appears to be something you came up with in your own head.

I actually can't imagine being so small minded I can't put myself in other people's shoes and realise the importance of trying to improve the situation for all grades so as to benefit the overall operating of the CS/PS. Having the CS/PS continue to be attractive for new staff (an employer of choice, as they like to say themselves), is very important to keep the machine running smoothly. So anyone who actually thinks at least a little bit will give a **** about things beyond their own salaries.

That's fair enough, but don't be surprised if there are HEOs, APs and more in Dep of Finance and elsewhere that do care what teachers get paid, and not in a good way!

Why would they? I don't understand the public sector structure, I don't need too. I've no idea what an HEO or an AP does. Hence, why would I care what they get paid?

Do I care what other people in education get paid? Sure! I see the effects. Would it alter how I vote? No. I'll vote for my interests. I believe most people vote selfishly. I very much think I am in the majority.

I am a member of the Union because it suits me. It benefits me and my average pay is higher in the Union.

I hate your post

This point needs to be made often as there is a belief out there that increments are never ending.

I'm Civil Service, can you give me a reason to care what a teacher is paid? Pay in the education sector doesn't effect me either.

But I do know how much the cost of living has increased, and that it has affected everyone.

I don't need to know what the other sectors are paid to understand that voting in a pay deal that will ultimately leave people worse off - and some worse than others - is unfair. You either get that, or you don't.

Unfortunately, no one can make you care, and I agree with you that most people vote selfishly.

That's why we keep getting **** deals.