5th November 2012, 09:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 5th November 2012, 09:39 PM by trowelfodder.)
As rather a vocal opponent of the IfA in the past I have to admit that when considering this point there is a stronger argument for compulsory membership in order to improve pay. Whilst there is the option to simply opt out of the pay minima then there is a real danger of pricing out of the market for RAOs in certain areas. I know of one company paying ?65 a day self employed - and the model of having self employed staff seems to be becoming more common and not just amongst small one (wo)man bands. But then for larger units to be using their size with the threat of leaving to manipulate the institute brings me back round to the cronyism and self interest that puts me off.......
But this cannot put people off fighting for a real improvement in wages within the profession and I myself would be tempted to push for the 3.5% rise. A small increase can work out very small indeed to those with short term work and long periods of unemployment - I don't have the solution it is just hard to ignore how small real term gains can be. It would almost be worth sugguesting a higher rate for contracts of say less than three months? :face-thinks:
But this cannot put people off fighting for a real improvement in wages within the profession and I myself would be tempted to push for the 3.5% rise. A small increase can work out very small indeed to those with short term work and long periods of unemployment - I don't have the solution it is just hard to ignore how small real term gains can be. It would almost be worth sugguesting a higher rate for contracts of say less than three months? :face-thinks: