What should the level of the 2009 pay rise be

[BAJR Host]

would dearly like to... though they see no shame... though I suspect hey would mind the name

of course they are not offering staff a bad deal.. they are taking on self employed individuals who are acting as contractors for them, and it is nice that the self employed diggers are able to carry out the work for 60 quid a day... thus saving the company money of it had to employ them..

"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli

[chiz]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

I cant recall the exact figures ....The pension entitlement alone was about an 8% rise ie over a grand, the leave entitlement was for 4 weeks plus banks holidays worth about 2k and over a 1k in basic increase. Then there is the entitlement to a months sick pay 1.5k. This I think equated to about a third increase in the pay package.

However most people saw little increase in there take home pay. In my view this benefits package was misplaced - what people need is more cash now.
Peter

(my italics)

That might be a third increase in the overall pay package IF previously archaeologists had had NO paid holiday pay AT ALL, NO paid sick leave AT ALL (and now use up all their allowance, every year) and had a pension. Which of course wasn't and isn't the case for the vast majority of archaeologists. Plus the leave entitlement at least was a legislative change. You are being disingenuous in your use of these figures, looking at the IfA's page on this (http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...p?page=206) it appears that your figures are out as well. Whilst we all acknowledge these increases, such as they were, place an increased cost on employers, they give the employee essential rights and security, which make them more productive employees in the long run.

Whilst we all want to see an improvement in baseline pay, decent sick leave, holiday and pension rights are important as well and underpin the basic pay in providing a secure and balanced employment package. We have to move to a position where we have decent pay and decent conditions, not barely adequate pay and no security.

[drpeterwardle]

Bob said "Plus the leave entitlement at least was a legislative change" yes there was a change in the legal requirements and yes there was also an IFA increase.

As I have said it would be useful for somebody to collate and make easily what these figures are. (They are of no real relevance to me as my pay structure is better than this).

The point is that both government and the IFA have increased the costs of employing somebody which means that 300 or so (the owners of small companies) will earn less. It also means that it is more likely that people will be made redundant.

Peter

[Austin Ainsworth]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

Bob said "Plus the leave entitlement at least was a legislative change" yes there was a change in the legal requirements and yes there was also an IFA increase.

As I have said it would be useful for somebody to collate and make easily what these figures are. (They are of no real relevance to me as my pay structure is better than this).

The point is that both government and the IFA have increased the costs of employing somebody which means that 300 or so (the owners of small companies) will earn less. It also means that it is more likely that people will be made redundant.

Peter

Still waiting for an answer to the points that Bob raised.

[drpeterwardle]

OK given that I cant find the original thread

The figures are
Pay 13855
Leave 1066
Sick Pay 1066
Pension 982
Total 16968

These are the rates for the year when the IFA minima were introduced 2007-2008 ie last pay year and the increase is for somebody casually employed. HMG intoduced holiday pay for 20 days which the IFA increased to 27 days. I make the point that if the government introduces something the employer has to pay for it. They also have to pay employers NI contributions at 14%.

I dont have a record of what the pay was before (David or Kevin has a record of this. The introduction of these benefits alone equates about 20% above the previous amount. My comments at the time was these increases were too much too quickly given the prevailing market conditions. The downturn was obvious and predictable. In fact it was already happening. I was arguing at the time that this would cause additional lay offs.

Peter

[chiz]

Leaving aside the fact that your figures literally don't add up, again (run 'em through a calculator if you have to...), you are again playing with the figures to make your point. Whilst a months sick pay is indeed a potential cost to employers, it is not available to most casual staff until a probation period is up, normally three months, and very few workers will ever use more than a few days over a year; plus most casual staff don't have a pension so that cost is rarely implemented.
Your adding in the new total for leave as an additional increase in pay assumes that previously staff had NO leave entitlement, which is, of course, complete nonsense.

This was not a huge increase as you state, especially as for many many archaeologists there was already provision at or near these levels at many major, and minor, units, how else would it have got through IfA council? What happened were only slight increases for many, and greater increases for others as units were pulled up towards the higher end of pay and conditions, actually levelling the playing field and so making pay costs less of an issue in a competitive market than before.

[BAJR Host]

And to that I have to agree, that most staff get no sickness or pension entitlement, as they don't qualify less than 3-6 months.

The leave is even still a bit of a rough ride.. and people should be aware that it is the LAW... not an if or but.. but even if you work a week... you are entitled to holiday time OR the cash equivalent.

The New BAJR Pay and Conditions document is now out... in line with IfA and we have agreed to stand firm on this...

http://www.bajr.org/Documents/FinalBAJRP...009-10.pdf




"Entrepreneurs are simply those who understand that there is little difference between obstacle and opportunity and are able to turn both to their advantage."
Niccolo Machiavelli

[kevin wooldridge]

Erm....I have been a bit involved in the past in negotiating with employers to make sure that they have sufficient contingency put aside to be able to cope with sick pay, holiday pay, redundancy, maternity pay etc.

I think Peter has a valid point...employers sail pretty close to the wind if they do not put funds aside to deal with legal and potential payment contingencies. As that money can only come from projects I can see that employers have to charge to create a contingency fund and therefore increases in potential costs are to all and intents and purposes increases in real costs.

Now as for what employers do with such contingency if it is not spent is another matter (and is for example the reason why many UK company pension funds are in trouble having granted themselves 'contribution holidays' in the 1990s, but failing to see what might happen in the 2000s).

The IFA minimum on basic immediately prior to 2007-8 was something around ?13400 pa and the increase in minima wage that year was between ?8-12 pw or ?420-650 pa (depending upon IFA grade). About 3% just on basic salary I think I calculated at the time.







With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...

[chiz]

Kevin, just to clarify, I've already said that there were increased costs to the employer, no-one is arguing that. What Peter said in his original post however was that there had been

quote: huge increases for archaeologists

without qualifying that statement or providing any supporting data. You can't expect to make such claims without evidence.
When challenged about what these 'huge increases' were Peter provided figures in a very misleading fashion, and which do not relate to the 'increases for archaeologists', rather to an increase in cost for employers. They are indeed related, and do have knock on effects to each other, but they are not the same thing. I agree with you both re potential costs, but that wasn't the question he was asked. And anyway, the extra cost is only additional above the existing rates of leave/sick/pension, which for nearly all archaeologists were not zero.

As you say, the actual headline increase to pay minima was about 3%. Hardly 'Huge'?

[kevin wooldridge]

Bob, we agree.....



With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...