5th November 2012, 03:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 5th November 2012, 04:02 PM by Komadori4.)
Quote:'I am considering a curved rate increase... with 2.5% at the lower end and tailing off further up'.
It almost feels like we're haggling here. In which case I would shout back - "3% and you're on"!
Seriously, I think that a curved rate makes sense - it would also have the benefit of engaging more PIfAs in the pay debate from which, perhaps they feel marginalised. Afterall, it is management-level archaeologists who have the power here. Maybe archaeologists on ?16k don't expect very much from debate beyond a low wage now and a low wage in the future. And remember - ?16.4k is a living wage in 2012: we can't expect it to be one in 2013 with the recent rises to energy prices and stealth taxes that will only come into force in Aprill.
BAJR (David) I agree, in principal (I'm no financial expert), that a curved rate is both financially viable and ethically sound. Clearly we need both these elements because they are mutually dependant. However, I would reiterate that those on low pay are on a poor-footing in two respects - 1) it is not their decison what they are payed, but the decision of people who do not necessarily share their interests; 2) noone is arguing for a living wage but a 'fair', or 'minimum' wage. Not the labour party, not the IfA, not BAJR ...